Cord cutter in NYC how to watch games

[TheTakedown]

Have you ever used airplay to stream? I've heard it does a really poor job so I've avoided trying to do it

All of those wireless streaming apps are trash. I've tried chromecasting a game from my cell, it was not that great... Even if the quality is fine there are plenty of stutters, degrades way too far from using a cable.

 

[broadwayblue]

you're welcome
as to fubo [platform for streaming] vs Spectrum [direct cable]
Yes. I think ballpark you should be happy as to quality/HD results.

not speaking as to seeing a molecule on somebody's face close up, but overall, yes.

Awesome. I think I'll give it a try...I see they have a free 7 day trial. I'll report back regarding molecules on faces.

 

[broadwayblue]

All of those wireless streaming apps are trash. I've tried chromecasting a game from my cell, it was not that great... Even if the quality is fine there are plenty of stutters, degrades way too far from using a cable.

That has been my main concern. Cable boxes are pretty mature at this point and stutters, freezes, and other degradation is minimal. Apps are a work in process which always scares me.

 

[bernmeister]

Awesome. I think I'll give it a try...I see they have a free 7 day trial. I'll report back regarding molecules on faces.

forgot about free trial

keep us posted
up with competition empowering consumers
down with cable trying to ream us
what we want, eff them.

 

[broadwayblue]

Have never used FiOS; they do not offer IMO preferable packages for best prices.
Spectrum I inherited from Time Warner.
Couldn't wait to cut the cord, first with Sony Playstation, but they had no MSG, so once I was able to get FUBO, I jumped. Plus last yr Playstation jumped from 45 to 49 while FUBO currently is $45.

As to reception, although in theory direct connected cable is purer than wireless streaming transmission, you can find issues if all signals are not calibrated properly.

So I'm good with this.

As to picture quality, it's 2019.
You don't need to go out now to buy a smart tv with acceptable quality if you have a sufficiently good one from, say, upwards of the last 5 years.
Sets older than that may still deliver, but obviously, generally newer technology delivers sharper picks than a comparable older model.

Do you have a link to that price? I'm seeing $55 and up.

 

[rangerfan_79]

Used caststreams this past season. $10 donation and an internet connections gets all games from every team for entire season. App is available for download from their site.

I also have an android media player I picked up for $30 but it can be any android device.

 

[bernmeister]

Do you have a link to that price? I'm seeing $55 and up.

Yikes, I have to check my credit card statements!

Well I've had the service since prior to this past season and after the free week there was an intro $40-ish which got upped to the current -- or last I remember -- 45ish.

I may/may not be grandfathered, for how long, who know?

Obviously, all these services cut a deal w/service providers to get content cheap to start, with the quid pro quo being once there is a big enuf fanbase to absorb larger subscription, prices may be raised.

Things may [have already] change[d] but
as far as I can tell it is only/one of very very few
non-Fios/cable options that delivers MSG = Rangers.

I double checked at the site opening screen, yeah, it's up to 55ish for initial package.

Last I looked basic cable 2-ish years ago was ballpark 90-95 possibly + mo in added taxes.

So even still 55+15 = 70 is still a savings.

----------------
If we want real relief, we have to demand it from our elected officials to tell providers what government will consider acceptable as to lack of competition.

It's nice to have a bundle, but ideally each and every platform should offer each program, let alone, each network, a la carte, so we can buy the content we want.

That will eventually help us get to paying min price for what we actually want.

Also, if you are listening James Dolan, an MSG app to buy directly from you for a few bucks less is a win-win here.

 

[bernmeister]

also --
if you need to max every penny, consider

you can have a subscription which I think is month to month
--- suspend, don't cancel it ---
when not using it for NYR
and do a cheaper substitute off season

e.g.
roughly Oct -June = pre/season and post season drafts,etc

July - Sept = offseason

use Fubo as needed
suspend
switch to something like Sling which is 20-25/mo for a third to a quarter of the channels, if that is adequate
suspend sling
switch back to Fubo

 

[dstoffa]

It's nice to have a bundle, but ideally each and every platform should offer each program, let alone, each network, a la carte, so we can buy the content we want.

That will eventually help us get to paying min price for what we actually want.

Also, if you are listening James Dolan, an MSG app to buy directly from you for a few bucks less is a win-win here.

If a-la-carte pricing were to replace the bundle, you might end up paying much more for the same amount of television. The content provider (the network) will need to increase the per-subscriber cost to make up for the cable homes which elect not to subscribe.

Let's say that the MSG channels get $6 per month (for all of them) per pay-TV subscriber. This fee is collected every month all year long, since the MSG channels are part of the standard cable bundle. Every cable home pays, whether they watch or not.

Now, if MSG were to go a-la-carte, surely nobody would pay to watch MSG during the summer... So there goes 3-5 months of revenue. Now, how many pay-TV home actually WATCH MSG during the season? 10 percent? 20 percent?

Under the bundle model, MSG collected $720 per year for every 10 pay-tv subscribers. They need to maintain the same amount of revenue when they go a-la-carte.
Under the a-la-carte model, if 1 in 10 pay TV homes subscribed to MSG for the 7 months of the hockey season, the per-month charge would be $103 per month. That one home needs to pay $720 in subscription fees over 7 months to maintain existing revenue for the networks. (NHL Playoff games are only exclusive to the RSN for the first round; Round 2+ are all on national TV / payTV networks (NBC, NHLN, NBCSN, CNBC, etc. so you can cancel MSG at the end of April.) If that number is 2 in 10, the cost is $51 per month. We'd need to know how many payTV homes tune in to Knicks, Devils, Rangers, and Isles games over the winter. But even if its 5 in 10, the monthly sub would still need to be $21 per month.

The above analysis would need to be performed for ALL the payTV channels you want. You won't be paying what you think you'll be paying. Once you go above 8-10 channels (depending on the channels, of course), you are probably better off with a bundle.

 

[bernmeister]

If a-la-carte pricing were to replace the bundle, you might end up paying much more for the same amount of television. The content provider (the network) will need to increase the per-subscriber cost to make up for the cable homes which elect not to subscribe.

Let's say that the MSG channels get $6 per month (for all of them) per pay-TV subscriber. This fee is collected every month all year long, since the MSG channels are part of the standard cable bundle. Every cable home pays, whether they watch or not.

Now, if MSG were to go a-la-carte, surely nobody would pay to watch MSG during the summer... So there goes 3-5 months of revenue. Now, how many pay-TV home actually WATCH MSG during the season? 10 percent? 20 percent?

Under the bundle model, MSG collected $720 per year for every 10 pay-tv subscribers. They need to maintain the same amount of revenue when they go a-la-carte.
Under the a-la-carte model, if 1 in 10 pay TV homes subscribed to MSG for the 7 months of the hockey season, the per-month charge would be $103 per month. That one home needs to pay $720 in subscription fees over 7 months to maintain existing revenue for the networks. (NHL Playoff games are only exclusive to the RSN for the first round; Round 2+ are all on national TV / payTV networks (NBC, NHLN, NBCSN, CNBC, etc. so you can cancel MSG at the end of April.) If that number is 2 in 10, the cost is $51 per month. We'd need to know how many payTV homes tune in to Knicks, Devils, Rangers, and Isles games over the winter. But even if its 5 in 10, the monthly sub would still need to be $21 per month.

The above analysis would need to be performed for ALL the payTV channels you want. You won't be paying what you think you'll be paying. Once you go above 8-10 channels (depending on the channels, of course), you are probably better off with a bundle.

too biz to parse this all now, will try for the w/e or next wk
thanks for the feedback

however, an immediate partial remedy might be to require that while in monthly installments, there is an annual subscription [i.e., wholesale] in addition to monthly [retail] subscription.

 

[broadwayblue]

Yikes, I have to check my credit card statements!

Well I've had the service since prior to this past season and after the free week there was an intro $40-ish which got upped to the current -- or last I remember -- 45ish.

I may/may not be grandfathered, for how long, who know?

