Cutting the cable and un-cutting (best, value, price, money)

[PacoMartin]

My brother cut the cable four years ago, and watched computer, Netflix, and DVDs, Kindles and Nooks. During that time he purchased a new computer, a new $1700 55" television. They did supplement Netflix with Amazon Prime But after 3 years the cable company raised the price of his internet only package. When he complained they refused to drop their price, but they gave him a converter box to bring in local over the air standard definition channels. Where we are we cannot receive ABC/CBS/NBC over the air because of mountains. During these four years they paid off their mortgage, aided by low TV bills.

Now at the end of four years, when there are more streaming options, but they will probably buy back the entire basic cable package. His wife misses stuff like cooking shows and Investigation Discovery. They are big hockey and football fans and they also felt it was too difficult to track down stuff on the computer.

Most posters who "cut the cord" say they will never go back. Are there a lot of people who felt their options were limited without cable TV? They are in their 40's.

[bUU]

I think cord cutting requires a certain willingness to place the "values" associated with cord-cutting (frugality, chief among them) above matters such as entertainment value. For some reason there is a reticence among some to admit that they really do have to sacrifice something when they cut the cord. Instead of rationally grounding their decision on their determination that the value of the money saved outweighs even a minimalized conception of what value cable television service uniquely provided them, some folks go through a completely unnecessary denial of what they're losing with their loss of cable television service.

More importantly, as you pointed out, there has been a bonus available for the taking, for early adopters of streaming services. They have been generally underpriced for the value they deliver, a reflection of the ability of streaming service providers being able to offload the burden of data transport onto ISPs with impunity. And as you pointed out, that bonus is being eaten away. ISPs are realizing that the service they provide is even more valuable than it was before, because of all the new services (especially streaming services) that customers are patronizing, services that customers could not patronize without the Internet service. It is like an airline realizing that their flights to a small airport in the mountains are getting more and more full because a huge, luxury resort has opened there, attracting many times more passengers than they typically have carried previously. The airlines of course will recognize the added value being derived from those flights, and monetize that value with higher fares.

With that bonus being eaten away, I think we'll see a lot of cord-cutters going through the five stages of grief, beginning with denial, anger and bargaining, followed quickly by depression and then acceptance. It seems your brother has reached that last stage.

[hensleya1]

Why would I spend $80 or more a month on a cable package I don't have time to watch because I'm at work all day?

***

For a lot of people including me, that's cord-cutting in a nutshell.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by bUU

I think cord cutting requires a certain willingness to place the "values" associated with cord-cutting (frugality, chief among them) above matters such as entertainment value.

One value that parents were supposed to teach children is to watch TV shows that they want to see. The truly responsible parent may require the child to list the shows that they want to see for the week, then budget that list against some upper limit (say 14 or 21 hours for the week), then they can only watch those shows. Like any other budget you may have to cut some shows to see more important ones.

Cord cutters will often make some sort of budget, and purchase single view shows at $3 an episode for there own personal guilty please (like Walking Dead). Cable TV purveyors like to trumpet that the shows they provide are only a few cents per hour, because no human being could watch all those shows.

So rather than real "entertainment value" you lose TV as companion noise, veg out time, way to alleviate boredom where you watch the best thing that is on.

I think everyone has read the dismissive comment that was made in a New York Times review at the 1939 world's fair when TV was demonstrated.

“The problem with television is that people must sit and keep their eyes glued on a screen; the average American family hasn’t time for it.”

[lottamoxie]

Growing up in the 70s we had three or four TVs and that was our babysitter, companion, and bad replacement for a functional family environment. There was even a TV in the kitchen and my parents would watch the 6pm news during our family dinner and there was no talking allowed during this. Extremely dysfunctional and sad.

As an adult I only watch specific shows, and I record them or stream them commercial free. Other than that I don't turn on the TV and never turn it on just have noise. I actually enjoy the silence. I had cable for many years but found I wasn't watching most of the channels and the cost kept going up, so I cut the cable cord five years ago, installed an HD Antenna, and haven't looked back. I did just treat myself to a Roku streaming media device and am enjoying that, but will never go back to paying those ridiculous monthly charges for TV.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

Cord cutters will often make some sort of budget

If the trends in pricing continue, it won't take all that much in terms of entertainment to result in cord-cutting costing more than purchasing a package.

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

So rather than real "entertainment value" you lose TV as companion noise

That's a distinction without a difference. You choose to call it noise, applying a pejorative because it supports your narrative, perhaps, but what we're talking about is still "entertainment value" all the same.

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

“The problem with television is that people must sit and keep their eyes glued on a screen; the average American family hasn’t time for it.”

I thoroughly ridiculous comment given that one of the entertainment activities that television displaced was book reading.

[WellShoneMoon]

I dropped cable when my husband died, because he was the TV watcher -- mostly sports -- not me. Now I have a Roku and I subscribe to Netflix DVD and streaming and I'm very content with what I can watch with those services.

I have had to damp down my desire for instant gratification, though. If I had cable TV I'd be happily watching the new series of "Luther" on BBCAmerica. However, Netflix tells me the whole series will be available on DVD next month. So if I wait until January, I can binge-watch the entire series in one sitting rather than having it parceled out to me a week at a time via cable.

[bUU]

And that's really the path forward for economizing entertainment: Delaying gratification. There is a big premium from seeing any entertainment when it is fresh, original, recently released, uncut or less cut, uninterrupted or less interrupted. The more we can stomach the delay, cuts and interruptions in our viewing, the lower our overall cost of entertainment will be, and that's a phenomenon that will probably never go away.

[Tassy001]

Originally Posted by bUU

If the trends in pricing continue, it won't take all that much in terms of entertainment to result in cord-cutting costing more than purchasing a package.

That's a distinction without a difference. You choose to call it noise, applying a pejorative because it supports your narrative, perhaps, but what we're talking about is still "entertainment value" all the same.

I thoroughly ridiculous comment given that one of the entertainment activities that television displaced was book reading.

I completely agree. I know a few people who have 'cut the cord' and are spending MORE money with the added streaming services. It does add up quickly...

[GeoffD]

If I didn't watch sports, I wouldn't have cable. I don't watch any other programming with advertising. Sports and premium movie channels is it. I'm affluent enough that my cable bill is lost in the noise. If sports went to ip streaming and pay per view, I would dump cable immediately.