dslreports logo
 story category
My Thoughts on Dish's New Sling TV Offering

Like many outlets I was given an early look at Dish's new Sling TV streaming video service, which the company announced back at CES. The service won several awards at the show, and it's an the vanguard at a slew of offerings scheduled to be released in 2015 that finally appear ready to challenge the traditional cable TV paradigm. Is it any good? Well yes and no.

Click for full size
I have to say that the ease at which you're able to switch channels impressed me as somebody who has had a front row seat to the buffering, stuttering growth trajectory of Internet video.

While there's a notable delay, channel surfing is largely seamless and the experience is fairly consistent across supported devices (I tinkered with the app on an iPad, my LG G3, and a Roku 3). Unlike some other services, you're restricted to a single live stream at a time.

I'm marginally picky but not a videophile (I'm still using a 2006 Panasonic 720p Plasma TV), but the image quality was consistently good to great when compared to the often pixelated Internet video content I'm used to watching via my Plex/Roku 3 combination. Of course I've been experimenting with the service on a symmetrical 50 Mbps FiOS connection, so your mileage may obviously vary.

Most of SlingTV's content comes courtesy of licensing deals with Turner and ABC/Disney, so you'll find most of those properties here for the $20 price tag. Food Network, CNN, ABC Family, TNT, HGTV and the Travel channel are all represented. You can buy an additional kids channel pack for another $5 per month, with more channel packs (including a sports tier) in the works.

Still, there's holes in the lineup as broadcasters like CBS insist upon their pound of flesh from Dish. As such there's no broadcast TV offerings for NBC, Fox, CBS and ABC, though reports have suggested those offerings are the in the works. Technically the service works really well; the biggest issue is a dearth of content courtesy of Dish having to smack its head against stubborn broadcasters terrified of the TV revolution.

Cord cutters bored by the inanity of traditional cable may not be SlingTV's real target demographic. The thing is, it's not entirely clear who is.
The problem? I find I'm just not all that interested in 95% of what cable TV has to offer these days, and aside from the lower price point, Sling TV appears to be an attempt to mimic traditional television.

I cut the cord years ago, and with the exception of live sports (which I increasingly watch via Verizon's NFL app, OTA or at the pub) and the occasional HBO or broadcast TV series I can usually watch later on Netflix or Amazon ("Breaking Bad," "The Americans"), I haven't looked back. As with most cable news outlets I find CNN to be a dull-witted, rambling sort of affair. ESPN is the big draw, though like CNN I find Stephen Smith, Skip Bayless and friends more annoying than informative.

Reality TV also isn't my bag, something I violently remembered when suddenly forced to watch live television for the first time in years. That brings up the point that SlingTV's lack of a DVR function is notably annoying, though once again that's courtesy of broadcaster lawyers, and no fault of Dish. Still, the idea of not time-shifting my content and watching live television feels entirely foreign to me after so many years as a cord cutter.

Cord cutters bored by the inanity of traditional cable may not be SlingTV's real target demographic. The thing is, it's not entirely clear who is. ESPN is the big draw, but if you're a big fan of ESPN you're a big fan of sports and already likely have cable by necessity. There's likely many people drawn by the price tag, but is the low price tag worth the lack of convenience (DVR recording) and the limited content lineup?

We'll see how people respond when Dish TV officially opens the door this week, though actual subscriber numbers are going to be held close to the company's vest. As the opening salvo in a year that will be filled with similar offerings, Dish TV is what it is and nothing more: a promising start.
view:
topics flat nest 
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

my question

My question is, I understand that you are able to transfer content on your dvr to your tablet/smartphone? But it requires an internet connection.. Is it using the connection do transfer the data to the device thus burning up your data caps, or is it just a confirmation before copying thing? I'm really curious about this as we only have 1 main tv and being able to transfer it to a tablet and watch it elsewhere would freaking rock!
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: my question

My guess is restrictions are wonderfully passed on by the rights owners. Consumers consuming media how they want goes against what the corporations want.

hamburglar
join:2002-04-29
united state

hamburglar

Member

Single Stream

The single stream is likely the only thing causing me to hesitate... I can understand why they have this restriction, but it seems too limiting for the price. Since I have a couple Fire TVs, I may try out the service for a month, once the other add-ons are announced. It is a small step in the right direction.

