Cord-cutting: Not all it’s cracked up to be?
San Diego Union-Tribune writer Jennifer Van Grove writes about cord-cutting in her Digital Life column. It’s a great column and well worth a read. Recently she shared a few of the emails about cord-cutting that she received. Below are a couple that I found interesting.
As far as cutting costs, well, that’s bordering on farce. If one wants to watch (or at least try) all the original programming available, how many networks are you going to have to buy? And those networks seem to be growing all the time. So, I’ve decided to remain with one provider that has a zillion channels. Though I still won’t get everything I would like, I have more than I can watch for the rest of my life. And most importantly it’s not work.
This gentleman makes a good point. If you wanted every network, cord-cutting may be more expensive than your current cable-TV provider. However, I don’t know about you, but I don’t watch every network. In fact, I don’t watch any network! I watch the shows on the network. Is it really that much more work to go to your favorite streaming service, whether its Amazon, Google Play, or Vudu, to get a season pass for the shows that you watch? In fact, it’s probably easier to get to your streaming service than to go through a “zillion channels” to watch your favorite show.
Do you visualize that some day streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Amazon) will make their original programming available to basic cable/premium cable channels? There is a lot of original programming — “House of Cards” for example — I’d like to see, but my cable/satellite monthly bill is already around $500 a month, so I do not want to pay more for original programming by those streaming services.
What really struck me about this email is the fact that the writer is paying $500 a month for cable/satellite! The good news is that House of Cards is not going to make his bill go up. The bad news is that he’s paying $500 a month!
Click here to view original web page at www.sandiegouniontribune.com
