Cable TV Companies Could Lose Nearly $1 Billion in the Next Year From People Ditching Their Subscriptions (businessinsider.com)

Nathan McAlone, writing for BusinessInsider: Cable TV companies could lose nearly $1 billion to people cutting the cord over the next year, according to a new study by management consulting firm cg42. The firm estimates that 800,000 cable customers will ditch their subscriptions in the next 12 months. Cg42 expects each customer to be an average loss of $1,248 annually, and losses to approach $1 billion over the year. Cg42 also found that the average cord-cutter saves $104 per month by canceling. Some in the industry have argued that cutting the cord doesn't actually save you money if you subscribe to a bunch of streaming services like Netflix, HBO, and so on. But that point of view neglects the reality that many cable subscribers pay for those streaming services already.

Comments

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Snufu]

Or perhaps you use landline internet, the other monopoly?

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[drpimp]

Your assumption is many have switched to a new corporate overload but most may have just cut their bill substantially by dropping the TV out of their package. The real question is ... when are they just going to up the price of internet and include it all for that same bloated price and we are back to square one.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yip, Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.

I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

Either way, a bit of coax connected to your house is far more valuable than the twisted pair, or even fiber - DOCSIS 3.1 = 1gbps, that pretty much just smoked anyone's business model to deploy fibre to the home. Since they own the cable that seemingly has endless bandwidth potential, it doesnt matter what is going over it, so long as there is a subscriber on the end end of it coughing up $50+ a month for it.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[surfdaddy]

Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet. What we really need is a lot more competition, but the last mile problem is monopolized. I expect sooner or later somebody (Google, others) will find a way to solve that, as there is way too much money to be made by disrupting that last mile. It might end up being wireless last mile with other frequencies, mesh networks, etc. Or low orbit satellites.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yip, Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.

Dammit. Time Warner doesn't own Pirate Bay yet does it?

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[drpimp]

Interesting. I just cut mine (5 boxes + movie channels) and I cut my bill by $120. Calculating the offset of other content providers I am at a net gain of about $80 so it's a win for my situation.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[cayenne8]

Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet. What we really need is a lot more competition, but the last mile problem is monopolized. I expect sooner or later somebody (Google, others) will find a way to solve that, as there is way too much money to be made by disrupting that last mile. It might end up being wireless last mile with other frequencies, mesh networks, etc. Or low orbit satellites.

Interesting, I'm cutting the cord, but I'm not counting my internet into the equation.

I have a business internet connection at home, I need it for work, so I'd have it regardless of any other need.

I have a business connection from Cox Cable for $69/mo....it is an old one that is grandfathered in. But nothing is bundled with it.

But I use AT&T Uverse, U200 package for TV and with it in 2x rooms, it was about $113/mo.

I've set up an OTA antenna that pulls in all my local channels. I hooked that into a Tivo Roamio OTA box for DVR, and I also have a couple of Tivo Minis for the office and bedroom TVs...and that streams the live and DVR'ed stuff to all rooms I need.

For what I call my "cable channels" that I would miss, like news (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc) and other entertainment like TCM, FX, TBS...all the ESPN's...I subscribed to Playstation VUE streaming, which runs on the Amazon FireTV (new version with better hardware) and have a box for that on each TV. The Playstation VUE system has a DVR like functionality built into it too, for show you "like" it records and keeps for at least 28 days. I liked this feature plus the better channel selection than SlingTV gave.

I got the 70+ channels package from VUE and is about $35/mo.

I was already streaming Netflix and have Amazon Prime.

So, I dropped my bill from $113 to $35 a month. I'm quite happy.

I've been trying to watch all the DVR content off my Uverse box and have almost done that. Likely after this weekend, I tell Uverse to take their equipment back and just enjoy what I have which I love so far.

I fiigure in about 8 or so months roughly, I'll break even on my equipment.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[PRMan]

This is very misleading. They say, "$20 a month". Then you get your bill and it's $60 because of HD fees, cable box fees, taxes, other unknown fees, etc. And then when your 1-year promo is over it jumps to $100 a month.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet. What we really need is a lot more competition, but the last mile problem is monopolized. I expect sooner or later somebody (Google, others) will find a way to solve that, as there is way too much money to be made by disrupting that last mile. It might end up being wireless last mile with other frequencies, mesh networks, etc. Or low orbit satellites.

That $20 is misleading. Its $20 initially, offers very few channels, $10 for the HD dvr per TV and some taxes and fees. For a home with 3 tv's that $20 just became $60...

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[AvitarX]

The numbers seem way off (and prove false) in the summary.

If the average cord cutter saves 104/month, then the cable companies are losing more than that (as the average cord cutter is at the very least paying for one replacement content provider).

I currently pay 102/month, 65 (internet), 12 (hulu), 10 (netflix). I'm contemplating dropping netflix and HBO, and to watch thos shows with people I know (I do that primarily anyway). With Cable, I'd be at a similar price, Internet + Very Basic cable (broadcast channels) + HBO, around $95.00, add in netflix, I'm at $105,Hulu has some original content I like, but I would probably not pay for it just to avoid ad on new content, and just stop watching Casual and Difficult People.

So effectively, I save nothing nothing not having cable, but I don't have to deal with a remote, or their stupid box, or navigating their miserable on-demand, and I get recent broadcast fad free.

I suspect the typical person saves $25/month dropping cable though (having only one of netflix, hulu, hbo).

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

They have, and been caught. The whole Net Neutrality thing was over this very concept. The example was that the location of the Peering nodes were deliberately not upgraded an thus Netflix traffic was impacted. Netflix went so far as to say that they would pay for all the equipment needed at all of the peering locations, and even install CDN points INSIDE Comcast's network to help prevent the congestion problems for Comcast's Netflix customers. Comcast said no thanks.

Comcast has a vested interest in both Broadcast and Cable TV, and Netflix has a direct impact on both. Comcast is not going to help Netflix even if Netflix does all the work.

However, since this is all being done on the Network side, it is hidden (obfuscated) to the customer. All they know is Netflix streaming "sucks" a lot of the time, while Comcast streaming almost never does. The customer doesn't see it as a Comcast problem, they see it as a Netflix Problem.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[operagost]

Same here, although that may be because I don't-- can't-- bundle, because I have Comcast Business internet. I'm planning on dumping the TV account and buying the Elite tier on Vue. I would still have access to the few shows I really watch (some require Elite), but save $60 a month. I would only be giving up the ability to save shows indefinitely on their cloud DVR, and CBS, which I could get with an antenna (I already own a good one). Oh, and History, which would suck but I can get Sling if I'm not happy with watching the shows on the web site, yet still pay $40 less than with Comcast.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[operagost]

Indeed. I pay $10 for HD (why is this an OPTION), $5 for a box, $3 for local sports (yes, really, this is a thing).

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[tattood]

I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

They have, and been caught. The whole Net Neutrality thing was over this very concept.

I think by "gone after", he means attempt to buy the company to help recover their lost revenue from cord cutters.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[kilodelta]

Well in my case my bill went from $200 a month to $89 a month when I told Cox Communications to shove the tv and phone services.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct!

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. We had a choice of about $60/mo for cable, or $10 Neflix, + $10 Prime, and a HD Antenna (attic install) one time investment. We had a HDHomeRun already which was then hooked to the antenna.

So, we save $30/mo this year and $40/mo in future years (12mo to pay off antenna and amp @ $10/mo). And we get free Amazon shipping and ability to watch live sports on tablets and computers as an added bonus. Our TV is not subsidized in internet costs due to small time cable operator.

The one thing TVoIP providers have to crack is Live sports for %50 or less of a price increase... then Netcraft can confirm cable TV is dead.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out SlingTV. SatTv over internet.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

I cancelled my cable tv last month. I had blast+ with comcast for $94 or so (150 mbit internet and basic cable) my own devices, and HDHomeRun Prime with cable card serving 3 locations.

I actually called them to upgrade my service since I wanted to watch a show, for which I needed to go 1 tier up, to Digital Starter in Comcast lingo.
I explained them I can get this channel for $20 on sling, but want to give them my money, so willing to pay up to $119 for the internet + cable tv

They did not take it, they would sign me up only if I agreed to half the speed of my internet to 75 mbit. WTF?
Long story short, I cancelled my basic cable, now my monthly internet service is $82 and getting sling for $20
Little known aspect is going internet-only is that there is no state tax in internet service, whereas there are tons of fees and taxes tagged on the cable tv service.
So me cancelling basic cable saved me almost the full amount I pay to sling. I am inconvenienced by not being able to record shows and watch it later, but hooked up my Prime to an OTA antenna, so that can fill the space for show coming on OTA.

The learnings from this: Comcast is gouging customers for internet, They no longer interested to keep you for cable. A few years back they upgraded me freely for the blast tier as giweaway, now they want to take it back...

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[JustSomeProgrammer]

My bill dropped about $100. I didn't change my streaming services because that was how I preferred to consume content even when I had cable so for me don't really factor into the equation. Besides my streaming services together are about $50 a month. (I have 4.) My bill was around $170. Cutting cable dropped it to $70. Just to provide a counter anecdote to your anecdote. As long as you're continuing to get any level of cable at all there additional fees you're paying that with just internet you don't have to. I also decided to buy my own cable modem which will end up only paying off if I stay subscribed for a year, but it is unlikely that I won't use internet for more than a year. You pay rental fees on your cable box, your cable modem, and there's taxes involved. Oh and I decided to increase my internet package or it would have been only $60 a month.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet.

Which is enough less to get an on demand streaming service and till pay on the order of $10 a month less overall.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[AvitarX]

OK, the $100 can make sense I suppose, I never really cut the cord, so I may be bad example (I simply was didn't have the money for cable, and then slowly added services), but still.

I don't believe that cable loss exactly equals customer savings, there must be some people that also subscribe to a service or two.

And yeah, streaming is way better than dealing with cable. Slow clunky navigation, large annoying boxes.

Re: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's still 20 bucks a month saved.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[pixelpusher220]

Vote. the GOP is the issue here. Rep Marsha Blackbeurn R-TN being the lead defender in chief of cable co's. Sure some Dem's are this way too but not at all to the level of lockstep on the GOP side

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[currently_awake]

The power company, the sewer company, and the water company all have (unused) last mile right-of-ways to every house. You just need to run the fiber. Google could run the fiber and rent bandwidth to everyone as a common carrier. Once installed it would eventually pay for itself through usage fees. The ability to spy on everyone would be a (advertising money) bonus.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[KingBenny]

lot more competition , agreed , nuff said ... maybe i can convince the belgian governments to have less champagne speeches and fire 3 in 5 state employes, use the money for startups and
more competition ... for some reason i think that would make me unpopular here
i always feel like the two major providers here are a single duopoly who get together to fix prices, as monopoly/cartel as it gets buy whos to say, people here are used to swallowing
i actually got stopped and frisked once cos i was spitting ... heh heh (not funny)

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair you are a fairly heavy user though. 5 boxes and movie channels is a hefty package to start with.

