At this year’s Television Critics Association (TCA) press tour, networks have reiterated the same idea: Netflix and other streaming platforms don’t have them shaking in their boots. But maybe they should be.

Alan Wurtzel, president of research and media development at NBCUniversal, is the latest cable executive to say that Netflix isn’t the coup to business everyone thinks it is. At this week’s winter press tour for the TCA, Wurtzel goes as far as to say that not only are Netflix, Youtube, and their brethren not threats, but that viewers will return to watching TV “the way god intended.”

Photo Credit: Shardayyy cc
Photo Credit: Shardayyy cc

“[Netflix has] a very different business model—their business model is to make you write a check the next month,” said Wurtzel.I don’t believe there’s enough stuff on Netflix that is broad enough and consistent enough to affect us in a meaningful way on a consistent basis.”

But the truth is, Netflix has not only proved itself as a streaming site, it helped pioneer the concept entirely. Streaming television owes a lot to Netflix championing the cause, and they’ve done that by being in tune with how their audience is watching—something that doesn’t seem to have changed over time. Netflix’s content release model is designed to fill in pockets where broadcasters might stay away from (school breaks or Friday nights) and the numbers show that this is working. Data Wurtzel provided himself (which should maybe be taken with a grain of salt) shows that during the last quarter of 2015, four streaming shows were watched by an average of 3.5 million people. Shows like Netflix’s “Orange is the New Black,” whose latest season was released in June, were still being watched by about 664,000 viewers.

And though Wurtzel believes the notion that streaming sites are “replacing broadcast TV may not quite be accurate,” the truth is they’re fighting for the same screen. With Netflix always at arm’s reach, with a full library to select from, it only matters that there’s enough stuff—which any perusal through the Netflix library shows there is. As Forbes writes:

The network has one modestly successful new program instead of several and more people than ever are watching Netflix. Broadcast viewing declined by half from 2002-13 and nothing has changed since. And this was before Netflix and Amazon started getting aggressive with original programming. What’s happened since should absolutely terrify the old-line programmers.

When a new show debuts on Netflix, it gobbles up mindshare — and viewing hours — like nothing before. For the two weeks after the latest season of Orange is the New Black was made available, people with Netflix spent fully one quarter of their TV watching time on just that show. Wurtzel thinks that’s no biggie because soon they went back to their normal viewing habits. Except when Narcos launched it took up 17% of viewing hours. And Master of None took up 11%.

What’s more, Netflix is doing this with little to no promotion. Unlike NBC which has run ad after ad for its breakaway hit “Blindspot,” Netflix mostly just lets viewers know that there’s a new show at the top of the page. And viewers (particularly the coveted 13-29 block) are picking up what they’re putting down; not just watching more free online video than regularly scheduled TV, but finding it more relatable. That’s likely why 2016 will be the first year digital ad spending will surpass television—a problem viewers still won’t have to deal with on ad-free platforms like Hulu, Amazon, and Netflix (and likely a draw that keeps them writing a check each month).

Overall, the main thing Netflix has going for it is that it aims to work around a consumer’s interest and time schedule, as opposed to cable which is accustomed to dictating the game. Given that it’s no surprise that users and some legislators are calling for more a la carte options when it comes to cable packages. And though Pay or Play’s Jody Simon sees change coming it’s unclear to him where the ultimate force will come from. As he told LXBN TV last June:

Well probably [litigation won’t bust up the current model], the Verizon/ESPN dispute turn on terms of agreement between Verizon and ESPN. So Verizon obviously felt they had a justification and were throwing down the gauntlet, in some sense, so they could start to move themselves toward more a la carte model, which is clearly following consumer preference. So no, cable companies are not going to overall advance that agenda through consistent litigation. That’s an expensive and time-consuming way of solving what’s basically a market issue. Don’t think that’s where this is going to go.

I know John McCain was talking about introducing legislation to force a la carte, and obviously the FCC has been sniffing around that issue as well. My gut is the government will let the market control this one; there’s clearly a lot of consumer demand for increased consumer choice in channel offerings, but it’s hard to predict how it’ll play out, frankly.

But while regulation has been fought off in the U.S., Canada is formally making the switch to an a la carte model starting in March, which independent analysts guess will save the average Canadian consumer anywhere from $5-21 per month. If it works out up there, it’s possible the U.S. cable market will have to move up their timeline. Either way, Wurtzel and other cable head honchos shouldn’t be feeling so secure.

Photo Credit: Andy E. Nystrom cc
Photo Credit: Andy E. Nystrom cc

After all, Netflix and its ilk are still growing astronomically, and NBC wouldn’t be the first media titan Netflix has toppled.