Only 64% of Households Have a Live Pay-TV Service

  • WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!

    If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!

    While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!

    Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!

    CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE

Bruce

Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
14,274
18,313
The percentage of TV households that have a live pay-TV service (via cable, satellite, Telco, or Internet-delivered vMVPD) is down from 78% in 2018, 86% in 2013, and 87% in 2008.

I have been posting this for awhile now, as households grow (131 Million today vs 126 million five years ago), yet the number/percentage of those canceling Live TV is accelerating/increasing.

42% of renters do not have a pay-TV service – compared to 33% of homeowners

This one surprised me since so many multi-dwellings include some sort of service

Among those that never had a pay-TV service, 63% are ages 18-34, compared to 24% of former pay-TV subscribers

The cord nevers everyone, shows as the over 50 crowd dies off, no one to replace them in the Paid Live TV world, not like they will one day turn 50 and decide, oh I want the Paid Live TV bundle.

My kids are 33 and 28, they both grew up in a Paid Live TV Household, since being on their own, never have had, do not seem to miss it, they just do not think about it.

The mean age of traditional pay-TV subscribers is 49.3 – compared to 42.5 among non-subscribers, and 40.8 with vMVPD-only

Show that the ages of those cancelling is increasing, no longer is it just the under 40 years old that are doing it.

 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
Correct title:

"Only 42% of Households have gone streaming only, most consumers remain committed to traditional linear television".
 
Correct title:

"Only 42% of Households have gone streaming only, most consumers remain committed to traditional linear television".
Committed?

They are leaving at an average of 2 million a quarter, by the end of next year, more people will not have a Live TV Service then do, your hopes and dreams does not change that.

But time for more simple math.

Out of 131 Million Households

55 Million have Cable /Satellite, that is 42% ( just 7 years ago, was 80% with less households).

14 Million has Live TV via Streaming, that is 11%

But together, 69 Million (out of 131 million) is a tad over 53%

Those without Paid Live TV, 61 Million , roughly 47%

Now, if the rate of losses stays the same, that is another 12 million gone from Live TV by the end of 2024

So, 57 Million with Live TV, that is a tad under 45%

73 Million without, that is a tad above 55%

Prove me wrong, use actual numbers instead of everyone wants the bundle, because by the end of next year, that definitely will not be true.
 
Years ago, broadcast TV was free. The only people who had cable TV were those in unfavorable OTA reception areas and, rarely, those who wanted ad-free TV. Today, pretty much everyone pays for ad-riddled broadcast TV surcharges and cable provider ripoffs. Oh, for the old days with a TV antenna on every roof, a powerful transmitter within reception distance, and 5-6 channels of rubbish to watch!
 
To be realistic, it's gotten expensive. And as far as the yewts are concerned, their attention is elsewhere and not on on live TV.

I still like live TV, especially sports, but instead of carrying a service all year round, I'm now only carrying a service (Hulu Live TV) from October-early June (football, hockey and indoor lacrosse season). And the first 3 months of that is at $20 off per month with the Hulu promo.

I've found I can live with free FAST TV (Pluto, Roku channels, others) and an OTA for locals during the summer and early Fall. Saving a nice chunk of money, keeping the TV bill manageable with a specific service and using the savings to salt away.

I think those of us who like live TV and find it becoming expensive year-round will target usage around personal interests and when those interests aren't there, dropping services to save the money.
 
Years ago, broadcast TV was free. The only people who had cable TV were those in unfavorable OTA reception areas and, rarely, those who wanted ad-free TV. Today, pretty much everyone pays for ad-riddled broadcast TV surcharges and cable provider ripoffs. Oh, for the old days with a TV antenna on every roof, a powerful transmitter within reception distance, and 5-6 channels of rubbish to watch!
I have my over the air antenna hooked up and I get all my locals free and can record them on my Tablo or my Tv Anywhere dvr for Sling tv. Paying $12.00 a month for free channels you could get ota like this used to piss me off.
 
