(08-15-2016 11:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Gamecock, you might take a look at Playstation VUE. I think for $35 you might get the same channels as buying both Sling packages. But not certain on that. Worth a look.

And you don't need a Playstation to run it.

Interesting. I use an Xbox One, didn't realize I didn't need a Playstation to run Vue.

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/network/vue/faq/

Quote:Is PlayStationVue available on devices other than the PS4 and PS3 systems?

Yep! You can enjoy PlayStationVue on a variety of devices, including Amazon Fire TV devices, Roku streaming devices, and Google Chromecast devices.

In addition, our PlayStationVue Mobile experience is available on iOS and Android devices. Note: PlayStationVue Mobile requires an activated, TV-Connected device.

See more about devices and availability below.



How many devices can I stream PlayStationVue on at once?

A single PlayStationVue account can simultaneously stream PlayStationVue on up to one PS4 console and one PS3 console in the same home. (Note: at this time, you cannot stream on two PS4 consoles or two PS3 consoles at any given time.)

You can also use PlayStationVue Mobile on up to 3 iOS and Android devices, as well as PlayStationVue on Fire TV, Roku streaming devices, and Chromecast. Up to five total streams are supported at once!

Yeah, really poor marketing on Sony's part. I'm sure they'd love people to buy more Playstations, but the market for pay TV is way larger than for video games.

(08-15-2016 11:47 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Doing this once the Olympics is over (GF is really into it)

Internet: $35
Sling (Orange and Blue): $40
HBO Now: $15
Netflix: Using someone else's, so free

$90 a month compared to $171 now. $81 a month or $972 a year.

Its a no brainer. I am saving over $2500 a year. Thats $10K plus the last 4 years,

Sorry, but that's absurd.

If you had at one time agreed to pay a cable/sat company over $200/mo just for payTV ... then you have other issues to worry about.

(note: since obviously internet is a prerequisite for these streaming services, you're not saving any money on internet ... if anything, losing a discounted internet price because you no longer have TV)

(08-15-2016 02:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sorry, but that's absurd.

If you had at one time agreed to pay a cable/sat company over $200/mo just for payTV ... then you have other issues to worry about.

(note: since obviously internet is a prerequisite for these streaming services, you're not saving any money on internet ... if anything, losing a discounted internet price because you no longer have TV)

$200 a month is really not out of the question if you throw in equipmental rentals and movie channels and taxes.

Your initial plan starts out at 99 a month for telephone, internet, and TV. Add $20 a month for 2 DVRs/cable boxes, $10 a month for modem rental, $50 a month for the movie channels and 10 to 20 for taxes and boom you are at 200 dollars a month.

I was just talking about the TV portion.

Landline phone is cheap/irrelevant. And you need internet to get streaming TV anyway, so that cost isn't going away.


Guy was saying he saved $2500 a year just in TV. That's $208/mo savings just in TV, on top of whatever he now pays for streaming TV services. I mean, how is that not absurd?

(08-15-2016 11:47 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Doing this once the Olympics is over (GF is really into it)

Internet: $35
Sling (Orange and Blue): $40
HBO Now: $15
Netflix: Using someone else's, so free

$90 a month compared to $171 now. $81 a month or $972 a year.

Ridiculous, you are comparing some insane ultra super duper mega package to a rather limited cheap option.

Example.

http://www.wowway.com/products/offers/al...huntsville

That's 80.00 a month for cable/internet without a contract if you contract it's even cheaper. And using your scenario you also get Netflix free. So you would actually be paying less money than what you are paying to cord cut and getting A LOT more content. Because cable companies also give you on-demand for free.

Troj,

It's a fad, and people don't have time/energy/effort to research it.

They hear so and so down the street or in the office switched from cable to streaming and saved $70/mo, and that sounds like a lot of money.

(08-15-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Troj,

It's a fad, and people don't have time/energy/effort to research it.

They hear so and so down the street or in the office switched from cable to streaming and saved $70/mo, and that sounds like a lot of money.

People just don't want to see the reality in my opinion because it sounds cool. But every time you do a fair side by side comparison that doesn't involve you using someone else's login information to get free stuff the cost is higher.

Let's use that WoW cable example from earlier in a cord cutting situation.

Internet $39.99 for a slow 30meg connection.
HBO $15.00 a month.
Netflix $8.99 a month.
Sling $40.00 a month.

So just for a minimum amount of content you are paying $103.98 and this does not include equipment rentals. Or factor in the pure headache you would experience if you had more than two people trying to do this at once.

I said earlier, the only way to save doing this is by free loading. I did it when I was in undergrad, I used my moms information to login to HBO, Netflix, and got Amazon for free. So essentially all I was paying for was internet. But if you pay for all these things yourself it's more expensive.....

(08-15-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Troj,

It's a fad, and people don't have time/energy/effort to research it.

They hear so and so down the street or in the office switched from cable to streaming and saved $70/mo, and that sounds like a lot of money.

It is how cable's business practices operate. Lure you in with a low price, if you sign a contract then you have to haggle later on. I was with TWC prior to sling. Customer service is awful. They once had me pinned as a guy in NC although I was in Cincy.
Took 3 months to get it right. Hours and hours on the phone. In order to get all of the ESPN channels, without a contract, it was close to $80 a month. Sling is $25 a month and no contract. I never had to talk to one idiot on the phone to set up Sling.

I have some long time Cincy Bell email accounts so I use them as ISP and for a landline for work (have to have it). If Bell Fioptics reaches where I live I might consider them for TV.

(08-15-2016 04:02 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Troj,

It's a fad, and people don't have time/energy/effort to research it.

They hear so and so down the street or in the office switched from cable to streaming and saved $70/mo, and that sounds like a lot of money.

People just don't want to see the reality in my opinion because it sounds cool. But every time you do a fair side by side comparison that doesn't involve you using someone else's login information to get free stuff the cost is higher.

Let's use that WoW cable example from earlier in a cord cutting situation.

Internet $39.99 for a slow 30meg connection.
HBO $15.00 a month.
Netflix $8.99 a month.
Sling $40.00 a month.

So just for a minimum amount of content you are paying $103.98 and this does not include equipment rentals. Or factor in the pure headache you would experience if you had more than two people trying to do this at once.

I said earlier, the only way to save doing this is by free loading. I did it when I was in undergrad, I used my moms information to login to HBO, Netflix, and got Amazon for free. So essentially all I was paying for was internet. But if you pay for all these things yourself it's more expensive.....

Sling is $25, Internet is $45. Amazon Prime is $10? Never had HBO.

(08-15-2016 02:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sorry, but that's absurd.

If you had at one time agreed to pay a cable/sat company over $200/mo just for payTV ... then you have other issues to worry about.

(note: since obviously internet is a prerequisite for these streaming services, you're not saving any money on internet ... if anything, losing a discounted internet price because you no longer have TV)

Internet is irrelevant. I didn't start getting internet when I cut the cord. I had it all along.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(08-15-2016 03:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I was just talking about the TV portion.

Landline phone is cheap/irrelevant. And you need internet to get streaming TV anyway, so that cost isn't going away.


Guy was saying he saved $2500 a year just in TV. That's $208/mo savings just in TV, on top of whatever he now pays for streaming TV services. I mean, how is that not absurd?

I was multitasking. I misspoke. Actual savings is about 1900 a year. What I was paying was close to 2500. And it's not a fad. Fads don't last years. What some people don't get is that people under 25 years of age do not watch TV in a traditional sense at all. There is no such thing as must see TV. When these currently 16 year olds turn 30 cable TV as we know it will be non existent. The Netflix original series model will be prevalent. In a marketplace with a lot of competitors and with viewers showing a take it or leave it indifferent attitude to content you're not going to be able to charge premium rates. I just saw that the new Star Trek series will be on CBS' streaming channel only. The future is now.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(08-15-2016 04:02 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Troj,

It's a fad, and people don't have time/energy/effort to research it.

They hear so and so down the street or in the office switched from cable to streaming and saved $70/mo, and that sounds like a lot of money.

People just don't want to see the reality in my opinion because it sounds cool. But every time you do a fair side by side comparison that doesn't involve you using someone else's login information to get free stuff the cost is higher.

Let's use that WoW cable example from earlier in a cord cutting situation.

Internet $39.99 for a slow 30meg connection.
HBO $15.00 a month.
Netflix $8.99 a month.
Sling $40.00 a month.

So just for a minimum amount of content you are paying $103.98 and this does not include equipment rentals. Or factor in the pure headache you would experience if you had more than two people trying to do this at once.

I said earlier, the only way to save doing this is by free loading. I did it when I was in undergrad, I used my moms information to login to HBO, Netflix, and got Amazon for free. So essentially all I was paying for was internet. But if you pay for all these things yourself it's more expensive.....

The notion that you would only have Internet to stream TV in this day and age is idiotic. It's like having electricity. Everyone has it. Nobody has HBO. Even if you pay $15 it's not contract. So if you have it for a specific show you cancel after 3 months. Sling for $40 is a stretch. Most pay $20. Maybe $25 with the sports package. Again you can cancel at any point. Unless you're a couch potato how much content do you need. Between Hulu, Netflix, Sling and a few other providers there is more than I could possibly see unless I was a shut in.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(08-15-2016 04:02 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Let's use that WoW cable example from earlier in a cord cutting situation.

Internet $39.99 for a slow 30meg connection.
HBO $15.00 a month.
Netflix $8.99 a month.
Sling $40.00 a month.

This gets back to different people being in different parts of the market. Cable TV, coming from its local monopoly roots (though with satellite and TV over IP competition it's now more of a tight oligopoly in most places) wants to bunch people into a few groups. It may not be "one size fits all", but three or four sizes to cover everybody is a long way from custom tailored.

For me, Sling at $20/month and HBO at $15/month are not side by side costs, they are alternatives. There's Netflix at $7/month, there's another specialized streaming subscription service at $20/quarter, so basically $7/month, so if I was in the US full time, some months it would be $14, some months it's $29, some months it's $34 in subscription costs.

And if I have cable, it doesn't save $14, $29, or $34, since I'm not going to drop either Netflix or my specialized streaming video subscription if I sign up for cable. And really it's a lot more convenient to subscribe to HBO for one or two months at a time with HBO's OTT service. So having cable would save me $0, or $0, or $20, depending on the month, set against the monthly extra cost of the cable over the internet alone.

In the end, if I was in the US all year round, the only thing that would hold onto my cable subscription would be BTN. If BTN becomes available on a $5 Sling add on channel, I'm no longer in the market for cable when I come back to the US from teaching in China: since I would have Sling for about half the year, a basic cable + internet bundle would have to be something less than $15 over the price of internet alone to be worth signing up.

Mom and Dad have different interests, the teenager has their interests, the 7 year old has their interests ... that's the heart of the cable market. It's going to be a long time, if ever before subscribing one service at a time will give them a better deal than aggregating "enough for everybody" with cable (often "plus Netflix"). But that is also a smaller percentage of the population as time goes on.

And there are plenty of singles where tailoring their subscriptions to what they are interested in and what they have the time to watch at different times of the year can already let them save substantially over a "medium" or "big" cable package.

And then there are other singles, as well as couples without children or empty nesters that are on the margin, which over the coming five years are going to be more and more likely to find out that cutting the cord (in the normal sense of the phrase) is a good deal for them.

(08-15-2016 04:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Troj,

It's a fad, and people don't have time/energy/effort to research it.

They hear so and so down the street or in the office switched from cable to streaming and saved $70/mo, and that sounds like a lot of money.

It is how cable's business practices operate. Lure you in with a low price, if you sign a contract then you have to haggle later on. I was with TWC prior to sling. Customer service is awful. They once had me pinned as a guy in NC although I was in Cincy.
Took 3 months to get it right. Hours and hours on the phone. In order to get all of the ESPN channels, without a contract, it was close to $80 a month. Sling is $25 a month and no contract. I never had to talk to one idiot on the phone to set up Sling.

I have some long time Cincy Bell email accounts so I use them as ISP and for a landline for work (have to have it). If Bell Fioptics reaches where I live I might consider them for TV.

That cannot be right. I have heard that you must either steal or pay millions

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(08-15-2016 11:00 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 04:41 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 03:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Troj,

It's a fad, and people don't have time/energy/effort to research it.

They hear so and so down the street or in the office switched from cable to streaming and saved $70/mo, and that sounds like a lot of money.

It is how cable's business practices operate. Lure you in with a low price, if you sign a contract then you have to haggle later on. I was with TWC prior to sling. Customer service is awful. They once had me pinned as a guy in NC although I was in Cincy.
Took 3 months to get it right. Hours and hours on the phone. In order to get all of the ESPN channels, without a contract, it was close to $80 a month. Sling is $25 a month and no contract. I never had to talk to one idiot on the phone to set up Sling.

I have some long time Cincy Bell email accounts so I use them as ISP and for a landline for work (have to have it). If Bell Fioptics reaches where I live I might consider them for TV.

That cannot be right. I have heard that you must either steal or pay millions

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

You are right about the younger people also. They are not traditional cable buyers.
Also lots of younger adults are still at their parents house.

(08-15-2016 10:53 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-15-2016 03:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I was just talking about the TV portion.
Guy was saying he saved $2500 a year just in TV. That's $208/mo savings just in TV, on top of whatever he now pays for streaming TV services. I mean, how is that not absurd?

I was multitasking. I misspoke. Actual savings is about 1900 a year. What I was paying was close to 2500. And it's not a fad. Fads don't
Landline phone is cheap/irrelevant. And you need internet to get streaming TV anyway, so that cost isn't going away.


last years. What some people don't get is that people under 25 years of age do not watch TV in a traditional sense at all. There is no such thing as must see TV. When these currently 16 year olds turn 30 cable TV as we know it will be non existent. The Netflix original series model will be prevalent. In a marketplace with a lot of competitors and with viewers showing a take it or leave it indifferent attitude to content you're not going to be able to charge premium rates. I just saw that the new Star Trek series will be on CBS' streaming channel only. The future is now.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I think the 25 may be too young. I know very few people any longer who have regular CATV or Satellite and most of my circle of friends is over 40. Why? Simple, cost and the ability to control what you watch.

The times are changing and I don't think MplsBison is going to be happy with those changes. Soon it will no longer be about the provider (CATV/Satellite) as much as it will be about the content providers. Once the content providers take over the traditional CATV model is dead.