I get that some people are super into sports. I totally respect that everyone has the right to their own likes and tastes. Personally I have zero interest in any sport that I or someone I care about is not directly participating in, but I am super into a few things that cost money. Mountain biking, for example. What blows me away is that many people who are into sports can read the above article, blow right past the $1,000,000 lifetime price tag on cable TV and still say “nope, I gotta have my college football / basketball / March Madness / NBA package / whatever. If mountain biking carried a lifetime cost of that magnitude, I would find something else to love as soon as I could sell my bike to the next sucker who came along. It really is that simple. In fact, that’s reason #1 I’m into mountain biking and not sport aviation.
The reason? The recent emergence of new streaming services like Dish Network’s Sling TV, which includes a sampling of the most popular “basic” cable channels, and HBO Now, the only streaming service to include HBO shows, has coincided with Amazon and Netflix coming into their own as producers of serious television. The result is that virtually every class of TV watcher can find most of what they need without paying a cable bill.
Different Internet Service Providers, known as I.S.P.s, have different tiers. The various streaming services make different recommendations — typically available on their individual sites — as to the minimum requirements that allow their content to look sharp and run smoothly on different devices. Averaging their recommendations out, you’ll probably want to make sure that you have a minimum 4 Mb/s (that’s megabyte per second) connection, which, be warned, isn’t available in some of the more rural areas of the United States.
For supporters of teams outside your local area, some sport-specific streaming options might also be attractive. Each major sports league offers some sort of online viewing option for somewhere in the neighborhood of $110 a year, with the caveat that local games are blacked out. (NFL fans can pay only $69.99 to watch any team they like, but must make do with replays.)
BMT, many of the networks are actually raising the prices they charge cable companies because their revenues are down. It is having he opposite affect of your prediction, and many basic cable plans are becoming more expensive. The competition between the major providers is the only thing currently keeping pricing in check. We still have our cable for the time being, but I wouldn’t be opposed to dropping cable at some point – we rarely watch much TV. Unfortunately, the channels we watch most often are cable only channels! 🙂
One approach is to use one of the cord-cutting “calculators” at sites like The Verge and Slate, which allow users to pick out which services they’re interested in and then tally up your savings relative to cable. These are useful, but they generally don’t take into account a key cord cutting enabler: the ability to purchase shows a la carte through iTunes and Amazon, usually within a day of their original airing. This isn’t new technology—iTunes has been selling television downloads since 2005—but it changes the streaming calculus because it means you can easily and cheaply plug any gaps in whatever bundle of streaming options you choose.
With the least cable-like interface of the Big 5, Hulu's greatest asset is the integration of live TV with its significant catalog of on-demand content for one price. Unfortunately, the interface frustrations apparent with the standard service are amplified once you add live TV. The app generally confuses "simple" with "incomplete." It technically offers a guide, for example, but it's extremely bare-bones. Another issue is that you'll have to pay extra, a hefty $15 per month, to get the ability to skip commercials on Hulu's cloud DVR. Its channel count is solid, but YouTube TV at $5 less is a better value if you don't care about Hulu's catalog.