YouTube TV Is Adding More Channels, But It's Also Getting More Expensive (theverge.com)

YouTube's internet TV streaming service is expanding its programming with the addition of several Turner networks including TBS, TNT, CNN, Adult Swim, Cartoon Network, truTV, and Turner Classic Movies. YouTube TV is also bringing NBA TV and MLB Network to the base lineup. NBA All Access and MLB.TV will be offered as optional paid add-ons "in the coming months." The downside? The price of the service is going up. The Verge reports: Starting March 13th, YouTube TV's monthly subscription cost will rise from $35 to $40. All customers who join the service prior to the 13th will be able to keep the lower $35 monthly rate going forward. And if you've been waiting for YouTube to add Viacom channels, that still hasn't happened yet. Hopefully these jumps in subscription cost won't happen very often. Otherwise these internet TV businesses might suddenly start feeling more like cable (and not in a good way). The Verge also mentions that YouTube TV is adding a bunch of new markets including: Lexington, Dayton, Honolulu, El Paso, Burlington, Plattsburgh, Richmond, Petersburg, Mobile, Syracuse, Champaign, Springfield, Columbia, Charleston, Harlingen, Wichita, Wilkes-Barre, and Scranton.

Comments

Huh?

[RightwingNutjob]

In many of these places, the ISP that's fast enough to watch this on a big screen also provides TV, and at a marginal cost of less than $40 if you buy the bundle.

Re:Huh?

[Cutting_Crew]

exactly. i mean whats the point? If you are close to dead even staying with your cable co. or the equivalent, its not worth the hassle. I have spectrum and if i just choose the basic internet plan (which i think is 75 mbps). its $80 + tax. So i go with youtube and pay $40 + tax and now i'm paying as much or more than what i pay for the previously mentioned basic internet plan + the lowest tier cable package.

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, how is that working out btw? With the uptake of TV tanking, integrating it with youtube and other online viewing platforms won't make a difference, the idea of making someone watch materials on a schedule died sometime in 2006. I'm glad I got rid of all my cable and direct TV stock, that money is now invested .. very differently.

Re:Huh?

[dbrueck]

A lot of times the /base/ price is about the same, but then they nickle and dime you for HD, DVRs, etc. And then on top of that often the low pricing is just introductory and then goes up after a year, and you're locked into a year or more contract. Also, cable companies always seem about a decade behind the times when it comes to user interfaces on their crappy set-top boxes.

I was on Dish then SlingTV (plus a few others to get the specific channels I wanted) and then switched to YoutubeTV once their Roku app finally came out. It's HD, unlimited DVR, allows up to 6 subaccounts (each with their own history and DVR library), and works on my phone, laptop, TVs, etc. and there is no long term contract.

To get the features and channels I wanted my Dish bill was north of $100/mo. With Sling + another provider or two I got it down to $65 (but it had weird restrictions and I still was down 1 or 2 channels I wanted and didn't have my local channels), and with YoutubeTV I'm at $35.

It might not be a good fit for everyone, and I've only been using it for a few weeks, but for me it's been fantastic.

Re:Huh?

[apoc.famine]

You just made me double-check what we're paying and what we're getting. Already planning a saturday outing to the local cable branch to talk to them about WTF, how the hell did that creep up so high?

The good news is that every couple of years when we do that, and bring the old hardware with us, they somehow manage to hack down the price, hook us up with the better hardware, and add new services. Corporate helldesk line? Fucking abysmal. Local folks? Cheerful helpful, and generally awesome.

Re: Huh?

[OakDragon]

. I'm glad I got rid of all my cable and direct TV stock, that money is now invested .. very differently.

It's bitcoin, isn't it?

Re:Huh?

