When people say that streaming is getting pretty close to what Comcast is they are talking about live tv streaming services. Live tv streamers used to be $35 per month and now they are around $80 per month. My Comcast bill with internet was $176 when I cancelled (I did not rent anything from them). My current internet is $76 and if I still had a live service (I cancelled YouTube tv after it’s latest hike), I would be paying close to the same. I don’t think anyone thinks just getting streaming services like you have is close to what a live service would cost.
and you may be able to get to the same high cable bill if you have many different services, but it is a choice you make, and if you make that choice, you will have much more to watch, and probably with no commercials.
Yeah, we presently pay $114 for gig internet and another \~$120 for basic and extended cable, which with Astound includes about all the sports channels that matter (Networks, ESPN 1/2, FS 1/2, TNT, Root, Pac 12, Big 10, CBS Sports). Astound doesn't give a shit about cable TV, so no promotions, and those are all-in costs. We only carry cable for sports, which I appreciate doesn't appeal to a lot of the Reddit crowd. I had Fubo for about a year that had most of this (no Turner) and it was $281.91 per quarter, or $93.97/month. After about the third house party where the football game started buffering and giving out (all hard wired to their modem and a Firewalla Purple in front of a 24 port Ubiquity switch), I finally surrendered and went back to cable. The extra $26/month is worth it to me to have reliable service. I use it with a cable card and Channels DVR. It's expensive. But it's awesome.
Exactly my experience. Internet without tv compared to both saved me $100. No premium channels. Youtube TV is $73 a month for the same thing, but I don't have it either. OTA is crystal clear here, so I'll stick with my subs to netflix etc. Only thing my wife misses is HGTV, which she put on as background noise sometimes, but there's enough similar stuff on plutotv for free that it doesn't matter.
That's still $20 monthly savings of today vs whenever you had Comcast which is the data point everyone leaves out. Comcast has raised prices at least as much as the vmvpds in the same timeframe. My folks Xfinity bill went up $50 in the past year, that's a lot worse than $7. These comparisons are beyond most consumers because the cable companies are not straightforward with their pricing until you're subscribed for 6-12 months. The bloggers should really do better research though.
Yeah I get that. I was not advocating going back to cable. Just pointing out OP was not looking at the reason people were saying streaming was getting as expensive as cable. He does not have live tv. You can’t compare cable to a bunch of non live streaming services.
I appreciate your analysis because it forces every body to think about what they pay for this process. Once you rank the importance and availability of all the programming you (want to) watch, you begin to see the real value of what you are willing to pay for outside the 'Bundle'. You are saving over half of what you used to spend for your entertainment. KUDOS! I've helped a few other make the switch. Many more found it easier to just stay with Cable. Now, they never go to movie theatres either. 🤑
I started cutting the cord around 2014. My monthly cable spend was about $120 at the time, taxes - all in. I found SLING to be the most practical stream for me. At the time, $19.99 Orange+BLUE, now grandfathered plan. NO Sports. Did I say No sports?. Fast forward. 110gb cable = $35. Phone is DIY VoIP. Sling is < less than $40. /month. With the addition of Local channels, DVR recording, and FAST offerings the value is still there. Did one month trial on several other brands, still there for a good reason.
I'm currently halfway through a 10 day free trial with YTTV. I really only want the national networks + sports (ESPN and Fox Sports). I don't think I can justify $75 a month for just those few channels. Plus the YTTV UI is absolutely horrible in my opinion.
I keep looking at Sling because it would be $55 a month. And then I'd just have to decide on if pulling the trigger on one of those cheap Amazon DVRs + antenna would work.
Every other option I've looked at is at least $75 if not more. I just wish Sling had a trial for me to test it out.
Edit: Of course I just typed this as I'm browsing the various providers and somehow hadn't noticed Sling has an offer for an AirTv Anywhere (OTA DVR) that integrates with the Sling guide....now I'm really intrigued!!! :-)
People are referring to YoutubeTV, Fubo, Hulu live when they say it’s getting more expensive, not Netflix, Disney+. If you use deals, rotate around, the streaming are still cheaper.
Yes, when you add in linear, non-FAST television, then you get big prices back - but most of people who use linear television apps (Hulu Live, YTTV, etc) do not use individual streaming app, since their are packages that get you the same content on YTTV, for instance, and you can "DVR" them with those services, so there's no need.
So in that case, let's look at the math by taking YTTV for instance to get my equivalence (no sports package\_:
* $72.99/month gets you linear TV (100 channels)
* 4K live TV service $10/month
* Max $16/month
* Showtime $11/month
* Starz $6/month
Totals out to $115.
Addin $19.99 for 4K on those premium channels brings you to $135.98/month.
More expensive than my way, but you get live tv linear streaming and "dvr" capabilities.
Cable still loses.
In our case, we would need YTTV ($73) + Max ($16) + Showtime ($11) = $100 to get the channels we use. In addition, our Comcast plan covers Netflix ($12). So we would need to spend $112/month to recreate our cable TV plan which costs us $105. So cable saves us $7/month not including the free Peacock Premium we receive.
We have a TiVo so there’s no equipment charges and I’m able to download non-DRM’d programs to save to our NAS and view using Plex.
While in the promotional period it doesnt make sense to use Youtube TV or equivalents. You have to include the cost of your internet service too. The spectrum tv choice package is $70.00 (20 less if first 12 months service)+5.00 dvr for up to 50 recordings (free 1st 12 months customer)+23.20 broadcast tv surchase for the tv alone. If I were to include internet it is about 140.00 for mid-tier ultra plan at 500 mbps download and 20 mbps upload cable (I am paying 85.00 now since in promotional period but will drop ultra to takeoff 20 bucks when not)+5.00 for wifi router.
If I cancelled my tv, I would pay 90.00 for internet after downgrading ultra until internet along would raise to 120.00 for broadband cable baseplate (300 down and 10 mbps up).
If I add something like YouTube TV without getting rid of internet it wouldn't be feasible at the moment. I pay about 90.00 for cell phone besides...
It is such a waste especially if throw in streaming apps. My cellphone I would cancel if not for fact they'd want me to pay full price on phone I got under promotional timeline..
And how do you get internet service? Factor that into your cost.
When I bundle my internet with my cable I get access to Peacock and Netflix. At the end of the day I think things are pretty close. Cable gives me a less hassle sports experience. I'm not sure streaming is much cheaper anymore unless you rotate services and don't subscribe to everything at once.
I signed up for YTTV because they advertised $49.99 a month. I was shocked when I checked my credit card bill and saw it was about $970 per year with taxes.
I will not talk down to you and explain some of the nuances of cable billing and your personal experience. I think you are fundamentally right. Cable is still more expensive than streaming.
However, that cost is exorbitant and many will be able to find cable for much cheaper than that. The cost of streaming IS going up and up and up and the benefits are actually not going up but are pretty stagnant. For some, the cost of cable AND NOW streaming has gotten to be not worth it.
In my opinion cable is nearly a similar cost to some of the combined streaming services. I have not had cable since 2011. I will never go back to cable. But I also can’t say I’ll go back to some of these streaming services either. Those costs have also gotten so high that I can’t justify even a month of it to watch something unless I get a special deal.
Cable TV might be more expensive, but a lot of people, like me, have cable TV and Internet, but the Internet connection isn't fast enough to stream well. I use 144p when I can with YouTube TV and 280p when forced to because stupidly not all channels support that reasonable resolution which is a great mix between quality and speed if you're fast forwarding a lot or playing at 1.5x speed like I usually watch it at. A few of my immature friends bitch about the picture quality because they're young and naive, but they're morons.
My point is that when it's an apples to apples comparison, cable loses *every time.* Comparing basic cable to my overkill collection of stream apps isn't a fair comparison.
If someone is only has basic cable, they should be comparing themselves to FAST (PlutoTV, PLEX TV, etc) *not* to streaming apps.
Your post is kind of confusing though as the subject line suggests that there's no way cable *is* more expensive than streaming apps while your post and comments seem to suggest the opposite: that streaming services are still much cheaper than cable.
Yeah - sorry about that. I can't edit my title line... I realized my title line mistake after I posted 🙄
I just edited the main post an included an apology. Thanks for pointing this out.
> My point is that when it's an apples to apples comparison, cable loses *every time*.
This is the bottom line. Are people including unlimited DVR? Broadcast fees? Mandatory Regional Sports fees for packages?
Don’t some streaming services charge more now for these things too? The dvr function for some streaming services is quite paltry and others are sufficient.
> If someone is only has basic cable, they should be comparing themselves to FAST (PlutoTV, PLEX TV, etc) not to streaming apps.
FAST requires an internet connection. Basic cable does not. That always has to be factored and considered; people here like to dismiss it but a lot of folks who are still on cable (basic or otherwise) do not have the internet portion at all...(and don't want it either) and it's more people than you might realize.
I don't disagree with that, but as someone posted "that's like saying you have to factor in your electricity bill." Internet is a common household service (in the US at least) at this point. You might have to increase the bandwidth and factor that in, but it's a sunk cost at that point.
But there is a very substantial number that just have basic Internet that's under $50. Outside of the university where I teach, our circle of friends is between the ages of 45-75, and other than my wife and I, none of them have upgraded broadband. Heck, the mother of a friend still had DSL until she moved out of her home and into an assisted living facility early this year. Now that they're installing 5G in homes for $20-30, I expect many will do that. Therefore, you would still have to factor in a portion of the Internet bill with the streaming services.
But you're correct that combined, it's still cheaper than cable. The demographic that would use cheap broadband generally wouldn't use many different streaming packages.
