# [HULU PRICE HIKE] The streaming "free ride" continues to dwindle...



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

So much for the low teaser prices... Hulu just announced a 23% price hike. Live TV is now $54.99. If you're keeping score, there was ANOTHER price hike back in January. Which brings the yearly price hike to a wallet numbing 38% this year alone.

Hulu Smacks Live TV Customers With Second Big Rate Hike For 2019 | HotHardware

Boy... makes me glad DirecTV ain't raising my bill 38% next month.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Only 180% more in increases to match what my last Directv bill was.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the same one who has complained repeatedly about members posting about streaming services on the Directv board?



SledgeHammer said:


> So much for the low teaser prices... Hulu just announced a 23% price hike. Live TV is now $54.99. If you're keeping score, there was ANOTHER price hike back in January. Which brings the yearly price hike to a wallet numbing 38% this year alone.
> 
> Hulu Smacks Live TV Customers With Second Big Rate Hike For 2019 | HotHardware
> 
> Boy... makes me glad DirecTV ain't raising my bill 38% next month.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Everybody knows DirecTV doesn't raise their prices until February. I'll be utterly shocked if there's not another round of price increases in February 2020.

But I do tend to agree, the gap between streaming and DirecTV/traditional cable is narrowing. Still... $55/mo is a lot less than what I'm paying DirecTV right now for a simple set up.


----------



## oriolesmagic (Aug 6, 2013)

But the reality is the content is what drives up the price. The moment you kill off conventional TV, streaming ends up the same price. And it's the same content just being sold in a different way from the same exact people. Do you really think Disney, Viacom, etc., are ever going to take a discount regardless of the delivery mechanism?

It's an absolute fallacy that things will end up cheaper in this new model. In fact, it'll end up more expensive to get the same content you had on cable or satellite while being harder to aggregate it all together.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

For most of the critical programming overlap between Hulu w/ Live TV and DIRECTV, you're looking at a Choice as a minimum programming package. (Hulu has the RSNs, all the major sports networks, etc)

The "rack rate" of Hulu w/ Live TV is now going to be $54.99.
DIRECTV Choice "rack rate" is $87.99 before you add in the RSN fee, receiver fees, etc.

Costs will start to reach parity over time, but there is still money to be saved on the spread right now.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

The bigger question for me is how common are these huge price increases for Hulu (and every other streaming service) going to be. I mean, didn't Hulu just raise their price from $40 to $45 within the past 12 months? Now another $10/mo?

DirecTV (and I assume Dish... but don't have any dealings with them) all increase every year too. But I don't think they've ever increased $10 (at least for me). And Hulu's price increase is effectively $15 within the past calendar year.

I do agree that there is still savings to be made here. $55 is about half the price I'm paying DirecTV.

Of course, the other thing about streaming is the no contract - because there's no hardware being provided by the service they don't have to lock you into a 2 year commitment to try and get back some of the cost of that hardware. So if Hulu becomes too expensive... just cancel and go to one of the other streaming options.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

B. Shoe said:


> Only 180% more in increases to match what my last Directv bill was.


Exactly, SledgeHammer has nothing better to do than tell everyone that he does not like streaming.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

B. Shoe said:


> Only 180% more in increases to match what my last Directv bill was.


Sure, and your streaming bill doesn't cover your premiere protection plan and top end package with 300 channels and 7 TVs right?

But no worries... your bill will be equal (or more) in a year or two .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

evotz said:


> Everybody knows DirecTV doesn't raise their prices until February. I'll be utterly shocked if there's not another round of price increases in February 2020.
> 
> But I do tend to agree, the gap between streaming and DirecTV/traditional cable is narrowing. Still... $55/mo is a lot less than what I'm paying DirecTV right now for a simple set up.


Yeah, there sure will be... and I'm betting it won't be 38%.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mstenbrg said:


> Exactly, SledgeHammer has nothing better to do than tell everyone that he does not like streaming.


And you have nothing better to do then tell people you do . Speaking of which, where in this thread did I say I don't like streaming?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

raott said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the same one who has complained repeatedly about members posting about streaming services on the Directv board?


It was to remind people to appreciate their TINY DirecTV increases in Feb . I'm figuring mine will be around 5% to 6%. If DirecTV wants me to leave, they should try give me a 38% rate hike lol.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> It was to remind people to appreciate their TINY DirecTV increases in Feb . I'm figuring mine will be around 5% to 6%. If DirecTV wants me to leave, they should try give me a 38% rate hike lol.


You don't know math very well I guess. An $8 increase on $160 a month is going to be a much smaller percentage than a $5 -10 increase on $50 a month. In the end, it will still take a long time, if ever, for that $50 a month streaming plan to get to the same price as DirecTV. I wonder why you are so invested in this? Many people are able to save a lot of money by leaving conventional TV and trying streaming. That is a fact.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mstenbrg said:


> You don't know math very well I guess. An $8 increase on $160 a month is going to be a much smaller percentage than a $5 increase on $50 a month. In the end, it will still take a long time, if ever, for that $50 a month streaming plan to get to the same price as DirecTV. I wonder why you are so invested in this? Many people are able to save a lot of money by leaving conventional TV and trying streaming. That is a fact.


Uh... I told you my increase will be 5 to 6%. Maybe a percent or two more. Definitely not 38%. Sounds like math to me. Yes, if you have 16 TVs, you'll save money by going to streaming. Duh. But guess what, you won't have 16 TVs anymore and you won't have the same number of channels and you won't have PP and all the other bells & whistles. Apples vs. Horses. If you have fewer TVs and want to keep a similar level of service, you don't save anything by going to streaming, even at current prices. And if you're willing to drop all those bells and whistles, kinda weird that you weren't willing to do it on DTV. Apples vs. Horses.

Why do you get all bent out of shape when people point out the flaws in streaming? Where were you when that guy went on a rant last week about cancelling DTV because AT&T did something to him on his cell service? Lol... yup, totally related.


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Uh... I told you my increase will be 5 to 6%. Maybe a percent or two more. Definitely not 38%. Sounds like math to me. Yes, if you have 16 TVs, you'll save money by going to streaming. Duh. But guess what, you won't have 16 TVs anymore and you won't have the same number of channels and you won't have PP and all the other bells & whistles. Apples vs. Horses. If you have fewer TVs and want to keep a similar level of service, you don't save anything by going to streaming. And if you're willing to drop all those bells and whistles, kinda weird that you weren't willing to do it on DTV. Apples vs. Horses.
> 
> Why do you get all bent out of shape when people point out the flaws in streaming? Where were you when that guy went on a rant last week about cancelling DTV because AT&T did something to him on his cell service? Lol... yup, totally related.


Becasue all of your points are invalid for me. They may be valid points for you, but not everyone is the same.

What do I need a protection plan for when streaming does not require any equipment that I did not already have (Smart TV or Roku). Roku's are cheap, if one breaks buy a new one.
I can still have 16 TV's if I want to with streaming (I don't). I may have a limited # of concurrent streams, but with 4 people in the house that does not limit us at all. We rarely have more than 2 TV's on at once.
Who cares how many channels DirecTV has, I only watch 10-15 of them and my streaming package has all of the channels I care about. Paying for another 150 channels I don't watch is silly.
Not sure what bells and whistles DirecTV was giving me? I like the streaming experience better in many ways.
There was no way to get my DirecTV package down to a price that was close to streaming without eliminating receivers, or lowering my channel package and losing a channel I wanted. DirecTV was good at putting the 1 channel you want in a higher package. Also, they would not give me any discounts before I cancelled.

The flaws you are trying to come up with are not flaws to many people. It is obvious that there are many reasons you like DirecTV better, that is your opinion and I have no problem with that. What you fail understand is that other people have different things they are looking for, but you continue to tell us that we are wrong for our opinions.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

There's advantages and disadvantages to streaming and advantages and disadvantages for satellite/traditional cable.

Right now... if you want the most content at your finger tips - and cost isn't an obstacle, then sure DirecTV is your best bet.

But if you're only interested in a subset of content and/or can live without certain content, then ... right now... streaming is a less expensive option.

My opinion is that i don't think streaming will ever get as expensive at satellite and cable... I could just as easily be wrong about that. I don't know if you'll ever have all of the content options within a single streaming service that you have now with DirecTV. But... I mean... if I can save $50 per month on my TV bill and that means I lose the FX networks... that's something to consider. For me, I'm not sure FX (or insert network name here) is worth the $50 (or insert savings amount here) extra.

