PlayStation Vue

[GSG]

From what I read there was the regular Big Ten channel and 1 alternate Big Ten channel for everyone, so I assume no one would miss a game

[GSG]

Another thing I just thought of; we watch movies on Vudu a lot. They're usually a dollar or two cheaper than the On Demand movies on Xfinity and they have free stuff sometimes too. I'm really considering switching to Vue, then just buying movies from Amazon or Vudu or getting them at the Redbox

[ScottyIce]

Another thing I just thought of; we watch movies on Vudu a lot. They're usually a dollar or two cheaper than the On Demand movies on Xfinity and they have free stuff sometimes too. I'm really considering switching to Vue, then just buying movies from Amazon or Vudu or getting them at the Redbox

 

I've been researching for weeks how I can get out of DirecTv early. I'm all N on PS Vue once I'm out of DTV free of charge.

[wanderful]

 

Not to get wonky about this -- but if the smallest package of channels they have is 60+ channels, then this isn't cutting the cord, it's just a new cable provider packaging itself under a different name. If it were truly "cord cutting" you'd be able to pick just the channels you want, not locked into a package of channels.

 

I've been a "cord cutter" for almost 8 years now. I'd love to be able to go to BTN, give them my $5 per month, and have access to BTN Go. But that option doesn't exist. So I continue to stream BTN for free from shady foreign websites. I'd love to be paying them directly, but I'm not going to pay $100+ per month for channels I won't watch, just to get BTN.

 

I disagree somewhat. There is no contract and it's an extremely cheap option.

 

True - so then it's like a cable company, marketing itself under a different name, and with a cancel-anytime policy.

 

Maybe slightly better, but still reads to me as old media executives either not understanding or not willing to embrace the appeal of new media. We have all the technology to allow me to pay BTN $5 a month for their service, the only thing preventing it from happening is greedy middle-men.

[gobiggergoredder]

Can you hook up multiple TV's with only one PS4?

[HuskersNC949597]

Hm, looks good on paper. A free trial might be worth a shot.

[mrandyk]

There is more than the $40 package. There are also $30 and $35 packages, basically everything I'd want is in the cheapest package.

[VectorVictor]

 

Not to get wonky about this -- but if the smallest package of channels they have is 60+ channels, then this isn't cutting the cord, it's just a new cable provider packaging itself under a different name. If it were truly "cord cutting" you'd be able to pick just the channels you want, not locked into a package of channels.

 

I've been a "cord cutter" for almost 8 years now. I'd love to be able to go to BTN, give them my $5 per month, and have access to BTN Go. But that option doesn't exist. So I continue to stream BTN for free from shady foreign websites. I'd love to be paying them directly, but I'm not going to pay $100+ per month for channels I won't watch, just to get BTN.

 

I disagree somewhat. There is no contract and it's an extremely cheap option.

 

 

Wanderful, "Cutting the cord" means getting television service over IP or over Antenna, and not through the traditional coaxial cable television provider (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner, Charter) (or for newer providers like Frontier, Verizon, or Google, FttP). "A La Carte" is where you can cherry pick what specific channels you want--something that could be allowed even by current television providers, but won't until changes in carrier fee structures and other political and economic concerns are resolved.

 

And PlayStation Vue is a good service for the money, as is Sling, and both provide options the other doesn't have to varying degrees. Haven't encountered anyone with the new AT&T/DirecTV Streaming service to compare/contract with yet, unfortunately.

 

Regardless, this is progress, and why it was vitally important for the FCC to get Internet Broadband classified as a utility last year. We're living in charmed times.

 

[wanderful]

 

 

Not to get wonky about this -- but if the smallest package of channels they have is 60+ channels, then this isn't cutting the cord, it's just a new cable provider packaging itself under a different name. If it were truly "cord cutting" you'd be able to pick just the channels you want, not locked into a package of channels.

