Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

181–190 of 225 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Back when I still had Spectrum, I was happy to find out the way those checks are implemented in the Android app was (thankfully) as poorly done as the user experience. With adb or any app that can launch hidden activities, it is/was possible to enter the debug menu and disable every one of the client-side checks. No reverse engineering required :)

I stuck with that for years until fiber was available in my area since a threaten-to-cancel call got my TV price down to $0/month (on top of internet).

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

#182
I love watching soccer, I tried different services (fubo, paramount plus, espn+, youtube TV) and YouTube TV is by far the best in streaming quality, I also like how you can force a specific resolution in youtube tv, unlike other apps which determine the quality of streaming themselves, I have 500mpbs connection and espn and fubo are streaming 480p content half of the time.

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

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If their TV app is anything like their "My Spectrum" app for managing your internet service, my god, I don't have high expectations for these types of apps but having the gall to ship something that low-quality is legitimately impressive.

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

#184
I absolutely cannot stand the way these TV providers continually try to rope their customers into their disputes. This happened when I had directv, it happened when I had comcast, it happens now with YoutubeTV.

I would never in a million years, as a business owner, message one of my clients and blame a vendor for bad service and want them to help solve the dispute.

I just do not get the thought process here. "Well, these people are paying us a ton of money every month and we're just swimming in profits. Lets ask those same customers to try to get us a better deal for us with Disney so that we'll be more profitable!

No.

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

#185
One of the things I always thought Copyright law needed was some kind of FRAND style provisions, if we as a society give an owner exclusive rights we should require that owner (if the choose to distribute the work) to do is in a non-exclusionary, fair manner.

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

#186
post #161
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the industry "bundles" (which is really de facto tying, illegal) channels with no value to most with those have are high value. The market for joint subscriptions to History, Bravo, TLC, and ESPN is probably fairly slim.

IANAL but as I understand it, tying is generally only illegal (violation of antitrust) under specific circumstances that relate to having monopoly power in a market.

I think that's a fair interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

> Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer) conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. It is related to but distinct from freebie marketing, a common (and legal) method of giving away (or selling at a substantial discount) one item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another related item.

> Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components.

> One effect of tying can be that low quality products achieve a higher market share than would otherwise be the case.

> Tying may also be a form of price discrimination: people who use more razor blades, for example, pay more than those who just need a one-time shave. Though this may improve overall welfare, by giving more consumers access to the market, such price discrimination can also transfer consumer surpluses to the producer. Tying may also be used with or in place of patents or copyrights to help protect entry into a market, discouraging innovation.

> Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products.

> In the United States, most states have laws against tying, which are enforced by state governments. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice enforces federal laws against tying through its Antitrust Division.

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

#187
post #109

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…

I have no evidence to support this, but my assumption would be that if ESPN were offered separately they would need to charge substantially more to break even.

My thesis for this is that most people aren’t sports fans, but they pay for sports whether they want to or not due to all the bundling. In a way, non-fans are subsidizing the content for fans.

My sneaky suspicion is that unbundling sports would be a cataclysmic event for the sports television industry. I would pay $15/month for ESPN but I wouldn’t pay $25.

What do you think?

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re just saying words now. The app runs smoothly for me even on a Kindle tablet (which can barely run a browser without lag). Any semi-modern device is more than capable of running either YouTube app

My TCL Roku TV isn't more than 2 years old.

Budget tv brand skimps on smart tv chips? I’m shocked.

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

#189
post #127
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.

Why would they? There are tons of free options for live news. Also they do have talk shows like the one letterman did.

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

#190
post #113
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"I'm surprised Disney/ESPN is only $15/mo of the bill to be honest" It's probably more. They're just happy to keep your money.

$15 sounds about right. It may even be closer to $20. The reason we won't see a full ESPN only subscription anytime soon is that the current model allows them to collect $15/mo from everyone versus whatever the price would need to be if you are only selling subs to sports fans. It wouldn't surprise me if the subscription cost would be over $100/mo to keep the same revenues.

What happens to big time sports when the fans are priced out of the arena and priced out of watching on TV as well?

Post reply on HN