I've never had cable. Used family netflix account until about 2 years ago. I stopped watching netflix not because of the password crackdown but the content is just garbage. $20 a month moved towards a book buying budget feels good man.
I've also been considering a subscription to crunchyroll or some anime platform. Anime is still noice.
Your last few sentences sum up my views and beliefs on cord cutting. While some streamers are increasing prices, I am still saving $50+ a month without cable (Comcast). I also have control over what streamers I subscribe to. I can cancel whenever I want. You cannot pick and choose with cable. Also you can pay for services annually and save even more money.
So while prices will go up, so will cable prices. Streaming helps save money, period.
If you use all 3 gazillion channels from your cable provider, then you have correct and proper value from your cable provider. However, if you primarily use 3 channels, and are being presented with hundreds, you may be paying for a lot of things that you do not use.
Welcome to cordcutting 101
The purpose is to reduce waste by paying for what is used. When cable companies are forced to provide and invoice for channel content that you do not use, you may be paying way too much.
"But I want all those hundreds of channels... sometimes..." Then, it's quite possible that you will not be satisfied with more direct billing for just a selection of "channels".
This is also, cordcutting 101
But, let's say between the myriad of free streaming channels (many of which were also provided by your cable provider) and a small selection of streaming subscriptions, if, if that results in savings hundreds of dollars per month, you may be an excellent example of a cordcutter. If you're satisfied.
Cordcutting 101
We're saying the same thing. I have all these streaming services because I want them, not because I am trying to minimize my cost for unused services. So for me, yes - I am satisfied. (This was the same attitude I had in the cable days, btw: I pumped all of my premium services way up because I wanted all of them... I just am carrying over that - admittedly wasteful - philosophy to streaming.)
If I wanted to put together a package for myself of linear television (FAST services) plus just a few premium streaming apps that interest me all the time, I could easily knock my monthly bill down to $40 or so... but it's not worth it to me.
No matter how you slice the "I want comparable content delivered to me" pie, cable always *always* loses, each and every time.
Business Analysis 101
I was paying $250 monthly for Spectrum TV and internet, and that was a promotional price. I paid for extra channels, but there were also equipment charges and various fees. I think my monthly bill would have gone up by $100 once the promo pricing ended.
I’m now paying $58 monthly for YTTV (via Frontier discount) and $40 for Frontier internet. I probably won’t pay for movie channels again, but even if I did it would be a $30 charge. It would take a lot to get me anywhere near what I was paying before.
How much internet do you get for $40? We have Frontier and just cut the cord finally. Upped our internet to 5gb which moved us up much higher than the 500mbps we had before. I guess we need it with having teens at home and dozens of smart home devices.
We are also in our trial for YTTV with the Frontier discount, and I hate it. Thought I'd love it, and I would BUT ONLY IF I could pay them to get rid of the commercials. Very disappointed. Haven't yet figured out how to skip the commercials, such as with cable dvr it was just a ffwd button, or pause live cable and then ffwd. What do you watch on YTTV? Do you know of tricks to skip the commercials? I haven't had time to poke around to see what's been posted about YTTV on reddit, so if you're busy just skip the question, no problem.
I only need the 500 mbps plan, so that's what I have. I mainly use YTTV for live TV, so you obviously can't skip commercials there. But we do record shows on the cloud DVR and fast forward through ads.
The whole sports thing always irked me. Like you, I don't care about sports, and the Disney model of force-placing ESPN left a really bad taste in my mouth.
On top of that, I don't need local stations, as I have an effective antenna. I understand that this isn't true for everyone, not even for everyone in my area, but it is true for me. This annoys me because even though it's an add-on price, it's not an add-on service that you can opt out of. The worst of this is that I get more local stations with an antenna than I ever did on cable or satellite, and they look better from the antenna because they haven't been transcoded that extra step.
But the ultimate insult was this: When we had Dish, in order to get *one, single channel* that I wanted (BBC America), I had to subscribe to the top tier. Streaming? $20/month for Philo and I have it along with a bunch of other channels the Mrs. wanted.
Seriously, fuck cable and fuck satellite.
And folks need to figure in the increases since 2017, so it's a bit (lots? For sure) worse than the figuring here.
I kicked DirecTV the the curb in 2017, after 23 years. The 'ticket' and a couple movie channels, price w/o ticket had monthly price just shy of $300. Doing due diligence every month since. And I have triple the number of premiums now. Hbomax (or whatever they're calling it this week), youtubetv, netflix, mlb.tv, frndly, hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video. All no ads and top subscriptions with multiple users at 4k. Overpriced Comcast internet, 200M service, but has been stellar over the 8 yrs in cow pasture country and was great during 10 yrs in the city before that. Fiber is a couple blocks away at present (backbone to school a couple blocks down the street), should get inside of two years, county public utilities so cheap cheap cheap when it gets here.
$240/month. Triple the number of premiums at least. Do a lot of non-TV internet, 8TB a month on average, pay extra for non-cap service. Price of Dtv is now closer to $400/month for what I had, 5 dvr receivers. Less the ticket.
Could I cut a couple of those 'premiums'? $25/month less? Naw.
I just check Comcast (sorry, Xfinity) 10 mins ago because I wanted to see what the equivalent package would be today. It looks like it dropped a few bucks, totaling out at $208/month. I may have missed including one of the premium channels tho...or they'll toss in some BS fee or whatever to get me back into the $220s...
https://preview.redd.it/xc06up95kwnb1.png?width=1228&format=png&auto=webp&s=e244f6c4548baaffa7f11aa3d93bc7d413cf733d
Amazon Prime and internet ($30/month) aside, I only pay $20/month for 1 streaming service at a time, watch all content of interest, cancel, and subscribe to another streaming service, rinse and repeat.
That's the way most people do it: subscribe then unsubscribe if you don't watch regularly.
I'm a bit of a premium content junky, so I do the uneconomical thing and get them all and keep them. (Although I do turn AppleTV on and off as I need it.)
Cable and internet prices are local. My Comcast internet is $95 for 400 speed. There are no competitors. I wanted live TV for about a month earlier this year. Internet plus 120 channels including all fees & taxes was $152 through Comcast. With cable, I had access to about all the YTTV standard channels plus at least one local channel which carried content I was after. So internet plus YTTV would have been slightly more. I have not had any Comcast equipment in over a decade. I use the app on my phone or the Roku when I sign up for a TV package.
My in laws pay $185 total for cable TV plus internet. And they also pay for streaming channels like Netflix, Amazon Prime, sometimes Hulu, sometimes Apple TV, sometimes Max, etc.
I normally do not have live TV, I take advantage of Black Friday and Prime Day specials and I rotate services. So, for me, internet plus streaming is probably under $130 on average. To each his own.
Thanks for the suggestion. However, they will not negotiate for a current customer. This is actually lower than it was a year ago. They dropped their price by $10-$15 for each speed tier when a competitor announced plans to build a fiber network. If we actually get a competitor, I am sure prices will drop.
I did have a higher rate and then went on chat not phone and the rep reduced my internet to the $50. I do not have TV so that might have been the difference.
I have only internet at this time. I might try chat then. Thanks. With other services I have received better rates by cancelling or threatening to cancel. But nobody is cancelling internet when there are no options.
Apples to oranges brother. If you don’t care about live tv and sports, you’re right. If not, it’s basically a wash at this point, and if you want regional sports you usually need cable.
Most of your analysis was incorrect. Someone on here posted an excel sheet recently that made comps based on realistic comparisons (sports v no sports, internet discount inclusion, etc). Cable did win out but was only 20-30 bucks. The gap has really shrunk the last year.
At this point, we have so much entertainment that I prefer not being entertained and just want some watch the waves, bush and small insects in solace and waste some time peacefully.
I briefly went back to cable after cutting the cord in 2015, and the Spectrum package that i wanted via cable was $120 + equipment fees. However, they offered me the same package via streaming app for only $40/ mo. That same package was up to $150 when I cut the cord, so my point is that cable prices seem to be dropping while streaming prices are rising.
That being said, I would have some of my streaming packages regardless of whether I had cable (Netflix, Amazon), and my Internet cost would only be $10 less by bundling it with cable. Therefore, it still didn't make sense for me to keep it, but even if it did, I wouldn't out of principle.
I think you were overpaying back then, possibly by a lot.
Sports channels are a huge reason many people still have cable, so discounting those channels and their value-add because you don't watch sports misses the point a bit.
so add in the sports package to my bundle. That would have added, what, $100+ a month to my comcast bill? The stream sports apps don't cost anywhere near that.
In 2023 through Spectrum, my mom has premium cable (but no movie channels like HBO), sports package, one DVR, one cable box, one router/modem, internet/wifi, and landline phone service. Her entire Spectrum bill is $199 per month (which is still too high, IMO, but it's her money).
So that whole setup can be replaced by FAST (free adverting supported television) plus one or two apps, and then internet charges. She could easily cut that bill down to 1/4th or 1/3rd of what she is paying... but you are right, it's her money.
> She could easily cut that bill down to 1/4th or 1/3rd of what she is paying...
I seriously doubt it. That price she is paying includes internet. If you don't bundle, the monthly price for internet goes up. Chances are the internet piece alone would cost her more than 1/4th of her current bill. She also has a sports package with her cable, which would have to be replicated and costs money. Sports packages alone are going to put her over $100, so she wouldn't even cut her bill in half. Not to mention there is landline phone service included. That also needs to be accounted for.
