Comments on: Barclays: Cord-cutting isn’t worth the modest savings

By: Christian R. Ford

Christian R. Ford — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 20:19:18 +0000

That’s easy Kevin, same reason I stuck with cable so long, fear of loss and the unknown. It takes a little bit of work to save ton’s of money, dropped my bill from $175 per month, to a lovely $55 per month for everything.

The biggest reasons people are not swarming is simplicity of cable. Cable believes its a utility and people it treat it as such, you move in, you get your water, electric, gas, phone, next call is for TV. Boom a day or so later, your done they install it.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:24:14 +0000

doesnt sound modest, but makes one wonder why you paid so much for so long, given that you are so happy to be without it now…

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:22:12 +0000

timeline? the dinosaurs were here for a longgggggggggggg time…

By: rgapen423

rgapen423 — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:38:58 +0000

I used to pay 120 dollars a month back in 2009 which was supposed to be 30 dollars a month for Cable tv but only if you bundled it with phone and Internet but after they were done with taxes and the charge for the Internet modem and the cable box’s it was never the projected 100 dollars a month and if I wanted tv alone it went to 89.99 to be able to get the 3 channels we really wanted with locals, not to mention customer service was non existent and if there was ever a problem it would take 3 days and they would be there between 7 in the morning and 8 at night, I finally had rough after 5 years of there crap and early 2009 I cut the cord and hooked up a computer to the tv if there was ever a problem I was the repair man I’ll never go back not until they drop there prices and I can buy the channels I want without tons of crap I don’t want and I guarantee you my 25 bucks a month compared to the 125 is more than chump change over 12 months a year going on 4 years

By: seitzeeing

seitzeeing — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:50:59 +0000

This analysis is flawed because the “loss of content options” is exactly the problem, here: consumers are paying for TV they don’t want and don’t watch, and many have Netflix/buy digitally in addition to cable.

By: Mitch Thompson

Mitch Thompson — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:39:13 +0000

I “cut the cord” almost a year ago, and haven’t looked back. I pay for Netflix streaming, and I have an Amazon Instant Prime membership, mainly because I buy a lot through Amazon, anyway.

The TV stays off most of the time, anyway. We took our $60/month savings and bought bicycles. Welcome to the outdoors!

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:32:29 +0000

We are both correct, which is why Mr. DiClemente’s point is not conclusive as this articles says. It’s subject to broad variation and the inset graph is even marked “hypothetical”. At best, his statement is an opinion and should be cited as such.

By: Dan Rayburn

Dan Rayburn — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:09:16 +0000

That’s a realistic figure for a lot of people. I pay $99.95 a month for triple play FiOS with Verizon. Just over $50 of that is for my TV and since I have TiVo, no DVR fees. The only add on fee is $2.99 a month for cable cards. They don’t charge more for HD, it seems only the satellite guys do that.

By: Vijaya Prasad

Vijaya Prasad — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:43:58 +0000

Reblogged this on vijaya prasad.

By: Shaye

Shaye — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:38:30 +0000

I don’t know what crack this guy is smoking, but I saved $100 a month when ditching my cable. (HINT: you don’t always have to continue paying for the now-more-expensive broadband. There are often cheaper alternatives.) Considering I don’t watch that much TV to begin with, you better believe I’m reveling in the $7000 I’ve saved since I dropped it five years ago.

That doesn’t seem so modest now, does it?