Obviously, all these services cut a deal w/service providers to get content cheap to start, with the quid pro quo being once there is a big enuf fanbase to absorb larger subscription, prices may be raised.

Things may [have already] change[d] but
as far as I can tell it is only/one of very very few
non-Fios/cable options that delivers MSG = Rangers.

I double checked at the site opening screen, yeah, it's up to 55ish for initial package.

Last I looked basic cable 2-ish years ago was ballpark 90-95 possibly + mo in added taxes.

So even still 55+15 = 70 is still a savings.

----------------
If we want real relief, we have to demand it from our elected officials to tell providers what government will consider acceptable as to lack of competition.

It's nice to have a bundle, but ideally each and every platform should offer each program, let alone, each network, a la carte, so we can buy the content we want.

That will eventually help us get to paying min price for what we actually want.

Also, if you are listening James Dolan, an MSG app to buy directly from you for a few bucks less is a win-win here.

My triple play with Verizon is up at the end of August. I need to find out what the cheapest cable package they have on offer costs...and then see if I can add the sports package on top of that. I will obviously also need internet, but I am fine dropping down from my gigabit service I have now. Problem is they also kill you on the boxes and DVRs, and I have one of each. If I wasn't a Rangers fan this whole endeavor would be so much easier!

 

[bernmeister]

My triple play with Verizon is up at the end of August. I need to find out what the cheapest cable package they have on offer costs...and then see if I can add the sports package on top of that. I will obviously also need internet, but I am fine dropping down from my gigabit service I have now. Problem is they also kill you on the boxes and DVRs, and I have one of each. If I wasn't a Rangers fan this whole endeavor would be so much easier!

You have a couple of months.
Good luck with all of it.
I can only note that the more we vote to support high quality competition in our choices, the better it is for us in the long run.

Cable - Time Warner/Spectrum etc - never did a thing for us until enuf brave few experimented far enough to establish streaming was an option.
Now they can't do enuf for you.

Ef em
Ef em into submission.
Let them completely bend buckle and break and understand fully and totally that it is the consumers who rule and dictate what we want, not them telling us what we have to accept.

for your consideration, hope it is helpful

 

[dstoffa]

You have a couple of months.
Good luck with all of it.
I can only note that the more we vote to support high quality competition in our choices, the better it is for us in the long run.

The pay television landscape is changing. Young adults are not consuming / buying pay television the way their parents did, and that has not the cable / satellite companies worried, but the content owners worried - the media conglomerates as well as the owners of rights to professional sports.

The cable companies are not worried because they will be able to sell internet access to the public even if their video business dies a slow death.

The satellite companies ARE worried, because TV is moving to IPTV (streaming) delivery, and they can't do that with Satellite. DirecTV has already announced they will NOT be launching any new birds. It's also the reason they started up DirecTV NOW.

You will not see competition from media conglomerates, because only one person can hold the copyrights / rights to broadcast something.

You will not see competition between cable companies. There is no return on investment for "overbuilding" a second cable system in on top of an existing one. This is also the reason why cable companies will not expand into rural / low density areas - they can't make back the cost of running wire down the road for the rates they charge. In the county upstate where my second home is, Spectrum will gladly wire you, at a cost of $5 per foot over land, and $10 per foot underground, from the nearest location. So if the nearest served home is half a mile down the road, you need to cut Spectrum a check for $13,000 just to bring the cable to your home. I had asked Verizon if they'd ever retire the copper wire and replace it with fiber where I am, and I was laughed off the phone. They will NEVER bring Fios to me (up there), and have gone public saying that they've completed their Fiber build out. So if you can't get Fios now, you won't be getting it. For people in rural areas, they can't get broadband internet (satellite internet doesn't count and any allotment you do get is consumed rather rapidly with streaming), so your only option for PayTV is a bundle from a DBS reseller (DirecTV or Dish).

The State of New York will spend tax dollars on wiring Adirondack Park (where residents can't get wired broadband) before they spend tax dollars (via a grant) to start-up a competing cable company in a populated / downstate area.

If you want to change the pay TV business, vote with your wallet, and don't subscribe...

