Slashdot Mirror


Cord Cutting Accelerates as Pay TV Loses 1 Million Customers in Largest-Ever Quarterly Loss (usatoday.com)

Cable and satellite TV providers lost about 1.1 million subscribers during the July to September period, the largest quarterly loss ever -- and the first time the industry lost more than 1 million subscribers in a quarter, according to media and telecommunications research firm MoffettNathanson. From a report: After Dish Network reported its third-quarter earnings this week, the New York-headquartered research firm tallied up the publicly reported subscriber losses to arrive at the finding. Dish lost 341,000 subscribers in the third quarter, compared to adding 16,000 in the same period a year ago. Overall, Dish lost 367,000 satellite subscribers but added 26,000 Sling TV subscribers, the company said. Rich Greenfield, a media and technology analyst with financial services firm BTIG in New York, arrived at a similar conclusion and called it "the third-worst quarter in industry history and worst since Q2 2016."

133 comments

  1. What's a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I have never heard of this device. Someone explain?

    1. Re: What's a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A TV is also known as a Boob Tube which you will usually find wrapped around the chest of various girls until you get them drunk enough to take them off.

    2. Re:What's a TV? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have never heard of this device. Someone explain?

      Its like a really large tablet you hang on your wall. Multiple people can use it simultaneously.

    3. Re: What's a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is like virtual reality

    4. Re:What's a TV? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Its like a really large tablet you hang on your wall. Multiple people can use it simultaneously.

      But if you hang it on a wall, how do you move it around when you go to the bathroom or cook dinner?

      And isn't the picture smaller than a tablet, considering how far away it is?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:What's a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its like a really large tablet you hang on your wall. Multiple people can use it simultaneously.

      But if you hang it on a wall, how do you move it around when you go to the bathroom or cook dinner?

      And isn't the picture smaller than a tablet, considering how far away it is?

      Only if you're sitting at least a hundred feet away from it.

    6. Re:What's a TV? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      It's a thing you connect to your computer to display the computer's desktop or command line.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    7. Re:What's a TV? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      But if you hang it on a wall, how do you move it around when you go to the bathroom or cook dinner?

      And isn't the picture smaller than a tablet, considering how far away it is?

      Easy. You don't use a TV, you use a projector and throw a picture that's 7, 8, 10, 11, 12+ ft wide (not diagonal -- wide.) Go big, or don't go at all. 7 ft picture seen from 9 ft away is roughly the same as a a 50 ft picture seen from the prime seats in a moviehouse.

      To get the same picture from a phone you'd have to be about 8 inches from the phone.

      See? TVs are useless. Get a projector.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    8. Re:What's a TV? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      But my phone is a projector

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:What's a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you hang it on a wall, how do you move it around when you go to the bathroom or cook dinner?

      The standard practice is to wait for breaks in the programming, called "commercials" or "adverts", for going to the bathroom. These are 2 to 4 minute breaks in the programming that cannot be skipped in which products you don't much care to buy are advertised. In a short amount of time it becomes quite natural to the user to stop paying attention during these breaks to attend to other matters.

      As for cooking dinner it is common to have multiple "TV" products hung on the walls of the home, one in the kitchen, another in the family room, and often another in a bedroom. Do not be concerned about keeping the video streams synchronized among the many devices, this happens automatically so long as they are all set to the same video stream. Walking from room to room and not missing any of the audio or video is relatively easy so long as the TV products are strategically placed.

      A common accessory to the TV is a device called the "digital video recorder", or DVR. The DVR allows for some flexibility in viewing habits by buffering the video stream allowing users to pause the programming at will, skip over portions they would rather not see (such as those adverts), and review portions of the video stream already viewed.

      And isn't the picture smaller than a tablet, considering how far away it is?

      The display on a TV can range from about 24 inches on the diagonal to 72 inches, perhaps even larger. These are quite large displays but they do not add cost over the much smaller tablets. Because they are quite inexpensive people feel it convenient to have more than one.

      I do believe that this new technology called "broadcast television" may have a future. This is totally new to me as well and I may find this something I will embrace as an addition to my entertainment. The large screen on a wall does seem quite handy at times as it cannot be lost or the battery run low. I've heard that popular programming, such as the SuperBowl, is offered on these television devices for no cost to the user and in real time. It also does not require an internet connection to function, which just boggles my mind. I'm still not sure how it works but the installer said I needed a device on my roof for best results. I guess it's kind of like a cell phone signal, there's no wires run to my house for this that I could see.

    10. Re:What's a TV? by reg · · Score: 1

      I do believe that this new technology called "broadcast television" may have a future.

      They'd probably have more luck calling it "Wireless Streaming Video"... But who are we kidding, they'd call it "Free Unlimited Wireless Streaming Video with Wide Area Multi-Screen Synchronization (and sponsored content)". Watch what all your friends else is watching! At the same time!

    11. Re:What's a TV? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I find the touchscreen is really unresponsive on those things.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:What's a TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats a tablet? I swallow those with water. How the hell can you see video on it?

  2. They raised my bill to $80/mo by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    metered. I managed to get a deal on "business" class for $100/mo to go unmetered, but eventually they'll get wise to that and I'll have to pay $140+/mo.

