Dropped Cable TV Today

[papadad111]

$3x.xx and a thumb drive is all you need (for OTA).

-ERD50

Make sure you're in a place with OTA signals. I can only receive 1 digital channel where I'm located.



Still using my streaming magic box. Sold several to friends too. Content is from Asia mostly but includes the news and scienc W type channels plus a lot of sports that don't watch like cricket , but works good for the one time 200 dollars invested.

Can get quirky at times because it is reliant on decent broadband at 3 down/ 1 up minimum internet speed. Requires daily visit to the built in App Store to download the latest app which auto links to various ever changing server feeds.

 

[Chuckanut]

For those interested, TIVO over the air units are again selling on Amazon for $300 including lifetime guide service. (the lifetime of the unit, not the buyer). Normally, the guide service (not required but very, very nice to have) for Tivo is $15 a month. This is strictly an OTA unit and cannot be used with cable or satellite TV. I have it and it makes recording and watching TV so much easier and convenient. This unit also works with Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and more.

The OTA unit is $50, the lifetime service is $250. 250/15 = about 17 months to break even compared to the monthly fee.

Having the lifetime guide is a great convenience and if one chooses to sell the Tivo unit, the guide goes with it, so people will value the unit more.

http://www.amazon.com/TiVo-Streamin...?ie=UTF8&qid=1452887475&sr=8-10&keywords=tivo

TiVo Roamio OTA DVR and Streaming Media Player with Product Lifetime Service

 

[ziggy29]

The best thing about internet streaming to me, is not having to record anything, or worry about any program schedule.

Agreed, as long as you have internet service which isn't metered, has high bandwidth, and is reliable enough to not frequently cause dropouts, freezes or "please wait, buffering" messages. All we have in our tiny little town in the boonies is AT&T DSL rated at 6 Mbps, and we get that when it's working, but occasionally it struggles and chokes. That said, I wouldn't go back to paying $100 a month for TV again. Every time Netflix bogs down, I just remind myself that we're saving $100 a month this way, and it's easier to wait.

 

[bizlady]

Found and recommend the free app "Fan TV"
It will keep track of what you like or what you want to see when available and email you when available. Can also lookup movies or TV programs and it will tell you where it is playing.

 

[2035]

I dropped Comcast (cable/internet) in December ($85+) and Verizon this week ($90). I read more, watch DVDs and use my company phone for my cell/internet needs. I'm happier and smarter. I wouldn't go back to either company on principle alone, and their competitors are just as bad.

Side note: I live in a heavily wooded area so I can't even use one of those TV antennas for basic TV, but who cares.

Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[steelyman]

I dropped Comcast (cable/internet) in December ($85+) and Verizon this week ($90). I read more, watch DVDs and use my company phone for my cell/internet needs. I'm happier and smarter. I wouldn't go back to either company on principle alone, and their competitors are just as bad.

Side note: I live in a heavily wooded area so I can't even use one of those TV antennas for basic TV, but who cares.

Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

I live in a very wooded area too, however it's at a higher altitude from the surroundings. That, coupled with several stations at a reasonable distance and an amplified antenna, gets 35+ channels over-the air.

Comcast was charging me quite a bit more for basic cable TV. No premium packages and no Internet service (they couldn't manage to keep that up and alive). For Internet, I'd given up and moved to DSL through AT&T.

 

[John Galt III]

My monthly cable just went up from $93 per mo to $99 per mo, for one level above basic. Still paying it since the gf wants it, and she is helping pay for it. I just wonder if more than $100 per mo, which will no doubt be here in Jan, 2017, will be the tipping point and hordes of subscribers will bail. Kind of hope so. Maybe they will drop the rate, or just go out of business then.

 

[aja8888]

My monthly cable just went up from $93 per mo to $99 per mo, for one level above basic. Still paying it since the gf wants it, and she is helping pay for it. I just wonder if more than $100 per mo, which will no doubt be here in Jan, 2017, will be the tipping point and hordes of subscribers will bail. Kind of hope so. Maybe they will drop the rate, or just go out of business then.

$100/month?

You would be surprised how many people around these parts pay over $200/month (well over in some cases) for internet/TV packages. You would also be surprised at how many people don't know what they are paying for the cable services.

 

[REWahoo]

I just wonder if more than $100 per mo, which will no doubt be here in Jan, 2017, will be the tipping point and hordes of subscribers will bail.

I doubt it. As aja8888 points out, a huge number of subscribers are paying well over $100 already.

 

[W2R]

As of this month, I am paying $72.99 for cable internet only. I completely dropped cable TV but Cox Cable keeps raising the price every few months.

 

[Big_Hitter]

$100/month?

You would be surprised how many people around these parts pay over $200/month (well over in some cases) for internet/TV packages. You would also be surprised at how many people don't know what they are paying for the cable services.

I'm close to $200 a month for interweb/phone/tv

turns out it's difficult to watch all the sports I want without cable - I'm a huge UH fan, watch my coogs every chance I get and don't live in Houston anymore.

Yesterday for example, I was able to watch us lose to UCONN on cbssn

 

[Mulligan]

I doubt it. As aja8888 points out, a huge number of subscribers are paying well over $100 already.

My NFL and NHL packages are about paid for the year so it should drop back under $200 to about $150 for my internet/ satellite bill until next fall.... Sure hope many people don't drop their cable. Since it isn't much of a growth industry anymore, they will just jack my bill up for the attrition losses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ziggy29]

I doubt it. As aja8888 points out, a huge number of subscribers are paying well over $100 already.

I don't think we'll see a massive exodus from cable and satellite but there is definitely a growing resistance to paying $100+ a month for TV, especially since people mostly already have internet anyway, and if their usage isn't metered they can get Netflix and Hulu for less than $20 a month combined. (We splurge for TiVo off our OTA antenna for another $15. Love my DVR.)

The one other thing we subscribe to, as baseball junkies, is the MLB.TV package which cost us $129 last year; we watch it on our Roku box.

Still, our total TV outlay these days is around $550 a year, compared to around $1600 when we had the satellite dish and other subscriptions related to it.

 

[steelyman]

Since I seemed to have settled into an acceptable post-cable TV setup, I thought it might be useful to add what I am currently paying monthly (taxes not included). These are the recurring charges. There were one-time acquisition costs for devices like Roku, HD OTA antenna, converter/DVR. Also, I still need to pay for Internet access but that covers more than just TV-style entertainment, so it's not included (although I agree that that's going to be an ascending cost in the future).

Sling Basic (Best of Live TV)	$19.99
Sling Hollywood add-on	$5.00
Amazon Prime (Instant Video)	$8.25
Hulu	$7.99
Total	$41.23

If I were to drop anything, Hulu would be the first to go but there are some things on there I like. The Sling add-on is, of course, specific to my tastes.

Coupled with the OTA capabilities, it's far better than I had prior to cutting the cord.

A side note: changing residences (as I did this year) is a great opportunity to review your options if you're a current cable TV subscriber. The change doesn't have to be between time zones, even across town would work. Knowing myself, I'd have probably just kept paying that bill through inertia.

 

[bUU]

I doubt it. As aja8888 points out, a huge number of subscribers are paying well over $100 already.

I agree. If anything, the pricing is still a bit below the value delivered, kept artificially low due to concerns about attracting too much vindictive big-company hate. I suspect that'll keep prices trailing value for many years to come. The only times prices will get as close to value as they are today is after years of very little inflation, less than 1% per year since 2014.

I don't think we'll see a massive exodus from cable and satellite but there is definitely a growing resistance to paying $100+ a month for TV, especially since people mostly already have internet anyway, and if their usage isn't metered they can get Netflix and Hulu for less than $20 a month combined.

That's another factor: As long as Internet usage isn't metered, it's like there's a hole in the hull of a boat. Once the hole is plugged, that'll eliminate some of today's artificial downward on pressure on prices.

Still, our total TV outlay these days is around $550 a year, compared to around $1600 when we had the satellite dish and other subscriptions related to it.

That's what it really comes down to: The bottom line. The average American has $X for discretionary spending, and will divide it up so that Y% of it goes toward the set of leisure activities that fill those 150ish hours a month. Service providers will structure their pricing to "mine" that Y% like a prospecting company structures their mining operations mines the mines they dig.

 

[ERD50]

I agree. If anything, the pricing is still a bit below the value delivered, kept artificially low due to concerns about attracting too much vindictive big-company hate. ...

I don't see how you can make that statement. Value is a subjective thing, especially when it comes to entertainment.

I don't think we would know the true 'value' (on average) unless we had a more open market, with real competition. Then supply/demand would set the average 'value'. In far too many cases, there really isn't much choice - it is either essentially a utility/monopoly, or an oligopoly.

If the price of products could be 'kept artificially low due to concerns about attracting too much vindictive big-company hate', then there sure would be a lot of great bargains from big companies. The same customers are buying gasoline from the same big companies, whether the price is $4.80/gallon, or $1.80/gallon.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

I don't see how you can make that statement. Value is a subjective thing, especially when it comes to entertainment.

That's precisely how I can make that statement. When talking about pricing for a cable company, value is the perception of their customers. Individual variances from that don't matter much - what matters is the effective collective perception, and by that measure there is value that they're not getting paid for, for the reasons I mentioned above.

I don't think we would know the true 'value' (on average) unless we had a more open market, with real competition.

The impact (or really, the lack of impact) of competition on pricing, where it exists, is one of the clearest indicators of what I have said. What we saw when FiOS and RCN came to portions of Burlington, after the introductory period, is prices going up, not down. RCN, generally speaking, ended up charging a few dollars less a month for much lower grade service. FiOS ended up charging significantly more for a much higher grade service. But the variance between low and high with three competitors was remarkably small. Banning profit would substantially lower prices. Other than that, there is no reason to expect such a bonanza.

If the price of products could be 'kept artificially low due to concerns about attracting too much vindictive big-company hate', then there sure would be a lot of great bargains from big companies.

And that's what we're seeing, even though many are convinced that they're being gouged.

 

[ERD50]

That's precisely how I can make that statement. When talking about pricing for a cable company, value is the perception of their customers.

? So who is determining what the 'perception of value' is, you? I'm pretty sure if you took a survey, customers would say they are paying too much. Hmmm, that wasn't hard...

Cable-TV Customer Dissatisfaction - Consumer Reports

In our exclusive new telecom service Ratings, consumers continued to express dissatisfaction with their TV and Internet providers, giving most poor reviews for value and overall satisfaction.

The impact (or really, the lack of impact) of competition on pricing, where it exists, is one of the clearest indicators of what I have said. What we saw when FiOS and RCN came to portions of Burlington, after the introductory period, is prices going up, not down. RCN, generally speaking, ended up charging a few dollars less a month for much lower grade service. FiOS ended up charging significantly more for a much higher grade service.

And that is not head-to-head competition, as you point out, these were for different service levels. That does provide more choice, and as you also point out, that lowered the cost of service at the low tier. The fact that people were willing to pay more for a higher tier that was previously unavailable is a separate issue from head-to-head competition for the same products.

Check the cable company profits versus the S&P. It does not seem to support your case that they are selling their product below 'value'.

-ERD50

 

[Mulligan]

? So who is determining what the 'perception of value' is, you? I'm pretty sure if you took a survey, customers would say they are paying too much. Hmmm, that wasn't hard...

Cable-TV Customer Dissatisfaction - Consumer Reports







And that is not head-to-head competition, as you point out, these were for different service levels. That does provide more choice, and as you also point out, that lowered the cost of service at the low tier. The fact that people were willing to pay more for a higher tier that was previously unavailable is a separate issue from head-to-head competition for the same products.

Check the cable company profits versus the S&P. It does not seem to support your case that they are selling their product below 'value'.

-ERD50

As far as my monthly budgeting goes, only healthcare costs since ACA was enacted has superseded my cable bill in terms of percentage increases, and vastly above inflation rate. This is despite me calling and jawing down rate each year, suppressing it an additional $20.
But I do understand part of yearly price increases is not their fault. Major carriers and sports channels demand increase in fees. Cable company fights back to contain cost. Channel goes off air in despute. Customers blame cable carrier and threaten to move. Cable caves, and pays the rate increase. Customer then complains about rate increase. So they do catch it "both ways".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bUU]

? So who is determining what the 'perception of value' is, you?

As I said before, when talking about pricing for a cable company, value is the perception of their customers. Individual variances from that don't matter much - what matters is the effective collective perception.

I'm pretty sure if you took a survey, customers would say they are paying too much.

People are much more honest when they're spending their money than when they fill in surveys.

Hmmm, that wasn't hard...

It isn't hard to convince ourselves that we're being screwed over, when we want to.

Check the cable company profits versus the S&P.

Over the last three months, Comcast is down 11.77% while the S&P 500 is only down 6.56%. Over the last year, Comcast is down 5.11% and S&P 500 is down 6.89%, and keep in mind that a couple of dozen companies in the S&P 500 have dropped out of the listing because they were losing market capitalization so much more rapidly than other companies. The S&P 500, as all indices, are naturally less volatile that individual holdings - they fall slower and not as deep, in down markets, such as what we've had the last year. They'll also rise slower and not as high, the next time we have an up year. Seem like Comcast is tracking pretty close to value, or perhaps trailing, based on your insinuation that we should compare cable companies to the S&P 500.

Of course, your insinuation of a correlation in that regard is erroneous, but that's another matter:

It does not seem to support your case that they are selling their product below 'value'.

Profits have nothing to do with value. That's why companies can go bankrupt even if people love what they offer. It isn't profits that correlate to value, but rather gross revenues.

 

[pb4uski]

....I live in a heavily wooded area so I can't even use one of those TV antennas for basic TV ...

That is our situation as well. We use Dish, principally to get our local major network affiliates since we can't do OTA.

Our Dish bill is $102/month... $60 for the programming that we have, $35 for our equipment (centralized DVR serving 4 tvs) and $6 tax. For the first year of our 2 year contract, they credited us $25/month so the cost was $77.

We are on pause ($5/month) while we are away for the winter.

When we get back, I may downgrade our programming to their lowest-level Value Pack ($20/month for some basic channels, including our locals.. you have to call to get it since they do not advertise it) which would reduce our bill to ~$62/month... still more than what I would like but not bad for crystal clear locals, some popular cable channels and a central DVR for our four tvs.

Our two year contract expires in September after the pause so I'll need to make a decision on what to do then.

 

[ERD50]

I should have known that this would just go circular

A few quick comments and I'm out, nothing to learn here...

... People are much more honest when they're spending their money than when they fill in surveys. ...

So I provide links/data, you provide (paraphrasing) 'but bUU said it, so it must be true'.

Over the last three months, Comcast is down 11.77% while the S&P 500 is only down 6.56%.

....Profits have nothing to do with value. That's why companies can go bankrupt even if people love what they offer. It isn't profits that correlate to value, but rather gross revenues.

So I mention profits, and you go to short term stock price. Not really relevant to whether they are selling their product at below value or not. And if enough people love what a company offers, they should be able to raise the price, and return to profitability.

My point was, it would be tough to see decent profits if you sell your product below it's value. In general, competition will come in when products are priced high relative to value. Competition leaves a market where the customers don't value the product, and that lower competition may allow the remaining company(ies) to raise prices, or the market collapses to irrelevance (buggy whips).

But this is going nowhere, I will learn nothing, so I'm out.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

I should have known that this would just go circular

It isn't circular. You and I have different perspectives. You prefer to rely on your instinct and gut feel, while I prefer to look at consumer purchasing behaviors, to gauge what is and is not consumers' actual perspectives.

I will learn nothing

If you say so; I can respect that. Peace.

 

[karen1972]

$89 gets us phone, 30G down/5G up internet, wifi, plus 200 channels and a settop box. If we want HBO that's $10 more. I have a Roku stick for the TV upstairs which streams everything including live tv from the $89 TWC package and we have amazon prime for the kindle books, free shipping, and movies is just a bonus but we use Redbox mostly since I get my new movies and theres always free coupon days. The plus of Roku and the blue ray boxes that have the HBO app is I get the full library vs. the on demand limited selection. I occasionaly buy movies on Vudu for my nieces/nephews as gifts and with the shared library I get to enjoy those too.

 

[Chuckanut]

That's another factor: As long as Internet usage isn't metered, it's like there's a hole in the hull of a boat. Once the hole is plugged, that'll eliminate some of today's artificial downward on pressure on prices.

Just a thought. If Internet usage is to be metered, it must be truly based on usage that goes in both directions, up and down. Current metering proposals I have seen have a floor (usually what people are currently paying) and then go up from there. When metering is talked about it is usually in regards to charging more if one is over the cap. I have never heard of a proposal to charge less is one does not use all the bytes up to the cap.

If one takes a 3 week vacation in June and monthly Internet usage plunges by 75% the floor keeps the monthly charge the same. OTOH, one's electrical usage at that time may go down by 60% that month (many devices still run when one is not home unlike Internet usage with completely stops in many cases) and the electric bill also goes down quite a bit.

In the end we need real free market competition to see what the true value of these services are. The current Monopoly or Duopoly systems were designed for another day and time that is long gone. I am 'lucky' in that I have two choices for home Internet service. Most people I know have one choice for Internet service - The Cable Company.