Youtube TV Price Increase

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by b4pjoe, Jun 30, 2020.

  1. Jul 1, 2020 #21 of 164
    rnbmusicfan

    rnbmusicfan Legend

    187
    7
    Jul 19, 2005
    I think the issue was CBS and Viacom merged. YTTV had the CBS channels but not the Viacom ones. Upon the new contract, it could have just said sayonara to all of it, but likely wanted CBS as it's one of the four wheels with ABC, NBC, and FOX that it already has offered. Honestly though, it could have just dumped it and given an email notification to its subscribers to consider an antenna or just add CBS All Access for viewers to continue receiving CBS.

    My take is the new Viacom deal likely added some price increase but $15 hike seems like the $49.99 price point wasn't profitable or borderline even before accounting for ViacomCBS.

    As for METV and H&I, both are owned by Weigel but distributed by affiliates. With METV in particular, it's on full power stations as well and Weigel isn't very supportive of a national feed. I think Dish carriage is restrictive. On the other hand, it seems getTV and LightTV, owned by SONY and MGM respectively, are more supportive of streaming providers carrying a national feed.

    INSP has a number of westerns and is more traditional cable network. Starz/Encore has a lot of westerns as well. INSP was added on frndlyTV earlier this year, and just got added on Philo. Philo added getTV too.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
    espaeth and NashGuy like this.
  2. Jul 1, 2020 #22 of 164
    Newshawk

    Newshawk Hall Of Fame

    2,458
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    Broken...
  3. Jul 1, 2020 #23 of 164
    Newshawk

    Newshawk Hall Of Fame

    2,458
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    Broken...
    It's not whether MeTV is on a full power station, it's whether the station takes on MeTV as its primary affiliation. While I worked at Dish, a Nashville station switched its primary affiliation to MeTV. When they did that, Dish had to block access to MeTV from channel 247.
     
  4. Jul 1, 2020 #24 of 164
    rnbmusicfan

    rnbmusicfan Legend

    187
    7
    Jul 19, 2005
    Sorry that's what I meant, MeTV on the primary channel (or affiliation) of the full power station.

    While Dish has this channel for customers without those, I think it's more an exception and got a sense that Weigel just isn't going to make a national feed truly out there on the lines like SONY does for getTV. That's why I think INSP is the alternative (with programming overlap of westerns) that YTTV would likely add since it's on competing streaming carriers as a national feed.

    Similarly, I don't think a national feed of Antenna TV, owned by Nexstar, will happen even though Antenna isn't on any primary channels, but I could be happy to be wrong when the national feed becomes available.

    I've also inquired and reached out to FETV. It's a cable network (not broadcast) and it's on DirecTV and Dish but not on any streaming carriers. It has classic shows that overlap with MeTV and Antenna TV.

    Maybe it doesn't have content rights for going to streaming. Maybe it will get on Sling though as Dish owns Sling and could leverage that agreement to a new agreement for Sling if possible.
     
  5. Jul 1, 2020 #25 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,155
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    I think a lot of this nonsense is all due to capitalism not quite working when it comes to the streaming landscape (do they want our money or not? Guess not, so go bust). If the additional viacom channels added comes up to 14 as press reports say, then its $1 extra per channel, which for advertiser supported is pretty steep. Not a problem if the adds were in another tier.

    Hulu live looking better and better. Over 15+ excellent discovery channels that yttv never had plus more, missing only pbs (aka carte $5) and some minor others.

    What I keep searching for is a streaming solution sans local channels. Although I'm 100 miles from my dma city, I have access to locast (no dvr) and xfinity stream (recently improved 150hr dvr), both of which carry almost all broadcast channels and subchannels (a couple low power from fringe cities are skipped) for a fairly reasonable price (and xfinity stream doesn't count to usage). But those streamers that don't (sling etc) have pricing structures just as high as those that do, so what's the deal?

    I might add that yttv has no, repeate no, tv everywhere links, whereas hulu live has some 40 or so, although it appears they don't have either cnn or espn which if true is a drawback.

    Update: espn does support hulu but cnn does not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020
  6. Jul 2, 2020 #26 of 164
    rnbmusicfan

    rnbmusicfan Legend

    187
    7
    Jul 19, 2005
    Philo is a low cost and good value service for streaming without locals. But it's also without the "news" channels (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) and sports as well. Not sure if those are must(s). It has Discovery. With price increases mainly coming from the biggest providers, my concern is that it does carry Viacom channels, and it might get in the same raising rates, in this case, being required to carry CBS affiliates and Pop upon their next renewal with ViacomCBS and have a cost increase associated. Even Smithsonian Channel, while it's a decent channel, might have a requirement that the channel must be in the basic package, rather than in an extra package.

    As CBS is available via CBS All Access, for as low as $5.99/monthly, in case of YouTubeTV, it could have dropped it and notified customers to just add that, rather than be bear a price hike by carrying Viacom channels. But I guess YouTube wants to appear like a complete service with all the major networks including PBS.

