82% Of Households Still Pay For Cable

If big cable companies really wanted to fend off cord cutters, they would cut the crap and offer a pick-and-chose à la carte channel selection where you would pay for a "package" of 50 / 100 / 200 channels but you would get to select the individual channels you want. Could you imagine not having to pay for 300 channels just to get the 50 you actually watch?

For all that cord-cutting is a true trend, it’s a slow one. The study finds that about 82% of households are subscribing to a traditional pay-TV (cable, satellite, or fiber) service. That’s still a drop of several million viewers from the 2011 high of 87%, but it’s comparable to subscriber numbers from 2005, before the economy crashed or internet TV became a thing.

So long as the cable and telephone companies are allowed to offer bundles of internet + basic tv cheaper than standalone internet, these numbers will continue to be presented this way. I have a few friends who keep basic tv and don't even have a tv, just because the bill is lower, even after fees.

Personally I have fios internet and TV, and it's all the dvr and set top box fees that get you. In about a year when the contract runs up, I'll be more seriously looking into OTA DVR options and internet only.

I dropped cable years ago...watched it at a friends house, and could not believe the amount of commercials they played. Not worth my time.

The problem with offering customers an a la carte pricing scheme is that cable companies don't buy the channels a la carte. Usually they negotiate a license deal with a company that owns multiple channels, some more popular than others. Those companies will leverage the demand for their more popular channels to get cable companies to carry the smaller channels too. With different channels possibly costing drastically different amounts to license, coming up with a simple $$/channel plan isn't as simple as it sounds. Except for the folks who only watch like 6 channels(granted, there are probably quiet a few of them), a la carte pricing would probably not end up saving customers much if anything.

arnemetis said:

So long as the cable and telephone companies are allowed to offer bundles of internet + basic tv cheaper than standalone internet, these numbers will continue to be presented this way. I have a few friends who keep basic tv and don't even have a tv, just because the bill is lower, even after fees.

Click to expand...

With the "Broadcast TV" fee and "Regional Sports" fee's they are TACKING on, Not sure how much longer this will be true.....

I had a friend who got basic cable for like 15$. but it actually was 30$ due to the "fee's" this is not even counting Taxes yet... just the "FEE's" that companies are tacking on.

They want to be "up front"? Change the actual price to reflect, don't claim "15 - when you know after "fee's + taxes" it will be 40$!!

This seems like "double dipping" or "bait and switch" to me...

For me I use cablecards saves me like $40 not having to pay rental fees.

One fewer as of yesterday.

AT&T U-Verse offers me a deal that can't be replaced easily with streaming so I stay with them.

I've got about 50 channels provided by my apartment property so, I haven't had actual pay-for-play cable TV service myself for just over a decade now. Of course the wiring in our building here is horrendous and picture quality is practically null and void on the local channels for whatever reason but the stuff I do care to check up on is viewable enough I suppose. We don't have CNN on our in-house cable channels (I have no idea why) so I watch it online because Cox has a deal with them to allow me to view CNNgo (my neighbor has Cox Internet service and I share the bill with him so my login there gets me CNNgo too).

Aside from that I don't even own a physical TV anymore, got rid of the last one I had about 2 years ago, just didn't see the point since I watch so much either online or after acquiring it through some other means.

arnemetis said:

So long as the cable and telephone companies are allowed to offer bundles of internet + basic tv cheaper than standalone internet, these numbers will continue to be presented this way. I have a few friends who keep basic tv and don't even have a tv, just because the bill is lower, even after fees.

Personally I have fios internet and TV, and it's all the dvr and set top box fees that get you. In about a year when the contract runs up, I'll be more seriously looking into OTA DVR options and internet only.

Click to expand...

That would be me. Every year Comcast ends my promotion, I call them back, and get on a new promotion. The past two years my bill has been negotiated with basic cable because they offer it as a cheaper bundle than internet alone. Last year, I specifically asked them not to ship the cable box to me, but they did anyways. It has been sitting in their packaging in my closet since I received it and there's zero probability it'll be hooked up. $52.49 with all taxes and fees included for 25/6 internet is good for my area.

Sports. As long as regional sports networks which are cable owned keep giving teams bags of money for broadcasting rights cable will always have that very large section of the American populace. Like Travor Noah said...Americans love their sports.

Forgot to add that sports are also the last thing that are DVR proof. I don't know many people that do not watch sports live. And before everyone chimes in with their personal feelings about sports just remember...you nerds don't count.

I can't complain about my provider and purchased service. I do admit that I am pretty anal/thrifty when it comes to saving and will bitch and complain about all the lame service fee hikes, that my bill seems to get every year. That being said, I did finally get a hold of a retention rep with my provider and for the last 5 years my monthly bill has always fluctuated between $185-$200 a month.... And before you guys flip out....I'm on fiber to the house hub and my $200 a month gets me Cable TV with all the channels plus premium HBO, Starz and TMC with 4 set top boxes, Land line with voice mail, and the best feature....Gigabit service... As long as my retention rep doesn't leave her job, I am good! Hard to cut the cable when I have this kind of deal

arnemetis said:

So long as the cable and telephone companies are allowed to offer bundles of internet + basic tv cheaper than standalone internet, these numbers will continue to be presented this way. I have a few friends who keep basic tv and don't even have a tv, just because the bill is lower, even after fees.

Personally I have fios internet and TV, and it's all the dvr and set top box fees that get you. In about a year when the contract runs up, I'll be more seriously looking into OTA DVR options and internet only.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen this here from Cox in Arizona. I run just cable internet service and no TV service at all. All my movies come from services. I was on Netflix for years but their content doesn't refresh quick enough for my tastes so I have dropped Netflix, added Amazon Prime, my wife orders a lot of cosmetics and health supplements and stuff so the free shipping and Amazon video just work out to a decent deal. And I have had HBO Now running a few months and as soon as I have seen most of what I want I will drop HBO and move to something else.

$10 a month here and $15 a month there and my movie habit will remain satisfied and at far less cost than anything else I have seen.

As for sports, my wife is a bigger sports fan than I am. But we only watch the big events like the Super Bowl, World Cup, Olympics, and the last games of the World Series. These days that stuff is usually being streamed by somebody and we are able to get in on it cheap or free.

I'm that one person who just wants every channel. Seems like whenever I've done cable packages (or even hunted through the OnDemand sections) the one item I want to watch seems to always be one of the ones I didn't commit to.
I like the idea it being like the web and I can access as much of it as I want for one price.

Looked at cable cutting several times over the years. NEVER WORKS!! If you like watching much at all. There is still too much "silo'ing" of content. If you try to build content anywhere close to cable with 15 different subscriptions, you end up paying MORE.

I've got full cable, all premiums, Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime.

I have a strong dislike for commercials and I don't really want channels either. Just specific shows. I would be fine with a tv app (like netflix) from my provider that gave me access to whatever content I pay for through them (commercial free). Otherwise I'm not all that interested in going back. That's a big change for some of these companies and unfortunately I think things will have to get worse before they get better.

Muuuuch better to buy the odd TV show that I actually watch from a streaming service than sit through the commercials, let alone the bill.


I had a few years in college when I was too busy to watch TV, and by the time that was over, I tried watching TV again, I found that I simply couldn't sit through commercials anymore.
I've never had a cable subscription in my adult life (excepting that one time when they gave me some promotional offer where it cost $5 *less* to double my internet speed and throw in a cable box... and even then I left the cable box sitting in a box) and I doubt that will ever change.

...Unless I do something stupid and marry a non-cord-cutter.

I mean really there are lots of factors to consider. First lots of people like sports, that means those people are always going to have a subscription of some sort for that. Second you have people who are just channel surfers and will mindlessly watch whatever catches their attention at that moment. The same thing applies, they are likely never going to adopt Al la carte or cord cutting as it is counter to how they prefer to watch TV. The real problem isn't so much how cable is packaged as much as how expensive it is compared to everything else. The fees have just honestly gotten out of control. I would argue that beyond lowering rates to something more reasonable, offering different types of packages to people would benefit them. For example I cut cable years ago as there was just little I cared about. I resented basically paying a ton of money for sports channels I never watched and never will watch to get 2 or 3 channels I do. So a cable package that cut out all the sports entirely and offered me something that had those channels in for a drastically lower price would actually encourage me to have a cable box again. Right now I have netflix and amazon prime which covers most of what I like. It doesn't cover it all though and I would certainly be interested in an option for those remaining things. However there is a secondary part to that. I have also come to absolutely resent paying a subscription for content and then being forced to sit through ads. This is the primary reason why I won't use hulu to get the last couple of things I like to watch.

