# Only 40% of New Cord Cutters subscribe to live streaming



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I was somewhat surprised to read that only 40% of new "cord cutters" subscribe to live streaming. It makes some sense that "cord nevers" would ignore the likes of PlayStation Vue, Sling TV, or Hulu's live streaming. And maybe "new" cord cutters are just of the cord nevers generations who just had to try live streaming.

The linked article speculates:

This shift to on-demand only TV likely explains why Disney launched Disney+ and AT&T's launch of HBO Max. The question now is how far will content companies go to reach customers who have no interest in live TV streaming services.​
But does this mean something to both live daytime tv talk shows and sports? What I don't know.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

I'll speak from only my experiences, and those around me, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

I feel what some people are realizing, as they've migrated away from their traditional linear services, is that they can live without channels/shows that they believed they couldn't walk the Earth without. When I left D* for YTTV, I had to give up NFL Network. I'm an avid football fan, and a NFLST subscriber, so how could I ever live without it? Turns out, I can. I rearranged the channels in my YTTV guide to have locals, sports, and a few channels like TNT/TBS that carry NBA games at the top, then the rest at the bottom of the guide. I don't even get past TNT/TBS in the guide, anymore. Yes, there are a few games that are exclusives on NFLN, but I can always find a nearby sports bar and take in those broadcasts. Other channels that focus on syndicated programs, movies, etc...why do I need to watch them? I've got that content available elsewhere, and without commercials.

And, there's the taboo topic on this board of people accessing content via rogue streams/Reddit/etc. We don't discuss it, but I've got several friends who opt for this now to view live sports. They have no concern to pay for anything that includes ESPN, as long as this is available. I'm not saying this is a core issue, but it's a factor that shouldn't be ignored when talking about these types of reports.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

I've assisted a number of people with the technical aspects of cord cutting, and probably about half of them have not subscribed to any pay live services as far as I know. Instead, they have OTA for the locals and found that the free ad supported services offered plenty of content to keep them occupied. I do know of a few cord cutters though, that are using a friend or relative's account info to activate live apps from NBC, ABC, Fox, and other "cable" channels. I'm sure as well there are a few that have found, or will find, their way to the grey or dark side apps at some point.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

phrelin said:


> But does this mean something to both live daytime tv talk shows and sports? What I don't know.


Live daytime tv talk shows is a niche audience. Non-working post-menopausal women.

But as to sports, yes, it means something.

It means that not everybody needs sports in their TV packages. Millions of homes have no one in them who cares about sports. This, remains, the nature "cord cutter" (cord switcher) market. You can dump sports and save a lot of money. For those involved in sports, previously "everybody" had traditional linear TV and "everybody" paid big $$ for it, even if they never watched. Now only those who just have to have sports will pay. Meaning far less $$ coming in. Poor Lebron. My heart breaks.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

phrelin said:


> I was somewhat surprised to read that only 40% of new "cord cutters" subscribe to live streaming. It makes some sense that "cord nevers" would ignore the likes of PlayStation Vue, Sling TV, or Hulu's live streaming. And maybe "new" cord cutters are just of the cord nevers generations who just had to try live streaming.
> 
> The linked article speculates:
> 
> ...


I'm not surprised. What surprises me is the amount of people that have to have live TV. I don't watch sports "live", haven't done that since I discovered VCRs. Can't imagine sitting thru a 3-4 hour baseball game without the ability to skip through commercials. I don't see sports of any kind being adversely affected by this.

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Rich said:


> I'm not surprised. What surprises me is the amount of people that have to have live TV. I don't watch sports "live", haven't done that since I discovered VCRs. Can't imagine sitting thru a 3-4 hour baseball game without the ability to skip through commercials. I don't see sports of any kind being adversely affected by this.
> 
> Rich


What surprises me are the number of people who use the term "Cord Cutter" when in reality it should be "Cord Swapping".


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> I'm not surprised. What surprises me is the amount of people that have to have live TV. I don't watch sports "live", haven't done that since I discovered VCRs. Can't imagine sitting thru a 3-4 hour baseball game without the ability to skip through commercials. I don't see sports of any kind being adversely affected by this.
> 
> Rich


Maybe sports isn't as important as we all have assumed over the years. Dish has lost lots of sports fairly recently yet they gained net subs between Dish and Sling without them.

Assuming that isn't just a quirk it sends a pretty strong message to sports providers that they may have finally gotten way too greedy.

As to daytime TV, well it pretty much sucks all around. Talk shows of varying quality, reruns of the same show on multiple channels and soaps pretty much describes the daily fare. I find myself using free ad-supported streamers during the day since TV watching then isn't as 'active' as it is in the evening. IOW, somethings on, I may or may not be paying much attention, so ads aren't a big deal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> What surprises me are the number of people who use the term "Cord Cutter" when in reality it should be "Cord Swapping".


That bothers me too. And if I ever get up the nerve to drop D* I will be doing just that, cord swapping. I know the difference.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Maybe sports isn't as important as we all have assumed over the years. Dish has lost lots of sports fairly recently yet they gained net subs between Dish and Sling without them.
> 
> Assuming that isn't just a quirk it sends a pretty strong message to sports providers that they may have finally gotten way too greedy.
> 
> ...


Yup, MLB is leaning towards getting rid of the "no locals" thing and I expect the NFL to follow suit. They seem to see the writing on the wall. Not gonna happen tomorrow but I think it will happen.

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Rich said:


> MysteryMan said:
> 
> 
> > What surprises me are the number of people who use the term "Cord Cutter" when in reality it should be "Cord Swapping".
> ...


In the early part of this decade I rejected the "cord" terms "cutter" and "never", also. But today more and more folks, particularly GenZs and Millennials, rely on devices with no cord attached accessing the internet for video viewing through a "phone company" wireless signal or a wifi signal. Obviously, at some point down the line there is a cord feeding whatever generates the signal. But the viewer's device is cordless and the viewer may be entitled to either the label "cord cutter" or "cord never" as no cord is directly involved.

Today in many homes even though the signal comes to a modem/router through a wire, in those homes all viewing devices use wifi. Also many of those folks are reverting to OTA live/recorded TV viewing in addition to their wireless/wifi streaming. More and more in terms of "cords" it is like it was in 1952 when we watched TV coming across the airways by radio signal and listened to radio.

Of course, in my case the Amazon Fire TV Cube with Alexa and the Roku is firmly wired to the internet and the TV's. And the Dish Wally is wired to the TV's and the dishes.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

I'm sitting here watching the news with the Locast app on my Firestick that's connected to the WiFi from my AT&T cell hotspot. No cords involved except for the power supplies.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Maybe sports isn't as important as we all have assumed over the years. Dish has lost lots of sports fairly recently yet they gained net subs between Dish and Sling without them.


Sports, in terms of event viewing, is still a significant part of the industry. Search up the most watched programs of the year (individual event viewing, not overall series), and the top 20, even stretching into the top 50, is dominated by sporting events. More people are just finding ways to watch these items without needing the services they did previously.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

IMHO, if you pay anything for TV, be it to a cable co, a DBS co, or an internet streamer, you are not a cord cutter. 

A true cord cutter, has OTA TV, if available; free apps like Pluto and STIRR; and YouTube , etc.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SamC said:


> IMHO, if you pay anything for TV, be it to a cable co, a DBS co, or an internet streamer, you are not a cord cutter.
> 
> A true cord cutter, has OTA TV, if available; free apps like Pluto and STIRR; and YouTube , etc.


You might be surprised to find out that many, maybe even most, people don't agree with your definition. 

BTW, 'free' apps like the ones you mention aren't free at all, you pay for them by watching their ads, and since all streaming apps are actually free to get and run, it is just how they are 'paid' to allow you to view shows on them. IOW, either with incessant ads or an actual cash payment.

As I've been fiddling around during the day I find that my cable is used less and less because of lack of anything really interesting. I'm almost convinced that when I decide to cancel cable/sat TV that I'll use a combination of OTA and non-cable/sat replacement type services. Ie; Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, CBS All Access, Apple's TV+ and Disney for pay services and a slew of ad-supported services. I don't need/want to follow a show in near realtime since I don't discuss shows at work since I'm retired.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

phrelin said:


> In the early part of this decade I rejected the "cord" terms "cutter" and "never", also. But today more and more folks, particularly GenZs and Millennials, rely on devices with no cord attached accessing the internet for video viewing through a "phone company" wireless signal or a wifi signal. Obviously, at some point down the line there is a cord feeding whatever generates the signal. But the viewer's device is cordless and the viewer may be entitled to either the label "cord cutter" or "cord never" as no cord is directly involved.
> 
> Today in many homes even though the signal comes to a modem/router through a wire, in those homes all viewing devices use wifi. Also many of those folks are reverting to OTA live/recorded TV viewing in addition to their wireless/wifi streaming. More and more in terms of "cords" it is like it was in 1952 when we watched TV coming across the airways by radio signal and listened to radio.
> 
> Of course, in my case the Amazon Fire TV Cube with Alexa and the Roku is firmly wired to the internet and the TV's. And the Dish Wally is wired to the TV's and the dishes.


"Cord Cutting" is just a term that initially made sense. Pretty good choice of words, here we are arguing about it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> You might be surprised to find out that many, maybe even most, people don't agree with your definition.
> 
> BTW, 'free' apps like the ones you mention aren't free at all, you pay for them by watching their ads, and since all streaming apps are actually free to get and run, it is just how they are 'paid' to allow you to view shows on them. IOW, either with incessant ads or an actual cash payment.
> 
> ...


None of those are true cable replacement services. You are close to using the same methods I have been using for the past few years. You have one thing going for you that I don't have, you don't care about sports. I'd drop D* in a heartbeat if I didn't care so much about sports.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SamC said:


> IMHO, if you pay anything for TV, be it to a cable co, a DBS co, or an internet streamer, you are not a cord cutter.
> 
> A true cord cutter, has OTA TV, if available; free apps like Pluto and STIRR; and YouTube , etc.


I've never run into a "free" app. You either watch commercials or you pay the price to eliminate them.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> None of those are true cable replacement services. You are close to using the same methods I have been using for the past few years. You have one thing going for you that I don't have, you don't care about sports. I'd drop D* in a heartbeat if I didn't care so much about sports.
> 
> Rich


Correct, none of them are, and that's the point. I found that you don't really need a cable replacement service depending on what you want to watch. These days I worry less about watching new live (delayed) TV and more about being able to watch something I enjoy.

I fully understand about sports even though I'm a pretty fickle fan!! I don't have anything against sports but don't care enough to worry about not getting it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Correct, none of them are, and that's the point. I found that you don't really need a cable replacement service depending on what you want to watch. These days I worry less about watching new live (delayed) TV and more about being able to watch something I enjoy.
> 
> I fully understand about sports even though I'm a pretty fickle fan!! I don't have anything against sports but don't care enough to worry about not getting it.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Makes me happy to see you doing this and coming to the same conclusion I did.

Rich


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Rich said:


> I've never run into a "free" app. You either watch commercials or you pay the price to eliminate them.


That is just silly. If you do not pay cash money for something, it is free. OTA TV is free TV. YouTube is free. Pluto is free. Watching commercials for something is not paying for something.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SamC said:


> That is just silly. If you do not pay cash money for something, it is free. OTA TV is free TV. YouTube is free. Pluto is free. Watching commercials for something is not paying for something.


I've always thought "free" meant unencumbered. By anything. Especially commercials. In this context. OTA isn't an "app".

Rich


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SamC said:


> IMHO, if you pay anything for TV, be it to a cable co, a DBS co, or an internet streamer, you are not a cord cutter.
> 
> A true cord cutter, has OTA TV, if available; free apps like Pluto and STIRR; and YouTube , etc.


Real cord cutters don't use electricity...


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

SamC said:


> That is just silly. If you do not pay cash money for something, it is free. OTA TV is free TV. YouTube is free. Pluto is free. Watching commercials for something is not paying for something.


The issue for me is not whether I pay someone else. In terms of "pay" it is the advertiser who makes payment to the content provider if the content provider does not charge me.

Rather the issue is what it costs me. Sitting through commercials cost me time. As far as I am concerned my time is worth something, particularly now that we have the internet providing options to make money at any time day or night. I figure that "something" converts to 2¢ a second.