    I also think Viacom is diluting their paid linear channels with the free version Pluto channels. If TV Land to begin with isn't that great, then TV Land Sitcoms on PlutoTV is just a notch lower than the real TV Land, but the average viewer wouldn't be able to tell the difference, the actual value of TV Land is a lot less.

    I really don't see why any of the streaming services feel the need to have a deal with Viacom anymore, and include Viacom channels while raising their rates, when Viacom has CBS All Access, and Pluto, and Showtime as standalone services.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020
  7. Jul 2, 2020 #27 of 164
    B. Shoe

    B. Shoe Mentor

    313
    124
    Apr 3, 2008
    Illinois
    I apologize if I'm misunderstanding; do you mean that YouTube TV doesn't allow access into apps? (ex: FOX NOW, AMC, etc.?) If so, I've got YTTV and have app access into everything except Turner networks (TNT, TBS, etc.)
     
    mjwagner likes this.
  8. Jul 2, 2020 #28 of 164
    evotz

    evotz Active Member

    216
    50
    Jan 23, 2014
    I've also questioned this. But maybe I'm tunnel visioning it.

    Take CometTV for example. What's the appeal of having that included in YouTube TV, when it's freely available - it's got it's own Roku app and is also included in the Stirr app (Sinclair broadcasting). And while I don't watch HBO... what's the appeal of having HBO in Hulu?

    I mean, if you've got YouTube TV or Hulu... you're already streaming. I mean, I guess there's a convenience factor... but what difference does it make if you're watching these channels inside a Live TV or non-linear app versus through it's own independent app? Maybe you live in a situation where your monthly data allotment doesn't allow you to stream all of your live TV, but you can here and there watch something on HBO, then having the HBO standalone streaming package makes more sense. But if you're streaming live TV, then monthly data allotments probably isn't a huge concern for you.


    Of course... related to CBS All Access... currently I do not believe it includes Paramount and other Viacom channel related content, just CBS specific content. Perhaps that changes later on.
     
  9. Jul 2, 2020 #29 of 164
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,387
    606
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    The convenience factor is certainly part and parcel of it all. It is the biggest reason I have a live streaming service at all. I could get almost all I want by using various apps with only a few gaps, and even those gaps could be filled delayed about a year.

    As to CBS:All Access and Viacom programming. Well sometime this summer that is supposed to expand according to CBS, but at this point in time I don’t think anyone knows exactly how much or how it will affect pricing of their service.
     
    B. Shoe likes this.
  10. Jul 2, 2020 #30 of 164
    b4pjoe

    b4pjoe New Member

    1,483
    405
    Nov 19, 2010
    CBS All Access does have a bunch of Paramount movies.
     
  11. Jul 2, 2020 #31 of 164
    mjwagner

    mjwagner Icon

    1,432
    375
    Oct 8, 2005
    You can use YTTV as the provider for almost, all if not all, the channels it carries that have a separate app. I use many of them and authorize using YTTV as my provider.
     
  12. Jul 2, 2020 #32 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,155
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    They have been slowly adding them, but the ones that would make a difference (additional channels and direct access to movies and shows) are absent i.e. cnn and TCM at the top of the list.

    But at this point it makes little if any difference, I've been waiting for 6+ months for Discovery networks to roll out their supposed streaming package to no avail. I've tried philo and it was good but yet another $20, and more jumping through hoops to switch apps.

    I read somewhere today that yttv is 'supposed' to 'tier' their programming sometime in the future; like sling. One would have thought they would do that before loading their entire user base with a bunch of 'junk' channels with huge price increase.
     
  13. Jul 3, 2020 #33 of 164
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,885
    2,269
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    How many of the channels are not in the base tiers of most other companies?
     
  14. Jul 3, 2020 #34 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,155
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    In spending some time at a neighbors yesterday, well started googling some of the CEO's of these content providers. Without fail, they are all purchasing million dollar plus yatchs and xxx acre estates to go with their jet airplanes. Compensations that were in the $250k region just 5 years ago is now in the $40M+ today.

    Yes, there are streamers that are thin/minimalist, but this practice of forcing carriers, whether cable/sat/streaming to that channels they don't want has to be fought in the courts. But that will take time with all the court packing that has been going on. But it has to be done. I think everyone has a list of 10 'must have' channels and past that it's pretty thin. PSVue could have yanked their price up $10-15 and still been a good deal, but their outsourced programming effort made their usability go way down the last year of service.

    I was one of the first subscribers to DirecTV, but if I had to say the breaking point for me was the cable-style attachment costs for each screen. Sat is still the most efficient way to distribute signals, and if they want to stay alive they need to combine with streaming, the way SiriusXM has done. Join forces with Starlink, or maybe with TMob, get some hybrid sat/sat/terrestrial thing going.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2020
  15. Jul 3, 2020 #35 of 164
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,387
    606
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Since there has been and continues to be asinine lawsuits, might as well add another one to the pile.
     
  16. Jul 3, 2020 #36 of 164
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,885
    2,269
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The content providers are profitable, selling their content to streamers and traditional MVPDs. Most streamers are able to show a profit, burying content costs in long term debt. The CEOs and managers look good as long as the company shows a profit - and as long as investors look at the company and continue to invest or increase their investments.

