HULU vs. Fox Regional Sports

I've told the family not to panic because this is undoubtedly a negotiating ploy. The sides could sign a new deal tomorrow. But we already sacrificed NHL Network, NFL Network, MLB Network, NBA Network and maybe others for the past year. I watched those channels a year ago.

 

I paid $125 per the past three seasons to watch the Tigers lose 100 games on MLB. I refused to renew back last January. Smartest decision ever.

 

I don't think it's a ploy. Sling lost my Fox Regional last July, so I quit Sling for YouTube TV. YouTube jacked its price up by 30 percent over the summer, and then announced 1 day before that they were losing the Fox Sports regional. So today is my last day with YouTube TV. I was going to switch to Hulu but then this happened. So I will go back to Sling for $45 vs. $65 for YouTube TV and I'll just catch the Bucks and Brewers in the office when I can.

I can't see how Sinclair thinks it's a good idea to ask for so much from the streaming services that they wind up getting zero. How do you dig out of a financial hole that way, going from a buck a subscriber or whatever to zero, while production costs at least stay the same? If they have in mind a different play (a separate service, etc.), they'd have spilled the beans by now. I mean, it's been more than a year since they left Sling.

The high school tournaments all are carried by the Fox Sports regional. I'm going to let the association know they should consider a different outlet, so that people can see them. I sure as hell will not get cable service just for a Fox regional.

 

Just take a look at how long it took the Pac 12 Network to get on DirecTV. Or many greater LA cable systems to sign on with the Dodgers' network. That's how crazy and how protracted these things can be.

 

The Pac 12 Network never did get on DirecTV. I suspect it’ll go out of business before they ever reach a deal.

 

I got an email last night saying Hulu's raising monthly charge for standard service by another $10, up to $65 a month. Without adding any additional benefits.

So question to the collective: Any better alternatives for the same value? SlingTV is cheaper, but we're nowhere close to Atlanta to use an antenna to pick up the local stations.

You Tube? Fubo? It needs to work on a Roku stick. This may be a situation where I have to bend over and say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another!"

 

The email I got said the price is going from $60.99 to $70.99. Yep, no added services. We are biding time right now, because if there are no Ducks and Angels, the Hulu service is worthless to us.

 

Agreed. We don't stream $65-70 worth of TV a month. So I may put it on "vacation mode" for the months I don't care about, and use that money to determine if I want to re-up for MLB or NBC Gold. I can sit and watch Pluto or CBS All Access or YouTube videos if I'm bored.

Basically, the streaming services are just repeating the cable/DirecTV/Dish model.

 

Here's a pretty good chart comparing the services:

All the live TV streaming services compared: Which has the best channel lineup?

We have YouTube TV and I'm very happy with it. It has a little more than Hulu but it's not wildly different.

I was waiting for Fubu to add the ESPN channels and I was going to switch. They finally got them... and immediately dropped the Turner channels, so I'm still with YouTube.

 

At this point you might as well just stay with the bundle. If you’re getting only one of these streaming services, fine. But if you’re buying four or five a month and then paying $70 a month for your internet, it’s basically a wash.

 

Some of the cell phone companies are starting to bundle streaming services as part of the phone packages. AT&T has HBO Max, and I've seen Verizon advertising a bundle with Disney + and Hulu.

 

I use fire stick for all my shows and movies, then stream games online thru sites like bilasportd or volokit or crack streams or sports east.

I’d take cable over it, but when you compare free vs. $120/month, it’s worth the hassles.