Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Let's talk the business of broadcast / cable / satellite / streaming TV


PanthersATL
 Share

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Paa Langfart said:

Note: It may require you to switch plans, which may not end up being a desired outcome. 

After you received a notice that you have qualified for the program, households must contact a participating provider to select an Emergency Broadband Benefit eligible service plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PanthersATL said:

Note: It may require you to switch plans, which may not end up being a desired outcome. 

After you received a notice that you have qualified for the program, households must contact a participating provider to select an Emergency Broadband Benefit eligible service plan.

Chances are you will not have to switch providers.  Most are in the program - check yours here

Companies Near Me - Lifeline Support - USAC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Paa Langfart said:

Chances are you will not have to switch providers. 

I didn't say you'd have to switch providers - but that you may have to switch plans under your provider. It all depends whether your provider can/will apply the credit to any plan they have OR if they will only support the credit under specific plans. 

Some fineprint I've seen from individual ISPs suggest that they may not apply the credit to unlimited data or higher-speed plans, but it would apply to some of their lower-service/lower-cost plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I wonder how many cord cutters pay more now with all their subscription services than they did with just cable, lol.

Here is an outdated calculator that will provide that answer to you - all services = $121 monthly.

https://www.theverge.com/a/online-tv-stream-price-guide 

From Bloomberg a few months ago: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-26/disney-netflix-hikes-bring-cost-of-cord-cutter-package-to-92
 

Quote

If you put together the flagship streaming services from the biggest media and tech companies, including Amazon.com Inc., AT&T Inc., Netflix Inc. and Walt Disney Co., it would now cost you $92 a month in the U.S. That’s almost as much as a typical cable-TV subscription, which S&P Global Market Intelligence puts at $93.50.

Per the article: Nearly a third of households subscribe to four or more streaming services, and that leaves out the majority of news and sports content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd bet at some point if cable is hurting (it won't be), they could give customers Netflix, etc. for free. Like, my cable (FiOS) has Netflix and YouTube as a channel. Not like an app, an actual channel. It's weird. But if you could tune in to your account that way and they foot the bill that would be something. I also have a Smart TV as I assume will be the norm with most TVs hence forth. It's nice to be able to watch all my subscriptions there and not have to watch on my laptop or push the stream from the laptop to the TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I'd bet at some point if cable is hurting (it won't be), they could give customers Netflix, etc. for free. Like, my cable (FiOS) has Netflix and YouTube as a channel. Not like an app, an actual channel. It's weird. But if you could tune in to your account that way and they foot the bill that would be something. I also have a Smart TV as I assume will be the norm with most TVs hence forth. It's nice to be able to watch all my subscriptions there and not have to watch on my laptop or push the stream from the laptop to the TV.

SmartTV makes things "easy", but is starting to become problematic for consumers. Vizio announced with their most recent quarterly filing that they made almost as much money that quarter by inserting/selling advertising and viewer tracking info on their SmartTV platform than they did selling hardware. https://investors.vizio.com/news/news-details/2021/VIZIO-HOLDING-CORP.-Reports-Q1-2021-Financial-Results/default.aspx  (approx $38m vs $48m)

Roku, which started as a set-top box (OTT, or Over The Top), has gotten into producing their own exclusive content in addition to trying to be the best way to access as many different provider apps as possible. 

Peacock is just now finally getting onto the Samsung TV platform as of this morning, which should help their overall availability and usage.

Some cable companies are contemplating making their cable boxes "smarter" to compete with Rokus and smart TVs, but they may find themselves fighting an uphill battle there -- it may be in their own best interests to be solely a service provider to get that broadband into the home rather than facilitate transactions between Netflix and others -- unless the cable companies get a cut of thae transaction fee, there's nothing in it for them to be an order taker.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2021 at 10:13 PM, PanthersATL said:

For those of you with cable subscriptions, do you like that you can log in and access any of the streaming/on demand versions of channels like History, Starz, or Showtime if they're part of your package? Is keeping the cable subscription worth that convenience of "you've already paid for it, so go and watch it?"

