[HN Gopher] YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute
Author : axiomdata316
Score : 163 points
Date : 2021-12-18 05:50 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
| adregan wrote:
| I'm so frustrated by the state of things as I only subscribed to
| YoutubeTV because I wanted to watch Mets baseball and media
| blackouts prevent me from streaming despite my MLB.tv
| subscription.
|
| The price has only risen over the years and it's been a pretty
| bitter pill to swallow.
|
| I already pay for Disney+ but am also paying for their content
| through YoutubeTV, which I rarely consume (never watch the disney
| channel; sometimes I have to watch baseball on ESPN because of
| media rights).
|
| ABC, which is really only used to record the Bachelor/ette
| programs in this house, is free with an antenna (but lacking the
| DVR). Not to mention you can watch it a day later using the Hulu
| subscription we also pay for.
|
| I love the DVR feature of YoutubeTV, but I really only record
| content that's free over the airwaves. Including This Old House,
| which is now owned by Roku and has it's own for pay streaming
| service.
|
| I'm paying eight ways to Sunday for this content, and
| increasingly of the opinion that it's not worth it.
|
| EDIT: Anyone know of a DVR + digital antenna solution I could
| implement?
|
| EDIT2: Just pulled the digital antenna out of the drawer and, as
| expected, the features of the surrounding landscape block all the
| channels.
| ghaff wrote:
| TiVo still exists I guess if you can receive over the air.
| wyldfire wrote:
| > EDIT: Anyone know of a DVR + digital antenna solution I could
| implement?
|
| Not sure about the current generation of devices but I had a
| HomeRun device [1] in the past and it was great.
|
| More recently I think I heard of a FireTV product that had an
| antenna and DVR support.
|
| [1] https://www.silicondust.com/
| tacon wrote:
| I have been using an HD Homerun Extend bought used off eBay
| since 2015, with an HD antenna on a mast above the roof. For
| a few years, I used Windows Media Center's free electronic
| program guide as a DVR. That data feed became unstable, so I
| switched to program data from Schedules Direct[0], which
| costs $25/yr.
|
| [0] https://www.schedulesdirect.org/
| briffle wrote:
| Plex works well with the silicon dust boxes and an antenna
| zippergz wrote:
| Yes, this is the thing that gets me. I'm paying a lot, for a
| bunch of separate services that have some but not complete
| overlap, because it's the only way to get all the stuff people
| in the family want. If it all worked well and wasn't a huge
| pain in the butt, I wouldn't even mind paying the amount we're
| paying. But it DOESN'T work well. Every app is different,
| things are constantly changing, now I have to explain to the
| rest of the family (who were skeptical about getting rid of
| cable in the first place) why they can't get ABC and ESPN on
| YouTube TV where they're used to getting it.
|
| This is probably making all the rights-holders happy because
| they're making more money, but it's a short-term solution. In
| the long run, they're going to be driving viewers away and
| won't be able to win them back. Yes, TV-watching is a pretty
| ingrained habit for a lot of people, but it's not set in stone.
| Other forms of entertainment can and will replace it if it
| becomes too much of a pain, too expensive, or too confusing.
| ghaff wrote:
| Habit is a good way of putting it. As you say, it's pretty
| ingrained for a lot of people to switch on Sunday football,
| the Food Network, CNN, etc. and watch fairly passively/sort
| of in the background. But there's some point where it all
| becomes too much of a pain or costs too much. Change does
| happen over time. I know in my case, it was the realization I
| was paying $100/month to record shows to my DVR I never got
| around to watching and maybe have one or two sports games a
| month on in the background.
| gausswho wrote:
| If you're inclined to try (with shields up!), the user
| experience and video quality of pirate sports streams have
| improved dramatically in the last few years.
|
| It's an interesting ethical quandary. I wouldn't mind chipping
| in financially but not with the current business model.
| Bundling TV channels I don't care about? No thanks. Local
| blackouts? Please. Paying the services that engage in these
| anti-consumer practices is only exacerbating the problem. I see
| pirate streams as doing my part to force the parties involved
| to find another way.
|
| As another comment alluded, this is an industry on the
| precipice of a moment. Along the lines of the arrival of
| Spotify, or the iPod. We're not far away now.
| heartbreak wrote:
| I'm really surprised by the number of top level comments that are
| confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV.
|
| YouTube TV is basically cable TV delivered via the internet with
| some on-demand content and an "unlimited" DVR system. There are
| multiple tiers via add-on packages (just like cable), and there
| is no ad-free offering.
|
| YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-free
| version of which is called YouTube Premium.
|
| These two services have very little in common besides the obvious
| branding and parent company. The contract/fee dispute is between
| Disney and YouTube TV, and the result is that YouTube TV is
| currently not broadcasting Disney-owned television channels.
| Disney content is still all over YouTube itself via their YouTube
| "Channels."
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| > _YouTube TV is basically cable TV delivered via the internet_
|
| And the sooner that dies, the better. Cable TV is crap and I
| don't want to see that model of media succeed into the internet
| era.
| adamcstephens wrote:
| Is it really much better to have five $15 services to get the
| same content?
| syki wrote:
| At this time it is much better. I can sign up for a service
| for a month and binge some shows. Then cancel the service
| and repeat for another offering. By rotating the services I
| subscribe to each month I'm effectively watching the
| content on all the services for a low monthly rate.
| Eventually these companies will charge an annual rate but
| right now it's much better financially and otherwise than
| cable tv.
| User23 wrote:
| Cable TV was a screaming deal, so long as you could
| always stay on the promotional rate. I haven't had it in
| a while, but I used to call and "cancel" my service every
| 3 months to get 3 months of free premium channels and a
| reduced basic rate. It was pretty funny when I moved and
| had to actually cancel my service because obviously it
| was on my file and the support person was like sure no
| problem here you go and I had to clarify no I actually
| needed to cancel because I was leaving their service
| area.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Assuming a high quality internet connection is available,
| the qualifications for "screaming deal" would have to be:
|
| 1) on demand whatever you want to watch whenever you want
| to watch on whichever device you want to watch
|
| 2) no advertisement breaks
|
| 3) no mandatory long term contract (maximum length 1
| month)
| tux3 wrote:
| If GP answers no, does that mean these are the only two
| options?
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, in fairness, it really isn't the same content. Much
| of it is premium that wouldn't be on broadcast and it's all
| generally on demand. I dropped cable TV a couple years ago
| and while there's occasional live TV I'd maybe like to
| watch, overall I'm happier with a handful of on demand
| channels that I pay less for than I was paying for cable.
| Retric wrote:
| There's only so much time in the day so people actually
| wanted a tiny fraction of that content. Basic cable was
| setup to be mandatory even if you wanted nothing in it and
| the money was to be made via advertising. Thus MTV added
| Real World and the history channel had Ice Road Truckers.
| Both popular shows, but seemingly out of scope except the
| audience was anyone flipping channels. This ends up being a
| quest for the cheapest content that still attracts an
| audience.
|
| HBO on the other hand was constantly fighting for
| subscribers not just viewership. For them every viewer was
| worth more money so they had a high bar without much
| filler.
| saxonww wrote:
| I'd certainly like it if I could pay YouTube TV $15 to get
| just the sports channels. I only subscribe a few months a
| year, for college football season. I don't like to watch
| anything else. So I'm spending $65/mo to watch 3-4 games,
| which is a little embarrassing to post.
