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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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.