Cable companies begging you not to cut the cord with awful new campaign

Cable companies are increasingly concerned with the movement to ‘cut the cord’. For those who do not know, this means that you drop your cable subscription and supplement it with Netflix, Hulu and other services to obtain your sitcom fix. Sure, it’s slowly gathering steam but cable companies, who charge exorbitant fees to deliver content to your TV, are becoming increasingly nervous.

To combat this, cable companies have launched what might be the worst campaign since the WebOS commercials. The site is Holesaga.com and as the name implies, when you cut the cord, you now have a hole in your media consumption options.

Simply put, if you ‘cut the cord’ you will be missing out on some content, as noted by the hole that is in each of the characters on the site. The ridiculous campaign features several ‘chapters’ and other worthless content that tries to persuade you from cutting the cord.

We get it, cable companies are trying to protect their bottom line but the irony here is that anyone who might find this webpage is likely already savvy enough to know that cutting the cord does not mean you lose out on your options; you simply have to find new ways to consume it.

For example, many popular shows are now streamed on the content owner’s website the day after the media is shown on TV. In some cases, the content is streamed at the same time, which negates a cable subscription altogether.

Sure, getting content onto your TV is not as easy as it is with a cable subscription, but it is getting a lot easier (such as with the Xbox One) and by cutting the cord, you can save hundreds and sometimes over a thousand dollars a year.

So, the cable companies are trying to convince you to stay with an archaic model of subscription based TV.  To accomplish this mission, they have launched this awful website to show you why cable subscriptions are here to stay, and that you really, seriously, should not consider cutting the cord.

View: Holesaga.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The FBI can turn on your webcam without you knowing

Next Story

Report: Xbox Live among online gaming services infiltrated by NSA

98 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If I could get ESPN I would have cut it a long time ago but I can't. Most of the CFB games I watch are on ESPN or the locals which I can get over the air but till I can get ESPN channels online then ohh well I'll keep my sat dish.

i cut the cord with fios 6mos ago and saving over $60/mos and don't miss a thing. Got 50/25 internet and downloading most of the content. Kids get their fill from streaming. Otherwise for major broadcast events i.e super bowl, etc... using local channels that comes bundled with internet.

Wow, just wow
3 of the 4 are from the assumption cutting cable mean NO internet
Are they trying to scare people in to cable cutting means zero internet?

I have never had cable and never will just because of how expensive it is for the amount of channels i would actually watch and how much i would actually watch it verses just pulling it up on hulu, netflix or amazon prime since i would mostly just watch discovery channel anyways.

Been cable free for more than 3. Years, that is.

Sure, I miss some convenience, but you really only need add up the savings and it's ridiculous how much I used to pay. And now that I have gigabit internet speeds with Google Fiber, it's even more redundant.

If I can get live NFL and NBA games, then I'll completely cut the cord. In the mean time, they've got me by the balls.

Wow, thanks ozzy! I've heard about league pass, but always thought you still needed a cable box for it. This is great! Any options for the NFL?

If you want to watch it live, then you'll have to get cable/DirecTV or hear an online radio broadcast. They do have a package for Game Rewind though. But no, no online package to watch games in real time.

Thanks. I've already told the Mrs. about your link. Now if only she can let go of her shows like Survivor, Amazing Race and other Primetime shows.

I recently got cable just for the NFL Red Zone channel and will be disconnecting come January (playoffs are all televised). I didn't mind the extra cost for a few months but I won't pay for it in the off-season. Netflix, OTA, and sports packages (MLB) will suffice. Wish the NFL would have an online package.

The only thing which worries me is that once Cable revenue starts going down then these greedy companies are going to start reducing internet cap and start increasing the price. They will always find some way to supplement their exorbitant fat pay cheques and whooping profit margins.

Crooks. 900 channels of crap so you can watch football? They can have it. Cut the cord 3 years ago, now they can't program commercials full of prescription drugs into my head.

Anyone else think they goosed the load speed on that a bit to drive home the point of how things take time to load (sometimes) online?

they need to realize things change and if they wait to long to change as well they are going to fail.

Comcast blows they implement a 300GB cap and charge extra over that and if they want to only punish cord cutters how about giving us triple play subscribers a break with no cap?

swanlee said,
Comcast blows they implement a 300GB cap and charge extra over that and if they want to only punish cord cutters how about giving us triple play subscribers a break with no cap?

