Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

There Will Be 22 Million Cord Cutters By 2018, Says Report (dslreports.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the weak-ties dept.

A new report by eMarketer predicts that 22.2 million U.S. adults will have cut the cord on cable, satellite or telco TV service by the end of 2017, which is up 33% over 2016. It also notes that ad investment will expand just 0.5% to $71.65 billion this year, down from the $72.72 billion predicted in the company's original first quarter forecast for 2017. From a report via DSLReports: This year, there will be 22.2 million cord-cutters ages 18 and older, a figure up 33.2% over 2016. That's notably higher than the 15.4 million eMarketer previously estimated. The total number of U.S. adult cord-nevers (users that have never signed up for a traditional cable TV connection) will grow 5.8% this year to 34.4 million. Note that eMarketer's numbers don't include streaming options from the likes of Dish (Sling TV) or AT&T (DirecTV Now), though so far gains in subscribers for these services haven't offset the decline in traditional cable TV subscribers anyway.

22 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Comcast has fake subscribers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    At one point, in my area, Comcast Internet-Only was priced at $78 / month. They priced a Basic-cable + Internet bundle at $72 / month. I signed up for the $6 / month savings, but never hooked up a cable TV.

    1. Re:Comcast has fake subscribers by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note that the AC signed up for a bundle of Internet and BASIC cable. The cord cutters that are reaping huge savings are the ones who were paying for a buttload of channel tiers and renting 3-4 cable boxes, at least one being a more expensive DVR so they could time-shift programming, etc. These expenses go way down when you only have the subscribe to a couple streaming services to have "all the content" and your streaming device is a one-time purchase.

    2. Re:Comcast has fake subscribers by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's interesting how little the media companies understand this. They seem to think that because it used to work that way, people will now pay for multiple streaming services.

      What actually happens is people save a huge amount of money and make up their minds not to pay that much again.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re: Comcast has fake subscribers by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's that people won't, it's that Netflix is good enough by itself. They've got more good shows I can watch than I have time. Contrast this with the old Networks that maybe had one show I cared about watching at all, which Netflix or some other streaming platform has eventually shows when the program gets syndicated so even more stickiness to the platform.

      I'm also curious about total consumption as revenue. Typically when goods or services become less expensive, consumption goes up. With all the big streaming platforms having apps and smartphones becoming ubiquitous, anyone with $10 a month can get Netflix whereas before a lot of people couldn't afford the extra $50+ for cable. There's likely a much larger pie now, but the old guard gets a smaller piece.

    4. Re: Comcast has fake subscribers by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That's a great point. With on-demand streaming you don't need to have more channels to ensure something good is always available.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. TFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cord-cutters? Cord-nevers? Are we running out of labels to identify humans?

    1. Re:TFA... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It certainly fits into the narrative I'd want to sell if I was a cable company. Cord cutters almost implies some sort of deviant behaviour where people are moving outside the bounds of normal, polite society. Don't be a 'cord cutter' - they are anarchists and communists.

      (I know that's a bit hyperbolic, but it just seems strange to me that there is a label that defines people who don't pay for something - at best its just feels old fashioned. If I only shop online am I also a 'store smasher'? What's the label for people who don't pay for Netflix, etc? Stream poo-pooer?)

    2. Re:TFA... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

      I guess maybe its just that leaving cable seems so ordinary now that I don't see why it deserves a moniker. Giving it a label makes it seem unusual. Like buggy whip cutters :)

  3. Comcast Broke my equipment with Encrypted QAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    When Comcast Broke my equipment with Encrypted QAM, I dropped their service.

    They broke 3 "cable ready" TVs.
    They broke 4 "cable ready" VCR.
    They broke 4 "Clear QAM" network TV tuners.
    They broke 1 life-time TiVo.

    So, I dropped their service, put up a $30 antenna in the attic, connected it to the network TV tuners, which also support ATSC. Getting 70 channels "for free". Sure, 45 of those are wacko religious and shopping channels. About 20 are entertaining enough to watch a little.

    We read more books now.

    The TVs are all gone. I kept 1 VCR (very high end). The tivo is long gone, useless.

    We don't really care about sports in the USA. Our favorite sport has extremely bad coverage here and NBC geo-blocks our access to purchase the world-wide (except USA) web streaming service offered with their exclusive license for the USA of that content - which they don't show. Assholes.

  4. Re:RIP by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    2.6M die per year ( CDC ). wonder if they are counted as "cord cutters", too?

  5. 47 Billion by 2025 by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    47 Billion by 2025. There's an xkcd. Google it, I can';t be arsed.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. I wouldn't be so sure by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The alternatives are already getting worse than cable.

    Up until now, the alternatives to cable are awesome. Sign up with Netflix and you enjoy a huge variety of shows and movies. For now. Disney already pulled their content out to create their own streaming service. You think it will be long until the various networks do the same?

    In the end, you'll end up with the same ugly shit that cable has become. Only even worse. Now, on cable you get a "basic package" with a handful of channels you can watch and a load of religious, shopping or otherwise unusable channels they mostly add to boast "50 free channels". Want to see show X on channel A? Get package K with 20 new channels, all of them bullshit except the one you want to watch for the one show you want to see.

    And with streaming, it will soon be the same. With Netflix being the "basic package" where you get two old shows that you enjoy to rerun now and then, and with every network creating its own streaming service that you have to get separately and pay extra for, to get the one show that you want to see from the 1000 they "offer".

    I could see that people stop "cutting" the cable when they notice that streaming has become the same kind of bullshit, so why bother?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:I wouldn't be so sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't agree at all. You can start and stop streaming services as needed. I wanted to watch a few shows on Hulu so I get it for a couple of months and then put it on hold. Same with Netflix. Same with HBO. I like baseball so I get the MLB.tv subscription and watch all I want. Fortunately I don't care about the local team anyway so I don't need cable. Playoffs I can watch at a local sports bar if I care enough or over the air if it's on a local channel.

      Cable or satellite? Yeah you get a lot of garbage channels, although you're mostly paying for a few high flyers like ESPN. Which brings up the next point - ESPN has turned so disgustingly political and argumentative it's not worth watching anyway - who needs Faux News on a sports channel or some dumb bitch telling me about white supremacy. So unless you're desperate to watch some sporting event you'll need it, but in my case I can avoid them altogether (plus they are Disney, and I give zero dollars to Disney on principle.)

      Streaming has saved me a ton of money and I don't have to purchase cable "news" and all the garbage shopping channels I don't watch.

    2. Re:I wouldn't be so sure by the+coose · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are probably right. I "cut the cord" over year ago and knocked my monthly entertainment bill down to $70 from $150. It was a tough at first. I've been a cable subscriber for over 20 years, always automatically subscribing to the service every time I moved without even thinking about the money. Once I considered the cost to the number of channels I actually watched ratio, it just didn't make any financial sense. So I decided to try cord cutting (a misnomer really). I also installed an antenna outdoors to get the local channels. I did miss a few channels at first, but it didn't take long to ween myself off. If I can't watch a particular show or can't get a particular channel, then it's not the that big of a deal. The media company just won't have me as a source of advertising dollars. Their loss, not mine.

      And if what you say comes true with streaming services, then so be it. I'll just find other things to do. The big thing for me has been certain sports but I even found that I can live without that and just check the score and watch the highlights from a website. You ask why bother cutting cable; I ask why bother getting it in the first place.

    3. Re:I wouldn't be so sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your worst case for netflix is still better than cable, since I can choose what to watch and when.
      I can also use my netflix when not at home. Not with cable.
      And if netflix becomes too shit I will go back to piracy.
      All of that is infinitely better than the current state of cable.

    4. Re:I wouldn't be so sure by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Up until now, the alternatives to cable are awesome. Sign up with Netflix and you enjoy a huge variety of shows and movies. For now. Disney already pulled their content out to create their own streaming service. You think it will be long until the various networks do the same? In the end, you'll end up with the same ugly shit that cable has become.

