Anyone tried Youtube Tv and can compare it to Tivo?

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by omelet1978, Mar 18, 2019.

  1. Dec 7, 2020 #1541 of 1763
    pdhenry

    pdhenry Ruthless

    31,940
    6,735
    Feb 27, 2005
    PA

    Advertisements

    Is Cheddar a "real" cable channel?
    Local Now seems like Weather Channel without the good parts.
     
  2. Dec 7, 2020 #1542 of 1763
    Jeeters

    Jeeters Registered Snoozer

    7,747
    145
    Feb 25, 2003
    PA
    Yep.

    Where to Watch
     
  3. Dec 7, 2020 #1543 of 1763
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    4,188
    2,071
    May 2, 2015
    Cheddar began as a free streaming financial news channel aimed at younger audiences. In addition to their own app, I think it's included in all the free streaming channel aggregators like Pluto TV. Since then, they've also gotten distribution via some traditional cable TV operators too.
     
  4. Dec 7, 2020 #1544 of 1763
    pl1

    pl1 Well-Known Member

    1,422
    61
    Jan 17, 2007
    MA
    Your post got me doing a little research. It appears that AT&T is looking to sell off Direct TV, AT&T TV Now and U-verse Pay TV (while keeping equity in it) with at least one suitor in mind, Apollo Management. If something like this does get done, it is conceivable that AT&T TV Now could still be functional with a new owner since AT&T would still be somewhat involved. It looks like AT&T TV Now has lost 40% of their subscribers year over year due to a price increase to $65, which was reduced back to $55. (Reminds me of the backlash Netflix got with a price increase.)
    So, AT&T has been focusing all of their efforts on AT&T TV and HBO MAX.
     
  5. Dec 7, 2020 #1545 of 1763
    pl1

    pl1 Well-Known Member

    1,422
    61
    Jan 17, 2007
    MA

    Advertisements

    BTW, If I'm not mistaken, if you look under OTHER PACKAGES for AT&T TV Now, besides Plus and Max, you will see the following, unless this is really AT&T TV and not AT&T TV Now. EDIT: I only bring this up because you listed the exact same package names given to AT&T TV.

    upload_2020-12-7_21-28-59.png
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2020
  6. Dec 8, 2020 #1546 of 1763
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    1,138
    183
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    I agree that the rate increases at YTTV are alarming, but I suspect it was probably priced well below market to begin with. Time will tell. In looking at the Spectrum channels in my market, I see a lot of trash, as you say, but I think they must be counting some duplicates in there as well. Data caps are definitely going to be an issue for live IPTV solutions like YTTV. That must be why Spectrum is trying to get out of their merger commitment to not have caps.
     
  7. Dec 8, 2020 #1547 of 1763
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,143
    828
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Spectrum must be running SD (480 line) versions of their HD channels to get those huge channel counts. Are there still people with TV sets that can only display SD?

    I think it’s quite sensible and fair for Internet to be billed on a usage basis, of which data caps are a crude example. Spectrum has no data caps (yet) but they also have one of the highest rates for their standard service ($75/mo for 100/10 in my area). That’s because the low-usage customers are in effect subsidizing the high-usage customers. If Spectrum is approved to have caps the **logical** result would be a lower base rate for some initial usage block so the people who use more will pay more. How would you like for your gas or electric company to charge everyone the same regardless of usage? Unfortunately, I doubt Spectrum would do the **logical** thing — they will probably retain the $75/mo for an initial block and then charge more when you exceed the block.
     
  8. Dec 8, 2020 #1548 of 1763
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,143
    828
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    YTTV’S 30% price increase actually was $15/month. When I had Spectrum cable TV I had annual price increases far greater than that every year. If I was lucky I could spend an hour or two haggling on the phone and get the increases reduced somewhat. When I finally cut the cord it took a half hour on the phone before the agent would actually terminate the service. None of this kind of hassle with YTTV!
     
  9. Dec 8, 2020 #1549 of 1763
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    1,138
    183
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    I think I might be ok with metered usage if it included the highest available throughput and lowest latency, and had a tiered pricing structure, so the more you use, the less you pay per GB. This is how most CDN and co-lo hosted data contracts work. Unfortunately, that is not something that the average residential internet customer is going to take the time to understand. They are paying for a particular tier of throughput, not usage. IMHO data caps are incompatible with throughput tiers, especially as it effectively limits total monthly throughput at that price. With a 100Mb connection running at 100%, you can blow through a 1TB data cap in less than 24 hours. It makes the throughput value meaningless with respect to a monthly charge if you can possibly incur additional costs in less than a day.

