There are three things held sacred in the U.S.: 1) freedom of speech, 2) the fact that all men are created equal and 3) the right of all people to have cable TV. So, when you write a post that says people could save a bundle if they cancel (God forbid!) their cable and another one that asks if cable is worth the cost, you're bound to get lots of comments. However, I was pleasantly surprised at many of the thoughts. For example, here's one I can totally identify with:
There was a time when I was going through my budget categories one by one, looking for places to cut spending. I cut cable for the reasons you cite in your article. My money situation is different today, and, if I were looking only at the money aspects, I would probably re-subscribe.
You know what? The savings in time has been worth more to me than the savings in money. Getting rid of cable opened up all sorts of time for biking and for reading and for playing with the kids. I doubt that I will ever go back.
I do enjoy cable when I am on vacation, however. Then it feels like a sinful indulgence to have so many programs to choose from.
I'm the same -- exactly. I skip it at home in exchange for more time with my family and hobbies, but I do watch it when on vacation or when traveling on business. It's so fun to spend one night seeing all the "great" stuff on the brain drainer!
Here's another perspective:
Ahhh yes. Moderation. I think one of the most important things I've discovered in life is that everything is best in moderation.
My daily struggle is finding that life balance. Save everything for a point in time in the future that might never come? Or be responsible, save a reasonable amount, and spend a reasonable amount. If you have to err on one side or the other, I'd definitely say err on the side of saving too much, but don't ruin your life by taking it to the extreme. Good post.
By the way. I'd give up cable TV in a heartbeat (except that my wife wants the basic channels. No premium channels though), but I'd never give up my high speed internet connection through cable.
Yes, balance is the name of the game. We're all working on finding it, I think.
You know, the most common objection I hear to cutting cable is that "I have to pay for all those channels even though I want only a few," so I wasn't surprised to get this comment:
The problem is you have to subscribe to 90 channels, when you only want to watch 4. If I could a la carte FOX, TBS, TNT, and AMC, I'd be set. Too bad the cable company would never allow that.
The alternative to this is to pay $90 per month for four channels. Not a great deal.
Here's another person that would like to pick channels on a case-by-case basis:
I cut back on my cable (Comcast Gold or Silver package, I can't recall) to just basic cable, saving over $40 a month with a Tivo. Tivo of course allows me to record what I want and watch later. And a mail order DVD account covers my movie needs.
But I also yearn for a la carte tv offerings. All that sports stuff - blah. Give me business, news, tech, science! :)
Yes, this seems like a great solution. But how then could the cable companies sell us all those worthless channels? They couldn't! So they have to bundle them with stuff we really want.
Finally, here's a situation I found myself in a decade ago:
I guess I am lucky. The condo building I live in has cable in every unit. Therefore, cable is included in my rent. However, I should watch less TV than I do!!!
Yes, it's "included in your rent", but believe me, you're paying for it -- one way or another.
So there are the comments we received on cutting your cable costs. What do you think?
I can't imagine spending $90 on cable. Is that with all the premium channels as well? Our DirecTV bill is $31.99/month, and that includes hundreds of channels and music channels as well.
Posted by: savvy saver | September 16, 2005 at 11:09 AM
Many people argue that since live concerts, plays, dance, etc. are so expensive, TV offers access to culture in an egalitarian way, and that is why people shouldn't be criticized for spending money on it even when they are close to poverty level, as many people do.
But it is amazing to me that people spend so much money on TVs and monthly cable bills. Is a football game really that much more exciting on a 50" screen?
I don't have a TV at all. But as your other commenter pointed out, I think the savings I value most are the hours I spend doing other things. If I could have a totally a al carte TV option, I'd pay to watch a movie or a show here and there. But it's sad that a lot of people pay a fortune for 400 channels and then just veg out watching infomercials and cop shows for hours on end...
Posted by: Madame X | September 16, 2005 at 11:57 AM
Savvy Saver --
Not sure of all that's included -- I just know that a friend of mine quoted this price and said he had "everything".
Maybe that includes the cost of the TV too. ;-)
FMF
Posted by: FMF | September 16, 2005 at 12:45 PM
TV is a must have in our house. Both my wife and I enjoy watching a variety of shows, but not too many. About 5-6 series per season. We also have a ReplayTV (like a TiVo) so that we can watch them when we want too AND fast forward through commercials. The time saved with the ReplayTV is an awesome benefit. We can watch an hour long show in 40 minutes.
We only have basic cable, but it costs $45/mo. There are only about 10-12 of the channels that we watch regularly. The primary reason we subscribe to cable is that we cannot receive any channels over-the-air with rabbit ears or an antenna. So we're stuck with either cable or a dish.
Some may consider it to be an unnecessary luxury, but that's their perogative.
Posted by: tdfb | September 18, 2005 at 12:02 AM
Most cable providers will tell you that basic is around $40 but really, there's a $7-$10 available usually (Cablevision in this case). It's just the networks, pbs & whatever local access you get. It's nice because you do get some tv but it'll you'll get off your butt quicker when you realize there truly is nothing on ... and at the hotel you're not paying for tv, you're paying for bed ;-)
Posted by: ithink_ithink | October 06, 2005 at 02:31 PM
A couple of years ago i went to a seminar and the speaker said that poor people always have all the cable tv channels. its not the extra $100/mo that keeps them poor, its the fact they waste their lives watching tv instead of doing something productive or learning a new skill.
Watching tv really is a poor way to spend one's life.
Posted by: empty spaces | October 10, 2005 at 10:33 PM
Other ways to save money on TV--
1. Consider bundling up on TV, internet and phone packages. You can find the combination for under $90.
2. If you need a TV recorder, consider getting software to use your computer to do it for you.
3. If you have HDTV, buy a cheap antenna to get local channels over the air. Most of thet good HDTV programming is on there anyways.
4. Most major networks (ex. NBC, ABC) let you watch shows for free online. Avoid paying for shows on iTunes, etc.
5. Combine #3 and #4, and you should have many options to watch your TV when you want it!
Posted by: KC | October 04, 2007 at 02:31 AM
TV is a must have in our house. Both my wife and I enjoy watching a variety of shows, but not too many. About 5-6 series per season. We also have a ReplayTV (like a TiVo) so that we can watch them when we want too AND fast forward through commercials. The time saved with the ReplayTV is an awesome benefit. We can watch an hour long show in 40 minutes.
We only have basic cable, but it costs $45/mo. There are only about 10-12 of the channels that we watch regularly. The primary reason we subscribe to cable is that we cannot receive any channels over-the-air with rabbit ears or an antenna. So we're stuck with either cable or a dish.
Some may consider it to be an unnecessary luxury, but that's their perogative.
_______________
Roland
Posted by: UCFS | August 03, 2011 at 03:04 AM