To be realistic, it's gotten expensive. And as far as the yewts are concerned, their attention is elsewhere and not on on live TV.
With less and less new content, plus you can get that same content plus the streaming exclusives for a much less expensive price, it is a no brainer.
I still like live TV, especially sports, but instead of carrying a service all year round, I'm now only carrying a service (Hulu Live TV) from October-early June (football, hockey and indoor lacrosse season). And the first 3 months of that is at $20 off per month with the Hulu promo.
My plan is September-January for College Football ( full streaming of that is 2 years away).

NHL I get with ESPN+ since Center Ice is included, so I can watch the Red Wings from back home.
I've found I can live with free FAST TV (Pluto, Roku channels, others) and an OTA for locals during the summer and early Fall. Saving a nice chunk of money, keeping the TV bill manageable with a specific service and using the savings to salt away.
I never watch those, so much new content available, no time for reruns.

But since the majority of content on Paid Live TV is reruns, yet those same reruns ( and more) are on the FAST Services for free, also makes it a no brainer.
I think those of us who like live TV and find it becoming expensive year-round will target usage around personal interests and when those interests aren't there, dropping services to save the money.
It is not that expensive if you pay attention to what content you want-

For example, once YTTV is gone, these are at the highest tier, no commercials, 4K, etc

Hulu Bundle with Disney/ESPN+-$25 (all Disney and former Fox Channels Content, ABC, FX, Nat Geo, etc)
Paramount w/Showtime-$11 ( all viacom content)
Peacock-$11 (all NBC/Universal channels content)
MAX-$20 (all Warner channels content, HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, etc)

So $67 for the majority of what is on Live TV plus the exclusives, basically $6 less then YTTV without Showtime/HBO.

The only extra is Netflix, at $20, which brings it to $87, still less then the Entertainment Pack from DirecTV without HBO, Showtime and Netflix.

Plus you still can get Live Feeds
CBS
NBC
Hallmark ( yech)
Showtime
CNN
a lot of sports, both from ESPN+ (NFL, MLB, NHL, College Football/Basketball) / Warner (MLB, Hockey and Basketball)
 
It is not that expensive if you pay attention to what content you want-

For example, once YTTV is gone, these are at the highest tier, no commercials, 4K, etc

Hulu Bundle with Disney/ESPN+-$25 (all Disney and former Fox Channels Content, ABC, FX, Nat Geo, etc)
Paramount w/Showtime-$11 ( all viacom content)
Peacock-$11 (all NBC/Universal channels content)
MAX-$20 (all Warner channels content, HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, etc)

So $67 for the majority of what is on Live TV plus the exclusives, basically $6 less then YTTV without Showtime/HBO.

The only extra is Netflix, at $20, which brings it to $87, still less then the Entertainment Pack from DirecTV without HBO, Showtime and Netflix.

Plus you still can get Live Feeds
CBS
NBC
Hallmark ( yech)
Showtime
CNN
a lot of sports, both from ESPN+ (NFL, MLB, NHL, College Football/Basketball) / Warner (MLB, Hockey and Basketball)
Just my perspective, but this makes streaming look a lot more like traditional cable than it used to. My expectation is price increases over the next few years will make commecial-free (where possible) streaming will end up costing as much as having cable with all the equipment and other fees. Reading is looking more and more attractive all the time.
 
Just my perspective, but this makes streaming look a lot more like traditional cable than it used to.
I agree, but I was just focusing on the price, how it is much less for tons more content.


My expectation is price increases over the next few years will make commecial-free (where possible) streaming will end up costing as much as having cable with all the equipment and other fees.
As long as Cable/Satellite keeps raising the price ( now twice a year, Comcast, Charter and DirecTV all did it this year), there should be a big difference.

For example, DirecTV’s total of two increases was $10-20 this year, depending on package and RSN fees, streaming average increases for each service is usually $1-2 a year, add all the streaming services increases together , Cable/Satellite’s are still equal to more.

Reading is looking more and more attractive all the time.
Since I grew up in the 70/80’s, used to do a lot of reading , was a latch key child, had to do something because there was nothing on Television back then, except for the weekends.