YouTube Looking To Launch Online TV Service Next Year With ESPN, ABC, and CBS (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Bloomberg reported in May that YouTube is working on a paid subscription service called Unplugged that would offer customers a selection of TV channels streamed via the internet. Now, The Information (Warning: source may be paywalled) is reporting that deals are starting to come together, and ESPN, ABC, and CBS are "firmly expected" to be available through the service. Other major broadcasters are expected to try and get involved with the service, but the report notes that YouTube may purposely choose to pass on smaller networks, like HGTV, to try and market YouTube videos instead. The question remains to be answered as to how YouTube plans to make anyone interested in its service. ESPN, ABC, and CBS are already offered through other online TV services, like Sling TV. CBS has its own standalone subscription service, and ESPN will soon have its own as well. Also, The Information notes that YouTube Red -- YouTube's existing subscription service -- isn't doing so well. Although, it's worth noting that service is completely different than what Unplugged is rumored to feature.

Comments

Youtube

[tehlinux]

Streaming in 480p because you only have like 10Gbps down.

It's not really "unplugged"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really unplugged when you are forced to buy your internet from the monopoly cable provider to get a line fast enough to stream online video.

Re:It's not really "unplugged"

[reboot246]

So true, so true.

I get my internet from Charter Communications, so for just a few dollars more I can get cable television that looks great compared to YouTube.

Of course I go one step further and get a package that includes the SEC network. If you can't watch Southeastern Conference football, you're not watching the best football in the country. :p

Roll Tide Roll

Who would be interested...

[cmiller173]

The OP said "The question remains to be answered as to how YouTube plans to make anyone interested in its service. ESPN, ABC, and CBS are already offered through other online TV services, like Sling TV. CBS has its own standalone subscription service, and ESPN will soon have its own as well. "

I wouldn't pay for a single network streaming service (i.e. CBS) but I might be willing to pay for a multiple network service if it is big enough and has most/many of the networks I want to see.

Why?

[frovingslosh]

I can already view CBS and ABC on the Internet on their own sites. I don't care at all about sportsball and the steroid using cheaters. So I really don't care about this.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we go again. One guy on Slashdot isn't the target audience, so it's stupid and nobody should use it. You're as relevant as the guy below who only wants the Golf Channel.

maybe

[The-Ixian]

*If* the price is in the sub $8 range *and* there are no commercials, I might do it.

But it is a non-starter otherwise. I can just watch these channels OTA right now for free and probably better quality that I could get streaming.

Re:maybe

[Joe_Dragon]

espn 1/2/3/u/etc costs about $8 an sub.

Network stations

[Anonymous Coward]

Sling TV only offers ABC and CBS live streaming in only ~8 cities. Anywhere else and you just get day-after streaming a la Hulu. Which means no sports. If YouTube offered actual live streams of these, that would be big.

Re:Network stations

[sglewis100]

Same with PS Vue. Not sure 100% on the count of 8, but it's around there. My understanding is it was relatively easy for these guys to cut a deal with the networks. Which is why you get On Demand the next day wherever in the States you live. It's been torture to cut deals with the Affiliates. So if you live in an area where the network owns the local affiliate, you're good. For example, in Miami, on Vue, we get live NBC, CBS and FOX. ABC is an actual affiliate, so we get OnDemand only. This actually works perfect for us, since there's enough news between the half a dozen or more cable news networks, plus the nightly and Sunday morning news shows on NBC, CBS and FOX to tide us over. And ABC sporting events tend to be live streamed on WatchESPN, so we can even watch basketball, college football, etc.

I suspect in the next year or two you'll see affiliates start to cut deals with guys like Sling, Vue, Apple, Hulu, SFN, etc... as the quality and quantity of programming of originals on Hulu, Prime and Netflix continues to explode, people are going to be more and more willing to live without traditional network shows. My children already don't really have a concept of TV as something different than Netflix. And we travel with a Roku stick when we go to hotels, because they really don't understand why they HAVE to watch commercials anymore. If the affiliates want to survive in their present form, they better license their stations, and quick. Because the monopolies are slowly ending. (And yes, I understand we're still stuck with one or two options for Internet service, but the television monopolies are coming to an end rapidly).

Re:Network stations

[Jhon]

"Sling TV only offers ABC and CBS live streaming in only ~8 cities."

And NBC. And Fox 11 (in Los Angeles).

My Over The Air Antennae Has Better Resolution

[zenlessyank]

than Yu-Toob. I also know you guys hate split headings into comments, so I am going to try to stop that. I think I am addicted to it. I may need some meetings and a white chip!!!

Re:My Over The Air Antennae Has Better Resolution

[antdude]

But can you get ESPN OTA? :P

I'm surprised cable companies

[rsilvergun]

Aren't doing more to stop this. I just cut the cord because my kid's off to college and I don't care about sports. The nerd stuff (read: anime) I watch is all online. Yeah, I pay $75/mo for decent internet, but for a while they were getting $150 mo outta me. Yeah, most of the mid west has data caps, but how much longer will they tolerate that?

Re:I'm surprised cable companies

[tlhIngan]

Aren't doing more to stop this. I just cut the cord because my kid's off to college and I don't care about sports. The nerd stuff (read: anime) I watch is all online. Yeah, I pay $75/mo for decent internet, but for a while they were getting $150 mo outta me. Yeah, most of the mid west has data caps, but how much longer will they tolerate that?

Probably a lot longer - why do you think there are data caps to begin with? Or they know that evening time will be standard TV watching hour, and throttle all video streaming services the same so the only quality you get will be standard def.

Though, them being able to get out of ESPN is also good - I'm sure Disney bundles the Disney channels with ESPN - if you don't force every subscriber to get ESPN then the Disney channels cost more. ESPN and other sports are the most expensive subscriptions with ESPN easily costing $5+/subscriber/month. Contrast with say, History or Discovery, which are around 25 cents/subscriber/month, and if you take every channel in each respsective network, it probably totals just about a buck a month.

Because Sling TV not all there yet

[Tony Isaac]

I used Sling TV last fall to watch NFL games. The Roku version of their software was buggy, crashed occasionally, and wasn't optimized enough to run well on the Roku 2. Worst of all, they tried to fill the commercial breaks with ESPN's own frat-boy commercials for itself. They would repeat the very same commercial two or three times, or cut one off half way through to start playing another one, then return the the second half of the first commercial. I'd rather watch the REAL commercials than the incessant, poorly executed fake commercials.

So I'd give Sling TV a D on implementation. If YouTube can do a better job, I'll definitely switch!