Pushback against streaming-only broadcasts

Well, do you have a subscription to Pac 12 Network? The Beavs have been on that network once this season. What are you paying for?

Are you still watching a tube TV? What kind of internet connection do you have? If you are on this message board, you're using a computer, or a device, unless you are on old fashioned dial-up 56k service, you can get streaming with just about any internet service.

To get the Pac 12 channel on Comcast, we couldn't do it with the basic cable bundle. I believe we had to get to a more inclusive bundle, which cost more, then add an additional sports tier to get the Pac-12 stations, whichcost more yet. We also had to commit to a service package for a year or two I believe.

Now that was basically a decade ago, and "maybe" they throw more in these days.

We scrapped Comcast when they told us our service was going up another 35-40 bucks a couple years ago.

Now we just do internet and FUBO and save a hundred a month or so over our old Comcast bill. If we want to turn on Peacock or any other streaming network it takes about 3-4 minutes on the computer and for a few bucks we can turn it on for a month (if they don't have a free trial).

Add in, we can get it on any device or computer we own, anywhere we can get an internet wifi connection. We put out a 1 time few bucks for a firestick, and now we can plug it into any TV with an hdmi port and UHD or better resolution and voila, any streaming channel we subscribe to is now available.

When we finish our van build and start traveling, we'll probably get Starlink, which would bring our monthly bill back in the price range of Vomcast (typo, but appropriate since we almost vomit every time we think how long we were overpaying for TV service). At that point, as long as we can see the sky we'll get it pretty much anywhere in North America.

We're in our mid-60s, took us til a couple years back to really realize the benefits of streaming. More and more are figuring it out all the time.

Also, Cable is not a guarantee. Spectrum, one of the nation's largest providers, didn't even carry ESPN for a while this season. That kept a LOT of its customers from watching games.

Sorry for the rant, but people switching from cable to streaming will probably be like the switch from suspenders to belts. It'll still exist, there will be a few Larry King types and others with a certain fashion sense using it, but streaming's gonna win and cable could go the way of the wishbone offense.

But my point wasn’t how to get Pac 12 Network. It was why bother? A lot of Pac 12 games are being broadcast on other channels. So whose to say that several matchups each week wouldn’t end up on ABC, FOX, ESPN anyway?

Of course if the Pac is made up of Wyoming and San Jose State, all of our games will end up there.

Bitching about the Blazers media access here won't make a difference. Tell them directly. (Probably won't make a difference, either, but you might feel more satisfied.)

Meanwhile, that kinda proves the point that we're long past the age of three networks and rabbit ears. Think about it: how much is available to you today compared to even only 30 years ago? And most of all that is new is, and has been, à la carte - since the introduction of ESPN in '79. ESPN was never free, nor will be that which replaces it... And the reality is that viewers are moving from "traditional" delivery via cable and satellite...just as they moved from over-the-air to cable back in the day. 

Comcast dropped 614,000 video (television) subscribers nationally in Q1 this year, while YouTubeTV gained about half that. The so-called cord-cutters are the market that is growing, and so media companies are going to continue growing the product offerings in that sector - witness the commitment by Peacock (Comcast/Universal) two years ago to spend over $2.5B for Premier League soccer through 2028 - the vast majority of those games are not on "TV."

Which suggests to me just how fudged up the breakup of the PacX really was - the GOR with Apple would have been the future (streaming), while others decided to cling to the past (broadcast/cable). 

I'm not saying I like it, per se. It does cost more to get what you want these days - you need to subscribe here for one thing, there for another, and it adds up. Consumers (viewers) have more choices than ever before, and there is a metric sh!t tonne of chaff for every kernel of wheat you have to sift through - and pay for - to get what you want. It takes more work to find and enjoy what you're looking for. And, let's face it: it was nice when so much less was fed to us on the big three. We didn't have to think about it or open our wallets the same way. Now? Every game is a TV game...I remember when those events were extra-special.

You need a TV made in the last 15 years, probably even further back. If you TV has an HDMI port, you are fine. My now very old Vizio flat panel TV, which is now my kid's TV is from 2007? I think? It has a chromecast on it.

Amazon and google practically give away their streaming devices. You can get a fire stick for pennies on Prime days, or a Chromecast for the same on black friday