Cutting the Cord

cord_small (1)It’s 2015, and most of us have at least heard the term cord cutters. They’re consumers who have chosen to cancel their cable or satellite TV service in favor of internet-based streaming media (or simply popping old school discs into their Blu-ray players).

About nine years ago, after struggling with Time Warner Cable for years—and the company spending literally thousand of dollars trenching new coaxial at our curb in an effort to remedy our digital cable woes—my family cut the cord. We’ve never looked back. We were paying about $90 a month. That equals roughly $10,000 in savings. Wow.

It was a relatively daring and unusual move a decade ago. Our motivation wasn’t simply to rid ourselves of the quality headaches we were experiencing with Time Warner, but also to alleviate the pain of commercials. Our children were young and we felt good about virtually eliminating their exposure to the incessant stream of ads that run on television. Admittedly, it would have been challenging if we had been big sports fans (today, services like MLB.TV and NFL Now help ease that pain).

It’s estimated that only 6.5% of Americans (about 20 million people) are cord cutters (according to Experian Marketing Services). While still small as a percentage, this rapidly growing market segment has caught the attention of some tech and media corporations. TiVo, for example, recently introduced a DVR aimed at cord cutters that will record shows for those lacking cable TV. Features of established entertainment channels, like HBO GO and Showtime Anytime—while they don’t cater specifically to cord cutters—help bridge the gap between conventional cable or satellite TV and the mobile device-toting cord cutter lifestyle.

In June 2014, the Leichtman Research Group reported that nearly half of U.S. households subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus, or Amazon Prime (or, as is often the case, a combination of these services). In 2010, this number was only 24%.

rock streaming stick

A study released by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) in 2014 supports these numbers. The organization claims that 45% of American households watch streaming video from the internet on their TVs. In 2013, it was only 28%. Something is trending, folks. While the CEA study revealed that only about five million American homes rely on internet TV exclusively, 10% of all TV-consuming households said they’re probably going to cancel their cable or satellite TV service in the next 10 months. Should Comcast, Cox, and AT&T be nervous?

More proof of this trend? In May 2014, The Verge reported that 500 of those ubiquitous Redbox kiosks we’re all so acclimated to seeing will disappear this year. Americans want to stream a significant portion of their entertainment content—regardless of whether they’re cord cutters or not.

Britain’s The Guardian recently surveyed North American cable and satellite TV customers who had chosen to cut the cord. A former Comcast customer in Marysville, California stated, “After a traumatizing series of bad customer service experiences, I decided I’d rather sit in a dark cave than give [Comcast] another dime. Not one regret.” A disgruntled former Shaw Communications customer from Alberta, Canada, said, “I didn’t want to be the person who stayed up until 2 a.m. watching the magic bullet blender commercial over and over and over again.” An ex-cable subscriber in St. Louis echoed this sentiment: “I have a busy life and sitting through commercials is something I am not interested in.”

One of the biggest complaints of consumers is paying for hundreds of channels on cable, but watching only a few. Advocates of TV reform have called for a la carte channel packages for years. A recent study by Nielsen reported that the average U.S. home receives 189 cable channels. And how many of those do they actually watch? Only 17 (that’s less than 9%). In addition, The Guardian survey revealed that only 3% of cord cutters would consider going back to cable if providers began offering a la carte pricing. The lack of a la carte is obviously only part of a much larger discontent.

fire tv stickBut let’s be fair: Cutting the cord doesn’t simply erase your cable bill. Consumers often are compelled to spend more for better internet bandwidth and a streaming video device or two (like a Roku or Apple TV) to compensate for their lack of cable or satellite service. There’s also subscription fees for services like Netflix and Hulu Plus and rental costs for iTunes or Vudu.

So let’s do some quick math. I got rid of Time Warner Cable at $90 a month and later subscribed to Netflix ($9 a month) and Hulu Plus ($8 a month). I spend $10-20 per month at my local Family Video store (because you can’t feed anything to your home theater better than a Blu-ray disc). A few times a month, my family also rents movies or TV episodes from Google Play Movies & TV or iTunes at $3-6 a pop. But we never spend $90 a month. And the commercial interruptions we tolerate are light (basically just Hulu Plus, which features far fewer than conventional TV).

No, cord cutting isn’t free. For that, you’ll need a rooftop or desktop antenna to pull in your local affiliate stations. But the value proposition of cord cutting is so great that it’s hard to ignore. The fact that it’s less expensive than cable and features few or no commercials makes cutting the cord an increasingly appealing alternative for middle class consumers.

curtsig2 - trans
Curt Robbins


Curt Robbins is author of the following books from Amazon Kindle:

You can follow him on Twitter at @CurtARobbins, read his AV-related blog posts at rAVe Publications, and view his photos on Flickr.

