# Sling TV opens its doors to all cord-cutters



## Athlon646464

*Sling TV opens its doors to all cord-cutters*

(engadget.com) - We've just learned that not only is Sling TV now open to all, but AMC's portfolio of channels (AMC, BBC America etc.) have been added to the core $20 a month package. Also, the sports top-up pack we heard about at CES is now confirmed. An extra $5 a month will get you a the "Sports Extra" pack that include SEC Network, ESPNEWS, ESPNU and Universal Sports among others....

Full Story Here


----------



## Coachbulldog

I have been a Directv customer since 2002 and have no plans to cut the cord but, as time goes on, I'm watching more and more television on my computer and tablet. Streaming television on mobile devices is the wave of the future and, what ever it's current shortcomings, I hope Sling eventually succeeds. A successful stand alone platform like Sling will open the door to more and better options for consumers who are watching more programming on their tablets and computers.


----------



## mike1977

Sounds nice. But I'd rather have a DVR with no restrictions on FF or REW.

I don't like streaming services with commercials in them anyway. Two Flash episodes ago, I watched it from the CW site. It hung on a couple commercial breaks. I eventually had to close my browser. Then after a couple of seconds of resuming where I left off...BAM switch to commercials right in the middle of dialogue.


----------



## mwdxer

I have the Roku is addition to Dish. Streaming has not gotten to the place where I would be willing to cut the cord. Most of the channels are not available for streaming anyway. I know people that have, but they are willing to give up a lot.


----------



## RasputinAXP

having been a recent cord-cutting convert, SlingTV is filling in the gap quite nicely. And it'll be even better once MNF is back on in the fall. And there's no commitment and nothing tying me to it.

Well, except for the wife, who is thrilled to have HGTV back...


----------



## kick4fun

I have to admit, this service is pretty nice. Streams pretty well and with an OTA antenna this is a nice compliment. Having had both Directv and Dish, I cut the cord last week. saving $100 a month is nice now that football season is over.


----------



## mwdxer

I see Sling TV is also available on the Roku.


----------



## tonyd79

How is this cord cutting? It isn't. It is just a different delivery mechanism for the same product from a satellite company.


----------



## kick4fun

tonyd79 said:


> How is this cord cutting? It isn't. It is just a different delivery mechanism for the same product from a satellite company.


At a fraction of the cost.


----------



## SayWhat?

Given the inability to cut or spin though commercials and the forced inclusion of the Jock channels, I won't be doing this.


----------



## rynorama

tonyd79 said:


> How is this cord cutting? It isn't. It is just a different delivery mechanism for the same product from a satellite company.


Wireless = cut the cord.

Not to mention cutting $120 off a monthly tv bill


----------



## Stewart Vernon

rynorama said:


> Wireless = cut the cord.
> 
> Not to mention cutting $120 off a monthly tv bill


Who says it is wireless? Could be wired ethernet...

As to cutting $120 off... that depends on how much you pay for high-speed internet.

People never want to count the cost of high-speed internet to their streaming costs... but when you are streaming it affects your other downloading, so it is a real thing. You have to amortize at least a part of your broadband (or whatever they call it now) costs along with Sling TV to truly account for what it costs you to "cut that cord"...


----------



## James Long

I think of it as "cut the commitment" ... although there are "no commitment" deals available, most require you to make an expensive purchase (instead of free or discounted equipment with a contract). Sling TV is a bring your own device commitment free service. Buy whatever equipment works, use it for whatever else it is good for and subscribe to Sling TV when you want the content.


----------



## mwdxer

I am wondering if Sling will offer the same type packages that Dish has in time? I wonder if so, if the price will be less, as there is no outlay of equipment with Dish.


----------



## sregener

Perhaps a better description than "cord cutting" would be "Pay as you go" which is how some cell phone products are marketed. No contracts. And no leased equipment. No setup/activation fees. That's what this is: a pay-as-you-go service.

It's a way to get the "cord cutters" back in the fold of pay-television viewers. I happen to think it's a good one.


----------



## Wilf

tonyd79 said:


> How is this cord cutting? It isn't. It is just a different delivery mechanism for the same product from a satellite company.


Except that you can use any device of your choosing to watch. It is still bundling. I doubt it will be attractive to Netflix customers.


----------



## peds48

kick4fun said:


> At a fraction of the cost.


and with a fraction of the channels

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21

peds48 said:


> and with a fraction of the channels
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


But if those channels are the ones you actually want to watch, do you actually care that the other 200 or so you don't watch aren't there?


----------



## Athlon646464

IMHO, some here may be nit-picking the common definition of 'cord cutting'. While STV is not quite OTT, it's pretty close to 'cord cutting' in that it uses broadband to deliver the content rather than satellite or cable.

'Cord cutting' is short for 'cutting the cable cord'. ('Cable' in this context includes satellite TV.) STV is sort of a hybrid because it isn't quite OTT, but some will see it as cutting their traditional way of getting content as well as cutting their bill, and call it 'cutting the cord'.

As for losing the convenience of a DVR, 'real' cord cutters do, and are willing to do so.

As for including the cost of broadband, while I understand the argument, for me, at least, I look at it this way. I'm going to have internet whether I 'cut the cord' or not, so I look at broadband as a fixed cost. (I'm fortunate in that I don't have caps or limitations on my service.) I also have quality hardware in place. So, if I cut the cord, I would be doing what 'cord cutters' really want - saving on my total bill and selecting the programming, and only the programing, I really want.

I see it kind of like why I went with Ooma for my phone (a VOIP system). For a one time investment in their hardware, I eliminated my phone bill. Yes, it uses my broadband, but again, I will always have that anyway. I didn't add broadband to support my Ooma box, I simply added my Ooma box to my home's existing network.


----------



## Laxguy

You raise a point that's been bugging me: Both cord cutting and OTT services are not, and will not be, available universally. There are a lot of us with connections under 5mbps, and so streaming a decent picture is out. 

Does this mean that these services are available only in urban and high income suburban locations? Pretty much, as far as I can see.


----------



## Athlon646464

Laxguy said:


> You raise a point that's been bugging me: Both cord cutting and OTT services are not, and will not be, available universally. There are a lot of us with connections under 5mbps, and so streaming a decent picture is out.
> 
> Does this mean that these services are available only in urban and high income suburban locations? Pretty much, as far as I can see.


Sadly, for now, yes.

I do believe, however, that some day there will be 'broadband' solutions for all. Technology in that area is being developed as we are watching this thread. AT&T, for one, is a good example of that. (Research, I mean. :grin: )


----------



## tsmacro

Yes these kind of services are really only available for people with fast HSI with no data caps, so that means a lot people are excluded.


----------



## kick4fun

Stewart Vernon said:


> Who says it is wireless? Could be wired ethernet...
> 
> As to cutting $120 off... that depends on how much you pay for high-speed internet.
> 
> People never want to count the cost of high-speed internet to their streaming costs... but when you are streaming it affects your other downloading, so it is a real thing. You have to amortize at least a part of your broadband (or whatever they call it now) costs along with Sling TV to truly account for what it costs you to "cut that cord"...


This is so silly... Assuming everyone already has internet, this new option still saves me $100.


----------



## kick4fun

Wilf said:


> Except that you can use any device of your choosing to watch. It is still bundling. I doubt it will be attractive to Netflix customers.


It's attractive to me. I already have Netflix.


----------



## kick4fun

peds48 said:


> and with a fraction of the channels
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


Yep... Not paying for channels I never watch.


----------



## david_jr

Do you really think Hollywood is going to let their content go for less? They will find ways to make it up either by adding more forced commercials or by raising the price after they get enough of a base hooked in. In life you get what you pay for. Unless it isn't available in your area.


----------



## Laxguy

kick4fun said:


> This is so silly... Assuming everyone already has internet, this new option still saves me $100.


_*That*_'s silly. Not only does everyone not have internet, many many millions of US citizens have insufficient internet.


----------



## mwdxer

I live out in rural Oregon and the choice for really fast internet available is Charter Cable. DSL is not here and satellite is not great with our weather in the Winter. But fortunately for $50 a month I do get 60-65 and our area is rural and far from rich. It works just fine with streaming. Some of the channels on the Roku are HD quality.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Laxguy said:


> _*That*_'s silly. Not only does everyone not have internet, many many millions of US citizens have insufficient internet.