But if content is king for you and having access to all of that content, then money can't be an obstacle for you. Tomato - Tomahto


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

This is not something anyone should be surprised about. The streaming services are just having to deal with programming providers the same way cable and satellite companies have to. The providers think their products are worth way more than they are, and then the price hikes have to be passed on to the consumer. Hulu just didn't price their product correctly initially, and now they are correcting it. I see no issue with that. This has NEVER been a "free ride" though, so the title is just plain stupid. You can still watch most shows for "free" on the provider websites, but you have to watch the commercials, there is no fast forwarding through them, so if that is acceptable for you, they can be used.

Live TV is dead


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Richard said:


> This is not something anyone should be surprised about. The streaming services are just having to deal with programming providers the same way cable and satellite companies have to. The providers think their products are worth way more than they are, and then the price hikes have to be passed on to the consumer. Hulu just didn't price their product correctly initially, and now they are correcting it. I see no issue with that. This has NEVER been a "free ride" though, so the title is just plain stupid. You can still watch most shows for "free" on the provider websites, but you have to watch the commercials, there is no fast forwarding through them, so if that is acceptable for you, they can be used.
> 
> Live TV is dead


First thing people talk about is all the money they are saving and quite a few people on here have responded with they are low teaser prices and won't last as you see. PlayStationVue folded. Another provider just hiked by 25%. And yeah, I don't have to watch commercials.


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Jul 25, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> First thing people talk about is all the money they are saving and quite a few people on here have responded with they are low teaser prices and won't last as you see. PlayStationVue folded. Another provider just hiked by 25%. And yeah, I don't have to watch commercials.


Why are you so emotional about this, it's freaking TV. 

But do carry on, it is entertaining.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mstenbrg said:


> Becasue all of your points are invalid for me. They may be valid points for you, but not everyone is the same.
> 
> What do I need a protection plan for when streaming does not require any equipment that I did not already have (Smart TV or Roku). Roku's are cheap, if one breaks buy a new one.
> I can still have 16 TV's if I want to with streaming (I don't). I may have a limited # of concurrent streams, but with 4 people in the house that does not limit us at all. We rarely have more than 2 TV's on at once.
> ...


"trying to come up with" lol

I watch maybe 10 - 20 channels myself. Except it takes 2 - 3 streaming providers to get MOST of them. I don't think any streaming provider has them all. At 2 - 3 providers, I'm at about a wash with DirecTV and lose channels (yeah, I play the retention game). I haven't been paying full price for at LEAST 10+ years. If when my current promo falls off early next year and they say no more, then I'll go to Cox or something.

You don't need PP with DirecTV either. Did you ever use it? Does your equipment break all the time? I've had one DVR die in my life and DTV comped a replacement. Also got a free equipment upgrade this year. Don't have PP and I milk the loyalty program.

And I also don't watch sports so I'm on preferred xtra to get rid of RSN.

I watch stuff on CBS. YouTube forces me to watch ads.

I don't want every episode of every show ever. I just want to watch an episode here and there. YouTube makes me record every single ep with no way to delete them.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Gordon Shumway said:


> Why are you so emotional about this, it's freaking TV.
> 
> But do carry on, it is entertaining.


Ur confused buddy lmao...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

raott said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the same one who has complained repeatedly about members posting about streaming services on the Directv board?


Moved to the more appropriate forum.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

*shurg* My Hulu promotion ends on the 22nd. I just logged in and canceled the service. Netflix will get cancelled at the end of December.

CBS All Access? Disney+? While there is some compelling content that I want to see, I really don't have the time at the moment. So, it's just Amazon Prime and Criterion Channel for me. My mother has her AT&T Now subscription for her Hallmark fix.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

It appears most/all the program owners, in particular local channel providers, are at the forefront of the rate hikes. Locast, if one is in one of the markets served, appears to be one potential solution, the only problem is a lack of dvr service; there are a couple of stand-alone solutions but they are hampered by restricted hardware choices and additional user fees, although if one is lucky enough to live where ota reception is good, there are several good solutions. 

OTT I thought was supposed to bring the death of bloated 'packages' and ability to choose channels on a ala carte basis, but suppliers simply used relaxed buyout and merger rules to move the bloat to the corporate level, the most obvious being Disney Corp. Break out the social media companies? What about the media 'media' companies?

Also, as is typical, the Hulu web site has not been updated to reflect the hikes.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

evotz said:


> There's advantages and disadvantages to streaming and advantages and disadvantages for satellite/traditional cable.
> 
> Right now... if you want the most content at your finger tips - and cost isn't an obstacle, then sure DirecTV is your best bet.


