I abandoned cable (or maybe it abandoned me) after a move where I was unable to schedule a new installation. I was paying $100 plus per month basically to watch TCM and that was crazy. I now rely on Netflix DVDs and network television which has an abundance of channels showing retro movies and television shows. I get to watch Perry Mason and Boris Karloff's Thriller, what's not to like? One channel called Movies is pretty much the same as TCM except it has commercials and no Bob Osborne but that is a small price to pay. I'm happy without cable.
8
I cut my cable about a month ago. I was only watching news and was finding television news increasingly shallow and repetitive. For entertainment, I have Netflix and Amazon Prime on Roku. For information, I have several news apps, including AP and Reuters. I also signed up for NYTimes opinion. With digital help, I am back to reading news instead of seeing it performed, and reading thoughtful editorials and columns. I am also saving $69 per month.
8
I'm one of the 133,000 people who dumped DirecTV in 2Q 2015. I purchased an over-the-air antenna, Roku 3 streaming box, Sling TV (with the Sports Extra) and Netflix. My TV viewing options have improved, and I'm saving $80 per month. It seems like the pay-TV companies are willing to try any gimmick, but aren't willing to change their antiquated, consumer-unfriendly business model of bloated, overpriced bundles and tiers. It's the pricing, stupid!
6
Kicked cable to the curb two years ago and haven't looked back. We have Netflix, HuluPlus, and Amazon Prime. Even with buying the occasional season of a FX or AMC show, it's still a lot cheaper than cable.
4
Everyone here understand you pay about $5 a month for ESPN whether you watch a minute of it or not on the bundle? This despite the what, billions, ESPN rakes in with advertising and pretty much calling the shots for scheduling of sports events. ESPN REQUIRES cable companies to carry their channel on any higher tier and making everyone pay. This is a grotesque ripoff that somehow eludes criticism and FCC scrutiny. And they wonder why people are cutting the cord? All that money for a few good channels. The rest is junk that nobody watches. You like ESPN? Good, let your rate reflect paying the freight without dragging me into it. I could care less about it.
10
I have never had cable TV. I have watched network and public TV by way of a "neighborhood cable," and I now watch with the help of a digital antenna (remember the big deal about TV signals going digital?)
I was unable to watch the Republican debates because these were carried only on Fox's cable channel. Why not national TV, Fox, were you afraid of something? I survived.
I use Roku to stream films and other TV.
I did find that Verizon recently increased its price for Internet service. Yes, I am held captive to that. But at least I don't have a cable bill.
I was unable to watch the Republican debates because these were carried only on Fox's cable channel. Why not national TV, Fox, were you afraid of something? I survived.
I use Roku to stream films and other TV.
I did find that Verizon recently increased its price for Internet service. Yes, I am held captive to that. But at least I don't have a cable bill.
4
This is an easy decision for us since the cable company has never served us in the first place. There isn't a cord to cut.
We have DSL so even the satellite subscription will go soon. My husband isn't quite there yet, or it would be gone today.
We have DSL so even the satellite subscription will go soon. My husband isn't quite there yet, or it would be gone today.
After a client gifted me a 17" MacbookPro, I soon realized everything I wanted to watch on "TV" was available. Plus, the picture and sound were/are just as good as a "TV" -- better actually for the color. I got a hotspot to enable complete mobility, as well as a backup internet signal. Wherever I live, I have only WIFI, sometimes even using a neighbor's signal and paying my share.
I've been doing this for 6 years now and only worry about the age of my computer. I would write more, but it's time to go to the beach and watch a flick!
I've been doing this for 6 years now and only worry about the age of my computer. I would write more, but it's time to go to the beach and watch a flick!
2
Comcast customers who "cut the cord" are immediately penalized by being switched to the slowest internet service the company provides, with no opportunity to purchase faster service. Cord cutting would be far more popular were this not standard Comcast business practice.
16
I would like to cut off DirecTV but can't. I live in a rural area where the only internet service available is satellite and that service does not have the bandwidth to support streaming video with HD quality. I'm starting to think that the ISP's are unwilling to expand high speed internet to rural areas because that will enable us to cut the cord on cable or satellite TV. Besides all that we should be ashamed at the horrendous internet speeds available in the US. I've had better overseas.
5
All telcoms are set up to offer low prices for new subscribers; long time customers get the short end with constantly increasing prices. After doing the price increase tango for the umpteenth time with Comcast customer service (which BTW sucks big time), I decided to cut the cord once and for all. I did it ~ 1 month ago ad have survived fine without TV. I have an antenna for over-the-air channels.; get about 10 or so channels. I find a lot more time to do other activities now and, wonder of wonders, I find myself eating less... perhaps no more subliminal messaging from all the "food" commercials on TV perhaps?
8
Consumers will rejoice when the existing price gouging monopolies cease to exist, are finally laid to rest. Of course, the kluge zombie monopolies will lobby for continued protection from competition. They may succeed. If so, consumers will really need to boycott these worthless companies. If only FOX TV could cut a deal with a streaming video provider, everyone would cut the cable yesterday..
We subsidize a lot of expensive programming that we never watch--especially sports--and even block, like FOX "News." We don't want our money to go to nightmare "reality" shows like the Duggars and Dance Moms, but in our area internet is limited, so if we cut the satellite, our only option since we have no cable access anyway, is going to be books. Hmmmmm. Maybe that won't be so bad.
5
My wife cut the cable back in 2011, and we substituted the internet and Netflix for TV. We see very few commercials. Advertisements make people unsatisfied with what they have in order to get them to buy what they don't have. So we've saved money and been happier without cable TV.
3
My reason is simple: cost. When I moved into a more expensive home this past January, I had to find ways to cut costs, and cable seemed to be the first, best place to start. I'd been paying about $130/month to Wow! cable for two HD cable boxes, high-speed internet, and a telephone I never used. Oddly enough, it was actually less expensive for me to bundle Internet with a very basic cable box with local channels from Comcast which I only use when the weather interrupts my over-the-air signal. I'm saving about $80/month now, using an outside antenna, my own cable modem and wi-fi router, Apple TV and a Chromecast, as well as a laptop connected to my living room HDTV via HDMI cable. This fall I plan to splurge on Sling TV, mainly so I can watch college football games on ESPN. That will increase my costs about $20/month. I'm very happy with my somewhat complicated setup, and I have no plans to go back to paying ridiculous prices for channels I never watched.
1
I'd love to cut the cord but I run into the same problem every time; the only way to get high-speed internet service is through the cable companies and if I request only internet service they charge a premium price but for "a few dollars more" they throw in one of their "special offers" for the bundle. Could someone please tell me how I can get a high-speed internet connection at a reasonable price? I'm not going to sit in a parked car in front of Starbuck's every time I want to get online.
8
I think something else is going on here to explain why so many Americans are cutting the cord and turning away from TV. After years of this reality TV nonsense, Americans are slowly realizing deep inside, if not at a conscious level, then in their gut, that we as a Nation are turning into these morons we see every evening. And it (rightfully) sickens us to realize this. Thus we are turning away from it (being shown on TV our own "ugly-American" selves) by turning it off.
11
About 15 years ago, my husband and I suddenly realized that our television sat in a corner, unplugged 99.999% of the time. Cable TV, in our opinion, was a wasteland of junk and garbage we did not want to watch. We put our TV out to the curb that same day. Unfortunately, we are still tied to our cable company for internet access. But we have saved quite a bit of money over the years by not subscribing to any cable packages other than the "basic" service we are required to buy (with no TV!) in order to have internet access. Can someone explain to me WHY we should have to pay for cable TV when we don't have a TV, just so we can get internet access? How do the cable companies get away with that?
16
I ended my Time Warner Cable subscription in June 2015. When I returned the cable box and remote control to the store to close the account the service counter neither asked me why I was closing the account nor did she try to sell me on keeping it. I opened an account with Verizon FiOS and HBO Now. I don't miss cable at all. Time Warner Cable's fees were usurious.
2
We still have cable, internet, and phone with Time-Warner as a bundle. One thing that might be neglected here is all the various taxes, franchise fees, and government-required fees that add about $17 a month to my bill. I accept the state sales tax because we have that in lieu of a state income tax on everything but medication and food. But why am I paying so someone can have internet out in the boonies where they chose to live, and why am I paying so other people can have a cell phone? And soon, free broadband. Also the so-called "free" network channels charge cable and satellite a lot to carry them. That is passed on to me. My bill with these taxes comes to $137 a month, but includes HBO, a free upgrade for a year to the highest internet speed, partial payment for my DVR service, and for a year, free Showtime and The Movie Channel. We get nationwide phone and admittedly more channels than we need, but it would be difficult to pick and choose what not to get, since expensive sports channels are options we don't have to take, and since one channel might own five or six other channels and they are sold to the cable company as a package. We could choose ten channels we want, but those channels own other channels that come with it. I am not defending cable, but for us it works for now. We have one cable box and two digital adapters. Since we don't go to or rent movies, HBO provides that for us, currently for $10 a month. It's a service I can drop any time.
I dumped my cable and my television set along with my husband 6 yrs ago. Best thing I every did.
I tell anyone who asks that the Jersey Shore made me do it.
I like this new world where we can decide what we watch, when we watch it and with whom. Autonomy is the new money.
I tell anyone who asks that the Jersey Shore made me do it.
I like this new world where we can decide what we watch, when we watch it and with whom. Autonomy is the new money.
8
I live in NW Washington state. Comcast is the only cable available. Four years ago the owner of our apartments cut off our 'cable included', and I decided I could do without. I started an aquarium, (to fill the spot of the older and larger TV) and love my low maintenance fish and have not regretted it! I had for so long detested the 'bundling'. Told 'em if I wanted to 'bundle' it would not be with cable!! When there is just so much one really watches, why pay for the rest? I am still tethered to Comcast for Internet, however our choices here are limited, but hopefully with the changing climate for choices, this will change.
3
Wifi should be a public utility, like water and electric
28
How do you cut the cord if you still have to subscribe to the providers to get the internet? You may get rid of the TV but these monopolies still control the cables that come into your house and the air waves coming to you. I can remember when it was free and all you had to do is buy a TV and set up the antenna.
As long as these corporations control the airwaves and our Congress we are going to have high prices and terrible service along with slow expansion so that everyone has access. And that's OK with them because then they can control prices and who gets what and when resulting in the so called information age being just an empty talking point for right wingers to talk up a free market.
If it weren't for FDR and Truman electrification wouldn't have never come to the rualral areas because there was no market for it.
As long as these corporations control the airwaves and our Congress we are going to have high prices and terrible service along with slow expansion so that everyone has access. And that's OK with them because then they can control prices and who gets what and when resulting in the so called information age being just an empty talking point for right wingers to talk up a free market.
If it weren't for FDR and Truman electrification wouldn't have never come to the rualral areas because there was no market for it.
14
My partner is addicted to older delivery systems like cable and is unwilling to cut the cord, but she complains about the bills and the fact that she gets less access to programming every quarter. I'm stuck in limbo. I would have cut the cord years ago and I made my living in the television industry for decades.
Merger mania has swept away the competition. Every election cycle the media companies are offered new ownership rules that gives them more control over a growing number of markets. Now, monopolies hold us hostage. Cutting the cord might seem a sane response but those same giants own the high-speed connections we use to stream media and they have placed limits on how much we can download. Netflix, Amazon and Walmart are not delivery services. They are retailers that are dependent on cable and satellite companies to deliver the goods. Nothing is going to change until we break up a handful of media companies and retool the FCC.
Merger mania has swept away the competition. Every election cycle the media companies are offered new ownership rules that gives them more control over a growing number of markets. Now, monopolies hold us hostage. Cutting the cord might seem a sane response but those same giants own the high-speed connections we use to stream media and they have placed limits on how much we can download. Netflix, Amazon and Walmart are not delivery services. They are retailers that are dependent on cable and satellite companies to deliver the goods. Nothing is going to change until we break up a handful of media companies and retool the FCC.
14
Would love to cut the cord, but I live with a 92 year old woman, who only wants to watch murder she wrote,TCM and live baseball games. We tried to use rabbit ears when ATT Unverse went down for a week, but could not get a signal. Property management will not allow a dish. Waiting to figure out what else can be done..
1
does she have a new TV set that can receive a digital signal? get a digital antenna for about $40 and enjoy -
1
Have never, ever paid for cable or satellite. Why should I pay for channels like QVC, which wants to sell me junk. I do pay for Internet. And with Roku and broadcast channels and subchannels in a major market, I will never be without content. And the kids know how to find the shows and events they want on their phones. And I just dropped my landline in favor of Ooma, which also comes through the Internet and reduces that bill from $40 to local taxes and fees.
Cable, like the music industry, thought the good times would last forever. Next target--the Internet Service Providers, who have almost a monopoly.
Cable, like the music industry, thought the good times would last forever. Next target--the Internet Service Providers, who have almost a monopoly.
4
I dropped DirecTV three years ago and haven't missed it for a minute. It was worth it just to never seen another ad - or rather a string of 5 to 10 ads every 10 minutes. I use Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu and see everything I want to. No more paying for junk! I love it!
4
Cut the cord in June 2011 when the cable company lost local coverage on the Weather Channel for a week, and I realized that weather, PBS, and WPIX's coverage of the Yule Log on Christmas morning were what I was watching on TV. After getting weather via The Weather Channel online for a week and coming to terms with losing Saturday evening Brit coms and Sunday Masterpiece Theatre, I bit the bullet and brought the converter boxes back to the cable office. They tried to talk me into retaining basic cable, which would have included WPIX, but having recorded several years of Yule Log, I stood firm.
Haven't succumbed to the siren song of Netflix, although I'm able to see a lot of great shows free on Hulu and YouTube, and see whole HBO series thanks to a well-stocked local library. I was the first person in my town to force the local phone company to port my number to the cable company when I switched to Internet phone, and now I'm considering Ooma, to get rid of that portion of my cable bill. It keeps rising, which is what's inducing us all to book. I've looked into free Internet service, but it seems too unreliable. I'm bracing for the inevitable lowering of the caps of monthly data usage, so they can capture more revenue from the streaming. The game is rigged and tiring, but I try to keep up. Oh, for the days of dial-up and rabbit ears!
Haven't succumbed to the siren song of Netflix, although I'm able to see a lot of great shows free on Hulu and YouTube, and see whole HBO series thanks to a well-stocked local library. I was the first person in my town to force the local phone company to port my number to the cable company when I switched to Internet phone, and now I'm considering Ooma, to get rid of that portion of my cable bill. It keeps rising, which is what's inducing us all to book. I've looked into free Internet service, but it seems too unreliable. I'm bracing for the inevitable lowering of the caps of monthly data usage, so they can capture more revenue from the streaming. The game is rigged and tiring, but I try to keep up. Oh, for the days of dial-up and rabbit ears!
4
$67 a month? For Cable TV? Does that figure include the taxes, fees, and costs to rent a cable box for every set you want to use? Before I cut the cord, I even had to pay each month for the REMOTE to, you know, operate the cable box I was paying for!
These extra charges are never mentioned in the promotional advertising for these predatory companies. I suppose they figure consumers will just swallow them once they're committed to getting the service, but the fees typically drive the total costs north of $100/month, particularly if you have several TV's in the house.
It can feel very difficult to cut the cord, making you feel like you're cutting yourself off from an important cultural link with the world. But $100+/month is a LOT of coin you could spend on something else, and between the Internet, free over-the-air TV, and a local sports bar, you really have everything covered. I don't miss it at all.
These extra charges are never mentioned in the promotional advertising for these predatory companies. I suppose they figure consumers will just swallow them once they're committed to getting the service, but the fees typically drive the total costs north of $100/month, particularly if you have several TV's in the house.
It can feel very difficult to cut the cord, making you feel like you're cutting yourself off from an important cultural link with the world. But $100+/month is a LOT of coin you could spend on something else, and between the Internet, free over-the-air TV, and a local sports bar, you really have everything covered. I don't miss it at all.
7
I opted into getting cable this year for the first time in my adult life (I'm 32) because the subscription was free for a year. The only time I can recall using my subscription was to scroll through the channels to try and find the republican primary debate. I was amazed at how clunky and outdated the remote was and how 80's the commercials felt. When I finally realized Fox wasn't part of my cable TV subscription, I went on my laptop and streamed the debate from some British newscasters.
Of course, once my free cable TV subscription expires I'll cut the cord once again. Cable is useless and providers should surrender to demand (and get creative about monetizing a more applicable service) rather than continue to try and lure users to use a fax machine... I mean a home telephone... I mean a TV.
Of course, once my free cable TV subscription expires I'll cut the cord once again. Cable is useless and providers should surrender to demand (and get creative about monetizing a more applicable service) rather than continue to try and lure users to use a fax machine... I mean a home telephone... I mean a TV.
2
We cut the cable a couple of years ago becaues we were living in temporary housing and needed only the Internet. Now, we have the superfast internet option from Comcast ($60) (this took a lot of negotiating because we didn't want phone or cable), the FCC required box from them that gives us basic stations ($8), Acorn-TV ($4), Hulu (($8), Netflix streaming ($8), and, now HBO through Apple ($15). More television than we know what to do with, an emphasis on British TV (Acorn), and current news as we need or want it (we still know how to read, so we don't need much on screen). That's still $95 a month, but the core of it all is the internet, which we would choose to pay for, anyway; we can stop any individual service immediately, and we don't get anything we don't want. If a customer is over 62, the cable company is required to provide that $8 box.
2
We stopped our basic cable TV service more than a year ago when we moved to a community that did not include it with the home owner association fees. If it were not for that we would have cut the cord several years earlier. Now, we use a combination of over-the-air digital reception on Smart TVs that also let us watch anything that's on the internet, especially NetFlix and YouTube. The image quality, such as ultra HD offerings, is often better than anything on cable, too. Why would anyone want to pay more and get less with cable TV, except for lots of ads?
