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.

Comments

Data caps

[Chewbacon]

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.

Re: Data caps

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

Re:Data caps

[mentil]

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.

Re: Data caps

[Berkyjay]

Says the two Anonymous Cowards.

Re: Data caps

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Cord-cutters are ruining TV

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV

[powerlord]

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?

Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV

[DontBeAMoran]

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.

Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:Cord-cutters are ruining TV

[jedidiah]

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.

Death spiral cycle

[SPopulisQR]

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.

Re:Death spiral cycle

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Death spiral cycle

[ausekilis]

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.

Just wait for the internet to come forced bundled

[Joe_Dragon]

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

Yup

[guyniraxn]

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.

Re:Yup

[The Snowman]

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.

Re:Cheap internet

[AuMatar]

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

Pay me now or pay me later

[paiute]

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.

Re:Pay me now or pay me later

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Pay me now or pay me later

[John.Banister]

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.

We have choices

[svendsen]

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.

"Channels" is an outdated concept

[nealric]

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.

Re:This is not cord cutting

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Cheap internet

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:Just wait for the internet to come forced bundl

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardwa

[bkwsoft]

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.

Re:I want more TV choice and be able to buy hardwa

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:I cut the cord before it was even 'cool'

[mentil]

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.

Re:Netflix + TV antenna is th way to go for me

[Rick Schumann]

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...

Re:Best solution

[Albert71292]

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.