6 ms·

Netflix and Hulu are Not Killing Cable

28 points by ignostic 12y ago

cxy7z 12y ago
Interesting, though hard to overlook the possibility of bias, seeing as this is coming from cabletv.com
- brianmartinek 12y ago
  I am curious if this is some sort of private niche site or if it is was created by the cable companies. Looks to be the latter.
chaostheory 12y ago
The numbers may be inaccurate due to some billing tricks by companies like Comcast. For Comcast, it's actually about $5 cheaper for customers to stay a cable subscriber even if they don't use it since there's a discount for 2 for 1 subscriptions. Some may say, yes but cable cutters can bundle VOIP instead. Well if you go that route Comcast forces you to get a crappy Modem Router hybrid and I and probably many others didn't want that so we just kept cable TV. We just don't watch it. > What about cable without cable TV? This still doesn't exist yet. Even for HBO GO access, Comcast still forces you to be a basic cable subscriber.
- midnitewarrior 12y ago
  I "pay" for cable TV simply because it's more expensive with Comcast get Internet without TV. The cable box is unopened in the corner of my apartment, and we watch Netflix and Hulu. The numbers the cable industry are showing are a mirage created to deceive their shareholders. Viewers 30 and under want nothing to do with Big Cable. AT&T did a similar thing when people were going DSL-only. I had AT&T DSL + phone line and called to cancel the phone line, they gave me the phone line for 12 months at $5 a month simply so they could show their shareholders that people weren't cutting the cord. That was cheaper than the VOIP provider I was planning on going with, so I stuck with it another year, didn't really use it though. Cable's user experience is horrible, it's terribly expensive, it's price grows many times the rate of inflation, users feel screwed because they are forced to buy packages of channels they have no interest in, and feel forced to "bundle" to feel less screwed. Comcast regularly wins the "Worse Company of the Year" award, and has terrible customer experiences. None of Cable's deficiencies have anything to do with Netflix or Hulu. In the end, the thing that kills Cable won't be Netflix or Hulu, it will be Cable that kills Cable. The Cable industry are pigs which will soon get slaughtered by their own greedy hands. Netflix and Hulu are just there to pick up the pieces.
- lsaferite 12y ago
  I made basically the same argument when the original report this article is based on hit HN. I'm sure the cable companies do it on purpose to skew subscriber numbers in their favor.
kmkemp 12y ago
Piracy isn't eating cable tv's profits because of pricing... it's eating their profits because of convenience. How ridiculous is it that I can get an entire season of X show in high definition with no commercial interruptions streamed to my TV within an hour through torrenting, but the equivalent would take either foreknowledge, or lots of searching for reshowings? People have discovered that not having their TV dictate their schedule is valuable to them, and the providers that realize the value of that convenience are going to win. The only thing holding Netflix/Hulu back from eating Cable TV within a few years is live content (sports) and better selection. Be careful in extrapolating the 2% growth figure... it could easily become much, much faster if they can figure out how to provide the only reasons left to have cable TV.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  You can download The Daily Show (or any show for that matter) in 1080p minutes after its finished airing, with no commercials, or you can wait a day and have to sit through 12-15 ads on Hulu while their player desperately tries to play the proper rendition for your connection. Hard choice.
  - Patrick_Devine 12y ago
    It's pretty trivial to set up AdBlock and watch The Daily Show sans commercials. You're right, it's a day late, and you may have to wait a few seconds to watch Jon Stewart's mug in glorious HD, however it's still more convenient than finding a torrent.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Nothing's more convenient than finding a torrent of a hit show. The process involves typing "daily show" into a search bar, hitting enter, then clicking "download torrent" on the one that looks like what you want (which will normally be at the top of the list.)
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
lucisferre 12y ago
Cue Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch.
beller 12y ago
Note: The source = "cabletv.com"
grossvogel 12y ago
This article seems to me to completely misinterpret the Experian study. My (and HuffPost's) reading of the Experian graph is that 18% of households with Hulu or Netflix have no cable TV service, while cabletv.com reverses it: 'only 18% of “cord cutters” have Netflix OR Hulu.' I didn't go through the sign-up form to download the study itself, and the graph appears not to have been made by Edward Tufte, so it's hard to say for sure. Anybody read the actual study?
- zbisch 12y ago
  I took a look at the slides/paper and you are completely correct (I thought the same thing). The plot is essentially saying that if you compare the "average household" to the households of Netflix and Hulu subscribers, customers in the latter are about 2.5-3 times more likely to be "cable cutters". This is what what I would call "Netflix and Hulu killing cable." The whole premise of their article is flawed on a misreading of a figure. The study they cite contradicts their claims. Here are their slides: http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-services/brochures/cross-device-video-analysis-2014.pdf http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-services/brochures/...
- graywh 12y ago
  That's not the only bad math in the article. > ... about 11% of all Americans subscribe to Netflix. Netflix's latest numbers show 35.7 million subscribers, but the author is only giving credit for one person per Netflix subscription. With 115 million US households (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html), that gives Netflix access to 31% of households.
mikelat 12y ago
These statistics are failing to take into account that young adults that grew up using the internet for entertainment will not subscribe to cable TV. It's not all about the loss of current subscribers, but the loss of potential subscribers as well.
- MisterBastahrd 12y ago
  I have friends who are not into sports and thus may not watch much television, but the vast majority of them are, which means they're going to subscribe to cable because it's the only legal way to watch most sporting events, especially as ESPN continues to grab up more and more programming for its networks.
- TillE 12y ago
  Yeah, I was born in the mid 80s and I have no plans to ever get a TV subscription. It's not the price - I'd be happy to pay for a Sky Sports internet streaming service, if it existed. It's the hassle and the long contracts.
  - zippergz 12y ago
    Just out of curiosity, what country are you in? In the US I've had all three current major cable TV providers (and several of their predecessors), and I've never had a long contract (it's always been month-to-month). Is it common to require long commitments in other countries?
    - chestnut-tree 12y ago
      In the UK, most TV subscription services that sell you a "package" of channels have long-term contracts (12 months is usually the minimum). They try and sweeten this by providing you with a "free" digital video recorder (not really free) and often combine TV, phone and broadband services into one subscription package. Streaming-based services such as Amazon, Netflix and Blinkbox (owned by supermarket giant Tesco) let you subscribe on a month-to-month basis or film-by-film basis. These services feel more flexible because they're not trying to sell you a whole bunch of channels, some of which you may not have much interest in. Interestingly, even the BBC can see where the market is heading for many viewers. Their "youth" channel BBC Three (aimed at 16-34 year olds) will stop broadcasting terrestially and become an online-only channel via their iPlayer service. I guess this reflects how more and more people consume content today - they don't consult a TV schedule, they expect to be able to view content when it suits them.
stcredzero 12y ago
Are we really “killing” cable – or even cable TV – when we sign up for a cable internet package which includes cable-only TV channels? Yes, internet delivered services are killing "cable-only TV" when "cable-only TV" starts becoming something else. If HBO is now letting Comcast subscribers watch HBO-Go episodes of Game of Thrones, then HBO is no longer "cable-only TV!" In fact, I'd say that with piracy, many "cable" content producers are no longer in the business of cable-only TV! They are now in the digital content producing business. If traditional cable subscribers are declining at the same rate that people are dying of old age, then this suggests that young people are not becoming new cable subscribers and this does spell the end.
ollysb 12y ago
In how many countries is the latest series of Game of Thrones available for purchase? In how many countries are people watching the latest Game of Throne series? There's a huge gap. Content providers matching their sales model to viewing habits seems to be an inevitable future. It's going to be painful process getting there though.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
otterley 12y ago
My experience with renewing my Internet subscription recently is that cable providers are offering significant incentives to customers to add subscriptions to at least some form of TV service in addition to Internet service. I'm a Comcast customer in the SF Bay Area. Six months ago I only had Internet service; no TV. I called customer service in search of a better deal, and it turned out I could lower my total bill by adding TV service! In other words, Internet alone is now more expensive than Internet + TV. So they're now /subsidizing/ TV service (or at least discounting Internet service) to inflate their TV subscriber count. Are others having similar experiences?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  That's the only reason I have cable TV, yes. If you wrangle with them, you can get a deal where they just relay you the broadcast channels, otherwise they give you a cheap starter deal and jack the price up after 6 months. The trick is to call the customer retention department and make them talk you out of unsubscribing. Interestingly, I saw the other day that AT&T is proposing to offer fibre in SF and Oakland/Berkeley, which would be a game changer.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    That announcement from AT&T shouldn't be trusted. As discussed earlier on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622646
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Given a choice between overpriced cable and slow DSL I'm open to other alternatives. The status quo sucks, and it doesn't particularly bother me that AT&T wants to get a good deal.
- kencausey 12y ago
  A year or so ago my local cable operator from whom I had only been purchasing Internet service for some years sent a representative ostensibly to check my Internet service. I was a bit puzzled by this as I was not aware of any problems but acquiesced. After a bit of theater somewhat foiled by the fact that I was running Linux and my window manager was xmonad the representative offered me a deal where I would pay less per month for combined TV and Internet services and I was assured that my Internet service would not be impacted in any way. I was very confused and refused the offer based on a general feeling of suspicion. A few weeks later another representative came to my door and did not bother with claiming to check my service quality. He simply offered me the same deal. I pointed out that it made no sense to me. He then admitted that the cable operator was negotiating a deal with Time Warner Cable to merge with them and they wanted to inflate their subscriber numbers. That at least made some sense to me so I agreed. Some months later the regional cable operator effectively ceased to exist and I now got bills from TWC. I forget the exact timing but either just before or just after this my monthly billing for cable services increased significantly and I called to cancel the television services I never used which returned the total to approximately the original amount. Aren't TWC and Comcast in talks currently (I believe the FCC may also be involved)?
dlevine 12y ago
I think the relevant statistic here is obscured with faulty logic. The important thing is that, of people who subscribe to Hulu or Netflix, almost 50% more are cord cutters than 3 years ago. If you make an assumption that this number will continue to increase at the same rate, in 11 years you will have 75% penetration: 12.7 * (18.1/12.7)^5 (-4). And, in the following 3 years, cable will be completely wiped out.

