Vox Joins Growing Chorus Of Outlets Weirdly Crapping On Cord Cutting

from the cheaper,-more-varied-options-really-suck dept

Wed, Oct 19th 2016 10:47am — Karl Bode

For a few years now there's been a lazy trend among reporters analyzing "cord cutting," or the practice of leaving legacy cable TV for streaming alternatives. Usually the narrative goes something like this "cord cutting is (stupid/failing/irrelevant/on the ropes) because users need to subscribe to multiple streaming video services to get the same amount of content they used to get with cable." Despite these stories popping up pretty much constantly these reports miss a few key points, the biggest being that nobody wants to duplicate the 300 channels of bullshit that comprises the traditional cable bundle.

Gizmodo recently ran one such article where the author was shocked and outraged after he discovered that subscribing to four different streaming services cost him a measly forty-seven bucks, proof positive in the author's estimation that cord cutting "isn't a bargain any more." And while Reddit users were quick to point out how cord cutting saves them significant cash every month, this narrative never seems to die. Case in point is Vox, which appears to have piggybacked on the Gizmodo report with a similar story proclaiming that "cord cutting is bound to fail":

"Recently, Gizmodo ran the numbers and concluded that if you subscribed to every streaming service collecting most of the TV shows and movies you’d likely want to see (and thus excluding niche services like horror-centric Shudder or anime-centric Crunchyroll or etc., etc., etc.), your monthly bill would be more expensive than an average cable bill on its cheapest tier."

Again though, Gizmodo didn't "run any numbers." The author just subscribed to HBO Now, CBS All Access, Netflix and Hulu and thought (incorrectly, if you ask actual cord cutters) that the $47 total was incredibly expensive. Analysts oddly forget that the same companies setting licensing rates for traditional cable also set the licensing rates for streaming alternatives. As such, pricing for both is probably going to be higher than anybody would like, and that's why Hulu, Amazon and Netflix are feverishly developing original content.

But the fact remains that streaming alternatives offer something cable refuses to: more flexibility at a lower price point. Vox's central thesis is that because cable providers have all the leverage in negotiations with broadcasters, they can strike much better deals than streaming video providers, offering their own dirt-cheap bundles of streaming packages:

"So there’s going to be a lot of demand for some form of bundling — of an option to subscribe to a bunch of streaming services, both mainstream and niche together — in packages that will be slightly more affordable than ordering each service a la carte. And when it comes to bundling, the cable companies know it better than anybody else."

But because the cable industry can do this doesn't mean they will do this. Yes, your cable provider could offer cheap bundles of streaming services. But this would cannibalize their existing legacy TV cash cow subscriber base, and the sector has made it abundantly clear it simply refuses to seriously compete on price. Instead, industry executives would rather pretend that cord cutting isn't a real problem, and defections will cease once Millennials have more babies. As a result the closest we've seen to price competition are skinny bundles that give the illusion of value, but saddle users with hidden fees.

If there's one thing the Vox report gets right, it's that consumers are growing increasingly frustrated with and confused by exclusive, temporary licensing and vanishing streaming catalogs. But that brings us to something all of these analysts and reports willfully, hysterically ignore: piracy. You'll note that none of the "cord cutting is dying" articles ever acknowledge that piracy exists as an option for the consumer frustrated by high prices, poor service or confusing exclusivity arrangements. It's as if these authors are not formally allowed to acknowledge piracy's existence by their editors because it's naughty.

But as this website has noted repeatedly, piracy is a competitor. Because you don't like that fact doesn't make it less true. The reality is that if streaming begins to fail the consumer as a cheaper, more flexible alternative to cable, the last place many of these customers will be headed is back to cable. Instead, countless millions will simply hide behind a VPN and head back to piracy, a shame given the progress we've collectively made in dragging many of these broadcasters, kicking and screaming, into the modern age.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cable, cable tv, cord cutting, tv
Companies: vox

48 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DannyB (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 10:53am

Way better entertainment value
If you subscribe to four major streaming services for $47, you get a LOT better entertainment from those services than crap served up by $47 worth of cable TV.

