More customers drop cable TV; is Internet or cost to blame?

[DainBramaged]

Interesting statistics within the article (a must complete read)

1) Meanwhile, Netflix's (NFLX) streaming movie service has become so popular that it is now the largest source of U.S. Internet traffic during peak evening hours, according to Sandvine, a Canadian company that supplies traffic-management equipment to Internet service providers.

2)Cable companies would like to get low-income customers back with cheaper cable packages, but their hands are tied. Content providers such as The Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. won't license their channels one by one, so subscribers have to take expensive channel packages, or very basic ones that offer little beyond what's available with an antenna.

3)If "cord-cutting" in favor of Internet video is finally taking hold, that has wide-ranging implications. Consumers who use the Internet to get their movies and TV shows bypass not just the cable companies, but the cable networks that produce the content. The move could have the same disruptive effect on the TV and movie industries as digital downloads have had on music.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-11-05-cable-tv-subscribers-drop_N.htm?csp=obinsite

[eShirl]

1. it's both, of course

[Turbineguy]

2. Nobody should have to pay for Fox News.

[no_hypocrisy]

20. + 1

Can't think of a better way to boycott FOX than to not pay for cable.

[SoCalDem]

35. Isn't that part of the problem?

I have always heard that Foxnews is on the "freebie/cheapie" packages, but NOT CNN/MSNBC. The fact that Fox gives their toxic shit away, and what little competition there is , is part of the expensive packages, is what gives Fox an "edge".

If there is ever an a la carte system set up, we will end up losing many/most of the niche programming, so that's not necessarily the best thing either.

[Mimosa]

3. Cost.

People who can afford both have both.

But if one has to cut back, cable is less important.

[negativenihil]

4. If you can do without live tv...

such as sports or other special live broadcasts, you'd be surprised how easy you can keep yourself entertained via netflix, hulu, and even some of the main network's sites. There's also a bit of an upfront cost in terms of putting together a home theater pc(htpc), but that's only ~$300 as per the system i've spec'ed out (with my cable+internet bill at $150/mo, this could save me quite a bit and pay for itself in a very short period)

[supernova]

5. If it means getting rid of

Fox, all the "shopping" channels, overnight infomercials, and fake programming on "good channels (reality shows on History, Wrestling on Sy Fy) , so be it.

SO signed up for the full package, but to tell you the truth, I'd rather just have the internet and netflix and do without the rest.

[bluethruandthru]

6. I just wish Netflix would get more streaming options than they currently have.

I want to stream movies and tv shows directly ....not order DVD's. Most of their titles are still DVD only.

[nebenaube]

17. What he said...

I refuse to help fund fox 'news'.

[toddwv]

7. Imagine a world

where I don't have to block all the shopping networks, evangelists in custom-fitted suits screaming "Give us more money!" or Fox "News".

I'm looking into internet TV. Might have to give up some channels but I'm sure that I can adjust.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Another Disconection

I see this all over the media biz these days...people aren't buying like they used to. The networks and cables and broadcasters live in a world of the 90s or earlier...when their products were the only games out there and worked to "deregulate" that allowed the cable companies to charge whatever they please. Basic cable rates went from $25 a month to $50...and then up to $100. Add the extra charges for HD and some people are paying $200 a month. The lowest tier only offers what you get over-the-air...the "must carrys"...no real bargain. Yet the mindset in these companies is that people are still making money to afford and when their numbers drop off it must be something else. It's led broadcast companies to go into bankruptcy and will have a impact on other communications companies as well.

The internet is definitely being felt and for good reason...you get a lot more information and entertainment for a fraction of the cost. If I'm lucky I may watch a dozen of the hundreds of channels on my cable...a big waste of money. Fortunately I can afford, but I'm leaving my options open. When everything I like to watch is available on HD Internet, the cable is gonna get cut waaaaaaaay back if not out altogether.

These people have no one to blame but their own greed...

[subterranean]

9. In my case, it was cost.

I only subscribe to basic cable for about $17 a month. The next-cheapest plan is about $50 a month. Since that includes only 3 or 4 channels that I'd actually want to watch, it's just not worth it to me. Basic cable + Netflix is a better value.

[txlibdem]

10. It costs your Internet Service Provider no more than $5 PER MONTH for your usage

There is a ripoff going on here and it aint the tv "service" of your ISP. The internet providers all charge $40 to $80 a month for internet and you don't even know that they are ripping you off.

A few high bandwidth users pop up but the ISPs close them down within a matter of hours nowadays so don't believe their BS that it's the "high cost" of certain users.

For-Profit Internet Service is a ripoff!

