Dish's Over The Top Video Service Could Cost $20-$30

[Poke]

Lets see how this plays out.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Dishs-Over-The-Top-Video-Service-Could-Cost-2030-128020

As we noted yesterday, Dish has struck a new deal with ABC that would limit the ad-skipping functionality on their Hopper DVR, in exchange for broader licensing for an over the top video service. Speaking to Bloomberg Dish Dave Shull says the company is still hashing out pricing detail, though an anonymous source tells the outlet the service could likely run around $20-$30 a month.

That's if Dish can strike enough additional deals to flesh out the service's catalog, something that's no easy feat as the endless row of similar, failed efforts can attest. "We think there is a group of individuals, 18-to-34-year-olds, who would love to have a lower-cost product with some of the top content out there," Shull said. "That’s who we’ll be targeting."

 

[Tampa8]

Because Disney encompasses so much, they have a decent start.

 

[king3pj]

I still don't understand exactly what this means. The Watch apps are included with your TV subscription for providers that have partnered with Disney just like the way HBO Go works. This sounds like a way to subscribe directly to the Watch service without a TV subscription. If that is the case I think it's really cool that they are doing this for cord cutters who want live games on ESPN. All the Disney and ABC stuff is available through season passes from iTunes/Amazon so there isn't as much value there. That $20-$30 price seems pretty unrealistic to me because the people who want this the most are probably live sports fans and the Disney/ABC Family stuff doesn't have a lot of crossover with that demographic. It would be nice if HBO continues to branch out in this approach like they are doing with the Comcast internet plus HBO Go plans.

It feels a little strange that Disney would include Dish in their cord cutter plans though. Are they going to start making similar deals with all the other providers so you can subscribe to ESPN online from a bunch of different sources no matter who your normal TV or internet provider is? I realize that they probably don't want to ruin their relationship with Dish and the other providers by going around them like WWE did. I also see why Dish would want to be included in the cord cutter business since more people will be doing that in the future. Still, it seems like they are including an unnecessary middleman. If I want to subscribe to ESPN online why do I need Dish, Directv, cable involved. This won't stop throttling if that is their concern because it isn't in the cable company's best interests to leave ESPN traffic alone when you are buying it from Dish.

 

[Yespage]

The oddity is that Disney is one of the main contributors to people cutting the cord! Though going to IP TV is hardly "cutting the cord" especially if Disney is involved.

Disney loses with a PPV IP service. Right now, with Dish, Directv, people that don't watch their programming... still pay for their programming. I just think Disney is thinking ahead and broadcasting on the Internet probably required different rights than from the Sats.

 

[king3pj]

I wanted to point out that I do see value in this type of service. I am a sports fan who is also a cord cutter so giving me a way to buy access to ESPN is cool in my book. If there was a plan that just included the WatchESPN app for about $10 I would be a subscriber. I'm not in for a $20-$30 plan that includes the entire suite of WatchESPN, WatchDisney, WatchDisneyXD, WatchABC, WatchABCFamily apps.

Most cord cutters did so because they wanted to save money by just paying for what they actually watch. This sounds more like the cable/satellite model of forced bundling. A sports fan may be willing to pay for access to ESPN but have no interest in the Disney/ABC Family stuff. That's the boat I'm in. Other families might want all the Disney/ABC Family stuff but have no interest in sports.

I realize that the price range listed is just a rumor with no source at this point and they are still working on final details. Maybe there will be several price points that include different apps and a higher price point that includes everything. I'm willing to pay for what I watch and I never turn to pirated streams. Give me something in the $10 range for just WatchESPN and take my money each month. Force a bundle on me and I will just use my parents' Dish log in information once the online access is opened up.

 

[Tampa8]

All good points. This is why the partnership is so big. As for possible "Bundling" ...... I can't say it enough times, people who thought cutting Cable would mean free (many did at one time) then thought would mean much less expensive, are dreaming. For all the reasons already gone over millions of times, in the end getting programming on the internet will not be substantially less than getting it from Cable and possibly more unless you really only watch a very few channels beyond OTA. Even then, it does appear bundling could be the template for other Networks online.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I still don't understand exactly what this means.

It means a new online only service... DISH without a DISH.

 

[HDRoberts]

It means a new online only service... DISH without a DISH.

So that's what "Over the top" means? I've been scratching my head about that one since yesterday. Seriously they need to come up with a more descriptive name.

 

[king3pj]

It means a new online only service... DISH without a DISH.

But now Directv and all the cable companies will want in on this once their Disney contracts come up. We might eventually have pay tv providers fighting over cord cutters without the consumer contracts.

This could lead to good things for consumers in the future if providers continue to offer promotions and compete for customers. You would potentially be able to switch providers to take advantage of deals without changing out your set top boxes (Apple TV, Roku, etc), waiting for an installer, or paying ETF fees.

 

[mike123abc]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ace-to-offer-streaming-tv-to-rival-cable.html

Ergen is looking to take the same AutoHop terms to other major programmers to get streaming rights. The first step may be to reach an accord with NBCUniversal, owned by rival Comcast Corp. Because of a regulatory agreement, the network has to offer Internet rights to anyone who has already secured such a deal with another major programmer. The requirement was part of the consent decree for Comcast’s purchase of NBCUniversal.

Looks like NBCUniversal will be forced to license streaming rights, especially if they want to look good for TWC merger.

Dish could probably offer the equivalent of AT120 for $30 if they only had to stream it. No more receivers, dishes, satellites, etc., they would save a lot of overhead, they would probably have a much higher margin.

 

[Teehar]

I like this idea,if done right,it has a lot of potential.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

So that's what "Over the top" means? I've been scratching my head about that one since yesterday. Seriously they need to come up with a more descriptive name.

Thats what everyone is calling it.

http://www.itvdictionary.com/definitions/over-the-top_definition.html

 

[Deadlocked]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ace-to-offer-streaming-tv-to-rival-cable.html



Looks like NBCUniversal will be forced to license streaming rights, especially if they want to look good for TWC merger.

Dish could probably offer the equivalent of AT120 for $30 if they only had to stream it. No more receivers, dishes, satellites, etc., they would save a lot of overhead, they would probably have a much higher margin.

Please also add EPL Live Extra to AT200+ with a new contract!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[king3pj]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ace-to-offer-streaming-tv-to-rival-cable.html



Looks like NBCUniversal will be forced to license streaming rights, especially if they want to look good for TWC merger.

Dish could probably offer the equivalent of AT120 for $30 if they only had to stream it. No more receivers, dishes, satellites, etc., they would save a lot of overhead, they would probably have a much higher margin.

Basically everything would have to be kept available on demand for a reasonable period of time though. These streaming boxes aren't DVRs so they would have to store everything for us. That would add some cost in the form of server farms but it would still probably be cheaper than paying installers and paying for all the equipment you mentioned.

 

[mike123abc]

The only problem with this whole thing is that it still will not be a la carte. Yes you may save some money over a hardware installation (whether cable or DBS), but you still end up with a service that will steadily increase in price, and the number of channels demanded will keep going up and further pushing up prices as every provider demands that their channel ends up in the lowest priced package.

You also have to have an internet connection that is fast and has a huge cap or no cap at all...

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

There will never be Ala Carte, the networks will not have it.

 

[Jillian]

The only problem with this whole thing is that it still will not be a la carte. Yes you may save some money over a hardware installation (whether cable or DBS), but you still end up with a service that will steadily increase in price, and the number of channels demanded will keep going up and further pushing up prices as every provider demands that their channel ends up in the lowest priced package.

You also have to have an internet connection that is fast and has a huge cap or no cap at all...

So true. My internet is capped at 150GB . Can't do much streaming with this cap.

 

[king3pj]

There will never be Ala Carte, the networks will not have it.

Not from a system like this. A la carte already exists for cord cutters though. I don't have access to the same amount of content that people who pay for Dish do but I pay for the exact cable shows I watch plus OTA and a couple streaming services (Netflix and MLB.tv) and I'm saving quite a bit of money. You just have to get it on a show-by-show basis instead of a channel-by-channel basis. This works for me because I wasn't watching a ton of cable content anyways. If you need a large variety instead of a focused set of content the cable/satellite package model will always be cheaper for you.

 

[Yespage]

But now Directv and all the cable companies will want in on this once their Disney contracts come up. We might eventually have pay tv providers fighting over cord cutters without the consumer contracts.

This could lead to good things for consumers in the future if providers continue to offer promotions and compete for customers.

In what way? Disney is a substantial driver in sat/cable prog. rates. You don't think that won't continue over IP?

You would potentially be able to switch providers to take advantage of deals without changing out your set top boxes (Apple TV, Roku, etc), waiting for an installer, or paying ETF fees.

Law of Conservation of Corporate BS still applies. Things will depend on if the broadband line has been kinked by the broadband provider. Some things become easier, but other things become harder. I think Dish obtained the rights for down the road.

 

[mike123abc]

I would assume that Dish will eventually (if they do not at start) include a network DVR service with this, of course knowing Dish there would probably be a fee.

If the service was cheap enough and internet caps were not important, it could be useful for a lot of people. I could for example see NYC being a big market. FIOS users do not have caps, and LOS and dish mounting issues would probably be fairly common in NYC. Probably why Aereo has done well in that market.