….$10 a month

TCTTS said:

---

I'll be honest... I don't get the complaints.

I mean, obviously, I understand not wanting to pay more.

But, relatively speaking, I was paying well over a hundred bucks per month for DirecTV 15 years ago. So the fact that, 15 years later, "digital cable" is finally inching back toward that just doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Honestly, I find it amazing that it's been so cheep for this long.

Granted, streaming apps didn't exist back then, and sure, those are additional costs we didn't have in 2009. But you're also getting all kinds of additional shows and deep library content that we didn't have access to before either. Otherwise, most shows outside of Amazon, Apple, and Netflix are still available via YouTube TV/On Demand, with HBO subscription add-ons and the like.

It's just weird to me that the cost of YouTube TV is only now finally starting to cost as much as we were paying for basically the same product 15 years ago - except it was one that locked us into year-long contracts, didn't offer unlimited DVR space, wasn't nearly as convenient, etc - yet people are pissed for some reason. On top of that, they're mad that we have to pay for access to additional content via the streamers, but again, that content didn't exist 15 years ago.

I just don't understand what everyone expects.

---

It's amazing how cheap some people on this site are. Not a fan of the price increases, but it everyone should have known it was inevitable.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

What else do people use it for? No one watches live **** anymore and everything else lame and gay is on all the 8 streaming things you have to sub to.

---

My parents still think there are only three channels (NBC, CBS & ABC) and don't know how (or why) anyone needs a DVR.

My only complaint about YouTubeTV is that the 'Key Plays' feature on sports is awful. It's how I would imagine it if my 11-year old niece got to pick the key plays.

Every kick return to the 33-yard line is shown for some reason. And then glaring omissions - they'll show an interception returned 97 yards to the 1-yard line, then in the next key play, the other team has the ball and the score didn't change.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

the only use i had for youtube tv was live sports.

and now that I know that our team is perpetually dog****, i never have to pay for it again.

What else do people use it for? No one watches live **** anymore and everything else lame and gay is on all the 8 streaming things you have to sub to.

---

Thats all I use it for. Ive had it since September and my wife commented last week that she didn't know we had "cable" back. Since she and the kids are now aware of it, guess how many times they have accessed it? ZERO

Bruce Almighty said:

---

While the price increases suck, the ability to drop streaming at any time still makes it better than cable. I use Hulu instead of YouTube, but only carry it during football season and drop it after the Super Bowl. None of my kids care about live tv, and we all pretty much use Netflix, Prime, HBO, etc for all tv watching. I feel like the only time anybody in my family uses live tv is when I'm watching football.

---

How do you feel about Hulu-Live?
I'm looking at moving from YTTV to Hulu Live, especially since Hulu's price is comparable and includes ESPN+, Disney, and Hulu

gigemags-99 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'll be honest... I don't get the complaints.

I mean, obviously, I understand not wanting to pay more.

But, relatively speaking, I was paying well over a hundred bucks per month for DirecTV 15 years ago. So the fact that, 15 years later, "digital cable" is finally inching back toward that just doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Honestly, I find it amazing that it's been so cheep for this long.

Granted, streaming apps didn't exist back then, and sure, those are additional costs we didn't have in 2009. But you're also getting all kinds of additional shows and deep library content that we didn't have access to before either. Otherwise, most shows outside of Amazon, Apple, and Netflix are still available via YouTube TV/On Demand, with HBO subscription add-ons and the like.

It's just weird to me that the cost of YouTube TV is only now finally starting to cost as much as we were paying for basically the same product 15 years ago - except it was one that locked us into year-long contracts, didn't offer unlimited DVR space, wasn't nearly as convenient, etc - yet people are pissed for some reason. On top of that, they're mad that we have to pay for access to additional content via the streamers, but again, that content didn't exist 15 years ago.

I just don't understand what everyone expects.

---

You don't get the complaints of them jacking up the price whenever they deem necessary? Usually with a month or less of notice?

You probably paid $100 a month to DirectTV 15 years ago, but had every channel and every movie package. YTTV's basic package is now going to cost $85 a month without any of the enhancements. People moved to streaming / cut the cord, in order to save money.

I truly do love your posts and respect the heck out of you, but don't agree with your take on this issue.

And yes, I do have YTTV and enjoy it, but at this point I might as well go back to cable…at least they lock in a price for 2 to 3 years. My YTTV subscription has gone from $54 a month to now $85 in a 3 year time span. It seems like they want to get out of providing this service, in my opinion.

---

I don't think they want to go get out of it. I think they are doing what all tech disrupters do and that is jack up the price once you have market share/public buy-in so that you can actually make a substantial profit on what was previously costing your company money just to get people to switch over. With cable/streaming network providers, they have to pay those networks per subscriber. They also are fully aware that ESPN/FOX/Warner sports streamer could be coming out in the next year for $30 per month which has the majority of sports people want so they may be trying to extract as much from their customer base as they can before most of us jump ship to the new thing.

gigemags-99 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'll be honest... I don't get the complaints.

I mean, obviously, I understand not wanting to pay more.

But, relatively speaking, I was paying well over a hundred bucks per month for DirecTV 15 years ago. So the fact that, 15 years later, "digital cable" is finally inching back toward that just doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Honestly, I find it amazing that it's been so cheep for this long.

Granted, streaming apps didn't exist back then, and sure, those are additional costs we didn't have in 2009. But you're also getting all kinds of additional shows and deep library content that we didn't have access to before either. Otherwise, most shows outside of Amazon, Apple, and Netflix are still available via YouTube TV/On Demand, with HBO subscription add-ons and the like.

It's just weird to me that the cost of YouTube TV is only now finally starting to cost as much as we were paying for basically the same product 15 years ago - except it was one that locked us into year-long contracts, didn't offer unlimited DVR space, wasn't nearly as convenient, etc - yet people are pissed for some reason. On top of that, they're mad that we have to pay for access to additional content via the streamers, but again, that content didn't exist 15 years ago.

I just don't understand what everyone expects.

---

You don't get the complaints of them jacking up the price whenever they deem necessary? Usually with a month or less of notice?

You probably paid $100 a month to DirectTV 15 years ago, but had every channel and every movie package. YTTV's basic package is now going to cost $85 a month without any of the enhancements. People moved to streaming / cut the cord, in order to save money.

I truly do love your posts and respect the heck out of you, but don't agree with your take on this issue.

And yes, I do have YTTV and enjoy it, but at this point I might as well go back to cable…at least they lock in a price for 2 to 3 years. My YTTV subscription has gone from $54 a month to now $85 in a 3 year time span. It seems like they want to get out of providing this service, in my opinion.

---

And part of my point is that cord cutting was always a pipe dream/too good to be true. They (YouTube TV and the like) were selling us basically the exact same product for way cheaper, with more user-friendly features, and when has something like that ever not come with strings attached/remained that cheap? Of course they were eventually going to raise prices. But my main argument is that they've only raised prices to basically what we were all already paying 15 years ago. Which seems like an insanely good deal to me, one that allowed a number of us to save all kinds of money these past few years. Never mind not even having to account for inflation.

john2002ag said:

---

It was $45/month and had everything I ever wanted. Now they have added a bunch of new channels no one cares about and have doubled the price. So I got nothing extra, yet the price doubled.

People were happy because of the limited channels and paying less for only the channels they cared about. They are pissed because it is turning into cable with a bunch of extra channels nobody wants, yet we have to pay for.

---

This was the bedrock of television for decades. THIS was why the whole thing worked.

Then streaming/cord cutting came along and ****ed it all up.

But a la carte simply cannot support a healthy TV industry. We've learned that the hard way now.

Eventually, they'll figure it out. Hopefully in the not too distant future Apple or Amazon or someone is able to amass the perfect "cable"/streaming hybrid.

But we're not there yet.

In the meantime, being asked to pay what you were originally paying 15 years ago, for way more content and with way better features, just doesn't seam like that big of a deal to me.

Consume your remakes and sequels and enjoy paying more for the privilege!

And I'm saying that was never sustainable.

