Cutting the (Cable) Cord? [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

sterlingice

07-12-2013, 01:49 PM

I couldn't find a thread specific to it, but this one migrated over that way:
Netflix consumers continue to trend away from conventional TV...... - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=81677)

We're in the market for a house and this seemed like a good time to examine some of our spending and living habits. I've gotten tired of the constantly creeping contracts, the bi-annual fight with the cable company, and the bills that seem really high for what we're getting. We have a fairly basic package, internet, no phone, and a single DVR from AT&T and it's been the same story everywhere I've lived with Verizon and Comcast as well.

I'm going through this category by category and would apprciate help on any of these from people who have cut the cord.

Our setup will be fairly simple: 3 tvs but only the living room and possibly the bedroom need a DVR. It was nice to have Verizon's multi-room DVR where we could watch something on the DVR in either room but we could just adjust our behavior to record things in the room we watch the most. The tv in the game room would be nice to have cable for, but it's a lower priority as it's an older 27" tube tv thatis hooked up to about 10 video game systems and newer tvs don't have some of the connectors I need (plus, playing an NES on a 42" tv just kindof looks ugly). If we have a simple system, then I might add a cheap 4th tv in an office but it's strictly extra.

Satellite as an Alternative
I'm just going to assume that dealing with them is like dealing with a cable company: "Intro $30 for a billion stations and then it's up to $100 a month after a year or $60 if you just want 5 stations and a DVR rental is another $25 a month on top of it". Am I wrong here?
Installation and disconnect costs probably suck, too, right? And the house we rented in Indy, the previous owners had run satellite and they had to put down an entirely different set of cable since they couldn't tie into the cable in the house or something so the owner got to spend a couple of days pulling cabling out of the house.Networks
Can't use rabbit ears any more and at least one of the tvs doesn't have a digital tuner so I'll need to get one or more of the converter boxes. No big deal: it's a $40 one time expense. Any complications I'm not seeing there? Is the quality decent for anyone going this route?
We still watch a decent chunk of our shows off of network tv. If we end up with that setup, is there a good way to DVR things off of network?
I don't really want to hook up another computer to the box as I want something my wife can comfortably use. Is there some sort of appliance for DVR over the air like this?
Premium Streaming Television
There seem to be 3 big streaming providers: Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, and Netflix

The advice I've always heard is that to get a majority of the shows you watch, it's likely you'll need to pick 2 of the 3 to get near complete coverage. Does that sound accurate?
How often does a show "fall off" of Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, or Netflix? Sometimes, we'll get behind on our tv shows and the DVR is useful because, for instance, CBS will keep shows up on their website for 3 weeks and then it's gone. If you want it after that, you have to go pay for it, skip the episode, or watch it through more unsavory means.
How about hardware: Roku boxes seem pretty popular. This is a streaming appliance, right? Does it have DVR features? Do you need DVR features with a streaming appliance (previous question kindof covers that)?
Sports
Damn you, ESPN (Fox Sports, etc)! They're the big problem. And I don't think Ben would appreciate streaming pirate suggestions here so let's move past that. Going out to a bar to see a big game with some fans is fun. Having to go somewhere for every Big Monday game that ends at 11 against Baylor is not an option.

MLB and NFL are covered. I don't get to see the Royals as is, what with their big national presence, but I like to flip on a Cubs game or Sunday Night Baseball or whatnot. I already subscribe to MLB Audio so I'd probably just bump that up to MLB.tv. Or just live with the MLB.tv free game of the day, which is pretty cool. The only annoyance comes in that I won't be able to see Astros or Rangers games due to MLB's stupid blackout rules. Most NFL games are on broadcast networks except for the occasional NFL Network or MNF and the list I get most weeks are good enough for me.
NBA or NHL are more problematic. I don't watch enough to justify a yearly subscription if they have one but I do like flipping on a good NBA or NHL game. I will catch pretty much every Rockets game on ESPN/TNT. However, Comcast is fighting all the cable providers here so no one is getting Rockets or Astros games anyway right now (seriously: only about 20% of Houston gets Comcast Sports Houston right now so no one gets to see them). What is pricing like for NBA.tv? And, more importantly, what are the blackout rules? If I can't see the Rockets, I definitely don't care.
NCAA Sports are the other big stumbling point: Kansas football (hah!) and basketball. I can watch a good 75% of those games on ESPN3 in some fashion (or ESPN2/ESPN). ESPN has some odd rules about blackouts: like if something is on ESPN, you can't get it on ESPN3: I haven't quite deciphered those yet. But this is a huge consideration for me: can I get ESPN3, especially KU games, in any way without subscribing to ESPN on cable?SI

molson

07-12-2013, 02:03 PM

FWIW, I pay $75/month on DirecTV years after all the promotions ended, and I think that's the absolute minimum. It covers the essentials, and then I add on the $10 monthly sports pack during college football and basketball pre-conference game seasons (being able to watch every Syracuse game in Idaho is pretty awesome), and $10 for premium channels for a couple of months here and there if there's a series I'm watching and I want to load up the DVR with movies. No problems with installation or service. Apparently, if you're really aggressive, you can call up the retention line and get all kinds of deals, like free Sunday Ticket. There's message boards devoted to gaming that system but I haven't tried too hard yet.

I've thought about cutting the cable. A braver man would. I'm sure I could get more than my fill from Netflix. But I'd probably get MLB.TV, and Hulu plus, and maybe Amazon prime, and go to redbox more often, so I tell myself I would cannibalize some of my savings anyway.

PilotMan

07-12-2013, 02:25 PM

I currently spend about $68/mo for cable and internet @ 20.0. I would only have internet but the add on for cable was pretty much the same. Now of course, the whole family really enjoys that too. I also spend $25 for Netflix and another $8 for Hulu Plus, both of which get used too. I have been an MLB TV subscriber for about 5 years now too. That's another $129, but well worth it for me to watch the Dodgers, Reds when I'm out of town and any Braves game. I've more than made it pay for itself.

All in all we probably spend too much but that's more me than anyone else. With my travels I like to have the flexibility in the hotels when the cable there sucks. FWIW, I also spend $10 on Boingo to have internet in pretty much any airport that isn't already free. I don't have a smartphone so this is my alternative to Verzion's $30/mo/phone for me.

Honolulu_Blue

07-12-2013, 02:38 PM

I spend far too much on cable. Far too much.

If it wasn't for me, there is no way Lady H_B would have cable. She's suggested we get rid of it a few times or shut it down a few times, but I just don't think it would work for me. There are too many shows I enjoy watching and then, of course, there's the sports thing.

For sports, none of the offered packages would work for me because they blackout all local games. That would mean I would have to go to a bar to watch a Wings game, a Michigan game, a Lions game or what have you. That does not appeal to me at all.

sterlingice

07-12-2013, 02:44 PM

This is... disheartening. I hate that I get to fight the cable company about every 6 months to find a new deal that lowers my rate back to $90 from $120ish. And this is in different cities with fairly bare bones packages.

Is there a good DVR substitute? That would be $15-$20 off the top to save.

SI

panerd

07-12-2013, 03:12 PM

SI:

Not sure this will help but I find myself having the same debate in my head that you are having. Ultimately sports (Mizzou and STL here, KU and local NBA for you) end up throwing a wrench in it. I think your best bet is to just get on the phone every 6 months of so. I have done this with Directv and gotten pretty cheap Sunday Ticket and a monthly bill for whole home DVR around $60. The plan you are coming up with to circumvent the cable companies will run about this much anyways and you won't be able to watch a lot of things you didn't realized you watched. (for example I just got done watching Let's Make a Deal and now have the Family Feud on in the background) You feel dirty and low about it at first but those phone operators don't care and will gladly give you the discounts if you just play the game.

sterlingice

07-12-2013, 03:28 PM

So for panerd and molson: I'm assuming this is 60/75 per month and then another $30+ internet bill, right?

SI

ISiddiqui

07-12-2013, 03:30 PM

I have recently done this. Ended cable and went to internet only from Comcast... halved my bill.

Though I never would have done it if the latest Tivo Premiere (the regular, not the 4 or XL4) didn't have an OTA input (I love me some DVR). And I got a Clearstream 2 antenna, which is currently on my apartment's porch.

In addition to that I already had a Roku. I know some people who just use a Roku and don't worry about antennas at all, but I like some live stuff.

ISiddiqui

07-12-2013, 03:36 PM

We still watch a decent chunk of our shows off of network tv. If we end up with that setup, is there a good way to DVR things off of network?

Tivo Premiere (though with bunny ears or something similar):

https://www3.tivo.com/store/premiere.do?WT.ac=atc_homepage_premiere_shop

(I got a lifetime service - there was a deal that made it $400, but $14 a month ain't bad)

How often does a show "fall off" of Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, or Netflix? Sometimes, we'll get behind on our tv shows and the DVR is useful because, for instance, CBS will keep shows up on their website for 3 weeks and then it's gone. If you want it after that, you have to go pay for it, skip the episode, or watch it through more unsavory means.

Hulu Plus usually as the last 5 episodes of a current network TV. Netflix has episodes usually after they come out on DVD. Amazon Prime has all the eps, but you have to pay $1.99 or $2.99 for HD for eps this season.

How about hardware: Roku boxes seem pretty popular. This is a streaming appliance, right? Does it have DVR features? Do you need DVR features with a streaming appliance (previous question kindof covers that)?[/LIST]

Just streaming, no DVR. Technically the Tivo Premiere has Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon apps, but its ridiculously slow on them (for some reason), so I use my Roku.

MacroGuru

07-12-2013, 03:45 PM

My GF has zero cable and uses an HD Antenna. She uses her aircard for the web. I bring my own and use it for Netflix on her Wii and my tablet.

She gets by, but during college football season I am at when my team plays. Bills we typically get on local tv so that is fine..

LastWhiteSoxFanStanding

07-12-2013, 04:02 PM

Playon.tv is cheap software that pushes video from the computer to any video game console or set box connected to a tv. And works fairly well.

Izulde

07-12-2013, 04:03 PM

Netflix (streaming only) and Hulu+ for me. When I got my own apartment last summer/fall, I thought about finally getting cable. I took one look at the prices and said hell no.

The only things I miss are:

1. Being able to stay up to date on my favorite shows (I haven't advanced beyond S7 on HIMYM and S4 on new favorite Parks and Recreation for example).

2. Sports - although I live close enough to UNLV to walk to basketball games, and UNLV football and Sam Boyd Stadium both suck enough that if I want to put myself through the torture of it, I usually just go to a local bar. On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I got to watch a Dolphins game, and I'd love to start watching the NBA again.

3. HBO shows - Which tend to be some of my favorites, but I usually just put them on my Christmas/birthday list, or buy season by season DVDs myself.

molson

07-12-2013, 04:10 PM

So for panerd and molson: I'm assuming this is 60/75 per month and then another $30+ internet bill, right?

Yup (except a little more than $30+ for internet). So I guess I pay about $140 for DirecTV (with DVR and HD)/Netflix/Internet. I guess I can sleep at night with that, but I will cancel DirecTV eventually.

panerd

07-12-2013, 04:32 PM

So for panerd and molson: I'm assuming this is 60/75 per month and then another $30+ internet bill, right?

SI

Yes not much choice for me outside of cable internet and it's $35 (negotiated from $50 :) ). Tried DSL a while ago and it was terrible maybe it has improved in the last several years.

bob

07-12-2013, 04:44 PM

Once Aereo comes to your area, look into it. Records / streams ota content to you. I know an hd antenna works, but we are far out enough that we'd need a roof mounted big one.

sterlingice

07-15-2013, 06:17 AM

bump: fishing for thoughts from others

So far it doesn't sound like a lot of alternatives exist to even get close to replicating the "cable/satellite" package but I can't think that it's quite true

SI

BBT

07-15-2013, 08:07 AM

Longtime lurker, infrequent poster; I'm from Houston, love all Houston sports, but currently live in San Antonio with my wife and three kids. Here's my setup after cutting the cord in May (very pro-Apple).

Hardware:
Internet: Time Warner Turbo Package ($80/mth)
Antenna: RCA- Outdoor HDTV Antenna ($80 - Best Buy)
TVs: 2 Standard HDTVs, 4 smaller TVs 10 years old or less
Media Player: Playstation 3, Samsung Blu-Ray with Internet Access, 2 Apple TVs ($99)

Notes: We used to subscribe with Time Warner and had a 2 year locked in contract for $129 a month for cable/internet/DVR. That was about to expire and the bill was going to raise to $200. We asked for a discount and that would have been around $160 which was still too much for so little and I made the choice to cut the cord. Time Warner jacked up the internet portion since I had no bundling and I'd love to go with someone else, but my only other option is AT&T DSL right now and I just can't do that with as much as we stream. I could step down a level for Time Warner, but the Turbo Package serves me well and I've had no issues.

I did some online research and went with the RCA Antenna for over the air channels. I want to mount it in the attic and split it off to all my TVs via the cable hook ups in the house, but we're in limbo with a potential move so I've got it sitting behind my Living room TV currently. I pull about 20-25 over the air channels (including NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX/PBS) and they are HD quality. In fact, my NBC channel is probably clearer than when I had Time Warner. I do have to adjust it from time to time, but considering that its just leaning against my wall behind my TV, I can't complain too much.

Was deciding between PS3, RokuTV, and AppleTV for additional streaming. PS3 is very limited and Roku had 250+channels. All of them offer Netflix and Hulu Plus, however, I was sold on the AppleTVs ability to allow streaming from your Iphone/IPad devices. This opened a ton of options for us as we have Iphones and IPads and can basically stream any app to our TVs. This basically allowed us to not need a DVR as we can stream the NBC/CBS/ABC/cable channels apps as well as most sports services apps. For example, I signed up for MLS.TV on my Iphone and can stream the Dynamo games to the TV. It's not HD quality, but it works. Lastly, all our ITunes purchases are available to us instantly and I can access my computer's file share to stream video content from my computer.

Software:
-Netflix: ($8/mth)
-Hulu Plus: ($8/mth) - must for Fox shows
-Crackle: Free
-NBC/CBS/ABC/PBS/other cable channels apps: Free

Sports: Hardest part, but doable
MLB: Astros fan in San Antonio so I don't get live games anyway. Purchased the Radio package for the MLB app ($20/yr) and I sometimes stream the radio broadcast and the Gameday updates through the TV.
MLS: Purchased MLS Live package ($60/yr) and stream the games. I don't get games on NBC Sports, but I get about 80% of the games.
NBA: I'll get league pass once the season starts to watch the Rockets and other games. I don't get ESPN games. TNT games, however, are available on their website via their multi-camera option. You don't get graphics so you have to pay attention for the score and it can get a little disorienting as you don't have the normal half court camera, but it worked for the Eastern Conference Finals. Playoff games on ESPN are my big worry.
NFL: All games are free on over the air channels except for Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football (I have the NFL app though). I purchased the Radio package for the NFL app for $20 last year since I was deployed to Qatar.
College: Definitely the hardest thing. No more College Gameday on ESPN, no more flipping between multiple games except for what's on CBS/NBC/ABC. However, I'm a University of Houston fan so I'll either go to the games, or I downloaded the UH app where for $20/yr I can stream video/audio of all sporting events. If that doesn't work, I can go on the UH website and order their Premium package for around $80/yr and stream audio/video that way. The app worked for baseball which normally is never on TV so I'm hopeful.

What I lost:
-HBO: No option of getting it and they don't offer shows on Netflix or Hulu. Basically, if we want to watch HBO, we're buying DVDs or purchasing shows through ITunes.
-ESPN: Time Warner doesn't let me stream ESPN3 because they suck so I have no ESPN. I only cared about the sporting events, but that's a large inventory I lost.
-DVR: We never watched any shows live (except for sports) so this was a big change. However, the AppleTV and streaming made this easy for us so we don't miss it.

Honestly, we love it and financially, we're much better off. Doing the math, even with the sports packages, we pay less than what we used to with the 2 year locked in contract. We're hoping both HBO and ESPN relent and start offering their channels on a pay per month basis to Internet only customers, but otherwise, we haven't regretted the change yet and the kids love being able to pick what they want to watch instead of watching whatever is on at the time.

sterlingice

07-16-2013, 12:07 PM

BBT- thank you very much for the post: hardware, thought process, everything. That's similar to what I'm looking at and a very instructive post.

I didn't think to look if Kansas had a streaming ap. Apparently they do... for $100 a year (eek)- no idea about blackouts :p

SI

Butter

07-16-2013, 01:33 PM

Sports are definitely the hardest thing to replicate, and the main reason I haven't whacked cable altogether. I really only spend maybe a half-hour per night on average watching non-sports TV at this point.

Basically, you have to decide if that extra $100/month savings outweights the hassle of having to track down "alternate" methods of keeping up your main sports-watching habits. For me, it does not. I like being able to have just about any sporting event at my fingertips without pirating.

sterlingice

09-04-2013, 10:08 AM

Once Aereo comes to your area, look into it. Records / streams ota content to you. I know an hd antenna works, but we are far out enough that we'd need a roof mounted big one.

So, some news:
Controversial Aereo to bring Houston over-the-air TV to the Net in September - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/business/article/Controversial-Aereo-to-bring-Houston-over-the-air-4716285.php)
I'd love to get more thoughts on Aereo. What are the limitations? It looks like the channels are fairly limited- it looks like a DVR substitute for OTA stations.

SI

sterlingice

09-04-2013, 10:08 AM

And then there's this:
ESPN considering Internet-based TV service | Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/espn-may-pull-its-finger-out-of-the-internet-tv-dam-incite-a-flood-of-change)
If this happens, then it's a complete no brainer rather than an on-the-fence decision

JIMGA, others- know anything about this?

SI

Logan

09-04-2013, 10:27 AM

CraigSca

09-04-2013, 10:54 AM

Yeah, kind of a bummer.

gstelmack

09-04-2013, 10:56 AM

As the article suggests at the end, in the best case scenario, we likely end up reducing our cable bill but the cost of providing all the bandwidth needed to offer these internet-only plans will skyrocket and we'll pay for it that way.

Except that internet use is already a huge profit center for the cable companies, this is just an excuse for them to make it even MORE profitable. I still love that they are pushing bandwidth caps while advertising that you can do all the stuff that they claim makes them need bandwidth caps...

Logan

09-04-2013, 12:27 PM

Except that internet use is already a huge profit center for the cable companies, this is just an excuse for them to make it even MORE profitable. I still love that they are pushing bandwidth caps while advertising that you can do all the stuff that they claim makes them need bandwidth caps...

Oh yeah, I'm just saying that they will make up the revenues they're losing elsewhere very easily. Not sure if it was in this thread or one of the others, but at the end of the day, I think the only thing the consumers will end up "saving" with all this is the frustration of navigating the 10 channels they actually watch among the 500 channels listed.

bob

09-07-2013, 06:21 PM

So, some news:
Controversial Aereo to bring Houston over-the-air TV to the Net in September - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/business/article/Controversial-Aereo-to-bring-Houston-over-the-air-4716285.php)
I'd love to get more thoughts on Aereo. What are the limitations? It looks like the channels are fairly limited- it looks like a DVR substitute for OTA stations.

SI

Sorry for the late reply on this. First of all, any streaming service is going to be dependent on 1) the device you stream on and 2) the quality of your internet. We use Aereo on both my PC and a Roku generation 1. Our internet quality is good enough to watching streaming Netflix at the highest quality without buffering issues. That being said, here are my thoughts on Aereo.

- You have access to any local HD over the air signals. NBC, Fox, CBS, ABC, some PBS, and then (mostly) a bunch of junk. In Atlanta we have Peachtree TV, so Seinfeld reruns and such, but in reality this is for the big four networks above.

- You can't just channel surf and watch a channel. Its like picking a show on Netflix. You use the menu on whatever device you have to pick a show from the networks available, hit go, and when it thinks its over, you return to the menu. So if a game goes late, you have to go back and pick the next show in the schedule to keep watching. They claim that will be fixed somewhere down the line.

- We seem to have more picture quality and buffering issues on the Roku at medium quality than on the PC at high quality. So like I said, some performance is device specific, but we have no issues at highest quality with Netflix on the Roku. Live show streaming seems to result in more buffering errors than recorded shows (you get either 20 hours or 60 hours of cloud DVR service depending on your subscription level).

- Picture quality isn't always great.

- You can only use your subscription if your IP address indicates you are local to your area. If I go on a business trip, i can't stream the local Atlanta stuff.

In short, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone that is going to get irritated by picture quality or buffering issues or that can pick up local signals over antenna. For us, its fine as 1) we live outside the range of the transmitters, 2) we only watch 4 or 5 shows on network TV, 3) we don't watch too much TV to begin with, 4) my wife really wanted some access to the local news for weather reports and other stuff, and 5) we watch most of our shows using the DVR. Being able to watch network sports was just a bonus.

If you have any specific questions, let me know.

bob

09-07-2013, 06:35 PM

A few more notes:

- Setting up your DVR picks on the PC web interface works pretty well and I've never had an issue with something not recording.

- I haven't streamed on the iPhone yet, but I know they don't have their own app. You still log into the web site to do it.

- Finally, you can have up to 5 authorized devices, but every time i log in I have to re-authorize my PC. Roku seems to keep its authorization fine.

QuikSand

09-08-2013, 08:59 AM

Thanks for the tips. Im escaping from FiOS contract soon, exploring options...not sure this is idiot-proof enough yet, but closing in.

sterlingice

09-22-2013, 01:17 PM

Ok- I think I'm mostly decided. I'll take AT&T's promotional rate for one year and explore other options during that time. Rather than hook up all 3 TVs to Uverse, just go with two tvs and take the $10 per month for that tv as "found money" to experiment with (yes, I will exceed the $120 savings but at least I can use it as some justification).

I just keep going back to the recurring costs as being killer. Honestly, if it were just $75 a month or whatever, that wouldn't be so bad. But it always jumps to over $100-$120 and then there's the stupid $20 per month for their PROPRIETARY DVR and $10 for their PROPRIETARY modem, and $10 per month for each additional tv on their PROPRIETARY receiver. So suddenly a $75 bill is $150-$200. And even calling them up and doing the "threatening to leave" thing costs you time and money for less than $50 a month return.

Experiment 1: Antenna
Let's give the over the air thing a try and see how it goes. The cost is fairly minimal ($40 one time investment) and Houston is a great place to try this out with quite a few OTA stations and flat ground makes it easy for signals to carry.
Amazon.com: Terk HDTVa Indoor Amplified High-Definition Antenna for Off-Air HDTV Reception: Electronics (http://www.amazon.com/Amplified-High-Definition-Antenna-Off-Air-Reception/dp/B0007MXZB2/)
I only looked for about a half hour but this seemed to be a pretty well reviewed indoor antenna. If anyone with a better one in a similar price range, I'm open to it. I am looking to keep it to indoors instead of outdoors, tho.

Experiment 2: DVR
I would love to use Tivo but it's just as bad as a cable company: $12 a month or the one time $500 a year cost. I guess if I'm certain they will still be around and compatible in 5 years without adding on some additional bullsh*t fee (hey! it's free and unlimited... except for some new technology that carries an additional fee or whatnot) and there's no paradigm shift in the industry... so, yeah.

That brings us to this guy:
Amazon.com: Magnavox MDR533H/F7 HDD/DVD Recorder: Electronics (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009WROL6G/)
So, Magnavox makes a DVR to record things to hard drive and can burn to DVD. However, they make it just luddite enough to sidestep some possible legal problems. One: no HD- that's fine for me. Two: it doesn't have a tuner so you need to manually set the station and time- but if it's recurring weekly, that's fine with me. Those seem to be the major downsides but otherwise, works great as a DVR. You can pretty much run anything into the box as it has a lot of inputs (but no HDMI- see above), you can burn anything you want to DVD, and you can easily install a larger HDD if 320GB isn't enough.
And there's a pretty active user community at AVS Forum to help with any questions: http://www.avsforum.com/t/940657/magnavox-537-535-533-515-513-2160a-2160-2080-philips-3576-3575

The other option would be a PC-based DVR but the cost will be substantially higher as I don't have a desktop sitting around that I could retrofit as I've been using laptops for a few years now (and my last desktop was a server-desktop frankenbox with loud fans and heat sinks due to the size so it's just not conducive to quiet theater watching).

SI

gstelmack

11-26-2013, 12:14 PM

BillJasper

11-26-2013, 12:41 PM

Cable TV is honestly getting ridiculous.

I think the content providers best course of action is to begin paring down the number of channels they carry and lowering costs to the consumer. I don't need a dozen different sports channels who are mainly filled with talking heads and I don't need multiple channels that all play the same reruns of Cops and That 70's Show. In a time-shifting world, if I want to watch something I'll record it, I don't need multiple channels that play the same things over and over and over.

Cable companies and broadcasters also need to negotiate content exclusive deals so the shows that people do want to watch aren't available on the same day via streaming and stretch out the time before they're available on home video.

I think cable companies can turn it around but they're going to have to be inventive in how they do it.

JonInMiddleGA

11-26-2013, 01:04 PM

Lots of different threads, this seems the best. Looks like we've finally hit the tipping point and the number of folks subscribing to pay TV AND the number of folks watching TV in general has started to decline as a total, even as the population / households keep going up. It used to be that the increase in subscribers wasn't keeping up with population growth, but now the subscriber / watcher base is starting to truly decline.

Cord Cutters And The Death Of TV - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11)

Here's a note worth, well, noting.

The definition of "TV Household" also changed for 2014 (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/nielsen-estimates-115-6-million-tv-homes-in-the-u-s---up-1-2-.html). In short, it basically added TV-via-broadband-only homes (i.e. AT&T uVerse & the like) which did not previously count. That's the increase you see in Q1 2013 on the table of TV Households. Meanwhile the decrease from the previous couple of years was influenced by the Census revising population estimates downward (vs the estimates available at the time the HH Universe was set the previous year).

Quite a few "carefully selected" charts in this "article" to be honest. My favorite was the one that showed the declining share of the "broadcast networks" ... by carefully omitting FOX and only showing the old Big 3. Duh.

While the picture is definitely far from rosy for television in general, when reading this particular piece it's probably wise to keep in mind what agenda the source has: BusinessInsider is increasingly believed (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2013/11/24/henry-blodget-and-business-insider/3674141/) to be on the block as the owner -- permanently banned from securities trading as part of a fraud settlement -- looks to cash in. The spin on this piece is as much about maximizing the value of his asset as it is about an accurate look at the media marketplace.

JonInMiddleGA

11-26-2013, 01:14 PM

I don't need multiple channels that all play the same reruns of Cops and That 70's Show.

You do realize how good the ratings are for those endless re-runs, right?
The better ones (L&O, CSI, etc) regularly outdraw original programming ... in some cases even horrible timeslots like 11am outdraw prime on other networks.

As for timeshifting, the most common source (http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Thanks-DVR-Streaming-Services-Binge-TV-Viewers-Abound/1009823) of viewing timeshifted programming is ... yep, cable/satellite providers on-demand services. And Tivo/similar devices (often via Dish Network etc) are a solid 3rd just behind Hulu/Netflix.

BillJasper

11-26-2013, 01:24 PM

You do realize how good the ratings are for those endless re-runs, right?
The better ones (L&O, CSI, etc) regularly outdraw original programming ... in some cases even horrible timeslots like 11am outdraw prime on other networks.

But aren't the Law & Order series all on TNT? Which means there's a single cable channel to watch them on (its also syndicated here but on a station hardly anyone watches)? Would those ratings be as high if the shows were also played everyday on multiple other channels as well?

JonInMiddleGA

11-26-2013, 01:44 PM

But aren't the Law & Order series all on TNT? Which means there's a single cable channel to watch them on (its also syndicated here but on a station hardly anyone watches)? Would those ratings be as high if the shows were also played everyday on multiple other channels as well?

Okay, maybe I took too many liberties when I interpreted what you meant. Let me try again with your original examples.

That 70's Show appears to be airing on 2 cable networks: ABC Family (overnights 3a-5a) & TVLand (early morning 8a-10a)

Cops appears to be essentially cable exclusive to Spike (airing frequently) with a few airings on sister network G4 ... which only exist because G4 is currently in limbo (supposed to die & be replaced by Esquire TV, an 11th hour change that killed Style Network instead left G4 basically running on auto-pilot until they decide what to do with it).

Of those networks (in prime) ... ABC Family is #14 overall on cable, TVLand is 24th, Spike is 25th. Total day ratings have ABC Fam at #17, TVLand at #20, Spike usually falls somewhere in the 30s IIRC. Point being, even if networks were dropped/ceased to exist en masse, none of these are on the list that would be cut.

Further, once again I'll point out that reducing channels <> reducing costs. If some of the bottom feeders were unbundled, the price for the major players simply goes up to make up the difference.

BillJasper

11-26-2013, 02:27 PM

That 70's Show appears to be airing on 2 cable networks: ABC Family (overnights 3a-5a) & TVLand (early morning 8a-10a)

It's also been airing on MTV lately.

Cops appears to be essentially cable exclusive to Spike (airing frequently) with a few airings on sister network G4 ... which only exist because G4 is currently in limbo (supposed to die & be replaced by Esquire TV, an 11th hour change that killed Style Network instead left G4 basically running on auto-pilot until they decide what to do with it).

Cops Reloaded (remixes of original episodes) airs on CMTV. In three or four-hour blocks.

Further, once again I'll point out that reducing channels <> reducing costs. If some of the bottom feeders were unbundled, the price for the major players simply goes up to make up the difference.

Then the cable/satellite companies simply have to play hardball with those content providers that are charging unreasonable rates.

My point is, things seem a less special in the 500-hundred channel universe especially when there are so many other ways to waste time now that didn't exist twenty years ago.

I think content providers are creating their own demise by having to have multiple channels without the programming to support it.

JonInMiddleGA

11-26-2013, 02:42 PM

It's also been airing on MTV lately.

Ah, couldn't have told you that (and it didn't show up in my scheduling searches, guess the run has ended). Totally different audiences though, not much crossover between MTV & the other two (which are actually fairly distinct audiences from each other as well). That really explains the multiple airings pretty much.

Cops Reloaded (remixes of original episodes) airs on CMTV. In three or four-hour blocks. [/i]

Again, a search failure on my part, I'll have to own up to that. Similar situation to the other though, completely different demographics (young males vs older rural adults).

Then the cable/satellite companies simply have to play hardball with those content providers that are charging unreasonable rates.

What's "reasonable" though? It's whatever the market will bear basically, and the market is still bearing it pretty well. Take Time-Warner Cable's last quarterly report for example Time Warner Cable has been cutting promotions and discounts as part of a plan to emphasize profit over subscriber growth. The company added just 8,000 residential high-speed Internet subscribers, its lowest quarterly total in at least six years .... Time Warner Cable lost more video customers than projected last quarter, with 191,000 subscribers leaving the company. Analysts had projected a drop of 164,000. Sales rose 2.7 percent to $5.55 billion

BillJasper

11-26-2013, 02:54 PM

What's "reasonable" though? It's whatever the market will bear basically, and the market is still bearing it pretty well. Take Time-Warner Cable's last quarterly report for example

But how long can Time-Warner retain such a strategy before they start bleeding customers in a major way that damages the company?

I get what you're saying about crossover demographics. But how long will even that be the norm? I guess maybe I'm an exception, but most of the time I don't even look at the channel on the guide just for the shows I want to watch. Which is why I'm aware of Cops being on CMTV (if it wasn't for the logo in the corner I'd likely never be able to tell you what station I was watching outside of the sports networks). :lol:

JonInMiddleGA

11-26-2013, 03:04 PM

I guess maybe I'm an exception, but most of the time I don't even look at the channel on the guide just for the shows I want to watch. Which is why I'm aware of Cops being on CMTV (if it wasn't for the logo in the corner I'd likely never be able to tell you what station I was watching outside of the sports networks). :lol:

Standard behavior is that most people (especially younger ones) rarely venture outside one or two little channel groupings. My wife can't tell you where Spike is on the dial, I can't tell you where Oprah Network is ... and neither of us end up surfing near those very often (hell, I rarely surf at all)

sterlingice

11-26-2013, 03:05 PM

But how long can Time-Warner retain such a strategy before they start bleeding customers in a major way that damages the company?

I get what you're saying about crossover demographics. But how long will even that be the norm? I guess maybe I'm an exception, but most of the time I don't even look at the channel on the guide just for the shows I want to watch. Which is why I'm aware of Cops being on CMTV (if it wasn't for the logo in the corner I'd likely never be able to tell you what station I was watching outside of the sports networks). :lol:

A pretty damn long time if you're the only player in town. Considering that even the most really large cities only have one cable provider and one "phone" provider in any given location, it's pretty easy to protect your monopoly.

SI

gstelmack

11-26-2013, 03:35 PM

sterlingice

12-05-2013, 06:01 AM

With a wifi enabled Blu Ray player like the following:
Amazon.com: Sony BDP-S5100 3D Blu-ray Disc Player with Wi-Fi: Electronics (www.amazon.com/Sony-BDP-S5100-Blu-ray-Player-Wi-Fi/dp/B00AWKC0JM/)

Can you stream free content from places like Hulu or YouTube or only if you have a subscription to Netflix, Hulu Plus, or Amazon Prime? How about sites like CBS or Fox which don't typically use one of those third party outlets for their content?

SI

gstelmack

12-05-2013, 06:56 AM

It depends on the player, you need to check what services it will stream. Some will do Hulu/Youtube, some will only do Hulu Plus. An alternative is to use PlayOn, which runs on your computer and streams whatever to anything that is DLNA compatible, which I believe the Sony players are. It has a very robust list of places it will stream from.

Be aware that streaming via Sony (unless using DLNA on your local network through something like PlayOn) has an extra hop in it, Sony makes you go through their service as an intermediary, which was somewhat unreliable for me. It would outright fail to stream regularly. I use my Xbox (360/ONE) or a Roku for streaming these days.

Blackadar

12-05-2013, 07:07 AM

Two anecdotes from me, an avowed cord-cutter:

1) My wife and I stayed in Charlotte for the Monday night game last week, and got to peruse the DirecTV channel guide. A good reminder of why we cut the cord - not a darn thing on we wanted to watch.

2) My kids would rather play video games than watch TV. We have the occasional family movie night to watch a Blu-ray, and they like the occasional Phineas and Ferb from Netflix, but rarely do they ASK for the TV. They greatly prefer the interactive stuff.

#2 is what cable companies and content providers really need to watch out for.

We cut the cord months ago. Netflix only.

I'm on the road a lot and stay in hotel rooms about 4 nights a week. While I enjoy HBO and HDNET, I watch nothing else. None of the other 40 or so channels offer up any decent entertainment. It's only reinforced that we made the correct decision when we decided to stop paying huge amounts of money for lousy TV shows.

ISiddiqui

12-31-2013, 01:26 PM

It is around this time of year when cutting the cable cord sucks. Seriously, only 2 (TWO!!) bowl games from today onward are on network TV (well there is one right now but I'm at work)?!!

Not even the BCS Championship Game? Ugh.

gstelmack

12-31-2013, 02:53 PM

Most of the early ones weren't on, either. I just view it as their issue, I'm one less ad view, so they get lower rates. Also keep remembering what you get to use all that extra cash per month on...

ISiddiqui

12-31-2013, 02:57 PM

Yeah, but the early ones are unimportant ;).

The BCS games and New Years Day Bowls are what its all about (esp the NYDay Bowls). Ah well.

DanGarion

12-31-2013, 04:37 PM

Who watches bowl games?

Butter

01-02-2014, 07:00 AM

I think we're going to half-cut the cord. Right now I have whole house DVR with 4 TVs hooked up with the deluxe channel package from UVerse. I think we're going to scale back to a single TV with DVR (so I can keep ESPN3) and a much smaller channel package. Still save $50-100, but still get to keep most of the sports I want to watch.

cubboyroy1826

01-02-2014, 08:43 AM

Looking in to switching from DirectTv back to cable but there really is not much if any cost savings when I factor in the fact that I have one DVR now and I can watch the recorded shows in two other rooms. From my intial look Comcast does not offer something like this so I would have to record in multiple rooms thus defeating the purpose of being able to watch recorded shows in different rooms. No Uverse option here so that is out as well. We do watch a few regular channel shows as well things on AMC, A&E and BBC. I just hate to keep shelling out $200 per month for TV.

sterlingice

01-02-2014, 09:17 AM

YMMV, of course, but we have UVerse for this year at least. We only have one DVR in the living room and I can watch stuff recorded there in the living room or the bedroom tv.

SI

Samdari

01-02-2014, 09:18 AM

NCAA Sports are the other big stumbling point: Kansas football (hah!) and basketball. I can watch a good 75% of those games on ESPN3 in some fashion (or ESPN2/ESPN). ESPN has some odd rules about blackouts: like if something is on ESPN, you can't get it on ESPN3: I haven't quite deciphered those yet. But this is a huge consideration for me: can I get ESPN3, especially KU games, in any way without subscribing to ESPN on cable?

Here is the problem with depending on ESPN3 - it requires a subscription to ESPN. If you try to access it from somewhere new, it will ask you your provider/user information. Cutting the cord pretty much cuts off from (legal) ESPN3 content as well.

QuikSand

05-27-2014, 07:45 PM

flere-imsaho

05-28-2014, 08:56 AM

Just did the same thing here with Time Warner, who basically refused to do me an internet-only package (it would have cost almost as much as the TV/phone/internet package I did have), so I went with a DSL ISP (literally the only other ISP for my location, ugh...).

So far, so good. Streaming with a Roku has been great, and I might get an actual HDTV antenna to pick up local broadcasts.

INDalltheway

05-28-2014, 03:15 PM

Just cut the chord yesterday.. We'll see how this goes, but in theory we should be just fine. It was actually cheaper per month to get Internet and Phone rather than just Internet. So I guess I will have a home phone that I wont know the number of.

Blackadar

05-28-2014, 03:37 PM

We're preparing to dump FiOS this week, and go net only. Annoying that Verizon is basically all-in with their multi-part packages (presumably to discourage this) and don't want to offer a reasonably priced net-only option...so it looks like Comcast (ugh).

I'm faced with the same great choices at my new home in FL. Verizon slow-as-shit internet or Comcastic. That's a shit sandwich of choices.

Honolulu_Blue

05-28-2014, 03:41 PM

I'm faced with the same great choices at my new home in FL. Verizon slow-as-shit internet or Comcastic. That's a shit sandwich of choices.

What's actually considered a good choice for TV and/or internet then?

Most people who have Time Warner hate it.

Is Charter cable all that great? Is AT&T's Uverse the bomb?

Is there some cable/cable type company that even, say, 50% of the people who have experience like?

ISiddiqui

05-28-2014, 03:46 PM

Easy Mac

05-28-2014, 03:49 PM

Charter everything is pretty crappy. I had their TV for 2-3 years before switching because they kept upping the prices and not offering discounts. Even though I have them only for internet now (no other providers, not even DSL), I still get about 2-3 flyers a week asking me to rejoin.

Honolulu_Blue

05-28-2014, 03:51 PM

Well, to be fair, most people that I know have had nothing but good things to say about the performance of Comcast internet. Its just their customer service that's sucky and TV performance apparently.

I've had Comcast for over 8 years now. Over that time I've had a few minor issues here and there, but the customer service has almost always been pretty helpful and both times I've had people out to install something, they've been great.

I have had to go to the Comcast "place" twice. That was an exercise in misery - like going to the DMV - but twice out of two years isn't so bad I knew what the expect going in.

Maybe I've just been lucky so far.

There's a chance that - if the Comcast/Time Warner deal goes through - Comcast will pretty much exit Michigan more or less and give everything to Charter, I believe. Not looking forward to that.

ISiddiqui

05-28-2014, 03:57 PM

I haven't had to deal with Comcast customer service too much, but sometimes I'd have billing issues. Such as them charging me for renting a modem when I had bought mine from the beginning. Which was 'taken care of', but it really wasn't.

Internet performance has been mostly rock solid, though.

AnalBumCover

05-28-2014, 08:32 PM

I'm cutting the cord tonight. Actually on hold with TWC service as I type.

stevew

05-28-2014, 08:45 PM

Cable works a lot better if you buy a TiVo and throw their POS DVR in the trash. Bundling wise I might just go back to cable this fall when my 2 years on DTv is up. It gets so much more expensive over time. Cable wants to make too good of a deal to turn down.

stevew

05-28-2014, 08:50 PM

I do need to see if antenna has gotten better in my area. I was in the "sha right" range for Pittsburgh locals previously. Youngstown locals have gotta be the worst in the nation. Murder per capita and corruption and the Browns.

sterlingice

05-28-2014, 09:09 PM

I loved the Verizon FIOS in Richmond. It was really fast.

SI

gstelmack

05-29-2014, 07:23 AM

Time Warner Road Runner is pretty good, the techs are decent (typically better than the TV techs).

I definitely have internet-only with them, and would be more expensive to add phone or TV to my package (something like +$30 for phone -$10 for both or something). I have the 30 down / 5 up package, and pay $78/month for it (as opposed to $150+ when I had TV and phone as well). I pay $10/month for Verizon's home phone cell station, $8/month Netflix, $79/year Amazon Prime, and have a TV antenna over the garage for local TV.

My son is very disappointed that most of the NBA playoffs have been on ESPN so he hasn't been able to watch Lebron James very much...

flere-imsaho

05-29-2014, 08:16 AM

What's actually considered a good choice for TV and/or internet then?

Most people who have Time Warner hate it.

Is Charter cable all that great? Is AT&T's Uverse the bomb?

Is there some cable/cable type company that even, say, 50% of the people who have experience like?

When I lived in Chicago I had WOW (formerly Wide Open West): http://www.wowway.com/home-map

I can't recommend them highly enough. Performance was very good, prices were reasonable, but customer service (including techs) was unbelievably good.

Two examples:

When you have techs come out to install cablecards in a Tivo from other companies, they will invariably either a) have no idea what they're doing or b) give you a lecture about how cablecards and/or the Tivo are the worst things possible. WOW techs, on the other hand, generally knew what they were doing with the cable cards & Tivo, or, if not, were excited about figuring out how to do it. I.e. actual techs as opposed to cable "plumbers".

When you have to call tech support you get someone who is personable, knowledgeable, and tends to be a very good troubleshooter. There's also no sense at all of a rush to get you off the phone within a particular time period.

I can't recommend them enough. If they ever come to Maine I will switch back immediately.

Honolulu_Blue

05-29-2014, 08:37 AM

When I lived in Chicago I had WOW (formerly Wide Open West): http://www.wowway.com/home-map

I can't recommend them highly enough. Performance was very good, prices were reasonable, but customer service (including techs) was unbelievably good.

