Hacker News Reader

Comment by gregmac | Hacker News Reader

> What I do is I have the "basic" TV + internet package, as that's actually cheaper bundled than getting internet by itself.

I've heard this before, and on the surface seems like it's probably skewing a lot of the numbers (making the number of cable TV subscribers artificially higher than it otherwise would be).

At the same time, you, like many others, do have it hooked up to your TV, and you watch it at least occasionally. Despite the bundle being cheaper, you still are by all metrics a legit cable TV subscriber.

The big question is if it wasn't cheaper, would you still have cable TV? If it was $1 more to get TV vs just internet, would you do it, and at what point does it become too expensive?

View on HN

> At the same time, you, like many others, do have it hooked up to your TV, and you watch it at least occasionally. Despite the bundle being cheaper, you still are by all metrics a legit cable TV subscriber.

I used to have the basic internet + TV package because it was $10 cheaper than the standalone internet option, and I literally never plugged in the TV equipment.

The reason cable is bundled as a discount is twofold: (1) you can get upsold later on a bigger and better package ("only $9.99 more!"), and (2) the bundle is a temporary/promotional rate -- after a fixed amount of time, long after you've forgotten about the fine print, your cable bill jumps up.

Source: worked a summer during college for a cable company, trying to appease thousands of pissed off customers.

People always try and tell me that it was a promotional rate, but I had this rate for five years.

I had the equipment, but never plugged it in. When I returned the equipment 6 months later, the Comcast rep refunded the entire price of the tv service, without even being asked. Normal I'd have nothing positive to say about their customer service, but that was quite nice.

Same here. When I moved and returned three sealed boxes of equipment, the customer service agent couldn't understand how I watched TV without hooking up a TV (didn't occur to them that maybe I didn't).

Where I live Comcast is the only option, and it is not (to my knowledge) possible to get an internet only package at all. I imagine that I am reported as a "cable customer" even though my TV isn't connected.

> is if it wasn't cheaper, would you still have cable TV

For me the answer is no. I do watch TV occasionally (but often go weeks or months without; I think the last "TV" I watched was the World Series) but the vast majority of what I watch is on Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, or YouTube or other online. If internet-only were cheaper that's what I would get. I might consider getting a rooftop antenna for broadcast network TV, but probably wouldn't bother.

I would pay 0$ more for TV+Internet vs just Internet. For the last two years, despite having a TV and Comcast sending me a (huge & ugly) set-top box that would give me basic TV channels, I just cannot be bothered to connect it. The only thing connected to my TV is a Chromecast, which I use a lot. I'm sure Comcast still counts me as a cable TV user.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com