Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Another Million Subscribers Cut the Pay TV Cord Last Quarter (dslreports.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the shocking-news dept.

A report from FierceCable says that a million more U.S. pay TV subscribers cut the TV cord last quarter. "Only five of the seven biggest pay TV providers have released their third quarter subscriber data, but collectively these companies saw a net loss of 632,000 pay TV subscribers during the period (385,000 for AT&T and DirecTV, 125,000 for Comcast, 104,000 for Charter, 18.000 for Verizon FiOS TV)," reports DSLReports. "Dish has yet to report its own cord cutting tallies, but the company is again expected to be among the hardest hit due to a high level of retransmission fee feuds and a lack of broadband bundles."

72 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. They could avoid it.... by registrations_suck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They could avoid it if TV didn't suck.

    1. Re:They could avoid it.... by registrations_suck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I ditched cable in 2009 - do not miss it at all. Don't even have Netflix, Hulu, or any other subscriptions. If I want to watch a movie, I'll rent it on Vudu, or Apple Store, or even Amazon. No need to "subscribe" to any kind of movie or TV service.

    2. Re:They could avoid it.... by ark1 · · Score: 2

      They could avoid it if only they can kill net neutrality and turn Internet into another "package" based service like cable.

    3. Re:They could avoid it.... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, these are cable companies we are talking about. They are hard at work dreaming up ways to punish their users into submission.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    4. Re:They could avoid it.... by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 2

      That is the real issue. It was $20/month for basic in the 90's, it's crazy how much more it costs now. Funny too because now that I'm done with TV I don't really care what they offer at any price.

    5. Re:They could avoid it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If a channel needs a paid subscription to view, a sane person expects to not get any commercials on it. And perhaps even some quality content. But eg. Discovery and History channel have commercials and the content is just generic reality-tv crap that can be obtained from any other channel. At what scale is storage-treasure-hunting, alternative history drama or truck driving in Alaska a scientific or educating show?

      Cheaply made crappy content plus big bill for it equals no customers. It should not take too many MBA's to find out, how to get customers back.

    6. Re:They could avoid it.... by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fell the same. After a few years without TV, I don't want it, even if it was for free.

    7. Re:They could avoid it.... by slashrio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And they will, because they can.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    8. Re:They could avoid it.... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Cartoons have gotten much worse. News reporting has gotten worse, dishonest and biased. In sports, the technology has improved, but the commentary has been politicized.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:They could avoid it.... by registrations_suck · · Score: 2

      in a post below.

      What that post reveals is that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, when you say that TV "sucks".

      Sure I do. It's simply unable to compete for my time because it is uninteresting enough to do so. Besides the basic cost - they tack on all kinds of "fees" and "taxes" that contribute to the suck. Then there is the "weekly model" that sucks. I don't want to watch one show a week. If I am interested in the show, put it all up at once. You just don't get that from TV. So fuck them. Combine that with changing the time on shows, cancelling shows that I AM interested in and I just have no incentive to get sucked into watching. Aside from all of that - then there are the plots. I'm just not interested in portrayals of hackers, or super heros, drug dealers with cancer, or propaganda pieces. It's just not interesting to me. It's just not. And that's BEFORE factoring in commercials. THEN you factor in what else is competing for my time. I get home at 5pm, typically. The next three hours are spent playing with my kid and making/eating dinner and cleaning up afterward. So that's 8pm. I go to bed at 10pm. So that means there are, roughly speaking, 2 hours per day of "free time" Monday through Friday, that I have to do everything else I want to do. TV is simply not compelling enough to compete for that time. In other words, it sucks. If it didn't suck so much, it WOULD compete for that time - successfully. Weekends....8 hours of sleep, 3 hours of eating, shitting, bathing, etc. - gives 13 hours for everything else. I'd estimate at least 5 for the kid, so you're down to 8 hours/day. I'd estimate at least 3 hours of that is burned on going to the grocery store, gas station, errands or other necessary things. So that puts me down to 5 hours/day for everything else I need or want to do....or 10 hours for the weekend. Out of that 10 hours, I have to do house projects or maintenance, yard projects or maintenance, vehicle projects or maintenance - and entertainment and activities. Sometimes, I will use some of that to watch a movie. I can get in, get out, and move on. A TV show? Just don't want to get sucked into that. I'm sorry you can't appreciate that other people may have opinions that differ from yours, and yet may be completely valid.