I'm not so sure about this. Its more about how you get to the content. I found with DirecTV, I was more focusing on what was available through the linear delivery format of cable/satellite instead of the anything, anywhere, anytime availability of the streaming services. Streaming like Netflix and traditional Hulu favor binging a show. So, I didn't use the DirecTV on-demand feature. Sometimes, we'd watch something from the DVR.

The contrast for streaming is that everything is available now. Overchoice is a major problem here. At least with linear TV, I can rapidly decide which crap show I don't want to watch. On Netflix, I scroll past a bunch of shows that I am not interested in, slightly interested in that I am not sure I want to start now, or things I'd like to binge next week. Its hard to find something for now.

Historically, I would search linear channels for the "least objectionable option" available. Some nights, its "must see TV" where I watch a couple of sitcoms. That largely leaves me the 10 PM block where every channel has police procedurals (which all suck - no, that instrument doesn't do that!, or they are just crap mysteries where you figure it out 10 minutes into the show and see right through the misdirect that's put in so that the show lasts 45 minutes and can have 15 minutes of commercials) that I put on Bojack Horseman, Disenchantment, After Life, Catch 22, or Star Trek Discovery.

Of course, the use case for live streaming is sports. If you watch sports, you need linear TV, so a cable/satellite or a streaming replacement is required.

So, for me, its not about availability of content, its about how that content is made available.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I have three primary streaming services:
Netflix, which is essentially free with my TMobile phone plan.
Amazon Prime, which is included with my Amazon yearly subscription. I would continue the subscription even if Amazon dropped the Prime service.
Acorn, which is $5 per month.
I would consider Disney+ with Hulu if I ever decide to cut my FiOS cord.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

oriolesmagic said:


> But the reality is the content is what drives up the price. The moment you kill off conventional TV, streaming ends up the same price. And it's the same content just being sold in a different way from the same exact people. Do you really think Disney, Viacom, etc., are ever going to take a discount regardless of the delivery mechanism?
> 
> It's an absolute fallacy that things will end up cheaper in this new model. In fact, it'll end up more expensive to get the same content you had on cable or satellite while being harder to aggregate it all together.


You are absolutely correct...if you have the need to replicate D*. If you don't have that need it's a lot less expensive to stream at this moment and that's not gonna change drastically.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> The bigger question for me is how common are these huge price increases for Hulu (and every other streaming service) going to be. I mean, didn't Hulu just raise their price from $40 to $45 within the past 12 months? Now another $10/mo?
> 
> DirecTV (and I assume Dish... but don't have any dealings with them) all increase every year too. But I don't think they've ever increased $10 (at least for me). And Hulu's price increase is effectively $15 within the past calendar year.
> 
> ...


There you go, that's what I like to see.

Rich


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Well the point was, if content choice is your main concern, then DirecTV (or maybe Dish) is still a better choice. Say you have to have some obscure choice of content - ESPNU, Disney, Science Channel, and INSP (these are just examples) - finding that content in a single streaming provider is a little difficult. Sling may offer it all in an expensive package+package+addon+addon system - but you don't get locals either.

If content like this is important to you - and there's nothing wrong if it is - then yes, satellite and traditional cable may be the more effective solution for you.

BUT... if you can live without certain content - and again, I'm not judging if you can't - then right now it would appear that savings can be had with live streaming packages.

To each their own. For some, having accessing to more content is important. For others, saving money is more important.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Gordon Shumway said:


> Why are you so emotional about this, it's freaking TV.
> 
> But do carry on, it is entertaining.


Give it some time, it gets very annoying after awhile. Mocking those who do things differently is wrong, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> To each their own. For some, having accessing to more content is important. For others, saving money is more important.


I don't think saving money is a prime concern here. I've always thought we, as a group, were more focused on things other than cost. Using D* certainly isn't inexpensive and I gotta think not many folks here are really worried about saving money on TV. TV, the way we use it, is a luxury. To constantly rant about how much something costs seems odd here. Just my opinion.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> You are absolutely correct...if you have the need to replicate D*. If you don't have that need it's a lot less expensive to stream at this moment and that's not gonna change drastically.
> 
> Rich