Exactly... and even if you do have sufficient internet, when you are watching TV on it that bandwidth isn't available for other internet things... or at least not as fast... so presuming you had internet because you needed or wanted it for other uses, you have piled on another use of it with the streaming.

It's like people who demand free shipping but never want to count the cost of gas when they drive to a store to pick something up locally. Somehow that gas "doesn't count" because it was already in their car anyway.

Same with streaming... people don't want to count the total cost, including at least a part of their internet as if it isn't happening. These are the people, I suspect, who forget there are other costs to provide satellite/cable than just the content... like the delivery mechanism!

For what you get... and the mostly guaranteed 100% up-time of cable/satellite TV... it's hard to beat the bang for the buck.


----------



## SayWhat?

As long as there's a Jock Tax in it, I ain't bitin', web capacity or not. I just cancelled Dish after close to 20 years and I'll never pay a Jock Tax again. I can find plenty of other ways to fill the TV screen.


----------



## Athlon646464

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's like people who demand free shipping but never want to count the cost of gas when they drive to a store to pick something up locally. Somehow that gas "doesn't count" because it was already in their car anyway.
> 
> Same with streaming... people don't want to count the total cost, including at least a part of their internet as if it isn't happening. These are the people, I suspect, who forget there are other costs to provide satellite/cable than just the content... like the delivery mechanism!


But the gas needs to be replenished. My bandwidth does not need to be replenished. I view it as a fixed cost. I need it for other things, so I'll always have internet at my house whether we stream or not.

There are three of us here, and we can all stream something different at the same time. Although that is a rare occurrence, we can.

Before my first Roku, and my second Roku and my Fire Stick I had exactly the same internet plan as I do today. So, again - I view my internet as a fixed cost. I'm just able to do more with it today than I could yesterday. I can even save on my cell phone bill by making wifi calls when home (T-Mobile).

If I were to unplug from D* and go all streaming I could save at least $900 per year. For the $900 I would lose my DVR capability and locals. So, for me, it's not about my internet connection costs at all, but rather the stuff D* provides that I cannot get OTT, at least for now.


----------



## SayWhat?

Athlon646464 said:


> For the $900 I would lose my DVR capability and locals. So, for me, it's not about my internet connection costs at all, but rather the stuff D* provides that I cannot get OTT, at least for now.


Doesn't PlayOn/PlayLater give you at least some of that?


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> Doesn't PlayOn/PlayLater give you at least some of that?


It does and supports quite a number of 'channels' with some 3rd party plugins available for others. Playon is the streaming media server and some of the little plug-in boxes for a TV, like Roku, and a number of BluRay players can see and use it.

Playlater is the recording part of the deal. You can set recordings from the machine it is actually on, and you can use their free apps on iOS, Windows and I assume Android to set them there too.

And they have an HD add on so you can get it in HD too.

Pretty darned good combo to get and a free trial of all of it is just a click away...


----------



## mwdxer

I see another service called KLOWDTV on the Roku, an HD 720p+ streaming with a dozen channels. Most are sports though. So everyone is getting into the streaming game.


----------



## Wilf

Stewart Vernon said:


> Exactly... and even if you do have sufficient internet, when you are watching TV on it that bandwidth isn't available for other internet things... or at least not as fast... so presuming you had internet because you needed or wanted it for other uses, you have piled on another use of it with the streaming.
> 
> . . .
> 
> For what you get... and the mostly guaranteed 100% up-time of cable/satellite TV... it's hard to beat the bang for the buck.T


Depends on where you live. I am in a fairly rural community with 75 down, 5 up internet with no caps - for all practical purposes there are no bandwidth limitations. And up time is near perfect. Now if the telcos and the likes of Comcast would stop buying the politicians everyone could have this kind of service.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Athlon646464 said:


> But the gas needs to be replenished. My bandwidth does not need to be replenished. I view it as a fixed cost. I need it for other things, so I'll always have internet at my house whether we stream or not.
> 
> There are three of us here, and we can all stream something different at the same time. Although that is a rare occurrence, we can.
> 
> Before my first Roku, and my second Roku and my Fire Stick I had exactly the same internet plan as I do today. So, again - I view my internet as a fixed cost. I'm just able to do more with it today than I could yesterday. I can even save on my cell phone bill by making wifi calls when home (T-Mobile).
> 
> If I were to unplug from D* and go all streaming I could save at least $900 per year. For the $900 I would lose my DVR capability and locals. So, for me, it's not about my internet connection costs at all, but rather the stuff D* provides that I cannot get OTT, at least for now.