 

[bernmeister]

The pay television landscape is changing. Young adults are not consuming / buying pay television the way their parents did, and that has not the cable / satellite companies worried, but the content owners worried - the media conglomerates as well as the owners of rights to professional sports.

The cable companies are not worried because they will be able to sell internet access to the public even if their video business dies a slow death.

The satellite companies ARE worried, because TV is moving to IPTV (streaming) delivery, and they can't do that with Satellite. DirecTV has already announced they will NOT be launching any new birds. It's also the reason they started up DirecTV NOW.

You will not see competition from media conglomerates, because only one person can hold the copyrights / rights to broadcast something.

You will not see competition between cable companies. There is no return on investment for "overbuilding" a second cable system in on top of an existing one. This is also the reason why cable companies will not expand into rural / low density areas - they can't make back the cost of running wire down the road for the rates they charge. In the county upstate where my second home is, Spectrum will gladly wire you, at a cost of $5 per foot over land, and $10 per foot underground, from the nearest location. So if the nearest served home is half a mile down the road, you need to cut Spectrum a check for $13,000 just to bring the cable to your home. I had asked Verizon if they'd ever retire the copper wire and replace it with fiber where I am, and I was laughed off the phone. They will NEVER bring Fios to me (up there), and have gone public saying that they've completed their Fiber build out. So if you can't get Fios now, you won't be getting it. For people in rural areas, they can't get broadband internet (satellite internet doesn't count and any allotment you do get is consumed rather rapidly with streaming), so your only option for PayTV is a bundle from a DBS reseller (DirecTV or Dish).

The State of New York will spend tax dollars on wiring Adirondack Park (where residents can't get wired broadband) before they spend tax dollars (via a grant) to start-up a competing cable company in a populated / downstate area.

If you want to change the pay TV business, vote with your wallet, and don't subscribe...

Thank you for some insightful comments.
I am too crushed atm to give fullest attention, but when I can I will.

just one add:
I am a copyright holder of intellectual property
I am not sure what you said about
"You will not see competition from media conglomerates, because only one person can hold the copyrights / rights to broadcast something."
is accurate or if reflecting a given condition, just happens to be the case.

In other words, are buyers and sellers currently negotiating for exclusivity as to use of copyright, which is one thing, because once that agreement is up, it stands to reason a copyright holder will want more return from multiple application of use of his rights than fewer.
Or is it that somehow there is legislative or other requirement driving your quote?

Any hoo, no more hookey now
back to the real world.

thanks and best

 

[InvalidBeard]

Sorry if this was mentioned, but didn't see it. I've been using Unlocator, combined with NHL.TV and MLB.TV with no issues for more than a year now.

 

[tbassler]

I live in Colorado... so the NHL.TV app works awesome for me for the Rangers games not on NBC. I think it is $110 a year. I also pay for cable TV so I see the NBC games, but I am also thinking about cord-cutting. I pay $167/month now for medium-speed internet (200 Mbps) and basic cable. I don't think it is worth it.

With the Comcast vs Altitude TV feud going on, I watched all the Avalanche games this year on a few different shady sites. They are pretty good resolution, but also jumpy.

I have heard though, if you buy a VPN program, which is about $40, you have no problems with blackouts.

iF this feud goes on through next season, I will buy a VPN program. I have to figure out how to watch postseason NHL next year without cable.

 

[Leetch3]

I live in Colorado... so the NHL.TV app works awesome for me for the Rangers games not on NBC. I think it is $110 a year. I also pay for cable TV so I see the NBC games, but I am also thinking about cord-cutting. I pay $167/month now for medium-speed internet (200 Mbps) and basic cable. I don't think it is worth it.

With the Comcast vs Altitude TV feud going on, I watched all the Avalanche games this year on a few different shady sites. They are pretty good resolution, but also jumpy.

I have heard though, if you buy a VPN program, which is about $40, you have no problems with blackouts.

iF this feud goes on through next season, I will buy a VPN program. I have to figure out how to watch postseason NHL next year without cable.

is $110 for all games or just the rangers?

 

[dstoffa]

is $110 for all games or just the rangers?

I think it was $24.99 per month or $159 for all out-of-town action not being shown on a national channel (NBC, NBCSN, NHLN). The $110 might be for a "one-team" price. It's been three seasons since I've been living out-of-market.

Even with the NHL.tv package, if the game was on NBCSN or NHLN, I needed to subscribe to a payTV service that offered those channels to get those games. I could get NBC with an antenna.

 

[dstoffa]

iF this feud goes on through next season, I will buy a VPN program. I have to figure out how to watch postseason NHL next year without cable.

The NHL.tv app / subscription ends with the end of the regular season. The NHL puts ALL their playoff games on National TV. Only in-market games are shown on the RSN, and that's only for Round 1.

The games will be shown on NBC (over-the-air), NBSCN, CNBS, MSNBA, NHLN, and USA, since Comcast owns those channels. Your streaming solution needs to include those networks. I think NHLN is used for overflow due to overtime games.

 

[Maineice11]

I think it was $24.99 per month or $159 for all out-of-town action not being shown on a national channel (NBC, NBCSN, NHLN). The $110 might be for a "one-team" price. It's been three seasons since I've been living out-of-market.

Even with the NHL.tv package, if the game was on NBCSN or NHLN, I needed to subscribe to a payTV service that offered those channels to get those games. I could get NBC with an antenna.

This season I noticed the NHLN games were not blacked out on NHL TV app, which was a nice surprise. Each year the NHL TV app seems to get better and make the cost worth it. I'll get Sling on occasion throughout the season to watch any NBC/NBCSN games, especially if there is a block of games on those channels for a month. Go figure the one OTA channel that isn't always stable for me where I live is NBC...

 

[tbassler]

is $110 for all games or just the rangers?

just the Rangers. I think I could get them all for $25 more, but I only watch two teams.

 

[bernmeister]

Hi all.

update, it is July 2020
could only get Fubo at 45 intro for so long.

have pushed it for nearly a year now to 59ish; do have 500 hours recording, but would rather have option for < hrs at < $.

As relates to us,
1. immediately prior to preseason, they stopped carrying YES [= Yankees]. Moot since season on hiatus thus far, but that's not the pt.
Gave us some bs fodder content, no reduction in price.
I get that likely more of the blame is on Yankees, most likely, but we need to mount pressure to stop the bullshit.
Getting paid, fine. Excessive greed. Nope.


2. Rangers [MSG, and if you want like every game, MSG2/MSG+] are now pricier at cost of cable feed + app I can get on Firestick (currently free, amazon get's its cut as the app provider doing interface for billing).
I'm paying $15 + $60 = $75

Are there cheaper options than FuboTV at 59 as an app on Firestick which also carry Rangers?

Hopefully desire to max profit/avoid monopoly issues will have Dolan making programming available to more than just Fubo, in advance of them directly selling to us via stand alone app. Then, even if a loss leader, most apps for general programming will consider incl local sports coverage.

Anybody got any new news?

best
bern

 

[bernmeister]

Fubo is starting to piss me off

adding ABC later this yr, finally
but no Turners -- TMC, TBS, TNT

gotta start looking at options
eventually answer is direct sale of channels to consumers but in meantime...

suggestions?

 

[Jabroni]

Fubo is starting to piss me off

adding ABC later this yr, finally
but no Turners -- TMC, TBS, TNT

gotta start looking at options
eventually answer is direct sale of channels to consumers but in meantime...

suggestions?

As of now FUBOTV is the only non-cable provider to carry MSG that I am aware of. You can always try NHL.TV for hockey and pick whatever streaming provider you want.

 

[ohbaby]

Hey all,

Just moved to NYC and trying to not pay for cable but still watch the games on my TV somehow. I know MSGGO will let me watch it on my phone or computer (using my friends cable login info) but it looks like it's not available on smart tvs/roku/firetv/chromecast.

Anybody have any ideas on what I could do?

Thanks!

Edit; Didn't realize this thread was so old.