Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Television Entertainment

Cable TV Companies Could Lose Nearly $1 Billion in the Next Year From People Ditching Their Subscriptions (businessinsider.com) 250

Nathan McAlone, writing for BusinessInsider: Cable TV companies could lose nearly $1 billion to people cutting the cord over the next year, according to a new study by management consulting firm cg42. The firm estimates that 800,000 cable customers will ditch their subscriptions in the next 12 months. Cg42 expects each customer to be an average loss of $1,248 annually, and losses to approach $1 billion over the year. Cg42 also found that the average cord-cutter saves $104 per month by canceling. Some in the industry have argued that cutting the cord doesn't actually save you money if you subscribe to a bunch of streaming services like Netflix, HBO, and so on. But that point of view neglects the reality that many cable subscribers pay for those streaming services already.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cable TV Companies Could Lose Nearly $1 Billion in the Next Year From People Ditching Their Subscriptions

Comments Filter:
  • by Snufu ( 1049644 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:14PM (#52984609)

    Or perhaps you use landline internet, the other monopoly?

    • by drpimp ( 900837 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:25PM (#52984699) Journal
      Your assumption is many have switched to a new corporate overload but most may have just cut their bill substantially by dropping the TV out of their package. The real question is ... when are they just going to up the price of internet and include it all for that same bloated price and we are back to square one.
      • by surfdaddy ( 930829 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:30PM (#52984735)

        Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet. What we really need is a lot more competition, but the last mile problem is monopolized. I expect sooner or later somebody (Google, others) will find a way to solve that, as there is way too much money to be made by disrupting that last mile. It might end up being wireless last mile with other frequencies, mesh networks, etc. Or low orbit satellites.

        • by drpimp ( 900837 )
          Interesting. I just cut mine (5 boxes + movie channels) and I cut my bill by $120. Calculating the offset of other content providers I am at a net gain of about $80 so it's a win for my situation.
          • Same here, although that may be because I don't-- can't-- bundle, because I have Comcast Business internet. I'm planning on dumping the TV account and buying the Elite tier on Vue. I would still have access to the few shows I really watch (some require Elite), but save $60 a month. I would only be giving up the ability to save shows indefinitely on their cloud DVR, and CBS, which I could get with an antenna (I already own a good one). Oh, and History, which would suck but I can get Sling if I'm not happ
        • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:46PM (#52984827) Homepage Journal

          Problem is that the way many companies price things, you don't save that much by cutting the TV. I have TWC and it's only like $20 cheaper/month if I cut TV and keep high speed internet. What we really need is a lot more competition, but the last mile problem is monopolized. I expect sooner or later somebody (Google, others) will find a way to solve that, as there is way too much money to be made by disrupting that last mile. It might end up being wireless last mile with other frequencies, mesh networks, etc. Or low orbit satellites.

          Interesting, I'm cutting the cord, but I'm not counting my internet into the equation.

          I have a business internet connection at home, I need it for work, so I'd have it regardless of any other need.

          I have a business connection from Cox Cable for $69/mo....it is an old one that is grandfathered in. But nothing is bundled with it.

          But I use AT&T Uverse, U200 package for TV and with it in 2x rooms, it was about $113/mo.

          I've set up an OTA antenna that pulls in all my local channels. I hooked that into a Tivo Roamio OTA box for DVR, and I also have a couple of Tivo Minis for the office and bedroom TVs...and that streams the live and DVR'ed stuff to all rooms I need.

          For what I call my "cable channels" that I would miss, like news (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc) and other entertainment like TCM, FX, TBS...all the ESPN's...I subscribed to Playstation VUE streaming, which runs on the Amazon FireTV (new version with better hardware) and have a box for that on each TV. The Playstation VUE system has a DVR like functionality built into it too, for show you "like" it records and keeps for at least 28 days. I liked this feature plus the better channel selection than SlingTV gave.

          I got the 70+ channels package from VUE and is about $35/mo.

          I was already streaming Netflix and have Amazon Prime.

          So, I dropped my bill from $113 to $35 a month. I'm quite happy.

          I've been trying to watch all the DVR content off my Uverse box and have almost done that. Likely after this weekend, I tell Uverse to take their equipment back and just enjoy what I have which I love so far.

          I fiigure in about 8 or so months roughly, I'll break even on my equipment.

        • by PRMan ( 959735 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:46PM (#52984829)
          This is very misleading. They say, "$20 a month". Then you get your bill and it's $60 because of HD fees, cable box fees, taxes, other unknown fees, etc. And then when your 1-year promo is over it jumps to $100 a month.
          • by UPZ ( 947916 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @07:46PM (#52986335)
            I second that.

            Before: cable + internet = $160 after all the fees
            Now: internet + netflix + hulu = $85 after all the fees
            Net: $75/mo saved
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AvitarX ( 172628 )

          The numbers seem way off (and prove false) in the summary.

          If the average cord cutter saves 104/month, then the cable companies are losing more than that (as the average cord cutter is at the very least paying for one replacement content provider).

          I currently pay 102/month, 65 (internet), 12 (hulu), 10 (netflix). I'm contemplating dropping netflix and HBO, and to watch thos shows with people I know (I do that primarily anyway). With Cable, I'd be at a similar price, Internet + Very Basic cable (broadcast cha

          • by JustSomeProgrammer ( 1881750 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @05:12PM (#52985619)
            My bill dropped about $100. I didn't change my streaming services because that was how I preferred to consume content even when I had cable so for me don't really factor into the equation. Besides my streaming services together are about $50 a month. (I have 4.) My bill was around $170. Cutting cable dropped it to $70. Just to provide a counter anecdote to your anecdote. As long as you're continuing to get any level of cable at all there additional fees you're paying that with just internet you don't have to. I also decided to buy my own cable modem which will end up only paying off if I stay subscribed for a year, but it is unlikely that I won't use internet for more than a year. You pay rental fees on your cable box, your cable modem, and there's taxes involved. Oh and I decided to increase my internet package or it would have been only $60 a month.
        • Well in my case my bill went from $200 a month to $89 a month when I told Cox Communications to shove the tv and phone services.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yip, Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.

      I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

      Either way, a bit of coax connected to your house is far more valuable than the twisted pair, or even fiber - DOCSIS 3.1 = 1gbps, that pretty much just smoked anyone's business model to deploy fibre to the home. Since they own the cable that seemingly has endless bandwidth potential, it doesnt matter what is going over it, so long as there is a

      • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @03:11PM (#52984997) Journal

        I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

        They have, and been caught. The whole Net Neutrality thing was over this very concept. The example was that the location of the Peering nodes were deliberately not upgraded an thus Netflix traffic was impacted. Netflix went so far as to say that they would pay for all the equipment needed at all of the peering locations, and even install CDN points INSIDE Comcast's network to help prevent the congestion problems for Comcast's Netflix customers. Comcast said no thanks.

        Comcast has a vested interest in both Broadcast and Cable TV, and Netflix has a direct impact on both. Comcast is not going to help Netflix even if Netflix does all the work.

        However, since this is all being done on the Network side, it is hidden (obfuscated) to the customer. All they know is Netflix streaming "sucks" a lot of the time, while Comcast streaming almost never does. The customer doesn't see it as a Comcast problem, they see it as a Netflix Problem.

        • by tattood ( 855883 )

          I'm surprised Comcast hasnt gone after Netflix already.

          They have, and been caught. The whole Net Neutrality thing was over this very concept.

          I think by "gone after", he means attempt to buy the company to help recover their lost revenue from cord cutters.

      • Same boss because once things start shifting the Cable TV companies will acquire Netflix/Hulu/youname it.

        Hulu LLC is owned by Disney, Comcast, Fox, and Time Warner. All four companies own broadcast TV networks (ABC, NBC, Fox, and half of CW respectively) as well as mid-tier cable TV networks. Comcast is also a multichannel pay television provider.

  • Saving Money (Score:5, Informative)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:14PM (#52984611)

    Unfortunately a great number of us don't have any alternative once we cut the cord.

    Sure, I'm not paying $80 a month in cable bills any more- but I'm still paying $50 for the data (no option- they have a monopoly on connections fast enough to stream). So- then I add Hulu, and Netflix (the wife has Amazon from a student account). Bang- I'm right back to the price I started with.

    • Re:Saving Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:17PM (#52984625)

      I will say though... other than sports being harder to watch, I'm much happier with having Netflix and Hulu than I was when I had cable. I like being able to pick what I want, rather than reality TV shows being on every channel and that's my only option. History Channel reality TV, discovery channel reality TV... ARGH!

      Streaming is fragmenting though. Yahoo is stealing some shows from Hulu. CBS is going solo. BBC is launching their own separate channel. Soon it will be more expensive to cut the cord because streaming is fragmenting so badly.

      • by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        I will say though... other than sports being harder to watch, I'm much happier with having Netflix and Hulu...Streaming is fragmenting though.

        If haven't already, you might want to check out the Playstation VUE service (works on a few other streaming units too), because it might make your fragmentation of streaming complaint go away, including sports. If VUE was associated with any brand other than Playstation there would be a lot more attention.

      • I will say though... other than sports being harder to watch, I'm much happier with having Netflix and Hulu than I was when I had cable. I like being able to pick what I want, rather than reality TV shows being on every channel and that's my only option. History Channel reality TV, discovery channel reality TV... ARGH!

        Streaming is fragmenting though. Yahoo is stealing some shows from Hulu. CBS is going solo. BBC is launching their own separate channel. Soon it will be more expensive to cut the cord because streaming is fragmenting so badly.

        I subscribe to the NHL Live which gives me hockey. The only reasons why I am still on cable used to be HBO and NFL. Now that HBO has their service, that just leaves the NFL. The day that NFL and Redzone becomes a streaming service is the day I cancel my cable. If they do it right, we'll be able to watch any game we want instead of the game that they designate for our market. For example, this past weekend they weren't showing the Green Bay game in our area.

        But yes, if you want the full package of what

        • I was under the impression that you either needed to be a cable subscriber to use NHL Live or you could only use it to view "select out of area games". Which basically means it is completely useless.

          The funny thing is I want to pay someone to watch hockey. They literally will not take my money.

        • Makes me feel lucky I have sirius xm (due to living in the boon docks and having a long commute). I get the premium service so that includes all sports. Even though my car had a sirius capable radio I opted for the free portable car player.

          Now I can just bring it in when I want to listen to games, it includes streaming but why hit my data when I can just plug it into my stereo at home. I actually like listening on the radio, I find I actually "do" stuff while enjoying the game.

          Its not cheap though...280 buc

      • I like being able to pick what I want, rather than reality TV shows being on every channel and that's my only option. History Channel reality TV, discovery channel reality TV... ARGH!

        Without a doubt, there's too many options and not enough variety in the content. The service is over-saturated. The market needs to contract, and now's a great time for that to happen. I hope we can get rid of all the bloat and wasted programming out there and concentrate it down to less channels with better programming.

    • Re:Saving Money (Score:5, Informative)

      by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:19PM (#52984643) Journal

      *if* you didn't already use those services.
      I found that my kids and I almost never watched broadcast TV, but we used Netflix (and Amazon Prime to a much lesser extent) more than TV. It was so bad that we lost the remote control and no one cared. so I turned it all of, data only. Totally worth it. The only real difference is now when a series I really like hits one of the streaming services I don't get enough sleep because I binge, rather than DVR and watching (roughly) when it was broadcast.
      -nb

      • I went 100% data something like 10 years ago. Then Comcast called me up and said "hey, we'll throw in basic cable for $5/month more", so I said "fine" and took it. We didn't watch much - the kids watched Disney Channel when they were much younger but that was about it.

        Then I moved and went back to a data-only plan, which went from $50/month to $70/month for some reason, I think because it got faster.

        Anyway, fast forward two years and last month Comcast called me up and said "hey, for another penny each mon

        • by jafiwam ( 310805 )

          You got a temporary offer. They will jack the prices back up to the previous level after some period of months.

    • cable internet has been in the $50 to $100 range since it came out in the late 90's. don't know what you expect. The only reason dial up dropped in price was because the would drop everyone who stayed connected more than 20 minutes to free up the port for someone else

    • by mattyj ( 18900 )

      Keep in mind that your Internet connection is useful for other things aside from streaming TV, so there's value-add there. You'd have an Internet connection anyway so you can't rightly attribute that $50 to TV.

    • However you have the choice to drop a service if you want. Also many services don't have commercial or limited commercials For cable TV you are paying for 20-30% of adds over your shows.

    • by praxis ( 19962 )

      What does "fast enough to stream" mean to you? We cut the cord and switched to 5mbps DSL and streamed HD content just find from Netflix.

    • Many do, they just think that they "need" all those channels. OTA TV is free, with an initial cost of $20 for an antenna and $10 for coax.
    • by sbaker ( 47485 )

      Except: View everything on-demand. Have as many TV's as you like, no need for DVR's for time-shifting. No adverts.

      In a home with 4 TV's we'd have needed to rent 4 cable boxes - we saved $120/month on cable fees (still paid for Internet)...added $10 for Netflix, $4 for Acorn, $10 for Amazon Prime. We probably spend another $20 on Amazon for movies and non-free TV shows. We have an antenna on each TV for local news and stuff like that.

      We're saving a little money - but that's not the point. Watch what we

  • only reason i have cable is that i get a special rate of $100 a month including 200mbps internet. i only watch sports. sometimes my wife watches the reality shows and some sit coms. i might watch The Walking Dead this season although at this point it's like a daytime soap, but with zombies and violence. i'll also watch Ancient Aliens when it's on but by now they are rehashing the same crap from previous seasons

    my kids never watch it because finding something to watch on their schedule sucks

    i never watch any

    • Every time they say "Ancient Alien theorists" on that show, I want to box my ears. I suppose it sounds better than "crackpots".

      • mind numbing friday night entertainment and an interesting way to introduce kids to history and archeology

      • I'd like to know why people laugh so much at "ancient alien theorists" or anyone who believes that stuff. Personally, I don't, because the evidence is just way too flimsy, however, what I question is why they get derision, while the large majority of humanity who believes in one of the main religions does not. Why are everyday Christians and Muslims not called "crackpots" too?

        Which "theory" is more plausible? Ancient aliens visited the Earth and had some kind of hand in humanity's development, OR there's

  • "Lose?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShaunC ( 203807 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:17PM (#52984629)

    They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much. No company is entitled to continued steady profits.

    • not really

      internet is probably more profitable than TV since they don't have to pay for the content. i've read they have to pay out something like $30 per account per month to rebroadcast all those channels.

      with internet you lay the wires, install the hardware and just pay the debt off over 10 years or so along with operational costs

    • Re:"Lose?" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:33PM (#52984763)

      They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much. No company is entitled to continued steady profits.

      That's communist talk there, mister. We paid good money to your elected officials to see to it that our profits continue. How dare you suggest that we are not then entitled to the representation that we paid for, fair and square.

      Regards,

      Your Friends at Comcast

    • Re:"Lose?" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @03:06PM (#52984971)

      They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much.

      This. The fine article is using the same kind of "lose" where a tax cut that leaves money in the pockets of the workers becomes a loss to the government. Or a 10% hike in funding for an agency or program when they asked for 20% is a "10% cut". It's starting with the assumption that the money belongs to the government or agency being funded (or the cable company) and if they don't get it for any reason it becomes a loss.

      It becomes obvious when you look at the "loss" number ($1248/yr) and the "also found" (amazing discovery!) $104/month that the cord cutters save. Funny that -- a $104/month loss to the cable company is exactly what the customer was paying. I wonder if this "cg42" outfit realizes it is implying that cable companies are non-profits were these numbers true? (I.e., if my paying you $104 per month offsets your $104 per month loss, then you are making no profit!)

      • My thoughts exactly. I have to laugh whenever someone quotes how much the government 'lost' when taxes are reduced. They try to make it sound like you stole something from Uncle Sam just because you were able to take a new deduction or invested in a municipal bond.
      • Yeah, I have always had an issue with this phrasing.

        If company X makes less money than they did last year, they count it as a loss.... I don't really understand how that works.

        Anyway, to stay on topic...

        I used to pay for cable... but all it is anymore is reality TV interspersed with 10 minute blocks of commercials.... for $100/mo.... thanks... but no.

        Of course, that bundled $100/mo also included the Internet connection. So really, the cable was costing me around $40/mo.

        I am not a sports guy, so I don't have

    • by asylumx ( 881307 )
      Ya this is the same thing that went through my head. If the number of customers reduces to a point where the revenue doesn't cover the operating costs, then they are losing money. Until then, they are just not making as much.
    • They won't lose any money, they just might not make as much.

      TFA doesn't say anything about losing money. It says they will lose revenue, i.e. they won't make as much.

  • by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:18PM (#52984639)
    Maybe if they stopped putting huge ads with flashing animations and sound overtop of the content, it would actually be worth watching some of their content.

    At least that's why I cancelled my cable subscription.
    • Maybe if they stopped putting huge ads with flashing animations and sound overtop of the content, it would actually be worth watching some of their content.

      At least that's why I cancelled my cable subscription.

      ^^^ THIS!

      Oh my god, the trend towards advertising for the next show while I'm already watching a show on your damned channel drives me fucking insane! I realize it's an attempt to circumvent timeshifting via PVR, but that doesn't mean that it's right to do so. There are some channels that I simply refuse to watch anymore because of this, and if anything were to encourage me to cut the cord, it would be this practice. But...football (sigh).

  • More channel choice is needed.

    Why can't ESPN be it's own $8-12 /mo package?

    Local RSN's $2-$10 /mo

    and so on?

    • I don't think bundling is completely in control of the cable companies. The media companies probably tie advertising contracts to a group of channels and there are probably a bunch of other hidden relationships- like the contracts with content producers.
    • I get charged a $10 broadcast programming fee for channels I can get with an antenna...and I can't opt out. I can't say "just give me everything but the broadcast channels" and lose them. Nope, just $10 for something I can get for free.

      I get that this is because the broadcast channels charge cable companies for carriage, but let me opt out.

    • by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

      The closest you can get is the $20 Sling package that includes ESPN and access to WatchESPN.

      http://www.cutcabletoday.com/w... [cutcabletoday.com]

    • Why can't ESPN be it's own $8-12 /mo package?

      Take a look at Playstation VUE's packages [playstation.com] (no, you don't have to have a playstation to use it, I'm on the latest version of Amazon FireTV):

      I get the Core Slim package for about $35/mo..has all the ESPN channels, and the SEC Channel.

      This is part of my cord cutting package.

      Just FYI...the VUE application is too much for the PS3 unit if you do have one...the guide just doesn't work well. And on the Roku 3..the Guide is not a true guide like on the Amazon FireTV

  • Guess which service will get more expensive in the near future?

    • I think it's possible that in the future, you'll pay $100 a month+ for cable internet (and they'll throw in the tv channels for free).

      There way of forcing you to pay for cable-tv. Why not? They've got no competition in most markets.

      • That may keep them going for a while, but we're probably little more than a decade away from fiber roll out in many areas (even my small town of around 20,000 people is seeing fiber coming soon). Cable's business model is doomed, and even the networks are likely to put a lot more investment in online streaming offerings as they see cable's ability to deliver their product to large numbers of people fade.

        I give cable ten, maybe fifteen years at best.

        • by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

          That may keep them going for a while, but we're probably little more than a decade away from fiber roll out in many areas (even my small town of around 20,000 people is seeing fiber coming soon). Cable's business model is doomed...

          I agree cable is doomed, but fiber might be equally doomed as mobile data transmission technology gets better (e.g. "5G" or the generation after). It's going to be more economical for communication companies to maintain towers than underground lines everywhere, particularly in rural areas.

  • by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm@ice[ ]m.com ['bal' in gap]> on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:30PM (#52984741)

    Good.

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:32PM (#52984749)

    If they let people only pay for the channels they want rather than force them to buy a whole package of useless crap, far fewer people would be cutting the cable.
    The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want, so the market is rightfully killing them off.
    At some point they will finally be forced to deal with their own egos just to survive, but by then it will already be way too late for them, because most of their market share will have already moved to other sources such as Netflix, Amazon etc. that already do a much better job of meeting individual needs affordably.

    • by crow ( 16139 )

      Yes, they could, but their strategy is to continue with the current model and lock people in with unique content. For now that means sports, as they've lost out on everything else while they were sleeping.

      If they really wanted to copy the competition, Comcast would create their own channels and fund high-quality programming that isn't available elsewhere.

      I think they're waking up now, but I don't think they know what to do about the situation, so they're digging their heels in.

      • If they really wanted to copy the competition, Comcast would create their own channels and fund high-quality programming that isn't available elsewhere.

        I think that was Comcast's strategy in buying NBCUniversal.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:56PM (#52984891)

      The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want...

      Actually the production companies like Disney (ESPN, ABC, etc) usually require them to carry the other channels. So if you don't want sports too bad, you're getting ESPN. Cable and satellite companies don't have much leverage here. They can refuse to carry it, or package it differently, and then get their rebroadcast rights pulled. I expect this will happen to streaming as well. It's a lot like beer - the major brewers require stores to stock all their varieties of the same beer, pushing out the microbrews as much as possible. You don't get to carry one and not the other 10 that taste exactly the same.

      • They probably use this channel leverage in their advertising contracts. "You will be on X,Y and Z channels all subscribed by 1.2 gillion users"
      • It makes sense from a greed standpoint. Would you rather:
        A) Bundle 10 channels and be guaranteed $10 per subscriber? or...
        B) Go a la carte, find out that people don't give a shit about 8 channels and make $3 per subscriber?

        You would think the realization that the market for some of those nonsense channels, like the dozen televangelist channels with the Pillsbury Dough-Nun that botched the story of creation, would be exceedingly small and not profitable. The production companies could then cut costs a
        • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

          You're falling into the same broken thinking that the cable companies are doing, and assuming the number of subscribers will remain constant if they do nothing, which is clearly false.

          $3*n can be more profitable than $10*n, because the value of n will be different in each case.

          There is nothing so special about cable TV channels that they should get protection from free market economics. As far as I'm concerned if a channel has no subscribers then it deserves to die. Per your example, IMHO the less crappy ev

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      A La Carte tends to be far more expensive,
  • That's how they will make up the difference.
  • In response they will simply raise rates. Surely that will save the industry.
  • Let's hope so (^.^)
  • The truth is that many more people are cutting cords than the numbers reflect. Cable companies mask this by creating bundles that have more services that are cheaper than going with just data. Many people keep a minimum TV service because it's cheaper than the unbundled Internet service. Some cable companies put data caps on only for non-TV customers. They want to pad their phone sales, too, so they'll do the same tricks there, making a triple play cheaper than a double play, at least for the initial co

  • It's an election year, and I guess people are voting with their wallets, or voting against the lack of choices or against bundling up/overcharging or going with Netflix or Redbox.

    Those billions are going to be spent elsewhere, maybe less on this luxury, and there isn't any person going to be affected by my lack of sympathy. Corporations are out there to make money; I'm here still waiting for my 24x7 cindy crawford channel (apologies to Denis Leary)

  • lower the price and sales will go back up. This is not complicated.
  • At what point do you suppose that that crazy, crazy idea of offering better value for the dollar, and a better pricing model, to actually compete for customers will dawn on these industry geniuses? Telling customers who are dropping your service "Your stupid. You aren't saving money but don't know it" when the customer can plainly see that they are saving money is not likely to ever help your business.

    What we see though is the universal behavior of business accustomed to monopoly power, and to extracting pr

  • by zarmanto ( 884704 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @02:49PM (#52984849) Journal

    Cord cutter, here. If you're thinking of joining me by switching down to an internet-only service, you need to know this: Your cable company is going to lie to you. They're going to tell you all kinds of stories about how they don't actually offer internet-only options, or about how it's actually less expensive to have a bundle than it is to go internet-only. Don't believe them. There is exactly one way to get the full truth out of them: Tell them you're cancelling. As soon as they transfer you to the retention department, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will happily give you that internet-only connection you're looking for, and most likely at a reasonable price, too... at least, for the first year, anyway.

    Sidenote: Obviously, this only works if you have at least one other viable broadband provider in your area. If you live in one of the many broadband monopoly areas... well, in that case, you have my sympathies, because you are well and truly screwed.

    • I have three ISPs one with fiber, two broadband to my home. My fiber provider was VZ FIOS now it's Frontier FIOS which from a business relationship perspective was going from an alligator to a crocodile. I've already cut my TV subscription (Sling user here) and they indeed said "oh your Internet will go up." to which I replied "good, you're fired." and they back-peddled. I realize a lot of this is the content providers (Comcast, Viacom etc.) but shit how many news channels do we need anyway, besides i ge

  • We were paying $180/month with Comcast for 25Mbps internet, 2 basic cable boxes, and HD, no movie channels


    We adding 40Mbps DSL to our CenturyLink Landline for $25/month. Amazon Pirme - $100/year
    Netflix 4K $11.99/month
    Sling TV (Espn, Espn 2) $20/month
    OTA $0
    Tivo - $120/year (we had this with Comcast as well.)
  • Stop charging $7-$10+ an outlet for rent / outlet fees / tv fees / mirroring fees.

  • by stasike ( 1063564 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @03:18PM (#52985035)

    I live in Europe.
    I pay 16Euro per month for 70Mbit/s Internet connection.
    A "landline" is included in the price - IP telephony device included - with 20 free minutes to landlines here in my town and free calls within provider network and reasonable prices for calling cellular providers or out-of-town numbers.
    AND, included in that 16Euro/month package, I get some 100 cable channels, with 15 most popular channels having an archive - ability to play, and skip adds for any program from the last 20 days.
    I pay about 7Eur per month extra for package with various Discovery channels, History channel and cartoon channels for my kids (cartoons being the main reason I keep the extra package, because most documentary programs air various reality shows 95% of the time)

    This is what you get when you do not allow companies to create artificial monopolies for the last mile.
    I live in town and 5 different providers have fiber optics cable leading to my apartment building. People living in small distant villages have more limited choice, but they still can get ADSL for some 10Euro/month for uncapped contract, plus satellite package for TV for some 10Euro/month for about 100 channels.

  • by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @03:24PM (#52985069)
    Paid my cable bill last night: the broadband chunk of the bill is now ~$20 higher than the (now sports / entertainment tier-free) TV bill.

    Over the last few years, the rate of increase of the broadband part has out-paced the TV rate increases for... reasons?

    Bottom line: Big Cable will get their monthly three-figure pound of flesh even after everything is TCP/IP-based.

    Plus, they need the cash to pay their right-wing prostitutes for banning community-owned broadband systems.
  • The only content you can watch on TV uninterrupted. Its no surprise people are moving to netflix. plus being forced to pay for 100++ channels i will never watch in a zillion years pisses me off to no end.But moving to netflix isn't going to happen i like first run tv shows,movies SPORTS..And don't want to wait a year for them to be released to the streamers..
  • by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @03:29PM (#52985109)

    Cg42 expects each customer to be an average loss of $1,248 annually, and losses to approach $1 billion over the year. Cg42 also found that the average cord-cutter saves $104 per month by canceling.

    And after further investigation, Cg42 has discovered there are 12 months in a year.

  • You were supposedly "paying" for no commercials TV.

    Now even the damn "Premium" pay channels i.e showtime, hbo have ommercials.

    WTF?

    Now they're double & triple dipping the f'n ad revenues.

  • I ditched mine because they said (Time Warner) they were going to be removing analog channels from the single-coax medium to free usable RF bandwidth for "up to" 300mbps data. My telco's gigabit fiber (measuring up to ~=800mbps in real use) being $65.99/mo and the 50mbps being $49.99/mo for those who have FTTN.

    TW said the price for their new enhanced 300mbps service would be around $160, but it wasn't available until about 3 months or so from then. I laughed on the phone to the person I was talking to and

  • The Fine Article asks "Where are they going?" and talks about some other services (SlingTV, Hulu, etc.) but that fails to answer the more important question of "How are they getting there?"

    Quite frankly in a huge part of the country your connectivity choices are cable modem (fast), DSL or related (kinda fast sometimes depending on where you are), sometimes a WISP (probably slow and expensive), or 4G tethering (you thought cable was expensive?). Fiber is not an option for most of the country and is AFAIK the
  • I dont care if UVERSE is not as fast as comcast. They are cheaper, very reliable, and good enough.
    I dont need 50 mbps, I have 20 mbps internet plus tv, plus landline phone at a pretty good price. .

  • by Dracos ( 107777 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @05:00PM (#52985571)

    Cable will lose subscribers, but they won't lose the money those subscribers haven't paid yet. It's like trying to Chicken-Little the fact that cable will "lose" revenue from subscribers that die in the next year.

    The fact is, the TV market is changing and the providers continually refuse to adapt. If cable rates increased at less than 6 times the rate of inflation, that would help save their asses.

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday September 29, 2016 @05:04PM (#52985589) Journal

    "Cable companies raked in at least $1bn last year from people who really didn't need to be paying them."

    Feels a little different that way.

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission

Working...