Slashdot Mirror


Cord-Cutters Are Ditching Their Cable Packages At the Fastest Rate Ever (axios.com)

Sara Fischer, writing for Axios: Cord-cutters are ditching their cable packages at the fastest rate ever, opting instead for cheaper, bundled digital TV options, according to the latest Magid Broadcast Study. The trend reflects consumers' preferences to ditch bundled cable packages for more affordable, niche bundled services that can be accessed on TV box tops or on mobile. For consumers, there are more bundled packages than ever, all popping up around similar price ranges. YouTube TV and Hulu TV launched within the past two month, joining the likes of SlingTV and DirectTV Now -- all at a roughly $40 monthly price point -- a bargain considering the average American pays $92 monthly for cable.

204 comments

  1. Data caps by Chewbacon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'll just keep tightening the data caps in their favor. Keeps me from watching 4K streaming which I can't even get on cable.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    1. Re: Data caps by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Why would he need to do that? And why should he subsidize you? Do you want communism? Because that's how you get communism!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Data caps by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      They'll just keep tightening the data caps in their favor.

      No, I don't think they will. Comcast has been very smart in this regard. The current cap is typically 1TB which is plenty enough for streaming today, but Comcast knows that eventually, higher resolution, more usage and other factors will make that 1TB a real limitation on data usage for many subscribers.

      Then Comcast will leverage that limitation for greater profits, all without ever decreasing the data cap.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Data caps by mentil · · Score: 2

      They increased it from 500GB to 1TB for the tiny number of people affected by the trial of cable internet caps. For everyone else, it went from unlimited to 1TB. My friend's family hits the cap sometimes just from sharing Hulu.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:Data caps by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      Their new cap is not actually 1 TB. Officially, it's 1024 MB (= 1.024 TB), but in practice, it's actually more than that. I have measured it at being at least 1065 MB for the past 3 months, or a little less than 1000 GiB (= 1.07374 TB). My guess is that their bandwidth warning of "100% of 1024 MB" is triggered a few GB before the actual 100% mark, so that you're given a few GB of "slush" in which to wind down your usage. So, by advertising the cap as 1024 MB but over-delivering as 1065 MB, everyone is happy. The 100% warning then actually occurs at 104% of the promised cap.

    5. Re:Data caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American wit calling others trump voters you people really hate it when a politician does't take corruption money.

    6. Re:Data caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Officially, it's 1024 MB (= 1.024 TB)

      Unit conversion fail

    7. Re: Data caps by Berkyjay · · Score: 2

      Says the two Anonymous Cowards.

    8. Re:Data caps by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      We were hitting the cap x3 months streaming. 4K really eats it up at like 10-15GB per hour.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    9. Re:Data caps by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is why my own measurements of data usage differs from theirs. They always say I'm using more. However, they still charge me.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    10. Re:Data caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't need to. He has his own.

    11. Re: Data caps by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      AC is just trolling.

      It was actually people subscribing to cable in such big numbers that the demand put upward pressure on the prices. People wanting to cut the cord has put downward pressure in the form of skinny bundles, but the cable companies ultimately have to deal with the content providers that essentially charge whatever they want, and the content providers behave more like a content cabal, and refuse to sell their content to anybody who doesn't also buy content from a bunch of their other friends.

      And because of that, the bundles can only get so skinny.

    12. Re:Data caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you want to know how Trump beat Clinton? It's because the conduct of her supporters. The constant berating and insults thrown at Trump supporters pissed people off. And pissed off voters would vote for anyone as long as it upset Clinton's supporters.

      And all the people cheering on the investigations of Trump don't realize their actions will ensure reciprocal treatment against their guy in the future. We have already lost any honest and impartial News related media outlets. The NY Times spouts more propaganda then Pravda. Chances are none of the investigations will produce evidence of wrong doing. The only outcome is a bitterly divided and hostile public.

    13. Re: Data caps by mallyn · · Score: 1

      You make me laugh so hard that my neighbours complained of the noise!!! I love you!

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    14. Re:Data caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caps are not acceptable. Period.

      They are fueled by greed, not "technological limitations", so don't give me that crap.

    15. Re:Data caps by DuckDodgers · · Score: 0

      Because the Trump supporters were so civil to other Republicans, to Sanders, and to Clinton? Really? You must have been following different news and social media than the rest of the world.

      There are no shining examples of diplomatic behavior on any side in this past election. It's absurd to claim that the conduct of the Clinton supporters was an obnoxious anomaly and Trump supporters were classy.

    16. Re:Data caps by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I regularly hit 1TiB/week from streaming and it's just my wife and I at home, and we don't watch that much. 20Mbit/s streams tear up bandwidth. We also like to stream while we're away from home so the cats have some noise. They have separation anxiety and the noise helps. For $99.99/m, I could get a dedicated 500/500 fiber connection. Guaranteed to get that rate to my ISP's transit provider 24x7. I prefer to save money and only have 150/150 for $50, $52.75 after taxes and fees, NOT promo and out of contract.

  2. Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I want to know is how to get cheap internet ONLY. Any suggestions?

    1. Re: Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's called dialup, you stupid motherfucker. Now GTFO.

    2. Re:Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon. It's fun to whine about how much they suck on the internet, but their fiber smokes any shitty comcast bullshit.

    3. Re:Cheap internet by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      What I want to know is how to get cheap internet ONLY.

      The marginal cost to the cable company of providing you with TV service is exactly $0. So there is no logical reason that Internet-Only should be cheaper than Internet+TV.

    4. Re:Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must be a unicorn, but in 10 years I've never had a problem with Comcast.

    5. Re:Cheap internet by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true- many of their deals with channel providers require per subscriber fees.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd love to be able to get FiOS, but I've never once lived in a building where it was available. I've lived in buildings all over Chicago and Los Angeles, and none of them were able to receive it.

    7. Re:Cheap internet by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      The marginal cost to the cable company of providing you with TV service is exactly $0.

      So the cable companies are pirating all of their content? It would seem that they are even more evil than we thought.

    8. Re:Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you do business with Comcast?

    9. Re:Cheap internet by avandesande · · Score: 1

      They used to be terrible but the last couple of years I have had good service, including a move a few months ago that went flawlessly. My monthly usage is low and I have been able to negotiate good rates for high bandwidth service.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re:Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast *BUSINESS* service is pricey, but generally excellent service (and you can get it run to your residence).

      Comcast *RESIDENTIAL* - i.e. Xfinity - sucks donkey balls.

    11. Re: Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second this! I have frontier fios 150/150 for 100 a month no cap

      Fiber the only way to go!

    12. Re: Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our new Comcast internet is much better than the years we were using CenturyLink.