28 points by ignostic 12y ago

cxy7z 12y ago

Interesting, though hard to overlook the possibility of bias, seeing as this is coming from cabletv.com

brianmartinek 12y ago
I am curious if this is some sort of private niche site or if it is was created by the cable companies. Looks to be the latter.

chaostheory 12y ago

The numbers may be inaccurate due to some billing tricks by companies like Comcast. For Comcast, it's actually about $5 cheaper for customers to stay a cable subscriber even if they don't use it since there's a discount for 2 for 1 subscriptions. Some may say, yes but cable cutters can bundle VOIP instead. Well if you go that route Comcast forces you to get a crappy Modem Router hybrid and I and probably many others didn't want that so we just kept cable TV. We just don't watch it. > What about cable without cable TV? This still doesn't exist yet. Even for HBO GO access, Comcast still forces you to be a basic cable subscriber.

midnitewarrior 12y ago
I "pay" for cable TV simply because it's more expensive with Comcast get Internet without TV. The cable box is unopened in the corner of my apartment, and we watch Netflix and Hulu. The numbers the cable industry are showing are a mirage created to deceive their shareholders. Viewers 30 and under want nothing to do with Big Cable. AT&T did a similar thing when people were going DSL-only. I had AT&T DSL + phone line and called to cancel the phone line, they gave me the phone line for 12 months at $5 a month simply so they could show their shareholders that people weren't cutting the cord. That was cheaper than the VOIP provider I was planning on going with, so I stuck with it another year, didn't really use it though. Cable's user experience is horrible, it's terribly expensive, it's price grows many times the rate of inflation, users feel screwed because they are forced to buy packages of channels they have no interest in, and feel forced to "bundle" to feel less screwed. Comcast regularly wins the "Worse Company of the Year" award, and has terrible customer experiences. None of Cable's deficiencies have anything to do with Netflix or Hulu. In the end, the thing that kills Cable won't be Netflix or Hulu, it will be Cable that kills Cable. The Cable industry are pigs which will soon get slaughtered by their own greedy hands. Netflix and Hulu are just there to pick up the pieces.
lsaferite 12y ago
I made basically the same argument when the original report this article is based on hit HN. I'm sure the cable companies do it on purpose to skew subscriber numbers in their favor.

