Get Sling TV. $25 bucks a month gives you the whole suite of espn channels. No contracts either so you can cancel as soon as football season is over.

DeepEastTxAg said:

---

Not stealing. Concurrent streaming is a service intended for immediate family members. Read the terms of service.

---

As long as you fit their definition of immediate family member, you're good.

The problem with your "they'll bring their bundle approach with them" theory is if they do that, a huge chunk of this upcoming generation will simply refuse to pay for the bundles and go without TV in lieu of grudgingly shelling out the cash. I mean that's already happening.

The customers hold so much more power than they used to because with Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, etc., it's a piece of cake to ditch cable completely and get professional-grade video entertainment elsewhere (Hell, YouTube has tons of shockingly good video these days + is free).

The are a few exceptions, but for most people a full cable package is a waste of money. There are far cheaper substitutes out there.

Squadron7 said:

---

DeepEastTxAg said:

---

ONot stealing. Concurrent streaming is a service intended for immediate family members. Read the terms of service.

---

As long as you fit their definition of immediate family member, you're good.

---

Looking at Netflix TOS, it looks like they refer to "household members" rather than immediate family. Plus, there is this little gem "the Account Owner should not reveal the password to anyone".

Plus, it happens to be a federal crime to use someone else's password to access a computer system. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/11/court-yes-sharing-your-netflix-password-is-illegal/ Not that I expect the Feds are going to start throwing people in jail just because they used a family members Netflix password anytime soon. BTW, there is a similar law at the state level.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

The problem with your "they'll bring their bundle approach with them" theory is if they do that, a huge chunk of this upcoming generation will simply refuse to pay for the bundles and go without TV in lieu of grudgingly shelling out the cash. I mean that's already happening.

The customers hold so much more power than they used to because with Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, etc., it's a piece of cake to ditch cable completely and get professional-grade video entertainment elsewhere (Hell, YouTube has tons of shockingly good video these days + is free).

The are a few exceptions, but for most people a full cable package is a waste of money. There are far cheaper substitutes out there.

---

Younger customers are already going with out TV--going a la carte won't change that, it will just ensure that content providers don't get bundling from anyone. You don't price something cheap enough so that everyone will buy it, you price it at the point that maximizes profits, and there's no way that a la carte maximizes profits so long as major segments of the market will sign up for bundles.

You are also overestimating the amount of cable and satellite customers who can reliably stream HD content. There is a huge segment of the market that doesn't have that kind of internet service, and a lot of the ones that do have it through their cable provider. Until they go back and rewire most of the country for fiber optic, that's going to be an issue.

OK A few quick points:

1. Yes there are many areas where getting consistently reliable high speed internet is still a challenge, but in the areas where the majority of jobs are these days (major metropolitan regions) that is not the case. With the jobs being in those areas that also means those that have access to high speed also have the dollars that advertisers want.

2. Yes sports are subsidized by people that never watch sports and other channels that your average CFB would never watch are subsidized by them. I'll pay extra for SEC network and the reality freaks can pay more for Bravo.

3. Take some time to see the volume of original programming that Netflix puts out in a given month and what they pay to produce it. When they can drop over $150 Million on The Ridiculous Six they (or someone like them) can probably also drop a pretty penny on live CFB.

Madman said:

---

Quote:

---

Yesterday Nielsen announced its subscriber numbers for November 2016 and those numbers were the worst in the history of ESPN's existence as a cable company -- the worldwide leader in sports lost 621,000 cable subscribers. That's the most subscribers ESPN has ever lost in a month according to Nielsen estimates and it represents a terrifying and troubling trend for the company, an acceleration of subscriber loss that represents a doubling of the average losses over the past couple of years, when ESPN has been losing in the neighborhood of 300,000 subscribers a month.

---

Maybe if they didn't try to be social justice warriors, give awards to trannies, and **** up every broadcast with human interest stories some of this wouldn't be happening.

---

Post of THE DAY if not THE MONTH!

Disney might need to divest this bullsh...

brainman5000 said:

---

IMO, the biggest issue for ESPN is that they've made sports into reality shows. It's not enough to show genuine competition. Now, you need off-field stories, coaches' challenges, controversies, in-game interviews... in short, you need artificial drama. I've always enjoyed sports but detested reality shows. How many reality shows depict true professionals at work? Not many, because professionals make their job look boring and easy.

---

Madman said:

---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-30/espn-still-bleeding-subs-12mm-people-ditch-service-past-2-months-alone

ESPN loses another 1.2M in the last two months.

---

Good article

Best thread on TexAgs right now.

This is probably of big significance when thinking about how conference realignment will happen over the coming years.

In terms of Directv and Dish, if you are at all rural, these services are lifesavers. You just cannot get the level of internet bandwidth and data you need to stream everything. Even barely outside of metropolitan areas where there are tons of houses outside city limits, it can be difficult to get good internet service. DirectV and Dish aren't really that expensive relative to cellphone cost and adding up Netflix, HBO and other a la carte services.