Flyonthewall
@teksavvy.com

Flyonthewall

Anon

Makes me think

That most cable tv offerings, and similar, are built on the premise that you have 2 or more viewers and so they price based on that, and that if they charged by the viewer, all those single people out there are subsidizing family viewing, since this offering is based on one stream per subscription, which won't work when my wife wants to watch NFL and I want to watch something entertaining. That's if the revolution ever reaches Canada.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: Makes me think

You'd need to purchase another device/account. Pay per TV

atcotr
@wideopenwest.com

atcotr

Anon

Linear TV still relevant in some cases

For most television I'd much rather watch it through iTunes, Netflix, or Amazon as it's on-demand, commercial-free, and available on the screen of my choosing. The few exceptions are live sports and events. I plan on trying Sling TV, but only for the Watch ESPN access.
htech007
join:2006-10-18
Eagle, NE

htech007

Member

A Great Start

People are complaining it doesn't have local networks. You can pick those up with a coat hanger antenna. Ya it would be nice if we could see the major network streams on one interface but due to all the bs laws you can't just have a national feed and it would cost tons of money to see your local networks on a per user. I would rather they spend the time and effort getting channels like amc and filling out the offerings. This is a great start. I "cut the cord" 6 months ago and miss having a live national news network and the kids want Disney. This is a perfect option to supplement what I have. Plus ESPN is bonus. This isn't, (yet) a service to replace cable\sat for those who enjoy all their channels. It's a great supplement to a few things I'm missing. If there wasn't such a nickle and dime fee for dvr, whole house, hd fee, and other bs fees I would probably still have satellite. Half my bill was paying for equipment and each year it goes up and it's near a car payment now.
DnEtDe6c
join:2007-02-02
Athens, GA

2 recommendations

DnEtDe6c

Member

Re: A Great Start

said by htech007:

People are complaining it doesn't have local networks. You can pick those up with a coat hanger antenna.

I'll give you a thousand bucks if you can come to my house and pick up a single channel with a coat hanger. Hell, I'll give you a thousand if you can pick up a single channel with a real indoor antenna, even an amplified one. (I've tried.)

Haven't you learned yet that your circumstances aren't necessarily the same for everyone else in the world? I, for one, would welcome a reasonably priced service that includes so-called OTA channels. Actually I had it once. It was called "Aereo." But the Supreme Court took care of that.
htech007
join:2006-10-18
Eagle, NE

htech007

Member

Re: A Great Start

Actually this service is only available in the US so I'm not talking about the world. A majority of people can get good quality OTA with little effort (not all but quite a few) There are some who are not willing to mount a pole with an antenna high up in the air or for less than a thousand bucks you could get a nice pole and a company to come do it.
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17

HiDesert

Member

Re: A Great Start

Your right higher and bigger is the rule to get HD OTA. Unfortunately, HD OTA is very directional and you need line of sight. So for many, even a large pole/antenna won't work.

MalibuMaxx
Premium Member
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN

MalibuMaxx to DnEtDe6c

Premium Member

to DnEtDe6c
I pickup channels 150 miles away (pretty much consistant max) with an outdoor antenna mounted 30 feet in the air... Your 70ish to ATL... probably less going through the air is very do-able. If you were to mount higher than mine and amplify then you'd be golden.

I've even picked up channels 3 cities away (200-250 miles). My antenna is an old analog (very directional) antenna... and a 25 db amp. You were clearly doing something wrong.
DnEtDe6c
join:2007-02-02
Athens, GA

1 edit

DnEtDe6c

Member

Re: A Great Start

said by MalibuMaxx See ProfileYou were clearly doing something wrong.

I said "indoor" antenna. I wasn't expecting to get much, perhaps a channel or two, but no dice. There was no risk in trying, so I gave it a shot.

