# Youtube TV Price Increase



## b4pjoe

$64.99


----------



## evotz

Meh!!

I was going to try YouTube TV. I suspended my DirecTV back the first of May... haven't missed live TV since. Still, figured I'd have to try some of the live TV streaming services (although if sports don't come back... not sure it'll be worth it).

Heard rumors it was going to increase to $55/mo, but $65/mo is a bit rich. Still better than the $120/mo I was paying DirecTV. But this price increase makes SlingTV stand out a little bit more. Of course... Sling will probably raise their prices too.


----------



## b4pjoe

Sling doesn't have local networks. Deal breaker for me. I think most were expecting about a $10 increase. Pricing themselves $10 above Hulu Live TV doesn't seem like a good move especially given the RSN's that YTTV lost recently. Of course with Hulu Live TV you have to pay extra for more than 2 streams and enhanced DVR which I suppose makes them about equal. AT&T TV is starting to look better even with the two year contract...until you get to that second year.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> Sling doesn't have local networks. Deal breaker for me. I think most were expecting about a $10 increase. Pricing themselves $10 above Hulu Live TV doesn't seem like a good move especially given the RSN's that YTTV lost recently. Of course with Hulu Live TV you have to pay extra for more than 2 streams and enhanced DVR which I suppose makes them about equal. AT&T TV is starting to look better even with the two year contract...until you get to that second year.


You know that Hulu basic has next day showings of many live shows, right? CBS being the only broadcast outlier.

Do the math with ATT TV. Figure the first year minus whatever rebate is offered. Then figure on cancelling at the end of a year and paying the ETF and that will show your true cost for a year. Then do the same for if you keep it in the 2nd year. Still going to be high but not as horrible as it looks to the casual eye.

I've got 10 months until my anniversery and will either cancel and move on, or attempt to get some discounting. Of course all that assumes that in 10 months everyone won't have raised their prices too!


----------



## b4pjoe

lparsons21 said:


> *You know that Hulu basic has next day showings of many live shows, right?* CBS being the only broadcast outlier.
> 
> Do the math with ATT TV. Figure the first year minus whatever rebate is offered. Then figure on cancelling at the end of a year and paying the ETF and that will show your true cost for a year. Then do the same for if you keep it in the 2nd year. Still going to be high but not as horrible as it looks to the casual eye.
> 
> I've got 10 months until my anniversery and will either cancel and move on, or attempt to get some discounting. Of course all that assumes that in 10 months everyone won't have raised their prices too!


Yes but with forced ads unless you pay extra for the no ads add-on. And even then there are still some ads on some content.


----------



## wmb

This price increase is big. I will look at other options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## B. Shoe

The price increase isn't unexpected. Maybe a little higher than anticipated, but I'm splitting the cost via Family Sharing. My locals and RSNs are included in my market. I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## crkeehn

In reviewing my options with ATT TV and Youtube TV, in order to get an equivalent package I would have to go to at least Choice, which is also $64.99. The required RSN fee would push ATT TV even higher, just to get one sports channel that YTV provides me at no additional charge. I see no point in changing, especially with the Formula 1 season starting in three days. My YTV subscription provides me with all the channels that carry F1.


----------



## 1948GG

The increase is 'supposedly' due to the addition of viacom channels, which haven't been added as of this date, junk channels (imo) nobody wanted. If they wanted to add a new tier and sell them as an add-on, fine. Now the difference between yttv and hulutv has shrunk, and if it weren't that I took 2-3 months getting yttv to fix most (but not all) of the system errors that were causing problems with roku streaming boxes, and I don't want to repeat that with hulutv, I'd jump right now.

Yttv just added the 8 viacom channels (some press reports had it at 14, maybe more are coming), right as I was posting this message. Zero channels of any interest.

And as has been typical of their operation, this addition has introduced quite a few programming errors to the system. Let's see if it calms down before this coming weekend.

If they would add two of my local/national channels, metv and h&I, it would be worth it. The only things keeping me are pbs (6+ months and still no other service streaming them?!?) And the dvr system.


----------



## msglsmo

For that same price I get unlimited streams on Hulu Live TV. I was seriously considering YouTube TV, as I like the interface much better, but limited to 3 streams is a non-starter.


----------



## espaeth

b4pjoe said:


> Yes but with forced ads unless you pay extra for the no ads add-on. And even then there are still some ads on some content.


It's only 3 shows from their catalog. Hulu Help

I was a huge YTTV fan, we cancelled back in May when sports shut down, now I don't think we'll go back.

I set up a HDHomeRun to distribute local channels to devices in the house (Channels app on ATV, phones, tablets) and started setting up the Channels DVR to record stuff -- but the local DVR got shut down when we just started watching all our "DVR" shows from local channels exclusively on Hulu and CBS:AA with commercial free subscriptions.


----------



## b4pjoe

No chance for me to get locals via anything other than DirecTV, Cable, or streaming services that provide them.


----------



## 1948GG

b4pjoe said:


> No chance for me to get locals via anything other than DirecTV, Cable, or streaming services that provide them.


Same with me as I moved out in the woods 4 yrs ago to get out of the high priced area, kept directv as long as I could but price increases drove me away; was paying comcast as well for internet, believe it or not far better service/price than the competition (for now) until starlink turns up.

At least yttv has cozi and other subchannel type channels, would like more, should be very cheap. They should also add the discovery channels they don't currently carry, again as an add-on, and get those trash viacom channels out to an add-on as well.

Again, very thin differences between yttv and hulu live. Very bad decisions at you tube corporate.


----------



## wmb

I’m looking at a Spectrum Triple play with Silver TV, internet and voice. Two years @ $130/month, including HBO Max and Showtime. Saves about $20 on internet + TV and the cost of HBO Max.

Added to say, all told, this is less than what I was paying DirecTV when I left two years ago, with no premiums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd

msglsmo said:


> For that same price I get unlimited streams on Hulu Live TV. I was seriously considering YouTube TV, as I like the interface much better, but limited to 3 streams is a non-starter.


Hulu Live is 3 streams also. Might even be 2 I think you have to pay for the third


----------



## b4pjoe

compnurd said:


> Hulu Live is 3 streams also. Might even be 2 I think you have to pay for the third


Hulu Live TV is 2 streams or you can get the unlimited streams add-on for $9.99 per month extra.


----------



## 1948GG

b4pjoe said:


> Hulu Live TV is 2 streams or you can get the unlimited streams add-on for $9.99 per month extra.


Correct.

By the time you get hulu (no ads) with unlimited screens and the 'enhanced' 200 hr dvr plus the 'entertainment' package that gets you the rest of the discovery channels (plus a bunch of crud channels mostly viacom) the price ends up being $5 more than the new yttv. The local channels is the same except for no pbs (you can get a fair amount free with the pbs app both on roku and android, and passport unlocks everything for $5/month or $60/year) and no subchannel (except for cozi) and severely constructed dvr. Since discovery is dragging their feet on a streaming package and I don't want to spend another $20/month on philo just to get them (plus gobs of viacom), there I sit. I have to throw away the last 6 months of working on yttv to get it to work properly with roku, and switch to hulu + live and probably start all over again complaining to them to try and get their programmers to do their job properly.

So it's looking like a thin edge of the wedge; give it a month or two and then jump, maybe do so in the next 2 weeks.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> Hulu Live TV is 2 streams or you can get the unlimited streams add-on for $9.99 per month extra.


But the wording is a little weird.. because it reads like it is only unlimited in your house.. It is 3 on mobile


----------



## b4pjoe

Home network guidelines for Hulu Live TV subscribers


----------



## SledgeHammer

b4pjoe said:


> $64.99


Not a surprise. OTT/streaming is WAY more expensive then Sat from a back-end point of view. Sat is pretty much the perfect delivery medium from that point of view. OTT/streaming has more capacity for content, but we're talking live TV here, so the content capacity discussion is N/A. Other OTT providers will eventually do what T has done. Charge the same as they are from traditional except give you fewer channels.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

1948GG said:


> The increase is 'supposedly' due to the addition of viacom channels, which haven't been added as of this date, junk channels (imo) nobody wanted. If they wanted to add a new tier and sell them as an add-on, fine. Now the difference between yttv and hulutv has shrunk, and if it weren't that I took 2-3 months getting yttv to fix most (but not all) of the system errors that were causing problems with roku streaming boxes, and I don't want to repeat that with hulutv, I'd jump right now.
> 
> Yttv just added the 8 viacom channels (some press reports had it at 14, maybe more are coming), right as I was posting this message. Zero channels of any interest.
> 
> And as has been typical of their operation, this addition has introduced quite a few programming errors to the system. Let's see if it calms down before this coming weekend.
> 
> If they would add two of my local/national channels, metv and h&I, it would be worth it. The only things keeping me are pbs (6+ months and still no other service streaming them?!?) And the dvr system.


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.


----------



## Newshawk

evotz said:


> Of course... Sling will probably raise their prices too.


Sling just announced a price _freeze_ until August 2021 for all current and new subscribers who sign up by August 1st of this year.
Sling TV Won't Raise Prices for Existing Customers, Guaranteed Through August 2021 | Cord Cutters News


----------



## Newshawk

rnbmusicfan said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

Newshawk said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## 1948GG

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.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

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.


----------



## B. Shoe

1948GG said:


> 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.


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.)


----------



## evotz

rnbmusicfan said:


> 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'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.


----------



## lparsons21

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.


----------



## b4pjoe

CBS All Access does have a bunch of Paramount movies.


----------



## mjwagner

1948GG said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## 1948GG

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.


----------



## James Long

How many of the channels are not in the base tiers of most other companies?


----------



## 1948GG

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.


----------



## lparsons21

1948GG said:


> 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.


Since there has been and continues to be asinine lawsuits, might as well add another one to the pile.


----------



## James Long

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.


----------



## 1948GG

lparsons21 said:


> Since there has been and continues to be asinine lawsuits, might as well add another one to the pile.


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.


----------



## gio12

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.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

evotz said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## 1948GG

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).


----------



## mjwagner

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.


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## mjwagner

lparsons21 said:


> 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.


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...


----------



## lparsons21

mjwagner said:


> 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...


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.


----------



## evotz

lparsons21 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## lparsons21

evotz said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

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.


----------



## NashGuy

evotz said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## inkahauts

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.


----------



## NashGuy

inkahauts said:


> 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.


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?


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> 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?


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. 




inkahauts said:


> 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.


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

techguy88 said:


> 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.


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.



techguy88 said:


> 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.


My thoughts too.


----------



## 1948GG

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.


----------



## wmb

techguy88 said:


> 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.


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


----------



## 1948GG

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.


----------



## Jhon69

mjwagner said:


> 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...


Not just you I feel the same way.


----------



## 1948GG

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.


----------



## compnurd

1948GG said:


> 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.


Lol


----------



## grover517

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.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

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.


----------



## compnurd

Andrew Sullivan said:


> 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.


This forum isnt going to make YTTV or anyone change there mind... But yes if you dont like there product there is other options


----------



## Andrew Sullivan

compnurd said:


> This forum isnt going to make YTTV or anyone change there mind... But yes if you dont like there product there is other options


It certainly wont make YouTube change their mind but it will certainly influence potential customers to spend their money elsewhere. No one posting reviews or complaints is getting paid for their opinion. That's why I value those opinions. Not buying because you don't like it is a no brainer. But by sharing that sentiment with us here on a site like this is much appreciated by those looking to make a wise investment.


----------



## espaeth

Andrew Sullivan said:


> But by sharing that sentiment with us here on a site like this is much appreciated by those looking to make a wise investment.


