Clearly this could be a reality (more expensive). As a cord cutter, the only costs are Netflix, Hulu and the price for a ISP (50 bucks a month for 50mbps - Down/20mbps - Up). There was a initial cost for a digital TV antenna, and a TV tuner card and lest not forget the boxes that go into the LR and MBR that receive the streams (FireTV). However, those upfront costs are easily paid for by just a few months of cable subscription, and from there it's pure savings.
Here is the fear --- if OTA is stopped by ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. Not all shows from these major networks hit Hulu, and some that do have crazy rules like not being available for a week, and if you don't watch it within a few weeks drops off the menu. Initial CBS thoughts for streaming is 6 bucks a month, and if others follow suit would be a total of 24 dollars a month (providing each started at 6 bucks). The thing is, the initial streaming price is starting at 6 bucks a month, and will only go upward from there. So, at first, costs wouldn't be too bad, but if we had to add just 5 more channels (Disney, ESPN, Discovery, History, and HBO), those monthly costs would go way way up, and as others are predicting, even more expensive than cable bundling.
So, as a cutter, I'm fearful that this trend catches on, and goes mainstream. For a few years now, I didn't know how far people would go to get their favorite shows. As some have pointed out, people are willing to skip meals, or not pay the mortgage, rather than let the cable subscription go away. As a cutter, I can only hope this is the rule and not the exception because it's these people that keep the current cable bundling afloat.
So keep bundling America, and continue to pay those high costs, so people like myself and many others can save
It sounds selfish, but so much of TV content these days is in the toilet, so if people want to pay a lot for what I consider garbage, then let them.
David