IMO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groaker (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 10:59am

TV for my wife, not counting Netflix and Amazon Prime which I used to get were add ons to the TV bill. Cable TV was over a hundred. It now comes out to twentytwo dollars per month.

But the savings are not the real issue. While I don't indulge, my wife says that she can actually find two hours of watchable programming a day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:00am

Some of the streaming service used by cord cutters are terrible. Many of them show commercials that you can't skip and sometimes they entirely disable the fast forward and reverse buttons.

Even relatively good services like MLB still have blackout rules so that if the local game is televised, you can't watch it in the app.

Someday you might be able to watch TV the way you want without a cable subscription, but for me that day isn't here yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:02am

Why I cut the cord
1. No commercials (never Hulu, ever)
2. Less crap (there will always be crap)
3. Generally able to find content I want, even if I have to wait a while for certain shows
4. If I no longer like the programming, I can vote with my wallet

The only thing I wish would happen is Turner Classic Movies becoming a channel on Roku.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:08am

Why on earth isn't over-the-air television included in any of these discussions? I know many people in more rural areas simply don't get the channels OTA, but there is a good portion of the population that do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:15am

I pay for Netflix and MLB. I bought Chromecast for all the other sports I'd happily pay a fair price for but can't because the NCAA and NFL won't let me pay them to see my teams without cable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:17am

Re:
True, blackout restrictions on games you've paid to see is BS, but it's relatively easy to fool MLB into thinking you live somewhere else. They'd probably call that piracy too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:20am

Re:
I would be OK with streaming commercials if they limited it to the same amount of commercials per broadcast show (so max of ~15 min for a one hour show), did not repeat commercials and offered the shows for free with no cable subscription.

So far streaming services fail miserably at all of that. Too many show the same limited set of repeating commercials (one time watching ABC streaming every commercial break was the same set of six commercials) and normally run more commercials than if I watched it live on TV. When trying to watch an that ABC show it took well over an hour to watch because of the extra commercials they ran. It was an abysmal experience. I completely get why people try to find alternative methods to watch the show.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:23am

Re: Way better entertainment value
Plus, many cord cutters subscribe to Netflix and watch Luke Cage and Narcos season 2.

Then they subscribe to Hulu and watch something.

They they subscribe to HBO and watch GoT.

They don't have to subscribe to all of them at the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:24am

My new Bill: $15
I don't watch Netflix, Hulu, HBO, or CBS. My streaming subscriptions are limited to one service: Crunchyroll.

Don't know if I'm an outlier, or if Big Media(r) is just ignoring the fact that nobody watches their crap any more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:24am

Re: Re:
This is why CW is doing it right.

Not only do you not need a cable login, they only have 3 commercials per break.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
afn29129 (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:27am

Never-cording can be nice as well.
No CATV (or no TV at all) can be quite nice as well. There are so many other things to do besides vegetating in front of TV, and the money saved. The TV got thrown in the trash about 15 yrs ago and I've haven't missed it one bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:28am

Re: Why I cut the cord
TCM and Criterion are going to be available on a new service called Filmstruck. It starts next month for $6.99 or $10.99 if you want to include Criterion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:30am

Re:
Not only is OTA (and OTA DVRs) available, but you can watch the latest few episodes on the TV channel websites with commercials for free (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CW, Discovery, TLC, other Discovery Networks).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:32am

Re:
ESPN is going to start a direct-to-consumer service in 2017.

For now, you can get ESPN through Sling (including WatchESPN credentials) for $20 a month. If you want Pac-12, ACC, SEC, ESPNU, etc., you can get the sports package for an additional $5 a month.

And there's no lock-in so you can cancel at any time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:32am

There is also the option to share the accounts with friends and family. I share Netflix, Spotify with my brother. My sister who loves cable gives me access to ESPN. And since over the air tv sucks in my area due to hills, I use other "methods" for the rest. Also, I started watching free news shows from NHK World, CBS on my Amazon FireTV. Don't really miss much since cutting. With SlingTV now allowing multiple streams, I could also use that and share the account if I want to, but I don't like broadcast tv compare to streaming on demand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christenson, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:37am

Re: Never-cording can be nice as well.
I have a TV set that has gathered a lot of dust...never got around to hooking anything up except the DVD player....if I am gonna vegetate out, there's always youtube, books, and plenty of other things in the world!

Broadcasters and cable, you need to ban books so you can compete!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Doig, 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:48am

Re:
Get an antenna. A single installment of 20 bucks will get you your local tv stations that carry the NFL games every sunday. On top of that, if you want, you can pay a monthly rate for SlingTV to get ESPN and a few other sports-centric stations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jsn (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:49am

Vox partially owned by Comcast
I stopped paying any attention to VOX shortly after Comcast ponied up a sizable $200m investment to increase their holdings in the site. It wasn't long after that that Vox did a story that read like a fawning love letter to Comcast, suggesting that they are fabulous deal. I saw the story on Facebook and many people in the comments there were rightly pointing out that right below that article were other articles calling attention to the now cozy relationship Vox has with Comcast via the $200m investment. The Vox article in question made no mention of their relationship with Comcast.

So, it is little surprise to me that Vox continues to pull bullshit such as this. They are content to suck at Comcast's teat and won't be doing anything remotely close to suggesting how people can ditch overpriced cable TV.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Cortright (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:53am

Don't forget YouTube and the channel's own site!
I was considering getting HBO Now for John Oliver, but they arer putting his main stories up on YouTube every week. Plus they have web extras. I pay the $10/month for YouTube Red which removes the ads (and gets me access to offline and background playback on my mobile devices, as well as the Google Play music library; it's a great deal IMHO), which is cheaper than NOW and gets me access to a lot more stuff. Granted I don't have things like the Sopranos or GoT, but then I don't need those either.

Ala carte won't stop at the channel. I also pay for individual shows now and I'm much happier for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
climb74 (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 11:53am

Re: Re:
If you use Amazon Prime or Netflix you get no commercials. Amazon Prime running 99 bucks a year at the moment and Netflix running 10 bucks a month is a great deal cheaper than what you would have to pay to watch commercials...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
geddy2112 (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:01pm

Re: Vox partially owned by Comcast
this is the only insightful comment on this whole story. why does every cord-cutting article on this sight turn into a complete dismissal of the point of the article and turn into a "this is what I do....." comment-a-thon...???? obviously this story is about major websites being bribed by Comcast to rebuff the cord-cutting phenomena...not how do YOU cord cut?....every article....every time....pavlovian sheep...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
briny, 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:11pm

Re: Never-cording can be nice as well.
It's been months since I've watched anything on a TV. There's nothing there that I have any interest in these days. Funny thing is that I've taken the TV and retasked it as the monitor for the laptop while docked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:12pm

Re: Why I cut the cord
Hulu offers commerical free service. Of course, it will be crap once Criterion leaves for Filmstruck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:13pm

Re: My new Bill: $15
you are an outlier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: Vox partially owned by Comcast
"why does every cord-cutting article on this sight turn into a complete dismissal of the point of the article and turn into a 'this is what I do.....' comment-a-thon...????"

Not every cord-cutting article on this site does this, and the comments you so casually dismiss are not dismissive of what you blithely cast as the "point of the article" (there could be two or even more points).

The comments to which you object offer additional clarification of the dishonesty of Vox, Comcast, et al., by demonstrating real, active solutions that are not covered by the paid propagandists of the cable industry. Not everyone else reading these articles is the uber-educated but narrow jade that you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Why I cut the cord
Hulu's commercial free service is great. It even started showing a commercial at the start of some TV programs (but not during).