Since I live on the far side of town, you can add at least another 10 miles to the transmitter.

By your estimation, I would need an antenna mounted even higher than 30 feet. I can tell you that would go over like a lead balloon in my subdivision. Even though FCC rules give me the right, I would have a lot of disgruntled neighbors. And I can't say that I'd blame them. It would stick out like a sore thumb.

Since I won't go back to overpriced satellite service and wish to stay on good terms with my neighbors, I am hoping for the further development of internet-based video services.
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17

HiDesert

Member

Re: A Great Start

Forget the neighbors and put is up lol. HD OTA is the best. Much better then Sat HD. Not overly compressed. My friend came over the other day and saw my OTA HD and his jaw dropped. And we both have the same model 55 inch Vizio TV.
blushrts
join:2001-01-06
New Cumberland, PA

blushrts

Member

Re: A Great Start

Another generalization. My locals run subchannels and the ota feed stinks. CBS is the worst (and they run two subchannels). Every time a camera pans on a sporting event it's block city.
compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY

compton to MalibuMaxx

Member

to MalibuMaxx
said by MalibuMaxx:

I pickup channels 150 miles away (pretty much consistant max) with an outdoor antenna mounted 30 feet in the air... Your 70ish to ATL... probably less going through the air is very do-able. If you were to mount higher than mine and amplify then you'd be golden.

I've even picked up channels 3 cities away (200-250 miles). My antenna is an old analog (very directional) antenna... and a 25 db amp. You were clearly doing something wrong.

What is the name of the antenna and amplifier that you used?
blushrts
join:2001-01-06
New Cumberland, PA

blushrts

Member

Re: A Great Start

said by compton:

said by MalibuMaxx:

I pickup channels 150 miles away (pretty much consistant max) with an outdoor antenna mounted 30 feet in the air... Your 70ish to ATL... probably less going through the air is very do-able. If you were to mount higher than mine and amplify then you'd be golden.

I've even picked up channels 3 cities away (200-250 miles). My antenna is an old analog (very directional) antenna... and a 25 db amp. You were clearly doing something wrong.

What is the name of the antenna and amplifier that you used?

I don't remember too many hills the last time I visited Indiana. (which really helps him and also reiterates the point made here that one person's situation varies greatly from another's)
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72 to DnEtDe6c

Member

to DnEtDe6c
Unfortunately it may cost a few hundred (not $1000) to have a professional come in and setup the antenna correctly, but the result will be much better in exurb areas. That investment will last decades if done correctly (assuming they don't do away w/ OTA).

I know in this youtube world we think we can tackle building a space shuttle, but some things (like fringe antennas) are best left to the professionals.

Where I live I can throw up a Mohu (which is a fancy coat hanger) and get 40 channels without a sweat, but I live only 10-15 miles from all the transmitters. My parents not so lucky. CBS channel is 2 edge and 45 miles away over rough terrain. I could have gotten the channels, but interestingly enough there is a CBS channel on Plex that has all the shows and no commercials. Problem solved.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK to DnEtDe6c

Premium Member

to DnEtDe6c
Just get Aereo, then.....

OH WAIT
swarto112
Premium Member
join:2004-02-17
El Dorado Hills, CA

swarto112 to DnEtDe6c

Premium Member

to DnEtDe6c
or you're one of the few who need to put a big antenna up and click the input button on your TV. U want ultra easy way of channel selection.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

FYI - In Phillip Swann's review on his TVPredictions.com site (»www.tvpredictions.com/sl ··· 2515.htm), he cites this one issue with the service right now:
quote:
Dislike: The signal is 2 minutes behind the signal of your cable or satellite provider.
Each live channel on Sling TV is roughly two to three minutes behind the same channel's signal on cable and satellite. For example, if ESPN is airing a live basketball game between, let's say, Maryland and Michigan State, the score may be 60-50 on Sling TV. Switch over to ESPN on cable or satellite and the score might be 66-54 because the cable/satellite signal is just a few seconds behind the live action rather than a few minutes.

