I'd pay for stand alone HBO. Their programming and #sports are really the only reason i want the tele, and i get Astros, Rockets, Texans, and Premier league channels free through my HOA. Obscure CFB channels are my only obstacle.
No. You should be able to watch them from their websites. Edit. This assumes all your extensions are up to date .
Don't know that they can. They'll probably go bankrupt first. All their crap is packaged together and they've paid lot for those channels.
When enough people cut their cable plans? It's a loaded question bc young people will adapt to this change easier, but younger people don't generally pay a cable bill. Also, cable companies are semi-monopolies with how they can have territories and virtually no competition so they get to charge more for shittier stuff. I'd probably say 3-5 years.
I also probably shouldn't have said "feasible for most" in that previous post. I meant in a few years you'll probably see like a 25-35% of the market cut the cord as opposed to today which is probably like <5%. And hopefully that increase in a few years is what causes cable companies to reduce prices further or just re-model the way they approach it whether it be packages or pick your own channels for a price per channel, etc.
It's funny that stand alone HBO is more expensive than a hbo sub through a provider. I wonder how much cheaper it will be to just get stand alone subs as opposed to just having a tv provider.
I don't see that it would as networks rely mainly on ad revenue and the more people who get away from that and use a standalone app, like watch abc, the more ad revenue abc can keep directly (abc may be a bad example, but it is essentially just becoming direct to customer and not going through another party). I'm sure there is some kind of downside but I'd imagine the positives outweigh that significantly.
There's going to be some nasty carriage disputes between the networks and providers within the next couple years. Verizon is already making rumblings of creating just a sports tier of ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, NBCSN, etc. And ESPN is enraged over it since most of their money is made from people who don't watch their channels. ESPN wouldn't be on some basic tier like they are now, nor would they be offered a la carte (which would probably go for at least $30 a month).
Will never happen with how contracts are structured right now. I would easily pay $30 a month for the ESPNs.
That would be close to 50 just for espn and hbo. What would be the point of cutting the cord at those prices?
That's the issue. If you use one of the shitty bundles provided by the larger carriers, your pricing is below where it would be to get a solid internet connection and separate pieces. And it's more hassle to pay multiple bills each month.
It depends on what you want and mean by cutting the cord.If I didn't have kids I could get away with cancelling everything except my seedbox and my internet. If cutting the cord just means getting by without a tv provider than the prices of things need to come way down. Ala carte prices are need to be in 5-10 range for it to make sense.
My price for watching content each month is currently: 9 bucks a month Plus 1 month where it's $74 because I drop $65 on an MLS Live subscription. $173 for the year (basically amounts to paying 2 months for cable) I watch ESPN very seldomly on my sister's U-verse login and use her HBO login regularly. This has been my trend for about 2 years now. I'll probably drop $99 on the Xbox TV tuner and antenna combo so I can pick up the networks this week. Should help my football watching tremendously.
Plex, NBC sports, Watch ESPN, HBO Only things I want that they don't provide app-wise are BTN and Fox Sports Go.
Can someone explain to me why Century Link doesn't offer Prism on plans with larger than 10 mbs for internet? Please explain as if I still use a flip phone... thx.
To add to what people have already said, Amazon instant video (if you have prime), Fxnow and Fox now, yahoo screen and showtime anytime
I pay $64 for internet and $15 for HBO and $8 for Netflix. I was paying $155 for cable and internet so I'm saving $68 a month now. I'll rent movies on Amazon but not $68 worth. We were just never using our cable outside of HBO, FX, AE and History channel, all of which are available on Apple TV with my parent's login info.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this cord cutting idea is great, but, as we get older and lazier we want easier access to more for less. It's human nature. Unless every one of the channels we want becomes wholly independent nothing will change. Disney owns ESPN, they also own Disney XD, They in their own interest due to advertising exposure will offer ESPN for $25, awesome. That said, What if I tell you we can package the entire Disney suite for $31? That will make you, the kids, and the wife happy! Which way are you going? The bundles have evolved due to convenience and value, and the way TV is structured it doesn't matter who the bill comes from, that will reign supreme.
I think everything is going to change. More people are going to just quit paying for it all together. That's much easier than paying $100+ a month.
I disagree. We may as a generation, but, we also have access to our parents log in's etc. so we really don't miss out on anything even when we give it up. The model will change I do not doubt that, but I have a really hard time seeing how the same content gets cheaper simply due to a different provider structure. Edit: Rephrase; I don't think human nature will change, therefore "cheaper" packages will always be attractive and we will get sucked into "acquiring" more for "slightly" more.
There's a difference between freeloading and non-cable based TV. I don't think freeloaders will ever affect a market. You can see that in movies and music industries. They simply adapt and offer online content. So now you get networks making their own streaming app and websites and then get the ad revenue from those sources. Not saying I'm 100% right bc over the next few years it will most likely shift but I only really see the cable companies having issues, not content makers especially the ones who hold their own already. Maybe some small ones go away but I wouldn't expect it to be like a 40% reduction in channel availability.
Recognized. My point is as soon as sling offers a bit more for just a few more sheckels most people will jump on it due to perceived value. Eventually sling will be tiered just like cable and for the most part people will flock to the tiers with the most value.
That's nice and all but it's still not a great solution. I mean for you personally it is. However it's still dependent on anothers login info. I still haven't cut the cord because A) my company pays for my internet. and B) I still wouldn't because I enjoy watching the news and sports in HD. Watch espn app is great but the other sports apps fox/NBC are trash
The idea is just basic competition generates a more fair price. When you have cable companies who have regions/territories it pushes out viable competition, which means they can charge more than what they would vs a world with more real alternatives.
I'm looking for a streaming device that I can control from my phone for Netflix and maybe screen casting which I know Apple TV does. The main thing I'm looking for is the ability to use headphones with it without having to buy the wireless television headphones. I understand the roku has this feature, but are there any others?