Comcast would charge more for Internet alone than for the local subset we now take with it. In any event, we only stream TV programs, and read the news. Were anyone to offer high-speed Internet alone at a comparable price, we'd be completely out of the TV package business.
We are at the point of cutting the cable! Optimum is simply no longer a company providing middle class folk with home entertainment. They are a conglomerate hungry for way too much money than we can afford any longer while offering nothing in the away of programming that we enjoy at this time! We have spoken to them numerous times where we got no where with rude and nasty personnel who really just want to finish their shift. They dont realize that very soon, they will lose one too many subscribers and they will be on the losing side. We enjoy the internet availability of home entertainment and now it is very portable as well! Who needs you Opt, we've got choices!
1
I cut Time Warner Cable off over 15 years ago because of its overinflated prices, lousy service and 99% of what was on is unwatchable junk. I recently turned it back on to get NY Rangers playoff games and was shocked that those inflated prices were way higher and now included a monthly rental fee for the cable box for $11/month. That's an outrageous rip off for a $30 piece of electronics. I turned it back off after the playoffs were over.
I still have to use them for high speed internet and can't wait for the day that Fios is offered in my neighborhood.
And what ever happened to the plan being considered in the U.S. Congress of forcing cable companies to offer a la carte sales of individual channels? Killed by Republicans no doubt who love to talk about competition in the marketplace until that competition impacts their business cronies.
The cable industry is a microcosm of how corrupt this country has become.
I still have to use them for high speed internet and can't wait for the day that Fios is offered in my neighborhood.
And what ever happened to the plan being considered in the U.S. Congress of forcing cable companies to offer a la carte sales of individual channels? Killed by Republicans no doubt who love to talk about competition in the marketplace until that competition impacts their business cronies.
The cable industry is a microcosm of how corrupt this country has become.
8
There is an unholy alliance between cabel companies and individual municipalities. Municipalities squelch competition between vendors in return for some favors from the cable company; and the company, without any competitiion to worry about, screw the customers with poor service, outdated equipment, and high prices. No matter how much one complains iwth municipal officials, companies continue their shenanigans. We end up paying high prices for channels we never watch or need, be it sports, religion, polarizing news, or TV merchandise sales.
Guess what? The time for reckoning has arrived. I would like to kick some of these sports channels, Annoying TV news hosts, annoying commercials, all those knick-knack sales over TV, corrupt religious ministers and other megalomaniacs to kingom come.
Charging individual customers $300-400 every month for a TV-phone-computer packages is pure sin, greed and an outrage. Those cable company executives should get off their gravy train! I do feel bad for the poor workers who have sustained them and their expensive habits, however.
I can't wait for Apple to come with streaming. What's the delay, Tim Cook?
Guess what? The time for reckoning has arrived. I would like to kick some of these sports channels, Annoying TV news hosts, annoying commercials, all those knick-knack sales over TV, corrupt religious ministers and other megalomaniacs to kingom come.
Charging individual customers $300-400 every month for a TV-phone-computer packages is pure sin, greed and an outrage. Those cable company executives should get off their gravy train! I do feel bad for the poor workers who have sustained them and their expensive habits, however.
I can't wait for Apple to come with streaming. What's the delay, Tim Cook?
1
I think there's a generational aspect to cord-cutting. I would do it in a heartbeat if the offerings were broader. I'm not that interested in the "millennials" genres - Comicon, animé, etc. Although there are some good series, and I may stream Netflix in addition to cable, cable is still my staple.
2
I'm a boomer, and I cut the cord because youth-oriented shows were one thing I had no interest in. Netflix is not the only game in town. As I mentioned in my first comment, you can stream great stuff on Hulu Plus, Acorn TV, and MHz, including classic and foreign (English-language or subtitled) TV and movies, most of which are more intelligent than the average network offering.
On vacations from junior high school in Westchester County I was the only person in the house without a job to go to so I had to wait for the cable guy every time it rained and we lost the signal.
Horrible service experience at a tender age made me pretty much never pay for cable or satellite as an older person. The fine print in their ads confirms my perception today.
I do today pay $60 a month for DOCIS 3.0 broadband minimum 50 mbps we use to stream and also for my wife's international business (IP phone, etc.).
We had a rash of breakdowns but it has been good over the summer.
I miss a lot of sporting events I'd like to enjoy but I do not miss the advertising they include so I live without them or stream them if they are free.
My wife grew up speaking a foreign language. Cable content in that language she calls geriatric. No argument.
We have an antenna with a direct sight line to the local mountain top transmitter that works superbly.
Horrible service experience at a tender age made me pretty much never pay for cable or satellite as an older person. The fine print in their ads confirms my perception today.
I do today pay $60 a month for DOCIS 3.0 broadband minimum 50 mbps we use to stream and also for my wife's international business (IP phone, etc.).
We had a rash of breakdowns but it has been good over the summer.
I miss a lot of sporting events I'd like to enjoy but I do not miss the advertising they include so I live without them or stream them if they are free.
My wife grew up speaking a foreign language. Cable content in that language she calls geriatric. No argument.
We have an antenna with a direct sight line to the local mountain top transmitter that works superbly.
For us, cable/satellite became an objectionable wasteland of redneck programming and rightwing nonsense. We refuse to subsidize the sports habit of the dudes and we sure as hell don't wan't to see Hillbillies Killin' Things (Schmuck Dynasty etc.) or Duggars/Wife Trading/'Food' gameshows/schadenfreude 'reality' crap- never mind *pay* ever-increasing prices for it.
So onto greener pastures where artful storytelling and relevant programming lives and where we get the pleasure of not having to float their idiot boat for them anymore.
It's The CONTENT, Stupid.
So onto greener pastures where artful storytelling and relevant programming lives and where we get the pleasure of not having to float their idiot boat for them anymore.
It's The CONTENT, Stupid.
4
Yes, we cancelled cable TV when we moved last year and haven't looked back. We bought a smart TV connected to the Internet. We're good to go. No more getting sucked dry by the cable cartel.
We're lucky because my wife's job pays for our cable Internet connection. People have told me that they can't cut the cord because it's their only way of accessing broadband.
Ah, hello, regulators, will you please finally do something to crush the cable cartel's anti-competitive behavior?
We're lucky because my wife's job pays for our cable Internet connection. People have told me that they can't cut the cord because it's their only way of accessing broadband.
Ah, hello, regulators, will you please finally do something to crush the cable cartel's anti-competitive behavior?
10
I pay $100 for dish. I'd love to cut the cord if there is option where I can watch
EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, and the Champions League. The option of watching at sports bars is not there as these games are broadcast early mornings. Any ideas. Any suggestion?
EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, and the Champions League. The option of watching at sports bars is not there as these games are broadcast early mornings. Any ideas. Any suggestion?
While privately-owned media has the right to decide what they will broadcast, the real problem here is that now, after decades of Republican media consolidation, placing 90-percent of all media within the hands of only six conglomerates, controlled by some 225 executives, these decisions have an overreaching effect on the 275-million audience that is being “served,” creating a de facto abuse of that right.
There are only a few key areas of focus in which changes, or roll-backs must be made to preserve democratic practice and values in America, and also address inequalities and price-favorable media competition. Campaign financing, to eliminate it, is one, using the recent Supreme Court ruling to launch a movement for a federal constitutional amendment to mandate independent bodies in all states to draw districts is another, and undoing the consolidation of media, the control of thought, discourse and flow of ideas, is the third. While there are many other important structures needing change, affecting the regulation of finance and commerce, immigration, and education, these three directly affect the quality and even the existence of a viable democracy. That’s what’s important to think about in relation to this, media availability and cost, and many other aspects of life which have branched from these basic flaws to become issues of concern.
There are only a few key areas of focus in which changes, or roll-backs must be made to preserve democratic practice and values in America, and also address inequalities and price-favorable media competition. Campaign financing, to eliminate it, is one, using the recent Supreme Court ruling to launch a movement for a federal constitutional amendment to mandate independent bodies in all states to draw districts is another, and undoing the consolidation of media, the control of thought, discourse and flow of ideas, is the third. While there are many other important structures needing change, affecting the regulation of finance and commerce, immigration, and education, these three directly affect the quality and even the existence of a viable democracy. That’s what’s important to think about in relation to this, media availability and cost, and many other aspects of life which have branched from these basic flaws to become issues of concern.
3
I quit watching TV years ago when I got sick and tired of the "beautiful woman in danger" plot recycled over and over. My husband quit more recently when he got tired of the "men are idiots" theme he kept seeing in sitcoms and commercials. We killed cable and watch what we want on Netflix. Will never go back.
3
The analysts' "prediction" of price gouging for Internet service alone by cable companies is no such thing: it's already happening. We ended our cable TV and went to just Internet and the Cable company is now charging me $80 a month for ok but not great Internet access. The savings was only about $20 for month (Their pricing structure pushes people toward bundled services that inevitably include cable tv. Ugh.). Compared to prices in the rest of the developed world, it's a rip-off. My next step will be to switch to Internet from a telephone company provider and dump the cable company altogether. It will save me about $25 a month but more important it will let the cable company know I'm voting against them with with my wallet. They really need to wake up.
8
About to cut the cord because my cable/internet provider caps internet. I would love to keep cable for certain shows/sports, but I use too much internet to keep paying overage fees/pay more for both. Rather pay more for internet and say bye to cable. Also, I have no other option but the one cable provider in my area. They pretty much tied my hands behind my back, throttled my internet and will whine when I stop paying for cable.
1
If you think Comcast is bad try Directv. Even their advertising is misleading. Yes you can have directv for $20 month provided it is NOT hooked up to a tv. We were customers for too long, held captive to poor internet service. We have a log home 50 miles from nearest broadcast tower in Columbus, Ohio. When directv tried charging me three times what a new customer paid over a two year period for old equipment, we cut the chord and THEN (too late) I was offered discounts that were denied me, a customer with two active accounts for 15 years
When the old folks cut the chord it is all over. Thank you Hulu for offering Showtime. With a combination of amazon, hulu and netflix we watch great tv. And the directv dish ...holds my hd antenna for free over the air television.
When the old folks cut the chord it is all over. Thank you Hulu for offering Showtime. With a combination of amazon, hulu and netflix we watch great tv. And the directv dish ...holds my hd antenna for free over the air television.
2
Government and technology do not mix and there is no sound reason to involve an overburdened government in cable TV.
1
Ah, yes there is. This big business good, government bad thinking makes no sense. We need government to protect us from big business not help them to rob us.
3
With the exception of The News Hour and some other PBS offerings, Cable wasn't offering me anything. Stopping the subscription didn't save much money (TWC has a skewed cost system) but I have many more choices. Very happy to have cut the cable.
1
I resent paying for Jesus, home shopping, sports I don't follow (pretty much all of them)k Fox News, the DIY channel, ad infinitum in order to get two or three appropriate channels available in basic packages and be charged more for the interesting channels. Not only are there services like Netflix and Hulu, but public libraries offer downloads of movies, audio books, music and IBooks from services such as Hoopla.
Of course there are a lot of things I would like to be able to access immediately, but then I'd also like a top of the line BMW and a villa on Lake Geneva. There's only so much time in a day for watching tv, the new antennas work pretty well even on my hillside, so I am fine.
A technology which pays no heed to customers' complaints and desires is bound to be circumvented by more attractive technologies. It's very satisfying to hear that Comcast may be going the way of the buggy maker.
Of course there are a lot of things I would like to be able to access immediately, but then I'd also like a top of the line BMW and a villa on Lake Geneva. There's only so much time in a day for watching tv, the new antennas work pretty well even on my hillside, so I am fine.
A technology which pays no heed to customers' complaints and desires is bound to be circumvented by more attractive technologies. It's very satisfying to hear that Comcast may be going the way of the buggy maker.
9
I haven't had a TV in 5 years. The computer is more than enough for me. Besides, there is no way in hell I'm gonna be told what to watch anymore. I watch what I want, when I want it for pitons. For once I'm not being gouged.
1
I cut the cord because of the price. Other developed nations get all three services for about 1/3 the price and they are better quality of service and the regulators there are effective not artificially hamstrung by a political party in bed with business.
I'd be happy to have cable if they would charge a fair price. That price for all three, is what you claim to charge for one of the three services cable companies now provide $30 or less.
I'd be happy to have cable if they would charge a fair price. That price for all three, is what you claim to charge for one of the three services cable companies now provide $30 or less.
1
My wife and I never plugged the cable cord in - we have done without cable TV for the past dozen years, mostly happily, although we do miss seeing the Food Network, which we greatly enjoyed when visiting my mom many years ago. A few months ago, when ALL of our broadcast channels went dark, we learned that for a modest cost - $40 - we could buy a flatwave antenna so that we could still receive the major networks and a handful of other broadcast channels. Ultimately, though, there is so much more life to be lived away from the boob tube, including gardening, swimming, playing tennis, having dinner with friends, going to or renting a film, as well as dancing. There's simply no good reason to spend money to waste away our lives in front of a TV. The finale of Mad Men - who cares. The final show by Jon Stuart on The Daily Show - I definitely watched it, online.
4
I am still shackled by a 2 year contract with Verizon. It is very expensive to cancel it at this point. When I try to downgrade the number of channels I get, the cost magically increases. Once I am free of the contract - I will cut the cord. I have Verizon Fios for internet and I am satisfied with that. It is far more reliable than Comcast. The landline will go and probably the Cable TV as well. Given how little TV I watch, I doubt I will miss much of anything,
1
We cut our Cox cable subscription, but cannot cut further because
"The Cord" from Verizon delivers our fiber optic Internet access! This whole "cutting the cord" thing is such a misnomer! You should be referring to cutting "bundles of video programming" pushed on consumers by their cable and phone Internet access providers.
"The Cord" from Verizon delivers our fiber optic Internet access! This whole "cutting the cord" thing is such a misnomer! You should be referring to cutting "bundles of video programming" pushed on consumers by their cable and phone Internet access providers.
1
I have an antenna and a digital recorder. I get everything I want for free, just like the old days, and I get a more clear signal. I wouldn't let that cable TV junk into my house if you paid me. People are foolish to pay for TV.
1
I have the 'privilege' of being forced by my location, of having to use Comcast as my cable provider. They are by far the worst company to deal with, as their service is subject to outages, and most importantly with Customer Service reps who are totally useless, and lie to get customers off the phone. It usually takes about 3 or 4 calls to resolved issues, with each call about 3-60 minutes in length.
I would give anything, and I mean anything to be able to get rid of them. Their arrogance, their exorbitant prices which are way out of proportion to what you get for that money.
I know first hand why cable companies in general and Comcast in general are the most hated companies in America. They are the 'poster boys' for despicable and egregious service which is unmatched even with the worst of the worst companies
I would give anything, and I mean anything to be able to get rid of them. Their arrogance, their exorbitant prices which are way out of proportion to what you get for that money.
I know first hand why cable companies in general and Comcast in general are the most hated companies in America. They are the 'poster boys' for despicable and egregious service which is unmatched even with the worst of the worst companies
1
I watch C-Span and other government channels. C-Span is provided as a service by cable companies. The newspapers do not cover government anymore. The newspapers cut back on science reporting, another area that C-Span does well. Local weeklies and blogs do not cover school boards or city government meeting. The local access channel is willing to broadcast both. I pay for cable for C-Span, PBS and local coverage. There is no 21st Century digital solution that improves coverage of civic affairs, unfortunately. This is a big problem for civic engagement. Cable was a boon for citizens.
1
We cut out cable TV several years ago and realized an immediate, significant savings. But it seems to have become a zero-sum game. As the editorial notes, high-speed Internet access is essential, which leaves us in the hands of the same cable company we left. They, in turn, have been increasing prices for higher speed access at a faster rate than regular, bundled Internet access. Consequently, we are seeing our initial savings eroded over time.
Unless something is done to provide more choices for broadband access, the current providers will simply adjust their rate plans to compensate for the move from cable TV to Internet.
Unless something is done to provide more choices for broadband access, the current providers will simply adjust their rate plans to compensate for the move from cable TV to Internet.
6
I disagree that families with young kids need cable. We watch high quality kids programming on Netflix and Amazon prime and enjoy a variety not available on Nickelodeon, Disney, Sprout, etc. We have access to BBC Nature shows and other wildlife specials that are rare on regular cable. All this with no commercials for cereal, junk toys, political candidates etc. We are much more deliberate about what we watch, which has resulted in less time in front of the TV. When I need to watch broadcast TV (very rarely) I rely on on an over the air antenna.
Cut the cord w/ my satellit provider when I retired in 2013. Couldn't justify the ridiculous monthly to watch 2 or 3 channels among the 125 or so that were useless to me. Their "packages are absurd; perhaops if they allowed consumers more flexibility in putting together channels, it might --- and I emphasize --- MIGHT --- be worth the cost. Rarely miss it. Netflix is a bargain by comparison, and there's always YouTube, as well.
1
I bought a smart tv last winter, not because it was smart, but because it had a great picture. But as we started investigating what content was available thru Netflix, Amazon, etc., we found they had lots of shows we liked. We also found that they did not have commercials (at least on Netflix). We cut the cord a few months later. Our benefits: 1) No annoying commercials; 2) Without commercials, we watch an "hour" show in 42 minutes. So now we don't spend 1/3 of our watching time being annoyed; 3) We save about $60/month on our bill. Although we are seeing WOW absorb more of our savings by raising rates for internet (when we first cut the cord, internet only was to cost us $40/month but now our bill is coming in at $60/month).
I can't imagine going back to cable and watching commercials while paying a huge price for content I would never watch.
I can't imagine going back to cable and watching commercials while paying a huge price for content I would never watch.
1
I haven't owned a TV for nearly 7 years now. The cost of Cable was too high and without it, in New York City it's not possible to get a clear image on the screen. Seven years ago is also when I got my first computer. I discovered a lot of high quality online content for free--on You Tube and PBS. I also subscribed to Netflix streaming and mail service. For $16 a month I have more options than time to watch them so I don't need or miss having a TV.
1
August 21, 2015 --- I read with interest the Editorial Board online item entitled "Preparing for Live After Cable."
I haven't used cable for years. When I moved into a new senior citizen apartment (monopolistically wired only for Comcast), I decided to accept a pretty good offer of Internet and cable (TV) for only $30/mo.
However, when I initially browsed the limited selection avaiable for my plan (27 channels as I recall), SEVEN of them were Spanish language stations!
I'm English only, so I called and asked Comcast to substitute the Spanish channels with English one. The agent said they couldn't do that. So, I asked for a discount, but that wasn't an available option either. Soooo.. I dropped the TV and kept the Internet.
I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for channels in Spanish when I don't speak or understand the language. I believe there should be a law or regulation requiring cable companies to provide English only plans for customers who only speak English, and at a competitive rate. ALF
I haven't used cable for years. When I moved into a new senior citizen apartment (monopolistically wired only for Comcast), I decided to accept a pretty good offer of Internet and cable (TV) for only $30/mo.
However, when I initially browsed the limited selection avaiable for my plan (27 channels as I recall), SEVEN of them were Spanish language stations!
I'm English only, so I called and asked Comcast to substitute the Spanish channels with English one. The agent said they couldn't do that. So, I asked for a discount, but that wasn't an available option either. Soooo.. I dropped the TV and kept the Internet.
I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for channels in Spanish when I don't speak or understand the language. I believe there should be a law or regulation requiring cable companies to provide English only plans for customers who only speak English, and at a competitive rate. ALF
Cut the cord in 2009 and never looked back. Between Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and network sites and the occasional sports access, we're completely satisfied. Our Dish subscription with all access used to cost nearly $200 per month, now we spend less than $50 including pay per view. When we're traveling, most hotels offer cable, and we almost forget how much of a pain it is to have to cycle across channels looking for something to watch and usually failing. On demand choice at a quarter of the cost, the only way to go! We've taken to carrying a Chrome dongle when traveling so we don't have to deal with terrible cable or satellite choices and can stream from phone or laptop.
3
I haven't used cable or satellite since I moved to St. Louis in 1991. My evenings are plenty busy with activities that keep me away from the TV. I have a Tivo OTA to record any over the air shows I do want to watch. With no children, and little interest in sports, my wife and I see no reason to pay for something we likely won't use.
The only way we may end up with cable is due to bundling for high speed internet. I won't like it, but it seems I have little choice.
The only way we may end up with cable is due to bundling for high speed internet. I won't like it, but it seems I have little choice.
Except for a 6-month fling three decades ago, I am a cord-never.
I can get more than 70 different TV signals over the air, all for the one-time cost of an antenna. Many are dreck, of course, but some broadcasters are starting to make interesting use of the extra spectrum. Recently, for example, I've been catching up on classic and semi-classic movies on the subchannels CoziTV, MOVIES! and getTV.
And if there's some sports event I can't pick up over the air, I'll just watch it at the pub. I'll stream eventually, but now this is TV enough.
I can get more than 70 different TV signals over the air, all for the one-time cost of an antenna. Many are dreck, of course, but some broadcasters are starting to make interesting use of the extra spectrum. Recently, for example, I've been catching up on classic and semi-classic movies on the subchannels CoziTV, MOVIES! and getTV.
And if there's some sports event I can't pick up over the air, I'll just watch it at the pub. I'll stream eventually, but now this is TV enough.
I have cut the cord only in practice, not in reality. I have one phone company for my fiber-optic high speed internet, house phone and television in a bundle. I also have the same company for my mobile phone. I called the company asking to cut back to just high speed internet because I wanted to just have the mobile phone, which the cell portion of the company told me that I could have linked up to the existing lines in the house.
I have not used the set-top box for television more than twice in the last three years. I have a streaming device and subscribe happily to Netflix and Hulu.
The company told me that yes, i could drop everything but the high speed internet and switch over to the mobile phone, but that I would have to pay more. They explained that I was getting a deal because of the triple bundle and that to unbundle things and do away with two thirds of the package would be more expensive. About $15 per month more expensive. I
I tried to cut the television package to the barest minimum and could not get it down below about 150 channels, none of which I ever watch.
I would have switched to the local cable company to see if I could get just high speed internet through them, but the local cable company is Comcast and I would rather eat rusty nails than ever deal with Comcast again.
I have not used the set-top box for television more than twice in the last three years. I have a streaming device and subscribe happily to Netflix and Hulu.
The company told me that yes, i could drop everything but the high speed internet and switch over to the mobile phone, but that I would have to pay more. They explained that I was getting a deal because of the triple bundle and that to unbundle things and do away with two thirds of the package would be more expensive. About $15 per month more expensive. I
I tried to cut the television package to the barest minimum and could not get it down below about 150 channels, none of which I ever watch.
I would have switched to the local cable company to see if I could get just high speed internet through them, but the local cable company is Comcast and I would rather eat rusty nails than ever deal with Comcast again.
2
The Telecom Act of the 1990s was a highlight of everything Americans despise about Washington. It was a bill written by lobbyists for the cable and telephone industries. Instead of new technologies spurring competition that would benefit consumers and innovation, legacy cable and telephone providers were allowed to cement their monopolies in place at the federal and local level. The best thing for Congress to do is open up internet and paid t.v. to relentless competition like it did with long distance telephone service years ago. Declare all broadband providers common carriers and let the market decide.
3
We recently cut the cord, in a manner of speaking. We had Dish Network, which is actually quite a cost-conscious service. They seem to stand up to the networks and fight for lower fees for carrying the content. When Dish came out with Sling TV, it looked like a good fit for us.
With Sling, Netflix, antenna, and HBO Now, we pay a total of $43/month for the channels WE want to watch. I was paying Comcast $75 a month for 150 channels I didn't watch....13 years ago! If you are going to treat your customers like you have for decades, don't be surprised when they jump when better offers come along. The cable/network relationship should have been treating us fairly from the beginning and this may have gone down a different way.
With Sling, Netflix, antenna, and HBO Now, we pay a total of $43/month for the channels WE want to watch. I was paying Comcast $75 a month for 150 channels I didn't watch....13 years ago! If you are going to treat your customers like you have for decades, don't be surprised when they jump when better offers come along. The cable/network relationship should have been treating us fairly from the beginning and this may have gone down a different way.
When I first got cable in the late 1980s, I loved it. I could get foreign films on Bravo, excellent scientific and historical documentaries on Discovery and History, British and Australian dramas and arts programming on A&E, and later, fresh British comedies and dramas on BBC America.
We all know what happened to those channels. A&E went in for true crime, Discovery and History alternate between occult and war "documentaries" and "reality" shows about boring, stupd people doing boring things, I don't know what the **** Bravo is anymore, and BBC America fills its schedule with endless episodes of Top Gear and even some American reruns.
In 2005, I realized that I was paying too much for all that shlock, so I cut back to basic-basic cable, which was local channels and public access only.
In 2012, Comcast stopped supporting analog TVs, so I bought a new HD model. Not only did Comcast want to charge $10 extra a month for HD broadcasts but I discovered through trial and error that I could get the local channels in beautiful HD over the air. That was the end of Comcast cable for me.
I don't save any money, because Comcast charges an arm-and-a-leg for Internet without TV. However, I subscribe to streaming services (Acorn, Netflix, Hulu Plus, and MHz) that offer a wealth of foreign and classic TV and movies. There is more excellent material than I have time to watch, now that I have the whole world at my fingertips.
I'm not going back.
We all know what happened to those channels. A&E went in for true crime, Discovery and History alternate between occult and war "documentaries" and "reality" shows about boring, stupd people doing boring things, I don't know what the **** Bravo is anymore, and BBC America fills its schedule with endless episodes of Top Gear and even some American reruns.
In 2005, I realized that I was paying too much for all that shlock, so I cut back to basic-basic cable, which was local channels and public access only.
In 2012, Comcast stopped supporting analog TVs, so I bought a new HD model. Not only did Comcast want to charge $10 extra a month for HD broadcasts but I discovered through trial and error that I could get the local channels in beautiful HD over the air. That was the end of Comcast cable for me.
I don't save any money, because Comcast charges an arm-and-a-leg for Internet without TV. However, I subscribe to streaming services (Acorn, Netflix, Hulu Plus, and MHz) that offer a wealth of foreign and classic TV and movies. There is more excellent material than I have time to watch, now that I have the whole world at my fingertips.
I'm not going back.
2
pdxtran, your story almost exactly echoes mine. Except I'm able to get internet service from a local provider that stays right on top of what its local customers need and want and how it can best provide that at reasonable rates. Have you looked for something similar in Minneapolis? And I haven't tried MHz, but I do watch through Amazon Prime occasionally. A veteran PBS viewer (and their programming has sadly declined, too), I love Acorn.
1
You mentioned the likelihood that the cable companies will increase the costs of broadband as customers cut the cable. Have you forgotten that the US has the highest cost broadband service amongst western countries? If we were paying the same price for broadband as South Korea or Taiwan we wouldn't be having this discussion. Their cellular download rates are far faster than our landline downloads to such an extent that many don't have landline broadband. It is time to get the politicians out of the way and allow competition to bring prices down.
1
Maybe "The Donald" and all of the other Presidential contenders, Republican and Democrat, might want to speak to the issues raised in the following paragraph from the NYTimes editorial, most especially "laws some states have passed that make it difficult or impossible for municipalities to invest in broadband networks." Big Money and commercial association interests have far, far too much influence in government policy and rule-setting at all levels, state and federal. It's perverse to the aims and goals of a legitimate democracy.
"That’s why it is important that Congress and the Federal Communications Commission push for more choices in the broadband market. Among other things, they should override laws some states have passed that make it difficult or impossible for municipalities to invest in broadband networks. State and local officials could also help by streamlining rules that make it hard for newer businesses to string fiber-optic cable on utility poles or below ground in order to compete with established cable and phone companies."
"That’s why it is important that Congress and the Federal Communications Commission push for more choices in the broadband market. Among other things, they should override laws some states have passed that make it difficult or impossible for municipalities to invest in broadband networks. State and local officials could also help by streamlining rules that make it hard for newer businesses to string fiber-optic cable on utility poles or below ground in order to compete with established cable and phone companies."
3
Cable is a nightmare, thank God those companies are dieing off. Comcast customer service is atrocious, their prices are insane, and their product is crap. I haven't had cable for 8 years and couldn't be happier. Now studies are showing cable TV can actually make you sick - children who watch many commercials for sugary processed foods are more likely to be overweight!
Thanks Netflix!
Thanks Netflix!
For decades our politicians allowed the cable TV companies to run as monopolies. Hence the cable companies have been gouging their customers for too long. I won't cry for them when they are forced to compete and have to drop their prices. Currently, my family pays over $1800.00 per year for the privilege of receiving middle level triple play service. This service includes way too many asinine TV stations that we do not watch and the stations we do watch, are loaded with commercials. No wonder people are streaming. No commercials. I remember when pay cable TV was first introduced there was talk about no commercials. We see how that went. I feel like a fool for spending so much money for cable service. I can't wait to cut the cord when it becomes easier and cheaper to do. I have absolutely no loyalty to my cable TV company.
As a group, internet providers are an oligopoly, largely safe against the entry of new providers (competitive suppliers of internet connection). Reining in US internet providers and encouraging more competition (more providers) IS TOP PRIORITY.
The US has fewer internet providers than postage-stamp, EU nations with a few tens of millions of people. But internet connections in those nations are faster, cost less monthly, and reach nearly every inhabitant above age 8.
What the Hell is going on in the US? AND WHY?!!!
The US has fewer internet providers than postage-stamp, EU nations with a few tens of millions of people. But internet connections in those nations are faster, cost less monthly, and reach nearly every inhabitant above age 8.
What the Hell is going on in the US? AND WHY?!!!
1
I can't believe the number of intelligent literate people who think they can't live without access to tv! I've lived without it for 20 years now. In all those years, I never seen anything on tv at a friend's house or elsewhere that made me want to subscribe. I'd pay not to have to watch most of it.
Cut the cable cord in January and have saved over $120 a month. I still need broadband of course which I use every day. There have been downsides for me as I'm a big Notre Dame fan and almost none of the games, as well as other key sporting events are available free live online. I would've been more than happy to have kept part of my cable service if I could pick and choose a few channels. Of course that's not possible so they lost a customer.
The current cable business model is an outdated failing one. The big players, Comcast and Cablevision are just bleeding the consumers for what they can before they revamp or fail. We as consumers need to stop the bleeding and make informed choices. Cable vision is never going to say, hey we don't want your $200 a month anymore. They will feed at the trough until we cut the cord.
I have no choice but to use satellite because I live in a rural area of Oregon. My internet is so slow, I can't stream. I don't have cell phone coverage so I have to have a landline. There really is a double standard if you live in a rural area. I pay probably $200/month more than I would if I lived in the city.
My cable provider kept offering lower & lower rates when I brought up the possibility of cutting the cord. When I requested the shut-off, they finally offered an acceptable rate. (The call took half an hour of pointless haggling.)
But, the offer came a week later than I wanted to hear it, and basic cable is now gone from my house. The brazen avarice of the cable companies brought this on themselves.
But, the offer came a week later than I wanted to hear it, and basic cable is now gone from my house. The brazen avarice of the cable companies brought this on themselves.
1
Anyone who has spent time abroad knows that communication services (cable, internet and phone) in this country are overpriced due both a genuine lack of competition, with prices steadily and stealthily climbing on a regular basis, and customers mostly willing to pay for them.
I'm glad consumers are starting to fight back; my mother simply cancelled her cable service (though it was not trivial for her to have plain antenna channels), saving her $1000 per year, no trivial sum for a retiree, watching vanilla TV as I have for years.
I cancelled both Verizon and T-Mobile internet services when they became too expensive or unreliable, now using the lowest priced, low-speed DSL provider available in my region; all this means that I can't watch any of the new cable shows, but I'm just not willing to pay that much for such content.
Meanwhile, when I recently visited a French friend, I learned he was paying just 20 Euros per month for very high-speed internet, including TV and cable channels! France isn't exactly the cheapest country to live in, yet they provide very affordable telecommunication services.
I'm glad consumers are starting to fight back; my mother simply cancelled her cable service (though it was not trivial for her to have plain antenna channels), saving her $1000 per year, no trivial sum for a retiree, watching vanilla TV as I have for years.
I cancelled both Verizon and T-Mobile internet services when they became too expensive or unreliable, now using the lowest priced, low-speed DSL provider available in my region; all this means that I can't watch any of the new cable shows, but I'm just not willing to pay that much for such content.
Meanwhile, when I recently visited a French friend, I learned he was paying just 20 Euros per month for very high-speed internet, including TV and cable channels! France isn't exactly the cheapest country to live in, yet they provide very affordable telecommunication services.
7
Vive la France!
1
I stopped paying for cable about 7-8 years ago when the first Roku came out and I finally had a simple option for getting NetFlix to my TV. I was tired of paying $108/month for all the dreck and bottom-feeder content on cable. I like to watch documentaries mostly and NetFlix let me have an 'All I Can Eat' buffet of documentaries - which I can watch at my convenience - not at the whim of the network scheduling gods. The bottom line is that I was not receiving value in proportion to price with cable. With streaming video, I do and I think that is why so many people are cutting ties with cable TV - the value is just not there.
3
Getting close to becoming a former Time Warner cable customer myself. Fees for everything, annual price hikes, call constantly to get offers to reduce the bill and never forget to call when it expires, since they bump up your service, so the price really kicks in after the offer. Of course you will get a reasonable rate if you are a new customer or add services, but not for long. Once we really effect that corporate bottom line, the cable companies may finally listen to us the consumer. Been paying for sport channels for years I have and will never watch. High-speed internet and a package of channels I actually watch, I would be a loyal customer for the rest of my life.
In the long run "single program" and membership fees with companies like Netflix will wind up costing consumers more, UNLESS prices are regulated, and we'll just build more corporate behemoths, like HBO, that cost us more. A Social democracy government/private model where at least one-half the profits come back into the system instead of private "investor" pockets would solve the problem and create local jobs.
My entire extended family has dumped cable. At first it was just myself and my brother who had tightened finances due to having children. Then my parents and other brothers dropped it too because we weren't using the extra channels. We almost never miss it and certainly couldn't afford to go back at $80 per month. Being a Netflix subscriber, I love not having commercials trying to convince my children that they want things not good for them that I can't afford. We keep finding new shows that we never saw before and have yet to get bored. Finally, we don't sit down to watch TV till after the kids are in bed, and the shows we want to watch patiently wait for us to get done, unlike with network TV.
26
Wait. This is the New York Times, homes of the effete coastal reader. Where are the complaints and criticisms about having to pay for "sport" channels?
Or the no-doubt vegan and gluten-sensitive comments about not owning a television?
Or the no-doubt vegan and gluten-sensitive comments about not owning a television?
7
A lifelong reader of the NYT for reasons obvious to anyone who still believes in a functional press, I'm a Midwestern native reading from my home in SoCal. I'm not effete, vegetarian or gluten-sensitive. But anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that the first big fissure in the cable companies' monopoly on your TV set has to come in the form of a split between packages that do and those that do not contain sports channels. I've never watched a single one of them. Ever. And I simply don't believe the companies' mantra that they must have me pay for those channels if I want the other ones that I do watch. Sez who? Once this inevitable change finally comes to pass, then we'll know for sure just how indispensable those sports channels really are; my guess is, the dictates of capitalism will guarantee a way will miraculously be found to make money off the many millions of us out here who don't watch sports but do watch many hours of other television on other channels. We won't know, though, will we, until the cable companies give us a chance to find out?
1
@ Kevin Hill
Afraid the national testosterone level will drop below some critical mass if not enough guys are eating meat and watching sports on their television at home?
Afraid the national testosterone level will drop below some critical mass if not enough guys are eating meat and watching sports on their television at home?
1
A la Carte TV channel selection should become the law, since the cable companies are not about to change their policy o have you pay for 85+ channels when all you want are a dozen or two. The channels that cannot carry their worth, should just die and not be supported by subsidy from others, more popular ones. Let the market decide what channels stay, not the virtual monopolies that controls TV land today.
6
Agreed! Channels that can't make it as cable/satellite channels in a world of ala carte subscriptions can provide their content as either a free or subscription Internet stream. There are many video podcasts/webcasts that are very successful if a sufficient number of paid or ad supported subscribers are found.
2.8 MPS and I live 15 minutes from Research Triangle Park.Thats the Technology center of the southeast US. Now thats not very rural, 10 minutes from a major shopping center and Apex(best place to live in US ) NC.
I think when people read these articles they think rural means a ranch in Montana. When a house on my block sold recently the new owners were told they had to wait in line for DSL to be available to them ,why who knows? These people work in technology and were stunned to learn this.
Cut the cord,what cord?
I think when people read these articles they think rural means a ranch in Montana. When a house on my block sold recently the new owners were told they had to wait in line for DSL to be available to them ,why who knows? These people work in technology and were stunned to learn this.
Cut the cord,what cord?
5
I don't own a TV nor do I watch TV…….Why would I?
We cut the cord in 2003... and have never regretted it, but I think the article is missing the long term picture. Cable and Satellite companies aren't going to be driven out of business by this, but they WILL be forced to change their "we tell you what you want" policy to start allowing viewers to subscribe a-la-carte to the services that they actually use. At that point I might actually consider returning. I'm ok with a limited amount of bad programming subsidizing (I pay HBO JUST so I can watch John Oliver and aGoT), but I don't want my money going to pay for whiney sports debutants and terrible reality programming... and I sure as heck am not going to pay to watch commercials. The market is going to CHANGE, and the profits are going to decline... but if they adapt they'll survive just fine.
1
Now that the merger (or takeover) by AT&T and DirectTV is complete, I am already getting phone calls from DirectTV, in what I am sure is a bid to sign up for a bundle that I'm sure they will say will save me $$. (AT&T is my telephone carrier, and quite frankly I wish they weren't.) No way do I want AT&T to control my television the way the control my internet and phone services. (Ever try calling AT&T on the phone, you know the service they actually sell? Ha!!) Why did Congress allow this merger? The customer will not benefit, only the executives and shareholders.
I was paying $90 a month for TimeWarner's basic cable tv. I cut the cord and bought a small Mohu Leaf antenna for $65. No monthly fee. It works great: I get all the networks, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, FOX, and many other broadcast channels. The picture is sharper than cable -- really. And the antenna sits behind the tv -- can't see it.
3
Another option not mentioned in your article is to install an antenna that picks up FREE over-the-air TV signals from the major networks plus a few miscellaneous stations. We installed one in the hills of Connecticut and get about 40 channels. Also installed one in Sag Harbor NY and get about 60 channels mostly from Connecticut. Get all the major networks - CBS NBC, ABC, Fox and PBS. The PBS channels are duplicated from various Connecticut locations so the number of distinct channels is much less.
Including antenna and installation, the payback period is about 6 months. This works great with digital TVs. If you have an older analog TV you need a converter box for about $40. It also functions as a DVR.
Including antenna and installation, the payback period is about 6 months. This works great with digital TVs. If you have an older analog TV you need a converter box for about $40. It also functions as a DVR.
2
We saved $100 per month by dropping cable six months ago. With a digital antenna, Netflix, an Apple TV and our aging-but-still-working TiVo - plus the indulgence of MLB.tv (hey, we've got to see the Mets!), we have more than enough to watch.
Isn't that the point? How much more food do you need when you're already full?
If we could stream NBCSN and the Premier League coverage, things might be perfect (hey, NBC, I'm talking to you!).
Isn't that the point? How much more food do you need when you're already full?
If we could stream NBCSN and the Premier League coverage, things might be perfect (hey, NBC, I'm talking to you!).
2
1st off, I'd like to know how having a Total Monopoly & Destroying all Competition in any Given Area is Even Legal ? Even in this Present Day & Age of Naked Greed Corruption. (Yes, what a Naive question, I know)
It's been repeated Ad Nauseam - 20-30 "Green" channels of Un watched & Un Wanted Sports (Wonder why they are able to Offer these ridiculous Salaries? Partly Subsidized on our Broken Backs. Think about it).
What used to be "Ad Free Cable" is non Existent. Not only do you pay over $200 a Month, you now get even MORE Commercials. They Attempt (I Say Attempt) to Disable Fast Forward. So Even after All the $ you pay, & when NO Commercial is on ,you now have to endure 24/7 Channel Logos & Reminders of the very Show You are watching in the Corner of the Screen (Oh Thank You, I had no Idea what I was watching). And to take that idea Further - they now interrupt the Show BETWEEN Commercials every few minutes with Ads For Upcoming Garbage that Pops up and Blocks at Least a 3rd of your Screen .
They watched the Record Companies ignore Reality, & they are following the same path.
This is all on Top of the Monthly Extortion. Because Gosh, they just aren't making Money Don't ya Know ? So, when enough People "Cut the Cord" they will just Jack up Internet/Access Fees to make up the difference. And all this will be allowed and be considered "Legal". Because as stated earlier - they have been allowed to Kill off any Alternatives & Competition.
It's been repeated Ad Nauseam - 20-30 "Green" channels of Un watched & Un Wanted Sports (Wonder why they are able to Offer these ridiculous Salaries? Partly Subsidized on our Broken Backs. Think about it).
What used to be "Ad Free Cable" is non Existent. Not only do you pay over $200 a Month, you now get even MORE Commercials. They Attempt (I Say Attempt) to Disable Fast Forward. So Even after All the $ you pay, & when NO Commercial is on ,you now have to endure 24/7 Channel Logos & Reminders of the very Show You are watching in the Corner of the Screen (Oh Thank You, I had no Idea what I was watching). And to take that idea Further - they now interrupt the Show BETWEEN Commercials every few minutes with Ads For Upcoming Garbage that Pops up and Blocks at Least a 3rd of your Screen .
They watched the Record Companies ignore Reality, & they are following the same path.
This is all on Top of the Monthly Extortion. Because Gosh, they just aren't making Money Don't ya Know ? So, when enough People "Cut the Cord" they will just Jack up Internet/Access Fees to make up the difference. And all this will be allowed and be considered "Legal". Because as stated earlier - they have been allowed to Kill off any Alternatives & Competition.
1
Given the many things that, for the most part, require a high-speed connection, it's time we move to define access as a right. Quite a few governmental services are available only digitally or only at a higher cost non-digitally. If we worried about access to over-the-air TV in the past, we should worry about digital access today.
3
One problem is the lack of competition for cable providers in the US. I have exactly two cable TV providers in my area (Comcast and a local competitor), which is pretty typical. Increased competition should dirve down broadband prices.
We cut the cord years ago and happily watch over the air TV, Netflix, Hulu, etc. But for sports fans (e.g. college football), they really have you over a barrel.
We cut the cord years ago and happily watch over the air TV, Netflix, Hulu, etc. But for sports fans (e.g. college football), they really have you over a barrel.
2
Maybe if the internet companies had better customer service... I spent a very long time on hold yesterday to remove charges for services (a phone/long distance service) I didn't order. (My downstairs neighbors did--no relation to me. Phone company error entirely.) After all that, the rep couldn't help me and transfered me to an auotomated voice mail that said offices were closed. I thought after two calls and after speaking to two customer service people last month--again after waiting on hold avery long time) they had fixed the problem. They assured me my bill this month would prove that. Not only were the charges still there, the bill warned "notice of suspension." This is SO frustrating!
I'm the oddball here. I am quite happy with my service from Cablevision. I consider myself to be a penny pincher and find that when I total up all of the services I get, it's actually a bargain. From the pervasive Optimum WiFi to the free McAfee for all my *many* computers, I save quite a bit of money which I need to consider when I look at the overall monthly cost. The quality of the internet speed (I typically record download speed over 120mbs) and the selection of channels is fantastic. Sure I may never watch certain channels, but to me it's like a buffet. I may never eat a selection, but it's there if I want to try it. The house is filled with cutting edge technology from a Crestron control system to several media servers so it's not like I'm some luddite clutching my dusty old cable box. I just like the idea of having plenty of choices and after doing the math found that actually *having* cable was a better deal for the amount of television we watch and our actual viewing habits. Your mileage may differ.
12
Hard to believe that the NYT put a comment by an obvious shill for Cablevision the NYT Picks section.
1
For many of us, the problem is the way cable and broadcast tv has created a double dipping problem of - in essence - charging customers for the privilege of being forced to watch commercial after commercial. The advertising has become so intrusive that many cable companies have increased the time devoted to its being shoved down our throats to more than 20 minutes out of every hour. Bottom line: Netflix, Amazon and many of the commercial-free digital services provide programs that are efficiently transmitted, without commercials. I feel if you want me to suffer the waste of time ads represent, then you should pay me to watch them, not the other way around.
14
Those terrible "socialist" countries provide faster Internet and cheaper.
So much for American Exceptionalism.
So much for American Exceptionalism.
20
"Some analysts predict that as customers desert cable TV for Internet-based services, the telecom giants will simply charge more for Internet access, wiping out savings consumers had hoped for."
Well, ISPs are *already* doing that, in the form of data caps. A common limit is 250 GB a month. That may sound like a lot, but consider: the average American watches 4 hours of TV a day. HD video on Netflix is up to 3 GB per hour. So we're already at 360 GB for this 'average' viewer, well over the data cap of 250, and incurring overage charges. That doesn't even include computer-based data usage - surfing the web, software updates, listening to music and everything else - all this also adds up.
ISPs started their data cap programs at the dawn of cord-cutting, and it's not a coincidence.
Well, ISPs are *already* doing that, in the form of data caps. A common limit is 250 GB a month. That may sound like a lot, but consider: the average American watches 4 hours of TV a day. HD video on Netflix is up to 3 GB per hour. So we're already at 360 GB for this 'average' viewer, well over the data cap of 250, and incurring overage charges. That doesn't even include computer-based data usage - surfing the web, software updates, listening to music and everything else - all this also adds up.
ISPs started their data cap programs at the dawn of cord-cutting, and it's not a coincidence.
13
Got so tired of haggling over the added charges to my bill I cut the cord to my local cable service in the 90's.
While I like having a landline, I'm so sick of the nonsense from the phone carriers I'm getting ready to cut that cord as well. I'd do without almost anything rather than deal with AT&T.
While I like having a landline, I'm so sick of the nonsense from the phone carriers I'm getting ready to cut that cord as well. I'd do without almost anything rather than deal with AT&T.
38
I wanted to retain a landline when I cut the cable cord years ago. I went with Ooma, which is a voice over internet provider. You purchase the box that connects to your internet router, set it up and done. You pay taxes and fees only (in NYS where I live they are high so I pay a whopping $4.71 monthly.) Never had a single problem with the service, it is as good or better than Verizon landline service with all the same features. There are other similar options available as well. Happy cord cutting! I've talked to many people who have done it and not one regretted the decision.
1
I cut the landline years ago when AT&T began to charge more for NOT having long distance. The logic escaped me and THEN they began to discount my service too little too late. Good riddance to these companies that prefer to recruit new customers rather than retain old customers with a record of timely payment.
1
I tried cutting the cable cord about 3 months ago and Charter talked me into a deal that is almost ala carte (which they do not advertise). I am paying a lot less for the channels I want. There are still a lot of channels I don't care about thrown in. What gets me most is that cable costs a lot, yet there are so many commercials on those channels to the point they are unwatchable. You can't even fast forward through commercials after recording a show because they put ads right on the screen of what you are watching. No wonder people are switching to streaming services that have no commercials or screen clutter. Even with my ala carte subscription, I mostly watch Netflix, Amazon and DramaFever streaming.
5
In the early days, when cable TV was mostly for remote mountain towns that couldn't receive OTA signals and the idea of everyone having cable was new, we were told that one advantage of cable would be no commercials. Riiiight.
"That’s why it is important that Congress and the Federal Communications Commission push for more choices in the broadband market."
This is just a small piece of it. Without the attention brought to the subject of Net Neutrality by John Oliver etc. the FCC, headed by a former cable/ISP lobbyist was poised to allow the imposition of paying for content 'fast lanes'. A functioning democracy requires the populace to remain engaged and educated. Cutting the cord without proper attention and regulation of the industry providing the means of access to streaming content will almost certainly lead to higher prices.
This is just a small piece of it. Without the attention brought to the subject of Net Neutrality by John Oliver etc. the FCC, headed by a former cable/ISP lobbyist was poised to allow the imposition of paying for content 'fast lanes'. A functioning democracy requires the populace to remain engaged and educated. Cutting the cord without proper attention and regulation of the industry providing the means of access to streaming content will almost certainly lead to higher prices.
7
The cable company defense that gauls me the most is their paternalistic claim that unbundling will cost consumers more. To that I say "thank you", but I would like the opportunity to make that economic decision on my own.
34
cable TV is this nations babysitter
70$ / month is cheap
70$ / month is cheap
1
While the "regulators" are at it, how about they come and meddle in the affairs of the NYT and tell that media company what content to create and how to sell it.
I am sure that consumers "chafe" at the NYT fees. The government should fix that too.
I am sure that consumers "chafe" at the NYT fees. The government should fix that too.
You mean the constant parade of ads, the tapes that start if you accidentally mouse over them, and the lack of response from their tech people? The NYT is bad that way? I'm shocked! But yes, they are and the fact that I pay for a subscription and get the ads because I want to comment annoys me to no end. They are becoming as bad as every other "cheap" site.
10
I still dream of commercial free television.
1
Our cord cutting came 2+ years ago. ::applause, fireworks:: As a well-rounded, educated world traveler working in media for 30 years, I can safely say that ditching addictive cable tv and Comcast was one of the happiest days of my life. Many just like our family have done the same and laugh at the corrupt cable companies forever in their rear view mirror. It wasn't just the decades of price gouging (they all do it, ATT, etc..) It wasn't even the lack of quality on those 400+ channels. The coffin nail was the shameful, purposeful and constant amping up of our bill with MISTAKES every other month and misery of spending 4+ hours passed around from one clueless low level representative to an argumentative, obnoxious midlevel rep to finally a so-called customer retention rep who could do more than count on their toes and who'd correct the mistakes, then promise it would never happen again if we remained "valued" customers - to which I'd laugh and say "talk with you in another month!". An early tech adopter (1980s), I knew all the streaming device alternatives, including the joys of jailbroken (XMBC/Navi-X on a modified Apple TV1/2), but each still required a good broadband connection. The happy day finally came once I had a strategy: OTA/RCA antenna, Netflix, jailbroken ATV2, Amazon Prime + Fire, free MBP/iPad streaming + AirPlay, a low monthly broadband plan - not Comcast and not our mobile carrier. We ditched the landline. Free at last. We have more content choices than ever.
7
I welcome the day when cities and communities offer blanket broadband services to everyone in their community and cut out the middle men entirely. Nothing would make me happier than to see Comcast, Direct TV and At&T go under.
6
My daughter has a high-level job with the city utility that oversees our city-owned cable company and they are thinking of privatizing it. I do not want any city/county-owned resource sold to the highest bidder and suggested that the cable company be a leader and offer ala carte programming instead of the "bundles" they have which make us all pay for programming we don't want. She tells me they cannot offer the ala carte option because of regulations that prevent it. BIG business strikes again - they OWN regulatory agencies right now. Just another reason to get corporate operatives out of OUR governments at every level.
9
I'm not sure it has anything to do with "regulatory agencies" but a lot to do with the restrictive covenants in contracts between cable system operators and the program suppliers. You should ask her about where those "restrictions" are being imposed. It's certainly not by the FCC.
Of all the hundreds of channels on my Verizon FiOS system, the only ones I care about are MSNBC, ESPN and TheGolfChannel. Cable operators know that live sports is a big selling point, so it's nearly impossible to buy packages that only include, say, the broadcast networks and the sports channels.
Another obstacle to "cord-cutting" is the requirement imposed by the program suppliers that Internet access to their programming requires that you have an existing cable subscription to the same channel. I can only watch ESPN3 on a mobile device after first logging into Verizon and confirming I have a package with ESPN included. Same thing for TheGolfChannel. Online access to that channel without a cable subscription isn't likely to happen for quite some time because TGC is owned by Comcast. Allowing distributors like Comcast to buy program providers like NBCUniversal was one of the worst decisions by the FCC and the Antitrust Division in recent years.
DishTV now offers a package of channels that is Internet-only (sling.com). If you look at the selection of offerings, you'll notice that any program service owned by Comcast like TGC is not in the list. Surprise!
Of all the hundreds of channels on my Verizon FiOS system, the only ones I care about are MSNBC, ESPN and TheGolfChannel. Cable operators know that live sports is a big selling point, so it's nearly impossible to buy packages that only include, say, the broadcast networks and the sports channels.
Another obstacle to "cord-cutting" is the requirement imposed by the program suppliers that Internet access to their programming requires that you have an existing cable subscription to the same channel. I can only watch ESPN3 on a mobile device after first logging into Verizon and confirming I have a package with ESPN included. Same thing for TheGolfChannel. Online access to that channel without a cable subscription isn't likely to happen for quite some time because TGC is owned by Comcast. Allowing distributors like Comcast to buy program providers like NBCUniversal was one of the worst decisions by the FCC and the Antitrust Division in recent years.
DishTV now offers a package of channels that is Internet-only (sling.com). If you look at the selection of offerings, you'll notice that any program service owned by Comcast like TGC is not in the list. Surprise!
One way or anther each content provider must stand on it's own. ESPN is over priced as are many others. Broadband providers have failed to keep up or understand their customers. Change is past due.
5
Couple of other points.
Using the new breed of tv antennas, a viewer can get access to many, many TV signals, some in HD, all free. Go to TVFOOL.com and put in your location and see for yourself. Takes minutes to get it going on your TV. Here in rural FL I han ger 20+ channels. Much dreck, to be sure but also all the networks, local stations from Sarasota and Tampa, movies, kids stuff, PBS. There for the viewing.
The amount of content available on the net is truly astounding. A site like http://www.cordcutterforum.com/ is a good place for those who want freedom can get the basics.
There is little to lose and a lot to gain, at the very least you will be exposed to the incredibly wide range of content that is out there. Be brave!!!
Using the new breed of tv antennas, a viewer can get access to many, many TV signals, some in HD, all free. Go to TVFOOL.com and put in your location and see for yourself. Takes minutes to get it going on your TV. Here in rural FL I han ger 20+ channels. Much dreck, to be sure but also all the networks, local stations from Sarasota and Tampa, movies, kids stuff, PBS. There for the viewing.
The amount of content available on the net is truly astounding. A site like http://www.cordcutterforum.com/ is a good place for those who want freedom can get the basics.
There is little to lose and a lot to gain, at the very least you will be exposed to the incredibly wide range of content that is out there. Be brave!!!
43
but how can you get internet access (a must) without a cable provider?
40+ free channels with my antenna in the Las Vegas Valley. No streaming hiccups. No HD markups. Gorgeous resolution from 1080i signals.
TV free... The environmental movement of the mind.
32
I would buy less cable TV if I knew how to get the NFL and Tennis Channels. Everything else we watch is available on antenna in Boston. I would keep the internet, phone, tv bundle because it is cheaper that way, but get the very low end TV package selection. RCN is my provider who is very reliable
2
How can it be cord-cutting when the Internet comes down the same cord as the TV service. At best you are exchanging one monopoly for another.
9
The situation is worse then cutting the cable. We have been trying to pin down Comcast on what we have and how much they are charging. My wife has spend hours on the line trying to understand or reading a bill online that is totally weird. They quoted $209 a month free upgrade to X1 boxes including the equipment. The includes wifi, cable, house phone 2 numbers. Received a bill for $374.00.The second round the Comcast rep said it couldn't be 209 but would be 274. Then an strange adjustment appeared $360 something. The retention specialiast admitted they had quoted the whole package for $209. Pay the 360 and adjustments would be made on next bill. Checked the newest bill just online and their is a credit bringing bill down to $208.But it appears that without the credit next month we will be paying close to $300. I with not blame the comcast reps who are trying to work with us but Comcast is out of control. My wife has spend hours on the phone with Comcast. They I bought a Roku so I could watch Amazon Prime etc. and it worked great the first night. Second night couldn't get online to use the Roku. Roku technician told me that is what happens the second day Comcast blocks them. I have a automatic logon on my new smart TV for Netflix etc. It does not logon anything preloaded by Vizio. Finally the rep from Comcast told me they don't support Netflix.
I am buying wifi connection first and cable from them. What I do with the wifi is my business it is expensive.
I am buying wifi connection first and cable from them. What I do with the wifi is my business it is expensive.
34
It says a lot that Comcast needs a "retention specialist". I'm guessing that this department will be getting larger and larger and larger.....
The 600,000 lost subscribers is likely an under-estimation if my experience is any guide. I decided to cut the cord. Called my cable company and they talked me into a reduced TV service that cost a lot less than what I was paying, but still more than internet only. After thinking about it for a day, I called them back and asked for internet only. All of a sudden they had a better offer for TV (limited) and internet for $5 less per month than the quote for internet only just the day before. So I'm still counted as a video subscriber, but haven't watched any of the cable TV since I made the change.
1
Excellent article! The Congress should forbid cable companies to sell packages bundled as they are today, say 2-3 good channels bundled with 20 channels that nobody watch. In a basic subscription of 20 channels the buyer should be able to hand pick each and all of the channels they want in their package. This will put out of business the junk channels, but why should the customers finance the existence of channels they never watch?
1
As with other far too many other issues where the greed of unfettered capitalism is running the show, the general public is paying the price. Until a vast majority of cable subscribers decide to cut the cord and make their collective voice heard, this cat and mouse game with Time Warner, Com Cast etal. will continue. And as is usually the case. the mouse remains the loser.
The same greedy crowd (Comcast & other cable companies, as well as Verizon, AT&T and other big telecom companies) that tried to defeat net-nuetrality last year, continue to pursue other schemes to get your money and control the internet. This greedy crowd is spending millions, which they collected from you, in a nationwide campaign to convince state legislatures to pass laws that "make it difficult or impossible for municipalities to invest in broadband networks" and convince state regulators to make rules "that make it hard for newer businesses to string fiber-optic cable on utility poles or below ground in order to compete with established cable and phone companies." Does the word "pickpocketers" come to mind? I'm lucky to live in an area where I could cut the cord and prevent them from reaching into my pocket.
1
At first I thought it was only me and a few other disgruntled users but the day I turned in my cable box I was surprised by the number of people waiting to do the same. Then, shocked even more when the clerk receiving my return offered me a much lower deal of just internet (mentioned streaming) and local channels. True, I miss ESPN for the major tennis tournaments but have found that most of them broadcast the matches through radio on their websites. Works well for me as I can now work and listen. Later I go to YouTube to watch highlights or the full match which keeps me in the know.
As I left the cable office I thanked the clerk and said I might be seeing her again to turn in my internet router because I have been following Google laying fiber to provide their own internet service and was just waiting for the day their service came to my town. She looked surprised that their attempt to retain cord cutters was going against the tide. Comcast has seen the handwriting on the wall and like it or not people are voting with their cable boxes for competition.
As I left the cable office I thanked the clerk and said I might be seeing her again to turn in my internet router because I have been following Google laying fiber to provide their own internet service and was just waiting for the day their service came to my town. She looked surprised that their attempt to retain cord cutters was going against the tide. Comcast has seen the handwriting on the wall and like it or not people are voting with their cable boxes for competition.
2
Ah, another monopolistic cash cow miracle from the Unholy Trinity of Big Money, Big Media and Small-minded, Self-serving Politicians! Cutting the cord is a small first step of rebellion. In it, we hear echos of Peter Finch in the movie Network telling his audience to go out into the streets and yell, "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore."
Is our low rate of voter participation a reflection of American indifference and laziness or a form of passive-aggressive protest? Is the stunning silence in our political discourse about mass shootings a reflection of voter disinterest in our personal safety and that of our kids? How many other democracies require two years and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to elect its public officials?
By cutting the cord, we were unable to watch the live coverage of the Fox-moderated debate among the Republican candidates for President of the United States. What an unexpected but welcome blessing!
Is our low rate of voter participation a reflection of American indifference and laziness or a form of passive-aggressive protest? Is the stunning silence in our political discourse about mass shootings a reflection of voter disinterest in our personal safety and that of our kids? How many other democracies require two years and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to elect its public officials?
By cutting the cord, we were unable to watch the live coverage of the Fox-moderated debate among the Republican candidates for President of the United States. What an unexpected but welcome blessing!
1
Telecommunication Companies. Disecting the words we get tele or over the air. Communication means two way exchange. But all of these companies communicate one way with unanswerable email notifications, long waits to contact human beings to complain, cookie cutter answers not solutions to our questions, efforts to sell you more of what you don't want or need when contact is finally made. phone and website menus to handle 'frequently asked questions', asked by few if anyone, simple hangups and instructions to try again. And this is how they handle us, their customers. The latest gimmick is to ship new modems without prior authorization, pretending that they were ordered enen though they were refused when queried on the phone. Thanks Comcast. There's a class action in there somewhere.
1
One of the best things I did this year was dump TWC once HBO Now became available. I kept internet service only, and reduced my monthly bill by $87.00! I have Netflix and Hulu, too, but those costs are minimal. I may dump Netflix if they raise their monthy fee too much, as they don't update their choices as often as I'd like.
1
Most of us are likely paying for channels never watched, a rip-off of sorts, as we have no choice in the package offered, with less and less availability of favorites unless we pay additional fees. When visiting Bolivia (for instance), the package is so much wider, in many languages, and at a fraction of what is paid in the U.S.. A service to the people...or self-serving for the bottom line? It would be timely to have an entity to help us maneuver through this maze, and find a more individualized program, one that is friendly and reasonably priced. Could it be that these behemoths need more competition?
4
Recently I went to an open house hiring event at Comcast. While waiting for my interview several Comcast representatives briefed us on that company's latest technology.
One piece of technology that caught my eye was that all new cable modems provided by Comcast were automatically set to provide public wireless hotspot access.
I asked the presenter how this would affect my internet access and he responded it would not affect it at all.
To say the least I was a bit disturbed about this lie - because bandwidth always is limited - and Comcast's assumption that they can highjack a slice of my internet bandwidth that I paid for, without my permission, to provide free service for another Comcast customer.
Afterwards, when I got home I logged into my modem and shut off the hotspot option on my modem.
But, I am curious how many other Comcast customers are not aware of this "enhancement" and how any cable company thinks it is ethical to allow others to get a free ride on a customer's pricey internet service?
To say the least, "enhancements" like Comcast's hotspot technology is just another reason why cable and internet providers need to be regulated again.
One piece of technology that caught my eye was that all new cable modems provided by Comcast were automatically set to provide public wireless hotspot access.
I asked the presenter how this would affect my internet access and he responded it would not affect it at all.
To say the least I was a bit disturbed about this lie - because bandwidth always is limited - and Comcast's assumption that they can highjack a slice of my internet bandwidth that I paid for, without my permission, to provide free service for another Comcast customer.
Afterwards, when I got home I logged into my modem and shut off the hotspot option on my modem.
But, I am curious how many other Comcast customers are not aware of this "enhancement" and how any cable company thinks it is ethical to allow others to get a free ride on a customer's pricey internet service?
To say the least, "enhancements" like Comcast's hotspot technology is just another reason why cable and internet providers need to be regulated again.
7
I'd say most customers have no clue that they are being used in this manner. Everywhere I go my smartphone shows me the option of using xfinity. I can see two xfinity hotspots and one from Cox in my living room.
The Cox option is a real puzzle since they aren't a provider here in my Boston suburb.
The Cox option is a real puzzle since they aren't a provider here in my Boston suburb.
The hotspot option is bad only if you don't password protect it. If you don't password protect it, than anyone can hijack your signal.
Whether the cable companies like the analogy or not, is is nothing more than a situation similar to that which brought about the eventual splitting of AT&T and a very strong argument as to why the FCC and FTC need to be very strong opponents of consolidation in the cable industry.
I am not in favor of government intervention, but this is one of those areas where the companies cannot be trusted to act with the interests of the consumer in mind.
I am not in favor of government intervention, but this is one of those areas where the companies cannot be trusted to act with the interests of the consumer in mind.
3
Just prior to cable, In the 70's Antenna TV still carried enough programming to satisfy me and my wife's TV watching. Now with cable owning baseball and football programming, I can't watch either on an antenna based system. I am looking to "cut" the cord and use HDTV antenna to provide programs I will watch which is small compared to others I know. Having to pay $100 - 200 + a month is cost I am tired of paying considering the quality of what is available on cable.
1
The reality is that media has been transitioning for years, first from over the air to cable, then moving from the main broadcast networks to speciality channels to video on demand and now online. I'm waiting for the day when I can simply pay for the television shows that I want, rather than the buffet that is provided even by Netflix. In every market the middleman is getting squeezed out by technology to the benefit of the consumer. Broadcast TV could fill an important hole in people's media consumption if they could provide basic packages of the stuff you can't get easily online, until they figure this out though, be prepared to be underwhelmed.
1
Per the campaign of Bernie Sanders, the cable monopoly monster is just another blatant example of people in a so-called democracy not being able to receive services they want instead of ones being forced down their throats by mega-conglomerates who call the shots in Congress when it comes to cable monopoly legislation. The corporations/people have the clout in Congress. The persons/people get the shaft.
The consumer has had it with corporations holding them hostage to paying exorbitant fees for product they have been coerced into buying. When are politicians going to finally get it? Maybe they should be very afraid of the rise of iconoclasts like Bernie and The Donald. These are people who are at their wit's end willing to go for broke and call for a revolution in how our democracy has gone so awry, irrelevant and working against the interests of the people in favor of the wealthy.
Enough is enough.
DD
Manhattan
The consumer has had it with corporations holding them hostage to paying exorbitant fees for product they have been coerced into buying. When are politicians going to finally get it? Maybe they should be very afraid of the rise of iconoclasts like Bernie and The Donald. These are people who are at their wit's end willing to go for broke and call for a revolution in how our democracy has gone so awry, irrelevant and working against the interests of the people in favor of the wealthy.
Enough is enough.
DD
Manhattan
6
Yes, I, too, am angry at the $145/month I pay for just about basic cable (no "premium" channels like HBO or SHO) but the only alternative in my area is the competitor which would save me $10/month for a year. Can't yet cut the cord for a variety of reasons.
What bothers me most, perhaps, was that when everything was digitized several years ago, we were all forced to have a cable box for each tv set whereas prior to that, we could plug the cable directly into any cable-ready tv (which we all went out a bought). So, not only did that boost monthly fees by $8 per tv in the house, but -- and think about it --- electricity usage went up. And it went up at a time when the electric companies in Connecticut, where I live, were severely underpowered and needed to increase infrastructure. Frankly, I was appalled when this occurred but state legislators didn't seem to fuss about it at all. Oh, and let's not forget the money the Fed gov handed out to consumers to buy "conversion kits" when this digitization occurred. What happened to all of that?
So, overall, the cable companies were a culprit in browning out this state, costing consumers even more in electric bills and going forward, this cost will increase again as the utility companies claim they need to rework the grid and find more sources of electricity. And this, in a time where everyone is supposedly being encouraged to become "green."
What bothers me most, perhaps, was that when everything was digitized several years ago, we were all forced to have a cable box for each tv set whereas prior to that, we could plug the cable directly into any cable-ready tv (which we all went out a bought). So, not only did that boost monthly fees by $8 per tv in the house, but -- and think about it --- electricity usage went up. And it went up at a time when the electric companies in Connecticut, where I live, were severely underpowered and needed to increase infrastructure. Frankly, I was appalled when this occurred but state legislators didn't seem to fuss about it at all. Oh, and let's not forget the money the Fed gov handed out to consumers to buy "conversion kits" when this digitization occurred. What happened to all of that?
So, overall, the cable companies were a culprit in browning out this state, costing consumers even more in electric bills and going forward, this cost will increase again as the utility companies claim they need to rework the grid and find more sources of electricity. And this, in a time where everyone is supposedly being encouraged to become "green."
9
When my husband and I moved houses, we rejected being held hostage by the cable companies out-of-control costs and deceptive marketing practices. Though our brand new home was wired for cable, we purposely never installed it. Thirty years and three children later, we still think it was a good decision, but we love Netflix! It's affordable, no extra hidden charges for this or that and it offers enough choices that we always find something we want to watch. Hooray for Netflix! Cut the cord!
52
It's the big problem with free markets - companies want the markets to be free for all businesses except their own. Or basically, they want the markets to allow them to pay low wages and benefits but protect them against competition. And unfortunately, our politicians allow them to get by with it by passing protectionist regulations on the local level so they can keep the contribution pipeline open.
If you truly want free markets (and we've never actually had them), get rid of all protectionist regulations and corporate subsidies and make every one play on the same field.
If you truly want free markets (and we've never actually had them), get rid of all protectionist regulations and corporate subsidies and make every one play on the same field.
57
but cable companies are natural monopolies. How can the "market" work when this is the case? It is not as if tons of cable companies will come in if we eliminate all regulation.
I cut my cable cords with Time Warner last month and I feel great about it. Cable in New York is astronomically more expensive than anywhere else in the country and quitting will save me $1,700 a year! I couldn't justify the hefty monthly bill for just a few good channels I watched—now I'm perfectly content with catching all those shows on either Netflix, Amazon, HBO Go or Hulu. Never looking back.
63
Please, UN-bundle everything. I do not want some junk bundled with what I want. Let me pick ten or twenty channels that I want and charge a set fee for that.
4
Your idea that congress would need to do something is laughable. they havent done anything in years.
3
My wife and I watch only four channels. I gave up watching the networks years ago as their lineup became more and more insulting to my intelligence and morals. The news programs aren't The so-called Learning Channel shows nothing but scripted "reality" TV shows. Who cares if Bridezilla says Yes To The Dress and Flip This House before she is the subject of an Intervention because she is a Hoarder? We do watch old movies and that's about it. I'm already doing that on my PC with You Tube and watching the British Channel Four.
It is an overpriced service. The cable companies should dump the programming for most of us and just ease us the link to the Internet so we can watch what we want. Why should I have to subsidize the viewers of the Golf Channel and Spanish programming?
It is an overpriced service. The cable companies should dump the programming for most of us and just ease us the link to the Internet so we can watch what we want. Why should I have to subsidize the viewers of the Golf Channel and Spanish programming?
5
Because that's the only way you can get Fox News. Thanks for asking!
