cutting cable savings

[LivingAlmostLarge]

So for us maybe I'm defining cable wrong. I guess I should say we pay $5-10/month for basic channels. Our internet is very expensive like $59.99/month and the basic channels is $5/month bundled. So we can watch local channels and a few more i guess. We've never had the whole cable package but just not dealing with antenna seemed minimal. I can watch the few shows i like which are LO SVU, HTGAWM, Modern Family, Scandal.

So I guess maybe I don't have the full cable package? That's why we I'm surprised how much people spend on netflix and other stuff while cutting "cable".

[disneysteve]

So for us maybe I'm defining cable wrong.

Sure. If you are comparing a $5/month local channels package to Netflix or Hulu that offers unlimited access to thousands of TV shows and movies, the $5 package is cheaper. But you aren't comparing comparable offerings.

We have cable. We started with the limited basic $10/month deal and over the years have upgraded it to where we now have a bill that's far too high. And honestly, most of the time, there's nothing on worth watching even though we have 200+ channels. It isn't unusual for me to spend a few minutes flipping through the program guide only to ultimately end up putting on Netflix. Personally, I'd be fine with dropping cable but my family isn't on board with that at this point. There are still shows they enjoy watching when they're broadcast.

[rennigade]

Ive read a lot of articles/threads about cord cutting. The issue is when someone wants to cut the cord they want to sign up for netflix, hulu, playstation vue, etc. How much money are you really saving?

With our current provider in PA we dont pay for tv yet since we are not living at the house...we only pay for internet. When we do move I will get tv. 220 channels, standard def and hi def for an additional $40 on what we're paying now.

Its kind of a no brainer. Why would I pay $10 for netflix then another 10-15 for another service...if I spend another $20/month I get all the channels I want anyway. Saving $200/year at best isnt worth it to me.

I guess some people have to pay a lot for cable tv...maybe im just lucky with my provider.

[disneysteve]

Why would I pay $10 for netflix then another 10-15 for another service...if I spend another $20/month I get all the channels I want anyway.

More channels doesn't necessarily equate to more programming you actually want to watch. We spend far, far more time watching Netflix than we do watching cable because most of the time, there is nothing on cable that we want to see, even on demand. So you need to sit down and analyze your viewing habits and see which option gives you access to the stuff you want to watch, even if the costs are comparable.

[scfr]

So for us maybe I'm defining cable wrong. I guess I should say we pay $5-10/month for basic channels. Our internet is very expensive like $59.99/month and the basic channels is $5/month bundled. So we can watch local channels and a few more i guess. We've never had the whole cable package but just not dealing with antenna seemed minimal. I can watch the few shows i like which are LO SVU, HTGAWM, Modern Family, Scandal.

So I guess maybe I don't have the full cable package? That's why we I'm surprised how much people spend on netflix and other stuff while cutting "cable".

Right. It sounds like what you are currently getting via cable is comparable to what we get for "free" with our antenna. (We had to buy and install the antenna of course.)

When most people talk about cutting the cable cord they are probably talking about cutting a much more upgraded cable package than what you have and then replacing some of that with something supplemental (Netflix, Hulu,whatever).

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Yeah got it. I don't have all the extra channels just basic for $5.

[clatoden99]

If you cut your cable bill, picked your top 20 favorite TV shows and bought a season pass for each one from itunes or amazon, That would give you about 3-5 hours per week of brand new episodes of your favorite shows all year long.

At an average cost of $25 per season for each show, you’d spend about $500 for the year on TV. The average cable bill for 2015 was about $1200 per year ($99 per month). In other words, most people could watch all the TV they really want for less than half of what they're paying for cable.

In our case, most of the shows we watch are on either our netflix or hulu subscription. So for about $16 bucks a month, just under $200 a year, we get almost all the TV and movies we can handle. My wife and I each buy 2 or 3 season passes for the few shows we like that aren’t on netflix or hulu. All together we end up spending a total of about $350 each year on TV. So what are we going to do with the extra $700+ we’re saving this year by cutting the cord on our cable bill? We’ll probably go on a nice weekend spa retreat.

[Milly]

Wow! That's extremely cheap cable. Are you sure that you aren't paying for something extra? It would be almost free for us to add cable to internet and a land line, but we don't need a land line, so it costs much more than that.

I actually took a very different view on cable cutting. I used to watch a lot of TV. For me, dropping that one hour a day habit became the time fuel for starting a finance blog. If you add up 365 hours a year, that comes out to TWO MONTHS worth of working a 8 hour/day 5 day/week job. Can you imagine a lamer way to spend a 2 month vacation? What project do you wish you would do if you were given 2 months off? I decided to invest that time into myself instead.

I didn't actually cut the cord because I never had it to begin with, but I did stop using my Amazon Prime video services almost entirely (so long Dr. Who!) Now I only use it for Friday night movies as a family and the toddlers can earn 10min TV tokens by doing chores or staying dry all day an night for their Fire Man Sam or Daniel Tiger.

[terri77]

You'd think with so many people cutting cable, the cable companies would wise up & allow people to pick & choose what they want to watch & pay for.

[msomnipotent]

You'd think with so many people cutting cable, the cable companies would wise up & allow people to pick & choose what they want to watch & pay for.

It seems that Comcast has become even more stingy. I can't get a semi decent deal and they are unwilling to negotiate. I can't switch without removing the credit freeze and I just don't feel like doing that, so I'm canceling the phone, returning the rented equipment, and downgrading the service.

[disneysteve]

You'd think with so many people cutting cable, the cable companies would wise up & allow people to pick & choose what they want to watch & pay for.

It doesn't work that way. If they didn't bundle dozens of channels, they couldn't offer the pricing they offer. The fees from the less popular channels help offset the cost of the more popular channels. If they did a la carte pricing, you'd end up paying a lot more for a handful of channels that you want than you do now for 100 channels that you don't care about.

[Nutria]

It doesn't work that way. If they didn't bundle dozens of channels, they couldn't offer the pricing they offer. The fees from the less popular channels help offset the cost of the more popular channels. If they did a la carte pricing, you'd end up paying a lot more for a handful of channels that you want than you do now for 100 channels that you don't care about.

One could argue that these subsidies distort the market, and that we should pay the honest prices.

[msomnipotent]

One could argue that these subsidies distort the market, and that we should pay the honest prices.

Speaking of honest prices, I looked up the prices of assorted packages on comcast.com before I called the last time and I noticed that they had a Latino package that had all the channels I have (including HBO and Starz) plus the same speed internet (105mbps) and phone for $80 less per month than what I was quoted for "regular" Comcast. They wouldn't give me the package. Sure, it also includes channels that are only broadcasted in Spanish, but also local and English language channels. "Not available in my area", my butt!

[JoeP]

It doesn't work that way. If they didn't bundle dozens of channels, they couldn't offer the pricing they offer. The fees from the less popular channels help offset the cost of the more popular channels. If they did a la carte pricing, you'd end up paying a lot more for a handful of channels that you want than you do now for 100 channels that you don't care about.

Too bad there isn't the concept of commodities here. The broadband companies solely provide the network connectivity, and then the programming providers simply use that pathway to serve content to end users. Those channels with little or no usage would suffer the fate that would naturally befall other products in a capitalist system: they would wither and die due to lack of demand.