Freestream (Sling TV free) has gotten larger

For a long time, when mentioning free ad supported television (FAST) services, the first ones always mentioned were Pluto TV, Xumo, and Tubi. Those were never the only ones, but those were the biggest ones, the ones with the most free streaming channels.

Today, that's not so much the case anymore. There are more services that have hundreds of live channels, including Plex and Sling TV.

Plex is newer to the FAST game, but Sling TV has been doing it for a bit. They were just a smaller player insofar as free streaming was concerned.

Not any more. I read a news article recently that said that Freestream (what Sling TV calls their free tier) offers 370 such channels. That surprised me somewhat, even though I knew that Freestream already had over 300.

It's from an older way of thinking. Sling TV's free offerings were always less than the other, larger players in the FAST market. But when they branded the free tier as Freestream, they had expanded their number to over 300. Today, it's at 366. That's how many I counted. Cord Cutters News says over 370, but I think they're counting some that are simply links to on-demand catalogs rather than actual live streaming channels:

Sling TV's new free advertising-supported streaming television service now offers more than 370 channels after these new channels have been added and 41,000 on-demand titles. This makes it one of the largest free streaming services for cord cutters when looking at the number of free live channels.

Back when Sling TV topped 330 channels, its President released a statement. "This milestone is just the beginning of what we have in store for Sling Freestream," said Gary Schanman, Group President, Sling TV. "We are charging full steam ahead to deliver unparalleled free live sports, news and entertainment for consumers to watch popular games, catch up on the latest headlines or enjoy award-winning TV shows, all for free."

I trust my count. Whether my count or CCN's count is correct, it's still a lot. The only thing I really don't like about Freestream is how it's accessed. They call it "Freestream" but you launch the Sling TV app to access it. I know they're promoting their paid service, but it just seems counter intuitive to me.

Regardless, it's a good service worth checking out. My Streaming Life doesn't include its use, at least not a lot. That is, unless I see an article about it, in which case I'll check it out and watch it for a bit. It's worth a look, and should be considered on par with Pluto TV, Xumo Play, and Tubi.

Is ESPN about to kill cable?

Recent reports are saying that ESPN plans to move from cable TV, and that the move could kill cable TV.

I read the reports, most notable from the Wall Street Journal [subscription, but covered well in Cord Cutters News] that discusses the plans by Disney to move ESPN to a direct-to-consumer streaming service:

ESPN has begun securing flexibility in its deals with cable providers to offer the channel directly to consumers, the people said. The financial terms of those deals couldn’t be learned. The company is having similar discussions with pro sports leagues as those rights deals come up and has secured the same flexibility from at least two major leagues, the people said.

The sports-media giant took its first step into streaming in 2018 with the launch of ESPN+, a monthly streaming service whose live programming includes golf events, certain Major League Baseball and professional hockey games, as well as a variety of scripted and unscripted programming. It has 25.3 million subscribers.

But ESPN+ doesn't offer access to the ESPN channel itself, including high-value programming like National Basketball Association and National Football League telecasts that are only available on TV. Project "Flagship" is about helping ESPN transition the full channel to streaming.

While the headline of the Wall Street Journal article, as well as the Cord Cutters News story, mention the removal of ESPN from cable, the actual WSJ article does not cite any source for ESPN leaving cable. Rather, the implication seems to be that making ESPN available directly to consumers will allow customers to drop cable.

Well, I dropped cable a long time ago, even though ESPN was exclusively on cable at the time.

Today, I can watch ESPN, but need a streaming service such as Sling TV, YouTube TV, Hulu+Live TV, Fubo, Vidgo, or the like to watch the service. In fact, during college football season, the only reason I ever watch ESPN, I'll subscribe to Sling TV, then cancel when the season is done. I actually put a little more effort into it than simply that, and wind up paying for service for only four 30-day subscriptions, and that covers the entire season. I've given those details before, and will again, just not right now.

Back to the article, the idea is that with a streaming option for the full ESPN, more people will drop cable. Well, there already are streaming options. This may indeed make it easier for people to drop cable, but I must wonder how many are actually subscribing to cable simply for ESPN. There is no reason for that. If anyone wants to drop cable and still watch ESPN, they can.

My Streaming Life broke free of cable TV over a dozen years ago. More and more are doing the same. And if Disney does make ESPN available directly as a standalone app, I'd be very happy with that option.

Paramount+ and Showtime merger

It was announced some time back that Showtime and Paramount+ would merge. Now we know the date: June 27.

Here's what I don't know, and wonder about: I have Parmount+ through Walmart+. It's the cheaper plan, with commercials, and no live local CBS. Is that plan going to remain? Or is it impacted as well? And does this mean that Walmart+ users will get a Showtime bonus of some kind? Will it remain as is? Will the perk of getting Paramount+ go away?

I'm curious about this, and so far have not been able to find out.

I like the Paramount+ plan that's included with Walmart+. The commercials aren't too intrusive, and quite honestly, with an antenna, the live local CBS isn't needed. But if this merger means the Walmart+ perk of the service goes away, I'll be disappointed.

Maybe I'm worrying over nothing. Maybe I'm worrying with good reason. My Streaming Life is good right now, so I'd hate to lose a service. But, if I do lose it, I'll add Paramount+ back to my rotation of subscription services.

Goodbye WOW! cable TV

Around 10 years ago or so, I lived in the Columbus area of west Georgia and moved into a neighborhood that was served by a cable & Internet company I had not dealt with previously. The ISP was WOW!

They actually had a different name, but within a few months of my moving to their service area in Columbus, they were bought out by WOW! and I became a customer of theirs.

I was an Internet only customer, as I had dropped cable from another provider a couple of years before, and was only interested in Internet at the time. So I was never a cable TV customer of WOW! but I did like the Internet service and service techs that installed it.

Though I never had WOW! cable, I did read with interest a news article that said that WOW! was dropping cable TV as a service and offering YouTube TV instead.

"We are thrilled to begin offering YouTube TV and give our customers access to this best-in-class pay TV service. We are very pleased to deliver a seamless TV experience to our customers with this new partnership while continuing to execute on our broadband-first strategy," said Teresa Elder, CEO at WOW!. "This furthers our commitment to provide our customers with the highest quality services at the best value."

This news comes as multiple cable TV companies, including Frontier, have stopped offering traditional cable TV and gone streaming online. Frontier has, for some time now, offered YouTube TV instead of its traditional TV service.

I'm not celebrating the loss of cable TV service by WOW! I don't care for cable TV, but the WOW! folks with whom I dealt were always nice and polite, and they provided good service at a reasonable price. My Streaming Life began before my two-year service with WOW!, so while I never used their cable TV service, I'm still a little sad to know that there may be some cable TV technicians for the company losing their jobs. However, overall, I'm glad to see cable going away.

Prime time?

Prime time cable viewing is down. Way down. How far?

According to an analysis on Cord Cutters News, the numbers, while in the millions, are relatively small considering how many people there are in the USA:

So far in May, the top ten networks are showing dwindling primetime viewership reports with only the top four networks reaching audiences in the millions, which is staggeringly low in a country with a population of well over 334 million citizens. TNT totaled 3.2 million viewers, followed by ESPN with 2.4 million, Fox News with 1.4 million, and MSNBC with 1.1 million. 

The remaining six networks didn’t even break 1 million viewers. HGTV reported 773,000 viewers, INSP had 727,000, TBS averaged 722,000, History had 690,000, TLC’s total was 617,000, and USA Network barely got over half a million viewers at 583,000.

I haven't watch prime time TV in years. Well, that's not exactly true, but it is sort of true.

I got a TiVo device back in 2006, and rarely watched anything live from that day forward. TiVo allowed me to watch TV shows when I wanted. It made "on-demand" TV watching easy.

When I started streaming full time in late 2010, I was already watching stuff on-demand (recordings) so using Hulu or purchasing TV seasons wasn't really that different.

It appears that many others aren't watching prime time TV either. It isn't something I have thought about in years, since it's been around 17 years since I stopped watching live prime time TV exclusively. My Streaming Life has continued to keep the entire concept of prime time TV watching out of my mind. I simply watch shows that seem interesting, and when it comes on doesn't enter into my thought process at all. It's liberating.

Junk Fees

One of the most aggravating things about cable TV -- remember having cable? -- is the collection of fees that are tacked on to the end of your bill.

Now, to be sure, cable TV services aren't the only ones to add extra fees to up your bill. Phone services do that. Well, most do. But, to be sure, cable TV services do that as well.

There are local broadcast fees, regional sports fees, and other administrative fees where it looks like they charge you a fee for charging you a fee. Administrative fees are part of the basic service, right? In reality, yes. But many of those services will add that to your bill, simply because they can.

So how much are these fees? Well, if you count all the fees -- not just from cable, but from everything else as well -- it adds up to a lot. According to one study, the average is nearly $600/year:

With the increase in inflation, many households are tracking their expenses more closely and are more aware of the cost of junk fees than ever. According to our survey, junk fees cost the average American an estimated $596 per year, with some consumers paying upwards of $1,000+ per year. On a national level, that would add up to over $190 billion taken out of American wallets annually.

Think about that. Nearly $50/month in junk fees. Being a streamer doesn't eliminate those. In fact, many people will simply replace cable TV with a cable like streaming service, and some services are adding fees just like cable.

I don't subscribe to a cable replacement service. My Streaming Life doesn't need it. But I am aware that I still have some junk fees I need to keep an eye on. You should watch for them as well.

Mothers Day (2023)

My sisters and I lost our mother in 2020. Mothers Day isn't the same without her. I won't spend a lot of time talking about things, but I will mention this. During the last few years of her life, she enjoyed much of the benefits of cord cutting.

She was a fan of technology up to a point. She loved her iPhone but never used it to its fullest extent. However, she used it to do things she had never done before: texting, video chats, Web surfing, and the like. She was fascinated by that, and enjoyed being able to stay in touch with family with greater ease.

She enjoyed her M*A*S*H videos, her Murder She Wrote videos, and the like. I ripped all of her DVDs, both movies and TV shows, to place on a Plex server for her to watch. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'll explain it like I did to her. Launch this app called Plex, and there are all your movies and TV shows you can watch on any of your TVs, any time you want. She loved that.

Watching her excitement about the things she could do with technology made me understand that I may have inherited that fascination and interest from her. In more ways than the obvious, she made me who I am today.

It's Mothers Day. Enjoy it with your mother if you're able. If not, we can all miss our respective mothers together.

Hulu and Disney+ merger?

While there hasn't been an announcement, the news from Disney indicates that may be coming in the future.

A report in Variety said that Disney is adding Hulu content to the Disney+ app, and that prices for Disney+ will happen later this year.

On Disney's earnings call Wednesday, CEO Bob Iger said the company will soon launch a "one-app experience" in the U.S. that incorporates Hulu content into Disney+. The new combined offering will launch by the end of 2023, available to customers who subscribe to both streaming services, he said.

"While we will continue to offer Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ as standalone options, this is a logical progression of our [direct-to-consumer] offerings that will provide greater opportunities for advertisers while giving bundle subscribers access to more robust and streamlined content, resulting in greater audience engagement and ultimately leading to a more unified streaming experience," Iger said.

This doesn't combine the services into one, but it does mean some Hulu content will be available in the Disney+ app, which is a step in that direction.

A price increase is never a good thing for the consumer, but it does happen a lot. However, with the price of everything going up in the past three years, it's certainly not a surprise.

The good news is that the price increase was only announced for the ad-free tier, which is the original service. The ad-supported service will remain the same price for now.

My Streaming Life includes the ad-supported tier, so I won't be impacted by the upcoming price increase. I'm not sure how I feel about the possible combining of the services though. I may like it. But I might now. If it happens, I'll have a decision to make, as I normally just use Hulu alone.

Dropping streaming services

Another report is out indicating that streamers in the USA have not only cut back on cable (no surprise there) but are also cutting back on streaming services. That may be a surprise to some. Not to me, but that's because I already do things a little differently. But it does indicate that more people are seeing streaming as something more than just a replacement for cable.

The study indicates that prior to 2020, the average US streamer averaged about four streaming services. In the next two years, that number went up to over seven services. Now it's back down to a little over six.

Why are people cutting back? Cost is one reason, but I think people are becoming more savvy streamers. Luke Bouma at Cord Cutters News calls it a maturity of streaming:

We are also seeing recent price hikes pushing 56% of cord cutters to cut back on the number of streaming services they are paying for. This is not a sign of cord cutting slowing down but instead of the maturity of cord cutting.

Increasingly cord cutters are learning what they really want and need. This idea you have to have everything for most people is just not accurate.

A lot of new streamers will subscribe to a cable replacement service. I never did it that way, mostly because I cut before there were any services such as Sling TV, YouTube TV, or any of those. It was not even an option. I learned early on that replacing cable with the same thing except streaming wasn't necessary.

I think more people are realizing that. I think that many have simply switched from cable to a streaming version of cable, and with price hikes in everything over the last three years, including streaming services, they've come to realize they're paying nearly as much for streaming as they did for cable. Rather than go back to cable and long term contracts and hidden fees, they are finding ways to cut back. In the process, they realize they don't need all those services. They're also discovering that free ad-supported television (FAST) services are a viable option for a lot of content.

My Streaming Life has never included a lot of subscriptions. It wasn't possible when I cut the cord, so I found out it wasn't necessary. More people are realizing it's not necessary as well, and are saving money as a result.

YouTube fighting ad blockers

Some YouTube users have been getting notices about ad blockers, according to an online report. This appears to be a big deal. I'm a little out of the loop on this for a couple of reasons.

Let's start with the report, then I'll get to why I wasn't aware of this.

A report on 9to5Google says it picked up word that YouTube had begun checking for ad blockers, and was preventing viewership of its content as a result.

A Redditor first spotted earlier this week that, on trying to use YouTube.com, a pop-up appeared saying that ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube. Videos were blocked from streaming unless the user then allowed YouTube ads or signed up for YouTube Premium, the subscription service that allows users to watch content on YouTube without ads.

It's a surprising message to see, given that YouTube hasn't addressed ad blockers for years and years now. The message adds that "ads allow YouTube to stay free for billions of users worldwide."

A YouTube employee has since confirmed to the r/YouTube moderation team that, for now, this is just an “experiment.” For now, YouTube is only testing blocking ad blockers.

I actually watch YouTube a bit, and I've not seen the message. I don't use ad-blockers. Well, I do and I don't. It's complicated. Let me explain.

On my personal browser, I do not employ an ad-blocker. I am okay with Websites using ads to support their content. However, I am not okay with being tracked. I have an anti-tracking solution employed that could impact ads, although blocking ads is not what I'm trying to do.

While I don't run an ad blocker on my browser, I do have a Pi Hole setup on my home network. And while Pi Hole if known for blocking ads, it actually has other functions, including the function I want. I'm not running the standard ad-blocking lists on Pi Hole. Rather, I'm running tracker blocking lists. If there is tracking code embedded on the Website, it gets filtered out.

If a Website has ads, and they aren't tracking, I get the ads. I'm good with that. I only block trackers.

All of that adds up to one reason I wouldn't see the message on YouTube. There is one other reason: I already subscribe to YouTube Premium.

YouTube Premium by itself isn't something to which I'd normally subscribe. However, it does offer a bonus that makes it worthwhile to me. YouTube Music is included with YouTube Premium. I've been subscribing to YouTube Music as part of YouTube Premium, and have been looking to that as an alternative to SirusXM in the car.

The downside of this is that I've not seen if the message is in place for Pi Hole users. I could log out of YouTube Premium and see if I get the message, and I may. But I probably won't.

My Streaming Life contains ads, unless they are tracking ads. If the content were to detect and block content because of Pi Hole, I'd figure out how to deal with it. I've not had to, and I'm good to go for now.