YouTube TV price increase to $64.99

Submitted by UMProud on June 30th, 2020 at 5:21 PM

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/30/21308449/youtube-tv-price-increase-64-99-viacom-hbo-new-channels

YouTube TV has announced a new price of $64.99 per month due to a new licensing agreement with CBS and they are adding a few new channels making it the most expensive alternative to cable in the marketplace.

Why is it when these cable alternatives announce price increases they give hardly any advance notice?  I'm considering Philo @ $20/month (no sports though).  For Michigan games not on local TV I may just go to a friend's house or catch the YouTube replay.

Anyone else want off the cable subscription hamster wheel?

Naked Bootlegger

June 30th, 2020 at 6:03 PM ^

Maybe immediate mass cancellations will have an effect?   From a consumer standpoint, the beauty of streaming services is contract-free, no hassle cancellation policies.   The drawback from a streaming company's perspective - maybe mass defections after large price increases.  We shall see.

AlaskanYeti

June 30th, 2020 at 6:10 PM ^

Perhaps, my hope is that they implement tier type memberships. This many channels for $35, these additional for $50 and even more for $65. If not, I spend more time outside or in my garage working on projects. All I want are the channels that air Michigan football.

nerv

June 30th, 2020 at 6:03 PM ^

This is more expensive than a new cable bundle. You arent getting a decent internet service for under 60. Paying 65 for youtube tv you may as well just bundle some cable in with whoever you get your internet from. Unless youre just sticking with one or two small, 10 dollar or so a month, streaming services cutting the cord now seems counter productive.

LewisBullox

June 30th, 2020 at 6:05 PM ^

I'm sure they've done their math, but that just seems absurd. I was paying $40 two years ago.

uofmchris1

June 30th, 2020 at 6:11 PM ^

$65 for YouTube TV? (yes I know all about it..)... Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that.

It's like cable TV all over again. YouTube is jacking up the price 30% because they added 14 additional channels (most of which are fucking dumb) that the customer now is paying for. HELLO. CABLE TV ANYONE?

 

wile_e8

June 30th, 2020 at 6:18 PM ^

Fuck being a sports fan. I have no doubt Viacom made this a bundling requirement to include the channels YouTube TV subscribers actually want. And since that includes CBS locals, which means no NFL or SEC football if they didn't take the bundle. And things like the NFL and SEC football were among the primary reason most people subscribed to a live TV streaming service, they pretty much had to take the bundle. 

Cutting the cord is great if you don't care about sports, just subscribe to a few streaming services and save a bunch of money. But if you care about sports, the companies that paid an assload of money for the broadcast rights to those sports are going to keep going out of there way to make sure you have to pay for a bunch of crap you don't want in order to (legally) watch the sports you care about. 

crg

July 1st, 2020 at 6:20 AM ^

FYI - reddit ended the free sport streams page (at least for cfb and mbb).  For the moment there is a workaround (surgesports), but that may not last long either (and is less reliable anyway).

wile_e8

June 30th, 2020 at 6:44 PM ^

Yup. No ESPN, no BTN, no FS1, who cares. 

I mean, it's nice that it's only $20, but what's the point of subscribing at that point? You aren't going to get much that isn't on other streaming services, and they don't have the stuff that isn't on the other streaming services, which is the whole reason people want live TV streaming. 

highlow

July 1st, 2020 at 7:02 AM ^

I wonder how the NFL / NCAA / etc feel about this. I mean, they're making a shit-ton, but I think they could make more (once you factor in revenue splits, etc) by doing direct packages themselves. Look at the NBA which offers three online packages:

  • $125/season: all games, no commercials
  • $100: all games, commercials
  • $60: all games, one team.

That's gotta be worth so much more than the per-subscriber revenue they get from Comcast or whatever. 

Of course, this doesn't include local teams or national games, which ruins the value for most people. That the NBA didn't get these rights in the latest media deal feels ... ominous to me re: the odds of this ever happening. 

Hail-Storm

July 1st, 2020 at 10:26 AM ^

I cut cable after the bowl game.  We haven't missed it at all.  I can't watch Michigan Football live, since most Saturdays are filled with kids kicking soccer balls or shooting pucks. Sounds like this year may be the year I watch all my Michigan football in highlight form.

Get ready for your viewership to go up 1 Wolverine Devotee

Mitch Cumstein

June 30th, 2020 at 6:40 PM ^

Ha. Their entire pitch when they launched was about live sports content. Now, during a period when there are no live sports, they’re jacking the price to add a bunch of channels no one wants.  Who made that decision? 

ckersh74

June 30th, 2020 at 6:41 PM ^

I have an antenna, and Amazon Prime, and I think I might have Hulu due to a Spotify account. This might be enough for me to shut Youtube TV down right here on the spot. 

Blue Middle

June 30th, 2020 at 6:42 PM ^

Everyone should cancel immediately. We have to stop this BS cycle the broadcasters are perpetuating. Give us what we want: a la carte TV and do it now!

Goblueman

June 30th, 2020 at 6:45 PM ^

I literally just cut the cord 5 days ago.I did the Firestick jailbreak thing but still needed a reliable source for sports (Live Net TV not reliable) ,YouTube TV  WAS going to be my choice but not anymore. 

Mr Miggle

June 30th, 2020 at 7:00 PM ^

I quit when the NCAA tournament was canceled. That was no fault of theirs, but it's not worth $50 with no live sports. Is it worth $65 with a full slate of live sports? That's a much tougher question to answer, which I hope to tackle before too long.

TCW

June 30th, 2020 at 7:17 PM ^

I echo the comments below.  Above actually, but I'm sure the posts that haven't been made yet will be good as well.

So . . . please offer an assessment of the next best option for live sports whenever they come back.  Or just best service overall.

bronxblue

June 30th, 2020 at 7:29 PM ^

None of this is all that surprising.  Google isn't in the business of giving people deals, and most of the cable alternatives are owned by larger corporations that have some connection to media and telecoms.  That said, YouTube TV always felt overpriced so I'm not surprised they're inclined to keep it going up.

Toasted Yosties

June 30th, 2020 at 7:35 PM ^

Just called Sling to verify it has BTN, as I couldn’t find it on the website. The guy said it is part of the sports package at $40/month, $30 the first month.  Anybody use Sling? Good or bad experiences?

pdxwolve

June 30th, 2020 at 7:38 PM ^

I live in Portland and we do an HD Antenna, The Hulu-Disney Plus-ESPN Plus package, and Netflix. So we pay about $25 a month. I think I went to watch a game or two at the bar, but the rest were on TV. I must have been living in a hole, but I had no idea how a $20 HD antenna could get me all the networks. I thought I would die without ESPN and BTN, but I am amazed how much content I can still get with this setup.

TCW

June 30th, 2020 at 8:29 PM ^

I have Disney+.  My impression is there's noting on ESPN+ worth watching except 30 for 30.  I might have to research what Hulu would get me.  But I'm pretty sure I can live with whatever sports I can get with an antenna.  

I do intend to cancel YouTube TV, but even at $65 it's way cheaper than what I paid DirecTV.  

BJNavarre

June 30th, 2020 at 9:42 PM ^

Surprised they didn't just bow out of the market. They are going to suffer mass cancellations, and must know it. I do enjoy their extremely half hearted newspeak on their Twitter feed to justify this move.

uofmchris1

June 30th, 2020 at 9:50 PM ^

Update from my previous "fuuuuuuuuuck that" post.

5 of my friends canceled their service today.

This is gonna backfire.