YouTube Announces Streaming TV Service for $35 per Month

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The company dropped a potential bomb on traditional cable providers earlier this week by announcing YouTube TV, which offers subscribers over 40 channels for $35 a month. I thought it was a pretty decent deal until I realized a lot of them were just sports (how many ESPN channels does one person need?). Can you pick out any networks that are worth the subscription fee?

YouTube TV gives you the best of live TV, from must-see broadcast shows like “Empire,” “The Voice,” “The Big Bang Theory” and “Scandal,” to the live sports you want. YouTube TV includes major sports networks like ESPN and regional sports networks like Fox Sports Networks and Comcast SportsNet, so you can watch your favorite NBA or MLB teams. We’ve also partnered with local TV stations, so you’ll also get sports and local news based on where you live. And YouTube TV offers dozens of additional cable channels, so you won’t miss out on the latest news from MSNBC or Fox News, popular shows and movies from USA or FX, kids programming from the Disney Channel or Sprout, or reality TV from E! or Bravo. You can also add Showtime, or Fox Soccer Plus to your networks for an additional charge.
 
The price is actually pretty decent considering it has to compete with the other giants too! Nice move Youtube...
 
Crixus said:
I'm going with sling TV I think. Seems to have the best channel line-up for the price ( the only sports I watch involve Formula 1 cars or fighting ). Also, Youtube and their politics can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...

You will hate it. I have very solid 100/10 internet service and was very turned off with the buffering. Read the consumer complaints. It sucks. FYI, I have no buffering with Netflix or Amazon Prime, even some *cough* other free services.

I'm with you on Youtube and their politics, that goes for Facebook and Twitter (though I don't even use them)
 
As a B1Ger in SEC Land, I'd pay $35/mo for the B1G Network alone. Add in Nat Geo Wild and Chiller, neither of which are available to me at any price, and it's not a hard decision.
 
Not sure if that's a good deal honestly. It's just a live stream of the current basic cable channels with unlimited DVR with commercials. Like the defunct Aero service the commercials are going to be there and given the move by the industry it might be commercials you can't skip or fast forward through. So it's not on demand watching, but on request to record the live stream with ads and watch later.

Personally I would want to pick and choose the channels I want for that $35/month cause I have no need for any of the sports channels. I have watched ESPN all of 10 hours or less over the 20 years I was on cable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AK0tA
like this
I'm a cord-cutter (does it count if I haven't have TV service for over 10 years?), and would enjoy this sports package. A lot of soccer is being included in this, and that's nationally been a growth market sport. There are a few other channels in there (SyFy, Disney XD, NatGeo, FXX) that really round out the deal.

I'm unfamiliar with the political complaints of Youtube though?

LurkerLito said:
Personally I would want to pick and choose the channels I want for that $35/month
Click to expand...

But this is the real winner. If anyone can do that, it's YouTube.
 
The company dropped a potential bomb on traditional cable providers earlier this week by announcing YouTube TV, which offers subscribers over 40 channels for $35 a month
Click to expand...

They aren't worried since most of them control the broadband in a given area. They're going to counteract the loss of a TV subscriber by making it difficult to not pay them more money for internet (lower datacaps, special access fees).
 
Joke's on youtube / me; TimeWarner Cable already throttles them to hell!
 
So they are going up against Hulu and a la carte Amazon add-on channels (like HBO)...for more money and less flexibility. "Ballsy" is the nicest word I can think of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a bad line up, just need to add Nick, NickJR and Discovery channels for my kids.

Most services have too many channels, I'm a simple person.
I'd be happy if I could just pick the 10 channels that I need and pay for nothing else!

With AT&T to get the channels I wanted I needed like U300 package (300 channels), plus another bundle to get everything.
 
kledar586 said:
SlingTV sucks, it seems like it never stop buffering
Click to expand...
I'm giving SlingTV Blue a try this week, and I don't think I'll be keeping it. Terrible interface, primary OTA networks completely missing (ABC, NBC, CBS, CW, UPN...)

I'd like to give YouTube.TV a try, but they are missing Most of the other channels I would want.

These services are getting closer, but they aren't there yet.
 
Biggest problem with all the TV streaming services is a lack of sports channels. This has me seriously considering dropping TV service. They're just missing three sports channels that I watch regularly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Draax
like this
Fox News!!!! ?? I'm in!
I tried Sling; they had CNN, the Clinton News Network. Dropped them like an ugly baby.
 
The sports channels are the main headline here. With all the weird blackout restrictions, streaming apps just aren't as good.
 
I'll take a closer look when the DVR component is added and the figure out how to make that work offline.
 
Crixus said:
I'm going with sling TV I think. Seems to have the best channel line-up for the price ( the only sports I watch involve Formula 1 cars or fighting ). Also, Youtube and their politics can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...
Dont do it to yourself. Dont waste your time like that. Unless you are using Sling on a Roku, its simply terrible. Buffering, bad quality, and the service crashes for really large events.
 
This will be a no go in Canada because the CRTC requires that customers can pick and choose channels.
 
LurkerLito said:
Personally I would want to pick and choose the channels I want for that $35/month cause I have no need for any of the sports channels. I have watched ESPN all of 10 hours or less over the 20 years I was on cable.
Click to expand...

This so much and for so many years promised. That is all I want and need, 10 channels at the most and I want to pick and choose and I want it for under $65 a month for internet and 10 channels. I don't even need local news, our local news would be about someones chickens getting out. For all the tons of channels we have we really only watch 3 or 4 of them ever.
 
I'd love something like this, problem is, if I drop my cable service, I lose my bundle discount, which means I'll be paying almost as much for Internet alone as I was for Internet and Cable.

This effectively means, no alternative to local cable will ever be a real alternative. Unless someone figures out a way to make this type of bundling scam illegal.
 
35 bucks for 4 or 5 channels (not counting OTA channels) is a bit high, IMO. And yes there are more channels, but I wouldn't watch more than 4 or 5 of them (and not regularly).
 
Not a good deal, and so the price. For $35 you better stay Comcastic. With internet, you'll get a better combo deal.

Whatever happened to Intel OnCue project.. That was suppose to shake the cable world. Sad.
 
Thanks. But I left television behind for a reason. Not interested in paying to hop back on that bandwagon.

Especially not with YouTube's constant buffering issues and their ass-tastic politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top