kmkemp 12y ago

Piracy isn't eating cable tv's profits because of pricing... it's eating their profits because of convenience. How ridiculous is it that I can get an entire season of X show in high definition with no commercial interruptions streamed to my TV within an hour through torrenting, but the equivalent would take either foreknowledge, or lots of searching for reshowings? People have discovered that not having their TV dictate their schedule is valuable to them, and the providers that realize the value of that convenience are going to win. The only thing holding Netflix/Hulu back from eating Cable TV within a few years is live content (sports) and better selection. Be careful in extrapolating the 2% growth figure... it could easily become much, much faster if they can figure out how to provide the only reasons left to have cable TV.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
You can download The Daily Show (or any show for that matter) in 1080p minutes after its finished airing, with no commercials, or you can wait a day and have to sit through 12-15 ads on Hulu while their player desperately tries to play the proper rendition for your connection. Hard choice.
- Patrick_Devine 12y ago
  It's pretty trivial to set up AdBlock and watch The Daily Show sans commercials. You're right, it's a day late, and you may have to wait a few seconds to watch Jon Stewart's mug in glorious HD, however it's still more convenient than finding a torrent.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Nothing's more convenient than finding a torrent of a hit show. The process involves typing "daily show" into a search bar, hitting enter, then clicking "download torrent" on the one that looks like what you want (which will normally be at the top of the list.)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

lucisferre 12y ago

Cue Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch.

beller 12y ago

Note: The source = "cabletv.com"

grossvogel 12y ago

This article seems to me to completely misinterpret the Experian study. My (and HuffPost's) reading of the Experian graph is that 18% of households with Hulu or Netflix have no cable TV service, while cabletv.com reverses it: 'only 18% of “cord cutters” have Netflix OR Hulu.' I didn't go through the sign-up form to download the study itself, and the graph appears not to have been made by Edward Tufte, so it's hard to say for sure. Anybody read the actual study?

zbisch 12y ago
I took a look at the slides/paper and you are completely correct (I thought the same thing). The plot is essentially saying that if you compare the "average household" to the households of Netflix and Hulu subscribers, customers in the latter are about 2.5-3 times more likely to be "cable cutters". This is what what I would call "Netflix and Hulu killing cable." The whole premise of their article is flawed on a misreading of a figure. The study they cite contradicts their claims. Here are their slides: http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-services/brochures/cross-device-video-analysis-2014.pdf http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-services/brochures/...
graywh 12y ago
That's not the only bad math in the article. > ... about 11% of all Americans subscribe to Netflix. Netflix's latest numbers show 35.7 million subscribers, but the author is only giving credit for one person per Netflix subscription. With 115 million US households (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html), that gives Netflix access to 31% of households.

mikelat 12y ago

These statistics are failing to take into account that young adults that grew up using the internet for entertainment will not subscribe to cable TV. It's not all about the loss of current subscribers, but the loss of potential subscribers as well.

MisterBastahrd 12y ago
I have friends who are not into sports and thus may not watch much television, but the vast majority of them are, which means they're going to subscribe to cable because it's the only legal way to watch most sporting events, especially as ESPN continues to grab up more and more programming for its networks.
TillE 12y ago
Yeah, I was born in the mid 80s and I have no plans to ever get a TV subscription. It's not the price - I'd be happy to pay for a Sky Sports internet streaming service, if it existed. It's the hassle and the long contracts.
- zippergz 12y ago
  Just out of curiosity, what country are you in? In the US I've had all three current major cable TV providers (and several of their predecessors), and I've never had a long contract (it's always been month-to-month). Is it common to require long commitments in other countries?
  - chestnut-tree 12y ago
    In the UK, most TV subscription services that sell you a "package" of channels have long-term contracts (12 months is usually the minimum). They try and sweeten this by providing you with a "free" digital video recorder (not really free) and often combine TV, phone and broadband services into one subscription package. Streaming-based services such as Amazon, Netflix and Blinkbox (owned by supermarket giant Tesco) let you subscribe on a month-to-month basis or film-by-film basis. These services feel more flexible because they're not trying to sell you a whole bunch of channels, some of which you may not have much interest in. Interestingly, even the BBC can see where the market is heading for many viewers. Their "youth" channel BBC Three (aimed at 16-34 year olds) will stop broadcasting terrestially and become an online-only channel via their iPlayer service. I guess this reflects how more and more people consume content today - they don't consult a TV schedule, they expect to be able to view content when it suits them.

