Who still has cable?

[Dman374]

Longtime viewer, first time poster. After looking at the realignment and media deal threads I was curious... how do YOU watch College Football? More specifically, who actually still has traditional cable?

Was partially inspired to ask this question after I read this article from The Athletic. It's a summary of Amazons investment into Diamond Media Regional Sport Networks (Bally). It's a two part discussion I wanted to pull into it's own thread.

Part 1: Direct to Consumer
For those of you that don't know, if you don't pay for Comcast/AT&T/Fubo you can pay Bally $20/month to watch the Braves. I didn't pay this last year because T-Mobile had a thing with MLB, and I able to watch the games on the MLB Roku app. If I didn't have that random perk I would've paid the $20/month to watch my Braves. What does that have to do with Georgia Tech Football? Well, in the article I was shocked to find out last year only 220-300k people subscribed. That's not just the Braves, that's for every MLB/NBA/NHL team they broadcast. Turns out this direct to consumer model resulted in a $77 Million dollar loss. According to "a person briefed on Diamond's plan" they're projecting DTC subscribers will rise from 300k last year, to 1.7 million this year, to 2.7 million in 2025, and 3.6 million in 2026. Although I do think those yearly increases are inflated, I wonder what the Braves subscriptions alone were last year, and what they'll be next year. If that T-Mobile perk is gone I will be one of them. The other item discussed is marketing DTC service using Amazon's existing prime video subscribers, and watching exclusively on the Prime Video App and killing the Bally app. You'd pay extra over standard prime, but that's the same thing with MLS season pass on Apple TV. My part 1 was trying to gauge outside my bubble would you pay extra to watch all Georgia Tech Games? Or Maybe all ACC games? Or all ESPN network games? At what point would you consider not paying for cable or a streaming service and just signup directly to watch sports? Open ended question, what would be your pain tolerance for price, or how often you're charged? At what point would it temp you if you're considering cutting the cord if you haven't already?

Part 2: Traditional Cable
This is what I am really curious about... Do you pay for cable? Or a Streaming Service? If you pay for a streaming service is it for football season or all year? I'm probably in the minority when I get outside my friend group, but I literally do not watch cable tv unless it's sports, and we only pay for it during football season. A lot of my friends I use to go over and watch games with in my 20's don't pay for steaming tv unless it's football season either. I've got family older than me who still have traditional cable, with traditional remotes, and I want to clarify I'm not for killing the traditional model, but if you're still paying for cable every month what keeps you hooked? For all my family it's like 2 or 3 networks out of their entire cable package (My Grandma and her Hallmark Channel) that's not sports or local channels, but just curious. Also, another open ended question, where do you see the traditional TV model going?

For context, we're in our mid 30's, two children under 4. Our setup is we have Roku's on every TV in our home, a Tablo Quad connected to an Antenna in the attic. We have Disney Plus for the kids (considering canceling because they would rather watch YouTube), Apple TV plus (included in phone plan & never watch), Netflix (wife watches), and Amazon Prime (my oldest likes Pete the Cat). Last football season we paid $274 for Sling for 5 months (Don't Recommend even if it's the cheapest option, only 1 Disney/ESPN stream at a time was nightmare. Didn't read fine print), year before we used Hulu, although we canceled after March Madness.

 

[dmurdock]

My HOA provides basic HD Xfinity with 3 TV cable boxes; I'm leasing a 4th cable box and paying extra for faster internet. In all honesty, I really prefer cable for watching college football games. I can hit the "c" button on the controller and see the scores of a handful of games and click on one if I want to tune in and watch. Flipping between games is super seamless; I will flip to another game during commercial timeouts watching Tech games and flip back when the Tech game should be past its commercials. I have it set up to record all Tech games and when watching a recorded game I can fast forward through commercials, something some of the streaming services don't allow (can't remember if it was Sling or Hulu). So I would be paying for cable even if it wasn't part of my HOA.

 

[Root4GT]

I have traditional cable Verizon Fios and Roku (several in different rooms). It works for us! Verizon Fios is expensive for sure. The convenience is nice.

 

[Dman374]

Turns out I was dead wrong about the Bally Sports Plus (Streaming App) having the Braves. They only own the streaming rights to 5 MLB teams... so looks like I'm going to have to get creative this season.

One of the reasons I asked this question was to try to figure out how do you get to these TV rights deal numbers in a post cable world? Cable isn't dead yet, I get it, and it's looking more and more from the poll that I am the crazy person here, but what does it look like in 4 or 10 years when some of these deals are renegotiated? I think Amazon is onto something... potentially. Let's say ESPN launches a new subscription app, where you can actually watch ALL their live channels unlike ESPN plus. They jack the price up to $14.99/month, or $99/year and copy Apple, or even let's say $29.99/Month or $300/Year. I'd seriously consider paying for it, if I could stream all of the games. which would include the random CW game they subbed out, but you get my point. Same would go for Fox/CBS/NBC. Is it a pain in the -_- to download the app, yes. Is it a pain in the a$> to switch games if you don't have multiple TV's in the living room during football season? Yes. But I'd personally pay $9.99 or whatever it cost to watch that one can't miss game on Peacock then immediately cancel. My next question is, how many fans have to sign up to make it more lucrative than the current deal? It's an open ended question, I don't have an answer, but just a thought. Is that the direction the sport is going? Maybe I'm 100% wrong, and people are coming back to cable, or streaming more than I am. I get carriage fees come regardless if someone watches sports or not. It's the delta for people like me willing to pay a higher price, for a shorter term commitment, to watch what I actually want to watch. I have no idea the validity of this number, and was shocked Bally couldn't get more than 300k subscribers with all the teams they cover, but how many Tech fans would sign up if it was an option? 50k? 100k? 200k? IDK the answer to that question, but I remember that being part of the Pac12 proposed deal from Apple. I personally think that's the destination we get to, I just don't know how long the trip is going to be. Let's say it's $200/year, and you could watch all Georgia Tech/ACC/SEC/ESPN content you wanted. They based revenue sharing to the schools on the amount of subscriptions and team selection when you sign up. If 50k fans did that it's $10 million gross (Before advertising and expenses). Not enough. 100k fans? $20 million. Open ended question is that more than we bring in now with ESPN? I don't know the answer to that question, but you can see my thought process. If it's 200k fans paying that that's more than base we bring in I believe. Again, turns out I'm the crazy person and cable is way more popular, but just thinking out loud 4-10 years if I'm still in the minority and what does that look like.

 

[Bogey]

I like this better than dealing directly with Bally. At least I think so at the moment as a subscriber to YouTube TV and an Amazon Prime member.
Published January 17, 2024:
Amazon is now a minority owner of Diamond Sports Group’s Bally Sports regional networks.

Diamond announced Wednesday that Amazon had taken a minority stake in the company as part of its bankruptcy restructuring. More significantly for sports fans across the country, Amazon’s stake in the company means that games televised on Bally Sports channels will be available to local fans via Amazon Prime.

 

[Dman374]

I like this better than dealing directly with Bally. At least I think so at the moment as a subscriber to YouTube TV and an Amazon Prime member.
Published January 17, 2024:
Amazon is now a minority owner of Diamond Sports Group’s Bally Sports regional networks.

Diamond announced Wednesday that Amazon had taken a minority stake in the company as part of its bankruptcy restructuring. More significantly for sports fans across the country, Amazon’s stake in the company means that games televised on Bally Sports channels will be available to local fans via Amazon Prime.

Need to fact check me, but I believe Bally, nor Amazon, own the streaming rights to the Braves. Bally owns broadcast rights only is my understanding. Would love to be wrong about that though.

 

[roadkill]

Longtime viewer, first time poster. After looking at the realignment and media deal threads I was curious... how do YOU watch College Football? More specifically, who actually still has traditional cable?

Was partially inspired to ask this question after I read this article from The Athletic. It's a summary of Amazons investment into Diamond Media Regional Sport Networks (Bally). It's a two part discussion I wanted to pull into it's own thread.