The problem has been going on too long a morally corrupt govt and FCC who first allow these company to enter the phone and internet business under the lies that the more choice they could offer would be better for us and cheaper. It's not our fault this clown all enter the phone business when it was starting to die. Then we allow them to not only just transmit the signal now we allow them to owner (comcast) because this was better for us. Every time the FCC allows these company to merge if more about there profits and not choices for us. For the FCC to be this stupid to think that service does not suffer and prices will not go up, is more then enough reason to start passing laws that take the oversight away from the FCC (beside when the head of the FCC is a former lobbyist). But someone need to put an end to john malone and his company greed him and his company CEO are not worth 100 million a year in salary
1
The editorial is well-intended but over-states the problem and understates the solution. The main issue with cable is its 80s-era video-centric pricing model. One day someone in these dinosaur cable companies will wake-up and realize they don't need marketing people to figure out what channels to stuff in what package and how much to charge for them. They just need to enable their customers to do it themselves. Customers decide what channels they want, adding and removing as they please, depending on who's home and their viewing preferences.
The point being that the only issue with Cable Cos today is not having the right billing in place for high-tech today. That's not rocket science, it should have been fixed by now. But these are old-fashioned cable companies used to sitting on top of mountains. They'll change when they break into a sweat which is anytime now. The mountain will come to Mohamed.
Government also needs to get into the act but won't simply based on pleadings to the FCC. They need to be knee-deep in providing essential services themselves, sort of baseline competition to the privates. Yes, the U.S. Postal Service. Instead of just keeping the rule-making, paper-pushing bureaucracy to themselves and dumping the rest on the private sector. All in magnanimous flourish and all in the name of glorious american capitalism.
Will take a while to fix. Until then thankfully there's Apple and there's Amazon. Thank you Tim, thank you Jeff.
The point being that the only issue with Cable Cos today is not having the right billing in place for high-tech today. That's not rocket science, it should have been fixed by now. But these are old-fashioned cable companies used to sitting on top of mountains. They'll change when they break into a sweat which is anytime now. The mountain will come to Mohamed.
Government also needs to get into the act but won't simply based on pleadings to the FCC. They need to be knee-deep in providing essential services themselves, sort of baseline competition to the privates. Yes, the U.S. Postal Service. Instead of just keeping the rule-making, paper-pushing bureaucracy to themselves and dumping the rest on the private sector. All in magnanimous flourish and all in the name of glorious american capitalism.
Will take a while to fix. Until then thankfully there's Apple and there's Amazon. Thank you Tim, thank you Jeff.
2
I suspect the number of cord cutters is actually higher than reported in this article. When I tried to cut the cord last year, Comcast was going to charge me more just for Internet vs broadband plus the most basic cable package which includes only the local channels in standard definition and HBO. I suspect that Comcast doesn't include people like me among people cutting cable even though the channels I get are the same ones I get with my antenna (except HBO). And the best part of the antenna is that I get HD channels for free!
2
Wow something I actually agree with the editorial board on. WTG guys/gals. I have never paid for cable tv and I currently get internet from time warner cable for 15$ a month (2 down/1 up mbps), which is the best price I've ever had for that level of internet. So reasonable cost internet is doable even in the US don't let your cable company tell you otherwise.
1
I got rid of my TV years ago. The ultimate drivel avoidance cord cutting. Reading is so much more efficient.
4
I am 23 and have never paid for cable. Even when I visit my mother we prefer to watch Netflix on our Apple TV. In my case, cable is an extra cost for junk I won't watch, and my mother hits the mute button the instant ads come on screen. The only downside is having to go to bars or friends' houses to watch sports games.
I would pay for individual channels like Comedy Central or ESPN, but only if they were ad-free. So would many of my friends. The millennial market for cable exists, but only if you choose to do it right. Maybe our parents grumbled and put up with it, but we won't. We can just find a stream.
I would pay for individual channels like Comedy Central or ESPN, but only if they were ad-free. So would many of my friends. The millennial market for cable exists, but only if you choose to do it right. Maybe our parents grumbled and put up with it, but we won't. We can just find a stream.
5
I wouldn't eulogize PayTV quite yet. For starters, cable and telecom TV service providers are responding with streaming services of their own, as well as slimmed-down bundles with a slimmer price. Another issue that this editorial ignores is that these individual direct-to-consumer services will add up. Few people with get all their entertainment from Netflix or HBO. And when you start bringing in different content a la carte you also start to fragment the experience. Each service, each device has a different interface. In the end, only an aggregator, who controls the pipes, can provide consumers with a unified experience. Content may be king, but consumers also crave a consistent and personalized way to consume that content. Many may not like it, but don't dismiss your cable operator quite yet.
I watch tv. I am not a tv snob, however I don't watch sports yet I pay for all those sport channels as part of my cable bill. I don't homeshop, or ever watch the Christian propaganda channels yet there they are. I could easily limit myself to 22 channels including broadcast and be happy. I'M a progressive but I don't think I should subsidize cable distribution.
5
I'd be happy if cable companies would simply be forced to unbundle their internet and cable offerings. I'm being forced to pay for cable I don't use, because if I drop cable, I have to pay more for internet and a net INCREASE in my monthly bill.
6
Exact same thing happened to me with Cablevision. I wish I had a choice of service providers and let them duke it out.
paul,
that unfortunately is the case across most of the country. What the nation needs is REAL competition, not monopolies or duopolies. Congress should take heed.
that unfortunately is the case across most of the country. What the nation needs is REAL competition, not monopolies or duopolies. Congress should take heed.
Our family cut the cord over six years ago and rely on a combination of Netflix, Amazon and over the air broadcast reception. Readers might be surprised to learn that there are dozens of digital broadcast stations in most markets with very high quality digital signals that exceed the compressed HD of cable or satellite. Watching PBS, news or sports on broadcast and occasional movies or series on streaming services is our own much-less costly bundle.
4
Cable TV is the film camera of this decade. There's a new entertainment technology that's cheaper, more fun, and more free. Cable's grave will be right next to Kodak's.
4
You Reap What You Sow. My provider, TWCable, as far as I can tell, still has not offered smaller packages to current subscribers. Rather than concentrating on selling themselves and bagging $$, they should try to keep their clients (like me) from cord shaving. All those ESPN channels--why?--I've watched it maybe once in 20 years. 500 channels when I watch 15, give me a break.
93
America's cable TV and corporate telecom/internet providers have been bilking Americans for decades, like any well-run mafia organization would do to the public.
Telecommunications giants have been fighting a nationwide war against the spread of municipal broadband networks which would free American consumers from the tyranny of oligopoly cable and internet providers who have long operated in a rigged market.
For more than a decade, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. have spent millions of dollars to lobby state legislatures, influence state elections and pass restraint-of trade laws to preserve their mafiosa-style service model and to stop the spread of public Internet services that often offer faster speeds at cheaper rates.
The companies have succeeded in getting laws passed in 20 states that ban or restrict municipalities from offering Internet to residents.
The FCC is considering requests from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, to pre-empt state laws that block municipalities from building or expanding broadband networks.
If the FCC rules in favor of the cities, and the ruling survives legal challenges from the corrupt status quo, municipalities nationwide will be free to offer high-speed Internet to residents.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers...
It's time to end the 'free-market' extortion of Americans by the corporate mafia and make TV a public good once again.
Telecommunications giants have been fighting a nationwide war against the spread of municipal broadband networks which would free American consumers from the tyranny of oligopoly cable and internet providers who have long operated in a rigged market.
For more than a decade, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. have spent millions of dollars to lobby state legislatures, influence state elections and pass restraint-of trade laws to preserve their mafiosa-style service model and to stop the spread of public Internet services that often offer faster speeds at cheaper rates.
The companies have succeeded in getting laws passed in 20 states that ban or restrict municipalities from offering Internet to residents.
The FCC is considering requests from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, to pre-empt state laws that block municipalities from building or expanding broadband networks.
If the FCC rules in favor of the cities, and the ruling survives legal challenges from the corrupt status quo, municipalities nationwide will be free to offer high-speed Internet to residents.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/08/28/15404/how-big-telecom-smothers...
It's time to end the 'free-market' extortion of Americans by the corporate mafia and make TV a public good once again.
125
Congress and the FCC HELP consumers? Are you stuck in the 60s? However, the next elections will put Congress, the FCC and other governmental regulatory agencies back into their rightful place of protecting 99% of us from the top 1% financial elite.
5
There's an antitrust law violation here that's so clear it would require no proof other than trying to subscribe to internet access without cable through the websites of Comcast and Verizon. You can't do it. It's called "bundling" -- where a provider ties together something you don't want with something you do over which the provider has monopoly power.
The cable companies are their own worst enemies – by refusing to unbundle their programming. Even with the growing trend to "cut the cord," they still don't get the message.
For example, Comcast will not sell me internet access without bundling their "Basic TV" service with it, forcing me to pay about $20/month more for something I don't need or want. In other words, they won't let me truly cut the cord.
For example, Comcast will not sell me internet access without bundling their "Basic TV" service with it, forcing me to pay about $20/month more for something I don't need or want. In other words, they won't let me truly cut the cord.
15
Interesting--I live in Chicago and have Comcast internet and nothing else. They are as terrible a provider as you would expect (I'm considering switching to AT&T), but I am able to get internet only @$50 a month for 12 months with no contract. What they offer must be whatever they can get away with market to market. The big cable companies more than deserve their terrible reputations. The internet has reached the point where it should be considered a public utility and be regulated as such. We need protection from these monster providers.
1
What annoys me is that the rates are raised but the service is not improved at all. I have to have cable to watch the bare minimum number of channels I watch because the reception in my area is horrible. I need to be on the internet for my work and the library, while it offers access on its own computers, is not enough. Cablevision doesn't even bother to do minimal updating for users unless we complain about our service. Then we might be blessed with a visit to diagnose the problem, upgrade the outside wiring, or get a new modem. It's the same model our dysfunctional government is using for our infrastructure: wait until something truly horrible and inconvenient happens, point fingers, and then, maybe, just maybe, fix it.
It's bad enough that I must pay to see basic programs on ABC, CBS, PBS, etc., but the costs for lousy internet access that isn't that quick is even worse. Better still is knowing that I'm subsidizing the high CEO pay while getting lousy service. American business proves once again what's it good for: high charges, lousy service, high salaries to worthless CEOs.
It's bad enough that I must pay to see basic programs on ABC, CBS, PBS, etc., but the costs for lousy internet access that isn't that quick is even worse. Better still is knowing that I'm subsidizing the high CEO pay while getting lousy service. American business proves once again what's it good for: high charges, lousy service, high salaries to worthless CEOs.
30
I don't want to be forced to subsidize the NFL by paying more for ESPN when I can get my sports news from about 10,000 different sources.
If the NFL wants to go out on its own by ripping games off broadcast networks and then sell me a package then they should feel free to do so and make me an offer.
If the NFL wants to go out on its own by ripping games off broadcast networks and then sell me a package then they should feel free to do so and make me an offer.
10
The current cable bundling system is incredibly harsh to people, particularly elderly, who don't have technical proficiency and the ability to seek out alternatives.
I have a close relative living on Social Security, doesn't have a penny to spare, but she pays the cable company $140 a month for the "triple play" so she can browse Facebook and watch PBS and the DIY network. It just kills me that people like her are essentially taxed for channels they'll never watch -- such as $10 a month for ESPN and sports, and $1 a month for Fox News.
Cable bundling is unsustainable. But more than that, it's simply wrong. Digital cable technology was designed to support a la carte packages. The government needs to push the industry to make them available -- even if Disney and ESPN are unhappy about it.
I have a close relative living on Social Security, doesn't have a penny to spare, but she pays the cable company $140 a month for the "triple play" so she can browse Facebook and watch PBS and the DIY network. It just kills me that people like her are essentially taxed for channels they'll never watch -- such as $10 a month for ESPN and sports, and $1 a month for Fox News.
Cable bundling is unsustainable. But more than that, it's simply wrong. Digital cable technology was designed to support a la carte packages. The government needs to push the industry to make them available -- even if Disney and ESPN are unhappy about it.
98
I agree, Tb. Well said; well argued.
Cable bundling is unsustainable.
no, it is sustainable. As long as competition continues to be almost non-existant. In nearly all US markets there are around 2 choices that provide BOTH cable and internet.
no, it is sustainable. As long as competition continues to be almost non-existant. In nearly all US markets there are around 2 choices that provide BOTH cable and internet.
try to get her on wifi only and then gift her a ROKU or similar....she should be able to do all she wants for about $50 a month.
2
I didn't want to leave my #1 satellite provider, but I lost my job and had to cut expenses, and the $100+ per month satellite bill was at the top of the list. I called to cancel, but after hearing my story and apparently understanding my needs, the service rep convinced me to suspend my service instead. Great, I thought. I could take a break from paying the bill, and resume service when I got a new job. Unfortunately, things didn't work out that way. Turns out, the provider continued to bill me monthly even though it wasn't providing service; instead, it was holding that money as a credit for when I came back. So I was forced to cancel because that was the only way to stop the bills. And you know what? Between a variety of streaming options for a fraction of the price, I don't miss satellite at all.
129
Had the exact thing happen to me, was shocked to see my credit card had close to $1000 added over the months. Part my fault for not checking the card statement more carefully, but they were wrong. I Stream and will never go back to cable or dish.
The people who rely on satellite internet (slow, expensive, overloaded) need a plethora of government-subsidized satellites to provide better internet service.
Rural users ought not to have all the mentioned options kept away from them merely because of population density.
Rural users ought not to have all the mentioned options kept away from them merely because of population density.
3
As someone who works for a living, I watched maybe 2-3 hours of television per week. At $80/month for the basic Comcast package, that was almost $10/hour for the limited watching I did. That's extremely expensive, and a waste, for what you get.
20
So lets see,congress which is in the pocket of these companies, will do the right thing for the great unwashed.I don't think so.
16
Imagine if Americans became aware that "socialist" European countries provide the fiber optic infrastructure that in turn is available to all providers to compete over. No monopoly or duopoly as in the U.S.
39
ironically these "socialist" countries have more competition in cable and internet provisioin than the less regulated "free market" US!
This article neglects to mention that one of the few (perhaps only) advantages to cable TV is that programs can be recorded on a DVR and viewed at one's convenience. Internet TV services such as Sling TV cannot be recorded.
10
The issue is of pricing is a complicated one. Individual networks have been raising the price on programming which has prompted the accelerated price increases. Those same program providers will pressure Cable Television service providers to use and pay for smaller networks that they own as a package deal. How many times have Cable companies flashed messages that certain networks is demanding price increases that place that network in jepardy of being removed from lineups? This is more a PR move that may be successful because there are certain networks that consumers do watch but there will come a time when they will decide enough is enough. We also hear them claim that HD and Digital programing is very expensive to deliver...laughable.
With the increased demand for more bandwith and upgrades to the Internet infrastructure, you can bet all of the players involved will will raise that rate. A majority of the nation has only one service to choose from. Where there is no cable provider ( rural ), Dish is the only option. The Internet based service from Dish networks is unreliable at best. These same areas have no cellular service. Congress and the Public Service Commission has done a great job of keeping competition to a minimum due to the lobbying efforts of the largest cable providers. These companies have gobbled up the competition and are an a tear to "own " the market. At the end of the day it is simple: Pay our price or go without.
With the increased demand for more bandwith and upgrades to the Internet infrastructure, you can bet all of the players involved will will raise that rate. A majority of the nation has only one service to choose from. Where there is no cable provider ( rural ), Dish is the only option. The Internet based service from Dish networks is unreliable at best. These same areas have no cellular service. Congress and the Public Service Commission has done a great job of keeping competition to a minimum due to the lobbying efforts of the largest cable providers. These companies have gobbled up the competition and are an a tear to "own " the market. At the end of the day it is simple: Pay our price or go without.
14
Cord-cutting will not be an option for most until broad band internet access is treated as a utility.
78
I don't watch sports, and when I received a "5.95" Sports fee, I was told by the cable co that could not be removed. I could not understand why I had to send ESPN $72.00 per year. Really, if we watch the Superbowl or World Series, that is the extent of our "sports programming".
When our system went fully digital, after a brief time sending base subscription signals out unencrypted (Clear QAM), the cable co then decided to scramble everything. They claimed piracy but the real result was to add an $8.00 per month charge to each TV set for a perpetual rental of a box to unscramble the signal THEY just decided to scramble. (That one decision probably juiced bills in most homes $25 per month...forever...like the old telephone company handset rentals..x12 is $300 per year, for literally nothing.)
Luckily, an old-school antenna works at my location. OTA plus a Tivo box, using Hulu and Netflix. While you still have to pay for broadband, and they raise the price of broadband $10 per month if you don't subscribe to TV service, it works out well.
Cable TV is already dead. Watch any teen/millenial and they are all about binge watching and self directed consumption. Any "top down" system is a relic...the endless ads for "old folk drugs" on most cable should tell you that.
My area is unusual, though, as we have both cable and Fios on the same streets. Our prices and offers are lower than relatives in the more normal monopoly locations.
When our system went fully digital, after a brief time sending base subscription signals out unencrypted (Clear QAM), the cable co then decided to scramble everything. They claimed piracy but the real result was to add an $8.00 per month charge to each TV set for a perpetual rental of a box to unscramble the signal THEY just decided to scramble. (That one decision probably juiced bills in most homes $25 per month...forever...like the old telephone company handset rentals..x12 is $300 per year, for literally nothing.)
Luckily, an old-school antenna works at my location. OTA plus a Tivo box, using Hulu and Netflix. While you still have to pay for broadband, and they raise the price of broadband $10 per month if you don't subscribe to TV service, it works out well.
Cable TV is already dead. Watch any teen/millenial and they are all about binge watching and self directed consumption. Any "top down" system is a relic...the endless ads for "old folk drugs" on most cable should tell you that.
My area is unusual, though, as we have both cable and Fios on the same streets. Our prices and offers are lower than relatives in the more normal monopoly locations.
28
This: the endless ads for "old folk drugs"
Seriously -- if the commercials on MSNBC reflect what that company thinks of me, then you're right -- we have nothing in common.
