
Comcast vs. the Cord Cutters - antr
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/business/media/comcast-vs-the-cord-cutters.html?action=click&contentCollection=Media&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
======
vonskippy
"Cutting the cord, in Comcast’s universe, just doesn’t save you very much
money."

And this is why (in general) Americans are in debt. They don't understand that
ANY savings, is savings. And that "just" saving 20,30,50 dollars a month adds
up over 5-10 years.

I went thru this with my daughters a decade or so ago. We kept track of all
the "Gee Dad, it's only 10 bucks" conversations. At the end of the year we
reviewed what they accumulated, which was almost nothing, their items were
either used up, no longer needed/wanted, broken, or tossed away. On the other
hand, the $1400+ dollars, all stacked up in a nice pile of $20's looked like
(and was to them) real money, a nice weekend trip, a new bike, a new laptop,
etc. I'm happy to say my daughters did much better after that living
experiment.

Unfortunately for most Americans, they just can't say no to the moment, and
banks (and other service providers) are all to willingly to exploit their lack
of judgement.

~~~
catinsocks
Just so you know after introductory prices a few years ago it was cheaper to
have the "basic" cable + internet than just internet from comcast. It may have
changed since I don't live in their service area anymore.

~~~
ams6110
This is the case still, at least it is for me. Comcast recently added two more
straws to the camel's back though: a new "broadcast fee" for the "cost" of
carrying broadcast channels, and encrypting even basic cable so you need
another stupid box.

ATT Uverse is now available in my area, their internet is a little more than
half what I'm paying for Comcast Basic + Internet, and since I can't watch the
TV anyway because I refuse to use their box, I don't need any TV component of
the service. I've heard mixed stories about Uverse but they seem to do better
than Comcast in the Netflix rankings so I'll probably give them a try.

------
ilaksh
To me as long as you have only a few physical cables, or a few places to put
the cables that are difficult to get to, buried in the ground, companies are
going to take advantage of that, because you just don't have a lot of options.
Its just not an option for most groups who would want to compete to get into
that market.

For it to not suck I think the physical circumstances have to change. Maybe
there will be some kind of tech breakthrough with wireless technology. Or
maybe we will change the laws so that everyone has the right to lay down a
cable along any public road or freeway as long as it doesn't pose a
significant threat to traffic.

But seems like its hard to make a law that creates a fair and democratic
situation when you have limited access to such a critical resource in fairly
specific places in under the street.

I mean, if there is already a place for fiber under the street, and you really
need another line or whatever they call them, you can't dig another trench or
whatever in the street. You have to put it with the other ones, in which case
you are at the mercy of whoever controls access to that place where the lines
go. If there really isn't a need for a new fiber line, then whoever controls
the existing ones has a lot of power.

Just seems like the fact that there is a specific place these lines go, and a
big expense and regulation, is what is causing the issues with pricing. If
this were someone's brain being wired up like this, by a heavily regulated and
monopolized cable industry, that person would be retarded.

I say we invent a glue or something that will attach a fiber strand to the
street, a pole, or the side of a building, and declare open season. Just put
them all over the place. Like a spider web, but on the street.

LOL. Sounds crazy, but I think it might actually be workable if we keep it in
a thin layer on the ground. And pretty much anything would be better than
having our balls kept in a vice like this by a handful of giant companies and
governments.

~~~
vidarh
In Europe, most countries have a reasonable solution: The incumbent telco in
most countries have been required to separate out the business unit that owns
and operates the cable sufficiently that it can be accounted for separately.

This business is then generally required to provide equal access to anyone on
a "cost plus" basis exactly because the cost and complexity of laying new
cable is considered a massive barrier to competition, and besides we don't
want a ton of companies digging up the street all the time or erecting new
poles.

E.g. in the UK, the "last mile" of all landlines installed by BT are now
handled by BT OpenReach. Consumers can call their preferred ISP or phone
provider and ask them to take over the provision of services on the line, and
the ISP deals with BT once you've authenticated the request.

The service is then _either_ provided via backhaul over BT's network - that
is, the ISP provides a few central nodes where they interface with BT, and
hands over a raw data stream from each subscriber at those points - _or_ the
ISPs pay (on a cost regulated basis) to put equipment in BT's echanges. The
latter has the advantage that they can offer services BT can't/won't and that
ISPs that depend on backhaul from BT can't - some ISPs beat BT in certain
areas this way.

It's not perfect - it's limited by BT's upgrade/buildout schedule, but BT does
face competitive pressure from Virgin (cable provider), and also does face the
possibility that someone will able to get finance together to lay cable to
compete if they don't watch out, though the latter is less likely.

But beyond the last mile, there's fierce competition.

~~~
aidenn0
We had that at one point, but got rid of it, in exchange for promises from the
telcos that they then proceeded to not keep.

~~~
ItendToDisagree
I remember around the the start of the consumer DSL era this being a thing. At
some point the Telcos just started undercutting all the competition and/or
deprioritizing installs for non-telco purchasers.

------
mrzimmerman
I feel like this misses the point of people who no longer buy cable. I don't
personally know a lot of people who do it to save money (I'm sure they exist).
Everyone I know just prefers the convenience of watching when you want and not
having to have a single dedicated device (a TV) where you can watch things.

This isn't really any different than people ditching land lines in the late
nineties and early two-thousands. It wasn't a question of cost so much as it
was annoying to have multiple lines, numbers, and bills, not to mention one of
those phones was only usable in a very specific way and the other could be
used anywhere, whenever you felt like it.

~~~
zacinbusiness
I also hate commercials. I won't even pay for Hulu+ because it has
commercials. Commercials should exist to subsidize a free product, and they
have no place in a paid product.

I feel the same way about magazines. It's dumb that they are packed with ads
and yet you still have to pay for them.

~~~
endeavor
_I feel the same way about magazines. It 's dumb that they are packed with ads
and yet you still have to pay for them._

This is basically the same fallacy as a Google user who thinks he is Google's
_customer_. Magazine readers are the _product_ for the magazine main business
of selling advertising space. The reason they charge money is because paying
readers are considered more valuable than non-paying readers. This sort of
thing is why you'll often see magazine subscriptions selling for a few bucks
on Slickdeals.

------
zyxley
My experience is only anecdotal, of course, but I don't have a television (and
I haven't for some seven or eight years). I don't watch cable or local TV, and
I don't have furniture or equipment arranged for "ten-foot" watching, so I
have no reason to purchase something that's inferior to the not-quite-4K
monitors I already have. (If I want to watch or play something on the other
side of the room, I pull out a laptop.)

It would take a truly absurd deal (a) to tempt me through the hassle of going
out and buying a TV and supporting equipment, and (b) to overcome my
instinctual distaste at the thought of rearranging all my stuff to have
furniture positioned for actually watching one.

On the other hand, if a cable company were to offer an Aereo-alike with
assorted live television available over the web, I would probably pay for it
_even if it cost more than a cable bundle_ because it would be fundamentally
more useful to me than screwing around with specialized hardware.

~~~
sliverstorm
Personally, I find the ten-foot viewing experience vastly superior to a
computer monitor, and totally worth arranging my furniture a particular way.

I can lounge as I watch, I don't have to hold my head a particular way, I can
share the couch with someone else, and it also feels more natural to my eyes.

That's not to say that I would never watch a movie on a computer monitor (I
have, plenty of times) but I prefer ten-foot.

~~~
wpietri
Yeah. I'm the same way. I hate having a whole room arranged as if for
worshiping a video altar.

My compromise is a projector on a white wall. Then my room isn't dominated by
a giant TV. The A/V gear is all tucked away in a closet, and my speakers are
small ones white ones that sit up close to the ceiling. I feed it from a media
server.

I like this better. When I'm in a hotel room, I feel like the TV almost
demands watching. It's almost menacing to me these days compared with an
unobtrusive setup.

~~~
sliverstorm
I understand your sentiment; what I have done is set up a separate media room.
Of course this requires an extra room, but the TV cannot demand I watch it. I
am only in that room, when I am meaning to watch some TV.

------
JeremyMorgan
One of the things that I'm surprised about is how WiMax didn't take off. I
used it for quite a while and was really happy with it, but when I moved to a
more rural area it didn't work. Still know people who use it happily.

I am one of those who watches no cable TV but still pays for and deals with
Comcast. It's a necessary evil in my opinion, and something I just live with.

But WiMax providers could get their act together and smash them, I'm just not
sure why they haven't.

~~~
p1mrx
WiMAX is dead because LTE won the standards war. LTE data is currently crazy-
expensive in the US, but that's not really a technical problem.

~~~
hayksaakian
you may be nitpicking, there's no reason a wimax like service (wireless
internet) couldn't be provided with LTE

wimax/lte is not the problen

~~~
p1mrx
Yes, that was my point; I'm not concerned by the death of WiMAX as a protocol,
because LTE is functionally equivalent. The problem is that LTE is not
currently a viable competitor to wired Internet services, because the
providers have set the prices too high and the caps too low.

------
higherpurpose
> Instead, the more we imbibe of all the glories available on streaming
> services, the more we’ll need to shell out for high-speed broadband service.

You'd think that, normally, an ISP would try to upgrade the bandwidth for
their users to stay ahead of the higher bandwidth requirements. In Europe,
I've just upgraded to 100 Mbps about 3 years ago, and now I could upgrade to 1
Gbps for a little more. The only reason I'm not doing it yet is because my
_laptop_ (HDD) and _router_ (802.11n) haven't quite caught up with this speed
yet, and a lot of it would be wasted if I got it now.

~~~
techsupporter
Why would an ISP do that, when any self-respecting business operator can
simply instruct his or her call center reps to say the following:

"Thank you for calling us, Higher Purpose. Your Internet is slow, Mr. Purpose?
We can certainly fix that. I see that you are currently paying us $39.95/month
for 10mbps service. How about we make that $89.95/month for 20mbps service?
Besides, who will you switch to if you don't like the price?"

~~~
Alphasite_
"Who would I switch too? Maybe any of your 12 competitors in this district."
This isn't a US based anecdote, they do it because if they dont, their
competitors will.

------
evo_9
I cut the cord 9 years ago; i didn't get rid of my ISP, i simply stopped
paying for their TV programming.

I prefer to spend my money on a faster internet connection and stream the
shows or sports I want to watch thanks to options like Netflix and NHL
Gamecenter. I no longer need Cable TV to buy the NHL package for example; nor
do I need Cable TV to watch Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones.

The author of this article is confused; it's not literally about cutting your
cord with your ISP, it's about saying no to expensive programming we simply
don't want anymore.

------
ChristianMarks
Smug, presumptuous article. I cut my cord over a decade ago and have no desire
to watch TV or Netflix (especially not to watch MPAA films) on the Internet. I
have no interest in paying a "Comcast tax," and if that means no movies or
Internet television, fine. TV is verboten here. A time sink with an infinite
opportunity cost.

~~~
snowwrestler
[http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-
mention...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-
he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/)

~~~
ChristianMarks
Only my comment here was apt.

------
theg2
I tried to cancel the cable part of my package after the promo expired. After
a few minutes, the then offered me $10 off my monthly bill and to extend the
promo another year.

The cable box will remain off and unplugged as we never used it but they're
obviously just trying to keep their numbers up for some reason I can't
comprehend.

~~~
whathappenedto
I want to add something a lot of people don't know. When you have
cable+internet, you end up paying about 20% taxes+fees on the final price.
Some of that is government taxes, some are misc fees, but it's a lot more than
your state sales tax.

With just internet, there are usually NO taxes+fees, not even state sales tax.
So even if cable+internet cost the same as just internet, you will still end
up shelling out $10 more. The $50 cable+internet option will cost $60, whereas
the $40 internet option costs just that.

~~~
theg2
The internet package alone is $20 more a month regardless of taxes and fees.

------
coley
I've had problems with un-bundling all ready. I've had Comcast for almost two
years now - the top internet service for 19.99/mo. Of course they tried to
raise the price on me once but I was able to call and get it back down. The
next time they raised the price, there was no 19.99 internet only option. The
customer service agent checked and checked and checked, but "couldn't find it
available in the system". There was, of course, a 19.99 deal for the same
speed internet AND basic cable + HBO/HBOGo. So I'm riding this promotion out
for as long as I can. Although they were required to send the set-top box, I
asked them not to send out a tech to hook it up. I honestly couldn't care less
about basic cable. The HBO Go on the other hand, I enjoy thoroughly. I was
finally able to get around to watching Sopranos =].

Eventually they'll learn that story-telling isn't meant to be interrupted by
advertisements. The content is gravely diminished when this happens. I find
myself not caring about plot after so many commercial breaks. Made worse by
the terrible, "coming up next on blah blah blah" hook.

I can see some sports fanatics enjoying the 'luxuries' of basic cable, as I
don't believe there are any fool proof options online yet - I also don't care.

------
revelation
The hypothesis here seems to be that Comcast will be charging internet users
more than warranted to subsidize TV. Did the author consider that at one point
Comcast might realize theres no point in artificially extending the life of
technology that has been lapped in the past century?

Of course we all have our fingers crossed that this eureka moment comes before
the bumbling kids that make up their leadership team have lobbied or filtered
and "traffic shaped" the internet to death.

~~~
twiceaday
The specifics don't matter. Comcast has a goose that lays golden eggs and they
will extract as much money from it as possible. There is nothing to "realize".

------
vitd
To me, even if it's the same price or costs more, cutting the cord is worth it
because a) you aren't giving all of the money to the cable company - some goes
directly to the content providers and b) you get the same content _without
ads_!

So yeah, I'll save the $10/mo on basic cable and pay Netflix $8/mo just
because it's that much less for the cable company, plus no ads!

~~~
antimatter
Exactly my thought. I cut the cord 2 years ago and it's amazing how much more
enjoyable the content I do watch is without ads.

------
joe_the_user
I don't even own a TV, I don't want any TV in any form and Comcast only
offered me a deal with TV and Internet and sent me a huge settop box that I
now have to store in my closet. And Comcast is the only broadband provider
available to me currently (well, ATT may have become available after I started
but they are their very own horror show).

~~~
jseliger
_And Comcast is the only broadband provider available to me currently_

In Tucson that was my experience, and it was frustrating. So frustrating that
I sent letters to the president of Qwest Arizona. To Qwest's credit, his
assistant did respond to my queries, and we kept trading e-mails about whether
Qwest would roll out real services to my area. In the time I lived there,
however, Qwest never did, and Comcast had a de-facto monopoly.

Now I'm living in New York and have a couple potential providers, including
Time Warner and RCN. I use the latter.

------
tsotha
Good luck with that, Comcast. Where I live there are two cable-basted internet
providers, a wireless provider, and at least two based on the old phone
system. Nobody I know pays more than $35/month to his ISP.

And that doesn't include the cell providers, which are just about out of ways
other than price to differentiate themselves.

~~~
jjoonathan
Yeah, I couldn't shake the feeling that the framing narrative of coord-cutters
was worse than useless (except as linkbait). We already know that monopolies
can increase their prices until customers are getting nearly 0 utility out of
doing business with them. That's why Comcast and TWC merged (how the hell did
that get through the FTC?). That's why prices are going up while quality of
internet service is going down. The only reason to blame rising internet costs
on coord-cutters is to divert attention away from a reality that could land
Comcast in legal trouble.

------
JoshGlazebrook
In my experience, I didn't cut my cable tv, but instead cut my home phone and
ported the number to google voice to use with an ObiTalk device to have home
phone for free. The retention department gave me their best "double play"
package they had and I saved a whole $20 a month. Well guess what, the next
month they raised rates on the DVR rental fees and upped a few other things
effectively canceling out any savings I had. A few months later when the promo
period ended, I had them switch me to a triple play (tv, phone, and internet)
just adding a dummy phone number that is not even hooked up and it's cheaper
than just having internet and tv. It's just completely ridiculous.

And on top of this, of course my ObiTalk will cease to function in a few weeks
when Google pulls the plug on the interface it used to make the free calling
possible.

~~~
js2
I signed up for a new number with Obivoice (unrelated to ObiHai), reconfigured
my Obi to use Obivoice, then setup Google Voice to forward to the new number.
Obivoice had a special if you signed up for two years of service for $60.

Obi also just announced Anveo as their preferred provider to replace Google
Voice.

I really don't understand what Google's plan for GV is. I wish they'd just
charge for it already.

------
pairing
I'm one of the cord cutters. I have Comcast internet and nothing else. I have
an apple tv, Netflix, and an antenna with a tivo that gets me network
television for free. I'll admit that the antenna is a hassle mostly because
the NBC signal is terrible in the Bay Area, but when I don't need to watch NBC
this setup is awesome. I'm hoping Aereo comes soon so I can ditch the antenna
+ tivo for a more stable broadcast to even further streamline my setup. I've
had no urge to use torrents as this setup gives me much more content than I
can consume.

My main reason for cutting the cord is to save money, and it has saved me
quite a deal of money over 3 years.

------
jftuga
I am a recent cord cutter. I was paying $46/month for satellite that included
only local channels and 2 or 3 Disney channels. I also had HD service.

I now have a Roku 3 and am fortunate to live in a location where Aereo
provides service. Unfortunately, the stream quality of Aereo is no where as
good as Netflix. I can only hope this changes in the future. Also, my kids are
now at the age where they are outgrowing Disney.

I now pay about $16/month for TV. I feel like this is a major paradigm shift:
Instead of paying for TV in dollars per day, I am now paying for TV in days
per dollar.

------
mdmarra
The prices that were quoted in the article are promotional prices for the
first year of service to a new subscriber. It increases greatly (sometimes
even doubles based on the package) after that first year.

------
barrkel
_data cap of 250 gigabytes a month_

That is truly miniscule for a 25Mbps connection.

I'm on a 5Mbps connection and our household averages 300GB downloaded per
month. Mostly to feed my GF's TV addiction, but still.

~~~
adventured
What do you pay for the 5 mbps?

I'm at $75 / month for 15 mbps, with a cable company called Shentel (50mbps is
$140 with them).

I see other people complain about paying $70x for 25 or 50 mbps. I'd love to
have that value proposition.

~~~
barrkel
About 30 GBP per month (50 USD?), but it also buys me a static IP.

------
lbsnake7
I got a deal from Comcast for 50mpbs down (their blast package) and the lowest
cable with HBO. If I were to get just the internet, it would be the same
price. In fact the deal I got lasts a year while just the internet lasts only
6 months and then goes to full price. It made more sense to just get the TV as
well since getting local channels is kind of useful for news and weather.

------
joesmo
In the scenario outlined, there are three people watching streams for $40
Internet only Comcast service. While $50 will add TV, what the article
mentions but forgets to delve into is that if those three TVs are hooked up to
a cable box at $10 a piece, the bill now becomes $80 (all pretax). That's
double and it certainly warrants cutting out TV service.

------
chiph
I see an opportunity for a consolidated billing service. Right now, Netflix,
Amazon Prime, Hulu, and all the others send separate bills. What if there were
a central service so people only get one bill, _and_ have an opportunity to
create their own bundle of streaming services?

~~~
sliverstorm
How on earth will you monetize that? Because I'm sure as shit not going to pay
extra just to consolidate my bills.

~~~
jjoonathan
The local banks have spent enough money over the years advertising their
"automatic bill pay" schemes that somebody must see value in them. Good luck
beating them at that game, though. They've been at it for at least a decade.

~~~
sliverstorm
"Automatic bill pay" with my bank _does_ have some value! But they give it to
me for free, as a perk to attract my business. Much like free checking, which
banks also advertise.

------
aroch
My ISP charges me a $10/month fee for having non-bundled service (only paying
for internet). Still better than the +$30 I'd be paying for the bundle...So
I'm only getting fucked a little.

They'll try and manage to fuck customers no matter what as long as they
maintain the power.

------
rayiner
Why would you expect it to save you much money not getting the cable TV
service? Most of the basic cable programming is paid for via advertising. The
cost of the pipe is the same whether you get television or just internet.