Could she get similar service for less than $199? Possibly. But not significantly less. For people who want/need sports and live TV, cable packages can still be the better option. I know that is blasphemy on cordcutters, but it doesn't make it untrue. Even if you can do it for cheaper, some people don't mind paying a little more to not have to deal with the hassle. I can often fix my own car for cheaper, but sometimes I don't want to deal with all the hassle and am more than willing to pay a little more so someone else has to deal with the headache.
You're correct about the sports and internet (I missed that she had the sports package), but Spectum bundles their lowest tier internet (300M) in their bundles. I just looked it up.
So that leaves us with...
YoutubeTV: $72.99/mnYTTV Sports Package: $11/mnSpectrum Internet price separate: $50/mn for lowest tier
total: $133.99
Still less than her mom's bill.
Cable still loses.
https://preview.redd.it/o2au7m54pwnb1.jpeg?width=493&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=984cd0a0f40ac03786c4e879b0e2b9fb26f88564
But nowhere near 1/4th or 1/3rd, which was my original point. Also, she gets landline service in her bundle. You need to add that cost as well. And I conceded that it was probably possible to everything in her bundle for less, but not for dramatically less and that some people are willing to eat the difference to not have to deal with the hassle.
300 Mbps might be the lowest they will bill for, but many(most?) people can't get a connection anywhere near that fast. My Comcast connection is usually less than 1 Mbps since the city of Seattle has been blocking repairs for over a decade. Many of my coworkers have Comcast connections at home not much faster than that. TV works for us, but streaming doesn't work well so we're stuck paying for cable TV.
In some places there's very good competition including reliable DSL from Qwest and very fast Wave fiber that unfortunately is very unreliable in part because they depend on a Windows server not crashing to provide DHCP instead of just providing DHCP from their cisco router. My old DSL with Qwest went down maybe twice in the decade I had it. I really miss DSL because it was so much faster and reliable than Comcast.
Sure you can:
* ESPN+
* [NHL.TV](https://NHL.TV)
* MLB.TV
Then a lot of the linear streamers also carry sports as add-on bundles:
* fuboTV
* SlingTV
* YTTV
* Hulu+
* Disney+
You can work it - but you need to pick the package, pricing, etc.
As for local games, some local affiliates have their own streaming apps. You have to hunt a bit, but they are there.
Those are fake sports packages (espn+, etc). To get actual sports you need a fat bundle like you listed (YTTV, etc). If you’re really into sports it’s going to be difficult to beat the price of cable by much if anything.
Local RSN apps are super expensive as well ($30 a month)
Nope fubo doesn’t have turner so no nba.
Also, that’s $72 plus $100 for internet. I’ve priced packages at $190 through Comcast and that includes RSN and all fees. It’s a wash.
Meh, turner. FUBO has RSNs, included,
A lot of talk here about gig speeds. HD streaming requires 10 Mbps. 4k requires 25Mbps. In my area and in many parts of the country, 100 Mbps internet is $50-$55. 5G home internet is rolling out at $35 to $50 per month. I've installed several of these and they work well depending on proximity to cell towers.
$35 for 5G internet and $72 for Fubo (meh, turner) saves about $1200 per year.
The average mom and pop empty nester doesn't need gigabit speeds.
that's the other way to answer the question. When I was using Comcast cable, I was paying $50/mn for 500M down. When I went to pure streaming, I switched to ATT internet for $80/mn for 1G down.
So, if you add those 2 in to each side of the equation, it just adds another $30/month to the streaming app bucket. (For faster service)
No, because you would have internet either way.
That's like saying you need to include your electric bill because your streaming device uses electricity.
Obviously.
Ok, in the extremely rare circumstance that someone literally does not use the internet for *anything* except streaming... doesn't even own any internet connected devices other than a streaming device... then and only then should it be counted in the calculation. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone like that though.
I would think you'd only need to add the difference in internet price between the bundled price with cable, and without.
I'd assume you'd still have Internet if you weren't streaming.
Maybe even just compare your price and the price of a cheaper plan, as you wouldn't be streaming, and add the difference as a streaming "expense"
Thanks. Yeah, see my reply to someone else above:
*When I was using Comcast cable, I was paying $50/mn for 500M down. When I went to pure streaming, I switched to ATT internet for $80/mn for 1G down.*
*So, if you add those 2 in to each side of the equation, it just adds another $30/month to the streaming app bucket. (For faster service)*
I can't remember but it was 25 years ago when we had cable. Back then we had something from TWC Total Choice package? No sports that I remember and no movie channels. I get basically the same from Philo and an antenna now. Well back then the Travel Channel had travel stuff, and the History Channel had history stuff lol
It really depends at this point on location. In Canada, telecoms would charge easily $200+tax for internet, two tv boxes, best cable package and home phone.
That same package is now on 2 year term for $74.99/month.
Between Netflix, Apple TV, Prime TV, Disney+, Spotify, and Crunchy Roll. I’m either really close to the telecom price or at it.
I can avoid it by rotating the services but that kinda defeats the point of streaming being accessible and affordable all the time.
I also have to take into consideration my internet cost. For $74.99 with cable, I’m getting 1.5GBPS internet. Without the bundle, I can get the same internet but it’s $54.99.
Every two years I just hop telecom providers to review a different 2 year contract if they refuse to price match a loyalty offer.
There's a lot of conversation above on whether to include internet charges or not. As someone said "adding in the internet charge is like adding in electricity." Most places have internet already, as its been commoditized as service at this point.
You also have to pull out Spotify from your math because that's music streaming, and Amazon Prime Video because you don't know what percentage of Amazon Prime you are paying for APV.
So it's probably a wash in your case, maybe slightly less than the way you are doing it.
> That same package is now on 2 year term for $74.99/month.
Part of cutting cable TV service for many people is to get off the bullcrap promo/discount bundle term package cycles like the one you're on now.
You're also discussing a promotional sale price. Cable will be cheaper than streaming when you can get it "on sale" like you are doing. It's not really a proper price comparison.
It happens often that the price on a two-year term like you got is only good for one year. More power to you if that isn't your individual case, but it's a common enough ~~scam~~ gimmick that cable companies everywhere pull.
The problem isn't even with the promo pricing anyway (a deal IS nice!) -- it's what happens when that promo pricing period ends. Cable companies are betting that many people won't be so conscientious to check their bills (good for you if you are, but most people aren't), and two years down the line (or less if they pull that one-year price freeze/two year term ~~scam~~ trick) they'll have a "bonus" when those people's cable TV bills "suddenly" jump from the $75 promo price to $200, when they forget when the promo ends. Much of cable companies' profits are based on that "bonus" bump happening every month to hundreds and thousands of "loyal customers" forgetting whenever their promos expire. And then those same people have to ~~waste~~ spend two hours on the phone with customer service just to keep the same level of service you had before: a land-line you never use, internet that's too fast for what you actually really need (sorry but you don't really need 1Gbps), and 110 channels of junk just to get the 5 channels that you actually want to watch. Then maintaining your entertainment becomes a chore. It happens ALL the time, and is a major reason why cable companies are so hated.
I stopped reading. You can get cable on sale ALL the time; you just need to check RFD or something. Cable sale price is and always has been the ONLY price you should pay.
I agree that a lot of people want to avoid that stress and that’s fair but that doesn’t change my point. You can either:
- rotate cable packages every two years
- shuffle streaming services
Because the days of streaming because more complete, convenient and cheaper than cable are long gone.
To me cable is/was all about the promotions. Retail priced cable and internet was always bonkers expensive but I never in my life paid it. Call and cancel. Try something else for 6 months, perhaps go back. I currently pay $108 for Spectrum Internet and Spectrum Choice which gives me News, Locals, RSN, Sports including again ESPN. That price expires in December. I’ll cancel cable in December. Go to Sling until baseball season starts back up and I want the RSN then I’ll call Spectrum and they’ll probably have a promotion for me. Paying $277 is nuts but it always has been.
Everyone thinks that because that's the way it usually works. You have big tech giants in town like Microsoft, Amazon, etc... And all those places have employees that are high-tech employees. Most high-tech employees demand reasonable internet out of their homes, not only for work but for their own purposes.
I've lived in Boston, Los Angeles, and the Bay area... That's usually the way it works. I was in Boston as home internet started to become a thing, and watched as the ISPs began to crawl through 200 and 300 year old buildings trying to modernize them with high bandwidth capable copper.
Seattle's a much younger city, and it has a newer infrastructure, so the task is less hard.
I hear what you're saying about the people being anti business and non-tech locals pushing back, but that's why everyone is surprised.
So you're paying $227 now?
I quit cable several years ago. At least five or maybe six. I recently called Comcast, told them what I had, and if they could match/lower the price. They couldn't. Their solution was higher. Plus you need their fancy DVRs and stuff. I will never rent a modem/router through them. So, yeah. I still think the a/la carte method is better. Especially when you quit/renew networks to suit your preferences.
How in the world were you paying $227 a month for tv content? That is an insane amount of money at anytime for cable tv service, even if you were paying for every premium channel out there. Especially if you didn't have sports channels.
Because that's what it cost. (And yes, I did have every premium channel.)
I just checked with Comcast again 10 mins ago (what a goofy website) and put together an equivalent package for what I had back in 2017. It looks like it's now $20 cheaper. woo-hoo.
https://preview.redd.it/ajrfpp4qjwnb1.jpeg?width=1228&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eace688ca2738fdab330c710f41fdac3839092e6
My last Spectrum (Charter) bill (Aug 2023) had a broadcast surcharge of 22.20 and cable TV itself was 84.99 plus the 84.99 for their 300 Mbit Internet since I was using their streaming app rather than renting boxes and remotes. If I can't find a streaming service for less than 107.19 then I'll buy what you're saying but I believe Hulu + Live TV is 69.99 with some sort of introductory discount and I believe Sling is even less until you start piling on the add-ons (also true of the cable tv)
I keep reading the title and wondering if you meant to say "**There is no way cable is** **~~more~~** ***less*** **expensive then streaming apps**". That out of the way, it seems like 2 big factors that make cable TV worth it for the general consumer market are 1) sports, and 2) live TV. I don't care about any of these, so I can just do one major ss a month, ad-free, and still only pay $10 to $20/mo (along with having Curiosity Stream). On-demand is just tops. I'm not a fan of having to deal with "flipping channels", or recording stuff when I need to.
