Slashdot Mirror
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.
For between $20-$50 up front, plus maybe a $20-$50 tuner, you can get several channels at no additional cost!
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
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.
Ice Cream has no bones.
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.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
>> looking for a cord replacement, not abandoning live television altogether, you're going to need a service that bundles together a handful of channels
What you're looking for is free, digital over-the-air broadcasts, which are available using inexpensive, one-time-purchase antennas. Way back when I was a TV newbie like the author of the article, I got started on this because the local cable channel actually wanted extra money to send me HD signals.
If you want specific shows, movies or sporting events, I'd suggest pirate streams through proxies. Otherwise, there's Netflix which has fair-to-good versions of the various TV programs you'd normally have on in the background in your lonely little life.
Right now, you can still bundle Netflix with Amazon Prime and an HBO subscription to get a good bit of the market for a reasonable monthly outlay, but as industry watchdogs have suggested, Netflix only works if there aren't too many Netflix-type providers bidding for content.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
"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?
DaveyJJ
Do you really need all of those channels? When I canceled my cable, I switched to over-the-air networks (for free), and Netflix + Amazon Prime (which is effectively free since I'd have prime even without the streaming).
If you want the same set of channels you had with cable, it stands to reason that it's not going to be cheaper.
I've found more than enough to distract me without cable, I don't need to replicate it with streaming.
People keep thinking cord cutting is about price but actually cable, satellite and broadcast are just so saturated with commercials and advertisement that it's unbearable, even if it was free.
You could, you know, just watch what's on the antenna for free? The only thing I normally watch that isn't on the antenna is current anime from Japan. (The current season is actually one of the best in years. It's just not big enough of a business for anyone to care about people torrenting that shit.)
Really, the only good reason to still have cable is because of live sports, which some of us can live without.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Now everything's splitting off into factions and you need multiple subscriptions and apps to get something comparable. Each with their own UI :( bad experience
I guess I'll stick with trawling bargain bins for what I want. Picked up a few 10 season shows for about $20 each. Not bad!
Twinstiq, game news
Share wifi Google fiber with neighbors, cut the cord, and experience the bajillions of movies and TV shows from yesteryear, including all the foreign stuff.
I just don't see the point. There are lifetimes worth of media to watch now... plus hobbies and exercise. And work.
-
I think this whole article misses the point that many cord cutters enjoy saving money, but more importantly they enjoy minimizing dealing with cable companies. Sometimes it is not about just money.
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?
Having a lot of mind rotting time filling trash in easy reach leads to compulsive rather then deliberative TV watching. Pay as you go has the important psychological benefit of me thinking to myself do I really want to pay $4.99 to watch that movie? This brings to mind that I'm also paying with my lost time. Sometimes the answer is yes but sometimes it's no. And it's often "No" in cases where had I already paid to see (via the cable bill) I probably would have just tried to get my money's worth rather than go outside and listen to the birds and stare at trees.
It's like if soda's were free and plumbed to your house and all the junk food machines were free too. How often would you skip going to the corner store for some veggies and just take the free corn syrup.
Cord cutting leads to consuming better not just replacing one bundle with another. It isn't about saving money and the fact that it costs "more" ends up costing you less of your time wasted.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The problem depicted in this post is that some people consider having so many channels like a need.
Netflix OR HBO OR [put any other service here] has plenty of content by itself, especially in the US.
As a bonus some of these services do not infect your mind with advertising (one could consider this an aggression)
There is not enough time on a day to watch everything except of course if one has nothing better to do all day.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
WTF are these things TFS calls 'channels'?
When you cut the cord, you dispense with channels and pay for some combination of Netflix, Hulu, Acorn or other on demand, over the internet providers of content and watch what you want to watch, when you want to watch it.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
My bill from Comcast is $49/mo for internet only. Your assertion varies wildly by location.
The author is clearly missing the point of cutting the cord. He wants to replace his huge cable bundle with an identical streaming bundle. No wonder he isn't saving any money.
Successful cord cutters look at their viewing differently. Instead of, "The entertainment giants are willing to show me these programs right now, I'd better pay for a giant bundle of channels and hope there is something that I sort of want to watch." It becomes, "What programming that I have access to do I want to watch right now." It is a subtle distinction, but it can be huge. For people like me, it becomes the difference between a $70-$100 cable bill where there was often nothing the I wanted to watch, and a $10 Netflix bill where there is always something worth watching.
Cord works well for a lot of people, though often not for sports junkies.
------- Mark
Agreed. Our internet provider (Shaw Canada) has been shamelessly begging for us to bundle cable with our internet for years now. They finally promised to quintuple our internet speed if we'd just try it free for two months. We're on our second month now, and never use it. It's just the same ad-ridden low quality garbage that it's always been. Even the movie channels are full of ads, and I assume they still snip out pieces of the movie to make room for more ads? Can't be bothered to find out.
I had the triple play, and It was getting ridiculous with the add-on fees (taxes, rentals) that made it ridiculous. After several calls, got a 50 Mbps service that works for me. My phone has been moved to a low-cost VOIP. My TV source is now antenna attached to a lifetime-subcription HD3 TiVo ($0/month), BluRay player for Amazon Prime (we also use the shipping benefit, but $99/year), and AppleTV for NetFlix (which is temporary), Hulu ($12/month) and CBS All Access ($6/month). Once NetFlix is cancelled, the monthly TV price is $26.25... I'm saving about $65/month.