I tell you Advertising is an evil that destroys every medium that it ever touches. Not instantly, to be sure. But inevitably.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re:
AND -a pretty big point, in my estimation- you get 'real' HD from OTA broadcasts, NOT a down-sampled 'HD' like you get with satellite, etc...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:31pm

"...piracy is a competitor..."
My metro (as of today) reveals 92 over-the-air (OTA) HD channels, of which I filter 70, as being of no interest due to language, e.g., Spanish and Korean, or lack of interest, e.g., home shopping and religious. The remaining 22 give me all I could ever want of local and broadcast network news, major network sports (if I gave a damn), and series (if I was willing to submit to their scheduling - usually NOT).

Kodi with Exodus handles everything else and provides the fully flexible scheduling, i.e., whatever I want and whenever I want it, unavailable via OTA. Additionally, given how I employ Kodi, I receive no ads and have access to more content than any cable package or combo of online services.

I have paid all I will ever do. I have been educated by sites such a TD to appreciate that I have paid enough "piracy surcharges" when purchasing content, devices, and storage media over the course of four+ decades of buying that I need never feel that I am "pirating" anything - I have fully (over-)prepaid for everything I will consume from now 'til I die.

Beyond my broadband access fees, my monthly cost for content is $0. To quote some very wise men, "If you can't compete with zero..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 12:53pm

Re: Vox partially owned by Comcast
If Vox is partially owned by Comcast, then Vox probably has customer service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 1:50pm

Our numbers are fine.
I backed Comcast down to internet only, while preying that Google will actually still deliver in Portland.

My wife wanted something so we added DishTV. She was able to get the package she wanted. While it has some cruft it is more inline with her wishes than Comcast managed (unless you paid for everything). The total for the both services is still $50 less than the price I was paying.

While not traditional cord cutting it comes down to the fact that Comcast was so expensive they lost me as a TV customer. Correct, I no longer watch any TV. I have considered Netflix but have yet to try it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 3:08pm

Re:
I had Amazon Prime for 2nd day shipping and Netflix before I cut the cord. I still have them. So I don't consider them a extra cost. My $170 I had a number of years ago with no premium channels and much slower internet was a complete rip-off.

I cut the cord for years. When I got my house I mounted up a Antenna. The only one I see anywhere around me!!! That's how I get most of my TV and it costs me nothing per month. I got a Tivo Roamio on sale for $299 that included Lifetime service, a couple Tivo Mini's so I can Record up to 4 programs at once and watch from One Tivo to another Tivo. Now with Commercial Skip, it's even better. One button push and I skip them all. That's more then paid for it's self in a short time.

This last time when my Internet only service expired after the year, Comcast jacked my rates up, it was actually cheap to get a bundle with a few basic cable channels, mostly local and a cheap, plain cable box, plus HBO and their StreamPix whatever movie streaming thing, then to just get Internet Only. That's how hard they're pushing TV services onto people to keep them from cutting the cord. The cable Box I don't use. it's not plugged in. I'd have to run new cable for it into my house to use it. Why? I just keep using the antenna. Better anyway.

HBO I watch on my AppleTV or ROKU boxes with HBOGo app. For the RARE times I even turn it on. Comcast being Comcast, won't allow the HBOGo App on Tivo to work!!! I guess they have a stick up their butt at TIVO. You could pay HBO directly and use their HBO Now App instead, but I'm in the bundle deal. I'm sure they count me now as not a cord cutter then though I am. It's their dumb tricks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 3:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Why I cut the cord
I tried HULU twice at different times with a free Month of service. The last time I couldn't take it. I watched 1 program in that 1 month period. At the time it was nothing but 2 Broke Girls Commercials. 4 of the same thing in a row over and over again at every commercial break, which seems like worse then normal TV. Why would anyone in their right mind PAY for this??? It wasn't worth it. It should be FREE.