    They're well aware we're cutting the cords. If anything they like it. Right now they have to pay each and every channel to run them. With cord cutters I pay $100+/mo for the line and then $70/mo for all my services. Worst case they break even and best case best case they come out ahead. Internet is cheap to provide.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously - what cords is anyone cutting ? This has to be the dumbest terms in history, right after Wifi, Cloud, and AI.

      Everyone I know has more subscriptions that they've ever had before.

    2. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be "Coax cable cutting" not cord cutting. Thank you Mr. Pedant. Obviously the REAL story is that Trump's appointment of AG is illegal! https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/08/george-conway-whitaker-975966

    3. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I play $70 a month for my internet (Honestly over priced as is).

      But on top of that, I pay for my Netflix, I learned how to get Hulu for free. I honestly watch MAYBE 5 hours a month of actual TV. Most of that is from CWTV which I get for free or the occasional Netflix.

      Most of my stuff isn't even for me so much as it is for the kids. I won't pay near that much and I will share login details with my friends to share our stuff before I do.

      They have more than enough free stuff before I go that route, PBS is free, CWTV is free, Vudu has free movies, as does a bunch of others. If it wasn't for getting it free, I wouldn't even have Hulu.

      If the channels want to actually get more viewers, their best bet is to go free and give ads to watch them (Without going overboard). Many of us are cutting the cord and not paying for the stuff we are increasingly watching less and less.

      Even with the kids, they care more about Youtube than anything else.

    4. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by reboot246 · · Score: 0

      You, and George Conway, need to read the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. He's acting like an unhinged, hateful fool. What's your excuse?

    5. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the should call it stream leaving, no wait download dunking, no even better tv leevee

    6. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually under the law it would fall to the DOJ next in line until a Congressionally-confirmed appointment could then be made, so you're an illiterate traitor who didn't even read the law you portended to, lol moron.

    7. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is that they are raising the internet service costs, and offering less on the tv services, eventually we will be paying twice as much to get the same level of content as before as we will be paying $200/mo for unmetered GigE bandwidth, and each service will want their own $20/mo. So saving what exactly?

      Really, and I say this with a bit of jest, we should be paying $20/mo for the unmetered internet and every $5/mo more adds 25mbits (enough for another TV to stream 4K) over the base 100. So those of us who own a bunch of devices but only ever use one at a time, don't need gig internet, but those with a family can get gigE by paying the full $200/mo. At present, most people don't even need 100mbit, but it's the minimum you need to have the standard PVR setup (3 recordings at once) at 4K plus some room for general internet/youtube.

    8. Re:They raised my bill to $80/mo by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget 18 USC 8008135: Causing severe butthurt to the OP.

  3. Too much social engineering by dbzero · · Score: 1

    Once GoT is done I'm removing all the pay channels from my service. Most all the programming has turned to shit.

    1. Re: Too much social engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should just remove it now and use a pay-for-play on demand TV app. You can get GoT for about $3/episode or $23 for a whole season as soon as it airs. Or just use HBO itself.

    2. Re:Too much social engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha you pay $80+ per month for 100s of channels full of commercials. Sucker!

      Pretty soon our internet bills will be going up. They're surely not going to let people get away with cheap internet instead.

    3. Re:Too much social engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is when 5g becomes your home internet.

    4. Re:Too much social engineering by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Question, are you swapping to streaming to avoid paying to watch ads or to watch other content. I dropped cable the same day they inserted ads, over a decade ago, I don't understand why people would pay to have some asshat scream at them to buy some rubbish. I do not watch free to air at home any more at all, once you start significantly reducing exposure to video ads, they become intolerable, YouTube forced ones, just leave me loathing the product advertised, really pisses me off, I am stunned advertisers do not realise this, they are actually damaging brand recognition with forced ads, they should be at the end of content and voluntary ie watch the ad for the content producer to get paid. Forcing it at the beginning, really fucking stupid (of course Google does not give one fuck if they sell anything but the ad and in reality if the ad fails to perform, they make more money selling another ad, they just have to convince the advertiser it performs). What would be interesting is to find out from people paying for ads, how often they see their ad, versus how often the regular user sees the ad. Of course it google targets the person who pays for the ad, with the ad, that person believes the rest of the internet is seeing that ad, just as often, targeted advertisements can work really well, if you target the individuals who pay for the ads, with those ads, see everyone is seeing it but wait they are not, targeted advertisements. I wonder how many Pepsi ads people working at Pepsi sees versus how many Coke ads people working at Coca Cola see and of course the opposite, Google you see what they want you to see not reality, you just know they would target that way.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re: Too much social engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I pay $23 for the season? Just getting the episodes would only cost me $18. Remember, there are only 6 this time around.

    6. Re: Too much social engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I pay anything when public libraries have ever episode so far (and a fiction series is not exactly urgent viewing so a few months wait is not a sphincter clencher)?

  4. Still about the last mile by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    As long as the telcos or cable tv companies control access it's going to be painful. It's going to have happen OTA/WIFI/magic, I dunno.

