Cord-Cutting Isn't Nearly as Significant as Cable Providers Make It Out To Be (cnbc.com)

From a report on CNBC: Despite legacy media's anxieties about cord-cutting, data suggest that the phenomenon isn't nearly as significant as cable providers make it out to be. In its 11th annual "Digital Democracy Survey," Deloitte found that the percentage of American households that subscribe to paid television services has remained relatively stable since 2012, even as adoption of streaming services has accelerated. In its survey of 2,131 consumers, Deloitte said two-thirds of respondents reported they have kept their TV subscriptions because they're bundled with their internet plan. Kevin Westcott, vice chairman and U.S. media and entertainment leader at Deloitte, told CNBC that bundling seems to be a huge deterrent for cord cutting.

Comments

They own the networks and content

[OffTheLip]

The market where I live is serviced primarily by Cox and Verizon. Both offer internet only packages marginally cheaper than bundled services. So yeah, they have the cake and eat it too while still whining about everything.

Re:They own the networks and content

[pr0fessor]

I have cable only through cox and they do offer TV bundles that are not that much more expensive at least for the first 6 or 12 months. I think the last offer they tried to give me was a one year deal for around $10 for the first 6 months to add a tv package and then it went up $60 or maybe it was 2 years and the deal was for the first year.

Doesn't matter I canceled the TV packages because I never watched them to begin with.

Re:They own the networks and content

[DuckDodgers]

Most consumers just don't want to give up access to first run shows. As long as the bundle price isn't too much higher than the plain internet service price, most people will stay.

I've lived in places with Comcast, DirecTV, and Dish service and the advertised price in the brochure is never the price on your bill. Sometimes the fees and service charges they forgot to mention are $20 more. Sometimes they're $40. The promotional period expires and your bill jumps $50. I could pay the cost - I have a wonderful job in the technology field, my wife and I together spend more than $150 per month at Starbucks. But the thing is that Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, Youtube Red, Sling TV, Playstation Vue, and Starbucks all advertise the actual price the consumer pays (not including taxes and applicable government regulatory fees). Comcast, DirecTV, and Dish still lie like hell in their advertising. But I've had enough of the dishonest pricing, we cut the cord.

Comcast, you want my television subscription back? Mail me an offer like this: "This is the price. These are the channels and features. Here is a notarized letter stating that if the price changes in the next ten years due to anything other than changes in US taxes and government regulatory fees, we will pay you $10,000." If the price is reasonable, I'll sign up tomorrow. But I've had enough of, "We'll advertise a price and bill a price, and advertising and billing are unrelated."

Re:They own the networks and content

[elrous0]

When I cut the cord, Time Warner kept pestering me with bundled offers, including one that basically gave me cable and internet for the same price that I'm paying now for internet only. When I turned the offer down, it drove them nuts. They clearly wanted to be able to still count me as a cable TV subscriber even if I wasn't even using the cable TV. I suspect that offers like this keep the number of cable subscribers artificially high. There are probably a lot of cord cutters out there who only still have cable because cablecos are basically giving it to them for free.

Re:They own the networks and content

[ninthbit]

What a LOT of people forget, are the stupid cable boxes they want to rent you. They'll give you basically free TV, but want to charge you $7-$20 for each additional TV decoder box.

Right now, I have unlimited Internet. But when Spectrums FCC deal for buying Time Warner runs out and they put data caps in place, I'll probably have to pay for TV to get the free unlimited Internet. At that point, I'll have "Cable TV", but I won't get any cable boxes for it.

Re:They own the networks and content

[Maxo-Texas]

This!

I am literally getting cable and hbo for $10 a month and I'm the lowest tier internet at 25mb/s now.

I used to pay $140 a month.. and they kept moving the price up. At $190/month I said to heck with that. now I pay $68 a month.

Another factor... my wireless is now down to $65 for 16gb with an 8gb hot spot. Plus ubiquitous free wifi at merchants in my area.

If that goes up to $65 for 32gb and 16gb hot spot, I will consider completely cutting cable.

But I really don't like paying over about 5 hours minimum wage for monthly cable.

Re:They own the networks and content

[HornWumpus]

Nobody goes to a big consulting firm like 'Toilet and Douche' for accurate numbers. They go to be told what they want to hear and get cover for their decisions.

Re:They own the networks and content

[reboot246]

1. I keep cable for sports. Yeah, some ESPN streams, but there are far more sports channels available on cable than you can get streaming.
2. My internet service comes in on the same cable and it averages 66 Mbps.

I also watch a LOT of movies - old movies, newer movies, bad movies, good movies. If I watched that many movies at the local theater, I'd spend way more than cable costs, and the bathroom is cleaner and closer. The snacks are cheaper, too.

I'm an Amazon Prime customer so I get their streaming service by default, but I pay the yearly fee for the shipping benefits. I rarely watch anything from Amazon.

Re:They own the networks and content

[DuckDodgers]

I don't watch professional sports, which makes it much easier to ditch paid television service. Most of my friends and family members do watch, so I don't blame them or you for keeping a paid television subscription for ESPN.

With respect to movies, I use Ebay, Amazon, and the bargain bins at Walmart and Target. I probably spend an average $40 per month that way, but it's still cheaper than a cable television service. My Kodi movie library is above 500 films at the moment, and (not that most people care) every single film was legally purchased and I still own the physical disks.

Re:They own the networks and content

[DuckDodgers]

Right. I'm paying $85 for 100/10 internet from Comcast. They'll sell me internet plus television service for $90/month for the first year and $110/month the second year.

Except it's a lie. Their television service has a $5 broadcast television fee (from Comcast, not the government), a $3 sports fee (again from Comcast, not the government), and $20-$25 for the DVR + HD receiver monthly rental. So they're pretending I would pay $90 per month the first year and $110 the second, but it's actually at least $118 and $138, respectively.

As I wrote elsewhere, that's actually not a terrible price. But I'm more angry at the dishonest advertising than anything else. Fuck no.

Re:They own the networks and content

[tepples]

Another factor... my wireless is now down to $65 for 16gb with an 8gb hot spot. Plus ubiquitous free wifi at merchants in my area.

Then watch you spend most of that 8 GB per month keeping your PCs' Windows operating system up to date now that Microsoft plans to automatically download security updates even over metered connections.

Re:They own the networks and content

[Hognoxious]

Ah, the good old days before they all merged.

Pricey Whorehouse, Cowboys and Lowbrows, Androids...

Re:They own the networks and content

[Karlt1]

If Cox is anything like Comcast, the advertised price of the bundle is only the starting point. If I were to get Comcast for cable, I would be paying $50 a month for five extra cable boxes, $10 for the "HD Technology Fee", $5 for the network access fee, $7 for the sports fee and I think around $5.00 for fees that they make sound like they are government mandated but aren't. I pay $47 for a combination of Sling, CBS All Access, Netflix, and Hulu with limited commercials. I also have Amazon Prime.

Re:They own the networks and content

[thejynxed]

In a way they are government mandated, considering their losses in court that those fees go towards paying off ;)

cheaper to keep 'er

[whoozwah]

The conglomos want to get you into thinking that by bundling you're saving money when you're not. until they get to a point where your entire monthly bill including internet is cheaper than just getting internet itself they still playing the con game.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[bluefoxlucid]

Comcast wanted to offer me 265 TV channels including HBO for 4 cents more than I was paying for 200Mbit Internet alone. I simply don't watch TV, so I don't need it.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[grahamsz]

They actually gave in and offered it to me for $10/month less than internet alone. "Where can we ship your DVR?" "umm don't even bother".

Happy to see the back of them entirely.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[The Grim Reefer]

In my area, I cannot get internet only from Comcast/XFinity. "That service is not offered in my area."

You're being lied to. They tried to tell me the same thing too. They also still offer the truly basic cable with 12 or 15 channels too. But you practically have to put the manager in a stranglehold to get them to offer it.

As it stands, I could get some cable plan with 100 channels (or something more) for about $10 more per month more than I'm paying right now, if I bundled it with internet. By bundling them, my internet price literally drops by half (with no special promotional rate). But even at $10 per month, it's simply not worth it for me.

I'd switch to a different ISP, if I could get one that was even close to my current speeds. But there's no other option in my area. So I'm stuck with Comcast.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[Obfuscant]

The conglomos want to get you into thinking that by bundling you're saving money when you're not.

For what definition of "save"?

For Comcast in my area, I can get Internet alone, 25MBps, for $30/month for the first 12 months, $60/month after that. I can get "140+ channels" of TV for $50/month for 12 months, $55-$75/month after that "depending on area".

I can get a bundle with both for $80/month for 12 months, $100/month after.

If I bought them separately I'd pay the same $80/month for the first 12 months, but then the rates jump to $115-$135/month, which is $15-$35 MORE than the bundled rate. So, while it is true that you don't save with a bundle for the first 12 months, the cost is considerably less after that 12 month ends.

I'd call that "saving money".

Of course, if you don't WANT TV, then you cannot possibly save money by getting TV. It's pretty obvious, it's not a "sale" if it is something you don't want. The "save money" condition is that you want both services and would buy them individually without a better priced bundle, which does save you money.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[Anubis IV]

until they get to a point where your entire monthly bill including internet is cheaper than just getting internet itself [...]

Some of them actually do that. Or did. Not sure if they still do.

I was on the phone with Suddenlink a few years back to reduce my subscription from their then-top Internet plan (no bundle) to a mid-tier plan (still no bundle) so I could save some money. The lady mentioned that I could "save $7 by bundling TV", which I understood to be the typical con game you're talking about. I said no, but she pushed back and insisted I'd save $7/mo. by bundling. I explained that I'd actually be paying more and that any amount for TV would be more than I wanted to pay. Finally, she just said, "The total bill will be $43/mo. for the bundle. Not $43 extra, $43 in total, whereas you'll be paying $50 for Internet by itself."

To say the least, I went for the bundle.

I can only assume they made money from someone else in the media distribution chain for keeping me subscribed. I never actually used my cable subscription at all (I hooked it up so guests could watch sports if they wanted to, which happened all of once, I think), but the special pricing lasted for about two years, saving me quite a bit. Of course, whenever the special pricing finally expired without much notice, I didn't realize it until after the fact, so that cost me around $30 for one month of the non-special price of the bundle, but still, it was a net savings.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[DuckDodgers]

Comcast is the only high speed internet I can get other than 4G wireless. My experience has been that the local office staff are quick, knowledgeable, and efficient, and the company phone system is run by Satan and Cthulhu's less loving brother. So if you have any kind of question related to billing, subscription, and options, I suggest going to the closest office instead of torturing yourself on the phone.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[Neuronwelder]

Speed eh? Too bad we can't download content. Then speed would not matter. Worst case, you'd watch the movie a couple days later.

Re:cheaper to keep 'er

[bluefoxlucid]

I simply don't want the instability of future rate changes--granted that can happen anyway, but it's typical for the long-term, non-promotional price to be higher for a bundle than an individual element. They might give me TV for free for 12 months, then what? I don't check my bill and I pay $30 extra one month, and I don't even watch TV!

Yup

[Cro Magnon]

Currently, Time-Spectrum-Warner has my internet, TV, and landline. Even if I cut the TV, they'd still get plenty of money from me, and the potential replacements for TV are all dependent on internet, and TSW isn't any worse on that than the competition.

