Sling TV
- Thread starter Infield Infidel
- Start date
Infield Infidel said:
That's a really solid lineup for a first shot at streaming cable and a good price point.
Funny, I just used you as an example of potentially the entire target market. How does it feel to have an entire industry relying on you?
Is $20/month really all that cheaper than getting a low tier cable TV package added to your internet in a bundle from most ISP/Cable companies? I feel like they'd need to get it down to $12-15 per year to really get any kind of market penetration. But maybe I'm wrong about the economics, that is just off the top of my head.
ESPN alone costs your cable company about $5 a month. CNN, TBS and TNT cost them about a buck each. So if they charge you $8/month they make no profit and have no reason to do this.
But also, notice that Disney says to Sling "if you want ESPN you have to take ESPN2, Disney Channel and ABC Family at a buck each." Turner does the same with Cartoon Network and Adult Swim. Just those services now cost the company (like all cable companies) about $12 a month. So there's no way they can charge you $12 a year.
But also, notice that Disney says to Sling "if you want ESPN you have to take ESPN2, Disney Channel and ABC Family at a buck each." Turner does the same with Cartoon Network and Adult Swim. Just those services now cost the company (like all cable companies) about $12 a month. So there's no way they can charge you $12 a year.
Unbundling is going to be chaotic from a price standpoint. There are a lot of channels not on that list.
edit - I mean, no AMC, no FX, no CNBC, no Nickelodeon, not MTV or VHI, no E, no Bravo, no BBC America, no Cooking Network. None of the sports networks, outside of ESPN.
Once you get there, you're at 150 a month and, then, why not get cable anyway? But it's a good foray into the process. Still, 20 a month for that crap lineup? Just stick with Prime and Netflix.
edit - I mean, no AMC, no FX, no CNBC, no Nickelodeon, not MTV or VHI, no E, no Bravo, no BBC America, no Cooking Network. None of the sports networks, outside of ESPN.
Once you get there, you're at 150 a month and, then, why not get cable anyway? But it's a good foray into the process. Still, 20 a month for that crap lineup? Just stick with Prime and Netflix.
johnmd20 said:
No, it doesn't have everything but its also only $20 a month. For the $60 - $70 a month cheaper it is than my current DirecTV bill, it is a strong option. Looking at other providers the cheapest option that includes ESPN is $57 for DirecTV and $49 for Fios and that is before all of the cable box fees. Obviously if your ISP is offering a good bundle option then it may not be worth it.
I would consider TNT and TBS sports networks since they have NBA, MLB, and March Madness. They also say they will add channels. I doubt they'll get any FOX channels, and no CBS/MTV since CBS/Viacom has their own service. Comedy Central is already free online albeit not live.
This conveniently leaves out (albeit for the cable model, not the Sling model) all the cable channels that pay to be carried on cable systems.Carmen Fanzone said:
Doc: how do you have HBO Go without cable? Can you get that as a stand alone app without paying for cable? I recall reading that it was under consideration, but didnt realize (or I forgot) that's it's up and running.
Doc Zero said:
What about baseball? Are you a Sox fan that relies on NESN?
If the regional sports networks ever jumped aboard, that would be a real game changer for me.
I don't believe HBO streaming I'd available yet. April is the last I read. I think Doc is just looking at possibilities.
Losing NESN is the tough part for me. I just dropped cable a couple months ago after the baseball season but am missing the Bruins. Those stations are keeping a lot of people on cable.
Doc,
That package looks like it would cost around $50/month for all the services you listed. While no long term contract, also doesn't seem like significant savings.
Sling TV looks like a decent bundle of channels but not sure I'll pay $20/month for it. Maybe though if it was enough of an upgrade to replace hulu.
Losing NESN is the tough part for me. I just dropped cable a couple months ago after the baseball season but am missing the Bruins. Those stations are keeping a lot of people on cable.
Doc,
That package looks like it would cost around $50/month for all the services you listed. While no long term contract, also doesn't seem like significant savings.