On a typical big 4 network one hour show, the commercials time works out to about $20. Three hours of shows from broadcast networks viewed ad free on one night covers Netflix, Hulu, CBS All Access, PBS, Acorn TV, HBO.

For me, time is a limited valuable commodity.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> "Cord Cutting" is just a term that initially made sense. Pretty good choice of words, here we are arguing about it.


The trouble was that few cord cutters actually cut the cord. They became what we now know as "cord shavers" or "cord swappers". Perhaps the "cord" should be linked to a commitment instead of technology. But even that can be confusing. (I can't remember the last time I had a programming commitment to any TV provider. I have been month to month since I got cable in the 1980s.)


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> The trouble was that few cord cutters actually cut the cord. They became what we now know as "cord shavers" or "cord swappers". Perhaps the "cord" should be linked to a commitment instead of technology. But even that can be confusing. (I can't remember the last time I had a programming commitment to any TV provider. I have been month to month since I got cable in the 1980s.)


In a world where the English language has been battered to the point where it's hard to understand anything why are we arguing about this? I think we all understand what's meant by "cord cutting". Yes, it's damn near impossible to actually watch TV without some kind of "cord" being used but that's not the point. Pretty sure upper management at ATT knows what cord cutting means. Can anybody suggest a better term? A more precise term?

Rich


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

I have two friends. Both the same age, both married, both no kids. 

Neither has “linear TV”. One has Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV +, the Disney/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle, and lots more. The other has an antenna, Pluto, and STIRR, and watches what little sports he watches at a bar. 

Now one term simply cannot cover both situations. One is a “cord swapper”, paying almost as much for TV as he would for linear TV; the other is a cord cutter.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

How much someone pays to watch streaming doesn’t define cord cutting. Cord cutting is generally used for those that don’t have linear TV via cable/sat services.

But feel free to label them however you want to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> How much someone pays to watch streaming doesn't define cord cutting. Cord cutting is generally used for those that don't have linear TV via cable/sat services.
> 
> But feel free to label them however you want to.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Well said! "Cord Cutter" is, indeed, a generality and should be treated as such. Looking at what you wrote makes me wonder if we can truly call folks that sub to cable replacement services "cord cutters". Those folks do have a "linear TV service" but not from cable or sat. More confusion.

Rich


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

People that replace cable/satellite with streaming services = Streamers. I'm a Streamer. Can everyone agree with that?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

B. Shoe said:


> People that replace cable/satellite with streaming services = Streamers. I'm a Streamer. Can everyone agree with that?


Probably not! 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Probably not!


I could tell everyone on this board that I have a million dollars to hand out, and there would be an 83-page debate on whether it's best to accept it in $5 or $10 bills.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Maybe it's time to revert to calling all of us here at *DBS*Talk "viewers" as we all view video regardless of how it streams to our "devices". After all, before the internet was around validating everyone's opinions about everything Americans "viewed" via OTA, a satellite, or cable TV, and the latter was the only one with a cable that went beyond the property line. Adding the internet via another cable or wireless really should not have brought up the term "cord." I never called anything a "cord" but the power cord which I never referred to as a "cable."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe most people see "cord cutting" as leaving subscription MVPD. "Cord swapping" would be those that move to a vMVPD. The blur I have observed seems to be based on providing other people's content. Drop DIRECTV and sign up for HBO Now and most would say "cord cutter". But sign up for AT&T Now or Sling TV and less people would say "cord cutter". The vMVPDs sell other people's channels.

I'd ignore Netflix having the rights to stream other people's movies and tv shows. If I understand correctly they are listing individual movies and shows. Not channels.

I'm not ready to say linear is cord and no linear is cord cut. It is too fine of a distinction.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

We use the mute button a lot when watching TV live. We often pause TV so that we can FF through the commercials when we start watching again. The mute button was the first one to stop working out on my old remote control.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

B. Shoe said:


> People that replace cable/satellite with streaming services = Streamers. I'm a Streamer. Can everyone agree with that?


LOL...I think the only thing we could all agree on here is that we can't agree on anything...


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> LOL...I think the only thing we could all agree on here is that we can't agree on anything...


I disagree!


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

makaiguy said:


> I disagree!


LOL...too funny!


----------

