Satellite, Telcos Have Worst Quarter Ever Thanks to Cord Cutting The second quarter was the worst quarter in the history of television for traditional pay TV subscriber losses. Research firm MoffettNathanson estimated these quarterly losses at 556,000 subscribers. SNL Kagan actually estimated even higher losses, saying pay TV providers lost 625,000 subscribers on the quarter.

Historically a denier of cord cutting as a notable trend, Bruce Leichtman of Leichtman Research is out with his own numbers , claiming the pay TV industry actually saw a net loss of 470,000 subscribers last quarter. According to Leichtman, the top nine cable companies lost about 260,000 video subscribers during the quarter, while satellite TV companies saw their worst quarterly losses in history with 214,000 departed users. AT&T and Verizon, traditionally more resilient to cord cutting due to intense attempts to lure away disgruntled cable users, added just 4,000 video subscribers in the quarter. Historically, Leichtman's analysis usually contains some kind of reference at the bottom on how cord cutting is being either over-hyped or barely exists. That's notably missing from this latest report, though the researcher does his very, very best to find the silver lining in the numbers. "Cumulatively, Telcos and DBS providers both had their weakest quarter ever for net video additions, leaving the door open for cable providers to have their fewest cumulative losses in a second quarter in seven years," notes Leichtman. Which is great and all, if it weren't for the fact that cable companies (excluding telco and satellite) still saw a net loss of 260,000 users for the quarter. These losses, combined with major declines in cable TV viewership numbers, recently awoke Wall Street from its slumber on the issue of cord cutting to the tune of Which is great and all, if it weren't for the fact that cable companies (excluding telco and satellite) still saw a net loss of 260,000 users for the quarter. These losses, combined with major declines in cable TV viewership numbers, recently awoke Wall Street from its slumber on the issue of cord cutting to the tune of $60 billion in one day losses







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 24 comments



karlmarx

join:2006-09-18

Moscow, ID 10 recommendations karlmarx Member False numbers, they really lost FAR more The reason I call bullcrap, is that the ISP's admitted they GAINED internet users, and admit they lost cable subscribers. Look at the pricing for internet for ALL the cable co's. Comcast, the most egregious, added Internet providers, BUT, the pricing for the internet is CHEAPER if you buy a cable subscription. I was one of those people they counted as a 'cable tv user', but I never even plugged in the tv box. Comcast charges $79.00 for internet alone, but only $50.00 for the same speed internet + tv. The easy way to measure if people REALLY signed up for cable tv, to watch cable tv, would be to look at the number of new internet users who rented DVR's. If they rented a DVR, then most likely, they will watch TV. If they didn't rent the DVR, then most likely they got 'cable tv' just to get a discount on the internet.

Doing the math, Comcast ADDED 407,000 internet users, lost 69,000 TV users. But they only added 47,000 DVR boxes. What does that tell you, they REALLY lost 419,000 video users, NOT 69,000 video users. (the 350,000 internet users who didn't get DVR's probably aren't real 'cable tv' users, they only GOT cable TV to save money on the internet. Having said that, LOSING 419,000 of 23,000,000 users is close to 2% of their 'tv' users, not .3% of their TV users. 2% of their TV users in a SINGLE QUARTER is a HUGE NUMBER. That's 7-8% of TV users PER YEAR!

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA 6 recommendations maartena Premium Member Cable/Sat companies rape you.... over and over. $4 for "broadcast surcharge fee".

$4 for "sports surcharge fee".

$6 just to HAVE a tuner box for 1 TV. (2 TV: $12. 3 TV: $18)

$10 on top of that if you like that tuner box to be a DVR.

$10 if you want your channels to be HD. (not all charge this).

$5 combined in bunch of other fees that really want to point out to you instead of considering them part of doing business.



And they are still selling television for a fictitious "19.95". Even if you JUST want 1 TV and a tuner adapter, you still get raped with all the broadcast surcharges and sports charges, and at a bare minimum you are shelling out around $40, and more likely closer to $60 if you want HD or a DVR.



They keep raising the prices every year, and they hide themselves behind: Not our fault, the media companies are doing it to us, we are just passing on the buck. That is because the cable companies are tools. They aren't standing up to the media companies over fears of losing customers to other companies over a blacked out channel.



Additionally, that is the main reason we have no choices whatsoever.



- Want a package without sports channels? NOPE because the sports channels DEMAND to be in the lowest package. So you pay anywhere from $15 to $25 per month for sports, depending on which market you are in. (ESPN alone goes for $6, local RSN's for big sports teams anywhere from $2 to $5)



- Want a package without broadcast channels so you can save on that "broadcast surcharge" because your antenna picks em all up for free? NOPE, you can't have a package without your locals. You used to be able with satellite, but you still got national ABC/NBC/CBS anyways and the fee would still apply.



