Is Fubo FUBAR?

The news hit this weekend about Fubo's new pricing structure. If you're new to Fubo TV, you can sign up, but the monthly plan is no longer available. The shortest plan is a quarterly plan. And, the pricing is all jacked up, too. That's the really big story, I think.

Let me clarify: by "jacked up" I mean a couple of things.

One thing I mean is a price increase. Fubo seems to have hidden a price increase into all of this. They've upped their prices by a huge amount, then turned around and discounted it to the current price.

The other thing I mean is that whoever at Fubo knows math was left out of the whole thing. The math is wrong. But, as I'll show, even if you take the best way of looking at it, the prices are really high. And Fubo is now the most expensive live streaming service, taking the crown from DirecTV Stream and Hulu+Live TV.

First, let's look at the pricing schedule for new users.

I don't see a monthly plan. And neither do you.

Now, if you've subscribed before, and log in with your old credentials, you'll be presented with the option to renew at whatever old rate you had, for one month at a time. I haven't resubscribed, so I don't know if the renewals are monthly, or if they change to quarterly. I suspect monthly, but I don't know that for certain, and haven't seen anyone who has resubscribed after this change hit.

The other thing I don't know is for new subscribers, is if the renewal is at quarterly intervals, or if it reverts to monthly after the first quarter. I suspect the term is quarterly going forward, but I don't know that.

That leads to the really big story. Fubo TV went up in price. Notice the $65/month price listed. That's what Fubo has been for some time. So, where's the price increase? Look next to the price. See the "29% savings" thing? What that is saying is that the most recent price of $65/month is now a discounted price of 29% off.

Now, I'm pretty good at math, but I am going to round to the nearest dollar to keep the numbers simple. This will give you a good idea of what to expect, okay?

If $65/month is a 29% savings, that mean the regular price is $92/month (actually $91.53). A savings percentage reflects off the full price. Take 92 and subtract 29% (or multiply by .71, same thing). You get about 65. That means that to get a 29% savings at the $65/month price, the full price is nearly $92/month. That's a huge price increase. In fact, it's an over 40% price increase. Take 65 and multiply by 1.4 (that's adding 40%) and you get 91.

Now, if you actually click through the signup as a new person, you see a different price, however. Fubo says the regular monthly price is $80.97. That's a nearly 25% price increase.

Anyway you look at it, Fubo's math is wrong, and that's probably just a mistake, not a an outright lie. Somebody screwed up, and is giving out bad numbers, and probably not on purpose. But even then, that works out to Fubo TV increasing their prices by over 24%. And that's the best-case scenario.

Of course, it bears repeating that this pricing is for new subscribers. Current, and apparently previous, subscribers get the monthly option still, at the monthly rate we're used to seeing, which is the monthly average of the new quarterly plans.

But does any of this matter? Yes. Yes it does matter. But let's look at both sides of the argument.

If you think Fubo TV's $65/month plan is a good thing, and you plan to subscribe for at least three months anyway, there's no big deal. You'll still get the same good service at the same price. So, if you look at it like this, it doesn't matter.

But to me it does matter. Here's what I don't like. One of the biggest attractions about streaming plans is the fact you can subscribe for one month at a time. And you still can for Sling TV, Philo, Frndly.TV, Vidgo, YouTube TV, Hulu+Live TV, DirecTV Stream, and others. But not Fubo. Not Fubo.

Nothing about the service itself has changed, just the term of service. It's now three months. And I don't like that. I didn't like being locked in to long term plans for cable, and I don't like a streaming service trying to lock me in for a longer time.

I'm worried that if this succeeds, the dams will break. And if that happens, the "damns" will break as well

[Link to video]

Fubo TV is still a streaming service that offers a good selection at a reasonable price on average. But I don't expect them to be in my Streaming Live going forward.

Raspberry Pi streamer?

I may have a new project to do. I recently updated my Plex server, and have a couple of other things I need (okay, want) to do. But in the last several weeks, another project has come to mind that is more streaming related.

