Not to get wonky about this -- but if the smallest package of channels they have is 60+ channels, then this isn't cutting the cord, it's just a new cable provider packaging itself under a different name. If it were truly "cord cutting" you'd be able to pick just the channels you want, not locked into a package of channels.
I've been a "cord cutter" for almost 8 years now. I'd love to be able to go to BTN, give them my $5 per month, and have access to BTN Go. But that option doesn't exist. So I continue to stream BTN for free from shady foreign websites. I'd love to be paying them directly, but I'm not going to pay $100+ per month for channels I won't watch, just to get BTN.
I disagree somewhat. There is no contract and it's an extremely cheap option.
Wanderful, "
Cutting the cord" means getting television service over IP or over Antenna, and not through the traditional coaxial cable television provider (e.g. Comcast, Time Warner, Charter) (or for newer providers like Frontier, Verizon, or Google, FttP). "
A La Carte" is where you can cherry pick what specific channels you want--something that could be allowed even by current television providers, but won't until changes in carrier fee structures and other political and economic concerns are resolved.
And PlayStation Vue is a good service for the money, as is Sling, and both provide options the other doesn't have to varying degrees. Haven't encountered anyone with the new AT&T/DirecTV Streaming service to compare/contract with yet, unfortunately.
Regardless, this is progress, and why it was vitally important for the FCC to get Internet Broadband classified as a utility last year. We're living in charmed times.
Haha, I probably should mention that TV is my profession, so I'm not being blustery here. Cutting the cord is what people are doing
in response to there being no A La Carte cable models. Most will claim that it's in response to the high price and crappy service, but I read at least one study somewhere that showed that people didn't mind the price if they were only paying for channels they new they liked (I just tried googling this study so I could link it here, but I can't find it and I don't remember where I read it. I thought it was Variety, but apparently not.)
Like I said, I cut the cord in 2008 or 2009 and have been using antenna for local and broadcast networks (in case anyone didn't know, since it's a digital signal now, the picture is in HD), using Netflix and Amazon Prime. I've also at various times subscribed to Hulu Plus, CBS All Access, and HBO Now. (Interestingly, this ends up costing nearly the same price per month as cable would, but since they're on demand services, there's value added since I can watch them almost anywhere in the world. EDIT: I realize that a lot of cable companies are also starting to introduce features like this, but so far my experience with them is that they don't work very well and are essentially redundant to the often better-designed network native apps).
HBO Now is actually the perfect example of where the market is moving (and would already be if it weren't for entrenched interests of middle men, i.e. the cable companies) -- I pay them $15 a month and I get access to all their shows via their app. I'm paying for their
content. With cable, what you're paying for is a
distribution method. Which made sense as a business model in the 80s and 90s, because there were no other means for distributing the content. But with the internet, we now no longer need cable to distribute the content (at least not in the traditional sense -- they're often the internet providers now, which makes them the indirect providers, as opposed to being the direct providers by delivering the TV). Cable is redundant and less flexible than the internet. HBO is the first big-fish cable network to move toward this, with HBO Now, and ESPN is probably going to be next.
EDIT: So, re-reading this post, I'm coming off pretty douche-y, which wasn't my intent! Lol.