From Cord-Cutting to Cable 2.0: The Evolution of Streaming Looks Just Like Cable TV

The streaming revolution was once celebrated as the future of entertainment, promising viewers the flexibility, variety, and convenience that cable never offered. However, as streaming services evolve, it’s evident that they’re repeating old patterns.

With bundling deals, escalating subscription prices, and a growing reliance on ad-supported content, streaming mirrors the cable model it once created to disrupt.

---

The Fall of Cable: A Slow but Steady Decline

For decades, cable television dominated home entertainment, offering viewers access to hundreds of channels with a single subscription. But the model that once seemed unstoppable has been in a steady decline. By the end of 2024, the number of cable subscribers is expected to drop to 70 million, down from 105 million at its peak in 2010. The decline is driven by several factors: rising costs, poor content quality, and the emergence of streaming platforms offering viewers an escape from the rigid and expensive cable model.

Cable’s fall from grace was further accelerated by the rise of the “cord-cutting” movement, where viewers opted to cancel their cable subscriptions in favor of more affordable and customizable streaming services. However, what was once viewed as a revolution in entertainment is now being revealed as a new version of the old system.

---

The Rise of Streaming: The Cord-Cutting Revolution

When streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Prime Video first emerged, they offered a promise that appealed to a generation disillusioned by the cable model: affordable, on-demand content with no ads. Subscribers were eager to cut the cord and abandon expensive cable bundles in favor of more flexible options. Streaming allowed viewers to choose what they wanted to watch and when, without the burden of paying for channels they didn’t use.

However, the success of these platforms quickly attracted competition from traditional content powerhouses. Disney+, Max, Peacock, Paramount+, and others entered the market, creating a fragmented streaming environment where each service offered exclusive content. What started as an affordable alternative to cable soon became a complex web of multiple subscriptions, as viewers needed to pay for several services to access all the shows and movies they wanted. The low-cost dream of streaming was quickly fading, replaced by an ever-expanding list of platforms to subscribe to.

---

Bundling: The Return of the Cable Model

As streaming services multiplied, so did subscription fatigue. Viewers found that paying for five or six separate streaming services was becoming as costly as their old cable bills. To combat churn, platforms began offering bundles. Disney, for example, offers a package that includes Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+, while other companies are exploring similar deals to keep users in their ecosystems. This strategy mirrors the traditional cable model, where consumers pay for a bundle of channels, regardless of whether they watched them all.

The bundling of streaming services also raises concerns about choice. While viewers initially celebrated the ability to pick and choose which services they subscribed to, bundling threatens to take away that control. As more services join forces to offer bundled packages, consumers may again pay for content they don’t watch, just as they did with cable.

---

Get Instant Access to How Much Streamers Like Netflix, Paramount+, and Disney+ Pay to License Films and Shows.

Worldwide Film & Television Distribution Intelligence

Get unparalleled access to market intelligence reports that draw on financial data and insights from dozens of content distribution deals worldwide between key industry participants, including — Distributors, Producers, MPVDs, and Streaming Exhibitors.

---

Rising Costs: Streaming Is No Longer Cheap

When Netflix launched its streaming service in 2007, it cost just $7.99 monthly. Fast forward to 2024, and that price has risen to $15.49 for the standard plan in the U.S., with other platforms following suit. The cost of streaming services has steadily increased over the years as companies invest more heavily in original content to attract subscribers and keep up with the competition. Meanwhile, platforms have introduced ad-supported tiers to offer a cheaper alternative, but even those come at a price.

The introduction of ad-supported models on platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and Max significantly departs from the ad-free experience, initially setting streaming apart from cable. The rise of advertising in streaming suggests that the industry is adopting more of the practices that made cable unappealing to many viewers. Now, subscribers face a choice: pay more for an ad-free experience or accept advertisements to save money, much like they did with cable.

---

FAST Channels: A Cable Revival in Streaming Form

Another factor contributing to the convergence of streaming and cable is the rise of free ad-supported streaming television (FAST) channels like Pluto TV, Tubi, and The Roku Channel. These services offer viewers access to live and on-demand content for free, supported by ads, much like traditional cable television. As subscription costs rise, more viewers are turning to FAST platforms as a way to access entertainment without adding to their monthly bills.

The appeal of FAST channels lies in their simplicity: viewers can tune in to watch a variety of programming without paying for a subscription, just like in the days of broadcast television. These platforms also offer familiar content, often older shows and films, which appeals to viewers nostalgic for of programming they grew up with. As FAST channels grow in popularity, the line between streaming and traditional TV continues to blur.

---

The Future of Streaming Follows a Familiar Path

The streaming industry’s rapid evolution has revealed a troubling truth: the more things change, the more they stay the same. What began as a disruptive force in the entertainment industry now mirrors the system it sought to replace. Bundling, rising costs, and the resurgence of ad-supported content have transformed streaming into a new version of cable television.

This shift raises essential questions about the future of streaming. Will viewers continue to accept higher prices and increasingly fragmented content? Or will they turn to alternative models, such as FAST channels, to escape the escalating costs of subscription-based streaming? As the industry grapples with these challenges, it’s clear that the revolution once promised by streaming has stalled and is regressing toward the old cable ways.

---

FilmTake Away: The Great Streaming Regression

The promise of streaming was liberation—from high costs, bundled packages, and advertisements. But as the industry continues to evolve, it is becoming clear that the future of streaming may look a lot like the past. The bundling of services, rising subscription costs, and the growing prevalence of ads all point to a future where streaming is indistinguishable from the cable model it was supposed to replace.

In many ways, streaming has come full circle. What began as a rebellion against cable has ended up recreating its structure, albeit in a different form. The freedom once offered by on-demand platforms gives way to the familiar restrictions of bundling and price hikes, while ad-supported content increasingly dominates the landscape.

As streaming continues to mature, viewers may soon realize that they’ve traded one form of cable for another. The question is no longer whether streaming will overtake cable but how long it will take before it looks the same.

---