stcredzero 12y ago

Are we really “killing” cable – or even cable TV – when we sign up for a cable internet package which includes cable-only TV channels? Yes, internet delivered services are killing "cable-only TV" when "cable-only TV" starts becoming something else. If HBO is now letting Comcast subscribers watch HBO-Go episodes of Game of Thrones, then HBO is no longer "cable-only TV!" In fact, I'd say that with piracy, many "cable" content producers are no longer in the business of cable-only TV! They are now in the digital content producing business. If traditional cable subscribers are declining at the same rate that people are dying of old age, then this suggests that young people are not becoming new cable subscribers and this does spell the end.

ollysb 12y ago

In how many countries is the latest series of Game of Thrones available for purchase? In how many countries are people watching the latest Game of Throne series? There's a huge gap. Content providers matching their sales model to viewing habits seems to be an inevitable future. It's going to be painful process getting there though.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

otterley 12y ago

My experience with renewing my Internet subscription recently is that cable providers are offering significant incentives to customers to add subscriptions to at least some form of TV service in addition to Internet service. I'm a Comcast customer in the SF Bay Area. Six months ago I only had Internet service; no TV. I called customer service in search of a better deal, and it turned out I could lower my total bill by adding TV service! In other words, Internet alone is now more expensive than Internet + TV. So they're now /subsidizing/ TV service (or at least discounting Internet service) to inflate their TV subscriber count. Are others having similar experiences?

anigbrowl 12y ago
That's the only reason I have cable TV, yes. If you wrangle with them, you can get a deal where they just relay you the broadcast channels, otherwise they give you a cheap starter deal and jack the price up after 6 months. The trick is to call the customer retention department and make them talk you out of unsubscribing. Interestingly, I saw the other day that AT&T is proposing to offer fibre in SF and Oakland/Berkeley, which would be a game changer.
- dublinben 12y ago
  That announcement from AT&T shouldn't be trusted. As discussed earlier on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622646
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Given a choice between overpriced cable and slow DSL I'm open to other alternatives. The status quo sucks, and it doesn't particularly bother me that AT&T wants to get a good deal.
kencausey 12y ago
A year or so ago my local cable operator from whom I had only been purchasing Internet service for some years sent a representative ostensibly to check my Internet service. I was a bit puzzled by this as I was not aware of any problems but acquiesced. After a bit of theater somewhat foiled by the fact that I was running Linux and my window manager was xmonad the representative offered me a deal where I would pay less per month for combined TV and Internet services and I was assured that my Internet service would not be impacted in any way. I was very confused and refused the offer based on a general feeling of suspicion. A few weeks later another representative came to my door and did not bother with claiming to check my service quality. He simply offered me the same deal. I pointed out that it made no sense to me. He then admitted that the cable operator was negotiating a deal with Time Warner Cable to merge with them and they wanted to inflate their subscriber numbers. That at least made some sense to me so I agreed. Some months later the regional cable operator effectively ceased to exist and I now got bills from TWC. I forget the exact timing but either just before or just after this my monthly billing for cable services increased significantly and I called to cancel the television services I never used which returned the total to approximately the original amount. Aren't TWC and Comcast in talks currently (I believe the FCC may also be involved)?

dlevine 12y ago

I think the relevant statistic here is obscured with faulty logic. The important thing is that, of people who subscribe to Hulu or Netflix, almost 50% more are cord cutters than 3 years ago. If you make an assumption that this number will continue to increase at the same rate, in 11 years you will have 75% penetration: 12.7 * (18.1/12.7)^5 (-4). And, in the following 3 years, cable will be completely wiped out.