Cord-Cutters Drive Cable TV Subscribers to a 17-Year Low (houstonchronicle.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post: On Wednesday, AT&T told regulators that it expects to finish the quarter with about 90,000 fewer TV subscribers than it began with. AT&T blamed a number of issues, including hurricane damage to infrastructure, rising credit standards and competition from rivals. The report also shows AT&T lost more traditional TV customers than it gained back through its online video app, DirecTV Now. And analysts are suggesting that that's evidence that cord-cutting is the main culprit... "DirecTV, like all of its cable peers, is suffering from the ravages of cord-cutting," said industry analyst Craig Moffett in a research note this week. Moffett added that while nobody expected AT&T's pay-TV numbers to look good, hardly anyone could have predicted they would look "this bad."

The outlook doesn't look much healthier for the rest of the television industry. Over the past year, cable and satellite firms have collectively lost nearly 3 million customers, according to estimates by market analysts at SNL Kagan and New Street Research. The number of households with traditional TV service is hovering at about the level it was in 2000, according to New Street's Jonathan Chaplin, in a study last week. Other analysts predict that, after factoring in AT&T's newly disclosed losses, the industry will have lost 1 million traditional TV subscribers by the end of this quarter.

Comments

A lot more than that

[rossdee]

Have had their cable xut by harrucanes and firestorms

Re: A lot more than that

[Anonymous Coward]

Always steadfast in their liberal bias.. their minions wait.. ready to pounce and blame the right wing.. for something that has no political bias. The American public are just making financial decisions. Move along we refuse to pay your troll tax.

Re: A lot more than that

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that, but you're conveniently forgetting Trump's tweeting "With Jemele Hill at the mike, it is no wonder ESPN ratings have 'tanked,' in fact, tanked so badly it is the talk of the industry!"

The right actually does blame everything on liberals including TV ratings going down.

Re: A lot more than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I subscribed to satellite for the first time many years ago, when ESPN got the Monday Night Football contract. Two years ago i cut the cord for two reasons: 1) Cost for a diminishing product, 2) ESPN turning political.

I wouldn't care if they leaned left or right, i bought the subscription for sports, not politics. And not even the NFL could salvage my money flowing to them.

Re: A lot more than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect it had more to do with cost and changing lifestyle than politics.

Re: A lot more than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in an ideological echo chamber so I'm going to have to take your word for it.

Re:A lot more than that

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Time for the entire industry to pivot. They need to provide internet services with streaming level bandwidth, and get out of the content business. Plenty of other people are providing content.

Re: A lot more than that

[MercTech]

No, the right doesn't blame liberals for TV ratings going down. The right blames runaway political correctness for making television programming uninteresting.

Lessons to be learned

[Dorianny]

Perhaps they should get in touch with the printed newspaper and book publishing industry. They know a thing or two about loosing costumers to a new information/entertainment medium

Re:Lessons to be learned

[93 Escort Wagon]

Get in touch with them - why? For commiseration? It's not as if the newspaper and publishing industries have figured out a solution either.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[bogaboga]

But what really, do you think is going through a CEO's mind?

While I sympathize especially with employees that may lose jobs, I have no mercy for companies that used to gouge ordinary folk with tens of [useless] channels in the not so distant past.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[Anonymous Coward]

Horse shit.

Cable is losing customers to a far less user-friendly way of viewing content simply because they price gouge. Cut their price in half, possibly by giving people ala carte pricing, and the exodus from cable would likely stop or even reverse. Most people love the convenience of a single solution, always on source, but they hate the insanely high price.

With more and more channels offering their own subscriptions, and more OTT options appearing all the time, we're edging our way toward ala carte pricing. Instead of getting in front of the trend and trying to control it, the morons running the cable companies are still resisting.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[AK Marc]

Most newspapers have transitioned into a hybrid online/paper model. The cable TV model can follow. They have the rights to shows in the area. But they don't have any local streaming setup. There are piles of options they refuse to even consider, sounds like the newspapers, right after subscriptions flatlined and before the cliff.

Re: Lessons to be learned

[Monster_user]

I like being able to watch TV on my own schedule. Not having to miss out on my preferred shows due to conflicting schedules regarding things more important or time sensitive than relaxing.

Re: Lessons to be learned

[Monster_user]

Streaming "locally" may not be a cost effective solution.

Besides, are you paying for less, in that being a local 24 hour stream? Or paying for "Hulu" merged with local programming for a higher price than Hulu? Does the price of Internet+Hulu compare to traditional cable subscriptions?

My local networks have small scale streaming options for locally created content, ones which usually get overloaded during unscheduled major events like Tornadoes or Hurricanes. Occasionally even during scheduled ones like elections or New Year's eve, etc. Many local non-station affiliated content providers also have their own streaming options (churches on YouTube for the main example.)

Another problem is consumer traffic. Is it simpler to order cable service from a different time zone, and have to drive miles to exchange a cable box? Or is it better to do business with a service in the local area? -- Switching to the internet, is it easier to do business with a large mainstream site, or with some "huffingtoncountytelcosteaming.net" service provider with a smaller selection of content? Local cable companies are going to be reduced to internet providers, the future of which appears to be LTE at 10mbps. Which means cable companies will primarily exist to support cellular infrastructure, in more remote areas.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[Vermonter]

Tens of useless channels? Have you seen cable packages lately? We're talking hundreds and hundreds of worthless channels. And a lot of those worthless channels also have a HD version of their channel that is listed as a separate channel.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[psycho12345]

I agree with this, but they really can't cut their price in half. Disney and co are too greedy to allow that to happen. Yes, the bulk of the cost you see from a cable provider is the cost of the content from the content provider, which is basically Time Warner, Disney, NBC Universal, and then the various regional networks. Why do you think ATT is buying Time Warner in the first place? Sure it makes them money, but more importantly, it converts a former cost into a revenue stream.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[rtb61]

When you are the publisher, the leach, the middle man, the parasite (when publishers were printers or broadcasters it was different), you will have right to nothing in the digital era, everyone will be publishing direct and if you want to collate that publishing, you will have to provide real services to justify any payment and not take 30% for attacking direct publishing, obstructing broadband, corporate cartels censoring non-'publisher' controlled content, using claims to piracy to shut down competitors, most egregious example false DMCA complaints without any penalty basically corruption from the top down.

News and journalism is entirely different and there is a real definitive financially sound model to take them into the future and clean up the news, just not the time yet.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[MerlTurkin]

I only have about 80 channels and I watch only 5-6 of them. It's a total waste of money. Cutting the cord soon. Sick off the price hikes and cable tv is so overpriced. Now Spectrum is whining about Viacom. CRY ME A RIVER.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on where you have options: my only internet option is local telephone service which is decent enough to stream ANYTHING, anything includes all sports, no blackouts ! Look for for streaming websites and possibly Kodi.

Dropped DishTV for 5 years and haven't regretted it. Too mush $$$ for 100's of channels I didn't watch.

Re: Lessons to be learned

[Thundercat007]

They tried something different in Canada, offered a barebones cheap minimum package for low income then can add channels as needed. Boasted how great it was. The only problem was, the channels you got in the basic package were the ones nobody wanted and by the time you added the 5 channels you do want, it cost more than a package.

Re: Lessons to be learned

[c-A-d]

The CRTC really dropped the ball on this one. They should've ditched the requirement for a basic cable package completely. That and channel bundling are what kills it for me.

I want to buy two channels. It shouldn't cost me more than $5 per month. Deliver it by IPTV for all I care. But the moment I have to pay $25 (plus taxes, fees and rentals) for a basic cable package, I'm out.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[careysub]

I have been able to write essentially this same comment every year since cable hit is peak six years ago.

Cable companies are monopolies and behave exactly like all monopolies. They charge every customer extra as rent just because they can. And when customers start rebelling and refusing to sign up or cut service they have, even though they have no competitor cable companies to buy service from, the thought that maybe they should lower prices or provide better service will never cross their minds, ever.

Instead the focus of cable companies is to increase profits by sweetheart legislation that maintains their monopoly control of broadband access, and turn that into a cash cow by stripping away net neutrality so that it can become a perpetual toll booth collecting rents.

Re: Lessons to be learned

[Anonymous Coward]

If the shows are broadcast over the air, buy a tuner card or USB dongle, add a hard drive, and record and playback to your heart's content whenever you want. After purchase of the parts, ongoing cost is $0 down and $0 per month with 0 cable outages. I have three on a fast desktop, and I can record 3 programs while streaming a 4th on my home network.

Re:Lessons to be learned

[MercTech]

When cable was first introduced; the common question was "Why pay for what you can get for free off the air?" Cable providers started with an economical way to get a lot of value added programming.

Today you get no value added unless you pay for expensive premium packages which few people actually have a desire for. If it weren't for ESPN cable would probably already be relegated to urban crowded areas where you can't put up a decent antenna.

If a net streaming company gets rights for streaming all the games on ESPN; who needs cable?

Re:Lessons to be learned

[superdave80]

I cringe every time I visit my parents and try to watch TV there. They have satellite , and there are literally HUNDREDS of channels (500-600, I think). About half of them are either movie streaming channels or infomercials, and one-third are just repeats of other channels (I've never figured that one out). It takes forever just to find the somewhat entertaining channels, and then it's really hit or miss if there is something good on. Cable/satellite have devolved into a vast desert of nothingness, just so they can claim "We have HUNDREDS OF CHANNELS! WE RULE!!!"

Dindu Nuffin

[Anonymous Coward]

How much nuffin would a Dindu do if a Dindu dindu nuffin?

Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[turkeydance]

last bill was 41% over last year's same month, same service, same channels. as i said, last bill.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Darinbob]

Maybe prices rise as customer's dwindle. The last remaining customer will have a bill for $1,000,000,000, in order to make up the profits.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[luther349]

indeed and its not 100% on the cable providers its the media owners demanding big money for less viewers.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[antdude]

Yep, it is going to get worse too. :(

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

As customers dwindle, cable providers should step up quality and cater to what people need. It's not OK when everyone says they get hundreds shit of channels.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[misnohmer]

Exactly this. All cable companies I've ever been with rely on raising rates pennies at a time, but it adds up over a year or more. Some moron at Comcast gets a bonus because he made them money by raising everyone's rate by a quarter - the only way the cable company seems to be able to increase their revenue nowadays. I don't mean the promotional rates expiring, that I fully understand. I mean the prices they claim to be fixed for 1 or 2 years, yet the bill keeps on going up $0.50 to $2.00 every month. They blame it on raising fees, taxes, etc. I once questioned how one of the taxes on my bill went from $0.25 to $0.54, they claimed taxes have more than doubled but could not tell me what tax exactly that was so I could follow up with local government to confirm. Total BS. I had Comcast twice in our current residence, the first time they kept raising the rates, I would call threaten to cancel, they would give me some new "promotional rate" for next 6 months, then rate would climb every month. I got tired of having to call every 6 months to threaten, so I cut the service completely. Few years later, a sales guy came to the door to tell me how Comcast has chances, so he convinced me to sign up again for a fixed rate service for 2 years, I made sure in the comments he put down that if the bill goes up a penny, unless it is in fact verifiable tax increase, I will cancel. 6 moths later, I called him to say my bill went up $1. So he credited it back, next month it went up another $0.28. So I cancelled the service - done. I went back to HD antenna an internet for all of family content. It's not that I cannot afford it, we have 2 Tesla's in our garage, it's just that I despise doing business with dishonest companies.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

last bill was 41% over last year's same month, same service, same channels. as i said, last bill.

Maybe you should read the contract you signed. The promotional price ends at some point. Or maybe they upped your internet speed and were giving it to you at a discount for a certain time period and you missed the email. My cable/internet bills have never gone up that much without some promotional period involved.

Not trying to break your balls here because I also dislike Comcast/Spectrum/ATT and the way they do business. When my current Directv contract ends, that will be it. The cord will be cut.

Re: Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Monster_user]

Is there anything they can do? You're proposing investing money in a dying platform and business strategy.

The customers that can operate an "On-Demand" box, or would be interested in on demand functionality have likely already switched to lower cost options. Why pay extra for functionality when free will suffice?

Increasingly those who are left are those who would have a hard time replacing the old cable box channel tuner with something more modern that requires the skills to program a VCR clock.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much, cable companies know traditional TV delivery is a dead horse, and they're going to squeeze every last cent out of it, or maybe even accelerate its decline by over pricing it to get customers off of it in a profitable as possible way, it is a business selling a luxury after all.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of Comcast at least, its not just a residential cable tv company thats there to give away a service because you think you deserve it, they have many many many lines of business. I doubt someone deciding to raise rates a couple pennies warrants a bonus to the person who "thought of it".

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Pezbian]

AC, naturally.

Re: Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

Read your bill, idiot. You probably had discounts roll off, or you were notified of bill increases that happened. What's with this percent business anyway? Did it go from $10 to $14.10?

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had the same experience!

I was promised a fixed rate for 2 years. Two months later the bill went up $1!

Comcast claimed that it was due to an increase in their costs!

I complained that I have a contract for 2 years at the FIXED price that I was promised. Comcast claims there is no record of any such promise.

Even after I showed them the written proof!

Comcast has NO ethical reason for ignoring contract terms. It is their need for ever-increasing their income - for upper management and shareholder benefit.

It is time to cut the cord until we get effective government to reign-in these corporate criminals.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. I forgot to mention:

Cable TV content SUCKS! And it is getting ever worse!

They run the same shows over ~2-4 weeks. Then, change to another pool of outdated, low-rated shows.

This goes on for about 4-5 slightly different pools of shows. Then, they start all over again. Rarely anything new and worth watching.

I can get BETTER shows over the air (albeit still not a good selection). And hit the theater periodically for movies of interest. And I will save tons of money.

Consider the cord cut.

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

last bill was 41% over last year's same month, same service, same channels. as i said, last bill.

You can fix that here:

  http://setvnow.com/#byebyethieves

$20/month FOR EVERYTHIING

Re:Spectrum (old TWC) straw vs. camel's back

[Anonymous Coward]

You can fix that here:

    http://setvnow.com/#byebyethieves

$20/month FOR EVERYTHIING

specialized media delivery is obsolete

[sittingnut]

given that media can be delivered and consumed, without change in quality or convenience, through generalized methods, like the internet, specialized ways of delivery and consumption will be obsolete.
some specialized ways, like movie theaters, may last a bit longer because they enable consumption experience not yet available through generalized methods .

Re: specialized media delivery is obsolete

[Monster_user]

Movie theaters are a way to spread the cost of a superior entertainment experience across multiple individuals.

When a single man or teenager cannot enjoy such niceties due to the high cost of a personal entertainment system, plus the lack of friends to share in said experience within one's own home or a friend's home, it will be a sad day. It would be a loss of an opportunity for a shared experience to build camaraderie, one which due to its neutral venue is a safe place to consider new friendships without risking more serious consequences of theft, etc.

There is more to that "not yet" regarding the experience and usefulness of a theater for watchig movies.

Re:specialized media delivery is obsolete

[slack_justyb]

through generalized methods

This is the thing that should get people moving and yet barely incites a reaction. The Internet is only a generalized method because of net neutrality. If that is gone, the Internet is no better than having cable TV or Sat TV, it just becomes a standard piece of hardware like a TV, but the TV itself is useless without content. The Internet works because content is equalized and it is equalized because it is all served the same way at the same rate without regard of the origin. I can't understand why American's are not marching with tiki torches in hand outside the FCC building, it literally boggles my mind.

Re:specialized media delivery is obsolete

[Solandri]

Because in a normal market, something like net neutrality is not needed. People pay an ISP for service. if the ISP tries to throttle certain websites to extort money from those sites, people notice the slowdown, hear from a friend that those sites work just fine on his ISP, and switch to their friend's ISP. It's called giving your customers what the want - a hallmark of what makes a market economy function. Any ISP that tries to selectively throttle sites is shooting themselves in the foot.

The only reason net neutrality is an issue is because local governments have granted certain ISPs a monopoly in their area. Since the customers in that area have no ability to switch to a different ISP, the ISP becomes emboldened to extort money from websites for "access" to their monopolized customers. In other words, net neutrality is government regulation to try to fix a problem created by government regulation. It's not necessary unless you think government-granted monopolies are also necessary.

The problem with Americans isn't that they don't support net neutrality. It's that they assume ISPs are a competitive market, when it's not. Even you have completely missed the fact that the real problem is the local monopolies.

Re:specialized media delivery is obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Sir. You'll need to turn back. Your Casco Credit Rating(tm) is not high enough to use the roads in this State.

Re:specialized media delivery is obsolete

[Anonymous Coward]

No, under common carrier status there's nothing wrong with local monopolies. GW Bush's classification of internet as an information service back in 2004-5 was the reason for the lack of competition. And Ajit's going to drive a final stake into net neutrality so the whole community broadband/local monopolies is a moot point.

The end game is near. Get ready to pay $5.00/mo for the search engine package on a future ISP bill.

Re:specialized media delivery is obsolete

[slack_justyb]

In other words, net neutrality is government regulation to try to fix a problem created by government regulation.

See here's the thing. You are grouping all government into one big pile to make an argument and believe or not, I know this might come as a shock, local government is distinctly different than federal government. I know, surprising... Net neutrality is a federal guideline for how ISPs must conduct their business. Now how they go about that when it gets down to the local level, that's up to local governments to figure out. But let's be real here. The Federal government isn't fixing a problem they've made, they are outlining a minimum standard for ISPs at a broad level. The Federal government isn't even getting into the muck of trying to clean up the monopolies that small government has made.

