Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television The Almighty Buck Math Media Movies Network Networking Software The Internet Wireless Networking Entertainment Technology

Subscribers Pay 61 Cents Per Hour of Cable, But Only 20 Cents Per Hour of Netflix (allflicks.net) 174

An anonymous reader writes from a math-heavy report via AllFlicks: The folks at AllFlicks decided to crunch some numbers to determine just how much more expensive cable is than Netflix. They answered the question: how much does Netflix cost per hour of content viewed, and how does that compare with cable's figures? AllFlicks reports: "We know from Netflix's own numbers that Netflix's more than 75 million users stream 125 million hours of content every day. So that's (roughly) 100 minutes per user, per day. Using the price of Netflix's most popular plan ($9.99) and a 30-day month, we can say that the average user is paying about 0.33 cents per minute of content, or 20 cents an hour. Not bad! But what about cable? Well, Nielsen tells us that the average American adult cable subscriber watches 2,260 minutes of TV per week (including timeshifted TV). That's equivalent to 5.38 hours per day, or 161.43 hours per 30-day month. Thanks to Leichtman Research, we know that the average American pays $99.10 per month for cable TV. That means that subscribers are paying a whopping 61.4 cents per hour to watch cable TV -- more than three times as much as users pay per hour of Netflix!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Subscribers Pay 61 Cents Per Hour of Cable, But Only 20 Cents Per Hour of Netflix

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:05AM (#52587799)

    Most Netflix content has been off the air for years. It's cheaper content. Other than their original shows, which is admittedly increasingly growing in size and value, generally cable offers more valuable access than Netflix does.

    • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:08AM (#52587809)
      This also doesnt factor in connection cost. Thats 20 cents per hour for people that somehow have internet costs counted on a different ledger.
      • by redmid17 ( 1217076 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @04:23AM (#52588095)
        True but how many people do? I know it's more common in non-US countries. I commonly see people gripe about Rogers in Canada, for example.

        However, for me, my cable is nearly always bundled with internet in a fashion that makes it nearly or as expensive to just have cable. I've juggled RCN, Comcast, and a few other providers over the years. Now, with RCN, even with my subsidized deal where I essentially pay taxes (thanks HOA!) and my phone for my TV package, I still probably get 3 or 4 to 1 cent in the Netflix:Cable debate. Hell the biggest reason I have cable at all is for sports. I watch far too many for my own good, but just getting the internet would boost my sports outlay considerably between the MLB/NBA/NFL packages, ESPN GO, or the bar tab I'd rack up watching my favorite out of market teams.
        • However, for me, my cable is nearly always bundled with internet in a fashion that makes it nearly or as expensive to just have cable.

          I have the exact opposite experience: I buy internet, and Comcast throws in cable for something between zero and negative $10/month. If the only thing I used my internet for was netflix, it would add $1/hour. If I use my internet like Nielsen claims people watch TV, it costs $0.35/hour.

          Hell the biggest reason I have cable at all is for sports.

          I suspect that sports explains the majority of the cable-netflix differences, both in the number of hours watched and the premium paid for those hours. Sport have an inherent immediacy: they're very valuable in real time,

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @04:37AM (#52588121)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • It also does not count for the time you are spending watching ads.

          And the 'appointment viewing' of cable, where you literally have to set aside a specific time to sit and watch the shows you want to watch.

          This adds an opportunity cost to your use of cable which effectively pushes up its cost even more because you can't watch those shows at times, or indeed places, that suit you rather than suiting the cable company.

        • It also does not count for the time you are spending watching ads.

          That's true. The vast majority of people don't really want to pay for commercials. Cable TV has now on average gone above the 25% mark for amount of ads per unit time (more than 15 minutes per hour), which would increase the effective "cost" of cable programming by 33% to around 82 cents/hour.

          For some cable channels, the percentage of ads has grown to over 1/3 of all programming time, making the cost of cable programming 50% more than the 61 cents quoted (around 93 cents/hour).

          These are pretty signif

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anubis IV ( 1279820 )

          Indeed. Once you adjust for the amount of content per hour of TV time (see math below), the cost for cable content is actually closer to $0.88/hr, rather than the $0.61/hr stated in the summary.

          For the sake of fairness, if we take into account the average price Americans pay for an Internet connection, the cost for Netflix content ends up being about $1.22/hr. (math below). Of course, that number is kinda useless, since it fails to take into account the fact that most people in the developed world will be p

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        it ALSO doesn't account for when people watch netflix, they're WATCHING NETFLIX -- actively logging-in, selecting a program, and starting its playback, and then sitting down to watch it.. netflix also is in a position to have very detailed statistics on viewing habits..

        neither of these is true for 'regular' television...

        • Neilson samples enough people to be statistically relevant, plus they have data from your decoder/box.

          • Neilson samples enough people to be statistically relevant, plus they have data from your decoder/box.

            I've never been sampled in my entire lifetime, which is pretty long now, so I don't think it can be statistically relevant!

            • I'm sorry if I'm being dense to a joke, but are you serious? They don't need to sample you personally to get a pretty good idea of what people's habits are. A few thousand ought to do it, and there are hundreds of millions of Americans. The chances of you being sampled are minuscule.

              • I'm sorry if I'm being dense to a joke, but are you serious? They don't need to sample you personally to get a pretty good idea of what people's habits are. A few thousand ought to do it, and there are hundreds of millions of Americans. The chances of you being sampled are minuscule.

                I feel left out so I don't believe their statistical sampling works!

                In reality I do believe that their method of taking the samples is very likely to be biased and produce inaccurate results. Talking about this in the USA where they go to great lengths to, eg, ensure that black and hispanic voters have a hard time getting a drivers license to reduce their likelyhood of voting. I can't believe that the media corps are any better than the government in this kind of demographic shaping.

                • I feel left out so I don't believe their statistical sampling works!

                  In reality I do believe that their method of taking the samples is very likely to be biased and produce inaccurate results. Talking about this in the USA where they go to great lengths to, eg, ensure that black and hispanic voters have a hard time getting a drivers license to reduce their likelyhood of voting. I can't believe that the media corps are any better than the government in this kind of demographic shaping.

                  Agreed. There's a company called Lexis Nexis. Look 'em up. They are one of the largest data mines operating in a normal business model today. By normal, I mean they will provide you with whatever data you want, in any model you want, any form, any context. If all a network or business trying to compete has to do is make ratings look weird or bad, there's always a $ for that. If you have money, you can have whatever you want, and in most cases, however you want it. The most you have (offer), the more

          • by Maxwell ( 13985 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @10:02AM (#52589723) Homepage
            OP's point was that Neilson can tell when your TV is on, but they can't tell if you are actually watching it. The morning news on mute with no one in the room counts as 'watched'. With netflix, generally, you have to explicitly turn it on and pick a show so you are more likely to be actually watching the content. That might explain the huge averages - the average american watches 5.4 hours of TV every. single. day? more likely they have TV on somewhere, but not necessarily watching it
        • it ALSO doesn't account for when people watch netflix, they're WATCHING NETFLIX -- actively logging-in, selecting a program, and starting its playback, and then sitting down to watch it.. netflix also is in a position to have very detailed statistics on viewing habits..

          neither of these is true for 'regular' television...

          A lot of people, my wife included, have the tv on whilst doing household chores, and aren't really watching. But i doubt many do that with NF.

      • I know I don't factor in connection cost, so it seems reasonable. I have internet independently of either Netflix or Cable. It's like comparing brands of toothpaste but then claiming that I didn't account for the water cost.

        • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

          I had broadband long before video streaming became a thing. I would still have broadband regardless. Furthermore, my interest in better bandwidth is not driven by Netflix and friends.

      • In my circles and with my career, internet has become a necessity not an option. Looking at it through this lens, you factor the difference between the internet you'd have without netflix and what you'd have with it, not the entire cost. In my case, that's $10/mo extra, not the whole $50.

      • So do the math then:

        $10 (Netflix) + $60 (Cable) = $70 / 3000/min a month (30 * 100) = $0.023 a minute = $1.40 per hour

        Of course that number varies without much the individual pays for cable, and how many minutes are spent watching Netflix. Not to mention the use of the internet for other things, such as XBLive, PSN, web browsing, youtube, email, etc...
      • A vast majority of households in my country has an Internet connection at home, and with on average 3.2 people per household that's easily another three mobile data plans on top of that. So four Internet connections per household. We have a grand total of three ourselves (my 9yo doesn't have data on his phone).