Re:Yup

[ctilsie242]

Same here. HOA pays for my TV [1], Internet comes out of my pocket, so to me, it is the same cost. Even though I watch YouTube far more than TV, it is the same cost for me in the end. Although Spectrum's app for watching TV on a mobile device is a nice freebie.

[1]: Technically, I pay the HOA, and they pay for the TV...

Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The networks should take scant comfort from this. Yes, people may be keeping the subscriptions because of bundling, but how many are actually watching? I have a bunch of channels bundled with FIOS, but I would estimate 95% of my watching is streaming, with the balance being the occasional sports event.

Re:Misleading

[packrat0x]

Those digital cable boxes send your channel information back to the provider. They don't know if you are actually watching, but they do know what you're tuned to. HDMI might allow the box to know if the TV is on. The ISP service knows where your packets are going to and coming from (eg Netflix). In any case, your provider has a very good idea of what their customers are watching.
Using "subscriber numbers" to describe the market is inaccurate and possibly deceitful.

Re:Misleading

[Neuronwelder]

Agreed. I only watch a few channels. Most of the near 1000 channels are duplicates anyways..

In some areas

[nehumanuscrede]

You can't GET the higher speed internet tiers unless you also subscribe to either cable or voice.

You can get the basic tier, but nothing useful unless you're grandfathered in.

I kicked around upgrading to 100mb service and decided against it after doing the math on how much I would have to spend monthly on cable and hardware fees.

Yes it's Comcast / Xfinity. No there isn't an alternative.

Re:In some areas

[grahamsz]

It's startling how differentiated their offers are when there's real competition in the market. My town has muni fiber so comcast offer 250Mbit service (which is pretty much 300Mbit because of how undersubscribed their network is) for $50/mo with no need to buy any other service.

Re:In some areas

[Overzeetop]

Yup, they've got my town's balls in a vice. Sure, there's NTC (exclusive to some apartments, those poor schmucks) and Verizon (if 7Mb/768k is your idea of high speed internet), but otherwise it's Comcast or nothing. So it's $90 for 75Mb service, and $89 for 75Mb service plus basic cable. Add $10 to kick in ESPN and the other mid-tier channels that DTV charges $35 for and Sling charges $20. When they own the last mile, you're going to pay.

Re:In some areas

[FictionPimp]

In my area I have 1Gbps comcast with no bundling. Just a flat $125 a month.

Re:In some areas

[grahamsz]

That was locked for 2 yrs, though they also promised it'd be updated to 1gbps docsis3 at some point though i'm unclear if that was at the $50 price point

too expensive

[gurps_npc]

The problem with 'cord cutting' is that it's not one streaming service, but many.

After you get Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, CBS all access, Playstation, HBO GO, Sling, you are paying way over $100/month.

It's not easy to compare them either.

Re:too expensive

[fluffernutter]

I think most 'cord cutters' go with one of them to say they did, and then pirate the rest.

Re:too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

After you get Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, CBS all access, Playstation, HBO GO, Sling, you are paying way over $100/month.

Most people don't want or need to subscribe to every freaking streaming service out there.

You must work for the cable company.

Re:too expensive

[known_coward_69]

why would you need all of them since it's double content. I only get HBO during Games of Thrones season and then watch a few other shows i missed during the year

Re:too expensive

[FictionPimp]

You don't need all of that to cut the cord.

We use netflix, Amazon (we would have prime anyways), CBS all access (only when the shows we watch are on), and HBO GO (only when the shows we watch are on), and CW (free with ads).

$12 for netflix * 12
$10 for CBS * 6 for partial year
HBO $15 * 6 for partial year
Amazon (only a few shows that we like at $30-40 a season) Let's call this $40*4

That is $38 a month for TV service. and $125 for my 1gbps internet.

Comcast bundle according to https://www.xfinity.com/learn/... is $160 a month for 75Mbps internet and 200 TV channels.

I'll stick with my cord cutting.

Re:too expensive

[Cro Magnon]

How many do you need? I currently have Netflix and Hulu, which are just over $20. They could replace much of what I watch, and in a financial crunch, I might just do without the rest.

Re:too expensive

[ninthbit]

So some $20 bucks between Hulu/Netflix covers 95% of my needs. Hulu has most of the major networks content. Netflix has been making some great original content you can't get with cable anyways.

CBS is the most annoying obstacle, and they can go fuck themselves. They would get my money if they'd partner with Hulu like everyone else. Hell, if CBS would just make a free Roku app that displayed ads like the OTA channel, that would be fine. But no, I'll never pay for just one channel that broadcasts their media free OTA.

HBO is a "premium" channel no matter how you look at it, so it doesn't count in this argument.

ESPN / NFL is what's really holding the cord cutting masses at bay. Americans just NEED their live sports. I have to wonder how high the stacks of money would grow if Sunday Ticket had a cheaper "select your team" streaming option that let you pick just one team, and you get all of their games.

Re:too expensive

[Albert71292]

I only subscribe to Hulu, CBS All Access, Britbox, and Warner Archive. Less than $40/per month total. With those, and the 22 channels I get over the air, I have more than I actually have time to watch!

Re:too expensive

[DuckDodgers]

It's also an unfair comparison because even with Comcast's top DVR service you can't access everything. It's not like the buyer gets access to all television shows and movies ever made for just $50 per month paid to Comcast. A lot of the content I want isn't available on Comcast, or costs extra on Comcast/Xfinity On Demand, or requires an upgraded channel package that raises the monthly cost another $20.

So to use your example, say the four shows you bought from Amazon aren't available on Comcast for free right now, and you really want to watch Orange is the New Black, Daredevil, and House of Cards on Netflix. Now that's $12*12 + $40*4 you would still be expending even with a Comcast television subscription. That makes your choice between $38 per month for TV service and $125 for 1gbps internet vs. $160 for a Comcast television and internet bundle and $12 for Netflix and an averaged out $13 per month for shows bought on Amazon. $163 vs. $185, you're still better off with your current setup.

Re:too expensive

[Karlt1]

Easiest way to get CBS free on Roku is by setting up a Plex Server and adding the channel.

Re:too expensive

[ninthbit]

Interesting... This could make the wife very happy. Thanks for sharing.

Re:With cellular plans starting...

[Joe_Dragon]

20 GIG of windows updates adds up fast.

Re:Forest Priest

[jonsmirl]

Comcast price list:

$150/mth - TV, Phone, Internet
$150/mth - TV, Internet
$150/mth - TV
$150/mth - Internet ....

Scam

[fluffernutter]

Cable providers can't really be that concerned about cord cutting either, or they would be doing something meaningful like dropping prices 30% rather than just trying to hook people into the next scam designed to look like they're going something but ultimately costing them nothing.

Re:Scam

[TheStickBoy]

You beat me to it!
Supply and demand says that cable prices should rise if there are fewer subscribers.
Monopolies aside.
https://www.sophia.org/tutoria...

Re:Scam

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not how supply and demand works.

Re:Scam

[SeaFox]

Cable providers can't really be that concerned about cord cutting either, or they would be doing something meaningful like dropping prices 30%

They aren't concerned about the cord cutting, they're concerned about the loss of profits, so lowering prices is going to be the last choice they make. First they're try every option to raise revenue from their subscribers they have.

Re:Scam

[fluffernutter]

I would think increased cord cutting as they raise prices would be an obvious sign that the strategy isn't working.

It's cheaper - for 12 months

[shdowhawk]

I just moved across the USA in the last year. In both places I lived, it was actually CHEAPER to buy mid-ranged (20-30 megabit) internet WITH basic cable than it would be to get just internet. In both cases it was 5 dollars cheaper a month as part of a "new signup bundle offer". After 12 months it becomes $15 more expensive to have both, BUT, I was told that I could cancel my television services at that time (and still pay $5 more a month than with the bundle costs).

My assumption is that they are trying to make the cable numbers look better. Note that they didn't show how much TV is actually being watched, only that people are still getting cable services

My second assumption is that they understand the power of laziness and/or non-confrontation. How much work/effort is needed to be on the phone for an hour (or more?) to cancel a service like tv channels while they try to force upsell you new services. I bet they know they can get some percentage of the population to pay the extra money for services they aren't using just to avoid dealing with the cable companies.

Re:It's cheaper - for 12 months

[MrNJ]

It only looks cheaper until you factor in the cost of the cable box + pvr plus whatever tv-specific fees they charge.

Re:It's cheaper - for 12 months

[Overzeetop]

Yup, one month a year I have to turn off my cableTV and pay rack rate so that I qualify for another year of service. Seems like a pretty stupid game, but it's all I've got.

simple, really

[gatfirls]

They just raised the internet prices to cover the basic channels and bundle it so the don't lose the presence on the TV.

Try an Antenna

[WheezyJoe]

If you live in an area that offers decent over-the-air coverage, you owe it to yourself to at least try and see what you can get with an antenna. The FCC offers an online tool to determine what stations are near you by zip code, No Cable offers similar, and ChannelMaster discusses available antennas, signal-strength, and other useful stuff. We're talking full HD TV of the major networks, and probably a few TNT-like channels, all for free like your grandparents remember it when they were growing up, and all it takes is an investment in time and an antenna you can pick up at Radio Shack or Best Buy.

Seriously, it's great. I'm watching the game in full non-compressed HD and not dropping a damn dime for it, thanks to a 14-inch square of plastic I put in the attic.

And the best part, if you already have coax installed throughout your place for delivering Cable, you can re-purpose that same coax to deliver signal from your antenna to every room outlet. Even with a little antenna, coax is so good, even with splitters, the signal from the antenna can deliver HD to all your TV's. The secret is to use as much coax as necessary to place the antenna in a spot in your home where you get best reception, like your attic if you have one, or outside a window. I ran coax from a cable outlet in an unused bedroom into a closet and up through the ceiling into the attic. That connection lit up the remainder of the coax network, via a 1-5 splitter, so that every remaining outlet now supports over 30 channels. Who the hell needs Cable?

Now truly, it all depends on where you live. YMMV. But if you're in an area with good coverage, paying for cable TV is probably losing you money, with or without promotional triple-play deals (there's all those added fees for taxes and cable-box rentals). With an antenna, Internet, and maybe a subscription to Netflix or Sling, most people would have all they need. You got a perfectly good tuner in your TV, so use it.

Re:Try an Antenna

[SpiceWare]

Very true, due to the proliferation of subchannels I'm pick up 129 channels here in the suburbs of Houston. My folks are a bit further south in Lake Jackson and pick up 105 of them - basically there's a few low power station's I can receive that don't reach them.

Re:Try an Antenna

[tepples]

Seriously, [ATSC broadcast is] great. I'm watching the game in full non-compressed HD

It's 19 Mbps: higher bandwidth than many cable TV providers but still compressed with MPEG-2 video and Dolby Digital audio. You'd have a lot fewer channels if it were actually "non-compressed".

Re:Try an Antenna

[antdude]

http://www.tvfool.com/ is very good too. I wished my rural area could get the local channels, but no they get blocked by a stupid small mountain/giant hill, trees, etc. :(

Re: Try an Antenna

[Miamicanes]

I don't know about Houston, but in Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, the subchannels are all so compressed and blocky, watching them will make your eyes feel like they're going to bleed. And most of them are religious channels, Spanish channels, or shopping/infomercial channels. As of a few days ago, we only have EIGHT English-language OTA HD channels... and *maybe* 5-8 unwatchably-pixelated subchannels that aren't religious, Spanish, or home shopping.