I'm not denying that there can't be some savings... I'm just saying the cost shouldn't be considered as zero.

If you decide to drop Dish today and move to streaming... you can do that. But once you do that, say you decide you like TV but don't need to browse the internet anymore. You can't cut that cord without losing your TV. Your streaming package is not independent of your internet package. It is a non-bundled bundle, effectively.

What happens if/when your Internet provider starts enforcing caps that impede your ability to stream as much as you want? OR they raise the prices on your Internet? OR you need your Internet more for other things that make the streaming less fluid because you are downloading/uploading more for other purposes?

To me... the way things are for the forseeable future... streaming is only an option if you don't watch much TV. For a very casual user of TV, this can work because you aren't using much of your time or bandwidth on the TV and don't need to pay the bigger payTV bill to have 24/7 and lots more choices.

But for anyone who watches a lot of TV... there's just no beating the payTV package from satellite or cable for bang-for-buck.


----------



## Athlon646464

I understand your points. Right now, I'm not planning to leave DirecTV, and I don't see a time where that will happen soon. 

However, I would say that at present I stream my TV viewing about 1/3 of the time. That's a lot more than I did just a year ago, and many times more than 2 years ago. I can only hope my ISP doesn't start to cap us.....


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm a supplemental streamer... If I miss a show, and can stream it online for free via Dish Online or the network's Web site then I'll do that to stay current. I don't subscribe to Netflix or anything like that. I did used to have access to Amazon Prime when I was with my father and he had the Prime membership. Truth be told, I partook more of the free Prime shipping and he was the one that liked the streaming movies.

I don't hate streaming, it just isn't my first choice.


----------



## sregener

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not denying that there can't be some savings... I'm just saying the cost shouldn't be considered as zero.


For right now, for me, the cost would be considered zero. You raise good points about "what ifs" but the future is always uncertain. And it's not like you're signing up for a 2-year contract with SlingTV. If things change, they change, and you make a new value calculation based on what is available then.

If I have bandwidth to my home that I am not using currently because I have a need for HSI for other purposes, the additional cost of streaming is zero. If I have no need for HSI except for streaming, the cost is 100%. Everyone's situation is different, so everyone's value calculation is different. That was kind of the point behind Mises' epic work, "Human Action."


----------



## damondlt

mwdxer said:


> I live out in rural Oregon and the choice for really fast internet available is Charter Cable. DSL is not here and satellite is not great with our weather in the Winter. But fortunately for $50 a month I do get 60-65 and our area is rural and far from rich. It works just fine with streaming. Some of the channels on the Roku are HD quality.


You need less than 10 mbps for HD quality streaming.
You need only 25mbps for 4K HD.
So yes your 65 mbps is way more than needed and way higher than millions people are even offered. 
I get 15d,2up and with a bundled pack it's still 52.95,
67.95 if I was to subscribe to satellite or decided to be a cord cutter.


----------



## Coachbulldog

Athlon646464 said:


> I understand your points. Right now, I'm not planning to leave DirecTV, and I don't see a time where that will happen soon.
> 
> However, I would say that at present I stream my TV viewing about 1/3 of the time. That's a lot more than I did just a year ago, and many times more than 2 years ago. I can only hope my ISP doesn't start to cap us.....


I don't know how realistic this scenario is, but I could see an internet provider like Comcast establishing a model where a customer will have their internet capped unless they bundle their internet with one of Comcast's television packages.


----------



## Laxguy

Coachbulldog said:


> I don't know how realistic this scenario is, but I could see an internet provider like Comcast establishing a model where a customer will have their internet capped unless they bundle their internet with one of Comcast's television packages.


They sure wouldn't have any qualms about that, but they won't out and out say that, as it could bring a suit. As in lawsuit.


