The beginning of the end for cable...

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://lifehacker.com/sling-tv-will-stream-espn-and-a-few-other-channels-fo-1677538346?

Basically:

ESPN
TNT

$20 a month.
Available for streaming. Basically all I need for my NBA Coverage Gap with League pass.

Huzzah.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Yes sir....been waiting for this

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

No csn

 

[MARIS61]

Seems pretty expensive for so few channels. Most sports you can already stream live for free on firstrowsports and other sites, the shows on tbs and tnt are available on Netflix, and does anybody really still watch news on tv?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Its a start. As the demand gets higher, the prices will fall with competition.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

oh yeah, this happened today too

 

[Further]

Ball streams -$60 for six month
Every NBA game streamed in hd.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I generally prefer to go through legal channels.

 

[KingSpeed]

This is great news

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems pretty expensive for so few channels. Most sports you can already stream live for free on firstrowsports and other sites, the shows on tbs and tnt are available on Netflix, and does anybody really still watch news on tv?

This.

If all the cable channels you want cost $15 each, $150 gets you 10. $150 on dish gets you hundreds of channels.

 

[Denny Crane]

Also, LG is the only TV listed that has the capability to stream the channels in firmware. It's only a big deal if you eventually want to stream UHD, and i think UHD is most likely to be mostly delivered via broadband.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Who the fuck uses the firmware in the TV? Most of them seem like teh suck. AppleTV/Roku all the way (although this won't be on Apple TV)

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I'd go for it, personally. Look, These are the channels I basically watch. Food Network, TNT games and ESPN games. That's it, I can live with everything else.

My Direct TV bill is $90 a month. Versus $20, I'll go with this and spend the rest buying content on the Itunes store.

I'm not going to miss any of the other shitty channels I leave on for background noise.

 

[Denny Crane]

Roku is in firmware in some TVs.

I haven't used the Samsung smart TV yet, but it looks fine.

But that's not the point, the point is if the streaming software is IN the TV, then all you need is ethernet or WiFi to stream UHD. If it's in a Roku or Apple TV type box, they have HDMI that only does 1080P. Ya know?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I guess I can't get the NBA TV games. blah.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Roku is in firmware in some TVs.

I haven't used the Samsung smart TV yet, but it looks fine.

But that's not the point, the point is if the streaming software is IN the TV, then all you need is ethernet or WiFi to stream UHD. If it's in a Roku or Apple TV type box, they have HDMI that only does 1080P. Ya know?

You're talking about something that's 3-4 years into the future.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This sounds great but if you don't think the cable companies are going to throttle this shit to a snail's crawl you're very very high. Netflix is one thing but taking a big chunk out of their very profitable TV service. Ain't...going...to...happen.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're talking about something that's 3-4 years into the future.

I think it's a lot sooner than that.

The issue right now is the specifications are "draft" and nobody's implementing the ultimate real thing yet.

The ethernet and WiFi things work and always will. They may end up using those by default.

 

[Bob Dobalina]

I think it's a lot sooner than that.

The issue right now is the specifications are "draft" and nobody's implementing the ultimate real thing yet.

The ethernet and WiFi things work and always will. They may end up using those by default.

Still doesn't make a lot of sense to make a decision on whether to subscribe to something like this based on future 4K potential. Those who want it now, get it, those who don't, don't. Personally I see it as a win for cord cutters. I think it's just the beginning.

 

[Denny Crane]

Still doesn't make a lot of sense to make a decision on whether to subscribe to something like this based on future 4K potential. Those who want it now, get it, those who don't, don't. Personally I see it as a win for cord cutters. I think it's just the beginning.

I was pointing out that LG is the only TV that would support UHD using this service. At this time.

You won't get UHD over regular HDMI 1.x that is in an Apple TV or Roku device, no matter what the source is. This offering may not have UHD, but HBO's might

 

[Draco]

I'll buy this the day it's available. Espn and tnt are only cable channels I care about.

 

[Draco]

Now that football over think I may cut the cord. $70 a month for TV I never watch is a waste. I already have antenna setup which gets 25 channels for free and all the networks. I have NBA league pass which supposedly now let's you watch national games too a few hours later when they're archived.

 

[Denny Crane]

Excellent read.

http://www.wired.com/2015/01/everyb...n-dont-want-one-just-yet/?mbid=social_twitter

With 4K, streaming isn’t just a cable-cutting measure anymore. It’s the primary delivery mechanism, and that could change the entire nature of television—not just how we (binge-)watch it, but how we decide which company’s 4K set to buy. You see, you can’t buy a 4K-capable Roku, Amazon Fire TV, or Apple TV box right now. Yes, you can watch upscaled 1080p content, and that’ll look great. But if you want a true 4K experience—tack-sharp detail and you-are-there realism—you’re largely limited to the 4K services offered by each TV’s built-in smart platform.