(08-02-2019 10:52 PM)J Coog Wrote:  

Came here for this.

(08-07-2019 02:59 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 08:16 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 05:13 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  I am paying $8 for Hulu now so this seems like a good deal

@crupicrupicrupi
Bob Iger says Disney will offer a bundle of Disney+, ESPN+, and ad-supported Hulu for $12.99/month. The OTT hydra will be available when the Disney+ services bows on Nov. 12.

This is an awesome deal... I'm jumping all over it.

So, honest question. What are you guys watching on Disney? I've seen multiple boards where grown men are like "Ooooh you can get espn AND Disney!!" What the fug is on Disney that I'm missing out on?

Disney owns 73% of all tv ever made in the history of mankind. In addition to a small army of child laborers. But you'll never see them.

(08-07-2019 09:45 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 09:43 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  Hulu Live here and never going back to cable. Built a house with all the tv locations having wired internet. Never have issues with loading/latency.

For those interested Hulu Live is supposed to be the best for sports. There hasn't been a college football or basketball game on cable that I have had issue watching. Plus I get more regional Fox Sports channels than I did with cable. Even has CBSSN for some of the random college hoops games. In addition to the live content, you also receive the regular Hulu service.

Not sure how it works with other live streaming services, but they also do a great job integrating premium channels like HBO and Starz. I can add these premiums easily in my account for a month or two at a time, and I have access to the channel and library content seamlessly through my Hulu Live App.

How much is your Hulu Package? I assume, based on your comments, that it has all the ESPNs, SEC/ACC networks, fox sports channels, and all that.

I believe my bill is around $50-55 right now. Hulu Live specifically targets sports as their focus, so it has all the conference network channels that you would want locally. For example, this is what the Cincinnati market gets.

ESPN
ESPN 2
ESPN News
ESPNU
ESPN Bases Loaded
ESPN College Extra
ESPN Goaline
FS1
FS2
FS Ohio
FS Ohio Alternate (one channel is used specifically for Cincinnati market for the Reds)
FS South
FS South Alternate
CBS Sports Network
NBC Sports Network
Big Ten Network
SEC Network
Golf Channel
Olympic Channel

(08-08-2019 07:22 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 09:45 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 09:43 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  Hulu Live here and never going back to cable. Built a house with all the tv locations having wired internet. Never have issues with loading/latency.

For those interested Hulu Live is supposed to be the best for sports. There hasn't been a college football or basketball game on cable that I have had issue watching. Plus I get more regional Fox Sports channels than I did with cable. Even has CBSSN for some of the random college hoops games. In addition to the live content, you also receive the regular Hulu service.

Not sure how it works with other live streaming services, but they also do a great job integrating premium channels like HBO and Starz. I can add these premiums easily in my account for a month or two at a time, and I have access to the channel and library content seamlessly through my Hulu Live App.

How much is your Hulu Package? I assume, based on your comments, that it has all the ESPNs, SEC/ACC networks, fox sports channels, and all that.

I believe my bill is around $50-55 right now. Hulu Live specifically targets sports as their focus, so it has all the conference network channels that you would want locally. For example, this is what the Cincinnati market gets.

ESPN
ESPN 2
ESPN News
ESPNU
ESPN Bases Loaded
ESPN College Extra
ESPN Goaline
FS1
FS2
FS Ohio
FS Ohio Alternate (one channel is used specifically for Cincinnati market for the Reds)
FS South
FS South Alternate
CBS Sports Network
NBC Sports Network
Big Ten Network
SEC Network
Golf Channel
Olympic Channel

I def want ESPN Goal Line for Saturdays when the Pirates aren't playing. Pigskin Mania has me casually paying attention to a lot of random games all weekend. For whatever reason, the deadbeat whose ESPN login I'm using didn't spring for it.

For all the cord-cutters out there - I'm doing the same thing but having trouble with internet. What internet providers do you recommend? I currently have AT&T.

My company pays for my internet and phone because I work from home. Cable TV goes along with it.

If I didnt have that set up I'd go, Internet, Disney+(which will include ESPN+ and Hulu), HBOGO, and Prime.

(08-07-2019 01:03 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  This should be its own thread. The UConn clowns who neglected to realize that espn + was a huge part of Disney’s plans with sec and big football also signing aboard should have hilarious mental/logical gymnastics on this one.

Nah. I wouldn't call ESPN+ a "big" part of SEC and B1G football. Their best games will still be on linear networks like CBS, ABC, ESPN, Fox, and their respective linear conference networks. So people will get to stream games on ESPN+ like Ole Miss at Vandy and Indiana at Rutgers. The best content of those two conferences isn't going behind a paywall.

