Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
Basically unless you are talking about channels like EPSN, the channels one should be able to get OTA should be free if streamed with commercials. I don't think channels like ESPN should have commercials if you are paying for them, but then again, I understand that is a losing proposition.

Ok. But keep in mind that there are costs to stream vs broadcasting over the air. Also different rules/laws that govern that and rebroadcasting.

I believe that one of the reasons Apple wants to not stream these networks is not only their desire to cut down on drains on their resources, but also because they would likely be liable for distribution costs above and beyond what they would have by the network themselves having a channel available.
 

diamond.g

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2007
11,164
2,475
OBX
Ok. But keep in mind that there are costs to stream vs broadcasting over the air. Also different rules/laws that govern that and rebroadcasting.

I believe that one of the reasons Apple wants to not stream these networks is not only their desire to cut down on drains on their resources, but also because they would likely be liable for distribution costs above and beyond what they would have by the network themselves having a channel available.

Fair point.
 

CEmajr

macrumors 601
Dec 18, 2012
4,453
1,245
Charlotte, NC
They're common in the U.S. My tier is capped at 250 GB, but even with all of the streaming I do, I rarely go over 100 GB.

Yeah I looked at the list someone else posted. Seems a lot of ISPs do it now. I'm on Time Warner though and they haven't instituted any data caps yet.
 

CoMoMacUser

macrumors 65816
Jun 28, 2012
1,028
350
Yeah I looked at the list someone else posted. Seems a lot of ISPs do it now. I'm on Time Warner though and they haven't instituted any data caps yet.

Time Warner tried caps in a few markets -- Austin was one, as I recall -- but then shelved the idea, at least for now.

The interesting thing about the cable business is that the profit margins are much higher for broadband than for TV. So a cable op could come out ahead if a customer drops the TV portion of his bundle but then upgrades to a broadband tier with a faster speed, bigger cap or both.
 

bawbac

macrumors 65816
Mar 2, 2012
1,232
48
Seattle, WA
Are data caps by ISPs really widespread now? I've never encountered anyone who has one.
Data caps are here and disclosed in the contract agreement fine print(everyone reads those...).
Right now, most people don't hit the limit but as streaming content becomes more common to watch programming, people will hit the limits and start to see the additional changes on the bill.

----------

Time Warner tried caps in a few markets -- Austin was one, as I recall -- but then shelved the idea, at least for now.

The interesting thing about the cable business is that the profit margins are much higher for broadband than for TV. So a cable op could come out ahead if a customer drops the TV portion of his bundle but then upgrades to a broadband tier with a faster speed, bigger cap or both.

Still trying.
http://bgr.com/2014/11/03/time-warner-cable-data-caps/
 

diamond.g

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2007
11,164
2,475
OBX
Yeah I looked at the list someone else posted. Seems a lot of ISPs do it now. I'm on Time Warner though and they haven't instituted any data caps yet.

Comcast has a 250GB cap, but they are not enforcing it for now.
 

Juicy Box

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2014
7,534
8,865
Comcast has a 250GB cap, but they are not enforcing it for now.


I switch from Comcast to Fios about every 6 months to a year. And the first time I switched it was because Comcast gave me a warning letter about going over the 250 GB mark.

I was lucky that Verizon just put Fios on my street the prior month so I was able to switch. Otherwise I would have probably suffer Comcasts wrath.

Since then, I came back to Comcast a few times, and I notice the cap is not currently enforceable. Wonder if that will change?

When I got my warning letter, I used a little over 300 GB, now I easily surpass 700 GB a month. If they ever decide to enforce it and I can't switch for what ever reason, I will be screwed!
 

Shivetya

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2008
1,669
306
$40 to stream 25 channels??? that's more than I pay for unlimited 100mbit Internet plus premium cable HD TV with 60+ channels combined over here.

I am guessing US Only then cuz it wouldn't make any sense over here.

cut the cord only to a combined amount to half a dozen streaming source... ooh what business sense
 

Juicy Box

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2014
7,534
8,865
cut the cord only to a combined amount to half a dozen streaming source... ooh what business sense

If the service has the channels that people want, and doesn't have channels like 24 hour golf, shopping channels, the History channel, the dog channel, the cat channel, the c-spans, own, and many others that I could probably be typing all day channel, then the service would be worth the money to many people.

Apologies to anyone that enjoys the channels posted above, I was just trying to make a point that for most people, a few dozen channels at a cheaper rate would be better than a huge amount of channels they would never watch.
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
This.

Most folks who clamor for getting rid of cable don't realize they are getting a lot of content for a much smaller fee than if they had to get them individually.

Yup. Netflix and Amazon don't have a lot of content I want to see (mostly movies and some tv networks) so I ended up canceling them. I end up just buying from iTunes and find with the deals for iTunes gift cards and/or my 5% discount at Target I spend about the same and get to see what I want and actually own it.

----------

Because those prices aren't accurate or truly all inclusive.

For starters, the $20 and $40 are for first time subscribers. You didn't include the rate jumps after the 12 and 24 month mark.

Second, you're missing all the equipment costs. And that to me is the biggest reason to cut TWC/DirecTV/etc. It's not the channel costs, it's the damn equipment costs. I spend $70 on DirecTV now (could spend less). But that's just the channels. Add in a DVR, equipment fee, HDTV access, it adds another $30 a month.

TWC it's $25 a month for the DVR (and no one can live without one now), and $11.25 per box additional (3 more boxes for bedrooms? $33.75 additional).

I'm hoping and praying that Apple has a subscription service, and either offers a cloud like service (like Sony/Playstation) or a DVR. Because this equipment rental or even access fees is ridiculous. It's not the channel costs, it's the ancillary costs to your house that kills it.

True and false. I had TWC for 3 years. Each year I called back and had them honor the current price. So no price increase for me. I don't need a DVR, never used one, never will. I didn't pay any rental fee for my HD box or internet modem during my time with TWC.

So yes, TWC was much cheaper.
 

s2mikey

Suspended
Sep 23, 2013
2,490
4,255
Upstate, NY
Yup. Netflix and Amazon don't have a lot of content I want to see (mostly movies and some tv networks) so I ended up canceling them. I end up just buying from iTunes and find with the deals for iTunes gift cards and/or my 5% discount at Target I spend about the same and get to see what I want and actually own it.

----------



True and false. I had TWC for 3 years. Each year I called back and had them honor the current price. So no price increase for me. I don't need a DVR, never used one, never will. I didn't pay any rental fee for my HD box or internet modem during my time with TWC.

So yes, TWC was much cheaper.

Your TWC experience wasn't the norm then. Whomever you schmoozed or whomever you know over there helped you. TWC nickel and dimes you to death with ticky tack fees and yearly price increases for no reason. There ARE equipment fees. There ARE tier charges if you want the truly good channels. That's great that you've beaten the system but for 99% of the rest of the world, streaming and a roof antena is WAY cheaper than TWC could ever hope to be.
 

Juicy Box

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2014
7,534
8,865
There ARE equipment fees. There ARE tier charges if you want the truly good channels.

Yup, people paying $20 for cable TV are extremely rare, or they are not mentioning all the extra fees such as equipment. I think Comcast are $10 a month for HD box, and Fios is $13 in this area....
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
Your TWC experience wasn't the norm then. Whomever you schmoozed or whomever you know over there helped you. TWC nickel and dimes you to death with ticky tack fees and yearly price increases for no reason. There ARE equipment fees. There ARE tier charges if you want the truly good channels. That's great that you've beaten the system but for 99% of the rest of the world, streaming and a roof antena is WAY cheaper than TWC could ever hope to be.

Did you order online or over the phone? if you go in person, most of the people there are kick ass and help you out a lot. They will shove extras your way for little to no extra charge. i came in with a 15Mb plan and they bumped me to 50Mb for $10/mo more.

Just go in friendly and you'll be surprised. Most of the people that bitch go in angry and well, yeah, I wouldn't help you either.
 

2010mini

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2013
4,698
4,806
Did you order online or over the phone? if you go in person, most of the people there are kick ass and help you out a lot. They will shove extras your way for little to no extra charge. i came in with a 15Mb plan and they bumped me to 50Mb for $10/mo more.

Just go in friendly and you'll be surprised. Most of the people that bitch go in angry and well, yeah, I wouldn't help you either.

Truth.

When I had Direct TV I got my bill to $50 with all the premium channels for nothing extra. Killer deal..... Then I had to move and the new place didn't allow satellite dishes. Bummer
 

16cylinder

macrumors newbie
Apr 1, 2015
2
0
Your TWC experience wasn't the norm then.

agreed - it's not the norm. hell, my father managed to get DirecTV to cut his costs, while mine was happy to terminate all my channels and equipment with zero attempt to upsell.

Is it possible to get some of these sweetheart deals? Sure. Is it guaranteed? Absolutely not. Is it likely? Depends, but doubt it. It's all the ancillary fees that they make money off of.

So me paying Apple $40 a month + zero equipment cost is already a huge win for me. Lack of DVR is a bit of an issue, but not a deal killer.

But all the ancillary costs for hardware, the sports tax (I pay $2.37 per month and you can't remove it even though I subscribe to zero sports channels), $10 for HD, I could go on and on, but for just networks and maybe a couple premium channels, buying a half dozen Apple TVs (or Rokus - when they get into the same space which is only a matter of time) will be cheaper than TWC/DirecTV

It's Apples model (I say Apple because looks like they'll beat Roku to the punch) that will finally force cable and satellite to reprice their efforts.
 

Juicy Box

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2014
7,534
8,865
True and false. I had TWC for 3 years. Each year I called back and had them honor the current price. So no price increase for me. I don't need a DVR, never used one, never will. I didn't pay any rental fee for my HD box or internet modem during my time with TWC.

So yes, TWC was much cheaper.

I too was able to get some sweet deals, some of the time. But most will not be as lucky as you when dealing with the cable companies. Many people are stuck with only one cable provider and have little choice in what they pay if they want TV. Having Apple, and potentially other streaming providers gives many people an alternative to the cable companies. Which is needed badly.

agreed - it's not the norm. hell, my father managed to get DirecTV to cut his costs, while mine was happy to terminate all my channels and equipment with zero attempt to upsell.

Is it possible to get some of these sweetheart deals? Sure. Is it guaranteed? Absolutely not. Is it likely? Depends, but doubt it. It's all the ancillary fees that they make money off of.

So me paying Apple $40 a month + zero equipment cost is already a huge win for me. Lack of DVR is a bit of an issue, but not a deal killer.

So true. Some can get sweetheart deals, but it is not guaranteed, and not guaranteed to last.

The equipment charges for multiple HD STBs for a larger family could cost way more than the rumored price of Apple's service.

Also, when it comes to Apple TV lacking a DVR, if some of the rumors turn out to be true, then all the show will be On Demand, so no need for the DVR. I personally hope this is true.
 

unplugme71

macrumors 68030
May 20, 2011
2,827
754
Earth
I too was able to get some sweet deals, some of the time. But most will not be as lucky as you when dealing with the cable companies. Many people are stuck with only one cable provider and have little choice in what they pay if they want TV. Having Apple, and potentially other streaming providers gives many people an alternative to the cable companies. Which is needed badly.



So true. Some can get sweetheart deals, but it is not guaranteed, and not guaranteed to last.

The equipment charges for multiple HD STBs for a larger family could cost way more than the rumored price of Apple's service.

Also, when it comes to Apple TV lacking a DVR, if some of the rumors turn out to be true, then all the show will be On Demand, so no need for the DVR. I personally hope this is true.

Competition is king. I'm lucky to live in an area where I can get TWC, Comcast, AT&T, Consolidated, and Google Fiber for Internet and TV. In fact, I have two of the 5 ISP's in my house for redundant internet connectivity.

So yes, I may be fortunate than some who only have the one provider. But they also know you can just ditch them too. Either way, being friendly never hurts to get more or pay less.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.