Last edited by a moderator:
YouTube TV may change college football
You can get that right now with PS Vue.
illini92024
- Orange County, CA
Google has been moving in this direction for some time now. I live in the Silicon Beach area of LA where Google is among many of the major players in video production. With the evolution of YouTube and Chromecast Google has gained popularity offering video content via the internet. This is leading to the downfall of cable providers due to the fact that they refuse to offer alacarte programming(who wants to have to purchase 500 mostly useless channels). With Google fiber coming to a city near you, I can definately see them moving towards a competitive TV programming provider. Now that Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime have opened the door we are seeing more providers such as ESPN, HBO and others in discussions about offering subscriptions via individual internet subscribers. Already you can purchase sports packages relatively cheap campared to cable on Sling TV, although I have never tried it yet. The future seems to be TV via internet with subscribers selection only the networks they want to watch. ESPN will not be left out of that pot full of cash nor FS1 or CBS sports, etc. It will be interesting to see how this all evolves.
IlliniRocketFan
- Rochester, IL
This might not be such a bad thing. I can't imagine that these channels are letting YouTube charge money to broadcast their content for free. This could mean more money for ESPN, FOX and all the rest to help cover their conference contracts. You know YouTube has to have permission to do this, so lets see what happens.
Got rid of direct TV about 9 months ago. It is a little more inconvenient to find shows. But I am very happy with it. Get everything I want to see, and a DVR. Got rid of Directv and save about $65.00 a month getting the same programs.
I think every service will go to streaming. Then eventually after they all shake out, everyone will be back to charging the same price again.
I saw this as well, will likely be getting it when it becomes available. Hopefully the delay isn't too terrible for live sports.
This is definitely the short term future, the question is if/when a more a la carte style for television enters the mix (pick your channels)
This is definitely the short term future, the question is if/when a more a la carte style for television enters the mix (pick your channels)
Serious Late
- Peoria via Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque vi
Even if you don't want to cut the cord, you can save a lot of money just by calling your cable provider and dropping that phrase. I had no intention of giving up my Directv service, but by calling them and suggesting I would, I was given a $50 per month reduction on my bill, an upgraded Sunday Ticket package and access to Showtime. Not too shabby.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
KBLEE
- Montgomery, IL
The biggest issue for these internet based TV services is going to be ISPs creating / enforcing data caps. Comcast has already rolled out 300GB per month caps in several markets, and is rumored to push it nationwide sometime this year or next. If one is getting all of their cable TV / Netflix, etc. via internet, it will be very easy to exceed 300GB. So - the option they will force consumers into is purchasing a larger or unlimited data package which could end up costing as much as they were paying before cutting the cord.
illynifan34
That's a winner!!
- OH
KBLEE
- Montgomery, IL
I didn't realize that they had recently raised it, but it is still a cap. If you look at the comments, there are several who indicate that they had recently used 1.5-2 TB. The point is that adding cable tv viewing to your existing Neflix, Hulu, etc. will increase your data usage and, potentially, the amount you will pay your ISP.
It's not going to make up for the loss of revenue from dwindling cable subs. As per the section I quoted, ESPN is getting $7 from all subscribers and right now is having significant financial problems. They've been laying off employees and jettisoning a lot of their higher priced talent to save money. They'll get some money back via these services, but again nowhere near the revenue they've been getting.
This is part of an interesting transition to how we get our content. Just like how Netflix has gone from delivering other people's programs to generating their own content. It should allow us all to be able to have better choices in the long run but it remains to be seen if the costs really go down. I'd sign up for any of these but right now they wouldn't really save me any money.
DrewD007
- Woodridge, IL
Not only that the new FCC chair wants to gut net neutrality so ISPs could end up charging content providers in order to not be throttled which will also likely increase the cost.
Might be difficult to in some places with limited access to internet / bad phone coverage / etc. (very rural areas) -- those places almost always rely on the satellite / receiver / etc.
DanvIllini
Super Lurker
- Danville, IL
This is something that I hope most people are contacting their reps about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kcib8130
- Parts Unknown
Quick question: how is this different than what cable channels do on other streaming services?
Because when I want to watch the ABC app on my Apple TV, for example, I have to login with my provider info, proving that i have a subscription. How is it that YouTube can get around that?
Because when I want to watch the ABC app on my Apple TV, for example, I have to login with my provider info, proving that i have a subscription. How is it that YouTube can get around that?
Youtube is replacing your cable provider in this instance. You're not logging into the ABC app to play ABC on the internet, you're getting it on youtube. But if you wanted to watch on the ABC app, you'd use youtube credentials to do so instead of DirectTV/Comcast/whatever
kcib8130
- Parts Unknown
Understood, and this seems like a monumental package deal that would be in the billions of dollars to acquire the rights to those stations. Also, wouldn't those networks have television contracts in place?
This just seems like a benchmark deal in terms of dollars spent.
The major difference here between Sling, Vue, etc is that this has CBS. I don't believe the other ones were able to get those. But really, it's fairly similar to those products with a bigger name that has better infrastructure for this sort of thing in place.
From what I've read, the initial youtubeTV launch is only going to be in markets where they've also been able to acquire rights to the local OTA networks as well. So it may be initially available in very limited and probably major metro areas only.
That wouldn't surprise me, but I would be surprised if there was a major time gap there between initial launch and expansion.
KrushCow31
Former Krush Cow
- Chicago, IL
As a millennial (barf) I dumped cable this year. I bought a $15 antenna on Amazon and I get ABC, NBC, CBS, and multiple FOX channels all in HD. All I need for live sports. I actually get 3 football games (Chicago, Indy, and Detroit) on FOX local channels on my antenna vs just 1 on cable.
During Big Ten season I paid $35 for PS Vue so I could watch conference basketball/Football and then I unsubscribe. I don't need to pay all that money in the Summer when I never watch cable. The way cable is structured now is a dying scam. People my age aren't going to pay $100/month to watch crap TV programs when we can stream it all for free or buy a cheap antenna that transmits HD channels.
During Big Ten season I paid $35 for PS Vue so I could watch conference basketball/Football and then I unsubscribe. I don't need to pay all that money in the Summer when I never watch cable. The way cable is structured now is a dying scam. People my age aren't going to pay $100/month to watch crap TV programs when we can stream it all for free or buy a cheap antenna that transmits HD channels.
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
What streaming services do you use that are free?