I tried Sling TV at CES 2015, and now I'm cancelling cable

[Poke]

Sounds like they really liked what they saw...


http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/7/7510487/dish-sling-television-internet-tv-ces-2015

 

[king3pj]

That UI looks pretty sharp but I wish he would have shown what the Roku or Xbox UI looked like instead of that tablet.

Edit: I guess they kind of did but he showed most of the navigation on tablet.

 

[MikeD-C05]

1 stream at a time means no family could use it and watch something else in the same house. This means it is geared more for the younger ,unmarried without kids crowd. Families will still do better with traditional cable or satellite for multiple choices etc.

 

[lparsons21]

1 stream at a time means no family could use it and watch something else in the same house. This means it is geared more for the younger ,unmarried without kids crowd. Families will still do better with traditional cable or satellite for multiple choices etc.

Isn't that pretty much what Dish's position is on this product?

 

[Scherrman]

1 stream at a time means no family could use it and watch something else in the same house. This means it is geared more for the younger ,unmarried without kids crowd. Families will still do better with traditional cable or satellite for multiple choices etc.

I think that's exactly what this is designed for. I don't know too many families of four that would be able to get rid of having equipment even though they'd love to save the money. It's just not feasible for how many people and TVs they have in the house.

This is just the start though. Who's to say that this won't turn into a solution for an entire family in the near future. I hope this works because I think this could be huge for Dish's business and keeping them ahead of the curve for the future of TV. This is what TV providers are going to have to do in order to stay relevant.

 

[king3pj]

1 stream at a time means no family could use it and watch something else in the same house. This means it is geared more for the younger ,unmarried without kids crowd. Families will still do better with traditional cable or satellite for multiple choices etc.

I don't know, I think this is aimed more towards people who have already cut the cord than trying to get people to ditch cable/satellite for this service. I could still see this working very well for some families.

Say you have a family with two kids young enough to want Disney/Cartoon Network that has already been relying on OTA, Netflix, and Amazon Prime for all of their TV content. Like most families these days, they are already used to watching very little of their TV content live. Dad wants this service for the live sports on ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, and TBS. Maybe mom and dad both want to throw CNN on their bedroom TV while they are getting ready for work in the morning. The kids can watch some Cartoon Network/Disney when they get home from school or on Saturday/Sunday mornings.

I'm sure there will be some conflicts from time to time but for people who are already not used to watching much live content outside of news and sports it might not be as much overlap as you think. Sure, copying Netflix's main package and offering two active streams at a time would solve most of those conflicts but I still think this could work for plenty of families. I think that it's mostly targeted at people like me who already cut the cord, are tech savvy, get most of their content from other sources, and like to watch live news and sports.

 

[jagowar]

Agreed... this is geared to the any cord cutter and not just the single person. As stated there are numerous ways people watch the on demand content w/o this service but what has always been desperately wanted by cord cutters is the ability to have live news and sports which this package aims to provide.

I also don't necessarily think the one stream at a time will be that bad for a family.... sure it would be better if it was two or more but how often are people really multiple live programs at the same time? From my experiences the kids watch netflix while the parents watch other stuff or vice versa. Not often are the kids and parents needing to watch 2 different live programs at the same time. Contrast with dish which charges you quite a bit for a multiroom hopper/joey setup which adds quite a bit to your bill when you rarely use it concurrently.

I am going to give this service a real shot when the xbox one demo launches.... I think this may be what allows me to finally cut the cord and not feel that I am missing anything major.

 

[king3pj]

I don't think I will actually subscribe to this but I'm going to give the free month Xbox One trial a shot too.

 

[Character Zero]

There will probably be some conflicts. If I want to watch ESPN and my daughter wants Disney then there is an issue. But if its just a situation of my daughter wants to watch Disney and the Sling TV stream is unavailable then I can stream with hulu or amazon or netflix. But I can think of different ways that I personally can get around the situation (like buying a season of Mickey mouse to have on hand so she takes up the Amazon stream leaving the other streams open). I like that I can kind of diversify the different streaming providers that does allow 2 screens to have content at one time. Heck, it would still even be a savings for me if I bought 2 subs to Sling TV.

I think its good to say "hey Dish I would buy this if I have access to more streams" but on the other hand, I think they understand that its not for everyone. I would think they aren't expecting a lot of loss subscriptions to Dish Sat but more of new revue stream. I also have a little faith in the stability of the pricing and features due to the ABC and Turner negotiations had this service in mind.

 

[StevenD]

If anything, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Dish has realized that there is a set of potential customers that aren't willing to pay for the "traditional" pay-TV model.

 

[Character Zero]

I don't think I will actually subscribe to this but I'm going to give the free month Xbox One trial a shot too.

Thats my starting point too. Also I think I might get a Hulu Plus trial and for a week or 2 pretend I don't have Dish and see if I run into any issues.

 

[Scherrman]

If anything, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Dish has realized that there is a set of potential customers that aren't willing to pay for the "traditional" pay-TV model.

This is why I've always liked Charlie Ergen and Dish. Charlie is always looking to the future and trying to stay ahead. He was talking about the future of TV being on mobile devices and streaming to people all over the world years before anyone was talking about it on here. It's amazing how slow of a process some changes actually can be. If all the members here could join one of the assemblies that Charlie speaks at I think they would have a new found respect for the man. He really is quite the business man.

 

[fbara]

I usually only watch sports on 1 of the tv's in my house. The kids have their own tv, hooked up to the game console, in their 'game room'; rarely do they watch regular tv shows there.

I'd be interested in this in order to drop down a package to something that costs less and then hook this up to the main tv that I watch. I don't need to have multiple streams for the Sling TV because I'd be the only one watching it (for the majority of the time, anyway). In my mind, this product is actually geared to multiple segments. If Dish does their marketing correctly, this could be bigger than they anticipate.

 

[Mochuf]

I see one big potential problem. If this service becomes a success, then the throttling people experienced with Netflix will feel like super speed compared to what the ISP's will do to this.

 

[GaryPen]

I see one big potential problem. If this service becomes a success, then the throttling people experienced with Netflix will feel like super speed compared to what the ISP's will do to this.

Unless "net neutralty" regulations are strengthened to prevent that. But, the government-regulations-are-bad crowd seem to be winning this battle, to the detriment of the average ISP subscriber.

 

[king3pj]

I see one big potential problem. If this service becomes a success, then the throttling people experienced with Netflix will feel like super speed compared to what the ISP's will do to this.

Unless "net neutralty" regulations are strengthened to prevent that. But, the government-regulations-are-bad crowd seem to be winning this battle, to the detriment of the average ISP subscriber.

I think the ISPs know that they brought a lot of pressure on themselves when they started screwing with Netflix. Each time they do something like that they bring themselves closer to government regulation and they know that. People have more choices for broadband than they used to even if that's not true for everyone out there. I think ISPs know that actively trying to make themselves the worst option by ruining all the services that take advantage of their connection is not good business.

IGN posted this article about a half hour ago.


http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/01/08/fcc-chairman-supports-net-neutrality

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has come out in favor of net neutrality, suggesting he plans to use Title II of the Communications Act to regulate Internet Service Providers.
"We're gonna have rules that say--we're going to propose rules that say, 'no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization,' and that there is a yardstick against which behavior should be measured, and that yardstick was 'just and reasonable,'" Wheeler said.

Ars Technica reports that Wheeler signaled his plans in a conversation with with Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro. Using Title II, the FCC would be able to regulate ISPs as common carriers. President Obama recently advocated using Title II to impose rules that would forbid ISPs from blocking and throttling traffic, or allowing them to charge for priority access. ISPs have argued that using Title II would open the door for rate regulation, akin to telephone networks.

Wheeler said the FCC had looked into a "commercially reasonable" legal test, but found that the test was skewed towards what's reasonable for ISPs themselves, not consumers.

"And that's the wrong question and the wrong answer because the issue here is how do we make sure that consumers and innovators have open access to networks. That led us to a more robust investigation of the well established concept of just and reasonable, which is a Title II concept. And as I said, Title II has always been something that was on the table. So last summer we began investigating various approaches using title II as a way to get to just and reasonable because it has the best protections."

Wheeler said he needs to make sure the solution needs to work for innovators, as well as ISPs who want to invest more. However, he said, the vocal response from ISPs after President Obama urged Title II was mostly just talk, as companies have still been investing at record pace. On top of that, smaller ISPs have been in favor of Title II, suggesting the move would spur competition in the marketplace.

The proposed rules will be taken to a vote in the Commission on February 26. Last year, several tech companies including Google, Microsoft, and Netflix wrote to the FCC in favor of net neutrality.

 

[jagowar]

Yep... I think the above is correct. They will instead go to metered connections which isn't necessarily the worst idea as long as the quotas are good. If they make the quota too small there will be more public outrage and the fcc will reclassify them as utility services and open the whole thing up. The isp's know this and will do anything and everything to keep this from happening which means caving to customer demands.

Thats my starting point too. Also I think I might get a Hulu Plus trial and for a week or 2 pretend I don't have Dish and see if I run into any issues.

That would be an option but another would be to get an antenna or clearqam dvr... Some pretty good options there too.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

I wonder if Fox News will join this once the conflict is settled?

 

[Robertoo]

Sounds interesting. This could be the first step toward choose-your-own cable packages.

 

[MikeD-C05]

There will probably be some conflicts. If I want to watch ESPN and my daughter wants Disney then there is an issue. But if its just a situation of my daughter wants to watch Disney and the Sling TV stream is unavailable then I can stream with hulu or amazon or netflix. But I can think of different ways that I personally can get around the situation (like buying a season of Mickey mouse to have on hand so she takes up the Amazon stream leaving the other streams open). I like that I can kind of diversify the different streaming providers that does allow 2 screens to have content at one time. Heck, it would still even be a savings for me if I bought 2 subs to Sling TV.

I think its good to say "hey Dish I would buy this if I have access to more streams" but on the other hand, I think they understand that its not for everyone. I would think they aren't expecting a lot of loss subscriptions to Dish Sat but more of new revue stream. I also have a little faith in the stability of the pricing and features due to the ABC and Turner negotiations had this service in mind.

In my household we have conflicts all the time. With 3 different people of different ages , there are times when I am watching something in my room and my wife is glued to HGTV in her room and my son is on his computer but watching Southpark on his joey. You couldn't do all of that with SLING TV. With only one stream at a time this is geared to single young people- the Millennials - who are on the go and don't watch pay tv anyway. That is why I said earlier that it is not geared towards families with kids and differing tastes.