Why no lobby for cord cutters?

[TheBigA]

But deciding to actually throw away the customers' data in a federally regulated communications service,
well, that sounds like a criminal act to me.

Cable companies are now allowed by law to charge customers a monthly rate for each cable box that receives the programming. I'm not talking about the digital box, because that's an extra charge. I'm talking about the most basic box that one needs to use the product. For the history of cable, that was always included. Now it's not. Take a look at your bill.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Spectrum space is only as limited as we allow it to be. The wired world is older than the broadcast world. Alexander Bell came before Marconi.

Samuel Morse was using wired communications technology over 30 years before Bell.

Cable is inefficient and expensive.

That depends on the distribution technique being used. Using fiber for the entire pipeline would provide vast amounts of bandwidth.

Also a reminder: OTA broadcasting is not free, as it is mostly supported by advertising, the cost of which is added to the products you buy.

 

[TheBigA]

Also a reminder: OTA broadcasting is not free, as it is mostly supported by advertising, the cost of which is added to the products you buy.

That same advertising is also on cable. In addition to paying a monthly fee, you see all the same advertising you get OTA.

And these days, just about every form of media, including satellite and Pandora, is ad supported. And it all goes into the price of what you buy, regardless of if you use Pandora or not.

 

[Tom Wells]

But deciding to actually throw away the customers' data in a federally regulated communications service,
well, that sounds like a criminal act to me.

Cable companies are now allowed by law to charge customers a monthly rate for each cable box that receives the programming. I'm not talking about the digital box, because that's an extra charge. I'm talking about the most basic box that one needs to use the product. For the history of cable, that was always included. Now it's not. Take a look at your bill.

I don't, haven't, and won't pay for cable.

While cable TV now may charge per decoder box, that's pretty much like how phone companies at one time owned the phone,
and charged monthly for its existence in your location.

On the other hand, "cable" presents a virtually unlimited amount of bandwidth if we consider the capability of fiber optic.

The problem becomes one of deciding whether any part of broadcast ota service are part of some kind of public trust or
merely for-profit entities.
Naturally those who have built up subscription business wish to be seen as some kind of essential service.

One of the goals of a new FCC chair should be requring cable and sat to deliver ota broadcast signals in original quality or
even fining them until they comply properly with OTA standards.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem becomes one of deciding whether any part of broadcast ota service are part of some kind of public trust or
merely for-profit entities.

The discussion was held in 1967. They realized the conflict between private companies and public airwaves. That's why they set up public broadcasting. The problem came when the Congress didn't want to pay for it. So there is no more public trust. The only way you can have a public trust is take private profit out of it.

One of the goals of a new FCC chair should be requring cable and sat to deliver ota broadcast signals in original quality or
even fining them until they comply properly with OTA standards.

If they name the former head of the cable lobby to become FCC Chair (and he's the frontrunner right now), it's VERY unlikely you'll see ANY new regulations on the cable industry. But regardless of who they name, the cable industry will always fight to charge extra for any feature it supplies. They includes 1080p and HD. They charge now for something they call digital and it's not even HD service. There's an extra charge for that. What they get and what you see are two different things. This is why the broadcasters are furious with cable companies, and why there's a battle every time the contract is up.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Problem with the idea of a cord-cutters' lobby is, as others have mentioned, the lack of money in it. More broadly, it requires the existence of a lobby fighting for what's best for American consumers and America more generally as opposed to what will make someone profit. And that gets to the big flaw at the heart of the American political system.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

Problem with the idea of a cord-cutters' lobby is, as others have mentioned, the lack of money in it. More broadly, it requires the existence of a lobby fighting for what's best for American consumers and America more generally as opposed to what will make someone profit. And that gets to the big flaw at the heart of the American political system.

Couldn't Apple or Roku fund a cord cutters Lobby?

 

[FredLeonard]

In addition to cost, the more I think about this I have to ask....

What the !@#$ for?

A lobbyist has to push for something, some change to laws or regulations. What changes do "cord cutters" want or need? Nobody is stopping anybody from cord cutting.

Besides, if you want streaming video (Roku or whaterever), then they've got you any way.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

In addition to cost, the more I think about this I have to ask....

What the !@#$ for?

A lobbyist has to push for something, some change to laws or regulations. What changes do "cord cutters" want or need? Nobody is stopping anybody from cord cutting.

cord cutters want a la carte, HBO Go without an HBO subscription, and an end to the outdated MLB extra innings blackout policies in addition to keeping free OTA TV

 

[FredLeonard]

In addition to cost, the more I think about this I have to ask....

What the !@#$ for?

A lobbyist has to push for something, some change to laws or regulations. What changes do "cord cutters" want or need? Nobody is stopping anybody from cord cutting.

cord cutters want a la carte, HBO Go without an HBO subscription, and an end to the outdated MLB extra innings blackout policies in addition to keeping free OTA TV

Lottsa luck. Their lobbyists would have more money than cord cutter lobbyists. And there are all sorts of legal precedents giving companies the right to control distribution of their products. They can count themselves lucky that the sports industries and their lobbyists have gotten major sporting events moved to cable or pay per view.

People too cheap to get cable are too cheap to get the high-speed Internet required for HD streaming and too cheap to join some group to hire lobbyists.

 

[landtuna]

People too cheap to get cable are too cheap to get the high-speed Internet required for HD streaming and too cheap to join some group to hire lobbyists.

Once again a broad brush paints no one.

I took my money previously spent on sat and used a small portion of it to buy high speed Internet. With that I can download and/or stream virtually any program being shown anywhere in the world and plop it onto my HDTV or watch it on my HD monitor. The money I have left over from the overpriced sat subscription goes right into my misc entertainment budget.

I don't call that "cheap".

I do agree that most cord-cutters probably have no interest in lobbying Congress and judging by Congress' current productivity it would undoubtedly be a great waste of money.

 

[FredLeonard]

Once again a broad brush paints no one.

I took my money previously spent on sat and used a small portion of it to buy high speed Internet. With that I can download and/or stream virtually any program being shown anywhere in the world and plop it onto my HDTV or watch it on my HD monitor. The money I have left over from the overpriced sat subscription goes right into my misc entertainment budget.

I don't call that "cheap".

I do agree that most cord-cutters probably have no interest in lobbying Congress and judging by Congress' current productivity it would undoubtedly be a great waste of money.

My TV and Internet come from the same provider. The Internet portion of the bill is only slightly less than the cable portion. How is Internet a "small portion" of your former cable-satellite bill?

On top of that, to stream "virtually any program" you need subscriptions - to Hulu Plus, Amazon, Netflix - no one of them has all the programs, so you need multiple subscriptions to get "virtually any program."

On top of that, most programs being shown elsewhere in the world are restricted to Internet viewing within the same country (unless you skirt the law with proxies or torrents).

Sorry, cord cutting might make financial sense if you're happy with just OTA TV but I don't see much or any savings if you start streaming.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Problem with the idea of a cord-cutters' lobby is, as others have mentioned, the lack of money in it. More broadly, it requires the existence of a lobby fighting for what's best for American consumers and America more generally as opposed to what will make someone profit. And that gets to the big flaw at the heart of the American political system.

Couldn't Apple or Roku fund a cord cutters Lobby?

They don't really have much to gain from cord-cutters vis-a-vis cable subscribers, and I'd be deeply suspicious of their motivations if they did fund a cord-cutters' lobby. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and all that.

I'm not even sure how necessary it is. A good, popular blog could serve as impetus for a heck of a letter-writing campaign. The Internet might make the press more of the "fourth estate" than ever.

 

[landtuna]

How is Internet a "small portion" of your former cable-satellite bill?

The "small portion" I was referring to was that part of my former sat bill that I applied to my base Internet bill to increase the broadband speed. IIRC, it took $7/mo to raise my broadband from 1.5MB to 7MB which works very well to download and/or stream. My former sat bill (for second-tier access 3-4 years ago) was $65/mo - much higher now.

On top of that, to stream "virtually any program" you need subscriptions - to Hulu Plus, Amazon, Netflix - no one of them has all the programs, so you need multiple subscriptions to get "virtually any program."

Not true but I will just say that streaming is a very small part of my total experience since I like to watch programs on my schedule. I usually download what I want to watch. I have had Netflix in the past but no longer subscribe to any streaming service.

On top of that, most programs being shown elsewhere in the world are restricted to Internet viewing within the same country (unless you skirt the law with proxies or torrents).

My viewing is not limited to services intended for North America alone. A surprising number of other countries do not have limitations on distribution as we do here.

Sorry, cord cutting might make financial sense if you're happy with just OTA TV but I don't see much or any savings if you start streaming.

The whole reason I cut sat was because I was the only one in my family who watched it. The kids didn't watch any TV and the wife was/is content with OTA. I was paying $65/mo to watch five services (none of them Premium) and it just wasn't worth it. For example, two of my favorites were The Military Channel and History Channel. A great deal of their content can be seen on YouTube. Given the amount of reruns both channels have it wasn't worth subscribing to get that final 10%.

My previous sat bill was just short of $800/year and that included no sports or premium tiers. I now spend $84/year for high(er) speed Internet to enable me to watch those same programs. I consider a 90% savings quite significant.

 

[KeithE4]

My TV and Internet come from the same provider. The Internet portion of the bill is only slightly less than the cable portion. How is Internet a "small portion" of your former cable-satellite bill?

My internet, via the phone company, costs me $50. Cable + Internet, when I had it, was about $130.

If I desire to reconnect - in my case that means DirecTV only since Cox Cable is not wired in my apartment complex and Dish is installed through Ygnition Networks, a horrid internet provider that I dropped several months ago - it would cost me $40 a month, plus all those ridiculous add-on fees, for 205 channels. That would put it up to around $55-60 a month, basically for the sports channels I watch plus CNN - for the first 12 months. It goes up after that.

