Dish Network announces Virtual Cable

[dirk digler]

Sounds promising and will be interesting to see if other companies follow suit.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/05/medi...ble/index.html
Is the future of cable a "personal subscription service" with a small bundle of television and online video channels delivered to phones, tablets and Internet-connected TV sets?

Well, it's one potential future, as portrayed by the Dish Network in a first-of-its-kind "virtual cable" announcement on Monday.

Dish, a pioneer in satellite TV, is preparing to launch Sling TV, a bundle of channels -- including ESPN and CNN -- that will be delivered via the Internet to subscribers. Sling's "core package" will cost just $20 per month, far less than most cable packages, mainly because it includes a small number of channels.

For the small but growing number of cord-cutters in the United States, Sling TV might be a reason to reconnect -- particularly because it's a low-cost way to receive ESPN. It may also pave the way for changes to the cable bundles that about 100 million households currently pay for.
But for the time being, the service is experimental; Dish CEO Joseph Clayton calls it "a viable alternative for live television to the millennial audience."

Dish announced the new offering during the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The company declined to say when exactly it'll launch, other than "first quarter of 2015."

Sling TV is groundbreaking for a couple of reasons. One, it's entirely in the cloud; it requires no set-top-box or satellite dish (and annoying wait for the cable guy). It is bring-your-own-broadband.

Two, it is a per-person subscription, like Spotify, not a per-household subscription like traditional cable, satellite and broadband.

Three, it defies the television industry norm of bundling all of a company's channels together. For example, and probably most importantly for potential subscribers, Sling TV will include ESPN and ESPN2, but not ESPN's ancillary channels.

ESPN's parent, The Walt Disney Company, struck an Internet distribution deal with Dish (DISH) last spring.

Sling TV -- which has no relation to another product owned by Dish, the Slingbox -- will also carry ten other channels at launch: Disney's ABC Family and Disney Channel; Scripps Networks' Food Network, HGTV and Travel Channel; and Time Warner's TNT, TBS, Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, and CNN.
(Time Warner is the parent of this web site.)

The typical channel bundle sold by Dish and its competitors includes hundreds of channels. Through Sling TV, additional channels will be available via $5 per month "add-on packs." One of the packs will include CNN's sibling HLN, Bloomberg TV, Cooking Channel, and DIY.

Absent from Monday's announcement are any channels owned by Viacom, like MTV; 21st Century Fox, like FX; Comcast, like Bravo; and any broadcast networks, like CBS and NBC.

But the bundle will include a selection of web series from Maker Studios, the online video maker that Disney acquired last year.

Sling TV said it expected to "expand its core package, video-on-demand content, online video and add-on packs throughout 2015."

Dish's introduction of Sling will be closely watched within the media industry, since several forms of "virtual cable" are being explored by various companies.

Making the cable bundle more convenient and appealing to young people -- one of Dish's main aims -- may help the mature industry win new subscribers, but it may also hurt smaller cable channels that currently survive on the backs of bigger siblings.

In a press release, Sling TV CEO Roger Lynch depicted the service as a natural step in the Netflixification of television.

"Live television, including ESPN, for $20 per month with no commitment or contract, is a game changer," he asserted.

"The arrival of Sling TV lets consumers, who've embraced services like Netflix and Hulu, take more control of their video entertainment experience."

[ragedogg69]

yeah cox is introducing gigabit fiber here in phoenix. along with it, bumping up the arbitrary caps. I am getting gigabit fiber for $80.

[hometeam]

Originally Posted by ragedogg69

yeah cox is introducing gigabit fiber here in phoenix. along with it, bumping up the arbitrary caps. I am getting gigabit fiber for $80.

Not bad..

Sucks a little bit that I am no longer part of the exclusive gigabit master race. But then again **** that, get yo bandwidth homey~

[007]

Originally Posted by ragedogg69

yeah cox is introducing gigabit fiber here in phoenix. along with it, bumping up the arbitrary caps. I am getting gigabit fiber for $80.

If it ever comes to Topeka, I would expect that to cost 120. We get reamed in this town.

[ragedogg69]

Originally Posted by hometeam

Not bad..

Sucks a little bit that I am no longer part of the exclusive gigabit master race. But then again **** that, get yo bandwidth homey~

question for ya. does that test change depending on which pc you use? I wired my whole house with Cat 5e. So all of my network is gigabit, but on my weak ass computer, I get 95mps tops on that test. On my HTPC rocking an A6, I get 350. And here is my gaming rig:


I did not know internet speed is bottlenecked at the processor.

[hometeam]

Its not bottlenecked at processor, but network performance is based both on the hardware and software that your device is running.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by ragedogg69

question for ya. does that test change depending on which pc you use? I wired my whole house with Cat 5e. So all of my network is gigabit, but on my weak ass computer, I get 95mps tops on that test. On my HTPC rocking an A6, I get 350. And here is my gaming rig:


I did not know internet speed is bottlenecked at the processor.

Likely a slower network protocol capability in the network card in that one computer. Maybe a 100MB/s network card in that one...

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Guru

Cox doesn't "do anything" when you exceed it but they do track it. At some point, I have to believe, they will "do something." Otherwise, why would they be tracking usage.

From what I can find digging around on the interwebs, CenturyLink at least uses it as a policy they only enforce when it becomes an issue rather than as a hard rule. If they notice that a neighborhood is bogging down compared to expected capacity, they'll look into it. If one user is way over the limits, they'll basically tell them to knock it off or cancel their account.

Only posts I've found with people actually getting contacted about it are in extreme situations. (For example, a guy who used about 1.75TB in a month compared to the "limit" of 250GB.)

But again, I haven't personally topped 250GB in a month yet, so who knows for sure.

[007]

Originally Posted by DaFace

From what I can find digging around on the interwebs, CenturyLink at least uses it as a policy they only enforce when it becomes an issue rather than as a hard rule. If they notice that a neighborhood is bogging down compared to expected capacity, they'll look into it. If one user is way over the limits, they'll basically tell them to knock it off or cancel their account.

Only posts I've found with people actually getting contacted about it are in extreme situations. (For example, a guy who used about 1.75TB in a month compared to the "limit" of 250GB.)

But again, I haven't personally topped 250GB in a month yet, so who knows for sure.

Your watching most of your shows in HD on the internet and you haven't topped 250 in a month? Seriously?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Guru

Your watching most of your shows in HD on the internet and you haven't topped 250 in a month? Seriously?

At the rates I posted earlier, that would be 5 hours a day on average. I'm barely even home that much.

[007]

Originally Posted by DaFace

At the rates I posted earlier, that would be 5 hours a day on average. I'm barely even home that much.

Well thats assuming you are doing nothing else online at all. With our game consoles that eats up a lot of our bandwidth. Then the kids and netflix.

[ragedogg69]

Originally Posted by Fish

Likely a slower network protocol capability in the network card in that one computer. Maybe a 100MB/s network card in that one...

it a gigabit ethernet on that computer as well. I even hooked up an AC wireless adapter and get the same speeds on that test. Even tho the connection is much higher. it is just a weak ass mini pc that is only used for utorrent.

[aturnis]

Maybe your wired connection is shit. Test the cable?

[ragedogg69]

bypassed the wire with the AC usb adapter. same speed.