Advertisements

Take My Remote, Please

3d1Today’s blog post is an excerpt from my new ebook Home Theater for the Internet Age. I used an amazingly sophisticated logic to select this chapter: It’s the shortest in the book.

Remote controls have always confounded consumers. Personally, I can’t wait to have wi-fi-connected remotes floating around my house. Hopefully the next generation of Apple TV, the particular streaming media box I have in my home theaters, will take a hint from Roku and jump on the wi-fi remote bandwagon. Cause IR sucks; it’s so 20th century. Even better: Just let me control everything in my home with my smartphone and tablet.

curtsig2 - trans
Curt Robbins


From Chapter 13: Remote Control

Remote Control

Consumers have always misunderstood and hated remote controls for their home electronics. As a culture, we seem to exhibit a collective disdain for these small communications devices, cursing them because their batteries are dead, the blast doesn’t reach the receiving device, they lack backlighting (of course I watch my movies in the dark, you corporate dolts), or they’re just too difficult to configure and operate. Ask any consumer: Remotes, as bundled with components, are a necessary evil that suck. So what can be done to alleviate our collective misery?

There have been some major improvements in this space during the past few years. First, programmable and universal remotes (those that can control multiple components in your home theater) have become more powerful and user friendly. Second, slick dedicated remotes for products like Apple TV and Roku streaming boxes have illustrated that the application of minimalistic, intuitive industrial design and powerful, leading-edge technology can make remotes something that you actually enjoy using. Third, special apps that you install on your mobile devices have become available that allow you to use your handy smartphone or tablet to control hardware components and media streaming services.

IR vs. Wi-fi

Most remote controls communicate with their devices using an infrared (IR) beam of light. But IR requires a direct line-of-sight, making the use of devices that incorporate it a pain. This is especially so in room environments where you’re trying to control home theater components that reside behind you or are obstructed by a cabinet or closet door. Newer remotes are beginning to drop IR in favor of a radio frequency like wi-fi, which is finally common enough in homes to serve this role. Likewise, remotes are also adopting Bluetooth, although this reduces their effective range to 15-30 feet (fine for most environments, but obviously not larger rooms). With wi-fi, the only limitation is that the controlling device is on the same wi-fi network, not that it’s within a particular radius or eye shot.

roku 3The Roku 3 streaming video box proves the advantages of wi-fi over old school IR. While most remotes are relatively cheap items bundled with home theater components, small improvements like the adoption of wi-fi connectivity have a real impact on increasing convenience for consumers. In a few years, the bones of IR blasting remote controls will reside in the dinosaur graveyard, with manufacturers leveraging ubiquitous wi-fi and Bluetooth technologies to avoid line-of-sight requirements and offer other enhancements.

Of course, the topic of component-supplied remote controls is made moot when consumers use existing wi-fi-based mobile devices to control their home theater components. Chromecast, an ever-growing collection of Miracast-enabled devices, and Apple’s AirPlay give you full functionality from the device that’s already in your hand or on your coffee table: Your smartphone or tablet.

Mobile Devices

As echoed throughout this book, one of the best features of modern home theater is that you can leverage your existing mobile devices to control your components and the entertainment that flows through them. Not taking advantage of this capability relegates you to the torture of bundled remotes with their confusing interfaces, crappy IR, and lack of ergonomics. Another option is a universal remote, but we’ll get to that later.

Streaming Media Devices

apple tv for blogStreaming media devices like Chromecast, Roku, and Apple TV are designed to work hand-in-hand with your mobile devices, allowing you to utilize apps that support them. For video, this includes apps for services like Crackle, Google Play Movies and TV, Hulu Plus, Netflix, Vudu, and YouTube. For music services, this covers the apps from Pandora, Google Play Music, iTunes and iTunes Radio, Rdio, Rhapsody, and Songza. Services with new or updated apps that support one of these media devices are announced nearly every week.

Another role for your mobile device as a remote control is with Apple AirPlay, whether it’s bundled into your receiver or comes to your home theater via Apple TV. However, AirPlay works only with apps that support it. Plus, some older Apple gadgets aren’t fully supported.

AV Receiver Control Apps

Several companies that produce home theater components offer free remote control apps for both Android and iOS mobile platforms. Use of these apps gives your mobile devices a whole new life as an integral part of your home theater. Such companies include Anthem, Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer (and Pioneer Elite), Sony, and Yamaha. Using your existing smartphone or tablet to control your home theater components gives you a superior interface, an easy-to-read backlit touch screen, and more ready access. The only caveat is that most home theater components with support for such apps require some form of network connectivity—such as wi-fi, Ethernet (see my blog post The Case for Home Theater Ethernet), or bluetooth.

[See also Home Theater Basics.]


Curt Robbins is author of the following books from Amazon Kindle:

You can follow him on Twitter at @CurtRobbins, read his AV-related blog posts at rAVe Publications, and view his photos on Flickr.