Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Best way for cord cutters to watch live sports?

A

Aragornii

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 25, 2010
521
148
I am ready to cut the cord, and the only thing holding me back is the ability to watch live sports.

Problems I am encountering are:
1. There are a large number of subscriptions required: NBC Sports, FS1, ESPN, plus all the locals, that can add up to more than cable service
2. I often like to start watching a match after it starts, but streaming apps often seem to be limited to only watching live, or waiting until it's over and watching a replay.
3. Network apps have baked in commercials that can't be skipped, which makes it impossible to skip to the end of the match if that's all you want to watch.

For what it's worth, I mostly watch tennis, soccer and football.

Would appreciate any advice as to how to switch to streaming without these apparent limitations vs cable.
 
You can use https://www.suppose.tv/tv to select which sports networks you want and see which live tv streaming service will meet your needs.

The DVRs of YouTube TV and Hulu with Live TV are both quite robust and both services cost about the same per month, but you have to pay extra to be able to skip commercials in DVR recordings on Hulu. AT&T TV has pretty much all the regional sports networks right now but that subscription tier isn’t cheap. It’s still less expensive than cable, though. I don’t have any experience with a Fubo TV, but I know it is geared towards the sports watcher. Plus local blackout rules will still apply to all these services.

The good news is you can get free trials for the majority of live TV streaming services so you can check them out before you commit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nburwell and Aragornii
One thing I'm finding is that once you add up all the expenses of being a cord cutter, you pay about the same amount you do subscribing to cable if you want live TV. It seems like the holy grail of true a la carte TV channel services does not exist.

Edit:
What I mean is, I pay Spectrum $70/month to add cable channels on top of my internet access. Hulu, ATT Now, Youtube TV, etc, all seem to charge about the same amount if you want a package with live TV.
 
What is the true cost of cord cutting is a debate that is ongoing on the internet. :) You are also correct about true a la carte TV. We’ll probably never see it. But if you do your homework you can, indeed, save money.

Edit:
Replying to your edit the cost of live streaming TV packages is often because of live sports. It is very expensive to include sports and because ATT TV includes all the regional sports networks is the reason it is so much more expensive than the competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnthroMatt and Aragornii
Sports is one of the hardest things to navigate with cord cutting if you want to cut costs. One of the Sling plans is more Sports-centric, it might be worth looking into.

Live TV is another hard thing to navigate when it comes to cord cutting. When the alternative streaming live tv cable services first launched, they were a really good deal, but all of them increased their prices.

Aragornii said:
One thing I'm finding is that once you add up all the expenses of being a cord cutter, you pay about the same amount you do subscribing to cable if you want live TV.
Click to expand...
There are many different reasons to cut the cord, not just to save money.

But, if someone is trying to cut the cord to save money, the first thing to do is to look for concessions they can make.

As I mentioned before, if one is not wiling to concede on live TV and especially sports, they will not be saving much, if any money, unless the sports events they like are available over-the-air.

If a potential cord cutter is okay with cutting some things back, you could end up saving a lot of money.

Me for example, I pay $35 a month for 200Mbps internet, and usually less than $20 for streaming services. But, I have no interest in live tv nor sports.

For streaming services, I only pay for 1 or 2 of them at a time. Right now, it is just Hulu ad-free.

The services I had in my rotation over the last few years, are HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Disney+, and Hulu. I always have Amazon Prime Video, but that is for the other things includes, so I don't count that. I also have ATV+, but I don't count that either, because I am not paying for it, and I have yet to actually watch anything on it.

I canceled Netflix at the end of last year, and Disney+ a few months back.

I will eventually, sign back up with Netflix after the next season of Stranger Things or The Witcher, what ever comes first, and then catch up on all the other Netlix content for a few months, finally cancel again. Rinse and repeat.

That is a good way of cord cutting to save money. If I wanted to include live tv and/or sports, then it might be worth it to just stick with traditional cable.

Aragornii said:
What I mean is, I pay Spectrum $70/month to add cable channels on top of my internet access. Hulu, ATT Now, Youtube TV, etc, all seem to charge about the same amount if you want a package with live TV.
Click to expand...
Also keep in mind that for some, the rental charges of equipment alone could cost more than some of the live tv streaming services.

Like I said before, cord cutting isn't for everyone, it totally depends on what one needs, what one wants, and what one is willing to give up.

Sometimes traditional cable could be a better choice depending on the individual or family.

mallbritton said:
What is the true cost of cord cutting is a debate that is ongoing on the internet.
Click to expand...
Everyone has their own idea of what cord cutting is, but my thoughts on the matter was that reducing costs was a potential side effect from cord cutting, not a guarantee or even the purpose of cord cutting.

In my mind, cord cutting is about choice, not saving money.

It is like the silly posts on the MR forum whenever there is a thread about a new streaming service coming out, people say stuff like "the cost of all these new services is more than cable".

