Will streaming services take over?

[wompo]

I was just looking to watch some European soccer but it is only available on streaming services like ESPN+ or peacock or paramount+. The regular ESPN, NBC, CBS channels you get even though they have lots of channels are just showing old event reruns or stuff like World Chase tag that is currently on ESPN2. I seems like in the last year especially all these main players are moving more prime content to their streaming services.

Seems like cable companies and streaming services like YouTube TV would be very upset that they are paying the rights fees for these channels and yet are getting less and less.

Does anyone hear think that in the next five years or so everyone will just have to buy many streaming services like peacock and paramount and ESPN+ … and cable companies will mainly be just internet providers?

 

[rk911]

if and when i hope someone develops a way to bring them altogether in one place with a DVR. we record everything and watch later.

 

[Luvtoride]

Wompo, absolutely not. The Cable companies have too much clout to allow that to happen.
They will continue to wield the power to bring (at a cost) every type of programming into your home at a competitive price.

Today, in the NY/NJ market we CANNOT watch local Hockey and Basketball games (Knicks, Rangers, Devils) because Comcast and MSG were unable to reach terms under a new contract. There is no other streaming service to supplement these channels. In some areas, Comcast is the ONLY cable service available so we’re stuck.

As the “cut the cord” thread here suggests you could cobble together streaming services to replace some of cables offerings but not everything.

 

[Midpack]

I dumped cable/satellite in 2018, have saved over $2K, and I'll probably never have to go back. While I don't think streaming will outright replace cable/satellite in "5 years" as the OP asked, I do think streaming will continue to erode and eventually kill off cable/satellite. The appearance of ESPN+, Paramount+, Disney+, Discovery+, Peacock is clear evidence the content providers believe they'd better establish themselves in streaming as they watch their cable/satellite subscription revenues decline year after year. And that's without including the serious damage Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, YTTV, Apple TV and others have done/are doing. YouTube (not YTTV) is another source of content apart from live broadcasts - it's surprising how many live shows appear in segments on YouTube very shortly after live broadcasts.

We are entering an Ala carte phase unfortunately, whether or not the tide turns back to bundling I don't know, but somehow I doubt it for the foreseeable future.

But you'd probably like an analysts opinion instead, links below.

It is clear that content, live sports especially, will largely drive winners and losers between cable, satellite and streaming - but that tide may have turned. Yes I know some people don't care about sports (but some will disagree and post anyway), but live sports is still the biggest factor holding cord cutters back. ESPN has faced a decline as the non-sports people ditch cable/satellite lowering revenues for all content providers who have resisted streaming (see ESPN+).

Yes, Streaming TV Really Can (Eventually) Replace Cable

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/09/streaming-tv-really-can-eventually-replace-cable/
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/05/06/cable-tv-lost-another-15-million-customers-in-q1/
https://www.axios.com/espn-streamin...ney-a01c04d2-32e1-417b-a3a4-2c4e31dae1b6.html

 

[Car-Guy]

Right now I have DirecTV along with more streaming services than I care to count. (all the streaming content I get is free)... I can see me moving towards all streaming (and paying for their premium services in some cases) as technology/features improve (e.g. like DVR and a common interface would be nice). Because DirecTV customer service/support is so bad, I might start making that move sooner rather than later.

 

[wompo]

I know cable companies have tremendous control now but if content providers keep moving prime content to their private streaming like ESPN +, peacock, paramount the balance of power might shift.

I’m starting to think that in a few years we might look back at cable providers with fondness as we have many streaming services that together cost more than the old cable providers did to get the same content.

 

[Midpack]

I know cable companies have tremendous control now but if content providers keep moving prime content to their private streaming like ESPN +, peacock, paramount the balance of power might shift.

I’m starting to think that in a few years we might look back at cable providers with fondness as we have many streaming services that together cost more than the old cable providers did to get the same content.

"Cable companies" are acquiring content, Comcast already owns NBCUniversal and they're promoting Peacock. Why would they do that if they wanted to keep us all locked into cable? Disney owns ABC and ESPN, and they've spun off ESPN+. Just two examples.

 

[Surewhitey]

We cord cut back in 2006 (in my old-man hillbilly voice) & we typically move around the streaming universe, rarely having more than 2 active. HULU is our go-to and we bounce around Paramount +, Discovery, Disney + and Prime (although Prime more so for purchases & music.

We also have local channels over the air... For other markets and some pay channels, we also use ustvgo.tv...check it out.

 

[easysurfer]

I think streaming vs cable today are very blurred. Much like how to you get phone service.

 

[cathy63]

... if content providers keep moving prime content to their private streaming like ESPN +, peacock, paramount...

I think this is a false assumption. Name some content that's only avaialble on ESPN+, Peacock or Paramount that makes it worth subscribing to one of those channels?