There's no capital appreciation or quantifiable output, so everything comes down to perceived value. There's no such thing as a great deal on a service you hate, and you might be willing to assign more value than others to a service you enjoy using. In general, everybody wants things to be cheaper.

Almost every major service increased their prices in the last year, from Dish, to DIRECTV, to Comcast/Xfinity, to YoutubeTV, to Hulu Live, etc..

If it were just one provider jacking up prices it would stand out, but I think the only way to evaluate things is in the context of what everyone else in the industry is doing. Sure, this price increase is more than DIRECTV for 2020... but YTTV is starting from a much lower entry point.


----------



## 1948GG

If some folks think that youtube/tv was going to sit on 3+ years of losses, you're nuts. Maybe 6 months, but not any more or their board and investors would pull the plug on the entire operation and kick the operators to the curb. That's the time frame it took Sony to come to two conclusions with psvue, first that the outsourced programmers couldn't get their system operating consistently (which resulted in a large percentage of their subscribers to abandon ship) as well as the rate hikes from many of their programming providers which made their profit/loss statements look grim, although they could have jumped their pricing >$15/ month and many subs would have stayed, even with the system programming problems. But at the end of the day, those problems were deemed too 'problematic' no matter what the enhanced revenue stream was, so down it all went.

Yttv has just a few things going for it now, although charging for channels it doesn't yet carry could get it into legal trouble in the near term. It's as almost a year since carrying local PBS stations; yet no other streaming service (other than locast which is both limited by geography and lack of a dvr), and an outstanding dvr system which puts it way above all other operators. If any other streamers made inroads into these two areas in any real way, the stampeed would crush yttv.

Of course, the big unanswered question of yttv is why they decided to add these viacom/cbs channels to all subscribers rather than creating a new tier for those channels. If they had added all the Discovery channels like hulu live and made it an 'add-on', again, would have made sense. But lopping it in with the rest of their offering simply looks like a money grab.

For all the work and complaints I made to get yttv working fairly well over 3+ months, I decided to stay for now. But it's hanging by a thread.


----------



## grover517

Andrew Sullivan said:


> 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.


Not so much a "grin and bear it" as much as it was meant to point out that nothing has really changed in that sense. It was no different when the likes of Dish, DirecTV, and your local cable company were pretty much your only choices and it's no different now. Carriage dispute blacked out a channel or set of channels, many jumped to another service. Prices increased, others jumped to take advantage of new customer discounts. This is no different in my view. These decisions were made by the providers and content owners to further THEIR long term goals and churn was inevitable, as it is now.

So was my comment meant to just dismiss the need for discussion about it and basically resign anyone to just accept it? No, not at all. What I did take issue with was that the increase was the sole reason behind the ViacomCBS deal alone and it was done due to some nefarious plan to line the pockets of a few higher ups with gold, allowing them to buy yacht's, etc. I simply don't subscribe to such notions.

After 22 years, we paid a premium price for a premium service that we loved but when DirecTV/AT&T eliminated my ability to do temporary service address changes and the limited options we had to work around it were more hassle than it was worth, the "value" for us was no longer worth the price, so we left. Was I pissed? Sure I was. But at least for me, it forced my hand to take a serious look at other options out there (that we didn't have before) and found something that works just as well or better in some instances for less money. I made a few sacrifices in the programming differences as well as a few other concessions on convenience, but overall, YTTV "right now", provides me the most "value" for the price as well as meets my needs for portability away from home and so that's where I am, even after the price increase.

Same position many longer term YTTV subscribers now find themselves in. The loss of a bunch of RSN's, the renegotiation of the ViacomCBS deal adding channels many don't watch and the 15.00 price increase, is not something many wanted to see, so they all now need to re-access their needs and determine if something else works better for them and provides the "value" they are looking for. I am absolutely sure YTTV did their due diligence in looking at all the metrics (which is what Google does best), and made a decision based on not only those numbers, but what met their long term plans for the service are as well.

Was the timing of the increase along with the renewal of the ViacomCBS deal "bad optics"? Sure, I don't disagree with that. But I also don't believe some massive, deep dive into the reasons behind the increase is necessary to try and prove some nefarious plan to line their pockets with gold either. I for one, am looking forward to what is yet to come.


----------



## Jhon69

One thing for sure we cannot forget where we have come from,a land which was full of provider's "because we can fees".
Also the programming cost the same if not more than we pay now.When I remember the past it helps me get past the objections of our problems now.
A service has to make a profit to survive,but if I quit paying for anything on the internet I could still watch hours of free programs from the free apps.


----------



## lparsons21

Jhon69 said:


> One thing for sure we cannot forget where we have come from,a land which was full of provider's "because we can fees".
> Also the programming cost the same if not more than we pay now.When I remember the past it helps me get past the objections of our problems now.
> A service has to make a profit to survive,but if I quit paying for anything on the internet I could still watch hours of free programs from the free apps.


It is simply amazing to see just how much content is free with ads out there. And some of them are not too bad with how many ads they do.


----------



## wmb

Jhon69 said:


> One thing for sure we cannot forget where we have come from,a land which was full of provider's "because we can fees".


For this reason alone, YTTV is cheaper than the equivalent DirecTV package I left. I think that package was $150 when receivers, whole home, and HD fees were added.

However, with the recent proliferation of OTT services like Disney+, CBS AA, Peacock, and HBO Max, it's hard to see the future for legacy cable, satellite, and replacement services.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

1948GG said:


> Of course, the big unanswered question of yttv is why they decided to add these viacom/cbs channels to all subscribers rather than creating a new tier for those channels.


Pretty sure the reason for that is that ViacomCBS demanded that if YTTV wanted to keep CBS in their lineup, then they'd have to add their Viacom cable channels too. Back when YTTV launched, CBS and Viacom were separate companies. But they merged together last year. And the way all these channel companies do is to force cable TV services to include several of their channels in the standard package. Want CBS? Gotta also also include Nick, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> Pretty sure the reason for that is that ViacomCBS demanded that if YTTV wanted to keep CBS in their lineup, then they'd have to add their Viacom cable channels too. Back when YTTV launched, CBS and Viacom were separate companies. But they merged together last year. And the way all these channel companies do is to force cable TV services to include several of their channels in the standard package. Want CBS? Gotta also also include Nick, MTV, Comedy Central, etc.


YTTV should have said "Ok, we're not carrying CBS then." These linear services have to keep costs down. Their only hope is that linear delivery is considered a value-add over "watch want you want when you want" streaming. Their problem is that separate purchases of the OTT streamers combined cost less than the the linear service. The future of linear providers don't look good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG

CBS owns (and controls) only 15 stations around the US, they can't force all the other independent affiliates to do much of anything when it comes to carridge, and that includes the other dozen or so O&O cw and non-affiliated stations they also have. Yes, they are in the larger cities (NY and LA, etc) but those cities have huge ota broadcast footprints and that would extensively cut into any scheme to put pressure on any retrans carrier, be they cable, sat, or streamer.


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> YTTV should have said "Ok, we're not carrying CBS then."


That attitude didn't work for DISH or DIRECTV. Even though it only affected the broadcast stations in the major cities (owned and operated stations) those are the places with the most population. Tying the cable channels to the O&O stations has been a successful tool.


----------



## Jhon69

In the email I received from YTTV they stated that the Viacom channels were the most requested channels from their subscribers.
Myself I wish they would have included some other channels I like better,but until they do I will just subscribe to YTTV/wStarz and Philo.


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> That attitude didn't work for DISH or DIRECTV. Even though it only affected the broadcast stations in the major cities (owned and operated stations) those are the places with the most population. Tying the cable channels to the O&O stations has been a successful tool.


The question is not what has worked in the past, but what will work in the future.

Who is going to pay for cable/sat/replacement when CBS AA, Peacock, Disney/ABC/ESPN, and HBO Max can be had for half the price and retain most all of the content? Plus, you can add/drop these at will to save money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## espaeth

wmb said:


> Who is going to pay for cable/sat/replacement when CBS AA, Peacock, Disney/ABC/ESPN, and HBO Max can be had for half the price and retain most all of the content? Plus, you can add/drop these at will to save money.


That's great for scripted content, but you still have the problem of live or local content. CBS:AA is positioned better than a service like Peacock, because CBS will actually stream your local channel within the app. With just Peacock, you're going to miss your local NBC news, and most sporting events on NBC networks. Still, if you want to watch football with DVR controls, even CBS:AA isn't going to cut it. Just like an antenna into a TV, you get the linear stream with no ability to pause.

Streaming providers have the absolutely best viewing data in the market, because they have functional 2-way communication with 100% of the devices viewing content. They know _exactly_ what people watch most on the service, so they can prioritize their negotiations accordingly. CBS is the most watched broadcast network of the big 4, and no matter how much you point out how easy it is to get that content through other means (including using a cheap antenna with perpetual free service) it doesn't change the fact that many people _do_ rely on services like YTTV for accessing this content. It's not always just about paying for the content, people are willing to pay for convenience.


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> YTTV should have said "Ok, we're not carrying CBS then." These linear services have to keep costs down. Their only hope is that linear delivery is considered a value-add over "watch want you want when you want" streaming. Their problem is that separate purchases of the OTT streamers combined cost less than the the linear service. The future of linear providers don't look good.


I guess that depends on Google's aspirations for YTTV. I don't think they want it to be something like Sling, which is intentionally marketed as a downmarket cut-rate compromise vs. the standard cable channel bundle. Leaving out CBS affiliates in those major markets, as well as access to CBS on-demand content nationwide, would have put YTTV in a weird category for a lot of consumers. CBS has been the highest-rated network in many of the past several years and they carry a decent amount of sports, including the NFL.

And I'm not sure that streaming vMVPDs like YTTV even have the option of carrying a network's non-O&O affiliates without having a deal in place with the network itself; for instance, I've read if a vMVPD wants to carry, say, Sinclair-owned affiliates of Fox, they must have a deal in place with both Sinclair and Fox to allow that.


----------



## wmb

espaeth said:


> That's great for scripted content, but you still have the problem of live or local content.


How about Locast for local content? Also, local stations have apps for news and other local content.

Live content, I guess that depends on what. A few years ago, my daughter played D2 college lacrosse. I paid $25 for a season pass to stream their games. The production looked like it was done by students, but for what it was... Streaming has the potential to open up a lot of content that can't be made available otherwise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## espaeth

wmb said:


> How about Locast for local content? Also, local stations have apps for news and other local content.


Local station apps will typically only have news, won't be available on as many devices, and will be missing most broadcast content. Locast requires a "donation" (typically $5/mo) to make their intrusive advertisements go away and lacks DVR functionality. In most markets, they also don't have enough capacity to keep up with the streaming demand of large sporting events.



wmb said:


> Streaming has the potential to open up a lot of content that can't be made available otherwise.


Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here. Events on broadcast networks where they are the exclusive rights holder, you need that broadcast network to watch. If you want to watch AFC NFL games, you need CBS. If you want to record the games, you need an OTA setup with DVR hardware and you need to sort out how all your various devices can access that content -- or you pay a service like YoutubeTV that has the integrated DVR and carries CBS.

They have data for how many of their 2 million subscribers regularly watch content on CBS, and made the bet that more people would leave because of dropping CBS compared to how many will leave because of the price increase.


----------



## grover517

NashGuy said:


> I guess that depends on Google's aspirations for YTTV. I don't think they want it to be something like Sling, which is intentionally marketed as a downmarket cut-rate compromise vs. the standard cable channel bundle. Leaving out CBS affiliates in those major markets, as well as access to CBS on-demand content nationwide, would have put YTTV in a weird category for a lot of consumers. CBS has been the highest-rated network in many of the past several years and they carry a decent amount of sports, including the NFL.


I also subscribe to the notion that YTTV, from the start, had no intentions of operating as a "niche" low cost service, but instead to be a full service "cable replacement" offering over time. Just by being a Google entity should speak volumes to those that thought otherwise. Any Google service that doesn't continue to plan for AND show growth within it's space, usually doesn't stick around for long.


----------



## lparsons21

grover517 said:


> I also subscribe to the notion that YTTV, from the start, had no intentions of operating as a "niche" low cost service, but instead to be a full service "cable replacement" offering over time. Just by being a Google entity should speak volumes to those that thought otherwise. Any Google service that doesn't continue to plan for AND show growth within it's space, usually doesn't stick around for long.


YTTV is pretty much a cable replacement service now, missing some RSN's and limited on other RSN's. I figure if they bring back the RSN's and add the NFL channel the price will come in around $75. And that's still cheaper than most cable/sat. Of course right now there is no real consumer pressure for RSN's because there is so little in the way of live sports now. I read an article recently talking about how consumers were not shuffling things around to get the RSN's even with the start of a limited baseball season.

I still keep thinking that the current RSN business model cannot survive. The RSN fee is what it is because they get so many to have sub levels that have it even if the sub doesn't care about them. I think it will have to move to a tier add-on at some point at a much higher price per subscriber.


----------



## techguy88

YTTV is essentially turning into the optional TV product that Google Fiber used to offer with the only exception being YTTV is available on a national level and not restricted to Google Fiber's footprint.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> YTTV is pretty much a cable replacement service now, missing some RSN's and limited on other RSN's. I figure if they bring back the RSN's and add the NFL channel the price will come in around $75. And that's still cheaper than most cable/sat. Of course right now there is no real consumer pressure for RSN's because there is so little in the way of live sports now. I read an article recently talking about how consumers were not shuffling things around to get the RSN's even with the start of a limited baseball season.
> 
> I still keep thinking that the current RSN business model cannot survive. The RSN fee is what it is because they get so many to have sub levels that have it even if the sub doesn't care about them. I think it will have to move to a tier add-on at some point at a much higher price per subscriber.


Yeah, if anything, I see YTTV adding a few more channels than they have now so that they can fully act as a replacement for what we used to call "expanded basic cable". Hallmark, History, A&E and Lifetime are about the only top-30-most-watched channels that YTTV is missing now, so I still think it's likely that they'll eventually get added. (Maybe coinciding with next year's price increase.)

As for the RSN business model, yeah, a lot has been written about that. Sinclair is in a parlous position with those Fox Sports RSNs they bought, plus the new Marquee channel for Cubs games that they launched. This year's shortened sports calendars don't help matters, I'm sure. It's telling that they still haven't bothered to rebrand the Fox Sports RSNs. I think their future is very much up in the air.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> YTTV is essentially turning into the optional TV product that Google Fiber used to offer with the only exception being YTTV is available on a national level and not restricted to Google Fiber's footprint.


Yup. Managed IPTV is becoming passe because it's tied to a given network footprint and proprietary hardware. Google is dumping Google Fiber TV for YouTube TV. AT&T is dumping Uverse TV for AT&T TV. T-Mobile will dump the current iteration of TVision for a new OTT, cloud-based version of the service.


----------



## James Long

I wonder when YTTV will add tiers. Right now they are core + premiums. As they add channels they will become closer to the higher tiers of MVPDs and likely pass the lowest tiers of their competitors.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> As for the RSN business model, yeah, a lot has been written about that. Sinclair is in a parlous position with those Fox Sports RSNs they bought, plus the new Marquee channel for Cubs games that they launched. This year's shortened sports calendars don't help matters, I'm sure. It's telling that they still haven't bothered to rebrand the Fox Sports RSNs. I think their future is very much up in the air.


This is odd, as MLB on RSNs are the highest rated shows in prime time on many systems.

2019 MLB Regional TV Ratings In Prime Time Remain Solid

It's strong this year as well...

Early Regional Sports Network TV Ratings And Ad Sales For MLB Are Up Compared With 2019

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scooper

I'm a Google Fiber customer, and now, since we did not have Fiber TV before they started offering the YTTV, we cannot ever subscribe to Fiber TV.

On the positive side - when we first arrived in KC, MIL was getting the 15 Mbps down free tier. We immediately jumped to the 100 Mbps tier for $50 / month. Some time ago, Google sent out an email that they were discontinuing the 100 Mbps tier, and replacing it with 500 Mbps - for $55 / month. 1Gbps is available - for another $20 /month - but I haven't felt the need for that yet....


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> This is odd, as MLB on RSNs are the highest rated shows in prime time on many systems.
> 
> 2019 MLB Regional TV Ratings In Prime Time Remain Solid
> 
> It's strong this year as well...
> 
> Early Regional Sports Network TV Ratings And Ad Sales For MLB Are Up Compared With 2019


RSNs have relatively high carriage costs and a majority of cable subscribers don't even watch them. And consumers tend to know how much they're paying for them, as the cost is typically broken out as an itemized fee on their bill in the $7-9/mo range. It's definitely one contributor in the cord-cutting trend of ditching cable TV entirely.

It's not that MVPDs don't want to carry RSNs, it's that they would like them to be either optional add-ons or relegated to an upper-tier channel package. The RSN owners -- now chiefly Sinclair -- of course want their channels included in the base-level mainstream package.

Here's one particularly bearish take on the future of RSNs:

Analyst says "best scenario" for RSNs is losing half their distribution


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> I wonder when YTTV will add tiers. Right now they are core + premiums. As they add channels they will become closer to the higher tiers of MVPDs and likely pass the lowest tiers of their competitors.


Some have speculated that tiered channel packages are on the horizon for YTTV. When they announced their recent price hike, the blog post said they were "working to build new flexible models for YouTube TV users". So that could mean tiered packages, or a core package with various optional add-on packs. But it seems like that might require going back and renegotiating all their current carriage contracts.

YTTV still has a ways to go before they catch up in price to comparable services from traditional MVPDs (largely thanks to the very low margin that Google takes). The closest thing Comcast offers is their Extra package, although it has a few more channels than YTTV. The regular price for it here costs an additional $83 beyond the cost of standalone broadband. (That's inclusive of the broadcast TV and RSN fees, plus DVR service with 150 hrs storage, but no STB rentals.) Of course, customers often get it for cheaper by taking an optional 1- or 2-yr contract for broadband plus TV (which YTTV obviously doesn't require or offer).


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Some have speculated that tiered channel packages are on the horizon for YTTV. When they announced their recent price hike, the blog post said they were "working to build new flexible models for YouTube TV users". So that could mean tiered packages, or a core package with various optional add-on packs. But it seems like that might require going back and renegotiating all their current carriage contracts.


I think it would definitely require doing some renegotiating contracts to split some things out into tiers.

SlingTV has tiers now, if you get Sling Blue with their total TV bundle, the cost is $50/month. No ESPN and no locals. Broadcast shows can be gotten next day on Hulu @$6/month w/ads ($12 w/out), CBS:AA gives you live local CBS channel in most markets at the same pricing as Hulu. So out the door $62 for all of that. Higher pricing if you got Sling Gold or Sling Blue+Gold of course.

Right now the best deal out there for those wanting a slew of channels with a good mix of types is YTTV. ATT TV Now is reasonably priced if the channel mix is right. ATT TV is not horrible if you don't keep it past the 1st year and only want the Entertainment level. Beyond that level it isn't competitive with anyone.


----------



## grover517

lparsons21 said:


> YTTV is pretty much a cable replacement service now, missing some RSN's and limited on other RSN's. I figure if they bring back the RSN's and add the NFL channel the price will come in around $75. And that's still cheaper than most cable/sat. Of course right now there is no real consumer pressure for RSN's because there is so little in the way of live sports now. I read an article recently talking about how consumers were not shuffling things around to get the RSN's even with the start of a limited baseball season.
> 
> I still keep thinking that the current RSN business model cannot survive. The RSN fee is what it is because they get so many to have sub levels that have it even if the sub doesn't care about them. I think it will have to move to a tier add-on at some point at a much higher price per subscriber.


I tend to feel that the term "cable replacement" isn't really relevant any longer and I prefer the term "cable alternative". I know I for one, don't want a true "replacement" service to DirecTV or Comcast. I think YTTV, even now, offers a good variety of programming at a reasonable cost. I have my own feelings about Viacom and the RSN situation but that's for another conversation.

As for Sinclair's business model, I also agree they are in trouble in the OTT space and unless they accept to at least partially, be part of a purely premium "Sinclair" add on package like I think your referring to, where Sinclair dictates the cost and YTTV gets a cut for carriage akin to an HBO or other premium offering. Another option I suppose would be to become part of some other kind of genre specific "Sports" add on with a few others, but in that instance, they may not have as much control over what they can demand. More and more, the average sports fan like me is discovering that I can scratch my itch with what's already available on services I already have such as the major networks, ESPN, BTN and other league channels or even Amazon Prime. Personally, I can't remember the last time I actually watched a game on an RSN. I know I have but they were few and far between.


----------



## lparsons21

grover517 said:


> More and more, the average sports fan like me is discovering that I can scratch my itch with what's already available on services I already have such as the major networks, ESPN, BTN and other league channels or even Amazon Prime. Personally, I can't remember the last time I actually watched a game on an RSN. I know I have but they were few and far between.


I'm a below average sports watcher, my son is big into sports but even he has noticed the same thing, even last year when there was plenty of live sports to watch.

For me I can't remember the last time I watched any RSN.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV is not horrible if you don't keep it past the 1st year and only want the Entertainment level. Beyond that level it isn't competitive with anyone.


I wouldn't say that. If you can combine AT&T TV with AT&T broadband service, I *think* you get an ongoing $10/mo bundling discount. Entertainment's regular standalone price (after the first year) is $93/mo. So if the incremental ongoing price of adding it to AT&T broadband is an extra $83/mo, well that's the same as the increment price of adding Comcast's Extra package to their broadband service. Except Extra includes your RSN(s) whereas Entertainment does not. But AT&T TV, OTOH, would give you one free custom TV box while you'd have to perpetually rent X1 boxes at $5/mo each with Comcast (unless you were OK with using their free but not-very-good app for Roku, smart TVs, etc). And AT&T TV gives you 500 hours of cloud DVR storage (with a 90-day retention limit) while you're only getting 150 hours (with a 1-yr retention limit) with the price I quoted from Comcast. To increase that to 300 hours costs an extra $10/mo. Lastly, AT&T TV has WAY better HD picture quality than Comcast.

It seems to me that AT&T and Comcast have sized each other up pretty well. Which makes sense because they are each other's most common direct competitor.


----------



## lparsons21

OK, I stand corrected, they aren’t competition to other streaming services beyond the Entertainment level.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> OK, I stand corrected, they aren't competition to other streaming services beyond the Entertainment level.


No, definitely not. It would be nice for consumers if AT&T decided to compete on price with YTTV and Hulu Live but of course their shareholders would rightfully be up in arms. Unlike those streaming upstarts, AT&T has a big, established, profitable cable TV business to monetize as best they can for as long as they can. They're not going to set fire to it by taking their margins down to $4 per month per subscriber, as YTTV reportedly earns. (That said, I did expect the pricing for AT&T TV to be at least a bit lower than it is based on repeated remarks from AT&T's CEO about the new platform's much lower customer acquisition costs. Oh well.)


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve thought about what it might take to keep me from cancelling ATT TV at the end of the year.

Here’s where the finances fall:
Currently Entertainment @$50/month with HBO Max

At the end of the year HBO Max drops off and the price for the sub goes to $93/month and if I want to keep HBO Max, which is highly likely, the total then is $108. That ain’t happening!