It was disingenuous when Mike Aresco said that "being on ESPN+ is like the AAC having its own network". What a load of doo doo. The P5 all have linear conference networks. This isn't nearly the same thing. That said, ESPN+ will handle the AAC content with care (as it is the best sports programming that they will have to stream there). Still, however, most of these games will be invisible to fans of other schools who don't have a horse in the AAC race as streaming a game isn't exactly something you stumble upon by flipping channels. A person's mind usually makes more of a committed decision to stream a game than it takes when one just stumbles upon it. I can't tell you the last time I streamed content that didn't have to do with UConn.

Furthermore, you should have hilarious mental/logical gymnastics since, if streaming is so great, then UConn football can just theoretically strike a contract to stream their games on ESPN+ when not airing them on linear SNY (if the SNY deal comes to fruition). It doesn't have to be for big bucks to stream us. Just enough to cover expenses along with other revenue sources. If not ESPN+, maybe Netflix or YouTube could stream UConn football as sort of a guinea pig project.

UConn fans know that the AAC TV deal was half baked. It fails on multiple fronts:

- While $6.9mm is good now, 12 years is a LONG contract. $6.9mm won't be worth $6.9mm in real money in 12 years.

- 12 years is too long to commit to a single streaming service at this point in time. Nobody knows how we will be consuming content even in four years. New players like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon, Apple could all get in hard on sports and maybe would have been willing to pay even more. The ESPN brand becomes less important in a cord cutting world as long as someone can easily get to the service that is streaming their team's game and the production is solid. Of course the service also needs to offer enough quality sports content to attract subscribers (ESPN has an edge there currently, but that could change).

-While linear coverage "could" increase slightly according to the new TV contract, it could also decrease (which is why the contract spells out the minimum number of games that will air on linear TV). For women's basketball, it was 13 games. So, with UConn having no control of their 2nd or 3rd rights and with ESPN having no agreement with SNY, if the UConn women didn't get every single one of those 13 games on linear TV, then the biggest women's dynasty of all time moves behind a paywall and becomes increasingly invisible (and irrelevant).

-Men's basketball players want to play on linear TV to show off their skills. While ESPN is likely the best conference partner for the games that do air on linear TV, FS1 is a decidedly better vehicle than ESPN+.

All the conference had to do was give UConn the option to put a decent portion of the games that would not be on ESPN's linear channels on SNY and then stream the remainder on ESPN+ and UConn wouldn't be leaving. This TV deal is a bad deal (at least it is for UConn as women's basketball exposure was reduced to almost nothing under it and men's would likely be worse off as well at a time when we are trying to make a resurgence on the national scene). Even if linear football coverage with the new TV contract is better, it wouldn't have mattered to UConn. Our football team is not getting the linear Saturday games on ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU. Those are for Houston and UCF (and perhaps Cincy). So, if our football was going to be invisible anyway, then going to where linear basketball exposure and basketball prestige are higher was a no brainer.

(08-08-2019 03:30 PM)colsbearcat Wrote:  For all the cord-cutters out there - I'm doing the same thing but having trouble with internet. What internet providers do you recommend? I currently have AT&T.

Your internet service provider does not matter. Your speed and reliability do.

What download speed are your paying for?
Are you experiencing that download speed?
How much are you paying for that speed?

How to test your download speed- https://www.speedtest.net/

(This is why cord-cutting can get in the weeds and confusing).

My television and Apple TV are capable of streaming 4K (high-resolution television). Though the settings of the Apple TV, I reduce my streaming to 1080p (which is still high definition).

Why? When downloading, you are using data. Many internet service providers limit the amount of data a family can use during a month. It is unlikely that I will hit the cap at 1080p. 4K is four times the data. 4K may hit that cap.

(08-08-2019 06:09 AM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 02:59 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 08:16 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 05:13 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  I am paying $8 for Hulu now so this seems like a good deal

@crupicrupicrupi
Bob Iger says Disney will offer a bundle of Disney+, ESPN+, and ad-supported Hulu for $12.99/month. The OTT hydra will be available when the Disney+ services bows on Nov. 12.

This is an awesome deal... I'm jumping all over it.

So, honest question. What are you guys watching on Disney? I've seen multiple boards where grown men are like "Ooooh you can get espn AND Disney!!" What the fug is on Disney that I'm missing out on?

Disney owns 73% of all tv ever made in the history of mankind. In addition to a small army of child laborers. But you'll never see them.

Disney responds as Jessica Rabbit.

Is YoutubeTV the only serive that streams live CBS? I had PSVue but once they dropped CBS i dropped them. Need CBS for NFL games. SlingTV will send you an antenna to use for local channels. Hulu doesnt carry it.

So far my solution has been to use Spectrum cable for a year to get the new customer deal, then cancel after 364 days. Sign up with Cincinnati Bell Fioptics for their new customer deal and just repeat that cycle over and over. Usually getting all HD cable channels, HBO and 500MB internet for under $140/mo

(08-09-2019 07:23 AM)Spinal070508 Wrote:  Is YoutubeTV the only serive that streams live CBS? I had PSVue but once they dropped CBS i dropped them. Need CBS for NFL games. SlingTV will send you an antenna to use for local channels. Hulu doesnt carry it.

So far my solution has been to use Spectrum cable for a year to get the new customer deal, then cancel after 364 days. Sign up with Cincinnati Bell Fioptics for their new customer deal and just repeat that cycle over and over. Usually getting all HD cable channels, HBO and 500MB internet for under $140/mo

Just start following an NFC team and you'll be fine.

(08-09-2019 07:23 AM)Spinal070508 Wrote:  Is YoutubeTV the only serive that streams live CBS? I had PSVue but once they dropped CBS i dropped them. Need CBS for NFL games. SlingTV will send you an antenna to use for local channels. Hulu doesnt carry it.

So far my solution has been to use Spectrum cable for a year to get the new customer deal, then cancel after 364 days. Sign up with Cincinnati Bell Fioptics for their new customer deal and just repeat that cycle over and over. Usually getting all HD cable channels, HBO and 500MB internet for under $140/mo

Hulu Live Plus carries CBS in many(but not all markets)

(08-08-2019 05:37 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 01:03 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  This should be its own thread. The UConn clowns who neglected to realize that espn + was a huge part of Disney’s plans with sec and big football also signing aboard should have hilarious mental/logical gymnastics on this one.

Nah. I wouldn't call ESPN+ a "big" part of SEC and B1G football. Their best games will still be on linear networks like CBS, ABC, ESPN, Fox, and their respective linear conference networks. So people will get to stream games on ESPN+ like Ole Miss at Vandy and Indiana at Rutgers. The best content of those two conferences isn't going behind a paywall.

It was disingenuous when Mike Aresco said that "being on ESPN+ is like the AAC having its own network". What a load of doo doo. The P5 all have linear conference networks. This isn't nearly the same thing. That said, ESPN+ will handle the AAC content with care (as it is the best sports programming that they will have to stream there). Still, however, most of these games will be invisible to fans of other schools who don't have a horse in the AAC race as streaming a game isn't exactly something you stumble upon by flipping channels. A person's mind usually makes more of a committed decision to stream a game than it takes when one just stumbles upon it. I can't tell you the last time I streamed content that didn't have to do with UConn.

Furthermore, you should have hilarious mental/logical gymnastics since, if streaming is so great, then UConn football can just theoretically strike a contract to stream their games on ESPN+ when not airing them on linear SNY (if the SNY deal comes to fruition). It doesn't have to be for big bucks to stream us. Just enough to cover expenses along with other revenue sources. If not ESPN+, maybe Netflix or YouTube could stream UConn football as sort of a guinea pig project.

UConn fans know that the AAC TV deal was half baked. It fails on multiple fronts:

- While $6.9mm is good now, 12 years is a LONG contract. $6.9mm won't be worth $6.9mm in real money in 12 years.

- 12 years is too long to commit to a single streaming service at this point in time. Nobody knows how we will be consuming content even in four years. New players like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon, Apple could all get in hard on sports and maybe would have been willing to pay even more. The ESPN brand becomes less important in a cord cutting world as long as someone can easily get to the service that is streaming their team's game and the production is solid. Of course the service also needs to offer enough quality sports content to attract subscribers (ESPN has an edge there currently, but that could change).

-While linear coverage "could" increase slightly according to the new TV contract, it could also decrease (which is why the contract spells out the minimum number of games that will air on linear TV). For women's basketball, it was 13 games. So, with UConn having no control of their 2nd or 3rd rights and with ESPN having no agreement with SNY, if the UConn women didn't get every single one of those 13 games on linear TV, then the biggest women's dynasty of all time moves behind a paywall and becomes increasingly invisible (and irrelevant).

-Men's basketball players want to play on linear TV to show off their skills. While ESPN is likely the best conference partner for the games that do air on linear TV, FS1 is a decidedly better vehicle than ESPN+.

All the conference had to do was give UConn the option to put a decent portion of the games that would not be on ESPN's linear channels on SNY and then stream the remainder on ESPN+ and UConn wouldn't be leaving. This TV deal is a bad deal (at least it is for UConn as women's basketball exposure was reduced to almost nothing under it and men's would likely be worse off as well at a time when we are trying to make a resurgence on the national scene). Even if linear football coverage with the new TV contract is better, it wouldn't have mattered to UConn. Our football team is not getting the linear Saturday games on ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU. Those are for Houston and UCF (and perhaps Cincy). So, if our football was going to be invisible anyway, then going to where linear basketball exposure and basketball prestige are higher was a no brainer.

