Cable Execs Now Falsely Claiming Cord Cutting Is Slowing Down (techdirt.com) 59
Cable executives like Charter CEO Tom Rutledge are insisting that cord cutting is slowing down. "I think in aggregate they're going to slow down," said Rutledge. "Because I think most single-family homes have big TVs in them and that's where you get sports, that's where you get news, that's where you get live TV like this. It's still going to be under price pressure. I'm not saying the category isn't under pressure. But I think the rate of decline will slow."
Techdirt reports that "there's no actual evidence to support that conclusion," and that cord cutting "has only been accelerating and breaking records throughout 2019." From the report: [W]ith a number of high profile streaming alternatives like Disney+ and Apple TV+ having launched this month, there's absolutely no indication that trend is going to change. That's something being made clear at research firms like UBS, which is actually predicting that things will be getting slightly better for AT&T, and marginally worse for cable giants like Charter: "UBS predicted that the U.S. pay TV industry will lose another 6.2 million video subscribers in 2020, down slightly from the 6.4 million the analyst firm predicts will be lost in total this year. If that loss comes to bear it will represent a 6.7% rate of decline, ahead of 6.2% in 2019 and well ahead of 1.2% in 2018 when video subscriber losses totaled 1.2 million. 'We now expect industry losses to remain in the 6-7% per year range for the medium term, suggesting worsening trends in domestic core affiliate into next year,' wrote UBS analyst John Hodulik in a research report. He said that improvement at AT&T will likely be offset by worsening trends for cable providers and other MVPDs."
The irony here is that Rutledge's prediction would actually be true if cable giants were willing to compete on price and customer service. But they're not, so the losses are likely to continue, especially with new services like Disney+ jumping into the fray at a measly $6 a month.
Techdirt reports that "there's no actual evidence to support that conclusion," and that cord cutting "has only been accelerating and breaking records throughout 2019." From the report: [W]ith a number of high profile streaming alternatives like Disney+ and Apple TV+ having launched this month, there's absolutely no indication that trend is going to change. That's something being made clear at research firms like UBS, which is actually predicting that things will be getting slightly better for AT&T, and marginally worse for cable giants like Charter: "UBS predicted that the U.S. pay TV industry will lose another 6.2 million video subscribers in 2020, down slightly from the 6.4 million the analyst firm predicts will be lost in total this year. If that loss comes to bear it will represent a 6.7% rate of decline, ahead of 6.2% in 2019 and well ahead of 1.2% in 2018 when video subscriber losses totaled 1.2 million. 'We now expect industry losses to remain in the 6-7% per year range for the medium term, suggesting worsening trends in domestic core affiliate into next year,' wrote UBS analyst John Hodulik in a research report. He said that improvement at AT&T will likely be offset by worsening trends for cable providers and other MVPDs."
The irony here is that Rutledge's prediction would actually be true if cable giants were willing to compete on price and customer service. But they're not, so the losses are likely to continue, especially with new services like Disney+ jumping into the fray at a measly $6 a month.
I honestly don't know why anyone still has cable (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the sports thing, but is that worth $720 a year to watch a few dozen football games?
You know you could go to a bar and watch the game there for the cost of a few drinks, right?
Re: I honestly don't know why anyone still has cab (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if those signals are in the clear, then clearly they're part of your package. I have no problem with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t have cable but I donâ(TM)t think going to a bar to watch 16 games will save you much money over cable.
Most bar tabs around here would run ~$50/game in order to keep ~1.5 beers a quarter.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least then you are making some friends and aren't drinking alone.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh. Oh my. Please believe me that you can be in a bar full of people and still be drinking alone: I've done so myself when depressed, and feared drinking alone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If sports fans were only watching a few dozen football games a year it wouldn't be, but they are watching a few dozen a week, and then there is the baseball and the blah and bleh and in my mothers case the tennis. Then there is ease of use, and resistance to change.
Yeah, but you have to put your pants on, and since the bar doesn't take kindly to you
Re: (Score:2)
Bars suck like movie theaters. I know old people who still prefer to watch at home.
I would be happy to cut the cord again. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're really out in the sticks, get an antenna for local news.
Re: (Score:3)
Cable companies had the chance to be Netflix (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cable companies had the chance to be Netflix (Score:5, Informative)
Netflix Market Cap is about 138B
Comcast Market Cap is around 202B
Re: (Score:2)
Disney Market cap is 273 billion - it only makes sense that they merge to compete. Then the new Comcast streaming service will cost $55/month for basic TV plus a few shows again and people will return to cable, right?
Death From Above (Score:3)
Cable companies should be sweating Starlink but, so far, hardly a peep. I have noticed Xfinity offering deals that require a 2 year contract, maybe that's partly the strategy.
When it's available Starlink will offer internet access with decent speeds and lag time anywhere. No cables, no wires, no ground-based infrastructure. Just point a small antenna toward the sky and you're in business.
Re: (Score:2)
When it's available Starlink will offer internet access with decent speeds and lag time anywhere.
It's still going to have a half-second of latency. That's twice as good as GEO sat (Exede latency is about a second) but still not wonderful. There will still be good reason to use wired internet access. It's also going to be "up to" 1Gbps, but if I understand correctly each bird will provide a maximum of 20Gbps in aggregate, and only a percentage of satellites will be in view at any given time, so (in a major plot twist) the people in the most remote areas will actually get the best throughput. Don't mista
Re: (Score:2)
It's still going to have a half-second of latency.
Even geosynchronous satellites are only around 23,000 miles away, so two trips up and back (you->sat->ground station, then ground->sat->you for the response) is only about half a second. The highest Starlink orbit is only 710 miles, so even allowing for the sat not being directly overhead gives a round trip and back time of under .02 seconds (20 ms). Not great for gaming, but not noticeable for much else.
The only time you'd see a full second of latency on geosynchronous satellites is if the othe
Re: (Score:2)
Even geosynchronous satellites are only around 23,000 miles away, so two trips up and back (you->sat->ground station, then ground->sat->you for the response) is only about half a second.
I'm actually on Exede, and I've actually done tests, so I know that the actual latency is about a second [wikipedia.org].
The highest Starlink orbit is only 710 miles, so even allowing for the sat not being directly overhead gives a round trip and back time of under .02 seconds (20 ms). Not great for gaming, but not noticeable for much else.
If it's really that low, it will be a breakthrough for users in bumfuck like me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to say that either something was wrong with your test, or you weren't testing what you thought you were testing (or there's some other issue with your connection). I'm sitting here in the southeastern US, and I can ping a server in Alaska that's on a satellite link (not sure who the provider is) with a RTT of a pretty steady 700ms. Other servers with the same company in Alaska but on ground links are 100ms or more, giving a 600ms or less "satellite penalty".
Re: (Score:2)
20ms latency for a satellite link is really good. Hell, it's really good for terrestrial links.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something going on besides the satellite link then. My aunt and uncle have satellite internet at their cottage. It has ping times of about 500 ms. I know, because I was trying to game on it.
Re: (Score:2)
...[20ms not] great for gaming, but not noticeable for much else.
My cable Internet ping is 24-34ms, and it's good for gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Death From Above (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink works for rural people. But it doesnt have the capacity for the entire population. Ground based will offer far faster connections still,
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink won't be offering much competition for cable. In areas where there is cable, i.e. urban areas with medium to high population density, it doesn't have the bandwidth. Each satellite is only 20Gbps, shared between all users. If it ever became popular it wouldn't have enough to provide a decent experience to everyone streaming on it.
I imagine they will price it accordingly, so that people use it for travel or remote locations not served by decent wired access.
They can't compete (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Paragraphs are your friends.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix has never given me any reason to need customer service, so I actually have no idea how good or bad it is. The cable company (when I had cable) gave me lots of reasons to need service, and it was always terrible.
If digital is "industry code for as little human interaction as possible [because we consistently deliver what we promised]" it seems like a winning strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
they are instead putting efforts into making their services as reliable as possible and then keeping customers at arms length
Disagree. Disney+ is the most direct interaction that Disney has with its customers outside of the theme parks. Up until now, their content always filtered through other distributors (Netflix, movie theaters, cable companies). With Disney+, they're able to establish a direct relationship and slurp up data on customers' preferences.
Of course it will stop (Score:3)
Perhaps it is accurate (Score:2)
I'm normally not one to be defending the cable companies, but there are a couple facts here. The article says that the cable companies' claims are false based on an *estimated* prediction for 2020 from some 3rd party firm. That is not hard evidence. The cable companies themselves have the actual day-to-day numbers, so they may be correct in saying the rate of people cutting the cord has peaked and now is slowing down. We won't know for sure until the public companies post their earnings statements and FC
I get news on YouTube (Score:2)
I'm surprised the NFL/NBA/NHL/etc haven't just spun off their own streaming services. I'm guessing they're afraid of an anti-trust suit. They needn't be. We stopped enforcing those laws ages ago and it's only a matter of time before they notice.
Oh, and you'll note he says "I think it's going to slow" not "it's slowing". He can think monkeys will fly out of all our butts and buy his top
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm surprised the NFL/NBA/NHL/etc haven't just spun off their own streaming services.
NHL games are streamed legitimately streamed on NHL GameCenter Live. MLB shares the same streaming platform for their games.
Title is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The title says that the execs claim that cord cutting is slowing down. Then it quotes Tom Rutledge who says "I think in aggregate they're going to slow down." I think he is incorrect, but the title of the summary is incorrect too.
I'm not defending the cable companies at all. I cut the cord 2.5 years ago and haven't looked back.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot editors at work.
The quote from Techdirt also says he's wrong, then quotes as evidence another report that also predicts slowing in the number of lost customers, although an increase in the proportion.
He will be correct at some point. The rate of customer loss must at some point decrease as their subscriber count drops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of absolute numbers leaving it has to slow down. The % leaving could remain constant until there are so few subscribers left that totalSubs*% 1.
Cut the cord and haven't looked back (Score:1)
It could come back (Score:3)
So I "cut the cord", and I kinda miss it. I am one of those weirdos who prefers to scroll through channels instead of actually watching something. So, if I decide that I can't live without it, I can get Youtube TV or Hulu + and get pretty much what I want, for less than I was paying even before "fees". More and more people subscribing to these sorts of services will *presumably* force cable providers to lower "fees" and eliminate those obnoxious cable boxes to compete.
Re:It could come back (Score:5, Funny)
So I "cut the cord", and I kinda miss it. I am one of those weirdos who prefers to scroll through channels instead of actually watching something.
Get Netflix, problem solved. I can scroll through their listings of pre-digested shit for days and not find anything to watch.
Re:It could come back (Score:4, Interesting)
Looking at the last plan I had, if they'd removed all the bullshit "fees" and let me plug the cable right into my TV instead of forcing me to rent a box, I might have kept it. The listed cost for the TV service plus the internet connection was not really that bad, but the "fees" added 80% to the cost.
So I "cut the cord", and I kinda miss it. I am one of those weirdos who prefers to scroll through channels instead of actually watching something. So, if I decide that I can't live without it, I can get Youtube TV or Hulu + and get pretty much what I want, for less than I was paying even before "fees". More and more people subscribing to these sorts of services will *presumably* force cable providers to lower "fees" and eliminate those obnoxious cable boxes to compete.
I feel ya. God bless those who always know what they want to watch at any given moment. Me? I like to browse the guide and a lot of times will keep a channel going in the background as white noise while working etc. That's a whole lot harder to do when you've traded $100 cable for seven $12 services each with their own walled garden. The value proposition for cutting the cord was much more attractive before the content fractured. I don't necessarily like paying for cable, but it turned out I hated hunting for content more.
There is certain convenience in the cable subscription that I find I'm increasingly willing to pay for.
Hell no! (Score:2)
will slow (Score:2)
not is slowing.
Why is cord-cutting slowing down? (Score:2)
Why is cord-cutting slowing down?
Because there are no more cable customers left to cut the cord.
Canadian cartel banking on sports (Score:1)
Yup.... (Score:1)
Flamebait headline (Score:2)
The quotes are saying that cord cutting WILL slow down, not IS slowing down. Jeez.
The reality of cable cutting.. (Score:1)