(06-01-2016 03:58 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 03:54 PM)ODUBB35 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 03:39 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 03:32 PM)ODUBB35 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:36 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  When does ESPN start charging more for their services to the "cord-cutting" device companies ?

With the ability to stream feeds from foreign countries, this will be hard to do. There will be alternative ways to get feeds.

The funds won't come from the feeds. They will come from the data plans and the speeds provided. AT&T bought Direct for a reason. TV networks are going to get killed at first and the internet providers are going to cash in.

True, but there won't be the monopoly that TV Providers have had. That plus the move to ATSC 3.0 and the FCC repack are going to create a more competitive marketplace for over-the-air TV (with IP as a backup) to keep prices down. Cable and Satellites days are numbered.

True but streaming content is still behind on live sports

Add bandwidth and its not. Soccer has pushed streaming live sports to a large degree. There is reason Real Madrid is a 3.5 Billion dollar Franchise. Go look up RealMadridtv and tell me it can't be done. http://www.lyngsat-address.com/or/RealMadrid-TV.html

(06-01-2016 02:03 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  At some point in the near future this will shift...

Cable was once $8 a month then it went to $12 then $16, then $24, then $30 and on and on. So all of these cord cutters will soon see that also. Once the numbers reach a point where they feel they got you hooked..streaming prices will start going up. At some point people will wake up to a $50 to $65 price for their 25 channels and say...

I used to get 120 to 160 for that

No one needs the 120 to 160 channels but the companies supplying the content needs the fees from those off beat channels to offer the 25 you might watch. Also and I know those cable cutters will never admit this but. I bet most have went up a grade or two on their internet since switching to streaming only. Doesn't matter if you are paying $30 for streaming cost is cost so if you also are paying a extra $15 a month for better internet...that $30 just went up to $45

You are correct, but I will add that the benefit of many of the online services is that you can turn them on and off at your leisure without talking to anyone.

I only keep HBO Now for two months a year so I can watch Game of Thrones. I'll also binge watch the other shows I care about during that period of time, so instead of paying $15/mo for 12 months, I pay $15/mo for two.

You could basically do the same for every streaming platform so that you're never paying for more than one or two a month, which would be less than $20/mo. Most people are too lazy for that though, so they would just pay the monthly price and think they're saving a lot of money when in reality they're not.

I only subscribe to Hulu year round, so my monthly cost is $50 for internet + $8 for Hulu + $30/yr for HBO.

In the end though, cable companies aren't just going to go away. They control the media. They'll get their money back somehow. I don't think we're far away from cord cutting not being a substantial cost saver.

(06-01-2016 03:54 PM)ODUBB35 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 03:39 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 03:32 PM)ODUBB35 Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 02:36 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  When does ESPN start charging more for their services to the "cord-cutting" device companies ?

With the ability to stream feeds from foreign countries, this will be hard to do. There will be alternative ways to get feeds.

The funds won't come from the feeds. They will come from the data plans and the speeds provided. AT&T bought Direct for a reason. TV networks are going to get killed at first and the internet providers are going to cash in.

True, but there won't be the monopoly that TV Providers have had. That plus the move to ATSC 3.0 and the FCC repack are going to create a more competitive marketplace for over-the-air TV (with IP as a backup) to keep prices down. Cable and Satellites days are numbered.

While the number is limited but isn't that the case for a lot of services I wouldn't call over the air TV service a monopoly. Hell in Owensboro KY a city with 55,000 people I have at least 5 choices to get my TV viewing content.

TW
DirectV
Dish
OMU

there's at least one more but I can't think of the name right now

I would guess there are about the same amount of different brands of super markets to buy food from. Yet we don't look at that as a monopoly.

I keep seeing people talk about they switched to streaming because their cable bill was $180 a month. I think each of those that say something like that are completely full of bull. Because if it is that high they are getting almost everything there is to offer from their cable/Sat company.

I personally pay $75 a month for what I believe is the 3rd best DirectV package out of 5. That price will increase to $105 in year two for a total price of $90 over 24 months. Plus I get a year of NFL football and 3 months of all the movie channels. After my contract is up we get it in my wife's name and start over with all free upgrades. After those two years it's back to my name. We are in year 5 of this.

But if I wanted less content I can get that price down to the high $20s and very low $30s. It would still be more content than cable cutters are paying $25-$30 a month for. Plus most are probably ungraded their internet contract switch switching to streaming.

I almost forgot...I got a $100 gift card this time for getting DirectV. So my 24 month bill is now $86 average and I have it in 4 rooms with 3 of those being wireless and full HD and DVR.

So yeah those that cry about a $180 a month cable bill and then telling us how much they are saving by streaming are bullcrapping us

(06-01-2016 02:03 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  At some point in the near future this will shift...

Cable was once $8 a month then it went to $12 then $16, then $24, then $30 and on and on. So all of these cord cutters will soon see that also. Once the numbers reach a point where they feel they got you hooked..streaming prices will start going up. At some point people will wake up to a $50 to $65 price for their 25 channels and say...

I used to get 120 to 160 for that

No one needs the 120 to 160 channels but the companies supplying the content needs the fees from those off beat channels to offer the 25 you might watch. Also and I know those cable cutters will never admit this but. I bet most have went up a grade or two on their internet since switching to streaming only. Doesn't matter if you are paying $30 for streaming cost is cost so if you also are paying a extra $15 a month for better internet...that $30 just went up to $45

That's why I picked cable up again after a year or so of cord-cutting. By the time you add up the streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO, Vue/Sling others) with the internet that you're still probably getting from the cable provider, you end up paying a similar amount that you would for cable/internet, but for far fewer channels. But you get to tell everyone you're a cord-cutter, I guess?

All I know is, trying to watch ESPN3 on my Xbox, NBC Sports on my iPad, and CBS Sports and RSNs on a pirate stream was too much trouble to make it worth my effort. Plus the lag was pretty bad; hard to be engaged in social media while watching the game when what you're watching is 30-60 seconds behind.

Cord-cutting will continue to be a thing, but I also think it's got a ceiling, and cable will continue to be a player until it gets replaced with whatever the next major evolution of cable turns out to be.

I know ESPN 3 and certain streaming apps you can't even use without having a cable provider

(06-01-2016 07:26 PM)ODUMONARCHZ1 Wrote:  I know ESPN 3 and certain streaming apps you can't even use without having a cable provider

It was that way with DirectV till this year. I had TW/RoadRunner internet but could not watch espn3 because I did not have TW Cable.

If we go back a short 3 to 5 years espn 3 is GREAT compared to then and I'm sure it will get even better in the future. But anyone that would say they prefer to watch a football game on a streaming feed vs TV is not being honest...if they could watch it either way. Or at least they are probably in a small group that would choose it.

Those that say it's no different must really have poor pictures on their TV. It's a huge difference when I stream out to my TV compared to watching a game in HD that's being shown on TV.

I don't feel money is necessarily lost...its redistributed... ESPN will pump more into the p5 because I doubt the major games during the season and the major bowls will ever be relegated to the Internet...

Customers of the G5 will pump their money into whatever avenue carries their teams...but it will never outweigh the p5 fans imho. ESPN and the major networks will simply jockey for position for the best deal on hey can get with the P5.. Until the next revolution..

(06-01-2016 07:26 PM)ODUMONARCHZ1 Wrote:  I know ESPN 3 and certain streaming apps you can't even use without having a cable provider

Yes you can. Many internet providers have contracts with ESPN3.

Otherwise, you can just install Kodi onto your device and add the ESPN3 addon.