YouTube TV loses ESPN, ABC and other Disney channels in fee dispute • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by fullshark » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

rp1 wrote: post #124

This is just a small microcosm of what’s going on in the cable TV world. Many channels are raising their fees, but the cable providers are very reluctant to raise the price charged to end users. Instead, cable providers are opting to drop channels. This is leading to an increasingly fragmented cable TV market where it’s impossible to get all the channels you may want to watch. For instance, Comcast just dropped MSG,…

Gonna take 5 years for this market collapse to sort itself out, and by then they will realize the younger consumer has already moved on even from live sports, the last thing holding them to cable/broadcast television.

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

#142

Post by mdoms » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

heartbreak wrote: post #26

I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV. YouTube TV is basically cable TV delivered via the internet with some on-demand content and an “unlimited” DVR system. There are multiple tiers via add-on packages (just like cable), and there is no ad-free offering. YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-free version of whic…

> I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV.

Are you that surprised? The branding is a complete mess. And Youtube TV is not available in most markets so many people have never heard of it.

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

#143

Post by gausswho » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

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…

If you're inclined to try (with shields up!), the user experience and video quality of pirate sports streams have improved dramatically in the last few years.

It's an interesting ethical quandary. I wouldn't mind chipping in financially but not with the current business model. Bundling TV channels I don't care about? No thanks. Local blackouts? Please. Paying the services that engage in these anti-consumer practices is only exacerbating the problem. I see pirate streams as doing my part to force the parties involved to find another way.

As another comment alluded, this is an industry on the precipice of a moment. Along the lines of the arrival of Spotify, or the iPod. We're not far away now.

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

#144

Post by mdoms » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

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.

> We’re sorry, but Pluto TV is currently unavailable in your location. We’re working hard to bring Pluto TV to this area, so stay tuned to find out when.

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

#145

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #90

syki wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this time it is much better. I can sign up for a service for a month and binge some shows. Then cancel the service and repeat for another offering. By rotating the services I subscribe to each month I’m effectively watching the content on all the services for a low monthly rate. Eventually these companies will charge an annual rate but right now it’s much better financially and otherwise than cable tv.

Cable TV was a screaming deal, so long as you could always stay on the promotional rate. I haven't had it in a while, but I used to call and "cancel" my service every 3 months to get 3 months of free premium channels and a reduced basic rate. It was pretty funny when I moved and had to actually cancel my service because obviously it was on my file and the support person was like sure no problem here you go and I had…

Assuming a high quality internet connection is available, the qualifications for “screaming deal” would have to be:

1) on demand whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch on whichever device you want to watch

2) no advertisement breaks

3) no mandatory long term contract (maximum length 1 month)

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

#146

Post by gausswho » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

phil21 wrote: post #109

technofiend wrote: post #3

Personally I'm delighted to trade ABC, ESPN, etc [1] for a $15 reduction in my YouTube TV bill. It just makes me wish Google would unbundle all their different providers so I could choose only the ones I want. [1] Your local ABC channel, ABC News Live, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic, National Geographic Wild, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3 (by authentication to the ESPN app)…

Thing is I would be delighted the the opposite. I'd love to only pay for ESPN and the other sports channels only for $15/mo. Maybe add in CNN/FOX/MSNBC/Etc. for the wife to have on in the background, but plenty of ways to get that otherwise cheaply. OTA works fine for local news, even if the apps are a bit buggy if you want anything DVR or digitally distributed. As would likely most I believe. Thus sports propping up…

ESPN will be the last to offer their own subscription, because then people would know how much they are getting away with in broadcast programming. YouTube is almost certainly paying more. Decades of strongarming TV networks has allowed Disney/ESPN to soak up 40%-60% of traditional cable bills at the expense of all other content owners. YT is taking a gamble that backed by the weight of Alphabet they can end this corruption. Sadly, I'm not sure it's a smart bet.

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

#147

Post by saltminer » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

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.

> It’s for people that want to pretend they’re cord-cutting while buying the exact same thing from a streaming company.

