header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: OT - Cable Alternatives

 (Read 89101 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 27862
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Cable Alternatives
« Reply #448 on: Today at 11:46:09 AM »

To think we swapped cable for internet streaming that in many cases is more expensive than cable was.
I warned everyone about this years before it happened.

Folks all thought they were paying more for cable than they should, because sports fans hated seeing HGTV and The Oprah Network, while Oprah fans hated seeing 8 different ESPNs.

But what they all missed was that the cable companies aggregating both the providers and the consumers, cut the costs for everyone.

Moving to a choose-your-own-adventure a la carte model was never going to be good for anyone but the content providers and intermediaries. 

MikeDeTiger

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 7202
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Cable Alternatives
« Reply #449 on: Today at 11:52:54 AM »

So I wonder what only $55/mo rises to afterwards? To think we swapped cable for internet streaming that in many cases is more expensive than cable was.

On a monthly basis, yes, the surviving streaming services became similarly expensive as cable services.  But I think most of us knew that was coming.  The fewer of those companies that survived (which was inevitable), the prices were always going to go up.  And they were obviously biting the cost of carrying certain networks at their original prices, so again, that was always going to go up.  They were in a war to outlast the competitors, and now that the field cleared, they need to make money. 

However, on a long-term basis, streaming is still much cheaper.  I only need TV for six months of football and the other half of the year I can pay $0.  Cutting cable off and on is doable (or at least it used to be), but a hassle.  And satellite companies lock you into contracts. 

So yeah, next year I doubt there will be a $55/mo. package offered by YTTV, but whatever it rises to, it will probably still beat cable in the long run. 

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 55904
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Cable Alternatives
« Reply #450 on: Today at 12:07:35 PM »

So I wonder what only $55/mo rises to afterwards? To think we swapped cable for internet streaming that in many cases is more expensive than cable was.
$65/month
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37193
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Cable Alternatives
« Reply #451 on: Today at 12:08:17 PM »
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 55904
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Cable Alternatives
« Reply #452 on: Today at 12:08:44 PM »
your bill is determined by your content

anything live is expensive - especially sports
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 55904
  • Liked:
Re: OT - Cable Alternatives
« Reply #453 on: Today at 12:09:29 PM »
Then $85.

Then $105.
not for just sports in the next couple years but, yes, eventually
because of the Big Ten, SEC, and NFL
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.