HBO GO - now, without the cable

[Viin]

In case you missed it, HBO is going to offer HBO GO as a stand-alone subscription service without the need for a cable subscription.

More here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2014/10/15/356388248/hbo-without-cable-coming-in-2015

Now all you folks who haven't had HBO will be able to keep up with the Joneses!

[tazelbain]

Seems there are too few details to be celebrating. This could easily turn out to more like Amazon VOD then HBO GO.

[Nebu]

Very nice to know.  My cable provider just dropped Comedy Central and VH1 Classics.  When I asked them about this, they said "you can get them on Hulu or another web service".  My response was "Thanks, maybe I'll do that for all of my channels... ".  The look on the service person's face was priceless.

[Sky]

It's nice to have options, but in the interim it means more subscription services with spottier offerings due to exclusivity deals.

I've already got Amazon Prime because of shipping, a service has to be significantly better than (more tepid movies, slightly different) to pull me in.

And seriously, let's get some decent movies on Prime/Netflix/Hulu ffs. I spend the alloted time just scrolling through movies I've seen (and I'm not an avid moviegoer) and just utter garbage.

I do know a few people who watch current HBO shows on Go that will be very excited though.

[Samwise]

Very nice to know.  My cable provider just dropped Comedy Central and VH1 Classics.  When I asked them about this, they said "you can get them on Hulu or another web service".  My response was "Thanks, maybe I'll do that for all of my channels... ".  The look on the service person's face was priceless.

LOL, seriously.  I can't believe they even said that to you; you'd think they'd be trying their damnedest to deny that streaming is even a viable alternative.

[shiznitz]

Mark my words.  When cable unbundles, internet access fees will jump. A lot.

[Samwise]

Mark my words.  When cable unbundles, internet access fees will jump. A lot.

Are you thinking that's because average bandwidth consumption will go up, or because the cable companies will need to make up the lost revenue?

I won't be affected by the latter since I use DSL.  The former seems more plausible but at this point I'd think the average DSL customer already looks a lot like me (stubbornly avoiding cable and its associated fuckery, like monthly download caps, so we can just stream the crap out of everything).  So there's no reason to suspect a DSL provider's costs would go up.

In short, haw-haw.

[schild]

When cable unbundles, Google will crush, buy, and destroy any cable company in its path within 3 years.

So yes, prices will fucking skyrocket in some places.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Prices simply can't skyrocket because there is a ceiling for what people are willing to pay for entertainment. People can try and unbundle all they want but solo internet prices are already close to internet+cable as it is.

[KallDrexx]

Mark my words.  When cable unbundles, internet access fees will jump. A lot.

Sports is the only thing holding it back for 90% of the population.

[Paelos]

Mark my words.  When cable unbundles, internet access fees will jump. A lot.

Sports is the only thing holding it back for 90% of the population.

Bingo.

[shiznitz]

Mark my words.  When cable unbundles, internet access fees will jump. A lot.

or because the cable companies will need to make up the lost revenue?

This.

As to sports, I would love to pay a hefty subscription fee for just the sports I want. I would pay $hundreds for the NFL, half that for NHL and nothing for MLB and NBA.

[CmdrSlack]

Mark my words.  When cable unbundles, internet access fees will jump. A lot.

Sports is the only thing holding it back for 90% of the population.

Bingo.

I was basically without cable (had a package from Comcast that was the good internet speeds with ten channels and HBO), it cost me like 70 bucks a month. We watched all of our current tv on Hulu. We paid for season passes for shows like Walking Dead. Then college football started back up. Last year, I had Wide Open West (WOW) cable, and their same-priced package included ESPN, for example. I could watch some games in HD (when on ESPN3 via Xbox) and some weren't due to being on regular ESPN or CBS.

Then we moved. Our only option is Comcast or DirectTV. It's my understanding that dish-based stuff is testy in weather. We get weather here.

The Comcast package lacked ESPN, so I was fucked for watching games at home. I ended up upgrading to some Xfinity package where I get a VOIP line (yay?), loads of channels, and internet with a much nicer wireless router than the one I owned. It's twice the price. I am tempted to threaten to drop back down after college football season is over and see what I can get deal-wise.

tl;dr Yes, sports totally fucked me on cord-cutting. My only option would be to go to the alumni bar for each and every game, which is more expensive than the upgrade.

[Viin]

Then we moved. Our only option is Comcast or DirectTV. It's my understanding that dish-based stuff is testy in weather. We get weather here.

We just switched back to DirecTV after being on Comcast for a couple of years, and boy did I miss it. The DVR isn't shit, tons of channels for a decent price. Only weather problems I have had is when snow or rain pushes a leafy branch in the way of the sat signal.

Still have to pay Comcast for Internet, but hopefully US West Qwest Century Link will off a "fiber" option in my neighborhood soon. Funny though, I'm pretty sure we only record shows from maybe 10 channels and we never find anything to watch on all the rest. HBO being one of the prime channels, if I could just get Disney Jr, CNN (that Anthony Bourdain show is really good), Showtime, USA, CC, and a few others (plus locals) I'd be all set.

[Xanthippe]

This year, for the first time I can remember, I was unable to watch both the Dodgers in their post-season and the Giants also, for at least 1 game, because instead of being on FoxSports1, they were on MLB. Nobody gets MLB without paying for it extra, whereas FoxSports1 is included in our cable package.

I cannot remember being unable to watch a postseason game ever due to it being behind a paywall.

That sort of thing will just drive more nails into MLB's coffin (the franchise, not the channel).  I'm not going to pay extra to watch playoffs or world series. I'd rather pay for drinks in a bar and watch there.

[HaemishM]

For the many years that I had DirecTV, I can say that in total I might have had 2-3 hours of downtime due to weather, and I don't think it was ever down for more than a few minutes at a time. In contrast, my Comcast usually goes out for at least a few hours after every big rain storm as well as shitting the bed randomly because REASONS. If I could go back to DirecTV right now, I would (can't due to some huge trees in the front I can't cut down and restrictions on where I can put the dish by my landlord) because FUCK COMCAST IN THE COLLECTIVE EARHOLE. There isn't even a comparison in service quality - DirecTV was just miles better and their customer service over the phone was so goddamn helpful you would weep when talking to them if you had ever spent any amount of time talking to Comcast's phone service. In short, FUCK COMCAST.

[Merusk]

This year, for the first time I can remember, I was unable to watch both the Dodgers in their post-season and the Giants also, for at least 1 game, because instead of being on FoxSports1, they were on MLB. Nobody gets MLB without paying for it extra, whereas FoxSports1 is included in our cable package.

I cannot remember being unable to watch a postseason game ever due to it being behind a paywall.

That sort of thing will just drive more nails into MLB's coffin (the franchise, not the channel).  I'm not going to pay extra to watch playoffs or world series. I'd rather pay for drinks in a bar and watch there.

NFL has shown that sports are for the rich only. Just be glad you're allowed to watch any for free at all. 

[Speedy Cerviche]

I think I paid 125$ for the season of MLBtv which includes playoffs. NHL gamecenter just cost me 99$. The NFL on the other hand wants 300$ for a much shorter season and many less games... pass (might still be value for some but I am not a huge NFL fan). This is why I wonder where HBO is going to come in on price point, anything more than 15$ a month is probably too much and even then that's borderline since I don't really watch anything besides game of thrones (do they still make new curb?). If they include a lot of other media content owned by Time Warner then it would be better value.

[shiznitz]

I am making a bare-assed guess that HBO comes in at $10.99, higher than Netflix and what cable charges for HBO.  I have seen articles guessing at $15.99 but I do not view that as a viable price so why launch the service at a price not likely to garner a large number of viewers?

HBO Go is currently free for me because I share my brother's log-in (as the HBO CEO has publicly said is ok with the company) and all I watch is GoT.  I can only judge the value for me, but as a huge GoT fan, there is no way I would pay $15.99/month.  That reluctance comes from someone with the financial luxury of $15/month being largely meaningless to my budget. Hell, I am a paying member of Planetside 2 and I log on maybe twice a week.

I am not trying to be a douche here, just pointing out that I am the kind of customer HBO should be trying to gather up with this and am not evenly remotely interested at $15/month.

[MahrinSkel]

I had DirecTV for about 3 years in Austin, remember losing the signal only a few times, never for more than 10 minutes (generally a big thunder cell passing right over).  In the year before that, cable went out for a couple of hours *every* time it rained more than a little.

Still, haven't had any TV in the dorms (theoretically I could hook one up, but *dorm* room, tiny, and have to have the laptop set up anyway), haven't missed it.  With HBO-Go available separately, I won't have to put on my eyepatch when Game Of Thrones starts up again.

--Dave