More regional sports networks troubles

There have been news reports that Bally Sports will be declaring bankruptcy soon, and those regional sports networks will be shuttered. If this happens, that will impact lots of sports fans.

Of course, the fact that there aren't enough customers for the Bally regional sports networks (RSNs) means that not enough people will care to prevent it from happening.

Now, there is word that AT&T SportsNet RSNs will be closing down, according to the Wall Street Journal:

In a letter sent Friday from the unit's president Patrick Crumb -- a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal -- teams were warned that "the business will not have sufficient cash to pay the upcoming rights fees," people familiar with the letter said. The teams were also told that Warner Bros. Discovery "will not fund our shortfalls," they said.

The letter proposes that AT&T SportsNet transfer ownership of the networks and programming rights to the teams for no purchase price consideration beyond a release by the teams of any future claims against the networks.

Bankruptcy is also on the table, the letter said. ...

The affected teams include the National Basketball Association's Houston Rockets and Utah Jazz; Major League Baseball's Pittsburgh Pirates, Houston Astros and Colorado Rockies; and the National Hockey League's Pittsburgh Penguins, the people familiar with the matter said.

The NBA, MLB and NHL are also being informed by Warner Bros. Discovery of the situation, the people said.

This is bad news. Or maybe it's good news. NBC has been having trouble with Peacock recently, mostly because other services have more in-demand content. However, NBC has been moving a lot of sports programming to Peacock. Ryan Downey, The Streaming Advisor, suggests this is the way for Peacock to grab viewers:

With Peacock growing but still needing to add content that will give it an edge or at least seriously differentiate it in the market it may be able to make sense of purchasing the sports networks and integrating them into the fold. They feel like they would fit in with the $9.99 tier. Does Comcast have the money and the know-how to make it all work? The company already pulled its own sports network NBC Sports Network into the app. With the combined coverage area of NBC Sports and Bally Sports footprint Peacock could begin to put together something of a national footprint across NBA, NHL, and NBA markets.

How will all this shake out? I suspect Mr. Downey is right, and that Peacock could take advantage of the Bally Sports bankruptcy (should it happen) and now the AT&T SportsNet shutdown (should it happen).

How will this impact everyone? My Streaming Life may be impacted in a positive way if baseball allows live in-market games via the RSNs, or on Peacock. Otherwise, I really don't care that much about the RSNs. I'm like most people, it seems. However, I do want the RSNs to survive. Or better put, the content on RSNs to be available to consumers via streaming in some way.

Are you paying for subscriptions you aren't using?

One of the great things about streaming is the amount of content that you can access. A lot of the content is free, though ad-supported, and can offer much to watch at an excellent price (free is excellent).

The downside of free, ad-supported television (FAST) services is that not everything is available free. A lot of free content is excellent, but some content is only available via a paid subscription service.

Many people think that they must subscribe to a lot of services. And, I suppose that some must. But I don't have to, and it's likely you don't either. Or, if you do, you may not need as many as you actually have.

A recent study by C+R Research indicates that many people subscribe to services they don't even use:

On average, $86 per month was the initial amount consumers estimated they spent on subscription services. 

But upon closer look at their itemized expenses, the average monthly spend for consumers was more than 2.5 times the amount they thought at $219 – a whopping $133 higher than their original estimate. Almost one-third (30%) of the people underestimated by $100 to $199 and nearly a quarter each underestimated by less than $25, $25-$99, and $200 or more. 

That shows how easy it is to run up your bill a lot higher than you realize. The study also indicates that Gen Z streamers are far more likely to forget about the subscriptions than Baby Boomers. That's because we Baby Boomers are much more aware of spending and where our money goes. Kids could learn from us.

Spending less money than necessary on streaming (or anything really) means more money for things you'll actually use and enjoy. It's possible to save a lot of money in your Streaming Life, and save it for other things.

Why a box instead of a stick?

I'm a fan of streaming boxes, but not so much streaming sticks.

The fact is, most of the drawbacks of a stick don't really apply to me, and I could just as easily use a stick rather than a box.

If you asked me, I'd usually suggest a box, because if something does go wrong, it's easier to restart a box that is frozen than it is to restart a stick that is frozen. But that doesn't really happen so much anymore. At least, not on the good sticks.

Recently, someone asked Tablo about the differences between the Amazon Fire TV Cube and the Fire TV Stick. And I really liked the answer Tablo gave:

Since it's difficult to pack the features and performance of a box-style model into the smaller footprint of a stick, you can almost always assume that boxes will be better overall. However, they also come with a higher cost. That's why it's important to review and compare the features and specs of each device to decide which will be best for your needs.

If you don't plan to use the Ethernet connection or the advanced voice control features of the Cube, you may find the 4K MAX Stick offers enough performance to power your next binge-watching session. However, it is best to avoid the very low-end stick models as the feature sets, memory, and Wi-Fi connectivity of higher-end models are worth spending a bit extra for.

I whole heartily agree with picking the Fire TV Stick 4K Max over the cheaper sticks. I really do not like the cheaper devices. A close friend had a Fire TV Stick Lite that a family member had installed. I replaced it with one of my Fire TV Stick 4K Max devices. She was happier with it, so I consider that a win.

If you are looking at purchasing a streaming device, if wires are a problem, get a good quality stick, whether Fire TV Stick 4K Max, or Roku Streaming 4K or 4K+. Stay away from the cheap sticks. They will frustrate you in your Streaming Life.

