[helipad]

The streaming landscape is frustrating as an end user. I have a Roku TV and have used YouTube TV, Hulu and Sling for live TV.

YouTube TV and Hulu seem to keep increasing their prices to the point where there's not much difference from traditional cable, other than it's easier to cancel.

But then there are so many caveats. Bally Sports doesn't appear to be available in my local market to stream our MLB team. I also need a separate Peacock subscription to watch some, but not all Premier League games. Also the channels available on Roku seem to change, presumably due to contract disputes like this.

Whatever promise TV over Internet once had over cable has long since gone away for me.

[lostphilosopher]

I think we have collective amnesia around just how bad "traditional cable" is/was (in no particular order):

1. Tons of ads

2. Ads with terrible content

3. Expensive

4. Piecemeal content (having to pay for multiple packages to get all the programs you're interested in, some options being nearly mutually exclusive)

5. You could either watch live at a time you didn't choose, record (hassle), or use a pretty terrible "on demand" UI (which may also only have the last 3 episodes or other weird restrictions)

6. Bad content

I've used Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, HBO Max, and Disney Plus.

None of them have issues 1 or 2. The "previews" can get more ad like than I'd want, but no where near cable. Huge win for streaming in my book.

Combined they are about on par with the cost of cable, though I rarely have all of them subscribed at once and could easily cut back to a much cheaper combo (so, draw on issue 3, but possible win for streaming).

Issue 4 is still an issue (and I can't really imagine it not being an issue given how for profit business works).

Issue 5 is a win for streaming. Better UIs, better content strategies, etc.

Issue 6 is subjective so I'll leave that to the reader

[mitchdoogle]

Issue 4 (piecemeal content) is a bit ridiculous if you think about it. Netflix, as an example, has enough content to last a person their entire life and adding more every month.

[jerf]

That's assuming a rather undiscriminating consumer, and honestly, may not even be true in all cases anyhow... Netflix has become extremely adept at building a UI that hides how thin their offerings have actually become. If a 20-year-old tried to make the Netflix April 2021 library last their entire life I suspect they'd be disappointed well before they are 30 assuming reasonably average amouts of time spent watching it.

[selfhoster11]

Content is not fungible. I want that show in particular and not something else, and Netflix often cannot deliver on that want.

[lotsofpulp]

> YouTube TV and Hulu seem to keep increasing their prices to the point where there's not much difference from traditional cable, other than it's easier to cancel.

That removal of the cable/satellite middlemen and ease of buying and canceling is pretty big I think. Now we just need to wait for the sports organizations contracts with networks to lose sufficient value that it makes sense to cut out the old networks and blackouts or whatever completely.

However, I think the value proposition for traditional bulk purchase TV entertainment where you don’t watch 99% of it is gone. I can buy all of the stuff I watch whenever I want and it would cost less than a monthly subscription to one of these channel services, and I wouldn’t have to sit through ads. Sports is the only missing factor, but the sports organizations are worth nowhere near what they charge right now to me.

[ghaff]

I cut my cable TV (and cable landline) cord last year because I wasn't using either much. But I went into it knowing that it would mean giving up live TV because if I were going to subscribe to something like YouTube TV, the difference in cost wouldn't be much at the end of the day.

(My cell, even with WiFi assist, and other calling mechanisms also aren't quite as good as my landline but, again, not worth the money as essentially a backup.)

[ipaddr]

Antenna tv is HD now and offers most of those channels for free. Is it offered in your area?

[ghaff]

I can't get any OTA. Basically, I'm fairly far out from the nearest large city and I'm at the base of a hill that blocks anything I might pick up.

[dv_dt]

I basically watch no live TV except when possibly a disaster or other live event occurs, but for that if you live in a coverage area of https://www.locast.org/ it steams OTA transmissions of various regions.

They're being sued by broadcasters of course - with the EFF defending and a trial expected mid year this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locast

[tcskeptic]

The Bally Sports thing is a long standing YoutubeTV contract dispute carried over from the Fox Sports RSNs. Its ridiculous

[soupfordummies]

Not the person you're replying to but I'm in the same boat. I was at least able to watch my team last year but now that I can't even do that, there's no reason for me to keep paying $65/mo, it's ludicrous.