Internet service in some countries is an unbelievable rip-off. My girlfriend in Japan has the cheapest, most basic internet package available to her apartment out in a fairly rural town, and it's 1000/300 Mb with no caps. In fact the fibre optic cable provides 2Gb down, it's just that the modem they provide on the cheapest package only has one gigabit ethernet port.

It's something like $40/month.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Shirley Marquez]

In part it depends on what package you have. Some cable providers offer a minimal TV tier that doesn't add much to your monthly bill, but only includes local channels and a small selection of cable channels - plus all the home shopping and religious channels you can stomach because those channels PAY the cable company to carry them. It's likely to be called something like "basic" cable, and you often have to search for it. They'd really rather sell you at least what they call "standard" cable (which includes all the usual things like sports channels) and then perhaps upsell you on additional channel packages or some premium channels like HBO, but at least if you have basic they're getting SOMETHING from you and they also have the opportunity to try to sell you pay-per-view programming or premium channels since you have the equipment to get it.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[NoSalt]

Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet.

I use COX in Northern Virginia. My monthly bill is $190.00. If I take cable TV off and keep only high-speed internet, then that drops it down to $80.00. That's a nice monthly savings.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[david_thornley]

What always bothered me about local cable company services is that I never did find what the cost of them would be after the six-month introductory period. If they hid it that well, they presumably had good reason for me not to know.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

I cut TWC's TV service and saved $35 a month... and that savings even includes me adding SlingTV for $20 a month.

Re: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

However I think it's only a matter of time before we start seeing all kinds of use taxes on Internet service.

Re: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[cthulhu11]

I have Comcast business / teleworker and I can't order tv service, so I'm curious how you did it. They told me they would have to set up a duplicate location in their DB but never did.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[lsatenstein]

Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet. What we really need is a lot more competition, but the last mile problem is monopolized. I expect sooner or later somebody (Google, others) will find a way to solve that, as there is way too much money to be made by disrupting that last mile. It might end up being wireless last mile with other frequencies, mesh networks, etc. Or low orbit satellites.

You must have forgotten that your $20/mo includes after income taxes and sales taxes. You need to earn $40/mo to pay for that $20/mo.
Cable is dead until 4k is widespread.

Re:Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except DOCSIS3.1 at 1Gb is more expensive than 10Gb fiber to install. The only difference is how quickly they can roll it out. Trade money for rate of adoption. Cable companies are already charging outrageous prices for Internet.

Saving Money

[Oswald McWeany]

Unfortunately a great number of us don't have any alternative once we cut the cord.

Sure, I'm not paying $80 a month in cable bills any more- but I'm still paying $50 for the data (no option- they have a monopoly on connections fast enough to stream). So- then I add Hulu, and Netflix (the wife has Amazon from a student account). Bang- I'm right back to the price I started with.

Re:Saving Money

[Oswald McWeany]

I will say though... other than sports being harder to watch, I'm much happier with having Netflix and Hulu than I was when I had cable. I like being able to pick what I want, rather than reality TV shows being on every channel and that's my only option. History Channel reality TV, discovery channel reality TV... ARGH!

Streaming is fragmenting though. Yahoo is stealing some shows from Hulu. CBS is going solo. BBC is launching their own separate channel. Soon it will be more expensive to cut the cord because streaming is fragmenting so badly.

Re:Saving Money

[networkBoy]

*if* you didn't already use those services.
I found that my kids and I almost never watched broadcast TV, but we used Netflix (and Amazon Prime to a much lesser extent) more than TV. It was so bad that we lost the remote control and no one cared. so I turned it all of, data only. Totally worth it. The only real difference is now when a series I really like hits one of the streaming services I don't get enough sleep because I binge, rather than DVR and watching (roughly) when it was broadcast.
-nb

Re:Saving Money

[known_coward_69]

cable internet has been in the $50 to $100 range since it came out in the late 90's. don't know what you expect. The only reason dial up dropped in price was because the would drop everyone who stayed connected more than 20 minutes to free up the port for someone else

Re:Saving Money

[mattyj]

Keep in mind that your Internet connection is useful for other things aside from streaming TV, so there's value-add there. You'd have an Internet connection anyway so you can't rightly attribute that $50 to TV.

Re:Saving Money

[jellomizer]

However you have the choice to drop a service if you want. Also many services don't have commercial or limited commercials For cable TV you are paying for 20-30% of adds over your shows.

Re:Saving Money

[Ranbot]

I will say though... other than sports being harder to watch, I'm much happier with having Netflix and Hulu...Streaming is fragmenting though.

If haven't already, you might want to check out the Playstation VUE service (works on a few other streaming units too), because it might make your fragmentation of streaming complaint go away, including sports. If VUE was associated with any brand other than Playstation there would be a lot more attention.

Re:Saving Money

[David_Hart]

I will say though... other than sports being harder to watch, I'm much happier with having Netflix and Hulu than I was when I had cable. I like being able to pick what I want, rather than reality TV shows being on every channel and that's my only option. History Channel reality TV, discovery channel reality TV... ARGH!

Streaming is fragmenting though. Yahoo is stealing some shows from Hulu. CBS is going solo. BBC is launching their own separate channel. Soon it will be more expensive to cut the cord because streaming is fragmenting so badly.

I subscribe to the NHL Live which gives me hockey. The only reasons why I am still on cable used to be HBO and NFL. Now that HBO has their service, that just leaves the NFL. The day that NFL and Redzone becomes a streaming service is the day I cancel my cable. If they do it right, we'll be able to watch any game we want instead of the game that they designate for our market. For example, this past weekend they weren't showing the Green Bay game in our area.

But yes, if you want the full package of what cable has to offer, then it's going to be more expensive to cut the cord. If you can live with a few select services (i.e. Hulu, HBO, Amazon Prime, and NHL Live) then it makes more sense. But if you also subscribe to Netflix, Showtime, etc. then you may as well have cable.

Re:Saving Money

[nitehawk214]

I was under the impression that you either needed to be a cable subscriber to use NHL Live or you could only use it to view "select out of area games". Which basically means it is completely useless.

The funny thing is I want to pay someone to watch hockey. They literally will not take my money.

Re:Saving Money

[Trailer Trash]

I went 100% data something like 10 years ago. Then Comcast called me up and said "hey, we'll throw in basic cable for $5/month more", so I said "fine" and took it. We didn't watch much - the kids watched Disney Channel when they were much younger but that was about it.

Then I moved and went back to a data-only plan, which went from $50/month to $70/month for some reason, I think because it got faster.

Anyway, fast forward two years and last month Comcast called me up and said "hey, for another penny each month we'll throw in basic cable plus a premium channel *and* take you up to 300Mb/sec". I said "Sounds good, I don't need the cable". Long story short, they literally wouldn't upgrade my cable speed until I'd connected the stupid cable box to my tv and turned it on.

The only good to come of it (besides the ass-kicking speed) is that when it started crapping they sent a tech out who finally figured out what I'd been telling them for two years - there's a problem in the wiring between my house and their office.

Anyway, the point is that they would not increase my speed without forcing me to get cable. At least I'll be able to get netflix on the comcast box thing soon, although I also need amazon prime and youtube to get even close to replacing a roku.

Re:Saving Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, before you were paying $80 on top of the $50 you were paying for data. Meaning $130, now it's down to $50 + Netflix and Hulu, suddenly you're back up at $80... But you're still only paying $80 and not $130 as you were before. You are saving $50 a month by cutting cable and going entirely with Netflix and Hulu. I'd say it's worth it.

Re:Saving Money

[praxis]

What does "fast enough to stream" mean to you? We cut the cord and switched to 5mbps DSL and streamed HD content just find from Netflix.

Re:Saving Money

[BarbaraHudson]

Many do, they just think that they "need" all those channels. OTA TV is free, with an initial cost of $20 for an antenna and $10 for coax.

Re:Saving Money

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest Tivo really improves the situation for streaming. It pulls them all together into one unified interface. And you can get an non-cable version.

Re:Saving Money

[slaughts]

NHL.tv allows you to watch all games for a monthly or yearly fee. Local and national games (NHL Network or NBC Sports) are blacked out but you can use a VPN like Unblock-Us or similar to get around it...

Re:Saving Money

[Anonymous Coward]

We took it one strp further on the streaming - we pay a whopping $5/month for Acorn TV which gives us a ton of British programming along with some Canadian, Australian and New Zealand shows as well. As a lot of that involves shows we've never seen before - we never run out of things to watch. To put icing on the cake, we also have a DVR+ from Channel Master which gives us the ability to record OTA programming. Who needs cable, or satellite.

Re:Saving Money

[jafiwam]

You got a temporary offer. They will jack the prices back up to the previous level after some period of months.

Re:Saving Money

[sbaker]

Except: View everything on-demand. Have as many TV's as you like, no need for DVR's for time-shifting. No adverts.

In a home with 4 TV's we'd have needed to rent 4 cable boxes - we saved $120/month on cable fees (still paid for Internet)...added $10 for Netflix, $4 for Acorn, $10 for Amazon Prime. We probably spend another $20 on Amazon for movies and non-free TV shows. We have an antenna on each TV for local news and stuff like that.

We're saving a little money - but that's not the point. Watch what we want, when we want, no adverts. That's a game changer.

Better still, the quality of shows that you pay for directly is WAY higher than those that are paid for by some collection of advertisers. Netflix make shows that their customers want to watch - not shows that advertisers will pay to stuff adverts into. Binge watching is a great way to see long-running shows. Weird niche stuff is always available as well as the obvious content.

We cut the cord about 4 years ago - we tried going back to cable briefly - but cut the cord again after just a few months. Every year, the online streaming stuff gets better and better.

Re:Saving Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately a great number of us don't have any alternative once we cut the cord.

Sure, I'm not paying $80 a month in cable bills any more- but I'm still paying $50 for the data (no option- they have a monopoly on connections fast enough to stream). So- then I add Hulu, and Netflix (the wife has Amazon from a student account). Bang- I'm right back to the price I started with.

You should have already been paying $50 for the data (Its 2016 everyone pays for highspeed internet). So with cable you're paying $130 and no hulu/netflix. Without cable you're paying $70 with Hulu/Netflix.

Re:Saving Money

[CaptnCrud]

Makes me feel lucky I have sirius xm (due to living in the boon docks and having a long commute). I get the premium service so that includes all sports. Even though my car had a sirius capable radio I opted for the free portable car player.