ESPN+ doesn't actually carry an ESPN feed. If you want the live games that are being shown on ESPN, you need a cable or streaming package that has the real ESPN channel. E+ might be a good deal for some college sports fans or fans of niche sports or if you like their documentaries or talk shows. There are other ways to watch most of their sports programming though.

Peacock - If they have something that I can't see on my regular NBC station via cable or an antenna, they are doing a lousy job of communicating that to me.

Paramount - this one might get us to subscribe for a month or two at some future time. I want to see Picard S2 when it drops, DH watched SEAL Team on CBS, which is now streaming only; plus he has some interest in Mayor of Kingstown and 1883. We'll wait for the full seasons to be available though.

We do subscribe to MLB Network, but if they keep putting our team's games on Peacock, Facebook and Youtube while blacking them out on their own platform, that's going to drive us away. One of the things we're paying for is not having to figure out how to watch each game.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Probably ONLY when reliable cost-effective high-speed internet is available from services OTHER than the cable company. All other internet services we have tried have been too slow for our requirements. Currently we have a very reliable 600 bps. internet from our cable company. We have a combination of hard wired and wireless devices. Our home is hard wired for internet.

 

[Dalmore]

if and when i hope someone develops a way to bring them altogether in one place with a DVR. we record everything and watch later.

I think that streaming services will DEFINITELY take over. The media giants want and need it to happen. Back in 1984 the courts ruled that using a VCR recording to skip commercials doesn't violate copyright. This continues to be the case with DVRs and continues to hurt the Networks revenue streams. Because streaming services don't "record", the provider can charge you extra for commercial free content, or force you to sit through commercials. Hulu offers a virtual DVR where you can still fast forward through commercials, but if you use it, you may find that many shows "fail to record" - especially WB network content. You can mark them to record, but they don't. This is because those shows don't want you to be able to skip their commercials. You have to either watch them live or stream them later, with commercials intact.

But I am with you, I hate all the different streaming service interfaces and really wish there was a single-pane view of all the shows I want to watch and if there are new episodes. I was an early adopter of TIVO back in 1999. It was a game changer. Its interface wasn't perfect, but it definitely made me feel in control of my view habits, and I would love to have that feeling again. The streaming interfaces have gotten better over the last few years, but they still have a long way to go. The latest Firestick at least makes it easy to switch between services.

 

[Midpack]

I think that streaming services will DEFINITELY take over. The media giants want and need it to happen. Back in 1984 the courts ruled that using a VCR recording to skip commercials doesn't violate copyright. This continues to be the case with DVRs and continues to hurt the Networks revenue streams. Because streaming services don't "record", the provider can charge you extra for commercial free content, or force you to sit through commercials. Hulu offers a virtual DVR where you can still fast forward through commercials, but if you use it, you may find that many shows "fail to record" - especially WB network content. You can mark them to record, but they don't. This is because those shows don't want you to be able to skip their commercials. You have to either watch them live or stream them later, with commercials intact.

+1. I would add:

• The infrastructure greatly favors streaming vs cable or satellite. Cable and satellite have to deal with hardware, set top boxes, DVRs, dishes, cabling, etc. and maintain a substantial fleet of installers to service them - that's a considerable expense. Whereas streaming only requires the user to go buy a streaming device and subscribe, there's no need for fleets of installers. In a world where most of us already have/need internet service even without TV, that requirement is already met.
• Because of the above, streaming is almost always without contract, you can go month to month if you want. Cable and satellite still require a 1 or 2 year contract as far as I know. Being able to binge watch stuff on Disney, cancel and binge watch Netflix, cancel and binge watch Amazon Prime has become a viable cost saving strategy for many customers.

 

[JoeWras]

I dumped cable/satellite in 2018, have saved over $2K, and I'll probably never have to go back. While I don't think streaming will outright replace cable/satellite in "5 years" as the OP asked, I do think streaming will continue to erode and eventually kill off cable/satellite. The appearance of ESPN+, Paramount+, Disney+, Discovery+, Peacock is clear evidence the content providers believe they'd better establish themselves in streaming as they watch their cable/satellite subscription revenues decline year after year. And that's without including the serious damage Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, YTTV, Apple TV and others have done/are doing.

We are entering an Ala carte phase unfortunately, whether or not the tide turns back to bundling I don't know, but somehow I doubt it for the foreseeable future. ...

It is clear that content, live sports especially, will largely drive winners and losers between cable, satellite and streaming - but that tide may have turned. Yes I know some people don't care about sports (but some will disagree and post anyway), but live sports is still the biggest factor holding cord cutters back. ESPN has faced a decline as the non-sports people ditch cable/satellite lowering revenues for all content providers who have resisted streaming (see ESPN+).