Re:Try an Antenna

[seinman]

The OP probably means "recompressed." The OTA feeds are 19 Mbps, but when they are redistributed on cable or satellite systems, the provider usually compresses them further, down to under 8 Mbps in some cases (Comcast). Some also convert 1080i and 1080p feeds to 720p.

Re: Try an Antenna

[SpiceWare]

Yeah, there's a lot channels in Spanish, others in Vietnamese, Chinese, Farsi, etc. as well as the religious channels (those are super pixelated - they appear to be more worried about quantity rather than quality).

Out of the 129 channels there's probably about 20 of them I regularly watch(rather like getting hundreds of channels via DirecTV, but only regularly watching a few dozen - of course, I'm no longer paying for the channels I don't watch!). The High Def channels (ABC, NBC, PBS, KUBE, ION, etc) all look significantly better than they did on DirecTV. Likewise the Standard Def subchannels that I do watch look better (though not significantly) than comparable SD channels I used to watch on DirecTV.

The SD channels I watch are: This TV, Heroes & Icons, Laff(comedies), Movies!, Decades, Buzzr(game shows), Antenna TV, Comet TV(sci fi), The Works (though this network was dissolved last month and has been replaced by Charge! and I've not yet watched anything on it), MeTV, Get TV, and Grit.

Re: Try an Antenna

[Miamicanes]

The OTA channels generally look better than they did on DirecTV, except when there's lightning. I'm pretty sure our local CW, Fox, and ABC affiliates are broadcasting GOPs that are *way* longer than 15 frames (IBBPBBPBBPBBPBB), because noise bursts (like nearby lightning) seem to derail them and make the picture & audio fall apart for at *least* a second or two.

What ATSC *should* do is keep the same 8vsb transport layer, but allow broadcasters to use their 19.2mbps link budget to send a primary MPEG-2 stream (compatible with current standards), but use their remaining bits for one or more h.265 streams (with faster error-recovery than we have now). That way, they could launch it with a single SD h.265 stream at the tail end of each data chunk, then drop the primary stream's bitrate to 6-8mbps (using the balance for the new h.265 stream), then move the subchannels from MPEG-2 to h.265, and finally drop the legacy MPEG-2 primary stream down to SD bitrate & reallocate the bits to the primary h.265 stream (enabling 1080p60, 1536p30, 2160p24, etc... maybe even native 24, 25, 48, 50, 72, or even 100fps streams, if they can get TVs to handle on-the-fly mode changes like ATSC was *supposed* to (but apparently doesn't, since NO OTA station I'm aware of changes modes on the fly today). It would be kind of nice to be able to watch British TV shows at 720p50 or 1080p25 without telecine judder like we have now, and 720p100 is a *visible* step up from 720p60(*) (at least, when viewed side by side, 720p100 is clearly smoother).

(*) 120fps is visually indistinguishable from 100fps... the next visible step up from 100fps requires 150fps for high-contrast motion, and 200-300fps to see a difference with lower-contrast content. Since 100fps is as good as 120, we might as well go with 100 & make everyone's lives easier going forward).

Re: Try an Antenna

[SpiceWare]

I know the ATSC spec was updated to include support for h.264 back in 2008, and that they are working on the 3.0 update which will include h.265. I believe Airbox is using h.264 to transmit premium channels like Starz and Showtime over the air.

Re:Misleading (Mod OP UP views not subscriptions)

[shoor]

If I had points I'd have modded the anonymous coward up. I'm also wondering, are you forced to watch commercials with cable or paid for streaming services? If so, that would make the need for actual viewers more acute, assuming advertisers are actually paying attention.

Re:Forest Priest

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast price list:

$150/mth - TV, Phone, Internet
$150/mth - TV, Internet
$150/mth - TV
$150/mth - Internet ....

Its more like $200/mth for just internet.

Ive tried several times to drop my TV, but every time the cost comes out greater than if I just left it in.

Re:Try an Antenna - might add Roku & Plex as w

[walterbyrd]

I use an antenna, and also add Rokus, and have Plex on my FreeBSD desktop.

During "Game of Thrones" I sign up for HBO Go - it costs $15 a month.

I also sign up for netflix off and on, and may go with Amazon Prime, since I buy stuff from Amazon anyway.

Works great, I am not missing anything.

City Fiber

[Bigbutt]

In checking my neighborhood forums, it seems like there are a lot of people cutting the comcast cord. I'm getting gig up and down for $48 a month but I personally am not much of a TV watcher. I have, mainly because the wife was watching and I wanted to share but now that I'm single, I haven't watched TV in 5 years. Not even as background noise.

I am starting to get advertising from some fiber based TV service out of Denver which would increase the price beyond what I was paying for comcast but again, I don't watch TV so to the bin it goes :)

[John]

Verizon gave me a cable box I never used

[zerofoo]

Verizon also made me an offer I couldn't refuse - a triple play at the double play price. The installation tech said that he had to activate the box, but that I didn't have to use it.

So he powered up the box, activated it, and then stuck it on a shelf in my basement.

I guess Verizon was hoping I would rent a movie from them instead of Amazon.

Re:Forest Priest

[Notabadguy]

Comcast price list:

$150/mth - TV, Phone, Internet
$150/mth - TV, Internet
$150/mth - TV
$150/mth - Internet ....

You forgot a couple:

$150/mth - no service but bills anyway
$300/mth - Double billed on a regular basis
$30/mth - miscellaneous charges if you don't call and complain

Bundle != Using It.

