Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 225 posts

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#131

Post by tacon »

wyldfire wrote: post #95
adregan wrote: post #91

I'm so frustrated by the state of things as I only subscribed to YoutubeTV because I wanted to watch Mets baseball and media blackouts prevent me from streaming despite my MLB.tv subscription. The price has only risen over the years and it's been a pretty bitter pill to swallow. I already pay for Disney+ but am also paying for their content through YoutubeTV, which I rarely consume (never watch the disney channel; so…

> EDIT: Anyone know of a DVR + digital antenna solution I could implement? Not sure about the current generation of devices but I had a HomeRun device [1] in the past and it was great. More recently I think I heard of a FireTV product that had an antenna and DVR support. [1] https://www.silicondust.com/

I have been using an HD Homerun Extend bought used off eBay since 2015, with an HD antenna on a mast above the roof. For a few years, I used Windows Media Center's free electronic program guide as a DVR. That data feed became unstable, so I switched to program data from Schedules Direct[0], which costs $25/yr.

[0] https://www.schedulesdirect.org/

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#132

Post by cptskippy »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #102

Think it’s worrying that YouTube hasn’t realized they’re the disruptor and actually have more value in a lot of people, especially young peoples minds than Disney properties. I don’t see this as a space them worth burning the money to compete in. Makes more sense to invest that back in their own platform, even with their budgets lack of focus can be damaging.

But they, like Sling before and T-Mobile after them, have claimed to disrupt Cable TV while basically just offering Cable TV.

The only difference is that you're now responsible for maintaining your own streaming equipment.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#133

Post by briffle »

wyldfire wrote: post #95
adregan wrote: post #91

I'm so frustrated by the state of things as I only subscribed to YoutubeTV because I wanted to watch Mets baseball and media blackouts prevent me from streaming despite my MLB.tv subscription. The price has only risen over the years and it's been a pretty bitter pill to swallow. I already pay for Disney+ but am also paying for their content through YoutubeTV, which I rarely consume (never watch the disney channel; so…

> EDIT: Anyone know of a DVR + digital antenna solution I could implement? Not sure about the current generation of devices but I had a HomeRun device [1] in the past and it was great. More recently I think I heard of a FireTV product that had an antenna and DVR support. [1] https://www.silicondust.com/

Plex works well with the silicon dust boxes and an antenna

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#134

Post by kfootball15 »

dreyfan wrote: post #108
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube TV is a separate $65/month subscription. Seems like an absurdly high price relative to Hulu or Netflix, but it’s meant to compete more with local cable packages. Without the premium content, it’s hard to do that. I think the content providers know this and are trying to squeeze YouTube into giving more of their profits to the content providers. Either that, or to raise prices to be similar to cable. YouTube T…

Hulu + LiveTV is $65 and Sling is about $50 and Youtube TV $65. These aren’t really comparable to standard Hulu or Netflix or Amazon Prime etc. It’s for people that want to pretend they’re cord-cutting while buying the exact same thing from a streaming company.

Theres one key difference - you can share your YoutubeTv account with 3 couples.

YoutubeTV lets you create 6 accounts and use 3 simultaneously. I live in NY and share my account with 2 friends in CT for <25$ a person. Absolute steal and a really great product.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#135

Post by ghaff »

BrazzVuvuzela wrote: post #129
VikingCoder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you care if I enjoy a product from a company? Is my enjoyment of it harming you in some way?

I am subjected to televisions in public places like airports and waiting rooms. I have family members that turn the TV on whenever we meet up for the holidays. Friends, family and coworkers who can scarcely talk about anything other than television. Television has permeated American society for my entire life, and decades before that. I'm entitled to have an opinion on this shit, I'm not obliged to withhold my critic…

Just because they're less likely to watch broadcast TV or a cable bundle, I'd be very surprised if younger people today were actually watching less video (both with and without advertising) than in years past. Now, if they're deliberately choosing what to watch rather than just watching whatever is on, that is probably a good thing overall, but television as an episodic format is probably as big as ever.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#136

Post by asciimov »

awb wrote: post #122
jayknight wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney+ doesn't have live sports.

Yes it does: https://www.disneyplus.com/welcome/disney-hulu-espn-bundle

No, it doesn't. ESPN ≠ ESPN+

Live sports on ESPN isn't typically on ESPN+.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#137

Post by 5555624 »

mason55 wrote: post #57
throwbacktictac wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this legal? Do Pluto and Tubitv have some contract with providers that allows this? I remember a company named Aereo being sued out of existence because they were offering OTA TV to their subscribers by allocating an micro antenna to each user. The excuse did fly in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo BTW, thanks for sharing!

Pluto operates a model called FAST (free ad supported television). Because the content is still aired in a linear fashion (as opposed to on demand) the licensing costs are lower than it would be for VOD and there’s no infrastructure costs to support like traditional cable tv, they can support it with ads easily enough. They don’t have regular channels and instead do all their own programming. You get things like “The…

Pluto has both "live" TV and on demand. The on demand material is essentially the libraries for specific channels.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#138

Post by ghaff »

mcot2 wrote: post #127
ghaff wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And because you're buying essentially the same content package, there's no reason one would expect it to be significantly cheaper just because it's streamed. As a content package, it's evolved to be something largely different from what you get from the streaming services like Netflix. It's largely sports, news/talk shows, and reality TV and other relatively low-cost lightly scripted/unscripted content, some document…

Netflix with all their cash still has basically nothing for live news/talk shows and sports. It’s bizarre.

Sports that a mass audience wants to watch is expensive (hence the OP). And establishing a news/talk show brand that people would subscribe to Netflix to get wouldn't be easy (and is probably a very different thing than acting as the studio for scripted shows). [ADDED: And honestly some politically polarized crap would be far more likely to fit that bill than historical network news organizations, however relatively superficial they were in some ways.]

Remember Netflix' incentives are very different from a network. Netflix wants to acquire and retain subscribers which tends to favor stickier content rather than filling up a schedule with programming that people will tune into out of habit.

Put another way, the network business model is essentially a legacy model. I'm not sure why Netflix would want to recreate an uber-Network.

Re: YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute

#139

Post by tacon »

foxhop wrote: post #32

If you just want TV on in the background and don't want to pay anything, checkout "Pluto TV" and "Tubi TV", both have apps and may cast to Chromecast or SmartTVs. https://pluto.tv/ https://tubitv.com/ Friends help friends cut cords.

I was using Justwatch[0] for a 2017 series and saw I could stream it for free on the Roku Channel[1]. That was a surprise to me, and Roku Channel has some quality stuff, rotating through month by month. In addition, they show some commercials, but with a nice UI feature: a timer in the upper left that shows exactly how long the ads will play. That is a new feature to me. I wish all commercials came with a countdown timer like that.

[0] https://www.justwatch.com/us

[1] https://www.justwatch.com/us/provider/the-roku-channel

Post reply on HN