- Want a package without all the childrens channels or all the MTV crap because you really aren't in that age bracket anymore and you don't have children or teens anyways? NOPE, you don't get to make that choice. And with Viacom's channels its once again (just like most others) either you pay for ALL channels or you pay for none.



The way cable is structured now is keeping channels that wouldn't make it on their own with their own business model alive by subsidizing them through package models. There are many channels that probably few people would choose if they were in some form of a-la-carte model, and they purely exist because they were sold to the cable companies as part of a bundle. This way the media companies can add another channel full of bad reruns and crappy programming, and sell a lot of advertising on it based on "availability numbers" in x million households.



If it was compared to a form of government, cable is actually a form of socialism, where you get everything a government has to offer, and you pay high taxes to get it all, even though you may not want it all. Socialist governments often offer the people a wide range of services such as cheap public transport, healthcare, children's care, free schools and universities, good quality roads, subsidized internet infrastructure, etc, etc... at the cost of a lot of taxes. But while they are free/cheap, the quality of those services isn't always top notch as they are part of a bureaucratic system of government. This is cable. You get 200+ channels, of which around 100 are low quality, low budget subchannels of bigger channels, riddled with reruns and commercials, and you pay for them even though you may not want them.



Cable should be unbundled and adopt the free market system. You have a channel? Great, now go build a business plan that makes your business survive on its own. If you deliver good programming, more people will choose your channel, and your business model works. If you don't, your channel deserves to declare bankruptcy. We should have anywhere from 50 to 100 channels in total, not 200+ and counting full of crap. If the weak channels can't survive on their own, let the few good programs they have move to bigger channels. Most of all: let the PEOPLE make the choice, and not the gov.... I mean the CABLE companies make the choice for us.



I cut the cord a long time ago, and I am not going back. Those who will stay with cable..... come January, be prepared to receive your: "Dear customer, please bend over a little more this year" letter with your next price increase.

Camelot One

MVM

join:2001-11-21

Greenwood, IN 5 recommendations Camelot One MVM There is very little reason to pay for Cable TV anymore The subject of lousy content has been beat to death already, but the fact is, it has has a lot to do with the subscriber losses. "Cord Cutting" is an easier thing to swallow now that the handful of shows most people are interested in can be obtained online. No one wants to pay $220 a month for the handful of shows they are interested in. zod5000

join:2003-10-21

Victoria, BC ·TELUS

·Shaw

4 recommendations zod5000 Member It's too bad the Cableco's also control the Internet. Here in Canada I've seen our internet/cableco's jacking up the price of internet even faster than TV. It's apparent they are trying to make up for lost revenue on the TV side. I guess it doesn't matter much when the cablco controls the internet. They can simply shift their profits from one to the other. They've still got you by the b**ls, even if you cancel cable.

Frank

Premium Member

join:2000-11-03

somewhere 4 recommendations Frank Premium Member Theyre going to lose alot more. They just dont get it.



The average triple play bundle cable bill (after equipment, taxes, and fees) is in the range of $150-$200+ and even more after the promos are over and price increases are just around the corner every year. The satellite companies are no better because thier real prices (after promos) rope you into paying like $115-$130 just for tv.



The prices are getting too high for most people and the value is just not there for the pricepoints that they are trying to achieve.

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 2 recommendations tshirt Premium Member At some point you'll have to start counting... ...streaming services as a pay TV provider.

even those who are not live/realtime, are filling the video provider market as much as quite a few of the CATV channels.

The demand for the content is stronger than ever. tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY 2 recommendations tmc8080 Member pay for video? consumers do not want to pay (much) for video.. this is no surprise.

what's not often told is that consumers are no longer the couch potatoes of old who will watch any quality content and be forced to pay for everything (espn/sports surcharges, family channels, news channels, niche/lifestyle channels, ota chanels & surcharges, etc). forced bundling is just a side effect of the incumbent providers trying to keep profits high but it will not last because muni governments are realizing that consumers demand faster internet and will jettison incumbency of the big companies to get there if it takes too long (google fiber, or muni FTTP builds)



so, prices can only go so high for internet.. before the backlash forces change (with billions at stake for ATT, Verizon, CenturyTel). you already see this in the midwest and southern states plus a few others.. expect it to push nationwide within the next decade as it becomes a voting issue.



every so often I get asked about video/subscription tv by an incumbent, and my line is.. the prices are too high, and the content sucks (*is too low quality) and too commercial ridden-- and I'm middle aged, imagine what's coming from the ADD millennium generation.... 98% don't have a landline phone-- in 10 years.. you can say that about a cable-tv subscription too.