|
| I do think I'd rather pay YouTube than ESPN directly,
| because the latter's video services have never worked well
| for me. Part of me wishes the various services would just
| tell Disney to get lost, and let them see how much they
| like providing that service on their own. Though, the
| conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports
| programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV'
| can't exist without live sports.
| ghaff wrote:
| >Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live
| sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that
| 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports.
|
| It feels that way. On the one hand, it seems like you
| have to be something of a super-fan to subscribe to one
| or more of the sport/league-specific sites/apps. On the
| other hand, local sports availability or even just sports
| as TV on in background seems like a pretty significant
| sweetener for a lot of people who might not pay for TV
| just for the occasional late night talk show, local news
| broadcast, or reality show.
|
| Sports isn't enough for me to pay for cable any longer.
| But, if I did, watching a game now and then would
| probably be what would push me over the line to pay up.
| ssharp wrote:
| Sports is now getting into the territory music did in the
| early 2000's and movies did before streaming hit big --
| where it's become significantly easier and convenient to
| just pirate than to do it legally.
|
| It's much easier to just find pirated live game streams
| than it is to figure out the cobweb of television rights,
| which service actually shows local sports, if you're "in"
| or "out" of market, etc.
|
| I'm sure the economics are still strongly in favor of the
| TV licensing deals but this has to turn at some point,
| I'd think, where leagues can go direct-to-consumer across
| all markets or they just sign deals with streaming
| companies directly, which Amazon is already doing with
| the NFL.
| tomrod wrote:
| Unfortunately the industry "bundles" (which is really de
| facto tying, illegal) channels with no value to most with
| those have are high value. The market for joint
| subscriptions to History, Bravo, TLC, and ESPN is
| probably fairly slim.
| ghaff wrote:
| IANAL but as I understand it, tying is generally only
| illegal (violation of antitrust) under specific
| circumstances that relate to having monopoly power in a
| market.
| tomrod wrote:
| I think that's a fair interpretation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
|
| > Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of
| selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to
| the purchase of a different product or service. In legal
| terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying
| good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer)
| conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good
| (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products
| are not naturally related. It is related to but distinct
| from freebie marketing, a common (and legal) method of
| giving away (or selling at a substantial discount) one
| item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another
| related item.
|
| > Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have
| historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices.
| The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being
| forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order
| to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good),
| and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately.
| The company doing this bundling may have a significantly
| large market share so that it may impose the tie on
| consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The
| tie may also harm other companies in the market for the
| tied good, or who sell only single components.
|
| > One effect of tying can be that low quality products
| achieve a higher market share than would otherwise be the
| case.
|
| > Tying may also be a form of price discrimination:
| people who use more razor blades, for example, pay more
| than those who just need a one-time shave. Though this
| may improve overall welfare, by giving more consumers
| access to the market, such price discrimination can also
| transfer consumer surpluses to the producer. Tying may
| also be used with or in place of patents or copyrights to
| help protect entry into a market, discouraging
| innovation.
|
| > Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product
| that is critical to many customers. By threatening to
| withhold that key product unless others are also
| purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less
| necessary products.
|
| > In the United States, most states have laws against
| tying, which are enforced by state governments. In
| addition, the U.S. Department of Justice enforces federal
| laws against tying through its Antitrust Division.
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| You still don't get it. I want the "channel" format of
| media (programmed video content aka broadcast programming)
| to die. Whether it's accessed by paying comcast to watch it
| over a settop box or paying google to watch it through a
| browser or app makes no difference to me, it's the same
| format of content and I want to see it die.
|
| And it _has_ been dying. Look at the ads the roll between
| the shows and it 's clear that TV watchers are aging out.
| It's all hearing aid commercials and malpractice lawsuits'
| the only people watching TV through a settop box anymore
| are the elderly. Bringing that same format of content to
| youtube's platform, to be watchable on the devices young
| people use (smartphones, laptops, etc) is a play to make
| this format relevant to young people again. I hope they
| fail.
| hakfoo wrote:
| I will agree that the current state of broadcast TV is a
| rubbish dump, but there's value in a "channel" concept.
|
| If I'm inherently after a passive entertainment
| experience, there are situations where I want the
| decisions made for me. If I put on the TV while I
| exercise, or for background while cooking or cleaning, I
| don't need it stopping every 30 minutes asking me to
| choose something else to watch, and yet I also don't want
| it showing 23 seasons of the Great British Bake Off in a
| row either. I'll put on a broadcast channel instead.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| I think they're still trying to figure out a replacement
| that gives the channel/network/platform leverage over
| content producers, much like control over "prime time"
| and fall marketing blitzes did.
| supertrope wrote:
| It's like unbundling $20 CD into $1 singles. Be prepared
| for when you get what you wish for. Linear channels and
| bundling is all to maintain top level revenue.
| Demonetization will be the death of big budget
| productions like HBO. We will have more algorithm
| greenlit average quality content like what pads out
| Netflix's catalog.
| ghaff wrote:
| What crippled newspapers as a whole was essentially
| unbundling. The local car dealerships didn't actually
| want to pay for foreign news bureaus in Baghdad but if
| they wanted to run an ad that local people saw on Sunday,
| that's what they had to do. The crippling of the
| classified ad market by Craigslist was probably an even
| bigger blow.
|
| Now, it's hard to argue that people shouldn't be able to
| pay for just what they want. But now you're effectively
| arguing for relatively expensive a la carte
| rentals/purchases which I'm guessing people wouldn't want
| either if you want to keep revenues neutral. People may
| want to pay only for the media they watch. But they may
| not want to pay $5 for a TV show even though I was
| probably paying way more than that per show when I had
| cable TV.
| [deleted]
| supertrope wrote:
| Yes. We finally have a la carte. At a grocery store we pick
| out exactly what we want. If you were given a take it or
| leave bundle of $85 you'd laugh and walk out.
| ghaff wrote:
| It doesn't really make sense in a grocery store context.
| But that's exactly what something like a farm-share is.
| zzzeek wrote:
| the youtube TV model (which is also the Sony Vue (they're
| gone! heh) / Sling model) is nothing like the cable TV model,
| because these companies do not provide any last mile physical
| infrastructure. therefore you can switch between any number
| of providers with no effort. Assuming the other providers can
| get their fucking act together techinically/user-experience-
| wise (YTV is like vastly better UX-wise, looks like PS VUE
| has already been shut down, sad), there's no way a single
| provider can gouge captive customers for $180 a month,
| because you can switch freely. meaning it becomes a market
| again! even liberal democrats like me like markets when they
| are appropriate.
|
| my physical cable to my house is provided by Altice One, I
| have no option to switch that at all (no there's no FIOS or
| fiber option here). that's a monopoly.
| hashimotonomora wrote:
| Wouldn't a liberal naturally be in favor of individual
| liberties and freedoms, and by extension of the free
| markets?
| ipaddr wrote:
| Liberal means progressive which means giving up
| individual rights while controlling the market to protect
| individuals from bad choices.
| ende wrote:
| Liberal does not mean progressive.
| mastax wrote:
| It does in the US, unfortunately.
| ByteJockey wrote:
| Outside the US, yes.
|
| Inside the US, the term swapped to refer to social-
| liberalism rather than classical-liberalism during the
| great depression.