    10. Re:They could avoid it.... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Yup. The decline of ESPN alone was enough to get me to cancel TV. Got the call from "retention" a week later -- told them I wasn't interested even if it was free. Liberating. [Truth is I only was using TV to help me take a nap...not a great use case.]

      --
      I come here for the love
    11. Re:They could avoid it.... by thomst · · Score: 1

      I noted:

      What that post reveals is that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, when you say that TV "sucks".

      Prompting registrations_suck to respond:

      Sure I do. It's simply unable to compete for my time because it is uninteresting enough to do so. Besides the basic cost - they tack on all kinds of "fees" and "taxes" that contribute to the suck. Then there is the "weekly model" that sucks. I don't want to watch one show a week. If I am interested in the show, put it all up at once. You just don't get that from TV. So fuck them. Combine that with changing the time on shows, cancelling shows that I AM interested in and I just have no incentive to get sucked into watching.

      None of those things speak to my point. You are complaining about delivery models, not about content - and your complaints amount to "I'm locked into the 20th century TV consumer mindset, and I don't want to change."

      The fees you complain about are for cable/satellite "tiered packages", while the streaming services you sneer at are each one, relatively modest price per month. As far as watching shows on your preferred schedule goes, that's what DVRs are for. And Netflix, for example, does, in fact, put up all episodes of a program season at the same time, so you can binge whenever you feel like it, or consume their programming in whatever fashion appeals to you. If you're an Amazon Prime member, you get their original programming as a bonus (along with access to the Kindle Online Lending Library, I might add). No, Amazon doesn't put every episode of a season online at once, however every episode they have posted to date is available for you to watch at your convenience. And so on. Oh, and let's not forget watching pirated shows, where all the commercials have been excised, so you don't even have to use the skip function of your DVR to avoid that annoyance (and there's nothing to keep you from subscribing to cable/satellite to ease your conscience about pirating, while actually watching pirated versions of the programs that appeal to you, so you can skip the ads). So that complaint is likewise based on outdated reasoning.

      Aside from all of that - then there are the plots. I'm just not interested in portrayals of hackers, or super heros, drug dealers with cancer, or propaganda pieces. It's just not interesting to me. It's just not. And that's BEFORE factoring in commercials.

      The shows I cited reflect my tastes. The modern TV programmingscape is highly competitive. There are undoubtedly shows on offer that would appeal to you, as well. You just haven't bothered to look for them.

      THEN you factor in what else is competing for my time. I get home at 5pm, typically. The next three hours are spent playing with my kid and making/eating dinner and cleaning up afterward. So that's 8pm. I go to bed at 10pm. So that means there are, roughly speaking, 2 hours per day of "free time" Monday through Friday, that I have to do everything else I want to do. TV is simply not compelling enough to compete for that time. In other words, it sucks. If it didn't suck so much, it WOULD compete for that time - successfully.

      Weekends....8 hours of sleep, 3 hours of eating, shitting, bathing, etc. - gives 13 hours for everything else. I'd estimate at least 5 for the kid, so you're down to 8 hours/day. I'd estimate at least 3 hours of that is burned on going to the grocery store, gas station, errands or other necessary things. So that puts me down to 5 hours/day for everything else I need or want to do....or 10 hours for the weekend. Out of that 10 hours, I have to do house projects or maintenance, yard projects or maintenance, vehicle projects or maintenance - and entertainment and activities. Sometimes, I will use some of that to watch a movie. I can get in, get out, and move on. A TV show? Just don't want to get sucked into that.

      At last we've arrived a

      --
      Check out my novel.
    12. Re:They could avoid it.... by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      If my post was unclear, I apologize.

      My complaint is chiefly with the content. The content, by and large, sucks. The delivery models just make it suck more - and the cost doesn't help.

      While the streaming services may have “modest” price per month – I just don’t find them worth it. To cut to the chase – if I could get whatever the maximum possible cable TV package there is, with all the premium channels, and all of the porn channels, and all of the music channels, along with ALL streaming services and whatever else – for a flat $10/month, all-in, all taxes and fees included – I still wouldn’t buy it. It’s just not worth $10/month to me.

      I considered cancelling Netflix for several years, as they cut back on movies and went with more and more "original content". Given I signed up for a movie service, their value prop was diminishing over time. The last time they raised their price by a single $1 per month, that was enough to spur action and cancel.