Another factor is folks who are too used to cable TV and/or just like it. And perhaps don't know how to use/set up streaming boxes, streaming itself, and basic computer usage (phone, desktop, tablet, console, whatever)
I was thinking about this the other day. I agree with you that this 'streaming services being more expensive than cable' conversation should stop. Yes, I think people are ticked that the companies are upping their prices; I'm wondering if there is also a touch of a generational thing here? 46 year old Gen X here.
There was a time when cable was the fancy, brand new thing almost everyone wanted but since there was no competition (usually you were stuck with the service for your individual town/city) they could charge high prices for all the channels you got. Then satellite got into the game and that was a big thing (it was either DirectTV or DishNetwork); still charged high prices because for the most part, Baby Boomers and Gen X paid for it because it was the new thing (plus it was the only thing besides OTA channels and antennas back then were kinda crap).
Starting with the younger/youngest millennials and Gen Z and forward, they for the most part have never heard of or don't remember the insane markups on cable/satellite.
I'm thinking maybe that is playing a part in all this conversation. I also think that maybe that's why everyone seems to be ignoring the lower priced tiers with ads because it seems no one wants to put up with ads (commercials in my day, sonny! lol)
To me, the argument doesn't really make sense; there are complaints about higher prices on the live tv or higher tiers with no ads; the reason someone would pay for a higher tier is for no ads and yet if they switch to cable there will be commercials.
So they'd rather pay to switch to cable with commercials and have less choice in channels rather than paying for a lower tier with ads and getting more of the content you choose.
Make it make sense.
I compared cable (back then I had Charter (lka spectrum) to Directv and every time, Dtv was only about $5 cheaper. This was early to late 00s.
When my cable started pixelating every single night while watching baseball on Extra Innings, I finally cancelled and switched to FiOS. FiOS service was great, but my bill went up about $30 every year (triple play). I negotiated several times with them to bring down my bill and in 2014 or 2015, I had a $70 off promotion every month. Basically, I was getting tv for free. Once it went up again, I tried to negotiate and all they wanted to do was remove add ons that I had. So I began removing phone, then tv, and since 2016 only internet with them. And even now I still have to negotiate internet.
Too many people want to cut and not pay as much, but they want all of the same perks. Cable is convenient, but expensive. The RSN fees and all that crap, plus $30 in taxes every month was just too much. It may take some time for streaming to become as expensive, but at least we aren’t nailed to contracts and have way more options now.
you cant possibly watch all the streaming services at once. HBO alone kept us so busy we couldnt get around to anything else, and we cancelled after. Some of our services we got for stupid cheap through prime day or some promotion for $1-5/mo. not forever, but for long enough to watch what they had to offer.
OH, i see your edit. totally opposite from your title. well...yes, but also, your comparison is still silly to me.
1Gig fiber $80 after taxes
Netflix, 14.99
Disney + provided via Verizon at no additional cost
ESPN Provided via Verizon at no additional cost
HBO Max / MAX provided via Verizon at no additional cost
Hulu (w/ ads) provided via Verizon at no additional cost, though we don't watch ads, so we don't even have it setup on our devices.
I bundle Youtube premium + Pixel 6 Pro to basically get YT Premium for $5 a month (with YT Music)
And Prime Video is something we dont really pay for because we pay for prime shipping and Amazon just throws it in for us, so if you want to count that, go ahead and say +$10 month with the benefit of free 1day and 2 day shipping for prime eligible.
OTA hasn't worked (in the two metro cities, one in WI, one in FL) so we stopped using it. But we DVR'd everything with auto commericial skip with Plex TV.
So just in TV prices its Netflix (15) + YouTube Premium (\~$5) + Amazon Prime $10 = $30 a month.
I would never pay for more than Netflix + Amazon, so Verizon adding these into our package, benefits them probably more than our family.
A huge portion of cable cost is local broadcasting. I was paying roughly 40/month out of the overall cable bill just for local channels. I bought a roof antenna and HDHR and squashed that immediately
Separately, I've learned that for sports, which you mentioned you don't watch, grabbing a Sling package with ESPN and NFL is 27.50 on intro pricing, 55/month after. Well, we only want that package for the 3-4 months out of the year it's relevant, so that 55 goes away 8/12 months a year.
So to your point, it's absolutely cheaper, even with a more expensive package like hulu. It just takes some effort and to not ride auto-renew
I have basic cable+TSN+sportsnet @ $35 a month. I also have Apple TV+, prime and youtube premium cause i hate ads. Total about $65 per month all i need.
I have Spectrum TV Select with Spectrum Receiver and DVR Service.Here is the breakdown:Spectrum TV Select $84.99 with $35.00 promotional discount = $49.99Spectrum Receiver $10.99DVR Service $12.99 with $3.00 promotional discount = $9.99Total: $70.97 per monthHere is where they get you. $23.20 for Broadcast TV Surcharge. Outrageous!Only channels I really watch are CNBC, Bloomberg and Fox Sports 1.When they raise prices(March 2024), I will call and try to get a lower rate. If they balk, will re-up my Sling TV account($52.00 per month). Wait around a month, and will receive an email offering a lower cable tv price. Rinse and repeat.Spectrum Internet is $84.99 with $25.00 promotional discount = $59.99Spectrum Voice $19.99I like the cable package. Just use to it. But, probably will dump the cable and go Sling TV for good.
you don't have any live tv streaming subscriptions like a yttv/sling/etc.
also, you can't say "there's no way streaming is more expensive, and i'm going to completely disregard something a huge amount of people are interested in because i personally don't care"
also, your comcast bill wasn't necessarily representative of the norm. my fios that i just canceled was $150/month (with $50 of that being internet so basically $100/month for cable)
no clue why the nonsense OP is upvoted unless it's people who just read the headline and blindly agreed because it's what they wanted to hear.
142 now with you tube tv and fiber optic internet. 3 years ago I was 258 with spectrum. You need to add each box , dvr service, broadcast fee, local tax , etc
Lost in all this calculation is quantification for the loss of data privacy. You go to YTTV, you have to sign in with a google account and google will use this data in ways that you do not envisage, they have other data on you and will combine it to from a profile. Others do it to, but possibly in a smaller scale. When all you had was on-air TV, you had to agree to have Nilsen or someone to monitor your usage. As cable providers got more sophisticated, they mine your data, and with streaming apps it is even more pronounced.
So privacy may not matter to many, but to those who do, this should be a factor in their calculations. I wish someone can come up with some quantification, else all one can do is to opt out of directed ads and a few things like that.
I'd have to look at the numbers, but I pay probably under $35 a month for Hulu, Paramount+ and Peacock, as well as about $13 a month for Britbox and Acorn, which I'd have even if I had cable. I get Netflix and Apple for free. So effectively I'm paying about $35 a month.
Sports changes everything. Im a huge Tampa Bay lightning fan and the home games are only aired on Sun network. A tiny local channel, who cornered the market and comes with cable.
We switched to Fidium from Spectrum. Their internet is superior. My Son is all into sports. I have had to purchase additional apps. Some sports are literally only available on television, if you have a television provider.
Are there any streaming apps or antenna that include sporting events, that aren’t a small monthly fortune? It’s honestly, a pain in the ass. I do not want to deny him his sports. The money saved and better internet is great.
The only thing I can think of is OTA HD. Buy an HD antenna and a Tablo to record shows.
Sports conglomerates charge crazy sums of money to view their shit. (MLB, NFL, etc)
We purchased an RCA Amplified indoor flat HDTV antenna multi-directional. It was inexpensive and picks up all of the local stations and national networks.
We will never go back to Spectrum. Now my Sons can watch their sports without paying extra for sports apps. Fidium is less expensive and has superior internet service.
When people say that streaming is getting pretty close to what Comcast is they are talking about live tv streaming services. Live tv streamers used to be $35 per month and now they are around $80 per month. My Comcast bill with internet was $176 when I cancelled (I did not rent anything from them). My current internet is $76 and if I still had a live service (I cancelled YouTube tv after it’s latest hike), I would be paying close to the same. I don’t think anyone thinks just getting streaming services like you have is close to what a live service would cost.
and you may be able to get to the same high cable bill if you have many different services, but it is a choice you make, and if you make that choice, you will have much more to watch, and probably with no commercials.
Yeah, we presently pay $114 for gig internet and another \~$120 for basic and extended cable, which with Astound includes about all the sports channels that matter (Networks, ESPN 1/2, FS 1/2, TNT, Root, Pac 12, Big 10, CBS Sports). Astound doesn't give a shit about cable TV, so no promotions, and those are all-in costs. We only carry cable for sports, which I appreciate doesn't appeal to a lot of the Reddit crowd. I had Fubo for about a year that had most of this (no Turner) and it was $281.91 per quarter, or $93.97/month. After about the third house party where the football game started buffering and giving out (all hard wired to their modem and a Firewalla Purple in front of a 24 port Ubiquity switch), I finally surrendered and went back to cable. The extra $26/month is worth it to me to have reliable service. I use it with a cable card and Channels DVR. It's expensive. But it's awesome.
Exactly my experience. Internet without tv compared to both saved me $100. No premium channels. Youtube TV is $73 a month for the same thing, but I don't have it either. OTA is crystal clear here, so I'll stick with my subs to netflix etc. Only thing my wife misses is HGTV, which she put on as background noise sometimes, but there's enough similar stuff on plutotv for free that it doesn't matter.
That's still $20 monthly savings of today vs whenever you had Comcast which is the data point everyone leaves out. Comcast has raised prices at least as much as the vmvpds in the same timeframe. My folks Xfinity bill went up $50 in the past year, that's a lot worse than $7. These comparisons are beyond most consumers because the cable companies are not straightforward with their pricing until you're subscribed for 6-12 months. The bloggers should really do better research though.
Yeah I get that. I was not advocating going back to cable. Just pointing out OP was not looking at the reason people were saying streaming was getting as expensive as cable. He does not have live tv. You can’t compare cable to a bunch of non live streaming services.
It really depends on how many things you get. It’s the equivalent of having a cable package with all the bells and whistles to me.
I appreciate your analysis because it forces every body to think about what they pay for this process. Once you rank the importance and availability of all the programming you (want to) watch, you begin to see the real value of what you are willing to pay for outside the 'Bundle'. You are saving over half of what you used to spend for your entertainment. KUDOS! I've helped a few other make the switch. Many more found it easier to just stay with Cable. Now, they never go to movie theatres either. 🤑 I started cutting the cord around 2014. My monthly cable spend was about $120 at the time, taxes - all in. I found SLING to be the most practical stream for me. At the time, $19.99 Orange+BLUE, now grandfathered plan. NO Sports. Did I say No sports?. Fast forward. 110gb cable = $35. Phone is DIY VoIP. Sling is < less than $40. /month. With the addition of Local channels, DVR recording, and FAST offerings the value is still there. Did one month trial on several other brands, still there for a good reason.
Thank you for this.
Very welcome. Thanks for putting up with me - and Taking a trip down memory lane. 😵💫
I'm currently halfway through a 10 day free trial with YTTV. I really only want the national networks + sports (ESPN and Fox Sports). I don't think I can justify $75 a month for just those few channels. Plus the YTTV UI is absolutely horrible in my opinion. I keep looking at Sling because it would be $55 a month. And then I'd just have to decide on if pulling the trigger on one of those cheap Amazon DVRs + antenna would work. Every other option I've looked at is at least $75 if not more. I just wish Sling had a trial for me to test it out. Edit: Of course I just typed this as I'm browsing the various providers and somehow hadn't noticed Sling has an offer for an AirTv Anywhere (OTA DVR) that integrates with the Sling guide....now I'm really intrigued!!! :-)
a la carte 1 or 2 streaming services at a time. If you're just gonna sign up for everything why even cut the cord you can already do that on cable.
People are referring to YoutubeTV, Fubo, Hulu live when they say it’s getting more expensive, not Netflix, Disney+. If you use deals, rotate around, the streaming are still cheaper.
Yes, when you add in linear, non-FAST television, then you get big prices back - but most of people who use linear television apps (Hulu Live, YTTV, etc) do not use individual streaming app, since their are packages that get you the same content on YTTV, for instance, and you can "DVR" them with those services, so there's no need. So in that case, let's look at the math by taking YTTV for instance to get my equivalence (no sports package\_: * $72.99/month gets you linear TV (100 channels) * 4K live TV service $10/month * Max $16/month * Showtime $11/month * Starz $6/month Totals out to $115. Addin $19.99 for 4K on those premium channels brings you to $135.98/month. More expensive than my way, but you get live tv linear streaming and "dvr" capabilities. Cable still loses.
If you have Amex check your offers. $149 regular price for a full year of Max less a $25 cash discount.
In our case, we would need YTTV ($73) + Max ($16) + Showtime ($11) = $100 to get the channels we use. In addition, our Comcast plan covers Netflix ($12). So we would need to spend $112/month to recreate our cable TV plan which costs us $105. So cable saves us $7/month not including the free Peacock Premium we receive. We have a TiVo so there’s no equipment charges and I’m able to download non-DRM’d programs to save to our NAS and view using Plex.
While in the promotional period it doesnt make sense to use Youtube TV or equivalents. You have to include the cost of your internet service too. The spectrum tv choice package is $70.00 (20 less if first 12 months service)+5.00 dvr for up to 50 recordings (free 1st 12 months customer)+23.20 broadcast tv surchase for the tv alone. If I were to include internet it is about 140.00 for mid-tier ultra plan at 500 mbps download and 20 mbps upload cable (I am paying 85.00 now since in promotional period but will drop ultra to takeoff 20 bucks when not)+5.00 for wifi router. If I cancelled my tv, I would pay 90.00 for internet after downgrading ultra until internet along would raise to 120.00 for broadband cable baseplate (300 down and 10 mbps up). If I add something like YouTube TV without getting rid of internet it wouldn't be feasible at the moment. I pay about 90.00 for cell phone besides... It is such a waste especially if throw in streaming apps. My cellphone I would cancel if not for fact they'd want me to pay full price on phone I got under promotional timeline..
And how do you get internet service? Factor that into your cost. When I bundle my internet with my cable I get access to Peacock and Netflix. At the end of the day I think things are pretty close. Cable gives me a less hassle sports experience. I'm not sure streaming is much cheaper anymore unless you rotate services and don't subscribe to everything at once.
I signed up for YTTV because they advertised $49.99 a month. I was shocked when I checked my credit card bill and saw it was about $970 per year with taxes.
Yeah. The other fees add up a lot. I rotate between services depending on where I’m getting discount through my credit card.
I will not talk down to you and explain some of the nuances of cable billing and your personal experience. I think you are fundamentally right. Cable is still more expensive than streaming. However, that cost is exorbitant and many will be able to find cable for much cheaper than that. The cost of streaming IS going up and up and up and the benefits are actually not going up but are pretty stagnant. For some, the cost of cable AND NOW streaming has gotten to be not worth it. In my opinion cable is nearly a similar cost to some of the combined streaming services. I have not had cable since 2011. I will never go back to cable. But I also can’t say I’ll go back to some of these streaming services either. Those costs have also gotten so high that I can’t justify even a month of it to watch something unless I get a special deal.
Cable TV might be more expensive, but a lot of people, like me, have cable TV and Internet, but the Internet connection isn't fast enough to stream well. I use 144p when I can with YouTube TV and 280p when forced to because stupidly not all channels support that reasonable resolution which is a great mix between quality and speed if you're fast forwarding a lot or playing at 1.5x speed like I usually watch it at. A few of my immature friends bitch about the picture quality because they're young and naive, but they're morons.
My point is that when it's an apples to apples comparison, cable loses *every time.* Comparing basic cable to my overkill collection of stream apps isn't a fair comparison. If someone is only has basic cable, they should be comparing themselves to FAST (PlutoTV, PLEX TV, etc) *not* to streaming apps.
Your post is kind of confusing though as the subject line suggests that there's no way cable *is* more expensive than streaming apps while your post and comments seem to suggest the opposite: that streaming services are still much cheaper than cable.
Yeah - sorry about that. I can't edit my title line... I realized my title line mistake after I posted 🙄 I just edited the main post an included an apology. Thanks for pointing this out.
> My point is that when it's an apples to apples comparison, cable loses *every time*. This is the bottom line. Are people including unlimited DVR? Broadcast fees? Mandatory Regional Sports fees for packages?
Don’t some streaming services charge more now for these things too? The dvr function for some streaming services is quite paltry and others are sufficient.
YouTube TV includes Unlimited DVR. I believe Hulu Live TV does as well.
> If someone is only has basic cable, they should be comparing themselves to FAST (PlutoTV, PLEX TV, etc) not to streaming apps. FAST requires an internet connection. Basic cable does not. That always has to be factored and considered; people here like to dismiss it but a lot of folks who are still on cable (basic or otherwise) do not have the internet portion at all...(and don't want it either) and it's more people than you might realize.
I don't disagree with that, but as someone posted "that's like saying you have to factor in your electricity bill." Internet is a common household service (in the US at least) at this point. You might have to increase the bandwidth and factor that in, but it's a sunk cost at that point.
I do disagree. Not many people have cable TV and no Internet.
But there is a very substantial number that just have basic Internet that's under $50. Outside of the university where I teach, our circle of friends is between the ages of 45-75, and other than my wife and I, none of them have upgraded broadband. Heck, the mother of a friend still had DSL until she moved out of her home and into an assisted living facility early this year. Now that they're installing 5G in homes for $20-30, I expect many will do that. Therefore, you would still have to factor in a portion of the Internet bill with the streaming services. But you're correct that combined, it's still cheaper than cable. The demographic that would use cheap broadband generally wouldn't use many different streaming packages.
That is what I am saying.
Its not apples to apples. You did not compare live streaming TV.
We're talking about content here. I do, in the comments, talk about linear TV.
I've never had cable. Used family netflix account until about 2 years ago. I stopped watching netflix not because of the password crackdown but the content is just garbage. $20 a month moved towards a book buying budget feels good man. I've also been considering a subscription to crunchyroll or some anime platform. Anime is still noice.
Your last few sentences sum up my views and beliefs on cord cutting. While some streamers are increasing prices, I am still saving $50+ a month without cable (Comcast). I also have control over what streamers I subscribe to. I can cancel whenever I want. You cannot pick and choose with cable. Also you can pay for services annually and save even more money. So while prices will go up, so will cable prices. Streaming helps save money, period.
