That’s me. I’ve been subscribing to Netflix for 7 years now despite not having watched it at all in 4 years.
I only have YouTubeTV because it’s still the cheapest way to get the BBC World News channel in the US. I used to have DirecTV but they started demanding $130/mo (without the sports channels!) minimum to get that channel - while my local cableco (Wave) doesn’t carry it at all.
I understand the bundling of channels from the same providers like Viacom and NBC/Universal that forces cable/sat customers onto higher pricing tiers, but channels like the BBC World News channel are sourced individually (as far as I know) and are offered at-cost (again, as far as I know) by cableco/sat providers - so there is absolutely no excuse for DirecTV to charge so much besides market segmentation (which they’re probably right on-the-money for (pun intended): the people interested in getting the BBC World News channel probably can afford $130/mo - and they’re right: I can afford it, but I still think it’s outrageous.
Right? I used to just turn on YouTube TV for hurricane season for local coverage in case of a power outage. It's far easier to keep a cell phone charged than deal with a digital antenna (which might have been lost to high winds anyway) and relatively power hungry TV just to see what's going on. Then my wife started using the app too so I can't easily turn it off.
Back when Big Ugly Dishes were a thing it was far cheaper to piecemeal subscribe to your desired packages. Then DirecTV came along and forced the cable tv model on their subscribers and lobbied hard for laws that killed BUDs. I remember doing the math at the time and DirecTV was about double the price of a BUD.
Now we're back to adhoc subscription if you want to use a bunch of disparate apps and websites, so in one way it could be cheaper. But each streaming site charges retail prices to consumers so in aggregate it ends up costing as much or more than in the cable model. Even so the forced subsidy of ESPN in particular has always been a deeply aggravating thing for me. Sort of like agreeing to split lunch evenly and then discovering after the fact everyone's having sandwiches except the one guy who ordered steak.
Interesting -- this weekend I finally gave up on YoutubeTV and ordered Spectrum cable again. Between the rising costs (now 69.95 a month) and the loss of both regional sports networks (I haven't been able to watch Texas Rangers baseball or Mavericks basketball in almost a year since they dropped the Fox Sports RSNs) and the Tennis channel the package is worth much less to me. The only real reason I want cable is for live sports. All the other network programming is of very little interest to me.
My total cost for a competitive package with CloudDVR (what used to be YoutubeTVs killer feature) and 400Mbps internet is now lower by about 30 bucks a month, which is not nothing.
I live in hope that one day I will be able to buy a cable/streaming package that consists of Sports plus Local Channels with cloud DVR and very high bitrate streaming. That is all that I want.
They're also no longer price-competitive with traditional cable TV, which many people rely on as their only source of wired Internet. When it costs $60/mo for Internet, and only another $40/mo to bundle cable TV, why would I spend $25 extra for YouTube TV instead? The unlimited DVR is nice, but most cable providers also offer some DVR functionality and tons of on-demand content. They also increasingly offer streaming to other devices. YouTube TV is only a marginally better experience in some ways, and worse in others, with a smaller channel selection. At $40, it was monetarily a wash; at $65, they need to offer something that cable isn't giving me, and at the moment they don't.
We only have Netflix and YouTubeTV. That's $75 for content/mo. Much cheaper than cable in our area (adding in the hardware + DVR services). We have a handful of shows we watch plus a handful of NCAA basketball and the Olympics (this year isn't working out at all..). We've looked at this very objectively (spreadsheets!) and with what we want from our TV service YouTubeTV is the best deal.
But they seem to offer pretty much all the major cable TV channels yea? Isn't that going to cost $50/month if you go for a traditional cable company? Why would the price of the content decrease?
I actually pay for YouTube TV even though the price to add cable to my plan would be about the same price. The difference is I get better channels (sports!), DVR, multi-room support, and streaming anywhere outside the house. If I wanted any of those features from my cable company, I'd be paying over double what I pay now.
> With cable you’re paying the cable company, not the content providers.
Cable and satellite such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable or DirecTV pay networks like ESPN and TNT a certain amount PER CUSTOMER for programming content each month. The median price paid for each channel a subscriber gets is 14 cents. Sports content costs the cable company the most, ESPN was estimated to cost $8.37 per month in 2018, but arguably actually should cost much more if you consider time each channel is watched versus its cost:
What you just described, minus YouTube is $40 a month. That’s really not that difficult for a lot of people, compared to how much cable use to cost, plus add ons. I already pay for Hulu, Netflix, and HBO, and I don’t mind paying another $7 for Disney+
Content isn’t free, and makers deserve to get paid.
