PanthersATL

Continuing the previous threads about the future of Sunday Ticket -- a new entrant has entered the bidding war. Apple is putting a proposal together that would bring Sunday Ticket to AppleTV+. (You wouldn't need the actual AppleTV streaming box, but would still need to subscribe to the + service) Apple isn't the only streaming service or network kicking the tires on Sunday Ticket. As we've said in those previous threads, the NFL wants their money, but they also want to go with a service that can provide the largest audience as well. Is Apple the right choice here? I'd suggest that if you're looking at strictly streaming, go with Amazon and use the success they've had with the Prime games so far. ESPN+ is also viable for a streaming partner since it's a natural tie-in to the Disney+ audience/subscriber base, although ESPN's live coverage can be spotty at times (see the finale of the Hot Dog Eating Contest last week as an oddly timed fail on their broadcast). There's still time. But how would you feel if it went to Apple vs a different partner other than DirecTV? https://www.macrumors.com/2021/07/09/apple-nfl-sunday-ticket-talks/

Taking a step back from the money piece -- any commentary on whether a 3 year old should have a "favorite sandwich", and that it's from Starbucks?

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.

What about the alternative "Chugga-Lugga Choo Choo Choo"?

Agreed. that's in the OP: FIRST: this goes without saying --- "good for them, and we wish them well. Obviously what they have works for them".

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

As seen in https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/business/starbucks-shortages.html This 33-year-old is treating his 3yo with a $5 Starbucks sandwich to go with his own $5 coffee habit. No word on whether she's also getting a coffee order, or how often they make this trip. If it's once a week as a Sunday morning treat, that's one thing. If it's every day, then we have a problem. Most retirement stories talk about how you should stop (minimize) ordering out the fancy coffees. What isn't talked about are stories like this one that bring up how young parents are also using their expendable(?) money to treat their children to the Starbucks experience when the kids could possibly be perfectly happy with a Pop-Tart or Breakfast Hot Pocket at home instead.

I'm curious about how it took 9 years before the twins arrived. Maybe she had said she didn't want kids until she was 30? He has a 20-year old son, so maybe they were waiting until he was 18 to take that step. He's going to be the 75 year-old at the twins' graduation, fielding questions about how proud a grandfather he must be, with his 20 year old son having to continually say that he's not their father. In their favor, they must have enough in common over the past 11 years to maintain the relationship to the point where children are a thing.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/im-59-my-wife-is-33-we-have-2-year-old-twins-i-pay-for-my-mother-in-laws-rent-the-time-has-come-for-me-to-cut-the-cord-11623314458 While the entire Q&A may be interesting to those who are enjoy reading money/retirement-related "Dear Abby" type columns, let's focus on the opening paragraph: The author says that he's 59, his wife is 33, and they've been together 11 years. No word on whether they've been married that long or anything regarding how they met. I don't know if that's even relevant. They've been together since he was 48 and she was 22. Using the "half your age + 7" as the lower-end boundary for how young you could reasonably date, at 59 you shouldn't be dating anybody younger than 36 years old. At 48, that cutoff should be 31 years old. FIRST: this goes without saying --- "good for them, and we wish them well. Obviously what they have works for them". That being said, it's a more entertaining conversation topic to throw in "what the hell are they doing together?"

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.

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 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

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.

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.

Content creators are focused on reaching a particular target audience. It's that target audience that's being sold. CBS has a particular demographic vs MTV's demographic. NPR podcast listeners have a particular demographic vs Joe Rogan's podcast. The advertisers aren't buying into the content - they're buying into the audience that is being targeted. A production company (whether it be Warner Brothers' FRIENDS, or Sony's JEOPARDY, or Dreamwork's VOLTRON .. whatever) sells the program to a network/channel with the right demographics to be distributed. That's how the production gets paid. Now it's up to the network/channel to make their money by selling advertising (or whatever else it takes to recoup their investment costs). SURVIVOR costs, let's say, $1m per episode. If they can get an in-show sponsorship, like Burger King, to provide some prizes and possibly lower the overall episode costs, then that's more money for the production that doesn't go to the network. Local channels get paid by the cable companies to be carried; that's why you often see local channels taken off the air during payment disputes -- the station wants to be fairly paid for their news production and their network licenses, while the carrier is trying to make money by paying out less in carriage fees. One way or the other, someone is going to get paid for the content creation; tools/technology/talent/TIME isn't free. If it's not advertising, then what? One way or the other, the ISPs are going to get paid for carrying that data to your house, whether it be through excess bandwidth charges or via cable fees. As broadband usage goes up with higher-and-higher quality streams, the days of low-cost monthly all-you-can-eat high speed bandwidth plans are going to go away. Switching to mobile-only from broadband (5G and up) isn't going to help either - you'll just get your connection throttled. You'll still have access, it just won't be at high speeds. I don't have solutions to the above - but somebody is going to end up paying something. I'd rather it be the advertisers than it come out of my own pocket if given a choice. (disclaimer: I'd rather pay the extra $2/month for Hulu+ commercial free than sit through the 2m of commercials in a Hulu program -- at least Hulu and others give that option)

Broadcast TV isn't free (it hasn't been since.... well, practically forever). *somebody* has to pay for the creation of the content. If not advertising, then how?

Except Discovery+ and HBOMax have determined that they can't compete with Netflix and Amazon, so they're merging forces into a single package deal (similar to the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN package, I suppose) I see more broadcaster (heh, "content providers") doing more consolidation until we have streaming-only packages that will be (roughly) the same price as what you originally had with a traditional cable bill. The only difference is that by separating out to smaller (but still separate) packages, that will give you some concept of ala cart. Only want ESPN+ during football season? Done. Need Paramount+ for The MTV Challenge? Gotcha covered. Discovery keeps adding more and more exclusive content across their entire library of channels? Can't easily pick only HGTV for a cheap price, might as well get all of them. Presto - you now have a cable bill again.

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?"

We'll start easy. Which services do you personally pay for or subscribe to (if they're free), and why do you like those services enough to pay for 'em? We can cover those services that you "borrow" or otherwise obtain under the table a bit later... Some of the options should be (in no particular order).... Netflix HBO Max HULU ESPN+ Paramount+ Disney+ AppleTV+ Amazon Prime Peacock Free: Crackle Crunchyroll Plex Tubi IMDb TV PlutoTV VUDU TV Alternatives: (pick almost any individual channel, they have some sort of service) Viceland YouTube Premium Hulu + Live TV Sling

Agreed. I started this thread to talk more TV stuff....

There are a number of Huddlers who have cut the cord and are no longer paying to a cable or satellite channel bundle. You're still paying for Internet, and you may be subscribed to at least one paid subscription service. Lots of discussion topics here, ranging from what do you think is going to happen to the broadcast industry in general to ... consolidation, technology, new business opportunties, and more.

There may be interesting previous commentary in this earlier thread. Or not.

Happy to chat the world of tv business models over in the Huddle Lounge or Nerdvana forums so as not to clog up the Panthers forum with non-football related conversation. nutshell: Channels aren't going away. How you access them or what they're bundled with is a different story. And think of "bundles" as yesterday's cable-TV packages.

AT&T has sold (most? some?) DirecTV https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/01/att-finally-made-a-deal-to-sell-some-of-directv/

What is the correct number of times to say "CHUGGA" before you say "CHOO CHOO"?

I think we can all agree that the proper sequence is SOCK - SOCK - SHOE - SHOE People who do SOCK - SHOE - SOCK - SHOE are weird.