        So most people have Internet already, and don't buy an Internet connection just for Netflix. Netflix is just one of the many things one can do with an Internet connection - in between playing online g

      • by Jhon ( 241832 )

        "This also doesnt factor in connection cost."

        It also doesn't account for housing cost (rent/mortgage). You need a place to WATCH it. It also doesn't account for the cost of a TV averaged out over the life of the TV. You need something to watch it on.

        I'm pretty sure we're at a point where we can consider internet access a 'given'. We can argue the point if you like -- but most people don't have internet access to JUST watch netflix, nor do they have running water to JUST get a drink. I think those costs

      • This also doesnt factor in connection cost. Thats 20 cents per hour for people that somehow have internet costs counted on a different ledger.

        If I watched 24 hours per day in a 30 day month, my bandwidth cost is $0.08/hr. Only counting it in my watch time is not even worth calculating.

    • Most Netflix content has been off the air for years. It's cheaper content.

      That's actually why I dropped my subscription (twice). I like the concept but I had two problems with Netflix. One was that it was a pain in the rear to find something interesting to watch that I hadn't already seen or had no interest in seeing. I would spend 30-60 minutes searching through their (crappy) interface to try to find something to watch and eventually give up. The other problem was that their catalog was decidedly lacking in more recent content. Oh they had some but it was very hit or miss

      • What do you watch, may I ask? I just posted the opposite so I'm curious. I don't want new bambambamswitchflopbam ADD shows or shows dumbed down for the brains of average people who watch just to satisfy their life status (e.g. their life is great because they don't have to deal with what those people on "Survivor" do).

        Care to share?

    • by sinij ( 911942 )

      Most Netflix content has been off the air for years. It's cheaper content.

      Most cable content has commercials, up to 20m per hour. You have to also factor cost of your wasted time.

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      ...and a lot of it the previous seasons of something that's still in first run.

      Due to syndication, stuff never really goes off the air unless it's total dreck.

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      A lot of cable content is total dreck and 40 year old reruns. 4 channels worth of content have been spread over 500 channels. A lot of channels are things like golf and shopping. Others are only useful for a single show. A lot of the "first run" stuff is the same formulas recycled ad infinitum.

    • Most Netflix content has been off the air for years. It's cheaper content. Other than their original shows, which is admittedly increasingly growing in size and value, generally cable offers more valuable access than Netflix does.

      I ditched my cable because it... repeats! Watch show 1 on TLC, show 2 on Discovery, show 3 on TFAC.

      Show ends on all three (but not at the same time.. just when they're done).

      TLC buys rights and starts showing show 3 like it's a "NEW SERIES YAAAAY YIPPEE" situation. No too long after that, I see Discovery showing show 1. TLC starts showing show 2. I know this doesn't seem like a HUGE deal.. annoying for those without constant ADD, but eh...

      Then I start noticing that it's happening on almost every networ

    • Cable content frequently includes advertisement. You're paying 3x more and getting ads, that doesn't seem like a bargain to me!

  • uhm, no.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PublicSchill ( 4569095 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:07AM (#52587801)
    Netflix costs $3 per person for 4 people to view it, but that includes 5 profiles. So realistically it's rare all 5 people want to watch at the same time. So it's quite easy to pay less than that. Cable is usually at least $30 to $40 per month for a household. That's 10x as expensive for the cheapest plans available. Not to mention Netflix doesn't have commercials... You can't compare the average hours per user for cable and netflix. They aren't equal... At best you can compare the cost per person. The number of hours is highly variable, and not to mention it doesn't change the monthly cost anyways...
    • I'd imagine people like me throw off the numbers as well. It is easy to add and drop streaming month to month, it is more difficult to do that with cable/satellite. I drop streaming for Spring and Fall TV seasons, but I don't drop satellite during summer. That drives up the per hour cost of traditional TV, but since I'm maximizing value out of Netflix by catching up on everything during the summer that drives down the per hour cost of Netflix.
    • You can't compare the average hours per user for cable and netflix. They aren't equal... At best you can compare the cost per person. The number of hours is highly variable, and not to mention it doesn't change the monthly cost anyways...

      I agree that there are a lot of issues with this comparison. BUT I think there is at least some validity to this approach, Anecdotally, the people I know who still have cable AND have Netflix tend to still watch a lot more cable TV than streaming Netflix. There's something different about the user experience of cable TV that causes people to "channel surf" more and hooks you in... even if the programming is less desirable than choosing something specific you want to watch on Netflix. I've seen lots of o

  • by speedplane ( 552872 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:07AM (#52587805) Homepage
    Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable ... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.
    • Exactly. When your data set attributes can't be compared... I think the layman term is "apples and oranges".
      In the end, from a human perspective, the main attribute is perceived value of the service, rather than "cost per hour of content".

      • Exactly. When your data set attributes can't be compared... I think the layman term is "apples and oranges".
        In the end, from a human perspective, the main attribute is perceived value of the service, rather than "cost per hour of content".

        More like individual apples vs cases of various fruits.

        cable is not the same as netflix. Cable is the transport media of content. Netflix is one example of content whose transport media is internet. Internet is a fucking lot bigger than netflix. Cable is just some third party deciding what you get to watch.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's another shill piece for Netflix after the market hit them for not gaining enough new customers. Like all PR pieces about this company, they exclude the additional requirement costs; such as decent broadband, and devices to view the streamed media. Compared to a basic STB + TV, you need a bit of gear to start with for streaming services, whether it be smart TVs, consoles or plug-in devices that run the Netflix client, net connection and wifi etc.

      Cutting the cable TV from a package will only increase the

      • Netflix has pretty cheap hook up costs. Most people already own some kind of device that streams Netflix. If you don't already have something, you can easily get a Roku for $60. Compare that with cable. I've only just got an HD cable box because the cable company charges so much for them. $20 a month, or $500 to buy it outright for the model with the PVR built in. Even without the PVR it's $13 a month, or $300 to buy. I was able to buy an HD PVR box for $150 because they were clearing out the older models,

        • Netflix has pretty cheap hook up costs. Most people already own some kind of device that streams Netflix. If you don't already have something, you can easily get a Roku for $60. Compare that with cable.

          It cost me $200 to get internet access installed, you insensitive clod! Because I am in the sticks and have to use a WISP. (There's both cable and DSL within a mile or so, but neither one reaches out to my street, which has exceptionally low population density.) And I am now paying $99/mo for 6Mbps with a 300GB cap and with degradation to 512kbps from 7:30 to 11:30 after the cap is used, because they are even more oversubscribed than cable companies. They're also liars, because they will swear up and down t

          • Sounds like a problem with the cable/DSL companies and there's nothing Netflix can do to help you. Seems like Netflix still wins over cable, because cable won't service you at all. Although for TV, you'd be better off getting satellite. Which would still have similar costs to cable as far as buying/renting set top boxes goes.

            I guess that's kind of what happens when you live in a rural area. It is expensive to service things like cable, internet, and even things like electricity in rural areas. So you oft

            • As as city dweller, I don't want my bill going to subsidize those people in the rural areas.

              Yes, you want to live in a third-world shithole. But everyone else recognizes the value of extending communications to a whole nation, which is why we formerly had funding going to spread land lines to rural areas, and why we now have funding going to spread internet access to those same areas. As it turns out, we actually want internet access in those areas when we visit them, so covering the last mile benefits everyone. Unfortunately, there's a lot of short-sighted people like yourself out there who don't

              • If you're going to argue that it's for the public good, then we should really do it as a tax and have the infrastructure provided by the government rather than for profit corporations.

                But really, how far do we extend out? Even roads are private roads once you get far enough out. There's just some spots that are too expensive even for tax dollars to service them because the population density is just way too low. I also really don't care that I don't have internet access at the cottage or in other rural ar

          • Netflix has pretty cheap hook up costs. Most people already own some kind of device that streams Netflix. If you don't already have something, you can easily get a Roku for $60. Compare that with cable.

            It cost me $200 to get internet access installed, you insensitive clod! Because I am in the sticks and have to use a WISP. (There's both cable and DSL within a mile or so, but neither one reaches out to my street, which has exceptionally low population density.) And I am now paying $99/mo for 6Mbps with a 300GB cap and with degradation to 512kbps from 7:30 to 11:30 after the cap is used, because they are even more oversubscribed than cable companies. They're also liars, because they will swear up and down that they are not oversubscribed, when all ISPs are. Shitbags. ("Digital Path")

            You're a satellite person. If you want to not fit into the architecture you're in, it's gonna cost money. That's unfortunate! I would hate to be in that situation. :(

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I prefer to get my news online in text format and I'm not that interested in most sports (apart from Sumo, which is free to air). For me cable is insanely expensive and offers nothing of value over Netflix, less in fact since I need their stupid, buggy and slow equipment.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Once at night on German TV they had news from 30 years ago. Amazing how nothing has really changed. The names have, but it was basically identical to what is going on now.

        From that moment on, I decided not to watch news anymore. Just not worth my time.

        The "news" is really just entertainment. It is packaged and sold as entertainment (which means it often is really just selling advertisements).

        Typical American news broadcast -- teaser all evening, "This common household item could KILL you! News at 11!" So you watch a bunch of commercials waiting for the news to start... finally... "Our top story is a new expose of X... but first, some breaking news...." More delaying tactics, more hints of fear, more commercials... finally about 15 minutes in you

      • Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable ... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.

        The fact that it lacks news or sports is not something I would mind.

        The original comment about a false comparison is exactly spot on. If you care about live news and sports, Netflix is a non-starter. If you care about movies and TV shows, then Netflix is cheaper. If you care about both, then Netflix by itself is still inadequate.

    • Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable ... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.

      Yeah but thats what the rest of the Internet is for.

      I don't think the comparison should be Netflix vs cable. In the case of cable, its just the medium and the content is on top. In the case of Netflix its just the content, not the medium that carries it. What they should have done is compare cable vs internet ie Netflix plus youtube plus everything else.

    • Seems like a false comparison. Netflix lacks news, sports and the vast amount of programming that is available on Cable ... it better be cheaper! A much more interesting comparison would be Netflix and HBO.

      All those you mention come at an extra price. And the comparison is still valid since it is calculating cost per hour watched, not cost per content type. I used to have cable, the so-called premium plans because I needed (wanted) to watch things not in the basic or family plans. Price tag was almost double ($180) and still, I would get so much other stuff I did not want (and I wouldn't necessarily got what I wanted.)

      I cut the cord two years ago and I could not be happier. $49 for internet, $9 for Netflix

  • by Kindaian ( 577374 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:10AM (#52587815) Homepage

    For netflix you need a proper internet connection.

    For cable, you don't (technically).

    • And how much should internet service cost? I was paying $80 per month for 40 Mbps down but only ever getting 20 and often getting about 2. As it turned out, they were willing to lower my bill to about $35 per month and no doubt they're still making a profit. So where was that extra $45 going?

      And of course, they still aren't providing more than 20Mbps down.

      the only words any ISP I've ever had seem to understand are "I want to cancel my service." That's the only time they pay attention to anything.

      • "So where was that extra $45 going?" hookers and cocaine, of course!
      • And how much should internet service cost? I was paying $80 per month for 40 Mbps down but only ever getting 20 and often getting about 2. As it turned out, they were willing to lower my bill to about $35 per month and no doubt they're still making a profit. So where was that extra $45 going?

        That my friend is about the closest thing to pure profit in the known universe. It costs them essentially the same amount to provide you 1Mbps access as it does 100Mbps access once the equipment is installed. Like text messaging for phone companies they are charging for something that otherwise would be an underutilized asset. Worse, in a lot of places there is just one option for customers so they have little incentive to compete on price or improve service. Where I live my options are Comcast or MUCH

      • And how much should internet service cost? I was paying $80 per month for 40 Mbps down but only ever getting 20 and often getting about 2. As it turned out, they were willing to lower my bill to about $35 per month and no doubt they're still making a profit. So where was that extra $45 going?

        And of course, they still aren't providing more than 20Mbps down.

        the only words any ISP I've ever had seem to understand are "I want to cancel my service." That's the only time they pay attention to anything.

        This depends on the area. I get 40Mbps for $49.00. I might downgrade because we rarely watch HD.

  • I'm not here to rah-rah Comcast bundles, but I don't see anything in those 20-cents-per-hour numbers that account for the cost of the Internet service to get the Netflix into your home.

  • 5.38 hours per day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:29AM (#52587855) Homepage

    5.38 hours per day

    I doubt this figure; this is an absurd amount of TV to watch on a daily basis on average.
    If you have a job, this figure pretty much means you spend all your free time on TV.
    Is this just number the cumulative amount of hours of all TV's in an average family household turned on, or is this actually time spent watching TV by an average individual?

    • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:59AM (#52587915)

      Generally speaking, the industry that measures it considers you to be watching if you're in the same room. And I agree.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2016-reports/total-audience-report-q1-2016.pdf

      This report claims 4:31 live TV and 0:33 time-shifted TV (DVR) on average.

    • Yeah, this figure also sparked a WTF moment in me.

    • I doubt this figure; this is an absurd amount of TV to watch on a daily basis on average.

      Well cable subscribers trend older, right?

      When I grew up in the 70s, the TV was always on, all evening. Now my wife and I don't do that; but I've noticed both my mom and my wife's folks still have the TV on pretty much from dinner time until bed time. And even with some of my friends (in their 40s and 50s), the TV is on a LOT. It actually is rather annoying.

      Now they aren't camped out on the couch in front of it all that time... but it is playing and has a modicum of their focus.

      And from what I've seen of co

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        And from what I've seen of college kids now, while they're not watching television per se - they do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time watching stuff like YouTube and swapping SnapChat videos (they don't seem to actually chat much on SnapChat, which seems weird but them I'm old). It wouldn't surprise me if the total amount of time they spend on new media rivals what their parents and grandparents spend in front of the boob tube.

        Meet the new boob tube, same as the old boob tube. Except more boobs.

    • I've tried to break her of the habit because it's annoying and abusive to our bandwidth cap, but my lady puts on the TV while doing other things in the same room, mostly art. Why not a podcast, or some music? But alas, it's a common pattern. I've known lots of people who couldn't sleep without TV, but now Netflix autoplays so that's extra-abusive.

      • by sims 2 ( 994794 )

        What netflix device do you have that doesn't stop auto playing after 3 episodes?

        • What netflix device do you have that doesn't stop auto playing after 3 episodes?

          I don't know how many it plays before stopping, because nobody in this house likes to fall asleep with the TV playing. But I'd far rather it never autoplayed anything.

    • by Hodr ( 219920 )

      It's not absurd that the TV is on that much, we're just not watching it. TV is on for background noise while I am on the computer, or making dinner, or doing dishes/laundry/vacuuming. I may actively watch two shows a day, but the TV is easily on three times as long.

  • Rant about cable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by No Longer an AC ( 4611353 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @02:31AM (#52587859) Journal

    How much does Netflix cost again? $10 per month? It's so insignificant that I'm not even sure. I look over my credit card bill every month making sure all the charges look legit and I don't even usually notice Netflix.

    It might not work for all customers, but I would still pay for Netflix if it was $25 a month. I would complain at that price, but I wouldn't cancel my service.

    cable TV? Screw that. People complain about the paucity of things to watch on Netflix, but have you looked at your cable TV lineup? That's even worse and I used to pay close to $150 per month for that

  • by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Wednesday July 27, 2016 @03:04AM (#52587927)

    So many thing wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. Looks to me that it was more of an ego trip on the part of the author than a valid study.

    First of all, cable is obviously a screw job. There is no way that I can pretend that cable has any merits. But still ...

    NetFlix content is generally older than cable content. While Netflix is creating some new shows, it is unlikely that many people are signing up for NetFlix for their "look, we made a little show" content.

    People who are watching NetFlix have to be paying for Internet too. And many pay for a faster speed than they otherwise would to watch NetFlix. So Internet prices should be considered. Once that is done, since NetFlix is watched less, it might even end up costing more per hour, but "per hour" is just stupid.

    Computing the cost per hour is pointless. Both are unmetered. People turn cable on even though they might not be paying attention to it, it becomes just something that's there and might occasionally be interesting. The same isn't quite as true for NetFlix since you have to actively select what you want to see. But realistically NetFlix is likely watched less simply because there is less to watch. If NetFlix had live shows such as news feeds then it might get watched more in a month making its meaningless "hourly cost" less, but it does not.

    All that you can really say is that cable is more expensive than NetFlix, as long as you are not getting screwed too bad on Internet access.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      it is unlikely that many people are signing up for NetFlix for their "look, we made a little show" content.

      That's the primary reason many people, including myself, sign up.

      The back catalogue is nice too, but the best stuff is their original content.

  • 5.38 hours per day - after work, commuting, eating, sleeping. I don't think I could manage that for more than a couple of days if I was paid to do it!
  • When I cancelled my cable connection, I redirected that money to a different bank account of mine instead, where I save up for vacations.
    I went through many of my other expenses and found 200$ pr. month which now goes to that account.

  • Netflix won't survive without real net neutrality.
    With airborne TV, the content providers take care of production *and* delivery.
    With cable TV it's the same.
    Why should different with internet TV?
    Either Netflix pays the ISPs, or it needs to be bought by one of them (Verizon?).
    • Either Netflix pays the ISPs, or it needs to be bought by one of them (Verizon?).

      No Verizon here.

      Come to think of it, not sure if Netflix itself is available here. And if it were, half of the content probably wouldn't be.

      So you can keep that crap in within your borders, and the rest of the world is just a little better off.

  • to get our internet from the cable provider as they is no other choice due to the illegal monopoly tricks cable companies use like "franchise fees" in cities to make it more difficult for competition to come in to the town.

    So my cost is close to the cable number because I am punished for having internet without cable. $80 a month for 15meg

    Because comcast rapes us in towns where there is zero competition.

    • by Megane ( 129182 )

      If only there were a way to get television without paying money to some company, maybe some kind of wireless television? But it would have to be unencrypted, and you would have to be able to get equipment for it at regular retail stores.

      Seriously, I cut the cord 15 years ago, and have been antenna-only since then. (No Netflix because most of the stuff coming out of Hollywood is garbage, especially the newer stuff. And I already have two free channels that run old garbage movies 7/24.) The digital switch-o

  • Does the average American watches all the most expensive channels? That's a lot for TV. My cable bill is about $30 CAD ($23 USD).

    • Crazy, isn't it? And maybe a bit sad, as well.

      My Internet which includes a handful of cable TV channels - $298; my phone - $98 (including reduced speed but unlimited data & tethering allowed); son's phone $35 (voice only); wife's phone also about $100 (including data).

      Total telecomms bill for the family $531 or just under USD 70 per month. Now we don't have TV sports packages or so (those run $200-500 a month), just don't care enough about that, and I'd rather go to a bar or so if there would be anythin

  • Netflix doesn't just show up on your tv, laptop or phone. You must also find some way to factor in the cost of internet access on top of the Netflix cost. That is, if you want to do a better job of comparing apples to apples.

  • I would LOVE to pay 61 cents per Hour of Cable TV programming.

    For $0.61/Hr...... Please give me the Pay-as-You-go plan with no monthly minimum and the meter that measures number of hours that one or more TVs are turned on.

    I did the calculation and worked out my average monthly rate
    $55 for 30-Megabit internet Plus $66 for Cable TV + $10 for Cablecards = $131/Month
    drops to $55 for internet Plus $12 for Cable TV + $10 = $77/Month

    Based on the approximately ~20 hours a week; I get to watch TV.
    I

  • Okay - how does one watch Netflix without paying for an internet connection? Netflix costs 20 cents more on top of that $99 ISP bill.

    Cord cutting idiots. When you cut the cord you can't watch Netflix either. Put up rabbit ears and watch local TV yes. Worthless comparison on a blog to get ad dollars - thanks for clicking & reading.

    • I agree the numbers are a bit fuzzy but most people aren't on metered internet, so the internet is an existing static cost utility that Netflix rides on. In an average household there is a lot more than Netflix going on over the internet connection.

      That said, they are not like products, and comparing them in this way is pretty dumb and the people behind it know it.

  • > the average American pays $99.10 per month for cable TV

    Bullshit.

    That is 100% bullshit.

    First off, you don't get to order just cable TV. That doesn't exist (for a reasonable price). If you do opt for only cable TV, comcast offers me a 100$/month plan.

    Second, if you want internet, or heaven forbid a landline, the cost jumps to ~200/month. Sure you get those 6 or 12 months of a reduced rate, but then you're slapped with a bill that rivals your mortgage.

  • Unless, of course, you want to factor in what the initial cost of the antenna on my roof, the coax and other supplies to install it cost me. No labor costs, I installed it myself.

    2016:
    Actually PAYING to watch television

    It's like you enjoy throwing your money away or something.

Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde

Working...