Signing up for Hulu and Disney+ will give you all the content you’re looking for in the same price envelope sub $15k households are already willing to pay.
I pay $5 a month to my local PBS but it ticks me off that if I want to stream the live channel I have to pay YouTube TV. I'd gladly pay $10-$15 a month for just my local PBS channels in HD. My antenna isn't always reliable to pick them up, which puts me in the spot of paying my local PBS vs YouTube TV.
They are so cheap that I am just subscribed to everything. I know I’m fortunate to be able to afford that but compared to what Americans are spending on everything else it’s surely not a lot for the value you get. Still cheaper than I used to pay for cable ($100)
> A BASIC cable TV subscription costs over $100/mo.
No, it doesn't.
> Streaming services are typically $10/mo or so.
Streaming multichannel video distribution platform (MVDP) services that are most comparable to a cable subscription, with live TV channels (YouTubeTV, SlingTV, PlaystationTV, DirecTV Now, Hulu with Live TV) have some variation in pricing, but the bottom is way above $10/mo. ~$40/mo seems to be typical base fee, comparable with basic cable plans (U-Verse Basic is $19.99/mo + $10/mo for HD.)
$10-15/mo. streaming services are typically more comparable in what they offer to a single premium cable channels, but without live programming and sometimes with little better on-demand catalog. Some of them are exactly equivalent to such a channel (e.g., HBO Now).
In addition, streaming services count against your broadband services data cap, which may necessitate additional charges for uncapped service (and require sufficient broadband bandwidth, which may also force a higher tiers of service than you otherwise would use—cable/satellite mostly subsumes all of that.)
> The fact that distribution of content is now worthless, and distribution is the primary value proposition of their business model
Essentislly all the cable companies are both (owned by, or own) major content owners and major broadband (often both fixed and mobile) ISPs, they often also own or co-own one or more streaming services (sometimes both MVDP and “single channel” style services). They are making money no matter what route you choose to the content.
You're ignoring the cost of the cable subscription in the first place (unless your 'television provider' is the government and you don't pay anything).
-There is no option to pick a few channels you want for cheaper than the package of channels. I would love to pick a dozen channels (which are otherwise are only available with the more expensive bundles that come with hundred+ other channels I have no interest in).
-Lack of availability of international channels. These often cost 30+ for each small separate package offered in cable, while better channel bundles are much more affordable through streaming providers- not to mention individual programs available in different platforms and news streams free online.
I don't spend a lot of free time watching things, and I have specific things I enjoy (documentaries, foreign films/TV, educational content) so paying more for cable doesn't make any sense when I can get a better variety through streaming and/or through resources freely available online or through the library. Not to mention paying high prices and still having to contend with advertisements taking up ~20% of the time and interrupting what you're watching.
It's the opposite. A channel with limited appeal would likely need to pay the cable provider to get included. This is all very basic economics and human behavior.
Lack of competitive choices is the reason they get away with this. My choices are 1 cable provider, Dish, and DirecTV. Not much competition. I have tried cutting the cord and streaming TV, but it's not ready for prime time yet. I also tried DirecTV and they had their own set of junk fees. At this point, I just pay the fees and hope technology improves enough to have ubiquitous choices.
I have been paying more than $100 a month to a cable company for a long time. So, I feel entitled to watch whatever I want, wherever I want because if I haven't already paid for it, I probably will soon.
I only have YouTubeTV because it’s still the cheapest way to get the BBC World News channel in the US. I used to have DirecTV but they started demanding $130/mo (without the sports channels!) minimum to get that channel - while my local cableco (Wave) doesn’t carry it at all.
I understand the bundling of channels from the same providers like Viacom and NBC/Universal that forces cable/sat customers onto higher pricing tiers, but channels like the BBC World News channel are sourced individually (as far as I know) and are offered at-cost (again, as far as I know) by cableco/sat providers - so there is absolutely no excuse for DirecTV to charge so much besides market segmentation (which they’re probably right on-the-money for (pun intended): the people interested in getting the BBC World News channel probably can afford $130/mo - and they’re right: I can afford it, but I still think it’s outrageous.
reply