Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Unveils 'DirecTV Now' Streaming Television Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I disagree with that logic. I already pay for internet and DirecTV. Getting rid of a dish for a streaming option saves me $50/month, straight up. It's not like I have to add internet to get it.
But instead of paying the cable company for too many channels you don't want... you pay someone else!
That's better, right?
I never really understood these "over-the-top" channel packages.
You're gonna be paying the cable company for internet anyway... why not get the channels from them?
Correct. And in which case customers will pay around $30 per show (assuming they buy a season pass). As people have mentioned, when you want to buy less of something the per unit costs go up. It's not much different than buying one can of Coke vs a twelve pack vs buying in bulk.
It's just bad math when people look at their 200 channel cable package for $100 and assume that, if split out, all their channels should cost $0.50 each.
I see a lot of people bitching about rental fees? I can't remember the last time I paid for my equipment with Comcast or ATT. Most give you that stuff for free with bundles for at least 2 years, and will continue to keep them for free after that.
1gb internet, 140 channels, 4 HD DVRs, HBO, Showtime, Redzone is $140 after taxes. I honestly don't think I could beat that.
1gb internet, 140 channels, 4 HD DVRs, HBO, Showtime, Redzone is $140 after taxes. I honestly don't think I could beat that.
I forgot about that!
Yes... non-cable internet doesn't come from the cable company. Sorry!
But does your gigabit fiber offer channels?
Sounds like my college age daughter. She's the Netflix/Spotify generation that thinks all entertainment should be at her beck and call for $10 a month.
OTA cord cutter? No I don't just consume OTA content (heck I don't even have an OTA antenna). I have a Gigabit Fiber connection from a local ISP (not a cable company), I have Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon (because of Prime, I wouldn't pay for it by it's self). So for $19 a month I get all the content I want minus a few shows (and most of those end up on one of the above in a year or two). And yes you could argue I pay some portion of my internet bill as well for TV, but I have the Internet for work primarily (I work from home). Either way, I'm paying a small fraction of what I paid AT&T 6 or 7 years ago when I had U-Verse for Internet and TV (around $225 a month), and it was when I was like enough is enough. I haven't looked back.
[doublepost=1480377126][/doublepost]
Nope.. Just a fiber hand off to my router.
HBO won't be really. They will have a wholesale price for 3rd parties to resell access. They will also provide a recommended price to sell at but ultimately it's up to the service to decide what to sell it for. If they want to charge above the recommended price they could but they could also sell for less to attract people to their service. They could even decide to sell at a loss. HBO won't care as they get the same no matter what
It will when the numbers they thought would subscribe are not subscribing
Well your case obviously isn't what I was referring to.
I was speaking to the people who pay for Comcast Internet along with Comcast TV channels or whatever.
But yeah... for you with separate internet... you can choose whatever TV service you want!
I gotta ask... does this DirectTV thing interest you? Do you not have any TV channels at all?
I pay $174 a month (including taxes) for DirecTV with HBO/Showtime/STARZ, and 3 HD boxes. Then I pay $50 a month for Internet from Time Warner. On my DTV bill, $25 is an "advanced receiver fee" and $14 is for the other 2 clients. So right now, I'm paying $40 a month JUST for equipment. With this new service, I can have basically every channel I need plus HBO for that same $40.
Aside from the 2 stream limit and potential poor PQ this is an awesome deal. I don't think I've seen a cable package with that many channels for less than $40 since the 80's.
Wow, this is a lot more complicated than I realized. No wonder they can never get any streaming deals done. Dang. Looks like I'm out of luck for any owned stations cutting deals.
it all boils down to channel lineup. I know it won't have CBS, so that's an extra $5.99 I think
In my case, getting the channels I want for 25-35 dollars is better than the 65 minimum I'd have to pay my local provider. I don't understand how some people don't get the value proposition of these OTT services.But instead of paying the cable company for too many channels you don't want... you pay someone else!
That's better, right?
I never really understood these "over-the-top" channel packages.
You're gonna be paying the cable company for internet anyway... why not get the channels from them?
Of course, your viewing habits and mileage will vary. I don't want 250 channels for 120 bucks. It actually is a great deal for some (a lot?).
For me, it's no contest.
I pay $180 for internet and TV. I get a ton of channels. But looking at the channels I actually watch religiously, it might be about 10. All of which are going to be available on DirecTVNow. I do lose CBS and CW, but hope they'll come to an agreement. So you're absolutely right. I mean I occasionally watch some of the other channels I have, but the ones I "need," I'll be covered. So same here, no contest.
I don't want to speak for him, but I assume he meant paying $35 for DirecTVNow and getting those channels he wants.
Ah... but that's still 60+ channels.
I thought the whole problem was "I'm paying for channels I don't want!"
Out of curiosity, what do you think would be more fair? We recently cut the cord at home for Sling and it's be fantastic. We're saving roughly $105 per month and still getting a vast majority of channels we would watch. Spending the extra $10 for even more channels is a no brainer in my opinion.
[doublepost=1480379134][/doublepost]
CBS is stubborn, but look into what you can get OTA. I'm in Central NJ and easily pick up Philadelphia and NY CBS for free.
This is where people's thinking is wrong though. Its not just the small 'crap' channels that are subsidised they all are. Lets take AMC as an example. During prime time in 2015 they were the 16th most watched channels with an Average of 1.4million viewers. Over 90million households have paytv so the AMC viewers are a minority. Outside of ESPN the most watched cable channel was TBS which averaged 1.87million followed by USA on 1.85million. So they are getting carriage fees from like 90million people who aren't watching their channel. Even if the carriage fees are peanuts as they are with AMC they make more than they would going direct. Some of those 1.4mill just wouldn't pay as they only watch because it's there and others would be price senative but the fewer subscribers they have the more they need to charge to make the same and that will drive more away.
We also have the fact that channels you may consider crap and a waste of your sub money others will enjoy, just as channels you enjoy may be things that others resent paying for. Bundling is a system that may seem like we are paying for things we don't want as we get things we don't want but infact it's a system that reduces the cost to us for things we do want by spreading the load. So we get cheaper access to what we want and get a bunch of free things which don't hurt us if we just ignore them. The only way bundling hurts people is if the channels they consume is like a couple of channels only
