Youtube TV Price Increase

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

  1. Jul 4, 2020 #41 of 164
    mjwagner

    mjwagner Icon

    1,432
    375
    Oct 8, 2005
    The one positive in all of this is, unlike AT&T TV, YTTV has no contracts/commitments. If, based on the new price, you don’t feel like you are getting the value you want stop subscribing. You are the consumer...you decide...as it should be.
     
    B. Shoe and gio12 like this.
  2. Jul 4, 2020 #42 of 164
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,383
    604
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    While it is true you have a contract with ATT, it isn’t all bad. I have a one-year price freeze with a fixed cost ETF that won’t change over that year. So at the end of the first year I know exactly what the monthly cost will be if I cancel or keep. In my case average cost $57 if I cancel at the end of a year or $67 if I keep it for a 2nd year.

    Of course it does help that sports are not a big deal with me. Between broadcast, ESPN and a few others there is more than enough sports to fill my needs in that area.
     
  3. Jul 4, 2020 #43 of 164
    mjwagner

    mjwagner Icon

    1,432
    375
    Oct 8, 2005
    No worries, to each their own. I have 2 things I won’t put up with anymore with my streaming entertainment providers, contracts/commitments and provider specific hardware. But that’s just me...
     
    Jhon69 likes this.
  4. Jul 4, 2020 #44 of 164
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,383
    604
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Right now, IMO, the bigger issue for me is that there is so little in the way of new programs on the ‘channels’ that it is getting harder to justify any live streaming service.

    Fortunately for me I can afford to get what I want in streaming so I have a slew of subs. Here’s a list

    Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS:All Access. I keep these all the time as I find myself using them every month. Even had them when I had a big cable/sat package.

    These are on and off as needed:
    HBO, Showtime, Epix. Used to use Cinemax now and then also, but with no original programming now why bother.

    And a whole slew of ad-supported freebies.
     
  5. Jul 4, 2020 #45 of 164
    evotz

    evotz Active Member

    216
    50
    Jan 23, 2014
    And I really don't know if I see that changing.. ever.

    Nobody watches TV shows at the exact time they are broadcast. Everybody wants the freedom to watch shows when they want to watch them.

    Some may argue that there's a FOMO aspect if you don't watch a show the day it comes out and missing out at the scuttlebut that happens the next day. But I'd still say as long as you watch it within the first 24 hours that it's dropped, the FOMO aspect is minimized. When Picard was on CBS All Access - it dropped at midnight on Thursday morning, as long as you watched it some time Thursday evening you were fine for the Friday conversations. That time might be 6:00 for some, 7:00 for others, or 9:18 for others.

    The only programming that - at least in my opinion - have to be watched as soon as they air, are news and sports. News ceases to be news when it's viewed 24 hours after the fact. Delayed sports, can certainly be a thing (Friday day games at Wrigley... watch them that night after work), but I think most sports fans want to watch events live.

    And news and sports don't necessarily have to require a full linear lineup. ESPN has the WatchESPN streaming system (if it didn't require a TV login) and ESPN+ streaming system. Foxsports could mirror something like this. I'm not sure what news systems are available for streaming - I know CBSN and NewsNet are two that I use, but again wouldn't be extreme for other broadcasters to mirror this. Then suddenly you've got everything you need with some combination of NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Peacock, whatever other streaming platform wants to exist, ESPN, Foxsports, CBSN - and you can then basically watch whatever you want whenever you want.
     
  6. Jul 4, 2020 #46 of 164
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,383
    604
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    I’m thinking that is where I’ll end up within the next year. Hulu for next day broadcast shows, CBS same plus originals and more Viacom stuff, HBO Max ‘cause it is so good. That should cover most, if not all of the normal broadcast and cable shows.

    Add in Netflix & Prime plus the free w/ads services and I’ll have all I care to watch covered.

    News is easy for me. I watch only the local evening news, all other news I get via the web at various sites. Easier to filter out all the BS on the 24/7 news channels.

    Oops! Forgot Peacock. I signed up for the year of Premium w/ads @$29 for the year, now waiting ‘til the 15th when it debuts to see what all is there and figure out where it fits in my grand scheme.
     
  7. Jul 4, 2020 #47 of 164
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    425
    99
    Dec 7, 2017
    The biggest thing missing here are the FSN Regional channels. In my case FSN Arizona, which shows the Diamondbacks, Coyotes, Suns. If you are a sports nut then this is unacceptable.
     