Now I can just bring it in when I want to listen to games, it includes streaming but why hit my data when I can just plug it into my stereo at home. I actually like listening on the radio, I find I actually "do" stuff while enjoying the game.

Its not cheap though...280 bucks a year...but not "that" bad if you use it all the time. Between that, netflix and digital antena im set.

Re:Saving Money

[mrchaotica]

https://xkcd.com/927/

Re:Saving Money

[amicusNYCL]

I got tired of waiting for the NFL to figure out how to do things right, and now they get none of my money at all. I still watch whatever game I want to watch, they just don't get a cut. If they decide to come out with a service where I can watch any game that I want to watch live without a TV subscription, then they can get my money back if the price is right, but I was finished with waiting for the NFL to get their heads out of their asses before I dropped my TV subscription. I dropped it and then figured out what I was going to do about football. The major downside of the solution I've found is that I can't quickly switch between games, but that's the price I pay for not having to spend $100 per month on a bunch of things that I never watch.

Re:Saving Money

[Trailer Trash]

You got a temporary offer. They will jack the prices back up to the previous level after some period of months.

Yeah, two years. I forgot to mention that. Typically, though, when Comcast gives a "temporary" deal like that in two years time that'll be standard pricing for that service level. That's the way it's always been. I just hope that I can ditch the cable box in two years.

It's obvious that tv isn't a big deal now since the local channels are coming in at 720p. They might be doing hbo/showtime at 1080p, no idea. But netflix and a-prime are better to look at.

Re:Saving Money

[rikkards]

Cancel Sirius and watch them come back and offer a much lower price.
When I got my Jeep they were trying to get me to subscribe. When I finally told them to stop harassing me they were offering $3 a month.

Re:Saving Money

[CaptnCrud]

Nice! thanks, I'm up for re-newal in a month too.

Re:Saving Money

[Shirley Marquez]

The NFL is now available as a streaming service, sort of. If you can't subscribe to DirecTV (either because you live in a multi-unit building and can't put up an antenna, or your address has been verified as one where you can't receive the satellite signal) you can sign up for a streaming version of NFL Sunday Ticket. That includes live viewing of all the Sunday afternoon games except the ones on your local broadcast channels (you're expected to watch those over-the-air), as well as after-the-game on-demand streaming of every game including your local ones, and the Thursday, Sunday, and Monday night games. (This season it presumably also includes the Saturday afternoon games on Christmas Eve; the NFL has moved most of its schedule to that day rather than Christmas Day.) If you can get DirecTV you're not eligible for the streaming-only package, you have to get a dish instead. (But you can still stream the games so you can watch away from home.)

Re:Saving Money

[Shirley Marquez]

Maybe, maybe not. They may really be throwing in basic TV with the super-fast service. They want to keep the number of potential TV viewers up because it's good for the advertising revenue on all the TV channels they own. The free premium channel is probably a limited time offer, though.

Re:Saving Money

[martinfb]

Streaming is fragmenting though. Yahoo is stealing some shows from Hulu. CBS is going solo. BBC is launching their own separate channel. Soon it will be more expensive to cut the cord because streaming is fragmenting so badly.

Agreed. And (cable companies) will likely come up with a plan to 'bundle' such streams for a fee close to what separate streams might cost.
It just seems a logical evolution for smart cable companies - if it is possible.

Re:Saving Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I moved and went back to a data-only plan, which went from $50/month to $70/month for some reason, I think because it got faster.

It went up because they felt like charging you more. They could double your bandwidth every 9 months and not charge you extra outside of inflation. My current ISP has doubled my Internet speeds every 2 years, except this time they only increased it 50% but then slashed my bill in half. In my case, I have a small ISP that is expanding, their network costs are magnitudes higher than established ISP. In 10 years, my bill has never gone up a single penny, and this is the first time it has changed, going down.

duh, nothing to watch

[known_coward_69]

only reason i have cable is that i get a special rate of $100 a month including 200mbps internet. i only watch sports. sometimes my wife watches the reality shows and some sit coms. i might watch The Walking Dead this season although at this point it's like a daytime soap, but with zombies and violence. i'll also watch Ancient Aliens when it's on but by now they are rehashing the same crap from previous seasons

my kids never watch it because finding something to watch on their schedule sucks

i never watch anything else except sports because it's the same dumb sit coms like the 70's and 80's and for movies the commercials ruin the experience

i've cut the cord once and only came back because of the special rate

"Lose?"

[ShaunC]

They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much. No company is entitled to continued steady profits.

Re:"Lose?"

[known_coward_69]

not really

internet is probably more profitable than TV since they don't have to pay for the content. i've read they have to pay out something like $30 per account per month to rebroadcast all those channels.

with internet you lay the wires, install the hardware and just pay the debt off over 10 years or so along with operational costs

Re:"Lose?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Utility companies are. The services are critical and competitive models are impractical.

Re:"Lose?"

[Jawnn]

They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much. No company is entitled to continued steady profits.

That's communist talk there, mister. We paid good money to your elected officials to see to it that our profits continue. How dare you suggest that we are not then entitled to the representation that we paid for, fair and square.

Regards,

Your Friends at Comcast

Re:"Lose?"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's communist talk there, mister
communist talk would be 'you are required by law to buy 100 dollars a month' to make sure all the people who make tv shows stay employed.

Re:"Lose?"

[Obfuscant]

They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much.

This. The fine article is using the same kind of "lose" where a tax cut that leaves money in the pockets of the workers becomes a loss to the government. Or a 10% hike in funding for an agency or program when they asked for 20% is a "10% cut". It's starting with the assumption that the money belongs to the government or agency being funded (or the cable company) and if they don't get it for any reason it becomes a loss.

It becomes obvious when you look at the "loss" number ($1248/yr) and the "also found" (amazing discovery!) $104/month that the cord cutters save. Funny that -- a $104/month loss to the cable company is exactly what the customer was paying. I wonder if this "cg42" outfit realizes it is implying that cable companies are non-profits were these numbers true? (I.e., if my paying you $104 per month offsets your $104 per month loss, then you are making no profit!)

Re:"Lose?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that clueless or just that dumb? If you thought you were somehow insightful or funny you were dead wrong. But laugh it up, your congress critter already has a leg up on you and your ISP will charge more in the end.

Re:"Lose?"

[asylumx]

Ya this is the same thing that went through my head. If the number of customers reduces to a point where the revenue doesn't cover the operating costs, then they are losing money. Until then, they are just not making as much.

Re:"Lose?"

[DidgetMaster]

My thoughts exactly. I have to laugh whenever someone quotes how much the government 'lost' when taxes are reduced. They try to make it sound like you stole something from Uncle Sam just because you were able to take a new deduction or invested in a municipal bond.

Re:"Lose?"

[The-Ixian]

Yeah, I have always had an issue with this phrasing.

If company X makes less money than they did last year, they count it as a loss.... I don't really understand how that works.

Anyway, to stay on topic...

I used to pay for cable... but all it is anymore is reality TV interspersed with 10 minute blocks of commercials.... for $100/mo.... thanks... but no.

Of course, that bundled $100/mo also included the Internet connection. So really, the cable was costing me around $40/mo.

I am not a sports guy, so I don't have that to worry about and between Amazon Prime, Hulu ad free and Netflix I am at about $35/mo and don't really lose out on much media. I call that an upgrade, even if it costs about as much.

Re:"Lose?"

[CCarrot]

That's communist talk there, mister
communist talk would be 'you are required by law to buy 100 dollars a month' to make sure all the people who make tv shows stay employed.

So...the BBC model, then?

Re:"Lose?"

[Nethemas the Great]

Better watch what you say, that's un-'Merican. What are you a pinko commie?

Re:"Lose?"

[Anonymous Coward]

It means, more specifically, that your entire cable bill is going to the cable company. In fact, there are a few content companies (or, subsidiaries) that get paid per-head - ESPN, Fox News, HBO - but it's mostly true. Monthly cable bills are pure profit for Comcast. The actual channels get nothing. The lines are already installed and don't decay more or less because of a radio carrier in them.

Re:"Lose?"

[AmiMoJo]

I'm actually thinking it's not worth paying for the BBC any more. Their radio and internet sites are free, but the TV you have to pay about $150/year for. There just isn't enough stuff worth watching any more. The cuts have really hit them and they have been dumbing down for decades... I used to enjoy their documentaries, but now they are mostly just Brian Cox breathlessly marvelling and the pretty lights.

The content producers did it to themselves.

[Jason1729]

Maybe if they stopped putting huge ads with flashing animations and sound overtop of the content, it would actually be worth watching some of their content.

At least that's why I cancelled my cable subscription.

Re:The content producers did it to themselves.

[CCarrot]

Maybe if they stopped putting huge ads with flashing animations and sound overtop of the content, it would actually be worth watching some of their content.

At least that's why I cancelled my cable subscription.

^^^ THIS!

Oh my god, the trend towards advertising for the next show while I'm already watching a show on your damned channel drives me fucking insane! I realize it's an attempt to circumvent timeshifting via PVR, but that doesn't mean that it's right to do so. There are some channels that I simply refuse to watch anymore because of this, and if anything were to encourage me to cut the cord, it would be this practice. But...football (sigh).

Re:The content producers did it to themselves.

[amicusNYCL]

But...football (sigh).

Look into Kodi and something like Sportsdevil.

Re:The content producers did it to themselves.

[Neuronwelder]

Great Comment Jason1729!!

Re:The content producers did it to themselves.

[CCarrot]

But...football (sigh).

Look into Kodi and something like Sportsdevil.

Thanks, I will!

Maybe this is 'the year' for us too...my husband couldn't care less, so long as he gets his 'toons, but my girlfriends and I really enjoy CFL games, and watching them after the fact just isn't the same...

Re:The content producers did it to themselves.

[amicusNYCL]

I know, it's unfortunate that most leagues haven't figured out how to give people what they want - live games on demand without a TV subscription. The NFL will let me watch all 256 games per season, for example, but they aren't live. In fact I think I see them a week late, what's the point?

Sportsdevil is the plugin I use the most, I think some people use Castaway for sports also. The major downside is that you can't quickly switch between games and sometimes the streams aren't very reliable where you'll have to keep looking for one (and, like some other plugins for Kodi, a lot of links just don't work at all, but you'll learn which ones have what you want). I'll be happy to start paying again once they offer what I'm looking for, but in the meantime this works for me. If you do some searching for Kodi in general, and Sportsdevil in particular, you'll find instructions for setup and things like that.

a la carte

[Anonymous Coward]

Customers have been clamoring for a la carte for decades, but the cable cos. always refused to offer such a service in favor of the more profitable bundles. Now it's coming to bight them in the ass, since people can do an end run around them by using streaming services and avoiding the ESPN tax.

Re:a la carte

[Anonymous Coward]

*bite damn autocorrect

Do it like I do if you want choices but cheaply

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to have a 'Double Play' package from Xfinity where I have one cable box and digital economy rolled into my "Blast! Plus" (includes HBO) and since it's an old grandfathered deal, I'm paying only $3 more (Broadcast Fee tax delaio) for the package as a buddy of mine in the same town who has only the internet (without the TV at all).

With the setup I have, I have Playstation Vue for TV service, the HBO Go App installed on the Roku and Fire Stick/TVs and activated under my Comcast account, plus use the ESPN Go App for live sports (from ESPN + ABC airings), etc. There isn't much I don't get that I would even watch anyhow with the combo, and I don't really pay more because of the way the Apps are activated vs having to pay a monthly fee for the HBO Go etc.

Granted this doesn't work for Netflix, Hulu and similar apps, but even if you add in $9 for Netflix, I still come out well ahead of where I was with Dish.. and even Dish + Comcast for my Internet got me more of the actual channels I'd watch at a lesser rate vs using Comcast for everything

More channel choice is needed

[Joe_Dragon]

More channel choice is needed.

Why can't ESPN be it's own $8-12 /mo package?

Local RSN's $2-$10 /mo

and so on?

Re:More channel choice is needed

[avandesande]

I don't think bundling is completely in control of the cable companies. The media companies probably tie advertising contracts to a group of channels and there are probably a bunch of other hidden relationships- like the contracts with content producers.

Re:More channel choice is needed

[stinerman]

I get charged a $10 broadcast programming fee for channels I can get with an antenna...and I can't opt out. I can't say "just give me everything but the broadcast channels" and lose them. Nope, just $10 for something I can get for free.

I get that this is because the broadcast channels charge cable companies for carriage, but let me opt out.

Re:More channel choice is needed

[Karlt1]

The closest you can get is the $20 Sling package that includes ESPN and access to WatchESPN.

http://www.cutcabletoday.com/w...

Re:More channel choice is needed

[cayenne8]

Why can't ESPN be it's own $8-12 /mo package?

Take a look at Playstation VUE's packages (no, you don't have to have a playstation to use it, I'm on the latest version of Amazon FireTV):

I get the Core Slim package for about $35/mo..has all the ESPN channels, and the SEC Channel.

This is part of my cord cutting package.

Just FYI...the VUE application is too much for the PS3 unit if you do have one...the guide just doesn't work well. And on the Roku 3..the Guide is not a true guide like on the Amazon FireTV. I'm guessing the Roku 4 is good too since it has more hardware, but I've not tried it yet.

Re:More channel choice is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think bundling is completely in control of the cable companies.

That's because each cable channel isn't owned by a separate company. Most of the cable channels are owned by a handful of companies.

And don't forget that Hulu is owned by Disney, Fox, Comcast and Time-Warner.

Re:More channel choice is needed

[nitehawk214]

It is a shame that Sling is just terrible.

Re:More channel choice is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

That it is. But if you're getting it because of ESPN, you can use your Sling credentials to authenticate with the WatchESPN app. It's much more stable and with higher quality.

Re:More channel choice is needed

[nitehawk214]

Thats not bad. though ESPN is terrible too.

Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies

[Ranbot]

Guess which service will get more expensive in the near future?

Re:Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies

[Oswald McWeany]

I think it's possible that in the future, you'll pay $100 a month+ for cable internet (and they'll throw in the tv channels for free).

There way of forcing you to pay for cable-tv. Why not? They've got no competition in most markets.

Re:Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies

[MightyMartian]

That may keep them going for a while, but we're probably little more than a decade away from fiber roll out in many areas (even my small town of around 20,000 people is seeing fiber coming soon). Cable's business model is doomed, and even the networks are likely to put a lot more investment in online streaming offerings as they see cable's ability to deliver their product to large numbers of people fade.

I give cable ten, maybe fifteen years at best.

Re:Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies

[Ranbot]

That may keep them going for a while, but we're probably little more than a decade away from fiber roll out in many areas (even my small town of around 20,000 people is seeing fiber coming soon). Cable's business model is doomed...

I agree cable is doomed, but fiber might be equally doomed as mobile data transmission technology gets better (e.g. "5G" or the generation after). It's going to be more economical for communication companies to maintain towers than underground lines everywhere, particularly in rural areas.

Re:Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, in my neighborhood fiber rollouts are like atomic fusion reactors: they were 10 years away 10 years ago. Today? Neighborhood still has copper DSL at 3 Mbps down/768k up.

And no, I don't live in the Styx: I'm in a relatively affluent suburb in a top-30 TV market.

Re:Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's possible that in the future, you'll pay $100 a month+ for cable internet (and they'll throw in the tv channels for free).

There way of forcing you to pay for cable-tv. Why not? They've got no competition in most markets.

They do this already. Last time I checked (Comcast) they charge a LOT more for internet when it is not part of a bundle. And they give you lower speeds. If you want the fastest speeds, you almost have to have at least basic cable. Or at least the price difference is so negligible that it is silly not to get at least the basic cable channels. Most people want to get the fastest speeds available if you are going to have multiple streaming devices. But they either didn't offer those speeds outside of bundles or they were so expensive that the bundle with TV made more sense.

Re:Cable TV companies = Cable internet companies

[jafiwam]

AT&T abandoned their "fast" U-Verse service in the area.

The "get out there fast for the profit" model forgot to check if there would actually be profit, or that they could get out fast.

Savings

[scoticus]

I pay about as much with data + streaming services as i would with just data and tv. Why pay for tv when streaming is so much more convenient? Plus, after i binge a few things, i can suspend or cancel some of the streaming stuff (i'm looking at you netflix) until the next season of stuff is released. Hell, i don't even have to pirate stuff anymore, so the content creators are happy.

Re:Savings

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. I have comcraptic and it saved me about ~$70/month dropping the comcraptic/xfraility TV. I already had a Netflix and Amazon Prime account, then added Hulu and I'm still only paying about ~$110/month. Comcraptic was charging me an arm and 2 legs for both data and tv. They kept raising the rate about every year so I got fed up and now I only have data.

Prior to dropping TV a little over a year ago, IIRC my total cost for data and tv(with only one pay channel package) was $180~/month
Post TV drop my data/streaming tv cost is around $110 and change. Suffice to say I'm happier for now at least, until they decide to jack the data rates again to make up for us streamers.

I just checked my previous bill payments and in Sept 2015 my comcraptic data bill was 89.48(after I dropped the tv service). In June 2016 it jumped to 93.48. So it went up another $4 in less than a year. I wonder if I'm going to be paying 97.48 in another 8-9 months...heh.

They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like they do every year to make up for cord-cutters.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[Dutchmaan]

Just like they do every year to make up for cord-cutters.

I think they call that slitting your own throat.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[Oswald McWeany]

They were raising the rates every year even before cord-cutting became common.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[DidgetMaster]

Yet people like Bernie Sanders still thinks that if we just jacked up tax rates to 80 or 90% that the government coffers would just magically be filled to the brim since everyone would still behave the same as before the tax hike.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up and get my fries. I didn't say anything about politics, boy.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[amicusNYCL]

Oh, is that what Bernie thinks? The numbers that I see are that people who earn less than $250k have no change in their taxes, and that people who earn more than that have several new brackets they would fall into. There's a small case where people making between $464,851 to $499,999 would actually see their taxes fall by a couple percent, otherwise the new tax brackets for the highest earners ($10 million or more) would go from 39.6% to 52%. If you also include the proposed 2.2% medicare flat tax, then that raises everyone's taxes by 2.2% more and brings the highest earners to 54.2%.

So anyway, where is your 90% number coming from? I'm curious about your source for that one.

Haha, no I'm not, I'm kidding, I know you're full of shit and just wanted to call you on it.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet people like Bernie Sanders still thinks that if we just jacked up tax rates to 80 or 90% that the government coffers would just magically be filled to the brim since everyone would still behave the same as before the tax hike.

Where are my mod points when I need them? Why is this +5 Insightful? I have no objection to the content of the comment, but the context/story its being posted in should be immediately -1 downvoted offtopic.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

... everyone would still behave the same ...

What would people do differently? Go to work less: Once, you're earning a couple million more than the cost of living, money is earning your money (eg. investing), not your sweat, time and tears; so that won't work. Another option is investing in tax-break deals offered by the government: Many of those are capped so it still won't help the mega-millionaires. Lastly, one can hide the money in a foreign shell company. That may work because the government refuses to touch wholely-owned subsidiaries. But if the federal government is willing to write such onerous tax laws, they can just remove the shell company loophole: That alone will fill the government coffers.

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, I can't imagine that bringing much more cash. There aren't /that/ many people earning over $250k a year in 'merica, is there?

I'd have the cutoff point much lower.

(Besides, (I don't know a thing about Bernie but) is that income tax only? Because here we have a capital gains tax that is fixed and much lower than the progressive income tax. I'd reckon the greedy rich folks would use that as much as possible.)

Re:They'll just raise the rates for everyone else

[david_thornley]

Sanders laid out on his website what he wanted to do and how he wanted to pay for it. Most of the money came from removing loopholes and exemptions, which are tax raises but don't affect rates. There was no mention of an 80% tax rate.

Good.

[iCEBaLM]

Good.

They won't lose anything

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll just increase the cost of internet to compensate. Eventually, cord cutters will eventually wind up paying as much just for their internet as they were for their internet + TV bundles packages (unless you're one of the fortunate ones like me who have municpal run internet).

Rising prices and declining content

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditional broadcast is failing to adapt. Their business model is linked to people that are literally dying off.

Tell a kid with a smartphone that he has to sit in front of a TV, at a certian time.. Just to catch one episdode of a show he wants to watch. Oh, and he doesn't get to pick which episode it is.

He'll look at you like you're retarded. He's got hundreds of other entertainment options in his pocket, on a tablet, at his PC, or even at his couch.

His parents will put up with that shit, but he won't.

Any of you actually sit down and watch TV lately? It's seriously for morons. Fantastically stupid shit shoved in to your eyeballs.
I used to wonder why we've got such a cultural divide in the US. No longer. TV turns you in to a fucking idiot.

Re:Rising prices and declining content

[fuzznutz]

Any of you actually sit down and watch TV lately? It's seriously for morons. Fantastically stupid shit shoved in to your eyeballs. I used to wonder why we've got such a cultural divide in the US. No longer. TV turns you in to a fucking idiot.

This is one of the reasons I cut the cord three years ago. All the channels I used to enjoy went to shit. Discovery, TLC, A&E, History, SciFi (or SyFy) and even the weather channel were all shells of the former selves. Hell, you couldn't even get the damn headlines anymore from CNN Headline News or whatever they were calling it when I left. I found myself watching less and less TV until I realized I wouldn't miss anything and it was costing me $165 for my bundle each month. Now I have Netflix, a roof antenna, MythTV, and internet only. It costs me about $68 per month for all of it. I save nearly $1,200 every year and I don't miss it at all.

Re:Rising prices and declining content

[Thud457]

Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Subscribe to Cable

Re:Rising prices and declining content

[nealric]

The brain drain from the main cable channels is kind of amazing. Discovery went from serious science documentaries to endless loops of shark attacks. TLC went from educational content to vapid reality TV. A&E went from broadcasting operas to vapid reality TV. History went from serious history documentaries to "When Aliens Attack Part VIII!" CNN Headline went from a short form summary of the top headlines to murder mysteries. The main 24/7 cable news channels have lost all semblance of journalistic integrity. No wonder all the commercials are targeted at the 65+ crowd. There's essentially nothing on broadcast TV left worth watching unless you are a sports fan.

They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[JustNiz]

If they let people only pay for the channels they want rather than force them to buy a whole package of useless crap, far fewer people would be cutting the cable.
The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want, so the market is rightfully killing them off.
At some point they will finally be forced to deal with their own egos just to survive, but by then it will already be way too late for them, because most of their market share will have already moved to other sources such as Netflix, Amazon etc. that already do a much better job of meeting individual needs affordably.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[crow]

Yes, they could, but their strategy is to continue with the current model and lock people in with unique content. For now that means sports, as they've lost out on everything else while they were sleeping.

If they really wanted to copy the competition, Comcast would create their own channels and fund high-quality programming that isn't available elsewhere.

I think they're waking up now, but I don't think they know what to do about the situation, so they're digging their heels in.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want...

Actually the production companies like Disney (ESPN, ABC, etc) usually require them to carry the other channels. So if you don't want sports too bad, you're getting ESPN. Cable and satellite companies don't have much leverage here. They can refuse to carry it, or package it differently, and then get their rebroadcast rights pulled. I expect this will happen to streaming as well. It's a lot like beer - the major brewers require stores to stock all their varieties of the same beer, pushing out the microbrews as much as possible. You don't get to carry one and not the other 10 that taste exactly the same.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[avandesande]

They probably use this channel leverage in their advertising contracts. "You will be on X,Y and Z channels all subscribed by 1.2 gillion users"

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Holi]

A La Carte tends to be far more expensive,

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that simple. Most people watch maybe half a dozen channels but which channels they watch varies a lot. There is no way that channels like Comedy Central would survive if they had to collect the same amount of revenue from a much smaller group of subscribers. The current system gets a small amount from every subscriber whether they watch it or not. The system is far from perfect (and gets abused with channel bundling and expensive channels like sports which few people watch but which those few are very very vocal about demanding) but mandating that every channel be sold ala carte would quickly result in most cable channels going out of business. Since you subscribe to cable in the first place this is clearly a bad outcome for you.

I subscribed to cable for maybe 1-2 years a few decades ago - I would not care if cable TV went out of business. But you probably would.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

>If they let people only pay for the channels they want rather than force them to buy a whole package of useless crap, far fewer people would be cutting the cable.

Yep! It's the little watched channels that slide in on the giants' coat-tails that ruin it. For example: if one wants two cool channels, (HBO and ESPN), the cable company separates them, bundles each channel with fluff, (cooking shows, local news, etc.), so that they can claim each bundle as a discreet group and charge a premium price. In this case, such a grouping is an artificial way to seperate the good channels into tiers. Artificial because the other channels are not 'really' being watched, could fade away, and the customer still watches HBO and ESPN.

And to Holi, a la carte IS more expensive if one tried to replace all that fluff with individual channels. Sure. But the point is made by many that no body REALLY watches 300+ channels. So the point is moot, the two, (or a few more) channels get watched and that's it.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

A la carte is only more expensive if one replaces each individual fluff channel lost by de-grouping.
    The point being made is that nobody REALLY watches 300+ channels, much less fluff lobbied with big name channels. So the point is moot. It is only a handful of channels that get watched regularly, and that's about it.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[ausekilis]

It makes sense from a greed standpoint. Would you rather:
A) Bundle 10 channels and be guaranteed $10 per subscriber? or...
B) Go a la carte, find out that people don't give a shit about 8 channels and make $3 per subscriber?

You would think the realization that the market for some of those nonsense channels, like the dozen televangelist channels with the Pillsbury Dough-Nun that botched the story of creation, would be exceedingly small and not profitable. The production companies could then cut costs and focus on one or two exceptional channels. Taken to the extreme, that means 1 or 2 channels per company, or 2 dozen channels? give or take some one-offs like the WWE channel.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

The easiest fix is to host a Netflix server in their facility for their subscribers "TV" and offer internet with the $10 co charge to Netflix (while being billed less by Netflix due to volume discount and lack of upstream bandwidth to/from Netflix). They could fire their entire TV management staff for a couple techs and some spares to run the streaming server.

Again, the only problem with this "solution" is the Live Sports / Live News dilemma

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[JustNiz]

You're falling into the same broken thinking that the cable companies are doing, and assuming the number of subscribers will remain constant if they do nothing, which is clearly false.

$3*n can be more profitable than $10*n, because the value of n will be different in each case.

There is nothing so special about cable TV channels that they should get protection from free market economics. As far as I'm concerned if a channel has no subscribers then it deserves to die. Per your example, IMHO the less crappy evangelist channels we have the better. For me personally the ideal would be zero, but I get that others may not agree. Let them pay for those channels, not me.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

If they let people only pay for the channels they want rather than force them to buy a whole package of useless crap, far fewer people would be cutting the cable.
The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want, so the market is rightfully killing them off.
At some point they will finally be forced to deal with their own egos just to survive, but by then it will already be way too late for them, because most of their market share will have already moved to other sources such as Netflix, Amazon etc. that already do a much better job of meeting individual needs affordably.

The other option is too take away commercials from the cable channels. Why am I paying twice (advertising time and money) for a show???

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting Anon as I have moderated.

Choosing Channels rather than bundling will probably end up costing you more. I can almost guarantee that if this pricing structure were introduced, the cable companies will just create more Channels.

Like Comedy Centrals line up? Watch them split this into CC - Animation, CC - Shit Sitcom, CC - Stand up. . Now if you want to Watch 'South Park' and 'Tosh', you need to pay twice.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus, most people only watch certain channels during certain times of the year. I only watch ESPN during Football season, and NBCSports during Hockey. Furthermore, I almost never watch CBS, except on Sunday. Most other channels I watch for one show and could either stream just that show or have the channel only during the months where it airs.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[PPH]

Actually the production companies like Disney (ESPN, ABC, etc) usually require them to carry the other channels.

And they have been successful in hiding behind the coattails of the cable companies in this fight. Big Bad Cable makes us buy these bundles. So we don't lean on the content providers. But actually try to lean on the studio system in this country for something like a la carte pricing and you'll wake up with a horses head in your bed.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[PPH]

the less crappy evangelist channels we have the better

Yeah. But bundles aren't why we have a glut of Jesus TV on our cable systems. That's due to the 'must carry' rules for local broadcast content. The evangelist stations get a license for a 100 Watt UHF station (which they barely can keep running anyway) and now cable must carry them. And it's too much trouble to trim the cable coverage to the same areas covered by the broadcast station. So if you've got one preacher running a station out of his garage anywhere within a regional cable companies franchise, they get a free channel throughout that territory.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[JustNiz]

Ahh VERY interesting.
So all you need is about $500 worth of used broadcast equipment, a bible, a white suit and a fake smile, and you can scam stupid people for donations region-wide on TV for free. Nice.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[PPH]

Praise the FSM and pass the spaghetti.

RAmen.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly boy, you actually think services cost what they do because of overhead? On the low end, sure, the old guy fixing cars on his lawn might do that but when you're in with the pros? Ha! You're charged based on what the market will bear... and if that market collapses then they'll move on to the next one. So everyone cuts the cable and moves to the internet... who's most people's pipeline to the internet again?

Good boy. You'll pay one way or another.

Re:They could easily fix it but they dont want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Dish Network has rolled out a plan to allow some a-la-carte subscribing. There is a package without any of the ESPN shows, and has many additional channels only available on the top tier, for cheaper than the cheapest ESPN tier. It's the package I had chosen, before cutting the cord entirely.

Internet access price hikes.

[Simulant]

That's how they will make up the difference.

Re:Internet access price hikes.

[Anonymous Coward]

No they won't. Cable companies are not the only internet providers. Verizon, CenturyLink and 1000s of other small companies do not provide any TV at all or they partner with someone else. These are the competition to the cable company internet and the cable companies will only make more people jump ship to someone else if they hike the internet access fees.

Re:Internet access price hikes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in some markets but it will be pretty dangerous to do that across the board. If there are any independent internet operators in the market then they will risk not only losing TV subscribers but also internet subscribers. Additionally, with cell service getting faster, better and less metered, it may be possible for low use people (facebook, e-mail, web browsing, occasional youtube) to actually ditch internet if they jack the price up too much.

Then again, these people may be too stupid to figure out that people actually respond to pricing and their services do actually have substitutes and replacements.

Don't worry

[Vermonter]

In response they will simply raise rates. Surely that will save the industry.

Ancient Aliens

[HBI]

Every time they say "Ancient Alien theorists" on that show, I want to box my ears. I suppose it sounds better than "crackpots".

Re:Ancient Aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with 'climate change skeptics'.

Re:Ancient Aliens

[HBI]

There's more evidence for natural climate change than there is for an ancient alien. Though i'm sure an "ancient alien theorist" could draw up a hockey stick for me.

Re:Ancient Aliens

[known_coward_69]

mind numbing friday night entertainment and an interesting way to introduce kids to history and archeology

Re:Ancient Aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more evidence for natural climate change than there is for an ancient alien. Though i'm sure an "ancient alien theorist" could draw up a hockey stick for me.

That's because it was technology left by the ancient alines that was keeping the Earth cool. It's not the "greenhouse gasses" that cause global warming it was acid rain destroying the remaining cooling devices that caused the correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels.

Re:Ancient Aliens

[Grishnakh]

I'd like to know why people laugh so much at "ancient alien theorists" or anyone who believes that stuff. Personally, I don't, because the evidence is just way too flimsy, however, what I question is why they get derision, while the large majority of humanity who believes in one of the main religions does not. Why are everyday Christians and Muslims not called "crackpots" too?

Which "theory" is more plausible? Ancient aliens visited the Earth and had some kind of hand in humanity's development, OR there's a supernatural being who talks to ancient peoples with burning bushes and orders some tribes to commit genocide against other tribes and doesn't want us eating pork? At least the first one has some sort of scientific plausibility. There's no evidence aliens exist, but there's a LOT of stars and planets out there, and if we evolved on this one, it's possible a civilization evolved somewhere else, and it's remotely possible they visited here. Again, there's no evidence for this really, but it's still more plausible than some angry deity magically parting the Red Sea, killing all the firstborn in Egypt, causing "miracles", "angels" existing and having something to do with us even though no one can produce any evidence for it, the Earth being 6500 years old despite all geological evidence to the contrary, etc. Yet people who believe all this stuff are never dismissed as "crackpots", only "devout" or even "normal", depending on the extent of their beliefs (the 6500yo Earth people are generally considered extremists most places except the USA).

Re:Ancient Aliens

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, you're the first Natural Climate Change denier I've seen, both sides of the AGW holy war accept it, so what are you starting a third faction?

Re:Ancient Aliens

[HBI]

It's mainly a troll to get you religious fucks to start whining. Talk about shibboleth...

Re:Ancient Aliens

[HBI]

All of the above are crackpots. Solving interstellar travel is non-trivial based on the physics we know now. I don't think it happened.

Re:Ancient Aliens

[Grishnakh]

It's non-trivial based on our current understanding of physics, but we're so primitive we've barely even left our own planet, so I don't put much faith in our understanding of physics being complete. We still haven't reconciled General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The problem with the Ancient Alien theory is that there just isn't any good *supporting* evidence. It does make for a nice-sounding though farfetched hypothesis as to how humans might have invented various religions, but again other than crazy religious texts making wild claims about supernatural phenomena, and trying to explain it away with this ET stuff, there just isn't any evidence. But still, it's more plausible than that supernatural stuff (gods, demons, angels, etc.) actually being real. Biological beings from another planet with highly advanced technology not understood by primitive peoples is still more believable than what major religions claim is real. So, the way I see it, while I don't really believe either one, the guy who spouts ancient alien theories is less of a crackpot than the people who go to church or mosque.

Re:Ancient Aliens

[Burz]

Ancient Aliens vs Dinosaurs with Action Bronson:
https://youtu.be/uExUUoXcllg?t...

IMHO, its a must see!

Re:Ancient Aliens

[HBI]

If you treat religion as a collection of metaphysics and resultant supernatural phenomena, then sure. It's worse than ancient alien theorists. But religion satisfies a very human need to "know" what happens postmortem. Regardless of it being a pack of lies. Mainly because the people who believe in religion would not permit its falsification by any conventional means. You'd literally have to have a voice from on high - "the voice of God" tell them that it's all bullshit, therefore proving their beliefs out.

Even given my attitudes towards all that, I recognize the comfort that religious beliefs can offer a person and I refuse to give people a hard time about it. The example that comes to mind is the old woman who lost her husband and her whole family and wants to meet them again in an afterlife. Religion - at least the monotheistic forms of same - gives her this. It's what their minds crave and they give in to it without much resistance.

Coming to terms with people being irrational and stupid has been nearly fifty years work for me. I think i've done pretty well at trying to have some self-awareness on this issue.

Re:Ancient Aliens

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, but it's not all-or-nothing. There's plenty of agnostics who simply acknowledge they don't know what happens in the afterlife rather than being firmly convinced there's nothing (I'm one of them). There's a big gulf between "there may be an afterlife, and I like to think there is, and perhaps there's some deity watching over us", and "this ancient book is the literal truth, along with all the supernatural events described in it, even though they're contradicted by hard evidence" (the latter is especially so for the Mormons). It's possible to be "spiritual" to some extent without being religious.

You don't need to believe in the Red Sea parting (or any Earthly events of the sort) to believe you'll meet your family in an afterlife. It's entirely possible there really is an afterlife and some deity(ies), but that those things have zero physical effect in our Earthly lives (I think there might be some religions that believe this way).

Re:Ancient Aliens

[HBI]

People who aren't interested in thinking need the metaphysical window dressing.

Believe it or not, that's a paraphrased Hitler quote, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I don't fault you for your beliefs, but I don't agree with them. I think that once the bioelectricity stops flowing, we cease to be. Anything else would be supernatural. However much I would like to talk to my father again, I don't think it's going to happen. It's not an emotionally satisfying viewpoint, but it is the logical conclusion of my other beliefs.

About title

[campuscodi]

Let's hope so (^.^)

Not just the savings

[sumsguy]

Saving money wasn't my main reason for staying off cable; it just didn't make sense to pay for TV AND still be hit with commercials. And, in NYC, having to pay a sports tax for crap I don't even care about. Yeah, I'll stick to Netflix. There will be a study claiming that streaming services keep us on the couch longer; thereby making it unhealthy.

Re:Not just the savings

[sumsguy]

They should also reconsider paying the over-the-air networks for content. How did this happen? The networks charge Cable AND still show commercials?

Re:Not just the savings

[Obfuscant]

They should also reconsider paying the over-the-air networks for content. How did this happen?

No, the right question is "why did it take so long to start"? It happens because the OTA stations can charge to be carried. They used to be happy with must-carry rules just to make sure they were on the cable, now they know that people will complain to the cable company if their channel isn't on cable so they can extort the cable companies.

Isn't it an amazing irony that an OTA broadcaster can put a scroll on the bottom of the screen telling viewers to call their cable company because they might lose access, and the cable company has to carry this against their own best interests?

The networks charge Cable AND still show commercials?

Of course. The OTA channels are OTA content and not a separate feed. Your "NBC" channel is not "NBC", it's the local NBC affiliate. Why should they cut out the commercials? What would they put in their place? If they put in two minutes of "dead air" you'll just FF your DVR through that just like you FF it through the ads now. Or go to the bathroom or have your wench make you a sammich.

Cable Companies Hiding the Truth

[crow]

The truth is that many more people are cutting cords than the numbers reflect. Cable companies mask this by creating bundles that have more services that are cheaper than going with just data. Many people keep a minimum TV service because it's cheaper than the unbundled Internet service. Some cable companies put data caps on only for non-TV customers. They want to pad their phone sales, too, so they'll do the same tricks there, making a triple play cheaper than a double play, at least for the initial contract period. (I did that once and never even had a cable modem with a phone-out plug.)

If cable companies were forced to price Internet, TV, and phone completely separately, I think the number of cord cutters would jump dramatically.

Put the Kardashians into space for less than $1B

[Provocateur]

It's an election year, and I guess people are voting with their wallets, or voting against the lack of choices or against bundling up/overcharging or going with Netflix or Redbox.

Those billions are going to be spent elsewhere, maybe less on this luxury, and there isn't any person going to be affected by my lack of sympathy. Corporations are out there to make money; I'm here still waiting for my 24x7 cindy crawford channel (apologies to Denis Leary)

Cut from $200 to $70

[Maxo-Texas]

I was paying $120 and they rapidly raised that to $200 with no changes in programming.

So I cut it to $70. Bare minimum cable was $10 so I did go for that. Otherwise would have been $60 (with taxes) for 1/25 service.

cable TV is over priced

[Presto Vivace]

lower the price and sales will go back up. This is not complicated.

Re:cable TV is over priced

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think they shot themselves in the foot with traditional "cable". They tried to have their cake and eat it too with Ads/pay-tv and got away with it for a while. But Netflix/similar services have trained a small army of people that decent, on-demand programming with no ads can be had for the same price as even a reduced price cable package.

Cable would need to drop to $10 or less and would still offer an inferior service for the same price. Add in the modem fees and other crap fees that don't exist with Netflix and I am not sure how its even possible to compete on price.

The only way to win people back is to increase the offerings for a lower price but I am not sure that is even possible at this point. The whole industry needs a re-work but the major issue is that sports have been hugely subsidized by cable subscribers to the point people are dropping cable to stop subsidizing ESPN. Some cable providers you literally can't not buy ESPN/Sports. It is mandatory.

The Question Is...

[crunchygranola]

At what point do you suppose that that crazy, crazy idea of offering better value for the dollar, and a better pricing model, to actually compete for customers will dawn on these industry geniuses? Telling customers who are dropping your service "Your stupid. You aren't saving money but don't know it" when the customer can plainly see that they are saving money is not likely to ever help your business.

What we see though is the universal behavior of business accustomed to monopoly power, and to extracting profit though rents (no not the apartment kind). They abuse power to soak their customers, who then seek any relief available.* And the reaction to that is... never to cut back on the abuse, it is always something else - getting more monopoly supporting laws passed, whining at the customer, plain old denial of reality, etc.

*Unfortunately changing the laws is not a relief available to the individual, and it is extremely difficult to overcome industry influence on lawmakers for collective relief.

Cable Companies LIE to keep you...

[zarmanto]

Cord cutter, here. If you're thinking of joining me by switching down to an internet-only service, you need to know this: Your cable company is going to lie to you. They're going to tell you all kinds of stories about how they don't actually offer internet-only options, or about how it's actually less expensive to have a bundle than it is to go internet-only. Don't believe them. There is exactly one way to get the full truth out of them: Tell them you're cancelling. As soon as they transfer you to the retention department, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will happily give you that internet-only connection you're looking for, and most likely at a reasonable price, too... at least, for the first year, anyway.

Sidenote: Obviously, this only works if you have at least one other viable broadband provider in your area. If you live in one of the many broadband monopoly areas... well, in that case, you have my sympathies, because you are well and truly screwed.

Re:Cable Companies LIE to keep you...

[Virtucon]

I have three ISPs one with fiber, two broadband to my home. My fiber provider was VZ FIOS now it's Frontier FIOS which from a business relationship perspective was going from an alligator to a crocodile. I've already cut my TV subscription (Sling user here) and they indeed said "oh your Internet will go up." to which I replied "good, you're fired." and they back-peddled. I realize a lot of this is the content providers (Comcast, Viacom etc.) but shit how many news channels do we need anyway, besides i get local news networks fine and I don't really care what NBC,MSNBC,CNN,CNNHeadlineNews have to offer.. Cronkite is dead FFS!

Re:Cable Companies LIE to keep you...

[waspleg]

They will also try to get you to sign up for some promotional shit that's cheaper in the short term than just the bandwidth but includes the tv (until the 6 months or whatever runs out then it triples - Yea I have Comcast, that's why it's called Triple Pay right? :))

My experienece

[Bodhammer]

We were paying $180/month with Comcast for 25Mbps internet, 2 basic cable boxes, and HD, no movie channels


We adding 40Mbps DSL to our CenturyLink Landline for $25/month. Amazon Pirme - $100/year
Netflix 4K $11.99/month
Sling TV (Espn, Espn 2) $20/month
OTA $0
Tivo - $120/year (we had this with Comcast as well.)

Stop charging $7-$10+ an outlet

[Joe_Dragon]

Stop charging $7-$10+ an outlet for rent / outlet fees / tv fees / mirroring fees.

I only watch 3 cable channels...

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of what I watch are local OTA available. To get those 3 cable channels I have to get Advanced TV Preferred (280 channels) and the Variety Pack (18 channels). Fucking retarded. I'm about ready to cut the cable and only use Roku and p1ra73bay.

Re:Put the Kardashians into space for less than $1

[avandesande]

Yes, send them to mars. Isn't that where men are from?

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, buh-bye. I haven't paid for cable for close to 10 years because it's a rip-off. Hello, Playstation Vue, though!

If only

[Anonymous Coward]

If I could find another company to provide fast internet I would drop the cable companies completely.... Off a fucking cliff.

Man, if only they'd just fucking listen.

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs literally give 0 fucks about what the people want, and just keep doing whatever the fuck they think will get them money... even if they could have had more money by roping in more subscribers by simply offering the shit the customers say they want. I hope one day the carriers will be forced to feel the pain of the raping they've been dishing out for the last few decades. They're worthless pieces of shit and the only reason people are with them is because they won't let any better alternatives exist.

Re:Man, if only they'd just fucking listen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with ya. Fuck 'em!

Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[stasike]

I live in Europe.
I pay 16Euro per month for 70Mbit/s Internet connection.
A "landline" is included in the price - IP telephony device included - with 20 free minutes to landlines here in my town and free calls within provider network and reasonable prices for calling cellular providers or out-of-town numbers.
AND, included in that 16Euro/month package, I get some 100 cable channels, with 15 most popular channels having an archive - ability to play, and skip adds for any program from the last 20 days.
I pay about 7Eur per month extra for package with various Discovery channels, History channel and cartoon channels for my kids (cartoons being the main reason I keep the extra package, because most documentary programs air various reality shows 95% of the time)

This is what you get when you do not allow companies to create artificial monopolies for the last mile.
I live in town and 5 different providers have fiber optics cable leading to my apartment building. People living in small distant villages have more limited choice, but they still can get ADSL for some 10Euro/month for uncapped contract, plus satellite package for TV for some 10Euro/month for about 100 channels.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Frederic54]

As a European living in Canada, I envy you... here I pay almost CA$150 for landline, HDTV (about 50 channels) with a PVR, and 30/10 internet with a 130GB cap.
Also in general we have only 2 choices of providers, offering about the same thing for the same price (lot of collusion here, same for gas price).

Do not start me on cellphone plan... almost the most expensive in the world.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly this is a lie. Everyone knows that the US is purely capitalistic while Europe wallows in Socialist misery. The competition which is the bedrock of capitalism would not allow you to pay less for internet then us. Oh, and the US will give up control of the Internet over President Trumps cold dead hands!

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[MooseTick]

We get it. Internet is cheaper in Europe. Everything else is more, but you get fast cheap internet.

In America, gas is only €0.47/L. as opposed to €1.23 in Paris or £1.12 in London.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[JeffOwl]

We didn't let the companies create the artificial monopolies, our government created them.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[GerryGilmore]

"you get fast cheap internet"....Not to mention better healthcare, roads (autobahns), high-speed trains...But - what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re: Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay 0.00 dollars for my Chevy Volt for a 40 mile charge because I work at Prairie Island Nuclear Facility (Xcel Energy). I'm better than you at 250+ mpge

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[stasike]

Yes. The vast majority of things are cheaper in USA. I do not deny that. And the Internet isn't really that cheap here, comparatively, because we have lower average income. We also pay higher taxes.

Only a few things besides Internet are cheaper here. Little things, such as mobile plans, education, especially University education, health care, public transport. Also retirement pensions are done differently ...

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, gas is only â0.47/L. as opposed to â1.23 in Paris or £1.12 in London.

Only because you can't be bothered to tax it to the levels we do.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that the cause of high internet prices in US is due to ISPs jacking-up prices, while the cause of high gas prices in Europe is due to *taxes* (i.e. governments jacking-up prices).

At least in theory, the money "overcharged" on gas should, at least indirectly, benefit citizens (and, well.. there is an inherent benefit in curtailing the burning of gas within cities), while the money "overcharged" on internet only benefits Comcast et al.

TL;DR: I think you're comparing apples and oranges here.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[hankwang]

Where in Europe? The open market does not mean that everything is priced the same everywhere. At least in the Netherlands, I don't think you can get 70 Mbit/s for 16 EUR/mo. The lowest tier is about 20 EUR for 10 Mbps ADSL including phone or 30 Mbps without.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[will_die]

Where?
I lived in Europe until a few months ago and was paying a little over 50Euro for 2Mbit/s and that was my only option.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[houghi]

They did it on request of their customers, the companies. I mean, they paid for it and it would have been rude not to follow up on it.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe, the extra money you pay for gas goes to the government in taxes. That money is then used to benefit everyone.

In the US, the extra money for internet goes to gold plated sconces in the CEO's bathroom.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that government did what YOU voted them in to do: help businesses grow.

Re:Meanwhile, here in Europe ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Butt hurt much?

This Could Rein in the Olympics

[DevsVult]

As most of the Olympic organization's revenue comes from media rights, reductions in the cable subscriber base would reduce those organizations' ability to bid for Olympics coverage.
Might the games migrate to a pay-per-view model? True á la carte would starve less-popular sports of revenue, while all-inclusive packages would be too expensive for most potential viewers. If the current system that amortizes the massive expense over years of everyone's bills is threatened, it's difficult to see what might replace it.

Same here

[Anonymous Coward]

But what I don't understand is do Americans have Internet without cable tv? Because that'd be hard to imagine here. It just comes in a package, all through a fiber cable. If you wanted internet alone, that's almost as expensive as the whole thing, including the telephone.

Re:Same here

[praxis]

But what I don't understand is do Americans have Internet without cable tv?

My phone company offers DSL. So do a dozen other providers that lease the lines from the phone company. Most people I know have told me that DSL is too slow for streaming. They denied my claim that my DSL connection streamed HD Netflix just fine for years. They flat out just didn't believe me.

Now my phone company now offers a fiber line with 1Gbps up and down. It's only a little more expensive than the DSL.

Data Point

[ThatsNotPudding]

Paid my cable bill last night: the broadband chunk of the bill is now ~$20 higher than the (now sports / entertainment tier-free) TV bill.

Over the last few years, the rate of increase of the broadband part has out-paced the TV rate increases for... reasons?

Bottom line: Big Cable will get their monthly three-figure pound of flesh even after everything is TCP/IP-based.

Plus, they need the cash to pay their right-wing prostitutes for banning community-owned broadband systems.

Conmmercials are

[Stan92057]

The only content you can watch on TV uninterrupted. Its no surprise people are moving to netflix. plus being forced to pay for 100++ channels i will never watch in a zillion years pisses me off to no end.But moving to netflix isn't going to happen i like first run tv shows,movies SPORTS..And don't want to wait a year for them to be released to the streamers..

Cg42 wins maths

[viperidaenz]

Cg42 expects each customer to be an average loss of $1,248 annually, and losses to approach $1 billion over the year. Cg42 also found that the average cord-cutter saves $104 per month by canceling.

And after further investigation, Cg42 has discovered there are 12 months in a year.

Yeah, OKAY

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some in the industry have argued that cutting the cord doesn't actually save you money"

Like the one time when I had a cable company try to convince me that I would save money by spending $50 on Internet equipment installation (hooking up a damn modem)???

I said, "Uh, how would I save money if I'm spending $50 for something I know how to do for free..?", which they then replied with, "You just are."

The argument was ever so convincing. But, in the end, logic prevailed and I ended up NOT spending $50 to plug end A to end B.

Oversaturation

[Pollux]

I like being able to pick what I want, rather than reality TV shows being on every channel and that's my only option. History Channel reality TV, discovery channel reality TV... ARGH!

Without a doubt, there's too many options and not enough variety in the content. The service is over-saturated. The market needs to contract, and now's a great time for that to happen. I hope we can get rid of all the bloat and wasted programming out there and concentrate it down to less channels with better programming.

Re:Oversaturation

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Without a doubt, there's too many options and not enough variety in the content.

The companies behind the various "channels" have been making content more and more "mainstream". Also "reality TV" shows are easier to produce. They create the illusion of variety while making it easier to sell to advertisers by bundling similar shows together. But there used to be some actual variety in programming.

I hope we can get rid of all the bloat and wasted programming out there and concentrate it down to less channels with better programming.

I'm sure there will be fewer channels, but I seriously doubt the quality of the programming will improve.

Cable already owns Hulu

[tepples]

Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.

Hulu LLC is owned by Disney, Comcast, Fox, and Time Warner. All four companies own broadcast TV networks (ABC, NBC, Fox, and half of CW respectively) as well as mid-tier cable TV networks. Comcast is also a multichannel pay television provider.

Re:Cable already owns Hulu

[Shirley Marquez]

Comcast owns NBC and all the cable channels with "NBC" in their names, Spanish-language Telemundo and its sister channel NBC Universo (which was formerly known by the much more clever name mun2, which was pronounced just like the "mundo" in Telemundo with an S added to the end), as well as Chiller, Cloo, Syfy, USA Network, Bravo, E!, Esquire Network (joint venture with Hearst, the publisher of the magazine), Oxygen, Sprout, and Universal HD.

Wrong! Conclusion jumped.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: Cable companies could potentially not meet corporate expectations.

No profit is guaranteed. I'd really wish articles that spoke about media industry profits, didn't write them that all profit they state to earn, or could earn in the future are guaranteed, and anything less is industry loss. It's utter crap. No industry has guaranteed profits, beyond contract lock-in, back by legalese. And even then, if the paying party honors it.

The idea that any change to the status quo for media companies, especially cable, when it comes to profit, is somehow industry shattering is absurd. Money is being shifted around. In this case, not as much is potentially going to cable companies, and is likely going to online streaming outlets instead. Just another case where cable companies fail to adhere to changing markets. They deserve to die a painful death, and the sooner the better.

What happened to the original concept of cable TV?

[SuseLover]

You were supposedly "paying" for no commercials TV.

Now even the damn "Premium" pay channels i.e showtime, hbo have ommercials.

WTF?

Now they're double & triple dipping the f'n ad revenues.

That's what TFA said too

[tomhath]

They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much.

TFA doesn't say anything about losing money. It says they will lose revenue, i.e. they won't make as much.

Re:That's what TFA said too

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much.

TFA doesn't say anything about losing money. It says they will lose revenue, i.e. they won't make as much.

And as those revenue loses will be (partially) offset by lower fees to the content providers (ESPN alone charges ~$8/mo per subscriber; fewer subscribers means lower costs). Now, there is little doubt that providing TV is profitable, so profits likely will decline, but the actual impact is far more complex than counting just TV subscribers.