And in terms of watching sports, I guess my experience is limited, but do they really stream nicely in HD? I have my doubts.

Is Google fiber still expanding?

Madman said:

---

Probably bad for Texas A&M and the SEC but good that the country is finally punishing ESPN for being part of the SJW crowd.

---

The bubble may pop and tv revenue may drop, but the most popular product will still be ahead of others. I expect the B1G and the SEC to be just fine.

I think the problem has a lot of moving parts. We are now in the entertainment arena as opposed to just pure sports. Frankly, the product just isn't that good with the exception of a few games each week. All SEC games get covered, so good, some not so good. Because we have too many bowls, any team with a break even record gets a bowl. Thus, everyone schedules cupcakes. I am sure the whole nation watched our PVAM game. The tv execs aren't fools. Within the next five years they will be telling us who we will play outside of our conference games. The cupcakes do not draw a crowd and are hardly entertainment. Five years after that, they will eliminate the conferences. They will create some system that matches teams. It is the only way they can maximize the viewers and keep people watching.

It's behind a paywall, but this Wall Street Journal article really does a good job of summing up what your options are for cutting the cord. Bottom line: cord cutters are jumping from cable to...cable, more or less. The bundles are just different.

The cable cutting dream is kind of a myth

Quote:

---

Want to cut cable? Prepare to replace it with something that looks a lot like cable.

The world's largest pay-TV company, AT&T, is getting into the cable-cutting business with an app called DirecTV Now. For as little as $35 per month, you can turn on your big-screen TV or your phone and stream a lineup of live channels that comes close to basic cable.

But just as we've long endured with cable companies, there's no way to get CNN and "South Park" without also paying for "Doc McStuffins" and extreme couponing. My dream of cable cutting looked different: A tech companySteve Jobs!was going to completely reinvent the way we watch TV. I would pay for just the video I wanted, and it would save me boatloads.

In 2016, cable cutting looks a lot less like salvation, and more like a few new heavily compromised TV bundles. If you do it at all, you'll want to take care that it doesn't end up costing you more.

...

There is progress here. As recently as last year, much of the sports, news and other live content we care about just wasn't available online without a cable TV subscription.

DirecTV Now does away with traditional cable headaches of long-term commitments, credit checks and equipment installation: It's possible to subscribe to live TV just to watch on your phone, if that's your thing. And you can quit with a few taps rather than a passive-aggressive sales call.

But forget the dream of ultimate customization. Today we can pay by the channel only with a few key streaming apps, like the $15-a-month HBO Now and the $7-a-month CBS All Access. Pretty much every other cable staple has come to the internet locked in a bundle.

And as we learned from the cable guy, bundles add up. DirecTV Now's new streaming packages start at $35 a month, but if you want the Weather Channel, the regular price leaps to $50 (it's currently available for less in a promotional offer). Want HBO too? That'll be $55, please. And you still have to pay for broadband internet.

---

Yep, Google Fiber is still expanding, but it's slow. They're building an entire infrastructure from the ground up. Once at my place (inside of 3 months here in SW Austin), I've got to figure out if I go with their IPTV service, or a different streaming option.

VanZandt92 said:

---

In terms of Directv and Dish, if you are at all rural, these services are lifesavers. You just cannot get the level of internet bandwidth and data you need to stream everything. Even barely outside of metropolitan areas where there are tons of houses outside city limits, it can be difficult to get good internet service. DirectV and Dish aren't really that expensive relative to cellphone cost and adding up Netflix, HBO and other a la carte services.

And in terms of watching sports, I guess my experience is limited, but do they really stream nicely in HD? I have my doubts.

Is Google fiber still expanding?

---

I live dead in the middle of a city of 100,000 people and don't get the bandwidth necessary for reliable streaming from AT&T. I might from cable, but getting cable internet without the cable TV bundle would be price prohibitive. There are huge swaths of the country that need to be rewired. People that live in the newer suburbs, or core urban areas, simply have no clue about this.

BeowulfShaeffer said:

---

Yep, Google Fiber is still expanding, but it's slow. They're building an entire infrastructure from the ground up. Once at my place (inside of 3 months here in SW Austin), I've got to figure out if I go with their IPTV service, or a different streaming option.

---

Yea been hearing for years Google fiber moving south. I live in between San Marcos and Austin and there is a monopoly on Internet services in this area (TWC). I f'n hate TWC (or Spectrum).

Step back and look at the bigger picture. tV cancelled shows that are not watched every season. They cannot cancel TAMU v. PVAM because of contractual provisions. They have to show it even though there are other games that may draw better.

This thread shows that folks are not watching because of expense, or a lack of interest or they have something better to do. These are entertainment choices. So how do you correct it if you are a satellite, cable or tv provider. You have the gold, you make the rules. You ask for and will get better games. The cupcakes go. If that does not work there are a lot of teams that I would like to see play one another. The conferences are minimized next.

