https://www.fccincinnati.com/post/2019/03/11/club-announces-new-partnership-flosports
They got another MLS team
They got another MLS team
ESPN+ has every MLS soccer game outside of the hometeam games for $5 a month and you don't have to pay up front.
Shouldn't every DC United fan just use a VPN to say they are outside of the DC area? Would be cheaper than Flosports and you get every MLS game.
Many are doing that on reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/DCUnited/comments/azhbre/there_are_going_to_be_a_lot_of_upset_fans_today/
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
cwarcarblue11 wrote:
This.
Cutting the cord allows you to pick and choose which services you have rather than individual packages. For me, the only sport I care about is running and I don't watch TV. So I only pay the following:
- Flotrack $150
- NBC gold $75
- USATF $30
This covers 99% of the sporting events I watch for $255 per year. Cable would cost me a minimum of $1200 per year, maybe more.
Plus, the cost of your internet package, which is probably $70/month, so now you are up to almost $1095 for the year.
It is interesting how no one factors in the cost of internet (and maybe upgrading to get faster streaming) into the cost. Paying for internet has almost become a utility like electricity or water.
"Cutting the cord" to me always meant fighting back against cable and satellite too since it really is the same thing as cable--you pay for a lot of channels you do not want. Yes, the savings can be real. Right now the only streaming service I have is Amazon Prime (actually there are a few channels that stream free content, but their offerings are pretty slim and often obscure). Next month I will cancel it and use Hulu or Netflix for a month or two.
But I get amused at the folks with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and then a couple of add ons like HBO. Are they really saving much over having cable? Maybe getting some content they would not otherwise get, but those still add up.
Oh, and when college football season rolls around I will get cable back. I tried Sling for a month and found it choppy and slow in switching from one channel to another quickly.
Isn't ESPN+ like $5/month? Can't imagine that the Flosports broadcasts of soccer are going to get more viewers than ESPN+.
rojo wrote:
AUFC wrote:
ESPN+ had a few games for AUFC last season, and we did the free week/cancel for one game, but after that just chose not to watch. That's "only" $5 a month, but I guess the subscription folks all assume we the public can't do basic math and add up all the $5/$10 packages that will end up with cord cutters paying the same or more than the cable the cut. Plus, of my friends who have cut the cord, Comcast keeps raising the price of internet.
I've been thinking of "cutting" myself as I like to stick it to the man but you are correct, it's not like you save a ton if you some sort of cord-free cable like Sling/youtubetv . I mean maybe with sling and internet it's 150 a month instead of 200. So yes you save 600 bucks but it's not mindblowing. I was thinking of going the sling route as maybe a few months I'd just use their airtv player and not watch any cable. So if I had nothing for a few months, I could save an extra $45-50 a month.
Only when the phone service's internet is good enough will we really have a chance to save big bucks.
I have broadband, and an OTA antenna that gives me a few network channels. It's not impossible. (I actually see MORE sports on my TV than I did previously.)
I'm not sure what you mean by not factoring in the cost of internet. I had internet when I had satellite TV. I have internet after I cut off my satellite TV. I work from home and having high speed internet is a condition of my employment. I think my satellite TV bill came to 112 with taxes and fees. With Sling and Netflix I am paying $35/month. I don't much like Sling, not great content and very buggy, so I will probably quit that soon. But I'm saving ~70-75/month.
Luv2Run wrote:
It is interesting how no one factors in the cost of internet (and maybe upgrading to get faster streaming) into the cost. Paying for internet has almost become a utility like electricity or water.
"Cutting the cord" to me always meant fighting back against cable and satellite too since it really is the same thing as cable--you pay for a lot of channels you do not want. Yes, the savings can be real. Right now the only streaming service I have is Amazon Prime (actually there are a few channels that stream free content, but their offerings are pretty slim and often obscure). Next month I will cancel it and use Hulu or Netflix for a month or two.
But I get amused at the folks with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and then a couple of add ons like HBO. Are they really saving much over having cable? Maybe getting some content they would not otherwise get, but those still add up.
Oh, and when college football season rolls around I will get cable back. I tried Sling for a month and found it choppy and slow in switching from one channel to another quickly.
Can't wait to see Gordon Mack bronouncing DC-United games and butt chugging a 40oz at midfield during halftime.
Gonna be EEEPPPPIC!
In wake of DC leadership announcing their disappointment with flosports first broadcast flosports announced another partnership with Cincinnati.
rojo wrote:
Cutting the chord really initially was people going to free tv only.
But now there are all sorts of OTA services - like flosports - that are coming in and thinking they are future.
If you can't figure out how to watch whatever you want for free, you lost the internet 10 years ago. Nothing so wrong with fleecing sheeps.
The redbox is the same deal. People dumb enough to still be buying stuff on physical media might as well.