double aught said:

---

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.

---

Touche.

That said, with all the movie packages, it was definitely a challenge getting that bill under $100, even doing the threatening-to-quit thing a couple years, which admittedly did work.

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. Now, they haven't even tried to blame the increase on extra channels and are just jacking the price up.

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 the very thing everyone cut the cord from.

---

The content providers have raised their prices, and the distributors are just passing that on to the consumer.

Three things regarding the increase in channels or the continued inclusion of channels some people don't want.

First, the content providers have required that if you are taking some of the networks, you are pretty much taking all of them. So you couldn't just take ESPN and Disney, but may have had to take Freeform, ESPN2, ESPNU or whatever specific block of channels was negotiated between the providers and the distributors.

Second, there are a whole lot of channels that are absolutely free. The distributors get money from those channels based on sold advertising or products sold (HSN). There is a reason why Roku, TUBI, Pluto and all the rest can provide free television. You aren't getting charged for those channels.

Third, the non Sports fan who has left cable should rejoice over the options available to them. Those people were helping support ESPN and sports channels even though they weren't watching. As those people leave or die off, it is putting the cost of sports more on the sports fan that require theYTTV, cable, sat subscriptions.


If you are just mildly tech savy, and not a sports fan, it really isn't that necessary to have that live TV subscription. There is so much available through the streaming services, including the FAST.

Iowaggie said:

---

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. Now, they haven't even tried to blame the increase on extra channels and are just jacking the price up.

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 the very thing everyone cut the cord from.

---

The content providers have raised their prices, and the distributors are just passing that on to the consumer.

Three things regarding the increase in channels or the continued inclusion of channels some people don't want.

First, the content providers have required that if you are taking some of the networks, you are pretty much taking all of them. So you couldn't just take ESPN and Disney, but may have had to take Freeform, ESPN2, ESPNU or whatever specific block of channels was negotiated between the providers and the distributors.

Second, there are a whole lot of channels that are absolutely free. The distributors get money from those channels based on sold advertising or products sold (HSN). There is a reason why Roku, TUBI, Pluto and all the rest can provide free television. You aren't getting charged for those channels.

Third, the non Sports fan who has left cable should rejoice over the options available to them. Those people were helping support ESPN and sports channels even though they weren't watching. As those people leave or die off, it is putting the cost of sports more on the sports fan that require theYTTV, cable, sat subscriptions.


If you are just mildly tech savy, and not a sports fan, it really isn't that necessary to have that live TV subscription. There is so much available through the streaming services, including the FAST.

---

There's always been some belief that streaming services existed in some alternate universe where the Disney's of the world wouldn't subject them to the same negotiaton tactics they do with cable companies, Dish, DIRECTV, etc. Every time one of them had a dispute, there would be endless posts to get with the times and cut the cord as if these constraints didn't apply. Mind boggling.

Seems to be the same problem with regular cable TV. You have to pay to get a bunch of channels when in reality there are three or four that you watch. I finally cut the cord about five years ago. I did Sling for a little bit, which was about $30 at the time. After a few months I dropped that.

I now watch a lot of YouTube content, with an adblocker. I usually maintain one streaming service in order to have some scripted entertainment, but even that is starting to get expensive. Sometimes I will subscribe to a service for a month, binge the shows I want to see, then cancel it. Spoilers can be a problem.

Is the picture (bit rate) going to be any better? It looks like trash compared to live tv on the DirecTV streaming app.

Cable is absolutely cheaper than streaming.

Just have to be somewhat on it when contracts expire and be smart bundling. By having xfinity cable, we got $40 off internet, by having internet we had our cell phones w/ them for $25 a line, etc.

We had to switch because my wife's work vpn was having issues with the internet and I was tired of dealing with xfinity on it. Shopped around a lot and nothing came close to the all in pricing we were paying.

Not to play devils advocate but do you have to use Xfinity? Because without any other context you kind of seem like the typical victim in the bundling scheme that most of the big dogs use in getting an actual commitment.

Teddy Perkins said:

---

Is the picture (bit rate) going to be any better? It looks like trash compared to live tv on the DirecTV streaming app.

---

PQ is still an advantage cable and satellite have over streaming. My late FIL still had DTV satellite and I was always jealous at how much better his PQ was than any streaming app I use. And I have/had gig internet on flagship OLED tvs.

htxag09 said:

---

Cable is absolutely cheaper than streaming.

Just have to be somewhat on it when contracts expire and be smart bundling. By having xfinity cable, we got $40 off internet, by having internet we had our cell phones w/ them for $25 a line, etc.

We had to switch because my wife's work vpn was having issues with the internet and I was tired of dealing with xfinity on it. Shopped around a lot and nothing came close to the all in pricing we were paying.

---

We have xfinity for Internet and for phones (right now).

I liked the two year contract we had with the TV service when bundled with everything else, but with the exception of sports, primarily football, we weren't watching anything else on cable. At this point, I am just getting something for 4-months, and this past season, the Sling 4-month package was the best for us, especially since we get decent reception.


I will probably pick up the Sling Orange (?) again for the NBA playoffs, maybe. I think that is the one with ESPN and TNT, but maybe not. We have (HBO) Max, so that should carry the TNT games, and I'm not sure the ESPN content is worth the price.

We don't have YTTV

Backstory on the BIL drama?

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.

---

Plus all the big aggregators have mostly been snatched up by much larger companies (I think fubo is the only one thats independent?) or started out backed up by much larger companies. The market disruption was 10 years ago. It's profit-taking time.

superunknown 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.

---

Plus all the big aggregators have mostly been snatched up by much larger companies (I think fubo is the only one thats independent?) or started out backed up by much larger companies. The market disruption was 10 years ago. It's profit-taking time.

---

Yep. And when they were just starting out, I'm pretty sure they got discounted contracts from the content providers because they were small potatoes and couldn't afford to pay what cable providers, Dish, etc were paying. But once they hit a critical mass where they were a real player, all the content providers started treating them as such and their negotiations with Disney, etc. will reflect that going forward.

I don't mind doing so, but were you the Star to that post? If not, please do so and I'll be inclined to detail.

Lol... the whining...

Everyone is acting like YouTube execs sat down in their homes 5 years ago and promised them they would get all the channels they ever wanted at 1/3 the cost of cable for the rest of their lives because they were here to rescue us all from the big mean cable providers. Like YouTube is some altruistic group of saviors for all media consumers.

Every company will charge you what the market will bear. YouTube is no different. They had a great strategy for market penetration, and now will build their revenue stream. Capitalism 101.

I personally love this new world we live in with no contracts. I can turn it on and cancel it as needed. I had it for the football season and canceled it yesterday before my renewal on the 21st.

Not whining, but more just curious -- who actually uses YTTV for anything other than live sports?

Anyone?

I've had it on and off for 4 years now. I sign up the first day of aggie football in September, and cancel it when college baseball season is over.

I don't think I've watched a single thing on YTTV that wasn't CFB, basketball, or baseball.

And that right there is why they can raise the price to whatever they want, but they should stop pretending it's some great value that you get out of it.

99% of the content on there is worthless garbage no one watches

gigemags-99 said:

---

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.

---

This is my gripe.

TCTTS said:

---

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

---

Some of us just aren't very well versed in these industries. I always just kind of assumed some of the streaming services COULD have lower prices simply because overhead seemed like it would be much lower for them vs. Xfinity/Direct TV or other traditional providers that include more hardward and actual tech visits and installations.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Not whining, but more just curious -- who actually uses YTTV for anything other than live sports?

Anyone?

I've had it on and off for 4 years now. I sign up the first day of aggie football in September, and cancel it when college baseball season is over.

I don't think I've watched a single thing on YTTV that wasn't CFB, basketball, or baseball.

And that right there is why they can raise the price to whatever they want, but they should stop pretending it's some great value that you get out of it.

99% of the content on there is worthless garbage no one watches

---

Aside from live sports, I kind of like watching golf replays on Golf Chanel...or just having it on sometimes in the background. I am in Houston and can't watch the Stros or Rockets.

Can't believe it took this thread to ask myself "WTF am I doing?". I'm gonna cancel. Crazy to pay so much for something you use so little of.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

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

---

Some of us just aren't very well versed in these industries. I always just kind of assumed some of the streaming services COULD have lower prices simply because overhead seemed like it would be much lower for them vs. Xfinity/Direct TV or other traditional providers that include more hardward and actual tech visits and installations.

---

Good point. Google (Alphabet if you prefer) is certainly not out there launching satellites or stringing coax to telephone poles.

TCTTS said:

---

double aught said:

---

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.

---

Touche.

That said, with all the movie packages, it was definitely a challenge getting that bill under $100, even doing the threatening-to-quit thing a couple years, which admittedly did work.

---

I had dish network for several years after moving to CO in 2012, and it was always about $70. I could watch it on my phone or while traveling as well, so not much different than YTTV.

It was priced low because it was a smaller channel package that had everything I needed.

So yeh, I'm a little ticked that YTTV is going up again.. I realize those intro prices of $30-$50 was pretty low and just used to get market share.. but I thought the low to mid $70s was a good stopping point.
Are they adding more channels, or is it just a typical increase?


I will add, we mostly use YTTV for football, so after superbowl, we often pause it until august.. so I'm really only paying half the year anyway. We've repeated that cycle for about 3 years now.

I feel there is plenty enough other stuff to watch on netflix and prime, which are a fraction of the price. We cancelled disney after a handful of years.. the kids just weren't watching much on it anymore.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Not whining, but more just curious -- who actually uses YTTV for anything other than live sports?

Anyone?

I've had it on and off for 4 years now. I sign up the first day of aggie football in September, and cancel it when college baseball season is over.

I don't think I've watched a single thing on YTTV that wasn't CFB, basketball, or baseball.

And that right there is why they can raise the price to whatever they want, but they should stop pretending it's some great value that you get out of it.

99% of the content on there is worthless garbage no one watches

---

I already wrote my response above before seeing this.

This is exactly us. It's on in august and off after superbowl. We get college football and nfl, plus the good part of mlb.

Of course this year we watched a lot more news with the election and all.. and for a while when we stared cycling it off and on, it was weird not watching nightly news.. but eventually you just kinda forget about it I guess.

double aught said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

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

---

Some of us just aren't very well versed in these industries. I always just kind of assumed some of the streaming services COULD have lower prices simply because overhead seemed like it would be much lower for them vs. Xfinity/Direct TV or other traditional providers that include more hardward and actual tech visits and installations.

---

Good point. Google (Alphabet if you prefer) is certainly not out there launching satellites or stringing coax to telephone poles.

---

Lol touche, just assumed they may be operating as a separate business sub entity that wanted to be profitable on its own operating statement. Their cable tv competitors do have the overhead a steaming platform doesn't. Google's YouTube tv is starting to reach a price point that makes people wonder why they don't just bundle XFinity or direct tv with whatever other apps people use more frequently than live TV. The ridiculously cheap price was the only reason to keep it for many.

If these cable replaced streaming services were $10 per month, I still wouldn't pay for that and I have most of the regular streaming services. I just don't get the appeal of live channels outside of sports. The world and technology has moved on.

Just thought it was funny in their justification statement all they noted were the positives of their service that they have had from the start. It's not like anything new has taken place.

aggieforester05 said:

---

If these cable replaced streaming services were $10 per month, I still wouldn't pay for that and I have most of the regular streaming services. I just don't get the appeal of live channels outside of sports. The world and technology has moved on.

---

There are a handful of networks that are keeping their top shows on cable. Its hilarious to me every couple of months having to explain the difference between Paramount Network and Paramount+ to my parents and all of the people their age when new Yellowstone episodes premiere.

Paramount Corporation seems to be the one cable network company that is clinging to cable networks for dear life. Not that they have much new original content worth sticking around for, but even their new stuff on MTV, Nickelodeon, and Comedy Central are kept behind the cable paywall for a year before it appears on other apps or Paramount+

We cancelled Disney as well. Can't keep a channel just for Andor.

aggieforester05 said:

---

. I just don't get the appeal of live channels outside of sports. The world and technology has moved on.

---

Local news?

Am I missing something, is there another way to get this without live tv?

62strat said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

. I just don't get the appeal of live channels outside of sports. The world and technology has moved on.

---

Local news?

Am I missing something, is there another way to get this without live tv?

---

Antenna? Or seems every local news station has their own app now you can follow and set up alerts based on what stories you want....

you're not alone