    1. Re:Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the telcos or cable tv companies control access it's going to be painful. It's going to have happen OTA/WIFI/magic, I dunno.

      my tv provider has some bad-ass fancy OTA technology, with a $20 antenna I get free TV, we can party like it's 1959

    2. Re:Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea has sneakernet and it is alive and well

    3. Re:Still about the last mile by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      5G wireless is coming, hopefully it will alleviate some of the problems.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Still about the last mile by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then vote politicians in office that put that last mile under state or municipal control. So that people can be wired up @ reasonable prices. Then make the commercial competition a thing of what happens on the other end, on those wires. Infrastructure under people's control, content provided over that infrastructure = competition among commercial parties.

      Oh US... politics crazy, you're fucked LOL

    5. Re:Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Look for your bills to go up a huge amount to cover the metric shit-ton of nano-cells 60GHz will require though.

    6. Re:Still about the last mile by youngone · · Score: 1

      ...hopefully it will alleviate some of the problems.

      I don't see why it would. The people who currently have control of your Internet infrastructure will also get control of 5g.
      Competition is not allowed.

    7. Re:Still about the last mile by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ya might wanna google "Natural Monopoly" before thinking you can deregulate your way out of the last mile problem.

    8. Re: Still about the last mile by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Sort of.

      Telcos are going to roll out 5G in areas they previously had zero presence.

      This will put them in direct competition with Cable.

      As a result, I would expect to see some decent price drops on Big Cables side in order to keep customers from jumping ship just before the deployment goes live.

    9. Re: Still about the last mile by youngone · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the plan is for the Telcos to buy the content providers.
      Charter bought Time Warner Cable after Comcast were blocked. That won't be the last buyout.

    10. Re:Still about the last mile by tsqr · · Score: 2

      Oh US... politics crazy, you're fucked LOL

      It's not the elected, it's the electorate. Well, OK; it's both. Top voter issues are the economy and healthcare, not necessarily in that order. TV and Internet access doesn't show up on any list of issues voters want addressed. If it did, politicians might be motivated to do something.

    11. Re:Still about the last mile by RyanMcCoskrie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Alwin was endorsing government ownership. That's far from deregulation.

    12. Re:Still about the last mile by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      In canada, government decisions have made it so all the major telcos have to offer competing services access to the last mile. They then are teh next step out to the internet, but the major monopolies (shaw, telus, bell, rogers) have to offer have to light up the connection and provide rack space in their CO's.

      You might want to DDG that!

      --
      -
    13. Re:Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the federal mandates that bum-f@ck Iowa farm is entitled to 5g as well, even if it costs the taxpayers 50k to put it up the cells.

    14. Re: Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a result, I would expect to see some decent price drops on Big Cables side in order to keep customers from jumping ship just before the deployment goes live.

      Unrealistic expectation. 5G will cost similar to cable in order to prevent just this from happening. Its called c-o-l-l-u-s-i-o-n. Plus, the backbone networks will choke on 5G traffic, just like its done for 2/3/4G.

    15. Re:Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worked for power companies. You get your infrastructure from one provider but can buy the actual power (data) from anyone on an open market. Quality requirements are regulated (line owner is penalized for outages and degraded service beyond what can be reasonably expected), as are prices for providing the infrastructure to a customer. You'll find that most people will actually stay on the infrastructure provider's default data plan, but the threat of customers being able to destroy all their profit margin by jumping data providers will keep them on their toes.

    16. Re:Still about the last mile by samdu · · Score: 1

      Where is this the case? Everywhere I've lived (SC, GA), there has been exactly one "option" for power.

    17. Re:Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TX for one. The PUC manages this website: powertochoose.org

    18. Re:Still about the last mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The counter to this is vertical separation or virtual services. One company owns the infrastructure, others sell services on those wires.

      We've already got an implementation of this for cell phone networks, they are called Mobile Virtual Network Operators. They can offer pretty good deals depending on what you're looking for. Low usage, per-minute service can be had for $30-40 per year, or even free via FreedomPop (but that's VoIP). The big cell carriers usually win on family plans, though.

      Even big companies have gotten in on the game. Walmart offers cell service via an MVNO. And so does Comcast/Xfinity.

      So let's put the shoe on the other foot and make Xfinity open up its network to third parties as well.

  5. screw you Spectrum!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    greedy bastards..

    -db

  6. cord cutting not sure how though by bobmagicii · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the main reason i still have cable tv is not for the cable tv, but so i can access all the channels online streaming from my computer. if i was to cancel my 25/mo cable tv package i'd have to pay 10 channels 5-7 dollars a month. so i'm saving money still.

    1. Re:cord cutting not sure how though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So only if you are actually watching those channels. If you actively watch them, then sure. But if you hardly watch any TV, then maybe just Amazon prime streaming would suffice. Or, it is still called cord cutting if you get a non-Cable / satellite service like YouTube TV. That can be watched on any device that can do YouTube or can accept a cast connection. There are many competitors to it too; that was simply an example.

    2. Re:cord cutting not sure how though by darkain · · Score: 1

      I'm using the HDHomeRun OTA receiver right now, and have for a couple years now. This thing is freaggin nice for my area at least. It picks up 56 OTA stations, then broadcasts them on the local LAN for any device to view. The box, plus new roof antenna, wiring, etc cost me about $200 up front, but considering most pay $100-200/mo just for TV, I consider this a MAJOR win. Through my own VPN connection (using ZeroTier right now), I'm also able to connect to the LAN streams from anywhere I want. Also, HDHomeRun is trailing an internet subscription TV service as well, but I've only tried the 5-minute demo so far, currently not interested in paying for it.