I mean basically it comes down to the math.

My cable including internet was $272/mo and I think at most I actually cared about 5 channels. It is just those 5 channels were spread out in the packages just right where I had to take one of the biggest ones.

My bill now is $79/mo for internet + $10 for netflix, + $10 or so for amazon depending on promotions. So roughly $100-$110/mo. That is a $172 price difference. Now lets multiply $172 x 12 months. That comes out to $2064 a year. For two Grand a year I can just outright buy the entire season of a show on blu-ray if it didn't hit netflix or prime and not to mention I can buy some pretty darn nice things for that kind of money. Hell I could literally buy a bigger and better TV Every single year just on the savings alone...Think about that a minute. Are the few channels you watch really worth that much money?

It's cheaper to keep cable and have internet, than go internet only in MD. At least, with Fios. I pay for base level cable with HBO, Showtime and Starz. The overall package is just under $90. This includes 75/75 internet. Fees and everything that comes to $120ish.

If I were to just have internet it would be like $85, but I would have to pay for HboNow, Showtime, Starz and all that separately, instead of $20 package for all three.

Still paying for directv since 2000. DVRs for the whole house. NFL Sunday ticket. Premium channels previews. Totally worth it for me.

I don't download stuff but that is just a personal view on ethics.

problem with alacart is if tomorrow they flipped a switch and it was 100% alacart, then 85% of content providers / networks would go out of business almost immediately. networks would no longer take risks, and you would see a huge drop in originality on shows and content.

Its probably a good thing, its going slow, as this will give the entertainment world a chance to evolve, rather than just go extinct.

you gotta remember also, providers such as comcast, dont own all the networks they are offering, but they do get charged for providing access to those networks. I remember hearing a figure for ESPN once which was 6 dollars a month of your cable bill, just for that network, the little no name guys, are more like 20 cents. Cable companies, have to pass the cost on, and pull a profit, thats just how it works, same goes with gas, and electric, your never going to get it cheaper then they are paying for it.

You would pay more and get less period.

oh and right now, every comcast cable customer pays for ESPN at 6 dollars a month. If alecart, not everyone would pick ESPN, so they would lose a lot of customers, and to recoop that cost, they would raise their price. AKA pay more get less.

dewbak75 said:

The problem with offering customers an a la carte pricing scheme is that cable companies don't buy the channels a la carte. Usually they negotiate a license deal with a company that owns multiple channels, some more popular than others. Those companies will leverage the demand for their more popular channels to get cable companies to carry the smaller channels too. With different channels possibly costing drastically different amounts to license, coming up with a simple $$/channel plan isn't as simple as it sounds. Except for the folks who only watch like 6 channels(granted, there are probably quiet a few of them), a la carte pricing would probably not end up saving customers much if anything.

Click to expand...

This is all true, but why is it the consumer's problem? Basically the content creators and cable companies have made the pricing and licensing work for them, and then just passed the additional cost on to the customer. I think it's mostly momentum at this point, it's just much easier for them to keep doing business as usual rather than try to supply what the customers want.

It's precisely because of the lower bundle rates that a lot of people go with cable subscription. Google fiber has no such promotion, and as a result the number of cable subscribers is in single digit percent range:
Google Fiber Has Only 54,000 TV Subscribers, and Sign-Ups Are Slowing

About 50k cable subscribers out of 500k total google fiber customers.

I have tv only for unlimited gigabit internet through AT&T.

Comcast called and offered a limited time promotional offer to bundle some cable and get faster internet. I simply told them I wasn't willing to deal with a cable box. The call ended shortly after.

I've found that now I basically only watch shows is when I'm eating or the sun has set and nobody is playing TF2.

The cable companies have successfully defeated my cord cutting using devious shitty tactics.

It used to be that the cable portion was roughly half of your bill and if you only wanted cable or only wanted internet you paid half of cable + internet.

Now with their packages they have designed them with the bundles so cable + internet is only costs 5% or less more than internet alone.

It just doesn't make sense to cut cable now, and it pisses me off, because I am essentially paying for something I neither need nor want.

There needs to be some sort of regulatory split between cable TV and Internet providers so they stop using their local stranglehold on internet to force consumers to buy their TV packages.

