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

YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 239 posts

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#141

Post by RF_Enthusiast »

drewg123 wrote: post #96
dylan604 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget you can still get a DTV OTA antenna and watch live TV with a much much better image quality and without cable's delay. Admittedly, in can take a bit of effort finding a location to place the antenna for best reception for your location, but so worth not paying for cable any longer. Sports is the primary reason for me messing with this, but it is definitely worth it.

Note that they have added DRM to the ATSC 3.0 standard, and its being implemented quite widely. This means that you'll be unable to freely record time shift sports using applications like MythTV, etc.

This adds an uncertain future to OTA, but I don't think you can say it's implemented widely yet.

Here's a list of current ATSC 3.0 channels, with an indicator for the encrypted ones: https://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=atsc3

For now, most network affiliates that air an ATSC 3.0 signal must simulcast the primary video programming stream in ATSC 1.0 format. So most primary channels are still available without DRM. [1]

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-C...

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#142

Post by mucle6 »

superjared wrote: post #100
charlesray wrote: post #89

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

YouTube TV injects ads on certain content. I know it's there for on-demand TV shows, and some live sports. It's literally overlaid on top of the channel's ads in the live example. I think years ago when I first subscribed one of the major benefits was the ability to skip through these ads just like DVR, but you can no longer do that.

I thought you could skip ads in dvr?

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#143

Post by BiteCode_dev »

TrinaryWorksToo wrote: post #137
squeaky-clean wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because lots of people seem to be getting confused, "pre-roll ad" isn't the right term for this. Pre-roll is one of those ads YouTube forces you to watch 5-30 seconds of before you can skip it, and when they play before the video starts. Mid-roll ads are the same thing, but interrupting the middle of the video. And Post-roll are ones that play after the video is over. What you're referring to are usually called…

You can use SponsorBlock to skip those.

Will get more and more difficult. This morning Youtube kicked me out because I was using adblock origin. And update fixed it, but if they start putting DRM...

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#144

Post by mucle6 »

schnable wrote: post #132
charlesray wrote: post #89

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

The in-program ad revenue is a huge part of YTTV and Google's business model. The sub costs mostly go to purchase the content.

Even if they didn't profit from the ads, could they get rid of them?

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#145

Post by mk89 »

eviks wrote: post #140
mk89 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an implementation detail leak: for the end user it's just an advertisement. Call it as you want, but when I pay premium and you write "no ads" I want no ads. That's it. I don't care that the content provider found a way to show ads. I have a contract with you - you have to figure it out.

Yeah, but life has never been that simple

I am more of the opinion that things were actually simpler before, even with analog TV. You knew what to expect. Now you pay 70$ per month, but hey, the file (?) you are streaming (?) contains an advertisement. Who cares?

I just want to watch a show. Without ads, because I paid to have no ads.

But hey we're a young generation, so we understand that it's not Youtube's fault... (?). Sorry, but no way! You are the service provider - you choose what goes through your platform. When I pay, you can't treat me like "you're (still) the product, sorry". That's for me unacceptable.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#146

Post by RF_Enthusiast »

charlesray wrote: post #89

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

Does YouTubeTV carry public television stations? Aside from underwriting sponsor mentions at the beginning and end of a program, they're prohibited from mentioning sponsors [1].

[1] 47 CFR 73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621...

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#147

Post by DonnyV »

I think the best hack I've found is get cable and a TiVo with a life time subscription. Now I get the same or more content then YouTube and no commercials because TiVo has a commercial skip feature. I also don't have to pay for hardware for my cable connection because they have to give me 1 free cable card by law. I just insert that into my TiVo.

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#148

Post by [deleted] »

ylhert wrote: post #11

It's wild to me how much Youtube TV costs and yet they still serve you tons of ads. Coming from youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad, I forget how much you are bombarded with ads while watching traditional TV. The fact that you have to pay the princely sum of $73/month on top of that boggles my mind. I canceled when they raised the price from $35/month and I'll never go back at these…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#149

Post by redeeman »

ylhert wrote: post #11

It's wild to me how much Youtube TV costs and yet they still serve you tons of ads. Coming from youtube premium where occasionally I have to skip through a preroll ad, I forget how much you are bombarded with ads while watching traditional TV. The fact that you have to pay the princely sum of $73/month on top of that boggles my mind. I canceled when they raised the price from $35/month and I'll never go back at these…

install yourself an adblocker and see no ads :)

Re: YouTube TV, which costs $73 a month, agrees to end "$600 less than cable" ads

#150

Post by tedunangst »

mk89 wrote: post #134
GenerocUsername wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully OP understands this, but I can confirm folks like my parents do not distinguish the difference. It's mind boggling

That's an implementation detail leak: for the end user it's just an advertisement. Call it as you want, but when I pay premium and you write "no ads" I want no ads. That's it. I don't care that the content provider found a way to show ads. I have a contract with you - you have to figure it out.

So if you pay for premium you're blocked from watching movie trailers?
Post reply on HN