The delay is not a big deal if you're watching a movie on TNT or the 10th repeat of a Big Bang Theory episode on TBS. But if you're watching a live game on ESPN, it's annoying to know that you're behind in the action. (And don't dare look at your Twitter feed during the Sling TV broadcast; the comments will spoil the next few minutes of your game cast because everyone else is watching cable or satellite.)

Update: I tested Sling TV again today and found the delay was trimmed to around 80 seconds for both ESPN and CNN; Sling TV officials said last week that they would be tweaking the service up to the public launch.

If the delay stays at 80 seconds, or even a minute, the question remains: will a delay of that length upset sports fans, particularly those who use social media sites during games?

KyL416
join:2005-12-28
Tobyhanna, PA

KyL416

Member

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

There's not much anyone can do about the delay, with the nature of online streaming it will always be behind someone watching directly with cable or satellite because of the buffering that occurs on both ends.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

said by KyL416:

There's not much anyone can do about the delay, with the nature of online streaming it will always be behind someone watching directly with cable or satellite because of the buffering that occurs on both ends.

Yes, that's understood, but how much processing/buffering delay would be considered normal/reasonable for something like this? 20 or 30 seconds?

More than a minute still seems excessive.

Flyonthewall
@teksavvy.com

Flyonthewall

Anon

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

I don't believe sports is aired live anymore, ever since Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction during a Super Bowl. Plus, it makes it easier for them to insert commercial feeds.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena to telcodad

Premium Member

to telcodad
said by telcodad:

said by KyL416:

There's not much anyone can do about the delay, with the nature of online streaming it will always be behind someone watching directly with cable or satellite because of the buffering that occurs on both ends.

Yes, that's understood, but how much processing/buffering delay would be considered normal/reasonable for something like this? 20 or 30 seconds?

More than a minute still seems excessive.

A minute is about what is expected. You have to realize that a live TV broadcast is about a minute behind from what actually happens in the stadium as well, so your twitter friends that are AT the game may actually be able to spoil it if they tweet fast enough.

Generally, a signal bounces up and down satellites a few times before it reaches its final destination. It is sent up from a broadcast truck outside the stadium to a satellite, then from the satellite down to where the channel processes its signal. Then, from the channel it is sent back up to space, this time as the signal that gets delivered to cable companies and satellite companies, with the logo on it, the sports new ticker, the whole graphics overlay they put on it etc, etc... That signal blankets the nation from a geostationary orbit, from which a podunk cable company can pick it up with a nice large dish at their local central office, to put it on the cable networks. The big providers such as DirecTV and Comcast and such often have a direct internet link over VPN to receive the signal instead of going through satellite again, but smaller providers dont always have that luxury, nor do they always have access to a PoP in the general area of the station. In between, it is encrypted a few times (the raw feeds can't often be received by the general public), it is compressed into a client presentable format such as MPEG2 and MPEG4, and then delivered over cables to the customers. All in all, it could be a full minute from the actual play in the stadium before a TV viewer actually sees the same play on their TV screens.

DirecTV and Dish may have another 10 second or so delay because they have to actually route the signal back up into space for their customers to receive it. This can lead to funny situations in apartment buildings where the viewers are really close together with thin walls, where a person on OTA (almost direct from the station source) will cheer first, 3 seconds later it is the cable user, and another 5 seconds after that, the satellite owner will cheer for the home run that was just blasted off in the world series.
devolved
join:2012-07-11
Rapid City, SD
Ooma Telo

devolved

Member

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

The satellite delay is about a second (half second up, half second down). The online delay is caused by latency on the line, prebuffering and the server end compressing the video down at different bitrates for various speeds.

When I've compared the BBC World Service on my local NPR to the BBC World Service audio stream over the internet, I've found the delay is about 8 seconds.

C-SPAN is pretty impressive. The internet stream is about a second faster than the same C-SPAN video coming over my cable TV.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

said by devolved:

C-SPAN is pretty impressive. The internet stream is about a second faster than the same C-SPAN video coming over my cable TV.