It's cheaper for me to keep the $11 basic cable with my internet than to drop it....they jack up the price of internet if it's the only thing I have (comcast).

morgwon said:

Sports. As long as regional sports networks which are cable owned keep giving teams bags of money for broadcasting rights cable will always have that very large section of the American populace. Like Travor Noah said...Americans love their sports.

Click to expand...

This is the only sports I like:

In SD the cable internet is nice, but typically priced. I have the middle tier which is like 60 bucks a month or something, and no cable. I run a plex server and had an OTA antenna for local stations. I just tried Sling TV, hoping to get the Thursday and Monday NFL games, but it didn't work. They were blacked out in my area due to "licensing" issues. So it is now gone as well. The only other thing I have/use is Amazon Prime, which I don't even use the video portion at all, just mainly for the quick shipping and cost savings on shipping.

Oh, and one more thing, FUCK Sling TV, it is the shittiest service and model I have tried to use so far.

Domingo said:

I'm that one person who just wants every channel. Seems like whenever I've done cable packages (or even hunted through the OnDemand sections) the one item I want to watch seems to always be one of the ones I didn't commit to.
I like the idea it being like the web and I can access as much of it as I want for one price.

Click to expand...

What if a provider tracked your watching habits like others do, and "moved" 35% of what they think you like, to a channel in a package you didn't buy?

What if everything you viewed on the internet was tailored for you in a manner that would never satisfy and only drive you to buy more?

Deadly Ramon said:

This is the only sports I like:

Click to expand...

Well, it is hip to be square.........


I'm not a complete cable cutter. I signed off of cable TV a couple years back but I still have Comcast cable for internet.
We have not had a land line phone in a decade. We had Comcast's "bundle" for a while which is an IP phone before we dropped everything except basic internet.

lcpiper said:

What if a provider tracked your watching habits like others do, and "moved" 35% of what they think you like, to a channel in a package you didn't buy?

What if everything you viewed on the internet was tailored for you in a manner that would never satisfy and only drive you to buy more?

Click to expand...

If someone has the keys to something and you're paying to access it, they always have the power. I just know that I don't want a bunch of channel packages. I want the whole chabang and I don't want that option to go away or become too expensive. At this point I get a pretty decent break because I do have every channel. I don't want that to go away because I can only choose 50 channels and each additional one costs the same price as HBO. OR worse, paying per show.

qbanb8582 said:

For me I use cablecards saves me like $40 not having to pay rental fees.

Click to expand...

Same here. Just $2/month for the cable card plugged into the 4 channel tuner in my HTPC. Records up to 4 channels at once (on my 4TB drive), and I can play back the shows from any PC in the house (or even my Windows tablet). Why would I ever want to pay $40+/month for a locked down DRV with less storage?

Used to have a couple other TV's in the house connected to the cable (analog, no cable box), but since the cable company started scrambling all the channels, we just stopped using those TV's. They where old Tube TV's that where rarely used, but instead of the cable company getting us to spend more $ for cable boxes, the end result is we watch less TV.

Xenozx said:

problem with alacart is if tomorrow they flipped a switch and it was 100% alacart, then 85% of content providers / networks would go out of business almost immediately. networks would no longer take risks, and you would see a huge drop in originality on shows and content.

Its probably a good thing, its going slow, as this will give the entertainment world a chance to evolve, rather than just go extinct.
oh and right now, every comcast cable customer pays for ESPN at 6 dollars a month. If alecart, not everyone would pick ESPN, so they would lose a lot of customers, and to recoop that cost, they would raise their price. AKA pay more get less.

Click to expand...

Let them go extinct, since they don't know how to evolve. I don't need/want hundreds of channels, and we would be better of it 80% of them (and most the garbage they carry) went away. Maybe if this happened, it would force these companies to evolve and move to internet streaming.

ESPN is the perfect example. I NEVER watch ESPN, so I resent having to pay for it.
Forced bundling/force carry rules by the media companies should be illegal. It gives them too much control over the cable/satellite companies.

qbanb8582 said:

For me I use cablecards saves me like $40 not having to pay rental fees.

Click to expand...

I have two cable cards, one each in a HD Homerun Prime a container on my Proxmox VM server running my MythTV backend and three HTPC's (Living room, Bedroom and Guest room)

Thing is, I got a little carried away. Sure I'm paying less to Verizon with my cable cards and my own router than I would have with cable boxes and Verizon's router, bit I have spent way more in setting up my PVR Front ends and Backends.