It legitimately is way better than cable, though. Ignoring the disputes over fees, I once tried Spectrum's TV Android app (probably 3-4 years ago, I gave up on getting it to work), and this is what I experienced:

* Refuses to work if a VPN is on

* Must disable developer tools (doesn't matter if you changed any settings in there or not)

* Root check

* Must be from a Spectrum home IP (and remember, you can't VPN to your home network to use this app)

* Must allow access to all contacts, all texts, etc or the app would close itself (there is no legitimate justification for this, unlike potential contract stipulations requiring no root, etc - it's purely for selling all your data)

* Didn't even work after I installed it on a totally stock Android device on my home network

* No web interface; if you can't run the app, too bad

Compared to that, YT TV's app is a breath of fresh air. But ignoring the streaming convenience, you also have:

* No ads in the TV guide (which is also more responsive than any DVR I've ever experienced)

* Unlimited DVR is nice (and it's not utter dogshit hardware that would've been considered unimpressive in the 90s)

* You don't need a cable box - just a Chromecast (which is absolute tiny by comparison) or a TV with Chromecast built-in

* The pricing is much easier to understand

Of course, I don't actually pay for it. My mother does, and she put my Google account as an allowed user. I just use it to watch hockey.

It's true that you're paying for the same product, but it's delivered in a package that doesn't scream "fuck you, pay me."

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

#148

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

heartbreak wrote: post #110

daigoba66 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so they’re dropping the price by $15/month as long as Disney is out FWIW, I can’t see any traditional cable TV provider doing this. They might even charge an extra fee as a cherry on top.

Not only did they drop the price, but in the email they referred subscribers to the Disney+ package that includes Hulu and ESPN.

That's actually the reason for the price drop: They are giving you money to get Disney+ so you don't just cancel your YouTube TV subscription and go elsewhere.

It's a retention move that they accept a short lack of their cut of the Disney portion in exchange for not losing customers entirely.

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

#149

Post by saltminer » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #128

heartbreak wrote: post #26

I’m really surprised by the number of top level comments that are confusing two different products: YouTube and YouTube TV. YouTube TV is basically cable TV delivered via the internet with some on-demand content and an “unlimited” DVR system. There are multiple tiers via add-on packages (just like cable), and there is no ad-free offering. YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-free version of whic…

> YouTube is the video sharing website everyone uses. The ad-free version of which is called YouTube Premium. Technically YouTube Premium is a package designed to bolster their failing YouTube Music product that few want. I'd gladly pay $7.50 a month for AD Free YouTube, but $15 is too much.

I used to be grandfathered in for the Play Music all access + YT premium + YT red for $15/month plan.

That was a pretty good deal for me. But without Play Music (YT Music was awful at the time), I couldn't justify the cost.

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

#150

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #6

14 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have YouTube Tv but your comment almost made me dry heave a little realizing we are back at square one with cable tv and bundling channels users don't want and forcing them to pay for stuff. I haven't had cable tv in years but seldom don't miss a show I want to watch. It is mostly all online if you know where to search. Also Canadian so no one comes knocking on my door for downloading.

Sports is the anchor by which unbundling won’t happen for a long time, especially with linear TV. This is partially because it benefits the conglomerates business models to have as many channels and content streams as possible to sell ad time on, and partially because for sports teams they can functionally name their price. In seattle, the brand new hockey team is only available through Root Sports, a smallish produc…

In the Chicago area I just about lost my crud with the new "Marquee Sports Network". It's a $7 a month price hike that every subscriber in the area has to suffer on every single cable provider because the Cubs struck a deal with Sinclair to create the channel.

I don't understand how it's legal. Imagine if Netflix could force everyone in a geographic area to subscribe or lose the ability to stream all non-Netflix stuff. It wouldn't even make sense, but this is what happened here.

I think we should kick the Cubs out of Chicago for pulling a stunt like this during a pandemic when most people are barely able to pay their existing bills. Sports teams are absolute vampires that abuse the local population in the name of obscene profits.