If someone is cutting the cord to save money, and then signs up for every streaming service available, they are horrible at cord cutting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aragornii
vertical smile said:
Everyone has their own idea of what cord cutting is, but my thoughts on the matter was that reducing costs was a potential side effect from cord cutting, not a guarantee or even the purpose of cord cutting.

In my mind, cord cutting is about choice, not saving money.
Click to expand...

This is the way I look at it as well. I do save money over the cost of cable/satellite but I'd rather have the choices. If I'm honest, I'd still be subbed to 2 or 3 VOD services even I still subbed to cable/satellite.

vertical smile said:
It is like the silly posts on the MR forum whenever there is a thread about a new streaming service coming out, people say stuff like "the cost of all these new services is more than cable".

If someone is cutting the cord to save money, and then signs up for every streaming service available, they are horrible at cord cutting.
Click to expand...

Very good way to put it. :) No one subs to every streaming service. There aren't enough hours in my day to spend that much time watching TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aragornii
We cut the cable cord over 15 years ago and have never looked back. 2 years ago put an Antop antenna on a j-pole on the roof of my house last year and now receive 36 discreet channels all in HD over the air for free. I watched the Super Bowl 2 years ago on my smartphone, using the Yahoo Sports app With streaming, you can pay for a service for a sports season and then cancel it. There are no contracts and you pay only by the month. You can also listen to a game on a radio, or on the free ad supported version of the iHeart Radio app and watch the highlights of the game after it is over on the internet. There are websites like AntennaWeb and TVFool, where you can find antenna signal predictors for your location. Free TV is real and achievable, with a little research.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aragornii
Aragornii said:
One thing I'm finding is that once you add up all the expenses of being a cord cutter, you pay about the same amount you do subscribing to cable if you want live TV. It seems like the holy grail of true a la carte TV channel services does not exist.

Edit:
What I mean is, I pay Spectrum $70/month to add cable channels on top of my internet access. Hulu, ATT Now, Youtube TV, etc, all seem to charge about the same amount if you want a package with live TV.
Click to expand...

thats a fair point. IMHO if you want the ease of one guide with a slew of the most popular channels including locals definitely including the most expensive sub channels (ESPN[almost 5$ a month] or big name cable news) just go with a cable/sat sub package. Also if someone wants completely 100% no thinking needed, seamless tv watching, you probably want to go cable/sat. It’s easy, all encompassing, but it’s more expensive. It’s probably around 400 to 600$ per year.

The best alternative IMHO is a smart TV or even better invest in a streaming box. Now Add locast (5$ for all locals), PlutotV app (lots of second tier channels for free), Tubi and Crackle apps(both free), add YouTube app (lots and lots of free movies with commercials), maybe add a 10$ Streaming like Prime. The GF likes hallmark TV and movies (Urgh 😀) so I added that paid app for 6$. That’s 21$ per month for so many channels it takes a bit of time to go through them all.
Now even better, take a rarely used laptop or PC and pay 7$ a month to install channelsDVR. (I also paid for lifetime Plex so I have my massive lifetime DVD collection in a streaming library).
That’s 28 per month for a huge amount of channels and content, including locals, mostly in one menu and can be DVR’d(limited to the old PC disk space - move it to Plex). CABLE/Sat can’t touch that many channels and movies plus DVR at that monthly price. In the last 3 to 4 years I’ve saved in the ballpark of 1500$ (Or a MBA m1, ATV box and an S6 watch 😀).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aragornii
mallbritton said:
What is the true cost of cord cutting is a debate that is ongoing on the internet. :) You are also correct about true a la carte TV. We’ll probably never see it. But if you do your homework you can, indeed, save money.

Edit:
Replying to your edit the cost of live streaming TV packages is often because of live sports. It is very expensive to include sports and because ATT TV includes all the regional sports networks is the reason it is so much more expensive than the competition.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is why I still won't go back to cable. If I want regional sports, AT&T TV is still cheaper than Spectrum plus paying for their DVR/boxes + tv service.

My biggest complaint regarding streaming live sports is the delay. I will get an alert on my phone "Tatis Jr. homers, Padres lead 1-0" and then 10 seconds later, Tatis homers on my tv.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bigsmirt
AnthroMatt said:
Yeah, this is why I still won't go back to cable. If I want regional sports, AT&T TV is still cheaper than Spectrum plus paying for their DVR/boxes + tv service.

My biggest complaint regarding streaming live sports is the delay. I will get an alert on my phone "Tatis Jr. homers, Padres lead 1-0" and then 10 seconds later, Tatis homers on my tv.
Click to expand...


Big Sports is the issue for cord cutting. You can watch almost anything you want streaming except a lot of the big live sports. These are the coveted content for broadcasters. It gets big numbers of live viewers from the most lucrative, by far, advertising demographic (18 to 34 year olds). So unless you’re willing to go vpn->international streaming sites, or go Fubo(which is expensive in itself), cord cutters have to accept more limited big live sports viewing. Cut the cord then start enjoying sports like Table tennis, curling, strong man competitions, non NASCAR/F1 racing etc etc
 
I am a huge gymnastics fan, and Hulu Live works well for me. I get NBC and its various channels for the big American meets and Olympics; Olympic Channel for international meets; ESPN and SEC Network for NCAA meets.
 
QuietGamer said:
Another Channels DVR user here. If the sports the OP desires are broadcast OTA it would be an option. An investment in hardware is required initially to get set up. https://getchannels.com/dvr-server/
Click to expand...

Channels is definitely, IMO, great option for cord cutters. It is about 80$a year/about 7$ a month but it provides 2 great benefits: 1-DVR, 2-a single guide(almost all content integrates with the Channels single TV menu) and it has a DVR scheduling web interface.
Just having Pluto, Tubi, Crackle and an antenna (or locast) gives A LOT of content for barely 10$ a month (give or take a couple dollars).

Channels Disadvantages:
-While it doesn’t require a powerful pc to run Channels as a server, at minimum you need good amount of disk space for DVR recordings. But if you’ll have multiple streams simultaneously, then a better PC is needed.
-It requires a low level but still some level of Linux know how to make it work and keep up to date.
- pricing. If Channels had the lifetime subscription option like Plex it would become an outstanding value. I’m hoping they do adopt that pricing or, even better, Plex expands its software to include what Channels does (or the two companies merging as one interface - the Plex interface is excellent, but Channels is coming along).
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuietGamer
Aragornii said:
One thing I'm finding is that once you add up all the expenses of being a cord cutter, you pay about the same amount you do subscribing to cable if you want live TV. It seems like the holy grail of true a la carte TV channel services does not exist.

Edit:
What I mean is, I pay Spectrum $70/month to add cable channels on top of my internet access. Hulu, ATT Now, Youtube TV, etc, all seem to charge about the same amount if you want a package with live TV.
Click to expand...

Of course it's ultimately a question of just what channels a person or family really wants, but that's kind of been our experience. We're in a place we can't get local channels OTA and we want to continue to get them. That pretty much limits us to one of the big streaming packages or traditional cable. We were able to get a pretty good deal and at this point our internet/cable option is actually less expensive than a good internet service and something like Youtube TV or Hulu w live streaming.
 
YOU: I am ready to cut the cord, and the only thing holding me back is the ability to watch live sports.
Someone showed me at their home: https://www.efiretv.net

I don't watch sports, but he had every sports channel and even european ones. Cheap too.
 
Th only way I have saved money with cord cutting is by sharing the cost of a subscription with family members. It’s probably not allowed, but I do it and it works for now. Splitting a YouTube tv subscription or Hulu can save money, otherwise it’s no different than cable - except easier to turn off if needed.
 
Aragornii said:
I am ready to cut the cord, and the only thing holding me back is the ability to watch live sports.

Problems I am encountering are:
1. There are a large number of subscriptions required: NBC Sports, FS1, ESPN, plus all the locals, that can add up to more than cable service
2. I often like to start watching a match after it starts, but streaming apps often seem to be limited to only watching live, or waiting until it's over and watching a replay.
3. Network apps have baked in commercials that can't be skipped, which makes it impossible to skip to the end of the match if that's all you want to watch.

For what it's worth, I mostly watch tennis, soccer and football.

Would appreciate any advice as to how to switch to streaming without these apparent limitations vs cable.
Click to expand...
Dont cut then cord! I have MLB as I watch baseball, and local teams are blocked as I am in Colorado and am a Cubs fan. If I were a Rockies fan I would need to have cable. Also sometimes I cannot watch the Cubs because they are on ESPN or what not which requires cable.

I recently moved and at the new residence they do not have cable. I want cable but it will require an extra $60 a month which I cannot afford so thank goodness I am a Cubs fan!
 
perezr10 said:
Most cord cutters aren’t sports fans.
Click to expand...
Very true as is the case at my current residence. I am the only one that watches sports as I have MLB access for $25 a month. I cannot watch local teams as that requires cable. If I were really into football and basketball I would have a problem no having cable.
 
jwolf6589 said:
Dont cut then cord! I have MLB as I watch baseball, and local teams are blocked as I am in Colorado and am a Cubs fan. If I were a Rockies fan I would need to have cable. Also sometimes I cannot watch the Cubs because they are on ESPN or what not which requires cable.

I recently moved and at the new residence they do not have cable. I want cable but it will require an extra $60 a month which I cannot afford so thank goodness I am a Cubs fan!
Click to expand...
This is what irritates me about sports blackouts and premium subscriptions. If I'm paying for something like MLB or NFL Sunday Ticket, those should not be blacked out in my opinion. Same for ESPN+. Since I don't subscribe to AT&T TV it is almost impossible for me to watch my local MLS teams, except on one of the local Spanish speaking OTA stations (which I have done).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back