      As for your DVR solution....again, not worth it. I’ve never had a DVR. I don’t have a DVR. Don’t want a DVR. Don't want more shit in my house. Besides which, I have to tell it what I want to watch. Right off the bat, that’s going to be more effort than it is worth. I just don’t CARE enough about watching to take the time for that. And yes, Netflix does put up a lot of episodes at once. Great. However, I simply don’t want to watch them. It takes too much time to watch 15 (or whatever) episodes of something. I don’t want to spend my time that way. As for watching pirated stuff – yeah – I DEFINITELY don’t want to put the effort into that. If I wanted to watch something that badly, I’d just pay for it and be done with it.

      As for finding content that I might be interested in - just not worth the effort. Yes, you’re right. I’ve not bothered to look for them. Do you know why? Because I’m not interested enough in watching TV to put out the effort. Hell, I watched a movie over the weekend. It took THIRTY MINUTES to find something I thought was even remotely worth watching - using Vudu, Amazon Prime and Apple Store. THIRTY MINUTES!! Turns out, not only did I wish I had that 30 minutes back, I wish I had back whatever time I spent watching that stupid movie too. I've found it is getting hard and harder to even find a movie that I think is worth watching.

      Of course “TV sucks” is not a factual statement. It is an OPINION. Clearly, we have a difference of opinion. Big deal. But you’re incorrect with your supposition. I hold that TV sucks, therefore I don’t bother to put any effort into watching it. And by "TV sucks" - I am referring to the content, delivery model and cost. If I found it more compelling way to spend my time, I’d be happy to make more time for it and spend money on it. Bottom line: I simply don’t LIKE watching TV. Why? Because, in my view, IT SUCKS! It is a losing value prop as far as I am concerned.

      I have no regret over not watching TV, or with life choices - as you suggest. (:

  2. That is..... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    EXCELLENT! I love it! I'll be doing it shortly too.

  3. At some point, the frog jumps by speedlaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cable bill..hey, cable TV...no commercials.... OK.. Broadband better than DSL ? OK. TV too, OK. Feed the whole house. CableCo scrambles all signals "for piracy". You need to rent a box for $8 per month per TV and suffer an egregious Guide. Three TV sets. Commercial load making any non DVR watching impossible. Send another new bill. Now, $7 per month "Sports Fee". Don't watch or subscribe to any sports. ESPN needs my money ? They are not even a government....so $8x3x12 + $7x12. = $374 You just boosted me a car payment for absolutely nothing ?

    1. Re:At some point, the frog jumps by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You need to rent a box for $8 per month per TV and suffer an egregious Guide.

      While you would need to purchase the units, TiVo has "mini" devices that work off your main unit via TCP/IP, either streaming recorded shows from the main unit or temporarily borrowing a free tuner in the main unit to stream something live. Main TiVo units come with 4 or 6 tuners and multi TB hard drives. You only need to rent a CableCard from your provider for the main unit(s). The UI and Guide service are pretty good - though you have to Tivo for the Guide service (either yearly or lifetime). You can also stream Amazon, Netflix, Hulu and other providers from a Tivo device. Some Tivo units support OTA reception as well.

      Not as inexpensive as "cutting the cord" but much better quality than most cable provider devices.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:At some point, the frog jumps by tepples · · Score: 1

      A TiVo box that can record cable also costs $750: roughly $200 for the hardware plus $550 for the All-In Plan.

    3. Re:At some point, the frog jumps by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      I've a Premier, which will stream, but very, very slowly. I use an older Mac Mini for streaming, no problem and no buffering wtih 1080p out. I had cable card in some Sony HDD 250 and when they died/were abandoned by Sony and Rovi I got the Premier. It's long paid for lifetime. I used cablecard when I had cable.

    4. Re:At some point, the frog jumps by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You only need to rent a CableCard from your provider for the main unit(s).

      Easier said than done. Who hasn't managed to get themselves an exemption when they moved to SDV? You'll get to rent a tuning adapter for each tuner in that TiVo.

    5. Re:At some point, the frog jumps by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      You only need to rent a CableCard from your provider for the main unit(s).

      Easier said than done. Who hasn't managed to get themselves an exemption when they moved to SDV? You'll get to rent a tuning adapter for each tuner in that TiVo.

      I have a TiVo Bolt with 4 tuners. It uses one multi-channel CableCard and *one* tuning adapter (connected via USB).

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:At some point, the frog jumps by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...or even streaming sites that don't cost nothing.

