4 ms·

Is it really though? I haven't had a cable subscription since I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, didn't have one for four years before that, and I have yet

by awalton 10y ago

Is it really though? I haven't had a cable subscription since I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, didn't have one for four years before that, and I have yet to be convinced that I'm actually missing anything - anything I care to watch can be found trivially online (even without piracy, though often you have to sit through ads...) My demand for content hasn't really changed, just my will and desire to put up with bullshit. I think the only real losers with cord cutting are people who like sports, as they all refuse to get with the times and have ridiculous region locking on all of their content. Luckily I do not suffer from the affliction...

hkmurakami 10y ago
I'm in the same boat. But certainly we're in the minority in this country for not really caring too much about sports.
- adventurer 10y ago
  I'm sort of in the same boat? I don't want cable but it is cheaper bundling it with internet. I receive two extra channels than I would get from an antenna and the cable company tells shareholders their subscriber base is still going strong.
CoolGuySteve 10y ago
One thing I'm noticing with cable-cutting is that the market is getting more fragmented. Instead of just getting Netflix and watching free Hulu with ads, now you have to get Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Now, pay for Hulu, buy the Starz app, pay for MLB, etc. in order to compose all the content you want. It's equivalent to buying cable packages where you spend money on a bundle engineered to have only 20% of what you want. The only difference is that it's all video-on-demand now.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > The only difference is that it's all video-on-demand now And ad free, or pretty much (HBO sometimes has a minute of ads before episodes, at least those are sometimes worth watching. That's how I found about westworld, for example). I'd buy cable if it was ad free (and cheaper). Right now I have netflix, hulu plus, amazon prime (+ motortrend for 5 bucks), hbo now, and nhl gamecenter. It's not cheap, and it's not the best experience going through apps. It's still better than ads.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  I don't know. Netflix appears to have added a lot of licensed content over the last year. $10/month for Netflix vs $65/month for basic Fios TV. I could add HBO Now for $15/month and still be money ahead.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    Netflix removes as much or more than it adds.
- sundaeofshock 10y ago
  That assumes you want all that content. One of the reasons I cut cable is becuase I didn't want to pay for content that I never looked at. The only content I pay for now is HBO Now and Amazon Prime, plus streaming movie rentals. If I want sports, I usually just go to a bar. If I want the BBC (which I do), I just VPN into the UK and watch stuff.
  - CoolGuySteve 10y ago
    I also don't want to pay for content I don't watch, which is 80% of Netflix and Amazon Prime.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ams6110 10y ago
Can't read the paywalled story but where I live there's really one option for internet: Comcast. So if I literally cut cable, I have nothing (I cut my phone landline years ago, and AT&T has no high-speed internet in my neighborhood anyway). What I do is I have the "basic" TV + internet package, as that's actually cheaper bundled than getting internet by itself. I have no ESPN, HBO, etc. I do miss some sports but I catch most games I care about on the radio or online. And the really big games are still usually on "broadcast" channels which I get on my minimal TV package.
- gregmac 10y ago
  > What I do is I have the "basic" TV + internet package, as that's actually cheaper bundled than getting internet by itself. I've heard this before, and on the surface seems like it's probably skewing a lot of the numbers (making the number of cable TV subscribers artificially higher than it otherwise would be). At the same time, you, like many others, do have it hooked up to your TV, and you watch it at least occasionally. Despite the bundle being cheaper, you still are by all metrics a legit cable TV subscriber. The big question is if it wasn't cheaper, would you still have cable TV? If it was $1 more to get TV vs just internet, would you do it, and at what point does it become too expensive?
  - Merad 10y ago
    Where I live Comcast is the only option, and it is not (to my knowledge) possible to get an internet only package at all. I imagine that I am reported as a "cable customer" even though my TV isn't connected.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    > is if it wasn't cheaper, would you still have cable TV For me the answer is no. I do watch TV occasionally (but often go weeks or months without; I think the last "TV" I watched was the World Series) but the vast majority of what I watch is on Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, or YouTube or other online. If internet-only were cheaper that's what I would get. I might consider getting a rooftop antenna for broadcast network TV, but probably wouldn't bother.
  - 10y ago
Retric 10y ago
I have cable and have not turned my TV on in months. You really are not missing much.

by awalton 10y ago

hkmurakami 10y ago

I'm in the same boat. But certainly we're in the minority in this country for not really caring too much about sports.

adventurer 10y ago
I'm sort of in the same boat? I don't want cable but it is cheaper bundling it with internet. I receive two extra channels than I would get from an antenna and the cable company tells shareholders their subscriber base is still going strong.

CoolGuySteve 10y ago

One thing I'm noticing with cable-cutting is that the market is getting more fragmented. Instead of just getting Netflix and watching free Hulu with ads, now you have to get Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Now, pay for Hulu, buy the Starz app, pay for MLB, etc. in order to compose all the content you want. It's equivalent to buying cable packages where you spend money on a bundle engineered to have only 20% of what you want. The only difference is that it's all video-on-demand now.

serge2k 10y ago
> The only difference is that it's all video-on-demand now And ad free, or pretty much (HBO sometimes has a minute of ads before episodes, at least those are sometimes worth watching. That's how I found about westworld, for example). I'd buy cable if it was ad free (and cheaper). Right now I have netflix, hulu plus, amazon prime (+ motortrend for 5 bucks), hbo now, and nhl gamecenter. It's not cheap, and it's not the best experience going through apps. It's still better than ads.
alistairSH 10y ago
I don't know. Netflix appears to have added a lot of licensed content over the last year. $10/month for Netflix vs $65/month for basic Fios TV. I could add HBO Now for $15/month and still be money ahead.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  Netflix removes as much or more than it adds.
sundaeofshock 10y ago
That assumes you want all that content. One of the reasons I cut cable is becuase I didn't want to pay for content that I never looked at. The only content I pay for now is HBO Now and Amazon Prime, plus streaming movie rentals. If I want sports, I usually just go to a bar. If I want the BBC (which I do), I just VPN into the UK and watch stuff.
- CoolGuySteve 10y ago
  I also don't want to pay for content I don't watch, which is 80% of Netflix and Amazon Prime.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ams6110 10y ago

Can't read the paywalled story but where I live there's really one option for internet: Comcast. So if I literally cut cable, I have nothing (I cut my phone landline years ago, and AT&T has no high-speed internet in my neighborhood anyway). What I do is I have the "basic" TV + internet package, as that's actually cheaper bundled than getting internet by itself. I have no ESPN, HBO, etc. I do miss some sports but I catch most games I care about on the radio or online. And the really big games are still usually on "broadcast" channels which I get on my minimal TV package.

gregmac 10y ago
> What I do is I have the "basic" TV + internet package, as that's actually cheaper bundled than getting internet by itself. I've heard this before, and on the surface seems like it's probably skewing a lot of the numbers (making the number of cable TV subscribers artificially higher than it otherwise would be). At the same time, you, like many others, do have it hooked up to your TV, and you watch it at least occasionally. Despite the bundle being cheaper, you still are by all metrics a legit cable TV subscriber. The big question is if it wasn't cheaper, would you still have cable TV? If it was $1 more to get TV vs just internet, would you do it, and at what point does it become too expensive?
- Merad 10y ago
  Where I live Comcast is the only option, and it is not (to my knowledge) possible to get an internet only package at all. I imagine that I am reported as a "cable customer" even though my TV isn't connected.
- ams6110 10y ago
  > is if it wasn't cheaper, would you still have cable TV For me the answer is no. I do watch TV occasionally (but often go weeks or months without; I think the last "TV" I watched was the World Series) but the vast majority of what I watch is on Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, or YouTube or other online. If internet-only were cheaper that's what I would get. I might consider getting a rooftop antenna for broadcast network TV, but probably wouldn't bother.
- 10y ago

Retric 10y ago

I have cable and have not turned my TV on in months. You really are not missing much.