If I can get Entertainment in 2nd year for $65, add in HBO Max for $15 bringing total to $80/month, then I’m more likely than not to keep the service. That is because it really is a good service. Still the only one with 5.1 audio, probably the best video quality of any streamer and the box, for all its warts, has some benefit, but even not considering the box, that price seems a fair trade-off for me.

Or I could go to Sling Blue w/Total TV add on for $50/month and have most of the channels I want. Or get YTTV @$65/month and have them all. In both cases a bit less video quality, a bit less convenient and no DD5.1 audio.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I've thought about what it might take to keep me from cancelling ATT TV at the end of the year.
> 
> Here's where the finances fall:
> Currently Entertainment @$50/month with HBO Max
> 
> At the end of the year HBO Max drops off and the price for the sub goes to $93/month and if I want to keep HBO Max, which is highly likely, the total then is $108. That ain't happening!
> 
> If I can get Entertainment in 2nd year for $65, add in HBO Max for $15 bringing total to $80/month, then I'm more likely than not to keep the service. That is because it really is a good service. Still the only one with 5.1 audio, probably the best video quality of any streamer and the box, for all its warts, has some benefit, but even not considering the box, that price seems a fair trade-off for me.
> 
> Or I could go to Sling Blue w/Total TV add on for $50/month and have most of the channels I want. Or get YTTV @$65/month and have them all. In both cases a bit less video quality, a bit less convenient and no DD5.1 audio.


Sounds like you have a plan and a price point in mind to propose to them when you call up to potentially cancel. Of course, if you do cancel, you'll have to pay an ETF of $180 (12 x $15), right?

Has DTV ever negotiated on pricing for customers still under their original contract? I don't think so. So I'd be surprised if they offer you a discount on the second year. Or if they do, I doubt they knock off 30% of the price and take it all the way down to $65/mo. But, hey, never hurts to ask if you're willing to walk away...


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Sounds like you have a plan and a price point in mind to propose to them when you call up to potentially cancel. Of course, if you do cancel, you'll have to pay an ETF of $180 (12 x $15), right?
> 
> Has DTV ever negotiated on pricing for customers still under their original contract? I don't think so. So I'd be surprised if they offer you a discount on the second year. Or if they do, I doubt they knock off 30% of the price and take it all the way down to $65/mo. But, hey, never hurts to ask if you're willing to walk away...


Yeah, ETF is figured in. If I cancel the true cost of my $50/month sub is a shade under $57/month because of the $100 rebate.

And yes, DTV has negotiated with me in the past during contract. Generally not big ones, but what the hell? If I don't ask I sure won't get a discount. I'm betting that the sub losses as people's 1-year anniversary comes around are going to be worse than D*'s.


----------



## crkeehn

If one has ATT Fiber 1000, the old Gigapower; then HBO Max is included for free. With the unlimited data and free HBO Max, Fiber 1000 is looking even more attractive.

To fill my viewing out, Youtube TV, even with the price increase; is appealing. Luckily they provide the Raleigh NC area with the local sports channel so I can keep up with the Canes. They also provide the ACC network, which might be useful someday.


----------



## lparsons21

Let’s put the YTTV current pricing in perspective. YTTV is one of the 3 services that come closest to being an actual cable/sat replacement service.

YTTV @$65/month is a relative bargain in this segment. Hulu+Live in a configuration closest to what YTTV offers costs $71/month and can only be used in the same house. ATT TV’s (not Now) closest subscription level to it is Xtra and that costs $124/month at retail though 1st year discounts are available to new subscribers.

And I would argue that combining some skinny bundle services together to cover the same things would cost at least $65/month but most likely more. The only way to get away with paying less is to not have some channels you might otherwise want.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> Has DTV ever negotiated on pricing for customers still under their original contract? I don't think so. So I'd be surprised if they offer you a discount on the second year. Or if they do, I doubt they knock off 30% of the price and take it all the way down to $65/mo. But, hey, never hurts to ask if you're willing to walk away...


It is possible but the offers are generally not as good as non-contract customers. My mother was able to get $20 off for 12 months during the second year of her initial 2-year contract. After she was out of contract the amount of discounts she has received has been within the $35 - $45 range. (They have offered her up to $65 off for 12 months but I tell her not to accept the highest discount on purpose as other people in her area gets the max offer then has no discounts the following year.) Due to the trees my mom is actually in a spot where D* can get a clear line of sight but E* does not.  Since my mom and grandma don't watch sports the Preferred Xtra package is best for them.


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> It is possible but the offers are generally not as good as non-contract customers.


Yeah, I fully expect to not get the discount that I would need to stick with ATT TV since the feeling is that ATT doesn't want reduced profits. Of course I could care less what they want, I only worry about the money in my pocket, not theirs!


----------



## B. Shoe

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, I fully expect to not get the discount that I would need to stick with ATT TV since the feeling is that ATT doesn't want reduced profits. Of course I could care less what they want, I only worry about the money in my pocket, not theirs!


The beauty about ALL of this, regardless of what you choose to do, is the ease that you can transfer between services in the streaming world. Cancel out of one service and be subscribed and viewing through another in no time at all. No waiting four days after a call for an installer to come, hoping they arrive within "a window of 9am-4pm" on a Tuesday, and then having them drill through your house and walls to drag cables and set up boxes. Viva la streaming!


----------



## espaeth

Except for that service that has a 24 month contract, and restricts functionality to every platform outside their own underpowered proprietary box.


----------



## compnurd

espaeth said:


> Except for that service that has a 24 month contract, and restricts functionality to every platform outside their own underpowered proprietary box.


I don't find the box underpowered at all. It is faster then any directv hardware. And minus channel numbers there is no difference between the platforms


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> I don't find the box underpowered at all. It is faster then any directv hardware. And minus channel numbers there is no difference between the platforms


I can't compare to DirecTV or Dish hardware, but compared to FireTV Cube, AppleTV and Roku it is a dog.


----------



## compnurd

lparsons21 said:


> I can't compare to DirecTV or Dish hardware, but compared to FireTV Cube, AppleTV and Roku it is a dog.


Which version of each hardware? Because non of them are on Gen 1 Hardware

if I recall originally you had issues with the First Gen Cube


----------



## lparsons21

compnurd said:


> Which version of each hardware? Because non of them are on Gen 1 Hardware
> 
> if I recall originally you had issues with the First Gen Cube


Yeah, 1st gen Cube was a real pig. 2nd Gen is quick as a bunny as is the ATV4K and Roku Premier and Ultra I own, all current gen.


----------



## techguy88

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, 1st gen Cube was a real pig. 2nd Gen is quick as a bunny as is the ATV4K and Roku Premier and Ultra I own, all current gen.


The main reason the 1st Gen Cube was a PITA was because Amazon was cheap and just shoved the guts from the 3rd Gen Fire TV Box into a cube form factor. The 2nd Gen Cube is actually the first time in YEARS that Amazon actually invested money into the guts and properly upgraded the chipset.


----------



## 1948GG

Now that yttv subscribers are well past the point where all are paying the increased fees due to the now non-addition of viacom/cbs channels, it's time to re-evaluate.


----------



## mjwagner

1948GG said:


> Now that yttv subscribers are well past the point where all are paying the increased fees due to the now non-addition of viacom/cbs channels, it's time to re-evaluate.


Everyone should always be re-evaluating price paid versus value received...that's the great thing about no contracts/commitments... IMO


----------



## 1948GG

1st of september, and cord cutters 'leaks' that more channels are to be added, like the nfl network. 

But the Viacom/cbs channels promised three months ago still haven't been completely added, yet the $15/month increase has been in effect for two months, along with a huge increase in both preroll and mid roll ads on You Tube, which have resulted in several clips complaining of the money grab.

I hope the multi-billionaires at google enjoy rolling around in their new found cash.


----------



## mjwagner

1948GG said:


> 1st of september, and cord cutters 'leaks' that more channels are to be added, like the nfl network.
> 
> But the Viacom/cbs channels promised three months ago still haven't been completely added, yet the $15/month increase has been in effect for two months, along with a huge increase in both preroll and mid roll ads on You Tube, which have resulted in several clips complaining of the money grab.
> 
> I hope the multi-billionaires at google enjoy rolling around in their new found cash.


The scuttlebutt is that they will be adding the NFL Network to the base tier and RedZone will be available in an add-on...


----------



## glrush

mjwagner said:


> The scuttlebutt is that they will be adding the NFL Network to the base tier and RedZone will be available in an add-on...


Here is a link......
YouTube TV reportedly set to add NFL Network to base package, RedZone to a new "Sports Plus" tier


----------



## B. Shoe

A link from Droidlife claims that the remaining Viacom channels are popping up in some searches, and confirms a lot more about the added sports channels and sports tier.

I'm happy that NFLNet and NFLRZ are being added in, especially for those that can't get NFL Sunday Ticket via streaming. I was indifferent about the Viacom channels being added; none of those channels are in my wheelhouse anymore.


----------



## gio12

Got NFL network on my YTTV account. Will order the sports pack for Red Zone next week.


----------



## 1948GG

Big ad when logging into yttv on the added nfl channel and pay sports tier. 

Still no half the viacom/cbs channels that they've been collecting money for the last 2 months. Bet that if they had decided to charge directly for those instead of dragging their feet that they would roll them out up front. 

To those who reply that viacom/cbs wouldn't allow those channels in a separate tier, then yttv should have told them to pound sand, put out a press release that they wanted to carry those channels but that viacom/cbs wouldn't allow them to like they do for other cable/sat folks. 

Stop letting the program providers always calling the shots; you own the storefront, not them. If they want to sell their product in your store, they need to do so on your terms, period.


----------



## wmb

1948GG said:


> Stop letting the program providers always calling the shots; you own the storefront, not them. If they want to sell their product in your store, they need to do so on your terms, period.


Here's where the fun begins...

With Peacock ($5), CBS AA + Showtime ($10) Apple TV+ ($5) channels, HBO Max, Disney+ (bundled with ESPN+, Hulu, $15-ish), and Netflix (free with T-Mobile) where does YTTV fit in anymore? These services cost me $35/month.

What I would be missing is OTA through an app (an annoyance that could be fixed with an HD Homerun or Locast), Disney and ESPN cable channels, NBCSN (mostly EPL, some NHL) and HGTV(Discovery). We still like live channels and a channel guide instead of streaming for 'lazy viewing' most nights. This is what I'm paying $65/month for.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future CBS, ABC/Disney/ESPN, and NBC add the OTA locals without a cable/sat/streamer subscription through their OTT packages, particularly if cord cutting continues.

All that would be left is a guide app, which I would be surprised Apple TV app/streaming box OS won't eventually become. You can see the path forward to this today.

The real fun is going to be when my wife starts complaining about how much we are playing for the streaming services and I start showing her how it's half what we're paying for YTTV and how we could be saving the $65/month.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future CBS, ABC/Disney/ESPN, and NBC add the OTA locals without a cable/sat/streamer subscription through their OTT packages, particularly if cord cutting continues.
> 
> All that would be left is a guide app, which I would be surprised Apple TV app/streaming box OS won't eventually become. You can see the path forward to this today.


Agreed. I've been saying both of these things for awhile now. In fact, CBS AA already does include live local CBS stations. Seems inevitable that at some point the base packages of Hulu and Peacock Premium will do the same with ABC and NBC locals, respectively.

And yeah, the content-centric UIs of Apple TV, Fire TV and Android TV (perhaps soon to be renamed Google TV with the pending launch of Google's new device) are the cable grid guides of the future. They'll aggregate, curate and organize content for us from a broad range of different free and paid video sources.