I have COX Cable and its actually not that simple.  I can only access X number of channels "on the go."  For channels like NFL Network, ABC, NBC, CBS and a bunch of others they don't allow me to go thru my COX mobile app if I'm not literally connected to my home wi-fi.  What they do is force me to go thru the channels specific app, and input my COX Cable info. 

So let's say I'm out on a fall Saturday and I want to flip back and forth between a Notre Dame college football game, a South Carolina football game and I want to watch a little NFL Network for previews of the upcoming matchups for tomorrow (Sunday).  At home this is no problem.  Out of the house is a different story.  It means I have to individually make sure I have the particular app that each one of the events is playing on and download it.  Sometimes you even have to be dialed in and know its on NBC Sports and not regular NBC, or vice versa.  So I would have to go into the NBC app to watch some Notre Dame...then at the commercial break get out of that app and pull up the one for the South Carolina game, find the link for the game and wait for it to buffer...then when I want to change from that channel and go to NFL Network I have to get out of the app with the SC game and open the NFL app, find the link to what I want and wait for that to buffer.  If that's on commercial break or the segment is boring...I have to get all the way out of it and reboot the NBC app all over again, find the link to the game and wait for it to buffer.  And its all due to "licensing agreements."  That needs to be fixed pronto. 

So I have cable.  I've always had cable so I'm still one of the holdouts that does something just because that's the way its always been done.  But I also have these services.

  • Netflix
  • HBO Max
  • ESPN+
  • Disney+
  • Amazon Prime

I have prime because I use Amazon regularly and it comes with it.  I actually find it to be pretty decent overall.  I have Disney+ for my daughter so she can watch it easily on her iPad, but I'm going to cancel once the current "special" runs out.  I have Netflix because I love it.  I have ESPN+ for the UFC fights but admit I would probably like it more if I'd give it a chance.  HBO Max comes with our cable subscription.

I will gladly cut the cord in the future.  The biggest "issue" I had with cutting the cord in the past has been the thought of giving up live sports.  That no longer appears to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you need one ---> "The Roku Ultra 4K HDR streaming device is $30 off at Walmart, Best Buy, and Amazon today, which drops the price to $69. This is currently Roku’s high-end model, and it apparently has 50 percent more range than the previous model, with a faster quad-core processor that makes channels launch faster"

I suspect that there will be similar/more streaming device deals as we head into Amazon Prime Days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very timely topic on my end.

 

We currently have cable through Specturm, along with streaming services (Hulu, Netflix, Prime). We currently are paying $65 a month which includes all fees netting the internet bundle savings. However, it’s set to increase $30 a month in August.

Im really interesting in switching to YouTube TV. It has DVR, which we currently don’t have, plus the channel selections are overall better. Any thoughts on YouTube TV or other similar streaming services (Fubo, etc.)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazon Prime is offering 2 months of "select channels" for 99 cents during Prime Days.  Among the opportunities:

  • Starz
  • Showtime
  • Paramount+ 
  • Discovery+
  • AMC+
  • EPIX
  • and more

As seen on the "TV Recommendations" thread, lots of good stuff to binge on any of these + network offerings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuck with Time Warner (Spectrum) internet $70 bucks a month...  Was 50 but I have been a long time loyal customer so they were kind enough to bump it on up to 70 for me....  I have been using YoutubeTV for some time now..  $60 bucks a month I think....  It gives me all the sports I need and the Golf channel....  Streams nicely thru a Roku in both of my TV rooms...  So $130 a month is outrageous but still cheaper than what Time Warner would charge....  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Exactly what I was going to say. Brady seems to be taking a page out of Olsen's playbook, which is probably a good thing. They'll probably get around to giving Brady an Emmy one day, and he should thank Olsen for giving him the blueprint for success.
    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
×
×
  • Create New...