Again, I understand not wanting to pay more.

What I don't understand is how anyone thought the $45 thing was ever going to last or not eventually rise considerably.

Still, even then... the increase is just not that much, all things considered. Especially compared to prices 15 years ago and the lack of freedom those platforms offered that YouTube TV *does* offer now. It's not all about the channels.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, but okay.

TCTTS said:

---

And I'm saying that was never sustainable.

Again, I understand not wanting to pay more.

What I don't understand is how anyone thought the $45 thing was ever going to last or not eventually rise considerably.

Still, even then... the increase is just not that much, all things considered. Especially compared to prices 15 years ago and the lack of freedom those platforms offered that YouTube TV *does* offer now. It's not all about the channels.

---

Valid point, but YTTV was brought to market as a low cost alternative - Now they have reneged on that.

So, what is the alternative solution? There are much cheaper options, like Sling, that have sports and some other niche channels. Downside is they don't have local channels except in very large markets.

Solution for local channels is to get an HD antenna. I don't have an antenna yet, but my dad does and the picture is better than even the 4k option on YTTV - plus the over the air broadcast is about 1 minute ahead of the best streaming service. Learned this watching the tu game at mom and dad's house.

And there are always options to stream shows through services such as Cinema via firestick. Every TV show and movie is available there.

TCTTS said:

---

I'll be honest... I don't get the complaints.

I mean, obviously, I understand not wanting to pay more.

But, relatively speaking, I was paying well over a hundred bucks per month for DirecTV 15 years ago. So the fact that, 15 years later, "digital cable" is finally inching back toward that just doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Honestly, I find it amazing that it's been so cheep for this long.

Granted, streaming apps didn't exist back then, and sure, those are additional costs we didn't have in 2009. But you're also getting all kinds of additional shows and deep library content that we didn't have access to before either. Otherwise, most shows outside of Amazon, Apple, and Netflix are still available via YouTube TV/On Demand, with HBO subscription add-ons and the like.

It's just weird to me that the cost of YouTube TV is only now finally starting to cost as much as we were paying for basically the same product 15 years ago - except it was one that locked us into year-long contracts, didn't offer unlimited DVR space, wasn't nearly as convenient, etc - yet people are pissed for some reason. On top of that, they're mad that we have to pay for access to additional content via the streamers, but again, that content didn't exist 15 years ago.

I just don't understand what everyone expects.

---

The problem for me is we don't watch programming like we used to. 15 years ago we didn't have all of these streaming services we were subscribed to like we do now. All of the great shows are streaming. I only need YTTV for live sports and news.

I probably don't align with TCTTS on much but he's spot on here. It's funny that a bunch of people are essentially complaining about American Capitalism.

The $39 price point was never going to be sustainable and while I don't love doubling the price in five years, I am still getting more for my money at $82/mo than I would get out of a 2-year contract with DTV which I last cancelled at $112/mo.

As far as Fubo, Hulu, Sling etc.....is there a service that offers a better product/price than YTTV? I haven't run across it yet but I try to be open-minded?

I'm sorry, but "all of the great shows are streaming" is a statement I simply don't agree with.

Because most shows from...

- AMC
- HBO
- FX
- Paramount+
- Showtime
- Starz

... are all on YouTube TV, available to watch either live when they air, via your DVR, or via On Demand.

Would I rather watch those shows on their respective streaming apps, where the picture/sound quality is better?

No doubt. And I do.

But the fact remains, they're still available on YouTube TV. And even if you took just the shows from those distributors... plus broadcast TV... plus reality... plus sports... plus everything else YouTube TV offers... it's WAY more content than we had back in, say, 2009. Again, even with the new price bump. For LESS than the price of most comparable cable packages 15 YEARS AGO. With better features/freedom like unlimited DVR and the ability to cancel/subscribe month by month, anytime you want.

Beyond that, if you want more content... like all the other great shows offered exclusively on Amazon, Apple TV+, Disney+, and Netflix, and Peacock... you have to pay more. Maybe even quite a bit more, depending on how much more you want watch.

As it should be.

