# Sony announces their TV service -- Playstation Vue



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

www.sony.com/SCA/company-news/press...k-entertainment-international-and-sony-.shtml

Interesting approach. Instead of the cheap, barebones service that Dish is going for with SlingTV, Sony is creating essentially another normal cable or satellite package with Plastation Vue. It even has somewhat of a DVR function ("recordings" can be kept for 28 days and commercials can be fast forward).

No one is going to save any money with this, but when it launches the idea of only choosing between cable and satellite will be gone. Internet TV will be a legit third option. I will be glad when this is in my back pocket for my next fight with TWC.

I wonder what Apple will do. I cannot see there being three long term viable internet TV providers, but we will see I suppose.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They're missing ABC/Disney.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> They're missing ABC/Disney.


That's a biggie for most I would think. And that brings up the issue with these new/announced services, and that issue is that you would have to subscribe to more than one of them to get what most would consider OK. Mediacom has more channels I watch for less money.

Not to mention that you would most likely have to have different hardware for some of the combos of service that streaming tv offers. That's a PITA imo.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

ABC also owns ESPN right? I'm not a big sports guy, but I know that's a real deal breaker for a lot of people.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Internet-delivered television services will be a lot more interesting if they can stop with the limitations on international borders. I'd quickly subscribe to packages with certain UK, Canadian or Australian channels. I most certainly don't need more different ways to get channels like FX or SyFy.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> ABC also owns ESPN right? I'm not a big sports guy, but I know that's a real deal breaker for a lot of people.


Conversely that's a real plus for some -- no ESPN and related sports channels, thus no associated high fees as that represents one of the more expensive basic cable channel groups for cable systems to carry. Which is likely what scares Disney, hence why there's no ABC in the package.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

This is really no different then U-verse. They're using your internet connection to deliver a channel via IP rather then using linear broadcasting like cable. The difference is that with this system you can use any internet connection and the number of "tuners" they support will be dependent on the speed of your connection which could potentially be much, much, higher then what's available via U-verse. 

If there was a service like this that worked with TiVo I might give it a try. It looks like they have all the channels I need but I'm not willing to give up my TiVo to use it.


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

They wil reach a deal with Disney over time I imagine. The question in my mind is whether or not they can add ESPN without raising prices.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It would be nice if it was an optional add-on rather then a required channel like it is with cable.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

abovethesink said:


> www.sony.com/SCA/company-news/press...k-entertainment-international-and-sony-.shtml
> 
> Interesting approach. Instead of the cheap, barebones service that Dish is going for with SlingTV, Sony is creating essentially another normal cable or satellite package with Plastation Vue. It even has somewhat of a DVR function ("recordings" can be kept for 28 days and commercials can be fast forward).
> 
> ...


 No one is going to save any money with this and that might be what keeps it a niche product. You also need the have the Playstation unit and still pay for internet.
I've been using Tivo's for OTA along with an Apple TV and a Roku for certain things and recently added Sling TV in. If OTA were to not be available then it would make financial sense to go with cable or U-verse.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

What I don't get about these IPTV services is: what do you do about data caps? Many broadband providers have official, and in some cases un-official, limits on the amount of data you can download in a billing period. 3 hours of TV viewing (well below the average) could blow through many of these caps pretty easily.


----------



## lparsons21 (Feb 17, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> What I don't get about these IPTV services is: what do you do about data caps? Many broadband providers have official, and in some cases un-official, limits on the amount of data you can download in a billing period. 3 hours of TV viewing (well below the average) could blow through many of these caps pretty easily.


That is an issue that will become much bigger as more of these IPTV services come along. I think their thinking these days is that those that would subscribe to them probably won't watch as much.

With Mediacom, my current 50/5 service has a 350Gb data cap with a $10/50Gb block if you go over that. Even at part time useage I generally hit just under 300Gb. Next service level @100/10 (I think) has a 999Gb data cap but at a very premium price.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> What I don't get about these IPTV services is: what do you do about data caps? Many broadband providers have official, and in some cases un-official, limits on the amount of data you can download in a billing period. 3 hours of TV viewing (well below the average) could blow through many of these caps pretty easily.


That'll be the interesting next wave of this "transition." When people get bombarded with overage fees, bringing their bills back to the evil cable/satellite rates from which they so proudly cut the cord to get away. Then, of course, the ensuing threats of lawsuits for having ignored the fine print about being charged for going over their allotted data caps. Good times are a coming.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> What I don't get about these IPTV services is: what do you do about data caps? Many broadband providers have official, and in some cases un-official, limits on the amount of data you can download in a billing period. 3 hours of TV viewing (well below the average) could blow through many of these caps pretty easily.


I asked AT&T about that when it upped by DSL Internet data speed (but not the AT&T 150GB monthly data limit) and could see myself watching streamed movies or television shows each night. AT&T told me that it doesn't see any issue with most of its customers--but I think you're right, it's going to. When I see a blip increase in my data use for a day, I often will think, if I did this every day, I would easily be over my limit.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

They announced the prices... $50 to $70 a month, depending on the package. None of which include ESPN or any premium channels. Add $40-$60 for Internet, and you're at $100-$120+, without premiums and without ESPN or any other major sports nets.

My $160 Comcast all-in pricing (every channel, every premium, Blast! Internet) looks better by the day. And I can use TiVo.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I wonder if the net neutrality rules are going to force AT&T to remove their caps? If they allow unlimited use of U-verse video then it could be construed that they are giving favor to their own TV service while imposing limits on competitors like this. 

With a 150GB data cap you could only watch about 1:45 of content each day. And that's assuming you're only watching on one TV and yo don't use the internet for anything else.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with data caps on internet service to end users.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It might if the ISP is offering a service which is excluded from the cap. I read something about how this might effect T-Mobile's deal with some music services to exclude them from their data caps. So it could potentially effect AT&T too since they are essentially allowing their own TV service to have unlimited data while capping other services. Could also apply to the IP based XFinity VOD service which has the same unlimited data exemption.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Dare I say it, but to be fair to AT&T (heaven forbid), I think that its U-verse service may have about double the DSL broadband cap, 250GB or 300GB per month. But as people have noted, the issue remains.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> Dare I say it, but to be fair to AT&T (heaven forbid), I think that it's U-verse service may have about double the DSL broadband cap, 250GB or 300GB per month. But as people have noted, the issue remains.


 When they changed our area to U-verse internet from DSL the cap went up to 250, I believe some of the plans with TV bundled in allow 300 GB.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

So first Dish names their streaming service after a piece of hardware that has nothing to do with the streaming service (SlingTV), and now Sony names their service after a game console, even though it will end up being available on a multitude of devices. (PlayStation Vue.)

This is the type of attitude by these companies that tells me they are not thinking ahead, because they don't want to be left out with all the others introducing streaming. Or they are just in this for a cash grab.

Unless one of these services gives me a la carte choices of every channel (or just every channel) then they won't get my business.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Arcady said:


> Unless one of these services gives me a la carte choices of every channel (or just every channel) then they won't get my business.


You can buy CBS a-la-carte. It's $5.99/month.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You can buy CBS a-la-carte. It's $5.99/month.


That's not what I mean, at all.

I don't want to buy CBS from one place, and ABC from another, and HBO from a third.

I want one service, with every channel, where I can pick and choose which ones I want, and pay one bill. Nobody offers this.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Arcady said:


> That's not what I mean, at all.
> 
> I don't want to buy CBS from one place, and ABC from another, and HBO from a third.
> 
> I want one service, with every channel, where I can pick and choose which ones I want, and pay one bill. Nobody offers this.


And nobody ever will.

But if they ever did, you would still be paying $5.99/month for CBS. People think they want a-la-carte because they think it will be cheaper. It won't be, unless you only want 2 or 3 channels.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

tarheelblue32 said:


> And nobody ever will.
> 
> But if they ever did, you would still be paying $5.99/month for CBS. People think they want a-la-carte because they think it will be cheaper. It won't be, unless you only want 2 or 3 channels.


How about $160 a month for everything, and subtract $1 for each channel I don't want?

Because I already pay $160 for everything. If I could get rid of all the sports, that would save me at least $25 right there. Even without being able to save money on channels I don't want, at least on a TiVo I can remove them from the guide and forget they exist.

ETA: $160 is the cost of my TV and internet in a package. I don't know what just the TV part would cost.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Arcady said:


> That's not what I mean, at all. I don't want to buy CBS from one place, and ABC from another, and HBO from a third. I want one service, with every channel, where I can pick and choose which ones I want, and pay one bill. Nobody offers this.


You may want to read this article linked by Dave Zatz's blog, Zatznotfunny:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/the-fault-in-john-green-s-cable-logic


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> You may want to read this article linked by Dave Zatz's blog, Zatznotfunny:
> 
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-17/the-fault-in-john-green-s-cable-logic


Well I am sure that, that article is what cable companies and big Media would like you to believe. But the last time I looked their are already several tiers one can choose from. So not everyone is paying for all the channels and it does cost less for less channels.

What people really want is to be able to have lower tiers where you get to pick the channels. If we get where most people have a choose of 5-10 pay TV resellers competition would force someone to start offering what people want. Also the more services we have like Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Yahoo, etc. that produce new stuff will allow more people to decide they can live without cable channels - which should again also force them into allowing people to create their own lower cost tiers to keep them from leaving altogether.

I look at my own situation. I live alone and maybe want to watch 2 hours of TV a day plus some local/national news. I am not going to pay someone $100/mo for that, I would be willing to pay someone maybe $20-40/mo to enhance my OTA offerings. If streaming worked for me it would be Netflix, Amazon, & HBO Now and I would be done. If cable/satellite wanted too sell me something it would need to be 5-10 non-premium channels of my choice for $20-40 depending on if they included a DVR or not.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tenthplanet said:


> When they changed our area to U-verse internet from DSL the cap went up to 250, I believe some of the plans with TV bundled in allow 300 GB.


Even with a 250GB cap you'd only be able to watch TV for about 3 hours a day on one "tuner" before hitting the cap. So obviously the cap does not apply to their video service, even though it uses the same network connection to your house as any internet based video service does. That's why I think Net Neutrality *might* kick in. If they offer unlimited data to their own video service then they *might* be required to offer unlimited data to internet based services like this PS one or the Apple one as well.

I'm sure it's something that will get hashed out eventually.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Arcady said:


> How about $160 a month for everything, and subtract $1 for each channel I don't want?
> 
> Because I already pay $160 for everything. If I could get rid of all the sports, that would save me at least $25 right there. Even without being able to save money on channels I don't want, at least on a TiVo I can remove them from the guide and forget they exist.
> 
> ETA: $160 is the cost of my TV and internet in a package. I don't know what just the TV part would cost.


But that won't work. Some of those included channels, that you get but don't want, cost very very little. And are part of a bundle. Maybe NurseTV only costs Comcast .25 when they also pay $3 for DoctorTV. They bundle it to you, for $8. If you want to drop NurseTV, they won't give you $1 off.

Bundling works for people that want a broad spectrum of channels, and watch TV. Cord cutters get used to having no channels except what they pay for. Cable TV subscribers get used to having lots of channels, most of which they never watch.

I pay that same $160 (Comcast Houston) for a complete bundle. I'm ok with it, because the 20-30 I really watch (out of 200+) are worth it. If I was to buy those 20-30 by themselves (if I even could), they would cost easily as much, plus then I have to buy Internet.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

What irks me most is not the bundling, but how the prices they offer new customers are so much lower then what established customers pay. I just looked and someone just joining could get the same service I have for about $40/mo less. I'm sure I could call and complain and they'd give me the promotional pricing for a year, but then I'd be back to where I started. (or higher) Why should I have to call and threaten to leave once a year just to get the same price they offer a new customer. If anything they should offer better prices to loyal customers, not screw them over by hiking up their prices yearly.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

astrohip said:


> But that won't work. Some of those included channels, that you get but don't want, cost very very little. And are part of a bundle. Maybe NurseTV only costs Comcast .25 when they also pay $3 for DoctorTV. They bundle it to you, for $8. If you want to drop NurseTV, they won't give you $1 off.


NurseTV and DoctorTV--really? Hmm, maybe I'll have to rethink matters and order cable after all.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> What irks me most is not the bundling, but how the prices they offer new customers are so much lower then what established customers pay. I just looked and someone just joining could get the same service I have for about $40/mo less. I'm sure I could call and complain and they'd give me the promotional pricing for a year, but then I'd be back to where I started. (or higher) Why should I have to call and threaten to leave once a year just to get the same price they offer a new customer. If anything they should offer better prices to loyal customers, not screw them over by hiking up their prices yearly.


Because there's a zillion customers like you that don't want to hassle with a yearly call, so that's free money for them?

Yeah none of us like it, but it's an artifact of limited competition.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

Diana Collins said:


> What I don't get about these IPTV services is: what do you do about data caps? Many broadband providers have official, and in some cases un-official, limits on the amount of data you can download in a billing period. 3 hours of TV viewing (well below the average) could blow through many of these caps pretty easily.


That has always been my view, as well. However, Charter, my provider just dispensed with its data caps, although with little fan fare. At least one more down and a few more to go.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Data caps might get abolished by the Net Neutrality rules, at least for services like AT&T and Comcast that offer their own video services that are exempt from the data caps. Since they're not allowed to favor any one service I *think* that they'll either have to count everything against the cap, which would ruin their service, or get rid of the cap completely. I'm hoping this is the case.

The one thing I think will really hurt these types of services is limited bandwidth. AT&T U-verse uses a similar technology (i.e. using your internet connection to deliver video) and even with a 45Mbps connection they can only support 4 simultaneous "tuners". That's likely not enough for most families. Heck I have two 6 tuner Roamios in my house and there are only 2 of us. Granted they're unlikely to ever be using all 12 tuners concurrently, but I do think there are times when we use more then 4. But even if tuners aren't an issue there is still the whole issue with shared bandwidth on cable. At peak times my 30Mbps is lucky to get 1/3 that, which is barely enough to support one stream let alone 4.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I hope you're right about the caps, but I believe there's an exemption in the regs for provider-hosted video content that does not leave the provider's network (i.e. it's not net-hosted).

Comcast's existing Xbox video app is exempt from the cap, frex, because the content is all hosted in their network and they claim the Xbox is 'just another cable box' (*snort*). This article mentions the exemption I saw.

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...edly-want-exemptions-from-internet-data-caps/


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It says they don't specifically prevent data caps as long as they are not used to impede competition. These new linear services like Sony Vue, Sling TV and Apple TV will be in direct competition with the cable companies "managed services" and caps could be seen as a way to impede their adoption. 

I'm sure this is something that will end up in court eventually.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

The FCC will issue net neutrality waivers just like they did for cable cards. The FCC nearly destroyed the third party cable box industry. Why would anyone think the FCC will create a level playing field for the internet? Past performance is usually a good predictor of future behavior.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Yes, exactly. Netflix complained loudly at the time about the Xbox Xfinity app exemption from Comcast data caps and the FCC looked the other way.


----------

