Bleeding subscribers, cable companies force their way into streaming
arstechnica.com
Companies like Charter brought about the streaming industry they now want to join.

The cable industry has been in a nose-dive for years. Comcast’s Q1 2024 earnings report showed its cable business losing 487,000 subscribers. The cable giant ended 2022 with 16,142,000 subscribers; in January, it had 13,600,000.

Charter, the only US cable company bigger than Comcast, is rapidly losing pay-TV subscribers, too. In its Q1 2024 earnings report, Charter reported losing 405,000 subscribers, including business accounts. It ended 2022 with 15,147,000 subscribers; at the end of March, it had 13,717,000.

And, like Comcast, Charter is looking to streaming bundles to keep its pay-TV business alive and to compete with the likes of YouTube TV and Hulu With Live TV.

It’s a curious time as cable TV providers scramble to be part of an industry created in reaction to business practices that many customers viewed as anti-consumer. Meanwhile, the streaming industry is adopting some of these same practices, like commercials and incessant price hikes, to establish profitability. And some smaller streaming players say it’s nearly impossible to compete as the streaming industry’s top players are taking form and, in some cases, collaborating.

But after decades of discouraging many subscribers with few alternatives, it will be hard for former or current cable customers to view firms like Comcast and Charter as trustworthy competitive streaming providers.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    6 months ago

    Sticking to the old model of “pay for cable TV and watch commercials” is never going to work, be it cable or streaming. I don’t think I’m in the minority here, either; I’ve heard this sentiment from plenty of others.

    As much as wish I could agree with you, the previous ad-free streaming services now almost all offering an ad-supported tier disagrees with your conclusion. Price conscious consumers are choosing ad-supported subscriptions in large enough numbers for streaming services to offer them profitably. I’m okay with this. Not everyone has the money that I do, but I’ll almost always choose the ad-free version of a streaming channel instead of the ad-supported.

    One of the few exceptions to that is Hulu. I don’t watch enough on Hulu to make it worth $18/month, and the ad-supported version can be had for $1/month-$2/month.

    • corroded@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      6 months ago

      It’s certainly possible (and probably even likely) that you’re correct. Most of the people I’ve spoken to about that are somewhat tech-inclined and probably much more likely to be using an adblocker than the average person.

      So many years of ad-free media has just ruined me on ad-supported content. I sat down in front of a public TV tuned to a cable channel the other day, and it was absolutely unwatchable.

    • SabataEnglish
      3·
      6 months ago

      I can’t subscribe to anything because I don’t trust them to not try to stuff ads down my throat in a few months.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        Its a monthly subscription, and if they sell you a no-ad product you’d have strong grounds to ask for a refund for that month. Otherwise simply cancel the month you see ads.

        • SabataEnglish
          7·
          6 months ago

          Thats a lot more work than a torrent.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            If you’re torrenting, then there’s no risk of watching ads from what you download, which was your primary argument for not subbing. If that’s the case then there’s no risk to subscribing to the service to pay for the content, and simply never log in.