      The cost of a Tivo and a guide subscription pays for a lot of stuff on Amazon.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  4. And One by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    we cut last month. our TWC bill was doubled by Spectrum for the same service. watched the World Series online.

    1. Re:And One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      its not a "World Series" if its only played in America.....

    2. Re:And One by datavirtue · · Score: 4, Funny

      [Laughs heartily] You are SOOO cute! The World Series happens in America bitch. Greatest country in the United States.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re:And One by tepples · · Score: 1

      its not a "World Series" if its only played in America

      Then perhaps the Toronto Blue Jays need to start winning more American League championships.

    4. Re:And One by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Soccer's World Cup only allows land based countries to compete. That's not even one third of the world. And if you throw out Antarctica as well for having no countries, look how provincial the supposed World Cup is.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:And One by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      If America is so great, how come you have never won the Copa América?

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    6. Re:And One by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      its not a "World Series" if its only played in America.....

      It is if you're american who is too stupid to realise that other countries exist too.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:And One by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Funny

      America's premier athletes play gridiron football, baseball, or basketball. The ones who play soccer aren't tough enough for gridiron football, tall enough for basketball, or athletic enough for baseball. People in the U.S.A. prefer these more organized sports, so that's where the money goes, and athletes follow the money.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:And One by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > its not a "World Series" if its only played in America.....

      You are deeply confused regarding how the World Series got it's name.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:And One by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > If America is so great, how come you have never won the Copa América?

      You mean like the World Cup where our women have won twice?

      Apparently soccer is a "just a girls game here".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:And One by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The World(tm) Series was sponsored by the World newspaper, thus the name.

    11. Re:And One by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      How many other countries had significant baseball leagues in 1903 when the first World Series was played? Or even really the 50? The MLB established a major brand around the name long before any other countries were close to developing leagues. You think they are going to change the name over a little matter such as accuracy?

  5. Simple economics.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....says that if you lose market share you cut prices to try and regain it. They will no doubt raise prices to try and keep revenue the same...thus driving off even more customers.

    1. Re:Simple economics.... by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, the simple logic of the cable company... Such refreshing stupidity..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Simple economics.... by toonces33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that they are being squeezed by the content providers on the other end. You want to carry the XYZ channel? That will cost you more per subscriber now. So to a degree, the cable companies are caught in the middle. I would like to see someone offer a-la-carte without all kinds of expensive junk being added on.

    3. Re:Simple economics.... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I imagine a bunch of neanderthals around a large table in a meeting room who's only reaction to everything is "raise prices!" I can proudly proclaim that I have never paid for cable in my entire 40 years on this planet. I am very well paid ("highly compensated employee") but I would never suffer the indignity of paying to have that shit piped into my home.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    4. Re:Simple economics.... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I guess the content providers have been living under a rock for the past 20 years? Oh no....they are dealing with everyone and continue to shake down the cable companies. I hope the Comcast and Spectrum stock prices have the fact that someone has their revenue by the balls priced in.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:Simple economics.... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Yes! I soo enjoy watching this movie!

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    6. Re:Simple economics.... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      ....says that if you lose market share you cut prices to try and regain it. They will no doubt raise prices to try and keep revenue the same...thus driving off even more customers.

      Why would their customers leave? In most cases, they have no choice whether they are buying TV service or Internet service.

  6. Raises hand by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Had Uverse for years, they kept trying to charge me $140/month. Every fricken year I called them and said "Um, yeah, no bang for the buck here" and got my monthly bill down to under $100. This year? They jacked my rate to $160/month, called them a few weeks ago and the best they could offer was $140. Um, how about no. Actually, how about "fuck no, you greedy assholes".

    Lost my cable TV 2 days ago, we'll see how it goes, but I'm looking into Kodi boxes and DVDs from the library. I miss the news, the Chargers went to LA last year so fuck them, this will be interesting.

    What was really irritating? AT&T was sending flyers to my house advertising the same package I had at $160 for $50/month if I got directTV. But I don't have a south facing place to put an antenna, plus I like online multiplayer games where ping matters. Cox was advertising the same package for $80/month. I decided to bite the bullet and cut the cord instead of getting a new DVR/install.

    1. Re:Raises hand by barrywalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck. Television. You don't need it. Cut the cord and don't look back. I don't remember when I last had cable and don't miss that shit a bit. When I want to watch something, I use Apple TV, Netflix or Amazon, but honestly, I don't watch TV much anymore. It's all shit anyway.

