Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
"Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
Author Message
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,196
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 241
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #21
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:56 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We stream Spectrum across a Roku and use a Fire Stick for the other apps. I would ditch the Roku and just use the Firestick but the Roku remote is terrible to use.

Agree that the Roku remote is terrible. I'm tempted to abandon Roku and get an Apple TV box.

I really wish Apple would license their OS to be used in TVs. We only use Roku because our TVs use the Roku OS. There's no reason to deal with an external device like an AppleTV, a Fire, or an Android-enabled box, when the TV is natively on Roku. If there were TVs that were natively run on Apple without needing the external device, we'd quickly jump ship to that.
05-10-2022 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,342
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 979
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #22
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 02:35 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:56 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We stream Spectrum across a Roku and use a Fire Stick for the other apps. I would ditch the Roku and just use the Firestick but the Roku remote is terrible to use.

Agree that the Roku remote is terrible. I'm tempted to abandon Roku and get an Apple TV box.

I really wish Apple would license their OS to be used in TVs. We only use Roku because our TVs use the Roku OS. There's no reason to deal with an external device like an AppleTV, a Fire, or an Android-enabled box, when the TV is natively on Roku. If there were TVs that were natively run on Apple without needing the external device, we'd quickly jump ship to that.

Try installing the Roku app on your cell phone. It's a nice upgrade from the hardware only remote.
05-10-2022 02:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MattBrownEP Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 445
Joined: Feb 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: newsletter subscriptions
Location: Chicago
Post: #23
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
I don't think things are as bad as they sound here. Yes, total subscribers are declining, but as even this news story notes, the decline is happening most among non-sports fans, so the only thing ESPN etc really lose are affiliate fees.

Since live sports remains the only thing to come close to being appointment viewing, their value to broadcasters is only going *up*, as others here have noted. Then, the spillover growth vertical (streaming), has mechanisms to monetize beyond raw eyeballs, since they give broadcasters more precise audience data than over-the-air broadcasts can.

Is the profit margin the same as it was in 2000? No. But it's still a profitable business, and rights fees for high value products aren't going to pop in the near future. The folks who *aren't* tied to huge, high-value properties (like say, MAC or CUSA football, or low major hoops) may have a more challenging future, but even then, there are other ways they can get the money.
05-10-2022 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scoochpooch1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,227
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 60
I Root For: P4
Location:
Post: #24
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 02:35 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 02:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:56 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We stream Spectrum across a Roku and use a Fire Stick for the other apps. I would ditch the Roku and just use the Firestick but the Roku remote is terrible to use.

Agree that the Roku remote is terrible. I'm tempted to abandon Roku and get an Apple TV box.

I really wish Apple would license their OS to be used in TVs. We only use Roku because our TVs use the Roku OS. There's no reason to deal with an external device like an AppleTV, a Fire, or an Android-enabled box, when the TV is natively on Roku. If there were TVs that were natively run on Apple without needing the external device, we'd quickly jump ship to that.

More likely that Apple will leave streaming device market as Apple TV is getting crushed by other products.
05-10-2022 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 44,256
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1669
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #25
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 09:49 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

Mind sharing your costs?
Live Streamer for sports can be grabbed at $35-$65.
Internet of $50.
That's almost $100/month in savings.

Well for starters, I can't get standalone internet in my area of the same level I have now for less than $75, last time I checked.

Also, I admit that my wife factors in to this. She likes non-sports content. If it was just me, I could lean-down with streaming for probably $50 or so less a month, maybe $75. I would probably pay $75 for internet and $65 for Youtube TV, and that adds up to $140 compared to the $210.

But with what my wife wants, last time I checked it would actually be a little bit more to replicate our current service on pure streaming.

Then again, we were just wired for ATT internet, so maybe I should take a third look at all this, LOL.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2022 05:30 PM by quo vadis.)
05-10-2022 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #26
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 11:16 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

That's sort of the Catch-22 that these networks are all in right now.

The biggest reason why people are dropping cable/satellite is due to cost, which is disproportionately driven by networks with live sports.

Yet, simultaneously, the biggest reason why people *keep* cable/satellite is for live sports.