[chicagoan]

Just so we're being fair. The price listed for Youtube TV includes tax. I pay $35 per month and that is the charge that shows up on my credit card. I happen to live in an urban area with a lot of choice for internet providers and get 100Mbps for $40 per month which also includes tax. Now don't forget your TV bundle with your cable provider you need to pay $10 for HD, oh and $10 per additional room you want to actually view the TV which keeps bumping up your costs where I am paying $75 per month all in. My TVs / chromecast all already support youtube tv so no additional equipment to buy or lease. My only gripe is certain sports can't be streamed over the internet (i'm looking at you MLB!) so I have an HD Home Run to get my locals on my TVs so I can watch baseball without issue

Need a new law named

[SuperKendall]

We need some kind of new law, that states something along the lines of :

"Any collection of video will eventually expand until it costs $50 a month to access, and contains only 5% desirable content".

Re:Need a new law named

[Anonymous Coward]

and contains only 5% desirable content"

Youtube wishes it could get to 5% desirable content.

Re:Need a new law named

[taustin]

5%? You're an optimist, aren't you?

$35 is already more than I pay for actual cable. With more channels. Which are also full of crap.

Re:Need a new law named

[taustin]

I'm still waiting for you to finish the bag of dicks you promised to eat. I need to return the bag for the deposit.

Re:Need a new law named

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that you will just have to remain dick bagless for now.

Re:Need a new law named

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've never tried dick, it's surprising tasty. Spotted Dick, I believe, is made with bull penis.

Pay for what you want....

[Anonymous Coward]

How about letting people opt out of channels they don't want and adjust the price down?

Re:Pay for what you want....

[FatdogHaiku]

I've got a hunch there are some channels that they get paid to place in the lineup. If so, letting you drop those would actually hurt their bottom line. Then there are channels that cost them so much that they simply must charge everyone for them or they would not be able to offer them to those that do want them, due to costs.

Twelve or so years ago my buddy set up a SMATV headend for a new prison (rack mounted, one DirecTV receiver for each channel on the system) and I got to see the price breakdown. ESPN was far and away the highest priced channel, by about a 4:1 ratio. Also, in that case the total monthly charge for a channel was based on the number of beds, not displays. In other words, an eyeball based fee.

IoT may bring that fee schedule to us, instead of Dad yelling about the lights or the thermostat or the mobile phone bill it will be "Don't look at the TV!"

Re:Pay for what you want....

[Anonymous Coward]

ESPN was far and away the highest priced channel, by about a 4:1 ratio.

I fantasized about an ESPN free cable/satellite system for many years for just this reason. "Charge me less, give less channels. I don't watch sports or continuous reruns of 10 year old movies."

Alas, those days are long over as the few channels I had any interest in decreased year by year until eventually reaching zero.

I now pay less for TV. Much less. Zero, in fact.

Re: Pay for what you want....

[Anonymous Coward]

They offer a lot of sports channels that include ESPN. I would be happy if they would make Sports a add-on

Re:Pay for what you want....

[dbrueck]

I've got a hunch there are some channels that they get paid to place in the lineup. If so, letting you drop those would actually hurt their bottom line. Then there are channels that cost them so much that they simply must charge everyone for them or they would not be able to offer them to those that do want them, due to costs.

Yup, that's exactly how it works - some channel owners pay providers to carry the channels, while the "top-tier" channels are considered must-have and so it's the other way around: the providers pay for the right to carry the channels, and then more often than not there are groups of channels owned by the same company and the rights for them are negotiated as a group. For years, Disney + ESPN (especially ESPN) were considered must-have cable channels, so not only did providers pay for for the "privilege" of including ESPN, they paid a ton for it - easily 25% or more of the fees providers paid for their channel lineup went to ESPN.

ESPN's success is why there has been a proliferation of new cable sports channels, and it's a big part of why ESPN has been weakened so much. But the deals are so valuable and complicated that they end up being deals with a very long duration. For example, Comcast and Disney hammered out a deal in 2012 that remains in effect until 2022 (see https://mediadecoder.blogs.nyt...).

Incidentally, the long duration of these deals is also a major factor in why the TV industry has been moving so frustratingly slow for end users: people were wanting to e.g. watch TV on their computers or phones long before it was allowed because few of the business deals had provisions for anything online. It's not hard to imagine that in 2020, if ESPN is still alive, viewers will be frustrated by some inane restriction due to the fact that the content rights were negotiated way back in 2012. :)

Re:Pay for what you want....

[91degrees]

The business model doesn't work that way. It's not like it costs youTube $x per channel, and that it saves them money not to provide them. Some people will pay $40 for a single channel. Some will pay $20 each for 2 of the channels. Others will be willing to pay varying amounts for th channel selection they actually watch. This model allows youTube to offer the widest selection to most people and maximise their own profit.

Are yo fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

$40 on top of existing internet and data fees? Guessing TWC is feeling just a weee bit of a pinch otherwise who in the world pays this?

People go to Youtube because broadcast TV is horrid.

Yeah well...

[war4peace]

Call me when they go global.

Do not want.

[SeaFox]

YouTube TV is also bringing NBA TV and MLB Network to the base lineup. NBA All Access and MLB.TV will be offered as optional paid add-ons "in the coming months." The downside? The price of the service is going up.

Did Google miss that the reason lots of cord cutters "cut the cord" was because they were sick of paying for sports networks they had no interest in?

Re: Do not want.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love sports and I cut the cable. This service is what I have wanted forever and it worked flawlessly for college football and now college basketball.

Re:Do not want.

[Anonymous Coward]

These are add-ons which means you can opt-in/out. Lack of live sports are a major hurdle for many to cut the cord. At least here they can chose to subscribe.

Re:Do not want.

[SeaFox]

You need to re-read the first sentence of my quote, bro.

YouTube TV is also bringing NBA TV and MLB Network to the base lineup.

Re:Do not want.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Did you miss the part where they're optional paid add-ons? It's literally in the text you quoted. Don't want it, don't pay. Jesus people.

Re:Do not want.

[SeaFox]

Did you miss the part where they're optional paid add-ons?

Why don't you read what I quoted again, and the channels listed very carefully.

Pay more for less! Evil included!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the benefit of this compared to regular cable?
Does it have automatically removal or skipping of commericals? Nope...
Does it have on demand viewing? Nope...
Does it have offline viewing? Nope..
Does it have à la carte? Nope...
Does it have more channels? Nope...
Does it have all local channels? Nope, only the main ones... but I guess most cable companies do this too and don't carry the sbuchannels

Re: Pay more for less! Evil included!

[Anonymous Coward]

For one there is DVR and two there is also on demand.

Also I can have 5 other people on the plan. Jokes on you.

Re:Pay more for less! Evil included!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't automatically remove and skip commercial on live television, because it's live, so the question doesn't even make sense in that context. It has an unlimited DVR (things are deleted after 9 months, but otherwise you can record and watch as much as you want). The DVR automatically detects and removes commercials. The DVR accomplishes most of what you'd want from an on-demand service, as long as whatever you want to watch has aired in the last 9 months and you remembered to record it. It has some content available on-demand, but for the most part it's not enough to matter.

Re: Pay more for less! Evil included!

[Anonymous Coward]

Every cable company here allows streaming to 4 or 5 computers at a time... so no better or no worse. What's on demand? Any show shown is on demand like people are used to for online shows? No...

Cable companies already provide DVR.. better yet, you can view it offline too.

Re:Pay more for less! Evil included!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It lets Google compile your viewing preferences and assimilate that into all the other data they have on you. Some people apparently consider that a plus, as they like targeted ads.

Same as it ever was

[OrangeTide]

So YouTube TV is $40/mo. Which doesn't really replace Disney's $5/mo for ESPN plus, at least for sports fans.

Amazon subscription pricing (for reference, I don't recommend them):
  HBO - $15/mo
  Cinemax - $10/mo
  HBO + Cinemax - $22/mo (a $3 savings!)

I could fill this post with all the various subscription streaming services
By the time very middle man has gotten their cut, I'll be paying 2x more than cable form this "cord cutting". I think cord cutting mainly works for people who pirate or who watch so little TV that the dregs on Netflix are sufficient.

