Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Yes but those are all still subscriptions which is what the article was lamenting.  I haven't found a single subscription that covers everything my cable provider does, so instead you end up cobbling together a Frankenservice.  Some folks are fine with it, generally younger, more mobile, more tech-savvy customers.  Older folks like my parents could never navigate their way through all of the various streaming/subscription services, it would completely overwhelm them.  They're willing to pay more, for the convenience of Spectrum or AT&T ow whomever, aggregating all of those channels/services and paying one monthly fee to one provider for it.

I'm somewhere in the middle, I know how to do it so I COULD spend all the time to cobble together different subscriber services, and save a few bucks, but honestly it doesn't end up being a whole lot of savings.  The moment I unbundle my internet service from my cable TV package, the internet service fee increases to the point where adding in just one streaming service on top of it, comes out to about the same as I'd pay otherwise.

It's true that there isn't one service that covers everything your cable provider does, but then again I'll bet you don't actually use everything your cable provider offers.

The newer live services (Hulu Live TV, Youtube TV) pretty much cover everything your cable provider does though. If you want live TV, they're pretty good and a lot cheaper than cable / satellite. And with smart TV's, it's not even complicated.

Yes, internet is more expensive without bundling. But the TV savings more than make up for it. 

If you can get ESPN separately that's news to me.  Regardless, my point stands that these proud cord-cutters really aren't doing that.  They're just stealing.

To my earlier point, once you start adding in all of the various networks/services on top of your ISP-- if you're actually paying for them and not stealing them-- then it's not really the incredible savings that a lot of people believe it will be.

In the above statement I'm including things like HBO.  One can always say, "well I don't need HBO and won't pay for it and therefore my cord-cutting is providing me savings" which is totally fine.  We can all go a step further and simply pull down live network OTA television and not pay a cent.  And you can go even further, and say that you don't need television at all and then you don't even have the purchase price of a television and an OTA antenna to account for in your entertainment budget.  We'd likely all be a lot better off if we did that, and went outside and threw the football instead of watching someone else throw the football on TV.  But that's really another discussion entirely.

Of course, most cable subscribers already have Netflix. They have ~60M subscribers, and that's not ALL cord-cutters. A lot of cable subscribers pay for HBO on top of base cable. So going from base cable + Netflix + HBO to cord-cutting + Netflix + HBO is still a net savings. 

And yes, if Sling--which doesn't have locals--had BTN, I'd be using my antenna for locals. I usually use it over the Hulu Live TV version for NFL or NCAA games on local networks because the picture quality is better. 

But yes, you can't get ESPN separately. But the cost of Sling ($20/mo) is low enough that if you're looking for JUST ESPN, it's not that far off from what ESPN would likely charge for a standalone service. I could easily see ESPN charging $15/mo and people paying it.

I looked at it about a year ago and none of them covered everything my household watches.  So it was a no-go.  And the savings from moving off Spectrum (Time Warner) ISP+cable to only ISP+streaming wasn't even as much as yours.  So for me it was a pretty easy decision to simply stay where I was.  They've priced it that way for exactly this reason, obviously.

Now, I could certainly tell the family, "We're changing to save money and we're going to have to give up some of the TV."  That's a legitimate stand to take.

But it's not the same as saying "there is one streaming service that covers everything my family currently consumes from the cable offerings"-- which is not a true statement.

Or at least, it wasn't when I looked at it a year ago.

Ahh, then you watch some different things than I do.

Basically my requirements were:

• ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU
• BTN
• Food Network
• FS1/FS2/CBSSN/etc were nice to have, but not hard requirements (Hulu Live TV and Youtube TV have these)
• Bravo for Top Chef was a nice to have, but not hard requirement (Hulu Live TV and Youtube TV have these)

Anything beyond that is just gravy. I'm more likely to watch original content on Netflix these days, because so much of it is better than what I get on cable anyway. 

Right, and now you're cobbling together the Frankenservice that is annoying and a non-starter for a lot of people.  I'm an electircal and computer engineer and even for me, the bother of monitoring everything across multiple streaming services plus my ISP just isn't worth a few bucks more per month. 

I think you're overstating the complexity. 

When I first did it [married to my first wife], she was more than capable of figuring it out. And she's not technical in ANY way. Although she did go back to cable after the divorce. But she's a spendthrift...

My new wife, when I met her, was a cable subscriber. She switched to streaming while we were dating before she moved in, and had no problem with it. And now that we live together, she has no problem working it here.

My kids figured it out quickly. Even to the point where I was pulling into the driveway with them one day after they'd been at their mom's house and my son said "ahh, finally we're back to Roku TV, instead of that stupid 'channel' TV at mom's house."

It's honestly quite easy. Not that I'd ask my 75 year old parents to do it, but it's not like it's rocket science.

Damn, yall are some chatty mofos.  I go get lunch and come back to dozens of posts worth of digital ink spilled.  

utee, 
see bwarbiany's post on the last page.  Sure, depending on what you want and most importantly, the services available in your area--which I think you are taking for granted--it's going to vary from customer to customer.  My good Buddy in Austin uses the same ISP that we have here outside of Beaumont, BUT he gets a hell of a deal by bundling his internet and cable with them.  We don't have that option, I've tried.  It's not offered in our market.  As for the stuff that adds up, for my household it would add up anyway.  We're going to have Netflix and Amazon Prime no matter what.  And it's also fallacious to include Prime strictly in the streaming costs as I see so many of these articles trying to do, and as I see people using in their arguments.  We get more value from free shipping alone than the annual cost of Prime (we buy a lot of stuff on Amazon), so in that regard Prime Video is effectively free for us as far as my budget is concerned.  Then you add in the fact that with the Prime Rewards Visa we're getting 5% off of stuff we're already getting on cheaper on Amazon anyway and it's a no brainer, but I digress.  The greater point is both Netflix and Prime aren't subscriptions that can go away in our lifestyle no matter what service we're getting cable channels from.  Then we tack on the lowest tier of Hulu for a whopping $6.47/mo.  I'm dead-ass broke, and I don't even feel that.  Every show that I watched on TV ultimately becomes available on Netflix, Prime, or Hulu, so while I can't watch my shows as currently as cable/satellite people can, I still get them watched.  Now again, this varies by customer taste, which shows on what channels they watch.  For us, it's fine.  Here's the kicker, even during football season, YouTube TV + Hulu + Netflix + Prime is STILL cheaper than DirecTV was by itself, let alone the fact that we still needed Netflix and Prime on top of it.  It gets significantly cheaper, obviously, when we cut off streaming TV after the footbawls are done.  The cost of internet is not factored in, because we're paying that one way or the other.  And not that this affects the balance sheet that much, but with all the streaming services I listed, we get 6% back with our AmEx Blue Cash Preferred card, it wouldn't be near that much with traditional providers.  I didn't grow up with this stuff and I've had no problems or qualms about navigating the tech side of it, although your point about your parents is a good one.  My mom for example would never put the time in get in our situation.  On the other hand, my 92 year old grandmother got tired of paying for DirecTV so I got her a Roku and set her up with Sling, and like everything else she ever put her mind to, she's rolling.  

bwarbiany,
I haven't really checked out YouTube TV's on demand stuff, I couldn't tell you much about it.  I use it pretty exclusively for football and have spent very little time with it outside of that.  Like most things, it's going to be platform dependent to a certain extent.  I find the experience a little lacking on Chromecast, in conjunction with an Android phone app, which is astounding to me since YouTubeTV, the Chromecast and the android platform are all under Google's umbrella.  I'd MUCH rather deal with it from my Firestick, but YTTV's Fire app has yet to be released (supposedly coming before the end of the year, but who knows).  If we had an Apple TV or a Roku it would probably be better as well.  I simply dislike using my phone as a remote for a variety of reasons, and there are a couple of things that are a bit clunky, which I've heard the iPhone app has worked out (which, again, is amazing to me).  As far as comparing it to Hulu, it might depend on what you want.  Hulu lacked AMC and and BBCA, which for me would be deal breakers if I were going to use it for "regular TV" as opposed to "way to watch football games."  I like those channels, and while their shows ultimately come out on the major streaming services, if I were going to keep TV year-round, I'd have to have them.  YouTube TV has both.  I also used Hulu on a Firestick, so that alone made it a more pleasant experience than using my phone for YouTube.  I will also say that I did not overly mind Hulu's set-up on the Firestick.  Not as smooth as traditional cable with a versatile remote, but not bad for me either.  Basically I think they all suck as far as channel surfing, compared to traditional providers.  But apparently YouTube has a "previous channel" button function that works with the Roku, and that would solve 90% of my issues with streaming services.  Hopefully when the app comes out for Firestick it will have a similar function for the Firestick remote.  FF/RW was also easier on Hulu than YTTV, to the point where it's not worth fooling with on YTTV, but I suspect that's mainly an issue with using a phone/not having a remote.  I think it would really annoy me if I weren't mainly watching live sports where I sit through commercials and halftime anyway.  I bet it's way better on Roku/AppleTV, etc.  Don't know if that helps you any.  

@MikeDeTiger FYI I always recommend Roku for some of the reasons you state. Amazon Fire Stick doesn't want to support Youtube TV because they're competitors. Chromecast is obviously pro-Google. Apple TV is all about promoting Apple.

Roku is both in a dominant market position and platform-agnostic, which means that all the services not only have to deal with them but also that they have no reason to promote or dissuade any particular service. So Roku is my favorite device.

Plus, per your point re: a remote... It has one. 

@MikeDeTiger

Couple things--

1) To break it down economically, appropriately, I have to call out the cost of the internet service and I have to do it separately-- because it changes dramatically depending on whether or not it's bundled with the cable TV.  It's something like $35 bundled.  That jumps to $90-something unbundled. Which makes the economics not nearly as much of a no-brainer.

Are you sure it's $35 bundled? For example in my Cox post above, I currently pay $103 for internet, and if I switch to bundle, I get internet + TV for $110. That sounds like a GREAT deal to bundle, right? 

But it doesn't include the fact that after 12 months, bundling is $238. And it doesn't include that I might be paying equipment rental fees on DVRs for each TV (two in my house, which is low for modern homes). And it doesn't include the myriad taxes and fees that suddenly show up on the bill. 

I'm guessing the $110 rate, once my bill arrives and equipment/taxes/fees are added, wouldn't be $110 any more. Which means that neither would the $238. 

And that doesn't even factor in the lack of contracts. When I was on Sling, I would ditch it between the end of the NCAA tournament and the beginning of college football. That's almost 6 months of not paying a dime. You can't do that with cable or satellite. 

2) Agree on the inclusion of Netflix and Amazon Prime in the litany, those shouldn't count toward the total as I'd have them regardless.  Rather, it's the stacking of the "television-based" streaming services that I don't like-- your example of YouTubeTV + Hulu is problematic for me.  And of course, neither solves my LHN issue anyway.

Well, you don't stack Youtube TV + Hulu Live TV, because they're basically competing services. You pick one or the other. The Hulu (non live TV) service is basically a next-day VOD service for network content, and is much cheaper (<$10). But if you have Youtube TV, you don't even need that as you can DVR your network shows. 

I get it that in some cases, for some people, cutting to ISP-only and hooking up with one or more streaming services is a legitimate solution.  I'm just pointing out that it's not a solution that works for everyone, supported by the bit of evidence that it does not currently work for me, for at least two different reasons.

I don't know about @MikeDeTiger , but my issue has been that most of your arguments have seemed to come from the same standpoint as all the hit pieces I've seen on cord-cutting...

I.e. "Well, to replicate EVERYTHING I need from cable, it means I'm going to have to subscribe to these eighteen different streaming services, which is entirely confusing and will cost me tons of money. Why would I do that when cable is so perfect and does it all for me?"

The truth is that cord-cutting became a thing because the cable bundle started to grow to ridiculous costs and didn't satisfy consumers. Instead of asking "how do I replicate everything cable gives me", people started asking "what do I actually want and is there a better deal out there?"

Yes, it's marginally more work. You have to ask those crazy questions like "what do I actually want, need, and/or are willing to pay for?" And then you have to figure out "what service gives me those things that I want, need, and/or are willing to pay for?" In a lot of cases, people are realizing that they come out ahead by ditching cable for streaming.

I'm not saying it's the right solution for everyone. What I'm saying is that many of your arguments were easily-refuted tropes about how hard, confusing, and expensive it is to cut the cord. Whereas most peoples' experience doesn't bear that out--you don't see that many rushing back to cable, do you?

As for the costs of what I want in a service, and efficiencies?

I'm back to cable. It's the same money, at the end of the day, and only one bill. I still use Roku, because I can take it anywhere (my boat) and log into any channel I want using my Xfinity login. There is not a football game or anything else, that I have to miss when I'm not at home.

I'm taking the Roku to Florida next week.