[ripvlan]

Dear NBC/CBS/Fox/ABC et al - we aren't channel surfing on a Friday night, although we do watch some of your shows....via your apps on our AppleTV rather than using, say, a DVR (which we don't have). Comcast makes us buy TV service in order to have the higher speed internet (in my area that is speeds higher than 15mb/s)

So yes - we pay for it. But only to get to 50mb/s service (although that was recently upgraded to 100mb/s a few months ago).

I purchased the cheapest bundle to get high speed as both my wife and I work from home occasionally -- and the real reason is that we stream netflix on our iPads separately at night :-) Also - I can receive OTA which we used to do until realizing we needed more than 25mb/s service.

We spend most of our time watching Netflix and a bit of Amazon Prime. I pulled the power cord from the oversized Xfinity device so that my baby daughter wouldn't burn her hand on it.

While I've been tempted to watch the "free" bundled HBO I find the menu system on Xfinity to be tiresomely complex and slow. I just want to see the channels I subscribe to - not the other 960 that I don't. My Pavlovian response has developed "if the channel takes more than 2 seconds to appear - it isn't part of my subscription"

Re:Bundle != Using It.

[91degrees]

Do they care whether you use it? They get the money and the "subscriber". I have no idea how more subscribers really helps them - seems this would give more leverage to the networks - but presumably it does.

Re:Bundle != Using It.

[ripvlan]

Fair point - I think it does matter though when carrier negotiations come up. The Cable company will claim that X million people watch (look at our subscriber data) and the Networks will claim Y actually watch.

Of course now that Xfinity can track what people actually watch they have the data. Of course in my house - my daughter presses the On button for the "box" to see the blue ring light up. So whatever channel is on is reported as watched for "24 hours" until I feel like turning it off.

She's a great MTBF tester... loves pressing the button on...off..on...off..on.

Re:Misleading (Mod OP UP views not subscriptions)

[Cro Magnon]

I don't know about the AC, but my streaming is Netflix and Hulu (ad-free). I still watch regular TV, but much less than I used to, and streaming isn't that far from being GoodEnough (tm). And even with regular TV, I FF past most of the ads.

Re:Forest Priest

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the extra charges for TV they don't tell you about. The 'franchise fee' only applied to TV (at least when I had them).

Re:Forest Priest

[HornWumpus]

I pay $70/month for 100 Mb/sec from Comcast.

Re:Forest Priest

[cayenne8]

I pay $70/month for 100 Mb/sec from Comcast.

I was about to suggest folks look into seeing if they offer business internet in their area.

I've had a Cox cable account for a LONG time at $69/mo. No caps, I can run servers (no blocked ports)...etc.

Granted, my plan is so old, it isn't offered anymore to the public, but I"ve checked and the ones offered currently are still comparable in price and possibly more in speed.

It's not like you have to show a lot of proof you are a "business"....

I happen to need mine as that I work from home. When I cut the cord, I didn't calculate it into the mix. But prior to this, I had UVerse U200..was about $115 or so here a month.

I ditched that, put up an OTA antenna hooked to a tivo and tivo minis to each room for DVR and watching my local HD channels, and paired with with amazon FireTv units on each tv that stream Playstation VUE for $35/mo, which also has DVR capabilities and provides all my "cable channels".

I only lost 2 channels I used to kinda watch, Velocity and AXS....but I'm doing fine without those.

So, cutting the cord, I went from $115/mo to $35/mo.

But do look around and look into business connections and you should be able to find internet for a reasonable un-bundled rate.

Re:With cellular plans starting...

[cayenne8]

With american cellular plans starting to offer reasonable amounts of "unlimited*" data, it's getting easier to actually cut the cord.

Well, that's just fine when you're out and about or traveling and want to watch stuff....

But when I'm at home, I want full quality and no limits....

I didn't buy 55" OLED 4K tv's to just watch them at low rez, and have to worry about data caps/slowdowns hitting...

I suppose if you watch your media on nothing ever bigger than a 8" screen, then this would work, but for many that made a reasonable living and have nice TVs at home, you need a larger, more dependable pipe...

Saving $1500 a year's pretty significant to me

[SpiceWare]

From the Looking back entry of my DVR Project blog series.

savings would be what I used to pay DirecTV ($146 a month) less purchasing shows à la cart - buying seasons via Amazon, iTunes, and physical media (Blu-ray & DVD sets).
...
I ended up saving $4575 over the past three years, for an average savings of $1525 per year!

YMMV

Re:Forest Priest

[avandesande]

not sure where you are getting this number from I am paying 45$ month for 100

Because NOchoice

[sdinfoserv]

Because the cable cartels have ensured via their pwnd representatives consumers have no choices. Cord cutting requires internet access of some type. It's the same company that offer phone/cable/internet. I tried to switch off the horrible comcast - I live in Seattle and my only other choice is a Frontier DLS with 3mb bandwidth.... really? someone in the US actually sells 3MB bandwidth? GAH!
Meanwhile in Australia, they're rolling out 1GB over LTE! Really! http://www.itwire.com/mobility...
The Country invented both the Internet and the Cell Phone doesn't even rank in the top 10 of global internet speeds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is just a colossal testimonial of how free market, greed, and the oligarchy no longer permit innovation.

Re:Because NOchoice

[tepples]

Meanwhile in Australia, they're rolling out 1GB over LTE!

From the linked page: "Gigabit LTE will chew up that $100 in under 10 seconds."

When I tried that with Cox

[rsilvergun]

they told me (politely) not to let the door hit ya where the dog shoulda bit ya. Still $50 bucks cheaper for Internet only.

