Broadcasters Put New Ad-Skipping Restrictions On YouTube TV (dslreports.com)

YouTube launched its new "YouTube TV" service last week for select markets. One of the biggest features for the service is its DVR functionality, which would in theory allow users to record shows and fast forward through all the commercials. Unfortunately, that is not the case, notes the Wall Street Journal. Karl Bode writes via DSLReports: If a show is available on-demand, viewers won't be able to skip ads, even if they recorded the episode on DVR. Google has confirmed with the Journal that the restriction is courtesy of the licensing agreements the broadcast industry forced Google to adhere to in order to offer the service. As a result, if YouTube TV has the on-demand version of a specific program you may be interested in, then the service won't let viewers watch a recorded version that allows for ad-skipping. Instead, viewers are forced to watch the on-demand episode and all of the ads, even if consumers thought they saved the show on their DVR for ad-skippable viewing.

Comments

Not Quite Right

[CrankyFool]

Let's be clear here: Broadcasters didn't do this, YouTube (AKA Alphabet) did this. Broadcasters asked for this -- maybe even demanded this, or traded this for lower costs -- and YouTube decided that having their content, plus ads, was more important than sticking to their guns and offering their customers (the people who actually pay money for the service) an ads-free experience.

Re:Not Quite Right

[scdeimos]

You're kidding, right? "Google has confirmed with the Journal that the restriction is courtesy of the licensing agreements the broadcast industry forced Google to adhere to in order to offer the service." The largest portion of Google/Alphabet's income is advertising revenue - I'd be surprised if they protested the broadcasters' request in any way, shape or form.

Re:Not Quite Right

[hawguy]

Think about it then ask yourself, who has the biggest streaming platform on the internet?

Netflix?

https://variety.com/2015/digit...

Netflix, which already eats up the fattest chunk of downstream bandwidth, is taking an even bigger bite: The No. 1 subscription-video service accounted for 36.5% of all downstream Internet bandwidth during peak periods in North America for March, according to a new report. ...

By comparison, for the same time periods, YouTube accounted for 15.6% of downstream Internet traffic, web browsing was 6%, Facebook was 2.7%, Amazon Instant Video was 2.0% and Hulu was 1.9%.

Re:Not Quite Right

[FirephoxRising]

Well, I don't care who did it, I'll continue my policy of not using services that I pay for and have ads. Either it's free-with-ads or it's pay-with-no-ads. I'm voting with my wallet and yes I would pay more for no ads ever (for those who will say ads make it cheaper).

Re:Not Quite Right

[CrankyFool]

You realize YouTube TV costs $35/month, right? Unlike YouTube, the free user-content-streaming platform, this is a premium channel with a cost that is approximately 3.5 times Netflix (which has no ads) or Hulu (which does have ads, unless you pay about half the price of YouTube TV to not have ads). I'm not saying they're evil for having ads, or that they're bad people, but this is not the same as a free service, and they made conscious decisions that involved supporting ads. They had options.

Re:Not Quite Right

[rtb61]

So let me get this straight, some the fuck how, advertisers think people will buy their products when they force them sit through those busker screams. Oh yes I will buy your product after you force me, actively force me to watch you shit, now honestly is that true, talk about self delusion.

I don't know about other people but piss me off with a commercial and I likely will not only not buy your product but not buy if for a long time.

You might as well think it is worthwhile to punch people in the face because it really attracts their attention, so punch them in the face, scream about your products and then reinforce the message by kicking them in the genitals, oh yeah, they will remember your product but will they buy it? In a choice between watching content and watching some shit advert, I simply switch to alternate content, done and finished. So much choice, so little time, so meh. Google and Alphabet as run by the big shit are just full of it (total control, total power insanity). Never forget those fuckers were dicking around with search globally to secretly try to distort democracy and lets not be fooled, doing that globally as well.

Re: Not Quite Right

[ArmoredDragon]

For those of us not as interested in illegality, there is also Netflix, YouTube Red (for normal YT content without ads plus some unique programming), Hulu Plus (a few things will have a very short, single ad at the beginning and end), and purchasing tv seasons and movies a la carte via any number of services (Amazon, Google, etc).

That's fine until you want to watch something that's not available on those services, in which case, ads it is. I personally have a subscription to both Netflix and HBO.

Re:Not Quite Right

[Highdude702]

This is talking about a PAID service, not the normal free youtube. did you read anything, i get slashdotters have stopped even reading the sumary, but the damn title and the comments both point out that this is talking about a PAID service not a FREE service. jesus lord have mercy on your soul.

Re:Not Quite Right

[tepples]

If Alphabet offers everything else but their content, where is the content going to go. Facebook? Bing?

Traditional multichannel pay television, that is, cable or satellite.

Re:Not Quite Right

[houghi]

So let me get this straight, some the fuck how, advertisers think people will buy their products when they force them sit through those busker screams.

Not only do they think that. They know it works. Sure, you won't and I won't, but then the chance of us buying anything from them compared to the people would would not before and will now is highly in favor of ads.

I used to work for a marketing company. Marketing people are not interested in who will not buy their product. They are interested who will buy their product. And if the profit is higher than the cost of the ads, it is good.

Say they have 1% of the people are a customer. They advertise aggressively to everybody. They will lose 50% of their customer base. They gain 1% of the others. That means they are now around 1.5% An increase of 0.5% of their customer base. That means the ads where successful.

Other way to look at it: if it wasn't successful, they would not do it.

They do not care about you not buying the product. They do not care about 99% of the people not buying the product. You are not their target audience. And if that means you are not watching tv, cable, movies or do not read newspapers or whatever, they are ok with that.

You are unimportant to them. Don't forget that. You are not a customer and you never will be, so why would they care?

Re: Not Quite Right

[Cederic]

Do you also educate them on the legal implications, risks and potential options?

Re:Not Quite Right

[AmiMoJo]

You might as well think it is worthwhile to punch people in the face because it really attracts their attention

That's what they do! Adverts are often significantly louder than the programming, and much more obnoxious. It's not unlike being slapped in the face with a wet fish, with the sudden onslaught of sound and bright flashing images.

And this is why...

[mellon]

..broadcast TV is dying.

Re:And this is why...

[Noishkel]

And this is also why piracy will continue.

Honestly, skipping commercials was one of the reasons why anyone gives a damn about YouTube TV. And now Alphabet just shot it's self in the junk to appease the ad men that everyone already hates. Good job.

Re:And this is why...

[serviscope_minor]

And now Alphabet just shot it's self in the junk to appease the ad men that everyone already hates.

Google, er, Alphabet IS the ad men, remember?

Status Quo

[Aaron B Lingwood]

Here comes the new media...

...just like the old media.

Re:Status Quo

[Nethemas the Great]

Complete with the extra $$$ to subsidize ESPN again. When are they going to get a freaking clue? Not everyone wants ESPN. Make the bloody network an add-on like HBO and give me a fair rate. Better still, make all the freaking networks (channels even) a la carte. Sell packages of points where each network/channel costs a certain number of points and let me pick what to fill it with.

Re:Status Quo

[jez9999]

Gotta pay those sports stars obscene amounts of money. Otherwise they would... erm... stop playing and work at McD's?

I Don't Understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am willing to pay money to watch TV without ads...or if I don't want to pay I am willing to watch TV for free with ads. I will not pay money for TV and watch ads...

Re:I Don't Understand...

[rudy_wayne]

I am willing to pay money to watch TV without ads....

You're already paying for television and yet you have a metric shit ton of commercials forced on you. Until people start cancelling their television en masse, nothing will change.

Re:I Don't Understand...

[Fwipp]

Not everyone pays for TV. Some people do without, some people watch broadcast television.

History

[jediborg]

Really early in its existence wasn't youtube the most popular video sharing site for two years in a row ONLY BECAUSE it was the only video sharing site that didn't force you to watch an ad before the video you where trying to play?

oh how the mighty have fallen.

Nope

[digitig]

viewers are not "forced to watch" the ads. They might be forced to play them if they watch the program, but we old-timers remember that the ads are a great time to go get a beer or take a comfort break - you don't have to watch them.

Re:Nope

[mspohr]

Next new feature they will add is an active camera to make sure you are in the room. If you leave, it will stop and wait for your return so you don't miss any ads. (BTW, your dog doesn't count)

Re:Nope

[MrCodswallop]

Cats? Surely they'd accept cats as a substitute for my presence?

Commercial Parasitoidism

[Anonymous Coward]

Commercials killed TV, advertisers need a new host to survive, now infecting YouTube. Look up the definition of parasitoid.

this costs money to watch commercials?

[Anonymous Coward]

so google wants me to pay $35 a month to watch tv. add to that the internet cost. and i still am paying to watch ads?

at this rate, why not just keep cable tv?

Bad move

[bfwebster]

I had pretty much abandoned Hulu over its mandatory ads -- and then they offered an ad-free version for a few dollars (per month) more. Jumped on that right quick. And of course, no ads in Netflix. Or Amazon video.

Bad, bad move. ..bruce..

You try to force me to watch something and BYE!

[markdavis]

>"If a show is available on-demand, viewers won't be able to skip ads, even if they recorded the episode on DVR."

And this is why streaming usually fails, because it puts the user out of control. It doesn't matter the who or why- broadcasters, content providers, streaming service, if they are going to FORCE the customer to view ANYTHING- be it ads, previews, trailers, "infomercials", public service announcements, then we have moved backwards. Streaming gives them that power, and it is often irresistible- something they don't have over DVR's.

Technology has released me from being forced to watch commercials for 20 years and I am not about to start now (VCR then TiVo then added Netflix streaming). I am amazed that people will PAY for services that force them to watch what they don't want. Even if the content is "free", there is a large segment of the market who is like me, and if that contains forced anything, we reject it.

Forced ads are a dinosaur that needs to become and stay extinct.

Re:You try to force me to watch something and BYE!

[jittles]

>"If a show is available on-demand, viewers won't be able to skip ads, even if they recorded the episode on DVR."

And this is why streaming usually fails, because it puts the user out of control. It doesn't matter the who or why- broadcasters, content providers, streaming service, if they are going to FORCE the customer to view ANYTHING- be it ads, previews, trailers, "infomercials", public service announcements, then we have moved backwards. Streaming gives them that power, and it is often irresistible- something they don't have over DVR's.

Technology has released me from being forced to watch commercials for 20 years and I am not about to start now (VCR then TiVo then added Netflix streaming). I am amazed that people will PAY for services that force them to watch what they don't want. Even if the content is "free", there is a large segment of the market who is like me, and if that contains forced anything, we reject it.

Forced ads are a dinosaur that needs to become and stay extinct.

This is why I will not watch a DVD, whether I rent it or buy it. I rip it and stream it to my device and, if necessary, delete it when I am done. When you pop the DVD/Blu-ray into the drive they try to force you to watch trailers and other adverts, FBI warnings, and other BS that I have no interest in being forced to see.

Aaaand....

[Lumpy]

This is why I torrent my TV shows.

  I would pay for ad free, but the networks are ran by gigantic assholes and refuse to let me. So I have only one choice. Torrent the TV shows and get them 100% ad free.