It's that they assume ISPs are a competitive market

No, I assume that my local government is going to act as corrupt as they possibly can while screaming, we've got to save the babies from the evil abortion clinics to ensure that they get voted in next go-around. Because dumb fuck citizens basically think of politics as, "Good Internet" or "Saving children from evil doctors." I would hope, that a different level of government not so entrenched in backwoods dumb fuckery will step in and at the very least give some sort of guide line with some teeth to prevent my dumb fuck local officials from fucking up everything else in the world that's on the Internet. That shouldn't be a monumental task, but apparently everyone wants to make this out like it's some lesson in economics. It isn't. It basically boils down to this. Small town mayors are always going to go with whatever deal gets them enough money to put up another stop light, or lock up another meth head, because that shit looks good in the papers. If Comcast is offering Mr. Dumb fuck, my mother and sister are the exact same person, mayor (good chance that the mayor I've got fits this bill nicely) $10 million to be the only ISP in town, guess who's getting a new PD car complete with meth-head seeking missiles? So there's no illusion that our local governments suck massive donkey dick here and take money where they can get it. That ISPs take full advantage of that, isn't surprising. Net neutrality at the very least puts some clamps on that. It doesn't get rid of Incest born mayors who will setup a monopoly at the first paycheck, but it does prevent those ISPs from getting too crazy with their extortion. So until the Federal Government says, well we're not going to allow mayors or governors to exist anymore, or when the public actually can understand that you can care about two topics at the same time, I'll take ISPs having to uphold a decent level of fairness.

I don't know where you live buddy where this is just an economic fix, but apparently it isn't here in the south US where every politician will stomp a kitten to death on public access TV if it means they'll get another $5/mo pouring into their school lunch program. Shit I wish the problem was just "break up the monopolies."

Yes, but so what?

[seven of five]

Cable fees just as high as they ever were... where's the incentive to stay with cable?

Re:Yes, but so what?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I love how Comcast keeps sending me adverts to purchase their "Triple Play" package - Internet, Cable TV, IP-based home phone. We haven't had a "home phone" in years, thanks to our cell phones... and we cut back to the lowest tier cable + internet package several years ago. The only reason we keep even THAT is my wife likes all those silly NCIS:SVU:NKVD:IOU series that've been on forever.

It's bad enough that the price of Comcast's lowest Cable Internet + TV tier has climbed to $85 a month now in this region... but still, even that's $55/month less than we were paying them before we "downgraded". But why on earth do they think we'd want to start giving them $200/month - or more - to add a pointless home phone line? Their thinking is apparently still rooted in the 1980s...

Re:Yes, but so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you divorce your wife, you can cut cable too.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[toonces33]

You thought cable was too expensive?? It is cheaper to keep her.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[I'm New Around Here]

You thought cable was too expensive??

It is cheaper to keep her, in the basement.

C'mon, we all know that's what you meant.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[mark-t]

Because it's still cheaper than subscribing to the 4 or 5 different streaming services you'd have to otherwise subscribe to in order to get 100% of the programs that you like. You can get about 80% with just one streaming service, and maybe 90% with 2, and it takes another 2 or 3 to get the remainder of the shows that you really want to watch.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[trawg]

I guess the fact that in many places they have a monopoly on Internet services?

Re:Yes, but so what?

[MerlTurkin]

There is none of coarse.

Re: Yes, but so what?

[Monster_user]

Currently Fox and CW offer free online streaming. Walking Dead is on Netflix along with the entire Star Trek franchise save for Discovery, and most Marvel and DC shows. So more like 99% with Netflix, and then CBS for Discovery. (Yes, I'm one of the idiots who literally subscribes to "All Access" for one show).

Re:Yes, but so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternate subscription services every month. Significantly less costly. Also, if you're gonna be busy or on vacation for most of a month or they don't have anything you haven't seen yet, cancel the subscriptions, then they aren't costing you anything. If I could get cable a month at a time and turn it off when I wanted, that'd be great. But there is no way in hell comcast would allow that.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[ChrisMaple]

There was a young man named Dave...

Re:Yes, but so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

That works if you live alone/don't have family yet.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as a certain amount of people are phone subscribers, they can use a "grey area" to cheat on their utility poles and infrastructure. It was part of the common carrier status discussion we had here on Slashdot not long ago.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[Hadlock]

If you need 4 or 5 streaming services EVERY MONTH and can't alternate between them... you may be in need of a new hobby, and a gym membership
 
We have a baseline of netflix, and amazon prime* and add HBO for 2-3 months during Game of Thrones season, we've bought hulu for a month at a time for specific series, periodically, but we're not going to pay for services we don't use.
 
*I list prime simply because we have prime for the 2 day free shipping, and it's easier to bill hbo through prime than use hbo's standalone app.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[Cro Magnon]

Actually, it's not. I'd have to get 9 or 10 services the price of Netflix to match my last cable bill! I haven't cut yet because I'm a lazy SOB, but getting 80-90% of my crap for 10-20% of the price is sounding better and better all the time.

Re:Yes, but so what?

[mark-t]

Or, perhaps, and more likely, one's tastes are simply too diverse to be found on just a small set of services.

Good, fuck 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable companies deserve to die a quick, but painful, death. Scum.

Re:Good, fuck 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Right genius. And for those who can only get broadband internet through their cable company?

Think before you post jackass.

Re:Good, fuck 'em

[tepples]

City governments that allow their cable franchisees to charge less for Internet and TV than for Internet alone likewise "deserve to die a quick, but painful, death. Scum."

hilarious its simple they didn't exist

[johnjones]

they bought that company

did a real audit and found that its not doing as well as they thought...

Now, if only MONOPOLY was not the name of the game

[Anonymous Coward]

We'd have price match actual value, and Charter's CEO would not rake in $28 million a year.

Eco 101.

HAHA

[XSportSeeker]

Well, I dunno how things are there in the US, but if it's anything like Brazil (and I think it is), people should be celebrating on the streets.

Cable TV companies are oligopolies, some of the biggest companies in the country, and they abused their position in every way possible. Price gouging, exploiting legal loopholes for shady tie-ins, bundling sales, chopping up consumer rights in every way possible, offering the worst costumer service imaginable, using aggressive marketing tactics and whatnot.

And they constantly keep trying to change the rules and force the costumers to either pay more, or receive less, on lame justifications that they don't have enough money to upgrade their infrastructure, all the while posting record profits every year.

A whole set of consumer laws in recent years were passed because of them, including anti spam/telemarketing call laws, the entire net neutrality debacle, a bunch of stuff regarding how call centers should work to attend their costumers, etc etc.

Every year they come up to threaten yet another restringent rule that will kill connection for a significant portion of their users. As if they could re-write the contracts we agreed upon when signing up for the service.

The more market share for cable TV shrinks, the better for everyone as I see it. It'll be better for people who likes their cable, as the companies will have to fight to keep them and give them better service, and more options for us who never cared about cable in the first place.

I went over a decade having to pay for cable just because there was some shady bundling crap that made it cheaper to pay for the entire package rather than paying for Internet alone. The majority of the country are still stuck on this deal because they have no other options. Like I said, oligopolies. They will price fix, they will close deals behind curtains to dominate certain areas, they will exploit people as much as they can.

Fortunately, I moved to a place where there's fiber Internet available... jumped at the opportunity as fast as I could, it's like I'm finally getting what I pay for. No more unexplained outages, a fair working connection for the price I pay (which is lower than if I had to pay for the cable TV/Internet bundle), good costumer service, and no lies on speed, throttling practices and data caps.

Re:HAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, as their Cable market share drops, they keep raising internet service prices to make up for it. So unless you don't have internet, you aren't saving much. And there is no competition. AT&T is worse and has data caps.

There are a couple of simple reasons

[Old-Claimjumper]

First:
I subscribe to one of the dish TV services. They rave about how great they are offering me 180-something channels. Of which I can find something to watch on exactly four. The rest are sales blurbs (lots of sales blurbs) or religious pandering for not-my-religion or Spanish language or ancient re-runs. (sorry, no offence meant, but I don't speak Spanish. Now where are the German language channels? But I digress). So I am paying all this money to watch my local city's news at 9:00, weather, an occasional old movie without commercials and re-runs of the Big Bang Theory. I don't care about the other 180-something chunks of wasted bandwidth.
Second:
I remember the early 1980s when cable was first starting to penetrate the markets. Their big claim was that rather than all the commercials on broadcast TV I only pay a single monthly fee and watch commercial-free television. Then the marketeers discovered that they once again had a bunch of captive eyeballs. So I surf past a movie that I should like. It's theatre length was 72 minutes and it runs from 6:00 to 9:00. Three hours. guess what they fill the extra time with?

Cable and satellite TV are dying because they are dinosaurs milking an old abusive business model and not understanding how the world has changed.

