Cable Channel Subscribers Grew For the First Time In 8 Years Last Quarter

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Monday, research analyst MoffettNathanson released its "Cord-Cutting Monitor Q3 2025: Signs of Life?" report. It found that the pay TV operators, including cable companies, satellite companies, and virtual multichannel video programming distributors (vMVPDs) like YouTube TV and Fubo, added 303,000 net subscribers in Q3 2025. According to the report, "There are more linear video subscribers now than there were three months ago. That's the first time we've been able to say that since 2017."

In Q3 2017, MoffettNathanson reported that pay TV gained 318,000 net new subscribers. But since then, the industry's subscriber count has been declining, with 1,045,000 customers in Q2 2025, as depicted in the graph [here]. The world's largest vMVPD by subscriber count, YouTube TV, claimed 8 million subscribers in February 2024; some analysts estimate that number is now at 9.4 million. In its report, MoffettNathanson estimated that YouTube TV added 750,000 subscribers in Q3 2025, compared to 1 million in Q3 2024.

Traditional pay TV companies also contributed to the industry's unexpected growth by bundling its services with streaming subscriptions. Charter Communications offers bundles with nine streaming services, including Disney+, Hulu, and HBO Max. In Q3 2024, it saw net attrition of 294,000 customers, compared to about 70,000 in Q3 2025. Other cable companies have made similar moves. Comcast, for example, launched a streaming bundle with Netflix, Peacock, and Apple TV in May 2024. For Q3 2025, Comcast reported its best pay TV subscriber count in almost five years, which was a net loss of 257,000 customers. "Traditional pay TV -- i.e. cable and satellite -- still declined quarter over quarter in Q3, but again, by less," noted SteamTV Insider. "The [year-over-year] rate of attrition dropped from -12.4 percent to -10.2 percent over 12 months."

MoffettNathanson added: "Yes, Q3 saw a positive net add number for [pay TV for] the first time in eight years, but that positive result came in the year's seasonally strongest quarter. We're not yet close to seeing the category actually grow again..."

Package deals?

[Cpt_Kirks]

Some ISP's will bundle cable along with internet at a lower starting price.

Re:

[Rujiel]

Yes, that's the key phrase there, "bundling its services with streaming subscriptions"

Cable ISPs for years have been rationalizing subsidizing their shrinking cable business model by hiking internet prices and offering cable in a cheaper bundled services

I don't know how the hell it became normal for decent broadband to be over $80 a month without any promotions added on, but here we are

Re:

[ksw_92]

Outside of sports and news, there's little reason to watch linear programming anymore. Personally, I like that my cable provider bundles most of the streamers that I like to access as it actually lowers the cost vs. individual subscriptions.

You also get to ditch the cable box for a bring-your-own-Roku and have some DVR functionality (rewind and somtimes fast-forward...nice for watching live football) built into the cable "app".

I think that there's a growing market for providers that can bundle streamers in

Re:

[RUs1729]

Outside of sports and news, there's little reason to watch linear programming anymore.

News? Do you still need for somebody to read the news to you? Many of us have not watched any news programs for many years.

Re:

[ksw_92]

News? Do you still need for somebody to read the news to you? Many of us have not watched any news programs for many years.

Not even local news? I get the attitude but there are some good news programs out there, still. Of course, you may think you already know everything so what's the point of digesting any news programs, right?

Re:

[Local ID10T]

For several years, I had Comcast cable TV because it was $10 less per month to have Internet + TV than just Internet (and Comcast waived the cap if you had both, but enforced the cap if you had Internet only.)

This was several years ago. Now there are other providers that service my home, and it is cheaper to just have internet. (a LOT cheaper)

Re:

[Hadlock]

We might have cable tv, if that was the cheapest way to get internet in our house. I literally do not know, only one device is plugged into a coax cable in our entire house and that's the modem. I wouldn't even know where to look on my tv to see if they still come with coax connectors on the back, it hangs on the wall and there's a power plug, that's it.

Re:

[anoncoward69]

I would likely guess this. And it's probably not even cable over RF channels with a cable box, but like in my case they offered a discount on my spectrum internet service when bundled with their streaming tv option. Likely guess is they bundle the streaming TV and RF over coax TV counts into the same bucket. To make numbers look better for the investors.

It is football season

[jrnvk]

And that is the only reason they gained. Things will be back to reality in Q1.

Re:

[alvinrod]

I don't follow the NFL that much, but don't they have some kind of subscription service where you can watch all of the games without having cable or satellite? MLB has had that for a while and if you just want to watch one team it may not be the best value, but it's great for anyone that wants to watch a variety of games on demand.

If there's a football game I really want to watch I can just go to a friend's place or a sports bar. Both are arguably better viewing experiences as well.

Re:

[AsylumWraith]

Not certain about the NFL service, but MLB.tv blacks out the local teams' games, I think to keep the local affiliates happy. So for example, if you live in NY and want to watch the Yankees or the Mets, you're out of luck when it comes to the streaming service.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL streaming service is the same.

Horsewhip sales are up

[sinij]

There is no way anyone but a non-techie boomer would get a cable when you can stream or pirate.

Shitquivalence

[abulafia]

I think this may be a signal that streaming services have achieved satisfaction-parity with cable.

Both deliver mostly similar service, both endlessly churn content, raise prices and spam viewers with more ads endlessly.

There was a window when streaming was actually a better experience than piracy. But they've fixed that problem, and bittorrent is once again the least aggravating way to get your couch potato fix. It isn't about the money, it is about steadily making the service worse than it was when the subscriber agreed to pay for it.

Did it have anything to do

[wakeboarder]

with the ESPN\Disney blackout with youtube TV?

Re:

[supremebob]

Probably. YouTube has been jacking up the prices of their service to around $85 a month. At that point, the introductory prices that Comcast offers for a cable/internet/mobile combo plan are looking better in comparison.

Subscription Mandate w/Luxury Apartment Complexes

[AnalogDiehard]

I call BS. Nowhere is there any mention that cable TV subscription mandates with luxury apartment complexes may have contributed to that "growth". Many young new hires in large cities - such as Orlando FL - live in luxury apartment complexes with all sorts of amenities. They're all over Orlando. However the lease mandates that the tenant subscribe to cable TV. Even if you don't want it, you have pony out $$$ to subscribe to cable channels you will never watch.

That is a dealkiller for me for any lease.

Fortunately not long I landed in town I found the house I wanted and my offer was accepted, so I never had to sign any lease and with a private home I am free to reject any utility I do not want.

Re:

[PleaseThink]

You can reject sewer and water? I can cancel any utilities except those.

Old school TV wasn't all bad.

[Petersko]

Growing up if I wanted to see a show I liked, it was planned into my week. We had three channels in English, one in French. I remember the day we got cable. The guy came in and hooked it up, and I switched the TV from 13 to 8 to finish watching Gilligan's Island.

Know what was great about this inflexibility? I was bound to a small amount of time. I couldn't lose a weekend binge watching seasons of stuff. I lost time to entertainment in 30 or 60 minute chunks a few times a week, plus some sports.

The introduction of the DVR was when things started to go south. I could schedule series recordings for stuff I didn't know if I wanted to watch. I could watch a show while recording others simultaneously. I was effectively filling large swaths of my future time. Now there's no end of immediately available material, and if I wanted to I could fill every waking moment with streaming. It isn't healthy.

If we suddenly had to go back to a handful of channels with scheduled broadcasts, I struggle to think how we would be anything but better for it.

Good point

[kackle]

I'm not being nostalgic, but another thing I realized was that, back when, everybody watched the same things and could discuss (dare I say "bond" over) them.

Today, the first question isn't "Did you see X last night?!", but rather "Do have $PAID_TV_SERVICE?"

Not Completely Satisfied With Just Streaming

[rally2xs]

Switched 2 years ago. I do miss cable. DVR is one thing, internet via wire was another for a while until the power company also got into the ISP business and provided fiber.

Streaming has myriad options that are harder to manage than the offerings on cable. You can generally find whatever you're looking for, from the World Series of Poker to the next NASCAR or Indycar race with the cable. Not everything is on streaming. I couldn't find the Coca Cola 600 run after the Indy 500 in the evening last May