DJariya

It doesn't work like that. AMC is bundled together with other channels owned by the AMC Networks including BBC America, IFC, Sundance, and WE tv. That's how the individual cost for the channel is low. You may not watch 1 minute of BBC America, but that's part of the bundle for how they are sold to the providers, you are paying for it too. NBC owns USA, SyFy, Chiller, Bravo, MSNBC, CNBC etc. and all those channels are sold to the providers as bundle. You can't refuse to take Bravo or MSNBC because you hate reality shows or don't care about the news. Channels have been sold in this format for decades. Also, cable isn't governed by the FCC, so they are allowed to use more language, violence and sexual content. Ad rates are much lower for cable due to fewer viewers than over the air TV. That's why many original scripted shows on cable can't afford to produce 22-24 episodes a season and the show budgets are much lower than network TV. A show could cost $4M an episode on FOX, but due to lesser ad rates, it would have to get its budget slashed to $2M an episode for FX to afford it.

DJariya

Most millennials or kids fresh from college are probably making under $40,000 per year and can probably barely afford to pay their rent, groceries and insurances. Would not expect them to have the finances to afford cable.

My sister and her husband make close to $100K per year combined and they live in a really nice house, but they are only minimal to moderate TV watchers and she doesn't feel the need to pay for TV. She would rather use the money for a vacation.

Michael Corvin

I wonder how accurate the cord cutters number is anyway. I know a few 'CCs' and every one of them share accounts to still get sports. It's amazing how easy and unfazed people are with stealing. I'd love to dump cable, I think the only two shows I watch on it are Walking Dead and Saul. Grabbing the BDs would be cheaper, but... sports. I just view my cable cost as my season ticket fees. Sure it'd be nice to use someone else's account to save $60 a month, but I'm just not down with that.

Like Djariya said, it's subsidized. EVERYONE pays that $1 not just those that watch AMC. The cost would be higher if only AMC viewers wanted to pay for just AMC.

writer106

I have wondered about that too. I have a friend who isn't a cord cutter, he lives in condo complex where cable is the only option. He pays about $100 to his parents to access DirecTV's NFL Sunday ticket during football season. The parents pay the rest of the cost. He watches games on an iPad or computer. I know a few others who did account sharing or use other people's provider logins to access HBO Go or Showtime apps.

kd5

My wife & I got rid of cable back in '09, couldn't see paying $60/mo. for 65 channels of shit + the annoying advertising. I decided back then to spend that money expanding our library of movies and TV shows on DVD & BD that we really wanted to see, minus the advertising. Couldn't be happier...

cdollaz

I cancelled about 4 or 5 years ago and I don't miss at all. Now I just watch Roku, Prime, and blu-rays. The only sport I care about is the NFL, and that is mostly on network tv.

iggystar

I haven't gone through the entire thread, but what do you do for internet access?

I have downsized my cable package drastically, but it seems as everyone in the house is mainly watching Roku, Prime and Netflix. I see myself totally cutting the cord after my cable contract is up.

uteotw

I dropped DirecTV after 10 years when we moved, put it on hold thinking I might start it back up. Nine months later and I rarely miss it at all. For about 7 months I just did Prime and Netflix (tried Sling but couldn't get into it). But now I've got Playstation Vue for a mere $29.99 a month and couldn't be happier--absolutely love it and it sure beats the heck out of $100/mo. for DirecTV I was paying (which went up constantly for the same exact service). Cord=cut.

kefrank

This is the big hole that keeps me from cutting the cord. Until there is a legal way to stream my local sports teams without a TV provider required, it's a no go. I really wonder how much longer the local blackout rules will be in place for the official sports league streaming services. At some point I think the scales will tip but it may be many years away still.

cdollaz

AT&T DSL. Around $40/month.

Alan Smithee

iggystar

Cool beans!!!

JuryDuty

I've had the cord cut for years. Got a great cable internet connection, but don't need cable TV at all. An HD antenna in the attic brings in nearly 80 local channels and I have a Tivo, so I catch dozens of shows daily. I just don't need it.

We grabbed Netflix for the first time in January because of a great deal, but honestly, we rarely watch it. We just have enough TV with ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, WB and PBS. And with Amazon Prime and Vudu, we have our movies covered.

Alan Smithee

Vudu seems like the best way to watch current TV series (except those shot on video, as they're in the wrong frame rate) but it's quite expensive to do that for everything. Don't know who's paying $20+ for seasons of those home-renovation shows.

PhantomStranger

Baseball has their anti-trust exemption and most of their revenue now depends on local tv contracts. It's going to be many, many years before they give the local blackout up.

I assume the major sports will eventually cave on local blackout rules when 50% of the potential viewing audience has left cable for streaming.

DaveNinja

or when enough people figure out you can just pay $1.99 a month to a DNS service to get around the blackouts

fumanstan

Still can't cut the cord because of sports here too. Commercials don't bother me at all, even in the age of DVRs. I'm just used to them.

MLBFan24

If there was ever a reason to cut cable tv, it's TBS showing "ELeague" right now (Counter Strike tournament). Seriously, they are showing people playing video games.

tonyc3742

*shrug* To each his own. I remember being excited to visit my grandparents because they got G4TV.
PewDiePie makes some kajillion dollars a year on Youtube making video games videos.

I personally find it amazing that people will pay for not one, not two, but multiple channels that focus on guys hitting balls or throwing balls and running around a big yard. There are probably more people watching the video game content who actually play those games as well, than there are people watching Move the Thing to the Other Thing who play those games. (Actually, honestly, people who are really into that content - my son and many of his friends, for example - are probably already watching it direct on Youtube or something like that.)
I'm truly not trying to be attacking, just some sarcastic phrasing to try to make a point.
Shoot - how many channels exist dedicated to selling one product every five minutes? (I know those help subsidize cable.)

Needless to say, "but - sports!" is not a justification for me, personally, to keep cable.

Funny thing - somebody (TWC, Dish, someone) was at Walmart trying to get business. He pounced on me, "what provider do you have?" I said "TWC for broadband, and that's it." That got rid of him right quick.

I will readily admit that trying to piecemeal together the same content you can get in one place, from multiple (legal) other options - is a major hassle and sometimes not any time savings. So I'm not against "having cable" philosophically (I am certainly against some of the cable company marketing and business practices), I'm just not their target customer.

RichC2

This argument comes up from time to time and it's always the same, to each their own.

I'm a gamer, liked G4TV, and not much of a sports fan to begin with but agree eSports are awful.

I wound up getting cable back when GigaFiber came to my neighborhood. I don't use it much, but I am glad they make an app for Fire TV so I don't need a second box for the bedrooms.

Xiroteus

I don't personally require cable since I can find everything online (takes a bit of hoping around yet one can watch a lot of shows) however I know people that just like DVR and cable, everything in one location without having to sign up to five services along with extras etc...and with the internet being so much it is not that big of a deal to add on cable which it makes it easier for their viewing.

Plus they like sports.

Troy Stiffler

I still like the idea of sitting on the sofa and watching cable. I keep it if I had the extra time/money to waste. However, if you need to save the money, cable should be the first to go.

I have Netflix and Amazon Prime. And I don't want to admit how many times I've rewatched all of 30 Rock and Arrested Development.

The main thing I miss is FX and AMC shows. For instance, I want to watch Preacher, but can't find it "legally" online (and don't like to hassle with the illegal sites). Maybe IFC (they stream some, but not all ... I mainly watch Comedy Bang Bang and Maron). There's also something less satisfying about watching it at my desk, instead of relaxing on a couch.

Eddie W

There is no reason you should have to watch streaming at your desk. There are many devices that will let you watch on your living room sofa on a real TV. Since you have Prime, I'd recommend a Fire Stick, which can be had for $40.

And speaking of Amazon, AMC and FX normally release all their shows (for purchase) the day after they air on Amazon, Vudu, itunes, etc. For instance, Preacher is $25 for the season. Not cheap, but still cheaper than carrying a cable sub for just a few shows. The added benefit of watching this way is there are no commercials and the screen is not cluttered with all the crap they throw onscreen on the cable channel.

Alan Smithee

Which you used to be able to see on free TV in the 80s on a show called "Starcade"! And I watched it mainly just so I could see the arcade games at home.

I'm relaxing on my couch reading this thread RIGHT NOW on the big screen! Laptop computer + HDMI = big screen internet.

mhg83

Yeah seriously every modern computer has a way to hook your screen to a TV.