Aquin said:

---

Step back and look at the bigger picture. tV cancelled shows that are not watched every season. They cannot cancel TAMU v. PVAM because of contractual provisions. They have to show it even though there are other games that may draw better.

This thread shows that folks are not watching because of expense, or a lack of interest or they have something better to do. These are entertainment choices. So how do you correct it if you are a satellite, cable or tv provider. You have the gold, you make the rules. You ask for and will get better games. The cupcakes go. If that does not work there are a lot of teams that I would like to see play one another. The conferences are minimized next.

---

Yep! I read somewhere that the new SEC West will be OU, OSU, t.u., A&M, Arkansas, LSU, and a few other little schools to the east that nobody cares about. I've also read that all of those games will be on a fantastic channel called the LHN that we will all be very happy to pay top dollar for.

Google themselves say they're committed to Austin city limits right now, so I bet your wait will be a good bit longer.

I'm fortunate enough to just squeak inside their latest "fiberhood". They've still got a lot of construction to do in our area--I'm in a gated community, and they've built out outside the gates, but haven't done any construction within our neighborhood, yet.

They said yesterday that I'm "3 months out", but I signed up on August 1. So, I'm guessing at least 7 months will progress from start to finish. But otherwise, it's AT&T or Spectrum as a provider. I'm currently with AT&T, but I'm at the limits of their capability. I'm barely able to get 18Mbps (5000 feet over copper is just too long).

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

JDL 96 said:

---

Bottom line: we may not keep getting more sports than we pay for. Cable TV forced non-sports fans into subsidizing sports. New technology means people don't have to pay for as much that they don't want. ESPN, media deals, player salaries, stadiums, and owner profits, and maybe even youth sports will all shrink.

CAVEAT: gambling and sports betting may have a bigger role.

---

That will be interesting, but might not pan out. If we see cable and satellite (already happening to an extent) go to a true a-la-carte model like you could see with purely online content, the price might not have to shift too much.

Your TV bill stays about the same, but you no longer have 300+ channels you never tune to. I think we can all safely say there are probably less than 15 channels we actually tune into on a monthly basis. Now, what I'm not certain of is how much those channels I never tune into actually costs my cable provider compared to the channels I tune into regularly.

The cable and satellite companies are going to have to learn one VERY hard lesson though. We as consumers are tiring of added features and so called value for our billed dollar. What we want, is a lower bill. We want the programming that interests us, and nothing more. I called seeking to lower my bill a while back. Apparently they couldn't lower my bill, but they gave me a year of free Showtime. I didn't even know until a tech (water got into the outside box) pointed it out. I've still never tuned into it. I don't want it! I want a lower monthly bill!!!

---

Will be interesting to see how it all pans out for sure.

The low rated "niche" cable channels are already being floated by the big players with a ton of viewers like ESPN, TNT, USA, etc. It's all packaged in and it's not the cable distributors solely doing it. The network groups themselves package in their niche networks as part of the distribution agreement with cable and satellite companies. Essentially, they are "thrown in for free" or a fractional price.

A la carte pricing models may force some of the niche networks to go out of business or they may simply be placed on a streaming tier at a discounted rate. As a capitalist, no problem with either.

For us consumers, right now everything is packaged for X price. In the future, you may still end up paying X price for the slate of 15-20 channels you want via these streaming bundles, but to get all the various content you want from all the multiple OTT players out there (plus your internet or mobile data bill), you're probably going to end up paying about the same as you are right now anyway. IF you have a narrow interest in content and perhaps never watch any sports, going the streaming route is probably cost efficient for you, but if you have broad interests, I think it adds up fast.

Personally, I like my traditional DirecTV plan because I can pause any show and LIVE Sports (not sure you can pause live sports while streaming) and can save hundreds of shows on my DVR to watch later. And I'm not limited in the LIVE sports I have access to whereas I know some of the streaming services restrict which LIVE games are even available.

Right now I can afford Dish or Directv and high speed Internet. I don't like it,but it doesn't break me. Fresh out of college, there is no way in hell I wouldn't be trying to save money. You absolutely have to have high speed Internet, whereas cable and Espn are nothing more than a luxury. There was a time when you wouldn't have considered not having cable. That time has passed.

Again, DVR is something I live by, but I can see why others are backing away. After this football season, I am much more apathetic about even that.

Espn's death cannot come soon enough. The sports bubble needs to pop.

Do people actually watch NFL? I don't know I've been raising kids for decades it seems. And Sunday is an all family day.

I'd like to be able to cut cable in favor of an online service, but live sports look awful when streamed (I've tried the ESPN app, PS Vue, and Sling).

VanZandt92 said:

---

Do people actually watch NFL? I don't know I've been raising kids for decades it seems. And Sunday is an all family day.

---

I used to, but I just lost interest. I used to be a big Cowboys fan back in the day, but with professional sports there are just zero stakes in it for me.

With college sports you have schools to identify with. The guys playing went to your school (and may even be your kid's contemporaries).

With the Pro's? Nothing.

I just can't generate any interest for or find some sort of an attachment to any pro any more.