Part 1: Direct to Consumer
For those of you that don't know, if you don't pay for Comcast/AT&T/Fubo you can pay Bally $20/month to watch the Braves. I didn't pay this last year because T-Mobile had a thing with MLB, and I able to watch the games on the MLB Roku app. If I didn't have that random perk I would've paid the $20/month to watch my Braves. What does that have to do with Georgia Tech Football? Well, in the article I was shocked to find out last year only 220-300k people subscribed. That's not just the Braves, that's for every MLB/NBA/NHL team they broadcast. Turns out this direct to consumer model resulted in a $77 Million dollar loss. According to "a person briefed on Diamond's plan" they're projecting DTC subscribers will rise from 300k last year, to 1.7 million this year, to 2.7 million in 2025, and 3.6 million in 2026. Although I do think those yearly increases are inflated, I wonder what the Braves subscriptions alone were last year, and what they'll be next year. If that T-Mobile perk is gone I will be one of them. The other item discussed is marketing DTC service using Amazon's existing prime video subscribers, and watching exclusively on the Prime Video App and killing the Bally app. You'd pay extra over standard prime, but that's the same thing with MLS season pass on Apple TV. My part 1 was trying to gauge outside my bubble would you pay extra to watch all Georgia Tech Games? Or Maybe all ACC games? Or all ESPN network games? At what point would you consider not paying for cable or a streaming service and just signup directly to watch sports? Open ended question, what would be your pain tolerance for price, or how often you're charged? At what point would it temp you if you're considering cutting the cord if you haven't already?

Part 2: Traditional Cable
This is what I am really curious about... Do you pay for cable? Or a Streaming Service? If you pay for a streaming service is it for football season or all year? I'm probably in the minority when I get outside my friend group, but I literally do not watch cable tv unless it's sports, and we only pay for it during football season. A lot of my friends I use to go over and watch games with in my 20's don't pay for steaming tv unless it's football season either. I've got family older than me who still have traditional cable, with traditional remotes, and I want to clarify I'm not for killing the traditional model, but if you're still paying for cable every month what keeps you hooked? For all my family it's like 2 or 3 networks out of their entire cable package (My Grandma and her Hallmark Channel) that's not sports or local channels, but just curious. Also, another open ended question, where do you see the traditional TV model going?

For context, we're in our mid 30's, two children under 4. Our setup is we have Roku's on every TV in our home, a Tablo Quad connected to an Antenna in the attic. We have Disney Plus for the kids (considering canceling because they would rather watch YouTube), Apple TV plus (included in phone plan & never watch), Netflix (wife watches), and Amazon Prime (my oldest likes Pete the Cat). Last football season we paid $274 for Sling for 5 months (Don't Recommend even if it's the cheapest option, only 1 Disney/ESPN stream at a time was nightmare. Didn't read fine print), year before we used Hulu, although we canceled after March Madness.

First, thanks for the tip on the Tablo device - I was not aware they existed, and it's a potential solution for me for local channel access. I am a bit outside the range of a typical tiny OTA antenna and my HOA would have a hissy if I erected a tower in my front yard, so I am thinking about trying a large antenna in my attic (I happen to already have one). The Tablo would allow me to use it without drilling holes in my walls and running cable.

I still have "cable" linear TV service via DirecTV. I have contemplated ditching it for several years and going with something like Youtube TV which would emulate the same channel access and DVR capabilities, but I have been able to keep deep discounts with DirecTV going so the financial incentive is not that strong. Especially now that the streaming providers have raised prices in an attempt to be profitable. I'll probably pull the plug someday. I also have a Roku TV, subscribe to a streaming service, and have family members who share access to theirs, so I have a variety of the major ones.

If I had to, I'd probably pay $20/mon if I needed to have access to ESPN for their GT and other team coverage. Sports is the main reason I keep cable, and it makes less sense every year. But I'm an older citizen and have a lot of inertia when it comes to entertainment options.

 

[Bogey]

I agree. I don't think Bally does own the streaming rights to Braves games. The article states you can watch the televised games on Ball's regional networks on Prime. I hope that is correct. My problem being a YouTube TV subscriber is that Bally and YouTube could not agree on a contract for the regional networks.

 

[WreckinGT]

I share streaming services with a family member. They mooch off of my Disney and HBO. I mooch off of their Youtube TV. Frankly, I don't think I know anyone anymore with a traditional cable subscription that is under the age of 60.

 

[buzzn3]

Used to be able use a family member's login to stream cable for watching FB, unfortunately all the password crackdowns have made that increasingly difficult. Thought I'd just bite the bullet and get YoutubeTV, but I was absolutely shocked how expensive it was (for someone only looking to watch some fb games). Thought I found the best solution and added on a $10/month disney+/espn+ to my cellphone plan... had no clue espn+ wouldn't include all the basic espn channels (so I still couldn't watch football games)

So now I'll be spending the next 6 months evaluating options before next season.

 

[L41k18]

Hulu Live TV streaming is what we use year round. (which includes ESPN+ and Disney+). Cut the cable almost a decade ago.
I'm 67 btw.