I'm not going to pay them $13 to remove most of them commercials. Still not worth it. It's cheaper for Netflix and Amazon and they're commercial free. HULU is owned by Comcast and others so of course it stinks!!!

I always hear these stories, where they say it costs more, because you cut the cord and then sign up to all these streaming services. Who does that? Why would you cut the cord if you were going to do that?

Between my Antenna and Mostly Netflix, and PLEX with me ripping all my Movie discs, I already have to much content to watch and not enough time. I have no need for HULU or SlingBox. Hell I'm paying for HBO, or really they practically gave it to me and I don't even watch that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 3:18pm

A year and a half ago I dropped my $150 cable package (Cox Contour full home DVR) the tech didn't work right on it most of the time. We had Netflix already so we added Hulu and Kodi with plugins for things we couldn't watch on Hulu/Netflix. We use OTA too for morning news, etc. The only thing I missed from cable was watching my local baseball games (Fox Sports channel) so I'd stream them using Kodi which meant at least half the time it would be the other team's announcers with not so great quality. Then I discovered the Sling Blue TV plan. $25 a mo and I could watch good quality streams of local channels. My wife loves Sling because it's more like surfing channels on cable TV. Being able to watch shows we like at East Coast times live on AMC, FX, etc. on Pacific time is nice. The commercials are acceptable to me at that point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 3:29pm

Re: Re: Re:
Ya, I'm getting ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, CW all in HD and 5.1 surround sound. Plus other channels like AntennaTV, MeTV, etc where I can watch classic TV shows, and what now. There's so much legally FREE content to watch with a antenna.

Just over a year ago when I switched from Media Center for my TV DVR Recording to the Tivo Roamio I have now. They had a deal going, $299 for the Box with Lifetime Service. So NO monthly fee's. I removed the 500 gig HDD, and Popped in a WD Green 3TB drive. The largest size you can go without having to do anything with the HDD to make it work. I can record up to 4 programs at once. With my Tivo Mini's, I can start watching in the family room and finish in the bedroom. With their Streaming Box, I can watch on my Windows PC or on my iOS devices, even away from Home. it costs me ZERO per month!!!

That's where I get most of my content. With the new Commercial Skip. Many programs in the Prime Time area and channels have commercial Skip. 1 green button press, and I skip it all for that break. No having to FF through them. It's just BAM!!!

Antenna is never talked about. There is no one around me that has a Antenna on their roof in my neighborhood. I'd be on my roof, looking around and thinking SUCKERS!!!!

I went and ordered a nice large directional antenna from Amazon. Got a MAST for it and mounted it up and run all new cable around my house. One of the things I did besides wiring my house with Cat6 cable and ending up in my small closet in the middle of my house, connected to my managed 24 Port Gigabit switch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 3:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Vox partially owned by Comcast
I cut the cord, and then when my time was up and needed a new deal, I was forced into a bundle deal getting some local channels and HBO. That was CHEAPER then Internet Only!!!

So look, I'm no longer a cord cutter to them. Even though I don't use their Box, or watch their TV channels. Hell I've hardly turned on HBO using a HBOGo app. I'm still using the Antenna. Still recording onto my TIVO. They're doing all they can to keep people on the TV service no matter what. This is what Comcast as resorted to.

Ya, they never seem to talk about people cutting the cord and moving to a Antenna. Just signing up for every streaming plan, adding the total together and saying, see it's more expensive. You're not saving any money!!!! What a load of crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JBDragon (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 3:37pm

Re: "...piracy is a competitor..."
Exactly!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 19 Oct 2016 @ 3:51pm

Real Time.
Well, I think the key issue is real-time. You're paying for real-time video, and you need to know whether you want it that badly. Say, notionally, fifty dollars a month. That is six hundred a year, and three thousand in five years. If you take three thousand dollars to Edward R. Hamilton's video section, you can pretty well buy the store for that sum. I got about four hundred movies on DVD's for about a hundred dollars. You are talking about so many movies that you won't have time to watch them all. Hamilton's has TV series too, though not quite as attractively priced. And then, of course, if you want something particular, there's Amazon. You' find all kinds of things you never heard of, the same as browsing a used bookstore. Is there any good reason that you can't watch something that was filmed fifty years ago? Are this year's television shows really better than last year's television shows?