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| > _the youtube TV model (which is also the Sony Vue (they
| 're gone! heh) / Sling model) is nothing like the cable TV
| model, because these companies do not provide any last mile
| physical infrastructure._
|
| Last mile infrastructure is not what I find objectionable
| about cable TV, and last mile infrastructure isn't going
| anywhere anyway. I want _this_ to die:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_programming and I
| don't care what medium is used to transmit it. Whether it's
| a coaxial cable, radio transmission from terrestrial tower
| or satellite, or the internet, it makes no difference to
| me. The _format itself_ is what I find awful.
|
| > _Sony Vue (they 're gone! heh)_
|
| Yeah, because broadcast programming is a dying format for
| boomers. I celebrate the demise of _all of it, and any
| company that produces it._
| ghaff wrote:
| If you don't want to watch broadcast TV (I don't), don't
| watch it? I guess I don't get the hate. There are a ton
| of things I don't watch or listen to. And broadcast TV
| probably does now and then produce something I do want to
| watch on-demand.
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| I don't watch it.
|
| > _I don 't get the hate._
|
| I live in a society with people who do watch it. I don't
| like the way broadcast TV turned people into numbed couch
| potatoes watching hours of ads a day.
| ipaddr wrote:
| As opposed to netflix users who are more likely not to
| binge because not having ads and having the next show
| play makes it less easy to binge?
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| One does not redeem the other.
| hiptobecubic wrote:
| The ads are not any more of a problem than the content
| and the shitty content is available in many formats.
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| The content itself is often ads. All of those pawn shop
| shows might as well be infomercials.
| jasode wrote:
| _> "I'm really surprised by the number of top level comments
| that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube
| TV."_
|
| Thanks for the clarification. It probably adds to the confusion
| that the landing page for _" YouTube TV"_ goes to the _"
| youtube.com"_ domain:
|
| https://tv.youtube.com/
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| People don't confuse Gmail with Google Maps or Google Search
| just because they are on the same root domain
| ninkendo wrote:
| They don't call gmail "YouTube mail" or google maps
| "YouTube maps" either.
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| Maybe not, but "It's very similar to this other thing, but
| under a different name" isn't exactly an uncommon theme for
| Google. That's how we ended up with Inbox vs Gmail, Google
| Play Music vs Youtube Premium, Google Chat vs Allo,
| Hangouts vs Google Voice, and the others I'm sure I'm
| forgetting.
| bobdosherman wrote:
| There also seems to be confusion that ESPN+ is equivalent to
| ESPN, but ESPN+ does not carry the linear programming of ESPN.
| Using part of the $15 YouTube TV discount to purchase ESPN+
| will not make you whole on the lose of ESPN - still no live
| ESPN content.
| judge2020 wrote:
| ESPN+ does provide some live TV, but not all of it. For
| example, it contains the upcoming monday's NFL game, but none
| of the NCAA games today.
|
| https://www.espn.com/espnplus/schedule/_/type/upcoming/categ.
| ..
| dev_by_day wrote:
| Live UFC events are also shown on ESPN+. Big main events
| are primarily only offered through ESPN+ as well.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Which is why I forego watching sports altogether. If there
| was a simple link on US Tennis or Wimbledon's website to
| pay $20 or even $50 or $100 to watch the tournament, I
| would pay it.
|
| But I am not going to jump through hoops and pay for stuff
| I do not want, and most importantly, I am not going to
| spend time researching what is and is not available on +
| versions versus not +.
|
| Same with NHL. I would pay to watch ice hockey, I will not
| pay to risk being unable to watch because I live too close
| to the stadium and hence should be blacked out.
|
| I also will not pay to have advertisement breaks shown to
| me.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| YouTube TV is a separate $65/month subscription. Seems like an
| absurdly high price relative to Hulu or Netflix, but it's meant
| to compete more with local cable packages.
|
| Without the premium content, it's hard to do that. I think the
| content providers know this and are trying to squeeze YouTube
| into giving more of their profits to the content providers.
| Either that, or to raise prices to be similar to cable.
|
| YouTube TV is claiming Disney content added $15/month to the
| bill, so they're dropping the price by $15/month as long as
| Disney is out:
|
| > "We will be decreasing our monthly price by $15, from $64.99
| to $49.99 while this content remains off of our platform,"
| YouTube TV said in its Friday night statement.
| dreyfan wrote:
| Hulu + LiveTV is $65 and Sling is about $50 and Youtube TV
| $65.
|
| These aren't really comparable to standard Hulu or Netflix or
| Amazon Prime etc. It's for people that want to pretend
| they're cord-cutting while buying the exact same thing from a
| streaming company.
| saltminer wrote:
| > It's for people that want to pretend they're cord-cutting
| while buying the exact same thing from a streaming company.
|
| It legitimately is way better than cable, though. Ignoring
| the disputes over fees, I once tried Spectrum's TV Android
| app (probably 3-4 years ago, I gave up on getting it to
| work), and this is what I experienced:
|
| * Refuses to work if a VPN is on
|
| * Must disable developer tools (doesn't matter if you
| changed any settings in there or not)
|
| * Root check
|
| * Must be from a Spectrum home IP (and remember, you can't
| VPN to your home network to use this app)
|
| * Must allow access to all contacts, all texts, etc or the
| app would close itself (there is no legitimate
| justification for this, unlike potential contract
| stipulations requiring no root, etc - it's purely for
| selling all your data)
|
| * Didn't even work after I installed it on a totally stock
| Android device on my home network
|
| * No web interface; if you can't run the app, too bad
|
| Compared to that, YT TV's app is a breath of fresh air. But
| ignoring the streaming convenience, you also have:
|
| * No ads in the TV guide (which is also more responsive
| than any DVR I've ever experienced)
|
| * Unlimited DVR is nice (and it's not utter dogshit
| hardware that would've been considered unimpressive in the
| 90s)
|
| * You don't need a cable box - just a Chromecast (which is
| absolute tiny by comparison) or a TV with Chromecast built-
| in
|
| * The pricing is much easier to understand
|
| Of course, I don't actually pay for it. My mother does, and
| she put my Google account as an allowed user. I just use it
| to watch hockey.
|
| It's true that you're paying for the same product, but it's
| delivered in a package that doesn't scream "fuck you, pay
| me."
| chenxiaolong wrote:
| Back when I still had Spectrum, I was happy to find out
| the way those checks are implemented in the Android app
| was (thankfully) as poorly done as the user experience.
| With adb or any app that can launch hidden activities, it
| is/was possible to enter the debug menu and disable every
| one of the client-side checks. No reverse engineering
| required :)
|
| I stuck with that for years until fiber was available in
| my area since a threaten-to-cancel call got my TV price
| down to $0/month (on top of internet).
| xxpor wrote:
| On the other hand, 65 bucks a month is more expensive
| than my local Comcast package with the premium sports
| channels (which yttv doesn't even have the option for),
| plus Comcast has 4k live channels and surround sound. I
| think their feeds are also less compressed.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| And the YouTube tv interface is legit the worst possible
| interface to watch TV on TV. I've tried it in at least 3
| different platforms and it's a hot mess. The DVR offering
| is unbeatable. But again, they remove the ability to skip
| ads after a few days and replace regular TV ads with
| targeted ads.
|
| Pretty much the worst of all worlds.
| yissp wrote:
| If their TV app is anything like their "My Spectrum" app
| for managing your internet service, my god, I don't have
| high expectations for these types of apps but having the
| gall to ship something _that_ low-quality is legitimately
| impressive.
| sixothree wrote:
| The interface is awful. Just awful. And slow on any
| hardware I have available.
|
| They are lowering the price when one channel leaves but
| you can't pick which channels you want.
|
| Lastly YouTubeTV doesn't solve any problems. For instance
| local channel access is limited to one location.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| You're just saying words now. The app runs smoothly for
| me even on a Kindle tablet (which can barely run a
| browser without lag). Any semi-modern device is more than
| capable of running either YouTube app
| sixothree wrote:
| My TCL Roku TV isn't more than 2 years old.
| thetinguy wrote:
| Budget tv brand skimps on smart tv chips? I'm shocked.
| ghaff wrote:
| And because you're buying essentially the same content
| package, there's no reason one would expect it to be
| significantly cheaper just because it's streamed.
|
| As a content package, it's evolved to be something largely
| different from what you get from the streaming services
| like Netflix. It's largely sports, news/talk shows, and
| reality TV and other relatively low-cost lightly
| scripted/unscripted content, some documentaries... You
| still have some traditional network content but it's been a
| while since I've even heard of a network drama or comedy of
| note.
| mcot2 wrote:
| Netflix with all their cash still has basically nothing
| for live news/talk shows and sports. It's bizarre.
| thetinguy wrote:
| Why would they? There are tons of free options for live
| news. Also they do have talk shows like the one letterman
| did.
| ghaff wrote:
| Sports that a mass audience wants to watch is expensive
| (hence the OP). And establishing a news/talk show brand
| that _people would subscribe to Netflix to get_ wouldn 't
| be easy (and is probably a very different thing than
| acting as the studio for scripted shows). [ADDED: And
| honestly some politically polarized crap would be far
| more likely to fit that bill than historical network news
| organizations, however relatively superficial they were
| in some ways.]
|
| Remember Netflix' incentives are very different from a
| network. Netflix wants to acquire and retain subscribers
| which tends to favor stickier content rather than filling
| up a schedule with programming that people will tune into
| out of habit.
|
| Put another way, the network business model is
| essentially a legacy model. I'm not sure why Netflix
| would want to recreate an uber-Network.
| kfootball15 wrote:
| Theres one key difference - you can share your YoutubeTv
| account with 3 couples.
|
| YoutubeTV lets you create 6 accounts and use 3
| simultaneously. I live in NY and share my account with 2
| friends in CT for <25$ a person. Absolute steal and a
| really great product.
| mcot2 wrote:
| Not really. I buy youtube tv because I still want certain
| channels but I like the strraming aspects like not using a
| standard aweful cable box, watching from anywhere and from
| any device and the unlimited cloud dvr (which makes
| commercials a moot point except for the rare live show I
| watch). Losing ESPN is a big deal for me as I am a sports
| junky.
| daigoba66 wrote:
| > so they're dropping the price by $15/month as long as
| Disney is out
|
| FWIW, I can't see any traditional cable TV provider doing
| this. They might even charge an extra fee as a cherry on top.
| heartbreak wrote:
| Not only did they drop the price, but in the email they
| referred subscribers to the Disney+ package that includes
| Hulu and ESPN.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| That's actually the reason for the price drop: They are
| giving you money to get Disney+ so you don't just cancel
| your YouTube TV subscription and go elsewhere.
|
| It's a retention move that they accept a short lack of
| their cut of the Disney portion in exchange for not
| losing customers entirely.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| It's not comparable. Disney+ doesn't include any live
| content
| cschmidt wrote:
| Exactly. These are the live stations being dropped:
| ABC ABC News Live Disney Channel
| Disney Junior Disney XD ESPN
| ESPN2 ESPNU ESPNEWS Freeform
| FX FXX FXM National Geographic
| National Geographic Wild SEC Network
|
| Of those, the Disney bundle would only cover the sports
| channels on ESPN+ (I'm assuming it has all the cames
| broadcast on the channels.)
|
| Edit: according to other comments ESPN+ doesn't even
| cover all the sports on the ESPN2 and ESPN3 channels.
| mdoms wrote:
| > I'm really surprised by the number of top level comments that
| are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV.
|
| Are you that surprised? The branding is a complete mess. And
| Youtube TV is not available in most markets so many people have
| never heard of it.
| zinekeller wrote:
| I agree that the branding was confusing, but it seems that most
| HN commenters aren't reading anything beyond the headline.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-
| free version of which is called YouTube Premium.
|
| Technically YouTube Premium is a package designed to bolster
| their failing YouTube Music product that few want.
|
| I'd gladly pay $7.50 a month for AD Free YouTube, but $15 is
| too much.
| josteink wrote:
| > I'd gladly pay $7.50 a month for AD Free YouTube
|
| In some regions you can actually get this. It's called
| "Premium Lite".
|
| https://www.youtube.com/premiumlite
|
| I'm paying 69 NOK which given currency conversion is roughly
| $7.60, so it's more or less literally what you ask for.
|
| For those outside the offered regions (thus getting
| geoblocked) this is literally what the page says for me (copy
| & paste):
|
| ---------------------------
|
| FAQ
|
| What is included with Premium Lite?
|
| YouTube
|
| * Ad-free videos: Watch millions of videos uninterrupted by
| ads. Learn more
|
| YouTube Kids
|
| * Ad-free in the YouTube Kids app
|
| Premium Lite doesn't include ad-free access to the YouTube
| Music app.
| saltminer wrote:
| I used to be grandfathered in for the Play Music all access +
| YT premium + YT red for $15/month plan.
|
| That was a pretty good deal for me. But without Play Music
| (YT Music was awful at the time), I couldn't justify the
| cost.
| hermes8329 wrote:
| Those channels should be in a separate tier to clearly represent
| the cost. Instead they rely on required package deals that
| subsidize their insane costs. More plans need a disney- tier
| rvz wrote:
| Disney: No thanks, no deal and no ESPN for You(Tube).
|
| You simply need more of this for YouTube to listen these days
| instead of them banning its own users and creators.
|
| Just look at this typical ESPN fan:
|
| > "I will cancel immediately if you can't work a deal,"
|
| The same will happen for Disney fans watching on YouTube and it
| is working. They'll just run to the Disney+ app instead.
| dageshi wrote:
| I doubt Youtube/Google cares that much. It's not really
| youtubes core business, more of a side gig for a set of
| products (cable channels) which frankly are in the process of
| dying.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Disagree. I think YouTubeTV is a trial balloon for YouTube,
| an attempt to join the Netflix/Prime/streaming world.
|
| They piggybacked off of cable the way Netflix piggybacked off
| of rentals.
|
| Sports streaming is a massive point of disruption that's
| happening at a very small scale but I suspect we'll see more
| of it as these types of deals fizzle out.
| dageshi wrote:
| I doubt it. If that's where they wanted to go, they've
| missed the window for it already. There's already too many
| streaming services like Netflix and consumers are already
| annoyed navigating them all. Plus they don't have the
| content and probably can't get the content because they'd
| be competing against Netflix, Disney, Apple, HBO and the
| other legacy media conglomerates all trying to do the same
| thing.
| thehappypm wrote:
| There's little loyalty in the streaming world to
| platforms. Like Peacock appeared one day, has The Office,
| so tons of people said "sure". I don't think the timing
| is as important as the content. If you have stuff people
| want to watch they'll come.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Disney+ is another example of this.
|
| Derided prior to launch in late 2019 as having missed the
| boat, it's a massive force now.
|
| Same with HBO Max, which added even more user hostile
| behavior, but ... they have their content so it's
| working.
| ghaff wrote:
| What's user hostile about HBO Max? The app seems to work
| fine, it's untethered from a cable provider, and it's
| simple to stream it to an Apple TV (or an Apple TV app).
| brewdad wrote:
| Their Android TV app on my Shield TV is a tire fire. It's
| really the only reason I haven't committed to a full year
| discount. I'm not sure how much longer I want to deal
| with it.
| usaphp wrote:
| I love watching soccer, I tried different services (fubo,
| paramount plus, espn+, youtube TV) and YouTube TV is by far the
| best in streaming quality, I also like how you can force a
| specific resolution in youtube tv, unlike other apps which
| determine the quality of streaming themselves, I have 500mpbs
| connection and espn and fubo are streaming 480p content half of
| the time.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Think it's worrying that YouTube hasn't realized they're the
| disruptor and actually have more value in a lot of people,
| especially young peoples minds than Disney properties.
|
| I don't see this as a space them worth burning the money to
| compete in. Makes more sense to invest that back in their own
| platform, even with their budgets lack of focus can be damaging.
| cptskippy wrote:
| But they, like Sling before and T-Mobile after them, have
| claimed to disrupt Cable TV while basically just offering Cable
| TV.
|
| The only difference is that you're now responsible for
| maintaining your own streaming equipment.
| supertrope wrote:
| A one time $50 purchase of a device is a much better deal
| than paying $10-$20 monthly rent per box from 2009 that also
| uses $50 in electricity per year because the power button
| only cuts video output.
| adamcstephens wrote:
| Disney is both a content provider for these channels, and is a
| competitor to YTTV. It probably wins either way here.
| wj wrote:
| I resubscribed to YouTube TV a few months ago for two channels:
| CNBC and ESPN. The rest of my family doesn't watch anything on it
| which is why I had cancelled it a couple of years ago. CNBC isn't
| worth $50/month to me. I'll give them another week before
| changing anything as I imagine someone is going to bend with this
| being college bowl season.
| drewbailey wrote:
| For what it's worth they are reducing their pricing by $15
| while they figure it out.
| technofiend wrote:
| Personally I'm delighted to trade ABC, ESPN, etc [1] for a $15
| reduction in my YouTube TV bill. It just makes me wish Google
| would unbundle all their different providers so I could choose
| only the ones I want.
|
| [1]
|
| Your local ABC channel, ABC News Live, Disney Channel, Disney
| Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic,
| National Geographic Wild, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3 (by authentication
| to the ESPN app), ESPNU, ESPNEWS SEC Network, ACC Network.
| 14 wrote:
| I don't have YouTube Tv but your comment almost made me dry
| heave a little realizing we are back at square one with cable
| tv and bundling channels users don't want and forcing them to
| pay for stuff. I haven't had cable tv in years but seldom don't
| miss a show I want to watch. It is mostly all online if you
| know where to search. Also Canadian so no one comes knocking on
| my door for downloading.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| I hate bundling. I have been paying my cable company money
| for football and Formula one. I don't watch that stuff.
|
| How about we just pay for the things we use? Imagine if a
| restaurant put a bottle of wine on your bill even though you
| don't like wine.
| causi wrote:
| _Also Canadian so no one comes knocking on my door for
| downloading._
|
| Sure about that?
|
| https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/12443/copyright-
| trol...
| taurath wrote:
| Sports is the anchor by which unbundling won't happen for a
| long time, especially with linear TV.
|
| This is partially because it benefits the conglomerates
| business models to have as many channels and content streams
| as possible to sell ad time on, and partially because for
| sports teams they can functionally name their price.
|
| In seattle, the brand new hockey team is only available
| through Root Sports, a smallish production company owned by
| Warner media and the baseball team. You can only watch the
| new hockey team if you subscribe to a cable package or online
| cable package (YouTube tv etc).
|
| Why would a brand new team with no established fan base want
| to not be in front of as many eyeballs as they can? Because
| they earn more money when someone pays them to put them
| behind a cable company.
|
| At no point does this "competition", which it isn't, benefit
| consumers. We used to regulate things like this.
| mrweasel wrote:
| I've not looked into how the US cable market is doing, but
| here in Denmark it feels like we're very close to
| cable/bundling snapping. The cable companies are forced to
| raise prices each year, mostly because of sports and people
| are cancelling in droves. In 2015 93% of Danes had cable,
| in 2019 less than 80% had cable and during 2020 - 2022 the
| largest provider lost at least 250.000 subscribers, pushing
| them well below 1 million subscribers. Many others have
| downgrade their subscription to the bundles that doesn't
| include sports channels.
|
| At some point the remaining subscribers can't pay the cost
| of the ridiculous fees charged for the major sporting
| events. When that happens the fees must come down, or the
| sporting companies must find a different solution.
|
| Honestly a great solution for the major sports, like
| football in Europe, would be to great something like what
| the MLB did in the US. I know a lot of football fans who'd
| love to get a subscription for all the Champions League
| games. Just a fixed price and then watch any game you like.
| Why pay for Formula 1, hockey or even the Bundesliga, if
| you only care about the Danish Superliga and Champions
| League.
| taurath wrote:
| In the US American football only recently became
| available on streaming - it is currently $450 or $500 per
| season. You can go to a bar every week and have several
| drinks and a meal for that money. It's a little crazy.
| mrweasel wrote:
| $500 a year is still at around half the price of cable tv
| where I live, if you want any sport, largest cable
| package would be $1213 per year. So you could get all the
| games you wanted to see, rather than just the ones the TV
| stations decided to buy, and still have money left over
| to subscribe to a few streaming services.
|
| Edit: Something something, cost of living. $500 is
| 3300DKK, which would let you go to a bar, have a meal and
| four or five beers only seven times.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| A meal and 5 beers cost $70 in Denmark? That's expensive.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Sorry, haven't been out for a while, I was wrong about
| the price of beer. It has gone up. The five beers (0.5L)
| is $43.95, leaving $26 that's going to be a rather cheap
| meal, you're certainly not eating at the bar on game day
| at that point. You could get ribs or a burger at a
| restaurant, but you're a little short if you want
| steak.... And you don't exactly have money for a drink
| with your meal.
| matwood wrote:
| All the Scandinavian countries are expensive (when
| converting from USD), especially for alcohol.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Where is this streaming option available for $500? I do
| not see it on nfl.com If it is subject to blackouts, it
| does not count.
|
| https://www.nfl.com/ways-to-watch/
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| In the Chicago area I just about lost my crud with the new
| "Marquee Sports Network". It's a $7 a month price hike that
| every subscriber in the area has to suffer on every single
| cable provider because the Cubs struck a deal with Sinclair
| to create the channel.
|
| I don't understand how it's legal. Imagine if Netflix could
| force everyone in a geographic area to subscribe or lose
| the ability to stream all non-Netflix stuff. It wouldn't
| even make sense, but this is what happened here.
|
| I think we should kick the Cubs out of Chicago for pulling
| a stunt like this during a pandemic when most people are
| barely able to pay their existing bills. Sports teams are
| absolute vampires that abuse the local population in the
| name of obscene profits.
| owlninja wrote:
| Sinclair also ruined us here in DFW. Suddenly the Texas
| Rangers, Dallas Mavericks, and Dallas Stars are only
| available on Bally's network which the big streamers do
| not carry. We used to be able to watch all games on the
| regional Fox Sports network which was a huge selling
| point for me switching to streaming. Now the word is
| Bally's expects to release their own app and subscription
| service in like 2023...sigh...
| sofixa wrote:
| Regarding sports, there are companies such as DAZN and
| Amazon which break the bundling. They get the rights for a
| certain sport/league in a country, and if you want to
| watch, you pay only for that, directly.
| brewdad wrote:
| >> In seattle, the brand new hockey team is only available
| through Root Sports, a smallish production company owned by
| Warner media and the baseball team. You can only watch the
| new hockey team if you subscribe to a cable package or
| online cable package (YouTube tv etc).