    Where it falls apart is when the company loses the faith of their investors. When stockholders decide to leave and take their money with them. When lenders decide not to extend further credit to continue the long term debt method of showing a profit. Until then, the CEOs are doing as expected.
     
  17. Jul 3, 2020 #37 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,155
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    These folks getting together over the past 40 years in their country clubs and setting rates and doing front room deals is not asinine but illegal, just as it was over 100 years ago with meat packing and oil and drugs (which is still going on and those folks are continuing to be caught, but they no longer go to jail but pay a small/large fine which are simply the cost of doing business).

    We need hyper trust busters like Teddy Roosevelt and Taft, but as an engineer I've always held out for a new solution; by this time next year we may have several busting up the current monopolies.
     
  18. Jul 4, 2020 #38 of 164
    gio12

    gio12 Icon

    1,147
    71
    Jul 31, 2006
    Miami, Fl
    I was disappointed to see YTTV raises prices. But after more channels being added, I can drop Philo for the few I was missing. Only thing I don't have is History.
    So I am ok as pricing is now about the same and one less app to with back and forth with.

    If people think YTTV or other streaming services will have as many channels as D*, ATT or Cable for under $60 you are crazy.
    I just wish we could create custom channel lineups with custom pricing. That would be great. truly ala care system. Pay for what you want. Imagine a service, ANY YTTV, Hulu, etc having about every network, similar to D*, Comcast, ATT and you just pick and choose and pricing follows. Maybe some day.
     
  19. Jul 4, 2020 #39 of 164
    rnbmusicfan

    rnbmusicfan Legend

    187
    7
    Jul 19, 2005
    I suspect CometTV is pretty much free or minimal programming cost for YouTubeTV to carry it, and a YTTV user can DVR that channel so there is some added benefit. Maybe it was added per Sinclair's request with RSNs?

    As for Hulu, I currently subscribe to Showtime/Starz on it and got a discount deal of $14.99/monthly which includes both until end of September. I do not have Hulu Live but have Hulu Plus and it's nice that the content of Hulu is integrated with that of Showtime and Starz within the Search and other categories. I'd probably subscribe to HBO from it, but I signed up with the discount $11.99/monthly HBOMax promotion so I get billed directly from Warner.

    In Hulu, I can access the linear Starz Showtime channels if I open up the ABC News Live channel. I like checking out the linear channels once in a while since it showcases movies that I might have otherwise missed. Also nice is simplified billing. I've wondered why Hulu hasn't made a deal with Epix.

    As for Viacom cable channels, my preferrred one is Comedy Central and in there, the Daily Show with Trevor Noah. I feel overall most of Viacom's content is re-runs. I currently get a lot of Viacom channels through Philo but wonder if Philo will be forced to carry CBS/Pop and thus, be forced to raise rates, which would be a disappointing consequence.

    On a side note, it was also bizarre to see Paramount Network run very old episode reruns of Bar Rescue. Never much liked reality TV, and reruns from over 5 years ago seem like the lowest of content. And pretty much every bar now will need a bar rescue.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020
  20. Jul 4, 2020 #40 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,155
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    An article on 'The Verge' hits the nail on the head.

    "Compounding the problem is that carriers also don’t like splitting up their content. If you’re WarnerMedia, you’d prefer that Hulu and Google pay for all your channels, not just the two or three that they want to offer, which means that those companies in turn have to charge consumers with extra costs.

    In a perfect world, you’d be able to select the channels you wanted off a checklist and just pay for those specific channels. And while some streaming services have managed to offer a la carte TV — most notably, Sling TV, which divides its basic packages into Sling Blue and Sling Orange groups with different lineups — even those are effectively the same as regular cable bundles.
    For the most part, streaming TV services have been unable to negotiate their way out of the bundle system that’s dominated regular cable for years. YouTube TV has added more channels with each price increase over the years, but they’ve been mandatory additions: there’s no way to opt out of the new ViacomCBS channels and pay a lower price. Everyone is paying for channels they don’t want, as carriers leverage in-demand content to bundle the channels people do want."

    Sounds like colluding monopolies to me. Where's the doj? Oh. I know.

    More from VentureBeat:

    "Put simply, YouTube TV is dead. YouTube TV is simply another cable TV service masquerading as an over-the-top streaming service. I expect there will be YouTube TV case studies galore in a few years if Google doesn’t change course. The company will have to do some serious soul-searching to resuscitate YouTube TV after this one."

    USA Today:
    "Another price increase, adding channels that no one asked for and no one wants, increasing prices during a pandemic while millions are out of work," said Brian Barrington on Twitter. "What a horrible way to do business."

    Their final result is that the differential between streaming and cable/sat is the rental costs of the (specialized) equipment, with a slight edge (but only slight) to streaming. I came to that very conclusion a year ago; plus the hassle of wiring things up with poor wireless solutions (I have 4 sets to feed, and it takes two wifi repeaters to connect things up).
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2020

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements