Few Americans Cancel Cable in Favor of Online Video

Status
Not open for further replies.

stingray71

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2010
51
0
18,580
0
I cancelled my Dish subscription this spring and went with antenna and stream the rest of my content. Having no issue finding all of my content I was watching before. Even with buying my favorite shows on Amazon, I'm still way ahead of where I was before paying for Dish.

In fact I'm watching two shows I wasn't watching before because I found them on Amazon Prime (Gimm and Falling Skies).

My only concern is staying under my 250Gb cap with my ISP, so far I seem to be in the upper 180Gb range per month.
 

g00fysmiley

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2010
476
0
18,930
0
dropped cable over a year ago, but i probably am in the minority in that i was rarely watching tv to begin with, i have netflix and have for a while, i was watching it more often than cable and even then maybe on the high end i watch 5 hours a week. but i do knwo pther people who watch mroe tv who have switched to hulu plus and a antenna
 

RooD

Distinguished
Jul 5, 2004
61
0
18,580
0
It is cheaper for me to bundle basic cable with my internet, the only reason I still have it... Saves me 5$ a month
 

cewhidx

Distinguished
Apr 27, 2008
21
0
18,560
0
I dropped Dish Nertwork last spring when I built a HTPC. Now between Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, I am saving a small fortune on tv. I think that this is going to end up happening more & more, hopefully to the point that cable & satellite tv companies are forced to make their prices somewhere in the vicinity of reasonable.
 

chomlee

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
104
0
18,630
0
The main reason why people havent cut the cord is the whole buisiness model that is between the networks and the providers. In a forward moving society, the networks would put up all of their stations available on the web (with comercials or subscriptions) and have apps that people could use to access those stations on boxes like roku, apple, googletv etc. They dont do that because the networks are getting greedy and holding the providers hostage with the threat to make their services availble online then in order to get more money from the cable companies, the networks agree to not provide the services and it becomes one big circle jerk. Then because the networks raise their rates, the cable companies charge us more and because they are allowed to have monopolies in the US, most people dont have a choice (except satelite TV).

Our system is outdated and will continue to be with all the politics and money pushing that is going on.
 

elbert

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2005
341
0
19,260
62
So not only is online streaming getting ever new potential customer its also going to take 10 percentage off every cable and dish company in the foreseeable future. Ouch!!! I see why they are have such trouble with tv providers wanting more money. If the cable and dish company's don't switch to a la carte they have no way off their sinking ships.
 

gmarsack

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2009
191
0
18,630
0
When I first got married, we went 7 years without TV. Once my son arrived on the scene, "Hello kids programming!" :(
 

CaedenV

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
532
0
18,960
22
Interesting article. Personally I have never had cable. The cable company was too stupid to realize that we had a cable line on our street growing up and refused to give us cable, and as we lived in a bit of a ravine satellite was not an option either. But because I grew up on videos instead of TV I now have an accute distain for advertisements in the middle of shows. If I have to watch more than 1-2 comercials, then it is simply not worth watching. I would much rather spend that $50-100/mo buying shows on a DVD or BluRay release after the end of a season.
Sure, I am always behind, and if I was into sports then it would not be an option, but I get uninterrupted TV goodness with as many episodes in a row as I can stand to watch, and typically in much better quality than people get with cable. Plus I can watch a show I like over and over again to my heart's content, and if I don't like a show, or don't plan on watching it again, then I can sell it to someone else for a little less than what I bought it for.

I think that cable is not going to go away quickly. It is part of the cultural fabric of my and my parent's generations. Not having some form of cable or TV has such an odd stigma to it because it was the first 'luxury' item that people could afford back in the '70s and '80s, so to not have it makes them feel poor.

But cable is not doomed. I mean, I am more than willing to blow $20-50 on a single season of a show that I like. That is a single 45 minute show, not even a whole channel. If someone were to give me a subscription option of $20-50/year for each show that I want, but with limited commercials (2-4), and on-demand capability for previous episodes in the season, then I would go for that. In a given year there are typically only 3-4 shows that I would be remotely interested in watching, so at $50 a pop then it would be a monthly bill of $4.16 per show. It would keep my bill down, avoid the crap that I don't want to deal with, and put a lot less strain on the network.

But who knows. I am not exactly a 'normal viewer' so maybe this would not fly with the masses. But with streaming services getting a bit better every year I would think that TWC would much rather have me pay some $20/mo for the few shows that I want to watch 'live' than $45/mo for all of the bandwidth that I choke down every day streaming a-la-carte services like Netflix, YouTube, and CrunchyRoll. And while they don't have to think that way yet, they will have to start thinking that way in the future.
 

RickTacular

Distinguished
May 4, 2009
3
0
18,510
0
I am moving into a new apartment next month and did the math. First, I'm stuck with ATT so that's already a problem. Second, I'm getting free installation and hardware for TV & Internet, but would have to pay (get this) $200 for the installation (bastards) & hardware for just the Internet. Next is the need for two Roku, that's $300. With the subs to Hulu and Netflix. When tallied up for the year, the cost is just about the same, given monthly subscriptions and so on.

The silver lining about this is that after the first year, Uverse will totally ratchet up the price of their service, and then it will totally be more cost effective to tell them to go screw their TV service - unfortunately I still need their Internet service to watch the TV, but still.
 

yiplong

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2009
6
0
18,510
0
I rarely watch TV but still have cable. It's cheaper to have the bundle rather than paying for internet alone. I also need landline phone due to poor cell phone reception at home.
 

yiplong

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2009
6
0
18,510
0
I rarely watch TV but still have cable. It's cheaper to have the bundle rather than paying for internet alone. I also need landline phone due to poor cell phone reception at home.
 

yiplong

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2009
6
0
18,510
0
I rarely watch TV but still have cable. It's cheaper to have the bundle rather than paying for internet alone. I also need landline phone due to poor cell phone reception at home.
 

dark_lord69

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2006
740
0
19,010
40
My wife and I cancelled cable and haven't looked back. She has a friend that just cancelled her cable too and she bought a Roku.

My wife and I have Netflix, Hulu and use Vudu or the Playstation network to rent. All local stations tune in HD by connecting the cable line directly to my TV's.
 

kinggraves

Distinguished
May 14, 2010
445
0
18,940
1
I think the issue is based on the cablecos manipulating the situation so that cord cutting isn't realistic. The same company that owns the internet owns the cable, and they prefer the cable model which has always been overpriced. Bandwidth caps prevent those who watch a lot of TV shows from doing so online. Bundle deals are not just "better deals" either, they are the CHEAPER deals. Comcast charges $50 dollars for internet + TV and $75 for internet alone. This is pretty blatant price manipulation to force customers into keeping the basic cable service at least. They can then try to stick you with install, box fees, PPV services, and extra channels by teasing what you "could have" for a few dollars more.
 

Thorfkin

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
21
0
18,560
0
Cable / Satellite television just doesn't make financial sense anymore. The lowest tier packages will usually run you at least $50 a month. That's $600 per year. A season box-set of any particularly TV show on blu-ray will run from $35 to $70 depending on the show. I could easily buy a season of 10 different shows per year and still pay less yearly than I would pay for a basic cable subscription. The quality of the content on Blu-ray is significantly higher than anything the cable company will transmit, even when you're paying extra for the HD channel packs and a high definition capable DVR / Cable Box. Also the Blu-ray sets are commercial free which saves me time and a whole lot of personal frustration. The only thing anyone might need cable / satellite subscription for is the stuff you generally can't get on blu-ray like sports and live programming. I'm not into either of those so for me the price for cable / satellite is simply too high. Way too high.

Given these things, I just don't understand why so many people still choose to pay for cable / satellite television. I'm proud to say I vote with my wallet.
 

XZaapryca

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2009
89
0
18,580
0
I wonder if those numbers take into account people who still pay for cable TV, but never watch it. Comcast's splitter started causing internet issues so the TV hasn't been hooked up to cable in over six months now. Since it's only a $3 difference whether we get basic channels or not, the trouble to call them hasn't been worth it. Figure it out when NFL starts back up...
 

onichikun

Distinguished
Nov 13, 2009
43
0
18,610
8
Honestly since TV has become inundated with reality TV shows, I have no reason to watch. I used to enjoy the history channel, Sci-Fi, TLC etc. but have hard time finding enough content to make a 50$+/mo subscription worth it. I remember when the history channel was about history, and the music channel was about music.. how times have changed. Now when IO turn on my previously favorite channel I am either watching a show about a pawn shop, or people fight over abandoned storage containers... But yeah, services that allow me to avoid crap TV and watch shows I want for less/mo (e.g., Netflix) make cable subscriptions pointless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 29
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 21
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 34
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 17
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 27
G Streaming Video & TVs 36
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 13
B Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 15
G Streaming Video & TVs 19
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 40
G Streaming Video & TVs 42

ASK THE COMMUNITY