YouTube enters the streaming tv market

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
Only a mobile app? I hate it that Google thinks I want to control all my video from my phone and Cast it to the TV.

Also worth noting that if you sign up through iTunes it's $39.99/month because... you know... Apple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: [email protected]

noel aguirre

Supporting Actor
Premium
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
736
Location
New York City
Real Name
noel
Great! I was finally thinking of cutting the cord. In NYC TWC is now Spectrum and all of channel NY1 is gonna change so now is the time. I think this summer is the time- tired of overpaying here.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
23,494
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I pretty much could switch. It's got the channels I need: ABC, CBS, CW, FOX, NBC, USA, SYFY. If they add AMC and BBCA it gets hard to not switch.
 

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
I'm giving YouTube TV bonus points tonight...

If you pause a TV show, you get their normal graphic on the progress bar:

EBEE8734-DE44-4764-ACCC-EBEAFD6162DB.jpeg

But if you pause the World Series, it's a baseball ;)

955B8257-D735-4699-8080-2CA5270CAF85.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh Steinberg

ScottJH

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Messages
975
Real Name
Scott
Oh but they did add VIacomCBS channels which I have no interest in.:rolleyes:
 

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,508
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams
And removed on of my regional sports networks earlier in the year. I canceled yesterday, even though the change doesn't happen until August. We may give Hulu Live TV a try but haven't decided. Since we already pay for no ads Hulu, adding the TV plan is only a $49 increase, what YTTV cost until now. When Hulu raises the price (which they will eventually), I'll just go back to OTA and "other methods". I only really want live TV for sports and until these sports leagues wake up and decided to sell directly to fans (without black restrictions) there are plenty of "other ways" to watch my sports.
 

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
At one point I was paying $119 for my cable TV, so I'm still more than happy with $65.

And to be honest, I never went to streaming TV under any illusion it would always be cheaper than cable.
 
Last edited:

John Dirk

Cinematographer
Premium
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
3,572
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
And to be honest, I never went to streaming TV under any illusion it would always be cheaper than cable.
IMHO it absolutely needs to be. Streaming services all ride on an Internet connection which you pay for separately. Cable service, despite it's flaws, includes its own delivery medium.

Looks like our choice will ultimately be between the current tyrants and the would-be ones. I'll stick with my free OTA channels for now.
 
Last edited:

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
Streaming services all ride on an Internet connection which you pay for separately. Cable service, despite it's flaws, includes its own delivery medium.
Not necessarily. When I had cable I watched it through the app on my Apple TV's. I preferred having all of my programming on 1 interface and it saved me $$$ not having to rent boxes for each TV. I couldn't have been the only one taking that route...
 
Last edited:

Mark Klaus

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 30, 1999
Messages
87
I’m mostly a live sports and news watcher with plenty of entertainment available from Netflix, Hulu and others. The extra money won’t kill me but it irks me to pay for these new channels I’ll never watch.
 

John Dirk

Cinematographer
Premium
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
3,572
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
Not necessarily. When I had cable I watched it through the app on my Apple TV's. I preferred having all of my programming on 1 interface and it saved me $$$ not having to rent boxes for each TV. I couldn't have been the only one taking that route...
I see your point. Not to split hairs but you didn't need Internet service to get the cable signal into your home as the cable company took care of that. You chose to use your home network to distribute the signal. That's a smart but not required use case.
 

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
I see your point. Not to split hairs but you didn't need Internet service to get the cable signal into your home as the cable company took care of that. You chose to use your home network to distribute the signal. That's a smart but not required use case.
I'm not sure I'm following 100% what you're saying - I had one charge for internet service and one charge for the TV package...
 
Last edited:

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,508
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams
At one point I was paying $119 for my cable TV, so I'm still more than happy with $65.

And to be honest, I never went to streaming TV under any illusion it would always be cheaper than cable.
Well I did because it was cheaper than cable, now not so much. For that $119, I'm sure you got 100s of channels. I was completely fine with the $35 version of YTTV, it fit my needs perfectly which is mainly for sports. I think it was around 40 - 50 channels at that time. Then they started adding more channels, that I don't watch, and raising the price.

The problem is people who quit cable with 100s of channels, come to services like YTTV and demand the same 100s of channels. Plus, in my area $65 is actually more expensive than basic cable. When bundled with my internet service, Spectrum has cable options for $50. I just don't want to go back to having a box under my TV and the fees associated with those stupid boxes. I just wish I could go back to the $35 version of YTTV and opt out of all the things they've added since. That price and those channels were all I wanted.

I'm tired of this traditional cable model though. What I really want is direct to fans options for sports. I want MLB.TV to end blackout restrictions so I don't need a live TV service. I want ESPN to offer an option like HBO Max, so I don't need cable. I want the traditional cable industry to die. Looks like that will never happen until companies like YTTV start to stand up to the content providers. I all I want is sports, I don't care about anything else. My other entertainment comes from services like Netflix, Hulu, Disney+. Sports are the only reason I need (or want) live TV and there has got to be a better way to deliver sports to sports fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Mattraw

Cranston37

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
2,757
Location
Minnesota
Real Name
Patrick
Plus, in my area $65 is actually more expensive than basic cable. When bundled with my internet service, Spectrum has cable options for $50. I just don't want to go back to having a box under my TV and the fees associated with those stupid boxes.
In that case you can do what I used to do and subscribe to Spectrum and access it with the Spectrum TV app instead of using the boxes...

For some perspective too, guys, AT&T Now also increased their price - by $15. They have a top tier service that hits $135!
 
Last edited:

Chris Will

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
1,508
Location
Montgomery, AL
Real Name
Chris WIlliams
I've tried to look into their app plans but their website is so confusing. Currently there is an offer for something called TV Essentials for $14.99. Says 60 channels but no sports channels. Then there is something called TV Stream and is only 25 channels but cost $24.99 for 2 years (don't know what it cost after that) and I can't find a channel list. Why is something that offers fewer channels more expensive? There website is designed to confuse and trick you into spending more then you should.


Holy cow, they are so deceptive on their internet page. I feel bad for people who do not understand these things. Look at this and the descriptions underneath each speed: https://www.spectrum.com/internet-speeds

Under the 200Mbps speed:

Checking email and browsing the web
Uploading & downloading medium
files
Storing photos in the cloud
Streaming SD video
2-3 people

They don't even mention gaming or 4k streaming until the 940Mbps plan. Never mind that gaming requires so little bandwidth comparatively and 4K streaming can be done on a 30 Mbps connection. I use to game perfectly fine on less than 10 Mbps. My family of 5 shares a 100Mbps connection and we never run out of bandwidth, yet they say 200 is only good for 2-3 people. So many lies on that page. This is why people hate cable companies.
 
Last edited:

John Dirk

Cinematographer
Premium
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
3,572
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
I'm not sure I'm following 100% what you're saying - I had one charge for internet service and one charge for the TV package...

I was merely pointing out the fact that you can't access streaming content from any service without an Internet connection while cable TV doesn't require Internet.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,432
Messages
4,710,030
Members
141,269
Latest member
ekelks