What It Will Really Cost to Ditch Cable for à la Carte TV
That final unwavering bastion of old media—cable TV—is crumbling. And, surprise, tech giants are the ones putting the last nail in its coffin. But what will their alternative cost us? Let's take a look.
Last night, the Wall Street Journal gave unprecedented credence to a years-long list of rumors about Apple's TV subscription service, a 25-channel "skinny" bundle with major broadcasters like ABC, CBS, Fox, and also FX and ESPN. (One notable exclusion is NBC, owned by Comcast, which reportedly had a falling out with Apple while working on a joint TV-subscription service.)This isn't some "launching in a few years" rumor. Sources say Apple plans to launch this service in September at around $30-$40.
The rumored Apple subscription TV comes on the heels of similar streaming options from Dish, Sony, and of course the long-sought standalone HBO Now, to completely obliterate the traditional ways of television, and it's all happening this year. This is great—choice is great! Anything is better that dealing with Comcast.
But as we're fond of pointing out, the future of television isn't necessarily cheaper. It might noteven be worth it at all. Decide for yourself. Here's a rundown of all the confirmed and rumored prices of the streaming options on the a la carte TV platter.
What it costs to cut the cord
- Sling TV: $20/month—includes ESPN, AMC, TBS, Cartoon Network, Food Network, etc. Plus $5 for each additional programming package including news, lifestyle, Hollywood, kids, sports. (This all excludes basic channels like Fox, CBS, NBC, and ABC.)
- Apple TV: $30-$40 (rumored)/month—25 channels including basic cable (except NBC); only available on Apple devices
- PlayStation Vue: $50-$80 (rumored)/month—75 channels from CBS, Fox, Scripps, and NBCUniversal.
- HBO Now: $15/month
- Netflix: $9/month (for new users)
- Hulu: $8/month
- Amazon Prime: $100/year (or about $8 a month)
So to get a comprehensive television viewing experience, you're looking at something like this:
- Sling TV + HBO Now + Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime = $60-$85
- PlayStation Vue + HBO Now + Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime = $90-$120
- Apple TV + HBO Now + Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime = $70-$80
And if you're really serious about this TV subscription thing, the ultra mega package deal:
- Sling TV + PlayStation Vue + Apple TV + HBO Now + Netflix + Hulu + Amazon Prime = $140-$205
Compare that to a traditional cable package, and we're roughly neck and neck. In some ways, though, comparing a la carte TV and cable is sort of an apples and oranges comparison. Withcable, you can't always watch whenever you want, and you're stuck with an insufferable number of commercials. Streaming services, on the other hand, let you watch your stories on any device, and pay directly for the content without sitting through (as many) ads (for now).
No doubt many, many more companies will get involved (we haven't heard from Google or Samsung yet), and all will provide equally patchwork offerings where people will need to buy antennas for basic cable and continue sharing Netflix accounts. But one of the biggest barriers to bringing change to television has always been striking deals with cable companies like Comcast, Disney, and Time-Warner, which basically control all the channels you want to watch. Dish Network proved it could be done with Sling TV. Now tech giants like Apple and Sony are usurping cable companies as the new lords of television.
It would be naive to think tech companies will launch with a set price and never increase them in the future. Even Netflix had to raise prices recently for new users. These channels are also on contracts with these services, meaning channels can still blink out of existence on certain services, just like on cable. Apple already shows that some bundles will only further lock you into one ecosystem, whether an iDevice or a certain console.
The streaming trend is great news, but television in the hands of tech companies isn't really a revolution. It's more like new management.
Contact the author at darren.orf@gizmodo.com.
The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.
Maybe net neutrality will help, but since a lot of cable providers also do high speed internet, too, won't they just jack up the price of the internet as cable subscriptions begin to drop?
So much this. There's no way that the cable companies will make this a feasible prospect, since they are still providing us the only realistic alternative to their product! (I know some people will debate that DSL or fiber services are alternative ISPs as well, but they aren't ready for primetime at the bulk needed to make this legit)
This is exactly their strategy. Cable companies know that the TV (cable TV) of yore is going away and this is why they have been strategizing around broadband. Tiered and metered service, etc. This is why they are having a conniption around net neutrality. They are playing the long strategy.
Or the cable companies can also go a la carte, and the era of the ESPN tax will finally die.
The only real hope we have in this arena are players like Google fiber and of course, the mobile companies to compete. The barriers of entry are fairly high, but in the medium term, we SHOULD have marginal competition for a little while. The only real solution of course, is if the government, municipal or federal, takes charge of the infrastructure, or pipes, and rents it out to companies so they can compete.
My problem is that its not really alacarte tv. Not including things like netflix and amazon prime, the other subscription systems still bundle a whole bunch of TV channels. It wont be truly worthy of getting my money until I can specifically choose my own channels. Until then its the same as cable but using bandwith instead.
For example, Sling TV with ESPN, AMC, TBS, Cartoon Network, Food Network, etc. I dont want alot of those channels. Maybe AMC and CN.
Apple TV with its 35 channels is even worse.
I want a package with no sports or reality TV, plz.
business wise that would be very dificult (but highly desirable). What if the only money the respective channel would be based on the subscription fees? How many of the niche channels would be able to survive?
Maybe the way to go is less "channel centric" (which is an old TV model) and move to a show based approach the same way podcasts operate now. But even then, a lot of the non-mass market would dissapear.
But the subs dont have to be fee only. It can have fees and commercials.
Then you are a perfect candidate to switch off cable TV and go full streaming
OTA channels shouldn't be included in the value of the subscription.
That's not really true at all. If Aereo proved anything, it's that people were willing to pay to be able to watch their OTA channels wherever they were. Sure, I can get them for free with an antenna attached to a tuner, but I don't always have access to an antenna attached to a tuner.
It probably depends on how well the signal comes in where you are. I just have a pair of rabbit ear antenna and get all the broadcast networks and other digital OTA channels (Antenna TV, ION, etc), but my parents who live 5 minute away only get ABC and that's it. So for them, they'd have to either get a better antenna up on the roof or just pay for limited basic cable.
Amazon sells avery good "basics" version of the Mohu Leaf antenna that should solve your parents' problems for about $25.
They don't watch a whole lot of TV, and I already got them a Roku stick so they can stream stuff, but thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep an eye on that.
We cut the cord about a month ago. Went from $160/mo (soon to be $180/mo) to $64/mo for internet only.
I use ObiHai phone with google voice = free.
"Turbo" internet is $64/mo that is 30m down and 5m up unlimited. TV is a bit trickier
There are unique programs on Prime or Netflix and Hulu+ also but they are also somewhat redundant. We have Prime mainly for shipping but we occasionally look for programs on it. Hulu+ has about everything else, including commercials.
The biggest cut was the loss of Bravo for my better half. I sold it to her that she could buy the seasons from Prime for all the shows and it would be way less than the cost of cable for a month. She never bought any.
We tapped into an attic antenna that gets us about 20 channels (30 total but less the Jesus networks and other crap) SiliconDust makes some great interfaces to make that happen. I also got a Hauppauge card for my pc and add whaterver else is free QAM. This included Bravo which was exciting but I think it may be short lived. We use an old XBox 360 as a "cable box" now and can DVR up to 4 shows, depending on the channels with a PC with WMC. Monthly cost is zero except power.
Parts you need - Cable modem ($75 ish), SiliconDust and antenna ($100 ish), other cable card ($100 ish), Extra HD for shows ($100 ish).
Monthly costs are limited to your subscriptions unless you look at other options like sharing, or "Yo-Ho!"
If you are on the edge, DO IT! You can always go back and the cable co will probably give you a nice lower rate. It won't be lower than without cable tv though :).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered