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]

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

[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

[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

[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!!!"

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

[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

[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

[Pezbian]

AC, naturally.

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

[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?

[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?

[ChrisMaple]

There was a young man named Dave...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

[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

[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!

[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!

[boustrophedon]

And Regional Sports Network Fee

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.

[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.

[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: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."

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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]

Oh no!

[Tablizer]

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

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.

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...

[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. :(

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.

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: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.

Fiber internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

Re:Awesome news

[luther349]

480p is good enough in realty.

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:Why?

[ChrisMaple]

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

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.

"high numbers of black people shot by cops"

[HBI]

You might want to check your facts.

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.