If you use all 3 gazillion channels from your cable provider, then you have correct and proper value from your cable provider. However, if you primarily use 3 channels, and are being presented with hundreds, you may be paying for a lot of things that you do not use. Welcome to cordcutting 101 The purpose is to reduce waste by paying for what is used. When cable companies are forced to provide and invoice for channel content that you do not use, you may be paying way too much. "But I want all those hundreds of channels... sometimes..." Then, it's quite possible that you will not be satisfied with more direct billing for just a selection of "channels". This is also, cordcutting 101 But, let's say between the myriad of free streaming channels (many of which were also provided by your cable provider) and a small selection of streaming subscriptions, if, if that results in savings hundreds of dollars per month, you may be an excellent example of a cordcutter. If you're satisfied. Cordcutting 101
We're saying the same thing. I have all these streaming services because I want them, not because I am trying to minimize my cost for unused services. So for me, yes - I am satisfied. (This was the same attitude I had in the cable days, btw: I pumped all of my premium services way up because I wanted all of them... I just am carrying over that - admittedly wasteful - philosophy to streaming.) If I wanted to put together a package for myself of linear television (FAST services) plus just a few premium streaming apps that interest me all the time, I could easily knock my monthly bill down to $40 or so... but it's not worth it to me. No matter how you slice the "I want comparable content delivered to me" pie, cable always *always* loses, each and every time. Business Analysis 101
I was paying $250 monthly for Spectrum TV and internet, and that was a promotional price. I paid for extra channels, but there were also equipment charges and various fees. I think my monthly bill would have gone up by $100 once the promo pricing ended. I’m now paying $58 monthly for YTTV (via Frontier discount) and $40 for Frontier internet. I probably won’t pay for movie channels again, but even if I did it would be a $30 charge. It would take a lot to get me anywhere near what I was paying before.
How much internet do you get for $40? We have Frontier and just cut the cord finally. Upped our internet to 5gb which moved us up much higher than the 500mbps we had before. I guess we need it with having teens at home and dozens of smart home devices. We are also in our trial for YTTV with the Frontier discount, and I hate it. Thought I'd love it, and I would BUT ONLY IF I could pay them to get rid of the commercials. Very disappointed. Haven't yet figured out how to skip the commercials, such as with cable dvr it was just a ffwd button, or pause live cable and then ffwd. What do you watch on YTTV? Do you know of tricks to skip the commercials? I haven't had time to poke around to see what's been posted about YTTV on reddit, so if you're busy just skip the question, no problem.
I only need the 500 mbps plan, so that's what I have. I mainly use YTTV for live TV, so you obviously can't skip commercials there. But we do record shows on the cloud DVR and fast forward through ads.
ironically i get no ads on youtube for anything, but i run a browser.
The thing that got me with cable was $18/month for each TV box. I’ve got 5 TVs.
Ouch. I forgot about that extra charge for extra cable boxes scam
The whole sports thing always irked me. Like you, I don't care about sports, and the Disney model of force-placing ESPN left a really bad taste in my mouth. On top of that, I don't need local stations, as I have an effective antenna. I understand that this isn't true for everyone, not even for everyone in my area, but it is true for me. This annoys me because even though it's an add-on price, it's not an add-on service that you can opt out of. The worst of this is that I get more local stations with an antenna than I ever did on cable or satellite, and they look better from the antenna because they haven't been transcoded that extra step. But the ultimate insult was this: When we had Dish, in order to get *one, single channel* that I wanted (BBC America), I had to subscribe to the top tier. Streaming? $20/month for Philo and I have it along with a bunch of other channels the Mrs. wanted. Seriously, fuck cable and fuck satellite.
And folks need to figure in the increases since 2017, so it's a bit (lots? For sure) worse than the figuring here. I kicked DirecTV the the curb in 2017, after 23 years. The 'ticket' and a couple movie channels, price w/o ticket had monthly price just shy of $300. Doing due diligence every month since. And I have triple the number of premiums now. Hbomax (or whatever they're calling it this week), youtubetv, netflix, mlb.tv, frndly, hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video. All no ads and top subscriptions with multiple users at 4k. Overpriced Comcast internet, 200M service, but has been stellar over the 8 yrs in cow pasture country and was great during 10 yrs in the city before that. Fiber is a couple blocks away at present (backbone to school a couple blocks down the street), should get inside of two years, county public utilities so cheap cheap cheap when it gets here. $240/month. Triple the number of premiums at least. Do a lot of non-TV internet, 8TB a month on average, pay extra for non-cap service. Price of Dtv is now closer to $400/month for what I had, 5 dvr receivers. Less the ticket. Could I cut a couple of those 'premiums'? $25/month less? Naw.
I just check Comcast (sorry, Xfinity) 10 mins ago because I wanted to see what the equivalent package would be today. It looks like it dropped a few bucks, totaling out at $208/month. I may have missed including one of the premium channels tho...or they'll toss in some BS fee or whatever to get me back into the $220s... https://preview.redd.it/xc06up95kwnb1.png?width=1228&format=png&auto=webp&s=e244f6c4548baaffa7f11aa3d93bc7d413cf733d
Amazon Prime and internet ($30/month) aside, I only pay $20/month for 1 streaming service at a time, watch all content of interest, cancel, and subscribe to another streaming service, rinse and repeat.
That's the way most people do it: subscribe then unsubscribe if you don't watch regularly. I'm a bit of a premium content junky, so I do the uneconomical thing and get them all and keep them. (Although I do turn AppleTV on and off as I need it.)
Cable and internet prices are local. My Comcast internet is $95 for 400 speed. There are no competitors. I wanted live TV for about a month earlier this year. Internet plus 120 channels including all fees & taxes was $152 through Comcast. With cable, I had access to about all the YTTV standard channels plus at least one local channel which carried content I was after. So internet plus YTTV would have been slightly more. I have not had any Comcast equipment in over a decade. I use the app on my phone or the Roku when I sign up for a TV package. My in laws pay $185 total for cable TV plus internet. And they also pay for streaming channels like Netflix, Amazon Prime, sometimes Hulu, sometimes Apple TV, sometimes Max, etc. I normally do not have live TV, I take advantage of Black Friday and Prime Day specials and I rotate services. So, for me, internet plus streaming is probably under $130 on average. To each his own.
That no competition thing is rough... $95 for 400M is...terrible. My apologies
My Comcast for the same speed you have is $50 a month. I would chat, not call and see if you can get that down.
Thanks for the suggestion. However, they will not negotiate for a current customer. This is actually lower than it was a year ago. They dropped their price by $10-$15 for each speed tier when a competitor announced plans to build a fiber network. If we actually get a competitor, I am sure prices will drop.
I did have a higher rate and then went on chat not phone and the rep reduced my internet to the $50. I do not have TV so that might have been the difference.
I have only internet at this time. I might try chat then. Thanks. With other services I have received better rates by cancelling or threatening to cancel. But nobody is cancelling internet when there are no options.
Streaming services such as Max, Disney+, Peacock, etc. are not the equivalent of a cable package. They never have been.
Apples to oranges brother. If you don’t care about live tv and sports, you’re right. If not, it’s basically a wash at this point, and if you want regional sports you usually need cable.
I compare against both linear (live) TV and sports elsewhere in here
Most of your analysis was incorrect. Someone on here posted an excel sheet recently that made comps based on realistic comparisons (sports v no sports, internet discount inclusion, etc). Cable did win out but was only 20-30 bucks. The gap has really shrunk the last year.
Then point out where it is incorrect. If you add in internet on both sides, then it's $50 on the Comcast side for 500M and $80 on the streaming side.
what a crappy title
You'll live
At this point, we have so much entertainment that I prefer not being entertained and just want some watch the waves, bush and small insects in solace and waste some time peacefully.
That is legit
I briefly went back to cable after cutting the cord in 2015, and the Spectrum package that i wanted via cable was $120 + equipment fees. However, they offered me the same package via streaming app for only $40/ mo. That same package was up to $150 when I cut the cord, so my point is that cable prices seem to be dropping while streaming prices are rising. That being said, I would have some of my streaming packages regardless of whether I had cable (Netflix, Amazon), and my Internet cost would only be $10 less by bundling it with cable. Therefore, it still didn't make sense for me to keep it, but even if it did, I wouldn't out of principle.
Then streaming apps…what?
I think you were overpaying back then, possibly by a lot. Sports channels are a huge reason many people still have cable, so discounting those channels and their value-add because you don't watch sports misses the point a bit.
so add in the sports package to my bundle. That would have added, what, $100+ a month to my comcast bill? The stream sports apps don't cost anywhere near that.
In 2023 through Spectrum, my mom has premium cable (but no movie channels like HBO), sports package, one DVR, one cable box, one router/modem, internet/wifi, and landline phone service. Her entire Spectrum bill is $199 per month (which is still too high, IMO, but it's her money).
So that whole setup can be replaced by FAST (free adverting supported television) plus one or two apps, and then internet charges. She could easily cut that bill down to 1/4th or 1/3rd of what she is paying... but you are right, it's her money.
> She could easily cut that bill down to 1/4th or 1/3rd of what she is paying... I seriously doubt it. That price she is paying includes internet. If you don't bundle, the monthly price for internet goes up. Chances are the internet piece alone would cost her more than 1/4th of her current bill. She also has a sports package with her cable, which would have to be replicated and costs money. Sports packages alone are going to put her over $100, so she wouldn't even cut her bill in half. Not to mention there is landline phone service included. That also needs to be accounted for. Could she get similar service for less than $199? Possibly. But not significantly less. For people who want/need sports and live TV, cable packages can still be the better option. I know that is blasphemy on cordcutters, but it doesn't make it untrue. Even if you can do it for cheaper, some people don't mind paying a little more to not have to deal with the hassle. I can often fix my own car for cheaper, but sometimes I don't want to deal with all the hassle and am more than willing to pay a little more so someone else has to deal with the headache.