    I suspect Charter's prices are so high because they are actually working on paying down their debt, unlike AT&T which only charges me $70 ($50 under the current promotion) for my uncapped gig connection.
     
  10. Dec 8, 2020 #1550 of 1763
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,143
    828
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Why wouldn’t metered service like is used (in most) gas and electric utlities work? In my area at least you pay a fixed cost just to have the service connected and for an initial small block of energy (KWh or cubic feet) then you pay fixed per unit rate from there on up. What is the logic for paying less per unit used if you use more, i.e., a volume discount? The cost for amortizing infrastructure should be covered by the initial fixed block and any operating and maintenance costs proportional to usage should be in the per-unit rate. I can see logic in charging more per GB for Gbps service than for 100 Mbps service, i.e., charging more for higher “quality” units. Why is consumer understanding of the rate structure any more important for internet than for those other utilities?
    I think it’s just because they are a local monopoly in most of their service areas and can get away with it. Or putting it another way, they took on the debt because they knew they could overcharge as a local monopoly to pay it off.
     
  11. Dec 8, 2020 #1551 of 1763
    NashGuy

    NashGuy Well-Known Member

    4,188
    2,071
    May 2, 2015
    Yes. As I posted above, they have two different sets of channel packages and both sets are available on either AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now. But AT&T TV features (i.e. puts the main focus on) the traditional set (Entertainment, Choice, etc.) while AT&T TV Now features the new skinny set (Plus and Max).

    As you discovered, on the AT&T TV Now website, if you click "other packages," you will see the traditional set. The sign-up webpage for AT&T TV does something similar with the new Plus and Max packages, kind of hiding them down under the traditional packages.
     
  12. Dec 8, 2020 #1552 of 1763
    pl1

    pl1 Well-Known Member

    1,422
    61
    Jan 17, 2007
    MA
    Adding even MORE to the confusion. :) As trip1eX pointed out, under the AT&T TV Now site they sometimes refer it to AT&T TV.
     
  13. Dec 8, 2020 #1553 of 1763
    tommiet

    tommiet Well-Known Member

    512
    252
    Oct 28, 2005
    No equipment fees as I use my Bolt. That's where the saving come in. But Spectrum in my area offer a streaming package with a dvr for $14.99 - $49.99. I have not tried it, but if/when my Bolt dies, I'll go in that direction.
    I'm ok with calling Cable and negotiating cost. Did the same with Dish for years. Zero chance of calling Google and asking for a price adjustment. But if your ok with paying a little more for the same service, its your money. YouTube was $35.00 a month when it came out in 2018. Now $65.00. I'm not a YT user, but at one time you had to pay extra to watch DVR events with no ads. I'm not sure if that is still the case.

    My point is that cutting the cord does not always mean your saving money. The cable company may get the last laugh as CAPS may put a brake on streaming services.

    Be Safe.....
     
  14. Dec 8, 2020 #1554 of 1763
    tommiet

    tommiet Well-Known Member

    512
    252
    Oct 28, 2005
    Spectrum trying to get out of the data caps is why I brought this up... Streaming really hits me big time and I'm not looking forward to data caps. I probably filter out half of the channels that Spectrum gives me.

    NOTE: you can get a streaming package from Spectrum. They don't advertise it, but its $14.99 - $49.99 with a cloud DVR. VOD and cloud DVR's will kill TiVo. Would be nice if someone could provide a review of this service. Might be my path when my TiVo sub expires this June.

    Be Safe.
     
  15. Dec 8, 2020 #1555 of 1763
    pdhenry

    pdhenry Ruthless

    31,940
    6,735
    Feb 27, 2005
    PA
    As will the move from CableCards generally.
     
  16. Dec 8, 2020 #1556 of 1763
    trip1eX

    trip1eX imo, afaik, feels like to me, *exceptions, ~aprox

    4,570
    734
    Apr 2, 2005
    What happened to the $86/mo regular price total with all the channels plus all the premiums.

    That was a promo right plus missing some fees and taxes. Maybe the premiums were free for 3 months even?


