5 ms·

"The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone." No, it isn't. I cut the cord, and watch media on Netflix & Hulu and buy 2-3 shows on i

"The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone." No, it isn't. I cut the cord, and watch media on Netflix & Hulu and buy 2-3 shows on iTunes. To get the same number of movies and series on TV I was paying for a $100+ per month cable bill. Now I'm paying $40 for internet and $8 for Netflix and about $6 per month from iTunes TV shows. So I get a better experience, can watch what I want when I want it, and pay about half of what I used to.

pbreit 13y ago
I get cable AND Internet for $55/month (including espn and amc). People who claim cable is expensive seem to be unwilling to lessen their bill.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- orclev 13y ago
  Sure you can get basic cable and the slowest tier of internet for that price, but the cables companies intentionally structure the cable packages to insure that the majority of channels you actually want to watch aren't included in the basic package. I pay $80 a month for the fastest internet connection I can get, and nothing at all for cable because it's a complete waste of my money. Everything I want to watch is available either via Netflix or Hulu whenever I want to watch it, not when the cable company thinks they can wring the most ad dollars out of me. Why should I pay exorbitant fees to get access to the same content I already have access to at times that are inconvenient for me?
- amalcon 13y ago
  Where do you live? Cable Internet alone would run me a minimum of $50/mo. at the slowest speed, ignoring the introductory rate. The cheapest package with TV runs almost $100/mo after the introductory rate expires.
  - pbreit 13y ago
    Comcast San Francisco, outside intro rate. Tv + 20+ Mbps Internet.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  I want your service package! With the lowest tier internet possible (25/2), with a godawful provider I've had issues with in the past (Cablevision), and the lowest tier cable possible (to get the "double play" package), will run me absolutely no less than $80/month. Meanwhile I get vDSL from the telco for $30. I do not and never have watched enough broadcast TV to justify almost tripling the price..
apendleton 13y ago
At this point, though, there are too few people doing what you're doing to influence content creator behavior. Cable companies are probably making less per unit of content off of you than they are off of cable subscribers, but that's okay: the costs of making the content are essentially fixed, and are paid for mostly by cable subscribers. If they have to choose between getting dollars from you for content they've already made, or not at all, they'll take the money, even if it's less than they'd get from a cable subscriber. But if everyone does that, the economics of content production totally change. The shows you're buying now might not even get made in the first place. In other words, the quote you pulled could use some more context: "The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone [including the current cord cutters]."
- 9999 13y ago
  Netflix's move into creating content is specifically in response to cord cutters desires. Since they can't convince HBO to give them their content, they've decided to compete directly with HBO. Cord cutters are actually creating new content creators.
  - apendleton 13y ago
    That may well be, but two responses: firstly, House of Cards, in particular, was exorbitantly expensive, and a huge gamble on Netflix's part that may or may not turn out to be sustainable in the long term. Second: Netflix is producing way less content than is available on cable. They produce less content than HBO, which is one cable channel among the hundreds that are currently available in the US. They'll never be able to match the breadth of content production cable can pull off, and it probably won't ever make sense for them to produce super-niche stuff of the kind that's available on non-general-audience channels (think the Golf Channel or Food Network). So they're a sort-of partial replacement for a tiny subset of content.
    - aqme28 13y ago
      They produce way less content partly because they only recently got into the game. It's unfounded to say that just because they're a small fish means that they'll never be able to make content with neither the breadth nor specificity of other networks.
jdechko 13y ago
You're paying $40 for internet because of the same economics detailed in the article. I'd guess only 1-5% (very generous) of households have cut the cord and are doing what you do. The other 95%+ spend $100+ per month and are subsidizing your internet-only.

pbreit 13y ago

I get cable AND Internet for $55/month (including espn and amc). People who claim cable is expensive seem to be unwilling to lessen their bill.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
orclev 13y ago
Sure you can get basic cable and the slowest tier of internet for that price, but the cables companies intentionally structure the cable packages to insure that the majority of channels you actually want to watch aren't included in the basic package. I pay $80 a month for the fastest internet connection I can get, and nothing at all for cable because it's a complete waste of my money. Everything I want to watch is available either via Netflix or Hulu whenever I want to watch it, not when the cable company thinks they can wring the most ad dollars out of me. Why should I pay exorbitant fees to get access to the same content I already have access to at times that are inconvenient for me?
amalcon 13y ago
Where do you live? Cable Internet alone would run me a minimum of $50/mo. at the slowest speed, ignoring the introductory rate. The cheapest package with TV runs almost $100/mo after the introductory rate expires.
- pbreit 13y ago
  Comcast San Francisco, outside intro rate. Tv + 20+ Mbps Internet.
Karunamon 13y ago
I want your service package! With the lowest tier internet possible (25/2), with a godawful provider I've had issues with in the past (Cablevision), and the lowest tier cable possible (to get the "double play" package), will run me absolutely no less than $80/month. Meanwhile I get vDSL from the telco for $30. I do not and never have watched enough broadcast TV to justify almost tripling the price..

apendleton 13y ago

At this point, though, there are too few people doing what you're doing to influence content creator behavior. Cable companies are probably making less per unit of content off of you than they are off of cable subscribers, but that's okay: the costs of making the content are essentially fixed, and are paid for mostly by cable subscribers. If they have to choose between getting dollars from you for content they've already made, or not at all, they'll take the money, even if it's less than they'd get from a cable subscriber. But if everyone does that, the economics of content production totally change. The shows you're buying now might not even get made in the first place. In other words, the quote you pulled could use some more context: "The truth is that the current TV system is a great deal for everyone [including the current cord cutters]."

9999 13y ago
Netflix's move into creating content is specifically in response to cord cutters desires. Since they can't convince HBO to give them their content, they've decided to compete directly with HBO. Cord cutters are actually creating new content creators.
- apendleton 13y ago
  That may well be, but two responses: firstly, House of Cards, in particular, was exorbitantly expensive, and a huge gamble on Netflix's part that may or may not turn out to be sustainable in the long term. Second: Netflix is producing way less content than is available on cable. They produce less content than HBO, which is one cable channel among the hundreds that are currently available in the US. They'll never be able to match the breadth of content production cable can pull off, and it probably won't ever make sense for them to produce super-niche stuff of the kind that's available on non-general-audience channels (think the Golf Channel or Food Network). So they're a sort-of partial replacement for a tiny subset of content.
  - aqme28 13y ago
    They produce way less content partly because they only recently got into the game. It's unfounded to say that just because they're a small fish means that they'll never be able to make content with neither the breadth nor specificity of other networks.

jdechko 13y ago

You're paying $40 for internet because of the same economics detailed in the article. I'd guess only 1-5% (very generous) of households have cut the cord and are doing what you do. The other 95%+ spend $100+ per month and are subsidizing your internet-only.