I haven't owned a television since March of 1995.
I mostly read and indulge my hobbies for entertainment.
Posted on 07/25/2018 11:39:09 AM PDT by Zakeet
It is not a pleasant time to be a cable company. Decades of regional monopolies are being swept away, leaving us with - the horror! - actual competition. Prices on streaming bundles are so low that companies are actually struggling to make money on the $40-a-month skinny services. Any time margins are so low that telecoms giants are complaining, you know that it’s good for consumers.
Unsurprisingly, people are keen to ditch cable. While traditional pay TV is still the biggest distribution method by far, a pair of new studies out this week suggest that cord-cutting is about to hit new highs. Record cord-cutting numbers are absolutely nothing new, but the interesting thing is that year after year, cord-cutting numbers are consistently outpacing analyst expectations.
Let’s start with data from New York-based eMarketer, which sources its data by aggregating third-party sources. For the pay TV forecast, numbers come from two dozen data sources, including big names like Nielsen, Deloitte, Kagan, GfK, Parks Associates, and MoffettNathanson. In short, it’s a comprehensive overview of what industry experts think.
[Snip]
As for why people are leaving services, a new survey of over 3,000 Americans from cg42 provides some insights. The study’s author Stephen Beck spoke to Marketwatch, and the message seems clear:
[Snip]
The trend is moving firmly away from pay TV, as cord cutters find doing so means hefty savings. Cord cutters saved an average of $85 each month after leaving pay TV, according to survey responses, and of those who left , 79% said they were happy with their decision to cut the cord. Only 5% said they regretted their decision and would go back to pay TV.
At this point, it doesn’t seem as though there’s really any way cable TV survives in its current condition.
(Excerpt) Read more at bgr.com ...
Meh. Most, if not all, cable companies provide high-speed internet. They’re just gonna have to adapt their models.
“TV used to be free over the air.”
It still is.
I agree with what you said, but I’d like to add that when HBO & Showtime first came out they offered movies after theaters got them and before they were rented on tape. And of course, no commercials. Movies in that era promoted little to no political agendas, violence was the pretend type (someone gets shot, the just fall over vs getting shot and brains fly all over the place) and the nudity was not the full blown sexual intercourse.
And in the news department, fake news existed, but much of it was believable as compared to today’s CNN grade mass-fakery.
And if my memory is correct, cable TV at first was mostly watchable. Of something like 30 channels, about 10 had something interesting. When we cut the cord, we were getting about 150 channels, with only 3 or so worth a darn.
I don’t know what’s worse, paying for more channels and fewer worth watching, or subsidizing crap we totally detest like CNN.
I dunno.
I have a lot of programming. DirecTV, Netflix, Amazon Prime, ROKU, HBO (free) and Starz. When I have time (not often) and settle in to find something to watch I am bored out of my mind, except for the occasionally interesting movie.
I think I have admitted to myself that I actually simply do not like television any more. I just cannot tolerate the endless commercials which often run in blocks of 4 minutes or longer. Way too irritating and disrespectful of my time.
The commercial-free premium sites, such as HBO almost always run left-wing propaganda non-stop 24/7. The other premium sites are okay, but filled with a lot of filler dreck.
Funny that when I was a kid I really liked television. Now, more often than not, I find it boring when not thoroughly irritating.
I haven't owned a television since March of 1995.
I mostly read and indulge my hobbies for entertainment.
My issue is you drop the TV service but you still need Internet and that was half the bill and the price gets jacked up now. Then you add some online service like Youtube-TV and you are back to same price.
So we go out dancing now instead
“Their gross revenue will go down but they may be surprised when their bottom line goes up.”
Some of the issues preventing that from happening IMO is the political agenda. One of the least watched news outfits is CNN. I bet most folks offered a choice would not even consider having CNN on their list. Without this mass subsidizing, CNN would literally go broke. My point is, the die hard lefties running cable outfits simple would not stand for CNN to go broke, and it would be a must in a small package, as it is with Sling.
Amen to that.
I've been captive to Comcast for over 30 years because they are the only high speed internet service in my area.
I've considered Direct TV and Comcast combination, but then it's about equal in monthly payout {which is about $200} and it's more than I paid for my last 40" Smart TV.
I once had DSL for internet but it's like drilling your own tooth with a hand held Black and Decker, NFW, never again.
ID Channel is literally THE ONLY THING worth watching on TV.
I love Joe Kenda. He’s so gloriously smug!
You can get ID for about 35 bucks a month on Direct TV streaming, but my internet isn’t quick enough to do HD, so I have to stick with the dish for now ;/
In my house, I get super duper hi speed cable, a not so good tv package and a land line my daughter needs for faxing. $200+.
We also have 4 cell phones.
I think I’m going to retire to the Swiss Alps with no connectivity.
Too expensive. Most channel offerings are garbage. Few things worth watching.
Last fall I had to go to the local cable office to drop a couple of premium channels.
The clerk said she would bundle my remaining services (basic and first tier cable tv and Internet). My monthly bill dropped $60. First time in the 17 years I have had cable TV/Internet that they reduced my billing.
About 3 months later, they did their yearly fee increases and my monthly bill increased by about $10.
They giveth, and they taketh.
==
As more streaming services come online, they are getting competition. Trouble is, most of the new streaming services are following the same ole tier-programming — you have to subscribe to a tier to get the channels you want, and thus, you get channels you don’t want. Their costs are only a few dollars different than the cable company prices.
If any one of them ever goes ala carte, they could own the industry. But, the network conglomerates are keeping that from happening because they want to ‘sell’ half-a-dozen or more channels through the cable/satellite companies.
Have you considered fax2mail, email faxing?
We still need that for our internet service!
I'd immediately drop CNN, ESPN, MSNBC, and many others - then you would see their audiences drop from already pathetically low numbers to half of their already low numbers.
Have you tried Tubi TV [http://tubitv.com]?
They have ‘free’ movies and TV series, but they also have commercials. Their commercial breaks are very short — 1 to 3 topics, each about 5-10 seconds, and the breaks seem to be about 20 minutes apart.
My previous experience with those ‘commercial embeds’ was their frequent lock-ups. I have not had that with Tubi TV.
They do have a sizable catalog and a few AU, UK series.
If they think it’s bad now, wait until lawyers notice that most of the failing utility poles are loaded down with massive cable bundles. Oh, right, there was a really big reason why they didn’t want the FCC to get rid of the ‘net neutrality’ regulations - it allowed free ride on any utility pole, and indemnity from any damage to that pole.
Not if you aren’t gaming or watching video you don’t.
Our cable bill once was less than $10.00 in the early 80’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.