Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Television The Almighty Buck Entertainment

The Average Cable Bill Has Increased More Than 50 Percent Since 2010 (streamingobserver.com) 193

Posted by BeauHD from the nickel-and-dime dept.
According to new research, the average cost households pay for cable is now up to $107 a month -- that's a 50% increase since 2010 when cable bills were $71.24 a month. When compared to last year, it's only a 1% increase, "thanks in large part to increasing fees for things like regional sports licensing and taxes," reports Streaming Observer. From the report: Leichtman Research Group's data was gathered through a telephone survey of 1,152 households from throughout the United States. The research found that 78% of American households still subscribe to a paid TV subscription. That percentage is down from 86% in 2013, 87% in 2008, and 81% in 2004, but 78% is still a pretty high figure given how high cable costs continue to rise each year and how affordable streaming video services are in comparison.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Average Cable Bill Has Increased More Than 50 Percent Since 2010 More

The Average Cable Bill Has Increased More Than 50 Percent Since 2010

Comments Filter:

  • Average cable internet bill has gone down 100% (Score:4, Informative)

    by cervesaebraciator ( 2352888 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @07:55PM (#57571739)
    ... for a big part of the market. These companies need to understand that by hiking rates they're causing more people to cut the cord. They need to go for volume if they're to survive as TV businesses (and not just ISP's).

    • Re: Average cable internet bill has gone down 100% (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe if they didnt bundle crap channels with basic packages, people may be more inclined to keep cable. Do I want OWN, Lifetime, FYI, Hallmark or any of that crap? Nope.

    • I don't think they get it. I can't just demand more money from the people who pay me. Well, I can, but it rarely works out the way I think it should :-D

      • Well, if you don't like it, you can always get cable from another provider.... ...well...err....uh...how about....
        In most of the US they have a monopoly. If you are really lucky you can switch to the other ripoff cable provider in your area.

        • "In most of the US they have a monopoly."

          I guess this is true if you don't count DirectTV, Dish, Sling, Hulu, Netflix, YouTube or one of the many other providers with regular new/old content.

          • Touche!
            I don't watch much TV so I forgot about most of them. I do have Netflix and access to YouTube. I think Netflix is superior to cable but was not aware that it offered cable (other than shows that used to be on cable).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jdharm ( 1667825 )
        We get it. We don't want the crap either but the content providers tell us that if we want to carry the channels you do want then we have to carry all that crap you don't, and we get charged per customer per channel. So when they demand we carry another channel you've never heard of and don't want we have no choice but to pass that cost on to you, otherwise you'll loose that one channel you are really interested in. Federal law says they can do this and we have to suck it up.

        "thanks in large part to increasing fees for things like regional sports licensing and taxes,"

        100% of this rate increase, at

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      so thank you to all the fucking 'cord cutters' that raised the rates for everybody else.

      our bill went from $110 with all the premiums and extra tiers and '1 tier higher than slowest' internet to $140 with NO premiums, no extra tiers, about a dozen LESS channels in the base package than there used to be, and slowest-available internet.

      so $30 more for less, and 15x4 + 10x2 + 5 + 20 = $105 for what we gave up = $135 + 110 = $245 to get what we had. that's well over 100% increase since 2005 when we had to start

      • Re:Average cable internet bill has gone down 100% (Score:5, Funny)

        by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday November 01, 2018 @02:31AM (#57572677)

        so thank you to all the fucking 'cord cutters' that raised the rates for everybody else.

        You're quite welcome.

        so $30 more for less, and 15x4 + 10x2 + 5 + 20 = $105 for what we gave up = $135 + 110 = $245 to get what we had. that's well over 100% increase since 2005 when we had to start downgrading services.

        You're welcome to join us and become a cord cutter too. We have cookies.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          Say your cable company makes these offers:

          • Internet only: $99.99/mo
          • Bundle deal with Internet and TV: $89.99/mo (plus $10/mo local channels and regional sports surcharge)

          In a situation like this, what's the benefit of cutting TV?

          • Say your cable company makes these offers:

            • Internet only: $99.99/mo
            • Bundle deal with Internet and TV: $89.99/mo (plus $10/mo local channels and regional sports surcharge)

            In a situation like this, what's the benefit of cutting TV?

