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.
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.
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
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
Masochism?