Is this Cord cutting thing going in the wrong direction?
All, I have been growing more concerned with the direction of this cord cutting conversation over the last few years. In the beginning, I was frustrated with how I was at the mercy of my cable provider with regard to what I had access to in the way of programming and frustrated with the high cost of tiers without any say as to what was included. I was hoping that the cord cutting movement would provide options to choose what I wanted without paying for channels that I never watched. However, what I am seeing happen is every network creating their own streaming service. Some of those are at what I consider an acceptable cost, but once I subscribe to all of the channels I am interested in, Disney+, Discovery+, Prime, CBS All Access and I not ending up paying the same or more in the end? How is the consumer winning here? This made more sense when we had streaming avenues through Prime, Netflix, and Hulu, but now I almost need to have all of those along with all of the network-branded services to see the things I am interested in. I feel like the consumer is still losing here. I am interested in what others think.
Content creators are king. That's why you see so many shows and movies leaving Netflix because discovery, nbc, and others, figured out that they could make more money with their own streaming service than they could licensing it to others.
I have to agree. I really wanted to get rid of cable TV because it so expensive. However when I totaled the cost of subscribing to all of the streaming alternatives necessary to get the same content, the cost was the same or slightly more expensive to get rid of cable. Instead I downgraded my cable TV package to get rid of stuff I do not want and added a Roku to subscribe to Netflix. Now I am looking at adding Discovery+, which drives my overall cost right back up to where it was. I think this is also a very individual calculation that depends on what content you want. The high demand for content means that a lot of junk is being produced, which I don't think is worth the subscription cost.
The single most important thing to know about cord-cutting is that it's not about retaining access to all the same content that you have access to now.
The single most important thing to know about cord-cutting is that it's not about retaining access to all the same content that you have access to now.
Yes but the OP does have a good point.
In other words, what [is] it about by now?
-----
Increasing fragmentation of media leads to fragmentation of the country too.
The only common experience is the Super Bowl, and that's not enough.
Shared experiences such as when tens of millions of people watched the finale of MASH, or when tens of millions watched Roots, and discussed it with each other simply don't happen anymore.
The question you need to ask is: "Is the content I'm consuming really worth the $$$ I'm paying for it?", not "How can I get the same stuff for less $?"
As was stated by others, if you want to save money by cord cutting, you cannot just get the same content and keep that content all the time. The cost of the content and the cost to deliver that content makes up most of the cost of a traditional cable or satellite package. I look at cord cutting as getting rid of cable box rental fees and a few other small costs but then I really save money on top of that by not paying for content that I was not using anyway. In many cases, I get rid of some content and add it back later in the same year so that I do not have to pay for it for every month of the year. If your amount of content that you want to watch is large enough and you want to keep it all the time, you will not save money but will add frustration by cord cutting. Watching your content through 10 different apps, regularly adding new apps with their separate cost, and regularly getting rid of apps you do not use, is not nearly as simple as watching all your content on a single cable box with the same simple interface and getting a single bill for it.
Time-shifting to save money:
A lot of cord cutters save money by watching a large amount of content months or even years later than when it was released. They avoid content that is on a live cable channel at that time other than maybe a few sporting events, news, or other time sensitive content that they really want to watch when it comes out (such as The Mandalorian or Game of Thrones). If you monitor Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+, etc. you will notice that they only add a few new shows each month that you might want to watch but they put all shows into their library for watching later. For some of these, you can subscribe to them for one, two or a few months of the year and save huge amounts of money over paying for them for the entire year. For a few of them you may want to keep for the entire year based on what you watch the most of. In my case, Disney+ and Amazon Prime are my all year subscriptions. I can get one of the other apps for a month or two, binge watch everything on it that I want to watch and then cancel it. I will come back to it some months or even a year later for the next set of content. Then I move onto the next app and do the same thing.
Place-shifting to save money:
A lot of cord cutters have arrangements with others who live in different locations to share app subscriptions that they keep for the entire year. If person A subscribes to Netflix, person B to Hulu, and person C to HBO Max, they can each share their logon information with the other two and all three people get to watch all three apps at the cost each of one of them. Make sure you use a different password than you use for other logons as you will be sharing this password with others. The difficulty with this is that there are limits on the number of simultaneous streams that can be watched and the number of people (user profiles) that you are allowed by the app to share with. Some apps such as Amazon Prime, you cannot share with people not part of your Amazon shopping account. If the Netflix subscription is a 2 stream subscription, then all three cannot watch Netflix at the same time but any two of them can. You do not want multiple people sharing the same profile as they may mess up which programs have been watched, the list of content to watch next, or any other of the settings for the users they are sharing with. The person paying for that subscription can also cancel or alter their subscription at any time affecting the others. This means that you never want to share with someone you do not trust and can easily contact and you want to setup a unique profile in each app for each person.
I had the triple play and really pulled the cut-the-cord trigger. Dropped phone, which we had because of a senior in the house and wanted real 911. Ooma is a close second and is only a couple dollars. Cut TV and replace it with a professional quality (me) roof antennas, OTA Tivos, and streaming from Amazon (which we share with the adult kids) and Netflix (which the kids share with my wife and I). I also reduced the internet speed to the slowest they had. When we stream, it's only one TV at once and I don't care about 4K. So I went from around $200 to around $50...excluding the $3 for ooma phone, antennas and Tivos. I got the OTA Tivos with lifetime service for just a couple hundred by watching for sales at the Tivo site.
It was a [very] big factor, don't underestimate it.
Milton Berle, Walter Cronkite, Captain Kangaroo, American Bandstand.
You'll probably call me a boomer, and you'd be right, but the commonality of experience was very important and it's something we've lost.
-----
And now, TV divides.
The people who watch the various different cable news services, might as well be on different planets.
There is no common reality.
Same thing in the days before tv when radio was king...shared experiences of listening to FDR fireside chats and shows like Ed Sullivan and Jack Benny.
It helps to find deals. I switched my phone plan from Sprint to Verizon. Now my Verizon plan includes Disney + and Hulu. Already using Amazon Prime. The costs do appear to be going up for cord cutters. Not sure where this will all end up but at some point many will simply have to make a choice as to their viewing preferences. Especially with ATSC 3.0 rolling out and how that might impact OTA viewing as they try to monetize the OTA market.
All, I have been growing more concerned with the direction of this cord cutting conversation over the last few years. In the beginning, I was frustrated with how I was at the mercy of my cable provider with regard to what I had access to in the way of programming and frustrated with the high cost of tiers without any say as to what was included. I was hoping that the cord cutting movement would provide options to choose what I wanted without paying for channels that I never watched. However, what I am seeing happen is every network creating their own streaming service. Some of those are at what I consider an acceptable cost, but once I subscribe to all of the channels I am interested in, Disney+, Discovery+, Prime, CBS All Access and I not ending up paying the same or more in the end? How is the consumer winning here? This made more sense when we had streaming avenues through Prime, Netflix, and Hulu, but now I almost need to have all of those along with all of the network-branded services to see the things I am interested in. I feel like the consumer is still losing here. I am interested in what others think.
The cable company is a big firehose. It delivers hundreds of gallons a minute, and charges you accordingly--including those ever-increasing sports and local retransmission fees below the line.
And from that firehose, you sip or drink very moderately. You don't consume the entire firehose of entertainment 24/7.
But they charge you for it. Every drop.
So you cut the expensive firehose out of your life, and replace it with...what? Some sort of alternative. You could "replace" it with a firehose of stuff from a different company; some people do. Hulu Live TV, Youtube TV, Sling, whatever. It's just another firehose you couldn't possibly consume.
But you want to cut out that firehose entirely, along with its cost. So you look at some sort of video on demand.
As you point out, it's becoming fragmented. But you are mistakenly still thinking that you have to have the entire firehose blasting at you 24/7 "just in case". You don't. You don't have to buy every streaming channel that's out there and rebuild your own overpriced cable system a piece at a time, shooting that firehose of entertainment at you 24/7.
So you pick and choose.
Remember when the cable companies all hunkered down and denied the viability of a la carte programming? "Why, if you could buy only the channels you wanted, it would cost more than your cable subscription today!" they cried.
Well, today has come and the current environment put the lie to that. You can pick and choose the pieces of the world you want to watch, and pay only for those.
Even better--unlike the cable world, you can switch those pieces around on demand. I have Netflix because my kids like it, and because I've had it forever. I also have Hulu, which has become my go-to. But when Discovery Channel fired up Discovery+ for seven bucks a month without ads, I jumped on it. I missed their previously cable-only programming; they've done a great job over the last 30 years, and now as a cord cutter I can have access to their incredibly rich library of stuff.
And my wife can have her HGTV stuff back, more than what's been on Netflix and Hulu over the years.
And as I watch Discovery+, I realized I could easily switch back and forth every few months between that and Netflix and never miss a beat.
Try THAT with your cable company. It's really the a la carte system that the cable companies denied would ever be workable.
Look, there are 24 hours in every day. I have to live, work, eat, and sleep. Somewhere in there is time for TV. With the limited time I have for TV, Hulu and Netflix/Discovery+ provide more than enough to fill the time that's not taken up by network television that I capture with DVR.
Oh--and with Hulu I'm discovering TV shows from 20 years ago that I never even knew about, that I'm enjoying tremendously. So what if they're 20 years old? They're brand new to me. That's all that matters. (For the record, The Practice and Boston Legal are phenomenal shows.)
For the wife and me, Hulu and Discovery+ would be a great combo. With no ads, that adds up to...$20 a month. Even if we switched out Discovery+ for Netflix, that's $27/month.
All, I have been growing more concerned with the direction of this cord cutting conversation over the last few years. In the beginning, I was frustrated with how I was at the mercy of my cable provider with regard to what I had access to in the way of programming and frustrated with the high cost of tiers without any say as to what was included. I was hoping that the cord cutting movement would provide options to choose what I wanted without paying for channels that I never watched. However, what I am seeing happen is every network creating their own streaming service. Some of those are at what I consider an acceptable cost, but once I subscribe to all of the channels I am interested in, Disney+, Discovery+, Prime, CBS All Access and I not ending up paying the same or more in the end? How is the consumer winning here? This made more sense when we had streaming avenues through Prime, Netflix, and Hulu, but now I almost need to have all of those along with all of the network-branded services to see the things I am interested in. I feel like the consumer is still losing here. I am interested in what others think.
There is a constant that we're often ignoring as rates for streaming services go up. Odds are on a year to year basis the old cable company rates have gone up as well. And that is not counting the devious ploy of putting your favorites into a higher cost tier.
I'd like to have a link which listed the rate structures of cable companies broken down to packages, content, fees, and surcharges for say the past 10-20 years. Bet it would be an eye opener.
Increasing fragmentation of media leads to fragmentation of the country too.
The only common experience is the Super Bowl, and that's not enough.
Shared experiences such as when tens of millions of people watched the finale of MASH, or when tens of millions watched Roots, and discussed it with each other simply don't happen anymore.
Could NOT have said it better! Sadly, our seemingly unlimited viewing options have blinded so many to the more pressing issues that are common to us all. By eliminating such shared experiences and nation-wide information we are all turning to "what we want to hear", furthering the divide and promoting distortions and outright misinformation. While I hardly see TV as 'the glue' that held this nation together, a thousand different voices shouting a thousand different "truths" is certainly not helping. Frankly, for all the joy and wonder of watching any show I want, anytime I desire - when there were 3 choices on the tube, we shared more values, and watched a LOT LESS TV...
Personally I saw this coming. As long as your not the guy that needs 500 channels your fine. We watch content on CBS All Access, Netflix, Prime, HBO Max and a few others. But we dont sub to them all at once OR we get a good deal. For example for $77 I got HBO max for 6 months. We tend to watch all the content we want on a service then cancel till the content comes back, then switch to the next service.
End of the month I drop Sling Orange (end of football and need for ESPN) and keep Blue only (FS1 and NBCSports for NASCAR during the late winter/spring), resubscribe to Philo for my Discovery and other channels since I like their DVR function much better, continue with my Prime Video that was provided by Frontier for free last year for one year, and keep bumming off of my old neighbor’s Netflix. I also took advantage of the 6 mos. offer for HBOMax by prepaying. OTA with an old TiVoHD which was paid for long ago. I did treat myself to an Roku Ultra so I could hardwire my 500/500 Frontier Fiber.
Alas, I’m having to make due with a 55” Sony 1080p set that works great so why bother with 4K from 8’?
End of the month I drop Sling Orange (end of football and need for ESPN) and keep Blue only (FS1 and NBCSports for NASCAR during the late winter/spring),
I need to figure out a way to watch NHRA. They want too much via them directly. That's really the only sport I view now. They were on FS1 this past year but since I cut the cord can't view anymore.
I got a 32" 720p TV, PRE LED mind you, so used the old school lighting method. Still works great, other than the speakers are kinda shot. I haven't replaced it with 4K for 1 reason. We have a data cap. So watching 4K content is like out. ATSC 3.0 just went live in my area. So hopefully they might grace us with some 4K content at some point. Once I can get 4K OTA, then Ill upgrade to a 4K TV.
My decision to cut the cord was based on being fed up with turning on cable and saying to myself, "There must be something on"...but there never was! I had long since refused to watch ANY cable news channel so that was certainly not a loss. I have plenty to choose from with Netflix, Prime and non-subscription YouTube. (Is listening to a performance by Glenn Gould any less a joy than it was sixty years ago? No!) Cable and the media in general have little to no altruistic motive to serve the common good. Is bringing the World Series or Super Bowl or whatever to you motivated by the desire to create a "shared experience"? I think not!
My decision to cut the cord was based on being fed up with turning on cable and saying to myself, "There must be something on"...but there never was!
That's funny. I've been saying the same thing for over 20 years now.
20+ years ago, my wealthy brother got whatever satellite service it was, and he subscribed to every channel--including premium. I swear, the channel numbers went well into the 2000s. I don't know how many channels there were, but it had to have been hundreds. When I visited, I would just sit there and click through the channels. The non-premiums, I hit commercials at least 75-80% of the time. The premiums were filled with junk. I remember cycling through all the channels for a second time and saying, "there's nothing on..."
Back then I even said that HBO wasn't worth stealing, let alone paying for. It was true then, and it's true now. The last thing I remember watching with an HBO subscription was From The Earth to the Moon. Superb programming--but with some patience, available at the library, fer chrissakes.
I look at cord cutting like moving... When you go into a new service area you scan what's available and pick what you want. IF you can get what you want for less, great. Cutting the cord just for the sake of cutting the cord is not always the best decision. Although, being a Comcast customer, I can see getting so frustrated with their UNservice staff doing what I can to reduce the money paid can feel good.
Cutting the cord just for the sake of cutting the cord is not always the best decision.
well, doing anything "just because" is not always the best decision. But plenty of people do stupid things "just because everyone else is doing it!" without any thought to their own needs, so there's that. Fashion over function. You wouldn't want to be seen as an individual now, do you? With your own thoughts?????
But the whole point of this forum and talking about the cord cutting concept is that people are in fact continuing to subscribe to traditional cableco delivered linear pay TV just for the sake of subscribing to traditional cableco delivered linear pay TV--that is, they've always done it, and to do otherwise would entail making a decision! Being an individual! STANDING OUT FROM THE CROWD!!! Scary! Scary!
They continue to subscribe without any thoughts to their own needs, going all in for fashion over function. But if they thought about things in this modern day and age, they'd realize that the decisions they can make today are WAY different and the options more numerous than they could have made 10, 20, 30 years ago when the obvious choice was cableco delivered pay TV.
It's the safe move, to continue to subscribe. They're uncomfortable at work or with their friends having to defend the "I don't have cable" thing when the water cooler talk turns to whatever today's equivalent is to The Sopranos. In fact, I'd bet many of those people signed up for HBO when The Sopranos came on so they wouldn't look like outsiders at such discussions.
But cord cutting isn't scary, and the many choices can't be ignored. Not to cut the cord for the sake of not cutting the cord is more and more ridiculous every day.
I have a media server. I realize this path isn't for everyone, but it works for me. I have 29344 video files currently. (8.8Tb - 1.77 years). That's a lot of programming. No commercials ever is what drove me to cut the cord in 2000. I have never looked back.
we are still very much in a transitional period for a few more years, so it's not that cord cutting it going backwards, rather that it's still evolving. the good/bad news is that covid lockdowns are further accelerating this evolution as they will have most likely killed off the entire movie b&m theatre house industry (assuming more CARES act like tax payer money does not keep bailing them out) a lot faster than big cheap hdtv's were already doing; (skip to time index 3:00 to avoid all the embedded advertising)
btw, a simple way to reduce your costs of so many streaming platforms while increasing your variety is; account sharing. within my pod of friends and family we all share streaming accounts, even with family in different states. none of streaming platforms have done anything serious to discourage this, other than rarely forcing us to reset our password. at the moment i have access to 4 platforms while i alone only pay for one of them. i also have an OTA antenna, that only costs me $3/mo extra to DVR it's content and benefit from EPG. so if you have the time and patience to manage multiple content resources, you can benefit from more of them far cheaper - than you did with your dad's old cabletv box.
I would agree that cord cutting is just as expensive as cable. The thing that is most disturbing to me is the amount of time people spend viewing content when the time can be better spent elsewhere. At our house, we limit ourselves to an hour or less, the exception being an occasional sporting event that usually runs more than an hour. The only subscription we have is Curiosity Stream. The content is excellent and the technical quality is very good. You can't beat the price; one year costs $12! Combine that with on OTA antenna and we have more than we care to watch. I'm not saying everyone should be like me, I'm only saying there are ways to satisfy the TV "need" without breaking the bank.
we are still very much in a transitional period for a few more years, so it's not that cord cutting it going backwards, rather that it's still evolving. (skip to time index 3:00 to avoid all the embedded advertising) (youtube clip)
Isn't it ironic that the very subject we're discussing (Cord Cutting) and the reason many do it (Cost and commercials), and especially the evolution of cord cutting are represent by the very fact that we need to skip to the 3 minute mark of your very informative youtube clip!
·
·
·