      Century Link seems to think there can never be a problem that isn't in the last mile. I.e. rock solid DSL connection, but no Internet connection. Their aupport people only know about modem power switches.

      Xfinity came out and pulled cable and got us connected in the afternoon of Easter Sunday. They are definitely not run by Hobby Lobby.

    13. Re:Cheap internet by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "So there is no logical reason that Internet-Only should be cheaper than Internet+TV."

      Costs are not prices.

    14. Re:Cheap internet by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      My folks have 100/25 Mbps fiber for $40 a month. Mine is more, but it's also faster.

    15. Re:Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure ESPN would be sad to hear you say that....

    16. Re:Cheap internet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A few years ago, I lived in a house where there were two separate buildings on the same property: my house which was very old and another newer house on top of a garage they managed to cram onto the same lot. The two houses were rented separately.

      The property had both Comcrap and Verizon FIOS available. I opted for Comcrap because it was a little cheaper. The guy in the house behind me got FIOS.

      Comcrap was terrible when I tried to unsubscribe after living there a couple of years, and it was also annoying I had to pay for a service visit to get it installed when I moved in, but between those two days, everything worked just fine.

      My neighbor, OTOH, had constant problems with FIOS. The box on the side of his house constantly needed to be reset, and he had to come bug me about it because part of that box was in my garage (I had one of the two garage bays in that building as part of my lease). It was really quite annoying. I think his internet service was even out for a week at one point.

    17. Re: Cheap internet by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      the sad part is you think that's a 'good' deal.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    18. Re: Cheap internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I'm in New Zealand and have 1000/500 & no cap for $135 NZD / month

    19. Re:Cheap internet by mallyn · · Score: 1

      I agree Comcast Business has been good to me. Now, of course, much of my downloaded is source code from the Kernel (www.kernel.org), which I believe is smaller than video and streaming.

      --
      Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
    20. Re:Cheap internet by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      The next time I move, I seriously plan to demand a demonstration of high speed internet connections from two different providers (ideally three or more) on premises before I put in a bid for the property or a deposit for the rent. And not just, "Yes, it's available on these premises." But actually, "Here is the connected, active FiOS connection and the connected, active Comcast connection. You can plug in your laptop to each one and use traceroute and independent speed tests to verify the two connections don't have the same hops, and have different connectivity speeds."

      ...unfortunately, I expect a lot of other tech-savvy people to make the same demands, which means the prices on well-connected housing will be even crazier than they were before.

    21. Re:Cheap internet by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I've had Comcast internet service on my property for fifteen years. The billing and sales department of Comcast comes from the seventh level of hell. Maybe the eighth. But service? Rock solid. I've had two service outages in the past five years, each for less than two hours. Consistent bandwidth, too.

    22. Re:Cheap internet by avandesande · · Score: 1

      This is for residential service.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    23. Re:Cheap internet by ftolar69 · · Score: 0

      in my area, Verizon took millions of dollars to lay fiber. They laided very little and kept the money. You can count the number of cities and towns with fiber on one hand, and you wouldn't use all five fingers. Verizon makes Comcast look angelic.

    24. Re:Cheap internet by SandWyrm · · Score: 1

      You should move to northern Indianapolis then. Fiber all the way to the box baby! No caps!

      The FiOS wall-to-box connection is actually kind of a pain though, because the FiOS cable cracks whenever the kids mess with the tangle of stuff behind the TV. Every once in a while we have to call the provider out to replace it.

    25. Re: Cheap internet by Xicor · · Score: 1

      people lucky enough to have google fiber get 1000/1000 and no cap for 70$

    26. Re:Cheap internet by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I only had Comcrap for 2 years, but I had the exact same experience: the internet service was rock solid, but billing and sales were utterly demonic.

  3. US only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article refers to digital services/packages that are only available in the United States.

  4. Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are significant costs to produce TV shows. You cheap bastards are ruining TV and driving networks out of business. All cord-cutters are cheapskate assholes who are ruining TV for the rest of us.

    1. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by powerlord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are significant costs to produce TV shows. You cheap bastards are ruining TV and driving networks out of business. All cord-cutters are cheapskate assholes who are ruining TV for the rest of us.

      Oh woe is us! However did television exist before Cable TV? However will television survive?

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    2. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. My Netflix monthly fees goes directly towarding funding TV shows and movies.

      You're the asshole who's still overpaying for cable instead of helping Netflix fund more TV shows and movies.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      and Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc are managing to produce these just fine, thanks.The cable-cutters are getting tired of paying for 200-channel packages they watch maybe a dozen from (i.e. Disney/ABC/ESPN , or Discovery channels). The major sports leagues are starting to offer streaming options , once people can get live sports online without a cable contract those companies are utterly fscked.

    4. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apparently you Millennials don't know what an 'antenna' is, just like you can't read a clock that has hands instead of just numbers.

    5. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Soon you will be allowed to pay for your sport directly. Via a streaming subscription to NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL, F1 etc etc

      Stop trying to freeload. Fuck you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yea.. at $10 for the NBA, $10 for MLB, $12 for NFL, $10 for NHL, etc.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Axtually, you're right, perhaps I should embrace cord-cutting. I'd really like to pay for sports, but not pay for things I don't want such as Star Trek and BET. If cord-cutting allows me to do that, then that actually sounds great.

    8. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Hands? That is so 18th century!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    9. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You forgot pay for but still endure many commercial breaks... I don't mind content with commercials like on the cwtv website so long as I'm not paying for it.

    10. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Surprise! I have an analog-face clock at home that's WiFi enabled and gets it's time-sync from the NTP server daemon on my desktop computer, which has a GPS receiver connected to it, so it's basically a Stratum-2 source. Between that and the TCXO that's single-digit PPM accurate, it stays accurate within 1 second all year 'round. Where is your digital-clock God now? xD

    11. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      I BUY the shows I like.

      If the rest burn down in a giant cataclysm then I am fine with that.

      We didn't cut the cord to be cheap. We cut the cord to avoid subsidizing crap we despise.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft.
      Even my garage has a WWV synced clock.

    13. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by EvilSS · · Score: 0

      Apparently you Millennials don't know what an 'antenna' is, just like you can't read a clock that has hands instead of just numbers.

      Awwww... That's so cute that you think there are actually Millennials on /.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    14. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      For all the government subsidies given to build and maintain the stadiums for these sports, they should be broadcast OTA for no additional cost, and the broadcast simulcast streamed online.

    15. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you promise TV will die? I might need to get a bigger, more powerful wire cutter to help that along. Can we rope Pro Sports to TV and scuttle the whole thing at once?

      Slashdot is a nerd site, you know....

    16. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually us cord-cutters are paying for some decent content finally. All the best shows are on HBO, Showtime, Netflix, and Amazon. You non-cord cutters are paying for the same old crappy shows you have always gotten, and if they disappeared, I wouldn't care.

    17. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      All those($42) + $8 for netflix is still cheaper than your $100 cable bill.

    18. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      $10/month? The packages are more than that. But soon you won't have a choice anyhow as the sports will all try to fully monetize their fan base.

      The right solution is to have a circle of friends each get one sport, then stream the games/races between the group. Deciding which 'in car view' you want could be an issue but other than that, it's pretty bullet proof, until two teams are playing at the same time. Best to form the group between fans of the same team.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all the government subsidies given to build and maintain the stadiums for these sports, they should be broadcast OTA for no additional cost, and the broadcast simulcast streamed online.

      Um, unless you live in a super rural area that doesn't have OTA coverage, you can watch all of the major sporting events OTA for no additional cost. I do agree that a simulcast streamed online would be nice.

    20. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have a digital clock with an analog face.

    21. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      ESPN already owns enough NFL to make some playoff games 'cable only'. That will only get worse.

      Unless you die soon, you will see a pay per view super bowl. Karnak sees the future...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I'm a cord cutter and they offered me a great deal to keep cable.

      My cable bill with HBO is $10 a month-about $11 with tax. And I can change from HBO to Showtime on a month to month basis.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    23. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      My solution is to not watch sports at all except "greatest plays" on youtube. And mostly incredible down hill skiing stuff.

      NFL and MLB have been ruined for me. It's just a bunch of millionaires in a cartel running around trying to pump money out of the rest of society.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1
      I've got 4 of those. They only sync once every 24 hours, my other clock can be set to sync every minute if I want. Oh and by the way what genius decided to use a harmonic of AC line frequency for the carrier wave (60kHz) for WWVB? I know it's the 1000th harmonic, but still..

      Pffft.

      For cryin' out loud, you could at least say 'excuse me!' when you do that, and by the way what the hell have you been eating, 3-day-old roadkill?

    25. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Yep, And I can read it. You can't. xD

    26. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're the asshole who's still overpaying for cable instead of helping Netflix fund more TV shows and movies.

      Yeah because we've never seen films or series that were exclusive to HBO before ...

      You're the arsehole who keeps paying Netflix instead of helping HBO fund more TV shows.

    27. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still leaves you with 1/4 of what you'd be getting on cable.

    28. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      MLB lost me to a baseball strike. I went on 'fan strike', in my 3rd decade. Lost a sport/decade sense.

      But fans are often 'fanatic'. How would you fully monetize fanatics? How do fans 'work around' the bastards?

      I'm inside the Raiders non-sellout exclusion area. Tower and antenna gets me Chico TV. I used to charge Raiders fans a 12 pack to watch, but eventually got tired of hanging with such riff-raff, though a few are my friends. I'd also stream the audio from their opponent's market, just to piss them off.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a clock have hands? Like human hands, or...

    30. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Netflix is available worldwide. HBO? Not so much, so fuck them.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    31. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by chihowa · · Score: 1

      That setup would make Rube Goldberg proud. You can get subsecond time syncing in the clock directly from NIST, too, without all of the intermediate steps. (I have a setup similar to yours, too, with a GPSDO.)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    32. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *You* subsidize the fucking Oprah network, the 17 food channels and all the other garbage. I am not interested and with Comcunts XFuckeethee you cannot escape them. RAM it in your ass retard.

    33. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Netflix is available worldwide. HBO? Not so much, so fuck them.

      Netflix has as much geoblocking on content as any other cable provider. Netflix in the rest of the world is a sad sad shadow of what they provide in the USA. I know that's not Netflix's fault but they're just like every other cable company, only that they have a global business.

    34. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      The value of an OTA antenna varies wildly based on where you live. I happen to live close enough to a major city that I can get ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, and three dozen junky local channels by antenna. I'm using a $12.50/month Tivo DVR (though setting up MythTV is on the to-do list.)

      But I have friends further out that tried the same setup and can only get one or two of the four big networks and maybe ten other channels.

    35. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Me too. If you can be patient - and I can - older shows can be dirt cheap on DVD or even Blu Ray. Ripping them to disk and setting them up with Kodi streaming is a bit tedious, but I've been doing this for so long that it's like having my own private Netflix. Thousands of hours of content, no commercials, all legally purchased.

    36. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the networks should focus on quality instead of the quantity to help reduce their costs.

      I watch the local and evening news occasionally, Netflix shows when friends recommend them, PBS (Nova, NewsHour, and Frontline) and read books or wonder around outside when I can, so I could care less whether or not all TV disappeared.

    37. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Netflix in the rest of the world is a sad sad shadow of what they provide in the USA.

      I already know, I'm in Canada.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    38. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      My friends just started going to the bar for games.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    39. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      It's a thing that doesn't pull in all the shows my wife wants to watch on HBO, Showtime, and Netflix

    40. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      There are significant costs to produce TV shows. You cheap bastards are ruining TV and driving networks out of business. All cord-cutters are cheapskate assholes who are ruining TV for the rest of us.

      Oh woe is us! However did television exist before Cable TV? However will television survive?

      Hopefully by putting out TV shows I actually want to watch.

    41. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watch sports on TV

      I've never understood that. Fuck you.

    42. Re: Cord-cutters are ruining TV by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Unless you die soon, you will see a pay per view super bowl. Karnak sees the future...

      I won't...not because I plan on kicking the bucket soon (I don't), but because IDGAF about sportsball and won't be paying whatever they're charging.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    43. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by SandWyrm · · Score: 1

      and Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc are managing to produce these just fine, thanks.The cable-cutters are getting tired of paying for 200-channel packages they watch maybe a dozen from (i.e. Disney/ABC/ESPN , or Discovery channels). The major sports leagues are starting to offer streaming options , once people can get live sports online without a cable contract those companies are utterly fscked.

      Not just "fine", but clearly superior shows. If you pay directly for what you actually watch, the content (GASP!) get's better. Fancy that.

      Cord cutters are smart, thoughtful people, and Netflix, Amazon, etc. are producing the kind of content that we like. Just ask yourself if "House of Cards", "The Man in the High Castle", "Jennifer Jones", "Orange is the New Black", "Marco Polo", or "Stranger Things" would ever have been green-lit by a traditional network, much less renewed for multiple seasons. A good show doesn't even have to be super-popular to keep getting renewed, so long as it strongly appeals to one of the key demographics these services have identified. They're not selling commercial-time, so raw views don't matter. They just need your sub-demographic to have a reason, every month, to keep paying your subscription fee.

