Sling TV the Good and the BAD - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 15Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 102 Old 02-11-2019, 01:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 5,454
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1878 Post(s)
Liked: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackB View Post
Thanks for the confirmation. As I recall, YTTV was as good as DTV Now. Puzzling. Why would one stay with Sling with such a major deficiency?
No one streaming service can give you everything, and may never. Sling can actually look good on some channels more than others, quality on live streaming services can vary more than say Netflix or Amazon Prime.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 102 Old 02-11-2019, 03:06 PM
Senior Member
 
spencer777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
720p Direct TV Now can do 1080p. Every bit helps.
Thanks for the confirmation. As I recall, YTTV was as good as DTV Now. Puzzling. Why would one stay with Sling with such a major deficiency?
Sling is 1080p on most channels. 720p on ones that normally Broadcast in that resolution.
spencer777 is offline  
post #93 of 102 Old 02-11-2019, 03:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 5,454
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1878 Post(s)
Liked: 2480
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencer777 View Post
Sling is 1080p on most channels. 720p on ones that normally Broadcast in that resolution.
Possibly, there are arguments about that (parallel arguments with cable systems doing the same thing, or not), ABC and ESPN are definitely 720p as they would be on cable. Ultimately it's what you see, and with streaming services it's really easy to hop between them quickly and look at them running the same channel.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 102 Old 02-12-2019, 08:24 AM
Senior Member
 
spencer777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencer777 View Post
Sling is 1080p on most channels. 720p on ones that normally Broadcast in that resolution.
Possibly, there are arguments about that (parallel arguments with cable systems doing the same thing, or not), ABC and ESPN are definitely 720p as they would be on cable. Ultimately it's what you see, and with streaming services it's really easy to hop between them quickly and look at them running the same channel.
I just use Amazon developer options. 720p channels are 60 fps. Include ABC, ESPN Fox
1080i channels are 1080p 30 fps.
spencer777 is offline  
post #95 of 102 Old 03-20-2019, 06:22 PM
Senior Member
 
MRG1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Temporary 3 month 40% Discount On Sling TV

https://www.sling.com/#dyn-grid-plan-tab-2-s-2

Sigh - it is only available to new customers!

I have mixed feelings about Sling TV, as I do about all the other competitors, and certain features and channels are missing. But it is what I am using at this time. It works well, which is more than can be said of some of the competition.
MRG1 is offline  
post #96 of 102 Old 03-21-2019, 01:11 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Sling needs more A la carte 'dishes'

I got rid of cable partly because I was forced to pay for channels I don't watch.


Sling isn't much different, and certain channels are still lumped together so a lame channel can ride on the same 'wave' as a good channel.


I wanted Discovery and Motor Trend TV. Sling finally added them, but they brought TLC along with it.


I don't want TLC. I don't want to watch it and I don't want to pay for it.
TLC has nothing but gross-out shows that no-one in their right mind would watch for entertainment.


I cringe to think of how cheap Sling could be for the average viewer if I could actually pick and pay for only the channels I want.
Tfid is offline  
post #97 of 102 Old 03-21-2019, 02:37 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 12,983
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2217 Post(s)
Liked: 1352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tfid View Post
I cringe to think of how cheap Sling could be for the average viewer if I could actually pick and pay for only the channels I want.
Most channels do not exist on their own -- they are part of a network group. These content providers do not lease out individual channels, they lease a grouping. Sling, etc. can either take it or leave it, but if they take it, they pay for the group and provide the group to their subscribers (passing on the cost). I suppose they could cut the feeds to the channels that you do not want to make you happy, but not the price they charge you.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #98 of 102 Old 03-22-2019, 11:24 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post
Most channels do not exist on their own -- they are part of a network group. These content providers do not lease out individual channels, they lease a grouping. Sling, etc. can either take it or leave it, but if they take it, they pay for the group and provide the group to their subscribers (passing on the cost). I suppose they could cut the feeds to the channels that you do not want to make you happy, but not the price they charge you.

Yeah, I know all that. It's not my first day. Sling is implying that they are somehow different (they are not) than all the rest of the providers with their 'a la cart' marketing bs. That's my gripe on Sling. However, the content providers that lump that [email protected] that is on TLC with other Discovery channels to basically force money out of something no-one in their right mind would pay for on it's own are also on my sh-- list.


How about Sling putting these channel 'bundles' they are forced to accept together on their service as 'a la cart' choices so I can pay less for them as a group. Then I would cancel ALL Discovery channels that come with TLC and be able to have a voice as a consumer to the owners of Discovery that TLC is not wanted.


If service providers use their business models to force customers to pay for something they don't want by putting a bit of desired content with a lot of unwanted content, then they should know customers like me might be inclined to not buy any of the content just to not pay for the undesired part.
Tfid is offline  
post #99 of 102 Old 03-23-2019, 07:50 AM
Senior Member
 
MRG1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Bundling has been discussed here and elsewhere in the forums before, a lot.

You might be missing the economic point here. TV program conglomerates will charge Sling more, NOT less, if they eliminate some of their bundled channels, under the current system. And because it creates a greater barrier to entry for other potential competitors. Which in turn would mean that you would pay more. E.g., because they can more effectively use one channel to advertise other channels. It's also part of the reason that some popular TV shows, especially on some media conglomerates, combine episodes for certain programs shown on different channels - e.g., if you want to understand the full Supergirl storyline, you also have to sometimes watch Flash and Arrow, on different channels controlled by the same media conglomerate (in that case, CW, which in turn is owned by several media conglomerates).

The only type of unbundling that is conceivable yet potentially economical is for an MVPD like Sling to group channels by media conglomerate. But many of the big media conglomerates own pieces of each other, and share ownership of media companies with each other. And they may also have contracts to distribute each others' programs - contracts which we as the public, and possibly the government regulators, might not be able to see, guarded by non-disclosure agreements. And most of the MVPDs, including Sling, are controlled at least in part by the those conglomerates. Furthermore, they also own Internet Service Providers and Internet Backbone, so they all benefit from people doing more video streaming.

Canada tried to force channel unbundling. Supposedly, TV watching Canadians mostly end up paying more than USA residents as a result. Perhaps the U.S. is a big enough market that wouldn't be true - but the big companies are doing everything they can to fight it. And they have a lot of political clout, for a lot of reasons.

Perhaps you have a particular reason for hating TLC (e.g., some of their shows may offend your political, philosophical or religious beliefs). I happen to dislike FNC - but still happily watch at least one other show produced by the same conglomerate. And I think, for pedantic reasons, that the History channel should be renamed the Historical Fiction channel. And I wish for complex reasons that the U.S. would go back to the idea that MVPDs would pay an hourly fee for each program episode watched by a customer, as used to be true for cable companies, at least for OTA broadcasters (and might still be true for some), instead of a negotiated bundled fee. I'd also like to see the FCC increase rather than decrease the bandwidth available to OTA broadcasters, and for in-country antenna sharing networks, whether they be wired, optically cabled, Internet distributed to be legal and not require a fee or license. But I don't expect the media conglomerates, or the FCC, to go along with my beliefs. I am but one TV consumer, with very little economic or political impact.

That said, you are welcome to organize a group that supports unbundling legislation. While I'm fairly certain it would fail, you might get donations if you advertise in the right places (GoFundMe??), and maybe make a living from it.

In any event, back to the main point of the forum, some of us find Sling useful, even if we would prefer to change some aspects of its design - including the way it is bundled. Assuming you aren't interested in starting such a group, as a consumer, you can perhaps best influence MVPDs by voting with your pocketbook - i.e., choosing another MVPD (e.g., Fubo does not have TLC), or trying to start one (same comments as for starting a pro-unbundling org). Or building a really big tall OTA antenna, if your location allows it.
beerhunt likes this.

Last edited by MRG1; 03-23-2019 at 08:22 AM.
MRG1 is offline  
post #100 of 102 Old 03-23-2019, 05:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, West of desert
Posts: 5,454
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1878 Post(s)
Liked: 2480
Bundling is part of many things we do in life, whether we like or not. Extreme example.."I walk to the grocery store and don't use the parking lot, therefore I should pay less"...No that lot is bundled into the cost that everyone pays.
Or consider this, "There are programs I don't watch on Netflix, therefore I should pay less" No again..It's a bundle also, to make a large group of offerings affordable to a large pool of people" Bundling is what actually makes things affordable to large groups of people. If everybody wants something really different costs go up and sometimes things become unavailable.
MRG1 likes this.

"Espresso is like tequila, when in doubt apply more shots."
tenthplanet is offline  
post #101 of 102 Old 03-25-2019, 01:52 PM
Senior Member
 
MRG1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 327
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
... Bundling is what actually makes things affordable to large groups of people. Extreme example.."I walk to the grocery store and don't use the parking lot, therefore I should pay less."
I agree, up to a point. The costs of creating and advertising any collection of goods or services can be shared among users of the various things in the collection. Paying a la carte is often more expensive in total, unless you buy (or in this case watch) very little.

The point where I diverge from this opinion is sometimes reached when the bundling agencies achieve monopoly or oligopoly status. In particular, if there do not exist a sufficient number and diversity of competing bundles to allow prices to be lowered by not funding the creation, collection and advertising of the less popular and/or more expensive goods or services.

In addition, I and many other people would like to be able to influence what type of shows get funded, or at least what my money goes to fund. I would feel much better about these bundles if I did pay per view, and if the amount received by the creators or owners of each show was a fraction of the payments made for their show - but at lowered costs vs buying the individual episodes or movies on a la carte services such as Amazon, Google Play, etc. Then I would be influencing what was made, and could also budget what I watch.

BTW, there are many sellers of goods and services at locations where you must pay for parking - often the majority of the cost. But I try to take the cost of parking into account when I shop.

Last edited by MRG1; 03-25-2019 at 02:11 PM.
MRG1 is offline  
post #102 of 102 Old 03-29-2019, 11:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
vttom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Essex, VT
Posts: 556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So Sling is offering $10 off per month for the Orange and Blue packages. They are also offering a free Roku for pre-paying for 2 months or a free AirTV Player or pre-paying 3 months.


Can the $10/mo discount be combined with the Roku or AirTV offers?


For instance, would I pay $75 up front for 3 months, get the AirTV player, and get a $10/mo credit on my bill?


Or would I pay $45 up front for 3 months, get the AirTV player, and then not have to pay again until month 4?
vttom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off