YouTube TV

This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by Dugway.

Viewing 5 reply threads

Author

Posts
- 03/01/2017 at 12:15 AM #29211
  1
  
  Stone
  Participant
  
  Looks like Alphabet (aka Google) is finally getting in on the tv market with YouTube TV. The pricing, cloud DVR, and channel lineup look great, all of the main networks, plus the primary sports networks ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, Fox Sports, FS1, FS2, SEC, BTN … alas, no Pac12 Network. If it included Pac12 Network, I think I would be done with cable forever (YouTube TV is only $35 per month). I love that the Pac12 network exists, I just wish I wasn’t limited to Comcast or Dish to view it.
  
  http://venturebeat.com/2017/02/28/introducing-youtube-tv/
- 03/01/2017 at 5:14 AM #29214
  1
  
  Milton Vanderslice
  Participant
  
  SlingTV has Pac12 if you want it now.
  - 03/01/2017 at 12:32 PM #29277
    1
    
    GameForAnyFuss
    Participant
    
    Sorry, sling sucks. It could have every channel on earth for free and I still wouldn’t do it. Why? Because you can’t use multiple TVs at once. I don’t see how anyone living in a multi-person household could live with Sling.
    
    Once they have the ability to watch different channels on different TVs at the same time, they’ll go from zero stars to five stars.
    - 03/01/2017 at 12:56 PM #29285
      1
      
      Puget Ute
      Participant
      
      You just need to buy the package that allows multiple streams. But then it really isn’t much of a cost savings over cable/satellite beside the fact that you don’t need to rent a cable box for each TV.
      - 03/01/2017 at 1:38 PM #29298
        
        DieHardUtahUtesFan
        Participant
        
        Chromecast bypasses the cable boxes.
- 03/01/2017 at 8:12 AM #29225
  2
  
  Tony (admin)
  Keymaster
  
  Not carrying Pac-12 is a deal-breaker. I have it for an extra $5/mo on SlingTV.
- 03/01/2017 at 8:55 AM #29228
  
  jamarcus24
  Participant
  
  Readers will notice that some channels and networks are noticeably missing, such as those from Time Warner. YouTube said that it’s always in discussions with new partners, but does not anticipate raising the price beyond the $35 monthly fee.
  
  If this holds true and YouTube is able to add more stations (including the Pac-12 Network) and still keep the price at $35/month then YouTube would be the way to go for streaming sports. If they could also get Time Warner on board, namely Turner Sports, that would take care of the NBA and the NCAA tournament. It would save you $15 over Sling if you wanted all the ESPNs, Fox Sports channels, and the Pac-12 Network.
  - 03/01/2017 at 9:49 AM #29233
    
    Milton Vanderslice
    Participant
    
    I don’t doubt that they will eventually get there. I hope they put apps on roku and everywhere instead of requiring you to use Chromecast to watch it on a tv.
    - 03/01/2017 at 1:08 PM #29290
      
      Puget Ute
      Participant
      
      They are almost required to set up an app, because if they won’t do that they will miss out to people who will just stream (illegally) through Kodi. They will need to get in the game or else they will miss out on capitalizing on the streams that will happen with or without their consent.
  - 03/01/2017 at 1:01 PM #29287
    1
    
    DieHardUtahUtesFan
    Participant
    
    They already have it set up to pay extra for Showtime. I would bet that Pac-12 will be an additional fee package.
    - 03/01/2017 at 2:31 PM #29304
      1
      
      jamarcus24
      Participant
      
      I’m hoping the Pac-12 Network just gets thrown in with the regular lineup since they already have the B1G and SEC Networks already listed.
- 03/01/2017 at 12:07 PM #29269
  1
  
  DieHardUtahUtesFan
  Participant
  
  I don’t know if the Pac 12 network already being on Youtube for international distribution is going to be a problem or an asset in getting included in Youtube TV.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/user/pac12networksintl
- 03/01/2017 at 1:06 PM #29289
  
  Puget Ute
  Participant
  
  I have the DirecTVNow service. It costs me $35/mo because I signed up during a special intro pricing ($35/mo forever, pay 3 months in advance and get an AppleTV 4 – I did it just to get the ‘free’ AppleTV). I can stream shows/games/etc on my phone as well. The pricing is now closer to $60, so I can’t leave and restart it without paying the higher price.
  
  I get ~100 channels, including all the ESPNs and FS channels, plus the other sports channels. But it still doesn’t include PAC-12 (although I have a way to get that).
  
  Previously I had SlingTV. It was fine, included fewer channels, but had PAC-12. I had to get the big package to get the ESPNs and FS1/FS2, so it was more expensive than it needed to be.
  
  I am happy to see another option in the market. The stranglehold the cable/satellite* companies have on the at-the-TV translator boxes is where I want to see changes, and this service will help with that. With Comcast I had to pay ~$15 for each extra TV in order to have a translator box + HD service, so my bundle that was supposed to be ~$89/mo eventually grew to over $210/mo. And after all that, my kids typically only watched Netflix shows. It was a lot of wasted money every month!
  
  * this is funny of course, since Dish owns SlingTV and DirecTV owns DTVNow…
  - 03/01/2017 at 1:21 PM #29295
    1
    
    DieHardUtahUtesFan
    Participant
    
    I live where Comcast is my only broadband internet option. Price fixing bastards. I can get broadband internet and tv for the same cost as broadband internet by itself. Anticompetitive practice in action.
  - 03/01/2017 at 2:57 PM #29306
    
    Dugway
    Participant
    
    The problem with SlingTV is that it is “live only”. Not only is there no DVR, but no access to archived video on pac-12.com. That’s what ended it for me.
Author

Posts