The End of Cable? (ESPN's streaming plan)
- Thread starter roundball
- Start date
Why pay for anything when you can stream anything on your computer. And if you want to watch it on your tv just buy an adapter
yeah, they were given billions in tax-payer money to upgrade years ago and they never did. And they're profiting in the 10s of billions each year now. So boo-hoo. If it's too much demand, then let's call them all utility providers and let Google handle it then since poor Comcast can't.
some things are harder to (reliably) find than others. For $20 and some of the other channels I like to browse, that would be worth it to me. But also why I then wouldn't go pay for FSN/NBCSN/etc if I'm paying for one sports group already. Get one that covers the majority of what I watch, stream the remaining. Though with ESPN dropping NASCAR and NBC being ******** and putting most of their races on NBCSN, I'll have to get that one figured out. ESPN loses some of their value to me on that.
Attachments
Anybody else having issues with WatchESPN on Apple TV? It was horrible for the Ohio State/Alabama football game. And last night it was real glitchy got the Oklahoma/Texas BB game. It would stop and then go in fast forward until it caught up. And sometimes, we would just have audio or video.
Not the end of "cable" in the slightest.
To all the "cord cutters," where are you getting your internet connection from?
Many on here have said "a la carte" or "streaming TV" will be just as expensive in the end and ESPN is finally shining light on that for all to see.
Your current TV bill will just be split into channel subscriptions (that you pick instead of the company, which is arguably an improvement).
The channel subs will be higher though than what you're currently paying (audience fracturing) and you'll pay higher internet fees for increased data.
Meet the new boss, same as th---actually, it's still the old boss, just in a different outfit.
To all the "cord cutters," where are you getting your internet connection from?
Many on here have said "a la carte" or "streaming TV" will be just as expensive in the end and ESPN is finally shining light on that for all to see.
Your current TV bill will just be split into channel subscriptions (that you pick instead of the company, which is arguably an improvement).
The channel subs will be higher though than what you're currently paying (audience fracturing) and you'll pay higher internet fees for increased data.
Meet the new boss, same as th---actually, it's still the old boss, just in a different outfit.
Why do people keep bringing up internet service as an argument? Essentially everyone has internet service whether they have cable or not, so that point is moot. Even if you have to increase your internet subscription to a higher level for more streaming, I doubt that'd be much more than an extra $10-15/month. Still cheaper.
My guess is that those of us on cable internet will see a price jump because instead of becoming more competitive and offering better service, they'll just up the price to try and prevent people from jumping ship on cable tv. So in the end we wouldn't actually see cost savings by cutting cable tv.
I don't think people realize:
1) Just how much data you'd use in a "streaming model"
2) If that becomes the mainstream form, you think the current configuration is set up to handle it if everyone is doing it?
There are people on here who already get notices from Century Link, Mediacom and the like about data usage just from gaming/Netflix.
You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't price hikes due to required upgrades, increased loads, and just because they can to offset the loss of other revenues.
The cable companies are still going to be between you and the content, it will just all come through the modem instead of cable box now.
Last edited:
Also people laughed when I said ESPN would be at least $35 dollars.
This $20 sub will only allow one device at a time. Goodbye multiple tvs.
It's $40 bucks if you want to be able to access ESPN or another channel simultaneously on another device.
That's some major fine print that I haven't seen yet on here (may have missed it though).
This $20 sub will only allow one device at a time. Goodbye multiple tvs.
It's $40 bucks if you want to be able to access ESPN or another channel simultaneously on another device.
That's some major fine print that I haven't seen yet on here (may have missed it though).
Last edited:
I only have one tv, still fine with me. It's their way of capturing the millennials without cannibalizing their family base.
Last edited:
Point taken, but it also outlaws TV and tablet, or TV and laptop or any combo.
Fine until the wife and I disagree on what to watch.
Not a problem for us because we can't watch two things on cable at the same time now anyway and never have. The only way we watch two different things is if one is watching tv/something not cable on their computer or two different things on our computers.
Yeah, often times I would watch Sunday Night Football or some random college game on my tablet while my wife was watching one of her shows Sunday night or whatever. Or when I would have a college game on ESPN and another on ESPN2 or B1G on tablet.
I could see it being an issue for the people who are still on cable for sports. This is closer, but still a long way to go.
You mean by ISP's owned by Cable Companies? Weird
It is times like this that I give thanks for being in a Google fiber market.
Latest posts
-
-
-
ISU WR Daniel Jackson's climbed the "rough side of the mountain" yet again- Latest: Cyinthenorth
-