Yep, replicating what you get on cable/sat with streaming is going to be nearly as expensive as cable/sat. Fortunately there are all sorts of things upcoming or possible, especially in the ad-supported streamers.
It looks like NBC Universal will have a free with ads service soon which will bring in a number of channels. Hulu will continue to have next day airings of lots of broadcast and cable channel shows very cheap with ads. Pluto just keeps growing with more 'channels' and subscribers.
But bandwidth caps from some ISPs and expected to actually end up on all of them at some future date, you have to be aware of the impact the 4K stuff has on bandwidth usage. I sub to Disney+ and AppleTV+, and others with 4K video. But the reality is that most of the stuff in 4K really isn't enough better than upscaled 1080 to pay that bandwidth issue. In my setup I have my FireTV Cube set to 1080 and my AppleTV set to 4K outputs, that way I can control bandwidth usage a bit.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Rich said:


> I don't think saving money is a prime concern here. I've always thought we, as a group, were more focused on things other than cost. Using D* certainly isn't inexpensive and I gotta think not many folks here are really worried about saving money on TV. TV, the way we use it, is a luxury. To constantly rant about how much something costs seems odd here. Just my opinion.
> 
> Rich


That could very well be true. I'm strongly considering moving to streaming - in some capacity - from DirecTV once my discounts run out. I mean, it's just not worth it for me. $110/mo for a single HD non-DVR (not that I really want a DVR) receiver. Add in the fact that I'm usually watching from the antenna most nights... I'm just not sure if it's worth it.

But... having said that... I don't exactly fit into the crowd here... because like I said I have a single non-DVR HD receiver. I don't have the ultra setups that a lot of people here seem to have (not judging). So for me, saving money is definitely a factor - but that may not be the case for the majority here.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

With the major corporate players reorganizing streaming, the costs to viewers will rise. But it will not just be the monthly charges.

What I expect is to see a headline - maybe in two years, maybe sooner - where you get a "deal" with a streaming source by committing to a two year contract. The real cost advantage right now is to subscribe, watch shows you want to see for a month or two until you've seen the episodes you haven't seen, then cancel and move on to a different streaming "channel."

But even at this time, that won't work with some broadcast shows streaming on Hulu, such as the "Chicago" three broadcast by NBC where they don't give you more than five back episodes. In the back of my suspicious mind I suspect NBC with its upcoming Peacock service might offer discount pricing with a year or more commitment.

But we'll see.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Rich said:


> Mocking those who do things differently is wrong, I think.


Agreed.

It seems odd to say this in a thread about a price increase, but the big winner in streaming is us as consumers. Choice is a good thing; for some DIRECTV is the best option, for others streaming works well.

Email didn't end the USPS. Things will rebalance.


----------



## vfourmax (Dec 22, 2018)

Rich said:


> I don't think saving money is a prime concern here. I've always thought we, as a group, were more focused on things other than cost. Using D* certainly isn't inexpensive and I gotta think not many folks here are really worried about saving money on TV. Just my opinion.
> 
> Rich


I would disagree as I think for many the amount of dollars they are shelling out monthly for TV content is a big factor in switching services. If price were not a factor then everyone would just have the top direct tv package with multiple dvr's and would not care about "what it cost". I was paying 145.00 a month for DTV (which included all of their add on fees) when I dropped it and now I am paying 65.00 a month, big difference on a monthly basis.

I think that honestly the quality of the shows the broadcasters are putting out overall these days is pretty pitiful and the majority of the cable network channels including premiums like Starz or HBO are just swapping around the same old 5-50 year old movies that this week will be on HBO and next month will be on WGN or TNT anyway that other than live sports they really offer very little in the way of content anyway.
Personally reality tv, DWTS, the Voice, Storage wars, hoarders or one of the Bachelorette or Survivor type of shows which dominates prime time content is not my thing and the networks love it because it is cheap to produce so I miss very little decent content anyway.

I have found since dropping Dtv that I actually pay more attention to what I watch and watch a lot less of things I really could care less about seeing for the 20th time. OTA TV covers a lot of what I watch, I have PS Vue which will end Jan 30th. I think since I have Amazon prime (which I did not get for the tv service actually) that until Football seasons returns I may just not worry about any additional streaming full packages.

But I do think that monthly price as compared to the perceived value of the content and service received is a big major factor in why people search for other options. Just my opinion although a little different.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

I think the main issue is figuring out which content you actually want and what the best package is. One resource is The Streamable where you plug in which channels, programs, and teams you like, and what the best streaming package is. Another resource is Just Watch.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yep, replicating what you get on cable/sat with streaming is going to be nearly as expensive as cable/sat. Fortunately there are all sorts of things upcoming or possible, especially in the ad-supported streamers.
> It looks like NBC Universal will have a free with ads service soon which will bring in a number of channels. Hulu will continue to have next day airings of lots of broadcast and cable channel shows very cheap with ads. Pluto just keeps growing with more 'channels' and subscribers.
> But bandwidth caps from some ISPs and expected to actually end up on all of them at some future date, you have to be aware of the impact the 4K stuff has on bandwidth usage. I sub to Disney+ and AppleTV+, and others with 4K video. But the reality is that most of the stuff in 4K really isn't enough better than upscaled 1080 to pay that bandwidth issue. In my setup I have my FireTV Cube set to 1080 and my AppleTV set to 4K outputs, that way I can control bandwidth usage a bit.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Not sure why, but we don't have caps. Our provider is Optimum by Altice. The service has improved quite a bit since Altice bought it.

Yeah, the 4K PQ certainly isn't an SD to HD thing. But the difference is notable, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

evotz said:


> That could very well be true. I'm strongly considering moving to streaming - in some capacity - from DirecTV once my discounts run out. I mean, it's just not worth it for me. $110/mo for a single HD non-DVR (not that I really want a DVR) receiver. Add in the fact that I'm usually watching from the antenna most nights... I'm just not sure if it's worth it.
> 
> But... having said that... I don't exactly fit into the crowd here... because like I said I have a single non-DVR HD receiver. I don't have the ultra setups that a lot of people here seem to have (not judging). So for me, saving money is definitely a factor - but that may not be the case for the majority here.


I know some of us are gonna feel as you do. What I wrote should be considered a general statement. What my family does is certainly different from what most folks here do.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

espaeth said:


> Agreed.
> 
> It seems odd to say this in a thread about a price increase, but the *big winner in streaming is us* as consumers. Choice is a good thing; for some DIRECTV is the best option, for others streaming works well.
> 
> Email didn't end the USPS. Things will rebalance.


That's how I feel. Big win. I can hardly believe how well streaming is working out for us. After juggling 12 VCRs and then upgrading to 12 HRs...I don't have to spend any time recording anything. Anything and damn near everything is just a click away. Good times!

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Not sure why, but we don't have caps. Our provider is Optimum by Altice. The service has improved quite a bit since Altice bought it.
> 
> Yeah, the 4K PQ certainly isn't an SD to HD thing. But the difference is notable, I think.
> 
> Rich


Yeah 4K PQ is great but many shows really aren't enough better if you're banging up against bandwidth caps and extra fees. For me at 12 ft away from a 75" Sony the differences appear slight to my 75 year old eyes on most shows.
Right now I need to scale back the streaming a bit as I'm at 800Gb of a 1TB cap with 7 days to go before it resets.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

vfourmax said:


> (1) I would disagree as I think for many the amount of dollars they are shelling out monthly for TV content is a big factor in switching services. If price were not a factor then everyone would just have the top direct tv package with multiple dvr's and would not care about "what it cost". I was paying 145.00 a month for DTV (which included all of their add on fees) when I dropped it and now I am paying 65.00 a month, big difference on a monthly basis.
> 
> (2)I think that honestly the quality of the shows the broadcasters are putting out overall these days is pretty pitiful and the majority of the cable network channels including premiums like Starz or HBO are just swapping around the same old 5-50 year old movies that this week will be on HBO and next month will be on WGN or TNT anyway that other than live sports they really offer very little in the way of content anyway.
> Personally reality tv, DWTS, the Voice, Storage wars, hoarders or one of the Bachelorette or Survivor type of shows which dominates prime time content is not my thing and the networks love it because it is cheap to produce so I miss very little decent content anyway.
> ...


(1) Cost is always a factor, I didn't mean it wasn't. I said I didn't think it was the _primary _concern for most folks _here_. All the folks here that have complex setups, multiple DVRs and multiple TVs seem to be if not well off at least financially comfy.

(2) Yes, I agree. The Originals we see on streaming sites are much better than the series on the networks. Glad to see this mentioned.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah 4K PQ is great but many shows really aren't enough better if you're banging up against bandwidth caps and extra fees. For me at 12 ft away from a 75" Sony the differences appear slight to my 75 year old eyes on most shows.
> Right now I need to scale back the streaming a bit as I'm at 800Gb of a 1TB cap with 7 days to go before it resets.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


How much do they charge you if you go over the cap? We use Verizon for our cell phones and we did go over the cap from time to time. Only cost us $15 each time it happened. We signed up for the cap-less service the last time we bought new phones. Got rid of that hassle, don't know if we saved any money.

I bought the 4K sets for the upscaling, I don't look for 4K content.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> How much do they charge you if you go over the cap? We use Verizon for our cell phones and we did go over the cap from time to time. Only cost us $15 each time it happened. We signed up for the cap-less service the last time we bought new phones. Got rid of that hassle, don't know if we saved any money.
> 
> I bought the 4K sets for the upscaling, I don't look for 4K content.
> 
> Rich


It's $10 for 50Gb over. I've decided to watch each day as I have been and see what the data does. If it gets too close I'll just bump up to the next tier which gives me a 2TB cap and costs either $10 or $20 more per month depending on their mood when I call...

I've got my ATV set to 1080p which should reduce the usage, hopefully enough to make me not have to bump up the service level.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> It's $10 for 50Gb over. I've decided to watch each day as I have been and see what the data does. If it gets too close I'll just bump up to the next tier which gives me a 2TB cap and costs either $10 or $20 more per month depending on their mood when I call...
> 
> I've got my ATV set to 1080p which should reduce the usage, hopefully enough to make me not have to bump up the service level.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Got it, thanks. Verizon was bumping us $15 when we went over the cap and we got a barrage of notifications each time it happened. Upgrading to no caps just made sense.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Got it, thanks. Verizon was bumping us $15 when we went over the cap and we got a barrage of notifications each time it happened. Upgrading to no caps just made sense.
> 
> Rich


No caps is not an option with Mediacom unfortunately.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> No caps is not an option with Mediacom unfortunately.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Not gonna say I'm thrilled with Altice but they do have the no cap option and they are a lot better than Cablevision was. I don't have any other options here.

Rich


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Rich said:


> How much do they charge you if you go over the cap? We use Verizon for our cell phones and we did go over the cap from time to time. Only cost us $15 each time it happened. We signed up for the cap-less service the last time we bought new phones. Got rid of that hassle, don't know if we saved any money.
> 
> I bought the 4K sets for the upscaling, I don't look for 4K content.
> 
> Rich


Exactly! The 4K UHDTV's upconvert and so do alot of the 4K streamers,like the Roku Streaming Stick+.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Got it, thanks. Verizon was bumping us $15 when we went over the cap and we got a barrage of notifications each time it happened. Upgrading to no caps just made sense.
> 
> Rich


Not when no caps costs $50/mo lol.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

There is a monster out there lurking and waiting to pounce. That is Disney. Disney is offering Disney + for $69 yr or less if you go for the three year package. That's around $5mo. (3yr pkg). Disney owns HULU. Less than 30 days after Disney + launches Disney raises the HULU Live rate a lot. Disney bundles standard HULU and ESPN+ and national Geographic (Disney also owns ESPN) for $12.99mo. Disney says they are working on a bundle pkg that will include HULU Live. Disney offers quite a bit of 4K programming at no up charge. Look up what Disney owns. It's staggering.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> There is a monster out there lurking and waiting to pounce. That is Disney. Disney is offering Disney + for $69 yr or less if you go for the three year package. That's around $5mo. (3yr pkg). Disney owns HULU. Less than 30 days after Disney + launches Disney raises the HULU Live rate a lot. Disney bundles standard HULU and ESPN+ and national Geographic (Disney also owns ESPN) for $12.99mo. Disney says they are working on a bundle pkg that will include HULU Live. Disney offers quite a bit of 4K programming at no up charge. Look up what Disney owns. It's staggering.


I hope they do this as well as they seem to do everything. With Apple and Disney in the mix streaming should get even better.

Rich


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Gosh, I steer clear of the boards for a weekend and the lid gets blown off the pot.

I'll continue to say what I've said from day one of my experience with streaming; it's the ultimate YMMV situation. I was never unhappy with my service with Directv. But I am happier, overall, with my current experience with streaming. I know others haven't, and we've had great discussion about the pros and cons within this part of the forum on that. Learning how others enjoy their viewing experience, what matters to them, etc., is part of what makes the streaming conversation interesting.

Yes, the streaming costs are likely going to increase at some point. And when it does, I'll determine at that point whether it's the best choice for my budget, or if I need to make other adjustments. But for the time being, I'm happy to continue championing the streaming life for anyone willing to listen. This isn't a case of who's right and who's wrong...*it's a case of what's right for YOU*. We continue to miss the point on this.