Sling can add up, sure, but Hulu Live is in beta and looks to provide a better package.
And both Sling and Hulu offer
free trials so you can see whether it works out for you, and
no contracts, so you can start and quit whenever you want, and
no cable box rental fees - just use your PC, phone, or get a Roku-type for your TV.
Cable TV still seems lousy to me.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
I bought a directional HDTV antenna for $50 and I get 2-3 channels for each - both of the PBS stations has three channels, and so does the local Telemundo - your TV has the ability to display a second language as part of the digital channel, so I can watch a Spanish broadcast of a soccer game with that turned on, and the sound is in English or you can display subtitles in English.
In most major cities this will give you around 50 channels, most of which are higher quality signals than your local cable provider.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
How about the alternative: stop rotting your brain and just reading a book?
Shocking, I know.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
I simply quit watching TV entirely. Not because of cost really, but when you hate all the shows on all the channels, the decision is easy.
Some people actually recommend using an antenna to watch broadcast HDTV, but that's like the worst of the worst. Maybe a step up from watching QVC, but barely.
Who wants ESPN? In fact, most cable providers are realizing the majority of consumers don't want ESPN.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Depends on what you need and your location. I think the East coast has different prices from the West coast. Also some of the bundles are intro only, may make you wish you had just internet only after a year. also they get you on DVR rentals and such.
Also some places have alternate Internet means like Fios, DSL or can Tether via Smart Phone.
Then there are the ones that pay for business lines to avoid a cap.
and laugh all the way to the bank...
nothing to see here - move along
who was this written by? the ex CEO of comcast?
What TFA left out was cable companies playing with the numbers to make their TV look cheaper. Want fast internet? That's $90. But for only $30 more you can have 50 channels!
Pretty slick deal. By lowering TV, and raising internet, they keep their profits the same but make it financially impractical to go outside for your TV.
Comcast max overage is $200 other systems it's $50.
As a cord-cutter who has quite happily used an internet-only service provider, alongside a standard antenna for access to broadcast television... I would absolutely never consider a fully blown out cable package for my own use. I mean, sure... the author's math sounds mildly interesting and all, but let's glance at the math required to replicate something like my own setup, for comparison:
* Antenna in the attic or on the roof - one time cost of $30 to $100 or so
* A couple of Hauppauge USB television tuners - one time cost of $50 to $150 or so each
* A home theater computer capable of recording shows from those tuners - one time cost of $400 to $3000 or so (it's a computer... you can pretty much pick your price)
* Your preferred media streaming receiver(s), to allow you to stream from your HTPC out to any other TVs in your house over your LAN - one time cost of $40 to $200 or so each
Are you sensing the theme here? No matter how cheap your cable subscription is, it's only a matter of time before my own one time cost setup -- much of which I'd have bought anyway -- saves me money.
"But it's not one-to-one! You're missing out on sports channels and HBO and SyFy!"
Yup: all true. And honestly, I'm no worse off for it, either.
I kind of agree, but from just a video point of view, my kids seem to have no trouble finding anime online, I don't know if the content owners are allowing this willingly.
But my kids end up going to these shows and stuff and end up paying there by purchasing a poster for $10 among other things.
I got the VPN+uTorrent bundle and I'm OK.
I'll perhaps go legit when it gets just as easy.
I was only worried about losing access to my local news channel (OTA is impossible for me), but after I discovered that my local news streams on their web site, I don't even need Sling. And I just dropped Comcast for a cheaper and less greasy vendor. I think this author assumes most of us want a 1:1 replacement for cable, which I'm not I would agree. There's very little I miss from cable that I don't get from Hulu or Netflix.
I put up an antennae and I get all the major networks and then some (29 channels in all). I added HDHomeRun to it and can now stream to all computers and Smart TVs in the House. Added MythTV and can also record.
Now the basic setup is about $100. the additional features added another another $500. I was paying over $110 a month. I buy the movies I want, which I already did before so that's not an added cost.
The first year I saved about $700 and today my plan would have cost me over $120 a month. So if you are going to cut the cable cord to save, you are looking at it the wrong way.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Cut the cable get a fast internet connection, Amazon Prime which I already have, and Netflix. For the difference in price I can rent a few movies a month and buy the occasional movie on Amazon and still come out way ahead,
Personally I have little time for TV, so sitting around surfing channels (and nothing is on) is something I stopped doing 20 years ago.
Missing "exclusive" shows on cable channels....well they can kiss my ass. Sooner or later they'll end up on Netflix or Prime or will be in the bargain bin on Amazon. If not, then no great loss.
with the exception of one TV show that pre-dated my cord cutting. South Park. Long story short if you give up watching TV cord cutting is effective.
The only streaming service I had for quite a while was Amazon, not that I used it often, but because it came with Prime which I had for shipping. Technically during that era I had a dozen or so TV channels with the absolute bare minimum cable that came with the Internet connection, but considering I didn't even have the cable box plugged in most of the I didn't count it. I think half of those channels were in languages I didn't speak.
Then I got married. My wife brought her Netflix account along and South Park now requires Hulu to watch properly, all in all I've given a lot of time to evaluating the various streaming services over the past few years. That, and I'm watching TV shows again. My findings:
1. Netflix is where it is at. The best software for game consoles, the best interface, the best in reliability, and a great selection and the best originals.
2. Hulu is a reasonable substitute with a few alright original shows. They pissed me off early on because nearly everything I wanted to watch gave me a message about not being able to use my TV to watch it and they had commercials even if you paid. Those issues are a thing of the past, but I actually canceled my free trial account early over those issues early on. Again, my wife brought along an account so I gave it another shot. We got the more expensive no commercials tier which is now available and it's better than it was. We have problems with it dropping out occasionally like it just can't make due to lack of bandwidth. She likes to have Hulu around because apparently the best yoga videos are on there. We aren't paying for it right now - I think the plan is to pay for it during South Park season and let it go otherwise.
3. Amazon Prime. The interface is crappy - it's written for a 1080p widescreen and even if you're using an original Wii that didn't do 1080 or you're using a Playstation 3 in SD mode it is hard-coded to wide screen. You can't read hardly any of the text on an SD screen due to the crappy interface. Even when using a 1080 screen the interface - regardless of console - feels constrained and a little unintuitive. They have some reasonably good shows, not that I watch them. My coworkers have raved about how great The Man in the High Castle is. I'll go ahead and believe them, I don't have time for another show. That being said I'm going to make sure I watch The Tick. Their selection is reasonable at times, but feels lacking most of the time. The poor arrangement of their interface and their tactics of only giving one season free etc... Is all geared around getting you to shell out extra money. Used to all the Prime stuff was in one bucket, but they're beginning to introduce new buckets. Almost like they're cable and they want you to pay for the Horror channel now. I know for a fact some of the shows that were in the general bucket in the past were pulled out and put into the new specialized buckets. The juries still out on this being a good idea or not. I'm not messing with it for one, I can't stand using their software on my consoles because it's so crappy, I can't bring myself to care about their add-on buckets.
So, even though I don't give a rats ass about live TV at all I have lots of family that really wants local channels and channels in general. I've given a serious look at Playstation Vue but haven't subscribed, because as I said, I don't care about channels. I think if I were to have either of my parents/either of my parent in laws, or my grandmother move into me for whatever reason I would seriously consider at least giving Playstation Vue a go. It's cheaper than cable.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Same here. We still have cable, the basic package (which is pretty comprehensive) comes pretty much for free with our Internet subscription. The only reason we got it is so my mother in law could watch Eastenders on the BBC when she visited, and I still haven't gotten around to putting up the FreeSat dish to get BBC for, well, free.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
You might be paying $70/month for all that getup. But keep in mind, you're not paying the $10/month HD fee. The $10/month DVR fee. The $10/month cable box fee for other TVs. The $10/month router fee so all the hardware works.
That saves you just $600 in a year alone. Sure, it still sucks but it's a little more palatable.
Beyond the obvious greed, I'm not really sure why everyone's so gungho to split into their own services. People only have so much free time and so much disposable cash. Setting up a service is a huge investment so you'd have to look at your entire library to think whether or not your stuff is gotta have. I can't think of anyone outside of Disney or HBO that could pull it off by going on their own rather than just work with Netflix or Amazon.
you should downgrade your connection. The only thing you're getting at 150mbps is your speed test. The damn equipment has a SFP (not SFP+) port in it which means the 48 other customers are ALSO bottle-necked by the same 1gig uplink. Even 4k streaming only consumes 10-15Mbps. Thats still 4 simultaneous 4k streams at one time. Do you actually own 4 separate 4k screens and simultaneously watch actual 4k content on all 4 screens? Spectrum is doing 60Mbps for around $50/mo
The concept of the channel dates back to the time when you had to receive a broadcast on a single frequency. The internet has made that whole concept obsolete. I cut the cord a long time ago, with no channels at all- just content bundles (Netflix, Amazon Prime, with a Youtube supplement). Those services are plenty for me, and cost me a total of $11/month (not counting Prime, which I mostly have for the free shipping).
Trying to replicate cable channels over the internet is like trying to motorize your horse drawn carriage instead of just buying a car, then complaining that the car is more expensive after paying for the care and feeding of your horses.
Yes, I know many live broadcasts (like sports) haven't yet moved outside the channel concept, but that is starting to change. Sports nuts may need to stay corded for a while.
If what you want is cable, get cable. Don't expect to be able to replace cable with "internet" cable and save money.
You cut the cable when you are no longer interested in very many TV shows, and cable no longer fits with your media consumption habits.
If you watch regular TV shows all the time, like ESPN, Bravo, FX, HBO, etc., then what you want is a cable package. That's what they excel at. Get a whole bunch of shows produced for the masses*, you're just not going to beat the mass market model that is cable TV.
However a lot of people no longer fit that mold. In my case for example, I have a ~$60 cable package for literally one show that my roommate likes to watch. He's moving out, so I'm dropping cable completely, because 99% of my media consumption has nothing at all to do with Hollywood. I'm only interested in a handful of shows, and I'm more likely to look up sports clips than I am to sit down and watch ESPN, so I can drop the $60 a month cable bill and just spend $100 a year on full seasons of shows I like instead. There just aren't that many of them.
But if my nightly habit were to sit down in front of a TV and watch a couple hours of TV, then cutting cable is almost certainly not going to be better in almost any way.
*I'm not disparaging shows produced for the masses. That's how they can afford to create large amounts of high quality content. It's just economics.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I haven't paid for cable TV in YEARS (we're talking 8+ years here). Netflix works just fine for me. People need to find more hobbies and worry about other crap than just TV.
Because they're shilling for cable companies and need to work the numbers in whatever way is required to show that you won't save money.
What about the software that conveniently scraps TV shows off the newsgroups and then conveniently places them into your Plex streaming folders for playback? Not exactly 100% legit, but still cannot be discounted. Unless you need to see something Live as its aired; such as a sports game, needing to vote for your next favorite washed-up american idol, or whatever, a DVR setup + antenna + Plex + these scraping tools cut the cost down to $5/mo for Plex.
I still keep a basic cable package for local news and some add-on sports channels; stuff it makes sense to watch in real time, which most content is not.
Honestly, I still end up time shifting a lot of the real time stuff too, but the live option is still there.
People stream news channels live on YouTube and YouTube monetizes those streams?
YouTube Red and a 300 Mbps connection w/a copy of Transmission do me just fine.
Cut the cord years ago. We use an antenna and receive about 60 channels. It was a $10 one-time investment. We recently discovered (a probably still ongoing) coupon code on Slick Deals last week for one month trial (auto-renew of course) DirectTV streaming service. We now have 70 live channels on that Roku app. We've watched it maybe three times in the week and just get entirely overwhelmed. Granted, we live in a large metropolitan area with lots of stations broadcasting nearby, and we only really watch the stations that play the "classic" TV shows (oldies and ones running during fellow Gen-Xers' childhoods) and mostly watch one of 5 PBS stations anyway. But still, looking at all these channels and knowing you can only watch one at a time seems like such a huge waste. This package would be like $80/month or so - no way we're going to let it auto-renew.
Fuck Ajit Pai
You are correct the manufacturer can't call them a TV BUT Vizio has taken to selling "Theater Displays" which don't have a tuner, a fact that Vizio does not go to great lengths to let you know and everybody knows that Vizio makes TVs, right.
because I had no reason to watch cable tv anymore and had no desire to watch commercials. I've been on and off Netflix for a few years but even that I've watch all that I wanted to watch and haven't used Netflix for weeks. Do I pirate? Sure as hell do but I spend most of my time on my desktop when I can get instant news, play games, run my game server, do some web development.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I haven't have a cable sub for over 10 years. Currently there's no show, event, or news I can't get live or with a 15 minute delay on the stream, without commercials, without ANY subscriptions. The first few years it was a little difficult, but today is click and point for anyone with any research ability. It's child's work to watch any content today without subscription (regardless of how many times addons/plugins/protocols/services) are "shut down").
But, when Joe Sixpack finds this out, we all find another route, as we did with guntella, supernova, mininova, TPB... and countless other swarms, clients or services. Until the distributors play nice, there's no other viable route.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
There are many legal ways to get the anime via streaming. Netflix has many, Crunchyroll is free, and I'm certain many other streaming services have anime as well. There's a lot of older stuff to watch, maybe not as cool now but the kids need to be taught to ignore fashion and peer pressue.
Show me how I can get non-network channels with an antennae, and I'll not only drop cable, I'll not even look at streaming.
What do you think satellite TV is?
It's an antenna.
There. Now go look at streaming.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Internet connectivity is the only thing I care to pay for. I have no problem for the news (such as the CBC, Microsoft and proprietary formats excluded) being paid for with tax dollars. Like paved roads, certain things are good for the whole of society.
Ideally one would pay a relatively fixed, close to lowest possible price, for pure non-corrupted internet connectivity. Geeks would hook up their IP phones at will and the free market would just make it easy to do the same. Crave-TV, Netflix and the likes of them can take care of the rest.
IMHO, ISPs would be better off easing into that model rather than fight it. Unfortunately, all they have demonstrated so far is to think short term and squeeze as much of their customers as if they were cattle.
As long as internet only is $1 cheaper than internet plus cable then why bundle in a service you're not using?
Just try following a popular NHL team on their streaming service. All games designated as "national" are not available live on the streaming app, national games include all games on NBC, NBCSN and NHL Network. Last year 25 of the Blackhawks 40 home games were designated as "national". Plus look at the ridiculous size of the blackout areas for teams. The Minnesota Wild is blacked out for Iowa, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Minnesota and most of Wisconsin. Tough cookies if your a Wild fan in any of those states. Blackout areas on the NHL service are designed to protect the Regional Sports Networks (RSNs).
Also no playoffs on the streaming service.
The point of cutting the cord it to get rid of it. This isn't switching to directv, or netflix.
The point of cutting the cord is to no longer be bound to buying things you are not watching or did not want in the first place.
99% of what you want can be streamed from network sites online for free 100% legally. I'm not talking about piracy. This is straight from the main feeds. I have been doing this for a good 15 years now. Seven years ago it was only possible to steam a couple stations. Now all the networks do it. Fuck netflix. Don't even bother. what a waste. like shopping at dollar tree,
Layer that in with a ppv/subscription off itunes and you are good to go. Add in Prime which you probably already have but don't use, and you are golden.
Trade off for you(not for me) little no no live tv(do not want) no sports(Do not want). The best part is when ever march madness comes around, you don't even notice!!! You could always get an antenna... but that would be a step backwards for me. I want to watch WHEN not what WHAT.
The Wired writer is doing it wrong. He doesn't understand why cord cutters do what they do.