    I WANT MORE likes this.
  8. Jul 10, 2020 #48 of 164
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,079
    228
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Yup. At some point, Disney will decide that it's costlier for them to keep the vast majority of their ESPN live sports locked up within the linear channel cable bundle than not to. And at that point, they'll follow in the footsteps of HBO, Showtime, and others before them by making the entire ESPN content bundle available both inside the traditional cable channel system as well as via a standalone streaming subscription in the ESPN app. If you get the ESPN channels as part of your cable channel bundle, then you can use your cable login to access everything in the app. Otherwise, you can purchase a standalone subscription to that same app. Just the way HBO Max works now. The content currently in ESPN+ might remain as a smattering of content exclusive to the app, not available on any linear cable channel, as a draw to pull viewers away from their cable box UI and into the ESPN app. (Likewise, HBO Max contains a lot of additional content that doesn't appear on any of the HBO channels and is exclusive to the HBO Max app.)

    But before ESPN gets there, I suspect we'll see Discovery do the same thing in 2021. Roll out one unified app that will replace all their existing cable-authenticated apps (Discovery Go, Watch HGTV, Food Network Go, etc.) and then offer it to directly to consumers as a standalone subscription while offering it to cable operators as the free streaming app that they can give their TV subscribers. Just as the existing Discovery apps include live streams of their individual linear channels, I expect all of them to be available inside their future unified app. But if that comes to pass, it seems unlikely that cable operators will be able to put some Discovery-owned channels in a base tier and others into an upper tier. Carrying and subscribing to Discovery content will become an all-or-nothing proposition.

    Not sure why ViacomCBS won't try to do the same thing with their expanded and rebranded All Access app next year. It's going to get a bunch of content from the Viacom channels. Why not try to get cable operators to distribute it, just negotiated into the carriage contract along with the linear ViacomCBS channels (which themselves might live-stream inside the All Access app)?

    NBCU, meanwhile, has already been trying to get operators to distribute Peacock Premium, regularly $5, as a free addition to their cable TV and/or broadband service. Although I think only Cox has taken them up on it so far. In its current incarnation, it doesn't fully replace the live NBC channel, much less the NBCU cable nets like USA and NBCSN, but over time I expect it will.

    Eventually, all of these major content groups will have their own app (or apps) that are both distributed direct-to-consumer but that are also distributed as part of cable channel bundles. When you buy cable TV, you'll also be buying a bundle of apps. And the apps will offer just about everything available on the linear channels, and then some.
     
  9. Jul 11, 2020 #49 of 164
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,038
    1,569
    Nov 13, 2006
    One problem with your theory. ESPN doesn’t necessarily own streaming only rights to all the sports. Leagues have been selling those things and set them up separately. ESPN can’t just suddenly offer everything on their linear channels via streaming standalone.
     
    AngryManMLS likes this.
  10. Jul 11, 2020 #50 of 164
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,079
    228
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    They'll offer everything they can in a standalone streaming version of ESPN and I'm sure that Disney has an eye toward that eventuality as they negotiate carriage contracts. And the lines get very blurry. Are you telling me that Disney's Hulu, which offers live cable channel packages, couldn't sell a package of only their ESPN linear channels inside the Hulu app? And if they could do so in that app, why not the ESPN app?
     
  11. Jul 12, 2020 #51 of 164
    techguy88

    techguy88 Well-Known Member

    1,077
    526
    Mar 19, 2015
    Most cable channels, especially ESPN, have a "most favored nations" clause which prevents the owner from doing things that third parties can't do. It also prevents the owner from giving one distributor a better deal over another.
    • Comcast can't favor its own platforms & NBCUniversal's broadcast network and cable channels. For example if Comcast created an NBCU only bundle on Xfinity they would have to extend that option to AT&T's DirecTV/AT&T TV services
    • AT&T can't allow DirecTV, U-Verse TV, AT&T TV & AT&T TV Now to get better deals on the Turner Networks, HBO & Cinemax over their distributors. If AT&T gives DirecTV a sweetheart deal they have to extend that deal to Comcast's Xfinity and Disney's Hulu+Live TV.
    • Disney can't create a bundle of just ESPN channels at a lower price and sell them through Hulu+Live TV but require AT&T & Comcast to bundle ESPN with Disney's other cable channels like Disney, Disney Jr., Disney XD, Freeform, ABC O&O stations, FX Networks & National Geographic Networks. If they do that breaks the MFN clause and they would have to extend that to every distributor like AT&T, Comcast, fuboTV, etc.
      • For the longest time fuboTV wanted just the ESPN channels but Disney told them they had to take the entire bundle that is why fuboTV is now adding all of Disney's networks while adding ESPN in August.
    Deals that are negotiated now (and for the past few years) have included streaming rights. It would be rare that ESPN doesn't have at least non-exclusive streaming rights.
     