      I agree. The answer is simple: cut it all off, and download what you like from BitTorrent. There isn't anything new worth watching anyway (except GoT), so just build a library of older classics and rewatch that when you feel like watching TV or movies.

  7. snip the cord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have yet to find a cord cutting option that is worth anything. Yes I can steal all kinds of programming with KODI, but legal options are more expensive than cable. Everyone starting a streaming servers and wants $10-20/month for some nitch set of programs. THat meets cable prices pretty quick.

    1. Re:snip the cord by ledow · · Score: 2

      I think that only applies if you have to watch the latest things NOW.

      I have regularly taken breaks from the stuff on TV, video games, etc.

      Wait a year, then everything you "discover" new to yourself is available cheaply, on cheap devices, broadcast for free, you avoid all the stuff that turns to shit (or know when it turns to shit), and you don't have to be left on cliffhangers constantly, we can just pop the next series on.

      I think trying to keep up with "all the new stuff" is what sells games consoles, launch-price games, pre-orders, TV subscriptions, etc.

      To be honest, if you name a series, I probably didn't watch it until its run was almost finished (or at the very least 4-5 seasons in). But when I did watch, I could watch at my leisure, for a pittance (and own-outright immediately if I wanted to), legally, at my own pace (none of these "new episode next week" stuff), and make sure what I'm watching was actually worthwhile.

      The only thing that "hurts" is the transition to that state, that first year you're behind. For me, that was a year where I was living on the edge of my income so such things were a luxury anyway. After that? I play catchup, don't really notice, spend MUCH less on all forms of entertainment, and get a lot more for what I do spend.

      Seriously, take a year out. Cord-cutting is a perfect way to start that. Then when you start back, you won't consume a year's entertainment anyway, you'll cherry-pick the good stuff, and you can never quite catch up unless you desperately want to. But likely you won't because your catch-up will be more than enough.

  8. There is one more alternative by johannesg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which is not to watch TV to begin with. There are plenty of things you can do in all that time you now spend in front of a TV: having fun with friends and family, reading books, gardening, sports, enjoying sunsets, playing computer games, and many, many more.

  9. The cable companies deserve to lose money by kilodelta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why? For years they've been overcharging us because they've lobbied to wreck the regulatory schema. For example Susan Crawford's book "Captive Audience" has a section where she crunches the numbers, net service we pay $30 to $80 for per month, it costs them between $2 and $3 to provide it. I could see tripling or even quadrupling the cost but come on a factor between 10 and 40 is applied. That's just out and out rape.

  10. The Frog jumped out by speedlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

    We had basic cable. It was analog, and OK. Over time, it carried internet. We dumped the DSL line (remember copper ?) and went with cable internet...where we've been save a brief and very expensive two years with FiOs. Lovely service, but all the telco taxes apply, which they don't with cable. Cable then went digital QAM, which was OK, until they decided to scramble ALL signals and force you to pay $8 per month per box. I was able to avoid this due to cablecards in TiVos. One month my bill goes up $7...."Sports Fee". Now, I don't watch sports, don't care, and don't subscribe. Snip. I'm happy to report that my $75 antenna gets all the local stations clearly. The OTA signal looks better than the CATV signal. My Tivo and ChannelMaster boxes record easily, and were amortized years ago. Cable has way too many commercials. The few times I'm subjected to such a feed, in hotels, etc, make me turn it off....indeed, I avoid watching anything in real-time. How many drug commercials for horrible conditions can a person watch ? The only thing left is to scam my in-laws password for a few streaming options that demand you subscribe to classic cable, which strikes me as having to buy a Steamer ticket to fly to London from New York. My kids already have a list of shared passwords for HBO and everything else. I will be pirating CBS new Star Trek, cause that one is just an F-U.

  11. How? by amoeba1911 · · Score: 2

    There are 22 million people who still have cable TV? Did they just forgot to cancel the subscription?