For Christmas, I gave one of my grandsons a Raspberry Pi kit. I had thought about doing a Raspberry Pi project for some time, but never really got around to it. Well, when I was trying to decide what to get this one grandson, the idea of a Raspberry Pi was floated, and that's what I ended up doing.

I'm not sure he really got into it, but it did get me to thinking. I know there are several projects that one can do with Raspberry Pi devices, including a streaming device. Now we're talking.

I'm shopping around for the things needed to build a streaming device out of a Raspberry Pi. From everything I can tell, the newer, more powerful devices will run Android TV. I've used a couple of different Android/Google TV devices, and I think it's a fine platform. I wish the Android/Google TV devices I've used had a little more power and storage, but maybe if I build my own, I can resolve that. Maybe.

Don't get me wrong. I really like Roku devices. And the Amazon Fire TV devices work well. And Apple TV. And I like Google/Android TV devices I've used -- Chromecast, TiVo, onn (box, not stick), and others -- so this little project may be a fun thing to do.

I'm not sure if this project, if successful, will be a long-term part of my Streaming Life, or just a side project to see if I can. Either way, it'll be fun.

---

Update 1

Update 2

Watching the Pro Bowl

The NFL all star game, called the Pro Bowl, is this afternoon. For years, it was played in Hawaii. From 1979 through 2015, it was in Hawaii every year except 2009 (Miami, FL) and 2014 (Phoenix, AZ). After four years in Orlando, and a cancellation last year, the game returns, being played in Las Vega, NV.

As often happens, players from the two teams in the Super Bowl won't play. Well, most from the Bengals and Rams that were selected have opted out, but as of this writing, some are still on the roster. Other stars often opt out as well. The NFC starting QB Aaron Rogers, along with Tom Brady (his 15th Pro Bowl selection), are not playing. The Cardinals' Kyler Murray, along with replacements Kirk Cousins and Russell Wilson will play, as of this writing.

On the AFC side, the three selected quarterbacks are still scheduled to play. Starter Justin Herbert, along with Patrick Mahomes and Lamar Jackson are still expected to play. I won't go over the entire roster, but you can see the AFC roster and the NFC roster to see who will be in the game.

What you want to know is how can you watch the game, right? Well, it will be on four networks: ABC, ESPN, Disney XD, and NFL Network.

ABC

• Antenna, if you are in range (most of you are). (Free)
• Vidgo ($55/month)
• Fubo ($65/month)
• YouTube TV ($65/month)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70/month)
• DirecTV Stream ($70/month)

ESPN

• Sling TV (Orange) ($35/month)
• Vidgo ($55/month)
• Fubo ($65/month)
• YouTube TV ($65/month)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70/month)
• DirecTV Stream ($70/month)

Disney XD

• Sling TV (Orange) with Kids Extra add-on ($41/month)
• Vidgo ($55/month)
• Fubo ($65/month)
• YouTube TV ($65/month)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70/month)
• DirecTV Stream ($70/month)

NFL Network

• Sling TV (Orange) ($35/month)
• Vidgo ($55/month)
• Fubo ($65/month)
• YouTube TV ($65/month)
• Hulu+Live TV ($70/month)

Any of these will get you the Pro Bowl. If the NFL all star game is something you want in your Streaming Life, you have plenty of options.

Amazon Prime price increase

If you're an Amazon Prime member -- and I've been one for years and years -- there's a price increase coming. The current price of $119 will become $139 come February 18 for new customers, or March 25 for those renewing.

As I've said, I've had an Amazon Prime membership for a long long time. I was a Prime member before there was a thing called Prime Video. I was a Prime member when Unbox was introduced. Unbox became Instant Video on Demand, and is now called Prime Video. That's how long I've been a member.

I think (I really should check to be sure) it was originally $79/year. It went up to $99/year, then to $119/year. Now, the next price increase is coming and again, it's another $20/year increase.

Amazon last hiked the price of Prime in 2018, when it increased to $119 from $99. Four years before that, it raised the subscription fee to $99 from $79.