 

[L41k18]

Amazon’s stake in the company means that games televised on Bally Sports channels will be available to local fans via Amazon Prime.[/B]

Do you have a link for this?
I know as of two weeks ago the line was that Braves games would not be available on Prime if Amazon invested in Bally.

 

[Bogey]

Do you have a link for this?
I know as of two weeks ago the line was that Braves games would not be available on Prime if Amazon invested in Bally.

Whose line are you referring to?

Amazon takes minority stake in Bally Sports networks, will stream games on Amazon Prime

The move is a significant one for fans who subscribe to a TV service that doesn't have a deal with Bally.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[Southern psu fan]

We do a lot outside the house but we’re also a bunch of TV junkies. I’m with XFINITY and we have pretty much everything including prime, Netflix and Hulu but we use my sons account's in them 3. With the promotion I get we pay around $260 a month and the quality of watching TV is great. The $260 includes security, cable and awesome internet. Football and NASCAR is easy to watch and enjoy. We have a blessed life and we have a lot of fun at ole southerns house baby

 

[Vespidae]

Longtime viewer, first time poster. After looking at the realignment and media deal threads I was curious... how do YOU watch College Football? More specifically, who actually still has traditional cable?

Was partially inspired to ask this question after I read this article from The Athletic. It's a summary of Amazons investment into Diamond Media Regional Sport Networks (Bally). It's a two part discussion I wanted to pull into it's own thread.

Part 1: Direct to Consumer
For those of you that don't know, if you don't pay for Comcast/AT&T/Fubo you can pay Bally $20/month to watch the Braves. I didn't pay this last year because T-Mobile had a thing with MLB, and I able to watch the games on the MLB Roku app. If I didn't have that random perk I would've paid the $20/month to watch my Braves. What does that have to do with Georgia Tech Football? Well, in the article I was shocked to find out last year only 220-300k people subscribed. That's not just the Braves, that's for every MLB/NBA/NHL team they broadcast. Turns out this direct to consumer model resulted in a $77 Million dollar loss. According to "a person briefed on Diamond's plan" they're projecting DTC subscribers will rise from 300k last year, to 1.7 million this year, to 2.7 million in 2025, and 3.6 million in 2026. Although I do think those yearly increases are inflated, I wonder what the Braves subscriptions alone were last year, and what they'll be next year. If that T-Mobile perk is gone I will be one of them. The other item discussed is marketing DTC service using Amazon's existing prime video subscribers, and watching exclusively on the Prime Video App and killing the Bally app. You'd pay extra over standard prime, but that's the same thing with MLS season pass on Apple TV. My part 1 was trying to gauge outside my bubble would you pay extra to watch all Georgia Tech Games? Or Maybe all ACC games? Or all ESPN network games? At what point would you consider not paying for cable or a streaming service and just signup directly to watch sports? Open ended question, what would be your pain tolerance for price, or how often you're charged? At what point would it temp you if you're considering cutting the cord if you haven't already?

Part 2: Traditional Cable
This is what I am really curious about... Do you pay for cable? Or a Streaming Service? If you pay for a streaming service is it for football season or all year? I'm probably in the minority when I get outside my friend group, but I literally do not watch cable tv unless it's sports, and we only pay for it during football season. A lot of my friends I use to go over and watch games with in my 20's don't pay for steaming tv unless it's football season either. I've got family older than me who still have traditional cable, with traditional remotes, and I want to clarify I'm not for killing the traditional model, but if you're still paying for cable every month what keeps you hooked? For all my family it's like 2 or 3 networks out of their entire cable package (My Grandma and her Hallmark Channel) that's not sports or local channels, but just curious. Also, another open ended question, where do you see the traditional TV model going?

For context, we're in our mid 30's, two children under 4. Our setup is we have Roku's on every TV in our home, a Tablo Quad connected to an Antenna in the attic. We have Disney Plus for the kids (considering canceling because they would rather watch YouTube), Apple TV plus (included in phone plan & never watch), Netflix (wife watches), and Amazon Prime (my oldest likes Pete the Cat). Last football season we paid $274 for Sling for 5 months (Don't Recommend even if it's the cheapest option, only 1 Disney/ESPN stream at a time was nightmare. Didn't read fine print), year before we used Hulu, although we canceled after March Madness.

Interesting question.

I use both. I have Spectrum Business which provides cable and an internet connection. My living room uses the cable connection, but I stream on all the other TV’s using Apple TV. Total bill for cable, WiFi, streaming etc is $155 a month.

Why not change? Reliability. You can’t beat cable for continuity of coverage. And there’s no delay.

I have polled students since 2017 asking the exact same question. No one uses cable. Zero responses. And it make since because they usually have free WiFi and only have to cover the incremental cost for the service.

 

[Enuratique]

If you want to be as economical as possible, YouTube TV allows up to 6 Google Accounts to access their basic tier at the same time, provided the viewers are in the same locale as the subscription owner. You could effectively split a $65 a month sub 6 ways. Each has their own interface, own preferred shows, own recordings etc. This is what I do albeit with 2 other dudes. We still cancel after March Madness.

And I can fast forward through commercials of a recorded game. And YTTV has PIP of games which is nice.

 

[awbuzz]

If I didn't get the "discount" I have to call in and ask, I'd drop DIRECTV and go with one of the streaming services. Wish that the channels SWMBO likes were all available either Huls/Youtube/etc. but, of course they aren't.

 

[RonJohn]

Turns out I was dead wrong about the Bally Sports Plus (Streaming App) having the Braves. They only own the streaming rights to 5 MLB teams... so looks like I'm going to have to get creative this season.

One of the reasons I asked this question was to try to figure out how do you get to these TV rights deal numbers in a post cable world? Cable isn't dead yet, I get it, and it's looking more and more from the poll that I am the crazy person here, but what does it look like in 4 or 10 years when some of these deals are renegotiated? I think Amazon is onto something... potentially. Let's say ESPN launches a new subscription app, where you can actually watch ALL their live channels unlike ESPN plus. They jack the price up to $14.99/month, or $99/year and copy Apple, or even let's say $29.99/Month or $300/Year. I'd seriously consider paying for it, if I could stream all of the games. which would include the random CW game they subbed out, but you get my point. Same would go for Fox/CBS/NBC. Is it a pain in the -_- to download the app, yes. Is it a pain in the a$> to switch games if you don't have multiple TV's in the living room during football season? Yes. But I'd personally pay $9.99 or whatever it cost to watch that one can't miss game on Peacock then immediately cancel. My next question is, how many fans have to sign up to make it more lucrative than the current deal? It's an open ended question, I don't have an answer, but just a thought. Is that the direction the sport is going? Maybe I'm 100% wrong, and people are coming back to cable, or streaming more than I am. I get carriage fees come regardless if someone watches sports or not. It's the delta for people like me willing to pay a higher price, for a shorter term commitment, to watch what I actually want to watch. I have no idea the validity of this number, and was shocked Bally couldn't get more than 300k subscribers with all the teams they cover, but how many Tech fans would sign up if it was an option? 50k? 100k? 200k? IDK the answer to that question, but I remember that being part of the Pac12 proposed deal from Apple. I personally think that's the destination we get to, I just don't know how long the trip is going to be. Let's say it's $200/year, and you could watch all Georgia Tech/ACC/SEC/ESPN content you wanted. They based revenue sharing to the schools on the amount of subscriptions and team selection when you sign up. If 50k fans did that it's $10 million gross (Before advertising and expenses). Not enough. 100k fans? $20 million. Open ended question is that more than we bring in now with ESPN? I don't know the answer to that question, but you can see my thought process. If it's 200k fans paying that that's more than base we bring in I believe. Again, turns out I'm the crazy person and cable is way more popular, but just thinking out loud 4-10 years if I'm still in the minority and what does that look like.

The biggest issue with streaming direct to consumer replacing cable has to do with bundling. At the moment, the majority of ESPN's revenue comes from cable (and YTTV/etc) subscriptions. I'm not sure what the numbers are at the moment, but the last estimates I saw it was still well over 70% of ESPN's revenue. ESPN forces cable (and YTTV/etc) to include ESPN in the lowest package. (other than local only gov regulated package) I have read estimates that only 30% of subscribers watch ESPN. That means that almost 50% (70% x 70%) of ESPN's revenue comes from people who do not ever watch their content. I have seen very old estimates that put the main channel ESPN at $8 to $9 per month per subscriber. If you have a higher package, then the cable company is already paying ESPN around $15 for the ESPN set of channels. For ESPN to get the same revenue from direct streaming, each sports watching subscriber would have to pay around $45 per month per subscriber with no sharing accounts. All of the subscribers would have to keep the subscription all year long, instead of adding/dropping for the seasons they are interested in. Any discounts for yearly subscriptions would directly deduct from matching their current revenue. If they want to provide a yearly discount, then they would have to set the price at $60 per month and provide a $500 per year "discounted" rate in order to not have a drop in revenue. (All of those prices are based on old estimates of ESPN's carriage fees and revenue. They are not exact numbers, just in the general ballpark)

If you want a streaming service that only includes GT content, then it could be less expensive. However, what is GT content? Would such a streaming service include last year's game at Ole Miss? Would it include this year's game in Athens? GT(ACC) doesn't own the content when playing at other venues, especially in other conferences. Would I have to subscribe to the mutt's streaming service to watch COFH in Athens? That is something I definitely don't want to do.

I am glad that you see that the streaming transition is still in process. There have been people predicting the immediate end of cable subscriptions and a full move to streaming for more than 10 years. There have been people saying for more than 10 years that ESPN doesn't care about cable subscriptions, only streaming and ad revenue for more than 10 years. Yet cable subscriptions still provide a large majority of ESPN's revenue. Subscriptions still matter greatly to ESPN, and especially subscribers who have no intention of watching sports ever. The numbers are hidden behind a "cable" rate, and most people don't know what they are paying for different content. The transition from traditional cable to things like YTTV is happening, but the only real difference in those is the method of transmission. The business model is still almost the same. The transition to paying to stream only what you want would take a lot longer. I have been saying 5-10 years for a long time, and it still looks to be that far out. However, I don't think we will ever get to streaming "only what you want to pay for" ever. The content is owned by large companies that have lots of content. You won't get to stream only Marvels movies for a low cost, you will have to pay for an expensive Disney package that includes Star Wars, Disney, etc.

 

[Bogey]

I have looked into this Amazon/Bally thing a little more. Here is what I now believe:
I now think the article I referenced got ahead of what has actually happened so far when it claimed all games televised on Bally's regional channels would be available on Amazon Prime, which would include Braves games. Bally does not own Braves streaming rights. AND the proposed Amazon/Bally arrangement being considered by Bally's bankruptcy court is NOT contingent on Bally being granted any new media rights. So as of now, Braves games would not be available to be shown on Amazon. This is not to say further rights will not be granted in the future because Bally has been thrown a life line to survive after the 2024 season ends, with $450 million coming from investors and the sale of 20 of Bally's to Amazon for $115 million, which puts them in a much stronger negotiating position with MLB and the Braves. Before the Amazon deal, bankrupt Bally had committed to broadcast its 2024 MLB games per their contract and pay the teams their full amounts due. After 2024, MLB would regain full control of their media rights now controlled by Bally. This Amazon deal was negotiated without input from MLB and was a complete surprise.
If all of this is indeed true and Amazon is not granted Braves streaming rights, I will become a Marlins fan and watch their games on Amazon since Bally does own Marlins' streaming rights. When the Braves moved to Cobb County, it made it difficult for me to attend games and I have only attended 4 games since, and 3 of those games I received free tickets. And the loss of Freeman to the Dodgers furthered my anger for Liberty's management of the Braves operation. So, it would be an easy transition for me to become a Marlins fan and enjoy watching major league baseball once again on a regular basis regardless how this plays out.

 

[CEB]

My HOA provides basic HD Xfinity with 3 TV cable boxes; I'm leasing a 4th cable box and paying extra for faster internet. In all honesty, I really prefer cable for watching college football games. I can hit the "c" button on the controller and see the scores of a handful of games and click on one if I want to tune in and watch. Flipping between games is super seamless; I will flip to another game during commercial timeouts watching Tech games and flip back when the Tech game should be past its commercials. I have it set up to record all Tech games and when watching a recorded game I can fast forward through commercials, something some of the streaming services don't allow (can't remember if it was Sling or Hulu). So I would be paying for cable even if it wasn't part of my HOA.

the channel surfing aspect does it for me too. I find the streaming to be a pain and even though I admit it’s not a big deal, I don’t like waiting for things to “load up” if I want to flip back and forth.
I will say that a neighbor has YouTube TV (not sure how that works in place of cable) and it has some very cool features with the sports multi view. Flipping between channels was quick too.
At any rate, we’re cable. My wife is harder to program than the remotes and electronics so I try to keep operating procedures consistent. Change causes much frustration.