Comcast updating their Flex box interfaces

I've given Comcast credit for developing a streaming device that works a lot like their cable box. The idea is that it will help users transition from cable to streaming, and stay in the Xfinity world as they do that.

It's good marketing, and anything that makes the transition easier is a good thing for the customer.

The problem is that the interface isn't very good. Sure, for cable, it's okay, but it really doesn't work well for streaming.

Comcast is doing something about that, according to Cord Cutters News:

"Our products are in tens of millions of customers' homes and will soon be enjoyed around the world and in every major U.S. city through our recently announced joint venture with Charter," Comcast said in a letter to shareholders. "We are just beginning to realize the full potential of our proprietary global technology platform, and later this year we’ll launch a new user interface for Sky Glass, X1, Flex, Xumo, and our international partners."

This new user interface is part of a bigger push for Comcast to take on Roku, Fire TV, and Apple TV. Later this year, Comcast will launch a streaming player called Xumo Play, a rebranded version of the Flex player. This new streaming player from Comcast will be sold at Walmart and will target new cord cutters which are used to the X1 interface and want to cut the cord.

If they do it right, then that will be a huge benefit to those making the transition from cable to streaming. Anything that helps someone ease into their Streaming Life is a good thing. Even if it's from Comcast.

Amazon Fire TV explands support for hearing aids

I don't wear a hearing aid, but I suspect I will need to do that one day. Not many in my family wear them. In fact, I'm trying to think of anyone in my family who does. We've been lucky, it seems.

However, I do have some friends with hearing issues, and one close friend in particular who may need to get a hearing aid soon.

When I saw a couple of articles this week about Amazon Fire TV devices expanding hearing aid support, they had my attention. According to one article, they are using the open-source Audio Streaming for Hearing Aids (ASHA) protocol. That means it isn't limited to any particular brand's proprietary code.

Cochlear has configured direct streaming from Fire TV to the Cochlear Nucleus 8, Nucleus 7, Nucleus Kanso 2, and Baha 6 Max sound processors. With ASHA, sound processors connect directly with the Fire TV device, so customers can enjoy audio from their favorite streaming apps, use Alexa, listen to music, hear navigational sounds, and more.

ASHA-enabled Fire TV devices include: Fire TV Omni QLED Series, Fire TV Omni Series, Fire TV 4-Series, Fire TV Cube (3rd Gen), and Fire TV Cube (2nd Gen).

This is welcome news, I'm sure, to many who suffer from hearing loss and use hearing aids. I trust this will make for a more enjoyable Streaming Life for them.

Why I like Roku better than Fire TV, or Google TV

If you've followed along for any period of time, you know I'm firmly in Team Roku. However, I also will use and do appreciate the other major streaming platforms. Apple TV's interface is good, as is the Google TV (and Android TV) interface. And, yes, the Amazon Fire TV interface is good as well.

My favorite is Roku, because it's not pushing stuff on me.

Well, that's not exactly true, because there is that big ol' ad once you move over to select the app you want to launch. However, it stands out as an ad, and can be ignored if you like. On Amazon and Google, they mix the ads and promos in with the rest of the content.

Roku doesn't throw stuff at you. Well, there is that big ad, but you see it for what it is. It's a simple interface, and the apps don't jump around. Whatever you place as your first app in the list stays there. On Amazon and Google, they will move them around, with the most recent played at the front.

There is a line that doesn't change, but it only shows a handful of apps, meaning you have to hunt for more apps is you want one that isn't in the top six or eight. Roku puts them all there, in rows of three, and you can find the one you want because it's always in the same place, unless you move it.

Amazon and Google with promote content within the interface, rather than off to the side as Roku does. I don't like that. I prefer to know that if I see something, it's something I put there, not something that some company is trying to push off on me.

I've not talked much about Apple TV in all this. Apple TV is similar to Roku in the way the interface works. However, they do offer a couple of different views, including one that looks somewhat like the Amazon or Google one, and one that looks more like Roku in that it's simply a list of your apps.

Roku wins the interface battle for me, due to its simplicity.

But I get it. Some people like what is suggested to them. Roku does offer suggestions, but not at the main menu. And if  you like the Fire TV or Google TV interface better, that's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply trying to tell you what I like about the Roku interface.

To me, the others are too cluttered and jumbled and make it harder to find something to watch. I want things simple in my Streaming Life, and Roku does that for me.

No more remapping Amazon Fire TV remote buttons

If you have been trashing Roku and praising Amazon because of the ability to remap the buttons on the remote, you're about to lose your passion for the Fire TV. Amazon has an update out that has blocked users from doing exactly that, according to AFTV News:

That changed with the recent arrival of software update version 7.6.2.4 to the Fire TV Stick 4K Max. This update contains a more sophisticated method to detect whether the app being launched by the remote app buttons is the expected app or not. Trying to use Remapper to remap an app button results in the line "App [app name] is not trusted. Aborting launch." appearing in the Fire TV's log file.

So far, only the Fire TV Stick 4K Max has received this change, but I expect other Fire TV models to also eventually receive a similar update that prevents my Remapper app from working. As mentioned in my introductory post about the app, this was to be expected. It was a nice two years where we were able to crawl back a bit of control over how Fire TV remotes worked, but I don't expect a new workaround to be found to get Remapper to work again.

This is not unexpected, as the author said. Amazon, and Roku, both have buttons to certain apps on their remotes. They sell those to companies, and do their best to enforce the mappings so that they can justify the price they charge.

Both Amazon and Roku sell remotes that come with programmable buttons, allowing the user to add that customization to their device of choice, to make their Streaming Life easier.