Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the cheaper-by-the-dozen dept.

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.

43 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Huh? by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Huh? by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Huh? by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re: Huh? by OakDragon · · Score: 3, Funny

      . 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?

      --
      Dark Reflection
    5. Re:Huh? by chicagoan · · Score: 1

      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

  2. Need a new law named by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Need a new law named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and contains only 5% desirable content"

      Youtube wishes it could get to 5% desirable content.

    2. Re:Need a new law named by taustin · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Need a new law named by taustin · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Yeah well... by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Call me when they go global.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  4. Do not want. by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Do not want. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Do not want. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Do not want. by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  5. Pay more for less! Evil included! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Pay more for less! Evil included! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  6. Same as it ever was by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Same as it ever was by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      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)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Same as it ever was by turp182 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:Same as it ever was by aevan · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Same as it ever was by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Same as it ever was by b0bby · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Same as it ever was by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Dark Reflection
  7. Typical post-2007 Google product by alternative_right · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Alternative Right.
    1. Re:Typical post-2007 Google product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

  8. Re:Pay for what you want.... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!"

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  9. another product is kill by Tsolias · · Score: 1

    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.

  10. F that noise. by Snufu · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:F that noise. by erapert · · Score: 1

      And here I am without mod points.

  11. Yawn by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Yawn by dbrueck · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Yawn by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

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

      Double-yawn.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Yawn by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      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!

    4. Re:Yawn by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  12. Amazing by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  13. Re:Pay for what you want.... by dbrueck · · Score: 4, Informative

    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. :)

  14. I hate sports passionately by Nocturrne · · Score: 1

    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.

  15. Might as well go back to Cable by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Might as well go back to Cable by 91degrees · · Score: 1

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

  16. Re:Pay for what you want.... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. What is youtube TV? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  18. Only Chrome by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

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

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.