Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by omelet1978, Mar 18, 2019.
Yep you're only subsidizing NBCSN, TNT, TBS, FS1, NFL Network, ...
You are right. I could do that in the future.
What I was referring to was when I was trying to watch something on one station and then they interrupted it while I was chasing it about 1/2 hour behind. When I went to another station it blew out the buffer from the first one, so I missed about 1/2 hour or so of the program.
With TiVo, I would have had both buffers. But, going forward, I will probably record while watching two shows. I just have to get used to the change from what I have always taken for granted with TiVo.
After taxes and junk fees I was paying about $43 to Comcast for limited basic (just the locals, plus CSPAN and all the shopping channels). $50 for around 70 channels (including TCM) is a freaking bargain.
No fees? fess for locals? sports surcharges? equipment fees? Taxes? The true cost of cable is never advertised.
At least movies are completely ala carte. If I want to see a good indie movie, I don't have to pay for ALL the films that are showing at the theaters, even if most don't interest me. That's what people do when paying for cable and satellite.
But wouldn't you rather pay just for TCM? Even with YTTV, you're still subsidizing. But ala carte will never happen, because 2/3rds of the channels would probably go belly up. They're just filler.
The local rate card shows limited basic as $21.99. I had two TiVos on the account so that adds a couple of dollars ($5, maybe?).
The broadcast TV fee is $13.70. Add 6% sales tax and you're getting close to $43, my most recent bill.
Limited basic doesn't provide ESPN or regional sports channels, so per the rate card the regional sports fee doesn't apply.
$43 gets me just the locals plus crap.
$50 gets me 70 channels including the locals.
I fired Xfinity completely today after a trial period with YTTV.
I don't get what you're driving at. Are you saying there's at least one channel I "pay for" that I don't watch? Probably. Want to guess how many of Comcast's channels I didn't watch?
In Comcast markets that have adopted their new "Simple & Easy" system, they offer their broadband subs a package called Choice TV for an extra $25, all junk fees included. It's just Limited Basic (i.e. locals), with HD and 20 hours of cloud DVR, plus on-demand. No extra fees, except for optional X1 box rentals at $5/mo each. But you can just stream via the Xfinity Stream app if you like and pay a flat $25 on top of the standalone broadband price.
That said, yeah, YouTube TV is a bargain at $50/mo for what it offers. Which is why it won't last. Google isn't making much, if anything, on that service. I look for them to hike the price again, probably to $60, before long this year.
People are paying a discounted rate to get large swath of content on cable. They aren't paying full price for every piece of content.
Also remember 1 movie ticket is $10+ these days. And you gotta drive there. And heaven forbid if you get tempted by snacks. And heaven forbid if you have to take along the wife and 2 kids. That's $40 minimum. Yet YTTV at $50/mo is overpriced just because you say so?
Also we have ala carte options for tv shows and movies. $2-$3/episode. $5-$10/movie rental. We've had that option for 5-10 years now.
Don't have that option with sports so much. But you got pay per view....which is usually $50-$100 per view for the big fights or other events. The NBA lets you pay $6 to watch a game. ... and there are probably more examples.
Yes. And others think so as well.You think it's a good deal just because you've been paying exorbitant prices previously.
That's why streaming is so popular. Now that's the real bargain. An ultra low price and content that people want to watch, completely devoid of any advertising. Not just the same old crap basic cable channels that have been around forever, that aren't really offering anything different than the next one over on the channel list. To think that's worth $600 a year is mind-boggling.
My home phone is Google Voice. They're making less on that.
I expect Google to fine tune the ads that they serve with the On-Demand programming. Right now it appears to be generic (and it says so when you click the info bubble on the ad screen) but I can see value for Google in pushing unskippable ads tailored for the viewer.
Choice TV is $30 here, but it's still just limited basic + Streampix + HD. It's not clear on the rate card whether it includes junk fees.
I think YTTV is a good deal because it carries a lot of channels that I like, some of them are what you call "old crap". Obviously, if you don't watch those channels, then it's not a good deal. YTTV also has the Golf Channel. Tell me where else I can get the Golf Channel for $50. Heck, the sat and cable companies are charging $12 to $15 per month for locals. They only include ESPN on their higher tier packages and I believe they are paying over $10 per month for it. If you watch those channels, $50 is a good price for a package like YTTV offers.
Per our rate card, it's $25 without a box or $30 with a box. And it includes the broadcast TV fee, the HD fee, and 20 hours of cloud DVR. Only other charges that could apply are government-imposed taxes.
Google Voice is one of those little hobbies that Google could kill at any time. I'm sure it adds nothing to their bottom line. Hopefully they don't kill it but just be aware that they have a history of doing that kind of thing.
As for monetizing YTTV through ads, yeah, that has to be Google's angle but I think they'll need to scale it up quite a bit more to make it profitable, and also raise rates some more too. Keep in mind:
April 2017: YYTV introduced in select markets at $35/mo
March 2018: increased to $40
April 2019: increased to $50
Don't forget to add in high speed internet costs... maybe another say 60 dollars or so. Now compare that to cable costs.
Seriously? Are there truly people out there who don't have a sufficient internet connection for other reasons and would have to buy it just for streaming? Wow.
For what most people actually need to to do on the internet 4g on a phone would suffice. Video streaming is a luxury use. My point is high speed internet has to be factored in to your total costs for real word costs of streaming.
Respectfully disagree. HSI is considered a necessary utility these days, like electricity, which is why the FCC has been subsidizing broadband expansion for years. Knowing how my brother struggles to get by with 6Mbps fixed wireless because he lacks other options makes it obvious to me that it is a requirement to live in the present. Sure there are "off the grid" folks who don't need it, but that is a life choice like not having running water, and there are many things they struggle to do to get by. Business and governments assume decent internet access in so much of what they do now. HSI has replaced the landline for the must-have utility. The vast majority of people will have it whether they stream video or not. At best, I would say any extra price you pay for higher tier speeds could be included, but only if you are doing it specifically for streaming performance.