    NashGuy likes this.
  12. Jul 12, 2020 #52 of 164
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    1,079
    228
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    That's what I've always expected would happen if/when Disney decides to unbundle ESPN and sell it as a standalone product. They'll continue to rely on third-party distribution of those channels for many years to come, in addition to their direct-to-consumer channels.

    My thoughts too.
     
  13. Jul 12, 2020 #53 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,154
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    Yttv hasn't yet added all the channels from Viacom CBS that the original press reports listed (about 8+ light so far), but they have added a couple national and locals here and there.

    Seattle added kzjo (joetv/22), which is a secondary affiliate o&o of kcpq/fox, which replays a load of the fox programming plus the usual local news from kcpq and other programming, to include big bang theory and the like. Pretty much like the king/5 kong/16 dualopoly. They probably got a very low cost carry deal, one wonders why no king/kong deal. But it would be much better if the two actual independent full power stations kffv/44 (metv, actual kvos/12 rebroadcast from bellingham) and their subchannel 44.3 (h&i) were carried, along with 44.4 (decades); those would be as good as the big network stations with their overabundance of unscripted junk programming.
     
  14. Jul 15, 2020 #54 of 164
    wmb

    wmb Godfather

    669
    69
    Dec 17, 2008
    It seems they may be divided up in-market vs. out-of-market and national broadcast games. The teams seem to retain local rights, but the league distributes out-of-market. But, national broadcast games aren’t included in out-of-market packages.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  15. Jul 16, 2020 #55 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,154
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    I've been subscribing to mlb extra innings for years, but as my 'local' teams tv distribution is owned by at&t/directv (and which was in court for years after they refused to let cable/comcast carry the signal: fyi they lost in federal court) and they are playing the same game with streamers, who don't have the same deep pockets as comcast to haul them into court for years. And aside, comcasts own rsn which carries Portland Trailblazer basketball, is allowed to deny at&t/directv THEIR signal by the same federal ruling (but is on several streaming services). Try and figure out this ruling without your head exploding.

    But as the mlb team I'm barred from live watching unless I subscribe to cable or satellite is never in the running (although if the game is a 'national' on espn I can) but if it is important I can listen to the radio feed live. But mlb needs to change these "local' rules, but if they (the league) wants to continue to shoot itself in the foot, go ahead. My fav teams are thousands of miles away.
     
  16. Jul 18, 2020 #56 of 164
    Jhon69

    Jhon69 Hall Of Fame

    4,781
    12
    Mar 27, 2006
    Central San...
    Not just you I feel the same way.
     
    espaeth and mjwagner like this.
  17. Aug 5, 2020 #57 of 164
    1948GG

    1948GG Icon

    1,154
    40
    Aug 4, 2007
    So here it is several days into August, and yttv has yet to add the 8 or so channels missing (they did add 7 or so immediately) from the package of viacom/cbs channels that was the supposed reason for the $15 hike.

    I'd like to see someone with the ability to research the executive pay/bonuses of the yttv people and see where all this money is going, since it isn't going to pay for these viacom/cbs channels; maybe to new yachts, mansions, or jet airplanes? There is also a good amount of digging being done on the youtube channel as to the huge increase in unskipable ads both in preroll and mid roll.
     
  18. Aug 6, 2020 #58 of 164
    compnurd

    compnurd Hall Of Fame

    3,587
    600
    Apr 23, 2007
    Evans City PA
    Lol
     
    grover517 likes this.
  19. Aug 6, 2020 #59 of 164
    grover517

    grover517 AllStar

    407
    142
    Sep 29, 2007
    I find it interesting on how many people are absolutely sure that the entire 15.00 increase implemented by YTTV was solely due to the addition of the Viacom channels and nothing else. I suspect it had even more to do with trying to balance the spreadsheet after 3 years of operating at a loss, regaining or adding other channels going forward, or any number of other possibilities such as feature improvements such as 5.1, HDR support, etc., that we aren't aware of yet. Heck, how many times did DirecTV (both pre and post AT&T) raise rates and didn't add or change a damn thing and in some instances, prices went up and we lost a channel or two or it was moved to another tier!

    It seems that ANYTHING that ANYONE doesn't like anymore, must be due to some kind of a massive conspiracy. It must be really exhausting to live one's life like that. in this instance, there is an easy, available and quick solution. Don't like it, don't subscribe.
     
    gio12, mjwagner, espaeth and 2 others like this.
  20. Aug 6, 2020 #60 of 164
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    425
    99
    Dec 7, 2017
    So, if we dont like it we should just grin and bare it? Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum like this doesn't it? The premise, "if you dont like it don't buy it" can be said about any consumer product. That's pretty much how consumers have always regulated products. 3D TV's come to mind.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements