I disagree. My monthly transfer rates rarely go over 150gb. Hulu, Netflix, online gaming, PBS Kids etc... in total, we have 12 devices connected.
Dish's Over The Top Video Service Could Cost $20-$30
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 9K
I disagree. My monthly transfer rates rarely go over 150gb. Hulu, Netflix, online gaming, PBS Kids etc... in total, we have 12 devices connected.
Gotta disagree w/ you on this one Tampa. We went from cable (60$ a month and barely anything to watch) to 18$ (Netflix, Hulu, OTA and FTA).
Thats a extra 500$ (yearly) in my pocket and we have more choices now then ever so we gained on quantity and savings.
Obviously a lot of us "cut" cable and Sat while IPTV was in its infancy, but now with it gaining momentum, "cutting the cord" should be rephrased for something else more appropriate.
Cheers, K
Unless Dish signed an exclusive deal, other TV providers are going to get the right to sell Disney streaming service too. I already said the ways I think this could be good for consumers in the future in the second half of that post you quoted. Canceling or changing services without having to change out your streaming box, taking a day off work to wait for an installer, or paying ETF fees. I really doubt they would be able to justify locking people into 2 year contracts on a streaming service when they don't own any of the equipment. Cable in my area doesn't even require contracts when you take their DVRs and free installation. Contracts are strictly a satellite practice here. There are lots of streaming services out there. Disney is just going to be one of many going forward. Now that Disney is going to do this you will probably see more channels try to come up with similar deals so they aren't left in the past as more people get rid of traditional pay TV.
Yes, Disney is one of the leaders when it comes to higher costs. The beauty of being a streamer is that you don't have to sign up for them if they cost to much. You pick out the individual streaming services that are of value to you. The talk of this eventually turning into something like AT120 for less money was just speculation about what could happen way down the line. That doesn't actually apply to what this is right now. Right now this is just a way for streamers to pay for ESPN and other Disney content without being forced to subscribe to a pay TV service.
I would sign up for something like this if I could get LIVE streaming sports, news and weather. I recently cut the cord ( dropped dish) and went with a 4-tuner TIVO Roamio for OTA and a Roku for streaming services like Netflix. A low cost internet streaming service subscription with DISH and an app for Roku to access the service would be ideal for me to get additional programming I am currently missing.
You are presuming that packages won't exist with online streaming through providers. Disney hasn't announced they are launching their own On Demand service over the IP (that doesn't require subscriptions).
As you note, others will get involved, IP is the future. But the problem still remains, once everyone is IP'd up... what is the difference unless you are streaming directly from the provider like Disney or NBC? The same limitations we have now are certainly plausible for the IP model.
If Dishworld had NBC Sports on their package, I'd sign up for $30 a month (that'd be $20 extra for that one channel)! The issue becomes who is willing to isolate their channels to give the consumer choice?
Well you already don't have to subscribe to channels with IP based TV. You can just buy individual shows from iTunes/Amazon like many of us are already doing. This is just the equivalent of buying music on iTunes instead of buying a CD at a store. Unless shows decide to stop selling themselves this way you won't be forced into any bundling with IP based TV. I don't see them throwing away another revenue stream that is growing at the same time as their traditional pay TV model is starting to decline.
From the press releases it sounded like Dish would be selling the Disney suite over-the-top. Even if this is someday forced into a bundle with other channels just like our current packages I still say this would be better for the consumer than only having the current model. The reason being that when we replace our provider owned DVRs with customer owned streaming boxes like the Apple TV and Roku almost all the barriers to switching providers disappear. How are they going to justify requiring contracts when they don't own the equipment in your house and don't have to pay an installer to come set it up?
The satellite providers already don't require contracts if you are willing to purchase and install your own equipment. In a lot of cases cable doesn't even require a contract if you take their equipment and installation. I don't see them being able to hold you hostage with a contract during channel disputes or when a better deal pops up in a hypothetical future where you can subscribe on a Roku. Being able to cancel or switch providers whenever you want is better for consumers in my opinion. If they are going to require contracts they better be drastically cheaper than the no-contract alternatives. Maybe some people will be willing to lock in for two years but I don't see myself ever locking into a two year TV contract again unless there are some real benefits for doing so.
I just want to add one thing: So far the discussion has been about on demand style over the top programming; however, I believe the press release actually mentioned linear programming (a live stream of the actual channels) being made available over the top. The only on demand references I noted were related to existing dish programming.
king3pj, I'm not exactly against your point. I just don't share the same optimism that this will work out to meet the consumers' demand best, instead of just recapturing what was already lost. Certainly, reduced equipment is the future, and most of the technology will be housed in TVs (slash computer by then). But if companies like Dish, Time Warner continue to exist, it would seem likely that the same packaging will be on IP as with the current system. The only time that changes is if you can buy directly at the source, but I don't think that is as profitable.
Exactly. This is about broadcasting channels, not on demand, over IP.
(Bold is mine)
Your situation is exactly who I was talking about, in the part of my post you didn't reference;
"unless you really only watch a very few channels beyond OTA"
You could substitute shows for channels. For instance I watch many shows on the History Channel, A&E, Reelz, USA and a couple of other channels, if I had to pay for each show those channels might cost me near as much or more online. (And then would have to pay for whatever sports is available) AMC however I watch very few things, probably would pay for one or two.
Isn't it for this very thing that Dish is currently in litigation with Fox? "Slinging" content is IP streaming. So if they allow this "over-the-top" service, does that mean they'll drop all the fuss over Sling?
I see a distinct difference between Slinging and Over The Top. Former is from your home, latter from provider.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Get more GB with DishNet Internet! Itll work well for streaming The new Dish espn disney onlline stuff. Just dont watch in HD! Your GB of 10 anytime will be used up in a couple hours...lol. Ill be happy when Dish Gets there own real highspeed Internet!
DishNet is..ok. But be awesome if they could get there cell network going, and offer unlimited Internet through it...$40 bucks a month )
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
DishNet is..ok. But be awesome if they could get there cell network going, and offer unlimited Internet through it...$40 bucks a month )
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Here is a better look at it: http://qz.com/184378/the-future-of-tv-is-coming-into-focus-and-looks-pretty-great/
I am not aware anyone is in litigation over the Slingbox, slingplayer, etc.. With all the lawsuits maybe I missed it.
I just see this as a way to get cord cutters to eventually pay more for content.
Making more content available, but yes that is the name of the game.
I just see this as a way to get cord cutters to eventually pay more for content.
You know it. Once they get them hooked at the lower prices then let the yearly PRICE HIKES start! They will kill this just like they are killing the regular cable/sat model.
I think the beauty of this idea,is there should be no etf's to cancel,no equipment to return.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
Podcast #575: DIRECTV is TAKING AWAY local channels? Why? WHY WHY!!- Latest: Stuart Sweet
-
-
-
T