----------



## b4pjoe

Getting the network locals without a cable/sat package subscription is the holy grail for me (OTA via antenna is not possible where I live). Only CBS AA has come through so far. I was sad that Peacock didn't do that with the NBC locals and Disney didn't do it with the ABC locals. Not sure where Fox locals would/could come from.


----------



## Jhon69

There is a need for more channel owners to come out with their own packages like Discovery's new package of the channels they own.
The Smithsonian channel can be purchased by itself and History's Vault also.YTTV is starting to become a package that reminds me of when I had
DirecTV,then Dish,then Charter Spectrum cable.It started to remind me of those providers so much I had to cancel my YTTV, I can see the writing on the wall.
I will keep Philo for now,but if they start to add a bunch of channels also they will be the next on my list to cancel.
I will miss YTTV's guide I liked it the best of all I tried.But I am not sports oriented and I did not need the Viacom channels so I don't have any other options.


----------



## Jhon69

b4pjoe said:


> Getting the network locals without a cable/sat package subscription is the holy grail for me (OTA via antenna is not possible where I live). Only CBS AA has come through so far. I was sad that Peacock didn't do that with the NBC locals and Disney didn't do it with the ABC locals. Not sure where Fox locals would/could come from.


Alot of news locals have their own app(on my Roku) if you don't see any try to go into the network's national news feed app.Good Luck!


----------



## b4pjoe

Most of the local news here can be watched on their web site and also there is a new free ad-supported streaming service called VUit Live that has most of my local news broadcasts both live and OnDemand.


----------



## NashGuy

Jhon69 said:


> There is a need for more channel owners to come out with their own packages like Discovery's new package of the channels they own.


This is gradually what's happening. The media companies are rolling out their own direct-to-consumer services that will eventually be home to all the content that they own (plus a certain amount of additional stuff they license).

Disney: Hulu, Disney+, ESPN+
ViacomCBS: CBS All Access, Showtime
NBCU: Peacock
WarnerMedia: HBO Max
Discovery: ? (name not yet announced)

Those are the biggest players. At some point, I expect we'll see Fox jump in the game. (Right now they just own the free Tubi streaming service.) Hallmark has dipped their toe in with their streaming movie service but still holds back most of their content for their linear cable channels. Only other significant TV groups are AMC and A+E. They'll either get gobbled up by one of the bigger players or just become licensed content suppliers to them.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> Agreed. I've been saying both of these things for awhile now. In fact, CBS AA already does include live local CBS stations. Seems inevitable that at some point the base packages of Hulu and Peacock Premium will do the same with ABC and NBC locals, respectively.


I'll jump back on this... my teleco has a fiber internet service with TV (Cincinnati Bell Fioptics). I actually have the basic TV service... just locals. It's cheaper to have the basic TV + internet than internet alone. I'd go to them for my TV, but their box sucks and they don't have an Apple TV app (they have an iPhone app, so ). I'm paying about $90 for 1GB, basic TV and landline. The cost difference for the next tier of linear channels and YTTV is about $30. I'd like the next tier for ESPN and a few other channels.

Like I said, I also like linear channels for lazy viewing. So a decent line up of linear channels would be nice. That's what I am paying for right now.

I'm close to not needing a cable/replacement, but not quite there.

Edit to add that for as long as I can remember, my internet/phone bill has been about $90 per month and my TV Bill has been between $80 and $100. That goes back to about 2007 when I got DirecTV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG

Remember, yttv is still missing 8+ viacom/cbs channels you've been paying for the last two months. Sounds to me like a lawsuit is needed to get them off their rear ends.


----------



## techguy88

1948GG said:


> Remember, yttv is still missing 8+ viacom/cbs channels you've been paying for the last two months. Sounds to me like a lawsuit is needed to get them off their rear ends.


IIRC those 8+ ViacomCBS channels are meant to be part of some sort of entertainment add-on. Only the flagships (MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Paramount Network, Nick Jr. & VH-1) along with a few secondary (CMT, TV Land) were added to the base package.


----------



## compnurd

1948GG said:


> Remember, yttv is still missing 8+ viacom/cbs channels you've been paying for the last two months. Sounds to me like a lawsuit is needed to get them off their rear ends.


You should do that. Let us know how it goes


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> IIRC those 8+ ViacomCBS channels are meant to be part of some sort of entertainment add-on. Only the flagships (MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Paramount Network, Nick Jr. & VH-1) along with a few secondary (CMT, TV Land) were added to the base package.


I hadn't heard that. Wonder what else they would put with them in an entertainment add-on? I guess there are a few odd channels from Discovery that aren't currently in the base package that could go there. But at this point, YTTV pretty much has all the bases covered except for channels from Hallmark, A+E, and AMC, and I can't see any of them agreeing to come aboard YTTV unless they get their most popular channels in the base package.


----------



## B. Shoe

NashGuy said:


> I hadn't heard that. Wonder what else they would put with them in an entertainment add-on? I guess there are a few odd channels from Discovery that aren't currently in the base package that could go there. But at this point, YTTV pretty much has all the bases covered except for channels from Hallmark, A+E, and AMC, and I can't see any of them agreeing to come aboard YTTV unless they get their most popular channels in the base package.


A couple of recent articles have mentioned that appears to be the plan for those outlying Viacom stations. AMC is currently available on YTTV, but the other two mentioned still are not included. But back to the main point, I'm not entirely sure what you could pair up with that, that would actually be an enticing sell for an add-on? I get that my viewing habits aren't like others, but I can't imagine Hallmark/A&E being worth an added $10/mo. (guesstimating) for someone, as part of an add-on package?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I know this is from out of left-field, since I've been so very absent for a while... long story that is very uninteresting about that... but anyway... I just recently bit and signed up for a Youtube TV trial. Am currently awaiting a new modem to hopefully be at some decent streaming speeds to truly enjoy the service for what it is. I do feel like we are starting to land where I always thought we would, though... with streaming...

People who thought streaming was the future were correct. It just makes sense as higher Internet speeds become available to more people and it's a lot cheaper (I hope) to maintain that infrastructure than launching satellites into space... also, the number of channels becomes essentially unlimited over streaming whereas I think we were testing the limits of satellite capability to transmit all the channels that might want to exist... and yeah, quality issues exist in any transmission medium... but Internet seems the most capable of building out new infrastructure to get around that for more channels, higher bitrates, and 4K or 8K or whatever over time.

BUT... what people willfully missed... was the pipe dream that streaming would always be cheap compared to cable. Nope. Streaming will just be the new cable... We will either have multiple services like Youtube or Hulu or whatever that mimic cable services with packages and tiers and whatnot at similar price points when the dust settles OR We will end up with at least all the major players (Disney, CBS, NBC, HBO, etc. etc.) doing their own thing at a premium price point that also leaves you scrambling to find the other content they don't carry.

It's hard for me to see a future that in the end is any cheaper or easier on the consumer than what we had with satellite/cable. I still feel like we are more apt to settle into a situation of the same price for less channels overall... unless you're someone who just wants Disney or CBS or NBC or maybe a couple of those and no more.


----------



## NashGuy

B. Shoe said:


> A couple of recent articles have mentioned that appears to be the plan for those outlying Viacom stations. AMC is currently available on YTTV, but the other two mentioned still are not included. But back to the main point, I'm not entirely sure what you could pair up with that, that would actually be an enticing sell for an add-on? I get that my viewing habits aren't like others, but I can't imagine Hallmark/A&E being worth an added $10/mo. (guesstimating) for someone, as part of an add-on package?


Ah, yes, YTTV does have AMC, my mistake. But still no nets from Hallmark or A+E. If YTTV could include their channels (which include History and Lifetime plus three Hallmark-branded nets) along with those additional Viacom and Discovery nets for an extra $10/mo, yeah, it'd get a decent number of takers. A few of those channels rank among the 30 most-watched nationwide.

But, as I said, I don't see either Hallmark or A+E agreeing to such an arrangement. All network groups insist on getting at least some of their most popular ad-supported channels into the base package. So any Entertainment add-on tier that YTTV rolls out will probably only contain channels from network groups already represented in the base.


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> I hadn't heard that. Wonder what else they would put with them in an entertainment add-on? I guess there are a few odd channels from Discovery that aren't currently in the base package that could go there. But at this point, YTTV pretty much has all the bases covered except for channels from Hallmark, A+E, and AMC, and I can't see any of them agreeing to come aboard YTTV unless they get their most popular channels in the base package.


The name of the tier was never announced but it was reported that BET Her, MTV2, Nick Jr. NickToons, TeenNick & MTV Classic will be part of a "premium" tier at some point.


----------



## 1948GG

techguy88 said:


> The name of the tier was never announced but it was reported that BET Her, MTV2, Nick Jr. NickToons, TeenNick & MTV Classic will be part of a "premium" tier at some point.


The original press release said they would be adding the 15+ viacom/cbs channels and they would NOT be putting any of them in any pay tier, but would be in with everything else in yttv basic with the $15/month hike.

The new sports tier was always discussed as being an add-on; luckily the nfl channel was added to basic.

Meanwhile, local pbs channels have not been picked up by any other streaming service, and after almost a year with no takers beyond yttv they have decided to start free live streaming (on most if not all platforms) in around 85+ markets around the country. Of course, their pay service ($5/month) still gets anyone dvr access to their complete library of programs (pbs 'passport').


----------



## b4pjoe

The press releases I saw all said they were adding 8 Viacom channels.


> YouTube TV is adding eight channels effective today. And these include BET, CMT, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Network, TV Land and VH1.
> 
> The company notes that the other channels - including BET Her, MTV2, MTV Classic, Nick Jr., NickToons and TeenNick - are coming at a "later date".


YouTube TV Adds ViacomCBS Channels, Announces Price Increase

YouTube TV Adds 8 Viacom Channels & Obviously Raises The Price Too

The "later date" for the rest of them doesn't specify that they would be in the base package or as an addon.


----------



## 1948GG

Those arn't the google press releases, but 'comments' from talking heads guessing what's going on. Recent court rulings that have almost eliminated class action suits means that it's going to be difficult to force them to do much of anything but recent events (see below) have made yttv even less of an option.

With the pbs and recent plutotv additions, the thin edge of yttv has gotten down to their 8 month unlimited retention dvr system, which is a pretty hefty $30+ price compared to the competition, if only their was a decent unified guide system on roku (may give firetv a try out if roku continues to drag their feet past two years after announcing they would have that). Also, there is starting to be a glimmer of (working) dvr options for locast which will put a nail in locals.


----------



## b4pjoe

OK maybe this will make you feel better which is the official Youtube TV blog post about the price increase:

To our YouTube TV members: an update to our content and price

in which it clearly states 8 would be added at that time and the rest later:



> Earlier this year, we let you know that we'd soon be adding more of ViacomCBS's family of brands to YouTube TV, *which includes 8 of your favorite channels* launching today: BET, CMT, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Network, TV Land and VH1.
> 
> That means you can follow the biggest stories in news, politics and pop culture with "The Daily Show with Trevor Noah;" catch up with Catelynn, Cheyenne, Maci, Mackenzie and Amber on "Teen Mom OG;" join the search for America's next drag superstar with "RuPaul's Drag Race;" go on an adventure with "SpongeBob SquarePants;" and follow the fictional lives of the Dutton family on the new season of "Yellowstone," airing now.
> 
> *BET Her, MTV2, MTV Classic, Nick Jr., NickToons, and TeenNick are also set to come to YouTube TV at a later date.*


----------



## techguy88

1948GG said:


> The original press release said they would be adding the 15+ viacom/cbs channels and they would NOT be putting any of them in any pay tier, but would be in with everything else in yttv basic with the $15/month hike.
> 
> The new sports tier was always discussed as being an add-on; luckily the nfl channel was added to basic.
> 
> Meanwhile, local pbs channels have not been picked up by any other streaming service, and after almost a year with no takers beyond yttv they have decided to start free live streaming (on most if not all platforms) in around 85+ markets around the country. Of course, their pay service ($5/month) still gets anyone dvr access to their complete library of programs (pbs 'passport').


NFL Network being included on YTTV's base tier was not "luck" it is actually a requirement by the NFL. NFL requires NFL Network to be placed on a "widely distributed" tier with a certain level of penetration in their customer base. Once the NFL Network launched it was bundled into D*'s agreement to keep the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. In order for other traditional MVPDs and now virtual MVPDs to have a chance to bid on the rights to NFL Sunday Ticket they have to include as part of their bid to carry NFL Network on a widely distributed tier.

Including NFL Network on a widely distributed tier is also a requirement of carrying NFL RedZone. This is why Sling TV had NFL Network as part of their Sling Blue base package from June 2016 - June 2020 and not a sports tier.

If the NFL would have allowed YTTV to put NFL Network on a recently launched sports tier without meeting the required penetration level that would have triggered the "Most Favored Nation" clauses in current agreements with traditional cable MVPDs and even fuboTV. AT&T (via their now expired U-Verse TV agreement which was used to put NFL Network on DirecTV Now) and Dish Network would be able to take action against the NFL for this because they were never afforded that opportunity. (The D* agreement couldn't be activated in that manner since NFL Network is included with the $1.5 billion/year NFL Sunday Ticket agreement and no one else carries NFL Sunday Ticket.)

With PBS I don't see why the streamers beyond YTTV don't want the PBS channels. They would be a great value add and help get some older customers to their services that can't get them via OTA. Although for the younger generation who don't adhere to a linear schedule the PBS Passport option most likely fits their needs better.


----------



## NashGuy

techguy88 said:


> With PBS I don't see why the streamers beyond YTTV don't want the PBS channels. They would be a great value add and help get some older customers to their services that can't get them via OTA. Although for the younger generation who don't adhere to a linear schedule the PBS Passport option most likely fits their needs better.


I assume that PBS stations are charging vMVPDs such as YTTV to carry them in their line-up. As non-profit entities, they cannot do that with traditional cable MVPDs -- in that case, they can only invoke the "must carry" rule, forcing the MVPD to include them, but the PBS station gets paid nothing.

I know PBS stations must negotiate with vMVPDs for carriage. Given that so many PBS stations already have the technology and rights management systems in place to live-stream (via YTTV and/or the PBS app), and given the popularity of PBS, I can't imagine why Hulu Live, AT&T TV, Sling TV and Fubo aren't jumping at the chance to ingest those stations into their platforms. I figure it must be because they're dickering over money.

Local Live Streaming - Local Live Streaming - PBS Documentation Home


----------



## techguy88

NashGuy said:


> I assume that PBS stations are charging vMVPDs such as YTTV to carry them in their line-up. As non-profit entities, they cannot do that with traditional cable MVPDs -- in that case, they can only invoke the "must carry" rule, forcing the MVPD to include them, but the PBS station gets paid nothing.
> 
> I know PBS stations must negotiate with vMVPDs for carriage. Given that so many PBS stations already have the technology and rights management systems in place to live-stream (via YTTV and/or the PBS app), and given the popularity of PBS, I can't imagine why Hulu Live, AT&T TV, Sling TV and Fubo aren't jumping at the chance to ingest those stations into their platforms. I figure it must be because they're dickering over money.
> 
> Local Live Streaming - Local Live Streaming - PBS Documentation Home


Ah that is true I forgot with traditional MVPDs they have to carry at least the main PBS signals due to must carry. IMO I do believe they should charge and given the fact they are non-profits I don't think the cost would be much (compared to a for-profit commercial station.) In all honestly I would go with the vMVPD that has the PBS stations because I do watch them if I didn't have D* and wanted a vMVPD.


----------



## techguy88

I never tried YouTube TV before so I just started a 14-day free trial (and added all the add-ons with free trials lol.) Must say video quality is very good. In my area it has both PBS stations that D* carries. Must say the 2nd PBS station in my area is in higher quality on YTTV than D*! I also like the ability to turn on/off the "Stats for nerds" option 

Also now that AT&T has enabled the Osprey device to be used for apps without an active AT&T TV / AT&T TV Now subscription you can download YouTube TV to it. On my Apple TV I can't channel surf but on Osprey with the AT&T TV remote I can channel surf with the Channel Up/Down button. Gets a tad confusing with the AT&T TV remote because you press the "Back" button to bring up the guide (the actual "Guide" & "List" buttons on the remote is useless w/out an AT&T TV / TV Now subscription)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

About the only real gripe I have at the moment is... viewing on my computer... when I go from watching Live TV to wanting to scroll through the EPG, intermittently the mouse cursor changes focus from the EPG to the volume control... and instead of scrolling channels with my mouse I'm lowering the volume... have to just remind myself to click over on the scroll area to restore focus when I go into the EPG each time... also like the nerd-stats option because it helps me see what is going on under the covers.

Initially my drag was my slow Internet connection... took care of that yesterday, and now my computer is the drag... I basically can't watch 1080p reliably on my computer because it drops too many frames... even 720p last night was tricky during the football game at times. I have a healthy 200+ Mbps connection and my Youtube nerd stats showed anywhere from 30-50Mbps at times, so I had all the Internet I could want... but my older (2009 iMac) computer couldn't keep up. Hopefully whenever I'm able to get a new TV I'll really get to see this streaming service shine properly.


----------



## b4pjoe

A new 65" TV (not OLED) costs less than a new iMac.


----------



## NashGuy

Yup. Rtings.com says the Hisense H8G is the best budget 4K TV. Has full array local dimming LED backlight, quantum dot color, Dolby Vision HDR, and Android TV OS. Looks like you can get the 55" for $500 or the 65" for $700. Kinda amazing how much TV you can get now for the money.


----------



## TV_Guy

Free preview of NFL Red Zone on YTTV through Sunday.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Yup. Rtings.com says the *Hisense H8G* is the best budget 4K TV. Has full array local dimming LED backlight, quantum dot color, Dolby Vision HDR, and Android TV OS. Looks like you can get the 55" for $500 or the 65" for $700. Kinda amazing how much TV you can get now for the money.


The 75" is only $1299.99 on Amazon. Still cheaper than a new iMac.


----------



## Jhon69

NashGuy said:


> Yup. Rtings.com says the Hisense H8G is the best budget 4K TV. Has full array local dimming LED backlight, quantum dot color, Dolby Vision HDR, and Android TV OS. Looks like you can get the 55" for $500 or the 65" for $700. Kinda amazing how much TV you can get now for the money.


It should not surprise you it's made in China,make sure to get the extra warranty.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> I know this is from out of left-field, since I've been so very absent for a while... long story that is very uninteresting about that... but anyway... I just recently bit and signed up for a Youtube TV trial. Am currently awaiting a new modem to hopefully be at some decent streaming speeds to truly enjoy the service for what it is. I do feel like we are starting to land where I always thought we would, though... with streaming...
> 
> People who thought streaming was the future were correct. It just makes sense as higher Internet speeds become available to more people and it's a lot cheaper (I hope) to maintain that infrastructure than launching satellites into space... also, the number of channels becomes essentially unlimited over streaming whereas I think we were testing the limits of satellite capability to transmit all the channels that might want to exist... and yeah, quality issues exist in any transmission medium... but Internet seems the most capable of building out new infrastructure to get around that for more channels, higher bitrates, and 4K or 8K or whatever over time.
> 
> BUT... what people willfully missed... was the pipe dream that streaming would always be cheap compared to cable. Nope. Streaming will just be the new cable... We will either have multiple services like Youtube or Hulu or whatever that mimic cable services with packages and tiers and whatnot at similar price points when the dust settles OR We will end up with at least all the major players (Disney, CBS, NBC, HBO, etc. etc.) doing their own thing at a premium price point that also leaves you scrambling to find the other content they don't carry.
> 
> It's hard for me to see a future that in the end is any cheaper or easier on the consumer than what we had with satellite/cable. I still feel like we are more apt to settle into a situation of the same price for less channels overall... unless you're someone who just wants Disney or CBS or NBC or maybe a couple of those and no more.


Welcome Back Stewart, those who stream have their own reasons,my reasons were the "because we can fees" box rental,contracts,HD fee,outlets fee ect.
Because there are no"because we can fees" the services will always be cheaper,except for maybe AT&T streaming services.
There are also several free streaming services that is the unknown that streamers have available to them.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> About the only real gripe I have at the moment is... viewing on my computer... when I go from watching Live TV to wanting to scroll through the EPG, intermittently the mouse cursor changes focus from the EPG to the volume control... and instead of scrolling channels with my mouse I'm lowering the volume... have to just remind myself to click over on the scroll area to restore focus when I go into the EPG each time... also like the nerd-stats option because it helps me see what is going on under the covers.
> 
> Initially my drag was my slow Internet connection... took care of that yesterday, and now my computer is the drag... I basically can't watch 1080p reliably on my computer because it drops too many frames... even 720p last night was tricky during the football game at times. I have a healthy 200+ Mbps connection and my Youtube nerd stats showed anywhere from 30-50Mbps at times, so I had all the Internet I could want... but my older (2009 iMac) computer couldn't keep up. Hopefully whenever I'm able to get a new TV I'll really get to see this streaming service shine properly.


Do you need a new TV? The reason I ask there are several that say"keep your streaming device separate".
I have the Roku Streaming Stick+ it only does WiFi,if you have an ethernet connection close to your TV I would recommend the Roku Ultra.
These streamers do 4K or 1080p.You might want to research streaming devices as there are several.Good Luck!


----------



## wmb

Jhon69 said:


> Do you need a new TV? The reason I ask there are several that say"keep your streaming device separate".
> I have the Roku Streaming Stick+ it only does WiFi,if you have an ethernet connection close to your TV I would recommend the Roku Ultra.
> These streamers do 4K or 1080p.You might want to research streaming devices as there are several.Good Luck!


In the past, the argument in favor of keeping the streaming device separate was the fact that the apps were not maintained. Every manufacturer had their own platform, most weren't maintained, so the built-in platforms became abandon-ware.

New TVs, last two years or so, have very similar streaming capabilities as streaming devices. Many are converging on the Roku or Android TV OS, a couple use Amazon. Assuming the TV manufacturers are licensing the OS, I would assume it gets updated like a standalone device.

The exceptions are Samsung (Tizen) and LG (webOS), who control something like 25% of the smart TV market, each. Also, Apple TV.

If I were in the market for a new TV, I'd give serious consideration to using the built-in device capabilities.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21

My TV is a Sony 900E with AndoidTV on it. Yes, the apps seem to stay up to date, but I’m not fond of sluggish operation, and that describes how they work quite well IMO.

I use it as a 75” monitor, even my OTA is done via an external device. Next TV will be the same for me. Don’t care if it has ‘smarts’ or not.


----------



## NashGuy

Jhon69 said:


> It should not surprise you it's made in China,make sure to get the extra warranty.


Yes, made in China, same as TCL. I never buy extra warranties, just make sure to purchase with my Amex which doubles the manufacturer warranty.