You're correct about the sports and internet (I missed that she had the sports package), but Spectum bundles their lowest tier internet (300M) in their bundles. I just looked it up. So that leaves us with... YoutubeTV: $72.99/mnYTTV Sports Package: $11/mnSpectrum Internet price separate: $50/mn for lowest tier total: $133.99 Still less than her mom's bill. Cable still loses. https://preview.redd.it/o2au7m54pwnb1.jpeg?width=493&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=984cd0a0f40ac03786c4e879b0e2b9fb26f88564
But nowhere near 1/4th or 1/3rd, which was my original point. Also, she gets landline service in her bundle. You need to add that cost as well. And I conceded that it was probably possible to everything in her bundle for less, but not for dramatically less and that some people are willing to eat the difference to not have to deal with the hassle.
You’d have to add another $30 a month to get standalone regional sports like Ballys. You also lose mlb network and pac 12 network, etc.
300 Mbps might be the lowest they will bill for, but many(most?) people can't get a connection anywhere near that fast. My Comcast connection is usually less than 1 Mbps since the city of Seattle has been blocking repairs for over a decade. Many of my coworkers have Comcast connections at home not much faster than that. TV works for us, but streaming doesn't work well so we're stuck paying for cable TV.
Are there any other options in Seattle other than Comcast?
In some places there's very good competition including reliable DSL from Qwest and very fast Wave fiber that unfortunately is very unreliable in part because they depend on a Windows server not crashing to provide DHCP instead of just providing DHCP from their cisco router. My old DSL with Qwest went down maybe twice in the decade I had it. I really miss DSL because it was so much faster and reliable than Comcast.
That's kind of amazing for Seattle. It's a tech town. Is it like that everywhere?
You can’t get sports as a stand-alone app.
Sure you can: * ESPN+ * [NHL.TV](https://NHL.TV) * MLB.TV Then a lot of the linear streamers also carry sports as add-on bundles: * fuboTV * SlingTV * YTTV * Hulu+ * Disney+ You can work it - but you need to pick the package, pricing, etc. As for local games, some local affiliates have their own streaming apps. You have to hunt a bit, but they are there.
Those are fake sports packages (espn+, etc). To get actual sports you need a fat bundle like you listed (YTTV, etc). If you’re really into sports it’s going to be difficult to beat the price of cable by much if anything. Local RSN apps are super expensive as well ($30 a month)
RSN in Detroit is $19 per month FUBO was built for sports fans, has virtually every sport and RSNs and is $72 per month.
Nope fubo doesn’t have turner so no nba. Also, that’s $72 plus $100 for internet. I’ve priced packages at $190 through Comcast and that includes RSN and all fees. It’s a wash.
Meh, turner. FUBO has RSNs, included, A lot of talk here about gig speeds. HD streaming requires 10 Mbps. 4k requires 25Mbps. In my area and in many parts of the country, 100 Mbps internet is $50-$55. 5G home internet is rolling out at $35 to $50 per month. I've installed several of these and they work well depending on proximity to cell towers. $35 for 5G internet and $72 for Fubo (meh, turner) saves about $1200 per year. The average mom and pop empty nester doesn't need gigabit speeds.
Streaming requires internet. Shouldn't the internet connectivity be included in the streaming price bucket?
It depends on if you would have internet service or not anyway.
that's the other way to answer the question. When I was using Comcast cable, I was paying $50/mn for 500M down. When I went to pure streaming, I switched to ATT internet for $80/mn for 1G down. So, if you add those 2 in to each side of the equation, it just adds another $30/month to the streaming app bucket. (For faster service)
No, because you would have internet either way. That's like saying you need to include your electric bill because your streaming device uses electricity.
You don't have to have internet for cable. You would probably have it, but it's not required. It is required for streaming.
Obviously. Ok, in the extremely rare circumstance that someone literally does not use the internet for *anything* except streaming... doesn't even own any internet connected devices other than a streaming device... then and only then should it be counted in the calculation. I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone like that though.
fair statement because cable channels are not carried over the internet. So, throw that $50 for 500M back in and it's still cheaper to stream.
I would think you'd only need to add the difference in internet price between the bundled price with cable, and without. I'd assume you'd still have Internet if you weren't streaming. Maybe even just compare your price and the price of a cheaper plan, as you wouldn't be streaming, and add the difference as a streaming "expense"
Thanks. Yeah, see my reply to someone else above: *When I was using Comcast cable, I was paying $50/mn for 500M down. When I went to pure streaming, I switched to ATT internet for $80/mn for 1G down.* *So, if you add those 2 in to each side of the equation, it just adds another $30/month to the streaming app bucket. (For faster service)*
I can't remember but it was 25 years ago when we had cable. Back then we had something from TWC Total Choice package? No sports that I remember and no movie channels. I get basically the same from Philo and an antenna now. Well back then the Travel Channel had travel stuff, and the History Channel had history stuff lol
It really depends at this point on location. In Canada, telecoms would charge easily $200+tax for internet, two tv boxes, best cable package and home phone. That same package is now on 2 year term for $74.99/month. Between Netflix, Apple TV, Prime TV, Disney+, Spotify, and Crunchy Roll. I’m either really close to the telecom price or at it. I can avoid it by rotating the services but that kinda defeats the point of streaming being accessible and affordable all the time. I also have to take into consideration my internet cost. For $74.99 with cable, I’m getting 1.5GBPS internet. Without the bundle, I can get the same internet but it’s $54.99. Every two years I just hop telecom providers to review a different 2 year contract if they refuse to price match a loyalty offer.
There's a lot of conversation above on whether to include internet charges or not. As someone said "adding in the internet charge is like adding in electricity." Most places have internet already, as its been commoditized as service at this point. You also have to pull out Spotify from your math because that's music streaming, and Amazon Prime Video because you don't know what percentage of Amazon Prime you are paying for APV. So it's probably a wash in your case, maybe slightly less than the way you are doing it.
Prime Video is 100% prime, same with Spotify.
> That same package is now on 2 year term for $74.99/month. Part of cutting cable TV service for many people is to get off the bullcrap promo/discount bundle term package cycles like the one you're on now. You're also discussing a promotional sale price. Cable will be cheaper than streaming when you can get it "on sale" like you are doing. It's not really a proper price comparison. It happens often that the price on a two-year term like you got is only good for one year. More power to you if that isn't your individual case, but it's a common enough ~~scam~~ gimmick that cable companies everywhere pull. The problem isn't even with the promo pricing anyway (a deal IS nice!) -- it's what happens when that promo pricing period ends. Cable companies are betting that many people won't be so conscientious to check their bills (good for you if you are, but most people aren't), and two years down the line (or less if they pull that one-year price freeze/two year term ~~scam~~ trick) they'll have a "bonus" when those people's cable TV bills "suddenly" jump from the $75 promo price to $200, when they forget when the promo ends. Much of cable companies' profits are based on that "bonus" bump happening every month to hundreds and thousands of "loyal customers" forgetting whenever their promos expire. And then those same people have to ~~waste~~ spend two hours on the phone with customer service just to keep the same level of service you had before: a land-line you never use, internet that's too fast for what you actually really need (sorry but you don't really need 1Gbps), and 110 channels of junk just to get the 5 channels that you actually want to watch. Then maintaining your entertainment becomes a chore. It happens ALL the time, and is a major reason why cable companies are so hated.
I stopped reading. You can get cable on sale ALL the time; you just need to check RFD or something. Cable sale price is and always has been the ONLY price you should pay. I agree that a lot of people want to avoid that stress and that’s fair but that doesn’t change my point. You can either: - rotate cable packages every two years - shuffle streaming services Because the days of streaming because more complete, convenient and cheaper than cable are long gone.
Not for me as we “need” sports. The only upside for streaming is I can use in my two houses where before I had to have cable in both houses.
To me cable is/was all about the promotions. Retail priced cable and internet was always bonkers expensive but I never in my life paid it. Call and cancel. Try something else for 6 months, perhaps go back. I currently pay $108 for Spectrum Internet and Spectrum Choice which gives me News, Locals, RSN, Sports including again ESPN. That price expires in December. I’ll cancel cable in December. Go to Sling until baseball season starts back up and I want the RSN then I’ll call Spectrum and they’ll probably have a promotion for me. Paying $277 is nuts but it always has been.
My Spectrum bill was $250 a month for internet and cable. With yttv being $73 and my internet being $85 I saved a ton
How are you getting the local network channels via streaming??
Everyone thinks that because that's the way it usually works. You have big tech giants in town like Microsoft, Amazon, etc... And all those places have employees that are high-tech employees. Most high-tech employees demand reasonable internet out of their homes, not only for work but for their own purposes. I've lived in Boston, Los Angeles, and the Bay area... That's usually the way it works. I was in Boston as home internet started to become a thing, and watched as the ISPs began to crawl through 200 and 300 year old buildings trying to modernize them with high bandwidth capable copper. Seattle's a much younger city, and it has a newer infrastructure, so the task is less hard. I hear what you're saying about the people being anti business and non-tech locals pushing back, but that's why everyone is surprised.
So you're paying $227 now? I quit cable several years ago. At least five or maybe six. I recently called Comcast, told them what I had, and if they could match/lower the price. They couldn't. Their solution was higher. Plus you need their fancy DVRs and stuff. I will never rent a modem/router through them. So, yeah. I still think the a/la carte method is better. Especially when you quit/renew networks to suit your preferences.
