No.  I see no reason to when 80% of the content I would watch is available for free and legally on the web.

No, and I don't intend to get it. There are only like 5 channels I'd pay to watch (all sports ESPN1/2, VS., SPEED, and maybe something else) but I'm not willing to pay ~$60/month just for cable.

I currently use an antenna (for the major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and FOX) and then use Netflix, Hulu and any other website for online TV (stations like CBS and USA network don't have their shows on Hulu). The only thing I miss out on is sports (not much sense watching them over a week later) which like I said I'm not willing to pay that much for.

I have satellite, but I suppose they're more or less the same idea, just with different technology.

Satellite, can't get cable in my area.

And by al lthe channels he means like 60 channels not like in the USA where its like "over 9000".

I have cable but most of the shows i watch end up on hulu so i wouldn't care if we got rid of it.

yes I missed that part out thanks mate haha.

I do, but only because it was cheaper for some reason to have cable than not. I had just cable internet service, but then after about a couple years they told me it would actually be 10 dollars cheaper if I got a package with basic cable as well. So this is the first time in my life I have cable TV, I don't watch it very much though, not much of a TV person.

Nope.  Cut the cable cord and went sateliite..its much cheapier over here in the states...they try to get you with the bundle pk...DON'T DO IT....

If it was time warner, they always run a 12mo deal if you bundle and then rob you blind when you forget the price deal is gone.