Invalid survey sample

[Rastl]

So they surveyed about 2,000 people. Out of the 22 million current customers. I think that falls into the "statistically insignificant" range of data samples.

Re:Forest Priest

[peragrin]

I pay 80 month for 200 Mbs from Comcast

I actually get it to. I upgraded my routers and wifi to pull that.

Speeds and price vary drastically by area

Re:Forest Priest

[Gr8Apes]

business connections run about $100/month minumum here, but it is 100/100.

Re:Forest Priest

[locopuyo]

CenturyLink gigabit fiber:

$155/month - Internet
$130/month - TV, Internet

I actually added TV to save $25 a month and don't even use it.

Seems like things are going backwards

[mike2006]

Seems like things are going backwards in favor of the cable providers. I spend most of my viewing time on watching Netflix, Amazon Prime and various other channels available on multiple Roku's I own. So it looked so promising that I would be cord cutting with my multiple Roku's. But then Roku went full retard with their firmware updates making my boxes unstable and many channels completely unusable. It seems like all channel development and support from the providers stopped as well.

So okay I figured they screwed my Roku boxes so lets look at alternatives and they did not look as good as Roku. So ultimately ny old cable TV boxes are now far more impressive and stable compared to cord cutting solutions. This not to mention the hoops I had to jump through to add each channel to each Roku box. Sling was a consideration but a subscription for each box forget about it.

Yep, sure looks like we have gone backwards as far as cord cutting.

Re:Seems like things are going backwards

[thejynxed]

You can manage your Sling through the Sling app for Roku, you might want to consider giving that a shot if you haven't.

Not only pro but also college sports are on cable

[tepples]

I don't watch professional sports, which makes it much easier to ditch paid television service.

Most college sports here in the United States are on cable as well. Last I checked, the College Football Playoff was on ESPN, and the NCAA Final Four was on TBS in alternate years, with many games in the rounds of 64, 32, 16, and 8 also on Turner cable channels.

Re:Misleading (Mod OP UP views not subscriptions)

[tepples]

And even with regular TV, I FF past most of the ads.

Using the DVR rented from the cable company, a $750* TiVo DVR, or something else? If the last, which?

* $200 for the hardware and $550 for the required program guide subscription.

Not all OTT VOD providers offer pre-caching

[tepples]

If you need your pipe to be dependable, then it sounds like you're stuck a few decades back in tech time with streaming. You should come forward to the 21st century when enormous hard disks became affordable.

How do you (legally) fill such a hard drive with professionally produced video entertainment? Last I checked, Netflix was testing a pre-cache option in some regions but hadn't expanded pre-cache to its full library or to all regions where it offers service.

Re:Not all OTT VOD providers offer pre-caching

[HornWumpus]

Legal smegal. God damn law abiders.

My roommate is a C-SPAN and MSNBC junkie

[tepples]

The only reason to have live TV is to gossip about reality TV as if the "stars" are real and their life events matter.

That doesn't help people who live with a C-SPAN and MSNBC junkie, such as my roommate. Her favorite "soap opera" is the Trump administration. Or do you claim that U.S. politicians aren't real and the legislation they enact does not matter to U.S. residents?

Re:My roommate is a C-SPAN and MSNBC junkie

[fluffernutter]

Oh c'mon isn't Trump adorable? I love that crazy guy. I read today that he criticized Obama's vacation spending but he has already spent a fifth of what Obama spent in 8 years. Because the place he goes is NOT Camp David where it is set up for security, and they need to close the airport and pay a full police force for crowd control. He's a peach. I wonder how much the average wage is at the resort he stays at.

They're not always "double content"

[tepples]

why would you need all of them since it's double content.

They're not always "double content", as you claim, as many series are exclusive to one service. A recent article by Mark Hill used the following example:

I'm going to name eight television shows. They're all popular, critically acclaimed, or hotly anticipated, and I'd like you to guess what makes this group unique. [...]

Game Of Thrones, The Handmaid's Tale, BoJack Horseman, The Man In The High Castle, Twin Peaks (the revival), American Gods, Star Trek: Discovery, and My Brother, My Brother And Me.

[Answer:] each is exclusive to a different subscription service: HBO, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, Showtime, Starz, CBS All Access, and Seeso, respectively. If you want to legally watch all of them, it will cost you 69 (nice) dollars a month.

Re:Misleading (Mod OP UP views not subscriptions)

[shoor]

What I watch is plain old Over the Air Broadcast TV with a TV tuner card (I think you can get them for about $50 nowadays, depending on features, most of them are USB sticks.) I use it to record digital broadcast programs on my computer. (There's a very elaborate TV recording setup called MythTV but I find that me-tv suits me, though I can only get it to work with Linux Mint, and there must be similar things for Windows and OS X.)

have you ever tried to cut TV?

[platinummyr]

It takes someone with the patience of a rock to actually get the person on the other end of the phone to actually cancel your TV service. Oh, and because of bundling this saves you.... zero money.

Re:Misleading (Mod OP UP views not subscriptions)

[tepples]

I'm interested. Does the recording keep up even if you're using the computer as your primary workstation at the same time, or do you pretty much have to build a second computer and dedicate it to DVR duty?

Cable companies desperate to sell TV at any cost

[oven]

I live in Norway, and recently got fiber installed from Canal Digital. The price was about $100 per month for 100 Mbit/s Internet + TV. Recent new legislation in Norway requires cable companies to offer Internet without TV, so I called to cancel my TV subscription. They said it couldn't be done. I persisted. They said I that if I keep my TV subscription, they'd give me 500 Mbit/s Internet and TV for $95 per month. I accepted, of course, but I returned the set-top box, so I can't actually watch TV. So now I have more bandwidth than I know what to do with, and I tick the right boxes in their statistics. Apparently, it's *very* important to them that people appear to subscribe to their TV service.