Re:There are a couple of simple reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple economics, they refuse to accept the fact that it's greed.
Nothing fixes high prices like high prices.

What good is a bundle if you donâ(TM)t value

[infosinger]

The largest cost in a typical standard non-premium bundle is sports. In short it is forcing people to subsidize sports fans. No wonder people are going to cheaper non-sports alternatives where live TV is not that important.

Dear cable providers

[OneHundredAndTen]

Start offering services a la carte, at a reasonable price, and many of us might consider signing up again. Persist in your ridiculous extortions tactics, whereby to watch a couple of channels that people are interested in they have to pay for dozens that only carry junk, and expect the rate of defections to increase. Your call.

Re: Dear cable providers

[Anonymous Coward]

This!

These mother fuckers are so blinded by their own greed they can't even see that people would actually pay for a service if they would just sell us what we want, but they won't and insist on incessant bullshit.

They can either conform or burn in hell. No fucks will be given.

Re:Dear cable providers

[luther349]

they cant trust me they would love to cut the fat off there networks and offer you a lower rate but big media company like Viacom charge you huge money for there networks and will not let you just pay for the ones you want to have on your network they force the cable company into overpriced shitty bundles.people blame the cable company and yes they can be some slimy fuckers on there own rite but the the media companys are the main reasion you are always seeing insane rate hikes.

Re:Dear cable providers

[thegarbz]

Start offering services a la carte

But but but, then the Jesus channel won't be able to get funding, or the 25 shopping channels. And then no one will pay for ESPN27 which shows only fierljeppen 24 hours a day.

Won't someone think of the CONTENT!

Re:Dear cable providers

[djinn6]

That doesn't explain why their internet service also increase in price the longer you stay with them.

Re:Dear cable providers

[Mashiki]

Bullshit they can't. If cable companies can do it in Canada with 10% of the population of the US, then companies in the US can do the same. They don't want to, the cable-co's in Canada didn't want to either until they were forced into it with regulations but they seem to be profiting just fine regardless.

What's really killing these companies are what's being provided on the channels. It's nothing but wall-to-wall reality TV, out of my group of friends and co-workers that I know reasonably well(roughly 200 people) the only people who have cable now are the ones who either have some slick bundle with a heavy discount on internet+cable and maybe phone service, or they're the sole-breadwinner and their S/O is a stay-at-home parent and they have it on "for noise" not even watching it. Even at that more move to simply streaming music, or flipping on a local radio station.

Re: Dear cable providers

[Anonymous Coward]

May the jesus channels and shopping channels die an ugly death.

Re:Dear cable providers

[luther349]

yes it does. as they drive there cable prices tv up and people downgrade to minimum tiers or cancel the tv service all together they raise the internet prices to keep there profits the same.

Re: Dear cable providers

[c-A-d]

The romans beat you to it. Jesus did die an ugly death.

Cable is convenient!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable is convenient!

You can watch it on the box we approve, at the time we set, on the channel we set, at the resolution we set, on the box you pay to rent from us.

Don't like it at that time, pay to record it, don't forget you pay to record the commercials too.

Don't watch it in time, don't worry, rent the episode from us!

Don't like the content in SD? Pay more for HD, with HD commercials!

Don't like the channel, pay for the same channel, in HD, timeshifted, with timeshifted commercials!

100 Channels of crap

100 Channels of crap in HD!

100 Channels of timeshifted crap!

100 channels of timeshifted HD crap!

10 Channels of sports, but what you want to watch is blacked out!

10 Channels of radio, playing crap, and with commercials!

10 Channels of shopping crap!

Don't forget, we have tons of C-F grade movies, with lots of commercials, with the swearing cut out, and did we mention commercials?

We rotate in 1-5 A-B grade movies, but they are the same movies, the C-F grade movies get constantly added! You can watch Overboard! as many times as you can stomach!

All for a small monthly fee!

-Cable box rental fee
-Cable fee
-Fee payment fee
-FCC Fee
-FCC Surcharge
-FCC Levy
-FCC Premium
-Local Content Fee
-Local Content Improvement Fee Premium

Ditch netflix and their cheap boxes and sticks! Your good old clunky power-hungry cable box is where it's at!

Re:Cable is convenient!

[Anonymous Coward]

well done. compliments to you

Re:Cable is convenient!

[luther349]

thats your media networks with there shitty rotations the cable provider has nothing to do with that. but you point is still very good.

Re:Cable is convenient!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have DVDs of all the TV shows and movies I want to watch. As soon as college football season is over so is my cable TV.

Re:Cable is convenient!

[boustrophedon]

And Regional Sports Network Fee

Re:Cable is convenient!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable is not convenient , High monthly bill . Then being charged rentals rates for Cable Boxes and remotes. Bills running $160.00- $220.00 a month. Depending on the size of package you want. I get all the channels plus world wide channels from different countries. plus streaming music on 5 devices . I can stream live TV anywhere, anytime for $45.00 a month. No rental Fees. Plus I can take my TV service anywhere there is wifi or internet. But wait my cell phone has internet. so I can watch it anywhere , anytime. Thanks why I like streamingvivalive.com , Value !!!

Re:Cable is convenient!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop wasting your money... You can fix that here:

    http://setvnow.com/#byebyethieves

$20/month FOR EVERYTHIING

Cord cutting is not the reason.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Cord cutting is not the reason, it is merely the symptom.

The cable companies are regulated utilities, granted monopoly in the areas they operation. They pushed through rate increase after rate increase, bundled useless channels, had abysmal customer service and all the arrogant entitlement attitude that comes with being a monopoly.

All their infrastructure has already been paid for thanks to friendly regulators and relentless rate increases. They could have dropped their prices and made it impossible for the wireless companies to compete. They could have improved customer service. But no. They believed they are entitled to cash delivered to their coffers in fire hoses. They believed they had the customers by their balls and wanted to how hard the customers will scream and how hard they can squeeze.

They can still fight back. Their infrastructure has been paid for, and it has much larger bandwidths than cell towers. They can compete if they wanted to compete.

But they don't want to compete. Looks like.

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[burtosis]

Why compete when you can collude with no risk?

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention so many fake news channels spewing staged events and propaganda, and the endless mind-numbing retard-level commercials with the SJW bent. Customers are happy to cut the cord.

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[luther349]

you confusing cable company's with the likes of Viacom. your shit monopoly tactics yep defiantly the cable provider. bundled shit channels nobody wants not even the cable providers thats the likes of Viacom oh you whant are syfi channel well you need these 10 useless channels to.

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[Tailhook]

One of the last must-have draws; ESPN and its crazy expensive NFL franchise, is now a raging SJW shit show. That cable bill is getting harder to pay every month even for loyal futbawl holdouts.

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right, fuck those blackies and their desire to tell everyone about the killings going on! We don't need any justice for people, whaddaya think this is??!?!?! A free country?!?!?!

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not saying that cable companies (or telcos) are great companies, but you are falling into the dangerous world of incorrect assumptions that make you believe everything should be free.

No, the infrastructure is not already paid for - certainly my local cable company has spent the last 10 years massively investing in updating their infrastructure to support the higher bandwidth and speeds that people want for their Internet connection, often meaning running new fibre optic lines throughout the community to serve the local boxes.

As for the other big component of the price, the content, again the cable operators are more often than not be shafted just like the consumer is when the content creators (ESPN, Disney, CBS, etc. all insist that if you want to carry this popular channel that your customers want then you must also carry (and pay for) these 10 other channels that nobody wants. Or, say ESPN will say you must force us on all of your customers (because that's the only was ESPN will earn enough money to pay those outrageous TV contracts to the sport leagues, so they can make the players rich even if they only ever play 1 game).

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm free enough to use my DVR to skip over the kneeling blackies then proceed to watch them slowly kill each other on the field.

Re:Cord cutting is not the reason.

[stdarg]

Hey I want to tell everyone about the killings going on too. Why don't we just start vandalizing MLK statues? That would get attention and then we can tell everyone it has nothing to do with MLK! Just like the protests that take place during the anthem have nothing to do with the anthem it's just this weird coincidence. People will love it.

Dumping

[tepples]

where's the incentive to stay with cable?

Bundle pricing. Some Slashdot users report being quoted a smaller monthly rate for a bundle of basic television and Internet than for Internet alone, even with surcharges for local channels, regional sports, and CableCARD rental. In other words, DOCSIS operators are dumping TV service on their subscribers.

Re:Dumping

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally the only reason they want people to bundle is so they can tell investors that the cable and phone portions of their business isn't tanking. It's anti-consumer and dishonest. Fuck'em.

Re:Dumping

[Anonymous Coward]

That's typical of the bundles. I essentially get my VOIP phone for free in the bundle. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with it.

Re:Dumping

[Anonymous Coward]

I get VOIP for free as well, but it requires using the ISP's hardware to connect a phone. The only reason I put up with that is that the security company can phone home and check if anyone is home when the alarm is triggered.