That is most likely because your cable TV is using the same internet stream (although probably on a QoS'd VPN with a set amount of bandwidth dedicated) to distribute C-SPAN.
maartena

maartena to telcodad

Premium Member

to telcodad
It's the same way for ESPN's own streaming on ESPN3 (if the streamed content also happens to be aired somewhere), and services like MLB.tv. Getting the broadcast signal converted live, saved to a disk array that the streaming service can read from at the same time, and get it transported over an IP network. That is in turn followed by your browser (or device) buffering up for 20-30 seconds in order to secure a smooth delivery of the content.

That is something that really can't be finetuned to more then about 1 minute.

Re: social media, things get even more interesting when watching international content, e.g. a Premier League game in England. They get it on their TV about 30 seconds faster then any TV outlet here, so even with TV feeds there is a delay. (light travels only so fast, and the uplink to a satellite over europe, followed by a transfer link to a satellite over north america, followed by a downlink to an American receiving point at e.g. ESPN. ESPN in turn will have to broadcast their ESPN signal to a satellite, where cable companies and such can pick it up for redistribution.)
devolved
join:2012-07-11
Rapid City, SD

devolved

Member

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

Unless of course you're talking about the Olympics, then there's a 7 or 8 hour delay because NBC feels people should only watch the events in primetime.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

aaronwt to telcodad

Premium Member

to telcodad
Even the feed from the cable system isn't live.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

2 edits

telcodad

MVM

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

said by aaronwt:

Even the feed from the cable system isn't live.

Yes, any digital video compression system will involve processing/buffering delays. One could see the extra delay at just the local station transmission end of a network when you could receive and display side-by-side both the analog NTSC and digital ATSC version of a program. Cable then adds some more delay and Satellite then even more.

The delay being discussed here though, is not streaming vs. live, but Sling TV's streaming vs. (already-delayed) Cable and Satellite.

Does anyone know what delays were usually experienced using Aereo's service?

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

said by telcodad:

Does anyone know what delays were usually experienced using Aereo's service?

From what I read in the past between 1 and 2 minutes.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Re: Long delay compared to OTA/Cable/Satellite

BTW - I just found this 3 year old article about live streaming delays:

The Mystery Behind Live Streaming Delay
By Jens Loeffler, Overdigital.com - February 7, 2012
»www.overdigital.com/2012 ··· g-delay/
quote:
With streaming it’s to be expected that the game on the telly is a bit farther along than the game on the laptop, but we noticed the time kept slipping—from 15 seconds at the outset to almost 45 seconds delay—after about 10 minutes of watching.
:
What can cause a delay in the online video workflow? Here are a couple of potential sources.

Encoder – Adds a minor delay due to the encoding process, but limited options to eliminate this.

Client buffer – Helps to reduces interruptions caused by abrupt bandwidth changes. It can add up to a couple of seconds delay.

CDN – Needs to deliver video to the end users via thousands of servers, which, depending on the architecture, can add seconds of delay.

But the most important component is the delivery protocol, which can add a meaningful delay. ...

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

It's a start

The Sling TV service is a great start for those who want some basic channels as live streams, but isn't willing to pay for a expensive cable subscription, box leases, dvr fee, and add-one fees like sports surcharges, broadcast surcharges, etc.

If you have an OTA antenna that can receive the basic broadcast channels for free, this might be a great thing to add. The downside is indeed the single stream. I would have expected at least 2 streams on the same IP address just like Netflix. Personally for me 1 stream would work, as it is just me and my wife, but I don't think I would make use of it enough to justify the $20 a month. Channels like HGTV and Food Network offer their shows on-demand from their websites without "cable authentication" for free, and the shows available on other networks are also available through a variety of streaming platforms.

That said, I think this is a GREAT start, and I think Dish is recognizing that diversifying in the television market is going to come.

I am actually considering subscribing to Dish's international sports package for $10 for BeIN and Universal Sports at some point, as I like the Olympic type sports....

Dish does seem to think outside of the box, and they are starting to realize that traditional pay TV may become less relevant in the future.

Flyonthewall
@teksavvy.com

Flyonthewall

Anon

Re: It's a start

The sooner they realize people are not going to pay for the whole shebang just to get a few channels the better, the music industry finally figured it out with iTunes et. al. How long before they get a clue?
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72 to maartena

Member

to maartena
Sans live sports Hulu+ really has most of the same channels for much less and back libraries. The only irritant is the incessant rerun of commercials, however they are 50% less than traditional linear viewing.

It would be interesting to know if Playlater would work on this. That could pretty much DVR-ize the offering.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

1 recommendation

Packeteers

Premium Member

ESPN - yuck

so where's the bundle for people who do NOT watch any sports.
avoiding having to subsidize sports is why i don't have cabletv.
it's a shame dish/turner/abc/disney hasn't figure that out yet.
let's hope they offer sports-free bundles in the coming year.

••••••

PW091
@qwest.net

PW091

Anon

Content is king to me

Karl, I agree completely.
Cable even most of the streaming content is the same. If you saw it in the theater then it's just more of the same. If you saw on cable - again - it's just more of the same.

Original content is key and dish doesn't have that content, they are a provider, a funnel of what the major studios provide during their license window.

Amazon, NetFlix while winning awards for what I believe were two shows doesn't mean they have content that I want to watch either. With a few exceptions most of Amazon's shows are targeted at children and those programs simply don't interest me.

It's like the Discovery channel, they once created shows based on science - I love science - but they drifted towards reality programming and shows about mermaids and bigfoot which were passe' back in the 1970's, their channel lineup looks like National Geographic programming, which looks a lot like the Sci Fi channel shows that are cheap to make and equally low on quality content.

I simply don't like the content on 95% of the channels, the 5% I do like come from the BBC, PBS with shows like Nova, Nature or even Doctor Who which isn't so much about quality as it is continuity and being on the air for almost as long as I've walked the earth.

I still have Dish. That said, I do NOT like Dish not in the slightest.
They are what we typically end up voting for with our politicians, the lessor of evils. Dish is more affordable than their competitors but the content is the nearly the same.

Picking up their sling offerings does nothing to add value from my view. Sure it's nifty streaming but that's technology and I am not interested in paying a monthly fee for technology, it's about content and that has slowly been eroded from the Dish channel lineup due to their many fights over retransmission fees, carriage fees, ect.

I've been buying DVDs to make up for the lack of provider content. I don't see this changing.

anonomeX
@comcast.net

anonomeX

Anon

Huh?!

The NFL is totally reality TV--and every bit as much lacking in entertainment value.

(Since we cord-cutters are already going the OTA route, naturally we don't really care about those broadcast network feeds missing from packages like these.)

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Re: Huh?!

said by anonomeX :

The NFL is totally reality TV--and every bit as much lacking in entertainment value.

I tell football fans sometimes that I will watch football when they allow NHL hockey fights. Helmets off. Gloves off. Let's get it on. (And then a five-for-fighting penalty of course)

SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Atlanta, GA

SysOp

Member

my thoughts

If you want to watch media on a small screen tablet/phone at a reduced quality go right ahead. I'll enjoy the show on my HDTV or my12ft home theater at the full bit rate thank you very much.

It won awards so maybe people are asking for this? Maybe you like holding your device? Maybe you feel the need to watch media outside or in a closet? Maybe you have never seen 4k 12bit OLED. Or maybe you are just impressed by shiny things.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: my thoughts

Its also on Roku. Something attached to your TV.

SysOp
join:2001-04-18
Atlanta, GA

1 edit

SysOp

Member

Re: my thoughts

I assumed the Roku stream was a lower bit rate than the original feed considering how the sling device works.

I would expect Satellite be the leader of 2k/4k H.265 high bit rate content sooner than cable simply because it would be far far easier to deploy.

Sling Streaming seems like a step in the wrong direction unless they make the move to IPtv which they can't due to content license restrictions.

So I get that this is not for me, what I don't get is who is this intended for? You have to subscribe to Dish in the first place. Then you would want to watch TV on your phone/tablet... forget the Roku, Dish already gives you a box to connect to your HDTV.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Worthless

Not enough channels to follow a team, no DVR. This isn't going anywhere.
eugine
join:2003-03-07
Milwaukee, WI

eugine

Member

Sweet or sour

I think this is just a cheaper way to catch some programing without additional cost from dvr or hd equipment and no commitment to a tier of service. Also a easy self install component as its a online device and could be more or less sold at your local electronics store. They might be on to something.

Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium Member
join:2000-08-05
united state

Snakeoil

Premium Member

My 5 cents.

Ever since I told my wife about Sling TV, she's been interested.
I've tried for a few years to convince her that streaming over the net is cheaper then paying for TV. Currently we do both, and it's pricey.

Now what I'm hoping, though I doubt it will happen. Is that Dish is able to offer a discount to multi-subscribers at a single address. I understand it's one viewer per account. But when adding 3 other accounts at the same address, you'd think they'd be able to offer a discount.

I bet it's still loaded with commercials, like Hulu+. Which is ok. But the Networks need to look at the facts. That people really enjoy binge watching with no commercials. Which is where I think we are headed.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

Sub hoppers

There is another interesting phenomenon that is happening in the cord cutter world. People can't afford to subscribe to everything at the same time, so they aren't going to subscribe to HBO Go, AND CBS, AND Showtime, AND Sling, AND Netflix, AND Amazon, AND AND AND etc, you get the drill.

They will subscribe to HBO GO for one month, watch the TV shows they want to watch, then cancel it. THEN they will subscribe to CBS, watch what they want to watch, and then move on to the next subscription.

Your TV viewing will basically completely change, and 3 months into 2016 you will have seen all the shows released in 2015, you will just have seen them in different time frames from linear cable viewers.

And that made me think: People can do this with Sling TV too. Maybe you don't NEED ESPN year round, but only during the playoffs of your favorite sport! So you subscribe in December and January for the good NFL games, and once football season is over, you ditch Sling TV again till next December.

This "sub hopping" is a lot easier to do with internet-based subscriptions, as you don't need to switch device or computer to move to the next subscription. I see this becoming a trend, as you may not need ESPN the entire year, and perhaps 20 bucks for 2 or 3 months of monday night football might be worth it.
antennaman19
join:2010-01-18
Painesville, OH
ARRIS TM1602
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC86

antennaman19

Member

Re: Sub hoppers

YES, AND THANK YOU! I know I just yelled.
That is exactly my plan with Sling. If I get an invite, I'll kick the tires on it. When construction season gets going, I won't have time for it. Winter layoff comes right before NFL playoff/NCAA playoffs. It has most of the handful of channels that we watched out of the 220 we suffered with in the bundle.

keztifr
@50.157.63.x

keztifr

Anon

Will we ever see it?

Since they keep delaying the invites, I'm not sure it will ever release.

landrover
join:2013-09-17
Martinsburg, WV

landrover

Member

So far so good

I really like this service so far. I don't want to be stuck in a satellite contract with other fees.

I enjoy sports, and this supplies what I need with a few other nice channels.
The adaptive bitrate seems to be a lot better as well compared to other live streaming services.
mist668
join:2011-02-15
Middleburg, PA

mist668

Member

Like it

I am ota and netflix/hulu and with this I can watch things live that suppliment. Between cartoon network, food, travel, tbs and tnt its decent. I like the ability to watch on my phone on the go.

I not sure what resolution or def I am getting but the roku 3 says stream using about 3.7Mbps and the picture looks beautiful.
swarto112
Premium Member
join:2004-02-17
El Dorado Hills, CA

swarto112

Premium Member

been using it for a week...

the family is ok with it. We areblong time TiVo users so suffering thru the commercials on the channels that dont allow rewind and ff kind suck but hey its $20 instead of $200.