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

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?

[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?

[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.

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.