    44. Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMEN.
      There's not a goddamn thing worth watching on cable.
      I ditched my directv at $100/mo, built my own antenna and am fine not wondering what piece of crap on cable i need to watch tonight.
      in fact, it gives me more time to read /. and give insightful replies

  5. Death spiral cycle by SPopulisQR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately for the industry, fewer subscribers will mean fewer revenues. Fewer revenues will mean higher allocation of the costs to the existing customers. There will be an inevitable increase in both internet and cable service rates. Cable service rate increases will further discourage more customers to cut the cord.

    1. Re: Death spiral cycle by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      TV users are stupid rich motherfuckers who are dumb enough to pay for overpriced crap. A TV subscription should require an internet subscription and internet-cutters should lose their TV subscription. Unlike internet access which is a basic need in modern society, TV subscription is a luxury.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Death spiral cycle by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Fewer revenues will mean higher allocation of the costs to the existing customers.

      Businesses set their prices to maximize profit, not to "cover their costs". Their marginal cost to provide the service just sets a price floor. In a competitive market, any profit surplus will be squeezed out, to the benefit of consumers, but cable companies are mostly local monopolies. So if they could make more money by raising prices they would already be doing it.

    3. Re: Death spiral cycle by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Television access is a privilege, not a right

      FTFY. :)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: Death spiral cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an antenna on my roof at home and get all the TV I can stand for FREE, and I use Internet at work for FREE instead of paying for it at home. Where is your God now? xD

    5. Re:Death spiral cycle by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Informative

      So if they could make more money by raising prices they would already be doing it.

      Who's to say they don't?

      My parents started with Comcast some 20 years ago paying $40 a month for Basic+ cable (enough for Nickelodeon and ESPN and such). I remember having somewhere on the order of 60-70 channels. When they finally cut the cord last year, they were paying $150 a month, including the "mandatory cable box" for roughly 150 channels, many of which had both SD and HD versions.

      I cut the cord much earlier, but I started at $55 a month for ~100 channels in 2005, ended at $80 for ~100 channels, after 4 years. The only changes? A golf channel and 3 new religious channels that I couldn't give a crap about. It was either Comcast or DSL, and both often failed to deliver advertised speeds, not to mention lengthy downtimes when they happened.

    6. Re:Death spiral cycle by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's just a bunch of local monopolies breaking up. The open market price for a month of TV is the streaming rate. The cable subscriber rate is the 'chump rate'.

      Eventually most chumps will get smart and the cable company will have to drop its prices on TV.

      Data prices aren't going up, they are barely holding new market entrants out at today's broadband prices. If they try and raise them, all they will do is cause a stampede of new fiber providers, more cell data towers, neighborhood/HOA purchase of SLA bandwidth etc. The cable companies can't have broadband be that fat a target and expect to hold it. People aren't that stupid.

      Something will have to give, cable company profits and kickbacks to local governments from the cable companies are the big losers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Death spiral cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for the industry, fewer subscribers will mean fewer revenues. Fewer revenues will mean higher allocation of the costs to the existing customers. There will be an inevitable increase in both internet and cable service rates.

      Gee, that might actually be a problem if the technology wasn't getting cheaper every year.

    8. Re:Death spiral cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that you're proving the GP's point, right?

      They kept raising their prices until two customers (at least in your example) decided that it wasn't worth it. That's more or less what Bill is saying, there's a ceiling set where the consumers stops consuming. They obviously reached it in your case. More people are reaching this breaking point and so the market shrinks.

    9. Re:Death spiral cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't this just mean a cost shift from the TV side to the internet side as most of those cable tv providers are also the ISPs for these people. It's really the satellite companies that are going to be hit the hardest.

    10. Re:Death spiral cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure he's implying that they already did raise their prices to what the market will bear.

    11. Re: Death spiral cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, you're going to hurt yourself trolling that hard.

    12. Re:Death spiral cycle by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Which is why Net Neutrality is not the answer. Competition among Internet service providers is.

    13. Re:Death spiral cycle by antdude · · Score: 1

      Cable companies should be happy to be able to have other services like Internet beside TV!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    14. Re:Death spiral cycle by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I think the real problem is dishonest pricing. For Netflix, Amazon Prime video streaming, Hulu, Playstation Vue, Sling.tv, Youtube TV, etc... etc..., the advertised price is what you pay. And the pricing isn't necessarily cheap, either. I think Playstation Vue and Youtube TV and around $40/month.

      I get brochures from Comcast, DirecTV, and Dish in the mail at least once a month each, and the prices in dazzling gold lettering have fuckall to do with the actual amount I would see on the bill. The fine print takes up most of the second page, and if you average out all of the added fees (not government taxes, but fees they just don't include in the advertised price) you're going to pay $30-$40 more than what's on front.

      If they just advertised straight, I might even have stayed with their service. "$70 per month for the following 120 channels and DVR service the first year, $100 per month the second year. Plus extra fees listed below if you include any of the following channels: HBO, Cinemax, Starz, Epic." Instead unlike all of the streaming services it's "$25 per month for the first twelve months!" and then you have to spend ten minutes reading 7 point font text to figure out that between the subscriber fee, sports fee, connectivity fee, equipment fee, DVR service fee, and the $5 per month they charge customers that don't set up automatic debit for billing you're going to pay $70. It's like advertising a $6,000 new Honda Civic and then when the customer arrives mentioning that the engine costs extra.

    15. Re:Death spiral cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if they could make more money by raising prices they would already be doing it.

      Not so - you are misunderstanding the application of economics to the real world. There are many factors that go into setting prices, real world considerations - and in practice a business will almost never be able to charge the maximum they could charge - nor will they even know what that maximum is.

      The business subject that discusses this in detail is called "Pricing Strategy" - go read a textbook.

  6. Just wait for the internet to come forced bundled by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Just wait for the internet to come forced bundled with crap the drives costs up like. So basic Internet starts at $70-$90 or you can take a very limited web that may have local stuff and big sites blocked off unless you move up to full web.

    CBS online and you must have it to buy SHOWTIME GO.
    Di$ney online
    E$PN / ABC WEB
    NBC Online
    FOX Online with fox news
    CNN Web
    NBCSN WEB
    YOUTUBE Basic

    You better hope that HBO NOW can still be gotten with any web ISP with out having take an basic Web Entertainment package.

    and web Entertainment package is not part of the any $700+ DIA Fiber lines. Other then the hotel packagers

  7. I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardware by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardware with out outlet / mirroring / per device fees / per stream fees.

    $8+ outlet / device fees are the real killer. Why not make it per stream so you can have 3-4+ rooms but only 2-3 streams being paid for.

  8. Re:Just wait for the internet to come forced bundl by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The internet streaming services I want are already forced-bundled with cable. Hell, even PBS interrogates me as to what my local PBS station is when I use their website. I don't have one. You can't get PBS with an antenna here.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. This is not cord cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This is not cord cutting, this is changing your cable subscription package.

    Cord cutting is eliminating wire-line services, and replacing them with OTA TV, 4G internet, phones, etc.

    1. Re:This is not cord cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No it's not, "cord cutting" specifically refers to people ditching cable TV. That's all.

    2. Re:This is not cord cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But these people have NOT ditched cable. They've changed their cable package to one with a lower tier of TV service to retain their internet connection.

    3. Re: This is not cord cutting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just got an Xfinity internet only plan installed. No cable TV. Only 75MBit internet.

      You have to work at it to get such a package. The salesman tells you 'just a bit more' to add a minimal TV package, but leaves out a lot of extra charges that then show up on the first bill.

  10. I save even more by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...torrenting the shows.

    1. Re: I save even more by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why copyright infringement penalties aren't severe enough. The penalty for copyright infringement should be death. Hope that helps.

  11. Yup by guyniraxn · · Score: 2

    As someone who grew up watching far too much TV, I had a hard time bringing myself to get away from cable. It finally got to the point where the content offered just wasn't worth it to me and noticed that the bundle I subscribed to with Comcast had crept up to $150/month for a pretty barebones package (modest internet speed and a minimum on channels). A couple months ago I made the decision to drop TV and go internet only, I'd pick up SlingTV if I really missed it and still save money in the end. I figured they might offer me a discount to keep me on a bundled package but had done my research, $75 for internet alone and $25 for SlingTV. I didn't expect them to offer less than $100 so was ready to turn down any offers. It was a big surprise that they were willing to go down to $80/month by dropping the TV service to an even smaller selection(which I didn't know existed, it wasn't on the website last time I checked) but made up for that by throwing in an HBO package and faster internet than I had before. They're so desperate to keep people with TV, having subscriber numbers to tout is more important than any direct revenue.

    1. Re:Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, we did the same thing... they basically offered us free HBO and their "super secret package that competes with sling TV" where we got a small package and then chose what extra channels we wanted.

    2. Re:Yup by The+Snowman · · Score: 2

      I had a similar experience with Spectrum. I explained that I was tired of paying so much - and the only reason I need TV anyway is to watch baseball, which Fox Sports regional channels have a monopoly on. Once I told them how much SlingTV costs (implicit threat there) they pulled out a secret package that was a lot cheaper plus free HBO for a year so I can watch Game of Thrones when it is new. My cable bill was around $180, now it is around $120. Still too high, but it is at the point that an internet-only package plus SlingTV would be more expensive.

      I just get tired of playing this stupid game with the cable companies every year. Eventually I will stop caring and cut the cord.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  12. When $10 plan from Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    costs over $60 per month, and their sales reps don't have access to the total monthly price, of course people are going to be angry. I thought I would be paying $120 extra per year to add basic TV to my Internet access, but Comcast is billing me $768 more per year.

    1. Re: When $10 plan from Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lying by six-fold is pretty damn normal for Comcast. My bill for TV was only four times higher than what they quoted. I guess I'm lucky.

    2. Re: When $10 plan from Comcast... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      And in Seattle we can only get dialup. We know the story.

    3. Re: When $10 plan from Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad trolling there. GP said they had Comcast. I don't understand your off the wall post.

  13. I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Oh, about 10 years ago now, I think. Glad to see that people are getting the clue, finally. Now, if we can get them to understand that paying for 'streaming' is just a different kind of 'cable', and get them to put antennas on their roofs, they'll enjoy not having to pay anyone for anything.

    1. Re:I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aren't you impressive.

    2. Re:I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by gmack · · Score: 1

      The issue is not paying for cable, it is that we end up paying for overpriced packages for channels not even worth watching. I can get netflix for far less than cable and it's ad free.

    3. Re:I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by mentil · · Score: 2

      L.O.L. That is nothing I am whey a head of you. I cut the chord on my SCREEN.
      This post composited by Alexa.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I tried Netflix for a while. TiVo even supports it directly. There wasn't enough I wanted to watch on Netflix to justify the monthly cost of that, either.
      Aside from the cost of cable, there's a dirty little secret that few people seem to know about with cable TV: They recompress the living daylights out of everything, so it ends up looking blocky as hell when there's any sort of motion on the screen. They do this so they can fit all those shitty channels you're paying for (but never watch) into the available bandwidth of the wire, yet still be able to claim '1080' resolution. You don't get that with OTA broadcast TV. I'd never go back even if cable was FREE. Don't know if this is true with satellite TV, I never fell for that particular meme. I do know the downsides of 'streaming', though, and I don't care for them much, either.

    5. Re:I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by gmack · · Score: 1

      Last time I tried watching TV was on a plane and before long, the constant ads drove me crazy, it's worse than Youtube. I can't watch something that annoying for free let alone pay for it on cable so no antenna for me either.

    6. Re: I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We threw a 19" crt tv set off the third floor balcony of the rooming house I lived in, in 1983.

      It made a cool pop sound. We were lucky nobody was down there in the alley.

    7. Re:I cut the cord before it was even 'cool' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If I put an antenna on my roof, I will get one, maybe two channels.

      Cable doesn't come to my street, so I have access from a WISP who charges me $100/mo for 90GB at 6Mbps.

      Streaming is the only way for me to watch TV. I could live without TV, but I choose not to.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Pay me now or pay me later by paiute · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I ran Comcast, I wouldn't give a crap if you cut the cable TV cord. Where are you going to get your streaming video, pal? Over my internet line, that's where. So I can charge you whatever I need to charge you for internet access to keep my revenues the same.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No.

      Comcast has real competition in most markets. And even at today's internet rates, new entrants are common. Calling Comcast a monopoly requires crazy mental gyrations.

      Comcast doesn't have pricing power on broadband in most markets. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

      If they try what you suggest, they just accelerate their ultimate demise.

      The only thing stopping me from getting fiber is the high install cost and the low cost of 100mbit service from comcast. The monthly bills are already about the same. If I could cover the cost of the install with less than a years service cost difference Comcast would never see me again.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damm dude are you ok? You are posting almost the same thing everywhere on this thread.

      I got rid of cable because there was nothing worth watching. When Comedy Central has more history shows than The History Channel I was done.

    3. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Comcast is signing up more subscribers than ever before. They signed up 42,000 new video subscribers in the last quarter alone. So they aren't hurting.

    4. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      I think that would drive cell companies to ramp up capacity to replace Comcast.

    5. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats great for you, but this strongly depends on where you live... there are no alternatives to comcast here.

    6. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Comcast, but where I live it's just Charter or Hughes Satellite.

    7. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd get my internet from my phone. Seriously, I'm thinking about ditching my Verizon FiOS 15/15Mbps @ $89.99/mo for the T-Mobile One plan that I'm already using. I speed tested 44/42Mbps from my phone. We pay $140/mo for 4 lines (one free forever due to promo) and use over 60GB/mo with no slow down. After the first two lines, additional ones up to a total of 8 are only $20/mo. I could buy another cheap phone just to hook it up to my Wi-Fi router for the house. The only nuisance is making inbound connections from the Internet to the home. I might have to set up a cheap proxy in the cloud for that.

    8. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No DSL service at all? Sucks to be you. You are the exception, we don't set policy based on edge cases.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be willing to believe you sir wumpus are the exception. Around here you can get dsl but it's only 1.5mb/s almost useless in today's internet, so there really isn't viable competition for comcast that doesn't come in at 2x the price (you can get business lines from custom places). And I can't imagine how expensive it would be to stream hundreds of gigabytes over 3g/4g.

    10. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around here you can get dsl but it's only 1.5mb/s almost useless in today's internet,

      1.5mb/s is fine for TV; the problem is that you're trying to stream it. Upgrade to downloading and "stream" from a hard disk that is already inside the house. If an hour of video takes over an hour to download, that's not really a problem.

    11. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by John.Banister · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I was Alphabet, Amazon and Facebook, and that piddly company was overtaxing my revenue stream (customers), I'd form a consortium, buy it out, and run the last mile like the utility it ought to be. If I was Priceline, eBay, Netflix and Expedia, I'd join that consortium just to be sure it isn't representing too narrow a range of interests. There's no shortage of losers when the gatekeeper discourages participation by siphoning off too much money.

    12. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DSL and cable are not equivalent.

      Sure, they accomplish the same end result, but they are as similar as a bus station to an airport.

    13. Re: Pay me now or pay me later by paiute · · Score: 1

      What are you on about? I haven't moderated in weeks. Chill out.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    14. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, you can use your weight to sign exclusive contracts and prevent start-ups from trying to eat your gravy train. If Google Drive usage doesn't count towards your internet cap, why even bother looking at other storage options? All the companies want to squash each other instead of improving society as a whole.

    15. Re:Pay me now or pay me later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I (not same anon coward as above) have DSL available, but it becomes crap in the evenings.

  15. And what should the penalty be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for murder?

    1. Re:And what should the penalty be... by lazarus · · Score: 1

      24 hours a day of the ACs ravings...

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  16. We have choices by svendsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which I think a lot of companies are forgetting especially cable. I pay $70/month for internet only (300down/20up), Netflix ($20/month), Music ($15/m), Kindle unlimited ($10/M). So $115/M for more entertainment than I can consume in a lifetime plus all the endless free stuff on the web. I can get focused entertainment which I find good and on demand. I am already considering downgrading my netflix package and even my cable speeds because they aren't giving me as much value as I am willing to pay for.

    Why would I want to pay for shows that I don’t find valuable (or can get elsewhere), pay for a cable box, pay for DVR service, etc. that I don’t find valuable? This same applies to an earlier topic of Hollywood that was on Slashdot. They don’t produce things I find valuable so why would I pay for it?

    And when I do have to call the cable company cause they raised my rates and I have to do the song & dance with them to get it back down they try to upsell you on everything. No I don’t want package XYZ, I don’t watch sports at all (that blows their minds), I don’t need your VoIP I have cell phone service, etc.

    1. Re:We have choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast gives me 150Mbps down and 25Mbps up plus basic cable for around 95 a month with 1Tb data cap and no access to fiber.

      If i want to ditch the cable tv bundle, the price for internet alone goes up to around $120 a month.

    2. Re:We have choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I currently get cable 'free' from the apartment I rent. I *still* do not watch it. Its crap. What they show is just NOT GOOD. It is not even worth getting for free.

      I plugged it in 2 months ago just to watch a bit. Have not turned it on since.

  17. "Channels" is an outdated concept by nealric · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest issue is not cost per-se, but that the whole idea of "channels" is obsolete.

    Why would I wait for a specific day or time to see the content of my choosing? Worse, even when what I want to see is playing on a given channel, 1/3 of the content is ads. Yes, DVR can ameliorate this, but it's really a crutch because I have to choose content I'm interested in advance and then wait. When I moved, I was given "free" cable for a year along with my internet package. I think I may have watched it for 30 minutes the entire year. I go over to friends/family's houses who still watch live TV and I feel like I've been transported back in time to the 20th century.

    1. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't gave a flying f*** what "channel" my show is on. I just want to know when, which with Netflix means whenever I'm ready to watch it. Even before DVRs, I didn't have time to watch TV on their schedule. I recorded with ye olde VCR, clunky as it was compared to the DVR. And of course Netflix is even better, since there aren't any commercials to FF past.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by tquasar · · Score: 1

      So, you experienced time travel. Awesome!

    3. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      "Commercials!! Everybody run!!"

      "It's back on!!"

      "He found the gun behind a bush"

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    4. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They could fix this to some extent with On Demand, but they don't because $$$. Want to watch an episode from last night? It should go up within a week with full commercials that you can't skip. And then it will drop off a few days later and may or may not reappear, maybe with fewer commercials or the ability to fast forward. It might not be available until after the next episode airs. Want to watch an episode of network television from 6 weeks ago? No problem, just cough up $1.99. Want to catch up on last season before the new one starts? It's there, but it will cost you. Don't like it? Then you can just go pay Hulu instead. Paying through the nose for cable and sitting through unskippable ads isn't even enough to pay for full season access to network television shows. It's no wonder people are going elsewhere.

    5. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      The issue for me is that none of the services has complete coverage. When one has to subscribe to multiple, overlapping services to get the desired content, the price adds up as does the hassle for "which hoops do I have to jump through to watch show X?".

    6. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      So which part of the 20th century? On air where you have 3-5 channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox)? or later where we had around 100 channels and still nothing to watch?

      Channels are good for themes. Such as discovery, or history. Even then they get caught up in crap, like the whole nothing but naked shows.

      Getting away from that, how would you ever find something interesting? Like breaking bad, through the wormhole, etc.

    7. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by nealric · · Score: 1

      Same way you do on Netflix and other streaming services- categories. Want to watch a World War II documentary but don't have a specific one in mind? Instead of going to the History Channel and hoping one is on, you go to the documentary section of your screening service and choose one that looks interesting. Streaming services also have algorithms that look at what you've watched in the past and suggest content that is similar.

    8. Re:"Channels" is an outdated concept by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Great idea it seemed at first. WWII docs to me are like a dime a dozen, however if I see one on it might catch my attention enough to actually watch it.

      I have netflix and fire stick. Just not clicking. Maybe I'm simply getting too old for TV, though I can't believe I'm actually thinking that. Seems mostly like a time wasting system to me.

      Thanks for the thought.

  18. Netflix + TV antenna is th way to go for me by Nicopa · · Score: 1

    No cable, TV for news and other stuff, Netflix for series, Internet, and that's it. BTW, I've created this Android app to find out which TV stations are available around you: https://play.google.com/store/...

    1. Re:Netflix + TV antenna is th way to go for me by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      I went to the trouble of installing a high-gain antenna in my attic... but streaming is so easy I can't actually recall the last time I used the antenna.

      The local stations either have a free streaming option or they aren't showing anything I care about (usually the latter). The Internet lets me see more or less whatever I want from anywhere in the world within an hour of first broadcast (of course, that's not with Netflix).

    2. Re:Netflix + TV antenna is th way to go for me by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      FYI for everyone: You don't need an 'app' from some Slashdotter, you can get a list of stations in your area, by zipcode, direct from the FCC's website: https://www.fcc.gov/media/engi...

    3. Re:Netflix + TV antenna is th way to go for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      narf narf appy app app luddite narf narf *stomps around in a tantrum* narf narf narf mummy wasn't there the day I was born. apps.

  19. Alternate Headline by mentil · · Score: 1

    Megid Broadcast Study drops a Meteo on the cable industry.
    Oh, Magid. Carry on...

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  20. Re:Just wait for the internet to come forced bundl by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    They can try that. They can also lose the business of people like me, who will not tolerate having things forced on me that I do not want and will not use.

    There's only ONE device in my house that needs Internet to operate, and that's my DVR, which receives it's Program Guide updates and software updates that way. Of course it's got a modem built into it, and if necessary I'd ditch my cellphone in favor of a landline so the DVR would keep working. Or just stop watching TV entirely. There's plenty of other things I could be doing with those few hours a week.

    Of course they won't try shit like that, they know if they piss people off bad enough, they'll look for alternatives. ISPs would pop up that don't force anything on you, and use that as a selling point.

  21. Gigabit LTE and 5G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Forget wires. When we have Gigabit LTE (100 to 300 mbps in the real world) and 5G (which will be actually at gigabit) we don't need cable. We can just have services like Netflix. Soon as we ditch the cable monopolies and get into the wireless oligopolies the better. Granted the wireless oligopolies suck but at least there is more competition. Kind of a sad thing. Cable could have had played nice and allowed things like Cable Card 2 etc. but instead they had to allow their greed and emotions to control them.

  22. Re:I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardwa by bkwsoft · · Score: 2

    I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardware with out outlet / mirroring / per device fees / per stream fees.

    $8+ outlet / device fees are the real killer. Why not make it per stream so you can have 3-4+ rooms but only 2-3 streams being paid for.

    This is in part why I went with my own "DVR" solution instead of using the crappy hardware the cable company provides. I use HDHomerun Prime with cable card as the tuner, run that through TV Headend which acts as the DVR/PVR TV Guide and proxies the live TV Streams to all of the TV sets in the house.

    I can pause a program in 1 room resume in another. Watch on any TV set in the house for the $2/month CC rental instead of $6/month/TV set-top box rental from the cable company. And I have multiple TB of disk available for recordings. Add to that comskip to strip the commercials from the recordings and the 1hour programs can now be watched in 45min without having to fast forward.

    I can add more tuners if I wish/when I wish, currently the 3 in the one home run is fine for us. Have setup Kodi on each of the TVs as the front-end STB solution talking to the TV Headend server.

    Yes it's geeky, but it's about as close to legally watching the content on your own terms as you can get. No worries if there is enough internet bandwidth available when you want to watch something in prime-time without jittering, pixelating, or not working altogether. But most importantly it passes the "wife" test, as it's easy to use with Live TV, ripped movies, CDs, DVR recordings from a single UI and remote.

  23. Re:I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardwa by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Do you live in a house and not an apartment? Get an antenna on your roof, get TV for free. You'd be surprised at how little it hurts in the long run to not bother with 'streaming' anything or useless cable channels. You get over it quickly enough. It's like sugar addiction: for a while you crave, then you get past it to a healthier place.

  24. Oh, and I torrent the shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...on someone else's connection.

  25. Re:I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But how do you have your own DVR when many cable companies, like Comcast, refuse to provide CableCARD decoders? I have a TiVo, and I really, really want to be allowed to use it, but so far even hiring a lawyer hasn't gotten Comcast to agree to provide a card so I can record. They of course want us to rent their DVRs so there's no incentive for them to allow us to use our own.

  26. you really want to cut the cord? by doom · · Score: 1

    I just thought I'd mention that for me personally, not only do I not do cable, I don't do netflix. Between stuff like youtube, crunchyroll, and miscellanious sites like gooddrama.to, I can't imagine where I would get the time to look at anything else.

    I expect that I could spend the next ten years trying to cover what happened with asian television in the last year, and by then there'll be another ten years of material.

    Plus there's the project of looking over the (admittedly low quality) versions of 60s television up on youtube ("The Champions", "The Persuaders", "Colonel Bleep", "The Green Hornet"...), and the various random movies from the 30s/40s (e.g. Charlie Chan).

    On the other hand, if anyone has a good source of bollywood material on-line, I'd be interested in hearing about it...

    1. Re:you really want to cut the cord? by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Not everyone is interested in anime.

    2. Re:you really want to cut the cord? by doom · · Score: 1

      I'll buy that, but if you can find one person who doesn't want to see Deka Wanko then there is no hope for humanity.

      I don't want to cause your brain to melt, but there is actually more going on in Asia than just anime.

      And the actual point is that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Hollywood. Or even at the BBC.

  27. and some set the copy flags in away that really by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and some set the copy flags in away that really hurts non cable co hardware for stuff like multi room.

    http://stopthecap.com/2016/10/...

  28. No Real Savings in the new Streaming Bundles by bkwsoft · · Score: 1

    At least with Charter, if you don't have a "bundle" with TV or Phone (who uses land lines anymore anyways), your Internet rate goes to almost $50 a month; now add $40 a month for Sling or DirectTV Now and where is the savings? Not to mention only being able to watch TV when the bandwidth gods are in your favor. It just doesn't add up to any significant savings.

    1. Re:No Real Savings in the new Streaming Bundles by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I discovered. By the time I got the streaming services to replace everything I had with cable and paid the higher price for not bundling cable with my internet, I was saving something like $5 a month. But that didn't even include the up front cost of buying streaming devices and an OTA antenna for local stuff.

      At the moment I have a pretty sweet deal on cable so cord cutting isn't worth it. I image that one day it will though, so I keep an eye on the cost every year just in case it starts to make sense.