Cut cable over a year ago

[Anonymous Coward]

My "promotional" period had run out and Cox jacked up my cable and internet $50/mo to $200 a month. I offered to sign a new contract for a cheaper rate (having been a customer for the last 8 years or so) they said no you would need to add home phone. I bought some Google Nexus player boxes for my TVs subscribed to Hulu (already had Netflix with the cable) and have enjoyed saving about $140 a month. Recently I discovered SlingTV's $25/mo package had my local Fox sports station so I could watch baseball without using something like Kodi/Castaway so I have that for the moment. May keep it after the first month may not.

Re:Cut cable over a year ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got Prime too but since Amazon are dicks and won't let my Nexus boxes access it I don't ever use it.

Same AC, added point

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot to mention the pricelessness that is realizing your kids have absolutely no idea what a "commercial" is. I am proud when they are utterly confused (then totally frustrated by) commercials when forced to endure them. That could, even more so, be the nail in Cable TV's coffin during the next generation.

It could also backfire and kids take commercials seriously due to being naive, leading to an even poorer next generation...

Re:Same AC, added point

[Anonymous Coward]

sadly,
you kids are probably watching more ads on their mobile devices than they would have ever watched on TV... they just don't call them commercials.

Re:Same AC, added point

[david_thornley]

We had TV service with our internet connection for a few months. (The basic plan didn't include the ability to watch the local Major League Baseball team games, which struck me as idiotic.) We watched a movie, and found it almost unwatchable, since we'd been used to paying what we had to to avoid commercials. A few months later, we noted that we had no intention of watching it, so we canceled.

Just info...

[poofmeisterp]

I ditched mine because they said (Time Warner) they were going to be removing analog channels from the single-coax medium to free usable RF bandwidth for "up to" 300mbps data. My telco's gigabit fiber (measuring up to ~=800mbps in real use) being $65.99/mo and the 50mbps being $49.99/mo for those who have FTTN.

TW said the price for their new enhanced 300mbps service would be around $160, but it wasn't available until about 3 months or so from then. I laughed on the phone to the person I was talking to and asked if they had any idea what their competition was. They started blabbering about how their service was better because of the enhanced email and streaming channels they offer for a low price of $1.99/mo, and HBO for, like, $30/mo. I asked if they were aware that the telco has generator backup and stepped backup power delivered through the copper lines, as well as backup by battery on all equipment along the way; they said something about their service having a 99.99% uptime and few outages. I said, "Sure. I had no outages after using you for over 10 years because where I lived the power didn't fail. If it did, I would have been without service. Wait a minute, now that you mention it, I did lose service a couple of times because of loss of power in an area where your fiber backhaul ran out of backup battery power way upstream, but it was so long ago I barely remember it. What can you do for a customer of over 12 years to avoid having them (me) cancel service right now?"

The answer was "Well... uhhh.. we do have lower speeds that will be available within the next 2-6 months for a lower price."

I laughed and hung up because I really didn't have anything to say that would make sense to the minimum wage, call center, screen-reader on the phone.

They lost business that fast. I used my 'droid for data at speeds faster than theirs for 3 days until the telco ADSL via FTTN was installed.

I assume they just mean the TV portion....

[Fencepost]

The Fine Article asks "Where are they going?" and talks about some other services (SlingTV, Hulu, etc.) but that fails to answer the more important question of "How are they getting there?"

Quite frankly in a huge part of the country your connectivity choices are cable modem (fast), DSL or related (kinda fast sometimes depending on where you are), sometimes a WISP (probably slow and expensive), or 4G tethering (you thought cable was expensive?). Fiber is not an option for most of the country and is AFAIK the only thing that can compete with cable for speed.

So, is this all just talking about eliminating the TV portion of your monthly bill from the cable company?

Cable tv has always been about revenue

[voss]

I dont care if UVERSE is not as fast as comcast. They are cheaper, very reliable, and good enough.
I dont need 50 mbps, I have 20 mbps internet plus tv, plus landline phone at a pretty good price. .

Can't lose what you never had

[Dracos]

Cable will lose subscribers, but they won't lose the money those subscribers haven't paid yet. It's like trying to Chicken-Little the fact that cable will "lose" revenue from subscribers that die in the next year.

The fact is, the TV market is changing and the providers continually refuse to adapt. If cable rates increased at less than 6 times the rate of inflation, that would help save their asses.

I guess I'd phrase it differently

[argStyopa]

"Cable companies raked in at least $1bn last year from people who really didn't need to be paying them."

Feels a little different that way.

Re:I guess I'd phrase it differently

[Neuronwelder]

Great comment! Thanks!

Re:What happened to the original concept of cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Still no commercials on Netflix, though.

Re:What happened to the original concept of cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Profiteering! Profiteering! Profiteering! Profiteering! [throws chair]

You mean like NBCUniversal?

[tepples]

If they really wanted to copy the competition, Comcast would create their own channels and fund high-quality programming that isn't available elsewhere.

I think that was Comcast's strategy in buying NBCUniversal.

Re:You mean like NBCUniversal?

[crow]

And Comcast doesn't want you to know that you can pick up broadcast channels for free with an antenna in perfect HD in most locations. If Comcast starts blocking any NBC content from streaming services, it will be a clear sign that your interpretation is right.

In other news, Internet connections cost soar...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cable providers stand to lose $1 billion in subs for TV, I predict they will try and make it up by raising Internet connections prices by nearly $1 billion. It's not like we have a real choice for broadband in most areas.

Not much competition in cable

[Anonymous Coward]

In many towns you have one cable provider and the two satellite providers. Some bigger cities have more than one cable provider but that does not seem to reduce rates much. I gave up cable TV a long time ago because in our town of 3000 we got a lousy package from the cable company. I used to miss the lack of sports without it, but I grew tired of the over paid babies anyway. I still see enough through over the air programming to get my fill.

No interest

[Anonymous Coward]

I have practically zero interest in any show that is being fed into my house. That's the biggest problem. Why am I paying for cable when I scan the channels for something interesting to watch and maybe hit on about 30 minutes of content I give half a crap about, when the rest of it is mindless background noise at best, and horribly irritating otherwise.

Meanwhile, I can put on stuff I want to see off Amazon Prime; watch the whole damn series, and it not cost me anything more than my Prime subscription which has plenty of other benefits that I use regardless of the TV aspect or not.

The biggest problem really is that there's no content produced today that is worth the price...I get far more out of watching old shows and old movies that I missed than watching the BS that's on now.

Our TWC bill + Services dropped to less than half.

[CrashNBrn]

$278 Then vs $126 Now. Previously, Netflix: $20, Amazon Prime: ~$8/mos and $250 for TWC (incl. DVR, cable box, modem, phone and Internet).
Netflix: $10, Hulu: $10, Amazon Prime+Fresh: ~$11, Google Music Family (+YouTube Red): $15, TWC Internet: $50.

Re:Our TWC bill + Services dropped to less than ha

[CrashNBrn]

+$20 for Vonage.

And the verdict is...

[bheerssen]

> Cable TV companies could lose nearly $1 billion to people cutting the cord over the next year

... Good.

Competiion

[Neuronwelder]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but other than the Web they don't seem to have much competition. Look at Japan or Korea: By comparison, those countries get their services for free compared to us. Maybe the threat of competition will bring the cable companies prices to something sane.

Re:What happened to the original concept of cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Only old people know this, they aren't the target audience.

Self-inflicted

[MoarSauce123]

Prices go up while content and service go down. I will ditch cable soon, I already cut back quite a bit. It was about to be more expensive than a car payment.

Bundle Pushers

[Tablizer]

Some in the industry have argued that cutting the cord doesn't actually save you money if you subscribe to a bunch of streaming services like Netflix, HBO, and so on.

Well, of course, the cable co's try to shove bundling up your bundle because it's more profitable for them.

A good many people, including me, want to ONLY pay for the specific content and channels we want. Bundling has been a crappy deal for us.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Western State Hospital

[Anonymous Coward]

After being excessively exposed to https://youtu.be/rA6GLHTdcVo, https://youtu.be/OPlEF2JvEr8, and https://youtu.be/TC-LgSF89Xc, I wound up being a permanent resident at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_State_Hospital_(Washington).

Mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher prices, less service, as well as a really poor program offering, even on the expensive channels, has made cable TV not so good to have. The one good thing from them is high speed net service. I will probably be cutting back on my cable expenses this year. Roku and Netflix can take up the slack.

And soon coming to you..

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher internet prices, from the cord you 1/2 cut...

Where are people saving all this money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just switched to a low-priced bundle from my cable company with 150/20 service, but the cheapest "internet only" service available to me (20/10) was only like $10/mo cheaper than the TV/phone/net bundle. Is this not the case everywhere? How the hell do I save $104/mo?

Glad I could help

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be ditching cable soon. I've got a decent indoor HDTV antenna though I plan to install an outdoor one. I won't be dropping cable internet, just the channels.

Re:hey white male

[CCarrot]

But...football (sigh).

hey white male

blah blah blah

as a bonus, women will be much more interested in you also

Hmm...while your anonymous and cowardly concern for my welfare is truly touching, I should let you know that I don't swing that way...and I think my husband might object, even if I did.

#Presumptuous-assholes-are-presumptuous

You don't have to pay for a license.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't watch TV.

Redefine 'cable service'...

[martinfb]

Hope this leads to a redefinition/purpose of 'cable' service; to that of providing only internet service as a utility.

Since internet service is such a necessary thing these days, it makes sense to have it regulated as a public utility.
Providers can then add on other fully optional 'bundles'; yet allow freedom to go elsewhere for streams. Yet, the connection to the web needs to be separate and regulated.
The monopoly that cable companies have now is NOT in the interest of the general public.

Here's my plan (once cost is within reason):
Engage NATO allies to pay their share, so that...
The US Defense budget can be halved, which would allow...
Infrastructure (and other needs like education) can be vastly improved (like bridges, and internet access)...

Then, Internet service could be reasonably priced, and add-on pkgs/streams could (possibly) be more reasonably priced as well.

I won't be one of them...

[real gumby]

...because Comcast charges me less if I subscribe to TV+Internet than the cost of Internet alone. Its even cheaper if I get cablecard, so I have one taped to the wall where the cable comes in. That way I can find it if I ever cancel service.

Originally it was a special deal but when 11 1/2 months were up I called to cancel TV and the rep said he'd extend it for a year. And also told me to call next year and he was sure they'd extend it again.

I know I'm helping them scam the TV networks but since I don't like them either I figure why not?

Great

[SSI_Steve]

Less subscribers = more expensive services for those of us that stick around.