Slashdot Mirror


Cord-Cutting in America May Have Already Peaked (fool.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Motley Fool: Cord-cutting has been a massive thorn in the side of pay-TV distributors and television media companies for nearly a decade. After U.S. pay-TV subscribers peaked in 2010 at 105 million households, about 14 million homes have cut the cord, according to a report from Digital TV Research. The trend has only accelerated in recent years. 2018 saw nearly double the amount of cord-cutting over 2017, according to Leichtman Research.

But 2018 might've been the pay-TV industry's worst year for cord-cutting. The U.S. will lose fewer pay-TV subscribers this year than last, according to Digital TV Research. And the research firm suggests annual losses will continue to decline next decade.

25 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The U.S. will lose fewer pay-TV subscribers this year than last, according to Digital TV Research. And the research firm suggests annual losses will continue to decline next decade."

    Right. If you have a million customers and you lose half of them one year, indeed the losses you experience the next year from the half million remaining cannot exceed the half million you already lost since you only have half a million left. I know that's vastly oversimplifying the issue, but indeed if you have a smaller pool of customers and that pool shrinks each year, statistically you're going to suffer fewer losses. Less people to cancel plus the more you lose you come closer and closer to finding your solid "base" that make up your truly loyal customers--for better or worse.

    Whether this base of loyal customers is enough to keep the sinking ship from sinking faster? Well, that's yet to be seen.

    1. Re:Maths! by gtvr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also how many new subscribers are they gaining? I expect kids these days aren't signing up to start with, so they can't cancel something they never started using.

    2. Re: Maths! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      What is it called when you stop watching TV altogether?

      In Arrears to Utility company.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re: Maths! by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If saving money is denial, then I don't want to face the truth.

    4. Re: Maths! by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When someone says I don't watch TV most likely what they mean is I canceled my cable or satellite TV. It's less denial and more like when people call tissues kleenex even though it's a specific brand name. They watch netflix on the TV but cable and satellite has been just TV to them for so long that they don't associate the two.

      That being said I canceled my cable TV service a long time ago and though I still watch TV it just costs me less. I don't mind loosing sports and other channels I never watched to begin with. Probably the most significant change is I don't get a bunch of commercials and I can watch it on my own schedule.

      I had cable for the sports channels that my sons enjoyed but when they moved out I realized I really didn't watch that much TV and that expensive cable service was burning a hole in wallet so I canceled it and got a netflix account. Of course netflix is more convenient and has no commercials so I enjoyed it more and now I actually watch more netflix and hulu than I did cable.

    5. Re: Maths! by Sique · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not exactly. Even if you are watching streaming video, this is not necessarily TV broadcasting, as you don't watch your show in sync with all the others watching the same show. Yes, it is passive entertainment with video and sound, but so is watching old VHS, Super-8-movies or a DVD, which you probably won't call "TV" either.

      Television means that you watch in realtime some programming that is created at another place (from greek: teleos, far away, and latin: vision, view). And even if the show or movie you are watching was prerecorded, it gets send to all viewers at exactly the same time, so you are still televiewing it, and there is no stop, rewind or anything. If you miss a second, it stays missed, and you can't rewatch it. Netflix, Hulu, Youtube or whatever you call them are totally asynchronous. They are not "far away viewing" something in realtime. You can stop the show and continue at any moment you like.

      So stop calling Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, DVDs, pirated movies and shows, etc. TV. Those are the epitomes of Not-TV. All they have in common with TV is that they combine audio- and video signals.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re: Maths! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Perhaps. I went many years without watching any though - better things to do with my time. Eventually commercial-free, on-demand streaming with far more interesting programming than available on TV lured me back into the video-entertainment fold, though I still average far less screen-time than before I gave up TV.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re: Maths! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if you are watching streaming video, this is not necessarily TV broadcasting, as you don't watch your show in sync with all the others watching the same show.

      Yeah, but that's been a thing since VCRs appeared in the 1970s. Watching out-of-sync isn't the same as not-watching-TV. Society has been slowly getting used to the idea that not everyone watches the same things (or at the same times) for a few decades now, and it's not really related to whether or not people are watching something. Streaming video (such as youtube) is TV, 100%. It's not even close to not being TV.

      so is watching old VHS, Super-8-movies or a DVD, which you probably won't call "TV" either.

      Nearly everyone would call that watching TV.

      Television means that you watch in realtime some programming that is created at another place

      No, it stopped having to be realtime in the 1970s. If you taped a Doctor Who episode on a 1979 evening and then watched it the next day, you were watching TV, at least in the parlance of the times. Everyone watching you would say you're watching TV.

      So stop calling Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, DVDs, pirated movies and shows, etc. TV.

      I'm not going to stop calling watching TV watching TV. It's still watching TV and we're not going to completely change the entire meaning of the language just to accomodate a religious fringe group who is weirdly obsessed with lack-of-timeshifting. The only people to whom the issue isn't completely irrelevant are sportsfans.

      If you're argung from a sports-specific viewpoint, then just come out and say it. But you'll still be wrong. It's still TV even if it's last night's game.

    8. Re: Maths! by PPH · · Score: 2

      No, it stopped having to be realtime in the 1970s.

      This.

      I have rabbit ears and a PVR. I've 'watched TV' this way since the 1980's. Back then, the broadcast industry pitched a bunch of propaganda that this wasn't legitimately 'watching TV' because they were in a war for eyeballs with competitors. One network would schedule their hit show opposite that of another to capture their viewers. Huge amounts of effort went into program planning for exactly this purpose. So they could command more from the pool of advertising dollars.

      I remember in the 1980's, one of our local independent stations aired good movies in the middle of the night. They called it VCR Theater. Network broadcasters raged. They were 'stealing' viewers in a way that their planners couldn't work around.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re: Maths! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The only way to get rid of Comcast, I guess.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: Maths! by Solandri · · Score: 2

      My cable TV viewing pattern is extremely uneven. I'll watch it a lot for a month, then watch nothing for 2-3 months (like literally, the TV does not get turned on for months). So I'd been itching to cancel. Originally I was going to set up an antenna to pick up over-the-air signals for free local channels, since like you I subscribe to several movie services. But it turns out there's a hill between my house and the TV stations' antennas. When DirecTV Now offered their intro Go Big plan for life for $35/mo, it had every channel I occasionally watched so I jumped on it (it's since gone up to $40/mo, but I've been grandfathered in so still get channels the service has since dropped, like Discovery). I make enough that I can stomach $40/mo even if I don't watch TV that month. And most of the shows I watch can be viewed directly from the channel's Roku channel using my DirecTV Now login, so I don't have to deal with the DirecTV Now app's slow channel service and buffering issues.

      Unfortunately, due to my city government granting a cable monopoly in the area, it hasn't saved me as much as I'd hoped. I was originally on a $139/mo basic cable + Internet plan ($69/mo for 12 months promo period). When I canceled cable TV and retained only the Internet portion, it was $69/mo. For a net savings of $30/mo. In the three years since I canceled cable TV (I canceled it before I got DirecTV Now), my Internet service has gone up in price to $79/mo, then $84/mo, currently $89/mo, and they notified me last month that it'll be going up to $94/mo. It's increasing at over 11% per year, or more than 4x the rate of inflation. So three years after cutting the cord, my net outlay for Internet + TV will be only $5/mo less than it was when I subscribed to cable TV.

      I suppose it would've been even worse if I'd stayed with cable TV - the TV + Internet plan I used to have is now $240/mo after promo period. But it still feels like I haven't really saved much by cutting the cord. And I don't think I could stomach dropping back to DSL speeds to reduce my Internet bill (the local phone company's fiber rollout seems to have stalled, as some of the city is covered by fiber but I've been waiting for 5 years for fiber to become available at my address). So basically it seems the cable TV companies are just responding to people cutting the cord by cranking up the prices on the people who still subscribe to them - whether it be cable TV and Internet. Resulting in very little cost savings from cutting the cord if you still have to use the cable company for Internet.

  2. What do they call pay-TV? by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Honestly, when pay-TV refers to the old pay-TV companies and exclude new pay-TV companies, like Netflix and Hulu, then this way to count customers is bonkers. This is like when you have one bakery in a town which sells all the bread and you count how much bread and rolls they sell. Then a new second bakery opens, but you still count only the products from the first bakery. Suddenly people by less bread. And before you tell me that Netflix is not pay-TV. It is you watch it and you pay for it. Yes it is not linear and there is no classic programming. So what? It is just the modern form of pay-TV.

    1. Re:What do they call pay-TV? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      Add to this that, for some insane reason, people consider Sling TV (aka Dish Network over the Internet) and DirecTV Now (aka DirecTV over the Internet) as "cord cutting".

      Buying an Internet delivered pay TV package is exactly the same as escaping your local cable or telephone monopoly on pay TV by going to DBS pay TV.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  3. Not exactly great news by HangingChad · · Score: 2

    The cable industry lost four quarts of blood over the last two years but next year they're only going to lose another pint.

    Wooo! Pop the champagne.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Not exactly great news by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      This exactly. I don't see cord cutting as has reached it peak by along shot. If any thing, it is just now really beginning to take off. Cable TV, as it has been, days are numbered. Even the broadcasters know that. It is why you have Disney and CBS trying to start up their own streaming systems.

      I predict that that cable tv's current business model might have 10 years left. Then we are going to see a more networks start off with their own apps on a device like Ruko. Now the question will be if we will have to pay for all those services. My thinking is we will not. I doubt people will pay 10 a month for dozens of different channel apps and subscription service.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  4. It's happening more by andydread · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My 74 year old mother just cut the cord from AT&T/DirecTV to playstation vue. No she doesn't have a playstation. anyway her cost dropped from 125/mnth to 60/mnth. That was the driver for her to switch. If the AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world keep gouging people then the exodus will continue. I guess I should follow her lead and drop DirecTV also but i haggle with them every 6 months to year to keep my price down to $64/mnth so I guess it's no rush. She was done with the haggling and just had enough. she still struggles to use the app and chromecast but she's determined stick to the man so she's getting the hang of it.

  5. Well... by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cable companies saw the writing on the wall and increased Internet prices to make up some of the difference.

    And with all the new, separate streaming services programming has gotten fragmented and aggregators like Netflix are losing content left and right that all these companies want to keep exclusive to their own streaming services which leads to the al a carte people said they wanted, but also leads to death due to bloodloss from a thousand smaller cuts

  6. it's just now heating up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was out to eat the other day when I overheard a lady complaining about her cable bill approaching $200. A person at another table told her to dump her cable TV package in favor of Hulu. A person at a 3rd table recommended YouTube TV.

    Cable cutting is about to become A LOT more common.

  7. Re:It's too much of a PITA by darthsilun · · Score: 5, Informative

    People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

    Except this isn't A la carte
    What I wanted back then was a la carte pricing and selection from my cable tv provider. I didn't want to pay $150/month for a package with, e.g. BBCAmerica with a mandatory ESPN that I knew was adding $30/month to the package.
    But ESPN had cut a side deal with Comcast and there was no package with BBCAmerican without ESPN.
    You can try to redefine what a la carte meant. But AFAIC this isn't a la carte.

  8. Net Neutrality's end could reverse it by unfortunateson · · Score: 2

    With the end of Net Neutrality (hopefully not permanently), your Xfinity cable internet service could decide that you don't get access to Disney and ESPN through streaming; your U-Verse service could decide not to let you stream Sling (owned by Dish Network) and so on.

    If an of the big ISPs cut off Netflix or Amazon, there'd be riots in the street, but the smaller players may get cut out if Net Neutrality isn't restored.

    Any why doesn't everyone do what I did and turn a $100 DirecTV bill (no premium channels, DVR, HD) into a $30 Sling bill (ditto)? Laziness. It's easy to keep that autobill payment on your credit card, it's hard to empty out a DVR.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
  9. Re:Oldskool TV is done by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

    Ironically the cord cutting generation will still spend countless hours mindlessly consuming streamed content. They're just doing it on a different device, or paying a different provider.

    Just because we call the Boob Tube a "smartphone" these days doesn't make the consumers any smarter or less addicted.

    That is not at issue. The real irony is that the entrenched industry has managed to alienate their entire customer base and generally price themselves out of the market in the search for greater growth in profits. They have no idea what the true value proposition is for their own product. Growth in a mature market where most of the public is a customer can only be obtained by raising revenue through pricing per customer. They have made too many trips to the well and now the well is running dry.

    Sure. Netflix and YouTube are substitutes, but cable TV is declining because their business model is failing. Cable use to be a "must have" utility that you called upon move-in just like electric or trash service. Now it's a "nobody wants." As mind share dwindles, the hive effect diminishes too.

  10. Re:It's too much of a PITA by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People asked for All La Carte TV... now they can get it. Let's see if they enjoy it as much as they thought they would.

    People can get "something" a la carte, but I don't think that "something" is quite what they wanted. The preferred a la carte approach was meant to be that you go to single provider (whether that's cable like Comcast, or online like Netflix doesn't matter), tick all the channels/shows on their menu that you want to subscribe to (or pay as you go per movie/episode, again, doesn't matter) and you have everything you want. One supplier, one bill, all the shows you want, and - most importantly - none of the ones you don't just because they happen to be part of a bundle. As a bonus, if that could be without having to endure any more ads than strictly necessary to keep the shows in production as well, so much the better.

    I don't see this fragmentation is going to last. It's death by a thousand financial cuts; there's no way I'm going to subscribe to a service for a single show; I'll get that from torrents, and I suspect I'll not be alone once more people realise how much it's costing them for all their various subscriptions. That's going to make it very difficult for smaller providers with only a few shows so I expect cross-licensing to start appearing soon enabling the larger players like Netflix or Amazon Prime to provide shows for people that don't want any of the CSI shows but do want the new Trek, for instance. Better for CBS to have a slightly smaller slice of the pie than no slice at all because enough a viewers decided they'll just torrent the one CBS show they want.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  11. Re: Oldskool TV is done by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Cutting production costs to switch to reality TV means greater profits. Until nobody is paying for it, that is.

  12. Re:It's too much of a PITA by jwhyche · · Score: 3

    If you are subscribing to all these services are you really cutting the cord? Seems to me all you are doing is sending your money to just different services. I subscribe to 3 services, Coursitystream, Netflix, and Hulu. I'm also watching more Youtube channels now. If it isn't on those services I probably will not watch it.

    My daughter added a philo subscription. Adding all that up it is still cheaper than what I was paying for with cable.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  13. not cutting any cords [Re: Maths!] by XXongo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have to say I'm bemused by the phrase "cord cutting."

    Most people get internet through a wire attached to their residence. Usually it's the very same coax cable that brings in cable TV, and often from the same cable company.

    They're not cutting any cords. They are just switching what company is sending their feed through the cord.

    (And, amusingly, people who get television by subscribing to DirectTV, which literally does NOT have a cord, but comes in over the satellite dish... are not cord-cutters.)