You get your news by the written word, which, nowadays means the internet. Television news is inevitably superficial.

Sports, I don't know about. I don't watch them myself.

The cult of newness, as interpreted by the television industry, is in practice a demand that everyone should watch the same thing as everyone else, at the same time. read the same thing as everyone else, what little they do read; listen to the same thing as everyone else, etc. Do you really want to be a robotic clone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 5:26pm

I thought Gawker was dead. Will it hurry up already?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re:
This sounds exactly like my situation without the antenna.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2016 @ 9:30pm

Re: Way better entertainment value
Not to mention at $47 it's still considerably cheaper than the local cable company's cheapest tier once you add in all the fees for the privilege of being screwed over by your local cable monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 19 Oct 2016 @ 9:45pm

What price, convenience?
Even if the prices were the same streaming services would still have a significant perk that standard cable doesn't:

The ability to watch what you want, when you want.

Instead of sitting down and hoping that there's something interesting on and that you haven't missed out on too much of it streaming services allow you to watch anything in the catalog they offer, at any time, even allowing you to pause and do something else for a while without having to worry about missing anything.

Convincing people to drop that and go back to the 'I hope there's something decent on' of 'standard' cable is a hard sell to put it mildly, and unfortunately for the cable companies more and more people are starting with 'Watch whatever, at any time'-streaming as the default.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 7:06am

$100 for cable TV + 10/1mbit internet + phone bundle 3 years ago. $40 for Netflix + 50/30mbit Internet now. Good riddance, cable tv.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 20 Oct 2016 @ 3:37pm

"We're getting that money whether you like it or not."
You forgot one charge:

$40 for Netflix + 50/30mbit Internet now. Plus $70 for the Super Customer Friendly 'Going over your cap each month with all that Netflix and trying to avoid paying us for cable'-charge.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 5:24am

Re: "We're getting that money whether you like it or not."
I doubt my ISP will try to overcharge for the internet costs. It's just ISP, landlines and mobile phone, there's no cable tv or any content involved. They actually have partnerships with streaming services that give me discounts and exemption from the caps on the mobile connections but that's as far as they go. I do hope they stay that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groaker (profile), 21 Oct 2016 @ 9:41am

Just for one item, try looking at costs for other VOIP companies, and the services they provide. ISPs typically charge $30-40 per month for minimal service in the US with three abilities such as voice mail. Private VOIP companies typically charge between $5-25, and offer a wide variety of additional services free, and wider geographical calling areas without charge.

Depending on who you read, US internet service falls between 15th to 39th for speed and cost. Many nations are 10x faster, and still cost less.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 13 Nov 2016 @ 2:21am

Here's another point that gets missed
Another point lazy reporters miss is that most paid streaming services are commercial free. What sort of a bargain is cable when you're paying well over $100 a month after equipment rentals, the bulk of your content is garbage, and 30-40% of that crappy content is in the form of commercials?

I've never seen an all night infomercial marathon on Netflix, or had my Amazon Prime viewing interrupted by weird and annoying plugs for Cialis.

So comparing cable to streaming on price alone is foolish and dishonest. With streaming content, you're getting a lot more for your money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 14 Nov 2016 @ 10:47pm

Re: Way better entertainment value
With most streaming services, you also get your entertainment commercial-free, another point the reviewers tend to leave out.

On paper, their skinny bundle may look like a bargain, but 30-40% of that bundle is advertising. Cable is simply unwatchable.

In addition to streaming staples like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, there's a ton of free content to be found, all of it playable through a streaming device to your TV.
[ link to this | view in thread ]