Slashdot Mirror
Dish Introduces $20-a-Month Streaming-TV Service
wyattstorch516 writes "Dish Networks has unveiled Sling TV, its streaming service for customers who don't want to subscribe to Cable or Satellite. From the article: "For $20 a month — yes, twenty dollars — you get access to a lineup of cable networks that includes TNT, TBS, CNN, Food Network, HGTV, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, the Disney Channel, ESPN, and ESPN2. ESPN is obviously a huge get for Dish and could earn Sling TV plenty of customers all on its own. ESPN just ended another year as TV's leading cable network, and now you won't need a traditional cable package to watch it. For sports fanatics, that could prove enticing. 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."
Aereo didn't get the right licensing agreements with the local broadcasters... Dish already has the right contact list from its DBS business.
To say goodbye to Comcast. I have been caught with the problem of family members who wanted those certain networks.
Now...bwahahaha.
Dish is already a provider. And pays the partner networks when online streaming like they do for satellite broadcast. They are only streaming networks that have agreed to the arrangement, which explains the limited selection.
Now what is likely to happen, is that cable companies (Comcast & Time Warner) will fight it. Because Dish customers are likely to be streaming over internet-only cable services in some regions where DSL is not practical. (hell, when is DSL ever practical?)
The Sling trademark is owned by Dish's former parent company Echostar. Dish network's new offering, Sling TV (announced today), is a new service being offered -- it is not being offered under the Dish Network brand, but as its own product.
I understand your desire for a la carte programming, but live sports is what stops a *lot* of people from cutting the cord and just going to Hulu, Netflix, Prime, or SomeOtherService.
Getting ESPN is a Big Hairy Deal for cord cutters, and it's the title of the article. Your only other option was to hope that your cable provider let you tune into ESPNU or similar from your IP range...or to pirate your college sports.
You can think of this as ESPN is $20 a la carte, and includes some free channels with it :)
I will sign up for any option that lets me not pay for sports. fuck the sports tax.
ESPN is the reason I cancelled Dish in the first place. It's the most costly channel in their lineup and I got sick of subsizing it. Had they chosen better, cheaper channels, I would have considered it.
I'll warn you that TWC is like most providers. They will charge you though the nose for a "dry" internet connection (i.e. when you only have internet service with them). The delta between internet and TV with internet is just about $20 and add phone for another $10 (with per/min charges). Add a few dollars for the cable box and this deal will only be a small gain over an internet connection and TV.
Verizon FIOS is worse than that. They charge me over $100/month for 25/25 net only. If I added their premier TV service, I'd be at $140 or so with taxes and equipment for 2 TV's and they'd bump my internet speed to 50/50.
Where I get where this idea is headed and I would really like to just pay for what I need, I'm still money ahead to go with the full service from Verizon..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Do you do anything on the Internet besides stare slack-jawed at videos?
I mostly post on ./ at work.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
From the FCC:
Are cable systems required to offer "a la carte" and pay-per-view channels?
No, but they may choose to offer channels on a stand-alone basis ("a la carte") or as a pay-per-view channel. Commission rules also prohibit cable systems from requiring customers to subscribe to any tiers beyond the basic tier in order to have access to a la carte channels or pay-per-view channels offered by the system.
'Out your ass' is not a legitimate source.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh, they are all already out of business because of DVR's on cable and satellite services? I think not. The cable and satellite companies DO pay for access to the channels (and quite a bit, at that). And even with ability to fast forward through commercials, many people (myself included) still see things and stop and play interesting/relevant commercials.
I am neither clueless nor cheap. I know exactly how this stuff works and I will not pay any price for content which forces commercial viewing. And if that means I have to pay more for access to the channels... fine. So how is that clueless or cheap?
I am certainly not alone in this feeling. The genie is out of the bag, and many of us will never go back. Next step- I want to pay for only the channels I want/watch. I am tired of subsidizing extremely expensive and totally uninteresting sports channels and other such nonsense.
Al-a-cart is currently illegal due to the structuring content providers talked the FCC into years ago.
A la carte is now and always has been legal. The cable providers don't offer it because they sign contracts with the content owners which make it unprofitable (they can provide channels a la carte, but if someone picks Disney Kids, the cable company must pay Disney for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN West, ESPN 7, etc. But there's nothing legally or contractually preventing the cable company from selling Disney Kids a la carte. It's a financial model problem, not a legal or contractual one.
Learn to love Alaska
Arguing that the contract requires they purchase unrelated channels to get a single channel is not contract related is a bunch of horseshit. It IS a contractual problem, because the content providers refuse to sell channels outside bundles which essentially forces bundling on the provider.
Personally I believe this is a regulatory action the government should take, they should make it illegal to force bundle channels to providers and require that they sell channels to all providers on equal terms and without bias. There should be a cost to that government granted monopoly and one of them should be that they can't discriminate against delivery methods or require the purchase of entire channel catalogs to get a single channel. We've given these companies the ability to destroy competing delivery services which has resulted in monopoly collusion between content creators and distributors. This monopoly should be broken, and laws should be passed to prevent it from ever happening again.
I personally don't believe distribution companies (ie cable & sat companies, netflix, etc) should be able to own content and that allowing that to happen has resulted in a significant portion of the last decades price increases for content.
The amount that goes to service and the amount that goes to the actual content provider are not divided so neatly into that fee structure. Advertising most definitely does not cover $100/month of the cost for the majority of people. The cost to the content provider comes out of part of that $20, and possibly some comes from the commercials. The biggest reason for commercials is as it always has been with pay TV: it's an easy way to get some extra revenue.
When cable TV was new part of the rationale given by marketing and word of mouth is that you don't have to put up with commercials. And indeed in the early days that was true, you only got commercials for those programs that were rebroadcast (not counting interstitial promotions for their own upcoming shows and the like). Ie, MTV was music videos all day and all night with the occasional commentary and news from "VJs". Even up until recently there were channels still like this, such as IFC or AMC not interrupting movies with ads. However it was not long until cable companies realized they could double dip and get subscription fees plus advertisement dollars, with only "premium" channels having fewer ads.
Masochism?