    2. Re:No Real Savings in the new Streaming Bundles by lothos · · Score: 1

      I just cut my Charter tv service last week. Before the cut I was paying $55 for internet and $95 for tv. Cutting out the TV raised my internet rate by $6.

  29. Re:Just wait for the internet to come forced bundl by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    ISPs would pop up and how will they get to you cell based?

    When the cable co owns TV content and when ATT / Directv owns HBO / TW (NOT TWC) and they are your only choice?

    WIll systems like WOW go Internet only? drop TV channels that say you must have our on line system as part of basic web for non TV subs?

  30. Re:Just wait for the internet to come forced bundl by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I'm really glad I don't live in your imaginary totally dystopian future, if I did I'd've slit my wrists by now.
    Really honestly I don't even care much about this subject. I have OTA broadcast TV that costs me nothing and that's all I care about. OTA broadcast isn't going away anytime soon, probably never, or at least for as long as I live. Even if it did I wouldn't be too broke up over it, I'd find other things to do with my time.

  31. Doesn't matter in the long run by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

    as long as you're still getting Internet from a cable company. They're not stupid. They'll make their money one way or the other. Fortunately, I live in a city that offers municipal-run, gigabit internet with no data caps. More cities need to do the same if they really want things fixed.

  32. Re: and some set the copy flags in away that reall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the original poster, but I'm using a Hauppauge HD PVR through the analog hole. No flags, digital audio and minimal video degradation besides what Comcast already does during compression. A little commercial editing, some squeezing down and organizing through Plex makes a nice product for presentation through the Rokus in the house. I even have Hauppauge digital tuners to record off the air.

    It's still highway robbery what I pay for cable but at least I can keep what I want.

  33. Problem if you don't speak english... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There isn't really any "cord cutting" solution for people who live outside the US or just those who don't speak english.
    I would love to get my mother to switch to online services over expensive cable, but unfortunately, she doesn't understand english and we live in Canada. So our choices are even fewer. The only choice worth talking about in our language... isn't even an alternative at all since it's a service by one of the major cable provider AND require the expensive cable subscription on top of the $10 fee for this on-demand online service... Not only that, but because they are competing with Netflix for rights for shows, they get all the "good stuff" in our language while Netflix gets the rests... and the rights to those shows OUTSIDE of Canada.

  34. That's so last decade... by hackel · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else get irrationally irritated by this, wishing that these slow-adopters would somehow be required to pay more for taking this long to figure this out? They've been keeping the cable and traditional broadcast television industries in business all this time, to the detriment of all of us. I know I should see this as a good thing, and I'm not *really* serious. I just wish they had to pay some kind of penalty (aside from having had to pay for cable all this time).

  35. 7 years later by tatman · · Score: 1

    I am finally getting my wish. :)

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
  36. Re: I wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I would put up with it, my spouse would spend all her free time subjecting us to reruns of 1980's "The Price Is Right" and other horrid game shows. And True Crime 'documentaries' (with technology so cheap now, anybody can create documentaries that say anything they want).

  37. Best solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the money you saved cutting cable, and change your service over to commercial internet. No caps. No limits as to what you want to run on it.

    You also tend to get a bit more in terms of quality of bandwidth at a given data rate. 300/30 residential vs 300/30 commercial; there's a significant difference.

    It also costs more; but in the case of AT&T, the difference between UVERSE 45MB DSL and Commercial UVERSE 45MB DSL; isn't that much money per month; when you consider you can do ANYTHING with it as long as it's not illegal.

    1. Re:Best solution by Albert71292 · · Score: 2

      This. I got rid of cable TV a little over 7 years ago. Had AT&T DSL until early last year, then switched to Comcast Business. Both my son and I are heavy internet users, and the 6Mbps AT&T DSL maxed out at wasn't fast enough for us to use the internet at the same time. The Comcast Business plan we now have is 50 down / 10 up, with NO CAPS. Most of the time we get closer to 60 down / 12 up. Rare for the internet to slow down or go out.

      With my outdoor antenna, I get 22 channels FREE, with all the major broadcast networks. With that, along with Hulu, CBS All Access, Warner Archive, and Britbox (all less than $40/month total), we have more than we have TIME to watch.

      I don't have a use for services that stream cable TV channels over the internet. It's the same lame channels I wasn't watching back when I had cable TV, just delivered a different way.

      --
      "A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
  38. Timmy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and fucking Sundar! FFS bring TV shows to other countries than the USA ffs! Movies and music is here good but TV shows are not!

  39. Live programming by tepples · · Score: 1

    Why would I wait for a specific day or time to see the content of my choosing?

    Because said "specific day or time" is when "the content of [your] choosing" is performed live. In households that I have observed, the most common live programming is sport matches, political talk shows, and entertainment industry award shows.

    1. Re:Live programming by nealric · · Score: 1

      Yes, you obviously can't watch sports and other live events before they happen. But that doesn't require the use of channels. You simply have a stream with the event title (i.e. "2018 World Series Game 1") that begins when the event begins. After the event has occurred, you can watch it any time.

  40. That's what a-la-carte is all about by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > And still leaves you with 1/4 of what you'd be getting on cable.

    I do not want to pay for "the 500 channel universe".

    Some people don't want sports. They're leaving ESPN (and/or cable altogether) in droves. ESPN has dropped from 100 million subscribers in Sep 2010 to 88 million in Feb 2017 https://seekingalpha.com/artic... Other people want only sports. MLB / NHL / etc have streaming subscriptions.

    The music industry is a good analogy. They were doing well financially in the 1950's through 1970's. Their biggest market was teenagers, with limited disposable income. Their hottest product was "the 45 rpm single" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with 1 song on each side.

    Then the music industry got effing greedy, and dropped the $1 single in favour of the $25 CD. Teenagers with limited disposable income stopped buying due to sticker shock. Music sales plummetted... well... like... duhhhh.

    The RIAA blamed piracy, but it was actually their own fault. Apple revived the concept of "the single, for $1", in digital format this time. Sales took off, and the music industry is making money again.

    Going from a dozen bundled songs, most of which were crap, to a-la-carte, revived the music industry. If cable is smart, they'll follow the lead of the music industry, and unbundle channels so that people pay for only what they want.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  41. Re:Just wait for the internet to come forced bundl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd happily pay $70, heck even $200 and donate my left nut for cable and wired internet service to my house. If anything I hope the pressure of cord cutters will get these companies to roll out into what are labeled as "rural" areas while only being 2 miles from the next city. I'll sign up for a 5 year internet service with contacted rate increases. There are millions of Americans without access to wired broadband that would be happy with any flavour of Comcast's current packages. Unfortunately these aren't targeted at all with reasonable offers that are helping the consumer and are profitable for the cable companies.

  42. stockholm syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    y'all paying for your own programming....