The anti-cord cutting stories are still coming en masse. This time it comes from the Los Angeles Times with a story called “Cutting the cord doesn’t necessarily mean cutting the cost.”
We all know the truth, but there are a few clear errors that need to be addressed.
In the story there are several weird statements and errors. One big error is pricing for Sling TV. In the story the author says, “But now sports fans can get their fix through add-on packages via Sling TV, for $45 a month.” Clearly that is wrong because on its own price chart it lists Sling TV starting at $20 a month.
You can get the Sling TV sports package for as low as $25 a month or as high as $35 a month depending on what package you pick. So after looking around there is no way to back up the $45 a month statement.
Next up is PlayStation Vue listed at $39.99, when it really starts at $29.99. While it is true that in a few markets you do pay an extra $10 a month, most Americans get it for $29.99 a month.
I should also mention one more thing here. The story includes YouTube Red at $9.99 a month as a service, but forgets to mention cord cutters still have the option to use YouTube 100% FREE with ads.
I could keep going, but these are a few of the big price errors.
Failing to Support the Title
The title of the story clearly makes the argument that you may not save money as a cord cutter; however, it fails to back that up at any point in the story.
The story follows Tahlia Hein, who recently moved to New York. It shows how she was paying about $100 a month for Internet and streaming services. At the end of the story, it says that she “made a call to a cable company, which offered an Internet and cable bundle that was $20 more per month than what she was paying as a cord cutter.”
So according to the story cable cost her an extra $240 a year. What is even tougher is the fact that she talked about looking at streaming services to supplement her TV. “That said, she’s not ruling out subscribing to streaming services. Hein said she’d happily shell out for a channel dedicated exclusively to the ‘Law & Order’ franchise.” She went on to say, “I can’t believe we aren’t there yet, I would pay real money to subscribe to that.”
First, if she really wanted that she could already get a Law & Order Franchise channel by buying a season pass on services such as Amazon and watch it any time you want.
Yet that brings up a real question: if you go back to cable would you give up all your streaming options. According to Netflix in 2016 it had 120 million users. Cord cutting only accounts for about 30 million US households so a lot of cable subscribers also pay for Netflix, and we haven’t even talked about Amazon yet.
The example in the LA Times story is to pay $240 more a year for cable TV. (Let’s not even get into when that promo rate ends.) She will also likely be paying at least $120 a year for a streaming service to supplement her cable package. Now she is paying $360 more every year because she went back to cable.
No matter how you look at it, cord cutting can always be less expensive. If cable companies really want to keep subscribers or bring some back they would likely do a better job pointing out how they offer a premium experience but even that advantage is quickly going away.
So how much are you saving as a cord cutter? Leave us a comment and let everyone know.
Need cord cutting tech support? Join our new Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.