As a cord cutter myself, I can tell you why I did it. I was tired of paying an expensive bill for a lot of stuff I never used. No kids at home, wife and I didn't watch much TV. I hated paying for all those channels I never watched. History channel? Home and Garden channel? Food Network? And yes, ESPN? Really, I only miss ESPN (a little) for the NCAA basketball, and that's only three months a year really. For the next nine months, ESPN is a completely dead weight. I could go on, but you get the idea. And I never subscribed to HBO then, and I don't now.
Got a free OTA antenna from a local TV station during the "digital changeover" and have been using that since 2009. I'm in a smallish market and still get way more channels than I'll ever watch. But at least they aren't costing me anything extra. And that's the point.
I do have an internet feed (have to for wife's business). So in addition to the OTA antenna, I also pay the monthly fee to Netflix for streaming. That's basically all I need, and all I want. And it's like 10% of my previous cable TV bill.
IMHO *that* is why people are cord cutters. Because cable TV is a really bad deal for those people. Bundled services (channels) are an old and unwieldy business model that doesn't have a path forward.
Not married and no kids, so hitting the cap on ATT is practically inconceivable for me, there's no way I could watch that much TV. But with kids I understand it's a lot easier to hit the cap. Maybe some of that can be fixed with just training the kids better to watch less stuff and read more.
People keep saying everyone was dead the whole time on LOST, which is just the most inaccurate interpretation possible. Here's an actual spoiler for you, not the usual rant from people who ether didn't watch the show or really weren't smart or attentive enough to follow what was going on: at the end of the last episode everyone met in the afterlife, yes, BUT that was AFTER everyone died in their own way whenever their own time came, and "time" in the afterlife is portrayed as non linear to our living perception of time. Everything that happened on and off the island in the show happened to those characters while they were alive. The afterlife depiction was about friends waiting for everyone (and they very clearly stated how much longer those who stayed behind on the island as its keepers did in fact LIVE). The point is everyone dies eventually, and these people had such a strong bond that they didn't want to pass beyond a purgatory type of afterlife and go on to whatever is further beyond until they could meet up with their friends and loved ones again. The all met up and went on together. But everything in the show happened in, and mattered to, the living world, they just had an artsy statement at the end about how everyone and everything in the world dies eventually.
Watch the show, it was quite good, lots of really interesting details throughout to piece together how everything and everyone across the whole show are deeply related.
I know others who are internet only for a decent price. However cable companies, just like phone companies, will never tell you about the deals and will happily let you overpay for years. I had a friend who every year would complain about leaving cable and then get a reduced rate if he stayed on, or lookup what packages were for new subscribers and demand to get that deal, and I think he kept this going for over 5 years.
I remember when paying for cable, even if I was on unemployment, was a must; it was what kept me sane, and I couldn't imagine not having it.
But that was then, and this is now. I thought a good long time about it before giving Comcast the boot, and while there were two or three channels available only on cable I initially felt a sense of loss about, in the long run I don't really miss them enough to be bothered. There are a plethora of OTA broadcast stations where I and many others live, and I am here to tell you: You'll find you have more than enough to watch, and that's with only OTA broadcast television. Most of you are going to have Netflix or some other streaming service for some of what you watch -- and again, you'll have more than enough. So don't fret about dumping cable; really, it's not worth what you're paying for it. Just look at all the garbage channels on cable you have zero (or less than zero) interest in; you're paying for those, too, whether you want them or not. Also there's the Dirty Little Secret about cable: Recompression. You may be technically getting 1080 resolution, but pixels are only part of the story, they're recompressing the video to fit more channels in the available bandwidth, and you'll notice it when things on the screen are moving (blocky!). Never seen it on OTA television. My advice to you is that if you're even thinking about dumping cable, just do it. You'll be glad you did later.
Due to cable packages and billing models, the majority who watched less TV on a few channels always subsidized a minority who watched a lot of TV across a lot of channels. Cable is cheaper if you want to watch ESPN and live sports or watch a lot of TV on a lot of channels.
If you are like most people though, with a $15 sub to Hulu, a $14 sub to Netflix and your annual Amazon prime membership (that I had before free videos anyway), you have way more content than you could ever watch for around $30/month, commercial free. High speed internet was essential in my home long before the rise of VOD streaming services, so I don't consider it part of the cost (at the least it gets amortized over VoIP phone/gaming/VOD streaming/internet/face-time/etc., etc.) so it's not really a big part of the equation.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
...is to take a break from the "content" that everyone else is telling you is "can't miss".
If nothing else in this day and age you can be sure that all of those shows will be waiting for you down the road when you can binge all of the seasons at once...or not.
Replacing a single service that includes a bunch of crap you don't want with multiple services to include all that crap ends up costing more!
If you want 100 channels, pay for cable. If you don't, don't.
I get what I want to watch, when I want to watch it and not all the other crap. Live TV isn't that important. I can cancel Netflix one month, add extra channels to Sling TV the next. It's about convenience and options.
I had Comcast for 15 years, but they continued to offer me less and poorer quality service for more money year after year. I originally had a basic cable package (30 channels), no stupid cable box needed, and I had HD to as many TVs as I wanted in my house. And that cost around $20-$30 for a long time. A few years ago, I upped to a slightly better package (60 channels). But around that time they started requiring a cable box. Oh, and the basic cable box had no HD, and I was no restricted to one TV. And I was paying $50/mo. Oh, you want HD again? Like you had before? That's another $10/mo.
Direct TV Now had an early sign-up deal. $35/mo (now is $60/mo), 100 channels, and they threw in a free Apple TV. HD included, and they have on demand TV and movies (although that part still has some bugs to work out).