|
| It's actually worse than that. I've looked into it, because
| I'd like to watch Mariners and Kraken games in Portland
| (blacked out here too). Root Sportsis only available
| through cable providers and FuboTV or Directv Stream. No
| other streaming services offer it and there is no way to
| subscribe directly. It's a mess, so I generally don't watch
| the games or pirate them.
| technofiend wrote:
| Right? I used to just turn on YouTube TV for hurricane season
| for local coverage in case of a power outage. It's far easier
| to keep a cell phone charged than deal with a digital antenna
| (which might have been lost to high winds anyway) and
| relatively power hungry TV just to see what's going on. Then
| my wife started using the app too so I can't easily turn it
| off.
|
| Back when Big Ugly Dishes were a thing it was far cheaper to
| piecemeal subscribe to your desired packages. Then DirecTV
| came along and forced the cable tv model on their subscribers
| and lobbied hard for laws that killed BUDs. I remember doing
| the math at the time and DirecTV was about double the price
| of a BUD.
|
| Now we're back to adhoc subscription if you want to use a
| bunch of disparate apps and websites, so in one way it
| _could_ be cheaper. But each streaming site charges retail
| prices to consumers so in aggregate it ends up costing as
| much or more than in the cable model. Even so the forced
| subsidy of ESPN in particular has always been a deeply
| aggravating thing for me. Sort of like agreeing to split
| lunch evenly and then discovering after the fact everyone 's
| having sandwiches except the one guy who ordered steak.
| hx833001 wrote:
| Check for local news apps/websites and also national
| network news apps if they own your local station. Some
| provide access year round, and your local stations will
| almost certainly have live storm coverage. I can watch
| multiple local stations during a storm for free on Apple TV
| phil21 wrote:
| Thing is I would be delighted the the opposite. I'd love to
| only pay for ESPN and the other sports channels only for
| $15/mo. Maybe add in CNN/FOX/MSNBC/Etc. for the wife to have on
| in the background, but plenty of ways to get that otherwise
| cheaply. OTA works fine for local news, even if the apps are a
| bit buggy if you want anything DVR or digitally distributed.
|
| As would likely most I believe. Thus sports propping up this
| ancient model and myself being part of the problem.
|
| I'm surprised Disney/ESPN is only $15/mo of the bill to be
| honest, I think Youtube is taking a hit there as I'd bet it's
| more than half the total base subscription fee.
| gausswho wrote:
| ESPN will be the last to offer their own subscription,
| because then people would know how much they are getting away
| with in broadcast programming. YouTube is almost certainly
| paying more. Decades of strongarming TV networks has allowed
| Disney/ESPN to soak up 40%-60% of traditional cable bills at
| the expense of all other content owners. YT is taking a
| gamble that backed by the weight of Alphabet they can end
| this corruption. Sadly, I'm not sure it's a smart bet.
| humanistbot wrote:
| > ESPN will be the last to offer their own subscription
|
| https://plus.espn.com/
| hnnnnnnngggggg wrote:
| ESPN+ does not stream ESPN or ESPN2 live broadcasts.
| parkingrift wrote:
| I have no evidence to support this, but my assumption would
| be that if ESPN were offered separately they would need to
| charge substantially more to break even.
|
| My thesis for this is that most people aren't sports fans,
| but they pay for sports whether they want to or not due to
| all the bundling. In a way, non-fans are subsidizing the
| content for fans.
|
| My sneaky suspicion is that unbundling sports would be a
| cataclysmic event for the sports television industry. I would
| pay $15/month for ESPN but I wouldn't pay $25.
|
| What do you think?
| uptown wrote:
| "I'm surprised Disney/ESPN is only $15/mo of the bill to be
| honest"
|
| It's probably more. They're just happy to keep your money.
| brewdad wrote:
| $15 sounds about right. It may even be closer to $20. The
| reason we won't see a full ESPN only subscription anytime
| soon is that the current model allows them to collect
| $15/mo from everyone versus whatever the price would need
| to be if you are only selling subs to sports fans. It
| wouldn't surprise me if the subscription cost would be over
| $100/mo to keep the same revenues.
|
| What happens to big time sports when the fans are priced
| out of the arena and priced out of watching on TV as well?
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Personally I'm delighted to trade ABC, ESPN, etc [1] for a
| $15 reduction in my YouTube TV bill. It just makes me wish
| Google would unbundle all their different providers so I could
| choose only the ones I want.
|
| They could make several tiers:
|
| - Youtubers-only content: no big media included
|
| - Tier 2: the same + ABC, ESPN, etc...
|
| - Tier 3: same as 2 + exclusive content only available for Tier
| 3 subscribers
|
| would be a good business model rather than just charging to
| remove ads.
| judge2020 wrote:
| This is another comment confusing YT with YT TV.
| www.youtube.com didn't lose anything - tv.youtube.com did,
| which is cable TV over the internet, and it's just like any
| other channel dispute that has happened in years past with
| traditional cable offerings.
| treyfitty wrote:
| ...like cable TV?
| nkozyra wrote:
| Cable doesn't offer this, generally, because ESPN
| subsidizes so many other channels and Disney has a lot of
| power here.
|
| They strongarm a lot of providers and I'd be surprised if
| YouTube held out. They will lose subscribers.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's not really because ESPN "subsidizes" other channels.
| ESPN is expensive. It's because sports is the primary
| hook for a lot of people to continue getting
| broadcast/cable TV at all outside of on-demand
| subscriptions. It's not enough of a hook for me to pay
| but, if I were to do so, it would be the main reason.
| nkozyra wrote:
| What I meant by subsidizes is that it is the hook that
| allows the others to exist at a smaller profit margin.
| [deleted]
| paxys wrote:
| Curious what the remaining value of YouTube TV even is then.
| With most sports cut out is it really worth $50/mo?
| ghaff wrote:
| There's also late night talk shows, reality TV, etc. I don't
| really watch any of this and, hence, don't get cable TV any
| longer but many do. I think just having something on in the
| background is appealing to some (although there are
| alternatives to that).
|
| My sense is that there's very little really interesting
| scripted TV on non-premium streaming broadcast/cable at this
| point. I certainly haven't heard of any "must see TV" on any
| of the networks or even stations like AMC for ages.
| phil21 wrote:
| Zero value to me now that ESPN (Monday Night Football) is off
| the platform.
|
| I hate it, but I really do pay that much per month to watch a
| single game a week plus have the convenience for guests
| having access to "regular TV".
| Tagbert wrote:
| ESPN has a value of zero to me. Can't be bothered to watch
| it. I get YouTube TV for all of the other stuff.
| systematical wrote:
| No, I only used it during football season and now I'm out
| Monday Night Football. They had already made it harder to set
| my location to my teams local market (still possible with vpn
| + location guard but not on TV without chromecasting). With
| the season nearly over and the Giants season completely over
| I will probably just cancel early.
| maxclark wrote:
| And here's the problem with cable and the OTT providers as
| well.
|
| The content networks force an all or nothing contract. ESPN
| must be licensed for all subscribers or no ESPN option for
| anyone.
|
| The same thing that forced me off of cable has forced me off of
| OTT.
| starklevnertz wrote:
| Maybe all content creators around the world should form a union
| to fight against the big platforms.
|
| At the moment, any individual content creator is just a little
| xitch when it comes to the power relationship.
|
| All the YouTube creators, all the Apple App Store developers, all
| the Xbox developers etc.
