$20
New Release. Today at CES, DISH Network announced Sling TV, the streaming service that will offer 12 live cable channels including ESPN, ESPN 2 and CNN for $20 per month, with no commitments.

While not true "a la carte," it's the closest we've ever seen. In addition to the three channels above, the basic package will also include Disney Channel, TNT, TBS, ABC Family, Food Network, HGTV, Adult Swim and Cartoon Network as well as content from Maker Studios.

Sling TV will be available on multiple devices, including iOS and Android devices, Roku, Fire TV, Fire TV Stick and the Xbox One, which will be offering one free month. It's expected to debut at the end of January.

And as announced last month, HBO will launch its standalone service in April.
$20
Report

Comments & Reviews (34)

Join the Conversation

dave_c
Ben's cred: 5862
Posted 01/06/2015 at 10:45 AM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 10:45 AM PT
^ I don't think you understand. With ALL the cable companies gone, every other video delivery service will have higher operating costs and incentive to raise prices plus push the free ones out of business.

Cable keeps the alternatives cheaper. It funds all the major networks to produce the content that trickles into other sources.
dave_c
Ben's cred: 39
Posted 01/06/2015 at 01:09 PM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 01:09 PM PT
^ I don't think you understand. With ALL the cable companies gone, every other video delivery service will have higher operating costs and incentive to raise prices plus push the free ones out of business. Cable keeps the alternatives cheaper. It funds all the major networks to produce the content that trickles into other sources.

No... Once you step into the world of streaming, there are far too many players already, and its much easier for companies to start up a streaming service than to create a satellite or cable service.
cyclones423
Ben's cred: 6
Posted 01/06/2015 at 02:40 PM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 02:40 PM PT
No ESPNU, ESPN News, or ESPN 3? Why?

As a college sports fan I need those channels too.
krusty
Ben's cred: 139
Posted 01/06/2015 at 03:29 PM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 03:29 PM PT
I just use my Hava Platinum for free and can stream every channel I subscribe to as well as my DVR recordings. PQ is good enough for when I'm on the road which is the only time I really need streaming content.

Admittedly, I pay an exorbitant fee for directv but I'm never lacking for something to watch and I'm not being nickel and dimed for yet another service that can be had more economically and with greater flexibility.
snipernation
Ben's cred: 2
Posted 01/06/2015 at 03:40 PM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 03:40 PM PT
Xbmc/kodi is the way to go!
mushman
Ben's cred: 78
Posted 01/06/2015 at 05:09 PM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 05:09 PM PT
I cancelled Cable TV and telephone 1.5 years back. Threw a small antenna on the roof and get all local channels in pure HD. Have Yupp TV ($120 per year to stream about 50 Hindi Channels in HD). Only pay Cable $65 a month for hi-speed internet. Kids initially complained but now we spend more time as a family, play games, have more than enough to watch streaming with
Amazon
Prime and kids have actually improved their grades (both in High School) just from the lack of watching the useless shows on TV. We get weekly movies from Redbox (mostly with free codes) and will NEVER go back to cable or Satellite. Cable even sends me a weekly letter at home and email to come back for $85 a month for triple play. Only $20 more than I am paying now and will NEVER do it. Really happy with our simple service and don't miss anything. For the families out there, give it a try - you won't regret it. Most shows can also be streamed from YouTube.
dave_c
Ben's cred: 5862
Posted 01/06/2015 at 08:15 PM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 08:15 PM PT
^ I don't think you understand. With ALL the cable companies gone, every other video delivery service will have higher operating costs and incentive to raise prices plus push the free ones out of business. Cable keeps the alternatives cheaper. It funds all the major networks to produce the content that trickles into other sources.
No... Once you step into the world of streaming, there are far too many players already, and its much easier for companies to start up a streaming service than to create a satellite or cable service.


It's not about easier or startup costs, it's about CONTENT costs. Somebody still has to fund the content providers, meaning those that MAKE the shows.
dave_c
Ben's cred: 4
Posted 01/06/2015 at 09:36 PM PT
Posted 01/06/2015 at 09:36 PM PT
^ I don't think you understand. With ALL the cable companies gone, every other video delivery service will have higher operating costs and incentive to raise prices plus push the free ones out of business. Cable keeps the alternatives cheaper. It funds all the major networks to produce the content that trickles into other sources.
No... Once you step into the world of streaming, there are far too many players already, and its much easier for companies to start up a streaming service than to create a satellite or cable service.
It's not about easier or startup costs, it's about CONTENT costs. Somebody still has to fund the content providers, meaning those that MAKE the shows.


That is what is happening now with
Amazon
, Netflix and Hulu Originals, also HBO originals, Stars Originals, and Showtime also. The big networks won't go away, but the Little guys are being more agile and are making more and more quality shows. Most people this year were talking about the streaming shows than the network ****. If you ask people about shows like Orange is the New Black, Game of Thrones, or Transend, they will talk about how good they are. When the smaller providers start to realize they can go niche more also, they will do even better. Would Fox cancel their next Sci-Fi show after one season? The answer is usually yes, but hand that over to Netflix and there would be a chance for a finale or even a second season to see how it is doing.

Now that Comcast owns most broadcast channels, be prepared for the quality to go down, look what they have been doing since the NBC/Universal acquisition, the majority of their 'new' shows are actually produced in Canada and they buy them for cheap after they have aired on CBC.
boss_hogg
Ben's cred: 5
Posted 01/07/2015 at 07:10 AM PT
Posted 01/07/2015 at 07:10 AM PT
This is stupid - last time I had cable they offered a basic package pretty much just like this. This is nothing new.


ESPN is not on basic cable, you need a higher package. You're looking at $60-100 in my area for ESPN.

This is something very new and exciting.
iLikeDeals
Ben's cred: 49
Posted 01/07/2015 at 07:45 AM PT
Posted 01/07/2015 at 07:45 AM PT
I wish FTA is back. It's fun... ;)
scoutconnor
Ben's cred: 135
Posted 01/07/2015 at 11:28 AM PT
Posted 01/07/2015 at 11:28 AM PT
If this included local channels, it would be an amazing package. Without, it is an "okay" deal.
Have you checked signal strength for OTA local channels? Most people that live in developed communities get a fair number of local channels that often have quality better than what cable offers.
I live in a dead zone between two major metro areas. I am in a "developed" community and yet have to pay TWC $18/mo for the broadcast channels others get for free.


BS.. Get a taller/directional antenna.

Stupid to want to and to think you need to pay for local stations.
quest32
Ben's cred: 1
Posted 01/07/2015 at 01:40 PM PT
Posted 01/07/2015 at 01:40 PM PT
I think ESPN is the lynchpin of this entire concept. While many of you mentioned you don't watch sports - a vast majority of cable/sat subscribers consider ESPN as a major reason for paying for service. It has MNF and major sporting events previously reserved for broadcast only. Anyone have a Sling TV beta invite they would be willing to barter?
dave_c
Ben's cred: 9
Posted 01/07/2015 at 01:55 PM PT
Posted 01/07/2015 at 01:55 PM PT
^ I don't think you understand. With ALL the cable companies gone, every other video delivery service will have higher operating costs and incentive to raise prices plus push the free ones out of business. Cable keeps the alternatives cheaper. It funds all the major networks to produce the content that trickles into other sources.


Not True.... most of us have have only one option for a cable (sometimes 2)! So for the most part there is no competition whatsoever. In New York City for example there is no choice but one cable service.

so what you are saying is the exact opposite and untrue.
dave_c
Ben's cred: 5862
Posted 01/07/2015 at 07:00 PM PT
Posted 01/07/2015 at 07:00 PM PT
^ I don't think you understand. With ALL the cable companies gone, every other video delivery service will have higher operating costs and incentive to raise prices plus push the free ones out of business. Cable keeps the alternatives cheaper. It funds all the major networks to produce the content that trickles into other sources.
Not True.... most of us have have only one option for a cable (sometimes 2)! So for the most part there is no competition whatsoever. In New York City for example there is no choice but one cable service. so what you are saying is the exact opposite and untrue.


Alternative providers are the competition for CATV today. They are mitigating CATV price rises, while the existence of CATV provides the majority of funding for network programming operating costs.

It doesn't matter if there is only one provider in your area, what matters is that one provider is funding the content both directly and indirectly though the partner CATV captive subscriber base through which the networks can market and negotiate advertising income.

That situation keeps both the CATV and the alternative online video on demand services cheaper. Take away either option and watch what happens to prices.