Streaming Was Supposed To Save Us Money. So What Happened?

Source: Silicon Bay Partners’ staff with assistance from ChatGPT
Photo: VIP+ Adobe Stock

The great cable escape has turned into a monthly subscription scavenger hunt

Remember when streaming was supposed to save us from cable? The pitch was simple: Cut the cord. Forget the $100-plus cable bill. Pay Netflix a few bucks a month, grab some popcorn and enjoy television on your terms. It was practically revolutionary. Then everybody else showed up.

Disney launched Disney+. HBO became Max, then HBO Max became Max, then eventually became HBO Max again—because apparently even streaming services need identity therapy. Paramount launched Paramount+. Peacock arrived. Apple joined the party. Hulu kept going. Amazon turned Prime Video into part of a much larger subscription machine.

And suddenly, the cable bundle we had escaped was back. Only now we’re assembling it ourselves.

According to a recent analysis, subscribing to all of the major U.S. streaming services without advertising can now cost more than $137 a month. Even choosing cheaper ad-supported versions can push the combined bill toward $60 or more. So much for cutting the cord.

Netflix still wears the crown

If streaming were a presidential election, Netflix would still be the incumbent.

Netflix had roughly 325 million subscribers worldwide at the end of 2025, putting it comfortably ahead of most traditional subscription streaming competitors.

But there is an important wrinkle when comparing subscriber numbers.

Amazon Prime is estimated to have roughly 200 million subscribers, but Prime isn’t simply a television subscription. It includes shipping benefits, music, shopping perks and other services. Prime Video is part of that larger ecosystem.

Disney+ has more than 130 million subscribers, while Paramount+, Hulu and Peacock trail behind.

In other words, Netflix remains the clearest answer to the question, “Which traditional global streaming service has the most paying subscribers?”

But there’s another contender worth mentioning. YouTube.

If we’re talking about sheer video viewers rather than paid streaming subscriptions, YouTube is a monster. It operates under an entirely different business model, however, so comparing its audience directly with Netflix subscribers is a little like comparing McDonald’s customers with Costco members.

Both are enormous. They’re just counting different things. What does streaming actually cost? Here is where things get interesting.

And therein lies the dirty little secret of streaming: You’re not necessarily paying less than cable anymore. You’re just paying differently. Instead of one large bill, you’ve got six smaller ones quietly nibbling away at your checking account. It’s death by subscription.

And then there are the ads

This was perhaps the greatest bait-and-switch of the streaming era. We left cable because we hated commercials. Now we’re paying companies to show us commercials.

The difference is that the commercial comes with a lower subscription price and, presumably, the comforting knowledge that someone has calculated exactly which commercial you’re most likely to tolerate. Advertising has become increasingly important to streaming companies because subscriptions alone aren’t producing enough growth.

In 2026, advertising loads have been increasing across major streaming platforms. One recent analysis found that the amount of advertising per hour on streaming services rose 18% between January and August. Netflix still has one of the lighter ad loads, while Paramount+, Disney+ and Hulu are considerably heavier.

Netflix expects its advertising revenue to reach roughly $3 billion in 2026. That’s not pocket change. It’s a second business model.

And it explains why your supposedly inexpensive streaming service suddenly knows that you’re interested in automobiles, prescription drugs and mattresses.

So how can Tubi be free? Now we get to the really interesting question. How can somebody give you television for nothing?

Services such as Tubi, Pluto TV and The Roku Channel operate primarily under what’s known as the FAST model—Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television. The basic business equation is remarkably similar to old-fashioned television:

You watch. They sell advertising. You don’t pay with money. You pay with attention. That’s actually a pretty good deal for the streaming company.

Suppose a service has 50 million people watching free programming. Advertisers pay the service to reach those viewers. The streaming company uses some of that advertising revenue to license programming, operate its technology and make a profit.

You get The Big Lebowski or an old episode of Law & Order. The advertiser gets your eyeballs. The streaming service gets paid. Everybody wins. Well, except perhaps the person who just sat through a commercial for a product they absolutely do not need.

Free doesn’t mean worthless

There’s another reason free streaming services can offer surprisingly good programming. They don’t have to produce everything themselves.

Netflix spends enormous sums creating original movies and television shows. A free service can acquire older movies, television programs and library content for licensing fees that are generally far less expensive than producing a new blockbuster series.

Think of it as the difference between owning a restaurant and running a very successful buffet. You don’t have to cook everything from scratch. You just need enough people walking through the door. And with streaming, the “door” is free.

The strange economics of streaming

This is where streaming gets fascinating. A company can have millions of users and still struggle to make money. Why? Because subscribers aren’t cheap. There are licensing costs. Production costs. Actors. Writers. Directors. Servers. Bandwidth. Marketing. Technology. Customer support. And increasingly, expensive sports rights.

A company can spend hundreds of millions of dollars producing a show that attracts millions of viewers—and still have to produce another show next month to keep those viewers from leaving. That’s why streaming companies increasingly care about something called churn.

Churn is simply the percentage of customers who cancel. And consumers have become very good at it.

Why pay $19.99 for Peacock all year when you can subscribe for two months, binge everything you want, cancel and move on? Streaming companies have noticed. Consumers call it saving money. The industry calls it a problem.

Recent research shows that roughly 40% of subscribers canceled at least one streaming service during a six-month period, with many later returning.

The modern consumer has become a streaming nomad. Subscribe. Binge. Cancel. Repeat.

Who actually gives you the most for your money? That depends on what you watch.

Netflix remains the best all-around service for people who want a massive selection and lots of original programming.

Disney+ is difficult to beat for families and fans of Disney, Pixar, Marvel and Star Wars.

HBO Max may have the strongest combination of premium television, movies and established classics. In a recent 2026 comparison, it was ranked the strongest overall service, while Disney+/Hulu scored particularly well for variety and value.

Peacock is increasingly interesting for sports fans and NBC programming.

Apple TV+ has a relatively small library but has developed a reputation for expensive, high-quality original programming.

Prime Video is a different animal because you’re buying into the broader Amazon ecosystem.

And then there’s the free stuff.

Tubi, Pluto TV and The Roku Channel can be surprisingly good if you’re willing to trade some control—and tolerate commercials—for a $0 monthly bill.

The new streaming strategy: Stop subscribing to everything

Perhaps the smartest approach isn’t choosing one streaming service. It’s choosing two or three at a time. Subscribe to Netflix when there’s something you want to watch.

Add HBO Max when the new season of your favorite show arrives. Grab Peacock when the sports schedule gets interesting. Then cancel one. This is essentially streaming rotation. And it makes perfect economic sense.

Why pay $137 a month for eight services when you’re probably watching three of them? The streaming companies would prefer that you forget you’re subscribed. Your bank account would prefer that you remember. The irony of it all

Streaming began as the antidote to cable. No contracts. No giant bundles. No paying $9.99 for 400 channels you never watch just to get the three you actually wanted. And for a while, it worked. But the entertainment industry discovered something cable companies had known for decades:

People will pay for convenience. Then they discovered something even better:

People will pay more for the same convenience if you give them a cheaper option first. That’s why today’s streaming menu increasingly looks like this:

$8.99 with commercials. $13.99 with fewer commercials. $19.99 without commercials. $29.99 with everything. And somewhere underneath it all is a marketing executive whispering:

“They’ll never notice another $2.” They notice. They just haven’t canceled yet.

The bottom line

The streaming revolution isn’t dead. It simply grew up.

Netflix isn’t the new cable company. Disney isn’t the new cable company. Amazon isn’t the new cable company. Together, they are becoming cable. The difference is that instead of somebody else deciding which bundle you need, you get to build your own.

And if you’re smart, you won’t build the whole thing. Pick what you actually watch. Use the free services when they make sense. Rotate subscriptions. Embrace the occasional commercial. And remember the most important rule of modern television:

If you’re paying for eight streaming services, you didn’t cut the cord. You just turned the cord into Wi-Fi.