I've suggested in the past that you could save significant money each year by canceling your cable TV. See these links for details:
The major objection I get when I offer this heresy is "but I don't spend that much on it." In the past, I've been at a disadvantage in combating this argument because I haven't had solid numbers to quote back. Ahhhhhhh, now I do.
In the April 29 edition of my local paper, they listed Comcast's standard cable prices over the past four years as follows:
2003: $40.49
2004: $43.29
2005: $46.25
2006: $48.99
A few thoughts:
1. These are STANDARD rates -- not fully loaded prices.
2. For 2006, this equates to almost $600. Yes, it's likely that you can get an introductory deal, but it's still going to cost you quite a bit.
3. These prices are growing at close to 7% per year -- much higher than inflation. Cable is costly -- and getting more so every day!
I'm sure many of you won't be surprised that we don't have cable TV -- just the four networks and PBS. That's good enough for us. They cover the main sporting events, news, and offer a good amount of entertainment (for free) and don't tempt us to waste three hours a day in front of the brain drain.
Of course, it's up to you what to spend your money on and if you want to splurge on cable TV, that's your choice. I'm just making a few friendly points that many people don't consider. ;-)
Or better yet, give up TV completely. You'll be lest tempted to buy crap you don't need and will have more time for quality-of-life things like reading, exercise and boardgames w the kids.
Posted by: Dave | May 17, 2006 at 09:18 AM
Good point, Dave. You've been talking to my wife, haven't you? ;-)
Posted by: FMF | May 17, 2006 at 09:36 AM
We only get cable during football season, and we go for the $10 local channel package that gives us the local networks and a few other channels that we can't get in very well through the aerial.
Posted by: Blaine Moore (Run to Win) | May 17, 2006 at 09:43 AM
The same could be said for local phone service. Most people have home phone service (land lines) plus they carry a cell phone. Why not just use the cell phone? Or.. switch to a VoIP telephone service. We switched to one that is $199/year for unlimited local and long distance service... we've saved over $500 on just local service alone.. no telling how much in long distance we're saving, plus we're calling home, and talking to relatives a lot more now too. Bringing the family closer. Just my two cents. :-)
Posted by: Pam | May 17, 2006 at 10:14 AM
You saved $500 on local service alone? Is that over a couple of years? It's not annually, is it? If it is, you were paying waaaaaaaay too much for local service to begin with.
Posted by: FMF | May 17, 2006 at 10:42 AM
Blaine --
I long for cable during football season...but I know it would take so much time away from my family. I settle for the re-caps on the web the next day. ;-)
Posted by: FMF | May 17, 2006 at 10:44 AM
I am not a big television watcher. I watch it from time-to-time, but I could live my life without a TV in the house.
My wife, on the other hand, has her favorite programs, and doesn't like to miss them. I'm the one who pays the cable bill, though, and it's $65 a month. $65 a month! (We have a digital hi-def package.)
It's been about a year since the last time I tried to convince her to give up cable. I wonder if she'd consider it now. I could offer to take on the Netflix bill (which would still save me $40/month) and to buy any of her must-see programs from the iTunes Music Store.
$65 a month! That's $780 a year. Oh my goodness...
Posted by: J.D. @ Get Rich Slowly | May 17, 2006 at 10:53 AM
We were not going to get cable, but when cox came to set up our cable internet they said they would throw in 25 channels of cable TV for free. Might be something to look into if you are in a cox area.
Posted by: G | May 17, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Another no-tv vote here. It draws away too much time, which can be better spent... um, commenting on web sites. :)
Seriously though, I hold out hope that broadcasters get hip to direct to consumer sales of programming via the Internet. This way I can get my Tour de France fix in July without the yearly debate about the merits of cable TV.
Posted by: Duane Gran | May 17, 2006 at 11:15 AM
This has been a subject of interest in my household of late. My wife and I have talked about and looked into getting cable. We both agree it cost too much and the money saved is better socked away. However I am missing out on most of the current NBA playoffs. But I will not budge. I think.
Posted by: Andrew | May 17, 2006 at 04:45 PM
I just wrote a post on this yesterday. In my opinion, cable tv is just one of those unnecessary services that you're supposed to have. If you don't have cable it's like a stigma against you.
I'm saving myself $50 a month by canceling my cable TV (kept the internet though because I don't think I can live without it :))
Posted by: Nick | May 17, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Unfortunately, I could never live without my TV and cable. I would go get a second job before giving them up. I know that isn't good, but that is how it is.
Posted by: RS | May 17, 2006 at 08:54 PM
You're preaching to the choir, FMF. I've never had cable. I miss it only when the Olympics are on.
Posted by: claire | May 21, 2006 at 08:49 PM
FMF- A friend of mine cancelled his cable when he did the math. He just buys his "Must watch" TV shows on DVD when they come out- it may cost 50 bucks for the season, but it's far less than the cable over a year and he gets to watch them minus commercials! If she watches the more popular shows, it may be worth a look.
I have only had cable twice in my life: In the college dorm, where it came with the room, and at one apartment complex I lived in that came with "free" cable. While I enjoyed it, I cannot imagine spending 500-800 dollars a YEAR on it.
My husband and I gave up TV for a year once. That actually worked out pretty well. We would have kept going, except we got a roommate, and he watched TV, and it just kind of kept going...we should give it up again. Hmmm.
Posted by: Frugal Homemaker | May 23, 2006 at 12:44 PM