Broadcast vs. cable vs. streaming: The future of television is a confusing maze for viewers

What is the future of television? That question is a one-way ticket down a rabbit hole of potential outcomes. It’s sort of like asking: "Will artificial intelligence be good for humanity? Can democracy survive? Why is 'Suits' so popular on Netflix five years after it ended?"

TV used to be relatively simple. Fifty years ago, everyone watched the same shows on the same three networks, ABC, NBC and CBS, by default. The delivery system was the TV set itself and an electrical outlet for the plug. There were some great offerings like “Roots” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and countless flops like “BJ and the Bear” (B.J. was a trucker; the Bear was his pet chimpanzee).

Then came the rise of pay TV, particularly cable, which helped encourage the advent of prestige TV, led by HBO in the late 1990s and early 2000s with classics like “The Sopranos,” “The Wire” and “Deadwood.” Next was Peak TV, the explosion of programming sparked by the rise of Netflix and other streaming sites. It peaked in 2022 with 600 scripted shows and last year returned to the manageable number of … checking notes here … 516?

Today, the vibe to describe the state of couch potatoing feels closer to Chaos TV. The seismic shifts in television platforms over the past decade are pointing toward a brave new world of viewing, but what will it be? Will there be better days for consumers in terms of cost and user-friendliness? Or are we facing a broadcast vs. cable vs. streaming  cage match to the death?

Whatever happens, being a TV  fan has become more stressful. “Even if you’re not subscribing to a bunch of streaming services, television requires more work than it used to,” says Robert Thompson, founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture and a professor at Syracuse University in New York.

An increase in choices has led to some good things. There are more opportunities for underrepresented demographic groups, though TV still has a long way to go in that area.

In the meantime, the sheer number of choices can be draining.  Choosing one of hundreds of options ”always gives you that bothersome idea that you made the wrong choice and there’s something else better on that you could have watched instead,” as Thompson says.

So can the financial toll of all those streaming subscriptions. Jeff Wray, a filmmaker, professor of film studies and the Tinnick Chair in the humanities at Michigan State University’s College of Arts and Letters, says, “I probably have five different things I pay for because I feel, ‘I can’t miss this!,'” he says. “That delivery system is taking advantage of an audience, particularly American audiences (that) are used to having more, more, more choices.”

At one point, streaming was touted as being an inexpensive option. But that was before the streaming market began to resemble an overcrowded cereal aisle at the grocery store.

“Now, people are paying for so many streaming channels that it’s just as much, if not more, than what they were paying in their cable bill. That’s an issue,” says Catherine Cuckovich, an assistant professor at Wayne State University’s Mike Ilitch School of Business, who has 20 years of marketing and advertising experience in the private sector.

If television is a battlefield, broadcast and cable seem to be losing the long war. Broadcast networks are bleeding viewership totals. To trim their budgets, they are making fewer pilots and filling their prime-time slots with game shows and reality competitions. The outlook is almost as depressing for cable.  Millions of pay-TV subscribers are cutting the cord every year. Instead of offering as many new shows as they used to, cable networks are filling their schedules with mini-binges of old favorites, whether it’s “Law & Order: SVU” on USA or “Parks and Recreation” on Comedy Central.

For their long-term survival, both broadcast and cable news have the cash cow of live sports. But even that is vulnerable. Streaming sites are buying the exclusive rights to certain games and making deals for simultaneous showings with cable networks. If you were among those surprised that last season’s University of Michigan football opener would be streamed exclusively on Peacock, you’ve seen that future.   

Still, Netflix, Disney+ and the rest of the streaming gang have their own problems. After being hailed for revolutionizing television and pumping out content as if there was no tomorrow, streaming sites also are losing subscribers and being pressured by Wall Street to turn a profit as soon as possible, not somewhere down the road.  Major players are cracking down on password sharing, laying off employees, slowing their spending sprees and offering lower-cost subscriptions that come with ads — the same old-timey model that over-the-airwaves broadcast TV uses.

So what will happen to TV in the long run?  “Nobody knows,” says Cuckovich frankly.  The best anyone can do is offer predictions, and most of those coming from the CEOs of various delivery services are self-serving.  

There could be more deals struck between cable and streaming for bundles. Free streaming, or ad-supported sites like Amazon Freevee or Pluto TV, could become the next big thing.  At least one free show, Freevee’s “Jury Duty,”  has become as much of a pop-culture sensation as its paid streaming peers, earning Emmy nominations last year for outstanding comedy series, writing, casting and best supporting actor for James Marsden.

Netflix, the biggest of the stream teams, could swallow up virtually the entire marketplace. Or Disney+, which is fighting Netflix for world eyeballs domination, eventually could come out on top, especially now that Disney owns all of Hulu . Maybe the two will stay locked in a Godzilla vs. Mothra battle. The merger talks involving Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount have ended, but buzz persists that AppleTV+ and Paramount+ may team up, or that Peacock and Paramount+ could strike a bundling deal.

TV fans, of course, just want an outcome that’s reasonably priced and gives easy access to everything, everywhere, all at once. Cable subscribers long have dreamed about curating their own bundles and paying only for, say, CNN, Animal Planet, Bravo and FX and skipping the hundreds of channels they barely watch. Imagine being able to do the same thing with an a la carte menu that crosses the boundaries of broadcast, cable and streaming? Then imagine that it’s all covered by one bill that doesn’t break the bank.

Wray, for one, thinks such personalized customization will be possible someday, even though it’s an idea that content providers have resisted vehemently. “To say, ‘Oh, I want to cherry pick and I want these five things,’ it’s like: ’No, no, no, no! We’re not allowing that!,’” he says. “But I do think that someone is going to find a way to actually do that. And I think that will be shaking things up in a big way.”

Until then, managing the expenses and confusion of television is our burden alone. “I think what’s happening now is consumers are making that simplification for themselves,” says Cuckovich, who sees a generational divide at play. For instance, your 80-year-old parents may keep their basic cable system because it’s easy to operate and familiar, while you and your spouse might try signing up for streaming subscriptions, then cancelling them after you’ve seen the latest hot shows — the shortest of short-term commitments.

And what about Gen Z? Well, its members don’t seem worried about the future of television. They’re too busy living on YouTube, TikTok and other social media sites. Thompson, who is 64, says his 20-year-old students “go home to an apartment or a fraternity house or dorm room that doesn’t even have a television set, in their room or in the lounge.”

Why should they fret? Content providers are increasingly coming to them and their favorite platforms. The future of TV could be watching episodes sliced and diced into three-minute TikTok videos, which, if it ever happens, we’re just going to have to get used to. But let’s draw the line on watching all five seasons of “The Wire” this way. Please?

Contact Detroit Free Press pop culture critic Julie Hinds at jhinds@freepress.com.