    And TiVo is a cost too. I know my Roamio Plus and two Minis were $850. That is nearly $15/mo for 5 years. Or almost $7.50/mo over 10 years.

    but my cable co’s promo rate competes well with YTTVs monthly rate. But that is before fees, taxes, equipment and/or cable card costs. And whether, they give the promo rate to you or not after it ends is another question. And those extra costs are real costs.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2020
  17. Dec 8, 2020 #1557 of 1763
    dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    9,143
    828
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Try it, and come back with the actual total price including DVR, taxes, fees, and the charge for local carriage fees. And your choice of channels, which will be nothing compared to what YTTV provides, along with completely unlimited DVR capacity.
    DVR recordings on YTTV allow (manually) skipping commercials — not optional, but standard. I agree that cord cutting is not a big cost saver. But you’re kind of missing the point: “Zero chance of calling Google and asking for a price adjustment” is a great advantage! Google’s price structure is transparent and identical for all users, rather than being nebulous and determined only by haggling like buying a car. And starting and stopping service is a simple click or two on a web site. And although I personally may not be saving much with YTTV (since we view on only one TV), consider someone who wants simultaneous viewing on 2 or 3 devices. YTTV allows 3 simultaneous streams on a single account and the only equipment charge/cost is a streaming device ($30 to $100 per TV). Compare that to the cost of multiple TiVo’s or rentals of multiple cable DVR’s. And I haven’t even mentioned the joy of running a Tuning Adapter on a TiVo with Charter/Spectrum
     
    heelsbigc and mschnebly like this.
  18. Dec 8, 2020 #1558 of 1763
    pdhenry

    pdhenry Ruthless

    31,940
    6,735
    Feb 27, 2005
    PA
    If you have a vacation home or a close friend, the economics of YTTV is overwhelming.
     
    hizhonor and osu1991 like this.
  19. Dec 9, 2020 #1559 of 1763
    ncted

    ncted A leaf on the wind

    1,138
    183
    May 13, 2007
    Durham, NC
    Gas and electric are not analogous, so the logic doesn't really apply, unless maybe you have solar/wind and are selling excess capacity back to the electric company as traffic is two-way on the Internet, but still, not really the same thing at all. Telephone service or a toll road are more similar, but still not exactly the same. With modern broadband, you can do a lot more than 1 thing at a time, unlike POTS telephony or a car on a toll road. What you are really paying for with Internet service is access for all the connected devices in your home at a specific throughput.

    Back to the two-way thing. If your computer exchanges data with another on the Internet, you have both paid for access to do so. Your access fee pays for your ISP's infrastructure and for them to interconnect with other networks (i.e. The Internet). You have paid for a "pipe" of a certain capacity to the internet. Using this pipe you can communicate back and forth with every other computer on the Internet that is listening. It doesn't cost the ISP any more if you only use your pipe 1% of the time or 100% of the time because they have to plan for possibility that you will use it 100% of the time. Even with metered data, they would have to plan for this eventuality. That doesn't mean they always have enough backbone capacity for every user to use 100% of their capacity all the time. It means they have to monitor usage and plan for upgrades as usage patterns change. Like anything, you'd expect upgrade costs to go up over time, but as with many technological things, that isn't necessarily the way it works. High throughput routers and switches don't really cost more than they did 10 years ago, even though they can handle way more traffic. If anything, they are a good bit cheaper.

    There are no significant commodity consumables that increase with demand like with a gas or electric utility. It actually costs the network operators less per GB as the utilization of their network increases because they have built way more capacity than they need on day 1 and planned for growth. That is why cost per GB goes down with increased usage with subscribed bandwidth contracts. The backbone router that is only 1% utilized costs a lot more per GB that traverses it than if it is 80% utilized. The important point here is, their expenses don't go up appreciably because their network is busy, as long as they planned well, which most do these days.

    Cable companies didn't really want to be "dumb pipes," but doing just that is where the majority of their revenue comes from these days. They are killing it, even without data caps and metered billing.
     
  20. Dec 9, 2020 #1560 of 1763
    moyekj

    moyekj Well-Known Member

    12,321
    958
    Jan 23, 2006
    Mission...
    I agree strongly with @ncted. The cable companies have a fixed amount of bandwidth available to a specific neighborhood, so it's not like some people in that neighborhood using more of the bandwidth and getting charged more for it changes that total available bandwidth. As long as the "pipe" is large enough nobody is really affected by the heavy users. You could argue charging more for heavier use may cause some behavior changes for people to use less, but I think mostly it's just a money grabbing opportunity following the wireless phone company business model. If there are enough people with heavy use clogging up the available pipe then the cable company will need to do something that increases the bandwidth for everyone in the neighborhood, not just those that are paying more for the service.
     
    slowbiscuit and osu1991 like this.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements