Slashdot Mirror


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.

10 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. They own the networks and content by OffTheLip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:They own the networks and content by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. cheaper to keep 'er by whoozwah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Forest Priest by jonsmirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comcast price list:

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

  5. Re:In some areas by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. It's cheaper - for 12 months by shdowhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Try an Antenna by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:Try an Antenna by SpiceWare · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  8. Re:Try an Antenna - might add Roku & Plex as w by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.