    2. Re:Raises hand by Thundercat007 · · Score: 1

      I had cable for many years too. Was about $160 a month. I thought I'd get value out of it since 5 Yank stations promoted NFL, I tune in to the stations, it was either 5 stations of Buffalo Bills or Deflategate Pats. I also thought hey I got SportsNet & TSN both havnig 5 stations each such as West, East, Central, but I tune in to watch MLB or NHL and it's 5 stations of the regional team. When I inquired why West doesn't show Western teams, they go o it's based on your region. Defeats the point really of 5 stations. So I realized i was watching 5 stations, so I called up said Cable company explaining hey I watch 5 stations, I'll give you $5 per station and delete the rest. They stated COULDN'T BE DONE, they suggested I enroll in basic cable then add on the 5 stations I did want, but that brought me back to like $75 dollars....for 5 stations I wanted. So, money in hand, they wouldn't give me what I wanted at a price I'd be willing to pay. So Cancel city, I tried to give them money, they wouldn't accept it your honor.

    3. Re:Raises hand by bobbied · · Score: 3

      Yea, Verizon did the same routine with me...

      Send out advertisements advertising a really good rate, confirmed it on their website, called when my "contract" term was up and guess what? The advertised rates are both largely deceptive (because they add all sorts of "necessary fees" that nearly double the actual costs) and because I'm an existing customer (of over 10 full years now), the advertised rate is not available to me. It's only for new customers....

      So, you are going to charge an established paying customer, who's never missed a payment in 10 years and won't require you to buy and/or configure anything MORE than a new customer that's going to cost you money to set up?

      The brilliance of this was breathtaking.... I was happy to take my business elsewhere and lucky that I could...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Raises hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The first 6 months or so are a bit hard. But after that you can pick up pretty much all the shows you were watching on DVD. You are slightly out of date but not wildly.

      I had a decent amount of DVDs when I cut the cord. I then took the money I spending on cable and bought whole seasons of shows. Dropped them all on a NAS and I am STILL ahead cost wise what TW wanted to charge me. I am just shy of 1500 movies and 200 complete TV shows. All on DVD and ripped to a NAS with a KODI menu front end. No pirating needed.

      Recently moved and cable is included in the apartment bill. So it is 'free'. But I never watch it. I found I can no longer stand sitting around watching commercials.

      I miss the news
      Give that about a year then when you watch it again you will think 'what the fuck is this shit'. It is all scripted. Very little actually happens on 'the news'. It is mostly pretty faces reading off a teleprompter or two reporters arguing some silly point. Actual 'news' is rarely reported on those entertainment shows.

    5. Re:Raises hand by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      We are the people. If they pull that shit we will just regulate them to an acceptable price. I love having all the power.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    6. Re:Raises hand by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I find the commercials a vapid assault on my dignity.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    7. Re:Raises hand by omnichad · · Score: 2

      I feel like cable wouldn't even have so many cord cutters if they just charged everyone the advertised prices - even the loyal customers. Or even just consistently advertised the actual prices (without bundles).

    8. Re:Raises hand by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > I cannot imagine why anyone spends hours a day watching TV,

      Because some people would rather watch someone's else fake life then live their own real one. That would entail they would have to get off their ass and DO something (productive) like learn to play a musical instrument, read a book, etc.

      Keeping up with the KarTrashians is exactly the problem with society. You have a generation of sheeple instead of leaders.

    9. Re:Raises hand by eskayp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are the people, and the sheep to be sheared.
      Corporations and lobbyists pay politicians big bucks.
      The pols then invite the CEOs and lobbyists to write the rules and laws that govern their industry.
      And we sheep keep electing those politicians because of some smokescreen wedge issue.
      Today the smoke is even murkier with 'alternative facts' and 'truthiness' being accepted as reality.
      Evidently critical thinking is beyond sheeps' ability.
      When we sheep vote based on listening to our gut one has to wonder where our heads are.

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
    10. Re:Raises hand by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      $140/month

      As a matter of interest what kind of dollar are you talking there? I dropped my cable package when they tried to charge me more than $40 AU dollars per month. The idea that someone even pays $40 greenbacks for cable astounds me, let alone $140.

    11. Re:Raises hand by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Heh! I was looking at a Time-Spectrum ad, and they were claiming $29.99 each for TV phone and internet. My bill is twice that, and I don't know anyone with a $90 bill.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    12. Re:Raises hand by eskayp · · Score: 1

      Enjoy your Local News coverage while it lasts.
      Broadcasts originating in smaller communities are an endangered species that Ajit Pai (FCC Chairman) is trying to exterminate.
      Current rules require a local originating studio for those stations.
      Pai's proposal would allow syndicates (like Sinclair) that own local stations to eliminate that local originating studio.
      They would convert your 'local station' into a repeater of the network's material.
      Then, your 'local' news might originate 3 time zones away.
      Politically motivated owners already order 'Must Run' segments that fit their agenda but not our community.

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
  7. Cut the cord by srwood · · Score: 2

    Cut the cord a year ago. Tablo streaming and DVR OTA TV to four screens and mobile devices. Playstation Vue for sports and Netflix. Haven't missed cable. Saving $1300/yr.

  8. Netcraft corfirms: Cable is dead by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    (Posting for the official record.)

    It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: cable TV is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered cable TV community when Nielsen confirmed that cable TV market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all viewers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that cable TV has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. cable TV is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent cable TV viewers survey.

    You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict cable TV's future. The hand writing is on the wall: cable TV faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for cable TV because cable TV is dying. Things are looking very bad for cable TV. As many of us are already aware, cable TV continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    Due to the troubles of cable, abysmal sales and so on, cable has basically gone out of business and has been taken over by Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc who sell better TV for less.

    All major surveys show that cable TV has steadily declined in market share. Cable TV is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If cable TV is to survive at all it will be among cable dilettante dabblers. Cable TV continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, cable TV is dead.

    That crippling bombshell sent cable TV fans into a tailspin of mourning and denial. However, bad news poured in like a river of water.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Netcraft corfirms: Cable is dead by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      The Cable TV Industry is one that is totally ripe for disruption. I only miss all of about two shows since cutting the cable cord and I am cheering falling subscriber numbers. IPTV is really the thing that will kill the cable duopolies. Once television becomes completely provider agnostic, we should see prices continue to fall to ones comparable to an individual line of cellular service.

    2. Re:Netcraft corfirms: Cable is dead by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I hear you. We haven't had cable in at least 15 years; can't say as that we've missed it.

      We didn't drop it to save money, we dropped it mainly because it was 200 channels of craptastic shit that simply wasn't worth watching. But with that said, at ~$100 a month we've saved almost $20,000.

      If they ever pulled their heads out of their asses and let us do an ala carte deal at a dollar or two per channel we'd probably get 5 or 10 channels, but that'll never happen. Apparently they'd rather have $0 a month than $10 or $20. And they wonder why they're dying on the vine...

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  9. Didn't mention Kodi for a change. by CaffeinatedTech · · Score: 1

    Wow, no mention of Kodi in the article. It's usually their fault right?

  10. Only two reasons by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    1) Lack of anything meaningful to watch on it. I think every other station on DirecTV is either an infomercial, religious programming, or in a language I don't even speak. ( Spanish ) The culled down list of channels I flip through is maybe a dozen. Maybe.

    2) Monthly cost of said programming far exceeds its value. Far, FAR too expensive for what it is. Cut the cost in half and you might slow the bleeding a bit. For a while anyway. You still need to fix #1 if you plan on having any long term customers.

    You may be wondering why I even have the service if I bitch about the lack of programming and its cost. The ONLY reason I still have it is because I get a ludicrous discount on it. All channels sans premiums ( HBO, Max, etc ) costs less than my monthly Netflix account unless I decide to watch some pay per view movies.

    I have said it outloud more than once: " There is no way I would ever pay full price for this. "

    1. Re:Only two reasons by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      I have said it outloud more than once: " There is no way I would ever pay full price for this. "

      Agreed! Every week now, I get flyers hung on my door for Comcast Xfinity and Verizon FiOS. I already have Verizon FiOS for internet and I won't subscribe to their TV service. In fact, just yesterday I caught the Comcast dude hanging the flyer on my door and I told him to remove it. He asked me why and I simply and logically stated, "You might want to save Comcast some money on printed material because there is no way, even in the shady side of hell, that I would ever give Comcast any of my business." He picked up the flyer and moved on.

    2. Re:Only two reasons by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I almost feel bad for them, I get these fliers in the mail for a massive savings discount on bundles of services that I don't need or want. Maybe it'd be nice to have a home phone line for the kids to use, but at the prices offered I'd be better off getting them their own cell phones.