----------



## anex80

The savings may not be as much as you think. For instance, in my case, I was paying $85/month for DTV. I decided to experiment with cutting the cord thinking I could save close to that amount but it was no where near.

First of all, I wanted DVR capability for at least my locals, which I received OTA. I opted to go with the TiVo Roamio OTA, with an upfront cost of $50 and a monthly cost of $15. I didn't count the cost of Netflix or Amazon Prime as I already had those and would carry them regardless of whether or not I had pay tv service. I did go through and figure up how much it would cost if I purchased all of the cable shows I watch from Amazon or iTunes and that broke down to $100, or about $8/month.

In addition to those options, I was very intrigued at the ability of streaming ESPN channels without a cable subscription, so I signed up for SlingTV. That ended up costing me an additional $25/month (I added the sports package).

At this point I was still saving close to $40/month over cable. Not as big of a savings as I had initially hoped but still enough to make it feel worthwhile. What threw me for a loop, however, is what happened next.

So I'm going along streaming my shows online and loving life. Even catching a sports game or two on Sling, and then my Internet bill comes. Apparently I had exceeded my monthly data usage limit by 40GB and I was warned that next time I would be charged an overage fee.

I started modifying the bandwidth settings on as many apps as possible and trying to limit the amount of time we spent streaming but quickly realized that effort was futile. I was checking my data usage daily and calculating what that would amount to over 1 months time. I became my father who used to run through the house turning off lights and shutting doors to save energy costs, only I was doing it with bandwidth. I discovered quickly that my current data cap was too low to satisfy my needs so I called my ISP and upgraded to a new plan.

I was now paying $20/month more for Internet than I was before, bringing my total cord-cutting cost experiment savings to a net of $17/month. PLUS I became the bandwidth nazi and was honestly wondering how long it would take before I would have to upgrade my Internet plan again, making it more expensive to cut the cord.

So, needless to say, my experiment didn't last long before I re-activated my DTV account and moved on a much happier payTV subscriber knowing that the grass truly isn't always greener on the other side.

I realize every situation is unique and not all of this will apply to everyone. For instance, someone who doesn't watch any sports and has an ISP with no data limits would probably fare much better than I did. I simply wanted to share my experience and point out that there is a lot more cost involved in cutting the cord than you may first realize.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Athlon646464

And who is your ISP? 

Interesting story by the way.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

On the purposing of your internet connection examples...

If you have high-speed internet but barely use it except for streaming... then the argument could be made that you should save money by dropping to a lower speed of internet, right? Same argument as payTV where you are "paying for channels you don't watch" if you are "paying for bandwidth on your internet that you don't need"...

That's what I'm getting at. IF you need the high-speed for your internet browsing, then streaming TV is a take-away from that availability and thus has some amount of cost associated... IF your streaming TV doesn't interfere with your other internet usage, then it is a sign you were overpaying for internet and paying for bandwidth you previously didn't need, so that has a cost associated that now goes with the streaming.

That's why I say there should be some non-zero cost of internet associated with your streaming.

I see similar discussions on other forums where people discuss using gift cards to buy something and say "That movie was priced $15 but I had a $10 gift card so it only cost me $5!" Which isn't true... it still cost them $15 total, but only $5 of their cash. That gift card was worth the same as $10 cash and could have been used for anything... so wasting it on a bad purchase doesn't mean you didn't still waste it.

Coupons give discounts... gift cards are cash.

Your cost of internet, once you add streaming services, should get divided up into some proportion for your streaming use and the rest for your other internet access usage. It will be important going forward to know that metric IF more people switch to streaming and the prices of things begin to change from what they are now.


----------



## SayWhat?

anex80 said:


> First of all, I wanted DVR capability for at least my locals, which I received OTA. I opted to go with the TiVo Roamio OTA, with an upfront cost of $50 and a monthly cost of $15.


If you have a PC with Windows 7, you already have Media Center which does all of that, plus more. You may need a tuner card or dongle, but those are fairly inexpensive and there are no recurring fees. They usually have their own software too which emulates a DVR.


----------



## SayWhat?

And you can add as big a hard drive as you want for storage with none of the limitations that might apply to stand alone units.