Two examples:

When you have techs come out to install cablecards in a Tivo from other companies, they will invariably either a) have no idea what they're doing or b) give you a lecture about how cablecards and/or the Tivo are the worst things possible. WOW techs, on the other hand, generally knew what they were doing with the cable cards & Tivo, or, if not, were excited about figuring out how to do it. I.e. actual techs as opposed to cable "plumbers".

When you have to call tech support you get someone who is personable, knowledgeable, and tends to be a very good troubleshooter. There's also no sense at all of a rush to get you off the phone within a particular time period.

I can't recommend them enough. If they ever come to Maine I will switch back immediately.

We have WOW here in Detroit. It's pretty much the only cable alternative to Comcast (though UVerse is available too). The few people I know who had switched from Comcast to WOW, promptly switched back to Comcast after a few weeks.

I have looked into to switching - for money reasons - but WOW just didn't have the channel line-up I liked it.

molson

05-31-2014, 04:06 AM

sterlingice

05-31-2014, 09:52 AM

Does espn3 still require a subscription to espn? Or can you also get it through these ISPs?

ESPN3.com FAQ (http://espn.go.com/espn3/affList)

I'm thinking over the air networks + espn3 would deliver plenty of college sports.

There are only some pretty rare circumstances where you would get an ISP with access to ESPN3 without having a cable subscription that includes ESPN. ESPN is fairly smart about this: they aren't giving you free access to sports- it's just an add-on to ESPN. For a short while I had internet but no cable through Verizon. Whenever I would log into ESPN3 (as it always requires to login through your cable provider), I would be blocked from getting ESPN3 content.

I put in my zip code here:
Channel Finder - ESPN3 (http://espn.go.com/espn3/channelFinder)
I'm in Houston and about 15 come up. There's AT&T and Comcast, the phone and cable dominant telecoms which I hate deciding between. There's a couple of smaller ISPs that deliver internet service, probably over AT&T's phone lines, and you can bundle that up with DirectTV or DISH. And there are a bunch that look like bundling ISPs where their zip code algorithm is mediocre and they offer bundle packages but not in the Houston area.

I'm sure there are some providers and loopholes you can take advantage of but I suspect they few and far between. It's the whole pile of crap about how we allow telecom monopolies for municipalities in this country and how they try to block competition at every turn. It's easy to ratchet up costs and deliver worse service when there are no viable alternatives.

SI

Joe

06-02-2014, 08:51 AM

Well ESPN finally cut my access to ESPN3, after not having a subscription to Comcast/ESPN for about 3 years. I guess they do eventually audit espn3.com accounts.

korme

06-05-2014, 04:46 PM

Worth the 13 minutes.

<iframe width="750" height="422" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fpbOEoRrHyU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ISiddiqui

06-25-2014, 09:25 AM

Oh, so btw.. in no surprise, the Supreme Court ruled that Aereo was akin to a cable provider and so has to be retransmission fees. Basically, Aereo will either get a lot more expensive, or will die.

Btw, it was 6-3 decision, written by Breyer (Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting).

corbes

06-25-2014, 03:38 PM

FWIW, the three dissenting justices also thought Aereo was an impermissible infringement on the network copyrights, but for a different reason.

BillJasper

06-25-2014, 04:54 PM

bob

06-28-2014, 09:56 AM

So, while they lost the case, Aereo is still working. I plan on watching Brazil - Chile using it. Wonder when they have to shut down?

bob

06-28-2014, 10:08 AM

Well crap - looks like its shutting down at 11:30 AM EST today.

QuikSand

08-08-2014, 02:04 PM

So, I'm in the market for a better streaming device than my Wii. Lean now is the Roku 3. But I secretly long for one box that would combine the streaming and device-based stuff that Roku seems to do really well, along with a HDTV antenna.

I don't see anything on the market like this. Doesn't that just feel like the next generation that has to land for people like us (cable cutters)? I'm not in any urgent situation, so if there's a sense that a Roku 4 with HDTV bunny ears is right around the corner, I'll save my $95 and wait it out.

Any tips?

Easy Mac

08-08-2014, 02:43 PM

If you also feel the need for a new TV, you could just get a smart tv, as those do OTA feeds. Otherwise, the closest I see is this (http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-GX-SM530CF-Streaming-Player-Built-In/dp/B00EYO241Q), but although it has an option, it doesn't appear to work with antennas.

ISiddiqui

08-08-2014, 02:46 PM

I don't see a Roku with an antenna coming any time soon (if at all). Roku is a very simple thing - it's a streaming box. It is designed as a one stop solution to move all your streaming needs to a TV - Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon Prime, Watch ESPN, MLB.TV, MLS Live, etc, etc.

I don't think they'd gain anything from bundling it with an antenna. Those are cheap enough as it is.

stevew

08-08-2014, 03:17 PM

TiVo Roamio does all that but its like 6 times as expensive as a Roku. Well Netflix, Hulu(not sure about others)

ISiddiqui

08-08-2014, 03:24 PM

Roamio is a fantastic thing though. Tivo made my decision to cut the cord so much easier (being able to record TV is a necessary thing for me).

It does Netflix and Hulu. Not Amazon Prime though.

Pyser

08-08-2014, 03:37 PM

wow, just saw what my jailbroken apple tv2 can be sold for on ebay. well, that's going up on the site this weekend.

in the meantime i use my xbox, and will wait to see what (if anything) apple comes out with in september. only thing i kinda miss through xbox is showtime, but not really enough to buy a new streaming system anyway

edit: i guess showtime is on xbox now too. that solves that.

DanGarion

08-08-2014, 04:51 PM

gstelmack

08-08-2014, 06:28 PM

Most current TVs (and since the digital conversion) have built-in tuners, so Roku doesn't need one. You can buy a separate tuner box for like $40 if your TV is a really old one.

Rabbit ears won't work for me, so I've got one on the roof running lines into my two TVs. Wish me luck - since I got my roof redone and the little cupola thing removed that the antenna was on, the antenna is about 18" lower than it was, and I'm getting hiccups on one channel. Going on the roof soon to add an extension pole, if you don't hear from me you'll know it went horribly wrong...

ISiddiqui

01-05-2015, 01:29 PM

Ridiculously exciting news for Cord Cutters:

Dish goes after cord-cutters with Sling TV, a $20 per month service (http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/05/sling-tv-announced/?ncid=rss_truncated)

According to a Bloomberg report earlier this year, Dish was said to be preparing to launch an online television service last summer. But, as we now know, nothing ever came from that -- at least not until today. The satellite company has taken to CES 2015 to reveal Sling TV, its long-rumored internet TV service, and it wants all current and would-be cord-cutters to know that this is designed specifically for them. Dish says that Sling TV has been years in the making, pointing out that it was born out of learning from Dish Anywhere and DishWorld, a US-only, internet-based TV package that offers access to about 200 international channels.

"We started with technology on the Dish Anywhere service and building a platform for connected devices," Roger Lynch, who's been appointed by Dish as Sling TV's CEO, said. "Two years ago we decided we wanted to establish an entire separate service." What came from that first was DishWorld and, now, Sling TV, with the former expected to be integrated into the latter under the moniker Sling International. Similar to DishWorld, Sling TV will only be available in the US, where it's expected to launch "within the The good news is that Sling TV has managed to secure a myriad of big-name channels as part of its over-the-top service, including ESPN, ESPN2, CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Travel Channel, Food Network, ABC Family, HGTV, Disney Channel and Maker -- all of which are going to be part of the basic, $20-per-month package.

Furthermore, Lynch added that at some point in the near future, there will be add-on, content-specific packages, featuring networks like Disney Junior, Disney XD, HLD, DIY, Cooking Channel and Bloomberg -- Sling International channels too, but those are going to be narrowed down by the country they are from. Better yet, you'll be able to enjoy Sling TV on a ton of different devices from day one, including, iOS, Android, Amazon's Fire TV and Fire TV Stick, Nexus Player, Xbox One, Rokus, LG and Samsung Smart TVs, as well as on the web on Mac and PC.

This should be great when it actually comes out! $20 a month with no contracts makes it actually a great deal, even if its just for ESPN and ESPN2! Of course stream quality and the such is important, but this could be a game changer.

DaddyTorgo

01-05-2015, 01:46 PM

Interesting.

flere-imsaho

01-05-2015, 02:03 PM

That is interesting.

Logan

01-05-2015, 02:10 PM

The article I read on The Verge indicated there may be some limitations with ESPN that we'd hear more about down the road, but either way it's a step in the right direction.

Butter

01-05-2015, 02:15 PM

What the hell is "Maker"?

BillJasper

01-05-2015, 02:27 PM

The article I read on The Verge indicated there may be some limitations with ESPN that we'd hear more about down the road, but either way it's a step in the right direction.

Probably no HD nor NFL broadcasts.

ISiddiqui

01-05-2015, 02:35 PM

It'll have to allow HD. Every other streaming service does (Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, etc, etc). If they don't allow HD, it'll fail on launch.

I bet the limitations are no DVR capabilities.

ISiddiqui

01-05-2015, 02:38 PM

Oh, and the sentence from The Verge article is this:

But Dish has hinted that there may be limits on watching ESPN on mobile thanks to red tape from existing deals between the network and Verizon.
This is Dish's Sling TV: an internet TV service that lets you stream ESPN for $20 | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/5/7491071/dish-sling-tv-ott-internet-tv-announced-ces-2015)

So probably some limits on Android and iOS, but not on Roku, etc.

stevew

01-05-2015, 02:39 PM

What the hell is "Maker"?

Had to look it up. YouTube content creator that owns or produces many of the popular shows.

BillJasper

01-05-2015, 02:40 PM

It'll have to allow HD. Every other streaming service does (Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, etc, etc). If they don't allow HD, it'll fail on launch.

I bet the limitations are no DVR capabilities.

I was talking strictly ESPN, but you may be right on the HD. With the Time Warner app live NFL broadcasts are blacked out.

molson

01-05-2015, 02:50 PM

Probably no HD nor NFL broadcasts.

I doubt either the NBA or the NHL would allow DISH to use its programming for a mobile service too, when they sell their own online product.

stevew

01-05-2015, 03:02 PM

Seems like a great way to accelerate the spread of data caps for everyone.

BillJasper

01-05-2015, 03:04 PM

Seems like a great way to accelerate the spread of data caps for everyone.

Pretty much.

SackAttack

01-05-2015, 03:11 PM

Seems like a great way to accelerate the spread of data caps for everyone.

To be followed shortly by consumer lawsuit alleging anti-competitive practices.

ISiddiqui

01-05-2015, 03:25 PM

Marc Vaughan

01-05-2015, 06:09 PM

Fidatelo

01-05-2015, 08:00 PM

I've been cableless since just before Christmas and none of my kids have even noticed ...

I'm missing my soccer - but am hoping to work out some sort of streaming solution for that, it'd be easy to do but I'm trying to do it legally (which ironically is far harder than it would be to pick up a pirate stream ;) ).

This! I'm cutting my cable and it's just sports I want. I can find them all easy illegally, but can't get a lot of them legit (like the juniors on TSN tonight).

I really wish someone would make a completely pay-per-view system, where there is no base fee at all, and everything is available to watch, but you pay for everything you do watch. Set the prices fairly and everyone wins I would imagine. Well, except the garbage programming that no one watches if they realise they're paying for it...

Izulde

01-05-2015, 08:08 PM

That setup looks awesome. Wonder how long it'll take to get to PS4, as I didn't see it in the initial list

Barkeep49

01-05-2015, 09:17 PM

Anyone seen a date that this service will start?

SackAttack

01-05-2015, 11:41 PM

I doubt any such consumer lawsuit would succeed. After all, why shouldn't someone pay for the bandwidth they use (the data caps aren't going to be shut outs, I bet - just a pay as you go above something like 300 GB a month)?

The argument would be that that change is being imposed by companies who own both the ISP and the cable provider, coincidentally just as a competitor is offering a product that threatens the cable business.

Vertical integration, after a fashion. I'm not saying that such a lawsuit would definitely win - I don't trust the courts enough to side with the consumer given the current makeup of SCOTUS - but there would definitely be lawsuits.

flere-imsaho

01-06-2015, 07:19 AM

In an actual free market, there would be enough competition whereby some company would offer a data cap-free plan, and then consumers would have a meaningful choice to pay for a plan with a cap, or not.

But since in almost all parts of the country there's no actual meaningful competition, this isn't a likely option. Which means companies will be imposing caps simply because they can, as opposed to any other reason.

And no, I'm not buying the bandwidth saturation argument because a) the companies who complain about it won't show actual data showing actual saturation and b) we the taxpayer have given them hundreds of billions in grants, tax breaks, and public works money to expand their infrastructure.

ISiddiqui

01-06-2015, 09:20 AM

I really wish someone would make a completely pay-per-view system, where there is no base fee at all, and everything is available to watch, but you pay for everything you do watch. Set the prices fairly and everyone wins I would imagine. Well, except the garbage programming that no one watches if they realise they're paying for it...

I guess that Amazon is already doing something like this with regards to scripted television. You pay for the episodes of shows you want to watch.

Sports internet pay-per-view is something I'm sure will come, but a lot of the stuff involving internet TV is still somewhat in its infancy. I bet that in 10 years, you'll be able to do more of what you speak. Though, the counter to this is that a lot of streaming options are available IF you subscribe to the cable channel as well - this way a company like NBC can try to keep people from cutting the cord.

There is also, as JIMG continues to remind us, still growth in cable subscriptions and cord cutting is still very, very distinctly a minority position. So asking to cater specifically to us is likely asking a bit too much right now.

ISiddiqui

01-06-2015, 09:23 AM

we the taxpayer have given them hundreds of billions in grants, tax breaks, and public works money to expand their infrastructure.

IIRC, the last time you made this argument all you supplied was info for grants for fiber optic cables, which is the big competitor to cable, but no info on grants or tax breaks for cable infrastructure expansion.

ISiddiqui

01-06-2015, 09:26 AM

The argument would be that that change is being imposed by companies who own both the ISP and the cable provider, coincidentally just as a competitor is offering a product that threatens the cable business.

Vertical integration, after a fashion. I'm not saying that such a lawsuit would definitely win - I don't trust the courts enough to side with the consumer given the current makeup of SCOTUS - but there would definitely be lawsuits.

Vertical integration isn't illegal. Having a monopoly isn't illegal. I'm sure lawsuits would argue that data caps are anti-competitive, but if cable internet isn't a public utility, I doubt you could make any argument that charging for data usage isn't something that the cable companies should be allowed to do.

Ironically, the expansion of Google Fiber (which is also spurring AT&T UVerse to get off its ass a bit) probably strengthens the arguments of the cable companies about competition.

flere-imsaho

01-06-2015, 12:16 PM

IIRC, the last time you made this argument all you supplied was info for grants for fiber optic cables, which is the big competitor to cable, but no info on grants or tax breaks for cable infrastructure expansion.

You're thinking of RainMaker: So long Net Neutrality! - Page 4 - Front Office Football Central (http://www.osatwork.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=88222&page=4)

flere-imsaho

01-06-2015, 01:04 PM

Having said that, while two of RM's links pointed to actual Fiber services, the Cringley one makes reference to tax breaks, grants, etc... for Fiber backbone upgrades, which would be applicable to whatever "last mile" technology we're talking about.

In addition, as RM notes, the 1996 telecommunications act, and the Universal Service Fund both give money to telecoms to extend access, both from a backbone and "last mile" perspective. And then there's the whole AT&T sanctioned monopoly for the 20th century, which built (while reaping massive goverment-approved profits) a large chunk of the infrastructure (the rest was built with direct - as opposed to indirect - tax dollars through government agencies, mainly DoD).

The bottom-line is that I don't think the telecoms have a compelling case to argue that they build most of the infrastructure with their own money. The taxpayer did, through multiple avenues. Which is why taking taxpayer money to build something, and then making the taxpayer pay additionally for access is the "have your cake and eat it too" problem. In my opinion.

ISiddiqui

01-06-2015, 02:10 PM

Ooops, I guess I was thinking of RM. Everyone just all blends in as the years go by :(.

Anyways, you are making the same problematic arguments that RM did. Cable companies are not the same as the telecoms. The last mile stuff are not fiber backbone upgrades for cable companies - it's usually just cable. The main reason that the government has been helping the telecoms is..... to provide competition for the cable companies. I'm sure they'd be fine if you went after the telecoms, as it'd just strengthen the cable companies.

flere-imsaho

01-07-2015, 07:11 AM

Ooops, I guess I was thinking of RM. Everyone just all blends in as the years go by :(.

We're getting old....

Anyways, you are making the same problematic arguments that RM did. Cable companies are not the same as the telecoms. The last mile stuff are not fiber backbone upgrades for cable companies - it's usually just cable. The main reason that the government has been helping the telecoms is..... to provide competition for the cable companies. I'm sure they'd be fine if you went after the telecoms, as it'd just strengthen the cable companies.

Except when cable companies (and or TV/Internet providers) are, of course.

But that's parsing the argument too closely. Regardless of who they are, the industry receives plenty of support, from tax breaks to subsidies for infrastructure development to using an infrastructure originally built with taxpayer dollars. Barring an actual, demonstrable saturation problem, I don't think there's a defensible argument for data caps outside of "hey, we'd like to make more money".

If the argument is "our networks can't handle the demand" then the proper rejoinder is "well, what happened to the $billions we gave you to increase capacity? and "most other industries with healthy profits react to increased demand by increasing supply, why aren't you?"

But, again, we have given this industry, from the backbone to the last mile, plenty of support as taxpayers. And we continue to do so. If we're going to allow these companies to meter and filter internet traffic, then by all means let it be a free market, cut off the flow of taxpayer money, and let them invest their healthy profits in supporting their enterprise. But if they want this money, it's simply not right to take the money, and then soak the taxpayer on the other end. While the average Joe may never see it this way, if that's the direction we're going, we might as well get a better bang for our buck by turning it into a public utility (administered via bid by private companies would be my preference, but there you go).

ISiddiqui

01-08-2015, 10:52 AM

Engadget has posted a video from CES of the Sling TV:

A closer look at Dish's Sling TV service (http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/07/dish-sling-tv-hands-on/?ncid=rss_truncated)

I realize that they likely have super fast interwebs there, but this is FANTASTIC in terms of speed and quality. The interface is pretty nice as well. I'm on board.

ISiddiqui

01-08-2015, 10:56 AM

But that's parsing the argument too closely. Regardless of who they are, the industry receives plenty of support, from tax breaks to subsidies for infrastructure development to using an infrastructure originally built with taxpayer dollars. Barring an actual, demonstrable saturation problem, I don't think there's a defensible argument for data caps outside of "hey, we'd like to make more money".

If the argument is "our networks can't handle the demand" then the proper rejoinder is "well, what happened to the $billions we gave you to increase capacity? and "most other industries with healthy profits react to increased demand by increasing supply, why aren't you?"

But, again, we have given this industry, from the backbone to the last mile, plenty of support as taxpayers. And we continue to do so. If we're going to allow these companies to meter and filter internet traffic, then by all means let it be a free market, cut off the flow of taxpayer money, and let them invest their healthy profits in supporting their enterprise. But if they want this money, it's simply not right to take the money, and then soak the taxpayer on the other end. While the average Joe may never see it this way, if that's the direction we're going, we might as well get a better bang for our buck by turning it into a public utility (administered via bid by private companies would be my preference, but there you go).

I keep hearing this, but whenever I've asked for some proof of how much cable companies have been given by taxpayer, I get absolutely nothing, just "we've given them money". So pardon me for being a bit wary of what I see are just bald assertions.

It appears we may turn broadband into a public utility at some point, but in seeing what occurs with my utilities (in Atlanta, for one, the water bill just randomly shot up for no reason two years ago and then randomly dropped last year), I'm not sure that's the way to go. In addition, the vast majority of utilities I've seen meter out their usage (water, sewage, gas, electricity) ;).

I'm amused that the answer to being scared of cable broadband putting data caps is to turn them into a utility, when every utility bill I've ever gotten has charged me based on my specific usage. Furthermore, I've never had a choice of my utility company. So if I were to treat Comcast as a utility for internet, based on how other utilities work, it'd seem to be that I'd only have one choice for broadband (Comcast) and they'd charge me like $25 for every 100GB of usage or something... isn't that how utilities work in your neck of the woods?

flere-imsaho

01-08-2015, 11:48 AM

I realize that they likely have super fast interwebs there, but this is FANTASTIC in terms of speed and quality. The interface is pretty nice as well. I'm on board.

Same here.

I keep hearing this, but whenever I've asked for some proof of how much cable companies have been given by taxpayer, I get absolutely nothing, just "we've given them money". So pardon me for being a bit wary of what I see are just bald assertions.

Fine. I don't have time to do a forensic analysis of all the ways taxpayer money has made its way to cable and/or telecom companies. I'll stop arguing the point, but I'm not going to concede it, as it seems more believable to me that these companies have been the beneficiaries of significant taxpayer dollars (direct, indirect, whatever) than not, given the way this works in many of our "free market" industries.

It appears we may turn broadband into a public utility at some point, but in seeing what occurs with my utilities (in Atlanta, for one, the water bill just randomly shot up for no reason two years ago and then randomly dropped last year), I'm not sure that's the way to go. In addition, the vast majority of utilities I've seen meter out their usage (water, sewage, gas, electricity) ;).

I'm not saying it would be a great solution. It might not even be a better solution. But it might be a less offensive solution.

I'm amused that the answer to being scared of cable broadband putting data caps is to turn them into a utility, when every utility bill I've ever gotten has charged me based on my specific usage. Furthermore, I've never had a choice of my utility company. So if I were to treat Comcast as a utility for internet, based on how other utilities work, it'd seem to be that I'd only have one choice for broadband (Comcast) and they'd charge me like $25 for every 100GB of usage or something... isn't that how utilities work in your neck of the woods?

I would actually be happier with a charge by usage, especially if said charges & usage were relatively transparent and predictable (as they are, generally, for utilities). The problem with the current implementation of caps is that they aren't either, typically. And, more importantly, these companies have no incentive to improve transparency and predictability (of usage/billing), unlike utilities (whose incentive is based on regulations, but still exists).

ISiddiqui

01-08-2015, 12:58 PM

Well, technically no company has put caps on yet, AFAIK (I know there were going to be tests?). I know that if I go to the Comcast site, I can see the amount of data usage I use. I'm not sure how much more they can go transparency wise, as that is the same thing I get from Verizon (who does charge by GB - but I'm grandfathered into unlimited).

And I'm sure that cable companies have gotten some tax breaks somewhere along the line, just like any other company in the country, but I'm not sure if the tax breaks make up (cost wise) for the vast improvement in broadband infrastructure. And, it has been shown that the government has given far greater tax breaks and grants directly to cable's competitors in the broadband race - fiber optic - so cable companies may have a slight beef there when it comes to arguing the point.

ISiddiqui

01-14-2015, 06:49 PM

This is really exciting, re: Sling TV. They did an AMA on Reddit:

Sling TV AMA with CEO Roger Lynch : cordcutters (https://www.reddit.com/r/cordcutters/comments/2sfng8/sling_tv_ama_with_ceo_roger_lynch/)

And this was shared:
[–]keithbpatrick 62 points 4 hours ago
Will having ESPN through SlingTV allow a user access to WatchESPN programming and functionality?
permalink
[–]SlingTV[S] 63 points 4 hours ago
Yes!!!

So Sling TV will allow you to have access to WatchESPN, which is fantastic news (also is somewhat of a way to get around the one stream at a time requirement)!

ISiddiqui

01-14-2015, 06:52 PM

This was interesting too:

[–]J-L-E-E 35 points 4 hours ago
Can't wait for this service - how about hooking everyone in this thread up with an early invite?
permalink
[–]SlingTV[S] 22 points 4 hours ago
Sure. Just go to Sling.com to get your invite. We're rolling these out later this month before the general public.

I've gotten my invite, but does this mean it's coming out THIS month?! That is much sooner than I thought!

ISiddiqui

01-26-2015, 09:19 AM

Well, this is surprising... it is coming out "soon" (when we've been conditioned for it to mean months):

Sling TV Review: Holy Crap, We've Figured Out Internet Television (http://gizmodo.com/sling-tv-review-holy-crap-weve-figured-out-internet-1681592627)
When can you get it? Soon: Sling TV will be sending out invitations to pre-registered customers later this week, and plans to open general registration early next month. If you have a supported device (you know, any iOS or Android device, a Roku, an Amazon Fire TV or TV Stick, an Xbox One or an LG or Samsung Smart TV) you can try it free for a week. Just like any good drug, your first hit is free.

ISiddiqui

03-09-2015, 12:43 PM

You bastards! You fucking bastards! :mad:

HBO NOW is an Apple exclusive for now (starting in April, when the next season of Game of Thrones comes out) for Apple TV, iPads, and iPhones. Who knows when Roku, Amazon Fire, and Android will get it.

$15 a month (not bad pricing).

I wonder if the app will have Chromecast support (as HBO Go does). If so, that makes it more palatable. I don't want an Apple TV, but an iPad Mini wouldn't be a bad investments as my 2014 Nexus 7 is somewhat struggling with Lollipop (maybe I need to do a factory reset - but it is more likely the slowness is caused due to desperately running out of space).

stevew

03-09-2015, 02:34 PM

Apple TV is now $69.99.

Lathum

03-09-2015, 02:42 PM

I love my Apple TV, even more now that I got rid of all the movie channels.

ISiddiqui

03-09-2015, 02:46 PM

I already have a Roku and Amazon Fire TV Stick (free with pre-paying 3 months of Sling TV). I don't need another streaming device. Especially for just one channel - and based on 3 year old hardware.

ISiddiqui

03-09-2015, 02:51 PM

In addition, I feel that the Apple of the past would have taken the HBO deal opportunity to realize a new Apple TV that would be just as powerful as an Amazon Fire TV, but look fancier.

PadresFan104

03-09-2015, 04:55 PM

We decided to cut the cord two weeks ago. Have an Apple TV and so far so good! We only watch Gotham, Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones. With our Hulu+ subscription and today's Apple TV HBO announcement, we are good to go.

My only worry is missing my Padres games. :( I was hoping that MLB.TV would solve the problem, but since I live in San Diego, all home and away games are blacked out. Guess it's the radio/bars/restaurants for me, unless anyone has any other pointers. I have no desire to hook up an external antenna. I'd rather tune in a radio than go through that hassle.

ISiddiqui

03-09-2015, 05:00 PM

Oh, external TV antennas are actually insanely easy to set up. Things like Mohu Curve can easily be placed on a component shelf and pull in plenty of stations.

stevew

03-09-2015, 05:53 PM

In addition, I feel that the Apple of the past would have taken the HBO deal opportunity to realize a new Apple TV that would be just as powerful as an Amazon Fire TV, but look fancier.

That new 12" MacBook looks intriguing.

Peregrine

03-09-2015, 07:00 PM

My only worry is missing my Padres games. :( I was hoping that MLB.TV would solve the problem, but since I live in San Diego, all home and away games are blacked out. Guess it's the radio/bars/restaurants for me, unless anyone has any other pointers. I have no desire to hook up an external antenna. I'd rather tune in a radio than go through that hassle.

My advice for MLB.TV is if you can avoid the news channels and just stay one day behind "real-time" you can watch any games you want without blackouts.

NobodyHere

03-09-2015, 07:13 PM

So indoor antennas are out of the question?

Mine works fine and I live about 10-15 miles from the broadcast towers and I get the major networks (plus NBC).

PS

This is what I have
http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Ultra-Thin-Indoor-HDTV-Antenna/dp/B00DIFIO8E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425957551&sr=8-1&keywords=tv+antennae

sabotai

03-09-2015, 08:00 PM

According to the press release, you will be able to watch HBO NOW on a PC too.

HBO to Launch Standalone Premium Streaming Service in April | Time Warner Inc. (http://www.timewarner.com/newsroom/press-releases/2015/03/09/hbo-to-launch-standalone-premium-streaming-service-in-april)

HBO continues to be in discussions with its existing network of distributors and new digital partners to offer HBO NOW. At launch, HBO NOW will be available on iOS devices and on PCs.

Coffee Warlord

03-09-2015, 08:45 PM

You still have to have some sort of Apple device to sign up, it appears.

stevew

03-09-2015, 09:07 PM

Streaming exclusivity is the new cord.

PadresFan104

03-09-2015, 09:08 PM

So indoor antennas are out of the question?

Mine works fine and I live about 10-15 miles from the broadcast towers and I get the major networks (plus NBC).

Oh snap... I was assuming I'd have to connect something on the roof!! I'm such a dumbass. But on the other hand, the Padres are shown on Fox Sports West so I still think I'm out of luck as far as the games go... As Peregrine stated, I can watch the games 24 hours later if I want....

ISiddiqui

03-09-2015, 10:35 PM

You still have to have some sort of Apple device to sign up, it appears.

Yeah, that kind of makes the watch on a PC thing a bit strange. Though I wonder if you can sign up on someone else's iPhone :D.

And, of course, HBO Go has Chromecast support. I wonder if Apple is going to prevent Chromecast support for 3 months on HBO NOW. If not, that makes it a bit more accessible.

gstelmack

03-10-2015, 07:18 AM

Oh snap... I was assuming I'd have to connect something on the roof!! I'm such a dumbass. But on the other hand, the Padres are shown on Fox Sports West so I still think I'm out of luck as far as the games go... As Peregrine stated, I can watch the games 24 hours later if I want....

That's the problem I have with the NHL's streaming service: the Hurricanes games are "broadcast" on Fox Sports South, which requires one of the higher cable subscription packages. So NHL streaming is out for me. Their loss, I just spend my time elsewhere.

Scoobz0202

03-10-2015, 08:39 AM

Yeah, that kind of makes the watch on a PC thing a bit strange. Though I wonder if you can sign up on someone else's iPhone :D.

And, of course, HBO Go has Chromecast support. I wonder if Apple is going to prevent Chromecast support for 3 months on HBO NOW. If not, that makes it a bit more accessible.

Yea.. my girlfriend has an iphone so I guess she will be the one signing up, but that is odd.

Coffee Warlord

03-10-2015, 12:48 PM

Hell, I wonder if you can just download iTunes and sign up for it that way.

Though that still means you have to have fucking iTunes infesting your computer.

ISiddiqui

03-10-2015, 12:55 PM

Though, if the service can be watched from the web (rather than through iTunes), you could just delete iTunes after signing up.

Subby

03-10-2015, 12:59 PM

Any word on Showtime? I know they announced intention to provide a similar service to HBO but I don't see any updated information.

Coffee Warlord

03-10-2015, 01:02 PM

HBO CEO Richard Plepler's proclamation that, "All you need to get HBO Now is a broadband connection and an Apple device," is exactly true -- you will need both of those things to sign up. As it stands today, even though viewing is supported on PC or Mac via a web browser pointed at HBONOW.com, the only way to actually set up an account will be through Apple's HBO Now app. HBO tells Engadget that Apple has a three-month exclusive as a digital provider of HBO Now, so it will be at least that long until someone like Google, Amazon or even HBO itself could sell access.

So...what's to stop me from having a friend sign up?

flere-imsaho

03-10-2015, 02:17 PM

Three month exclusive neatly covers the next season of GoT, right? :D

flere-imsaho

03-10-2015, 02:18 PM

Streaming exclusivity is the new cord.

We're going to come back to this quote in 5 years and realize exactly how this so clearly manifested itself.

stevew

03-10-2015, 02:41 PM

We're going to come back to this quote in 5 years and realize exactly how this so clearly manifested itself.

Guy 1- Recommend me 4 of your favorite TV shows. I've got some vacation time.

Guy 2- I like The Americans, Game of Thrones, Fargo, Orange is the New Black.

Guy 1. Cool, I'll check em out on Netflix.

Guy 2. Actually you need a subscription to Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, HBO Now and Netflix.

And that doesn't even account for needing 2 or 3 different streaming devices and it gets especially dicey for getting ShowTime anytime

Solecismic

03-10-2015, 03:48 PM

I'm trying to figure out what to do with all of this.

I enjoy some of the HBO and Showtime shows, but that subscription is expensive, and they aren't getting the better movies any more to add value to the subscription (either that or I just don't like movies any more). It might be better to wait a year and get the DVDs when they first drop in price.

I watch some broadcast network shows, but I need to DVR them because I won't watch them without fast-forwarding the commercials.

I like AMC. Of the non-broadcast, non-subscription, non-sports networks, it's the only one I can even find without looking at the channel guide. But, again, it might be better to wait a year and get the DVDs.

And then there's sports. Of my non-DVR viewing, 95% is sports. And that's almost all limited to the broadcast networks, ESPN/2/U and the Big Ten Network.

The problem with the DVD approach is that it's difficult to find new shows. There have been HBO shows I looked forward to watching, tried and hated after a couple of episodes. And shows I thought I'd hate, but became addicted to after getting bored one evening and giving them a try (Game of Thrones being one).

I don't have a Plasma or LCD TV, but I do have an old Sony HD. I don't feel the need to upgrade, even though I can't read the scores of games any more because the networks all assume everyone has 50-inch televisions.

The bundles seem to make cable TV cost-effective, but I feel like I'm paying for a metric ton of content I'll never watch.

If it weren't for ESPN/BTN, I'm sure I'd invest in a digital tuner and a good antenna and drop cable altogether.

I'm very intrigued by Sling TV, but concerned about the quality, the cost of unbundling and the absence of BTN.

Any opinions on XFinity would be welcome. I think I've read enough about UVerse to eliminate that option. I currently have Charter.

Fidatelo

03-10-2015, 04:27 PM

Yep, in 10 years we'll probably all be begging for the good old days of cable tv.

I know it's never going to happen, but I truly wish for a world of total a la carte. Let me buy shows, including live sports and news and whatever, completely independent of any other payment. I want to watch the news tonight? $1. I want to watch the Jets game tomorrow? $5.

ISiddiqui

03-10-2015, 05:11 PM

I'm very intrigued by Sling TV, but concerned about the quality, the cost of unbundling and the absence of BTN.

Sling is fantastic. Great quality! Its HD quality.

But yes, no BTN. But there is ESPN, ESPN2, and AMC in the basic tier ($20 a month). But you miss out on DVR (AMC has limited video on demand) because ESPN isn't going to sign on to any streaming service that has DVR - but you have access to Watch ESPN through Sling, so there is that.

I do think that cutting the cord requires a bit more effort on the part of the viewer. It isn't as easy as flipping through cable channels and deciding to watch a show you've heard about and being able to watch new eps right away, after catching up with Blu-rays or Netflix, if you want.

Yep, in 10 years we'll probably all be begging for the good old days of cable tv.

I know it's never going to happen, but I truly wish for a world of total a la carte. Let me buy shows, including live sports and news and whatever, completely independent of any other payment. I want to watch the news tonight? $1. I want to watch the Jets game tomorrow? $5.

The channels themselves have made it impossible to a la carte. Most major channels are in conglomerates themselves. ESPN, for example, is under ABC/Disney's umbrella. So, for instance, with Sling TV, in order to have Disney, you have to have ESPN - both are on the basic tier, because otherwise ABC Disney won't sell you those channels or any other channels they own.

You somewhat have limited a la carte though, through Amazon and iTunes. You can buy a show episode by episode if you'd like, but, of course, some providers don't want to give you that option.

Streaming exclusivity is already the lay of the land, though the ability to purchase some episodes exists, thankfully. However, I think with DVR and binge watching, the era of caring that you have to wait a year in order to buy the DVDs to watch a show will dissipate and will take away one of the most fun things about weekly watching - 'watercooler' discussions. You can already see it with shows like House of Cards. It'll take a while for shows like Game of Thrones, but I think it'll eventually come.

I'd also argue that if we got true a la carte, we'd been begging for cable TV within a year as prices would likely be far higher than we anticipated they would be. Amazon and iTunes can sell programs the next dat for $2.99 an episode, but that's mostly because the providers get money for being on a cable tier. Unmoor that, and I can see AMC deciding that $5.99 an episode for The Walking Dead would be the price.

SteveMax58

03-11-2015, 08:21 AM

I'd also argue that if we got true a la carte, we'd been begging for cable TV within a year as prices would likely be far higher than we anticipated they would be. Amazon and iTunes can sell programs the next dat for $2.99 an episode, but that's mostly because the providers get money for being on a cable tier. Unmoor that, and I can see AMC deciding that $5.99 an episode for The Walking Dead would be the price.
Cable operators have been saying this for quite a long time but the message wasn't precise enough for the general public, imho. Mainly due to not wanting to piss off the programming conglomerates, or be accused of favoritism between programmers.

What I see everybody describing is the issue with disparate service offerings. Cable operators (and other MVPDs such as dish & telco operators) all buy content at wholesale rates, aggregate all of that disparate content, and try to present it through a series of genre-based "portals" (or channels if you will). 1 interface, on 1 device, running 1 common platform to get any & all content from. Some look better & some do certain things better...but they are all an incredible value when compared to what you have access to. But great value is not necessarily "cheap", and this is essentially the problem with disparate offerings.

The other things that people sometimes argue in regards for a-la-carte is they just want to buy ESPN but not ESPN2...or HBO but not HBO Signature & the rest...or Comedy Central but not MTV. These are not static "portals" (or use the term channels if you prefer) of content with a single pipeline of fixed resources & pricing. The a-la-carte proposition is the programmer themselves (Disney, HBO, Viacom) and their cost-structures entail all of those genre-based portals in their "bundle". And for the "luxury" of being able to select any one of these programmers...you (the consumer) get to aggregate & design your own system to receive the ones you actually care about (assuming more than just 1).

I don't mean to sound like a shill, really I don't, but the entire online video subscription model is not engineered for you the consumer. Its built for programmers to diversify their customer base away from a handful of MVPDs so that losing any individual customer (e.g. 1 consumer) is less damaging (among a few other monetization strategies) . There is no value proposition in play here, at least not purposely done.

ISiddiqui

03-11-2015, 10:39 AM

I don't mean to sound like a shill, really I don't, but the entire online video subscription model is not engineered for you the consumer. Its built for programmers to diversify their customer base away from a handful of MVPDs so that losing any individual customer (e.g. 1 consumer) is less damaging (among a few other monetization strategies)

Agreed.

Oh, so I asked one of my friends to borrow their iPad to sign up for HBO NOW when the time comes... so I have that in play ;).

Now to hope that its something that can played from the web on PC, and isn't some application (casting Chrome tabs actually works very smoothly for me).

cougarfreak

03-11-2015, 11:25 AM

Easy Mac

03-11-2015, 05:35 PM

I don't have the exact transcript of the call I just got from DirecTV, but it was enough to convince me to get rid of them when my contact expires in 8 months.

She started off saying how I was such a loyal customer and if I wanted HBO, to which I said OK. She then spent a couple of minutes telling me about this great deal, then at the end said I would be paying full price and get free Cinemax. She kept talking and then said how they would start it immediately and told me to have a good day. I was able to speak as she was about to hang up and said I didn't want it. She then talked for another minute and said they would start it right away. I said no thank you again. She then said fine and hung up.

Solecismic

03-11-2015, 05:47 PM

Even though I think we're best served by a bundle, I dread trying to negotiate this or talking to these companies.

I really don't like Charter. I've had them out to the house maybe 25 times in the eight years I've been in this house. There are constant signal issues. Since they switched to all-digital, nothing works right. I'm glad they finally allowed people to do a box reset online without phoning. With the foreign level-one service they went to, I had reached a point where every time the box went, I'd just tell them to send someone out here. Which they do rather quickly. Strangely, never the same person. I know it's all contracted out these days, but that seems odd.

I think UVerse is all-copper out here. Which means slower internet speeds. For now that's not a serious issue, but I think it will be in the future. They've also dropped from the top of ratings list to near the bottom.

I called XFinity and asked for new product information. I reached someone who couldn't even speak English. She just read scripts in a heavy accent and told me she couldn't understand any questions.

I just don't want to cut the cable cord to spite our sports viewing. Though it's easier to do between April and September.

DanGarion

03-11-2015, 06:25 PM

We are cutting the cord when we move up to Oregon. Or at least we are going to try it out. The only thing I'll be missing that I can't get some other way is going to be MLB Network... I was thinking about getting MLB.tv but they don't have MLB Network on there and that is frustrating...

SteveMax58

03-11-2015, 07:07 PM

I seriously debated cutting the cord. My DTV contract is up, and it's up to $102 a month for I think the third tier down, and whole home dvr. My internet through TWC was at $67 for 20mb. I called TWC, they offered my basically the same channels, 50mb internet, and home phone for a total of $130 with no contract. So I'm taking it for now. Not sure how long I'll keep it. I know the DVR won't be up to snuff, but I'd have to bump my internet up if I cut the cord, and that would have cost me about $100.

Do you mean you'd have to bump up the cost you pay for internet to $100 if you unbundle it? Or do you mean that you'd need more than 50 Mbps?

Because I only have 25 Mbps and can solidly stream 2-3 HD movies from netflix/youtube, etc. with no problems (plus basic browsing & the like). 50 should be more than enough.

SteveMax58

03-11-2015, 07:11 PM

Agreed.

Oh, so I asked one of my friends to borrow their iPad to sign up for HBO NOW when the time comes... so I have that in play ;).

Now to hope that its something that can played from the web on PC, and isn't some application (casting Chrome tabs actually works very smoothly for me).

If it isn't right away, it will be after the 3 months of exclusivity is up with Apple. Everybody else will off HBO Now eventually, its just that Apple has a short term window before everybody else.

cougarfreak

03-11-2015, 07:13 PM

Do you mean you'd have to bump up the cost you pay for internet to $100 if you unbundle it? Or do you mean that you'd need more than 50 Mbps?

Because I only have 25 Mbps and can solidly stream 2-3 HD movies from netflix/youtube, etc. with no problems (plus basic browsing & the like). 50 should be more than enough.

No, if I cancelled Direct and went to all streaming, I'd probably need to go up from the $65 tier I'm at, which is 20mb. I'd think I'd need to go to 50 mb, which would probably be $90-100 if I didn't bundle anyway. How I long for Google Fiber......which will probably never reach me.

SteveMax58

03-11-2015, 07:20 PM

No, if I cancelled Direct and went to all streaming, I'd probably need to go up from the $65 tier I'm at, which is 20mb. I'd think I'd need to go to 50 mb, which would probably be $90-100 if I didn't bundle anyway. How I long for Google Fiber......which will probably never reach me.

Hmm...20 might do it. Would it be just you & spouse? Or do you have kids who would be streaming (including youtube) as well?

I'd think 20 should be fine for just you & 1 other person regularly unless your ISP is always bad in your area for whatever reason.

cougarfreak

03-11-2015, 07:25 PM

Hmm...20 might do it. Would it be just you & spouse? Or do you have kids who would be streaming (including youtube) as well?

I'd think 20 should be fine for just you & 1 other person regularly unless your ISP is always bad in your area for whatever reason.

I've got 2 kids that stream a lot on youtube, netflix, amazon, etc. If we go with 3 of us streaming I get some pretty good blur at times. I figure for $30ish more a month, for whole home DVR and the top tier on the cable package, I'm ok for now. The big thing for me was no contract. I can cancel when I want, zero penalty.

ISiddiqui

03-11-2015, 10:11 PM

If it isn't right away, it will be after the 3 months of exclusivity is up with Apple. Everybody else will off HBO Now eventually, its just that Apple has a short term window before everybody else.

Yes, but that's after the Game of Thrones season ;).

Hence, why even though Apple got only 3 months exclusivity, it's a great 3 months to have it.

molson

03-12-2015, 12:17 PM

I kind of hate myself for it but I really like my DirecTV. I've thought of switching to cable from my internet provider and bundling, but after the 6-month introductory rate, it really isn't that huge a difference in price, and it can only be worse in service and quality of the product, because DirecTV has been perfect. And if I cancelled DirecTV, I'd surely get MLB.TV, hulu, some kind of DVR to use with over-the-air stuff, I'd spend more time at bars watching sports, and I'd enhance my Netflix subscription to get more DVDs out at time, and who knows what else. So I've been DirectTV + Netflix + Amazon prime and nothing else for quite a while now and I have access to everything I'd ever want.

Logan

03-12-2015, 01:44 PM

Because of sports, I know I'm never going to cut the cord (as long as I can afford not to) but I definitely like the progress being made on all these fronts. Happy it is working out for a lot of you and hoping we'll eventually get to the point where streaming/a la carte works even for sports lovers. I think eventually we'll get to the point where we're spending a little less money for a lot less content, and that's fine with me. But I want it all to be on my TV and not my laptop/phone/tablet even if it's being beamed/wired to my TV.

Solecismic

03-17-2015, 07:14 PM

I've spent far too much time on this in the last few days. Turns out xFinity is spending a fortune mailing me stuff every week for no reason at all. They can't provide service here.

So I'm stuck with Charter for Internet/Phone, unless I want to go back to ATT - a company I've really come to dislike over the years.

The question is whether streaming is OK. I'm probably too far away from the stations to get over-the-air networks without a rooftop antenna. While I could probably fight the HOA over this issue, they are forbidden and at least a couple of my near neighbors are antenna haters. I was the guy who showed them the law wasn't on their side when one of my other neighbors got a satellite dish. But that isn't worth the fight just for one partial solution.

Sling is looking promising, but I think cord-cutting is about a year off. Meanwhile, though, I wanted to look into whether dropping to the most basic service and adding other pieces was worth while. So I have to get speed up.

I found I was getting 15 Mbps, when 60 is advertised. A couple of phone calls later, I'm at 40-50. That's probably good enough, but the tech advised me that perhaps my router's firmware was an issue.

It's an old Linksys router (still highly rated). But my firmware level is several versions behind the latest. Problem is that the latest is no longer offered because the router is out of warranty. I contacted Linksys and they told me to buy a new router.

I can find the firmware update online, but is it safe to trust those sites? Is there a safe site that archives firmware updates?

cartman

03-17-2015, 07:36 PM

If your Linksys is WRT54G, you might look at putting DD-WRT or one of the other open source firmwares on it.

Desnudo

03-18-2015, 08:34 AM

Apple TV 'skinny' package likely to accelerate cord cutting - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-et-ct-apple-tv-skinny-package-20150318-story.html)

Qwikshot

03-18-2015, 08:56 AM

I must admit that my wife and I are at odds.

Currently we have Amazon Prime and Netflix plus basic cable (I mean the most basic).

She's adverse to cutting because my son loves PBS and she hates having to handle on the Roku to play the next show, and she doesn't want him binge watching one particular show (I roll my eyes because she's at home 3 days a week and can make the effort to do this).

Currently with basic cable, a dvr recorder (which I want to remove), phone and internet, I'm paying 140 bucks (down from 198). If I cut cable completely, it becomes 80 and I have to check my security system, but it appears a new upgrade would remove the need for a landline, so 80 could potentially become 70 bucks...

70 bucks, even if you factor in Prime being 100 a year and Netflix at 7.99. It's just so much better.

I don't miss sports, I don't miss the aimless channel surfing...it's actually been nice.

ISiddiqui

03-18-2015, 09:14 AM

Qwikshot

03-18-2015, 10:02 AM

The not wanting to handle checking in on the PBS Channel on Roku is kind of a lame excuse - I wonder if its something else (like, she really likes watching trashy daytime stuff ;)).

To be honest, if you just want PBS, is it possible to pull it in with an antenna? I'm blessed to live in the Atlanta metro, so I have an indoor antenna that can pull in like 10 HD channels (ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, 2 different PBSs, CW, Peachtree TV, Univision, Unimas) and 50 SD channels.

I'm leaning towards antenna and I agree, not buying it on the Roku thing, get off your butt.

I interviewed for a position within my company that allows me to work remote, holy hell is going to occur if I'm at home because I am disciplined enough to get shit done round the house while juggling work and kids.

ISiddiqui

03-18-2015, 10:12 AM

Of course, I'd also argue there are worse things in life than your child binge watching Sesame Street ;).

Anyways, I find that even with cutting the cord, I still have tons of TV to watch - I have a TiVo, so I have shows DVRed and most of my fav shows are on Broadcast. I mean I miss the AMC and FX stuff, but Sling TV gave me back AMC. And I'm paying much less than with Comcast (well I guess I could spend like half hour on the phone like every 6 months and get them to negotiate me to a great deal, but I hate playing that game for a decent price).

flere-imsaho

03-19-2015, 07:38 AM

PBS Kids also has an excellent app for tablets and phones (that allows the kid to easily switch between shows) and there's even the website for laptop/desktop use.

It's so funny how their approach to content availability is so different from mine. They have no concept whatsoever of content not being available on demand.

INDalltheway

03-19-2015, 08:48 AM

Used Sling TV for the first time last night on Xbox One. It was a great experience in terms of streaming quality and options. At the same time it seems a bit expensive and kind of goes back to what I was wanting to get away from. If they were to add more channels to the basic $19.99 package I would probably bite. In its current state I will probably just enjoy the 30 day trial and give it up.

SteveMax58

03-19-2015, 07:06 PM

Good article summarizing options for OTT services.

The new TV world: can you really save money? (http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2015/03/the-new-tv-world-can-you-really-save-money?et_cid=4470751&et_rid=43981805&location=top)

gstelmack

03-20-2015, 11:20 AM

Sony launches $50 Vue cord-cutting service - Mar. 19, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/19/technology/sony-playstation-vue/index.html)

I don't think Sony understands why people want to cut the cord. Hint: paying $50 / month is one of the key reasons...

ISiddiqui

03-20-2015, 11:30 AM

$50 a month is fairly cheap as far as cable bills go, however.

Pyser

03-20-2015, 11:54 AM

Canada seems ahead of the curve.

Canada Embraces Cable A La Carte Pricing | Deadline (http://deadline.com/2015/03/canada-cable-tv-a-la-carte-pricing-bundle-1201395584/)

Cable a la carte pricing, whereby consumers pay for only the channels they want, has finally broken through in Canada. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission said in a sweeping ruling today that cable and satellite providers must offer consumers an affordable basic lineup and allow them to choose additional channels.

The CRTC ruled that the pay TV providers will have to offer basic-local channel service at no more than $20 a month by March 2016. Subscribers also must be able to choose individual channels or small bundles of channels by then, with both options available by December 2016..

Fidatelo

03-20-2015, 12:05 PM

In Canada our regulators just required that every tv provider offer a $25 basic service and then total a la carte (or extremely small packages) on top of that. Which is cool, but the instant reaction is that the providers will just charge more for internet services to recover any losses from TV revenues. It sucks that these companies own the entire vertical.

Fidatelo

03-20-2015, 12:05 PM

Dola

Looks like Pyser beat me to the real news, but my opinion still stands.

ISiddiqui

03-20-2015, 12:27 PM

Also who knows what they'll charge for each individual channel. The people complaining about HBO NOW costing $15/mo (and there actually are loads of them) will be in for a rude awakening, I think.

molson

03-20-2015, 12:27 PM

$50 for a bare bones TV package without ESPN isn't very appealing.

ISiddiqui

03-20-2015, 12:33 PM

I bet the price is jacked up to $50 due to multiple streams at once (3) and substantial VOD / DVR-like service. I guess it shows how much more it'll cost Sling TV if it were to offer these things.

stevew

03-20-2015, 12:34 PM

Sony Vue is going to bury Sling in the monthly sales figures.

ISiddiqui

03-20-2015, 12:36 PM

You think that many people with Playstations are going to pay $50/mo?

I mean, maybe if it was Apple (they are used to overpaying ;)).

Desnudo

03-21-2015, 09:20 AM

jaygr

03-21-2015, 01:02 PM

Regarding Vue, $50 is just the lowest level too. I think the highest level is $70 which would have some channels I want (like Sprout for the kids). So if I pay $75 for cable internet plus $70 for Vie then that is $145 which puts it right along with the high cable bills I am trying to avoid...

ISiddiqui

04-01-2015, 02:02 PM

So, Sling TV has scored a coup (and I don't think its an April Fools joke as its all over the web):

Sling TV To Offer HBO For $15 A Month: A Cord Cutter’s Delight? | Deadline (http://deadline.com/2015/04/sling-tv-hbo-cord-cutting-1201402864/)

This is the second shoe to drop from today’s announcement about Dish Network’s carriage agreements with Turner and HBO. The satellite company says that its $20-a-month Sling TV streaming service will offer HBO for an additional $15 beginning before April 12, when the new season of Game Of Thrones premieres.

Last month HBO said that Apple TV would have exclusive streaming rights to HBO Now for the first three months at $14.99 a month. It’s not clear how the Sling offering will differ: Although Sling doesn’t call the offering HBO Now, it will include “one live channel and the same extensive VOD library HBO provides on its other platforms.”

SteveMax58

04-20-2015, 08:44 PM

So this seems to be the place to post things like this....

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/20/did-verizon-just-give-customers-a-la-carte-cable.aspx

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Disney is already publicly stating that putting ESPN & ESPN2 into a "sports tier" isn't allowed under their contract with Verizon (same as everybody's contract really).

But just when you want to start rooting for the telco...this
One of the most notable things about the Verizon offer is the Custom TV base package does not include ESPN. That's great news in theory for non-sports fan as the various ESPN channels cost pay TV providers more than any other channels and not having to buy them should result in a lower bill (though at $55 for the cheapest plan it's hard to see how Verizon is passing on that savings).

I guess it is what it is. Pay a little less for a LOT less.

claphamsa

07-12-2015, 09:18 AM

just cancelled FIOS yesterday.... or switched to just internet (i have over the air cable since it was 30$ a month cheaper to have that than just internet). Only need live tv for sports, and i can stream the avs on my blueray, and the nats should be over the air.

well see how it goes....

Logan

07-14-2015, 10:07 AM

ISiddiqui

07-14-2015, 10:21 AM

Is ESPN A Giant Bubble About to Burst? | FOX Sports (http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215)

Some good stuff in there about the economics that make cable bundling so good for sports fans.

Good article. The other interesting thing is if there is a bundling bubble, as the article describes, it isn't just ESPN that is in trouble... its the sports leagues themselves. Who is going to buy the rights and for how much? A lot of the bidding wars for rights are because of cable carriage fees - networks like Fox are willing to overspend, so they can put sports on FS1 and then demand that cable companies put that on the basic tier so it can get all that cash.

I'd imagine that if the shakeout results in much less cable subscribers, that those rights deals would plummet in the next go around.

spleen1015

07-14-2015, 10:21 AM

We cut the cord back in April. We had thought about it for a while, but my wife was against it because she loves watching the NFL. So, when Sling TV came along with ESPN, the decision was easy.

We went from paying $280 a month for cable, internet and home phone to about $100 for just internet & various subscriptions to streaming services, ie Sling TV, Netflix, Amazon Prime & an HD antennae.

I bought 1 $50 HD antennae, 2 Roku players and after a month they paid for themselves.

Logan

07-14-2015, 10:23 AM

Good article. The other interesting thing is if there is a bundling bubble, as the article describes, it isn't just ESPN that is in trouble... its the sports leagues themselves. Who is going to buy the rights and for how much? A lot of the bidding wars for rights are because of cable carriage fees - networks like Fox are willing to overspend, so they can put sports on FS1 and then demand that cable companies put that on the basic tier so it can get all that cash.

I'd imagine that if the shakeout results in much less cable subscribers, that those rights deals would plummet in the next go around.

Yeah I posted the article before I finished and hadn't thought of that component either. Like they said, cutting Bill Simmons and his multi-million dollar salary loose is one thing...getting out of twenty year, multi-billion rights deals is a whole other.

Another bubble that could burst...college football coaching salaries.

ISiddiqui

07-15-2015, 04:04 PM

Makes me wonder if the future is each sport selling directly to the consumer - in that way would sport consumers have only a limited option of live sports unless they pay for a season long package (unless you are an NFL fan)? Even watching the local team may be difficult - in Atlanta, watching the Braves station requires cable.

If the cable juggernaut as we know it falls, even slightly, things may be fairly expensive for watching live sports.

BillJasper

07-15-2015, 04:07 PM

If the cable juggernaut as we know it falls, even slightly, things may be fairly expensive for watching live sports.

It would bring local stations back into play. Also, I think you would see salaries plummet.

ISiddiqui

07-15-2015, 04:14 PM

If baseball is any guide, some of the local stations are on cable currently ;). Of course the stations would still bid... they'd just bid much lower. The money flowing to those sports would drop quite a bit. And yeah, salaries would definitely start plummeting. I wonder if that sort of pressure would result in some dramatic labor issues.

BillJasper

07-15-2015, 04:31 PM

Butter

07-16-2015, 06:19 AM

Logan

07-16-2015, 08:15 AM

You must forgive me if I don't take a FOX Sports article critical of ESPN 100% seriously.

I thought that too at first but there's nothing in there that isn't within a solid realm of possibility. Fox will be affected by this too. Give it a read and tell me what you think is being overcritical of ESPN and we can discuss it.

molson

07-16-2015, 08:26 AM

Counteracting all that is that sports rights fees are HUGE right now because its perceived that sports is much more DVR-proof than anything else on TV (whether that be traditional TV, or a streaming internet version). And you can more shamelessly advertise within the product than you can with other TV shows. ESPN and sports are better positioned to successfully transition in a changing media landscape than just about anything else on TV.

I don't think ESPN or team sports are in trouble. They'll both survive cord-cutting, people just love their sports too much. And businesses will always find a way to get their name out there, and sports will always be a huge part of that.

ISiddiqui

07-16-2015, 09:23 AM

its perceived that sports is much more DVR-proof than anything else on TV

[EDIT: I completely read that wrong (the opposite really), so ignore the following]

Say what? I'd argue it's just the opposite. With all the social media out there, if you don't start watching a sports game on DVR within, oh 15 minutes of its starting, you are screwed in terms of getting spoiled. And getting spoiled in sports is, for whatever reason, far worse than getting spoiled in, say, Game of Thrones.

Subby

07-16-2015, 09:31 AM

Say what? I'd argue it's just the opposite. With all the social media out there, if you don't start watching a sports game on DVR within, oh 15 minutes of its starting, you are screwed in terms of getting spoiled. And getting spoiled in sports is, for whatever reason, far worse than getting spoiled in, say, Game of Thrones.
That's the definition of DVR-proof, which is what molson was saying. :cool:

Subby

07-16-2015, 09:34 AM

Found a great site/app called CanIStream.it (http://www.canistream.it/). If you are trying to find a specific movie/documentary/etc. it will tell you if it is available on any of the streaming services or if you have to go to itunes/amazon to rent it. Alternately you can search the premium cable channels for your title.

ISiddiqui

07-16-2015, 09:35 AM

That's the definition of DVR-proof, which is what molson was saying. :cool:

Oh duh... I read that wrong.

ISiddiqui

07-16-2015, 11:17 AM

The Hollywood Reporter is also talking ESPN's woes, esp why it's cutting so much of its talent (from Olbermann to Simmons and it seems like Cowherd is leaving as well):

From Keith Olbermann to Bill Simmons, Why ESPN Is Sacking Top Talent - Hollywood Reporter - The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/keith-olbermann-bill-simmons-why-808716)

Butter

07-16-2015, 11:19 AM

I thought that too at first but there's nothing in there that isn't within a solid realm of possibility. Fox will be affected by this too. Give it a read and tell me what you think is being overcritical of ESPN and we can discuss it.

The idea that there is a "bubble" that is going to pop like the stock market or real estate market did is hyperbole. It has been and will continue to be a slow leak. It's been going on for a while now, far too long for it to be a surprise to anyone.

In the meantime, ESPN has the luxury of trying out a lot of different options to see what works. There are probably many more options than either stopping cord-cutters or offering a standalone product at $30+.

Logan

07-16-2015, 11:19 AM

I think the amount of money saved on talent pales in comparison to what some of their expenses are, but I guess you have to start somewhere.

ISiddiqui

07-16-2015, 11:24 AM

It's basically the canary in the mine. And its things they can easily get out of now.

Logan

07-16-2015, 11:27 AM

The idea that there is a "bubble" that is going to pop like the stock market or real estate market did is hyperbole. It has been and will continue to be a slow leak. It's been going on for a while now, far too long for it to be a surprise to anyone.

In the meantime, ESPN has the luxury of trying out a lot of different options to see what works. There are probably many more options than either stopping cord-cutters or offering a standalone product at $30+.

Okay I can agree with you on the hyperbole. But when you have expenses in the billions that are locked in for many years, even slow leaks can be pretty traumatic to a business model. I'm very interested in seeing what some of the effects could end up being.

claphamsa

08-01-2015, 06:43 PM

is there any way to get an RSN without cable?

ColtCrazy

08-08-2015, 07:57 PM

Finally getting around to doing this. My Directv contract ends in Nov. I'm thinking of getting sling for espn and an indoor antenna to get my locals, which should work as I'm within good range of Louisville. I can go from $135 a month to roughly $50 for sling and netflix.

stevew

08-08-2015, 10:08 PM

I think DTV is only $20/mo to cancel early

Neuqua

11-02-2015, 03:52 PM

hollmt

11-02-2015, 04:03 PM

Are there any updates on Sling?

I realized I really don't watch that much TV and seeing if I can cut some costs over the next few months.

Figuring I watch mainly NBA/NHL over winter, I think ESPN + TNT + HGTV (and using my brother's account information to stream NBC Sports Live) should be more than enough.

Anyone here been using the service over the last few months? Thoughts?

I have been using Sling and enjoy it just fine. I finally cut the cord last month and just have an OTA HD antenna, Netflix, Amazon and Sling and have more than enough T.V. I was worried on the sport front, but have actually not missed anything of importance to me. Having both ESPN's, AMC, History, TNT and TBS and a few movie channels on Sling is really just fine with me. I stream it through my Xbox and the only issue I get is a slight delay in buffering (probably more due to my www speed) and a slight delay in sports. Whenever ESPN has a game on and ABC/Fox/CBS also does, I can just change the input as quick as changing the channel and keep up on all I want.

So, I like it.

ISiddiqui

11-02-2015, 04:11 PM

Yeah, Sling is alright. It can be glitchy at times. But generally, it's ok. And when it's being glitchy and you want to watch ESPN, it gives you WatchESPN access (I wish it did the same for AMC, mind).

jaygr

11-02-2015, 06:46 PM

Been using Sling for many months now and am happy with it. It can sometimes glitch but more recently over the last two months I've had almost no issues. If you look online you will find a mix bag. Some people will swear it is the worst thing ever and is down 90% of the time. Not sure if it is a hardware issue or what for them but there are plenty of people not having many issues as well. You may want to give the free trial a spin first to see how it goes.

spleen1015

11-03-2015, 11:46 AM

I've been using Sling TV since April. It is definitely not perfect. I've found that some of the channels work better than others.

For example, the Food Network never has any issues for me, not once.

ESPN on the other hand, I seems to always have an issue like last night. Every time they would return to the MNF game from commercial, it would stop playing and I would have to reload the channel. Happened every commercial starting in the 4th quarter.

I just unsubscribed from HBO on Sling because HBO Now is a channel on Roku. I'm a big on demand watcher with HBO and found it to be a pain in the ass for on demand viewing. There's not a list of shows perse, you get a horizontal list of shows with thumbnails and it takes forever to fire up a show or movie. I just want a list damn it! There's not a search I could find either.

All in all, it's not too bad. If you're looking to cut the cord, I recommend it as long as you're willing to deal with some glitches here and there.

ISiddiqui

11-03-2015, 12:42 PM

SlingTV just got Chromecast capability as well.

I think SlingTV would definitely benefit if you could use it on AMC.com or Cartoon Network's website/app to watch episodes as you could if you had a more traditional cable subscription. Heck, it'd be a way to bypass the SlingTV app in its entirety if its acting up ;).

RainMaker

01-15-2016, 05:38 AM

Comcast just dumped Spike and CMT off their basic cable plan (along with some other smaller channels I believe). It's not a huge deal but it's just another notch against keeping cable going forward. If I could find a way to get my local sports teams here I think I'm done with cable.

MrBug708

02-15-2016, 09:09 PM

So I want to cut the cord. With having a 7 month old, I just dont really watch that much TV. A lot of sports and HGTV in the background and not much else. My problem is that I would like DVR capability, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem very possible to have it, especially with slingtv? We dont really watch that many cable shows, mostly sitcoms and other shows on the regular channels.

Umbrella

02-16-2016, 09:51 AM

albionmoonlight

02-16-2016, 09:54 AM

For those of you with satellite, I have a couple of dumb questions. First, how often does weather interfere with reception? And second, can you order channels ala carte, or do you have to stick with specific packages?

I have DirectTV

(1) Rarely. Only in huge wrath-of-God style storms, really.

(2) Packages. Not any different than cable in that way.

INDalltheway

02-16-2016, 12:06 PM

Barkeep49

02-17-2016, 07:09 AM

I found that Hulu basically does what I need a DVR to do and feel it's an essential piece of my ability to cut the cord. I tend to purchase Hulu through gift cards like these: Hulu Plus Subscription $50 Gift Credit Via Email | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hulu-Plus-Subscription-50-Gift-Credit-via-Email-/281932706825)

Easy Mac

02-17-2016, 07:17 AM

Just be wary of purchasing gift hulu/netflix subscriptions on ebay. A very high percentage of them were purchased using stolen credit cards.

cartman

03-03-2016, 11:49 AM

Looks like DirecTV will be introducing a SlingTV-style offering later this year.

AT&T and DirecTV to launch streaming TV service later this year | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/1/11140478/att-directv-streaming-internet-tv-service)

sooner333

03-16-2016, 09:11 AM

PlayStation Vue is now nationwide and offers Fox Sports regional channels. It also has a cloud DVR. May actually cut the cord since I could save about $30/month. At the very least, I'll use a 7-day free trial.

ISiddiqui

03-16-2016, 09:35 AM

I've switched Playstation Vue. I have the $30/mo package (it's $35 if you want the Fox Sports regional channels). I also like how it, unlike Sling TV, has deals with the channel providers so you can easily log into their apps or website. And the base $30 package includes SyFy, FX, and USA - so I have some stuff to catch up on ;).

Was watching it last night for CNN's primary coverage and it barely hiccupped - much better than Sling TV.

hollmt

03-16-2016, 12:02 PM

SlingTV is brutal for the hiccups. I notice it much more when I am streaming it through my Xbox and especially on ESPN. If I watch it on my tablet, it is fine. Same internet, so I am not sure what the issue is.

I dropped cable and am missing FX and because of that am missing 'The Americans'.

So, the Playstation Vue allows you to get on the FX app and select the 'cable provider' of Vue so you can watch shows or is it included in the Vue in their library?

ISiddiqui

03-16-2016, 01:15 PM

So, the Playstation Vue allows you to get on the FX app and select the 'cable provider' of Vue so you can watch shows

Yep. Basically Sony struck deals with just about every channel they offer to allow them to be listed as a cable provider on their app, which is brilliant. I find the cable station apps to have far more back catalogue than anything else (though some, frustratingly, have a lack of Chromecast support or lack of a Roku channel - I'm looking at you SyFy).

There is one major downside of Playstation Vue... it's limited on where you can use it. Obviously you can have it on Playstation 3 and 4. You can also have it on Amazon Fire TV (or Stick). And then you can have it on iOS devices, and Chromecast through that. But that's it. No Roku support. No Android app yet.

spleen1015

03-16-2016, 01:40 PM

hollmt

03-16-2016, 01:55 PM

I had no idea Playstation Vue existed. I might have to switch from Sling. It has more channels at the same price.

I have a PS3 on one tv and a PS4 on the other as Blu Ray players, so this might be perfect.

Exactly. I am probably sold. The mid-tier package has the BIG Network, which sold me almost immediately. On top of that, having FX and USA and some other stuff Sling doesn't have for $15 more a month and still keeping AMC and adding DVR cloud recording. Cable would be $67 for me, up from $52 (right now I have Netflix, Prime, Tivo Guide and Sling), which is still better than the $118 I was paying with AT&T.

Thanks for bringing this up.

spleen1015

03-16-2016, 02:19 PM

Vue has local channels, too is that right?

DVR & local channels makes it a given I think.

hollmt

03-16-2016, 02:26 PM

Vue has local channels, too is that right?

DVR & local channels makes it a given I think.

I don't believe it does. PlayStation™Vue | PlayStation™Network (https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/?prices#1), is package 2 for $35.

I have my HD ant and the Tivo Guide to record those shows (local channels and others my ant pics up). With Vue having a lot of the other channels I miss and the DVR cloud, we can ditch HULU as there really is no need for it, especially if I am able to access the app and say that Vue is my cable provider in order to access those shows.

PackerFanatic

03-16-2016, 02:50 PM

I have been using Sling and Hulu for a while and the Vue looks like it would perfectly replace those two and save us a couple bucks a month in the process. Very nice.

PackerFanatic

03-16-2016, 02:51 PM

And I could even get my FSN back!? That'd be awesome...

ISiddiqui

03-16-2016, 03:00 PM

It only has local channels for a handful of cities and the packages cost more there because of the locals.

Logan

03-16-2016, 03:22 PM

I had no idea until about 5 minutes ago that the Vue was available on non-Playstation products.

jaygr

03-16-2016, 07:25 PM

I was one of the (maybe lucky) ones that had lots of success with Sling. Not much down time or trouble connecting, ran very smoothly. I was pretty OK with the service.

I signed up for the Vue trial and it blows Sling out of the water. It just has so much to offer for pretty much the same price.

The only issues I have had relate to the hardware supported. I've got Rokus in my house but Vue is not yet on there, so I've been using the Amazon Fire Stick. The issue people have with the Fire stick, myself included, is the menus are incredibly sluggish. Once the video plays everything is cool but getting there is a bit of a pain right now.

I hope they support Roku soon because even aside from the sluggish menus, I just don't like the Amazon interface at all compared to Roku. For now I'll use it to get Vue but I am really hoping Roku support comes soon.

Barkeep49

03-17-2016, 06:49 AM

hollmt

03-17-2016, 09:04 AM

With Vue, the DVR is in the cloud, is that correct? This does seem like an incredible service and if it were already available on Roku I'd likely have bought already. This might be the thing though that pushes me over into getting a PS4 (had debated it a few times and always decided against). How easy is it to navigate the Vue stuff on the PS4?

Yes, it is in the cloud for 28 days.

I got started on the Vue last night through the Fire Stick and am sold. There were some pauses, but not as bad as Sling. The other only small con, is that navigation is slow, but that is from my understanding, caused from the Fire Stick, not Vue itself.

I got the trial so if I do change my mind, I am out nothing. I did cancel Sling as my next bill was on the 19th, so I am not losing anything at all. I was able to setup my favorite channels and some recordings in about 15 mins, even with the slow navigation. Tonight, I will check my recording of 'The Americans' and hope it is smooth.

If the navigation and speed is better through the PS4, I too might be tempted to switch over from Xbox to PS4.