Sling TV looks like a decent bundle of channels but not sure I'll pay $20/month for it. Maybe though if it was enough of an upgrade to replace hulu.
BigJimEd said:
I share these costs with roommates. One of us has Hulu, the other has Netflix, all three of us leech HBO Go from exes or family members, and so on. furthermore, I'd still consider $50 coupled with my internet costs to be significant, especially considering how much electricity is sapped by cable boxes and how much I fucking hate dealing with cable providers.
the fact is, people like myself (26 years old, still kind of roughing it while navigating the post-graduate world) don't want to lock ourselves in to contracts. transaction-based services are always going to trump contract-based services.
and from a big picture perspective, this is huge. there's a very good chance that this will end up being a watershed moment for the industry if it proves successful.
I don't know; the Sling idea sounds interesting, but then following that path just gets you back to subscribing to cable channels again. The key for me is a la carte shows/events, not a la carte channels. I want to pick and choose exactly what I watch, be it live or time-delayed. The best thing about cord cutting isn't exactly the savings (to me, anyway) - it's the way you change how you watch TV. Flipping around a bunch of channels and/or watching stuff I don't specifically decide to watch (aka, eliminating passive TV watching) is what makes the whole thing good.
My dream service would give you, say, 15 hours of live or recorded whatever to watch a month from all existing cable TV channels for $10-15. You would buy time, not full access. As you watch, your time would debit until you run out for the month. Then I could watch, say, a few soccer games on NBC Sports, the Monday night football game on ESPN, and maybe try out a show or two from IFC or some upper-tier boutique channel, but the decisions would be purposeful.
My dream service would give you, say, 15 hours of live or recorded whatever to watch a month from all existing cable TV channels for $10-15. You would buy time, not full access. As you watch, your time would debit until you run out for the month. Then I could watch, say, a few soccer games on NBC Sports, the Monday night football game on ESPN, and maybe try out a show or two from IFC or some upper-tier boutique channel, but the decisions would be purposeful.
Man, I respect your outside-the-box thinking, but the last thing I want is a cap for the amount of programming I watch. Charge me a monthly fee if you must, but don't complicate it by making me keep track of my total viewing time.
Sometimes you just get drunk and pass out on the couch.
Sometimes you just get drunk and pass out on the couch.
What you're missing here is that the present system subsidized the shows you want to pick from. In a world where you only buy specific shows, no company has the budget anymore to produce a Game of Thrones, or even a far cheaper Mad Men.dirtynine said:
There is a reason the a la carte internet has never had a video hit series. No underlying financial structure to provide seed money for production.
HSN typically gives the cable company >5% of sales from what the cable customers buy off TV. It amounts to a small fraction of a penny per customer per month. So, as I noted above, revenue that largely doesn't exist.Harry Hooper said:
Concerned about the stream quality more than the cost. I "Sling" feed from parents home to Seoul (and to Texas before) and the connection is not as stable as you'd think.
Just as a reference had 100mbps in Austin and about 600-800mbps in Seoul. However, pure speed is seriously hampered by pings/hubs the signal has to jump through. Still, not comparable to Netflix or other paid streams.
Just as a reference had 100mbps in Austin and about 600-800mbps in Seoul. However, pure speed is seriously hampered by pings/hubs the signal has to jump through. Still, not comparable to Netflix or other paid streams.
trekfan55 said:
But you can watch MLB.tv through a smart TV, an Apple TV, a Roku, etc. and watch it on your TV and then not buy cable.
But it isn't a decision MLBAM can just make anyway; the RSNs have exclusive contracts to broadcast the games in the broadcast market of the team and they have deals with cable providers to get carriage fees.
Someone wrote a pretty thorough hands-on review of Sling TV that I found kind of interesting:
http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/hands-on-with-dish-sling-tv
http://televisions.reviewed.com/content/hands-on-with-dish-sling-tv