Re:Same as it ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time very middle man has gotten their cut, I'll be paying 2x more than cable form this "cord cutting".

Which is probably the point. I guess they'd rather stick to their old business model and prevent further subscriber losses.

Re:Same as it ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading torrents instead - priceless.

Re:Same as it ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

"the dregs on Netflix"

"dregs"? Netflix, HBO, CBS All Access, and other online venues are producing the highest quality programming by far right now because the pay model creates more money for purchasing shows. The old advertising model would never have produced $10M / episode shows like Game of Thrones. That said, they are falling into the cable trap of buying packages of channels to get the one or two they needed to add. That sucks.

Re:Same as it ever was

[OrangeTide]

I'm not terribly impress with Netflix's selection of movies for streaming.

Netflix and Amazon are producing their own series. It's really hit and miss, and I'm not impressed. Some of the series Netflix produces received some of the worst reviews in recent history. (Fuller House, The Ridiculous 6, and many others)

Re: Same as it ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

ESPN + BTN + FS1 and 2 is more expensive from Comcast than 40$, and that's just those 3.

Re:Same as it ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm absolutely shocked that someone who choose a sports-related username and specifically mentioned ESPN in his post is not satisfied with Netflix, which doesn't offer sports.

How about we cherry pick ESPN and talk about the eating competitions they show. Watching people shove hotdogs in wet buns down their throat while chewing as little as possible? How's that for good quality television?

Re:Same as it ever was

[turp182]

Netflix is more about original content at this point.

https://www.netflix.com/origin...

What do I watch?

Movies: I like horror.
* The Babysitter was the most fun movie I've seen since Evil Dead 2 (Satanism!!!).
* Death Note should have been rated R as it was too creepy.
* 1922 was messed up (a son helps his father murder the mother).

TV shows: Ozark, Stranger Things, Narcos, those are the ones I've liked the best.

And offline download which I use a lot, all of their original stuff is portable.

Re:Same as it ever was

[aevan]

Not all netflix offerings are equal. The 'region locking' is a bitch

Re:Same as it ever was

[OrangeTide]

sports-related username

Nope, sorry to burst your bubble. It's for the laundry detergent that comes in an orange box.

I only know the rules of hockey and tennis well enough to follow along. Gridiron football is a mystery to me!

Re:Same as it ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

and thank buggery we have that option.

Re:Same as it ever was

[b0bby]

I think cord cutting mainly works for people who pirate or who watch so little TV that the dregs on Netflix are sufficient.

That's pretty much me - I watch, maybe, a couple of hours of "TV" a week; usually that's a movie, and likely as not it's one that's not even streaming. I subscribe to Netflix streaming mostly for the kids, Netflix DVDs mostly for my wife and me, and Amazon Prime because I'm using it anyway. For the Olympics/Super Bowl/other big live TV stuff, I have an old media center PC hooked to an antenna. I'm just about to replace that PC with a new OTA DVR thing (Channel Master Stream+) which looks like it will do the same job but in a much lower power, smaller format. I feel like I have much more stuff available than I will ever get around to watching.

Re:Same as it ever was

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite. I left ESPN in particular (and TV in general) precisely because the percentage of sports on ESPN was heading toward zero.

Re:Same as it ever was

[OakDragon]

I'm not terribly impress with Netflix's selection of movies for streaming... Netflix and Amazon are producing their own series. It's really hit and miss...

I kind of agree, but for the prices (even though they do creep up, one has to watch that) I think the original content is pretty decent. Certainly good enough to make me choose that over traditional cable TV.

It's the sports

[Anonymous Coward]

No base package should include sports. Sports channels are expensive and a large portion of the population has no interest. They are present because advertisement revenue on sports channels is high.

Typical post-2007 Google product

[alternative_right]

Instead of what we want, which is a la carte access to certain shows and movies, they want to sell us cable television over the internet. Brilliant. Hopefully no one falls for this.

Antitrust cannot reap Google too soon...

Re:Typical post-2007 Google product

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. We dumped cable and went online so we wouldn't have to pay $x/month have a whole bunch of crap piped into our homes 24/7 along with the one or two shows we actually wanted. Now they want to put us back on the do-you-want-loads-of-crap-with-that ('coz you're getting it) model?

Just say no.

Re:Typical post-2007 Google product

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of what we want, which is a la carte access to certain shows and movies...

To be fair, that is probably not entirely Google. Various companies don't just own one channel. That would be, well reasonable. They instead own a lot of channels and will often say, well if you want this popular one, you have to buy all these others.

It would be interesting if a law was passed requiring all cable or similar services to be a la carte. A lot of crap channels would be lost pretty quickly and probably some good stuff too. Still, I think its worth the risk.

The last time a la carte existed was with the old C-band satellite dishes. (i.e. the 10' dishes). It has been a fond dream for a long time, and I see it remaining no more than that. Hell, we might get sane gun laws first, instead of yet another mass shooting and the predictable bullshit to avoid actually even attempting to address the issue. You cannot solve problems when your solutions are in fact part of the problem.

Re: Typical post-2007 Google product

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they giving you both?

YouTube TV?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost aside, I had no idea this existed. I mentioned this to my wife and she thought this was the YouTube Red. So on top of this missing the point most people got rid of cable, no one knows about it.

A bunch of cable channels

[Anonymous Coward]

Same cable channels - same stupid programs and ads. No thank you.

youtube-dl

[Anonymous Coward]

Does youtube-dl work with this? Basically, can I save TV shows like I would recording from a TV tuner? I have an HDHomerun, but my cable provider (Charter) has locked just about all of the channels with DRM, including some local over-the-air stuff. If it's possible to save TV shows using youtube-dl, this would be an interesting alternative to my cable provider locking stuff down for no good reason.

I use to go to youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

For free content but if ads are not enough I no longer visit.

I am thinking of writing a Browser that sells for 25.00 and blocks all ads and all tracking.

Re: I use to go to youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story brah.

I'm thinking of designing a car that runs on water and get a million miles to the gallon. Let me know when your done and you can be my in car browser, cuz like, I will totally be done before you get off the couch.

another product is kill

[Tsolias]

Youtube has been alienating users and while there's no other comparable platform, they invented the patreon thing to get alphabet of their back(youtubers). Youtube sees ads go down, advertisers leave, youtubers keep uploading content but don't care about ads because of patreon, many of the gamers already have monetized streaming on twitch and youtube is just the trunk with their videos... So unless alphabet goes back to 2010 tactics, youtube is kill, but a slow kill.

F that noise.

[Snufu]

The whole point of the interwebs is I consume what I want (pull) not what an ad exec wants me to watch (push.)

Re:F that noise.

[erapert]

And here I am without mod points.

I hope that they don't make you pay for CNN...

[Anonymous Coward]

cause it's too biased... and it's free with an antenna...

Kodi is eating the entertainment industries lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's really not the pirates at fault for Hollywood's failures. The traditional Hollywood entertainment industry became dependent on copy"right" and monopolies. Something that doesn't exist and is illegal in any other business. As a result while the law ensured the industries success to one degree or another in the past they ended up getting themselves into a jam when new competition emerged.

Today we have video games, the internet, independent content producers that rely on newer better business models and more cost effective production techniques. This content largely relies on advertisers, sponsors, and listener/viewer-funding.

The industry fights reality rather than adapting to the changing times. Instead of cutting costs and adopting new technology (like peer-to-peer distribution- which Bittorrent tried to sell em- but nobody listened) they have run to lawmakers crying foul. It isn't the piracy that is killing your business- it's your own ignorance that is killing it. They have literally attacked the very customers they so need to survive.

Now I'm going to "come out" a bit. I'm very much one of the early newcomers in the entertainment industry. I've been producing content since the early days of the internet for the internet (mid 1990s- I started with photography and moved to video more recently). I've never relied on digital restrictions and I have sold subscription access to content (yes- my work was "pirated" in the 1990s and I was OK with that- it actually helped sell subscription access to my latest work). It can work. It may not be the best business model- but depending on the circumstances it can work. Today I help with production of content for a local news outlet with a national viewership (how many small local news outlets can say that??? not many) and frequently are first to air stories that go international for stories coming out of the state. I also co-host on two syndicated radio shows (3 hours each twice a week). I also produce content for a pure entertainment YouTube channel that is one of the most successful in the north-east. I am also in the works of developing a new TV series. For my own sake I post anonymously. You want to make it in this business come up with a better business model for the internet era and stop bitching. I'm also a very successful businessperson and make six figures. While it might not meet the standards of Hollywood's big shots- I'm not complaining. I have a very nice house in a part of the country that's not insanely expensive to live (unlike California) and probably have a comparable life-style to well-off stars in Hollywood. From travel to food to houses I've got it pretty well here.

Yawn

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The moment Youtube forces me to pay for anything, that's the moment I stop using Youtube.

It's 98% trash anyway, it's not like I'll lay awake in bed losing sleep over anything Youtube does or doesn't do.

It's the tragedy of success...as soon as something becomes popular it starts to go downhill and gradually turns to shit. Sometimes not so gradually.

Re:Yawn

[dbrueck]

This isn't Youtube (like the website), it's a TV service (like Dish or DirecTV).

Re:Yawn

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

This isn't Youtube (like the website), it's a TV service (like Dish or DirecTV).

Double-yawn.

Re:Yawn

[dbrueck]

Obviously whether or not you find YoutubeTV interesting makes no difference to me one way or another; I replied to your comment only because you seemed to misunderstand what the service was. Anyway, have a great day!

Re:Yawn

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Thank you; my apologies if my response was rude or ill-considered. I'm sometimes a little more terse than I should be.

Amazing

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

The amazing thing to me is that anyone is willing to spend $35 a month on Youtube.

We're watching it over again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable packages that grow out of control... redux

I hate sports passionately

[Nocturrne]

When someone offers a sports-free channel selection, I will consider it; until then, they are just making a clone of traditional cable services online.

Re:I hate sports passionately

[Anonymous Coward]

It's available, and I'm considering it -- $16/month for essentially basic cable sans sports https://try.philo.com

Might as well go back to Cable

[HockeyPuck]

With the cost of home internet + all the online streaming services (youtube, hulu etc), you might as well just get cable + internet from your cable provider. They'll usually give you a discount for bundling them together and if you complain they'll lower your rates.

Re:Might as well go back to Cable

[91degrees]

This does strike me as remarkably undercompeititve. They need to disrupt the entrenched business, and this is just duplicating the existing offering

Luckily for me

[Anonymous Coward]

my torrent subscription price has not gone up.

What is youtube TV?

[sad_]

Is it just the same as having cable? But you watch TV through a youtube 'app'?
If so, what is the point? TV is rubbish, too many ads, show play when i can't watch them, can't binge series, too many bad shows/realitytv, ...
Who wants this and pay $40 for it?

I was hoping for PBS or MeTV

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm not 70 years old. Really I'm not.

Hugs and kisses,

Juan Epstein

Once get YouTube TV never go back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you get YouTube TV it will be very difficult to go back to the old way of watching TV. It gives you TV on demand, finally. So I set ours to record all the channels I watch 24/7. This allows me to then jump in any point and rewind.

So when a story like yesterday with the high school shooting broke I could rewind the news and see the moment the story broke. But also for Fox, MSNBC and CNN. So see how covered differently.

Or I see a interview segement on CNBC on the web. I can go back and see the entire interview.

It also made me a hero with my wife. She was recording her show and our power went out. Which is very rare but it happened and she was upset. Then got to tell her no problem as it is recorded in the cloud.

Only Chrome

[DarkRookie]

Is this site still Chrome only. I thought about it until I was told I needed to use that.

Mlb network

[Anonymous Coward]

How is mlb going to cost on YouTube tv