    3. Re:Only two reasons by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do not entirely agree. I think that there are things to watch. The problem is that, in order to be able to watch them, the cable companies force you to pay for tons of stuff that you do not really want to watch. The solution would be TV a la carte, at reasonable prices. However, the cable companies/content owners have forever refused doing this. It will never happen.

    4. Re:Only two reasons by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      This is actually the best TV season for me in years. 95% of it is still crap, but the remaining 5% is as much or more than I have time for. The problem is, a lot of that is also on Hulu, and without commercials! Is the remaining stuff worth the $$$ that I'm paying? That seems doubtful, and getting more so with every price rise.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:Only two reasons by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      I almost feel bad for them, I get these fliers in the mail for a massive savings discount on bundles of services that I don't need or want. Maybe it'd be nice to have a home phone line for the kids to use, but at the prices offered I'd be better off getting them their own cell phones.

      I don't feel bad for them. They've been greedy and anti-competitive for way too long.

  11. Can't you just get the news online? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I guess there's local news, but most of the stations around here got bought out by Fox and aren't really local anymore. It's actually creepy to see their fox news style politics seeping into it...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  12. Re:They will just raise prices by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Have you noticed your Internet bill going up lately?

    This.

    I've had Earthlink through BrightHouse the last several years. It used be significantly cheaper than the "internet only" price offered by BrightHouse. The price has slowly been creeping up, and now that BrightHouse has been gobbled up by Charter Communications, it's only a matter of time before there's a big price increase.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  13. No unmetered Internet without cable by tepples · · Score: 1

    Meh, just using streaming sites that cost nothing

    Legal "streaming sites that cost nothing" lack cable-exclusive series. My roommate appears willing to pay hundreds of dollars a year for the live Rachel Maddow Show.

    and we've got a monthly cost of only regular internets.

    Unless you live in a city whose ISP has a "buy unmetered Internet, get TV free" policy. Some ISPs are known to impose a harsh "cap" (monthly Internet data transfer volume allowance) on Internet subscribers who don't also subscribe to the same company's multichannel pay TV service.

  14. And Yet by unixcorn · · Score: 2

    With all the cord cutting, myself included, I don't understand why more content providers aren't breaking with tradition (or contracts) and offering their programming via streaming. For example, I want my national news via my Roku box. I checked with Fox News (don't judge me) and the only way I can stream their content is with an account like DirecTV or one of the cable providers. It's a dying industry and content providers really need to either offer themselves al-a-cart or figure out a way to group together on their own. I won't be paying for 100 channels of infomercials or crap I don't watch anymore just to have news and weather. I am guessing most others commenting here feel the same.

    1. Re:And Yet by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Because me and millions just like me. No internet cable or DSL available. Satellite internet is capped so streaming time is limited. Dish and Directv only choice for TV and often no broadcast signal either..

  15. "I don't get it," say morons at cable behemoths by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    "Gee, we only misused and abused our subscribers for decades, forced people to subsidize programming they have no interest whatsoever in, and exploited our illegal monopolies to suck trillions and trillions of dollars out of people who had no choice if they wanted decent and convenient entertainment options, and proved over and over again why situations without competition between service providers produce RECORD bad service and horrible customer value, WHY ARE THEY ALL CUTTING THE CORD NOW THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES?!?"

    I cut the cord YEARS ago, and never looked back. Screw the cable monopolies, they can suck my COAX CABLE.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  16. Cable TV has Outlived it's Lifespan by LinuxRegisteredUser_ · · Score: 1

    Back in the day when we had 6ish TV channels and no internet, cable tv was nice. If only for the fact we could get those 6ish channels with perfect reception. Those other channels offered was a bonus. Although really they mostly sucked. MTV was good for videos but they don't do that anymore. I don't even think ESPN was born yet.

    I now pay $100 for a fast internet package. The cable company is annoyingly incessant sending me mail asking me to buy TV package. $300 gift card if I sign up for a 2 year deal. When are they going to realize cable TV sucks and should be dead?

    --
    Life is Grand!
  17. Don't cry too hard, they ARE making up for it by oh-dark-thirty · · Score: 1

    In the six or so years since I cut the cord, Cox has raised my internet rate from a somewhat reasonable $55 to a ridiculous $79 with no significant increase in bandwidth.