It's not even close which service is better.
Really has everything except "local channels". I still have both Netflix and Hulu, Hulu often has a large (and easily accessible) back catalog of TV shows, and I want to actually support Netflix's "original content" development.
So we cut the cord for a few years out of budget necessity. It's not like you call up your cable company, drop their services, and then you pick up right where you left off with your streaming box. You give up services and you may gain some services. Sling used to be a great deal until the orange/blue plans came out (they used to be the same). I found this out trying to watch some Thursday night football... where the fuck is my NFL channel? Oh, for fuck's sake I need to buy a bundle of other channels to watch football? SOUNDS LIKE FUCKING CABLE!!! We ended up going back to cable after we started getting slapped with data overages ($50/mo) and we were basically breaking even at that point.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Put up an antenna.
Have gnu, will travel.
you're going to need
Let me stop you there. You don't NEED any of those.
You can get local channels in HD free with an antenna. If there are "gaps" in your content, you can subscribe to a number of services---Netflix, Amazon, Crunchyroll, and, yes, even Sling.
Since most services are in the $10-$20/month range, you can have a variety of them for less than a monthly cable subscription. You can easily get more channels for a lower total cost. The content will be slightly different than what the cable company offers, which is fine because the cable companies aren't 100% consistent from region to region anyway.
Recreating the cable bundle by maxing a SlingTV subscription is the exact opposite of what cable cutters should be doing. I know of no one who is doing what the summary suggested.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
This is assuming you have kids, multiple TVs, or you actually want 50 channels of sports. Many people don't care about 'the big game' and just want quality movies and TV shows to watch. We pay USD $10 for Netflix, and USD $11.99 for Hulu and we never find ourselves longing for anything else other than Game of Thrones, which my wife is addicted to. She goes to our neighbor's house to watch that. They pay $170 USD/month for their cable/internet package.
A la carte works best when you don't want every channel under the Sun. If you want it all, sticking with your cable provider is probably your best bet. The point is most people don't want everything. At least the bills are more predictable. For a while on Charter, my bill was going up $2-$3 every month or two with no explanation while I was in contract. After a year of it, I had my wife call them up and start a fire storm. My wife can be down right evil on the phone, but only because she knows you have the play the game to get anywhere.
I just don't want any billing shenanigans. If I can get that while paying within 10%-20% for exactly the channels I want, that's a win.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This article starts with the assumption that the reader needs everything that the author's cable service is offering. He does admit that not everybody may feel the same way, but the article doesn't discuss it so much as dismiss it. It's very self-centered and arrogant. "Oh, sure, if you're an inferior being who doesn't WANT all the amazing stuff, hey no problem, settle for less."
He's right as far as he goes. Yes, if he wants to keep everything he's getting now, he's going to have to subscribe to a whole bunch more more services, disjoint and expensive, and it'll cost more and be less convenient than simply keeping his cable service.
Part of me wants to sneer something like, "If you REALLY feel your life is incomplete without your cable service, perhaps the problem isn't your cable service." But that's mean, and while I do wonder about that enough to have mentioned it, I also don't feel that it's my place to judge. I've spent many hours of my own watching plenty of passive entertainment (including daytime soap operas, for a while). And sneering at him while complaining that he's sneering at me is a tad hypocritical.
Had to mention it, though. *shrug* What can I say, I'm only human. And hypocritical. :)
But no, that's not really the point I want to make. What I really want to point out is: if you're satisfied with the content you're cable service is giving you, and don't feel that you want to sacrifice any of it, then why are you talking about cutting the cord? Cord cutting is for those of us who feel we are getting too little value for the money. It's for people like me who see 200 channels and nothing is on. It's for people who don't feel a strong need to keep up with the latest of popular shows. It's for those of us who would rather lose a channel than pay an extra $80 premium. It's for those of us who like being able to watch what we want, when we want, on the device we want.
Yeah, there are problems. There are limitations. Shows are being nixed from my favorite service while others are being brought in. Networks are being parsimonious with their programming; not everything I want to watch is available on the few accounts I own. While streaming services are pretty well established as A Thing, nevertheless it's still early days (especially with the major networks still in denial about cord cutting).
If all you're looking for is a way to save a few bux on your cable bill, but you don't want to give anything up, then stop talking about cord cutting. It's not for you. It's not about you. You're not part of that demographic.
If you want to save a LOT of money, and are willing to sacrifice some things you've gotten used to, then cord cutting is something to consider.
If you want to... well, there are a lot of reasons to cut the cord, I won't try to list them here, but in fact I've already covered a bunch. Suffice to say that cord cutting is an obvious move for some of us. TFA did his research and discovered it's not for him. Fair enough. I have access to a couple streaming services and Youtube, and sometimes I do things aside from potato* the couch. I usually watch the stuff on my tablet anyway. In fact we cut the cord almost 20 years ago. We're pretty happy with what we've got now.
If you can't justify cutting the cord, then it's not for you. Yet. Maybe someday. For now, relax and enjoy your cable service. Cord cutting will be there when you're ready.
* "Potato" is now a verb. :)
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
"...the very instant I allow myself to picture what life looks like after that figurative snip, my reverie comes crashing down."
Damn, sounds like someone is a little too attached to their TV-machine. Give up the Bullshit Box and reclaim your life.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you can't live without the name-brand TV shows, you're not ready to cut the cord.
