Exhibit 1 (9/15/15):

The Phoenix, Ariz.-based operator, owned by Graham Holdings Company and touting 730,000 subscribers across 19 states, has notified its video subscribers that they'll soon be paying a $2.94 surcharge to help cover the cost of sports licensing.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/cable-o...JI.twitter

Exhibit 2 (9/11/15):

U.S. pay TV consumers are strongly considering “cutting the cord” — canceling their pay TV subscriptions.
Now 2.9% of TV pay TV consumers are “very likely” to drop their service, according to a survey from Frank N. Magid Associates. This is up from a 2.7% level in 2013 and a 2.2% level in 2012.

Younger TV consumers are at a much higher level to cut their service — 4.9% of 25- to-54-year-olds say they are “very likely” to cut the cord.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/ar...-cord.html

The article continues that even sports fans and ESPN subscribers have had enough and are wanting out.

The higher the prices, the more that flee, the less people left to have subsidize the sports rights fees, the more prices rise, the more people get fed up.

ACC and Big XII try and implement another conference network and raise prices would be a bad idea.

(09-16-2014 12:24 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Exhibit 1 (9/15/15):

The Phoenix, Ariz.-based operator, owned by Graham Holdings Company and touting 730,000 subscribers across 19 states, has notified its video subscribers that they'll soon be paying a $2.94 surcharge to help cover the cost of sports licensing.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/cable-o...JI.twitter

Exhibit 2 (9/11/15):

U.S. pay TV consumers are strongly considering “cutting the cord” — canceling their pay TV subscriptions.
Now 2.9% of TV pay TV consumers are “very likely” to drop their service, according to a survey from Frank N. Magid Associates. This is up from a 2.7% level in 2013 and a 2.2% level in 2012.

Younger TV consumers are at a much higher level to cut their service — 4.9% of 25- to-54-year-olds say they are “very likely” to cut the cord.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/ar...-cord.html

The article continues that even sports fans and ESPN subscribers have had enough and are wanting out.

The higher the prices, the more that flee, the less people left to have subsidize the sports rights fees, the more prices rise, the more people get fed up.

ACC and Big XII try and implement another conference network and raise prices would be a bad idea.

I wonder how much those younger/older demographics on cord cutting are driven by economics rather than preferences. The last downturn and current economic recovery have not been kind to the younger portion of the workforce.

What's funny about most cord-cutters is that at the end of the day, they end up paying about the same for far less content than with cable/satellite. If people are dropping cable because of a $3/mo. increase in their cable bill, then they are just sticking their head in the sand about all the other indignities of rising costs across the board.

(09-16-2014 12:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  What's funny about most cord-cutters is that at the end of the day, they end up paying about the same for far less content than with cable/satellite. If people are dropping cable because of a $3/mo. increase in their cable bill, then they are just sticking their head in the sand about all the other indignities of rising costs across the board.

People are cutting the cord because they do not wish to pay $200/month for internet and television. Many times, they are willing to pay for internet. Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu give them what they want.

(09-16-2014 12:39 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  What's funny about most cord-cutters is that at the end of the day, they end up paying about the same for far less content than with cable/satellite. If people are dropping cable because of a $3/mo. increase in their cable bill, then they are just sticking their head in the sand about all the other indignities of rising costs across the board.

People are cutting the cord because they do not wish to pay $200/month for internet and television. Many times, they are willing to pay for internet. Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu give them what they want.

I get that, but I have also seen many who exhaust those outlets and buy more and more subscriptions and end up paying about the same as they would with cable, but end up with far less choices. I also know many who cut the cord, then six months to a year later ended up going back to cable. I won't deny that people are dropping cable, but I think we'll find more people coming back as the internet supply just doesn't give them what they want. Add to that the possibility of throttling by ISPs and paying more for premium internet service to handle the streaming and I think most cord-cutting users will end up back at square one.

If you don't watch sports, there is really no reason to have cable.

Netflix, OTA, and Hulu are fine...and that is $15/mo.

