But where is the author getting his internet service from?
For instance, I live in Brooklyn, and the only reliable high-speed internet service is via Time Warner Cable. I currently get their WideBand service (50mbps down) bundled with basic cable and an VOIP phone I never use in a 12-month promotion. This costs me $118 p/mo. When that 12-month period was up I called to cancel stuff and they extended that promotion for another 12 months.
If I subscribed to just the internet service, it would cost me $95 p/mo and that's before the taxes and fees, so it would come to about the same I am paying now.
The only other player for internet service in my area is Clear 4G WiFi which is a joke when it comes to speed.
So basically, I'm stuck with cable for internet service, and through effective bundle pricing the missus can still watch Housewives of * on the big telly.
One thing that TWNYC doesn't readily admit to is that they have to allow other broadband providers access to their cable. If you insist on hearing about Earthlink rates (rather than the RCN(?) deal) they will probably 'fess up to something cheaper. Plus, the friendly cable guy will probably hook up 'over the air TV' via cable (no monthly - but all the TW paperwork will be done right and he'll have $20 in his pocket).
Personally I've found TV watching to be borne out of some sort of inertia. There was a point where I paid for all the pre-requisite packages for the privilege of being able to add The Speed Channel and watch my Formula 1, ALMS, etc. I watched a fair amount of TV, and already had some pricey packages, so what was a bit more?
However, the time came along where I didn't have as much time to watch racing anymore. I had a TiVo, but even then, I just didn't have the time to watch the recorded races. Eventually, I pared things down to the "Expanded" package. However, the few shows of interest went away. So when I moved, I pared down to Basic, only because if I didn't, I would only save $0.80/mo on my cable bill since Internet service would cost $10/mo more without a bundled television package.
I think the television was on about 12 hours last year, in terms of broadcast programming. Yes, twelve. Why? I fell out of the habit of slouching in my lounge chair and sitting there for a few hours every evening. My routine changed, and there always seems to be this large amount of inertia to overcome to change my routines. Unless the content producers come up with compelling reasons for me to park myself in front of the TV again, it will probably remain a tremendously expensive paperweight.
Granted, I do occasionally play video games, and stream content from YouTube, or my transcoded DVD library to an Apple TV, but I don't do that all that much.
It's like getting someone who lives in New York City to get excited about and buy a boring midsize sedan. They ride the subway, buses and take the taxi. You'd have to overcome their inertia of not using a car, and get them over the fact of what a car would cost them. I look at TV now almost the same way (though I live in Boston) -- there's this tremendous amount of inertia you have to overcome to change someone's habits, especially when there's viable alternatives that are nearly as good and cheaper.
since Internet service would cost $10/mo more without a bundled television package
I'm convinced that the only reason for them to do this is to whitewash the "myth" of cable-cutting. Comcast in my area has a similar deal - it's a couple of bucks cheaper per month to get Internet with "limited" cable rather than Internet on its own. To the networks and advertisers, I'm still a TV subscriber, even though the coax goes directly to my modem and nowhere near my TV.
I stopped watching television once I got into university. Living in a dormitory-style residence, the TV was in the floor's lounge, and my room was furthest from it.
I am not exactly sure when, but I went home one weekend, and I remember thinking to myself, "Why is the TV so irritating?" It was then that I realized that I had been living without television - and I liked it.
To be fair, my viewing habits did change as well. Being a student, I looked for entertainment that fit within my schedule (on-demand). My friends introduced me to anime, Rome, and DC++. The rest is history.
I think a few people in residence did choose to get cable in their rooms in order to keep following sports. I might have continued to follow hockey myself, but the NHL lockout occurred the previous year, so it wasn't the same for me.
I quit cable around 10 years ago when I moved out of my parent's house. Really, I hadn't been into it for some time even then and found it generally to be a time-sink and of little value.
I enjoy some of the content that's on TV, but the medium just isn't right for me. I don't like commercials, and I'd rather just have the option of paying more to not have them. I want what I want when I want it. I rarely care about realtime information from a television (I have the internet for that). I also like being able to watch most of a series in a short period of time. I like movies better than shows. 99% of of the content on TV isn't something I'm interested in.
At this point, cable TV just seems to be an annoying novelty to me. Its background noise when I'm at someone's house with it. I'm frankly shocked so many people still subscribe to it. Even if it was given to me for free, I wouldn't use it.
I pay $40 month for ESPN in HD. I love football, and more importantly, the majority of my customers and important contacts love it more. $500 year for an easy and relevant conversation starter is a steal.
If you only do it for NFL, you might reconsider. All regular Sunday day games, Sunday night football and all ESPN/NFL network games with your local team are available for free in HD over the air. And all playoff games and Superbowl, too.
The live sports was my main reason for holding on to cable for so long, but I finally made the switch two years ago and it's great. I can watch all NFL I want, once a week baseball and sometimes basketball and hockey.
I barely watched TV as a kid/teenager living with my parents (it helped that cable isn't that popular in France, where I'm from- most people are content with the 5 free national channels, which are now completed by 15 or so more through the free TNT service); so when I moved out, I never missed it and as such I have never had TV since.
Semi-exception to that, an ex-girlfriend of mine moved at some point in an apartment with cable TV- the difference in the quality of our relationship with or without the TV was noticeable. Without TV, we'd go more out of our way to cook, find things to do, play games, etc.. With TV, a lot of evenings were spent just on the couch staring blankly at the screen (well, I would be programming on the couch while she would be watching TV).
It's a very subjective experience, of course, but all of that makes me feel that TV watching is inherently pernicious and to be avoided as much as possible.
I think a lot of the phenomenon is due to the fact that you can't watch TV in a discrete fashion- as soon as something ends, something else starts and you do not have to do any effort to keep watching. When you watch something like a movie, the activity is clearly defined in time, and as such you don't get sucked in like you do when watching TV.
Anyone who cut the cord a women or live with a women? I live with my girlfriend and don't watch our cable except for live sports and the occasional show I can't (easily) torrent. But my Girlfriend has no way to get all her favorite cooking shows. Those don't show up as torrents - I think cause most people who rip TV shows are men/nerds.
My girlfriend and I replaced cable with Netflix and internet TV (Food Network is online, plus lots of youtube stuff and other channels with food shows). FWIW, many nerds I know love cooking (including myself), so finding good shows (not crappy reality TV meets cooking) was a necessity. Netflix definitely keeps my girlfriend more occupied than me, but for $8/m and lots of variety, it's the way "cable" is (or should be) going.
I saw this in the paper yesterday, but I was immediately disappointed to see that their primary forms of switching away from cable not only required cable Internet connection (because let's face it, DSL and others have no way to stream that quickly), but also required nonfree software (Silverlight for Netflix, Flash for Hulu). The world can offer so much more to these people who have been wronged by corporations, but for some reason, they keep moving from one bad corporation to another! Even the Occupy movement, who are supposedly protesting against the influence of corporations, are using nonfree, corporation-run sites to spread their propaganda. Why are people so blind?
Cause many have to use cable to get a decent internet in the US, still. Sadly its usually called Comcast (but it does offer Internet-only - even thus its very expensive and internet+tv isn't much more expensive)
I'm on Comcast and Internet-only costs MORE than Internet+TV. So I have the basic TV package as well as basic internet. I also call them every 6 months or so and threaten to quit and they will offer to put me on a "new subscriber" discount rate (lowered monthly rate for 6 months).
Let's say I'm hooked on Spanish language soap operas. There are generally three or four of interest running all the time on cable. These program run daily for three or more months and have an end (unlike some American soaps). When they end, a new soap starts up to take it's place.
Where else can I go to record/watch these besides cable? Some are on over the air channels, but I live in an area that can't receive those channels either.
I did this a few years ago and never looked back. Had a tad bit of apprehension about it but I simply don't miss cable or satellite and the thought of paying at least $60 a month to have loads of useless content jammed with commercials strikes me as a scam.
Exactly. Throw in a ~$200 subscription to NBA League Pass and you're now probably not saving that much money. Live sports is still the biggest challenge to cutting the cord, yet the author spends just one paragraph touching on this. For anyone who watches live sports on a regular basis, dropping cable just isn't an option. And no, driving down to the local bar to catch a game isn't an option either.
Yeah I cut the extended subscription last year and no longer have ESPN which I sorely miss but am living without. If I could have a-la carte channels I would definitely be back on board, as there are about half-a-dozen channels I would be willing to pay to get, without 150 other crap channels.
I think at this point, my primary (and perhaps only) reason to stick with the traditional TV delivery paradigm is HBO. That being said, I would be ecstatic if they introduced an HBO Go-only price plan.
Yep. Go-only and an MLB.tv without local blackouts and I'd be completely happy. Nearly everything else is extra baggage I don't want. I just don't watch enough TV outside of those things to justify the monthly cost.
I've had Clear for 18 months now. It had a lot of rough edges at the start but the service has been pretty stable lately. Maybe two outages lasting 2-6 hours each time.
I'm literally next door to a tower, so my experience is going to be better than most, I fear. I get 2mbit down and 1mbit up on a typical day. 8mbit down on a great one. I seem to get better speed after an outage, oddly enough.
The price is about 1/3 what Comcast would charge (I have the two-plan bundle: home net and phone service). No complaints about the phone service at all except for the extreme ping times. Talking to a mobile phone from the "home" phone is just as laggy as two mobiles talking. International rates are awesome.
I've run a light bittorrent set over it with no problem. I haven't hit a usage cap so far. Customer service, as others have noted, is pretty bad. AT&T/DSL-level bad.
I have Clear 4G as a backup and have found the speeds to be highly variable and sometime have no service at all. I live in an "excellent coverage" area and keep the little WiFi hotspot on my window sill.
We're witnessing non-death throes of a more-intelligent animal.
When the music industry was disrupted completely, their Plan B was a white-knuckle-grip onto Plan A (their traditional business model). The cablecos were foresightful enough to turn their TV monopolies into broadband value-adds. They've done a drn good job at it, despite the bellyaching we can do. While providing "the best available internet access," they're no dummies, and entrenched cableco interests will ensure cord-cutting's not easy.
HBO is balancing the beam effectively (for their business, if less so for their "audience"). They have zero plans to make their "HBO-Anywhere" service available except to cable subs.
Competition is still Good. Cableco monopolists were in no hurry to improve things until DSL and fiber-to-the-premises services became available and attractive. But they've responded.
Re TV programming itself, cutting the cord is more difficult when kids are involved. Even with timeshifting as second (or first) nature, you need the source to switch from.* As for torrenting, etc., "it's only 'free' if your time has no value" comes to play.
Per the cited article, and per comments in this thread, TV is a lean-back, consumption-oriented time sink. I like to have that even knowing it's a less-than-optimal use of time.
> As for torrenting, etc., "it's only 'free' if your time has no value" comes to play.
Whenever I hear someone disregard torrents offhand, I get the distinct impression that they've either never actually tried it or that they're simply being dishonest, because piracy has never been easier.
Have you actually tried torrenting TV shows or movies (or any other type of digital content, for that matter)? Contrary to the FUD that seems to be popular opinion on HN, it's a cake walk. Most importantly, learning how to use torrents is a (rather small) one-time time investment, whereas watching TV means that you perenially waste 1/4th of your viewing time watching ads. And don't forget that you have to keep track of when shows are airing and either watch them then or remember to record them for later viewing.
So if saving time is one of your primary concerns, the numbers simply don't add up in favor of broadcast TV, no matter how you look at them.
In fact, piracy is so easy that I won't even bother with free solutions like Hulu - why should I waste my time traversing 10 different sites looking for a particular episode of a particular show I want to see when I can go to the same torrent site every time and have a virtual guarantee that the content I want will be instantly available, and in HD, at that?
If you have moral qualms with respect to piracy, I can agree to disagree, despite my personal lack of objections to the practice. But claiming that piracy is somehow time inefficient is nothing more or less than pure prevarication.
Kessler is undaunted, saying HBO regards cord cutting as a temporary phenomenon that will go away once the larger economy improves.
That is a profoundly terrible research on their behalf. Yes I cut my cord because it was cheaper for me, but i didn't do it to save money, I did it because cable tv simply isn't worth the money for me. paying for streaming hbo would definitely be worth it however.
[+] [-] hieronymusN|14 years ago|reply
For instance, I live in Brooklyn, and the only reliable high-speed internet service is via Time Warner Cable. I currently get their WideBand service (50mbps down) bundled with basic cable and an VOIP phone I never use in a 12-month promotion. This costs me $118 p/mo. When that 12-month period was up I called to cancel stuff and they extended that promotion for another 12 months.
If I subscribed to just the internet service, it would cost me $95 p/mo and that's before the taxes and fees, so it would come to about the same I am paying now.
The only other player for internet service in my area is Clear 4G WiFi which is a joke when it comes to speed.
So basically, I'm stuck with cable for internet service, and through effective bundle pricing the missus can still watch Housewives of * on the big telly.
[+] [-] mdda|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmorici|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrFoof|14 years ago|reply
However, the time came along where I didn't have as much time to watch racing anymore. I had a TiVo, but even then, I just didn't have the time to watch the recorded races. Eventually, I pared things down to the "Expanded" package. However, the few shows of interest went away. So when I moved, I pared down to Basic, only because if I didn't, I would only save $0.80/mo on my cable bill since Internet service would cost $10/mo more without a bundled television package.
I think the television was on about 12 hours last year, in terms of broadcast programming. Yes, twelve. Why? I fell out of the habit of slouching in my lounge chair and sitting there for a few hours every evening. My routine changed, and there always seems to be this large amount of inertia to overcome to change my routines. Unless the content producers come up with compelling reasons for me to park myself in front of the TV again, it will probably remain a tremendously expensive paperweight.
Granted, I do occasionally play video games, and stream content from YouTube, or my transcoded DVD library to an Apple TV, but I don't do that all that much.
It's like getting someone who lives in New York City to get excited about and buy a boring midsize sedan. They ride the subway, buses and take the taxi. You'd have to overcome their inertia of not using a car, and get them over the fact of what a car would cost them. I look at TV now almost the same way (though I live in Boston) -- there's this tremendous amount of inertia you have to overcome to change someone's habits, especially when there's viable alternatives that are nearly as good and cheaper.
[+] [-] rhplus|14 years ago|reply
I'm convinced that the only reason for them to do this is to whitewash the "myth" of cable-cutting. Comcast in my area has a similar deal - it's a couple of bucks cheaper per month to get Internet with "limited" cable rather than Internet on its own. To the networks and advertisers, I'm still a TV subscriber, even though the coax goes directly to my modem and nowhere near my TV.
[+] [-] tareqak|14 years ago|reply
I stopped watching television once I got into university. Living in a dormitory-style residence, the TV was in the floor's lounge, and my room was furthest from it.
I am not exactly sure when, but I went home one weekend, and I remember thinking to myself, "Why is the TV so irritating?" It was then that I realized that I had been living without television - and I liked it.
To be fair, my viewing habits did change as well. Being a student, I looked for entertainment that fit within my schedule (on-demand). My friends introduced me to anime, Rome, and DC++. The rest is history.
I think a few people in residence did choose to get cable in their rooms in order to keep following sports. I might have continued to follow hockey myself, but the NHL lockout occurred the previous year, so it wasn't the same for me.
[+] [-] tibbon|14 years ago|reply
I enjoy some of the content that's on TV, but the medium just isn't right for me. I don't like commercials, and I'd rather just have the option of paying more to not have them. I want what I want when I want it. I rarely care about realtime information from a television (I have the internet for that). I also like being able to watch most of a series in a short period of time. I like movies better than shows. 99% of of the content on TV isn't something I'm interested in.
At this point, cable TV just seems to be an annoying novelty to me. Its background noise when I'm at someone's house with it. I'm frankly shocked so many people still subscribe to it. Even if it was given to me for free, I wouldn't use it.
[+] [-] ixnu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zavulon|14 years ago|reply
The live sports was my main reason for holding on to cable for so long, but I finally made the switch two years ago and it's great. I can watch all NFL I want, once a week baseball and sometimes basketball and hockey.
[+] [-] GuiA|14 years ago|reply
Semi-exception to that, an ex-girlfriend of mine moved at some point in an apartment with cable TV- the difference in the quality of our relationship with or without the TV was noticeable. Without TV, we'd go more out of our way to cook, find things to do, play games, etc.. With TV, a lot of evenings were spent just on the couch staring blankly at the screen (well, I would be programming on the couch while she would be watching TV).
It's a very subjective experience, of course, but all of that makes me feel that TV watching is inherently pernicious and to be avoided as much as possible.
I think a lot of the phenomenon is due to the fact that you can't watch TV in a discrete fashion- as soon as something ends, something else starts and you do not have to do any effort to keep watching. When you watch something like a movie, the activity is clearly defined in time, and as such you don't get sucked in like you do when watching TV.
[+] [-] Fluxx|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffh|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkTraceur|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve-howard|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gameshot911|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zobzu|14 years ago|reply
Cause many have to use cable to get a decent internet in the US, still. Sadly its usually called Comcast (but it does offer Internet-only - even thus its very expensive and internet+tv isn't much more expensive)
[+] [-] ams6110|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stark2|14 years ago|reply
Where else can I go to record/watch these besides cable? Some are on over the air channels, but I live in an area that can't receive those channels either.
[+] [-] radishroar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] watty|14 years ago|reply
The only reason I still have cable is for ESPN. They have live sports that are exclusive to ESPN and the only way to get ESPN is to have cable.
[+] [-] dieseltime|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmduke|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zecho|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgaither|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joezydeco|14 years ago|reply
I'm literally next door to a tower, so my experience is going to be better than most, I fear. I get 2mbit down and 1mbit up on a typical day. 8mbit down on a great one. I seem to get better speed after an outage, oddly enough.
The price is about 1/3 what Comcast would charge (I have the two-plan bundle: home net and phone service). No complaints about the phone service at all except for the extreme ping times. Talking to a mobile phone from the "home" phone is just as laggy as two mobiles talking. International rates are awesome.
I've run a light bittorrent set over it with no problem. I haven't hit a usage cap so far. Customer service, as others have noted, is pretty bad. AT&T/DSL-level bad.
[+] [-] hieronymusN|14 years ago|reply
Also, their customer service is.... not great.
[+] [-] steve-howard|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jebblue|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smcnally|14 years ago|reply
We're witnessing non-death throes of a more-intelligent animal.
When the music industry was disrupted completely, their Plan B was a white-knuckle-grip onto Plan A (their traditional business model). The cablecos were foresightful enough to turn their TV monopolies into broadband value-adds. They've done a drn good job at it, despite the bellyaching we can do. While providing "the best available internet access," they're no dummies, and entrenched cableco interests will ensure cord-cutting's not easy.
HBO is balancing the beam effectively (for their business, if less so for their "audience"). They have zero plans to make their "HBO-Anywhere" service available except to cable subs.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-hbo-to-cord-cutters-youll...
Competition is still Good. Cableco monopolists were in no hurry to improve things until DSL and fiber-to-the-premises services became available and attractive. But they've responded.
Re TV programming itself, cutting the cord is more difficult when kids are involved. Even with timeshifting as second (or first) nature, you need the source to switch from.* As for torrenting, etc., "it's only 'free' if your time has no value" comes to play.
Per the cited article, and per comments in this thread, TV is a lean-back, consumption-oriented time sink. I like to have that even knowing it's a less-than-optimal use of time.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|14 years ago|reply
Whenever I hear someone disregard torrents offhand, I get the distinct impression that they've either never actually tried it or that they're simply being dishonest, because piracy has never been easier.
Have you actually tried torrenting TV shows or movies (or any other type of digital content, for that matter)? Contrary to the FUD that seems to be popular opinion on HN, it's a cake walk. Most importantly, learning how to use torrents is a (rather small) one-time time investment, whereas watching TV means that you perenially waste 1/4th of your viewing time watching ads. And don't forget that you have to keep track of when shows are airing and either watch them then or remember to record them for later viewing.
So if saving time is one of your primary concerns, the numbers simply don't add up in favor of broadcast TV, no matter how you look at them.
In fact, piracy is so easy that I won't even bother with free solutions like Hulu - why should I waste my time traversing 10 different sites looking for a particular episode of a particular show I want to see when I can go to the same torrent site every time and have a virtual guarantee that the content I want will be instantly available, and in HD, at that?
If you have moral qualms with respect to piracy, I can agree to disagree, despite my personal lack of objections to the practice. But claiming that piracy is somehow time inefficient is nothing more or less than pure prevarication.
[+] [-] seanalltogether|14 years ago|reply
That is a profoundly terrible research on their behalf. Yes I cut my cord because it was cheaper for me, but i didn't do it to save money, I did it because cable tv simply isn't worth the money for me. paying for streaming hbo would definitely be worth it however.