Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Want to help support PFN?
In lieu of ads you can help me to offset PFN operating costs by making any of your Amazon.com purchases through this link at no additional cost to you.
In lieu of ads you can help me to offset PFN operating costs by making any of your Amazon.com purchases through this link at no additional cost to you.
Cheapest way to get access to ACC Network
TheAliasTroll
Posts: 3,160PFN Referee
I'm trying to figure out cheapest way to get ACC Network. Looks like Sling at $35/mo. is the lowest I've found? Any other cheaper services out there I'm overlooking? Wish I could purchase ACC Network or ESPN by itself for like $10/mo.
Comments
Since I already had Sling, I simply had to add the "sports" package I think they called it. It added $5 month.
Now without the base subscription it would add certainly to the cost but frankly when I dropped cable Sling was the best choice and still very happy with it.
Sling is the only one that I can tell who hasn't gone up to $60+ a month. That's what I was paying for cable if I remember correctly.. maybe even less. The whole point of cutting the cord is to not pay $60+ a month.
Maybe one of these days some ultra-competitive Amazon-like company will come along and offer a la carte options.
60 beats the heck out of what I was paying for Direct and DISH before that.
I pay roughly $125 for Youtube and 1GB fiber. I was paying about that when they jacked it up to $170 and refused to come down. I have not gone back.
I think of streaming is just a media conversion. The big content providers are going to still figure out how to get their money. People railed on cable (and for good reasons), but most of the articles about cord cutting left out some pretty important details.
You can get by for cheaper than a cable bundle if you're willing to accept reduced content. Content providers aren't dumb though. They want bundling in streaming just like they wanted it in cable. They also know their high value assets, and sports broadcasting is one of them.
They also know their high level numbers. If their users move from paying cable broker middle men to other middle men (e.g. Youtube/Google) then they just rework their licensing deals to the new wave brokers.
I think the next industry to see this sort of thing happen is the movie industry. Why do I want to go to a theater with 200 of my closest friends, pay $$$ and be subject to their start and stop times, when I can sit at home or go to a friend's house? I suspect we'll soon see most movies debut directly to streaming, or with maybe only a week's delay from the theater house.
I still like going to a movie. I take my son, we sit in the huge seats and eat tons of popcorn.
That is just me though
I pay $65 for YoutubeTv. I don't count my internet service because I had that before streaming anyway so why should I count something that didn't cause an incremental change in my decision. I also was paying for Netflix before also. Same deal.
So I dropped a $200 bill from satellite services to a $65 bill now. Is that not a $135 a month savings?
It is and I get what you are saying. I've had bundles for less than the price of internet and Youtube TV. I think it's largely provider dependent.
My point is that YouTube TV is facing the same bundling challenges that cable sees -- particularly if your cable company isn't also a content provider. Their prices have gone up (I initially got Youtube TV for $45 a month). That price is going to continue to creep upwards, or they're going to have to prune channels (which they already did).
YouTube. Might look into Sling, which I had a few years ago.