-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Youtube TV now $64.99 a month
- Thread starter MrBob
- Start date
Hulu is still the same price as YouTubeTV is moving to if you add DVR isn't it?
Hulu's DVR even after paying for the premium version isn't as good as YouTube TV's either. It's one of the reason I went with YouTube TV.
Hulu no adds + Live TV comes out to I think $61. You can get it down to $54 if you just want the Live TV (no Hulu), or take $6 off if you're alright with ads on Hulu. That said it is missing the Viacom stuff.
It's sad but every time I lay out my requirements, none of them check all the boxes. I wind up with Youtube TV as the closest but I'm still missing my NHL Network.
I will watch exactly zero Viacom channels but these increases were always going to happen. I have (smaller) cable TV customers literally ceasing their video products because they have contracts in place with content providers and they can't compete with the streaming services. But the long game was always to get that going and bring it up to pricing par.
I wouldn't mind TiVo + Cablecard but I'm spoiled by using any device at any time with Youtube TV, and TiVo is getting less consumer friendly every day.
I'm begrudgingly moving back to cable. Streaming with ATT Now, Youtube, etc. has just gotten too damn expensive.
This is all true, but as you point out for the national stuff it's generally only changing hands between channels you're going to have either way, like TNT or ESPN. For regional stuff I'd argue it's not that much more complicated, at least not for the vast majority of the nation. My area, for example, really only has two regional sports channels: Fox Sports Sun and Fox Sports Florida. I get both of them, so with the $35/$45 tier I was set with pretty much every sport event I could possibly want. I guess my main complaint would be to just let me keep the channels I had for the price I had, instead of forcing me out completely by adding channels I'm never going to care about.
Depending on your location. I can't get most of my locals at my place.
Amazon fire TV recast allows you to hookup an antenna to their box and you can then stream via app on phone (DVR functions too). It costs like $200 though. Might be some other people with similar functions.
Does that put Sling $20 below them now? I pay $45 for their blue/orange package + 5 for DVR. Last month I was at $55 after all taxes. $65 is insane. It's incredible how OTT TV started out as a la carte and slowly morphed into cable thanks to network consolidation.
So they raised their price $15 due to the cost of new content. I didn't know people were clamoring for VH1 and MTV. Why not just offer a viacom package or bundle for those that want it?
Wow I just went on my ISP's site to see what they were offering as far as pricing for cable, and they don't even offer cable anymore. Just links to YouTubeTV, Philo, Sling and Fubo lol.
I canceled when sports went away, will have to see where I land once things are eventually back.
I canceled when sports went away, will have to see where I land once things are eventually back.
NFL you can get the vast majority of games on local broadcast if you have a tv antenna.
NBA is harder due to local blackout restrictions.
Bold move to do this when there are no sports on anyway. Though maybe that's the reasoning with the NBA coming back soon and NFL around the corner?
I don't think youtubetv has either the Lakers or Dodgers channels as options. In fact a lot of the bigger sports markets have teams with exclusive contracts with channels in market, so it's probably easier to watch a Laker game outside of the greater LA area than within it.
Sports, my friend. No viable standalone streaming service exists for NBA, college basketball, college football. If you want to watch your local team, it's blacked out. Total bullshit.
Get yourself an OTA antenna. They are like 30 bucks and your channels will come in in HD.
They really just need to start killing off excess cable channels, there are far too many. We don't need all these channels showing reruns of the same shows over and over, especially when entire shows are being added to streaming services. The days of watching Friends on like five different channels is over.
OTA antenna + Plex Pass is fantastic. All my recordings go straight to my NAS.
I also use OTA with a TiVo that has lifetime service on it, also great.
This is a bit loaded, to be fair. In some areas you might need a particularly good antenna or some way to mount it outside (or both!) to be able to receive broadcast channels. I can barely receive the ones from downtown because even though I'm within range, I cannot mount an antenna to my house for various reasons and I have a number of hills in the way reducing the signal reaching me.
I've just gone to Sling, Netflix, and an antenna for local channels. There is no way I'll ever go back to cable with the damned equipment fees, the bullshit ticky-tack add-on fees, two year contracts, and having to call someone and go through a ton of bullshit just to cancel the service.
If there's a TV show that we just have to watch that isn't on what we already have, we'll buy a season pass on iTunes or whatever.
If there's a TV show that we just have to watch that isn't on what we already have, we'll buy a season pass on iTunes or whatever.
I don't have any TV provider I use right now. Let's say I wanted an internet-based TV provider. Who would the least expensive option be in the US?
I'm in the exact same boat. My Dad is going to blow his stack when he sees this.
my CW network needs something thats beyond the usual 50 mile antennas. but its hard to get it in HD even when you got something stronger.
I've just looked around at Sling, Hulu, etc, and nothing comes close to the amount of channels + local channels + being able to watch on any device and not have to pay to rent extra equipment. In the end, it's still cheaper for me to have YouTube TV than to move to a Comcast bundle after you figure in their taxes and equipment fees.
You are correct, I forget some people live out further than me. I am a city dweller.
I ended up switching to Philo after sling's price increase (and adding Fox News). For $20/month it has enough that I'm happy with it. Wife gets her food/hgtv/ID channels, kids get Nick/Nick Jr. I'm happy with the remaining channels. We let my mom use it for the Hallmark channels. I just don't care about local channels
Hulu Live + Hulu with no commercials has gotten very expensive.. we'll probably all have to transition back to cable packages soon. There isn't really a savings at this point anyway sadly.
Might have to switch over to Hulu with live TV for $55. I heard someone mention there DVR isn't good, what's wrong with it?
well shit. I got it cause I lost TCM on Comcast, but since the pandemic I've hardly used it all. Any cheap streaming services that carry TCM?
Is there a viable alternative that provides the same level of live sports coverage?
I basically need ESPN/2, fox sports southwest, and local channels (NFLN would be nice, don't get that on YTTV currently)
At $35 YTTV was an absolute steal. At $65 not so much, but even at $50 it seemed like the best solution for live sports
I basically need ESPN/2, fox sports southwest, and local channels (NFLN would be nice, don't get that on YTTV currently)
At $35 YTTV was an absolute steal. At $65 not so much, but even at $50 it seemed like the best solution for live sports
What's the cheapest way to get a package of news channels like CNN, MSNBC, etc. That's all I watch is news. I need my news. And now it will be $65/month for that luxury holy shit.
It is limited to 30 hours for DVR.
FuboTV does have NFL Network and is supposedly getting ESPN/Disney networks this summer. No word whether there would be a price increase for that.