Blah blah blah blah blah

(08-09-2019 07:23 AM)Spinal070508 Wrote:  Is YoutubeTV the only serive that streams live CBS? I had PSVue but once they dropped CBS i dropped them. Need CBS for NFL games. SlingTV will send you an antenna to use for local channels. Hulu doesnt carry it.

So far my solution has been to use Spectrum cable for a year to get the new customer deal, then cancel after 364 days. Sign up with Cincinnati Bell Fioptics for their new customer deal and just repeat that cycle over and over. Usually getting all HD cable channels, HBO and 500MB internet for under $140/mo

I thought most of them did. DirecTVNow has it (well they just resigned with them finally)

(08-09-2019 06:22 AM)chess Wrote:  (This is why cord-cutting can get in the weeds and confusing).

My television and Apple TV are capable of streaming 4K (high-resolution television). Though the settings of the Apple TV, I reduce my streaming to 1080p (which is still high definition).

Why? When downloading, you are using data. Many internet service providers limit the amount of data a family can use during a month. It is unlikely that I will hit the cap at 1080p. 4K is four times the data. 4K may hit that cap.

I'm lucky in that my neighborhood has ATT Fiber. 1 Gbps (up and down) with unlimited data for 70 a month.

(08-08-2019 05:37 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 01:03 AM)Greenwavedrownsacat Wrote:  This should be its own thread. The UConn clowns who neglected to realize that espn + was a huge part of Disney’s plans with sec and big football also signing aboard should have hilarious mental/logical gymnastics on this one.

Nah. I wouldn't call ESPN+ a "big" part of SEC and B1G football. Their best games will still be on linear networks like CBS, ABC, ESPN, Fox, and their respective linear conference networks. So people will get to stream games on ESPN+ like Ole Miss at Vandy and Indiana at Rutgers. The best content of those two conferences isn't going behind a paywall.

It was disingenuous when Mike Aresco said that "being on ESPN+ is like the AAC having its own network". What a load of doo doo. The P5 all have linear conference networks. This isn't nearly the same thing. That said, ESPN+ will handle the AAC content with care (as it is the best sports programming that they will have to stream there). Still, however, most of these games will be invisible to fans of other schools who don't have a horse in the AAC race as streaming a game isn't exactly something you stumble upon by flipping channels. A person's mind usually makes more of a committed decision to stream a game than it takes when one just stumbles upon it. I can't tell you the last time I streamed content that didn't have to do with UConn.

Furthermore, you should have hilarious mental/logical gymnastics since, if streaming is so great, then UConn football can just theoretically strike a contract to stream their games on ESPN+ when not airing them on linear SNY (if the SNY deal comes to fruition). It doesn't have to be for big bucks to stream us. Just enough to cover expenses along with other revenue sources. If not ESPN+, maybe Netflix or YouTube could stream UConn football as sort of a guinea pig project.

UConn fans know that the AAC TV deal was half baked. It fails on multiple fronts:

- While $6.9mm is good now, 12 years is a LONG contract. $6.9mm won't be worth $6.9mm in real money in 12 years.

- 12 years is too long to commit to a single streaming service at this point in time. Nobody knows how we will be consuming content even in four years. New players like Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon, Apple could all get in hard on sports and maybe would have been willing to pay even more. The ESPN brand becomes less important in a cord cutting world as long as someone can easily get to the service that is streaming their team's game and the production is solid. Of course the service also needs to offer enough quality sports content to attract subscribers (ESPN has an edge there currently, but that could change).

-While linear coverage "could" increase slightly according to the new TV contract, it could also decrease (which is why the contract spells out the minimum number of games that will air on linear TV). For women's basketball, it was 13 games. So, with UConn having no control of their 2nd or 3rd rights and with ESPN having no agreement with SNY, if the UConn women didn't get every single one of those 13 games on linear TV, then the biggest women's dynasty of all time moves behind a paywall and becomes increasingly invisible (and irrelevant).

-Men's basketball players want to play on linear TV to show off their skills. While ESPN is likely the best conference partner for the games that do air on linear TV, FS1 is a decidedly better vehicle than ESPN+.

All the conference had to do was give UConn the option to put a decent portion of the games that would not be on ESPN's linear channels on SNY and then stream the remainder on ESPN+ and UConn wouldn't be leaving. This TV deal is a bad deal (at least it is for UConn as women's basketball exposure was reduced to almost nothing under it and men's would likely be worse off as well at a time when we are trying to make a resurgence on the national scene). Even if linear football coverage with the new TV contract is better, it wouldn't have mattered to UConn. Our football team is not getting the linear Saturday games on ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU. Those are for Houston and UCF (and perhaps Cincy). So, if our football was going to be invisible anyway, then going to where linear basketball exposure and basketball prestige are higher was a no brainer.

.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

.

LOL. Yeah, I totally pulled a Todge on that one. Just please hope that nobody here gives me reason to write a sequel.