Amazon’s annual increase amounts to about a 17% rise in price. Amazon also raised the monthly price of a Prime membership from $12.99 to $14.99, the company said. New members will see the increased prices on Feb. 18, and current members will be billed at the higher rate after March 25.

Well, there you go. It was $79 to start with. It's not quite doubled since it's original launch, but it is giving me some pause.

When it started, there was no video service. We went with it because we calculated that the cost would be justified by the shipping benefits. Now, at $60/year more than it first cost, I have to wonder if it is worthwhile.

I suppose if you figure the video services into it, it is worth it. But we didn't subscribe for video services, and have always considered that a bonus. No longer. It's now figuring into my calculations, because I'm not sure we'd get $140 worth of benefits over a year from the shipping. Heck, I'm not really sure we're getting $120 worth, the current cost.

So, now Prime Video moves from a bonus to something I'm actually paying for. It's still cheaper than Netflix (the middle and higher package). I'm not a fan of the interface still. It's better. Or maybe I'm just more used to it. I've never liked the interface. But the amount of content is really good, and as a streaming service, it's probably worth it.

I'll be keeping Prime Video in my Streaming Life. I just don't like having to pay more for it. Such is life, even a streaming one.

NBC Regional Sports Networks planning Direct To Consumer service

One of the issue for sports fans -- and if you're a sports fan, you already know this -- is accessing regional sports networks when streaming. Cable systems offer the regional sports networks with their plans, but those are for everyone, not just sports fans. If you don't care about sports, you are paying for something you don't care about. But if you are a sports fan, and your favorite teams are only, or often, or even occasionally, carried on a regional sports network, then you appreciate them.

I bring this up because NBC Regional Sports Networks, specifically Bay Area, California, Chicago, Washington, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, are only available on DirecTV. Well, most of them. NBC Sports Philadelphia isn't available, but the others are, both satellite and streaming (DirecTV Stream).

The DirecTV Stream package that includes the RSNs is $90 and up. That may be a good deal, depending on what you've been paying for cable, but it's a bit more than I want to pay. Since I don't live in one of the areas served by NBC RSNs, it's not an issue for me. But for people that do live there, it matters.

This is where a recent announcement from NBC comes into play. NBC intended to announce that Valari Dobson Staab had a new position with the company, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

NBCUniversal has tapped Valari Dobson Staab to be chairman of NBCUniversal Local, a division that includes the NBC owned-and-operated local stations, the Telemundo-owned stations, and the NBC regional sports networks.

Staab has overseen NBC’s local stations since 2011, and Telemundo’s stations since 2013. She reports to Mark Lazarus, chairman of NBCUniversal television and streaming.

After an initial flurry of reports that NBC was launching a direct to consumer (DTC) service for RSNs, those hopes were tempered when NBC issued a clarification, according to Forbes.

However, management tried to walk back the DTC news. In a statement released the following day, a spokesperson for NBCUniversal said,  “In a personnel-related announcement issued by NBCUniversal Local on Jan. 31, a reference to the NBC Regional Networks’ direct-to-consumer (DTC) plans was inadvertently included and was misleading,” the spokesperson said.

“At this stage in the process, our DTC strategy is evolving as we assess options in each of the unique sports markets we serve. At this time, we don’t have any further details about launch plans including timing or markets. More information will be announced when available,” said the NBCU spokesperson. 

So it sounds like they said released information that wasn't cleared for release regarding RSNs. That doesn't mean they aren't going to. Most outlets think they probably will. However, I think they aren't ready to announce anything because they haven't come up with enough of a plan to be able to answer the inevitable questions. Now the questions will be coming anyway.

I like the idea of NBC Sports launching a direct to consumer sports service. I wish ESPN (Disney) would do that. Sinclair, who owns Bally RSNs, will be doing it ... sometime. If they do, that will be mean better streaming options for consumers. If I want an RSN package, I can get it. If I don't, I won't.

The plan, whatever Sinclair/Bally, ESPN/Disney (if...), or NBC devise, won't be perfect. Nothing ever is. But it will at least be an option, which we don't have today. More options in my Streaming Life is what I want. I just wish it was sooner rather than later.