Study: Cord Cutting Speeding Up, 1/4 of Homes Without Cable A new study by Research firm Gfk notes that one quarter of US homes now go happily about their day without subscribing to traditional cable. According to GfK’s 2016 Ownership and Trend Report, 17% of US TV households now rely on broadcast-only, up from 15% back in 2015. Another 6% say they only use broadband streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, or YouTube -- and do not have traditional broadcast or pay TV reception at all; a number that's up from 4% a year ago.

As with similar studies, the firm's findings indicate that cord cutting is a small but accelerating phenomenon, and the days of pretending that an entire segment of frustrated consumers aren't real -- is no longer an option. Not too surprisingly, those numbers get worse as the demographic being studied gets younger. According to the study, 22% of 18-24 year olds use broadcast-only reception, and 13% solely watch video via streaming services. Overall, 38% of 18-to-34 households rely on some kind of alternative TV reception or video source, versus 25% of all homes. “The fact that a statistically significant increase in broadcast-only reception occurred over just one year may be further proof that the cord-cutting/cord-never phenomenon is accelerating,” says GfK's David Tice. “If you include homes that have no TVs at all – about 3% of all households – then less than three quarters (73%) of US homes continue to have pay TV service, with the attendant implications for all stakeholders – not just the pay TV services themselves, but also networks, content providers, and advertisers.” GfK found that broadcast-only reception is more common in homes making less than $30,000 annually at 26%, versus 17% among all TV homes. But the firm also tells Variety that higher-income homes are also increasingly choosing to avoid overly-expensive and bloated traditional cable bundles. “It’s people who can have pay-TV but choose not to,” Tice says. “It’s more of a lifestyle choice than an economic one.” “It’s people who can have pay-TV but choose not to,” Tice says. “It’s more of a lifestyle choice than an economic one.”







News Jump Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 44 comments



karlmarx

join:2006-09-18

Moscow, ID 22 recommendations karlmarx Member What has changed? There are a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head why someone would cut the cord.

You would think that cost is the obvious choice.

I have an old bill from 1996, and my cable bill which had 10mb/10mb and 40 channels was $45.00 a month (about $70.00 in 2016 dollars). Today, you can get the same 10mb/10mb and 40 channels for about $60.00 a month. So, it's probably NOT cost. Granted, I STILL only watch at most 10 channels, but back in 1996, I watched 25% of the channels I paid for. To watch those same 10 channels today at comcast would cost me more like $100.00 a month, so cost is a part of it.



So, if you can get the same speeds/channels from 20 years ago for the same price, pure COST is not the reason. Granted, the cost to PROVIDE those 40 channels and 10mb is only 10% of what it costs in 1996, so maybe the 'take it in the bunghole' feeling you get with your cable bill has something to do with it.



Maybe it's commercials. History shows that in 1996, the average 30 minute tv show was 24 minutes. Today, it's less than 19 minutes. Thats almost 40% MORE commercials per hour. Given the fact that today people watch MORE TV every day than they did 20 years ago, you would expect the subscription rate would have soared, but the exact opposite happened. Less people pay for cable TV, yet TV viewing habits are not that different.

I would argue, that the overload of commercials is going to spell doom for traditional TV. Think about it, if you actually spend 1 hour watching a 1 hour TV show on broadcast, you are wasting 1/3rd of your life. If you watch the same 1 hour show on a streaming service, you are saving over 20 minutes, EVERY SINGLE HOUR. And if there is one universal constant in life, is that you have a limited time. Watching commercials is the equivalent of sitting in traffic. It serves ZERO purpose in your life.

Therefore, I can only conclude the rise of streaming is really NOT based mainly on cost (I agree cost is a part of it, but not the MAJOR part), it's the commercials. Every minute of your life has a value. Unless you are working for less than minimum wage, you are far better off paying for a commercial free version of your entertainment than you are watching commercials. People don't do the math like I did, but most people get a sense, once they HAVE watched a commercial free streaming service, that they are using their time more effectively.

To summarize, for the fat cats at the cable company.. Cost is only part of the reason you are losing subscribers. Sure, raping the customer every month gives you lots of money, but as soon as the customer has an option NOT to be raped, and gets the benefit of having 1/3rd more free time by streaming TV, well fat cats, you better come up with a NEW plan, one with (and I REMEMBER this quote from the 70's when I first watched cable TV), NO COMMERCIALS

NoOneCares

join:2000-09-16

Portland, OR 9 recommendations NoOneCares Member No stinking cable/satelite in our house We cut the cord back in 2011 and haven't missed it since. Don't even watch local channels.

Just Netflix, Acorn, Amazon is it.