Streamers are turning streaming into cable

This might hurt some feelings. If so, too bad. I'm not intending to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is how I feel about it, and I'm going to share it. If I step on your toes, take a moment and consider if your toes should have been there.

The recent dustup between Google and NBCUniversal over the latter's channels continuing to be included in the former's YouTube TV service emphasizes that the troubles we, the consumers, had with cable and satellite services and TV channels.

Think about how many times there would be a scroll across the bottom of the screen where the service would tell you to contact the channel or channel's parent company to let them know you want them to keep the channel on your cable or satellite service.

That was how the cable or satellite service conducted a public part of their negotiations with the channel or the channel's parent company.

Sometimes, the channel would be lost for a period fo time, but many times there would be no interruption. It would be a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Only I wonder if we were the idiots.

For those that don't know their Shakespeare, according to the play Macbeth, about the play itself:

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The cable, satellite, and TV companies were the ones telling the tale. And we were the ones paying for it, We didn't fight back. We didn't tell them that we would just put up an antenna and watch the channels for free.

No, we let them fight it out, sometimes even taking up their cause and fighting for them, and then paying more in cable and satellite subscription packages.

But, hey, we're streaming now, right? We don't have those issues, right?

Wrong.

The NBCUniversal dispute with YouTube TV shows us that the disputes we left behind ... they have found us. And both sides of that dispute did the same thing the cable, satellite, and TV station companies did. They sent emails, set up Websites, wrote blog posts, and posted on Twitter, urging us, the consumers, to take up their cause. And some did.

I didn't. I blame both of them.

I don't subscribe to YouTube TV, so if the channels were lost, no big deal. I already don't watch them live. And, the only NBCUniversal channels in the lineup that I do watch, I can either watch on Hulu ($6/month) or live via antenna. None of the other channels are on my radar. Neither really matters.

I do like the way Google handled it. They said if the channels were lost, they'd reduce the price. So, props to them for taking that approach. And, for now anyway, it looks like nothing came of it.

A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Told by an idiot. To a bunch of idiots, who put up with it.

I'm not excluding myself from that, by the way.

You see, the live streaming services have simply brought the cable experience to streaming. That includes the disputes and outages and such. Anyone who subscribes to a live streaming service has contributed to this. And while I am quick to say that I don't subscribe to a live streaming service, right now, during football season, I do. And I'm a part of the problem.

I want to be able to subscribe to sports and not have to finance the rest of the channels. But, that's not what we have. In order to watch the football games I want, I play along with the live streaming services, and help support the system that contains all the problems.

I want a simple Streaming Life. But it's not. Not really. And it's your fault. And mine.

Frndly.TV adds Hallmark Movies Now

I've been a fan of Frndly.TV for a while. I used to subscribe to Feeln, later Hallmark Movies Now, when that was the only streaming way to get Hallmark Channel content. I dropped the service when Frndly.TV came along because the live streaming was more in line with what other family members wanted. It also has more current content, while Hallmark Movies Now/Feeln had older content.

I actually had both for a while, because I subscribed to Hallmark Movies Now on the yearly plan, so when I tried Frndly.TV, I wasn't sure if I wanted it. I did. So, when Hallmark Movies Now reached the end of that year's subscription, I canceled it. I thought about keeping it, since it was different content, though of the same type.

Well, now if I want to get Hallmark Movies Now, it's available as an add-on to Frndly.TV:

Hallmark Movies Now will be accessible to those Frndly TV customers who desire even more of the beloved and famous Hallmark content. The price of Frndly TV’s core live service – including Hallmark Channel, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries and Hallmark Drama -- will remain the same.  Hallmark Movies Now will be available as a $5.99 per month add-on.

“We are pleased to make Hallmark Movies Now an option for all of our customers just in time for the Holiday season,” said Michael McKenna, Chief Programming Officer of Frndly TV.  “Those customers that want even more Hallmark on-demand content can elect to purchase the add-on service, while we still keep our current affordable price structure in place for everyone.”

If you already subscribe to Frndly.TV and to Hallmark Movies Now, why would you care? You probably wouldn't. Unless the idea of combining the services into a single app makes you happy.

I currently don't subscribe to Frndly.TV. It was trimmed during my most recent review of subscription services, but I will probably subscribe during Christmas season. And, the thought of expanding the catalog with classic Hallmark movies and other content, is one I like.

Perhaps this winter, Frndly.TV, and Hallmark Movies Now, will return to be a part of my Streaming Life.

Trying Fubo. Again

While I've been quite clear that I don't normally use a live streaming service, I've also been clear that during college football season, I will subscribe. When there's something that I want to watch live, a live streaming service is of course the way to go. Most of the year, I don't care. During football season, I do care.

To start the season, I went with Sling TV, which is my go-to service, because of the price. It's a lot cheaper than most of the other live streaming services, because it doesn't have to pay the broadcast fee that local channels require. You don't get local channels, but having an antenna makes that a non-issue. I subscribed for 30 days, and that took me through five weekends. Look at a calendar if that doesn't make sense.

I canceled the service, so it wouldn't automatically renew. That way, I could subscribe again when the games started for the weekend. I didn't watch the game Thursday night because my schedule didn't allow for it, but Friday night was football night. And it was time to resubscribe.

I wasn't sure if I would resubscribe to Sling TV or Fubo. The Google-NBCUniversal dispute and the chance of YouTube TV dropping its price made that another option. So Friday night, it was time to decide and subscribe.

When the extension of NBCUniversal channels on YouTube TV was announced, that meant no price reduction, so YouTube TV was out of the mix. For the same price, Fubo has more sports channels. But Sling TV is still cheaper. So, who would get my money on Friday night?

Nobody.

Oh, I subscribed alright. But something unexpected happened.

A while back, I had subscribed to Fubo TV and gave it a try. I thought it was a good live streaming service, but I didn't need a live streaming service, so after a full month of service, I canceled. That meant I wasn't expecting a free trial for a future subscription. But, for some reason, I got a week free. I fully expected to pay $65 on Friday night, but I didn't. I got a week free.

That gives me another week to change my mind. If, during the next few days, I decide on a different service -- Sling TV most likely, unless YouTube TV ends up dropping NBCUniversal channels and their price -- then I'll subscribe then. Otherwise, I'll let Fubo TV charge my card next week and use them for six weekends, rather than five.

This slight quandary is actually a good thing. It means there are enough options to make me have to think about it. Options are good. That means there's competition, and that keeps prices under control, at least to a degree.

My Streaming Life is good. It's got college football, and that's my focus on weekends until the middle of January.

Streaming a better deal than cable?

I started streaming in 2010 and dropped cable in 2011. I did it because it was cheaper. Also, I thought the technology was fascinating.

There weren't a lot of people that felt that way in 2011, mostly because it was a new thing and people simply weren't aware. Well, more and more are aware, and more and more are cutting the cord. And liking the money their saving.

TVTech reports that a study by Criteo reveals that nearly 70% of streamers think they're getting a better deal than with cable:

A large majority also highlighted how much they value these services, with 69% saying streaming was a better value for their money than cable TV and 64% saying that the content was more entertaining.

"The State of Video & Connected TV Survey” from Criteo found that viewing of streaming services were growing, with 63% of respondents saying they were spending more time streaming since the start of the pandemic and one in three Americans (36%) saying they spent more than 10 hours a week watching streaming services.

Welcome to your Streaming Life, where you save money and are more entertained.

Discovery+: Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!

Recently, I mentioned that I had cut back even more on my subscriptions, after checking to see what I actually used. I ended up keeping Amazon Prime, but not for the video streaming; rather, for the other benefits.

Oh, and since then, I did subscribe to a live streaming service for the purpose of watching football. That's expired, but I'll start another when this weekend's games kick off.

All the rest? I never watched them, so I dropped them. No use spending money for something I won't watch.

But then, I saw where Discovery+ is running a special. A year of service is $36. That works out to $3/month. For the content they offer, that is one heckuva deal. And I'm tempted. Really tempted.

My willpower is strong. I can resist anything. Well, anything except temptation. And I'm really thinking about that Discovery+ pricing. I may start watching that service just to say I got such a deal.

Seriously, I am thinking about it.

You should too. It's a great price, and Discovery+ content is pretty good content. I'm thinking seriously about returning it to my Streaming Life. You should too.

Another look at Xfinity Flex

It's been a while since I got my Xfinity Flex device that I don't ever use. As I said a few months back, it's a good way for someone new to cord cutting to get their feet wet, but for an experienced cord cutter -- and I think I'm an experienced cord cutter -- it's not really useful. Except for the fact that it's free.

There's no app store, so you can't add apps. You get what they give you. If you go back far enough, you'll know that's how Apple TV used to work. With the 2nd generation Apple TV, they gave you a set of apps. You could hide them if you didn't want to see them, and you could rearrange them, but you couldn't add new ones or truly remove any. You got what you got.

Xfinity Flex is operating much like Apple TV did back in 2010. Actually, not even quite that well, since you could at least rearrange apps and hide what you didn't want to see. For example, I don't subscribe to Xfinity TV, so the Xfinity Stream app serves no purpose. Well, no purpose to me; for Xfinity, it's there to try to get me to subscribe to it. Which I won't.

But how well does it work? It works okay. I said that earlier, and I still think that. Xfinity has added a few apps to the device, including Hulu+Live TV, since I last talked about the device. They still don't have YouTube TV, though. They haven't pulled the app, they just never had it. So, the disagreement between NBCUniversal and Google has nothing to do with Google's service not being on the NBCUniversal (Comcast/Xfinity) device. It's never been there.

So, for live streaming services, you can get Sling TV and Hulu+Live TV. You can't get Philo, Vidgo, YouTube TV, Fubo, or DirecTV Stream. Since Sling TV is my go-to live streaming service for football -- most of the time -- it doesn't create an issue for me. But, if you want one of the other services, you're simply out of luck when it comes to the Xfinity Flex device.

Of course, if you're new to cord cutting, moving away from Comcast/Xfinity TV, you don't know much about those other streaming services,  so it doesn't really matter. If you are already familiar with streaming and have your own devices -- Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, Google/Android TV -- then you don't need and Xfinity Flex device anyway. Unless you want to get Peacock TV Premium for free. But that's another story for another day.

For now, just as before, Xfinity Flex remains in my Streaming Life, but only as a device in a box on a shelf.

Google vs NBCUniversal II

Things are heating up. Shots fired. Shots returned. Google vs NBCUniversal is getting interesting.

News came out recently that Google, who owns YouTube TV, and NBCUniversal, who owns a bunch of TV networks, are approaching end of contract, and they can't come to terms, at least just yet.

If NBCUniversal gets its way, Google will pay more for content on YouTube TV. If Google gets its way, things will remain pretty much the way it is. If neither gets their way, the channels will drop from YouTube TV. But now there's a twist.

Google announced on their YouTube TV blog that if NBCUniversal channels leave the platform, they'll drop the price $10:

... if we are unable to reach a deal by Thursday, the NBCU lineup of channels will no longer be available on YouTube TV and we will decrease our monthly price by $10, from $64.99 to $54.99 (while this content remains off our platform). You can sign up for NBC’s own direct-to-consumer streaming service, Peacock, which they offer for $4.99/month to continue watching NBCU content, such as Sunday Night Football.

So, it looks like Google isn't giving in. It also looks like people like me bay be the winner. You see, I'm a Comcast/Xfinity Internet customer. I get Peacock TV included with my Internet service. So, if I decide to subscribe to YouTube TV -- I'm looking at a live streaming service for sports for the next month -- the new lower price of YouTube TV, if that happens, will mean I'll have to consider it.

Except for the Pac-12 Network, YouTube TV carries everything that would let me watch anything airing nationally. Only Fubo Elite, at $80/month, when added to ESPN+, gets me that. If YouTube TV drops to $55/month, that makes the choices threefold:

• $87 for Fubo Elite and ESPN+, giving me all national channels that carry games.
• $72 for Sling Orange+Blue with Sports Extra, along with ESPN+, giving me all the channels except CBS Sports Network.
• $62 for YouTube TV and ESPN+, giving me all the channels except Pac-12 Network.

So it comes down to getting everything, or getting everything but one channel, with two options for which one channel is missing.

Pac-12 Network has three games this weekend, none involving ranked teams. CBS Sports Network has give games, two involving ranked team. So, if I were to choose to miss a network, this weekend, I'd pass on Pac-12 Network, which means the cheapest of the three under consideration. And that's YouTube TV.

But what about later weekends? I don't know. Week 6 has five CBS Sports Network games, but the Pac-12 games for that weekend haven't been determined. Even so, I haven't wanted to watch a game that was carried on Pac-12 this season so far. That could change, of course. I have wanted to watch a game that was on CBS Sports Network, but something in real life interfered and I wasn't able to anyway.

The safe play is Fubo Elite. But that's $80! That's $25 more than a discounted YouTube TV!

I'll probably just do the Sling Orange thing, then add the Sports Extra when there's a game there I want to watch, and add Blue when there's a game there I want to watch. Come kickoff, I'll make a decision about the next five weekends of my Streaming Life.