----------



## mjwagner

wmb said:


> In the past, the argument in favor of keeping the streaming device separate was the fact that the apps were not maintained. Every manufacturer had their own platform, most weren't maintained, so the built-in platforms became abandon-ware.
> 
> New TVs, last two years or so, have very similar streaming capabilities as streaming devices. Many are converging on the Roku or Android TV OS, a couple use Amazon. Assuming the TV manufacturers are licensing the OS, I would assume it gets updated like a standalone device.
> 
> The exceptions are Samsung (Tizen) and LG (webOS), who control something like 25% of the smart TV market, each. Also, Apple TV.
> 
> If I were in the market for a new TV, I'd give serious consideration to using the built-in device capabilities.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The problem with most tv's streaming capabilities is under powered processors resulting in sluggish performance and insufficient storage. For a large majority of consumers it's probably fine but if you are after any kind of higher end capabilities, ATMOS sound as an example, you are still better off buying a TV for its video display capabilities and buying a separate streaming device. Even looking at streaming devices their is not a single streamer that will do it all depending on your requirements.


----------



## RichardL

Completely agree with problems with native streaming ability - I have the high end LG OLED W series - the picture is stunningly good. I also have the highest tier of ATT fibre to the building with 1Gbps rates (max). Yet streaming YTTV with the built in WebOS app was becoming increasingly frustrating - it seemed that PQ was actually reducing over time.
I just bought an AppleTV and the PQ for the same stream from YTTV is astonishingly better - absolute night and day. So basically I have disconnected my LG from the internet and now use it as a display device for the ATV only now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jhon69 said:


> Welcome Back Stewart, those who stream have their own reasons,my reasons were the "because we can fees" box rental,contracts,HD fee,outlets fee ect.
> Because there are no"because we can fees" the services will always be cheaper,except for maybe AT&T streaming services.
> There are also several free streaming services that is the unknown that streamers have available to them.


Thanks! Yeah, I've found a lot of good free services and services that have a lot of free content even if they also have a paid tier. Basically I had a few years where I kind of couldn't afford anything really, and dropped completely out of all the paid TV stuff... now I'm starting to dip my toes in again, and coming at it fresh I decided to give streaming a try since I have no built-in loyalty anymore at this point to tie me to any particular service.



Jhon69 said:


> Do you need a new TV? The reason I ask there are several that say"keep your streaming device separate".
> I have the Roku Streaming Stick+ it only does WiFi,if you have an ethernet connection close to your TV I would recommend the Roku Ultra.
> These streamers do 4K or 1080p.You might want to research streaming devices as there are several.Good Luck!


In my case, around the time I had to let go of subscribed services, my TV also started to go south. I have what used to be a nice Samsung DLP rear-projection TV but it's the model with the DLP chip that has the stuck mirrors over time... so everything I watch on it now is in a blizzard!  So I've started doing most of my TV watching on the computer.

The TV itself can be repaired, assuming the DLP chips are still available, but even so the cost of the repair is somewhere around $500... so I decided that I'm better off just picking a decent "entry" level 4KTV in that price range. That way, I don't spend outside my "repair" budget and I still get a TV that is way better than what I have now and no snow scenes except when there's supposed to be snow!

Oh, and I had a suspicion some of the streaming on the TV might be sluggish based on some other threads I've read... even if better than my TV... so I also intend to have an Apple 4K TV device connected to whatever TV I get, which is another reason to go "cheap" on the 4KTV so I can sneak the Apple TV hardware in under the wire.


----------



## mjwagner

Stewart Vernon said:


> Thanks! Yeah, I've found a lot of good free services and services that have a lot of free content even if they also have a paid tier. Basically I had a few years where I kind of couldn't afford anything really, and dropped completely out of all the paid TV stuff... now I'm starting to dip my toes in again, and coming at it fresh I decided to give streaming a try since I have no built-in loyalty anymore at this point to tie me to any particular service.
> 
> In my case, around the time I had to let go of subscribed services, my TV also started to go south. I have what used to be a nice Samsung DLP rear-projection TV but it's the model with the DLP chip that has the stuck mirrors over time... so everything I watch on it now is in a blizzard!  So I've started doing most of my TV watching on the computer.
> 
> The TV itself can be repaired, assuming the DLP chips are still available, but even so the cost of the repair is somewhere around $500... so I decided that I'm better off just picking a decent "entry" level 4KTV in that price range. That way, I don't spend outside my "repair" budget and I still get a TV that is way better than what I have now and no snow scenes except when there's supposed to be snow!
> 
> Oh, and I had a suspicion some of the streaming on the TV might be sluggish based on some other threads I've read... even if better than my TV... so I also intend to have an Apple 4K TV device connected to whatever TV I get, which is another reason to go "cheap" on the 4KTV so I can sneak the Apple TV hardware in under the wire.


If it were me would spend a little extra for a good display (TV) and grab a FireTV Stick 4k when they go on sale (I paid $25 each for the 4 that I have). That will work fine until you can afford the ATV 4k.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm still shopping around... seeing what goes on and off sale. I'm not rushing to buy a TV until I get a good handle on things. I'm basically trying to not pay a lot for the muffler, so to speak, and since I'm looking for what might some day become my good second TV whenever I can afford a better main TV, I'm willing to compromise in some areas to keep the cost down. I have some other non-fun-based priorities that I have to budget for as well... so I'm not pulling any triggers just yet, but am definitely stepping up the shopping and research.


----------



## B. Shoe

lparsons21 said:


> My TV is a Sony 900E with AndoidTV on it. Yes, the apps seem to stay up to date, but I'm not fond of sluggish operation, and that describes how they work quite well IMO.
> 
> I use it as a 75" monitor, even my OTA is done via an external device. Next TV will be the same for me. Don't care if it has 'smarts' or not.


I'm riding this train. I've tried to maintain/update Smart TVs (Samsung/Vizio class level) at my parents' home, along with a couple of friends. Continually encounter freezing of apps, slower load times, sluggish performance, etc., Even some stalling on the streams. Let the monitor handle the output, let a streaming device handle the content. I'm sure at some point in the future my stance will change on that, but for now that's how I prefer to handl eit.


----------



## b4pjoe

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm still shopping around... seeing what goes on and off sale. I'm not rushing to buy a TV until I get a good handle on things. I'm basically trying to not pay a lot for the muffler, so to speak, and since I'm looking for what might some day become my good second TV whenever I can afford a better main TV, I'm willing to compromise in some areas to keep the cost down. I have some other non-fun-based priorities that I have to budget for as well... so I'm not pulling any triggers just yet, but am definitely stepping up the shopping and research.


If you can wait a couple of months I'm sure you can save some $$$$ during Black Friday sales.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah, depending on how things time out I might very well still be looking/shopping by Thanksgiving... and if I get close, I'll probably wait to see. It's also possible I might find a good enough deal in the next month that I'd be happy with and jump on that. I have no real solid plans and am just looking everywhere to see what is available and general price ranges and what you get at what price points.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah, depending on how things time out I might very well still be looking/shopping by Thanksgiving... and if I get close, I'll probably wait to see. It's also possible I might find a good enough deal in the next month that I'd be happy with and jump on that. I have no real solid plans and am just looking everywhere to see what is available and general price ranges and what you get at what price points.


I just googled best time to buy a new tv? and the answer was Black Friday and Cyber Monday.I remember last year at that time.
The manufacturers bought out tv models that were missing certain items like no HDR,ect.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Yeah, the trick to Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals is... sometimes they do come out with special models of the bigger appliances, like TVs... and sometimes those models are more cheaply made than their regular counterparts... so you might save money but you might sacrifice a lot of quality... and maybe a $500 set now would last me longer than a $300 set in a couple of months... which is why I'm torn... I'm ultimately buying what a few years down the road will be my good 2nd TV... so I don't want to buy a lemon... but at the same time, it will not be my main TV for long enough that it's worth sinking top dollar into now. I've generally set my price point at $500. Reality is more like a range of $400-$600... and I could swing a little for the right combination of things... but ideally I'm going to hang my hat on something around $500 or as close to that as I can get just to not kill my budget for other things.

I've already recently had to spring for faster internet and trying out YoutubeTV so that bill will come soon... and had to buy a new WiFi router for my faster Internet... so I'm trying not to spend my paychecks faster than I get them!


----------



## Jhon69

B. Shoe said:


> I'm riding this train. I've tried to maintain/update Smart TVs (Samsung/Vizio class level) at my parents' home, along with a couple of friends. Continually encounter freezing of apps, slower load times, sluggish performance, etc., Even some stalling on the streams. Let the monitor handle the output, let a streaming device handle the content. I'm sure at some point in the future my stance will change on that, but for now that's how I prefer to handl eit.


That's what I am doing also I disconnected my Vizio from the internet and let my Roku Stick + do the content,but I still use my TV for OTA.


----------



## compnurd

Jhon69 said:


> That's what I am doing also I disconnected my Vizio from the internet and let my Roku Stick + do the content,but I still use my TV for OTA.


Why would you disconnect it from the internet though?


----------



## Jhon69

compnurd said:


> Why would you disconnect it from the internet though?


Because I am not using my TV apps at all,in fact my 2015 Vizio apps are not worth trying to use because of the issues with them,plus the apps they offer
on my TV don't hold a candle to the apps on my Roku Stick+.
Vizio won't be updating their 5 year old TV,in fact they did update it I used to have an on screen OTA guide,now I don't.I don't think my next TV will be a Vizio.
That's why the phrase "use your TV for the display and a streamer for the content".


----------



## 1948GG

So, youtubetv is removing some 22+ fox sports (actually Sinclair) regional networks; no actual cost is mentioned, but it's a fair given being that Sinclair wanted a hefty chunk to continue carridge, and that yttv was paying a good amount right now, although a fair piece of their subscribers don't have a 'fox sports' net in their area (I don't and neither do the 6-7+ states in my corner of the country). 

So, is there now going to be a rebate or lowering of the subscriber fee? Were those recieving fox sports rsn's paying a rsn fee like cable and satellite subscribers? No? Why not?


----------



## compnurd

1948GG said:


> So, youtubetv is removing some 22+ fox sports (actually Sinclair) regional networks; no actual cost is mentioned, but it's a fair given being that Sinclair wanted a hefty chunk to continue carridge, and that yttv was paying a good amount right now, although a fair piece of their subscribers don't have a 'fox sports' net in their area (I don't and neither do the 6-7+ states in my corner of the country).
> 
> So, is there now going to be a rebate or lowering of the subscriber fee? Were those recieving fox sports rsn's paying a rsn fee like cable and satellite subscribers? No? Why not?


LMAO of course the price isnt going to be lowered..


----------



## gio12

compnurd said:


> LMAO of course the price isnt going to be lowered..


sadly.


----------



## gio12

anyone try FuboTV?


----------



## dmspen

Don't forget the Hallmark Channel! I'm dropping DISH at the end of my billing cycle. I have YouTube TV, Disney+, Hulu, CBS AA, Apple TV, Brit TV, and Netflix.
These combinations reduced my TV bill almost $100 over DISH. 
Back to the Hallmark channels... DOes anyone know if HMNOW movie subscription contains all the content from the Hallmark Channel? I can't find an answer... please hurry, Christmas movies start Oct 23:grin:


----------



## espaeth

gio12 said:


> anyone try FuboTV?


Fubo doesn't carry the FOX RSNs either.

The biggest detractors when compared to YoutubeTV:


Many (most?) of the 1080i channels are transcoded down to 720p30. Channels like NBCSN they process into 720p60, but other networks like A&E, Olympic channel, HGTV are all 30fps. For live streaming, it's 720p or the handful of events they carry at 4k. No 1080p live streams.

There is no concept of team or league recording. If you want to record games, be prepared to go through and setup manual recordings for each one. Also, like every streaming service you can't set a recording extension, but unlike YTTV which auto-adjusts recordings, Fubo didn't seem to do that. So be prepared to record the show after every game just in case.


----------



## TV_Guy

espaeth said:


> Fubo doesn't carry the FOX RSNs either.
> 
> The biggest detractors when compared to YoutubeTV:
> 
> 
> Many (most?) of the 1080i channels are transcoded down to 720p30. Channels like NBCSN they process into 720p60, but other networks like A&E, Olympic channel, HGTV are all 30fps. For live streaming, it's 720p or the handful of events they carry at 4k. No 1080p live streams.
> 
> There is no concept of team or league recording. If you want to record games, be prepared to go through and setup manual recordings for each one. Also, like every streaming service you can't set a recording extension, but unlike YTTV which auto-adjusts recordings, Fubo didn't seem to do that. So be prepared to record the show after every game just in case.


Another huge downside was them dropping CNN, TBS and TNT when they added ESPN. Baseball fans will miss a big chunk of the American League playoff games.


----------



## techguy88

dmspen said:


> Don't forget the Hallmark Channel! I'm dropping DISH at the end of my billing cycle. I have YouTube TV, Disney+, Hulu, CBS AA, Apple TV, Brit TV, and Netflix.
> These combinations reduced my TV bill almost $100 over DISH.
> Back to the Hallmark channels... DOes anyone know if HMNOW movie subscription contains all the content from the Hallmark Channel? I can't find an answer... please hurry, Christmas movies start Oct 23:grin:


You get the Hallmark Original Movies with Hallmark Movies Now. Isn't most of their Christmas fare Hallmark originals?


----------



## techguy88

dmspen said:


> Don't forget the Hallmark Channel! I'm dropping DISH at the end of my billing cycle. I have YouTube TV, Disney+, Hulu, CBS AA, Apple TV, Brit TV, and Netflix.
> These combinations reduced my TV bill almost $100 over DISH.
> Back to the Hallmark channels... DOes anyone know if HMNOW movie subscription contains all the content from the Hallmark Channel? I can't find an answer... please hurry, Christmas movies start Oct 23:grin:


If you are just interested in the Hallmark Channels you can get Frndly for $7.99/mo which includes the three linear Hallmark channels + 12 others with an Unlimited Cloud DVR with an Expiry time of 45 days and 2 concurrent streams. (I've never tried this service.)


----------



## 1948GG

TV_Guy said:


> Another huge downside was them dropping CNN, TBS and TNT when they added ESPN. Baseball fans will miss a big chunk of the American League playoff games.


Yttv has espn and mlb network in its tv everywhere lineup, but not tbs; naturally my fav team is the Ray's and they are on tbs for the first round. And since they dont offer expanded streaming connections (limited to three) it's the one bad part of the playoffs, including no 'all games' channel that is relegated to espn+. Just will have to live with it.


----------



## crkeehn

dmspen said:


> Don't forget the Hallmark Channel! I'm dropping DISH at the end of my billing cycle. I have YouTube TV, Disney+, Hulu, CBS AA, Apple TV, Brit TV, and Netflix.
> These combinations reduced my TV bill almost $100 over DISH.
> Back to the Hallmark channels... DOes anyone know if HMNOW movie subscription contains all the content from the Hallmark Channel? I can't find an answer... please hurry, Christmas movies start Oct 23:grin:


No it does not. They have been showing a bit more contemporary now and there is some crossover with the Hallmark Channel App. Primarily the HMNOW carries a backlist of Hallmark Movies and they generally have a few Christmas Movies but nothing contemporary. Your best bet might be one of the packages that carry the Hallmark Suite.

Currently I have Youtube TV and am grandfathered with the cheap Philo.


----------



## Jhon69

The only differences is Hallmark Movies Now has no commercials,but the newer stuff is on the Hallmark channels(with commercials) I also have both Philo and Hallmark Movies Now.
Also History Vault and PBS Passport,also with no commercials.


----------



## dmspen

techguy88 said:


> If you are just interested in the Hallmark Channels you can get Frndly for $7.99/mo which includes the three linear Hallmark channels + 12 others with an Unlimited Cloud DVR with an Expiry time of 45 days and 2 concurrent streams. (I've never tried this service.)


 I looked at FRNDLY. The BIG problem is streaming at 720p. Not good enough. Nobody carries Hallmark at 1080+ except the major providers, i.e. DISH, DirecTV, Xfinity, etc.. Call me an HD snob. I don't understand why Hallmark is not streamed in better HD. It is the most watched channel around Christmas. Last year it passed Netflix. Maybe I'll do a FRNDLY trial and see what the 720P looks like on my TV LG 65 OLED).


----------



## dmspen

Jhon69 said:


> The only differences is Hallmark Movies Now has no commercials,but the newer stuff is on the Hallmark channels(with commercials) I also have both Philo and Hallmark Movies Now.
> Also History Vault and PBS Passport,also with no commercials.


I contacted Hallmark about the difference. HMNOW is generally older movies, series, etc. Newer movies will NOT be on there for a while including Christmas. However, there are some original movies that will be aired on HMNOW. Not really what I want.


----------



## espaeth

dmspen said:


> I looked at FRNDLY. The BIG problem is streaming at 720p. Not good enough. Nobody carries Hallmark at 1080+ except the major providers, i.e. DISH, DirecTV, Xfinity, etc.. Call me an HD snob. I don't understand why Hallmark is not streamed in better HD. It is the most watched channel around Christmas.


If 1080p is that important, ATT TV NOW has Hallmark channel and streams the 1080i source feed de-interlaced to 1080p. It's available in the $55 Plus package.

There's no contract, so there's no problem if you only want it for the Christmas movies. Up to you if 1080p is worth an extra $47 for a month or two.


----------



## techguy88

espaeth said:


> If 1080p is that important, ATT TV NOW has Hallmark channel and streams the 1080i source feed de-interlaced to 1080p. It's available in the $55 Plus package.
> 
> There's no contract, so there's no problem if you only want it for the Christmas movies. Up to you if 1080p is worth an extra $47 for a month or two.


AT&T TV Now (and AT&T TV) both offer a version of D*'s Movies Extra Pack that will give you Hallmark Movies & Mysteries and Hallmark Drama for $5/mo more. The only difference between the AT&T TV/TV Now Movies Extra Pack and the D* Movies Extra Pack is the AT&T TV/TV Now version does not have Sony Movie Channel.


----------



## dmspen

Thanks. I'll check out ATT TV Now. I generally don't like ATT but whatever...


----------



## dmspen

To get all the Hallmark channels with ATT TV Now, You have to got to the Ultimate Bundle to get 1 HM channel with the others as an add-on ($5/month). It does include HBOMax (only a year) which is a nice perk. Geez. $120 to get a 2nd TV box! Still, overall price drops $90/month over DISH, at least for a year. There's also the 2 year commitment and they don't tell you what it jumps to after the first year. 
Evidently the app is available on some devices. When ordering you have no option to NOT get a set top box. Not convinced...


----------



## espaeth

dmspen said:


> To get all the Hallmark channels with ATT TV Now, You have to got to the Ultimate Bundle to get 1 HM channel with the others as an add-on ($5/month). It does include HBOMax (only a year) which is a nice perk. Geez. $120 to get a 2nd TV box! Still, overall price drops $90/month over DISH.


You're looking at ATT TV, which requires a 24 month contract, price increases in the 2nd year, and has RSN fees tacked onto packages that include those channels.

AT&T TV NOW - Stream Live TV & On Demand, HBO Included is the no contract service without all the extra fees. (but it's missing a bunch of networks)


----------



## dmspen

WoW major D'OH! You are right.


----------



## techguy88

dmspen said:


> To get all the Hallmark channels with ATT TV Now, You have to got to the Ultimate Bundle to get 1 HM channel with the others as an add-on ($5/month). It does include HBOMax (only a year) which is a nice perk. Geez. $120 to get a 2nd TV box! Still, overall price drops $90/month over DISH, at least for a year. There's also the 2 year commitment and they don't tell you what it jumps to after the first year.
> Evidently the app is available on some devices. When ordering you have no option to NOT get a set top box. Not convinced...


For AT&T TV when you click the small "See other details" link it has the full price of the packages.

To get all three Hallmark channels with AT&T TV Now you can get any base package including Plus ($55/mo) then add on Movies Extra Pack ($5/mo). The main Hallmark Channel comes in the following:

*Featured Packages*: Plus ($55/mo), Max with HBO Max and Cinemax ($80/mo) [Max also includes access to RSNs, other sports channels, CMT, Paramount Network & TV Land]
*Other Packages:* Entertainment ($90/mo), Choice ($110/mo), Xtra ($124/mo), Ultimate ($135/mo), Premier ($183/mo)
Entertainment & Premier also includes Hallmark Movies & Mysteries without having to get the Movies Extra Pack add-on.




espaeth said:


> You're looking at ATT TV, which requires a 24 month contract, price increases in the 2nd year, and has RSN fees tacked onto packages that include those channels.
> 
> AT&T TV NOW - Stream Live TV & On Demand, HBO Included is the no contract service without all the extra fees. (but it's missing a bunch of networks)


AT&T TV Now offers the AT&T TV packages under the "Other Packages" tab. You pay full price and must BYOD however the benefit here is no 24-month contract and no RSN fee.

New customers who get Plus, Optimo Mas, Entertainment - Ultimate are eligible for a 30 day trial of HBO Max. All base packages (except Premier) are eligible for a 30 day trial of Showtime.

See this post for a full breakdown of all AT&T video services including regular price, 12 month pricing, equipment, etc.


----------



## b4pjoe

YouTube TV is adding offline downloads and 4K streaming

And unlimited concurrent streams at home.


----------



## compnurd

b4pjoe said:


> YouTube TV is adding offline downloads and 4K streaming
> 
> And unlimited concurrent streams at home.


Nice


----------



## TV_Guy

compnurd said:


> Nice


Be nicer if you could pick what you want and not pay for 2 additional services you don't need. Personally the only feature I'd want is the 4K. They seem to be going the Netflix pricing route by bundling 4K with additional streams.


----------



## NashGuy

TV_Guy said:


> Be nicer if you could pick what you want and not pay for 2 additional services you don't need. Personally the only feature I'd want is the 4K. They seem to be going the Netflix pricing route by bundling 4K with additional streams.


Yeah. But at least they're offering a way to get that select 4K content *somehow*. Hulu with Live TV offers an upgrade to get unlimited in-home simultaneous streams and that feature alone costs an extra $9.99/mo. And they're not as generous as YTTV to begin with, only offering 2 (anywhere) simultaneous streams in the base live TV plan while YTTV offers 3.

Given that Hulu Live and YTTV both have a base plan cost of $65/mo, my guess is that YTTV will also charge about an extra $10 for the unlimited screens (plus 4K and offline downloads) add-on. These services are keenly aware of what their competitors are charging as there's zero friction to quit one and switch to the other.


----------



## TV_Guy

For $10 they need sufficient 4K content to make it worthwhile. I can get the Fox Sports 4K content through the app. Remains to be seen what other 4K content they will be provide.


----------



## NashGuy

TV_Guy said:


> For $10 they need sufficient 4K content to make it worthwhile. I can get the Fox Sports 4K content through the app. Remains to be seen what other 4K content they will be provide.


My guess is that YTTV will offer about the same content in 4K that Fubo TV already offers (basically just select live sports from the Fox and NBC groups). YTTV's move will put pressure on Hulu Live to also include live 4K content. They may well put it in their existing Unlimited Screens add-on as YTTV will do. Shouldn't be a big deal for Hulu to implement given that they already offers a small amount of 4K in their on-demand library (mainly just some of the Hulu Originals, I think), so their apps already support 4K.

Assuming the Tokyo Olympics proceed this year, that should be a high-profile event that will offer a decent amount of 4K (and hopefully 4K HDR) to cable TV services that can support it. So I bet we see Hulu Live and AT&T TV get on board with 4K before then.


----------