I dropped DirecTV. I'll probably get cable services back when Google installs Fiber in Charlotte. Their 1 gigabit internet + tv is like $127/mo, but supposedly that includes every channel.

While in Charlotte, I had sliced my cable down and down and added netflix, hulu, amazon prime, etc... was spending $120 on cable and internet and then a big chunk on those other services... Since moving to NY, I restored my cable choices, kept roadrunner internet, and added home phone for a non-promotional bundled rate of $160/month through Time Warner... so I dropped most of those other services and my monthly costs are only $12 more per month, but I have a local number for my doorman services and way more movie stations, sports channels, and seemingly ENDLESS free on-demand options. So I've gone back the other way from cutting!

(09-16-2014 12:39 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  What's funny about most cord-cutters is that at the end of the day, they end up paying about the same for far less content than with cable/satellite. If people are dropping cable because of a $3/mo. increase in their cable bill, then they are just sticking their head in the sand about all the other indignities of rising costs across the board.

People are cutting the cord because they do not wish to pay $200/month for internet and television. Many times, they are willing to pay for internet. Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu give them what they want.

This is such a laughably bad comparison it is not even funny. The only people paying $200 a month, are those that want every channel. Comparing that to paying for Netflix ($7.99 per month), Amazon Prime ($8.99 per month), and Hulu ($8.99 per month), which total up to $25.99 per month, not to mention the increased internet service you need to handle it (for most another $10-$20 per month versus what is needed when you don't have to stream video all day) , to get far less is not remotely comparable.

Now compare Netlix, Hulu, and Amazon ($25 plus upgraded internet fees) to the cost to get basic cable ($35 per month) and a DVR, which is the most comparable service comparison, which also includes the likes of ESPN, and you get a much different picture. Especially when you can then scale down your internet offerings, you know if you are going for cost savings. What you are trying to compare is like comparing buying a used Hyndai to a brand new Lexus, and saying how much cheaper the Hyndai is and that Lexus is going to go out of business because of it.

Personally my total bills are under $60 per month. Cable is $33, internet is $15, and I use Netflix as sort of a movie channel. Because I stream so little, and only at low bandwidth hours at night, I am perfectly okay with the cheap internet. if I was using the net for all of my TV, I would need a $50 internet package (note, that is more than my internet and basic cable package). I also use my antenna which isn't much, but the sub channels OTA show some good old shows on occasion, plus the football games on CBS and ABC come in clearer than my cable box which is 720. I get more channels and offerings than people with the above, and pay less.

The other thing often missing from those articles citing "cord cutting, " is that cable subscribers are going down in part because there are less households.

Nobody has NetFlix and Amazon and Hulu. That would be silly, you only need one and there is no need at all for Hulu as hulu is the same stuff thats already free with an antenna. All the episodes are already free at the provider's website or can be DVR'd from their antenna, or can be found on NetFlix. I see no purpuse at all of Hulu.

(09-16-2014 02:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:39 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  What's funny about most cord-cutters is that at the end of the day, they end up paying about the same for far less content than with cable/satellite. If people are dropping cable because of a $3/mo. increase in their cable bill, then they are just sticking their head in the sand about all the other indignities of rising costs across the board.

People are cutting the cord because they do not wish to pay $200/month for internet and television. Many times, they are willing to pay for internet. Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu give them what they want.

This is such a laughably bad comparison it is not even funny. The only people paying $200 a month, are those that want every channel. Comparing that to paying for Netflix ($7.99 per month), Amazon Prime ($8.99 per month), and Hulu ($8.99 per month), which total up to $25.99 per month, not to mention the increased internet service you need to handle it (for most another $10-$20 per month versus what is needed when you don't have to stream video all day) , to get far less is not remotely comparable.

Now compare Netlix, Hulu, and Amazon ($25 plus upgraded internet fees) to the cost to get basic cable ($35 per month) and a DVR, which is the most comparable service comparison, which also includes the likes of ESPN, and you get a much different picture. Especially when you can then scale down your internet offerings, you know if you are going for cost savings. What you are trying to compare is like comparing buying a used Hyndai to a brand new Lexus, and saying how much cheaper the Hyndai is and that Lexus is going to go out of business because of it.

That used to be true, but its not really the only reason your bill can be high. Its not having a lot of channels that runs my bill up so high---its having a lot of TV's. I get hit with a fee for a converter for each TV. With Comcast, I had to pay $20 bucks for every TV I wanted to receive HD. I had 8 TV's. That was $160 right there. I hadn't thought of it before, but I should probably cut the cable to all but a few TV's and just use Roku, XBoxes, or Apple Tv on the rest.

And to add, there is barely a need for NetFlix as Crackle is completely free and has a lot of movies.

The antenna DVR's do everything cable does except are free and have a few less channels. Crackle does the rest.



DVR, Channel guide, built in streaming apps, pause, slow motion. Add a sling box and watch your TV antenna on your mobile phone. Home-DVR, etc...

Save $150.

And no you don't need an expensive internet package, the $29 package will work. The high-speed stuff is a gimmick

(09-16-2014 12:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  What's funny about most cord-cutters is that at the end of the day, they end up paying about the same for far less content than with cable/satellite. If people are dropping cable because of a $3/mo. increase in their cable bill, then they are just sticking their head in the sand about all the other indignities of rising costs across the board.

During the offseason, I cut my cable to a more basic level, then for football and basketball, college sports, I ramp it back up.

(09-16-2014 02:32 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Nobody has NetFlix and Amazon and Hulu. That would be silly, you only need one and there is no need at all for Hulu as hulu is the same stuff thats already free with an antenna. All the episodes are already free at the provider's website or can be DVR'd from their antenna, or can be found on NetFlix. I see no purpuse at all of Hulu.

Not as silly as comparing someone with every channel's cost to someone who is bargain hunting. But yes you sort of do need both Hulu (for current TV) and Netflix (past TV). You may not need both Netflix and Amazon, but many have both since Netflix streaming is TV centric and Amazon Prime is more movie centric, or they have Netflix with DVD's, which is $20 per month. Or maybe they have a DVR service in place of Hulu, but many who cut cords do have both, while claiming to save money. But even with that, you still miss many of the most popular shows on cable, as they protect themselves and don't allow their stuff on Hulu. So unless you are okay with waiting til next year to watch the episode of Breaking Bad from last night (yes I know it is no longer on the air, it was a hypothetical), or waiting until after the game is over to watch a replay on ESPN3, this is STILL not an apt comparison.

(09-16-2014 02:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That used to be true, but its not really the only reason your bill can be high. Its not having a lot of channels that runs my bill up so high---its having a lot of TV's. I get hit with a fee for a converter for each TV. With Comcast, I had to pay $20 bucks for every TV I wanted to receive HD. I had 8 TV's. That was $160 right there.

I have never had Comcast, but I never had that issue. The only boxes I had to pay for were HD boxes, or DVR boxes. And again, if you are comparing having a DVR in each room, it should be compared to having a laptop for streaming in each room. I only have two TV's since I have a one bedroom condo, but they offer now the box that feeds four rooms, if you want it, for one fee. Something like $20 per month. I don't need it, so I don't get it, but just pointing it out.

Buy your own internet modem off of ebay or amazon for $20 and save the $7-$10 per month price gouge.

(09-16-2014 02:38 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  And to add, there is barely a need for NetFlix as Crackle is completely free and has a lot of movies.

The antenna DVR's do everything cable does except are free and have a few less channels. Crackle does the rest.



DVR, Channel guide, built in streaming apps, pause, slow motion. Add a sling box and watch your TV antenna on your mobile phone. Home-DVR, etc...

Save $150.

And no you don't need an expensive internet package, the $29 package will work. The high-speed stuff is a gimmick

The last time you tried to bring this stuff up, your points were utterly debunked by me and about four others. Do you really want to do this again?

(09-16-2014 02:38 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  During the offseason, I cut my cable to a more basic level, then for football and basketball, college sports, I ramp it back up.

I do the same. I sued to pick up the sports pak for NFL Redzone, but I had to stop doing that. Damn thing started ruining football for me. I would be so hooked on it, Sunday Night football and college football on Saturday started to seem too slow and boring. Had to free myself from the hook.

(09-16-2014 02:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 02:32 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Nobody has NetFlix and Amazon and Hulu. That would be silly, you only need one and there is no need at all for Hulu as hulu is the same stuff thats already free with an antenna. All the episodes are already free at the provider's website or can be DVR'd from their antenna, or can be found on NetFlix. I see no purpuse at all of Hulu.

Not as silly as comparing someone with every channel's cost to someone who is bargain hunting. But yes you sort of do need both Hulu (for current TV) and Netflix (past TV). You may not need both Netflix and Amazon, but many have both since Netflix streaming is TV centric and Amazon Prime is more movie centric, or they have Netflix with DVD's, which is $20 per month. Or maybe they have a DVR service in place of Hulu, but many who cut cords do have both, while claiming to save money. But even with that, you still miss many of the most popular shows on cable, as they protect themselves and don't allow their stuff on Hulu. So unless you are okay with waiting til next year to watch the episode of Breaking Bad from last night (yes I know it is no longer on the air, it was a hypothetical), or waiting until after the game is over to watch a replay on ESPN3, this is STILL not an apt comparison.

(09-16-2014 02:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That used to be true, but its not really the only reason your bill can be high. Its not having a lot of channels that runs my bill up so high---its having a lot of TV's. I get hit with a fee for a converter for each TV. With Comcast, I had to pay $20 bucks for every TV I wanted to receive HD. I had 8 TV's. That was $160 right there.

I have never had Comcast, but I never had that issue. The only boxes I had to pay for were HD boxes, or DVR boxes. And again, if you are comparing having a DVR in each room, it should be compared to having a laptop for streaming in each room. I only have two TV's since I have a one bedroom condo, but they offer now the box that feeds four rooms, if you want it, for one fee. Something like $20 per month. I don't need it, so I don't get it, but just pointing it out.

DirecTV advertises like you only need one box, but it is bull****. They charge you $20 or $25 for the main box each month, then $6/mo for every mini receiver that is connected to the DVR system.

For people that have TWC, they can get around the box charge by buying a Roku or using their Xbox since there is a TWC app available for it that takes the place of the box (although it doesn't offer 100% of the channels).

I haven't had directv in a few years, but I had it back when I bought my own boxes, so I never had a fee for it. Or a contract. I have time warner, and I pay less for cable and internet than many "cord cutters." But I sometimes add channels for the season, which raises my bill. But I understand that is not an apt comparison because I'm getting more.

But most of the comparisons are for extra ordinary boxes or services to stripped down basic service. And that's where the comparisons lose validity.

(09-16-2014 01:23 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:39 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 12:33 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  What's funny about most cord-cutters is that at the end of the day, they end up paying about the same for far less content than with cable/satellite. If people are dropping cable because of a $3/mo. increase in their cable bill, then they are just sticking their head in the sand about all the other indignities of rising costs across the board.

People are cutting the cord because they do not wish to pay $200/month for internet and television. Many times, they are willing to pay for internet. Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu give them what they want.

I get that, but I have also seen many who exhaust those outlets and buy more and more subscriptions and end up paying about the same as they would with cable, but end up with far less choices. I also know many who cut the cord, then six months to a year later ended up going back to cable. I won't deny that people are dropping cable, but I think we'll find more people coming back as the internet supply just doesn't give them what they want. Add to that the possibility of throttling by ISPs and paying more for premium internet service to handle the streaming and I think most cord-cutting users will end up back at square one.

I cut the chord 3 years ago. I get 27 channels over air, and spend a total of $17 for Hulu and Netflix. I have not missed a single FB game that I wanted to watch, live stream... So why in the hell would I go back to $100 plus for Cable. Most of what I was forced to pay for with cable was crap I didn't want nor need. ie 40 shopping channels, Music channels galore,

Honest question: did you get those football game thru "legal" means or thru pirated websites or using someone else's passcodes? I ask because they doesn't really count as a suitable replacement.