If you were a cord cutter, wouldn't you be only a double play?

I don't really understand why they don't just stream it themselves. In most cases if you're buying premium cable it's probably also your ISP too. If your connection to the internet is via the cable company then what seems like the logical step in the new streaming age is for them to just make apps. If they make like a web app lets say where you log in and can watch any channels you've subscribed to live on any web enabled device. Then instead of subscribing to a bunch of different services (hulu, netflix, amazon prime, etc.) you just watch get the streamed content as part of your cable subscription. Right now HBO Go works sort of like this but it's on a per channel basis. They should just have one app from your cable company that lets you stream any channel you've subscribed to. You get one app that automatically has every channel you've subscribed to and the cable company keeps you and your subscription (content providers would still be the place to go for non-live content).

they don't have to advertise to me, what I want from the cable company is cheaper more flexible packages that don't include trash channels. or better yet, just let me build my own package. I love cable for news and other real time info that it just isn't practical to get on Netflix. But I hate cable's crazy pricing and stupid selection.

I REALLY want to cut my cable off but my wife loves to leave the tv on Food network of HGTV while she's on the computer

Simple, they will jackup the price of Internet connection and limit speed.

Cable provider are also ofthen the Internet provider....

TruckWEB said,
Simple, they will jackup the price of Internet connection and limit speed.

Cable provider are also ofthen the Internet provider....

And lower caps and add new fees that make no sense, etc................

The collusion between MS and the Cable/Satellite company's on Xbone sucks. WTF can't I use OTA digital signal?

Edited by Cyborg_X, Dec 9 2013, 4:39pm :

Too late. I dropped them like 10 years ago. But, I do use them for my internet. Movies and shows are all streamed or via Redbox.

it's either the hole in the wallet or else. just basic tv and internet cost $100 here in Canada. now there are alternative. why not?!

Spicoli said,
What's the alternative?

Just Internet and netlix. Since we can use netflix amongst few accounts, it's more like $2 a month. Plus I also use streaming sites. And all of this is still cheaper than the cheapest cable or satellite package.

stevan said,
Weird, I get all the new tv shows on my Netflix. You don't?

Not without a US proxy, as I'm in Canada. I've actually dropped Netflix and gone back to my IPTV provider now that I have XBOX ONE.

Spicoli said,
So as long as your tastes are only old TV shows you're okay.

Uhm.. I get new shows on Netflix (thank you media hint). I also (with mh) get Hulu. Plus CTV/Global/Spike/Etc all have their shows online by the next day.

They got the fat kid on their from the Godaddy ad. From when he kissed that nice looking blond.
or was he the guy from American Pie, the book of love.

Then they better move with the time. Provide us with local channels, and allow us to select channels to subscribe to, and stop making us pay for an absurd amount for television channels that we don't watch. Also, provide your customers to just receive local channels, and subscriptions on television series that we want to watch.

That won't make any difference since the licensing fees for all those channels doesn't amount to much. Really the big savings is the non-ESPN plans which Verizon already has.

Totally true, but the model for viewing television is moving that way. They are just trying to stick to what brought them here.

It is like the anime scenario here in the U.S. The distributors and licensors didn't go along with the changes of viewing habit of its customers, and when they tried to stick with the same model. It almost killed the North American industry.

Granted, there's more money involve with cable companies, but I think they should start looking into it, and start planning just in case.

I don't really follow. The infrastructure is going to cost the same no matter data you put over it. Less channels won't make a difference and if you fewer people pay for channels, then the Internet cost will have to go up to compensate.

Spicoli said,
I don't really follow. The infrastructure is going to cost the same no matter data you put over it. Less channels won't make a difference and if you fewer people pay for channels, then the Internet cost will have to go up to compensate.
I think you are not giving enough weight to channel licensing.

Unfortunately industry consolidation is making that a bit difficult. Disney sells all of their channels at one price, no breaking out ESPN 1-Ocho, Disney, ABC Family, etc.

Content providers will eventually offer their services via the internet\streaming and get rid of the middle man (cable company) for everything except the pipe.

I cancelled my cable subscription and later sold my TV because I realised that most of what is on there is utter crap. I don't miss it, especially the adverts on channels you're paying to watch. iPlayer, occasional netflix and occasional blinkbox are plenty.

Maybe they should find ways to lower prices. Perhaps create cheaper packages with less channels. Out of the hundreds of channels I get, I maybe watch 10 of them. That's why I'll be migrating to Netflix in the next month or two.

Astra.Xtreme said,
Maybe they should find ways to lower prices. Perhaps create cheaper packages with less channels. Out of the hundreds of channels I get, I maybe watch 10 of them. That's why I'll be migrating to Netflix in the next month or two.

This is, of course, the logical thing that consumers really want. Most only watch a few channels regularly and have no need for any others.

The problem is that the entire system is made up of a handful of vertical monopolies and their goal is NOT to provide you with entertainment content that you will enjoy. Their entire reason for existence is to show you COMMERCIALS for their products, over and over again, so you will remember them when you shop for yourself or others.

From their perspective, the shows we watch are really just filler for the commercials. And "the cheaper the better" is the reason why TV is filled with cheap, scripted "reality" shows.

Those 500 channels are bought and sold as packages to deliver advertisements to you in bulk.

And the companies that own the content production and network distribution are owned in part or entirely by the megacorps that manufacture and sell the products so advertised (re: GE and NBC/Universal, Time Warner and Warner Brothers, etc.).

This is why we pay $100 a month for 500 channels of completely worthless crap so we can watch a handful of channels with things of value to us.

TV used to be FREE, supported by advertising as a pact, the same way much of the Internet is. You used to PAY for advertising free channels like HBO as a premium service. Sadly, we now pay to watch advertising supported channels.

The internet changes the distribution arm of this system entirely (thus breaking the monopolies) and so these megacorps will do anything they can to keep people from breaking their stranglehold on content filler for their corporate commercial advertising channels.

But these companies are only delaying the inevitable.

Yup, that's exactly it, and the cable companies have exploited that system for years, but now cheaper competitors have burst into the scene (Netflix, Hulu, etc) and are drawing away hoards of people. Hundreds of thousands of people are ditching every year, and the only way the cable companies can combat this is to keep raising the prices to make up for the lost customers. At some point, more and more people are going to get fed up and leave. Then viewing numbers will be down and advertisers and the TV stations won't want to pay as much money since there are less viewers, and the whole system will start spiraling down hill.

If the cable companies were smart, they would try to come up with a different strategy before it collapses. The tipping point is going to be when their earnings start to decline and investors bail, making the company value plummet. It's only just begun.

I went 20+ years without cable TV. When I finally DID subscribed, all I got was sponge bob, sports and wrestling channels (and I hate these things so much).

Cut the cord in record time! NO CABLE SUBSCRIPTION could ever outdo network Television shows from 1980 - 1998... EVER!! Cartoons and sitcoms alike! Cut the cord guys'n gals! End the madness!! Keep your cable internet though... it'll come in handy. Things like youtube and daily motion (and other unmentioned sites) have brought back the joy of my old 80s-90s shows... most of'em

I shudder to think of going back to watching cheesy multi-camera setup sitcoms with a laugh track and episodic dramas that end on a freeze-frame of the cast laughing together as everything is always back to normal at the end of each episode.

If your life is so dependent on cable TV that you'd feel a hole without it .. eh, you're unlikely to 'cut the cord'. Some of us have better things to do with our free time, like writing comments on websites

Spicoli said,
How are you getting on the Internet to write those comments?

Can access internet without cable. And at decent speeds too.

Spicoli said,
How are you getting on the Internet to write those comments?

You really don't seem to understand that this story and phrase about "cutting the cord" is about dumping only the cable TV subscription portion of people's bills, NOT cutting the Internet component. They now use the Internet only to access their shows, etc.

Most people don't seem to have these things called "hobbies" or "interests." You give the populous far too much credit.

excalpius said,

You really don't seem to understand that this story and phrase about "cutting the cord" is about dumping only the cable TV subscription portion of people's bills, NOT cutting the Internet component. They now use the Internet only to access their shows, etc.


& at one time the net connection was dependant on the cable connection, but now it isn't.

Disconnected from the TV services and only paying for 100mbit Internet now for about a year. Cable company still calls to offer me TV and phone for cheap prices. Until Internet through power lines/fiber will be available in my city for cheaper, I'm stuck with them because I don't want to get Internet through the phone lines (I don't even have phone land line in my house because I only use mobile phone).

After cutting the TV services was thinking about getting a satellite on the roof, but then decided to skip it. When had TV, only turned it on for the background noise anyway.

The only thing that stops me from cutting the cord is sports. If I could find a legal way to watch NASCAR without cable I would be gone.

mrdeezus said,
The only thing that stops me from cutting the cord is sports. If I could find a legal way to watch NASCAR without cable I would be gone.

Spin a coin.

It will go around and around and around...

I said the same thing about MotoGP, but now they have excellent coverage with live streaming in HD with no commercials on MotoGP.com result being Cord Cut! Sure I pay 100 Euros a year for coverage, but I do that once...for the whole year. Tack on $8 for Netflix and $8 for Hulu Plus and I'm saving $900 a year vs. cable.

mrdeezus said,
The only thing that stops me from cutting the cord is sports. If I could find a legal way to watch NASCAR without cable I would be gone.

Sports Bar.

mrdeezus said,
The only thing that stops me from cutting the cord is sports. If I could find a legal way to watch NASCAR without cable I would be gone.

Same deal for me but for the NFL. I can't watch the games stream because it's not available in Mexico, other than that I would have cut my cable company long time ago.

Kyle K. said,
They are just demonstrating how irrelevant they are becoming.

if you get your internet from them, you're kidding yourself if you think they are irrelevant. good luck moving to dsl and dialup bud.

neonspark said,

if you get your internet from them, you're kidding yourself if you think they are irrelevant. good luck moving to dsl and dialup bud.


I've had DSL for years and since a year or so have cable. Both speeds of 70-80mbit p/s, but my latency and ping were lower on vDSL. Cause I don't share my line with my neighbourhood like you do with cable.

Spicoli said,
Considering they're the main providers of broadband, I don't really see irrelevance. In fact it's just the opposite with more business being done on the Internet.

I think that he means that they are becoming irrelevant as deliverers of TV via cable, not as Internet pipelines.

excalpius said,

I think that he means that they are becoming irrelevant as deliverers of TV via cable, not as Internet pipelines.

This.

neonspark said,

if you get your internet from them, you're kidding yourself if you think they are irrelevant. good luck moving to dsl and dialup bud.

DSL is just as good, if not better than cable, depending on the provider. But yeah, fe, they're definitely not gonna be irrelevant any time soon, although they may well become so in the TV sector.

Yea, I'm well aware of the rationalization attempts for stealing. They still don't work this time. Sorry. You're a thief if you do it. Rationalizing means you know it's stealing yet are trying to convince yourself otherwise.

Spicoli said,
I don't believe stealing is a legitimate alternative.

How about not being able to obtain it legally?

also i pay taxes so i can make 'home copies'.

That's mostly semantically different. Theft and (software) piracy are both methods of obtaining content from content producers without paying for it. Pirating, whether it's a game or a movie or whatever, is still illegal and wrong, however you decide to massage your conscience about it.

Brandon Casteel said,
Pirating, whether it's a game or a movie or whatever, is still illegal and wrong, however you decide to massage your conscience about it.

So is speeding, even if it's just a little bit over. People need to stop treating piracy like it's a crime against humanity and figure out real solutions that make everyone happy.

Brandon Casteel said,
That's mostly semantically different. Theft and (software) piracy are both methods of obtaining content from content producers without paying for it. Pirating, whether it's a game or a movie or whatever, is still illegal and wrong, however you decide to massage your conscience about it.

But what about a Bogo offer. Pay for something get something else for free. That's obtaining something without paying for it.

Spicoli said,
Yea, I'm well aware of the rationalization attempts for stealing. They still don't work this time. Sorry. You're a thief if you do it. Rationalizing means you know it's stealing yet are trying to convince yourself otherwise.

That't the point. He's not stealing, he's committing piracy. There is a difference, and it is the reason why people don't go to prison for theft when they are caught downloading a show. I'm not saying its not wrong, just that its not stealing.

How anyone equates making a copy of something with theft I will never know.