 

I've been a "cord cutter" for almost 8 years now. I'd love to be able to go to BTN, give them my $5 per month, and have access to BTN Go. But that option doesn't exist. So I continue to stream BTN for free from shady foreign websites. I'd love to be paying them directly, but I'm not going to pay $100+ per month for channels I won't watch, just to get BTN.

 

I disagree somewhat. There is no contract and it's an extremely cheap option.

 

 

Wanderful, "Cutting the cord" means getting television service over IP or over Antenna, and not through the traditional coaxial cable television provider (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner, Charter) (or for newer providers like Frontier, Verizon, or Google, FttP). "A La Carte" is where you can cherry pick what specific channels you want--something that could be allowed even by current television providers, but won't until changes in carrier fee structures and other political and economic concerns are resolved.

 

And PlayStation Vue is a good service for the money, as is Sling, and both provide options the other doesn't have to varying degrees. Haven't encountered anyone with the new AT&T/DirecTV Streaming service to compare/contract with yet, unfortunately.

 

Regardless, this is progress, and why it was vitally important for the FCC to get Internet Broadband classified as a utility last year. We're living in charmed times.

 

 

 

Haha, I probably should mention that TV is my profession, so I'm not being blustery here. Cutting the cord is what people are doing in response to there being no A La Carte cable models. Most will claim that it's in response to the high price and crappy service, but I read at least one study somewhere that showed that people didn't mind the price if they were only paying for channels they new they liked (I just tried googling this study so I could link it here, but I can't find it and I don't remember where I read it. I thought it was Variety, but apparently not.)

 

Like I said, I cut the cord in 2008 or 2009 and have been using antenna for local and broadcast networks (in case anyone didn't know, since it's a digital signal now, the picture is in HD), using Netflix and Amazon Prime. I've also at various times subscribed to Hulu Plus, CBS All Access, and HBO Now. (Interestingly, this ends up costing nearly the same price per month as cable would, but since they're on demand services, there's value added since I can watch them almost anywhere in the world. EDIT: I realize that a lot of cable companies are also starting to introduce features like this, but so far my experience with them is that they don't work very well and are essentially redundant to the often better-designed network native apps).

 

HBO Now is actually the perfect example of where the market is moving (and would already be if it weren't for entrenched interests of middle men, i.e. the cable companies) -- I pay them $15 a month and I get access to all their shows via their app. I'm paying for their content. With cable, what you're paying for is a distribution method. Which made sense as a business model in the 80s and 90s, because there were no other means for distributing the content. But with the internet, we now no longer need cable to distribute the content (at least not in the traditional sense -- they're often the internet providers now, which makes them the indirect providers, as opposed to being the direct providers by delivering the TV). Cable is redundant and less flexible than the internet. HBO is the first big-fish cable network to move toward this, with HBO Now, and ESPN is probably going to be next.

 

EDIT: So, re-reading this post, I'm coming off pretty douche-y, which wasn't my intent! Lol.

[wanderful]

 

 

 

Not to get wonky about this -- but if the smallest package of channels they have is 60+ channels, then this isn't cutting the cord, it's just a new cable provider packaging itself under a different name. If it were truly "cord cutting" you'd be able to pick just the channels you want, not locked into a package of channels.

 

I've been a "cord cutter" for almost 8 years now. I'd love to be able to go to BTN, give them my $5 per month, and have access to BTN Go. But that option doesn't exist. So I continue to stream BTN for free from shady foreign websites. I'd love to be paying them directly, but I'm not going to pay $100+ per month for channels I won't watch, just to get BTN.

 

I disagree somewhat. There is no contract and it's an extremely cheap option.

 

 

Wanderful, "Cutting the cord" means getting television service over IP or over Antenna, and not through the traditional coaxial cable television provider (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner, Charter) (or for newer providers like Frontier, Verizon, or Google, FttP). "A La Carte" is where you can cherry pick what specific channels you want--something that could be allowed even by current television providers, but won't until changes in carrier fee structures and other political and economic concerns are resolved.

 

And PlayStation Vue is a good service for the money, as is Sling, and both provide options the other doesn't have to varying degrees. Haven't encountered anyone with the new AT&T/DirecTV Streaming service to compare/contract with yet, unfortunately.

 

Regardless, this is progress, and why it was vitally important for the FCC to get Internet Broadband classified as a utility last year. We're living in charmed times.

 

 

 

Haha, I probably should mention that TV is my profession, so I'm not being blustery here. Cutting the cord is what people are doing in response to there being no A La Carte cable models. Most will claim that it's in response to the high price and crappy service, but I read at least one study somewhere that showed that people didn't mind the price if they were only paying for channels they new they liked (I just tried googling this study so I could link it here, but I can't find it and I don't remember where I read it. I thought it was Variety, but apparently not.)

 

Like I said, I cut the cord in 2008 or 2009 and have been using antenna for local and broadcast networks (in case anyone didn't know, since it's a digital signal now, the picture is in HD), using Netflix and Amazon Prime. I've also at various times subscribed to Hulu Plus, CBS All Access, and HBO Now. (Interestingly, this ends up costing nearly the same price per month as cable would, but since they're on demand services, there's value added since I can watch them almost anywhere in the world. EDIT: I realize that a lot of cable companies are also starting to introduce features like this, but so far my experience with them is that they don't work very well and are essentially redundant to the often better-designed network native apps).

 

HBO Now is actually the perfect example of where the market is moving (and would already be if it weren't for entrenched interests of middle men, i.e. the cable companies) -- I pay them $15 a month and I get access to all their shows via their app. I'm paying for their content. With cable, what you're paying for is a distribution method. Which made sense as a business model in the 80s and 90s, because there were no other means for distributing the content. But with the internet, we now no longer need cable to distribute the content (at least not in the traditional sense -- they're often the internet providers now, which makes them the indirect providers, as opposed to being the direct providers by delivering the TV). Cable is redundant and less flexible than the internet. HBO is the first big-fish cable network to move toward this, with HBO Now, and ESPN is probably going to be next.

 

EDIT: So, re-reading this post, I'm coming off pretty douche-y, which wasn't my intent! Lol.

 

 

Or maybe a better way to talk about it would be to talk about Netflix, since they've completely upended the entire TV and film distribution market in the last few years. Netflix started off as a distributor, but realized that wasn't a feasible long-term business model, given the way the internet was revolutionizing things. So they started making their own content. They essentially became a TV channel, but with their own, built in distribution via the internet. Their stock went from $10 a share at the end of 2011 to $100 a share today (give or take recent China-induced fluctuations).

 

Anyway, my point is just that traditional distribution-only business models are dying, and most of our kids will never subscribe to any service that bundles channels together without them being able to choose each and every one of the channels. From what I can tell, Vue doesn't give this option. So I see Vue as, at most, a stop gap on the way toward a complete HBO Now-esque business model for TV.

[wanderful]

whoops, double post

[hskrfan4life]

This is Sony's response I believe to Xbox One. Since you can turn the console on and watch tv through it.

 

With the VR coming out for Sony, they are trying to be your mainstay in your home.

 

PlayStation TV is another example.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

This is Sony's response I believe to Xbox One. Since you can turn the console on and watch tv through it.

 

With the VR coming out for Sony, they are trying to be your mainstay in your home.

 

PlayStation TV is another example.

I believe you have to have a cable subscription for the Xbox TV deal to work.

[suh_fan93]

Seems ok. Apparently you can access this without a PS4? I would hope so because when your cable box goes bad you can swap it out. Obviously you can't ask Sony to swap out your bad PS4.

[Saunders]

Seems ok. Apparently you can access this without a PS4? I would hope so because when your cable box goes bad you can swap it out. Obviously you can't ask Sony to swap out your bad PS4.

It works via amazon fire, playstation 4, and there's a ios/android app I believe.