What can you do about it? Demand that your town or locality offer FREE Wireless internet service for every citizen. A functioning Democracy requires educated people who have access to accurate information about the world and what is truly going on. The internet is, today, the only place you are able to get non-biased "news" and is always the only place to get access to a wealth of information.

Students, entrepreneurs, moms and dads, companies, everyone should be picketing outside the city officials offices demanding free wireless internet for all. It is your right to be informed. It is your right to be able to communicate. Demand it.

Think of it as similar to fire department, police, and water. It is the government's job to make sure that all citizens have equal access to education and communication.

[killbotfactory]

18. There is very little competition and a lack of infrastructure

Something which is being addressed, at least partially, by some of the stimulus funds.

Still, consumers are being screwed over because powerful moneyed interests are throwing around their weight to maintain the status quo.

We have the technology to put every book, video, music, etc known to mankind, available to everyone on earth, anywhere, anytime... but we don't because powerful companies can't figure out how to maintain or expand their current profits by doing so, and pressure our politicians to handicap one of the greatest technological breakthroughs of the human race.

[txlibdem]

57. And they wouldn't be able to sell you the same product multiple times

How many times have you bought a copy of the original Star Wars movie? Remember video tapes? They would break or get stretched or messed up (eaten by the VCR) so you had to buy the movie again and again sometimes. Then we went to DVD and you had to buy it again. Now you have to buy it again on Blu-Ray or a digital download -- guess what, you buy it again, same content but you had to buy it so many times. Same thing with music. I've had to buy certain albums 4 or 5 times in my lifetime (I only do that for my favorites though).

I wholeheartedly agree with you that we have the technology right now to live a fantastic life. But a small group of "special" people who are above the law and seem to only get richer and richer no matter what happens with the economy or jobs or whatever are holding the rest of us back, lowering the quality of our lives so they can have a life of luxury. I'm tired of carrying a bunch of billionaires around on my back. I want to throw them off my back and into the ditch where they belong.

[onehandle]

11. We need our cable for our cable modem, but I am about to drop all channels to the most basic.

It's all online.

We have a spare MacBook Pro on our dining room table where we watch 'TV' over dinner every night.

[mike_c]

25. I subscribe to cable internet only, no television programming at all....

The cable company flacks think we're crazy because we won't take advantage of their price offers for bundled service-- which, while they admittedly would reduce the cost for broadband internet access, would also raise the total price by at least 50%. But the cost isn't the point for me. I'm HAPPY to pay for broadband access-- it's a service that I greatly enjoy (and arguably need to perform my job at home). On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing that I need from cable TV, so it's not worth any subscription price, no matter how low. Economic arguments simply don't make any difference to me because I don't want the squawking box running in my home, ever. Hell, I'd pay to NOT have cable TV, LOL.

[tXr]

12. Dumped cable a year ago. Service was great, shows were crappy.

I couldn't justify paying for even basic cable considering the overall decline in the quality of programming on pretty much every channel.

I'm not a movie watcher and don't care for sports so it was easy to cut the cord. Local news and the occasional PBS documentary are the extent of my teevee consumption.

Don't miss it a bit.

[killbotfactory]

13. Welcome to the future

I do not miss spending a third of my time in front of the TV suffering through advertisements. Thank you netflix.

[OHdem10]

14. In hard times when money is scarce, people have to set priorites.

Newspapers and Television are not necessities. To many
these become luxuries and they have to stop subscriptions.
\
This has been going on as the middle class incomes began
to drop. It is just more pronounced now.

[rfranklin]

22. Newspapers are dying an agonizing death...

the precipitous drop in revenue due to the internet, i.e., Craigslist, has decimated them.

[durkermaker]

24. newspapers have pretty much been nothing but propaganda for decades

i know i wont miss them

Russia Today on youtude is far more objective than mainstream media

imagine that - having to go to pravda to escape propaganda

[Kalyke]

31. I'm guessing your local daily isn't propaganda.

I worked covering local news for a decade in my 20s and I never once slung any propaganda.

I can't speak for what we got from AP, but I can tell you that the reporters in my newsroom worked hard to provide our readers with news they could use in an unbiased and truthful fashion.

Newspapers, FWIW, aren't really "dying." They are just becoming an online read... and online advertising is increasing in cost (I'm in marketing now, I know how expensive online advertising is) so that newsonline can afford to pay some reporters.

[durkermaker]

34. fair enough, our local is very good for local news

and covers things very objectly

[gratuitous]

15. Cost, internet and lack of choice

All the must-carry stuff that very few people watch is a waste of money. Consumers are savvier, and want to dictate their own packages, but cable companies aren't responsive to that. Instead, they lard up your package with shopping channels, Spanish language channels, local access channels and other stuff. My personal package would carry about 10 channels, probably no more than 15. But I can't get those 15 without the "bonus" of another 100 channels that I never watch, at a cost several times what I'd pay for a package of only the channels I want. Who needs that?

If consumers can't get their choice from the cable companies, they'll find it somewhere else. If cable companies can't adapt, fuck 'em. They've been fucking us for years.

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Cost

[mike_c]

19. I stopped that shit decades ago....

Occasionally I watch television while traveling, e.g. in hotels at night. Like, maybe once or twice a year (most of the time I don't bother, even when I have the opportunity). But it's often impossible to escape these days, with damn nearly every restaurant, bar, and many other business running the damned box whenever they're open for business. As though people are so addicted to TV that providing it is the only way to stay in business selling less necessary things, like, um, food.

Anyway, I was in Sacramento earlier this week so I got my semi-annual hit of stoopid via LCD. It is utterly appalling. I suspect that many folks don't realize how awful most television programming is-- like other addicts, they are too close to their own pleasure reactions to appreciate how much better a clean life can be.

Turn that squawking box off! Seriously!

[durkermaker]

23. I HATE that!!!

TV's in the grocery store, TV's in the locker room at the gym

almost like being alone with your thoughts is a thought crime, mandatory that you passivly accept that BS pouring into your mind 24/7

'buy this f--king product! buy this f--king product!'

[mike_c]

29. "buy this f--king product...!"

Television is the most effective tool for behavior control and modification ever invented, and you've just pointed out the primary evidence in support of that contention. Television advertising works. Not just a little bit-- it works REALLY well.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Imagine that television advertising did not work at all. How would one recognize that it didn't work? The simplest test would be to analyze the behavior of consumers who view television advertising and their response to product offers after they've viewed ads. If their purchase patterns were indistinguishable from folks who have NEVER been exposed to television advertising, then television would be demonstrably unable to manage consumer behavior. But that's not at all what happens in the real world.

Television is a powerful behavior modifier. That is easily demonstrable-- one need only look at the bottom lines of corporations who depend upon television advertising to sell their products. Media executives and marketing experts have behavior management down to a very real science. They know precisely where your buttons are and how to push them, usually without your even knowing you're being manipulated, or at least without your knowing HOW it's being done.

Consider this: a huge chunk of our brain volume is devoted to processing information delivered via the optic nerve. In fact, that pipeline is the most important information source we monitor if bandwidth is any indication of importance. Our eyes are a direct line to our cognition. Short of sticking electrodes directly into the cerebral cortex or applying friction to erogenous zones, there is no better way to stimulate our pleasure centers than via visual imagery. What most people call "entertainment" on TV, I call "associative learning," plain old Pavlovian reward reinforced behavior.

Now let's do another thought experiment. You're a media executive running a behavior control network (or system, or whatever you want to call it). You use "entertainment" as the pleasurable reward that keeps the rats running their maze, pushing their levers, or buying your advertisers products. What else might you use such a powerful engine for creating conformity to accomplish? What do you think the rich and powerful-- the folks who can afford to wield that tool-- would use it for? First and foremost, I think, they use it to consolidate, maintain, and extend their power. That's what absolute power does.

I think television is incredibly dangerous. I won't have one in my house.

[DainBramaged]

36. When you lump in the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, History Channel

Animal planet, I wonder why you think the word stoopid is appropriate for the TV and not the mirror that is the TV?

[mike_c]

38. see my post #29 just above yours....

An entertaining and pleasurable experience is the reward you get for watching. I'm absolutely certain that you enjoy it, find it edifying, or whatever it is that you find pleasurable about it. Lots of informative content out there and being informed is often pleasurable, but television is still a dangerous medium for humans, IMO. And despite all the good intentions that some content providers might have, I think the medium is INHERENTLY dangerous.

Garrett Hardin made the point best in a completely different context: you cannot use television itself to overcome the inherent dangers of television, and as long as someone can benefit by using the medium for personal gain, they will, and nothing will stop at least some people from using it harmfully in the interest of their own greed or lust for power.

[DainBramaged]

39. (sigh) of course, whatever, you're right, absolutely

I'm going to watch Pawn Stars and think about how much reward it gives me.

Right.

[mike_c]

40. is there really such a thing as "pawn stars...?"

What the HECK is a pawn star, anyway? :rofl:

(like I said, I watch about ten minutes worth of TV-- or at least pay attention to about ten minutes worth-- annually. My GF has been telling people for years about my reaction the one and only time I saw something like "Big Breast Adventures" or something similar on Spike TV.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. All those channels are stoopider than they used to be

All that Ice Road Truckers, Dog Whisperer, Hitler Channel crap.

Discovery and National Geo used to be real documentaries about science, nature, and foreign countries. The History Channel used to show things beside World War II and the occult.

[Taitertots]

59. History Channel, Discovery Channel, and National Geographic...

Are a pathetic joke. They are just entertainment repackaged under the guise of educational programming. A hilarious dog and pony show that is divorced from reality.

[durkermaker]

21. I dropped cable many years ago, because it was counter to my goals

i hate paying for something i dont use, but i had to be a couch potatoe to get my money's worth, a tendency i was fighting

i only watch cable on machines at the gym, and there are so many commercials i sometimes forget what i was watching

plus, the cable provider in my area is named MediaCom, if that name doesnt tell you it's numbing your mind, what would?

[bluestateguy]

26. If money is tight, that's one of the easiest things to cut from a monthly budget

You can't cut your mortgage payment or rent, and bills like car insurance are the same each month.

Reducing cable from Premium down to Standard is first on the chopping block for me, if my middle class tax cut expires in January.

BTW, I have always supported a la carte cable. I think it would be great. I'd be the first to cancel Fox News.

[slay]

27. Kill yr TV

[Offsides]

28. Have a look at 'OTA"...

"Over the Air" stations. Free. All you need is a decent antenna and if you have an older TV, a digital to analog converter box.

Right now I am pulling in around 30 digital and 20 analog channels.

Sure, there is a lot of repetition and the content is not near as good as cable/satellite, but within a few years the transition to digital will be complete and the choice of channels will grow.

Did I mention it's free?

[hobbit709]

37. Not everyone lives in a large urban area.

If you live in a small size town over 50 miles from the big city, your chances of picking up that many stations is slim. I can get a dozen stations with just a set of rabbit ears here in Austin, but some people i know that live 20 miles away can only get three(and one of them is Fox)

[mwooldri]

41. Antenna, Terrain and Weather.

All have an impact on what channels you can get.

Terrain can be the #1 problem, there's often no hope in getting the channels you want consistently if there's a mountain in the way and you're in the hole (#1 reason we need more translators in tough reception areas).

The vast majority of reception problems come down to antenna, antenna, and antenna.

If you don't have the right kind of antenna for your location - and if you're in a rural area get an outdoor antenna - then you're not getting anything.

Provided terrain is in your favour, with the right antenna you can be getting stations 80-100 miles away with not much difficulty.

Again, terrain is important: Raleigh and Charlotte are about same distance apart as far as the crow flies - I can get most of Raleigh's stations (in addition to all of the Piedmont Triad's) and a couple out of Roanoke, VA - but nothing from Charlotte.

Weather also plays its part too. Freak conditions can get you receiving stations from far far away. Also thunderstorms can severly disrupt digital signals for stations operating on low-VHF channels (low-VHF in analog: good, not good in digital).

[dimbear]

52. There's one more problem...........

Channels which used to be powerful when they were analog coming back on the air with digital signals which are feeble. Of course it is much cheaper for them, but that is the reason I have no public broadcasting out here in the sticks.

Cheapskates.

[DemocratAholic]

30. it is a lie...

it is amazing to me how the cable companies keep repeating this LIE that their "hands are tied," they are being "forced" to offer tiered packages.

first of all, let's look at one very basic fact. when the cable companies were hauled before congressional committees and directly asked about their position on "a la carte" pricing, they all stated they were opposed to it. they have continually stated that they think that tiered packages, as opposed to "a la carte" cable, SAVES their customers money.

they are blaming the channel providers for a tiered pricing system that THEY created, and which they have opposed any laws to eliminate.

i find it very, very disturbing that some people are repeating this very disingenuous defense that the cable companies are using. this is analogous to republicans saying that they care about people without health care, meanwhile taking money from the insurance companies and voting against anything to make it better.

make no mistake, the cable companies believe they benefit by forcing people to only choose tiered packages. these grumblings you hear about the channel providers is the result of a system that cable companies have put in place. yes it is true that the channel providers are taking advantage of that by forcing channels onto specific tiers. but...if the tiers didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem!

if there were laws in place which required cable companies to offer a la carte cable, the channel providers would not be able to force people to take their channels. but the cable companies are very, very opposed to that law. very!!!

this is a somewhat complex issue because it involves a monopoly and different levels of government. the cable companies contract with your local government to provide service in your area. so the federal government has very little to do with regulating cable, and we are victimized by this system. the local governments take gobs of money from the cable tv companies, and meanwhile let the cable companies have their way with us. how often do you hear your local gov't officials discussing the contracts with cable companies?

basically what the cable companies are saying with this defense to their outrageous pricing and forcing tiered packages, is that they are powerless! they have absolutely no control! they are the victims!

it's not true. they are not victims or powerless and they created this system, and they believe they benefit from it by making obscene amounts of money making people pay for channels they don't want. they have opposed anything to change that.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

50. Well said, and welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Matariki]

32. I dropped it when I realized how much time I was wasting watching home improvement shows!

I'd come home from work, and watch people working on tv! It made no sense.

[Liberal_in_LA]

44. hee! They are addictive. Cooking shows also

[Carolina]

33. both

[mindwalker_i]

42. How About The Fact That Everything On TV Sucks!

I dropped cable some years ago, and there really wasn't anything on TV to watch anyway. There still isn't! Not interested in Friends five days a week. Not interested in "reality" shows. There might be one or two things worth watching on cable but I'm not paying $50 a month for it. And anything I really want to see is on Amazon streaming.

Heroes was cancelled.
Firefly was cancelled.
Caprica was cancelled.

Fuck it!

[bemildred]

43. Maybe the inferior quality of the product has something to do with it? nt

[HuckleB]

45. Anecdotally, it seems like more people are dropping it.

And even if they do use Internet access for some shows, they're watching much less.

But, maybe that's just in my neighborhood.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

47. I live in the middle of nowhere.

They had cable here long before they had it in the cities. The nearest TV station is 60 to 80 miles. That said, my internet service isn't real good. The cable TV has NO digital or hi-def channels and I doubt they will have any for a few more years.

There is still a concrete pad on the side of my house with a hinge stuck in it where my grandparents had a big triangular TV antenna. I remember that even in the days of black and white TV the reception was awful, over the air.


I recently was in a hotel in Houston and saw hi-def for the first time. I saw why people are awestruck over the detail.

And they keep jacking up the price for the internet. GAAHH!!!

[Toucano]

48. They don't consider that it could be THE CONTENT?

I mean, how many times can they dress up "Dragnet" to a rock-n-roll soundtrack and expect to hold on to viewers?

How many times do they think watching people lose weight at a fat farm is going to seem fresh?

The programming is ALWAYS the SAME!

[Rex]

49. I don't blame the WWW one bit, cable is dull and repetitive. Boring beyond words.

Is it really necessary to run a program three times a day? Can't be to fast about adding more content and less junk? Fly by nights buy up all the 3am channel time...cable is a fucking joke. They need a channel that shows something different all day long. Cable has turned into 200 channels of boring crap.

[WestSeattle2]

56. Exactly.

[sally cat]

51. It's a luxury that isn't so cheap anymore in these tough times.

[ShadowLiberal]

53. Too many expensive channels people never watch, that's why

Seriously, some cable providers like to brag in their ads about having several hundred channels, but almost nobody even watches most of them, so why should you pay over twice as much as you'd have to otherwise?

[sendero]

54. I'm tired of paying.....

.... for a shitload of channels that I not only don't watch but actively dislike.

I dropped satellite when I moved recently. The only thing I miss somewhat is TCM, Sundance and IFC.

I was paying $75 a month for those 3 channels and I can live without them.

As the economy continues to languish more and more people are going to drop their cable/satellite, it simply is not a necessity.

When I can buy a service where I purchase each channel I want a la carte, I'll think about it.

Mean time I'm not subsidising Fox, "shopping" channels, religious nutcake broadcasting, etc.

[WestSeattle2]

55. I just cut my cable bill from $90/month to $46 - far too many

channels I have absolutely no interest in; High-def receivers in all three TV locations - when I don't watch enough TV to even justify HD at all. Six shopping channels when I don't watch one? 14 sports channels when all I care about are the Seahawks and Huskies? 14 movie channels when I don't watch movies? My TV "watching" consists mostly of listening, not watching, to MSNBC, CNN, and the History Channel. A $90 monthly cable bill was silly and unjustifiable.

[DainBramaged]

58. I am close to dropping the TV side.

I can watch what I want on the web, paying $80 for 'IO Premium' without HBO or any movie channel is a .waste.

[strategery blunder]

60. Cost

Why the hell should I pay upwards of $50 a month for the ONE channel I'd ever watch, MSNBC?

I cancelled the cable as soon as I could. I would've done it earlier, but I lived with someone else who watched the teevee.

Haven't even had the TV on since June, and that was to watch a movie with a guest. My mother, who cannot fathom life without TV, is bringing an antenna up from AZ. LOL

A la carte or nothing for me.