| paxys wrote:
| Yeah, the small-time content creator called Disney definitely
| needs help to fight the big guys.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Maybe all content creators around the world should form a
| union to fight against the big platforms.
|
| Hmmm sounds like an illegal cartel.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Is this mostly just about who's got a bigger ... ?
| timmg wrote:
| ...revenue stream.
| vmception wrote:
| sidenote, every streaming service I paid for I did so willingly
| and excitedly. youtube is more expensive and feels more like
| coercion.
| ryguytilidie wrote:
| I absolutely cannot stand the way these TV providers continually
| try to rope their customers into their disputes. This happened
| when I had directv, it happened when I had comcast, it happens
| now with YoutubeTV.
|
| I would never in a million years, as a business owner, message
| one of my clients and blame a vendor for bad service and want
| them to help solve the dispute.
|
| I just do not get the thought process here. "Well, these people
| are paying us a ton of money every month and we're just swimming
| in profits. Lets ask those same customers to try to get us a
| better deal for us with Disney so that we'll be more profitable!
|
| No.
| rp1 wrote:
| This is just a small microcosm of what's going on in the cable TV
| world. Many channels are raising their fees, but the cable
| providers are very reluctant to raise the price charged to end
| users. Instead, cable providers are opting to drop channels. This
| is leading to an increasingly fragmented cable TV market where
| it's impossible to get all the channels you may want to watch.
| For instance, Comcast just dropped MSG, which is a channel for
| NY-based sports. The only alternative many people have is to use
| FuboTV, but Fubo has dropped Adult Swim for the same reason. So
| now it's impossible to get both MSG and Adult Swim.
| fullshark wrote:
| Gonna take 5 years for this market collapse to sort itself out,
| and by then they will realize the younger consumer has already
| moved on even from live sports, the last thing holding them to
| cable/broadcast television.
| syshum wrote:
| One of the things I always thought Copyright law needed was some
| kind of FRAND style provisions, if we as a society give an owner
| exclusive rights we should require that owner (if the choose to
| distribute the work) to do is in a non-exclusionary, fair manner.
| auspex wrote:
| Great... all the shows my kid watched just got removed from the
| DVR.
|
| Even if they make a deal tomorrow, we had so much recorded that
| just disappeared.
|
| Going to be lots of crying kids in the morning
| hazelnut wrote:
| Sling keeps the recordings even if you don't have the channel
| anymore.
|
| Though, quality of recordings is lower and we had some random
| losses over time.
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| Anything that hamper's Google's continued effort to turn youtube
| into the new cable TV is good in my book. I hope they lose all
| the other channels too, and then I hope those channels die
| anyway, along with the old-media companies that own them. A pipe
| dream, I know.
| zinekeller wrote:
| > Anything that hamper's Google's continued effort to turn
| youtube into the new cable TV is good in my book.
|
| You confused YouTube and YouTube TV, these are fully separate
| items despite its name.
| goldenkey wrote:
| The same company runs them. Your definition of "fully
| separate" has a wide berth.
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| I'm not. I know exactly what Youtube TV is and want it to
| fail. Was that not clear from my obvious desire to see TV die
| in general?
| afavour wrote:
| But Google aren't turning YouTube into TV. YouTube TV is a
| separate product.
| Msw242 wrote:
| If I go to YouTube.com, they try to upsell me on YouTube
| TV. It's pretty clear what they are trying to do in terms
| of market motion.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Why do you care if I enjoy a product from a company? Is my
| enjoyment of it harming you in some way?
| BrazzVuvuzela wrote:
| I am subjected to televisions in public places like airports
| and waiting rooms. I have family members that turn the TV on
| whenever we meet up for the holidays. Friends, family and
| coworkers who can scarcely talk about anything other than
| television. Television has permeated American society for my
| entire life, and decades before that. I'm entitled to have an
| opinion on this shit, I'm not obliged to withhold my
| criticism for any reason. Thankfully younger generations care
| less about it, so I have hope that I might live to see the
| day that it becomes socially irrelevant. When efforts of the
| television industry to get young people hooked fall through,
| as they have in this instance, you can bet I'm going to gloat
| about it.
| ghaff wrote:
| Just because they're less likely to watch broadcast TV or a
| cable bundle, I'd be very surprised if younger people today
| were actually watching less video (both with and without
| advertising) than in years past. Now, if they're
| deliberately choosing what to watch rather than just
| watching whatever is on, that is probably a good thing
| overall, but television as an episodic format is probably
| as big as ever.
| asciimov wrote:
| Every time one of these conflicts happens I wish both sides had
| to publicly state their wants and demands for continued service.
| gouda-gouda wrote:
| I feel like YoutubeTV forgot that at the end of the day, I'm
| paying them for content, not their cute little app. Left them
| last year when they lost my MLB team and haven't really looked
| back.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And I'm sure you'd also complain when it's "Youtube wants $15
| more a month to carry my MLB channels(/ESPN/ABC/whatever)!"
| like they might end up doing now?
| paxys wrote:
| This is some weird corporate game theory at play. Signing a deal
| is the ideal outcome for Disney, Google and all their mutual
| customers, but in pursuit of that extra dollar both sides shoot
| themselves in the foot and end up with nothing.
| awb wrote:
| I think Disney is hoping it'll drive people to sign up for
| Disney+ which cuts out the middleman at the cost of not being
| able to channel surf but instead opening an app.
| jayknight wrote:
| Disney+ doesn't have live sports.
| awb wrote:
| Yes it does: https://www.disneyplus.com/welcome/disney-
| hulu-espn-bundle
| asciimov wrote:
| No, it doesn't. ESPN [?] ESPN+
|
| Live sports on ESPN isn't typically on ESPN+.
| awb wrote:
| Yes, Disney+ bundle has live sports. Read the site:
|
| > Stream live sports and exclusive originals on ESPN+
|
| > Thousands of live events
|
| > With movies, TV shows, and live sports, there's
| something for everyone.
|
| They say it 3 times.
|
| Maybe OC meant to say Disney+ doesn't include ESPN, that
| would be a true statement. Or maybe they meant to say
| Disney+ doesn't include major live sports events, but
| that wasn't the claim.
|
| Saying Disney+ doesn't have live sports is an inaccurate
| claim. They do in fact offer live sports if you read
| their offering.
| brewdad wrote:
| ESPN+ generally has the less popular teams and sports
| that aren't worth putting on the cable ESPN channels
| (ESPN, ESPN@, ESPNU, etc.)
| foxhop wrote:
| If you just want TV on in the background and don't want to pay
| anything, checkout "Pluto TV" and "Tubi TV", both have apps and
| may cast to Chromecast or SmartTVs.
|
| https://pluto.tv/
|
| https://tubitv.com/
|
| Friends help friends cut cords.
| tentacleuno wrote:
| Pluto TV is a godsend. So much stuff on there. I've been
| recommending it to people for a while now. You can also get it
| on Kodi[0].
|
| [0]: https://kodi.tv/addons/matrix/plugin.video.plutotv
| jejones3141 wrote:
| No kidding. My wife lamented that she couldn't see the
| original (modulo dubbing) Iron Chef... and poof, now there's
| a Pluto TV channel running nothing but that.
| tyingq wrote:
| I suspect the appeal of YouTube TV is the built-in cloud DVR,
| mostly so you can skip commercials. I had YouTube TV for a
| while, mostly for local news. I switched to a local
| tuner/antenna with a DVR. I picked the Tablo product. The app
| could be better, but it does reliably record my local news and
| playback works fine. And it's quite a lot cheaper than YouTube
| TV, Sling, etc.
|
| Though, of course, you have to be somewhere where an antenna
| can pick up what you want to watch.
| managerclass wrote:
| I guess buying a TV antenna isn't completely free but it gives
| you the same benefit as these online channels, doesn't consume
| your data cap, and lets you watch sports and local news.
|
| I bought a $10 antenna from channel master and it's been a
| great investment.
| tyingq wrote:
| To be fair, there's plenty of places, even in suburbs, where
| you need a $100-$200 antenna, and maybe $200 worth of parts,
| labor and stuff to put it somewhere where it works.
| bjornlouser wrote:
| Got perfect reception with a $40 antenna strapped to beams
| in the attic using bungee cords. The towers are only 50
| miles from the house so ymmv
|
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0024R4B5C/
| throwbacktictac wrote:
| How is this legal? Do Pluto and Tubitv have some contract with
| providers that allows this?
|
| I remember a company named Aereo being sued out of existence
| because they were offering OTA TV to their subscribers by
| allocating an micro antenna to each user. The excuse did fly in
| court.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
|
| BTW, thanks for sharing!
| foxhop wrote:
| Yes they own license to broadcast, formed by legacy media
| companies.
| etempleton wrote:
| They don't run the channels you would get on cable. They are
| special OTT chanels and are ad supported.
|
| You won't get live sports or networks, but you will get a lot
| of reruns shows, second run movies, and news coverage that is
| a few hours old.
| mason55 wrote:
| Pluto operates a model called FAST (free ad supported
| television). Because the content is still aired in a linear
| fashion (as opposed to on demand) the licensing costs are
| lower than it would be for VOD and there's no infrastructure
| costs to support like traditional cable tv, they can support
| it with ads easily enough.
|
| They don't have regular channels and instead do all their own
| programming. You get things like "The Bob Vila Channel" and
| other channels that focus on library/long tail content.
| 5555624 wrote:
| Pluto has both "live" TV and on demand. The on demand
| material is essentially the libraries for specific
| channels.
| zuminator wrote:
| Pluto TV is owned by ViacomCBS and Tubi is owned by the Fox
| Corporation (the non-Disney one), and as others have pointed
| out, all their content is licensed. There's also Xumo, owned
| by Comcast. Pluto TV has partnership deals with Roku, Vizio
| and others to provide them with content for their branded
| apps. Amazon has a somewhat similar service with IMDb TV,
| although it has a crappy interface modeled off Amazon
| Prime's. And of course even Plex has now (sadly) entered the
| game with their "Live TV" section.
|
| What annoys me about these free offerings is that they have
| cannibalized their content from paid streaming services.
| Before, services like Hulu and Amazon Prime would stock their
| catalog with tons of old "classic" TV shows that you could
| binge commercial free. Now, the only way to stream many of
| those shows is with commercials, they are no longer available
| as part of any paid commercial-free packages, unless you are
| willing to purchase the individual episodes.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| Those are free alright but alllow me to recommend
|
| magistv
|
| It offers everything that's on star/hbo/netflix/hulu/disney
| plus/amazon/etc plus live sports plus a lot of live hd channels
| for just 9 a month.
| TingPing wrote:
| So... paid piracy...
| nathcd wrote:
| Wow, these look great. Don't need to sign up, and they don't
| even use EME. Have they been around for awhile?
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| The trick is they are stuffed with ads. I swear the reruns
| have extra ads than when they originally aired. It will show
| 3 minutes of programming than 1.5 minutes of ads.
| badwriter32 wrote:
| I would recommend plex ( https://plex.tv) over both of these,
| since you can watch movies/tv you and your friends download in
| addition to free tv
| zikduruqe wrote:
| Also https://www.xumo.tv.
|
| And a lot of people forget, there is OTA TV too. In the days of
| streaming everything media, there are still OTA sources just in
| case. Especially during a power outage, where AM/FM and
| broadcast TV still work to receive info.
| nobleach wrote:
| It's less about forgetfulness and more about convenience. The
| whole "setup an OTA antenna somewhere in/on your
| house/attic/roof, wire it up to your tuner, scan for
| channels, learn what direction to point the antenna for which
| stations, find a DVR that supports OTA", vs load an app, sign
| in and boom.
|
| I'm a geek so, I'd LOVE to take this step. Unfortunately, I
| live in the part of the country that has too many mountains
| to make OTA reception an easy task. I personally live down
| between two ridges that make it so I'd have to have an
| antenna 150 feet in the air.
| ghaff wrote:
| And, assuming you haven't personally experienced OTA post-
| digital transition in your house in the past (assuming you
| own a house) or have neighbors with an antenna, spend some
| money and a fair bit of effort to discover that reception
| is non-existent/bad.
| nobleach wrote:
| I was SUPER into OTA and FTA satellite reception a little
| over 10 years ago. I was all over antennaweb and tvfool
| right before I moved out West. I went from a very flat
| Southeastern geography to mountains and ridges
| everywhere. But even then, that was a "in the know"
| thing. I'd hate to be one of those people who pours money
| into this just to discover bad reception.
| tacon wrote:
| I was using Justwatch[0] for a 2017 series and saw I could
| stream it for free on the Roku Channel[1]. That was a surprise
| to me, and Roku Channel has some quality stuff, rotating
| through month by month. In addition, they show some
| commercials, but with a nice UI feature: a timer in the upper
| left that shows exactly how long the ads will play. That is a
| new feature to me. I wish all commercials came with a countdown
| timer like that.
|
| [0] https://www.justwatch.com/us
|
| [1] https://www.justwatch.com/us/provider/the-roku-channel
| mdoms wrote:
| > We're sorry, but Pluto TV is currently unavailable in your
| location. We're working hard to bring Pluto TV to this area, so
| stay tuned to find out when.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| Does OTA not work where you're at?
| foxhop wrote:
| Yeah, OTA doesn't really work anywhere except cities. I used
| to sell "big screens" at Sears and I was asked that question
| so frequently, especially back when cable was switching from
| analog to digital. Years 2004-2006.
| ghaff wrote:
| I live 40 miles outside of a major city. Even back in
| analog days with a big antenna I couldn't pick anything up;
| there's a hill that blocks all the signals between me and
| the city.
|
| Eventually I got cable but dropped it a couple years ago.
| tyingq wrote:
| A surprisingly decent US government provided resource to
| check that: https://www.fcc.gov/media/engineering/dtvmaps
|
| Edit: One thing to double check that surprised me is that the
| channel number these days doesn't reliably tell you if the
| channel is VHF or UHF. That is, a low-numbered channel like
| "3" or "8" could really be a UHF channel. I guess they let
| them keep long-established channel numbers for marketing
| purposes. So check what you really need before buying an
| antenna. The website above does provide the needed detail
| under "RF Channel".
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| It's a giant game of Go.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| The cable provider / content provider dispute playbook:
|
| 1. Cease broadcasting / licensing of content
|
| 2. Talk to media to patiently explain how your adversary is
| responsible for depriving you of your precious {sports team |
| Marvel hero}
|
| 3. Hope ensuing social media / support queue shit storm hurts
| your adversary more than you (by the looks of these comments,
| advantage Disney)
|
| 4. Sign a deal
|
| 5. Repeat at next contract!
| ende wrote:
| Google has handled themselves better than the content providers
| in past disputes, and the providers typically fold. I think
| Google has garnered goodwill by proactively reducing their
| prices etc.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-18 23:02 UTC)