----------



## Getteau (Dec 20, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not when no caps costs $50/mo lol.


That's where I'm at right now. With Xfinity, no cap is $50/month extra. If I go over my 1T limit, it's $10 for each additional 50G. We usually hover right around the cap each month. However, we don't go over consistently enough to justify the extra $50/month. Sure there are a couple of months each year where I get hit with $60 or $80 of overages. However, there are more months where we don't have any overages or only $10 or $20's worth. So the pay as you go extra works well for us.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Getteau said:


> That's where I'm at right now. With Xfinity, no cap is $50/month extra. If I go over my 1T limit, it's $10 for each additional 50G. We usually hover right around the cap each month. However, we don't go over consistently enough to justify the extra $50/month. Sure there are a couple of months each year where I get hit with $60 or $80 of overages. However, there are more months where we don't have any overages or only $10 or $20's worth. So the pay as you go extra works well for us.


That's where I'm at. I'm pushing against my 1TB cap each month. I can move up to the next tier which gives a 2TB cap for $10/month more. I may do that soon.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

Getteau said:


> That's where I'm at right now. With Xfinity, no cap is $50/month extra.


You can sign up for the xFi Advantage plan where you rent a cable modem for either $15 (competitive east coast markets) or $25, and it includes unlimited data.

You can have the modem put in "bridge mode" to disable all the wireless and hotspot features.


----------



## Gordon Shumway (Jul 25, 2013)

Rich said:


> (1) Cost is always a factor, I didn't mean it wasn't. I said I didn't think it was the _primary _concern for most folks _here_. All the folks here that have complex setups, multiple DVRs and multiple TVs seem to be if not well off at least financially comfy
> 
> Rich


Cost is always a factor, but not always in pure dollars and cents. Sometimes the cost just doesn't make sense whether you can afford it or not. I could have just turned my head and easily kept paying DirecTV with no financial impact. But I didn't get financially comfy by ignoring cost/benefit analysis. As I get older the cost of DirecTV keeps going up while my desire to watch TV keeps going down. At some point it just doesn't make any sense no matter what you can afford. My northern New England yankee upbringing hasn't gone away just because I've lived in the south for the last 37 years. :tearsofjoy:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Gordon Shumway said:


> Cost is always a factor, but not always in pure dollars and cents. Sometimes the cost just doesn't make sense whether you can afford it or not. I could have just turned my head and easily kept paying DirecTV with no financial impact. But I didn't get financially comfy by ignoring cost/benefit analysis. As I get older the cost of DirecTV keeps going up while my desire to watch TV keeps going down. At some point it just doesn't make any sense no matter what you can afford. My northern New England yankee upbringing hasn't gone away just because I've lived in the south for the last 37 years. :tearsofjoy:


I hear that. I'm struggling with trying to stay with D* for sports and maintaining a full suite of video streaming services. I keep telling myself, "this is a luxury, this is a luxury". Rather expensive luxury. Unfortunately, I've always had a TV addiction, I can't stop watching.

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Rich said:


> Rather expensive luxury.


Luxury is always expensive.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Luxury is always expensive.


Yup, with the MLB season over with I'm getting antsy about the D* bill. I'll be okay until the football season is over. Just have to wait it out until late March. I thought about putting the account on suspension but that would entail a phone call and I haven't had any luck with that recently. I don't want to think of how many ways suspending service might screw up my account.

Rich


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Rich said:


> Yup, with the MLB season over with I'm getting antsy about the D* bill. I'll be okay until the football season is over. Just have to wait it out until late March. I thought about putting the account on suspension but that would entail a phone call and I haven't had any luck with that recently. I don't want to think of how many ways suspending service might screw up my account.
> 
> Rich


T-mobile gives away the MLB.TV streaming service every spring to subscribers. I got it free the past two years. You can log in n any device.

T-Mobile Customers Score FREE MLB.TV

For me, ESPN+ was cheaper for the year than MLS DirectKick was from D*.

The only difficult sport to stream is out of market NFL.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Are we still talking about HULU?


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Are we still talking about HULU?


I think we stopped talking about Hulu after post #1.  JK.


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

Even at $54, HuluLive is considerably cheaper than the bare bones package that Mediacom offers and it's not even close.

Price increases are going to happen, it's the cost of doing business, however IMO, as long as the streaming world stays flushed with competition the price hikes should be at a minimum. Too many price hikes like Hulu has done, no problem, I'll cancel and find another service


----------