AT&T is not even trying to compete ... why??

[gustep12]

AT&T keeps making unattractive offers that aren't really competitive with Comcast's intro offers. AT&T is particularly notorious for demanding 2-year contracts on Internet plans, capping the monthly data allowance fairly low, and yet not even offering an attractive price.

So it's no wonder AT&T is losing subscribers.

I just don't understand why AT&T isn't at least trying to make a competitive offer, especially for Internet alone.

lower cable prices, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

the days of more than half of every customer bill being pure profit are *OVER*. slash prices, people will come back. but only if you quit ripping them off...

that $60-70 "expanded basic" package needs to be $25 or $30 - $15-20 without sports channels, with no bullshit 'fees' and surcharges, include every channel except the smut and actual 'premiums'... premiums? $5 each or $15 for all of them... and the lowest price should be the *only fucking price*, that everybody gets, regardless of "bundling" or status as a tenured or new customer.

same goes for the even higher-profit internet service...something that costs you a few pennies per megabit/sec wholesale (and without quotas or caps). it should not cost us $100+ for what costs you less than $10 to provide to us, while you also tack on bogus caps and overage fees besides.

Re: lower cable prices, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. That's too high. Right now I'd only go back to cable if they were competitive with Netflix; this includes no damn commercials. That means if they kept it the way it is now it would have to be less than $5/mo for me to even consider it.

DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymore.

[Tjp($)pjT]

I am not a sports fan. I pay a regional sports fee. Why? I get over 200 channels. Watch, tops, a couple dozen. Why pay for the others? Ala carte is suppressed by the cable and satellite providers, but it is how to save their industry and negotiate lower fees to the source owners. Why license CNN if only 5% view CNN? The single purpose channels are also a losing proposition. And then there are the nickel and dime fees, extra receiver, pay $7.99 a month. DVR ability, pay per month, HD pay per month, 4K WOW pay per month. Formerly you'd subscribe to a movie package and the next would cost less, then less for the third, etc. Now they not only cost more per package than Netflix and way more than Amazon (with Prime Video as a perk)... Video on demand? A great concept, except it also comes with commercials you can't fast forward through. And you're paying for it already. I used to get every channel except sports and it cost about $90 a month. Now my basic "total choice that is far from total" costs that, and it more than doubles with all the added fees. Add that to "buying" a DVR/Receiver that you are really leasing monthly after paying them more than the cost of manufacture for a device locked to their system... Wow. If they started reducing fees and negotiating cheaper costs, like put networks in a selectable package and see how fast the network stations dropped their ask for presence. Yes, You pay for the networks through higher fees, and the networks still get to count you for advertising rates. Everyone is asking a bit too much and the broadcast model is going to collapse. I really want to eliminate the high cost of carriage of sports channels etc. Watch their ad rates drop as people are no longer counted as potential viewers. Then watch as the cable providers demand cheaper fees. And then watch as they fail to pass them on and still fail.

Re:meistre corrupt motherfuckers

[AK Marc]

So, just like Ikea?

NFL might lead to an acceleration

[grasshoppa]

Preface: I have no political or philosophical position on whether NFL players should stand or kneel for the pledge. I'm speaking not of their "cause", but rather of it's effects.

The primary reason most people I know still have cable is because of sports ( football, baseball primarily ). With the NFL players doing what they can to offend and drive away their base, I wonder if we'll see a dramatic acceleration from this quarter forward as more people realize that spending 100+ bucks a month just to get sports is a waste of cash.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Darinbob]

Are people really being offended?

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[schematix]

yah. i am. haven't watched a single NFL game all season and that comes from someone who has watched the NFL constantly for decades. i don't even consider myself to be extremely patriotic. it's not about the flag. to me the issue is deeper. its thugs protesting that when they break the law, they shouldn't be punished. i am not ok with supporting people who go out of their way to support people who break the law. As a white person have *never* had a positive interaction with law enforcement. I've been pulled over multiple times for "speeding" when i wasn't speeding (i'm not a speeder as evidenced by the fact i've had never had speeding ticket). these were all police mistakes or phishing expeditions. However, i remained honest and respectful in the face of false accusations, and the issues were resolved. If you run from the police, attack the police, or otherwise don't act as requested you are on shaky ground. it's not racism. it's stupidity and i don't support it.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Darinbob]

What laws are being broken? I'm lost. The original protest was about the high numbers of black people being shot by cops, including those who did not run, attack, or argue. None of which deserve being murdered by the way. That these officers were exonerated by the juries is a shameful mark on the country.

The new protest isn't really the same, it's about being offended that a moronic president wants to force the owners to fire them.

There were no national anthems played at professional sporting events before WWII. It was added out of guilt that the players got draft deferrals. It's a mock symbol of patriotism exactly like flags on senators' lapels.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Anonymous Coward]

That's mis-characterization. It was MANDATED to be played by the end of WWII yes, but it was already being played regularly. It really started in 1918 - http://www.history.com/news/wh...

It wasn't even officially the national anthem until 1931...

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[grasshoppa]

Offended might be the wrong word. What's actually happening is far worse ( for the NFL ).

Let me ask you this: Why do people cheer for specific teams? Rosters change, coaches come and go, management and owners change. Hell, you can't even rely on a team to stay in the same city. When you come right down to it, people are fans of nothing more than a name. So how does that work? How does slavish devotion to a name result in very serious amounts of cash being extracted from fans?

Tribalism. Humanity is, at it's core, tribal. Fans view these teams as "their tribe", which enables all the other behaviors that follow. And as long as that reality is maintained, the cash will continue to flow.

Enter the protests; the protesting players are no longer a part of the tribe. They are shattering that reality. Without realizing it, fans are waking up to the fact that it's just a team name and one they can live without.

So offended is probably the wrong word. If you offend a friend, you can apologize and everything is fine. The NFL protests, however, are creating a dynamic where the fans can't go back to being in the same tribe as their team's players. Even if the players profusely apologize ( which I doubt, given their recent remarks ), the fans will always have doubts, and those doubts will translate into a very serious loss of revenue.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you be a civil rights leader if you (publicly) don't vote?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colin-kaepernick-didnt-vote_us_5823a553e4b0e80b02ceb707

Sad, because I think there are some real issues that we should address. Sitting out the vote is not leadership though, and being offensive to veterans is not the best way to draw attention to civil rights issues.

There is a lot of art I personally find offensive. I am happy to live in a country where those things are allowed. Doesn't mean I support those artists and groups with my money however.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite Trump's claims the NFL's ratings (like many sports) have been going done for a couple of years now, since before this protest stuff all started.

And the simple reason is that is a combination of things, including (but not limited to) the inability to dedicate x hours to watch a game, the high cost of watching (whether it be the cost of ESPN or some other sports network, or the far too frequent ads, or the ads that have started appearing during the game, the high cost of tickets and memorabilia, etc.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro sports are not about the game, they are about the experience of being a part of a manufactured tribe. People are rightly upset when that experience is tarnished by protests. Its not about whats legal and whats not legal. Its about sports fans getting what they paid for.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[ChrisMaple]

That these officers were found not guilty by a jury indicates that the charges against them were false. Have any of these fool protesters ever served on a jury?
Many in professional sports fought in WWII, although the cases I'm familiar with are baseball, not football.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Darinbob]

I've been on a jury. There is always at least one person who refuses to believe a law enforcement officer would lie. I was actually on a jury that somehow had 3 people who were ex law enforcement or worked in a police station, and they were more dubious of a police testimony than the others were.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Anonymous Coward]

You might feel differently if police randomly started killshooting "your" people?

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument here seems to be tautological. The claim is that racism within the criminal justice system causes a higher number of deaths of African Americans during interactions with police and causes police to not be charged by juries. Arguing that the jury system is infallible as a response to a claim that it is fallible adds no new information.

Re:NFL might lead to an acceleration

[I_redwolf]

Actually, the protest are because unarmed men, women and children are being killed and not receiving justice. So far, most of the people these protest are about haven't broken any law and further for the outliers; As a nation, we don't kill our citizens when they break the law. We bring them to the altar and scales of justice. As an ex soldier, I find your commentary appalling as well as the behavior of anyone who is against these football players protesting. It's absolutely shameful.

Traditional TV

[I'm New Around Here]

Why are they calling satellite and cable TV "traditional"? Seems like free, over-the-air broadcast is traditional TV.

Re:Traditional TV

[luther349]

you know some of this new generation are not even aware ota tv is even thing.

Re:Traditional TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I've even heard some of this generation that vaguely do know of OTA go so far as to say it is stealing TV. LOL!

I'm actually thinking about installing an antenna

[BlueCoder]

One of the nice motorized ones. Not really for any worthwhile content but just to be able to put noise on and have the option in an emergency to watch TV broadcasts.