I'm going to quote Midpack here because I agree with pretty much everything he says. Here's the funny thing, a few years ago I was very much in disagreement with him. Like in the Bible, Saul first persecuted, then became the biggest evangelist. I'm kind of like that. I'm a cord cutting evangelist now.

Even though we have quite a few services, the cost is reasonable compared to cable. We actually have more than we could ever watch, from every genre except sports.

Ah... sports. Yep, that's the kicker. ESPN+ is "fake" in some regards because it isn't ESPN. (Conversely, discovery+ has most cable Discovery content, sometimes even 12 hours earlier than broadcast time.) Sure ESPN+ have exclusive content, but most of it is the non-major sports. The one exception is they have a wide range of NHL offerings, but NHL is the least of the "major" sports and is frequently viewed less than some minor sports.

What I do with sports is this:
- Watch what is on broadcast TV. This includes my local NFL team for most games.
- Watch occasional stuff on the free streamers, or my $0.99 cent Hulu package which throws in an NHL game every week.
- Listen to my local NHL team on the radio/stream (for free), then watch the highlights minutes later on the free NHL stream.
- Swallow my vomit and subscribe to DirectTV-Stream for a month or three to watch my NHL team during the playoffs. YTTV and Hulu+Live used to be an option, but they bailed.

If Bally Sports ever gets their act together and goes ala cart, I might consider subscribing for a few more months a year. But so far, Sinclair is digging their own grave by slowly caving in on themselves with the exclusive cable contracts only (and DirectTV-Stream).

The future of ESPN (not plus) hangs on the balance right now. Midpack's chart shows where it is going. They will not be God Of Sports forever at this rate.

 

[GTFan]

I was an early adopter of TIVO back in 1999. It was a game changer. Its interface wasn't perfect, but it definitely made me feel in control of my view habits, and I would love to have that feeling again. The streaming interfaces have gotten better over the last few years, but they still have a long way to go. The latest Firestick at least makes it easy to switch between services.

I've been using Tivos for over 10 years now on Comcast and have no plans to give that up - the Tivo viewing experience is still better than streaming and as a big sports fan there's no streaming replacement that works as well as cable for me. The cost of cable+HSI here is roughly the same as HSI+YTTV or equivalent, too (I'm paying $135/mo. all-in for 600mb+cable).

We do have Netflix, Prime, Youtube etc. as add-ons but I have no desire to replace cable as long as Comcast keeps giving me the new customer promos every couple of years.

 

[JoeWras]

I think streaming vs cable today are very blurred. Much like how to you get phone service.

Great observation.

- A dwindling number of people still have POTs land lines. For TV, the analogy will be the cable-only people of the future.

- A certain number of people have land lines that are over internet (Ooma, etc.). For TV, the analogy are those using YTTV, Hulu+Live, Fubo. It is almost just like cable, but a bit different.

- A lot of people have no land line, just mobile. For TV, the analogy is those who do nothing but stream.

Over the last decade, we saw the proportions of phone service methodology radically change and tilt to mobile only. Still, there are people out there who hang on to a landline. I think we are in the middle of a tilt to streaming with TV, still, cable won't go away right away.

It will cause disruption. Phone service was completely disrupted. One can sign up for Ooma with an equivalent 1980 price of 1$ per month. A landline in 1980 typically cost about $30 if one made only a few long distance calls per month. (Source: https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf)

Cable TV is undergoing such a disruption right now. How it ultimately ends is going to be interesting to watch play out.

 

[brett]

Other than news, streaming is about all we watch these days.

Have not had a land line telephone for over 10 years. Prior to that we, for quite a number of years, we did not use our land line provider for long distance calls. We used an alternate supplier because the rates were about 80 percent less!

Cable TV in our area are pricing themselves out of the market. They are trying to bundle with internet and cell service in order to remain competitive and retain their base.

People are more tech savvy and can access data about competing offers quickly and easily.

Our daughter called us in late December with suggestion about how we could cut our cable bill and increase our internet service. She had just done so. And what to say. Lots of competition in our market at the moment.

Called the provided and said we wanted to cancel...as per daughter's script. Twenty minutes later our monthly costs had been reduced from $180. to $82 month and our internet service was enhanced.

 

[Midpack]

I can't imagine what will reverse the long standing trend toward streaming. As cable/satellite continue to lose subscribers their fixed costs increase, and they're forced to increase prices (after teaser rates expire).

https://nocable.org/learn/cable-tv-cord-cutting-statistics/

 

[Chuckanut]

I have never subscribed to cable. I use free TV via my antenna, three streaming services (Netflix and Prime and 99¢ Hulu). I will drop Hulu when the 99 cent deal is over. It's barely worth the 99 cents to me.

I also use the public library's collection of DVDs. Remember those? I am currently watching several series not available to me via streaming or antenna, all courtesy of the DVDs from the library. One must be patient, the wait for the more popular series can be long. I did all of The Game of Thrones that way.

There is something about the entire cable business and the content providers that just rubs me the wrong way. With the exception of Netflix, Prime and 99¢ Hulu, they can keep their content and other services and I will keep my money.

Win Win or No Deal.

 

[Hamlet]

Probably ONLY when reliable cost-effective high-speed internet is available from services OTHER than the cable company. All other internet services we have tried have been too slow for our requirements. Currently we have a very reliable 600 bps. internet from our cable company. We have a combination of hard wired and wireless devices. Our home is hard wired for internet.

T-mobile’s 5G home internet does the trick for me. You need to be in an area where they’ve got it built out, but I really don’t notice much difference in speeds from the cable I used to have. I just did a Speedtest and got 600 down/60 up. It varies a lot by time of day and area, but for us it is never so slow than we can’t have a couple of streams going without issue.

The PITA of dealing with the cable company constantly adding fees and jacking up rates is gone. We pay $50/month flat, all fees and taxes included.

 

[Sojourner]

Because DirecTV customer service/support is so bad, I might start making that move sooner rather than later.

As a longtime DirecTV subscriber, this has not been my experience. I have always found their customer support to be quite helpful. Over the course of 20+ years, I can count on one hand the number of times that DTV customer support has been frustrating or lacking in some way. I pretty much always get the help I need and feel well taken care of as a customer.

Having said all that, I am likely to drop DTV and go "all streaming" within the next 12 months or so, simply because my DTV viewing has dwindled down to almost nothing. Also, they have publicly stated that their current satellite fleet will not be upgraded (i.e., no more satellites will be launched), so the writing is on the wall for DirecTV EOL in the fairly near future.

 

[tmm99]

I think cable companies tried to milk us for too much for too long. I'm saving so much money now that I dropped cable years ago. Do you remember the song by Bruce Springsteen years ago "57 channels and nothing on"? Cable was like that for me. I subscribe to several streaming channels now, but what I can now watch is more customized to what I want to watch and I'm paying far less. What's not to like?

I don't watch sports so I can't add anything to that area of service.

 

[Sue J]

T-mobile’s 5G home internet does the trick for me. You need to be in an area where they’ve got it built out, but I really don’t notice much difference in speeds from the cable I used to have. I just did a Speedtest and got 600 down/60 up. It varies a lot by time of day and area, but for us it is never so slow than we can’t have a couple of streams going without issue.

The PITA of dealing with the cable company constantly adding fees and jacking up rates is gone. We pay $50/month flat, all fees and taxes included.

The past few days I've been researching T-Mobile internet vs upgrading our Spectrum cable internet.

We've had cable internet since it was introduced here, I think it was 1997. Been happy with it and it's $50/mo. Last week we had an outage and the tech who came and fixed it (old filter on line at the pole prevented an area wide update) checked our speed (20 down 10 up), etc and told us we were still on a legacy plan. He recommended upgrading to the new service, much faster and our modem could handle it. The speed has never bothered me but DH would like something faster. He's home all the time and would use it and enjoy it.

So I called to do this and they said our cost would be $75/mo for 200 down and 10 up. $25/mo more isn't going to be a problem but I've been researching other alternatives before we commit to the new plan.

A few months ago we got a T-mobile plan for our cell phones. It's the Magenta unlimited for over age 55 for $70/mo for 2 lines. It's been great and was very handy when our internet was down for a few days last week while we waited for the tech appt. We turned on our Personal HotSpots and had an easy time using all our computers and devices. DH was impressed with the speed.

So now that we are evaluating our current cable internet, we are also considering changing to T-Mobile Internet as a possible option. One hesitation is that we would lose our current email addresses if we leave Spectrum. But we could handle that if the change is worth it.

Give me your thoughts....

 

[athena53]

It is clear that content, live sports especially, will largely drive winners and losers between cable, satellite and streaming - but that tide may have turned. Yes I know some people don't care about sports (but some will disagree and post anyway), but live sports is still the biggest factor holding cord cutters back.

I agree. I dumped cable in 2016 after DH died. He really enjoyed sports on TV and I have zero interest. I have Netflix only and, while I enjoyed some of the programs on HGTV, Lifetime and NatGeo, I find plenty to like on Netflix so I've found "substitutes". There is no real substitute for live streaming of of a particular game.

 

[JoeWras]

Do you remember the song by Bruce Springsteen years ago "57 channels and nothing on"? Cable was like that for me.

One of the few Springsteen songs I like. I like to quote the song and change the words a bit to "157 channels and nothing on."