For the life of me, I will never understand why so many people today think they should only have to pay, like, $75 all-in or whatever for INFINITELY more content than was available 15 years ago (when there were 210 scripted shows vs a peak of *600* in 2022), with crazy advanced features and vast movie libraries we never had access to previously, all at the touch of a finger.

Peter Klaven said:

---

I probably don't align with TCTTS on much but he's spot on here. It's funny that a bunch of people are essentially complaining about American Capitalism.

The $39 price point was never going to be sustainable and while I don't love doubling the price in five years, I am still getting more for my money at $82/mo than I would get out of a 2-year contract with DTV which I last cancelled at $112/mo.

As far as Fubo, Hulu, Sling etc.....is there a service that offers a better product/price than YTTV? I haven't run across it yet but I try to be open-minded?

---

Quote:

---

. For LESS than the price of most comparable cable packages 15 YEARS AGO

---

You keep saying this, but I think you were just bad at negotiating with Directv.

JCA1 said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Because a lot of the new content is crap. That's why they don't want to pay more.

---

Whether it's a streaming service or cable, they're still just aggregators and are beholden to those who own the content and their price/bundling demands. That's why you'll probably never get true a la carte. Disney is always gonna require people to take a bunch of other channels to get espn, etc.

The first 10 years of cord cutting was an aberration. They were looking to penetrate a market, not turn a profit. Now that they have to actually make money, lo and behold, it looks almost exactly like what cable looks like. Because it's essentially the same business.

---

Pretty much. People complaining about all of this don't understand how business works nor how this industry works (not that I'm an expert at all on the latter), but common sense says prices we got in the early days of this sticking around 5 years later is laughable.

What makes anyone think that inflation, funding content, and the natural cycle of business wouldn't impact pricing here as it has everywhere else in the last 4-5 years? I ***** about it as times as well, but at least you can simply opt out if you want to whenever you want. The most you will have on the hook is the current month you paid for.

If I was smart, I would do what others on here have already done - cancel YTTV and get a digital antenna. Literally the only thing we watch on YTTV is sports, major weather events, and presidential election coverage. That's it.

YouBet said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

maroon barchetta said:

---

Because a lot of the new content is crap. That's why they don't want to pay more.

---

Whether it's a streaming service or cable, they're still just aggregators and are beholden to those who own the content and their price/bundling demands. That's why you'll probably never get true a la carte. Disney is always gonna require people to take a bunch of other channels to get espn, etc.

The first 10 years of cord cutting was an aberration. They were looking to penetrate a market, not turn a profit. Now that they have to actually make money, lo and behold, it looks almost exactly like what cable looks like. Because it's essentially the same business.

---

Pretty much. People complaining about all of this don't understand how business works nor how this industry works (not that I'm an expert at all on the latter), but common sense says prices we got in the early days of this sticking around 5 years later is laughable.

What makes anyone think that inflation, funding content, and the natural cycle of business wouldn't impact pricing here as it has everywhere else in the last 4-5 years? I ***** about it as times as well, but at least you can simply opt out if you want to whenever you want. The most you will have on the hook is the current month you paid for.

If I was smart, I would do what others on here have already done - cancel YTTV and get a digital antenna. Literally the only thing we watch on YTTV is sports, major weather events, and presidential election coverage. That's it.

---

Yeah. For me, paying basically the same as I've always paid but freeing myself of the hardware and being able to use my subscriptions anywhere is worth it. I get others may disagree but it seems like a solid deal to me.

This.

I forgot about being able to watch anywhere in the country, and on your phone, iPad... wherever. Yet another feature we didn't have with standard cable. It really is such a far superior product in so many ways, yet we're still paying less or roughly equal to what we were paying all those years ago. I know I sound like a broken record, but that point can't be emphasize enough.

That, and personally, I still channel surf to a degree. Sure, like everyone else I use YouTube TV mostly for sports, and a little news, but when I just want the TV on while I clean or whatever, I still love to have a string of episodes of The Office on in the background, whatever random movie TNT is playing, or even reality crap from time to time, etc. It's a habit I still enjoy and one I doubt I'll ever break.