----------



## sregener

Stewart Vernon said:


> If you have high-speed internet but barely use it except for streaming... then the argument could be made that you should save money by dropping to a lower speed of internet, right? Same argument as payTV where you are "paying for channels you don't watch" if you are "paying for bandwidth on your internet that you don't need"...
> 
> That's what I'm getting at. IF you need the high-speed for your internet browsing, then streaming TV is a take-away from that availability and thus has some amount of cost associated... IF your streaming TV doesn't interfere with your other internet usage, then it is a sign you were overpaying for internet and paying for bandwidth you previously didn't need, so that has a cost associated that now goes with the streaming.


Everyone's situation is different. I have 40Mbps HSI, with no caps. I need 10. I basically am, in your words, paying for bandwidth I don't need. Which is absolutely true. However, it is the lowest speed available from my provider. To get a slower speed, I would need to switch to another provider, and the only option is a very unreliable and poor customer service one.

I need HSI for my job. I need it to work. Now that I have it, I see no additional cost in using streaming services for other things. Should I get a different job or move to an area with different ISP choices, that could change. But for right now, I have plenty of "spare" bandwidth for Sling that costs me nothing to use.


----------



## damondlt

Agree, I don't know anyone whom doesn't have high speed Internet this day and age.

And theses people also have Directv, Dish,and Cable.

So it's not like a person is going from not having internet since they've subscribed to pay tv , and now all of a sudden subscribing to internet just to do streaming only service. They/us already have it.
I've had High speed internet since 2006.

So if I decided to drop pay tv and subscribe and keep , Amazon,Netflix,Hulu and the $20 with my Internet I currently have, I could still save $80 to 100 a month.

Not bad!
But I'm also giving up a lot, but I couldn't find a way to save that king of money with any satellite or cable provider as an existing customer.


----------



## scooper

You were late to HSI  - I got DSL in Summer 2000.

I don't really need what I have now (2 M up, 20M down) but I'm not too sure I want to downgrade too much either. In fact, I've thought about going up to the next tier (5M up, 30 M down).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sregener said:


> Everyone's situation is different. I have 40Mbps HSI, with no caps. I need 10. I basically am, in your words, paying for bandwidth I don't need. Which is absolutely true. However, it is the lowest speed available from my provider. To get a slower speed, I would need to switch to another provider, and the only option is a very unreliable and poor customer service one.
> 
> I need HSI for my job. I need it to work. Now that I have it, I see no additional cost in using streaming services for other things. Should I get a different job or move to an area with different ISP choices, that could change. But for right now, I have plenty of "spare" bandwidth for Sling that costs me nothing to use.


Perhaps... but look at the arguments from most cord-cutters... They will say "the cost of payTV is too much, and I'm paying for channels I don't even watch" as reasons they go to streaming. So, logically, they should apply this same metric to their internet use. If, as in your example, you are paying for 40Mbps but only really need 10 Mbps... you might say "I want a lower tier for just the bandwidth I use" just like the payTV customer wants a lower package tier that only includes channels he watches.

You say you have no choice, unless you go to another less-reliable ISP for your internet... which is ironically the same thing the payTV customer has as his option... go to a less reliable TV content provider  But in the case of TV, they are making that choice.

It's certainly a valid choice for some... but it depends on how you do things.

IF I only shop at retail locations that exist between my work and my home, then I don't have to count much of my gas/car usage towards my shopping costs since I would be going that route to work anyway. But every detour off that path should be counted... so if I start working out at an exercise place in the opposite direction from where I work... The cost of that gym membership is the membership fee + the cost of gas + the cost of extra wear on my car. I wouldn't say "I have a car anyway" or "it already had gas in it"... I have to weigh the total cost of that gym membership to see if the value I get in return is worth the full cost to get it.

I'm encouraging people to think about that when they switch and "cord cut" so that they aren't surprised later. Believe me, some will be surprised later.


----------



## mwdxer

I have about 65 Mbps here and I would rather have more than I need, as if more people get online streaming in the area, I never need to worry about freezing, etc. Anyway we really do not have a choice, 60+ is the norm now. Charter got complaints at 30 Mbps of too many online that caused issues I guess, so they doubled it. Out here where I live in the country, not a lot have High Speed. Charter does offer higher rates too, but I would never use it. With the Roku streaming as well as my son streaming his video game or Netflex, we never have any issues. I have friends in the cities that get 4-5 on DSL that are always complaining.