            Eventually the benefit is that's a great market for a competing ISP to enter.

            • Comcast appears not to allow third parties to offer service over its last mile. Competing ISPs are MVNOs, which insist on limiting my household's Internet data transfer to a handful of gigabytes per month. A startup company seeking access to lay its own fiber over city rights of way would probably end up unable to satisfy an unreasonably rapid citywide buildout schedule. I'm aware that some cities require franchisees to build out the network over the whole city in order to ensure that the service reaches le

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • To be another brick in the wall.

            Broadcast TV is dead. Cable bundles are dead. They're just barely hanging on because of folks like you (and my wife) won't stop giving them a way to make the books show that TV can still turn a profit, and that people still want it.

            We don't want it. We want on-demand. We want a back catalog. We want to binge a series. We want more than 22 minutes of content in an hour. We want a fucking search function.

            The sooner TV dies, the better. And before some asshat blubbers , "But mah

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tepples ( 727027 )

              We don't want it. We want on-demand. We want a back catalog.

              A valid criticism of satellite television. But cable offers a fairly large selection of video on demand, but the studios won't let the networks offer all episodes of all seasons because that would unfairly compete with DVD box set sales.

              Youtube Live is already a thing.

              Not in my ZIP code, according to YouTube TV's signup form.

              The ESPN and individual sport broadcast apps are a thing.

              And the first thing users see is "Sign in with the username and password issued by your participating multichannel pay TV provider."

          • Say your cable company makes these offers:

            • Internet only: $99.99/mo
            • Bundle deal with Internet and TV: $89.99/mo (plus $10/mo local channels and regional sports surcharge)

            In a situation like this, what's the benefit of cutting TV?

            The benefit is that you are not paying all the taxes, franchise fees, box rentals, and other assorted bullshit they add on to the price. I'd rather pay $99.99 and not have to pray that they don't suddenly throw in some fee - just because - from one month to the next. I cut the cord five years ago and the cable company has probably spent several hundred dollars in that time on postage and high quality marketing materials I receive every other day begging my return. They offer all sorts of wonderful deals

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tepples ( 727027 )

              They MUST pay the content providers for the programming/channels they carry.

              A lot of which they recoup by selling ad time on those channels. Typical retransmission agreements allow cable system operators to replace a few commercials per hour.

        • You're welcome to join us and become a cord cutter too. We have cookies.

          And Netflix.

          After not having cable (or satellite) TV for about 15 years, when I have a chance to experience cable TV these days, I can't imagine paying for it. You have to watch shows when they are on, instead of when you want to? Every show is interrupted every 6 minutes for 3 minutes of commercials? I wouldn't want that if it were free.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        so thank you to all the fucking 'cord cutters' that raised the rates for everybody else.

        Is that the sound of your PVR's hard disk crashing or the world's tiniest violin?

        It's your own fault, not the cord cutters. They are giving you less stuff for the same money, and you are accepting that. There is no down side for them, some people pay more and people like you pay the same for less.

        That's why prices aren't going down. If more people ditched cable TV they would be forced to offer a more attractive, competitive product.

        • No they wouldn't. They just continue to jack up the internet rates. Most people who said they cut the cord, just eliminated TV. Hardly sticking it to the man now is it...
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • FYI, unless you've dropped all their services, you didn't cut the cord. You've eliminated one service. That's all. And they don't care because you are still getting that service from them and paying through the nose.

  • Comcast. The good, the bad, and the ugly. (Score:5, Informative)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @08:04PM (#57571777)

    I had been a Comcast customer for years. I had Internet, Phone, and Cable TV service. Rate was about $180/month. Two year contract.

    The Internet service is excellent. Not only is it fast and reliable (wasn't always but they fixed things) but they actually do IPv6 right.

    So last year (about 18 months ago) they decide I must be too pleased some it's TIME FOR A FLEECING!

    My contract is up. I want to renew. NOT AN OPTION. I say what do you mean you can't. I'm using it right now. Yes but the 3-service deal is no longer offered. You have to get the 4-service deal. It is called "quad play." In addition to the other services you get home security.

    I say I don't want another security service. I have ADP and have invested $1500 in sensors that would be thrown away if I changed now. Not to mention I would have to purchase more sensors.

    I won't bore you with the details but the choices boiled down to this: 1) ditch Comcast (and I lose the Internet service i depend on for my business). 2) Get the three services I have been using which will cost about $100 more than what I have been paying, or 3) get the FOUR services for about $40 LESS -- FOR NOW -- than I have been paying.

    Now get this. I say ok I'll take the quad play but I'll just not use the home security. So no need to schedule the installers --- hold your horses right there son. We WON'T give you a new contract until AFTER our installers show up to your house, burn a half day of your time, and certify that the service is installed. And there is this wireless pad thing that has to be in the house somewhere.

    I bitch enough that the gal gives me a "free" camera.

    So now I have two security services running at my house -- I never arm the Xfinity one but I do use the camera which is pretty well implemented. I have to feel grateful that they didn't make me unplug the ADT system.

    Somehow the monthly bill has creeped up on me. Now it's $225/month not including the occasional movie my wife buys. Instead of $40 less I was pitched I am now paying $40 more.

    That's my Comcast bitching for today. Thanks for listening.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vidnet ( 580068 )

      What is it you get out of having a land line and cable TV that makes you put up with this? What do you use them for?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        Many professional and collegiate sporting events and political news-and-opinion shows are exclusive to traditional multichannel pay TV (that is, cable and satellite). They are not available over-the-top on the Internet.

        In addition, many cable system operators offer only lower Internet access speeds (per second or per month) to Internet-only subscribers. Someone who doesn't watch TV but wants Internet access faster than a pittance of GB/mo must subscribe to TV that he or she doesn't watch in order to become

    • I just cancelled my DirecTV service with AT&T. My initial 2 year contract ran out and my bill went up about $40. When I called asking for any other offers, of course nothing was available. When I called to cancel then all of the offers start coming out of the woodwork. Now I only have internet which costs me $70 (up from $60 when it was bundled) a month for 50 mbit down (highest speed they offer in my area) with a 1 TB limit (unlimited costs $30 more a month if you don't have TV service). I spent the p

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pnutjam ( 523990 )
      You must be in a one service area. I could switch to at&t symmetrical GB for $100 /month, or 100/100 for $80. I'm sticking with comcast because the gave me a decent deal for $140 and their television (x1) is way better then uverse. I've been real happy with it.

  • Much like Apple's business plan (Score:3)

    by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @08:15PM (#57571827)

    The plan: squeeze more money out of each diehard customer in a shrinking market. Obvious issue is, it makes the market shrink faster. One uncomfortable detail: the demographic of those diehard customers is increasingly on fixed income.

  • Wow. I can barely remember when I had cable (about 10 years ago), and my current house has never had cable service.
    What particularly got me to cut the cord was the excessive sports fees the cable companies were paying and passing on to the consumer. Since I do not watch sports and since some cable companies owned sports teams (i.e. Comcast) were collecting the fees they were charging, I simply opted out. Besides, the only time I had free time to watch TV was when most of the cable channels were broadcast

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      Without cable service, how do you connect to the Internet? Or did you choose your current house based on fiber availability? Or do you deal with cellular and its single digit GB per month of tethering?

      • Or do you deal with cellular and its single digit GB per month of tethering?

        It's not single-digit. VZ offers up to something like 18GB/mo (for $99/mo on a hotspot.) Still quite pathetic, though.

      • My internet comes from the phone company. Ironically, there is no phone line because I use voip and cell for phone service.
        Now, I wish I had a choice of internet providers.

        • My internet comes from the phone company. Ironically, there is no phone line

          So your phone company isn't selling you DSL and giving you a POTS line that you don't use at no extra charge? Because that's what some phone companies do, and it'd be analogous to what some cable companies do with their bundle structures.

          • I live in a new development and the phone company only has provisions for fiber. (Not aware of any homes that have POTS). All houses have two sets of underground conduit---one that goes to the phone company equipment, and the other to the cable company equipment. If you want a phone service you can get it from the phone company or the cable company (at least one home in the development uses a VOIP service from the cable company).

  • Whoa (Score:4, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @08:20PM (#57571859)

    "The Average Cable Bill Has Increased More Than 50 Percent Since 2010"

    Man, I'm glad I happened to be sitting down before I read that shocking headline.

  • Bye-Bye Comcast (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prisoner-of-enigma ( 535770 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @08:30PM (#57571901) Homepage

    I was paying right at $200/mo for Comcast XFinity. About half that was for 150Mbit (downstream) Internet with no data cap (that's extra, of course). The other half was for STANDARD DEFINITION basic cable.

    I'd happily have taken Google Fiber if it were available but AT&T GigaPower got here first. Now I have 1000Mbit down/800mbit up, HD cable channels (and many more than Comcast offered), three set-top boxes (only one with Comcast), and a DVR (none included with Comcast)...all for only $80/mo.

    Is it any wonder people are ditching traditional cable companies?

  • Cable companies are just passing on cost (Score:5, Informative)

    by Revek ( 133289 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @08:45PM (#57571953)

    You probably are not going to agree but I work for a small cable company and some media companies double their cost per sub every time contracts come up for renewal. Cable companies make almost nothing on video these days. The exception is Comcast. Comcast owns several networks and the HITS platform. As for the rest of us the profit margin is hair thin. If it wasn't for internet sales most small cable companies would have went out of business years ago. When I started working for this company they had twelve systems. Ten years later that number is three. one of the three is actually three towns tied together by fiber. The captive market doesn't allow for true negotiations, so expect more of the same in the future.

    • Re:Cable companies are just passing on cost (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sabbede ( 2678435 ) on Thursday November 01, 2018 @07:45AM (#57573355)
      Then there is something wrong in the market. Cable companies should not be willing to accept and pass on the kind of cost increases you describe. They really shouldn't be in that position at all. What are the content companies charging cable companies for anyway? They make money off advertising or subscriptions, so the more homes their content goes to the more valuable their ad time. By all rights, they should be paying cable companies to bring their ads to our homes, not the other way around. Having your content run on cable TV means you don't need a nationwide network of broadcast towers to sell adds that run in all our homes, yet somehow their savings get passed on to us as increased cost? That's not right.

      • Then there is something wrong in the market.

        Yes, it's called lack of competition. The physical plant should be maintained by the municipality and the content and content management equipment should be owned by a plethora of providers.

        At this point the only reason to sell cable is that a lot of people want to watch the same content at the same time, so you can broadcast it to them. As that becomes less true, it will make less and less sense to do that, and more and more sense to do everything based on IP.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Revek ( 133289 )

          "Yes, it's called lack of competition. The physical plant should be maintained by the municipality and the content and content management equipment should be owned by a plethora of providers. "

          No, thats not what it is. That municipality will still have to charge for content and infrastructure. Our state has one city owned cable company and they still have all the same problems that the rest of us have and their rates are in line with ours. The problem is that the content providers are not required sell

        • I agree that the lack of competition is at least a major factor, but I'm skeptical about the idea of fixing it by changing who the single provider is.

      • Then there is something wrong in the market. Cable companies should not be willing to accept and pass on the kind of cost increases you describe.

        The whole story smells like bullshit to me.

        The only way a cable company would feel screwed and like they had to pass on the costs is if there was a competitor carrying the channel, and there usually isn't. They could just drop it and move on with life. Sounds more like they are a monopoly and can charge their customers whatever, so it makes more sense to just skip negotiating down the cost and instead just pass it along to customers.

        • There's a ton of BS involved, but it's normal for businesses to pass on increased costs to consumers. And I'm sure you've seen the commercials that content providers run when negotiations get heated - "[your cable company] is going to drop [our channels]! Call now and say you don't want to lose [our channels]!", so there must be a point for them where they dig in their heels, presumably because they know how much heat they'll take from their customers should they implement a commensurate increase in price

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jdharm ( 1667825 )
      Preach.

      We charge cost on content and our cable operations bill hasn't gone up in 20 years. We lose money on cable TV. The internet department is supporting itself and TV and has been for 10 years because the customers would never stand for the price increase if we passed on the rate hikes of the content providers and a little for ourselves. We've just been passing on the content costs, watching our operations margin shrink to nothing, then slip into the red as we lose ground to inflation.

  • Naturally it is because... (Score:3)

    by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @09:56PM (#57572177)

    ...they give 50% better service.

  • A tax on dumb (Score:3)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @10:21PM (#57572233)
    At this point cable is just a tax on anyone too old, or too dumb to switch to streaming services.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday November 01, 2018 @12:21AM (#57572465)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Internet Only (Score:4, Insightful)

    by KalvinB ( 205500 ) on Thursday November 01, 2018 @12:22AM (#57572471) Homepage

    The issue is bundling. They want you to buy more and more services so of course the bill goes up.

    I have only internet service with the local cable provider. It's $90 a month for static IP and 25Mbit or so both ways. Years ago I was paying $70 a month for 256K both ways. Toss in Netflix and HBO NOW and it's over 100 a month for internet and TV.

    The only reason people still pay for cable TV is sports. If you don't care about sports, it's not hard to get your bills down. The only necessary service is an internet connection. Everything else is a luxury.

    • The only reason people still pay for cable TV is sports.

      You don't have to!

      https://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-tv-antennas,review-2354.html

      https://www.reddit.com/r/LiveTvLinks/comments/89krhr/sports/

  • Business Account (Score:3)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Thursday November 01, 2018 @08:03AM (#57573443) Homepage Journal

    Do you not have a business account? Plenty of people have Internet-only business accounts for less than $225.

  • It was a rip-off in 2010. Maybe it's because I grew up with the idea that, “Ok, TV is free, but you have to watch these commercials” that I could never bring myself to pay for cable TV. Like that frog in the pot on the stove, they slowly added commercials, then more commercials, and (apparently) increased the rates people paid at the same time. Now, people finally seem to be noticing that the water is boiling.

  • According to the government's inflation calculator, $100 in January 2010 has the same buying power as $116.50 now - the amount I'm paying for cable has only increased a little more than that percentage (closer to 20%) in the same time. However, I get more channels, more in HD (and better quality HD), and have added premium channels to my subscription since that 2010 cost, so adjusting for inflation and service delivered, my cost has gone down.

    Of course, I have two cable companies available (I've switched si

  • At least my Cable Internet is about the same price or actually less than it was, but for significantly faster speeds.

    In 2010 I was paying TWC $65/mo for 15/1 mbit speed, and in 2013 was paying $85/mo for 30/5 mbit speed.

    Currently in 2018 I am now paying Spectrum (who of course bought TWC) $70/mo for 400/20 mbit service. They keep upgrading my speeds at no cost increase.

  • My final Time-Spectrum bill was a whopping $200+! I chopped it in half by switching to Google Fiber with local channels only. Since then, I've added quite a few streaming services and it's STILL cheaper than Spectrum, and that's before cutting the locals, since Hulu Live gives me those.

  • Was going through my bill the other day, and noticed the 'Regional Sports Fee'. $6 a month for something I never use as I don't watch sports. So I call the satellite provider and say, please drop all sports channels from my subscription, as I don't watch them and don't want to pay the fee. Surprise, they don't have any packages, except the very base one with almost no channels, that don't have the sports channels on them, so you have to pay the fee.

    They really need to get ala carte going or I am going t
  • ..if you still get internet from them. You've just eliminate ONE service. And for many people that didn't save any money when you consider they've started subscribing to streaming services.

    Cutting the cord means CUTTING THE CORD. NO SERVICES AT ALL. Course that probable means you're on cellular (5G/LTE/6G) and they're loving you even more...
  • I was a zombie cable customer for years.

    One day I turned on the TV and discovered the cable was out. It took a few days for the service team to arrive and they soon discovered that a grader had accidentally cut the cable when it was resurfacing the back alley. At that point I realized that no one had turned on the TV for over 2 months since that was when they were doing the work...

    I cancelled my cable immediately, bought a digital OTA antenna from best buy for $20 in order to get the local channe
  • Might as well download folks, you're paying for it anyway.

  • The cable companies see the end coming. Already everybody who is savvy enough to cut the cord, has done so, or is thinking about doing so. The rest will pay whatever the cable companies demand. It's in their financial interest to raise prices! Where are they going to go?

    It's kind of like old-style telephone service. Only older people still have it, and they pay through the nose for it. But these older people have no idea how to set up or use a VOIP service, so they are stuck.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close