It's similar to the "TINA" ("There is no alternative") concept in investing. That is, people may continue to invest in and drive up the prices of superficially suboptimal assets because all of the other alternatives are seen to be even worse. The stock market over the past year is a classic example. It was pretty widely known that stocks by the middle of 2021 were generally historically overvalued by many metrics like P/E ratio. Yet, the problem was that bond prices and other investments (whether super-conservative like money market accounts or super-risky like Bitcoin) were performing so poorly combined with inflation that it drove people to keep piling into the stock market. When you're essentially losing money with "safe" investments due to various factors (e.g. inflation, rising interest rates, etc.), it means that you have a TINA situation where you need to invest in assets that you may know well are overpriced in the current environment (e.g. stocks and real estate). Even now with how the stock market has performed poorly in 2022 (especially this past week), it's still tough for investors to switch because bonds and other alternative investments simply don't look better by comparison.

That's essentially where TV networks are with respect to sports rights. Sports rights are going up and up and up to levels where they're eating into the profits of those TV networks. However, the problem is that very little else outside of sports is drawing live audiences on TV anymore, which means they're in a TINA situation. In essence, for a TV network today, the only thing worse than having to pay for live sports is not having live sports.

Is there a point where leagues like CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, or potentially even CAA/MVFC/BigSky start to finally get some decent money or air time, simply due to budgeting reasons? Asking because the payouts some of the p5 conferences are getting just seem unsustainable. Is there any point where networks decide to cut costs a little bit? For instance, bottom rung p5 games don't really mean anything, and a sold out Washington Grizzly Stadium in Montana vs a rival in a meaningful game could probably be more exciting and visually appealing to a casual fan. FCS games can occasionally get ok tv ratings, but look at the amount of advertising other games get in comparison as well (none). With a bit of advertising, I could see something like a weekly FCS game of the week do ok, especially if sandwiched between a couple bigger games, and the networks could get the rights for essentially free, which would help with bottom line. Just as an example. I'm not saying this is something that should be done or that it would be worthwhile currently, but with the rising rights costs, you would think that non P5 programs would start to benefit more than they currently are, no?

Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.

Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).

Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.

From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.

When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.

Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.

We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.
05-10-2022 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,325
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 224
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #27
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
I don't mind seeing The ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 Networks die. That is where the most of the fees from Cable and dish comes from. It is forced on us by ESPN mainly, but they just don't have much live events anymore. ESPN in the 80s and 90s had more sporting events from fishing, hunting, scuba diving, pro-wrestling, autoracing and all that which could cover their channels 24 hours a day. One of my favorite channels that they had was Classic which I liked to go back and remember all the old wrestling and roller derby that they had shown in the 80s on ESPN 2.
05-10-2022 10:12 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Porcine Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 394
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Arkansas, SBC
Location: Northern Arkansas
Post: #28
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 10:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I don't mind seeing The ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 Networks die. That is where the most of the fees from Cable and dish comes from. It is forced on us by ESPN mainly, but they just don't have much live events anymore. ESPN in the 80s and 90s had more sporting events from fishing, hunting, scuba diving, pro-wrestling, autoracing and all that which could cover their channels 24 hours a day. One of my favorite channels that they had was Classic which I liked to go back and remember all the old wrestling and roller derby that they had shown in the 80s on ESPN 2.

I had been known to watch some AWA.
05-10-2022 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 10:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I don't mind seeing The ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 Networks die. That is where the most of the fees from Cable and dish comes from. It is forced on us by ESPN mainly, but they just don't have much live events anymore. ESPN in the 80s and 90s had more sporting events from fishing, hunting, scuba diving, pro-wrestling, autoracing and all that which could cover their channels 24 hours a day. One of my favorite channels that they had was Classic which I liked to go back and remember all the old wrestling and roller derby that they had shown in the 80s on ESPN 2.

Only two of those networks are connected to ESPN.

The only reason to have cable is for the sports networks.
05-10-2022 10:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,342
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 979
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #30
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 10:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I don't mind seeing The ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 Networks die. That is where the most of the fees from Cable and dish comes from. It is forced on us by ESPN mainly, but they just don't have much live events anymore. ESPN in the 80s and 90s had more sporting events from fishing, hunting, scuba diving, pro-wrestling, autoracing and all that which could cover their channels 24 hours a day. One of my favorite channels that they had was Classic which I liked to go back and remember all the old wrestling and roller derby that they had shown in the 80s on ESPN 2.

ACCN Live Sports, next 4 days

5/11
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Louisville vs Syracuse
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Georgia Tech vs NC State
7:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Liberty

5/12
11:00 am - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
1:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
5:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
7:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal

5/13
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
6:00 pm - Baseball: N Carolina vs Wake Forest

5/14
1:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Louisville
4:00 pm - Baseball: Notre Dame vs Pitt
7:00 pm - Baseball: Florida State vs Miami
05-11-2022 09:54 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
curtis0620 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,735
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
Post: #31
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
I live in Florida, can I decline getting the SEC network?

These networks are being forced on everyone.
05-11-2022 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Todor Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,106
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 442
I Root For: New Mexico State
Location:
Post: #32
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 09:49 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

Mind sharing your costs?
Live Streamer for sports can be grabbed at $35-$65.
Internet of $50.
That's almost $100/month in savings.

(05-10-2022 01:45 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:49 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:49 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

Mind sharing your costs?
Live Streamer for sports can be grabbed at $35-$65.
Internet of $50.
That's almost $100/month in savings.

A lot depends on what sports you watch and how many people you live with. I would love $50 a month internet. I don’t think that’s a typical cost though anymore.

Really? That's unfortunate. Is your area have little competition? $50 is pretty much near the max. Not saying this is your case but a lot of people want 17 Gig Internet which is entirely too much hence they overspend.

$50 is near the max for the companies in my area as well. But internet and phone service is such a patchwork jumble of companies in most areas. Different parts of the same city don’t have the same major ISP’s and their costs are all over the place. And few areas have more than 2 options and one often matches its higher cost competitor, even if they charge less for faster speed in other, more competitive markets.
05-12-2022 02:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 44,256
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1669
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #33
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2022 07:15 AM by quo vadis.)
05-12-2022 07:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 44,256
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1669
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #34
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
FWIW, Disney reported its quarterly net revenue for its linear and streaming operations the other day:

Linear (which includes ABC, but largely comes from ESPN) ........... $2.8 Billion

Streaming (Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu) ....................................... ($887 Million)

So cable ESPN is still making money hand over fist (Disney gets $10 per cable subscriber for its ESPN channels), while streaming is still losing money hand over fist.

ESPN+ has 23 million subscribers, ESPN linear is in 76 million homes.

My Opinion: Not surprised Disney streaming is losing money, it is a tremendous deal for consumers. Just loaded with content. ESPN+ would be a great deal standalone. The Disney Bundle is the best deal in TV.

https://theathletic.com/3307136/2022/05/...ob-chapek/
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2022 07:25 AM by quo vadis.)
05-12-2022 07:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,009
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 665
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #35
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.

Indoor antennas work much better these days.

I have an indoor one as a backup in case the internet goes out during a storm
05-12-2022 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,868
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #36
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 07:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.

Indoor antennas work much better these days.

I have an indoor one as a backup in case the internet goes out during a storm

I've got an indoor antenna that's connected to a WiFi-enabled device and connects to the Sling app. As a result, I have the indoor antenna out of the way in the top corner of my house where it's on a nightstand near a window where it gets good reception, but the channels will stream to any of our TVs and wireless devices on the Sling app. Note that I'm not a Sling customer, but you can still use their app for this setup to stream local channels via your own antenna. I don't need it 95% of the time because our Hulu Live package has most of our local channels (with the main exceptions being WGN and PBS), but it's definitely nice to have as a backup if Hulu has technical issues (which has happened before).

The nicest thing is that since it's streaming from your own antenna, there's no such thing as a sports blackout when you're traveling. As a result, I'll get my Bears games (or whatever NFL games are on my local affiliate) on my device even if I'm outside of the Chicago area.
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2022 08:36 AM by Frank the Tank.)
05-12-2022 08:33 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenBison Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,832
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 173
I Root For: The Herd!!!
Location: B'ville
Post: #37
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 07:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.

Indoor antennas work much better these days.

I have an indoor one as a backup in case the internet goes out during a storm

HD Antennas in the attic work much better. The picture quality is much clearer as it's not compressed as it is when it comes via cable or satellite.

I get 30 channels using this method.

HD antenna = Free Network TV
Comcast Internet 1200Mbps Unlimited = $85
Make sure you buy your cable modem so your ISP can't charge you rental fee every month
ESPN+ = $6.00
SlingTV = $35 ESPNs add on $10 Sports Package

I used to have $35 just in Taxes and Fees with Cable TV on top of the $120 for the service... now all of that is gone.
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2022 09:55 AM by GreenBison.)
05-12-2022 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,079
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 785
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #38
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.

I grew up with OTA as well, with both a roof antenna and rabbit ears. I had all the sports I needed without cable, and there was decent weeknight programming on the major networks. But reception was a problem when I moved to North Carolina. NBC was hit or miss on its UHF channel and PBS was more miss than hit if we could get it at all. Then, "reality" shows proliferated on weeknight TV, so in 2005 or thereabouts, I broke down and got basic cable.

I now pay $127/month for cable and internet and need the internet to boost the signal from Verizon so I can talk on my very first smart phone I had to buy last summer when Verizon stopped supporting my flip phone. Even then, until I got a device to boost Verizon's signal I couldn't make outgoing calls. I'm one of the cable subscribers that are subsidizing you guys, since I probably only watch live sports on average about 300 hours a year (mostly on Saturdays from September to April).

My fervent hope is that I'm dead before streaming is my only option. Fortunately, I still think the odds of that are in my favor.
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2022 10:21 AM by ken d.)
05-12-2022 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenBison Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,832
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 173
I Root For: The Herd!!!
Location: B'ville
Post: #39
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 10:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.

I grew up with OTA as well, with both a roof antenna and rabbit ears. I had all the sports I needed without cable, and there was decent weeknight programming on the major networks. But reception was a problem when I moved to North Carolina. NBC was hit or miss on its UHF channel and PBS was more miss than hit if we could get it at all. Then, "reality" shows proliferated on weeknight TV, so in 2005 or thereabouts, I broke down and got basic cable.

I now pay $127/month for cable and internet and need the internet to boost the signal from Verizon so I can talk on my very first smart phone I had to buy last summer when Verizon stopped supporting my flip phone. Even then, until I got a device to boost Verizon's signal I couldn't make outgoing calls. I'm one of the cable subscribers that are subsidizing you guys, since I probably only watch live sports on average about 300 hours a year (mostly on Saturdays from September to April).

My fervent hope is that I'm dead before streaming is my only option. Fortunately, I still think the odds of that are in my favor.

Why do you have a signal booster from Verizon? You should be able to connect to your Wifi inside your house and talk and text and surf on your phone without using any Cell Data from Verizon. There should be a feature on your phone called Wifi Calling...

"When you’re in a place with weak or no cellular network coverage, you may be able to make and receive calls and texts over a Wi-Fi network instead. Learn about the built-in Wi-Fi Calling feature and how it works with your smartphone.'

https://www.verizon.com/support/wifi-calling-faqs/
05-12-2022 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,009
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 665
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #40
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 08:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 07:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.

Indoor antennas work much better these days.

I have an indoor one as a backup in case the internet goes out during a storm

I've got an indoor antenna that's connected to a WiFi-enabled device and connects to the Sling app. As a result, I have the indoor antenna out of the way in the top corner of my house where it's on a nightstand near a window where it gets good reception, but the channels will stream to any of our TVs and wireless devices on the Sling app. Note that I'm not a Sling customer, but you can still use their app for this setup to stream local channels via your own antenna. I don't need it 95% of the time because our Hulu Live package has most of our local channels (with the main exceptions being WGN and PBS), but it's definitely nice to have as a backup if Hulu has technical issues (which has happened before).

The nicest thing is that since it's streaming from your own antenna, there's no such thing as a sports blackout when you're traveling. As a result, I'll get my Bears games (or whatever NFL games are on my local affiliate) on my device even if I'm outside of the Chicago area.

Yes the airtv is very nice.

I wish TIvo would launch a Roku app. I have an OTA tivo that allows me to record from antenna but no way to play it on the larger TV not hooked up to the box outside of screen mirroring
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2022 10:52 AM by solohawks.)
05-12-2022 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.