First of all, not a true comparison, because no cord cutter wants to watch ESPN(U) and FX, Netflix, Amazon, Twitch and YouTube have way better content for much less.
Even so, if you want all the channels, TWC comes in at $65/month as a promotional price. True cost for TWC (now Comcast/Spectrum) Full Package Cable + Internet + Phone after all the discounts have ended is $220/month - not kidding that is over two-hundred dollars per month for the package that includes ESPN and FX; HBO is another $25/month. It's not unlikely to have people paying nearly $180/month for "basic cable" and $300/month for 'premium cable' once they've included all the sports and movie channels, DVR rentals etc.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I gave up live TV when I first got a Tivo back in '99 or 2000. Even things I wanted to watch "right away" I'd wait about 20 minutes after start on an hour show to skip all the commercials. I gave up cable/satellite ~8 years ago when the ex left and my daughter moved out. Even radio is something I can't stand, using podcasts as a substitute.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Wow, what a dumbass. How can this idiot call himself a reporter? The whole POINT of "cord cutting" is not to merely get live TV via a different means. That's no different than switching to a satellite TV provider. The point is to stop consuming live content entirely. How can this guy be so ignorant on this point? Wired should be ASHAMED of itself for allowing this useless drivel on their site.
If you want everything cable offers, cord cutting is not for you. And it'll probably never be. Cable companies will always flex their muscles to keep some exclusive content there to force people to keep paying them. They are still huge monopolies, and thanks to them tying different types of services under a single brand, I don't see a future where they stop being monopolies.
For me personally it's more like a legal option to piracy. For over a decade I was forced to pay for cable basically because it was cheaper to get a basic cable package tied to Internet and landline than getting cable Internet by itself.
Then finally fiber became available, I switched as soon as I heard about it and never looked back. I pay less for a huge improvement on the stuff that I care about, and none of the crap I never used in the first place.
And now that services like Netflix and Crunchyroll are available, movies, series and anime just became available for me at reasonable prices without having to resort to piracy. Well, almost none of the content on Crunchyroll was available on cable anyways, and cable never gave me the convenience of watching whenever I wanted to like Netflix. In fact, in the past I relied far more on movie rental services than on cable per se.
So yes, if you so strongly want content that is likely to be cable exclusives, you are not cord cutting anytime soon. But that's not really the point of cord cutting. Also, you just went and forgot about a whole metric ton of reasons why people with cable TV are also signing up for those services. Like all the shows your kids will want to watch on a tablet or smartphone, like a la carte service without having to rely on DVR solutions, among others.
It's not as cut and dry as this snippet is trying to pass. Cord cutting is ultimately an alternative. And if you are not willing to budge on your watching habits, you are ultimately no different than old people who can't deal with new tech. There's nothing wrong with that, but cord cutting is probably not for you.
BUNDLE THIS! Nice try though. F**K cable TV providers.
I liked the products. Hated the marketing scheme. New customers got all the great packages and equipment. If you were a loyal always paid on time customer, they did not treat you as well. My "package" had rate hike creep and went from 65 to 124 in about 5 years. I took just the programming that didn't repeat itself every 6 months. I was with them for about 15 years straight. The programming I did have got worse. The infomercials ruled most of the channels from 10 pm or until dawn. News network repeated themselves after 10 pm. My equipment was so old the time shifted programs filled the drive up fast. I worked 2nd shift most of my life so I came home to infomercials all night long and stale news channels at 124 per month. Not my version of quality programming. So I called them up after 15 years to cut the cable and they called me all kinds of names and kept saying you will be back. I finally found out how you beat them is to trade from dish network to the other one.Every 2 years after your commitment is done drop the one you have and go to the other one.Just be sure you have both dishes on your roof and piped into your house for quick hook up.That way you always get the discounts and new equipment every 2 years. To me it is just a big load of crap anymore. I have the local channels [free] netflix hulu and that's it. I've have now found out my head is not so full of crap from the political news networks and I think a lot clearer. Quality of life is more important to me now that I'm older. So pass the pig shit somewhere else. And stick your weasel marketing schemes somewhere no man has gone before.
If you've already got internet at moderate speeds (12kbps is good enough) then this is a no brainer.
12 kbps like a V.32bis dial-up modem from two decades ago? With HTML and JavaScript having become far heavier since then, I'm not sure even Netflix's DVD mailing service can usefully be used under that condition.
it's not hard at all to wait a year to save $900 to $1000.
Unless office politics where you work are such that those who can join discussions about sports and recent episodes of scripted TV series get raises or promotions sooner.
CSPAN and CNN have live streams, too, if you don't want to watch network programming but just network news.
Last I checked, when the House and Senate aren't in session, C-SPAN's live stream was "TV Everywhere". "TV Everywhere" streams are available only to viewers who present valid credentials issued by a participating multichannel subscription television provider.
Also some places have alternate Internet means like Fios, DSL or can Tether via Smart Phone.
How many shows can you watch on tethering's 10 GB/mo cap?
$200 a month is $24,000 a decade!!! That could be a down payment of a frakking nice house in most areas of the country. What were you thinking?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
...why do you need ESPN, Starz, and MTV Live? What in your life is improved by being able to view them?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I had a package of cable TV, then I simply used the move to cancel it (local laws state that you can cancel a contract on a move). I got a call telling me I could still get the package where I lived, well yuppee doo. I cut the cord and I am not looking back. In the last 5 years I watched *once* what was on cable. The rest was streaming, youtube and other providers.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
When we cut the cord we stopped just laying around browsing for random things to watch on random channels and watch less TV overall. Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime + iTunes. Just watch things we want to watch when we want to watch them.
