Why I cut the (cable) cord

Source 
Author 
Coverage Type 

For years, access to a large selection of TV and movie content meant shelling out for cable. If you wanted premium content from channels like HBO or Showtime, there were extra fees, and if you sought to record those shows via DVR, you paid more still. When all was said and done, a cable subscription with all the fixings could cost well over $100 a month, upwards of $1,200 a year. It should come as no surprise then that some people are kicking the cable habit altogether and seeking cheaper ways to get their content.

These so-called "cord cutters" remain a small group, but they may be growing. According to a recent report from Nielsen, the number of U.S. homes that rely on the Internet and/or free, basic TV to watch video content rose nearly 23% over the past year to 4.5% -- or 5.1 million -- of all U.S. households. Conversely, the number of homes with cable dropped by more than a million during that same period. Those aren't huge numbers, but they're indicative of a subtle shift, likely due to the rise of online video streaming. When I lived on the east coast, my monthly cable bill was absurd, swelling to more than $150 a month for features I thought I needed. A Triple Play package gave me hundreds of TV channels in standard and high-definition, a telephone land line, and broadband Internet access. I also spent on extras like HBO and DVR. But Internet aside, I didn't use some of those features enough to warrant the money, and I never watched many of the channels I paid for month-to-month. (No offense, HGTV.) I did however, already get a lot of content from streaming services like Netflix Instant. That's why when I moved to San Francisco last June, I cut the cord. There would be no Triple Play: no telephone landline and no cable TV. Instead, I would make a go of getting all that video online.


Why I cut the (cable) cord