Re: Misleading (Mod OP UP views not subscriptions)

[Voyager529]

Okay, so...the first thing is far the best bang for the buck you'll get is a SiliconDust Homerun HD Prime. Get a CableCard from your provider, and give it a coax line, an Ethernet cable, and some power.
Now, any computer on your network is a DVR. Still running Windows 7? Windows Media Center is amazing. MythTV is excellent, and Plex just released a DVR module.

These (and a few more) can run on whatever computer is convenient, but the bigger question is playback - if your DVR computer isn't hooked up to your TV, you're looking at a client/server model. MythTV does this pretty well, and WMC is also capable of it.
Be aware that if you have HBO (or your cable company is terrible enough to introduce the copy protect flags), most OSS applications won't be able to record the stream.

It'll probably take a Saturday afternoon to iron everything out, but it's *so* worth it.

Get your rates from the website before calling.

[PJ6]

I called to get set up with Comcast and they quoted me outrageous rates for basic internet, which were nearly the same as if I bundled other crap on top of it. I said, I want the rate I see here on your website, just the basic service. The person on the phone refused to admit the rate existed, then acknowledged that it did but said that she wasn't allowed to offer it over the phone. I said, give me the plan or it's false advertising.

For $40/month, gods be with me, I got an internet connection so fast it maxes out my local network. I get nearly 12MB/second sustained, even over hours, and I don't even know how much faster it really is because I haven't bothered upgrading everything to gigabit.

Was it because I was firm but polite? Maybe a mistake? I may never know.

So yeah. I hate Comcast too, but I'm pretty happy with them right now.

Re:Forest Priest

[amxcoder]

Yes, this is absolutely correct. When had a bundled package, it appears that the package is say $90/mo advertised, but by the time you get the bill, and they tack on taxes, surcharges, rental fee's, and other crap that you have to google to even find out what it is, the bill comes out at least 10% higher if not more, so you end up paying over $100/mo. Similar to cell phone plans that we all are used to.

Once I cut the cord, and dropped TV/Phone and am only paying for internet. The advertised price is $59/mo and my actual bill is exactly $59/mo. All these surcharges and taxes and fees are not applied to internet only service, only to TV and Phone services. So the actual difference is more than appears on paper, even if the advertised rates are close for bundled vs. non-bundled.

Re:Cable companies desperate to sell TV at any cos

[thejynxed]

It is because the more subscribers they can show, the better prices they are able to negotiate from channel providers.

Re:Forest Priest

[amxcoder]

And that is the problem with bundling and the promo prices. I've fallen into the trap myself, at least knowingly. You see the price for internet, and the price for a promo bundle, and say, "hey, I can get the bundle for almost the same money". But the problem is, that the promo price is only for so long, and eventually runs out and a year or two down the road, you realize that your monthly bill is now $200. Then you either have to play their game of "call in and try to get another promo price", or move to another service, or say screw-it and take the price hike on the chin.

Re:Misleading (Mod OP UP views not subscriptions)

[shoor]

Recording of broadcast TV is not that demanding actually. Mostly it's just copy data from the device without trying to decode it. A one hour, full resolution TV broadcast, when recorded on my system might be 8 gig. So you're copying 8 gig of data in an hour when you record. (I have had 1 hour programs that were as much as 12 gig, but that's unusual.)

Playback is a different matter. If you've got a full resolution high definition recording, you need some CPU horsepower to get a smooth playback. Nevertheless, on my not so very new or powerful main computer I can watch a program from the file while it's being recorded. (My cheap little notebook computer is a different matter.)

Re:Forest Priest

[Avarist]

In the meanwhile in dirty socialist Europe I pay 35€ for superfast unlimited internet and I don't need to bundle it with anything. All that because we have actual competition.

Re:Forest Priest

[MoarSauce123]

I compared what I pay for FiOS and what cord cutting would save me. Result: a measly few bucks. In return, I have to haggle with different providers and applications to get the TV content that I want....on one TV. Add a second TV and costs go up, adding a third analog TV and forget it. In the end cord cutting costs the same and adds more complexity and inconvenience. YMMV.

Re: Forest Priest

[MoarSauce123]

The franchise fee is not bullshit, but the cut your local politicians want to get from the deal. As cable TV provider they have to pay a per subscriber fee to be allowed to operate in a municipality. That fee is passed through. If you do not like that fee, tell your local politicians to do away with it. I am sure they will gladly do in conjunction with raising property taxes.

Re:Not only pro but also college sports are on cab

[thejynxed]

My wife and I were in this predicament of needing ESPN, etc, until we decided since we really only like college football, and the only team we particularly care about is the Mountaineers (her alma mater). We ditched cable sports entirely, get season tickets every year and just drive to Morgantown for the home games. Sure, we rent a hotel room and pay for gas and food, but it's been worth it no matter if they win or lose. Homecoming game alone makes it all worth the costs and travel time involved just for the social experience.

Re: Forest Priest

[bryanp]

I have AT&T Uverse, just internet, 45Mb $60/mo. I mounted a compact yagi antenna in my attic, hooked up my HTPC and it's just fine.

Re: Forest Priest

[toddestan]

The fee is paid as compensation for using public property, right of ways, etc. for their privately owned cable TV network that is operated for profit. I would prefer not subsidizing Comcast's network with my taxes, so I'm perfectly happy with making Comcast (or their subscribers) pay for it.

Of course, in my opinion it's just another cost of doing business that should just be rolled into the bill. But if they decide they must break it out, they need to be perfectly clear that they are doing so and be able to tell you exactly how much the fee is going to be. The long list of various tacked on fees you don't know about until your bill arrives is total bullshit that needs to be stopped.