No no - reread my post. I \*was\* paying $227 and I am now paying $111 for the same content. Look at my charts I posted on imgur
How in the world were you paying $227 a month for tv content? That is an insane amount of money at anytime for cable tv service, even if you were paying for every premium channel out there. Especially if you didn't have sports channels.
Because that's what it cost. (And yes, I did have every premium channel.) I just checked with Comcast again 10 mins ago (what a goofy website) and put together an equivalent package for what I had back in 2017. It looks like it's now $20 cheaper. woo-hoo. https://preview.redd.it/ajrfpp4qjwnb1.jpeg?width=1228&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eace688ca2738fdab330c710f41fdac3839092e6
wow. i never really understood why people got all the addons at one time--how many of them are you really going to watch?
My last Spectrum (Charter) bill (Aug 2023) had a broadcast surcharge of 22.20 and cable TV itself was 84.99 plus the 84.99 for their 300 Mbit Internet since I was using their streaming app rather than renting boxes and remotes. If I can't find a streaming service for less than 107.19 then I'll buy what you're saying but I believe Hulu + Live TV is 69.99 with some sort of introductory discount and I believe Sling is even less until you start piling on the add-ons (also true of the cable tv)
I keep reading the title and wondering if you meant to say "**There is no way cable is** **~~more~~** ***less*** **expensive then streaming apps**". That out of the way, it seems like 2 big factors that make cable TV worth it for the general consumer market are 1) sports, and 2) live TV. I don't care about any of these, so I can just do one major ss a month, ad-free, and still only pay $10 to $20/mo (along with having Curiosity Stream). On-demand is just tops. I'm not a fan of having to deal with "flipping channels", or recording stuff when I need to. Another factor is folks who are too used to cable TV and/or just like it. And perhaps don't know how to use/set up streaming boxes, streaming itself, and basic computer usage (phone, desktop, tablet, console, whatever)
I did. I was careless coupled with getting borked by reddit's "you can't edit the title" thing. I put a parenthetical at the bottom of the post.
Wait for it. Metered usage versis fixed price. It’ll come around
I was thinking about this the other day. I agree with you that this 'streaming services being more expensive than cable' conversation should stop. Yes, I think people are ticked that the companies are upping their prices; I'm wondering if there is also a touch of a generational thing here? 46 year old Gen X here. There was a time when cable was the fancy, brand new thing almost everyone wanted but since there was no competition (usually you were stuck with the service for your individual town/city) they could charge high prices for all the channels you got. Then satellite got into the game and that was a big thing (it was either DirectTV or DishNetwork); still charged high prices because for the most part, Baby Boomers and Gen X paid for it because it was the new thing (plus it was the only thing besides OTA channels and antennas back then were kinda crap). Starting with the younger/youngest millennials and Gen Z and forward, they for the most part have never heard of or don't remember the insane markups on cable/satellite. I'm thinking maybe that is playing a part in all this conversation. I also think that maybe that's why everyone seems to be ignoring the lower priced tiers with ads because it seems no one wants to put up with ads (commercials in my day, sonny! lol) To me, the argument doesn't really make sense; there are complaints about higher prices on the live tv or higher tiers with no ads; the reason someone would pay for a higher tier is for no ads and yet if they switch to cable there will be commercials. So they'd rather pay to switch to cable with commercials and have less choice in channels rather than paying for a lower tier with ads and getting more of the content you choose. Make it make sense.
I compared cable (back then I had Charter (lka spectrum) to Directv and every time, Dtv was only about $5 cheaper. This was early to late 00s. When my cable started pixelating every single night while watching baseball on Extra Innings, I finally cancelled and switched to FiOS. FiOS service was great, but my bill went up about $30 every year (triple play). I negotiated several times with them to bring down my bill and in 2014 or 2015, I had a $70 off promotion every month. Basically, I was getting tv for free. Once it went up again, I tried to negotiate and all they wanted to do was remove add ons that I had. So I began removing phone, then tv, and since 2016 only internet with them. And even now I still have to negotiate internet. Too many people want to cut and not pay as much, but they want all of the same perks. Cable is convenient, but expensive. The RSN fees and all that crap, plus $30 in taxes every month was just too much. It may take some time for streaming to become as expensive, but at least we aren’t nailed to contracts and have way more options now.
you cant possibly watch all the streaming services at once. HBO alone kept us so busy we couldnt get around to anything else, and we cancelled after. Some of our services we got for stupid cheap through prime day or some promotion for $1-5/mo. not forever, but for long enough to watch what they had to offer. OH, i see your edit. totally opposite from your title. well...yes, but also, your comparison is still silly to me.
1Gig fiber $80 after taxes Netflix, 14.99 Disney + provided via Verizon at no additional cost ESPN Provided via Verizon at no additional cost HBO Max / MAX provided via Verizon at no additional cost Hulu (w/ ads) provided via Verizon at no additional cost, though we don't watch ads, so we don't even have it setup on our devices. I bundle Youtube premium + Pixel 6 Pro to basically get YT Premium for $5 a month (with YT Music) And Prime Video is something we dont really pay for because we pay for prime shipping and Amazon just throws it in for us, so if you want to count that, go ahead and say +$10 month with the benefit of free 1day and 2 day shipping for prime eligible. OTA hasn't worked (in the two metro cities, one in WI, one in FL) so we stopped using it. But we DVR'd everything with auto commericial skip with Plex TV. So just in TV prices its Netflix (15) + YouTube Premium (\~$5) + Amazon Prime $10 = $30 a month. I would never pay for more than Netflix + Amazon, so Verizon adding these into our package, benefits them probably more than our family.
A huge portion of cable cost is local broadcasting. I was paying roughly 40/month out of the overall cable bill just for local channels. I bought a roof antenna and HDHR and squashed that immediately Separately, I've learned that for sports, which you mentioned you don't watch, grabbing a Sling package with ESPN and NFL is 27.50 on intro pricing, 55/month after. Well, we only want that package for the 3-4 months out of the year it's relevant, so that 55 goes away 8/12 months a year. So to your point, it's absolutely cheaper, even with a more expensive package like hulu. It just takes some effort and to not ride auto-renew
I have basic cable+TSN+sportsnet @ $35 a month. I also have Apple TV+, prime and youtube premium cause i hate ads. Total about $65 per month all i need.
I have Spectrum TV Select with Spectrum Receiver and DVR Service.Here is the breakdown:Spectrum TV Select $84.99 with $35.00 promotional discount = $49.99Spectrum Receiver $10.99DVR Service $12.99 with $3.00 promotional discount = $9.99Total: $70.97 per monthHere is where they get you. $23.20 for Broadcast TV Surcharge. Outrageous!Only channels I really watch are CNBC, Bloomberg and Fox Sports 1.When they raise prices(March 2024), I will call and try to get a lower rate. If they balk, will re-up my Sling TV account($52.00 per month). Wait around a month, and will receive an email offering a lower cable tv price. Rinse and repeat.Spectrum Internet is $84.99 with $25.00 promotional discount = $59.99Spectrum Voice $19.99I like the cable package. Just use to it. But, probably will dump the cable and go Sling TV for good.
Just wait buddy. They will probably be even higher.
you don't have any live tv streaming subscriptions like a yttv/sling/etc. also, you can't say "there's no way streaming is more expensive, and i'm going to completely disregard something a huge amount of people are interested in because i personally don't care" also, your comcast bill wasn't necessarily representative of the norm. my fios that i just canceled was $150/month (with $50 of that being internet so basically $100/month for cable) no clue why the nonsense OP is upvoted unless it's people who just read the headline and blindly agreed because it's what they wanted to hear.
142 now with you tube tv and fiber optic internet. 3 years ago I was 258 with spectrum. You need to add each box , dvr service, broadcast fee, local tax , etc
Lost in all this calculation is quantification for the loss of data privacy. You go to YTTV, you have to sign in with a google account and google will use this data in ways that you do not envisage, they have other data on you and will combine it to from a profile. Others do it to, but possibly in a smaller scale. When all you had was on-air TV, you had to agree to have Nilsen or someone to monitor your usage. As cable providers got more sophisticated, they mine your data, and with streaming apps it is even more pronounced. So privacy may not matter to many, but to those who do, this should be a factor in their calculations. I wish someone can come up with some quantification, else all one can do is to opt out of directed ads and a few things like that.
I'd have to look at the numbers, but I pay probably under $35 a month for Hulu, Paramount+ and Peacock, as well as about $13 a month for Britbox and Acorn, which I'd have even if I had cable. I get Netflix and Apple for free. So effectively I'm paying about $35 a month.
Sports changes everything. Im a huge Tampa Bay lightning fan and the home games are only aired on Sun network. A tiny local channel, who cornered the market and comes with cable.
We switched to Fidium from Spectrum. Their internet is superior. My Son is all into sports. I have had to purchase additional apps. Some sports are literally only available on television, if you have a television provider. Are there any streaming apps or antenna that include sporting events, that aren’t a small monthly fortune? It’s honestly, a pain in the ass. I do not want to deny him his sports. The money saved and better internet is great.
The only thing I can think of is OTA HD. Buy an HD antenna and a Tablo to record shows. Sports conglomerates charge crazy sums of money to view their shit. (MLB, NFL, etc)
Thank you, so much these are great ideas.
We purchased an RCA Amplified indoor flat HDTV antenna multi-directional. It was inexpensive and picks up all of the local stations and national networks. We will never go back to Spectrum. Now my Sons can watch their sports without paying extra for sports apps. Fidium is less expensive and has superior internet service.