Why do you think they fight net-neutrality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of those in the business of delivering content (Cable/Satellite) have suddenly noticed that the serfs in their kingdom... are unhappy with the taxes. They have had many meetings with the rest of the serfs.. where they have discussed the possibilty of a rebellion against the empire.

The dark forces that enjoy our ca$h.. somehow becoming sober after their cocaine/alcohol/hooker parties noticed that their revenues are down. What is the first response?

1) Actually determine what is going wrong
2) Lie to share-holders and delay reports to them about the reason that revenues are down
3) Ally with your fellow media owners.. and double-down on fighting net neutrality

Re:DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymor

[speedlaw]

That was my straw. The Sports Fee was $7 per month. I tried to wonder what Disney - ESPN was thinking, then I realized it was basic arrogance. "snip". My cable co raised the broadband $10 per month when I tossed the cable. I'd already gone through a year of mandatory cable boxes, then they became $8 per month, per box, all so the cable co can turn my service on and off without a truck roll. I thought using Tivo and cable card would be OK, but then they said "aha ! Sports Fee" I'm lucky I live on a street with FiOS and Cable. FiOS was nice, but the old school Bell Tel tax load wasn't. Also, they still thought like in 1965, that call forwarding was an exotic service. The only result is that I won't see a cap on my service because competition. I now have two lifetime Tivo and a ChannelMaster recorder hooked to a roof antenna. This covers 90 % of what I want, and DVR means no commercials. The usual Netflix and and yes, "We have considered Piracy" (princess bride) covers everything else. We've collected and shared a few passwords. Watching my kids, they never watch what we consider "TV" at all. AT ALL. Plenty of video, but there isn't even a "tv show" the kids care about. There's a reason all those commercials are for horrible drugs for diseases that hit old folks......

Re:meistre corrupt motherfuckers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes!
and like this drug company "giving" their patent to Native American tribes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Exactly how it is in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, we probably exported some of our CableCo management down to you guys if you started deploying after the 70s or so.

American Cable companies (post buyout, there would some regional ones that didn't completely suck, esp in the boonies. But without collective bargaining power or government restrictions on the big players, they all eventually sold out to the big oligopolies.)

Re:Exactly how it is in the US...

[Anonymous Coward]

> without collective bargaining power or government restrictions on the big players, they all eventually sold out to the big oligopolies

We need collective bargaining power or some kind of representation of social interest to balance these oligopolies, because just voting with our wallets or suing doesn't work. Something like a syndicate of customers, or a few chairs representing us, the customers, in the council of big corporations.

Awesome news

[Anonymous Coward]

News like this makes my day. Cable companies have raped customers decade after decade, now it's their turn to bend over and take it without lube. Hope they lose a -LOT- more money, it's not enough til they eliminate charges out of desperation mentioned ^^^ re: HD, 4K, DVR.
Anybody with a 50mb+ cable internet doesn't need TV for fuck all anyway; they've taken enough from you over the years, do yourself and your family a favor by becoming a cable TV pirate.

Re:Awesome news

[luther349]

you dont need tv with a 3mb internet line lol. you dont need alot to stream even in 720p over the internet stuff normally pretty dam compressed.

Re:Awesome news

[drinkypoo]

Below 6Mbps most streaming services are shit at any resolution. My internet access has recently been capped to 3, 5, 6, and 10 Mbps at different times and for various reasons and that is the point at which Amazon and HBO become usable for instance. Netflix remains usable at lower rates (maybe even down 3 as you say) but the quality is so poor, why bother

Re:Awesome news

[luther349]

480p is good enough in realty.

Re:DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymor

[clonehappy]

I am not a Netflix fan. Yet I pay $90/mo for access to the internet. Why? I get access to every node on the net. Places I regularly visit, tops, a few dozen. Why pay for peering to the others? Why am I subsidizing all my neighbors who want to stream video 24x7? Ala carte is suppressed by the ISPs, Why pay for peering overseas if I never request data from foreign servers? The single purpose services like Netflix and Hulu are also a losing proposition. And then there are nickel and dime fees, cable modem rental, static IP, costs $10 a month!

I could keep going. That was mostly in jest, but...

The reason I subscribe to cable is the same reason I subscribe to the internet. I want access to the content I want, when I want it. I'm not a "sports fan", but I watch sports, occasionally, usually just baseball during playoff season. Sure, ESPN costs me $5-10/mo. Is it really worth saving $100 a year to deal with the bullshit of ala carte? I don't want to have to deal with figuring out which package or service I need to subscribe to when I want to watch something on TV. What if family is visiting me and wants to watch MTV or Spike or whatever-the-hell channel they usually watch their shows on that I couldn't give a shit less about?

I don't doubt that the broadcast model may eventually collapse, but stories of its death are premature.

Why does everyone scream bloody murder to "pay only for what they watch" on linear TV, yet will piss and moan about Net Neutrality any time an ISP decides that they might be able to offer a package tailored to certain use cases? In this day and age, both cable TV and internet are consumer mediums. I prefer being able to access the full range of content on both mediums. I'd also like to be able to serve up my own content from my own server on my own internet connection, but we've already foregone that scenario-because the internet is Cable TV 2.0 now. So, really, what's the difference?

Re:DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymor

[luther349]

Ala carte is not surprised by the provider so many people get this fact wrong. Ala carte is suppressed by the network owners many only have 1 or 2 good channels and they know this but they also have 15 shit channels so they will force the providers to also buy the 15 shit channels to get the 2 good channels and if they refuse this offer they will start a huge mud slinging campaign on all there networks talking shit about the provider to get the customers to flood there lines to try and force them to give in and its proven to work very well.

Good

[JohnFen]

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

Re:DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymor

[luther349]

sad part if none of the networks gave in to there mud slinging they would be forced to come back with a better offer as if your not airing on any of the providers your not making any money are you now. the providers seem to have giving away there power for no reason.

Re:I'm actually thinking about installing an anten

[luther349]

some people are not even aware they can get all the local providers for free.

Re:I'm actually thinking about installing an anten

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you go to all that expense and trouble . . . google "Single Bay Gray-Hoverman antenna plans" . . . for a trip to the Home Depot with 20 bucks in your pocket you can have quite an effective antenna you can throw in your attic or near some unused window. Then if you're happy with the reception (you may be really surprised) then great - if not you've wasted 20 bucks and an hour or two of time and can then go ahead and invest in a fancy store bought antenna.

I love the phrase "cord-cutter"

[bferrell]

As if they aren't using broadband provided in some way, shape or form provided by the cord!

denial is more than a river in egypt

Re:I love the phrase "cord-cutter"

[antdude]

Also, satellite services don't use cords!

Re:I love the phrase "cord-cutter"

[Bigbutt]

And high speed wifi (radio anrenna) which we have.

[John]

Re:I love the phrase "cord-cutter"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no confusion about the meaning of the term; those that abandon pay television service. Your pedantry is misplaced, but feel free to continue indulging it, as will many other fools.

Re:I love the phrase "cord-cutter"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no confusion about the meaning of the term; those that abandon pay television service. Your pedantry is misplaced, but feel free to continue indulging it, as will many other fools.

Fine, let me elaborate for your foolish mind to hopefully grasp.

That river in front of you looks like this; those that control the cord-severed part of your service is also the same organization that owns the infrastructure providing the internet service to your home, which you kind of fucking need internet order to stream your chosen cable alternative. Oh, and live, since I keep hearing no one can live without internet.

The end result with this is cord cutting will only cause your provider to eventually charge $150/month for internet service. As the streaming world goes to 4K to justify retina-grade screens, you'll of course need at least 100Mb worth of service as well, which will mean $175/month "turbo" pricing kicks in.

Sure, you could try and get internet service from a smaller, competing ISP, right up until you realize they lease their infrastructure from your old cable provider, so they'll be forced to charge you only $200/month.

And for those who consume their internet via smartphone, remember that your cell service eventually flows to a river...

Re:I love the phrase "cord-cutter"

[Anonymous Coward]

They're using high-speed Internet access, but not broadband. Broadband is jargon for multiple bundled services which happen to include Internet access, but also other things. If you don't buy the other things, then it's not "broadband."

But you're totally right that they didn't cut the cord!

Oh no!

[Tablizer]

With all these cutbacks, how are they going to bribe all those politicians?

Re:Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it has always been: the bribes will be subsidized.

Re:DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymor

[mark-t]

A-la-carte programming (for channels beyond the most basic cable service that has no really good channels at all) is often available... but it rarely seems worth it, financially. You can pay more for just a half dozen a-la cart channels than you do for a basic cable package that comes with dozens of channels that you never watch.