----------



## sregener

Stewart Vernon said:


> Perhaps... but look at the arguments from most cord-cutters... They will say "the cost of payTV is too much, and I'm paying for channels I don't even watch" as reasons they go to streaming. So, logically, they should apply this same metric to their internet use. If, as in your example, you are paying for 40Mbps but only really need 10 Mbps... you might say "I want a lower tier for just the bandwidth I use" just like the payTV customer wants a lower package tier that only includes channels he watches.


I think my ISP has bandwidth to spare. For $5/month more, I could get 70Mbps. And I do enjoy the extra speed of 40 when I'm downloading things. I just don't need it. It doesn't sit always idle, just mostly. I look at it as my paying for the fiber to my house and the upkeep of their equipment. I'm not overpaying for the faster speed. If I switched to Mediacom, I'd be paying the same or more for 15Mbps. And I'd get Mediacom's reliability as an added "bonus."

I think the bundling argument is an attempt to explain the high prices. I don't think it does. The prices are high because most people will pay them. Most people who price out streaming realize the truth that has been argued here time and time again: a la carte is more expensive. And people still think in "channels" rather than in programming. True a la carte is pay per view - no bundling of unwanted programming with the shows you want. Why are we still paying for ESPN's coverage of hockey when all we really want it for is tennis and football? Why pay for all the HGTV programs when all we want is "Love it Or List It?" That's the reality - we're still buying (smaller) bundles when we buy channels rather than programs.

SlingTV is another channel bundle with a unique (for now) delivery system. It may be the future, or it may not. It is not a la carte. It is not "cord cutting" in the traditional sense. It's just a smaller and much cheaper pay TV option with no contract and no equipment to buy (provided you already have a Roku or the like.) SlingTV isn't an incentive to cord cut so much as it is an attempt to collect some money from the many who have cut the cord.


----------



## Wilf

I would argue that the cost of "transmitting" broadband TV is similar to, or less than OTA transmission. Therefore, ad supported broadband TV should be free to the customer (except for broadband subscription). Therefore, SlingTV is overpriced. (maybe a little tongue-in-cheek here).


----------



## damondlt

sregener said:


> Everyone's situation is different. I have 40Mbps HSI, with no caps. I need 10. I basically am, in your words, paying for bandwidth I don't need. Which is absolutely true.


People are also paying for channels they don't need or don't watch with every provider.


----------



## damondlt

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm encouraging people to think about that when they switch and "cord cut" so that they aren't surprised later. Believe me, some will be surprised later.


Agree, they will be surprised.
But so far I've seen you can subscribe to quite a few services via streaming only and save quite a bit of money.

But my case and many others ,OTA is not an option, and IMO a deal breaker when it comes to cord cutting.


----------



## sregener

damondlt said:


> But my case and many others ,OTA is not an option, and IMO a deal breaker when it comes to cord cutting.


I've known a few people who have been satisfied with the offerings of Netflix+Hulu Plus, but I think for most people, this is at true statement. OTA is a key component in making cord-cutting work, and there remains a need for a simple, cost-effective DVR without a monthly subscription fee. And I'm not talking about Windows Media Center or something like it - while I'm an IT guy, I crave the simplicity of a simple DVR. I'm fortunate to have a still-working DTVPal DVR, though I wish they'd fixed a few software glitches before abandoning it.

However, most people have the ability to make OTA work. It is not nearly as difficult as it was in the analog days.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ I think there are a couple out there. Doesn't ChannelMaster still make one?

A qucik search on Amazon finds these:

4 Tuners, max 2 TB EHD (not included). Not sure about guide data

http://www.amazon.com/Tablo-HDTV-Antennas-4-Tuner-Wi-Fi/dp/B00MWLZR0I/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1424087672&sr=1-3&keywords=tv+dvr+ota

Single tuner, converter box type unit also takes up to a 2TB EHD

http://www.amazon.com/Mediasonic-HW180STB-HomeWorx-Converter-Recording/dp/B00IYETYX8/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1424087672&sr=1-7&keywords=tv+dvr+ota


----------



## SayWhat?

ChannelMaster CM7500

http://www.amazon.com/Channel-Master-DVR-Bundle-subscription/dp/B00JGZQ17Q/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1424087672&sr=1-6&keywords=tv+dvr+ota


----------



## Wilf

damondlt said:


> Agree, they will be surprised.
> But so far I've seen you can subscribe to quite a few services via streaming only and save quite a bit of money.
> 
> But my case and many others ,OTA is not an option, and IMO a deal breaker when it comes to cord cutting.


The options for cord-cutters are many as exemplified by this guide: http://www.heronfidelity.com/blog/cord-cutting-guide.html


----------



## Jim5506

My observation has been that the higher speeds come with higher caps, if you go for 30MB service you get a 100GB cap, if you go with a 50MB service you get a 250GB cap and so forth (figures will vary).

So, higher speed may have to be taken to accomplish the higher data cap needed to avoid overages, it is not just as simple as to speed or not to speed.


----------



## mwdxer

I don't think Charter here has a cap. I asked the installer and he said there wasn't one that he was aware of. I never use a huge amount anyway. I have no idea how much I stream on the Roku each month. I do know if I could measure it. Maybe on the Charter site?


----------



## SayWhat?

mwdxer said:


> I have no idea how much I stream on the Roku each month. I do know if I could measure it. Maybe on the Charter site?


"I do know if I could measure it."

I take it the word 'not' is missing from that?

If your ISP doesn't have a way for you to see it in understandable terms, there are some third party bandwidth monitoring and measuring utilities out there.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jim5506 said:


> My observation has been that the higher speeds come with higher caps, if you go for 30MB service you get a 100GB cap, if you go with a 50MB service you get a 250GB cap and so forth (figures will vary).
> 
> So, higher speed may have to be taken to accomplish the higher data cap needed to avoid overages, it is not just as simple as to speed or not to speed.


Which is another driving factor, in my opinion, to the "total cost" of cord-cutting... If you had to jump to a higher tier to get more cap room for your TV viewing that you otherwise didn't need for your computer/mobile device Internet usage... than that's an additional cost of the streaming that many would choose not to count even though it is real.

Like... if you are in the market for a new car... but you have a family with several kids, some of whom still need to be in safety seats... so instead of being able to get a fuel-efficient car you are forced to get a less-efficient SUV to hold your entire family... so the cost of the car might be the same BUT your maintenance and fuel consumption costs are more on the SUV. You would absolutely take that into account when doing your family budget... you wouldn't say "I needed a car anyway".


----------



## snowcat

I have been a Tablo user since the first units shipped last April, and I highly recommend it. There is a guide data subscription (though you have the option of no guide with just manual recordings). The best choice is $150 lifetime, which covers your lifetime, not the device, so you could buy as many times as you want and pay just the one time fee.



SayWhat? said:


> A qucik search on Amazon finds these:
> 
> 4 Tuners, max 2 TB EHD (not included). Not sure about guide data
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Tablo-HDTV-Antennas-4-Tuner-Wi-Fi/dp/B00MWLZR0I/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1424087672&sr=1-3&keywords=tv+dvr+ota


----------



## mwdxer

As far as I know, the lowest speed Charter has here is 60 and I generally get 64-65. I believe there may be a faster speed for more money, but the 60 is more than I need, using Netflix streaming (by my son mostly), Roku, the computer, as well as the wifi radio I use at night. But it almost never drops below 60 or 62.


----------



## Reaper

sregener said:


> I've known a few people who have been satisfied with the offerings of Netflix+Hulu Plus, but I think for most people, this is at true statement. OTA is a key component in making cord-cutting work, and *there remains a need for a simple, cost-effective DVR without a monthly subscription fee*. And I'm not talking about Windows Media Center or something like it - while I'm an IT guy, *I crave the simplicity of a simple DVR*. I'm fortunate to have a still-working DTVPal DVR, though I wish they'd fixed a few software glitches before abandoning it.
> 
> However, most people have the ability to make OTA work. It is not nearly as difficult as it was in the analog days.


The Channel Master DVR+ is subscription-free, has a slim, beautiful industrial design, and a sleek, modern, minimalistic interface: http://www.channelmaster.com/Antenna_DVR_s/336.htm


----------