I'm very happy with the setup though, (apart from the fact that more and more channels keep going "copy once" instead of "copy freely" meaning that I cant watch them using MythTV.

Once again DRM hurts legitimate paying customers only, not pirates.

People don't realize that the "packages" or "bundles" are not (necessarily) the fault of the cable providers.
They are the fault of the content providers.
Cable co wants to offer plain ole Fox.
Fox tells cable co "you have to pay $x/yr and you get this bundle of 50 channels."
Cable co then offers that Fox package with those 50 channels.
Only other option cable co has is telling Fox to fuck off, and then not be able to provide any of Fox's content.

I mean, unless you want to pay the same for only Fox vs the Fox bundle. But then that gets you nowhere in terms of cost savings. You just pay more for less (regardless of whether or not you'll watch any of the other channels in the bundle.)

I understand the want for a la carte, and I agree, but everybody seems to blame cable providers on the lack of a la carte when it's really the content/network providers that aren't budging.

The only way for me to watch sports is through Sling, HD rabbit ears for the local channel, or go to the bar. I'm saving money because I probably would have gone to the bar anyway.

twonunpackmule said:

It's cheaper to keep cable and have internet, than go internet only in MD. At least, with Fios. I pay for base level cable with HBO, Showtime and Starz. The overall package is just under $90. This includes 75/75 internet. Fees and everything that comes to $120ish.

If I were to just have internet it would be like $85, but I would have to pay for HboNow, Showtime, Starz and all that separately, instead of $20 package for all three.

Click to expand...

Still that isn't bad at all. I would more than happily pay $120 if that included everything. What made me drop cable was starting to push $300 a month..That is just asinine.

gimp said:

People don't realize that the "packages" or "bundles" are not (necessarily) the fault of the cable providers.
They are the fault of the content providers.
Cable co wants to offer plain ole Fox.
Fox tells cable co "you have to pay $x/yr and you get this bundle of 50 channels."
Cable co then offers that Fox package with those 50 channels.
Only other option cable co has is telling Fox to fuck off, and then not be able to provide any of Fox's content.

I mean, unless you want to pay the same for only Fox vs the Fox bundle. But then that gets you nowhere in terms of cost savings. You just pay more for less (regardless of whether or not you'll watch any of the other channels in the bundle.)

I understand the want for a la carte, and I agree, but everybody seems to blame cable providers on the lack of a la carte when it's really the content/network providers that aren't budging.

Click to expand...

A la carte channel selection is one thing, and it is an ideal, but the biggest problem IMHO we have right now is not that channels are bundled together in packages, but rather than Internet and TV are bundled together in such a way that if you cancel your TV you pay almost as much for just internet as you would for Internet + TV. It didn't used to be like this. This is a new(ish) thing they started doing since people started cutting cables.

When broadband internet first started coming out, the internet and TV portion of the bills were fairly similar. Roughly half each. If you bundled them you'd get a discount, but it was only like 15% off the top.

For sake of argument, lets use made up numbers.



In the past:

Internet: $49.95
TV: $49.95
Bundle discount: -15%

Total: $85

Want only Internet? Great. It's $49.95


Today:

Double Play Bundlelicious BBQ TV+Internets OMGZ has to has: $139

Want only internet? No problem. That will be $124.99



Instead of seeing consumer desires changing and opting to innovate to be the best players in the market, the shitty Cable/Telco's dug their heels in, and instead devised "clever" marketing schemes to force consumers to pay whether they buy TV or not.

It ought to be criminal. In fact it might be, because they are using their monopolistic powers (owning the last mile intertubes) as competitive leverage against future IPTV technologies, where anyone can freely compete for TV market share for any customer who has an Internet connection. By forcing bundles like the above (not to mention adding scummy data caps, intentionally slowing down network transmissions to IPTV providers, etc. etc.), people have already - whether they want to or not - paid for TV, so they are less likely to consider online alternatives, killing many businesses before they even start.

Classic monopolistic behavior, using dominance in one category to force out competition in another. Microsoft was sued for Billions for far lesser transgressions.

I can't wait for the FCC and the DOJ to whip out the long cock of the law and shove it up their assess.

Of course this will never happen, as the Telcos and the Cable industry have well heeled lobbyists that own congress and possibly even the presidency and regulators.