Dumped Comcast Cable 2 Months Ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I dumped Comcast Cable TV 2 months ago. There is no competition where I live and they kept dropping the good channels then I got the new bill $274 each month. I called and tried to get it fixed but their solution was to add, phone {which I don't need}, add security {which I don't need}, add more channels of crap {which I don't need} with Internet all for $225 a month on promotion and will go up to get this $399 after promotion. Questions I asked: Can I leave the phone and the security in a box in my garage because I don't need them? Answer: No we monitor them, you will have alarms because the security system is not on line. You will have alarms because 911 is not active. WHF. So to get $50 per month off I have to add 2 more things I don't need some channels I don't want and then I can pay $225 a month. For how long....boy did he avoid this question for 30 minutes. Then said 3 months. OH HELL NO! I said then he said well you have been with us for 7 years so we can do 6 months. I said no still not working. Then the whole let me get my manager crap...manager....blah blah blah and then it was for 1 year. I told them to drop everything. It was bad enough then it was $119 a month for internet and basic cable (50 channels, plus local TV). Now they want $225 bundled or I can pay $274 a month for basic cable and Internet. This is WHY they are getting cord cutters. I went to work the next day and talked about what happened and 3 people they had already dropped Comcast weeks and months ago. .... and this sparked about 10 more people to drop them that day. Comcast if you are reading this YOU ARE OUT OF CONTROL!!!! What I was getting was worth about $25 a month for the TV and about $50 a month for the internet. If you could have updated me to 1GB like lots of other people I would have paid $75 to $100 for the internet. Thank God they have a competitor in the area. I will be getting fiber 1GB next year for get this $75 a month. Bye Bye Comcast.

Three words...

[erp_consultant]

Get an antenna. I just bought a new house out in the boonies and it made me take a long hard look at cable. At the old house I was paying $220 a month for tv and internet. I never really paid attention to the bill and was a bit shocked to see how much it was. At most I was watching 10 channels. More and more I was watching Amazon.

I did a little research and ended up buying a Mohu Leaf antenna. $18 at WalMart. Damned if that thing isn't picking up about 40 channels. Now granted, some of them are shopping channels, some are religious, some are spanish but I'm getting all the local channels and the picture is fantastic. What my research also led me to understand is the the satellite and cable companies compress the signal so they can fit more data in their pipe. So 1080 doesn't really mean 1080. If you want to really see what 1080 resolution looks like get one of those antennas and you will immediately see how much sharper the picture is.

Then i have Amazon video, which I consider a freebee since I got Prime mainly for the shipping savings. That has plenty of stuff worth watching. I stumbled across something called Pluto tv. It's an app on Roku with free tv and movies. It has commercials but so does cable - and I'm not paying anything for Pluto.

I'm debating on getting Netflix again but probably won't. I have enough stuff to watch. And I'm saving about $150/month in the process. Life is good. The cable companies can go get stuffed.

Re:Three words...

[Carrot007]

> What my research also led me to understand is the the satellite and cable companies compress the signal so they can fit more data in their pipe. So 1080 doesn't really mean 1080. If you want to really see what 1080 resolution looks like get one of those antennas and you will immediately see how much sharper the picture is.

Is Terrestrial HD so much differnet in the US?

I doubt it. The bandwidth is more limited that cable/sattelite and so is compressed more here in the UK.

Only way you are getting andwhere near reasonable bandwidth is on bluray.

Maybe if you sat/cable are still mpeg2 you might have an argument (and that terresitrial is not mpeg2). On any channel here the HD channel downscaled looks way better then SD which I belive is in mpeg2. But people don't wantt to pay for a new box. (not sure what cable does here, It;s not available here, we are more a sat country).

Re:Three words...

[Anonymous Coward]

ATSC OTA in the US is MPEG2 compressed, but it is not as compressed as most of the cable and satellite operators are doing to cram 200channels of crap, on demand, and internet though the bandwidth limited coax. Satellite also has bandwidth limits, but providers like directv have been able to put enough birds up there that they probably have at least 4-6 times the bandwidth hitting your satellite dish than what the cable companies can cram down their coax. So you either get more channels of crap at the same compressed quality or fewer channels of crap at better quality. You also have to remember they are broadcasting nearly every single local channel nationwide off those birds even if you can't see them because they are blocked out based on your region. Back in the old days it would have been possible to have a directv box registered to a NYC address and then move it down to Florida and still watch those NYC local channels. These days alot of those local channels are spotbeamed into smaller regions to free up more bandwidth on the system, however some of the major markets like NYC and LA are still broadcast system wide to allow people who live in the middle of bum fuck no where to be able to use those regions to get the typical ABC, NBC, CBS, etc channels.

ATSC on a traditional 6mhz wide carrier provides for about 38mbps of data. The individual broadcaster can decide how they use this, they can either dedicate all 38mbps to their channel, or split it up into their main channel with multiple sub channels they can either run themselves for added content, or lease out to smaller operators who could not otherwise afford a transmitter, and fcc license. I have seen some channels with as many as 7 sub channels, this obviously reduces the quality of all 8 channels since they all have to fit in that 38mbps of bandwidth

Re:Three words...

[Anonymous Coward]

They could probably get even more channels or better quality OTA if they amended ATSC to support MPEG4. I suspect if that ever happens it probably taking 2 decades, it would be like the analog NTSC to ATSC switch over. You would have millions of TV sets that need to either be replaced or separate tuner boxes purchased to support the amended standard. The hardware makers and retailers would love it though.

Re:Three words...

[sydbarrett74]

Just curious: what broadband solution did you go with at your new place?

Re:Three words...

[erp_consultant]

"Is Terrestrial HD so much different in the US?" - Well in my experience, yeah it is. The images on the OTA antenna were much better than what I was seeing with my cable provider. Same channel, same content. Now I don't have any technical benchmarks to back it up but I know what I saw and it certainly looked a lot better to my eyes on the antenna. Your experience may be different and I can't speak to that.

My point was that this cheap antenna brought in a lot more channels than I thought possible and many of them looked a lot better than my expensive cable service was giving me. Bye bye cable.

Re:Three words...

[erp_consultant]

Initially I looked at DSL but their bandwidth was laughably slow - 3mb/s. Then I considered HughesNet. But they have data caps and I was concerned about network latency. I eventually ended up going with a place that offers Microwave Wireless technology. My neighbor runs a home based business and he vouched for it.

Essentially the way it works is they have a series of Data Centers that connect to the internet at large. They put up a series of towers and facilitate a connection using radio frequencies. They put up what looks like a satellite dish on your roof and that connects to the tower. The connection is fully encrypted end to end.

They promised me a 40mb/s connection but I am routinely getting 60mb/s. Unlike cable and DSL, it's not a shared pipe. So when every house in the neighborhood is streaming Netflix my connection does not slow down. So far I'm very happy with it. According the the guy that owns the company the technology has the capability of providing up to 1gb/s with the proper equipment in place. I'm not holding my breath for that but at least I have decent speeds and if you're in a rural area that's about all you can hope for.

Re:Three words...

[sydbarrett74]

Cool beans. :) I've heard some great things about microwave wireless. Too bad it hasn't seen wider deployment. :(

People have less money to spend.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty much the short and the tall of it. That they thought themselves untouchable and we were all consumers not customers, therefore our only choice was which shed to be sheared at, is merely why some started cutting the cord. That some had cord cut showed others that they didn't HAVE to pay the exorbitant prices and more left. And those people are showing the rest that if they're tight on cash, this really does work as one way to save a grand a year.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO know that the whole standing for the anthem was recent, Shrub era propaganda, to make people sign up for the Iraq war, right? PAID FOR.

So why are you pissed off at the players doing nothing different from what the fans do, something else while the waste of time national anthem is being played?

Re:Why?

[ChrisMaple]

"Please stand for our national anthem" has been standard at least since the late 1950s.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not True,

My dad played in the NFL in the 80's and they all stood with hand over heart just as if they were at a parade and the initial flag came by.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is recent to my Father's generation - he's 90. There wasn't a lot of flag-waving in general life before WWII.
As I recall, saying the Pledge of Allegiance was not something we did in school until later in the 1950's. But then, where I was from we were more likely to know the words to Dixie than the National Anthem.

Re:DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymor

[bill_mcgonigle]

The CATV model was always explicitly socialist. Long gone are the days when it was just shared access to awesome broadcast antennas, but the ethos remains. They pick the content providers for you, they decide on the packages, and they tell you what [false] dependencies exist in programming. You see, they are the experts and if you were free to make your own choices you would destroy "everything good" about the system. Meanwhile, the gatekeepers get fabulously rich.

Contrast that with the Internet model.

what are they ungrateful about?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they're not following the majority you claim to be part of and not standing for the anthem, how can they be guilty of groupthink? ESPECIALLY when some kneel and most stand with arms linked?

Is the problem that they're now visibly not YOUR group that you're pissed off at?

As to the other posters' tribalism idea, yeah, no shit sherlock. But nobody is lecturing them about their politics. And since when did they lose their right to the first amendment?

Re:what are they ungrateful about?

