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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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:Forest Priest

[jonsmirl]

Comcast price list:

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

Re:too expensive

[fluffernutter]

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

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.

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.

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 - 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.

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

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

[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: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.