    3. Re:cord cutting not sure how though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using the HDHomeRun OTA receiver right now, and have for a couple years now. This thing is freaggin nice for my area at least. It picks up 56 OTA stations, then broadcasts them on the local LAN for any device to view.

      <sigh> Must be nice. I have an HDHomerun, too, but I live way in the sticks, so I pick up the one, single channel that's available OTA. It's mostly either commercials or, occasionally, non-stock hockey -- pro games, kids' games, game highlights, talking heads discussing the games, etc. -- so I don't use it other than to see if that situation has changed. (I despise ads and am not a hockey fan, so, y'know...)

  7. Don't you get free wireless? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3

    I mean, between HDTV antennas pulling down 150 channels free and free wireless in almost every business, why would you pay for cable?

    And if you set the Second Audio Channel to English for the Spanish broadcasts, you get English subtitles on all the soccer and football and baseball games. They even have free radio apps for English language simulcast.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      By "free wireless" you must be referring to the neighbor's open or hacked WiFi.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      No, in civilized cities there is free wireless everywhere. It's a public service.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly ... nothing that requires energy is free.

    4. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in civilized cities there is free wireless everywhere. It's a public service.

      Thank you for clarifying. That rules out the USA and Canada.

    5. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Then let me clarify the claim as I understand it: Civilized cities fund wireless Internet access through taxation on grounds of investment in infrastructure used by the labor market.

    6. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by sexconker · · Score: 0

      I'd rather swim naked in the Ganges than use public WiFi.

    7. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You worry too much. Public wifi is fine - if you use a VPN on top.

    8. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that "150 channels" is actually more like a dozen and I haven't been able to convince Starbucks to open a franchise in my garage. But I like the way you're thinking. Why have a septic system, most businesses have free public bathrooms!

    9. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, between HDTV antennas pulling down 150 channels free and free wireless in almost every business, why would you pay for cable?

      And if you set the Second Audio Channel to English for the Spanish broadcasts, you get English subtitles on all the soccer and football and baseball games. They even have free radio apps for English language simulcast.

      Yeah and 140 of those channels are utter garbage, religious, or shopping channels. There is very little wheat among those 150 channels and lots of chaff.

    10. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather swim naked in the Ganges than use public WiFi.

      LOL ... out there with your bare ass hanging out, no privacy, a very good chance of encountering unfriendly people, contracting a virus, or being gang raped on a bus.

      Sounds like an apt comparison.

    11. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "love is"

    12. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private wifi already is slow enough. Plus, it's getting chilly. Have to go on a bench in center of town with a laptop and phone, no guarantee that stuff isn't blocked so would get to spend $100/year on VPN, and then move to another place in the streets where I can steal power.

    13. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Not everyone can get OTA easily like in my rural area blocked by small mountains/giant hills. Also, some people want local live sports like CFB, NBA, tennis, etc. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    14. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly. we get zero ota stations, even with a boosted antenna. we *used to* get three of the five stations (well, sorta. wasn''t exactly 'crystal clear' reception) in our 'market' but that was before the analog switch-off. the digital doesn't cover as much ground and there's a hard drop-off to zero coverage instead of fringe reception with 'watchable' but still shitty reception. so we're stuck paying a fee on top of another fee on top of yet another (which would total over $50 monthly by itself with no extras and no 'cable' channels) just to pick up broadcast channels that the cable company happens to be able to pick up on the other side of town which is 'uphill' and out of the valley.

    15. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      You mean 2 channels. I can reliably get 2 channels over the air. On a good day, I might get up to 4. The weather has to be really nice.

    16. Re:Don't you get free wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing in the world is free. Everything has a cost. I'm sure you're paying more in taxes to get your so called "free" Internet than you would be paying for an ISP.

      Also, you get a bonus police/nanny-state watching everything you do on the free internet system.

      Look at that total shithole called NYC. Have you heard of all the scandal regarding "free" internet?

  8. Fees & Mandatory Equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Forget the ever rising cost of the TV service itself, it's the service fees and mandatory hardware that are the real killer. If I want to add TV to my internet it's over $40 a month more just for the mandatory router, box for the TV, and broadcast/sports/etc fees before they even tack on the charge for the TV service itself! A bunch of people here signed up for the '79.99' service when FiOS first came into the building, only to discover their bills are actually $120 with the rentals/fees tacked on.

    1. Re:Fees & Mandatory Equipment by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      My cable box is crap. I don't know what hardware these things run on, but it hangs and stops responding to the remote. It seems to work on full screen updating on some slow connection. It makes kodi look like a miracle of technology. There are so many limitations to recording, in that the buffer is only so big and it resets if you change the channel, that it is just barely usable.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Fees & Mandatory Equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch. My local ISP included all fees and taxes except state sales tax(legal reasons) into the advertised prices. 150/150 business class fiber internet for $39.99/mo, actual bill, $42.

  9. Monopoly by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Sad because where I live for half the year, the cable service is also the only option for actual broadband. Spectrum really SUCKS. Currently I travel with my Dish service and use my internet access to watch my sports, which generally all I care about anyways.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching monkeys put a ball thru a goal makes you part of the problem! Sad.

    2. Re:Monopoly by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      What can I say, I like Hockey, I have season tickets and go to as many SJ Sharks games as I can. I also really enjoy Futbol (Soccer). I'd say you referring to other people as monkeys makes you a much larger part of the problem. Pathetic.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  10. Comcast doesn't give a fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what. (The link goes to the relevant part, but if you don't know the video, watch it all.)

    1. Re:Comcast doesn't give a fuck by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see them bleed out of their ass, but they'll probably recoup any CableTV losses with their own Internet access.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  11. Content Owner Suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is due to content owners asking too much and cable companies nickel and dime-ing everyone. Raising prices every year for eternity without providing anything more is bunk. I hope they have a slow painful death.

    1. Re:Content Owner Suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sports seem to be the largest part of the problem. They overpay for broadcast rights, which means the costs get shoved down to the cable customers.

    2. Re:Content Owner Suicide by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Advertising is partly to blame.

      Advertising kills every medium that it has ever come into contact with. And now the web too.

      Just think about Cable TV. It's partly the cable channel's fault, and partly advertising.

      Originally the premise of cable was that you wouldn't get ads because you were paying. Yeah, right.

      But the ads weren't too long or too bad. Those were the daze.

      By the 1990s at least the ads paid for good cable content. Good documentaries. Good entertainment. Etc.

      Then came: Reality TV.

      Reality TV is cheap to make. Entertaining, at first, purely because of shock value. But it gets old quick. If you don't watch Reality TV then your alternative is reruns of old cable TV content, and "marathons" of reruns.

      Then the content got shorter and the ads got longer. Oh, and remember when the volume level of ads was twice that of the content?

      Now you get all ads, punctuated by some content that is probably not worth watching, and then when the long string of ads are over, there are bugs, and animated characters crawling and walking out right over the top of the content you're trying to watch!

      Gee, and they wonder why people are cutting the cable TV cord?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Content Owner Suicide by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Reality TV is cheap to make. Entertaining, at first, purely because of shock value.

      My sister and I (both retired) share a home. She's hooked on TV shows about people buying and remodelling homes. Where's the shock value in that? She also loves holiday baking competitions on the Food Network; again, no shock. OK, I'll grant it that sometimes there's a bit of a shock on Chopped, or some similar show when somebody's eliminated that you didn't expect, but that's about it. I'm sure that there must be reality shows out there specializing in shock value, but that's not what we find entertaining, so we never watch any of them.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re: Content Owner Suicide by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      If we paid to watch the ads, would the content come back? Seems reasonable like playing an MP3 backwards to summon Satan or something.

    5. Re:Content Owner Suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument clearly states that it lacks entertainment value. To which I will heartily concur. However, the "shock" value provides no entertainment to me. Similar to shock jock radio -- worthless dreck. The value of entertainment varies with the individual.

      However, it *is* cheaper to make. And something I have learned is that when a content producer chases cheap then nothing is safe. I can't speak to any specific show you or your sister might watch (and enjoy! that's viewer judgement) because I don't watch them. But they are definitely on the ride to content-free content brought to you courtesy of "cheaper production means more profits for us" mentality.

    6. Re:Content Owner Suicide by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, having been exposed to cable TV a couple times in the past year, after not having it myself since about 2004, it occurred to me that I wouldn't want it if it were free. The amount of commercials is insane... and I'm not so averse to commercials, because the commercials on the lowest tier of Hulu usually don't bug me. They are much shorter than the 3-minute break every 6 minutes you get on "regular TV". I tried watching a movie on broadcast a few years when travelling and turned it off after about 20 minutes... there was literally more ad-time than there was content... or it seemed that way. I grew up with regular ol' broadcast TV, and later cable, but now I can't stand it.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:Content Owner Suicide by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      The text I quoted says that "Reality TV is entertaining at first, purely because of shock value." While I grant that this must be true in some cases, I was pointing out that there are many reality shows out there with zero shock value. Clearly, in your case, it's simply assuming that since you don't watch these shows, they must be terrible. You really need to expand your horizons and find out that there's more good stuff out there than you thought.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    8. Re: Content Owner Suicide by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      If it's supposed to be like playing MP3s backwards, then how about THEY PAY US to maybe watch the ads?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  12. Pay TV used to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    plastic seats at the bus station with a TV built in and 25 cents for 30 minutes. That's $5.00 an hour today. Cable/Satellite are good deals. Subscribe TO-DAY for all you can eat and be one of the beautiful people.

    1. Re:Pay TV used to be by dj245 · · Score: 1

      plastic seats at the bus station with a TV built in and 25 cents for 30 minutes. That's $5.00 an hour today. Cable/Satellite are good deals. Subscribe TO-DAY for all you can eat and be one of the beautiful people.

      I remember seeing one of those once at a Greyhound station. It looked horribly antiquated when I saw it 20 years ago.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  13. Nobody but themselves to blame by mrsam · · Score: 5, Informative

    After decades of being a cable and satellite TV subscriber -- most recently Dish -- I finally dumped Dish this summer, when their bill reached almost a hundred bucks a month, and I watched, at most, two or three channels every once in a while.

    I would've happily paid $20-$30 a month for channels I occasionally watch. And although I could still afford the franklin every month, I really hate wasting money for nothing.

    So now I effectively pay three bucks a month for a VPN, and can find acceptable substitutes from, ...err, slightly shady parts of the Internet, any time I want. I even have pretty good luck watching my favorite sports team after a five year break when Dish dropped my regional sports network. I was already paying for my DSL, and although it's not as speedy as cable, it's ...not cable. And I'm saving a grand a year.

    Cable and satellite providers are in a death spiral. They keep raising rates, because of the shrinking customer base. Which only forces more customers to flee.

    And let's not forget the unexpected results from the cutover to digital OTA TV. I believe that the cable companies really screwed the pooch by not realizing the impact of digital TV will have on their business. One thing I did was pick up a cheap HDTV antenna from Wally World, and 30 miles from the city it can pick up all but two local channels (that was mostly an academic purchase, out of curiosity, since there's not really much to watch anyway). Both of my neighbors also have an HD antenna stuck to their windows. Many of my acquaintances in the city also dropped cable, and simply attached an HD antenna, and get their local channels in crystal clear HD OTA, and resort to Kodi+VPN for the rest.

    1. Re:Nobody but themselves to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're 30 to 40 miles away, it might be worth it to try an amplified antenna if you haven't already... -- for those people that live in the city, the amplification is too much and can't be used (an unpowered antenna or plain rabbit ears works ok in that case, though I do want to sometime experiment with micro-powering an amplified antenna in the city)

    2. Re:Nobody but themselves to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay $25/m for basic cable through my locally owned ISP. I get access to all major channels across the entire state, most in 1080p and with 24-hour timeshifting. Includes several different PBS stations, each with a wide range of BBC content and some cable basics like ABC family. I get 5 set top boxes and the whole family can stream these channels over the internet. Plus a bunch of free VoD that is mostly child friendly, but also including semi-recent episodes of South Park.

    3. Re:Nobody but themselves to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did that to Dish over 4 years ago and haven't looked back. As long as you got internet, you can find sports/games !!

      digital OTA TV is crap for sports as most of it on pay-per-view type channels like ESPN !

    4. Re:Nobody but themselves to blame by kackle · · Score: 1

      So now I effectively pay three bucks a month for a VPN, and can find acceptable substitutes from, ...err, slightly shady parts of the Internet, any time I want.

      OF COURSE stealing is cheaper...duh.

    5. Re:Nobody but themselves to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder I can't access that content anymore, Mrsam stole it from me!

  14. Thanks for the reminder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Been meaning to call my Cable provider and tell them I don't need cable TV anymore, just internet since I'm pretty much 100% Netflix. Called as soon as I saw this headline.

    I'm tired of the annual "why has my bill gone up", only to be told that my discount from last year has expired.

    In the process of cancelling they've told me my two home phones will go up by $5 each, and I told them to stuff their discount because I was tired of having to call every year to get it, and if they won't have honest up-front pricing, I don't want to play that game.

    The way they tie these things into bundles amounted to the extortion of "well, if you cancel your TV you'll lose your discounts" ... great, last month the discount was $10, you've slapped another $10 onto my two phones, and I'm still net $40 less on my monthly bill.

    Cable companies are assholes, and go out of their way to make it look like you're getting savings, but at the end of the day, you aren't.

    I'm officially done with cable TV, and will likely stay that way. At some point I'll need to assess if having two land lines is working for me and the wife (cell coverage in our area sucks, and we both occasionally work from home), but for now at least the cable is done with.

    1. Re:Thanks for the reminder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google voice and OBI200 Phone ATAs at around $47 a pop (one time fee) never pay a phone bill again as long as you dont have an issue with google.

      https://www.amazon.com/OBi200-1-Port-Adapter-Support-Service/dp/B00BUV7C9A

      There is also a 2 port adapter for $66, i am not sure how that works with two separate google accounts. I only have experience with the one port version

      https://www.amazon.com/OBi202-2-Port-Adapter-Support-Service/dp/B007D930YO

    2. Re:Thanks for the reminder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These obi200s work great with vintage phones too. (meaning they generate enough voltage and a proper waveform to ring phones with physical bells) I have a working payphone and may other phones on my obi200 GV powered line. They dont do rotary though. Youll need to install a rotary pulse to DTMF converter in the phone or inline between the rotary phones and obi200

    3. Re:Thanks for the reminder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an iPhone with Verizon service. It has a "WiFi calling" option, so you could use that to get phone service in your home....

    4. Re: Thanks for the reminder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or use that obi with a regular voip provider, and avoid the data vacuum known as google. I use VoIP.ms. $1/month plus a fraction of a cent per minute, and I can do all sorts of stuff like filtering spam and scripting times the number will take calls, forward to my cell if family is calling, etc.
      Not free, but small enough to be inconsequential.

    5. Re: Thanks for the reminder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly why i said if you have no issue with google. google = 100% free. other voip providers though the obi would still be cheaper than paying your crotchety old isp for a voice bundle.

      For me i really have no issue with the 100% free GV. i already use google for everything and the GV line is more of an entertainment with my antique phones and a backup for my cellular.