If you are trully on a budget, get the lowest tier Netlix subscription and an antenna for basic news/sports. If you are sufficiently desperate, connect an Android phone with T-mobile service to monitor/keyboard/mouse as a replacement for both a TV and a PC, no need for any other internet service. If not, higher speeds are overrated and basics work fine.
If you are financially comfortable, consider the convinience you are getting from watching your stuff on any TV, device and hotel room setup. At this time your time and quality of life is more important than counting pennies.
Are they concerned that their subscribers will follow?
Nobody does their scenario, everyone is different which is why cable is such a disaster. Instead of giving customers reasonable choices, skinny bundles, at reasonable prices they push for $200/month regardless of what you use. And Comcast for one will go to extraordinary lengths to get the cash, including their much publicized extra fees that don't really exist.
Every cutter I know is happy with the solution and they spend less money. Nobody wants to pay wired's projected costs. People read, they Netflix, they stream and YouTube. Who cares if the content providers go broke? Not I. If they can take down Comcast and their ilk on the way, so much the better.
I don't have cable, I don't have Netflix, HBO or any other streaming. What idle time I have, are spent on YouTube videos that are more interesting and informative than anything that comes from cable.
Real cutting the cord means ISP fee only. That's the only way to get away from the main problem of cable - ads.
ISP should pay content owners, like youtube, per view. ISP knows already what you are watching. It's new Nielsen system with 300M unwilling participants instead of 1000 willing.
I am in bewilderment, why people who just cut the cord, are gleefully gasping about Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu.
It's the same yoke.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Just thought I'd plug this website. Best cable tv replacement I've found. And it's free. Every channel you need. Couple this with a free OTA tv tuner for local news, Amazon, Netflix or Apple TV and you're set.
We cut the cord several years ago, but we've just recently resubscribed to cable. We're in a small town without any local broadcasters, so we only get two spotty HD channels with the antenna, and we don't get PBS. We did have a few channels coming in through our cable internet which were never switched off, but just recently those were turned off by our cable provider after several years, and then suddenly no PBS, and no sports at all. I wouldn't give up small town life for a major metropolitan area again, but those of you who can just plug in an antenna and get 40 to 60 channels have it pretty good. On the other hand, lots of live sports (colleges and soccer) are only on cable, and there's no good substitute for those.
Make love, not reality television.
In every state I have lived in, internet-only service is either not available or costs $5 less than a TV-internet bundle.
COE
This. I have a relative slow connection and a friend of mine tells me his is much faster.
I have up 10Mbps and down 50Mps and he has something that is 5 times as fast.The difference is that I have all ports open, his are closed below 1024. I have true limitless data, so I download as much as I like and am able to download faster than I can watch. He had to upgrade because he was reaching his data limit a few times.
His is cable, mine is VDSL. I should get 30 up and 100 down from my provider, but I can't even be bothered to call them and solve it.
I rather have no data limit than speed that I can't use. Luckily in Belgium there are options to go to several different providers.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Chromecast, You Tube, and a tablet or a phone, the number of full length high quality programs on You Tube is astounding. Want sports, get an antenna. Clearly the author is shilling for cable.
Murphy was an optimist
The only channel I need is the channel I'm presently watching.
That's why I generally buy just one or two flavours of potato chips at a time. If I had ten flavours in the house, I'd be hard pressed to eat anything else.
I cut the cord years ago and pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime because there are no ads. I really, really hate ads.
Amazon Prime has been showing ads before some shows on the iPad, usually ads for more of their content. If I didn't use Amazon Prime for other benefits (e.g., reduced shipping costs), I would have dropped Amazon Prime already. I rarely view Amazon content on the iPad anymore because of this annoyance.
If/when Netflix starts showing ads, I will drop them, too.
Ads in the middle of a program or movie break the flow. If I am watching television and ads are present (in a hotel room recently), I end up muting the television and ignoring the ads. That's when I brush my teeth or check my email.
Did I mention that I really, really hate ads? Why would I pay to view ads?
What a terrible article. Cutting the cord is about changing your viewing habits, not replacing cable with internet alternatives that give you exactly what you had before. Of course it's stupid to do the latter. If you're primary way of consuming media is live TV, then just subscribe to cable. That's what cable companies are for. The real question is, why do you need to watch so much live TV? Most cord cutters don't watch live TV very much, if at all. If they do watch live TV, they have an antenna just for the basic channels. My wife and I cut the cord about 8 years ago and almost everyone we know around our age or younger has as well. Out of all those cord cutters we know, we're the only ones who still watch live TV on the main prime-time channels and that's only because we're sometimes too impatient to wait for it to come out on Hulu. In fact, we'll quite often get teased from our friends over the fact that we still watch live TV. All you need is one or two streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime) and maybe an OTA antenna. If you need more than that, you watch too much TV and need to find a hobby.
Agreed. Our internet provider (Shaw Canada) has been shamelessly begging for us to bundle cable with our internet for years now.
You might save some bucks switching to https://start.ca/ or https://teksavvy.com/ for your internet service - they resell the "bug guy's" intenet service. Here are some comparisons for Ontario pricing - similar savings are likely available elsewhere:
http://compare.wikia.com/wiki/...