
Netflix and Hulu are Not Killing Cable - ignostic
http://cabletv.com/blog/no-netflix-and-hulu-are-not-killing-cable/
======
kmkemp
Piracy isn't eating cable tv's profits because of pricing... it's eating their
profits because of convenience. How ridiculous is it that I can get an entire
season of X show in high definition with no commercial interruptions streamed
to my TV within an hour through torrenting, but the equivalent would take
either foreknowledge, or lots of searching for reshowings? People have
discovered that not having their TV dictate their schedule is valuable to
them, and the providers that realize the value of that convenience are going
to win. The only thing holding Netflix/Hulu back from eating Cable TV within a
few years is live content (sports) and better selection. Be careful in
extrapolating the 2% growth figure... it could easily become much, much faster
if they can figure out how to provide the only reasons left to have cable TV.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You can download The Daily Show (or any show for that matter) in 1080p minutes
after its finished airing, with no commercials, or you can wait a day and have
to sit through 12-15 ads on Hulu while their player desperately tries to play
the proper rendition for your connection.

Hard choice.

~~~
josefresco
You first need a computer, a high speed Internet connection, torrent software,
a good/reliable/safe torrent site and then the knowledge to install said
software and initiate a download. You then may need the proper codec/video
player to watch the video and of course the wherewithal to stop seeding so you
don't get caught by the piracy police. While these hurdles are easy (obvious)
for geeks like me (and most HNers) they are not for the majority of the
population.

~~~
dublinben
You don't need any of that. Streaming and direct download sites have new TV
episodes almost as quickly, with none of that hassle.

~~~
josefresco
You still need a high speed internet connection, a computer (or do these
streaming sites work on tablets? I don't know) and of course know where to go.
Also, when your favorite pirate streaming site gets shut down (they all do
eventually), you need to know how to find another (safe) site to keep on. Yes
less hassle but still not "Cable TV" easy.

------
mikelat
These statistics are failing to take into account that young adults that grew
up using the internet for entertainment will not subscribe to cable TV. It's
not all about the loss of current subscribers, but the loss of potential
subscribers as well.

~~~
TillE
Yeah, I was born in the mid 80s and I have no plans to ever get a TV
subscription. It's not the price - I'd be happy to pay for a Sky Sports
internet streaming service, if it existed. It's the hassle and the long
contracts.

~~~
zippergz
Just out of curiosity, what country are you in? In the US I've had all three
current major cable TV providers (and several of their predecessors), and I've
never had a long contract (it's always been month-to-month). Is it common to
require long commitments in other countries?

~~~
chestnut-tree
In the UK, most TV subscription services that sell you a "package" of channels
have long-term contracts (12 months is usually the minimum). They try and
sweeten this by providing you with a "free" digital video recorder (not really
free) and often combine TV, phone and broadband services into one subscription
package.

Streaming-based services such as Amazon, Netflix and Blinkbox (owned by
supermarket giant Tesco) let you subscribe on a month-to-month basis or film-
by-film basis. These services feel more flexible because they're not trying to
sell you a whole bunch of channels, some of which you may not have much
interest in.

Interestingly, even the BBC can see where the market is heading for many
viewers. Their "youth" channel BBC Three (aimed at 16-34 year olds) will stop
broadcasting terrestially and become an online-only channel via their iPlayer
service. I guess this reflects how more and more people consume content today
- they don't consult a TV schedule, they expect to be able to view content
when it suits them.

------
grossvogel
This article seems to me to completely misinterpret the Experian study.

My (and HuffPost's) reading of the Experian graph is that 18% of households
with Hulu or Netflix have no cable TV service, while cabletv.com reverses it:
'only 18% of “cord cutters” have Netflix OR Hulu.'

I didn't go through the sign-up form to download the study itself, and the
graph appears not to have been made by Edward Tufte, so it's hard to say for
sure. Anybody read the actual study?

~~~
zbisch
I took a look at the slides/paper and you are completely correct (I thought
the same thing).

The plot is essentially saying that if you compare the "average household" to
the households of Netflix and Hulu subscribers, customers in the latter are
about 2.5-3 times more likely to be "cable cutters". This is what what I would
call "Netflix and Hulu killing cable."

The whole premise of their article is flawed on a misreading of a figure. The
study they cite contradicts their claims.

Here are their slides: [http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-
services/brochures/...](http://www.experian.com/assets/marketing-
services/brochures/cross-device-video-analysis-2014.pdf)

------
otterley
My experience with renewing my Internet subscription recently is that cable
providers are offering significant incentives to customers to add
subscriptions to at least some form of TV service in addition to Internet
service.

I'm a Comcast customer in the SF Bay Area. Six months ago I only had Internet
service; no TV. I called customer service in search of a better deal, and it
turned out I could lower my total bill by adding TV service! In other words,
Internet alone is now more expensive than Internet + TV. So they're now
/subsidizing/ TV service (or at least discounting Internet service) to inflate
their TV subscriber count.

Are others having similar experiences?

~~~
anigbrowl
That's the only reason I have cable TV, yes. If you wrangle with them, you can
get a deal where they just relay you the broadcast channels, otherwise they
give you a cheap starter deal and jack the price up after 6 months. The trick
is to call the customer retention department and make them talk you out of
unsubscribing.

Interestingly, I saw the other day that AT&T is proposing to offer fibre in SF
and Oakland/Berkeley, which would be a game changer.

~~~
dublinben
That announcement from AT&T shouldn't be trusted. As discussed earlier on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622646](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622646)

~~~
anigbrowl
Given a choice between overpriced cable and slow DSL I'm open to other
alternatives. The _status quo_ sucks, and it doesn't particularly bother me
that AT&T wants to get a good deal.

------
chaostheory
The numbers may be inaccurate due to some billing tricks by companies like
Comcast. For Comcast, it's actually about $5 cheaper for customers to stay a
cable subscriber even if they don't use it since there's a discount for 2 for
1 subscriptions. Some may say, yes but cable cutters can bundle VOIP instead.
Well if you go that route Comcast forces you to get a crappy Modem Router
hybrid and I and probably many others didn't want that so we just kept cable
TV. We just don't watch it.

> What about cable without cable TV?

This still doesn't exist yet. Even for HBO GO access, Comcast still forces you
to be a basic cable subscriber.

~~~
midnitewarrior
I "pay" for cable TV simply because it's more expensive with Comcast get
Internet without TV. The cable box is unopened in the corner of my apartment,
and we watch Netflix and Hulu. The numbers the cable industry are showing are
a mirage created to deceive their shareholders. Viewers 30 and under want
nothing to do with Big Cable.

AT&T did a similar thing when people were going DSL-only. I had AT&T DSL +
phone line and called to cancel the phone line, they gave me the phone line
for 12 months at $5 a month simply so they could show their shareholders that
people weren't cutting the cord. That was cheaper than the VOIP provider I was
planning on going with, so I stuck with it another year, didn't really use it
though.

Cable's user experience is horrible, it's terribly expensive, it's price grows
many times the rate of inflation, users feel screwed because they are forced
to buy packages of channels they have no interest in, and feel forced to
"bundle" to feel less screwed.

Comcast regularly wins the "Worse Company of the Year" award, and has terrible
customer experiences.

None of Cable's deficiencies have anything to do with Netflix or Hulu. In the
end, the thing that kills Cable won't be Netflix or Hulu, it will be Cable
that kills Cable. The Cable industry are pigs which will soon get slaughtered
by their own greedy hands.

Netflix and Hulu are just there to pick up the pieces.

------
cxy7z
Interesting, though hard to overlook the possibility of bias, seeing as this
is coming from cabletv.com

~~~
brianmartinek
I am curious if this is some sort of private niche site or if it is was
created by the cable companies. Looks to be the latter.

------
ollysb
In how many countries is the latest series of Game of Thrones available for
purchase? In how many countries are people watching the latest Game of Throne
series? There's a huge gap.

Content providers matching their sales model to viewing habits seems to be an
inevitable future. It's going to be painful process getting there though.

------
stcredzero
_Are we really “killing” cable – or even cable TV – when we sign up for a
cable internet package which includes cable-only TV channels?_

Yes, internet delivered services are killing "cable-only TV" when "cable-only
TV" starts becoming something else. If HBO is now letting Comcast subscribers
watch HBO-Go episodes of Game of Thrones, then HBO is no longer "cable-only
TV!" In fact, I'd say that with piracy, many "cable" content producers are no
longer in the business of cable-only TV! They are now in the digital content
producing business.

If traditional cable subscribers are declining at the same rate that people
are dying of old age, then this suggests that young people are not becoming
new cable subscribers and this does spell the end.

------
dlevine
I think the relevant statistic here is obscured with faulty logic. The
important thing is that, of people who subscribe to Hulu or Netflix, almost
50% more are cord cutters than 3 years ago. If you make an assumption that
this number will continue to increase at the same rate, in 11 years you will
have 75% penetration: 12.7 * (18.1/12.7)^5 (-4). And, in the following 3
years, cable will be completely wiped out.

------
beller
Note: The source = "cabletv.com"

------
lucisferre
Cue Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch.

