Cord-Cutting Still Doesn't Beat the Cable Bundle (wired.com)

I'd like to cut the cord, writes Brian Barrett for Wired, then, the very instant I allow myself to picture what life looks like after that figurative snip, my reverie comes crashing down. From an article: Cutting the cord is absolutely right for some people. Lots of people, maybe. But it's not that cheap, and it's not that easy, and there's not much hope of improvement on either front any time soon. Not to turn this into a math experiment, but let's consider cost. Assuming you're looking for a cord replacement, not abandoning live television altogether, you're going to need a service that bundles together a handful of channels and blips them to your house over the internet. The cheapest way you can accomplish this is to pay Sling TV $20 per month, for which you get 29 channels. That sounds not so bad, and certainly less than your cable bill. But! Sling Orange limits you to a single stream. If you're in a household with others, you'll probably want Sling Blue, which offers multiple streams and 43 channels for $25 per month. But! Sling Orange and Sling Blue have different channel lineups (ESPN is on Orange, not Blue, while Orange lacks FX, Bravo and any locals). For full coverage, you can subscribe to both for $40. But! Have kids? You'll want the Kids Extra package for another $5 per month. Love ESPNU? Grab that $5 per month sports package. HBO? $15 per month, please. Presto, you're up to $65 per month. But! Don't forget the extra $5 for a cloud-based DVR. Plus the high-speed internet service that you need to keep your stream from buffering, which, by the way, it'll do anyway. That's not to pick on Sling TV, specifically. But paying $70 to quit cable feels like smoking a pack of Parliaments to quit Marlboro Lights. You run into similar situations across the board, whether it's a higher base rate, or a limited premium selection, or the absence of local programming altogether. It turns out, oddly enough, that things cost money, whether you access those things through traditional cable packages or through a modem provided to you by a traditional cable operator.

Comments

Disingenuous Comparison

[Adambomb]

Seriously, the majority of people cutting the cord aren't looking to ensure a 1:1 replacement of all channels they may or may not have been watching previously, and the industry damn well knows it. A lot of people are perfectly happy with general internet news, available content on youtube, and maybe 1 or 2 streaming services (netflix, hulu, hbo go, amazon, etc).

Given that people are unlikely to subscribe to cable but not internet, the cost of internet is a non-factor making cord cutting very reasonable to a huge number of people.

Re:Disingenuous Comparison

[DuckDodgers]

Plus:

1. Cable television brochures lie worse than politicians, and everyone knows it. That "Bundle that adds television service for just $10 more than you're paying for internet" doesn't include the $7 regional channel fee, $5 regional sports fee, $7 monthly equipment rental, $9 monthly DVR network service fee, two year contract with a $30 price jump after the first year, and $5 charge applied to customers that handle their own billing instead of providing the vendor with their banking information so they can use auto-billing. You're actually adding $58 per month across the two years to your bill, not $10. Netflix et al don't lie on their price advertising like that.

2. Most of these customers are going to have internet, Netflix, and Amazon Prime anyway.

Assuming you're looking for a cord replacement...

[Ami Ganguli]

Bad assumption.

We bought cable as part of a bundle with Internet access when we moved two years ago. We've never used it - not even once. Next house we won't bother, no matter how cheap it is. Lifestyles change.

Broadcast TV was always annoying, and gradually better forms of entertainment have emerged.

Weird reasoning

[JohnFen]

That looks like Cable Company Math, talking about the number of channels per dollar.

That doesn't at all reflect what I've observed people doing when they cut the cord. Most of the time, they realize that they may have a hundred channels for their money, but they only watch two or three of them (and usually only a couple of shows on each).

On a per show cost, for those people, cable is crazy expensive, and it's really easy to bring that number down.

Cord replacement != cord cutting

[DaveyJJ]

"Assuming you're looking for a cord replacement, not abandoning live television altogether ..."

How'd we go from a title that talks about cord-cutting, to one about replacing the cable with just another form of getting the same crap?

This one easy trick will save you 100%

[werepants]

Just stop watching TV and you save the full bill. Seriously, cable cutters aren't doing it because they are getting an equivalent service for cheaper - they are opting out of some or all of the service because they don't see value in it. In fact, I would say cable provides negative value for many people, because it's time that could be better spent doing something a lot more rewarding. Seriously, when was the last time that you spent an evening flipping through channels on cable and felt like it was a worthwhile use of time?

Not a valid comparison

[grasshoppa]

Us cord cutters aren't looking to retain all the crap we weren't watching anyway, so the article seems kinda moot.

To those of you thinking about cutting the cord, let me give you some advice; you don't need to waste your days glued to the TV. You can actually, you know, go outside if you're bored.