On top of that, to stream "virtually any program" you need subscriptions - to Hulu Plus, Amazon, Netflix - no one of them has all the programs, so you need multiple subscriptions to get "virtually any program."

My Roku box has plenty of free channels. Also, Hulu's free service is available on any PC. The pro sports packages (MLB.TV, NHL Center Ice, and NBA League Pass) are available on both, as well as on cable/satellite.

Basically, all I'm missing by going with OTA & Internet is college basketball, which is practically owned by ESPN during the regular season. I don't care about the NBA, NHL, soccer, or golf, and I prefer to watch football in a bar. I pay for MLB.TV and have for years. I don't need the news channels since I can read their websites. Roku offers CNN International and the BBC for free. I can rent or buy movies if I want to, and I usually don't.

So why do I need cable (other than for college hoops) again? ???

 

[Casey]

Many people still have not realized that they can save money by cutting the cord. You subscribe to internet anyway. The average price for a cable bill in the US is more than $86 per month. Unless you need sports content, it is very possible that you could cut the cord and buy every episode of shows you like on Amazon and still come out ahead at the end of the year.

With the exception of 3 shows, I watch everything on either OTA stations or Hulu. I'll probably add Netflix to the mix sometime in the near future to watch previous seasons of shows. And it costs me much less than $86 per month.

 

[PTBoardOp94]

Many people still have not realized that they can save money by cutting the cord.

Here's how it works for me:

I currently pay $79 a month for cable and Internet (including all taxes and fees). If I were to downgrade to just Internet service, I would be paying about $58 per month (again, with tax and fees).

So, I pay $58 for Internet, and $8 for Netflix and buy Amazon Prime at $6.50. Suddenly I'm saving only $7 a month and have mediocre reception of the networks via rabbit ears.

Break it down for me. Are you saving more than $7 a month?

 

[Mr Tony]

Many people still have not realized that they can save money by cutting the cord.

not here. I actually MAKE money off my satellite bill.

Satellite is included in the rent (Directv Choice Package)
If you get a DVR or HD receiver you have to pay the alacarte rates...so I pay $20 ($10 for DVR $10 for HD)
I've got 4 referrals that gives me $40 off the bill

As long as I get 2 referrals (not too hard honestly) once every 10 months I break even or have a credit.

 

[Tom Wells]

Many people still have not realized that they can save money by cutting the cord.

Here's how it works for me:

I currently pay $79 a month for cable and Internet (including all taxes and fees). If I were to downgrade to just Internet service, I would be paying about $58 per month (again, with tax and fees).

So, I pay $58 for Internet, and $8 for Netflix and buy Amazon Prime at $6.50. Suddenly I'm saving only $7 a month and have mediocre reception of the networks via rabbit ears.

Break it down for me. Are you saving more than $7 a month?

Side question from the gallery of cable non-subscribers:

If your cable/internet comes in on coaxial cable, is there so much rf leakage/intermodulation from the cable that weak shortwave signals
or weak AM signals are interfered with on your property?

I would love somethng faster than my DSL but I won't compromise my radio environment.

And I'd pay more than 7 dollars a month over my DSL cost to get more speed, but I'm not willing to have anything but fiberoptic,
which will not spew noise in rf.

One of the first things I had changed in my house when I moved in 20 yrs ago was to have the cable removed, so I could listen to the radio.

 

[Casey]

Many people still have not realized that they can save money by cutting the cord.

Here's how it works for me:

I currently pay $79 a month for cable and Internet (including all taxes and fees).  If I were to downgrade to just Internet service, I would be paying about $58 per month (again, with tax and fees).

So, I pay $58 for Internet, and $8 for Netflix and buy Amazon Prime at $6.50.  Suddenly I'm saving only $7 a month and have mediocre reception of the networks via rabbit ears.

Break it down for me.  Are you saving more than $7 a month?

Internet costs me $55 per month. If I were to add TV to it right now, I would have to add $79.99 bringing it to $135 per month. $80 per month for 12 months would cost me roughly $1000 per year when you add taxes and fees. I would have to break it down further to get to the specifics, but I am a lot better off just buying the TV shows I can't get on OTA and Hulu. I don't subscribe to Hulu Plus or Netflix, but I probably will in the near future and it still won't cost me near $80 per month.

I would love somethng faster than my DSL but I won't compromise my radio environment.

And I'd pay more than 7 dollars a month over my DSL cost to get more speed, but I'm not willing to have anything but fiberoptic,
which will not spew noise in rf.

One of the first things I had changed in my house when I moved in 20 yrs ago was to have the cable removed, so I could listen to the radio.

I don't have cable, but I will say fiber is not perfect when it comes to noise. The battery backup for my fiber completely wipes out AM within 6 feet of it.