      As far as spam calls, ive had no issue with my GV line with that, but I get that is a complete toss up depending on who owned that number before you got it. But if you port the number into GV the spam calls should be no different than you are already getting. Nice thing with GV and my old phones, no need for caller id. When i pick up the call GV speaks out the caller name and number and asks you to press 1 to accept the call, otherwise you just hang it up and it goes to VM

    6. Re:Thanks for the reminder ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Landlines are pointless these days. Fewer features and much more expensive than a mobile, and I'm going to have the mobile anyway.

      Sometimes you need one just to get internet via ADSL, but for making/receiving calls they suck.

      Also disable the voicemail on your mobile. Voicemail just wastes your time, text is better or email if they know you. Alternatively instead of just disabling it change the intro message to "I don't listen to these messages, send a text or email" and use it to filter out people who can't follow simple instructions (usually because they are marketers/recruiters).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  15. It's ancient, & it's in distress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's using the media to send an SOS. The shitastic 'weirdness' is an SOS signal, track it down to its source.

  16. I figured as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whenever I get multiple mail in a week for all the satellite people I know their business is suffering. Never been a Direct TV customer but Dish was a OK service a decade ago, today I wouldn't consider such a service. I use a antenna for my local channels which provides me with great HD signal, and stream the rest of what I watch. Cable broadband with Comcast is fine, occasionally I get a deal where broadband cheaper with a basic TV package. I take those deals, but never use the TV service.

  17. Cutting Netflix / Amazon Prime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you call it when you cancel Netflix / Amazon Prime?

    1. Re:Cutting Netflix / Amazon Prime by davebarnes · · Score: 3, Informative

      Reading books. Mostly, paper ones.

      --
      Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
  18. Can't blame em... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prices where they are these days it's easier to setup your own media library at home.

  19. Money? Quality of shows? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Discretionary income after food, living costs, tax can't go as far as it once did in the past?
    People are getting bored with all the content?
    The extra political content in new shows is getting to be less fun?
    The quality of plot creation is now so low other types of entertainment get the spending?
    Different streaming media is now more fun from the internet?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  20. Good, riddance! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I am paying $100 a month for basic+ cable and another $100 for Internet.

    Cable companies can't die fast enough.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  21. The problem with sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good chunk of people still getting cable is to get Sports channels. If you're paying for just basic cable, a huge chunk of that monthly fee goes towards subsidizing channels such as ESPN, whether or not you choose to - because you have no choice but to have that included as part of the package.

    Maybe people are starting to get sick of these sports channels becoming nothing but a 24/7 infomercial marketing Lebron James, Patriots, Duke and more Lebron James, followed by even more Lebron James.

    They're even worse than Fox News.
    But then again, there are people that would throw money away and "invest" their time into watching both of these worthless channels.

    1. Re:The problem with sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats the deal with the merkin love of amateur level (college) sports on tv?

    2. Re:The problem with sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's largely where we are. I personally don't care that much for sports, but my wife watches all the time, and a lot of sports you can't get unless you have cable. Forget about ESPN - they are all football or basketball. If you watch virtually any other sport, you are off to other channels.

      The problem with streaming is that you are limited to whatever they happen to have available. Movies? We don't watch them - most of them suck so bad that after 20 minutes we turn it off. We don't watch any of the "popular" series either. And those are the two big categories of streaming material.

      The longer term trend that I see is that individual sports are starting to set up their own streaming packages. ESPN basically needs to go away along with their high service fees that they try and shove down on every cable customer out there. Every time I read about layoffs at ESPN, it sounds like a step in the right direction.

  22. They did it to themselves. by Zorro · · Score: 1

    At $125 for cable TV and Internet I just won't bother.

    After it went over $200/Mo I dumped everything but the internet access.

    I don't see anyway they could get me to go back.

    1. Re:They did it to themselves. by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      I'm very excited for the SpaceX Starlink for this reason. I would give them $400/mo just to finally get out of Comcast's monopoly.

    2. Re:They did it to themselves. by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

      Same here. I ditched TV last December and saved so far $1100 this year. SCREW SPECTRUM and all the other companies. And they're raising rates AGAIN I believe in December! cutting will continue to accelerate at a fast pace.

    3. Re:They did it to themselves. by geoscodin · · Score: 1

      Any time my bill goes over $100 I call to see what my options are. They always assure me that is the best they can do, so I can cancel and they transfer me where that tier can get me back to $84.32, which pays for 100/10 internet, local channels, and 10 cable channels. No set top box and no charge for the router or modem. Internet alone costs over $60. I also have Netflix, Hulu, and Prime, But I grow weary of the game. My electric co-op is laying gig fiber now so maybe I'll give them a shot when they reach me and ditch cable for good.

  23. cable is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine paying any price to watch youtube and still getting 7 minute of ads for every 30 minutes you watch. do that and you have cable. cable is dying because the product is crap

  24. Serves them right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cable television providers (including all flavors of signal transmission) had this coming. They are the taxi cab industry that abused customers for years.

  25. Over the air is growing, in addition to streaming by Optic7 · · Score: 2

    In case you haven't been following the news on this, at the same time that some cable networks have been folding in the last couple of years, new over the air broadcast networks and channels have been appearing.

    Sure, it varies by local broadcast market, but look for this to accelerate and expand as ATSC 3.0 rolls out. The growth of streaming will also accelerate with the roll out of 5G.

    Expect major changes in the TV industry over the next 5 years.

  26. OTA digital is the way to go by Socguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cable sucks. At one point, you could mindlessly flip through channels till you found something that sparked your interest. That no longer works since each channel take so long to load. Channels also got greedy. They applied for and received layers of subchannels which were subsequently filled with inane crap nobody wanted but were forced to purchase because the desirable content keeps being locked away further and further up the chain. End result: Hundreds of channels that are utter crap blocking you from the few shows of interest.

    For anyone out there who hasn't got the newsflash: OTA digital works great. You get your local channels for free and there's a good chance that the picture quality is better than cable. You can build your own OTA antenna, (instructions all over the internet) or just buy one from the dollar store. If you're feeling particularly rich, Best Buy has them for anywhere from $20-$100. Even if you have no intention of cancelling cable, you should still get one for those times the cable is out.

    1. Re:OTA digital is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My STB is hooked up via CAT5 to my ONT. The tech installing my TV access was talking about longer load times for channels with cable, but not so with their fiber. While not as fast as analog, I can flip through about 1.5-2 channels per second with my 1080p fiber.

    2. Re:OTA digital is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't had a real TV since 2000. By that I mean I used Myth and Haupage receivers. When Cable companies started to removed _all_ unecrypted channels I'd had enough. The apex of distain had begun.

      I'm Canadian and unlike the US, we don't have cable cards, you're locked to the providers digital terminal. That wasn't enough though, between constant price increases, outsourcing support, and overall shitty experiences with god awful commercials, I'm amazed they've lasted this long.

      While I have used OTA Homerun receivers from Silicondust, that does not however mean I'm ignorant to peple who cannot receive the channels I can. Robers, Bell, Cogeco and Shaw have effectively locked down and out local stations from broadcasting any real content. There are some but the days of watching amazing - uncompressed mpeg2 - HNIC coverage on CBC are long, long over. I still have the receivers up, able ot be used at any time but the content overall is simply not there. Extremely left-wing lowest common denominator crap is all that remains. Again, this is in Canada. The US has a bit more options.

      It also means very soon providers will increase their prices to cover any "losses from DTV implementation", or whatever other bs they'll come up with to justify it and will will be forced to pay.

      Capatcha: fruition .. Creepy slashdot ..

    3. Re:OTA digital is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many areas, you cannot pick up even the major networks with over the air. If you're lucky, you get one or two channels. Most of my relatives can only get ABC and Fox in Flint, MI. I live in Ann Arbor, and on a good day we get 3 detroit channels.

      I'm sorry about the Haupage death cards. I call them that after using them with their old windows drivers that caused regular BSODs. I've wondered about getting a tuner that works in BSD or Linux.

    4. Re:OTA digital is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful what TV you buy; some brands are restricting OTA antennas from working via software until you enable it with a code you get from their service people. That's a defective TV!

  27. And I was one of them. by bob4u2c · · Score: 1

    "see subject".

  28. Ask your doctor about ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the side-effects of pharmaceutical commercials!

  29. I cut the cord in Q2 and I'm very happy with it by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    I spend $34.99 per month on my internet access and I stream like mad.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  30. Re:Over the air is growing, in addition to streami by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The growth of streaming will also accelerate with the roll out of 5G.

    You're utterly naive if you believe that shit.

    You know what happens every time the next gen of telecommunications comes out? There's splashy commercials promising the fastest network ever to download the shiniest things. Smiling people doing things you wish you could, all of which require prohibitive amounts of data they can't really deliver.

    The problem is the don't want you (indeed can't afford for you) to actually be able to use that speed without doubling your bill or throttling you. Because you're going to push 4 times more data through their network they've been refusing to upgrade for years.

    They won't build it in except the densest areas, outside of that it will be crap, and using it to stream the latest 64K video will bust your data cap.

    5G will be a marketing gimmick like everything before it. And like everything before it, it is going to utterly fail to live up to what is being promised, and for the privilege, they will jack up your rates again.

    If you're sitting around all pie eyed thinking "golly gee, my cellphone nirvana will happen when 5G happens" ... boy are you gonna be disappointed.

    It's all a lie.

  31. I Hate DirecTV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had DirecTV many years ago. I paid them a lot of money. At that time HDTV was new, and it cost a lot both for the HDTV receivers, and extra for the HDTV service. But unlike other people, I rarely had any problems with signal interference, during storms, etc. So basically I was happy with the service.

    After I sold my house and moved into an apartment, I was facing north so I could no longer get satellite TV. Yet, DirecTV still kept bombarding me with advertisements in the mail, even to my new address. I called them several times to stop the ads. One DirecTV rep even told me it wasn't their responsibility for the ads being sent, but rather it was THE POST OFFICE'S FAULT!

    After another move or two, the incessant DirecTV ads finally stopped. I vowed never to get DirecTV again. And I actually liked their service.

  32. Time to pay the piper.... by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

    This has been a long time coming and its just going to get worse for them. The price gouging and service fees, paying $120 a year for a control box that costs 5 bucks in hardware, 90% of the 150+ channels get are crap and you have still pay for "premium" movie channels...why would anyone be interested in paying for cable if you have an internet connections at this point unless you had too go through them?