U.S. Cable TV Subscriptions Fall To Lowest Total Since 1992
from the cord-definitively-cut dept
Despite years of cable industry executives claiming that cord cutting (ditching traditional cable TV) was either a fiction or a fad, that wound up being… not true. Executive claims that cord cutting was finally slowing down and would soon effectively stop? Also, surprisingly, not true.
When I’d write about the cord cutting trend I’d get snotty missives from cable and broadcast PR people genuinely annoyed that I was pointing out an obvious trend. Needless to say, most of those folks aren’t all that vocal any more.
Variety notes that U.S. cable, satellite and internet TV providers saw their biggest drop in paying customers in TV history during the first quarter of 2023. Collectively, they lost 2.3 million subscribers in just one quarter; either to streaming alternatives, old fashioned antennas, or services like TikTok or YouTube. All told, there haven’t been this few pay TV subscribers since 1992:
With the Q1 decline, total pay-TV penetration of occupied U.S. households (including for internet services like YouTube TV and Hulu) dropped to 58.5% — its lowest point since 1992, two years before DirecTV launched as a new rival to cable TV, according to Moffett’s calculations. As of the end of Q1, U.S. pay-TV services had 75.5 million customers, down nearly 7% on an annual basis.
And again, the Wall Street analysts who track the sector for a living say there’s really no evidence this trend is going to slow down anytime soon:
“The picture is not one that suggests that a plateau in the rate of decline is coming any time soon,” Moffett wrote.
Those same analysts say we’re now entering a “doom cycle” for traditional pay TV services. Is that bad? It sounds bad.
Of course as the traditional cable TV industry dies off, the streaming industry that replaced it is going through its own growing pains. Many of which directly reflect many of the same problems inherent in the cable sector they disrupted. Mindless consolidation and endless prices hikes driven by Wall Street’s demand quarterly returns at any cost have many streaming giants making some very similar errors as they attempt to scale, please investors, and maintain customer loyalty simultaneously.
Streaming seems intent on becoming the industry it disrupted because the same underlying mechanisms are still at play. Still, with the lower costs, improved bundle flexibility, better customer service, increased competition, and ability to cancel service without getting a migraine, the overall shift from traditional cable to streaming has still been a net improvement for end users from the Comcast-dominated days of old.
Filed Under: cable tv, cord cutting, doom cycle, streaming
Comments on “U.S. Cable TV Subscriptions Fall To Lowest Total Since 1992”
How to know if you have a monopoly?
Bleed customers like crazy and yet revenue continues to go up…
'What do you mean the Titanic is going down, it's never been better!'
When I’d write about the cord cutting trend I’d get snotty missives from cable and broadcast PR people genuinely annoyed that I was pointing out an obvious trend. Needless to say, most of those folks aren’t all that vocal any more.
I can understand where they’re coming from, after all when it’s your job to boast about the emperor’s fashion sense it’s terribly rude to have someone come up and point out that he seems to have ‘misplaced’ a few pieces of clothing before heading out.
I just canceled mine. It doesn’t meet my needs. I tried to get any package that doesn’t have me funding Fox News, and the only one of those didn’t even have C-Span so I had to restore my package just to watch the January 6 hearings. Then, last August President Biden gave a speech on the dangers of right wing extremism and not one network carried it. My interest in football has also waned. So buh bye.
Re:
… What ?? — you cancelled an expensive service that did not meet your needs and that funded stuff you really disliked…. wish I could do that with the US Congress
Re:
One pirate site in China would meet your needs
7000 channels and $30 a month fir an unlimited number of devices to connect
The only problem is that they are Bitcoin only now
That is to protect users in Japan, Italy, Britain and the Emirates where viewing the service is illegal.
They are in China so very unlikely to be shutbdiwn very soon by the copyright cartels
Using bitcoins there is no bank trail that can be followed so users cannot be found
And when I bypass the filters at mickey D’s to watch the ball game I am not breaking any laws
Neither the cfaa or California law makes it a crime to bypass their filters.
Byiassing firewalls to access bloxked sites is not a felony
Left hand to right hand
How many of these “cord cutters” still have the same cable, but are paying for Internet rather than or in addition to CATV? Given the feeble state of broadband competition in the US, I’d guess most of them.
Re:
It’s possible, but it’s always worth mentioning that price is not the only reason, or even the main reason, many people cut the cord. Removing the requirement to bundle all the stuff you want to access without having to pay hidden charges to support things you don’t want at any cost is enough of an incentive to many.
Re: Re:
Watch on your own schedule also makes streaming service more attractive.
monthly ISP fees
If you’re paying the same ISP for internet access that you’re paying for cable (most are), don’t worry – they’ll (the ISPs) will simply raise monthly fees to make up for their lack of Cable TV income. Just like big oil will invest in (buy up) the dominant Green Energy companies.
-water always flows to the lowest point
-kids always know how to have fun
-man always seeks a way to make a profit
At least with streaming people have the choice of not paying for fox news or for channels they have no interest in watching
Re:
If said ‘people’ are buying “My Pillows”, then they’re still paying for Fox News
Re: Re:
I doubt there’s much crossover between people buying those pillows and people actively avoiding Fox News.
But, if you want something less political, try ESPN. People might end up paying Disney for other things, but they’ll be paying for things they want to access, not channels of sports they never watch.
Crocodile tears
My cable provider owns a steaming service (the one with the bird). They try getting me to use it by arbitrarily removing the shows I signed up for, from their normal cable service.
Contracts are for me to abide by, not them.
Their streaming service does not allow recording, fast forward, pausing, etc. all features which I pay a lot for, even if I can’t use them when I want to anymore.
It’s like the old days of TV. You want to watch a show, you get the commercials. You need a bathroom break, too bad.
At the same time they buy exclusive rights to desirable content, such as English Premier League soccer, the NFL, etc.
Meanwhile, they moan about being replaced by streaming services?
Puhleeze!
I agree with that other Anonymous Coward, “they’ll (the ISPs) will simply raise monthly fees to make up for their lack of Cable TV income.”
In today’s business world, there are only two types of creatures: predators and prey. We are the prey.
They get money anyway
Since my local cable cable company is the least bad ISP they get paid regardless. They also have usage caps on Internet only accounts so after getting 3 overage charges in a row I added basic cable because it was the same as an overage charge but I got something of value. Not much value since I still only use streaming but now I can Chrome Cast YouTube from my phone to the TV
Crd cutters, or deaths?
How many of the cord cutters are older generations dying off and being replaced by the “cord-nevers”?
Re:
I think it would still count as “cord-cutting” if a decedent’s child or executor cancels the service, which I imagine is common. Though I guess in some cases the cable company stops getting money, or has their charges rejected by a credit card company, and cancels it themselves; obviously that should not count.
Statistics like this all seem like bullshit, because they almost never define their terms. Like “customer”—if one’s splitting a subscription with one’s spouse, are they one customer or two? (Or maybe it depends which names are on the account?) And, as you imply, there’s a big difference between “almost nobody born since the year 2000 will ever subscribe” (somehow we don’t see stories like this bemoaning the loss of landline telephone subscribers) and “existing customers are canceling for reasons other than death or relocation”.
Re: Re:
There’s a reason for that. Where we used to have one phone account per household, we have one per person with mobile phones. AT&T and Verizon are doing just fine even after losing a bunch of landline subscribers. The others generally make their money from businesses and DSL services.
Re: Re: Re:
And the cable companies are doing just fine after losing a bunch of TV subscribers, by selling internet service (probably for more money than the average TV service of the 1990s). There’s no reason to think this will change any time soon. DSL certainly isn’t competing.