dslreports logo
 story category
Cord Cutting Deniers Change Tune As Industry Losses Mount

Back in June cord cutting's biggest head-in-ground denier, former Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, performed a complete 180 and acknowledged cord cutting is very real. Just a year or so ago Moffett enjoyed mocking cord cutters as poor, irrelevant basement dwellers, when he wasn't denying their existence entirely. Now at his own analysis firm where pushing select stock holdings (*cough* cable) isn't a priority, Moffett's suddenly singing an entirely different tune.

Click for full size
In his latest market analysis, Moffett points out that the pay TV industry is down 360,000 subscribers, or 0.3% from last quarter, and the pay TV industry has lost 911,000 subscribers in the last year. Cord cutting skeptics long insisted that as the housing market recovered, so would subscriber numbers -- but that never happened.

Notes Moffett:

quote:
"Cord cutting used to be a myth. It isn't anymore,” Moffett writes in a new note. “No, the numbers aren’t huge. But they’re statistically significant."
Except cord cutting was never a myth, Moffett was just wrong. Moffett's not alone; ratings firm Nielsen has also long been a staunch cord cutting denier, despite the firm being unable to even track most Internet viewing. When cord cutting could no longer be denied as a legitimate trend, Nielsen simply changed the language they use for these users, replacing the term "cord cutter" with "Zero TV households."

The numbers have long shown that cord cutting was a real phenomenon -- it was just easier to dismiss it because the numbers involved were initially so small, and many of the people leaving cable operators were heading to satellite and telco TV. Now that satellite is seeing these reductions as well (and telcoTV growth is slowing), even the biggest skeptics can no longer pretend that cord cutting is akin to unicorn and yeti.

One thing Moffett wasn't entirely wrong about? As these losses mount, you're going to see more and more cable operators attempt to impose draconian usage-based pricing to recoup lost revenues. Moffett has historically tried to argue that's a good thing (investors love being able to charge more money for the same or less product as bandwidth prices plummet), though you can ask a Canadian friend just how much fun ultra-low caps and high overages can be when implemented in an uncompetitive market.

Most recommended from 88 comments



n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

2 recommendations

n2jtx

Member

Canadian Friends

I have Canadian family and those punitive caps have them constantly watching the meter daily to avoid overages. At the moment, I think they are limited to 80GB/month. With two adults and four kids, that can be a problem. In fact, one of my nieces wanted to upload over 400 pictures from a recent four week educational trip and she went to the public library to use their WiFi in order to not exceed the family's cap. If/when this comes to the United States, I think I might just consider figuring out a way to drop off the grid. I am all for a free market when it is truly free but what we have here in the United States is crony capitalism which will all but guarantee nonsense like this.