I cannot take one more commercial that discusses going to the bathroom.
Seriously -- if the commercials on MSNBC reflect what that company thinks of me, then you're right -- we have nothing in common.
I cannot take one more commercial that discusses going to the bathroom.
I would love to cut my cable altogether, as I almost never use it, but currently I have only two choices for the internet: Verizon and Comcast, and both involve cable. If I tell them I only want high speed internet service, the price is actually higher than the bundle with cable. After the first year of bait-and-switch prices, the price is about $100/month--for the bare bones minimum.
$100/month for internet. Ridiculous.
The *only* reason they can get away with that is that they are essentially private monopolies offering an essential service (Internet). I'd absolutely love to pay less with some small nimble company, but there are none because these behemoths eat them all up, with Congress's blessing.
$100/month for internet. Ridiculous.
The *only* reason they can get away with that is that they are essentially private monopolies offering an essential service (Internet). I'd absolutely love to pay less with some small nimble company, but there are none because these behemoths eat them all up, with Congress's blessing.
152
I'm not saying this to pile on how you are getting ripped off but I have a service just as you wish to. It's a small company that uses a "radio" receiver to provide wireless internet. No other add-ons. I pay $49 a month for fast speed and unlimited access. If we stopped laws and political contributions from creating monopolies for giant corporations, the entrepreneurial spirit America is suppose to enshrine will produce a much better field for competition that is good for the consumer.
1
This fails to address the paucity of quality available. The "reality" shows are nothing but televised mental illness. They make professional wrestling seem Shakespearean.
93
Yes, do it! I recently changed cities and only had one choice for internet (ahem, Comcast!) and the hell I went through as they overcharged me by more than $100 for my first bill. Eventually they brought the bill down but the message is clear: as a consumer, if you only want internet and don't care about cable, you're a captive to whatever company has the monopoly on where you live. Hell, they even sent me a cable box "for free" even though I told them I don't have a TV and I won't use it. They're desperate. They also have a monopoly. That pretty much sums up America in 2015.
63
Your onboarding issue with a cable provider sums up America?
I "cut the cord" a couple of months ago. I should have done it years ago. I'm doing much more worthwhile things with my time. What little I've "lost" doesn't compare with what I've gained. And, no, I've not simple turned to some internet substitute. I'm gardening, reading books, and -- good heavens -- interacting with real people! Get your real life, back, folks, and cut the cord!
23
The cost is still too much to pay for a lot of us.
23
Cable companies are monopolies and this whole practice should end.
82
People would be satisfied and pay a premium for CableTV/Internet services if the broadband providers delivered what they promise. Despite the "Ma Bell" jokes of yesteryear, the old telephone monopolies were pillars of quality, reliability and satisfactory customer service in comparison to Comcast and it's ilk and profiteers such as the Roberts family.
36
Right the FCC helps out consumers.
Like the Cable deregulation? Remember that one? So now we pay for the right to have 500 channels of pure BS, while Cable companies collect $$ from both ends.
Then there was the relaxing of the number of commercial segments per hour. Once again, more pure profit for broadcasters and a take a way for viewers.
And the ultimate, the selling for nothing of spectrum that belongs to US, we receive zip directly for this (where does the $$ go?) and then we get the privilege of paying to use what was our spectrum to begin with?
The FCC is the lapdog of the industry. Beware.
Like the Cable deregulation? Remember that one? So now we pay for the right to have 500 channels of pure BS, while Cable companies collect $$ from both ends.
Then there was the relaxing of the number of commercial segments per hour. Once again, more pure profit for broadcasters and a take a way for viewers.
And the ultimate, the selling for nothing of spectrum that belongs to US, we receive zip directly for this (where does the $$ go?) and then we get the privilege of paying to use what was our spectrum to begin with?
The FCC is the lapdog of the industry. Beware.
55
Where does the money go? The NFL (or at least a lot of it.)
Our money goes to pay for debt these giant mergers have caused and for the bad deals they made to access sports programming we used to get for free.
The cable and phone companies have a monopoly on supplying internet access in most places. They should be regulated like a utility.
Inexpensive access to real broadband will stimulate our economy.
Inexpensive access to real broadband will stimulate our economy.
138
The problem is alternate broadband access. Unless you are willing to pay one of the various cable companies -- where else do you go?
27
I never thought cable or direct TV worth paying for at all. When I'm in a hotel room with a few hundred channels I can't find anything I really care to see. I have over-the-air TV, which gives me 5 PBS stations, the major networks, an assortment of stations showing old sit-coms, WGN, and a few more. I also watch U-Tube videos or read or watch a DVD...
When one is watching one station what difference does it make whether there are 10 others available or 100 others available?
When one is watching one station what difference does it make whether there are 10 others available or 100 others available?
22
For many of us, cable TV is online service. It comes in a bundle, with phone too.
It costs more to buy just two. It costs almost as much as all to buy just one.
Those are the prices around here, for all companies in the competition. I know because I just changed service providers after checking them all.
Other places may be different. I suspect many are like here.
That distorts the market behavior on cutting cable. We rarely use the cable. If it made economic sense given the prices on offer, we'd probably cut it.
Cable is much weaker than it seems in today's market. It is artificially sustained by corporate packaging.
It costs more to buy just two. It costs almost as much as all to buy just one.
Those are the prices around here, for all companies in the competition. I know because I just changed service providers after checking them all.
Other places may be different. I suspect many are like here.
That distorts the market behavior on cutting cable. We rarely use the cable. If it made economic sense given the prices on offer, we'd probably cut it.
Cable is much weaker than it seems in today's market. It is artificially sustained by corporate packaging.
50
I would dump the telephone line if any cell phone company would do something about the lousy service I have had since I first had a bag phone in the 1990's. It's not like I live in the boondocks. I'm in the city of Charlotte and these holes are everywhere in their networks.
I tried refusing it. My bill went up. I took it because it was cheaper than not taking it.
When the whiz-kids of conquering risk brought our economy to its knees, I wonder if they'd learned their m.o. from cable companies. After all, cable provides a glaring example of bundling some good stuff with a lot of junk that is then sold as a desirable package. That's what the mortgage masters did, and the world bought the junk.
31
Bundling is nothing more than a "tie in sale" Something that also used to be illegal.
The 4th paragraph says it all. There is no real "cutting the cord" for most consumers as cable remains the primary source of broadband. It is the only one in Boston. Internet only plans are priced at at premium. My internet only plan is priced higher than the average cable plan the Times sites.
74
We ditched the cable phone/internet, along with cable tv and went back to DSL phone/internet, then just DSL internet. Same fast speeds and not anywhere near the number of power outages with cable. Super low monthly bill.
My internet only plan is priced higher than the average cable plan the Times sites.
And this is the problem of "cutting the cord". How can you if just having internet access is more expensive than internet access + cable TV??
And this is the problem of "cutting the cord". How can you if just having internet access is more expensive than internet access + cable TV??
Comcast owns the entire San Francisco Bay Area and most of the Los Angeles market too. Choice? No. It's like communism was in the Soviet Union. No beef for you - just beets today!
1
Thank you, NYT Editorial Board. The stranglehold on home entertainment by a select few needs to end now.
30
Government sponsored Rip-Off Inc. Why not people are getting rich here by the minute.
3
And now about a year after cutting the cord and going with Netflix & NBA League Pass I find Netflix to be somewhat of a disappointment and I have to cut them off every other month. Very little new content in any one 30 day period.
Waiting for HBO Now for Samsung Smart TV. Then I can go every other month with them.
Or read a book instead.
Waiting for HBO Now for Samsung Smart TV. Then I can go every other month with them.
Or read a book instead.
4
We read more, too, after cord cutting, but keep noodling around for streaming alternatives. You've only just scratched the surface of what's out there. There are also streaming alts with mobile and even game devices. The tech competent might want to examine Matricom/G-box, even if Mac-based, as well as Kodi/TV Addons for global streaming. Btw, when we replaced our ancient Sharp Aquos with a Samsung Smart TV, we loved the picture, features, etc… but found less than great wi-fi connectivity (seems they skipped on those components to deliver other features at a low price point), having to reboot from freezes more than one should.
1
So, one day the little skinny scruffy kid gets absolutely fed up with the snarling bully and turns around and beats the hell out of him. Cable cutting is grassroots self-empowering "David vs Goliath-ism". Instead of appeasing their customer base these bullies would rather stuff us like turkeys, lives bellpeppers with "remote control fly-over" channels. Cut the cake? No, just the cord!
6
I never had cable. The programs I might be interested in, say Six Feet Under or the Sopranos, were such a minimal part of cable's overwhelmingly sports, junk news, infotainment and other rubbishy content, I thought why waste the money. I'd wait until the good series were released on DVD and do my own early form of binge watching. Now everything I'm interested in is accessible on the web whenever I want to watch. Problem (inexpensively) solved.
13
cable rates with their infinite number of nfl, channels are extortionate...flee.
7
Glenn Beck's multi-media business model was widely mocked when it started (5?) years ago.
Now it seems positively visionary, huh?
Now it seems positively visionary, huh?
2
I still have to pay to have internet access even though I have never subscribed to cable tv - I don't even own a tv and haven't for decades. So it's pay for the internet access, but that rate is the same as if I did use cable for television. The cable company tells me they don't have a basic charge for people who only need internet access without television - why not? Yet another area where Congress fails the people once again.
162
I figure that as more people cut the cord and stop paying for cable TV, my broadband service cost will rise to compensate. We don't have many options here for for broadband service - a single cable provider and FIOS - and already the cable provider is pricing internet so that households with a lot of streaming need to pay more to get the performance.
I don't believe I will have much opportunity to save or get improved higher speed service unless the cable companies, like phone companies years ago, lose their monopoly on who can send a signal into my neighborhood and into my home. As long as the company that owns the wires under my street are the only companies who can deliver me broadband, I will pay through the nose for whatever bundle of service I must buy.
I don't believe I will have much opportunity to save or get improved higher speed service unless the cable companies, like phone companies years ago, lose their monopoly on who can send a signal into my neighborhood and into my home. As long as the company that owns the wires under my street are the only companies who can deliver me broadband, I will pay through the nose for whatever bundle of service I must buy.
28
My grandson just bought a house that was built in the 1960's. In the attic, he found a giant antenna, and it has outlets in every room of his house. When he hooked the TV to it, he got a great picture and many channels. Younger people don't remember antennas, and most antennas have disappeared from rooftops. He has a splitter hooked up, so one feed goes to the TV and one to the box for internet. He has been without TV for over a year because of the cost. TV has been common since the 1940's, and many people could watch for free if they just knew or remembered. I live in a low area surrounded by hills, so I'm stuck with cable.
4
I figure that as more people cut the cord and stop paying for cable TV, my broadband service cost will rise to compensate.
it already has. In my neighborhood just getting internet access alone is the same price as having internet + Cable. Ridiculous!
it already has. In my neighborhood just getting internet access alone is the same price as having internet + Cable. Ridiculous!
1
When budgets are tight, cable is high on the list of unnecessary luxuries... another casualty in the war on wages. I wonder how long it will take for them to notice that their increases in market share won't offset their shrinking customer base?
21
"Recently, NBCUniversal, a division of Comcast, recently invested $200 million in BuzzFeed, the digital media company."
Just suppose that a "religious" leader went bonkers - say like even a minor type "religious" New Yorker like a Unification Church guy, say like a Rev. Michael Beard. and suppose a person like him started a hacking ring to decide whit kind of programming goes into Americans' homes? Not possible? For people with unlimited tax-free income? Maybe, maybe not. North Korea and Chinese Communists think controlling digital media is almost a religious duty. God forbid our "religious" people think it is theirs, too.
Just suppose that a "religious" leader went bonkers - say like even a minor type "religious" New Yorker like a Unification Church guy, say like a Rev. Michael Beard. and suppose a person like him started a hacking ring to decide whit kind of programming goes into Americans' homes? Not possible? For people with unlimited tax-free income? Maybe, maybe not. North Korea and Chinese Communists think controlling digital media is almost a religious duty. God forbid our "religious" people think it is theirs, too.
1
Traditional streaming, never stopping television is inherently dumb. It commands you to allow it to take over a portion of your life, then and there. The invention of the digital DVR, which to my knowledge first became available on the DISH Network satellite provider after having been pioneered by Tivo, revolutionized the experience of taking in and using video streams by allowing instant stops, rewind and skip forwards without the delay and hassles of video tape.
With the ability to record and select (leaving aside the Internet options for the moment), the need for multiple 24/7 streams was reduced greatly, save for live events like sports and news. We have been slow to adjust to these opportunities, in part because the generations that arose during the 65 years or so of traditional media have been deeply trained in the old way.
With the Internet into the mix, we can now pick and "read" almost any book in the library. We don't have to see what someone else has picked for us at a given hour or moment.
Our cable service is still on, but mostly unused. FIOS cleverly packages channels NOT to give us what we want so they can "upsell" more expensive bundles. The program guide is a mess showing all the channels we don't get, most of which we don't want, but it would be, ah, nice to know which ones we are paying through the nose for and actually get. Hey, this is not supposed to be a hassle on top of the fees. I'd much rather pick what I want, when I want it and forget the rest.
With the ability to record and select (leaving aside the Internet options for the moment), the need for multiple 24/7 streams was reduced greatly, save for live events like sports and news. We have been slow to adjust to these opportunities, in part because the generations that arose during the 65 years or so of traditional media have been deeply trained in the old way.
With the Internet into the mix, we can now pick and "read" almost any book in the library. We don't have to see what someone else has picked for us at a given hour or moment.
Our cable service is still on, but mostly unused. FIOS cleverly packages channels NOT to give us what we want so they can "upsell" more expensive bundles. The program guide is a mess showing all the channels we don't get, most of which we don't want, but it would be, ah, nice to know which ones we are paying through the nose for and actually get. Hey, this is not supposed to be a hassle on top of the fees. I'd much rather pick what I want, when I want it and forget the rest.
19
"Many Americans chafe at having to pay about $67 a month for dozens of TV channels they never use so they can watch a handful of shows. The price of cable and satellite TV service has roughly doubled over the last 20 years, rising about twice as fast as inflation, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
One thing this article left out is the deals offered to new customers versus existing subscribers. In my area, it's not so simple to play one company against the other, given the wiring and the potential from outages in my townhouse complex. It's as if FIOS had a stranglehold over the quality of my bundle.
And, speaking of bundling, it's maddening to read the new offers that seem--note the word "seem"--to offer new customes (again, new!) a chance to cull down their channel selections, Just the other day, I got an "offer" from FIOS for a "deal" that has the potential to raise my entire bill, already high, by one third.
It means a trip now to the store to haggle and threaten, so I can make my bill more reasonable. These companies have a stranglehold over those of us who depend on communications services and NFL football games on big screens, particularly during long winters when TV and internet keep us from going mad.
The system is broken and only the big guys are profiting.
One thing this article left out is the deals offered to new customers versus existing subscribers. In my area, it's not so simple to play one company against the other, given the wiring and the potential from outages in my townhouse complex. It's as if FIOS had a stranglehold over the quality of my bundle.
And, speaking of bundling, it's maddening to read the new offers that seem--note the word "seem"--to offer new customes (again, new!) a chance to cull down their channel selections, Just the other day, I got an "offer" from FIOS for a "deal" that has the potential to raise my entire bill, already high, by one third.
It means a trip now to the store to haggle and threaten, so I can make my bill more reasonable. These companies have a stranglehold over those of us who depend on communications services and NFL football games on big screens, particularly during long winters when TV and internet keep us from going mad.
The system is broken and only the big guys are profiting.
63
Yep, every couple of months I have to visit the cable company office to haggle over the prices.
3
I swear to God, you have to check everything. Even something as innocuous as making sure an "issued credit" actually gets issued to a checking account. If I had a dollar for every promised refund, or cable/FIOS promise, that didn't have to be checked 3 times before it hits, I'd be rich.
The latest for FIOS is the "special offer" they were extending so I could lock in a new low rate when my 2-year deal is up next month. Turns out, the special deal would end up costing me about $30 more (plus taxes) per month! The fine print of the offer is increasing my internet speed, and likely including an enhanced TV package, again not requested.
I'm dreading the biannual trip to the store to stare them down and threaten to return to Comcast.
The latest for FIOS is the "special offer" they were extending so I could lock in a new low rate when my 2-year deal is up next month. Turns out, the special deal would end up costing me about $30 more (plus taxes) per month! The fine print of the offer is increasing my internet speed, and likely including an enhanced TV package, again not requested.
I'm dreading the biannual trip to the store to stare them down and threaten to return to Comcast.
3
To all cable companies, your unwillingness to learn from the past will doom you just like the music industry.
No more bundles, give me the what I want to watch, program your boxes to only show what I sign up for. If only Steve was still alive, by now he would for sure have negotiated with all parties to get them onboard with Apple TV.
Do it now before a new technology wipe you out like it did the music industry. Remember something called Blockbuster, Tower Records and every other place you could buy a CD, books or magazines.
Beware!
No more bundles, give me the what I want to watch, program your boxes to only show what I sign up for. If only Steve was still alive, by now he would for sure have negotiated with all parties to get them onboard with Apple TV.
Do it now before a new technology wipe you out like it did the music industry. Remember something called Blockbuster, Tower Records and every other place you could buy a CD, books or magazines.
Beware!
49
Beware is right. They could charge us $5.00 or more per service. Al a carte may wind up costing us more because of corporate greed.
1
If only Steve was still alive, by now he would for sure have negotiated with all parties to get them onboard with Apple TV.
not likely. The cable market in the US is very oligopolistic (in most markets 2 cable companies). Steve would not be able to push around cable companies like the pleathora of music, movie and app providers.
not likely. The cable market in the US is very oligopolistic (in most markets 2 cable companies). Steve would not be able to push around cable companies like the pleathora of music, movie and app providers.
1
Technology shifts by consumers are inevitable especially if the paradigm is better, cheaper, etc. e.g desk top to mobile
3
I am concerned about this model driving up internet service provider subscription rates. Participation in mainstream society requires using the internet. Driving up internet service rates by folding into internet usage what used to be entertainment on TV seems to me to be forcing poorer people to buy entertainment in order to be able to do things like apply for a job online or buy a savings bond or research health care options. Why is it a good thing to not allow the "TV entertainment" portion of electronic life to be optional, there for those who not only want it but can afford it, but not a necessary expense for those who can't afford it or don't want it? I think these changes ought to have some oversight from people who take public policy considerations into account. Private enterprises based on profit will just find a new way to do it, as I've noticed with physicians now insisting that a "sick visit" be billed simultaneously with an annual physical and thus getting around the physical-without-co-pay benefit to patients but detriment to their income.
13
The New York Times skipped over the little detail that municipalities charge cable companies for the right to provide service (revenue generation) and grant them a legal monopoly.
In return, the companies are required to offer service to every resident, no matter how expensive it is to provide that service, depending on the resident's location.
The other little detail omitted is that delivering video to a community of 5,000 in individual streams via the internet requires 10x more capacity than the current system in which users tune into one the same 500 channels distributed at the same time.
Broadband volume is increase 52% per year due to this shift from live TV to video on demand. So as content costs rise, primarily due to sports rights going up, so do broadband costs as people move away from traditional Pay TV subscriptions.
Choice is great, but anyone who goes to a buffet dinner knows, it's less efficient and more costly, with a lot of waste and food you'll never eat.
In return, the companies are required to offer service to every resident, no matter how expensive it is to provide that service, depending on the resident's location.
The other little detail omitted is that delivering video to a community of 5,000 in individual streams via the internet requires 10x more capacity than the current system in which users tune into one the same 500 channels distributed at the same time.
Broadband volume is increase 52% per year due to this shift from live TV to video on demand. So as content costs rise, primarily due to sports rights going up, so do broadband costs as people move away from traditional Pay TV subscriptions.
Choice is great, but anyone who goes to a buffet dinner knows, it's less efficient and more costly, with a lot of waste and food you'll never eat.
37
You make too much of these points. The municipal franchise fees are a tiny amount of the ever-soaring cable bill. You can tell that's true, because the cable companies would have lobbied for their abolition if it weren't. The "legal monopoly" hasn't kept Verizon and AT&T from providing video services to towns where Comcast and TimeWarner are so ensconced. As for the "requirement" to offer service to every resident, you make it sound as if they are giving away free services, which they most certainly are not. And the costs of this "requirement" are more than satisfied by the money that's made from the customers.
22
No one seems to be aware that a big part of the problem is that communities grant this power of monopoly to the cable companies. Instead of negotiating to reduce their rates or face competition from other providers of Internet and TV, they acquiesce to these monopolistic pumped up rates. This is the reason Google and others are developing truly competitive satellite provided Internet and TV technology. I can't wait.
1
Yeah and those municipal franchise fees are another line item on my bill!
So what's your point?
So what's your point?
2
"ought to heed and respond" - yes they should, but most of them won't. History is littered with companies and technologist (Kodak anyone?) that would not need and would respond. When a new options comes along that gives people want they want, they take their money and go. Time-Warner, are you listening?
11
I cut my cable cord 5 years ago and never looked back. I was tired of my cable prices increasing with a decrease in the stations I could watch.
Currently watch everything on my laptop because the sight of a television in my house was unsightly.
I have almost forgotten what commercials are like. Can you appreciate not having to watch those horrible political candidate commercials during an election?
Bingewatching on Netflix is a great way to spend an evening. I can even watch my local newscast in real time.
I am not a young person, but an older person who was just fed up.
Currently watch everything on my laptop because the sight of a television in my house was unsightly.
I have almost forgotten what commercials are like. Can you appreciate not having to watch those horrible political candidate commercials during an election?
Bingewatching on Netflix is a great way to spend an evening. I can even watch my local newscast in real time.
I am not a young person, but an older person who was just fed up.
312
I did likewise and can receive more than 20 local, HD channels over the air for local programming and tailor my viewing options via the internet.
6
The amount we pay for smart phones, cable TV, and internet access is actually pretty astonishing. My tab is about $250 a month. What do I get for this? Endless entertainment, convenient online shopping for certain items, online banking, and exposure to hackers who will either steal my identity, spy on me, or harass me.
Is it worth the price? I can afford it so probably yes. Is it worth the risk... I'm no longer sure about that. Hacking and spying are getting worse every day. I believe the danger is beginning to outweigh the entertainment and convenience. It may very well be time to cut the cord and the WiFi just to stay out of harms way.
Is it worth the price? I can afford it so probably yes. Is it worth the risk... I'm no longer sure about that. Hacking and spying are getting worse every day. I believe the danger is beginning to outweigh the entertainment and convenience. It may very well be time to cut the cord and the WiFi just to stay out of harms way.
6
FCC can require multichannel providers to itemize every channel's "license fee," once a year. That's a good first step. Push that information down to the subscriber - and put the rentiers on notice.
9
The service, speed, reliability, and low cost every municipality with its own fiber optic utility provides to its citizens vastly outperform private broadband services. That is, of course, why the private sector so adamantly oppose public fiber optic utilities.
The answer for them is pretty obvious: upgrade to fiber, improve service (now that's a novel concept for the likes of Comcast!), and lower the cost. The answer for Congress is pretty obvious too: override state restrictions on public fiber optic systems. The job of Congress is to serve the commonwealth at large not for-profit business.
The answer for them is pretty obvious: upgrade to fiber, improve service (now that's a novel concept for the likes of Comcast!), and lower the cost. The answer for Congress is pretty obvious too: override state restrictions on public fiber optic systems. The job of Congress is to serve the commonwealth at large not for-profit business.
166
Perhaps if congress was forced to watch episode after episode of "Here comes Honey Boo Boo", "Ancient Aliens" and " Paranormal Zombie Vampires using new products we all must have", they might get off their kiesters. I'd throw in a few hours of the many religion channels. As I look over my DirecTV/AT&T channel guide I see what I'm paying for and it's depressing. Consider these titles, on right now as I write:
5 Makeup tips 4 older women
Shark Vacuum
Best Blower Ever
Fish Oil Benefits Examined
Best Pressure Cooker
Hate My Kitchen
Golf Swing Secrets Revealed
Try Total Gym..$14.95 Offer!
Best Pillow Ever
Inversion Therapy Investigated
Shocking Fishing Secret!
World's Easiest Computer
There are hundreds more and they all exist on multiple channels. For all this I enjoy the privilege of Paying DTV about $140.00/month. On top of that I pay NetFlix and Amazon, through Prime, for real TV entertainment worthy of the name. Of course without my fix of CSI, Law and Order and Jeopardy, I might need to tune in Creflo Dollar, who I'm told just bought a Gulfstream G650 for roughly $70 million. Meanwhile the media execs are channeling Reverend Ike (for those who remember), saying "money LOVES to be in my pocket!".
With the return of Longmire, Fargo, and others, I'll likely be lulled back in to complacency. In the mean time I can watch reruns of Donny Wahlberg and
Tom Selleck in "Blue Bloods", with cameos by many of the regulars from NYPD Blue, when the gad guys actually got caught.
5 Makeup tips 4 older women
Shark Vacuum
Best Blower Ever
Fish Oil Benefits Examined
Best Pressure Cooker
Hate My Kitchen
Golf Swing Secrets Revealed
Try Total Gym..$14.95 Offer!
Best Pillow Ever
Inversion Therapy Investigated
Shocking Fishing Secret!
World's Easiest Computer
There are hundreds more and they all exist on multiple channels. For all this I enjoy the privilege of Paying DTV about $140.00/month. On top of that I pay NetFlix and Amazon, through Prime, for real TV entertainment worthy of the name. Of course without my fix of CSI, Law and Order and Jeopardy, I might need to tune in Creflo Dollar, who I'm told just bought a Gulfstream G650 for roughly $70 million. Meanwhile the media execs are channeling Reverend Ike (for those who remember), saying "money LOVES to be in my pocket!".
With the return of Longmire, Fargo, and others, I'll likely be lulled back in to complacency. In the mean time I can watch reruns of Donny Wahlberg and
Tom Selleck in "Blue Bloods", with cameos by many of the regulars from NYPD Blue, when the gad guys actually got caught.
One of the first things our new municipality did when incorporating and breaking away from the universally acknowledged entrenched corrupt and dismal county govt. control was to gain fiber optic service, reducing the stranglehold of Comcast and its decades of paying off the country and state PSC to subvert market competition.
1
It is interesting that this editorial comes a year too late. The US Supreme Court last year took the side of the established media/cable/satellite when it essentially shut down the startup Aereo. There is a lot of money involved in the traditional offerings and the cord-cutting is yes upsetting some revenue streams. But the US is also where broadband access, via cable mostly, and cell phone packages are the most expensive. So the industry gets back its money. The most important piece of the pie is professional sports. It will be interesting to see when there will be options, other than a traditional antenna with a television, to get live sports on any device at a price that makes sense.
10
Aereo was a hopeless kludge, a solution only a lawyer could love. All those little antennas? Puh leeze.
1
And there's the rub for those of us who loathe sports. Why should we have to subsidize sports programming to get a handful of non-sports channels? I'm sorry I did so for as long as I did.
5
Sounds good. However, companies will find a way to enrich shareholders first, executives next, and leave the consumer to pay for it all.
34
I believe enriching executives comes before enriching shareholders these days.
2
In no other industry would the cable TV price structure be tolerated. If I go to a restaurant I don't have to order and pay for a variety of items I have no intention of eating. If I buy an airline ticket I am not obliged to buy several other tickets to places I do not wish to visit. But if I want to watch some cable TV channels, I am forced to pay for a series of other channels that that I don't want and in most cases actively dislike. How do the cable companies get away with this?
235
To (negatively) continue the airline metaphor: but you are now obligated to pay to check a bag, for a seat that doesn't cause DVT, and may soon pay for "early deplaning." Do you really want to open these sorts of possibilities to cables's successors?
1
"How do the cable companies get away with this?" Follow the money:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461
1
How do the cable companies get away with this?
Because they can. Its just like having to pay a membership fee to shop
at Costco and Sam's. Wow, what a joke. And then they strip search members before they leave. If Americans are dumb enough to put up with it, so be it.
Better yet, how about the car dealer wanting to slap his name label on the brand new car u buy so you can advertise for him in the next 100,000 miles or ten years for free. Wake up America, please. Its all around you. Have it removed or tell them it to pay you $500/year for the eyeballs it catches.
First learn that the word "free" is not free if you have to buy something to get "free" stuff.
We are victims of our own consumption. And unless we consume we are worthless to corporate America and our own government.
Because they can. Its just like having to pay a membership fee to shop
at Costco and Sam's. Wow, what a joke. And then they strip search members before they leave. If Americans are dumb enough to put up with it, so be it.
Better yet, how about the car dealer wanting to slap his name label on the brand new car u buy so you can advertise for him in the next 100,000 miles or ten years for free. Wake up America, please. Its all around you. Have it removed or tell them it to pay you $500/year for the eyeballs it catches.
First learn that the word "free" is not free if you have to buy something to get "free" stuff.
We are victims of our own consumption. And unless we consume we are worthless to corporate America and our own government.
2
access to the internet should be as free as radio waves and depend on advertising for income--God knows there's plenty of it on there even though you're paying for the service. remember when cable first became available and was advertised as commercial-free TV...?
82
Cable TV, originally known as "Community Access TV" (CATV) was basically a shared TV antenna that distributed the signal via cable to homes where broadcast reception was poor. It was never commercial free since it was simply re-transmitting broadcast television.
It's not free to build and maintain the networks which raises the question, how then can it be free the end users?
Even public libraries are not "free". In my tax bill they provide a line item for the proportion of my taxes that go to our local library. In my case it's $425 a year, or $35 a month. As a cord cutter, I pay more that service than I do for video entertainment. We go to the library about 20 times a year because my son occasionally likes it, but once he starts doing sports, and school work takes over, that too will decline, but the tax bill will not.
It's not free to build and maintain the networks which raises the question, how then can it be free the end users?
Even public libraries are not "free". In my tax bill they provide a line item for the proportion of my taxes that go to our local library. In my case it's $425 a year, or $35 a month. As a cord cutter, I pay more that service than I do for video entertainment. We go to the library about 20 times a year because my son occasionally likes it, but once he starts doing sports, and school work takes over, that too will decline, but the tax bill will not.
1
I'm a happy, happy cord cutter and the back of me hand to Comcast. These cable companies brought it on themselves out of sheer greed.
123
Are you referring to the company my NJ neighbor calls "Comcrap"? I am looking into Sonic and hopefully will soon remove my $135 per month two year contract with cancellation fees...otherwise costing $173. per month with no contract which is their latest offer....CROOKS!
After cutting a $120 a month cord Direct TV now sends me offers for monthly service at $19.99 plus a $200 cash bonus. However that is only for a year or two then draining my bank account starts again. How about a sane package of local channels and an a la carte menu for the few channels I actually watch?
132
Exactly!! I too and many others I know have had the same experience. The only time cable or direct TV services sound sensible is when you cut them loose. Why can't they offer sane pricing without such threats? If they can offer these perks and still make a profit...Or if they are not profiting from them, then those other subscribers are being drained to make up the difference.
1
There's rich irony in the fact that here in the socialist bastion of Europe, cord-cutting isn't much of phenomenon, thanks to government regulation that forces competition.
In France, the average consumer pays around $35 per month for a package that includes high-speed internet access, basic cable TV, and unlimited telephone including overseas calls. And despite the low prices, the companies providing those packages remain profitable; proof enough that pricing in the United States is out of control.
Regulations require that traditional telecom monopolies open their (mostly) state-funded infrastructure to use by third-party competitors at wholesale rates. The result is that consumers can choose from 5 or more providers, increasing choice and lowering price.
In the United States, the notion that the free market unfettered by government regulation fosters competition and provides better options for consumer is a myth in cases like this. There are instances where the free market needs a helping hand from government to operate in the best interests of consumers, and this is clearly one of them.
Cord-cutting is motivated not so much by wanting new ways to watch TV as it is by consumers feeling ripped off. If Congress were truly representing the interests of their constituents, they would force competition in oligopoly markets, creating an environment where consumers could enjoy the best of both worlds.
In France, the average consumer pays around $35 per month for a package that includes high-speed internet access, basic cable TV, and unlimited telephone including overseas calls. And despite the low prices, the companies providing those packages remain profitable; proof enough that pricing in the United States is out of control.
Regulations require that traditional telecom monopolies open their (mostly) state-funded infrastructure to use by third-party competitors at wholesale rates. The result is that consumers can choose from 5 or more providers, increasing choice and lowering price.
In the United States, the notion that the free market unfettered by government regulation fosters competition and provides better options for consumer is a myth in cases like this. There are instances where the free market needs a helping hand from government to operate in the best interests of consumers, and this is clearly one of them.
Cord-cutting is motivated not so much by wanting new ways to watch TV as it is by consumers feeling ripped off. If Congress were truly representing the interests of their constituents, they would force competition in oligopoly markets, creating an environment where consumers could enjoy the best of both worlds.
355
Telecom utilities in France can afford to offer cheaper service because of their extensive, government-sanctioned, telecommunications industry espionage efforts that targeted U.S. technology companies and their employees. That espionage eliminated the need for start-up and development costs, which in the U.S., had to be amortized across subscriber monthly fees.
Industrial espionage is what I call being ripped off.
Industrial espionage is what I call being ripped off.
Yes, HeyNorris, EVERYTHING that citizens rely on to live decently- such as water, gasoline, housing, food, education, energy, communications, etc - should be a government/private partnership where prices are tightly controlled and at least one-half the profits go back into government coffers to support the social safety net. THAT is sustainable.
For the most part, the cord-cutter phenomenon is more media hype than it is reality. Yes, some people have abandoned traditional methods of receiving television broadcast (I am one of them), but most people have merely augmented the TV services they already receive with additional methods of watching TV and movies via set-top boxes such as Apple TV, or Roku. For most viewers, the ease of a traditional cable, or satellite programming package, outweighs the benefits of reassembling what one watches via a patchwork quilt of separate services and devices.
As mentioned, one needs a fast, broadband Internet connection to use Netflix, Amazon Video, and Hulu, and not everyone has one of these. (Mine is spotty) And sports fans still cannot easily dump cable and still see the games and sports shows they want to watch. Plus, cord-cutting is not a permanent status, and one can always go back to cable and satellite viewing if so desired. The best thing about all of this is that it makes content providers rethink how they distribute what they make, and how much they charge for it. But, to believe that 4 separate $10 and $20 packages is superior to a $70 cable bill goes against most peoples' experiences with both ways of watching.
12
Nice idea repealing laws to protect the cable monopolies in many states, will never happen though. The free market capitalists known as republicans abhor competition in that market place. Scratch any so called capitalist and what you find is a monopolist. Look at Paulson in 2008 killing off as much competition for his beloved Goldman.
What should happen is that the government takes over the communications infrastructure the same as the roads. For a fee (maintenance etc) anyone can be an Internet provider. Again using the roads, look at all the competition to deliver your packages because everyone has access to use the roads. Communications should be treated the same. The technology is there, we just lack the will to take on the monopolists. the Trusts of the 21st century.
What should happen is that the government takes over the communications infrastructure the same as the roads. For a fee (maintenance etc) anyone can be an Internet provider. Again using the roads, look at all the competition to deliver your packages because everyone has access to use the roads. Communications should be treated the same. The technology is there, we just lack the will to take on the monopolists. the Trusts of the 21st century.
85
Thank you Rico. You said it best.
1