YoutubeTV 2025 price increase

[LEEHRAT]

If you like sports now go to Hulu live as you get the same as you tube plus you get espn+ and disney+ for same price......When epsn goes live in 2025 then cancel hulu

 

[Ronnie-]

Go to the cancel option and you will likely get the current price for another 6 months.


I won’t need it that long but I’d rather pay the current rate as long as I do use it.

 

[mackie99]

Go to the cancel option and you will likely get the current price for another 6 months.


I won’t need it that long but I’d rather pay the current rate as long as I do use it.

Tried it. It didn't work for me it ended up cancelling... LOL

 

[Ronnie-]

Tried it. It didn't work for me it ended up cancelling... LOL

Out of curiosity did you pick cost too high when they asked for a reason?

 

[mackie99]

Out of curiosity did you pick cost too high when they asked for a reason?

Yes.

 

[fmj77]

Ridiculous. YTTV is now more than double the price from when it first launched. No wonder so many people have decided to say the hell with it and sail the high seas instead.

 

[Bruce]

Ridiculous. YTTV is now more than double the price from when it first launched. No wonder so many people have decided to say the hell with it and sail the high seas instead.

But it is still $40-up less a month then Dish, DirecTV, Cable.

And again, the streaming services are a much better deal, get the majority of content from Paid Live TV, plus so much more content in the streaming shows and movies.

I currently get-

All no commercials and 4K tier

Paramount+ with Showtime-$10 a month ( have the $119 a year deal).
Peacock $10 a month (BF deal + no commercials)
MAX-$12 (rounding-$139 yearly deal that is up in March or May?)
Hulu/Disney $20 a month
Netflix $23 a month

That is $75 a month, which includes HBO and Showtime, which would be a extra to Cable/Satellite/YTTV Paid Live TV monthly charge.

If you change the above to with commercials, save another $25 a month at least.

 

[savarese04]

I love the "they are getting as high as cable" comments. they absolutely are not. There are no RSN fees, no DVR fees, no box fees, etc. It's $82.99/mo. DirecTV's cheapest package starts at $90 before fees and has fewer channels than YTTV, and that's before the inevitable 4 price hikes in 24 months.

Let's call it what it is though - YTTV, Hulu Live, etc ARE CABLE (just without boxes and delivered via IP), so the price being cheaper and the service being more flexible is highly attractive for those of us that still want "cable."

 

[AZ.]

I love the "they are getting as high as cable" comments. they absolutely are not. There are no RSN fees, no DVR fees, no box fees, etc. It's $82.99/mo. DirecTV's cheapest package starts at $90 before fees and has fewer channels than YTTV, and that's before the inevitable 4 price hikes in 24 months.

Let's call it what it is though - YTTV, Hulu Live, etc ARE CABLE (just without boxes and delivered via IP), so the price being cheaper and the service being more flexible is highly attractive for those of us that still want "cable."

They sure better be cheaper for the reasons you brought up, and putting satellites up and adding new ones add to the cost. The infrastructure for these services must be cheaper by a lot? It would be nice if they told you why it was going up.

 

[dishdude]

They sure better be cheaper for the reasons you brought up, and putting satellites up and adding new ones add to the cost. The infrastructure for these services must be cheaper by a lot? It would be nice if they told you why it was going up.

Couldn't be Sunday Ticket! Also, all these networks are seeing their revenue drop because of subscriber loss, so the fix seems to be raise carriage costs which will just hasten their demise! Multiple FXs, MTVs, ESPNs all showing reruns and crap no one is watching.

 

[ncted]

They sure better be cheaper for the reasons you brought up, and putting satellites up and adding new ones add to the cost. The infrastructure for these services must be cheaper by a lot? It would be nice if they told you why it was going up.

I forget who, but someone did an analysis in the D* forum several years back which showed how much cheaper satellite TV infrastructure was than IP-based delivery like YTTV uses. It was dramatically less, assuming the subscriber numbers were there, which I guess is no longer the case. Broadcast is always going to be more cost-efficient than unicast.

Google has the benefit of leveraging existing YouTube infrastructure to deliver YTTV content, so I suspect they are right that the majority of the increase is paying the channel owners more money for the same old thing. YTTV is still like $70 cheaper than what my parents would have to pay Spectrum (which has had 2 price increases this year) for cable TV service with two DVRs, local channels, etc.

 

[comfortably_numb]

It's $82.99/mo

...which is still too expensive for watching TV. I get that Satelliteguys are "power users," but roughly $100+ a month for TV is ridiculous. Just say "no."

 

[NYDutch]

...which is still too expensive for watching TV. I get that Satelliteguys are "power users," but roughly $100+ a month for TV is ridiculous. Just say "no."

But $150 or so for Dish or DTV was ok with you?

 

[comfortably_numb]

But $150 or so for Dish or DTV was ok with you?

Not at all. I haven't had either for years, and when I still had Dish I had a purchased 211K with an EHD and the Welcome Pack, which was less than $25 at the time IIRC.

TBH I haven't missed it at all.

 

[NYDutch]

Not at all. I haven't had either for years, and when I still had Dish I had a purchased 211K with an EHD and the Welcome Pack, which was less than $25 at the time IIRC.

TBH I haven't missed it at all.

Ok, that's fair enough. In our case, as two octogenarians in less than good health and lots of time on our hands, TV and reading are our primary forms of entertainment. We find the streaming prices much more reasonable than the cable/satellite prices. At about $100/mo, that's about the same cost as a couple of good dinners out at a nice restaurant, something else we can seldom do any more.

 

[dishdude]

Ok, that's fair enough. In our case, as two octogenarians in less than good health and lots of time on our hands, TV and reading are our primary forms of entertainment. We find the streaming prices much more reasonable than the cable/satellite prices. At about $100/mo, that's about the same cost as a couple of good dinners out at a nice restaurant, something else we can seldom do any more.

I don't think $100/mo is bad at all, I've heard of some people paying $200/mo+ for TV alone! Those local channel, box and DVR fees can really add up!

 

[Bruce]

I don't think $100/mo is bad at all, I've heard of some people paying $200/mo+ for TV alone! Those local channel, box and DVR fees can really add up!

I believe $100 is absolutely terrible considering how much new content you receive, which is minimal at best.

Netflix premieres more new scripted content every week, then all the cable channels combined.

I remember the time when TNT, TBS, AMC, FX, SyFy all would all have at least a few hours of new series each week, on each channel.

Today, almost all reruns, yet the price keeps going up.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I love the "they are getting as high as cable" comments. they absolutely are not. There are no RSN fees, no DVR fees, no box fees, etc. It's $82.99/mo. DirecTV's cheapest package starts at $90 before fees and has fewer channels than YTTV, and that's before the inevitable 4 price hikes in 24 months.

Let's call it what it is though - YTTV, Hulu Live, etc ARE CABLE (just without boxes and delivered via IP), so the price being cheaper and the service being more flexible is highly attractive for those of us that still want "cable."

well just about no RSN's on YTTV.

 

[Bruce]

well just about no RSN's on YTTV.

Not many care.

There is 131 Million Households in the United States, yet only Charter( 13 Million Subscribers), Comcast (13M ), DirecTV (10M), Fubo (1.5M), what is left of Fios(2M)and Cox still has the RSNs.

That is, roughly only 40 Million Subscribers, then how many of those have packages that do not have the RSN, like Entertainment with DirecTV.

So that drops it down to, roughly, 35 Million.

So, 96 Million do not receive the RSNs and growing.

In 2017, about 100 Million received the RSNs.