Yeah, I was born in the mid 80s and I have no plans to ever get a TV subscription. It's not the price - I'd be happy to pay for a Sky Sports internet streaming service, if it existed. It's the hassle and the long contracts.

Just out of curiosity, what country are you in? In the US I've had all three current major cable TV providers (and several of their predecessors), and I've never had a long contract (it's always been month-to-month). Is it common to require long commitments in other countries?

In the UK, most TV subscription services that sell you a "package" of channels have long-term contracts (12 months is usually the minimum). They try and sweeten this by providing you with a "free" digital video recorder (not really free) and often combine TV, phone and broadband services into one subscription package.

Streaming-based services such as Amazon, Netflix and Blinkbox (owned by supermarket giant Tesco) let you subscribe on a month-to-month basis or film-by-film basis. These services feel more flexible because they're not trying to sell you a whole bunch of channels, some of which you may not have much interest in.

Interestingly, even the BBC can see where the market is heading for many viewers. Their "youth" channel BBC Three (aimed at 16-34 year olds) will stop broadcasting terrestially and become an online-only channel via their iPlayer service. I guess this reflects how more and more people consume content today - they don't consult a TV schedule, they expect to be able to view content when it suits them.

Cable TV does not involve any long contracts in the USA. Satellite, maybe.

Predicting the future is hard without great historical and demographic data. I'd be shocked if you weren't right for young, educated, tech-savvy people, but it's too soon to say what will happen on a larger scale, especially not knowing how cable companies adaptations will play out.

Regardless, it is silly to argue right now that Netflix/Hulu are the primary causes.

I have friends who are not into sports and thus may not watch much television, but the vast majority of them are, which means they're going to subscribe to cable because it's the only legal way to watch most sporting events, especially as ESPN continues to grab up more and more programming for its networks.

Until ESPN decides to abandon cable (which won't be happening any time soon as long as they collect 5 dollars /month/subscriber from the providers), there will be a continual pipeline of people who will subscribe to it.

I'd absolutely be a cord cutter if it weren't for cable NFL games and Syracuse Basketball.