[stdarg]

If players were out marching in the streets, I probably wouldn't care. But I'm not going to cheer for people who just stood there and told me I'm part of a white supremacist society and blah blah blah. Just like I'm not going to applaud a McDonald's employee for insulting a customer for instance. I support free speech, but not free speech against people who are paying you either directly or indirectly via ad revenue. That's some retarded shit right there.

You can do without the internet too.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sucks a bit more, but when it costs as much for internet as it does for TV, and when so many suppliers WON'T SUPPLY because they can't DRM the shit out of it to stop you watching it with their tiny risk that you'll copy it, what point is broadband anyway? Yeah, you can watch on demand HDTV. As long as they allow your device to watch it. And they get to decide.

Same with BluRay. Ain't buying a BD because some may or may not rip and if I can't play it because they're terrified of me, then I am terrified of what they're doing with my money. So I'll keep it, thanks. Sure it means I miss out on entertainment I'd like. But I could easily miss out on it anyway when I buy it, because they think I might be a pirate. So why worry about missing their movies. See how they like paying for food with their movie rights.

Because TV sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your neckbearded asses outside. Walk, fish, do yardwork, run...the TV kills the body and the mind.

Re:I'm actually thinking about installing an anten

[AsylumWraith]

Depending on where you live, you might not need anything overly fancy. I've got a simple omni-directional antenna mounted in my attic, and attached to two TVs, and I can pick up ~90 OTA channels.

Now admittedly, I live within 40 miles of all my area's broadcast towers, and most of those 90 channels are crap I won't watch, (either foreign languages I don't know, or religious nonsense,) but for a one-time investment of about $50, I can get the local broadcast news channels during severe weather or an emergency, and my wife can watch some of the goofy sub-channels she likes.

We have a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"AT&T blamed a number of issues, including hurricane damage to infrastructure, rising credit standards and competition from rivals. "

If rising credit standards are causing THAT many people to not have enough money to pay for cable subscriptions.... Hell, if THAT many people are paying for cable on credit? We have a VERY bad problem. :(

I haven't owned a TV in 15 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Requisite link

Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe itâ(TM)s the fees these monopolistic parasites charge? Plus the content sucks. If you are going to sell stinking shit at least douse it in perfume and maybe sprinkle some sugar on to it too. Is that too much to ask?

Re:DirecTV used to beat cable in price. Not anymor

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the content providers pick the packages for you.

ESPN tells the cable company you want to carry us, you force us on everybody.

Disney says you want our channel, you must also carry (and pay for) these other 12 channels we produce that few people want.

etc.

It's about the content.

[Anonymous Coward]

I cut cable a long, long time ago (1998) because I simply couldn't find any interest in anything on there. I don't watch sports and find most of the stuff produced with very few exceptions to be unwatchable. I had found other ways to be entertained.

Then, a few years ago, I started enjoying video once again. What changed? Well, it wasn't on cable TV. It was on YouTube and channels like EEVBlog, AvE, tesla500, mikeselectricstuff, CodysLab, and NileRed. I find that these very interesting channels rekindled me watching video. Here was amazingly creative and educational content. People doing experiments, teaching skills, and educating. But doing it in an entertaining way.

Recently some of those channels have said that all their videos are demonetized. YouTube (especially with YouTube Red) seems to want to make the same mistake of the cable companies. I am willing to pay for entertainment (for the creators above, through Patreon). But I will not pay for the same old garbage from Hollywood that turns brains into mush and pushes political agendas of large media companies (I'm looking at you Google and your PC craziness). I want Physics and Chemistry, not trannys and terrorists!

Re:It's about the content.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love that genius Google data scientists would show ads for Muslim Singles during Stephen Crowder's show. Hillarious.

Competition

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't compete with cable companies (which are some of the worst businesses around), then you deserve to go out of business.

Anyway, they've had it coming for a LONG time. I think we all know how many terrible things they are doing to their customers, between the customer service, overpriced products, and zero expectation of privacy to government overreach (and going out of their way to stomp all over the competition which we know thanks to Mr. Klein).

Hopefully the business gasps its last breath soon.

Re:Competition

[Anonymous Coward]

...constitution...we know there is no competition, sorry for the typo.

The FCC hasn't done its job to prevent monopolies and merging, and it's had a terrible effect on the country's network infrastructure.

Fiber internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you replaced one cable with...another cable?

Cable sales rep challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a fun game:

Wait for a cable sales rep to call you or show up at your door. Engage in a polite conversation with them. Now slip this question into the conversation: "What is actually worth watching on TV?"

So far for me three sales reps have come up blank and one has suggested watching documentaries.

Note that this is rule important: They have to make the first move. Do not waste the sales rep's time by walking up to him just to pick a fight.

Cut my cords, I'll cut yours...

[crypton]

When Comcast did a modem upgrade they just cut (literally) all the cables going to a digital antenna, wall outlets, etc. to make it simpler to do their single connection. Cancelled all tv the next day and get along fine on Netflix, the digital antenna, and Kodi. As soon as an economical alternative is available to their "high" speed internet, that goes too. Suggestions are welcome.

a clue for cable companies

[Anonymous Coward]

People quit paying for crap content and commercials reaching 30% or more of total programming time. Who woulda guessed?

Comcast used to be the only name in town...

[Pezbian]

With the advent of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc, they were still able to hand-wring about being an ISP.

Yeah... about that: Locally, they tried to block the UTOPIA initiative and lost. It's a fiber-to-the-premises service that gets you 250mbps symmetrical for $65 a month. Gigabit can be had for a bit more. Comcast has been pussyaching about it ever since, attempting to make the proverbial door hit the asses of former customers on their way out.

Re:Comcast used to be the only name in town...

[Anonymous Coward]

Their near monopoly on the internet game will be coming to end soon too. With the promises of 5G cellular, people are going to have more choices. Even today with LTE you could get a mifi type device and cut the internet cord if all you are doing is typical light internet use. However with the bandwidth caps that are in place, typically around 20-30GB per month depending on provider, you could quickly gobble up that allotment in a weekend if you binge on netflix all weekend. Hopefully with 5G we will either see these bandwidth caps be dropped, or relaxed to make it more possible to be used as a primary internet connection.

I believe Tmobile has just raised their cap to 50GB per month, however that still is not usable to me as my sole internet connection. When i look at my data use per month in my router i typically consume 200-300GB per month though my cable connection.

I suspect in a decades time cable is going to be an antiquated dinosaur the likes of copper twisted pair telephone service. The cable companies see the writing on the wall, some of them are investing in research of 5G services.

Hulu rules.

[gurps_npc]

I used to spend over $200 bucks a month on data.

Now I spend $20 for Republic phone, $40 for internet, and $10 on Hulu.

Smartest decision I ever made.

Re:What good is a bundle if you donâ(TM)t val

[Anonymous Coward]

streamingvivalive.com has a bundle that is $35.00 a month. All the stations totaling over 160 channels . You can stream Live TV anywhere anytime with the use of Internet or WiFi. OTT has become very popular and has consumers cutting the Cord.
When the Consumer can take Streaming Live TV anywhere or anytime. Plus you are not renting Devices. I have cut the Cord 3 months and have saved a lot.
Technology is changing , Cable and Dish customers are cutting the cord at alarming rate and will in the Future.

They nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

-Every person pays different for same service, no explanation
-Constant price creap
-400 channels, but nothing worth time to watch
-shoving worthless services
-commericals ruin anything watching
Cox said years ago that a la cart would cause prices to go up 15 years later not only were they late, they will probably get bought out over it.

"high numbers of black people shot by cops"

[HBI]

You might want to check your facts.

The only thing you're gonna take...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is a big black 10" dick up your puckered virgin rectum.

Who the fuck do you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you are? The god damn Queen of Brittania? I am on my LAST NERVE with whiny self absorbed asswipes like you who cry that you want to watch your show at your leisure. Well toss your pacifier away junior, there's a new sheriff in town. You will watch a show at its appointed hour, when we say so. No sooner, no later. Capiche?

Re:AT&T is not even trying to compete ... why?

[sabbede]

Bureaucratic incompetence? We're talking about a phone company that doesn't have accurate records of it's own internal lines. I can't tell you how many times I've called for business support and been transferred to out-of-service numbers; or been transferred to residential support (who can't help) then back to business support who send out a tech that never shows up or calls saying they can't find the location (because they don't keep track?), or when they show up a day late it turns out they're the wrong kind of tech and can't do anything.

They're too big to change direction, fix their collapsing internal structure, or provide service in a timely manner (they need at least a month to setup an install!). I don't really understand how they're still in business, let alone being one of the largest corporations in the world. Its only inertia that keeps it going at all.

But I'm venting. I have not had many positive experiences with AT&T.

Must be why they're cutting prices and improving

[sabbede]

services and support, right?

Wait, you say they aren't doing that? They're raising prices and not improving anything?

Oops.

Well DUH.

[dentar]

Hmm. I used to pay 160.00 a month for cable. "Cord cutting" has saved me at least $3,600 so far.