Slashdot Mirror


Cord Cutting Caused By 74 Percent TV Price Hikes Since 2000, Says Report (dslreports.com)

A new study by Kagan, S&P Global Market Intelligence finds that cord cutting is being caused primarily by a 74% increase in customer cable bills since 2000. From a report: That increase is even adjusted for inflation, and it should be noted that individual earnings have seen a modest decline during that same period, making soaring cable rates untenable for many. This affordability gap is "squeezing penetration rates, particularly among the more economically vulnerable households," the research company added. As their chart illustrates, prices for multichannel packages have steadily risen from just below $60 a month in 2000 to close to $100 in 2016. All while incomes remained largely stagnant. As customers grow increasingly angry at cable TV rate hikes and defect to streaming alternatives, most cable operators are simply raising the price of broadband (often via usage caps and overage fees) to try and make up for lost revenue. And because most parts of America still don't really see healthy broadband competition, they can consistently get away with it.

4 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sensationalist statistics by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 74% inflation-adjusted increase since 2000 would be around a 150% raw increase.

    That means the same service that cost you $100 in 2000 would cost you around $250 now.

    If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida that would be perfect for you.

    You're right, don't believe that inlation since 2000 has been 100% (doubling the 74% post-adjusted increase as you have).

    And I'm right. From 2000 to 2018 it was 44.5%.

    I also don't believe your base rate, because there were a number of stories in 2016 reporting that the average had just crossed $100/mo.

    And I'm right. In 2000 the average was reported to be about $40/mo.

    That means that your numbers are indeed swampland-sales quality.

  2. Likely not the only reason by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Informative

    When I look at my Satellite channel lineup ( full package* except premium channels. Eg: No HBO, Showtime, etc ) a rather large percentage of channels are of material I will never watch.

    Channels:

    In languages I don't speak.
    Religious channels.
    Home Shopping style channels.
    Infomercial channels.

    When I actually took the time to cull out all the crap I didn't want to see, I was left with maybe twenty channels in all. Maybe.

    So, perhaps the cord cutting isn't solely because of the price hike, rather the fact the typical user gets a really piss poor amount of content to watch and they have begun to question why they're spending so much on what is, in reality, so little.

    *I only have a dish because I get it at a crazy discount. If I was paying full price for the available content, I would not have it at all.

  3. Re:Sensationalist statistics by DeVilla · · Score: 5, Informative

    What used to cost us $60 cost over $150 when we dropped cable. We went from 20Mb to 100Mb, picked up Netflix, Hulu & Prime (commercial free, multi-viewer packages) and still came out at least $40 cheaper a month. We can't watch everything we might want, but we can always find things we actually want to watch.

    Split the hair any way you like. Cable's been constantly rising in price and there's no added value for the added cost. Cable isn't worth the money any more.

  4. Re:Sensationalist statistics by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're disagreeing with math. For the claimed numbers to be true, what cost $100 in would have to $250 today. Adjust as needed for your actual 2000 cable bill. Nowhere did I claim that the average cable bill in 2000 was $100. Try again.

    No, I'm disagreeing with facts. You factually claimed an inflation rate that is incorrect to come up with a "150% raw increase" that is false -- it was 107%. You also alleged a service cost in 2000 of $100 despite a summary that expressly stated the packages were "below $60 per month," and came up with a current service cost of $250 today despite a summary that also expressly stated that service costs were $100/mo in 2016 -- but now act as if people reading your reply would not infer that the "service" that you were referring to was the same service being discussed in the summary. That was deceptive.

    Your math may be perfectly accurate, but your model, basis, and conclusions are bullshit.

    You try again.