Watching the NFL This Season? You’ll Need at Least 5 Streaming Services

[mgteich]

I suppose that we can consider the real extra costs involved.

The vast majority of football fans already subscribe to Amazon Prime and Netflix.

Most of these fans pay LESS than they did a few years ago when they were paying their cable companies for content. I submit that the greedy overlords of media charge us LESS than before we switched from cable.

I suspect that even those with cable have Prime and Netflix. For those people, the issue is whether they want to continue to pay the cable company instead of cutting the cable cord.

NFL plus and Sunday Ticket are choices in any case.
============
I submit that the vast majority are paying a bit less not more, and that as the players get LOTS more. I'm OK with that. Perhaps you all prefer to go back to cable only and no NFL plus. Were you really better off?

 

[1960Pats]

It's not that we can't feed the poor, it's because we can't satisfy the rich.

Our founding youngsters called this back when it all started hundreds of years ago when they said greed could be our downfall.

There is no force more potent in the modern world than stupidity fueled by greed. - Edward Abbey

 

[Bill Lee]

Most of these fans pay LESS than they did a few years ago when they were paying their cable companies for content. I submit that the greedy overlords of media charge us LESS than before we switched from cable.

I suspect that even those with cable have prime and Netflix. For those people, the issue is whether they want to continue to pay the cable company instead of cutting the cable cord.

The equations are a bit different.

Cable has/had control of the distribution medium. This let them extract more money from the end users, but it also cost them more money to build and run the cable system.

Now with the Internet the customers are paying for the distribution system independently of the content. I'll note you never mentioned this in your earlier posts, which is the norm. It seems to be largely transparent to people, but the main reason most people buy high grade Internet service is perceived improvement in streaming. It is a perception because each stream consumes around 3Mbit/sec yet people get talked into much faster services than needed. People also happily buy Roku/AppleTV/FireStick boxes and smart TVs, absorbing the cost of what the cable company used to incur due to set top boxes.

Overall I'd say I'm getting damn close to what I used to pay for cable between the bill for the Internet and the bills for various content providers. I'd say I get much more for it because I use the Internet for other things, but still if things got tight financially one of the first things to go would be some of the content providers.

Another new equation is that it is easier for streaming services to come and go. At a high level, all they need is the rights to the content and data centers to generate the packets. This is different than CATV where the cable systems needed to make contracts with each municipality that they served.

In theory the market *should* be more fluid, but IMO we're going to be seeing the typical corporate behavior where they all do their best to block out competitors then once they control the market start exploiting their customers.

As usual it's up to the consumers to decide if the value proposition is a good one, and if not, find something else to do with their time.

 

[1960Pats]

Agreed, but I think we can and do block it out and have some fun with it anyway. At least we're aware we're being played

I dump the things that have me feeling that way if I don't feel they're worth the time or the money.

I dumped MLB (a game that was in my blood) more than 20 years ago. I don't miss it at all now and even improved my golf and chess games with the extra time.

I also stopped viewing the NBA when David Stern **** on the American fans years ago. I came back at the request of one of my sons many years later but I'm still getting into the new game. It's an adjustment after seeing a much purer game for so many years.

And now the NYFL has me on the same ledge. The time to jump is getting closer.

 

[1960Pats]

The nfl has a few good years to a decade or two left to squeeze the streaming services... as well as the consumer that just wants one team to watch.

Not to get political... but the "migrants" coming here by the millions already have their own "football".

Nfl better get it's money while it can.

The NFL's not getting much from me anymore.

And speaking of the other game of football. I saw an ad for it the other day and it was one great highlight after another for about 30 seconds. Then I realized it might have taken them an entire season to find that many exciting plays.

 

[mgteich]

The equations are a bit different.

Cable has/had control of the distribution medium. This let them extract more money from the end users, but it also cost them more money to build and run the cable system.

Now with the Internet the customers are paying for the distribution system independently of the content. I'll note you never mentioned this in your earlier posts, which is the norm. It seems to be largely transparent to people, but the main reason most people buy high grade Internet service is perceived improvement in streaming. It is a perception because each stream consumes around 3Mbit/sec yet people get talked into much faster services than needed. People also happily buy Roku/AppleTV/FireStick boxes and smart TVs, absorbing the cost of what the cable company used to incur due to set top boxes.

Overall I'd say I'm getting damn close to what I used to pay for cable between the bill for the Internet and the bills for various content providers. I'd say I get much more for it because I use the Internet for other things, but still if things got tight financially one of the first things to go would be some of the content providers.

Another new equation is that it is easier for streaming services to come and go. At a high level, all they need is the rights to the content and data centers to generate the packets. This is different than CATV where the cable systems needed to make contracts with each municipality that they served.

In theory the market *should* be more fluid, but IMO we're going to be seeing the typical corporate behavior where they all do their best to block out competitors then once they control the market start exploiting their customers.

As usual it's up to the consumers to decide if the value proposition is a good one, and if not, find something else to do with their time.

The $40 cost of a Roku is miniscule compared to what you paid the cable company to support their infrastructure.
===========
I agree that we get LOTs and LOTS more now. But, yes, if times got tough, we could cut back to Prime and one of the inexpensive providers that includes the networks (plus keeping NFL plus). To me, this is a much better value proposition.

CURRENT BASE: inexpensive streaming provider that includes networks, plus Amazon plus NFL+
OLD BASE: cable, plus amazon plus NFL+.

Since the vast majority has NETFLIX, they might be included in both cases.
=========
In the end, for me and for many, the choice was simply a switch for cable or satellite to YoutubeTV at a significant savings.

As an aside, we have choices with regard to commercials. I choose to not to accept discounts for listening to commercials. That's my choice, and a relatively expensive one.
=================
STRATEGIES TO SAVE MONEY ON STREAMING CHANNELS
Sign up to a free time period (sometimes as much as a month), watch all the content that you want for a couple of months, and cancel.
Move to the next channel.
Rinse and repeat

Over the 6 months plus, you will see almost all the content that you want and pay for one channel instead of three (plus get the free periods).

Also, you can accept watching the relatively short commercials, much less than on the networks.

Finally, there are bundling options.

 

[Bill Lee]

The $40 cost of a Roku is miniscule compared to what you paid the cable company to support their infrastructure.

The $40 Roku doesn't do anything till you give it Internet packets.

The lowest tier of broadband Internet I can find around here is $59/month.

That is what I am paying for infrastructure cost these days.

I doubt cable companies were paying $59/month per user on infrastructure back in the day, most of their costs were "subscriber fees" paid to outfits such as ESPN.

Most people don't notice the infrastructure cost because they feel they need Internet for work, school, or other online services, but in the end most of what it ends up being used for is streaming content.

 

[mgteich]

The $40 Roku doesn't do anything till you give it Internet packets.

The lowest tier of broadband Internet I can find around here is $59/month.

That is what I am paying for infrastructure cost these days.

I doubt cable companies were paying $59/month per user on infrastructure back in the day, most of their costs were "subscriber fees" paid to outfits such as ESPN.

Most people don't notice the infrastructure cost because they feel they need Internet for work, school, or other online services, but in the end most of what it ends up being used for is streaming content.

You seem to be saying that broadband internet is a factor in watching sports. I submit that long ago the internet is assumed in the same way as electricity.

So when discussing alternatives, I ignore the cost of internet and electricity.

 

[Bill Lee]

You seem to be saying that broadband internet is a factor in watching sports. I submit that long ago the internet is assumed in the same way as electricity.

So when discussing alternatives, I ignore the cost of internet and electricity.

You are entitled to that perspective, but mine is different.

I'm proof that you can watch NFL with just electricity and no Internet.

I could be happy with no Internet a lot longer than I could be with no electricity.

IMO if you're not allocating a large portion of your Internet bill to entertainment rather than infrastructure, you're doing it wrong.

I'm saying this as a person who has had Internet access since the late 80s.

If you have so much money that it's a non-factor congrats to you, but to me entertainment is one of the few optional items I have in my budget so I watch it pretty closely. I'm willing to pay for perceived value but also am willing to cut it when the value isn't there.

 

[JohnJH]

Well, my wife and I live in Wisconsin (I moved to here from the North Shore of Boston in 2001). And as the Patriots are not a legit contender this upcoming season, the number of games that we'll see is pretty much none (as we don't even have the NFL Network to watch the London game). As we obviously hope that they do rebuild back into a legit contender with Maye, etc., we'll probably see more games possibly in the 2025 Season (and maybe pay to stream a game or two as conditions permit in the future). As with many other folk (especially outside of the New England Area), we simply can't justify spending the money to stream any games at the present time, given the economy and other financial concerns. I recall driving to bars that had satellite back when home games were blacked-out), and have known the joy of the 11 SB Appearances and 6 SB Victories for all my years of sticking with the team since Plunkett was the QB, and being able to see them in Wisconsin because they were shown on many a non-prime time game, in addition to the prime time ones. I also saw Brady vs Farve in the 4th pre-season game at Lambeau when they'd go on to win their 3rd SB, 2nd in 3 years (15 rows back from the Patriots bench on the 40 yard line and met Brady and other's (and got autograph's) at the airport after the game, as I worked for the Airline that was handling their charter flight. And saw them this past pre-season game at Lambeau.

 

[mgteich]

You are entitled to that perspective, but mine is different.

I'm proof that you can watch NFL with just electricity and no Internet.

I could be happy with no Internet a lot longer than I could be with no electricity.

IMO if you're not allocating a large portion of your Internet bill to entertainment rather than infrastructure, you're doing it wrong.

I'm saying this as a person who has had Internet access since the late 80s.

If you have so much money that it's a non-factor congrats to you, but to me entertainment is one of the few optional items I have in my budget so I watch it pretty closely. I'm willing to pay for perceived value but also am willing to cut it when the value isn't there.

Money is definitely a factor for me. I moved from cable through two satellite companies and now to youtubetv. Price was an important factor in each change.

As far as infrastructure, I do consider the total price of high speed internet, land line, and cell phone. I guess I include Prime, Alexa and Roku part of infrastructure.

So, AFTER those infrastructure choices I consider the cost of various services, and the value to my family. Over the last few years, we have made many changes in service providers.