How things have changed

[Bruce]

Amazed that the percentage was this high, the myth for a long time was, most watch sports via the Traditional Services, but that definitely does not look to be that way any longer-

According to the new research, 43% of U.S. internet households identify as "Sports Viewers," and 40% of them now watch games exclusively via streaming services.

Streaming vs. Broadcast: Study Finds That 40% of Sports Fans Go Digital-Only | Cord Cutters News

As live sports continue to migrate from cable boxes to smartphones and smart TVs, streaming providers face a complex yet exciting set of challenges and opportunities. Parks Associates, in partnership with InterDigital, dives deep into this shifting landscape in their new report, Streaming Live...

cordcuttersnews.com

 

[Bruce]

Amazed that the percentage was this high, the myth for a long time was, most watch sports via the Traditional Services, but that definitely does not look to be that way any longer-

According to the new research, 43% of U.S. internet households identify as "Sports Viewers," and 40% of them now watch games exclusively via streaming services.

 

[telstar_1]

Many people don't save $300 to $500 per month—which is the equivalent over 30 years of $108,000 to $180,000 (prior to any interest)—because they don't have the income to do so.

Putting some money into the Lotto—especially a multistate one—has such people figuring, "Someone has to win. It can be me."

That's exactly what they count on, human stupidity. And they aim to jack the jackpots higher & higher to attract the lemmings even as the odds go from astronomical to effectively impossible.

 

[Jimbo]

Again, how much do they spend on Starbucks per day, breakfast out, instead of eating at home.

Do they pack a lunch or go out, how about dinner, make it at home, or go out/order door dash/etc, etc.

If they did Starbucks everyday, that is about $10 a day with tip, in a 30 day month, $300 alone right there.

These are all the thing we did, made coffee at home, along with breakfast, pack a lunch, made dinner at home, never bought cars we could not afford, or too big of a house.

Those little things allowed us to save and start up a investment account.

Except, these days is cost as much to buy food and eat in ...

 

[Jimbo]

Amazed that the percentage was this high, the myth for a long time was, most watch sports via the Traditional Services, but that definitely does not look to be that way any longer-

According to the new research, 43% of U.S. internet households identify as "Sports Viewers," and 40% of them now watch games exclusively via streaming services.

Weather they are watching thier Sports Via Traditional or Streaming, doesn't really matter, they are Still Paying money, regardless.

 

[Bruce]

Except, these days is cost as much to buy food and eat in ...

No it is not, I can go to Aldi, spend less than $100 for, at least, a week of food.

And when I cook at home, I am not required to leave a tip.

 

[Bruce]

Weather they are watching thier Sports Via Traditional or Streaming, doesn't really matter, they are Still Paying money, regardless.

Yet sports was the reason most supposedly stayed with Traditional Paid Live TV, with that gone, the final reason to stay with Paid Live TV, is over.

 

[FTA4PA]

 

[llokey]

Yet sports was the reason most supposedly stayed with Traditional Paid Live TV, with that gone, the final reason to stay with Paid Live TV, is over.

I think one needs to look at the scope of the sports needs. To get complete access to all of the sports that one may want will probably require a multitude of streaming services. All in all the cumulative cost of these services may be greater than the cost of Paid Live TV.

For example, let's say that I follow one college team and two professional teams. I'm a diehard follower of these teams and never want to miss a game. I will need access to ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, ESPN, ESPN+, Paramount +, CBS Sportsnet, Fox Sportsnets, Turner Sports, a Regional Sportnet, and possibly Apple TV. I can wipe out the first four if I can receive them OTA, but then again if I can't they will cost. ESPN+, Paramount +, and Apple TV would be a wash. The Regional Sports Net could be a wash but not necessarily.

The point is that the sports offerings are extremely fragmented and to get complete coverage without Paid Live TV (cable, satellite, full service streaming, etc) is costly. Just as some people are not saving money on a regular basis, they are frequently not looking at the aggregate cost of all of these services and I believe many end up spending more money not less.

The people on this site are well educated and can make rational decisions. However, do all people consider all factors or just keep on adding incremental costs?

 

[navychop]

Let me know when they start broadcasting Torpling.

 

[Jimbo]

Yet sports was the reason most supposedly stayed with Traditional Paid Live TV, with that gone, the final reason to stay with Paid Live TV, is over.

When you get down to next to nothing you want to watch on Traditional TV, where ya gonna go ?

Most have moved because of that.

I still can't get my parents into the Streaming stuff though.

 

[Jimbo]

No it is not, I can go to Aldi, spend less than $100 for, at least, a week of food.

And when I cook at home, I am not required to leave a tip.

Not a Fan of Aldi's or Walmart.

 

[Jimbo]

Let me know when they start broadcasting Torpling.

Does Any one do anything with it ? TV or Streaming or FTA or OTA ?????

I don't even know what it is ... Google didn't either.

 

[navychop]

GREAT sport. Drop thru rings without touching!

 

[dishdude]

Not a Fan of Aldi's or Walmart.

I love Aldi, pricing is great, quality is good and the shopping experience is quirky but pleasant.

 

[navychop]

But you'll almost certainly need to finish your shopping elsewhere. Limited selection. Missing brands.