# YouTube TV



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

Another OTT cable package, this time by Google/Youtube.

YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News

I am liking what I am reading. Unlimited Cloud DVR with recordings stored for nine months. Price is reasonable at $35/mo given how full featured it is. Interpreting the FAQ, sounds like you can at least watch your recordings away from home. Profiles that separate recordings, up to six. Three streams simultaneously. Comes with all the sports channels I could want which is the only reason I really need cable anymore.

It is adding a few missing channels soon at the current price such as AMC, BBC America, and IFC. Right now it is just in five test markets and doesn't support Roku (or TiVo, but lol at this point) like I would need it to, but this could be the service I go OTT with in a year or so.

Thoughts?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I assume the network programming doesn't include the locals, but I recently came across a Roku app (onNews) that lets you watch local and out-of-market news programming.

Good to know there are options if I decide to dump Comcast.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I think Google was pretty smart in how they packaged this. For a lot of the younger cord-cutter/cord-never demographic they're targeting, the main reasons to have a traditional live TV package are sports and major broadcast networks (i.e. local channels). So they made sure to nail down all of that content and then really cater to the on-demand viewing that the target demo is so used to by allowing an unlimited amount of content to be stored for 9 months with minimal effort on the viewer's part.

Of course, something had to give in exchange for all those sports and local channels, so YouTube TV doesn't have some popular cable channels like TBS, TNT, CNN, HGTV, History, Food Network, or Hallmark Channel. But it does have USA, FX, Fox News, MSNBC, Disney, and will soon have AMC. So, not bad.

Note: You can sign up for YouTube TV via web browser, Android or Apple iOS. Don't sign up on an Apple iOS device, as the price will be $40/mo instead of $35! That's to make up for the hefty commission that Apple charges for subscriptions they handle. (Hulu does the same thing with sign-ups through Apple.)

Unfortunately, it's not yet available for devices like Roku, Fire TV, or Apple TV but that's supposedly coming. In the meantime, you can cast from your phone to a Chromecast. And they're offering a free Chromecast after your first monthly payment. (Also, you get the first month free, so I guess you don't get the Chromecast until month 2.)


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well there is also the fact that it currently is only available in 5 markets

Chicago
Los Angeles
New York City
Philadelphia
San Francisco Bay Area
Hopefully they will add more soon.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Well there is also the fact that it currently is only available in 5 markets
> 
> Chicago
> Los Angeles
> ...


And "out of area" remote mobile access may also leave something to be desired, relative to what Slingbox (and TiVo streaming) theoretically offer.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

1) Can you skip commercials?
2) does it warn you when the 9 months is coming up? (Like I said in comments on an article, that SOUNDS like a lot, but I literally have YEARS old recordings on my Tivos that I _have_ gone back and eventually watched/caught up to "now" on.)


----------



## wish_bgr (Jul 19, 2014)

pdhenry said:


> I assume the network programming doesn't include the locals, but I recently came across a Roku app (onNews) that lets you watch local and out-of-market news programming.
> 
> Good to know there are options if I decide to dump Comcast.


The NewsON service; ridiculously well-thought out app and easy-to-use service on phone and tablets (iOS and Android) and options to cast it on to TV, via AirPlay or ChromeCast. I, too, enjoy the local news available in my market as well as from their cities I've visited on the road!


----------



## wish_bgr (Jul 19, 2014)

mattack said:


> 1) Can you skip commercials?
> 2) does it warn you when the 9 months is coming up? (Like I said in comments on an article, that SOUNDS like a lot, but I literally have YEARS old recordings on my Tivos that I _have_ gone back and eventually watched/caught up to "now" on.)


Firing up a Dec 2015 HBO TiVo'd movie "Home Alone" makes me realize their 9 month limit on cloud saves might not work for me. Poof; there goes any notion of having holiday movie and specials saved infinitely!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

6 user accounts for the price--meaning that an entire family or living situation can have this for their individual smartphones, for one subscription fee--I can see how a family/living situation would find this as attractive.

And, _unlimited storage space_ with the monthly fee (although limited to 9 months time)--I wonder how this will compare to TiVo/Mavrik?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mattack said:


> 1) Can you skip commercials?
> 2) does it warn you when the 9 months is coming up? (Like I said in comments on an article, that SOUNDS like a lot, but I literally have YEARS old recordings on my Tivos that I _have_ gone back and eventually watched/caught up to "now" on.)


I did read a professional online review of YouTube TV somewhere that verified that you can fast forward through commercials when viewing stuff saved to the cloud DVR. (TiVo users seems to always worry about this, understandably, I guess, but I've yet to hear of any TV service that forces you to watch commercials with their cloud DVR. VOD, of course, is different, and often does disable FF during commercials.)

No idea about warnings when shows are about to auto-delete after 9 months. Seems like a simple feature to enable, so hopefully it's there or will get added as Google refines the service. As for myself, I don't know that I've ever kept something on a DVR for over 9 months and then ended up watching it. But I realize some folks like to "harvest" tons of shows and movies and essentially manage a personal library of recorded content, even offloading stuff from their TiVos to other hard drives using tools like pyTiVo. Obviously, YouTube TV isn't aimed at those folks!


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> 6 user accounts for the price--meaning that an entire family or living situation can have this for their individual smartphones, for one subscription fee--I can see how a family/living situation would find this as attractive.
> 
> And, _unlimited storage space_ with the monthly fee (although limited to 9 months time)--I wonder how this will compare to TiVo/Mavrik?


Dave Zatz has dug up some info and revealed on his blog that the Mavrik will apparently offer 20 hours of cloud storage "on the house". I'm not sure if that means you only pay the initial price for the hardware and then, without paying any ongoing service fees, it will operate and give you 20 hours of cloud storage, or if there's a typical TiVo monthly service fee just to make the box run, and that includes 20 hours of storage for no extra cost. At any rate, it looks like you can pay more and get 50 hours of storage. Of course, all of that is totally subject to change before the Mavrik is released. (Although I'm beginning to wonder if it ever will. It may see the same fate as the OTA-only "Bolt Aereo Edition" which was designed, had marketing materials created for, and then was mothballed.)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Dave Zatz has dug up some info and revealed on his blog that the Mavrik will apparently offer 20 hours of cloud storage "on the house". I'm not sure if that means you only pay the initial price for the hardware and then, without paying any ongoing service fees, it will operate and give you 20 hours of cloud storage, or if there's a typical TiVo monthly service fee just to make the box run, and that includes 20 hours of storage for no extra cost. At any rate, it looks like you can pay more and get 50 hours of storage. Of course, all of that is totally subject to change before the Mavrik is released. (Although I'm beginning to wonder if it ever will. It may see the same fate as the OTA-only "Bolt Aereo Edition" which was designed, had marketing materials created for, and then was mothballed.)


Isn't the Bolt Aereo Edition just the Bolt (non-plus)? I didn't see reference that the Bolt Aereo was going to be OTA-only, but maybe I missed it or the implication. If it originally was to be OTA-only (like the Roamio OTA), perhaps TiVo decided to retain more flexibility with the product and so simply added a cablecard adapter to it, along the lines of the original Roamio (Basic) (or what consumers are doing to the Roamio OTA, lol), giving us the current Bolt--not really abandoning things but expanding them.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> Isn't the Bolt Aereo Edition just the Bolt (non-plus)? I didn't see reference that the Bolt Aereo was going to be OTA-only, but maybe I missed it or the implication. If it originally was to be OTA-only (like the Roamio OTA), perhaps TiVo decided to retain more flexibility with the product and so simply added a cablecard adapter to it, along the lines of the original Roamio (Basic) (or what consumers are doing to the Roamio OTA, lol), giving us the current Bolt--not really abandoning things but expanding them.


No. In the days leading up to the initial unveiling of the Bolt back in Sept. 2015, TiVo accidentally took a webpage live onto the internet from their offline staging server. (Oops.) That page showed the white Bolt (cable + OTA) model that actually got released a few days later as well as a black-and-white Bolt Aereo Edition (OTA only). TiVo had bought the rights to the Aereo brand name and email lists after Aereo went out of business and this was one way they were going to make use of it. But, for whatever reason, they decided to kill the Bolt Aereo Edition and just keep the Roamio OTA as their lone OTA-only DVR.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> No. In the days leading up to the initial unveiling of the Bolt back in Sept. 2015, TiVo accidentally took a webpage live onto the internet from their offline staging server. (Oops.) That page showed the white Bolt (cable + OTA) model that actually got released a few days later as well as a black-and-white Bolt Aereo Edition (OTA only). TiVo had bought the rights to the Aereo brand name and email lists after Aereo went out of business and this was one way they were going to make use of it. But, for whatever reason, they decided to kill the Bolt Aereo Edition and just keep the Roamio OTA as their lone OTA-only DVR.


But I guess I wonder, was the Bolt Aereo really any different functionally. It sounds as if it was a marketing program for a Bolt (cable + OTA) without a cablecard adapter, just like the Roamio (Basic) vs. Roamio OTA. Maybe there was something else there as well, like it came with a box full of micro-antennas.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> But I guess I wonder, was the Bolt Aereo really any different functionally. It sounds as if it was a marketing program for a Bolt (cable + OTA) without a cablecard adapter, just like the Roamio (Basic) vs. Roamio OTA. Maybe there was something else there as well, like it came with a box full of micro-antennas.


That is exactly what it was, the Bolt was white and had the cable card bracket and the Bolt OTA was part black and part white and did not have the cable card bracket installed other than that the units where the same. For some reason the Bolt OTA was never released and TiVo extended the life of the Roamio OTA instead with the current 1TB version with lifetime included.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

atmuscarella said:


> That is exactly what it was, the Bolt was white and had the cable card bracket and the Bolt OTA was part black and part white and did not have the cable card bracket installed other than that the units where the same. For some reason the Bolt OTA was never released and TiVo extended the life of the Roamio OTA instead with the current 1TB version with lifetime included.


I wonder what the pricing on the Bolt OTA was going to be--it could have been the need to have a lower pricepoint that the Roamio OTA could meet, both for competition and to meet the sensibilities of the OTA crowd.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> I wonder what the pricing on the Bolt OTA was going to be--it could have been the need to have a lower pricepoint that the Roamio OTA could meet, both for competition and to meet the sensibilities of the OTA crowd.


I assumed it had something to do with price. When they released the Bolt it was $300 and included one year of service, not sure how much cheaper they really could have sold a Bolt OTA. I am nearly 100% certain they could not have sold one with lifetime anywhere near the $400 list price of the Roamio OTA without severally pissing of cable users. In the end I think the Roamio OTA 1TB version is a pretty good deal for OTA users and of course they have now sold lots of Bolts with lifetime for $300 or $400 with the lifetime transfer deal that I am sure will end up being used for OTA.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Tivo's exposed webpages from the other day indicate the Aereo Edition was going to be $100, no service included. Agreed it made financial sense to stick to the Roamio for a while longer instead. That's pretty cheap for 4K hardware and they would have definitely eaten more money on it.


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

Well this is enough for me not to try YouTube TV out.

*YouTube TV Will Force You to Watch Ads on Many DVR'd Shows*
*If a show is available on-demand, then viewers won't be able to skip ads, even if they recorded the episode on DVR*

YouTube TV Will Force You to Watch Ads on Many DVR'd Shows

_If YouTube TV does have the on-demand version then it won't let its subscribers watch a recorded version that allows for ad-skipping. Instead, viewers will be forced to watch the on-demand episode and all of the ads, even though consumers thought they saved the show on their DVR.

A YouTube spokeswoman confirmed the arrangement and said it is "tied to deals" with TV programmers. Of course, if the on-demand version doesn't exist, the YouTube TV subscriber will be able to watch a recorded version and skip ads. Some TV executives said that YouTube's arrangement is new, and that even Dish Network Corp.'s Sling TV streaming competitor won't have that stipulation as it rolls out its cloud DVR service.

Some TV executives indicated that this DVR arrangement is something they'll push for in future deals with new streaming services offering a package of channels. While it isn't possible to put the DVR genie back in the bottle for traditional cable customers, TV networks are hopeful they can train viewers to expect ads at least in on-demand, current-season shows they stream._


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Well that stinks. So if a show is currently available as VOD, you can't access your cloud DVR recording of the show, but must instead watch the VOD version with forced ads. That's a new one. With each of these cable-replacement streaming services, you have to check out the details carefully to see what you can and can't do, as they're all trying out slightly different feature sets.

As for myself, I don't really miss basic cable, so I'm pretty happy with OTA plus various on-demand streaming services like Hulu (ad-free), Netflix, etc.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

I'll watch ads if it's cheap enough. They don't bother me nearly as much as they used to. Good time for a snack or bathroom break.

While I do skip commercials, my primary DVR motivation is time shifting.


----------



## BillyClyde (Mar 3, 2017)

That makes Vue all that much more attractive and continues to be the best OTT service out there.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

osu1991 said:


> Well this is enough for me not to try YouTube TV out.
> 
> *YouTube TV Will Force You to Watch Ads on Many DVR'd Shows
> If a show is available on-demand, then viewers won't be able to skip ads, even if they recorded the episode on DVR*
> ...


Welcome to your new streaming future. Yeah we'll still have a 'DVR' but unskippable ads are exactly what they want to get back.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> I'll watch ads if it's cheap enough. They don't bother me nearly as much as they used to. Good time for a snack or bathroom break.


I won't. No way, no how. I'm not going backwards, there's too much good stuff on and only so much time to watch.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

slowbiscuit said:


> Welcome to your new streaming future. Yeah we'll still have a 'DVR' but unskippable ads are exactly what they want to get back.


Sure, they want it. That doesn't mean it will happen. The genie is already out of the barn.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

allan said:


> Sure, they want it. That doesn't mean it will happen. The genie is already out of the barn.


I think you missed the point - it did just happen - so there is no more question if it will or not. No FF, limited DVR, or no DVR at all is part of why these OTT "cable replacement" services are cheaper. They will not be able to offer what traditional cable/satellite with a traditional DVR does. Just hope they don't pull the same thing as cable transitions to Cloud DVR storage.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> I think you missed the point - it did just happen - so there is no more question if it will or not. No FF, limited DVR, or no DVR at all is part of why these OTT "cable replacement" services are cheaper. They will not be able to offer what traditional cable/satellite with a traditional DVR does. Just hope they don't pull the same thing as cable transitions to Cloud DVR storage.


Yeah, they introduced it, but will anyone use it? Particularly anyone who's currently using a DVR? Maybe Adam1115, but I don't know anyone else with a DVR who can stand commercials.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

allan said:


> Yeah, they introduced it, but will anyone use it? Particularly anyone who's currently using a DVR? Maybe Adam1115, but I don't know anyone else with a DVR who can stand commercials.


Well if someone replaces their cable/satellite service with this new YouTube service, they either watch live TV with commercials or recorded TV with commercials as there will be no other choice. Just like the people who have used Sling TV up to this point, live TV or VoD no way to avoid the commercials. With so many companies starting to offer these OTT cable replacement service someone must think people will use them. But I am with you not interested in commercials at all at least no where near the number being played on broadcast TV. Seems like Hulu found out the same thing as they now have a nearly commercial free option for more money.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Of course, it's already happening, e.g. on Youtube. If one wants to watch videos there, there's no choice (apart from going a pay route). Likewise, on some broadcasters' websites, to watch a TV episode.


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> Well if someone replaces their cable/satellite service with this new YouTube service, they either watch live TV with commercials or recorded TV with commercials as there will be no other choice. Just like the people who have used Sling TV up to this point, live TV or VoD no way to avoid the commercials. With so many companies starting to offer these OTT cable replacement service someone must think people will use them. But I am with you not interested in commercials at all at least no where near the number being played on broadcast TV. Seems like Hulu found out the same thing as they now have a nearly commercial free option for more money.


I'm not that familiar with Sling. I got the impression that it would be better suited for people who never used a DVR. I'm much more interested in Netflix and Hulu (ad-free), and not at all in live TV (both because of commercials and wnating to watch on my schedule, not theirs).


----------



## osu1991 (Mar 6, 2015)

SlingTV now has dvr. Its still in beta or First Look as they call it, but it's $5 a month for 50hrs of storage and open to anyone with Amazon, Roku or Android devices. Apple support is a few weeks away.

Cloud DVR 'First Look' expands to include Roku and Android users - What's On Sling


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

I think what we're seeing broadly emerge is a two-tier "cable" TV industry. The top tier consists of the traditional providers (cable, satellite, fiber/telco, etc.) which cost the most but provide a fuller-featured package, with lots of channels, traditional DVR service (whether local or cloud, it has no restrictions and offers lots of hours of storage with no time limits), VOD, Netflix integration, and provider-supplied hardware with full-featured remotes (possibly including voice control). You must often commit to keep the service for one or two years (with a penalty for early termination), and will save by bundling TV with other services, but pricing is often subject to change after an initial promo rate. These services are working to improve with better in-home tech and updated UIs like Comcast's X1 (also licensed to Cox, Shaw and Rogers), Charter's Spectrum/Worldbox, DISH Hopper 3, and TiVo's new Hydra UI.

The new lower tier consists of OTT streaming services like YouTube TV, PS Vue, Sling TV, etc. These services generally cost less, offer smaller channel bundles, and have more transparent, stable pricing with only month-to-month commitments. They may or may not have cloud DVR service and, if they do, often have restrictions attached (small amount of storage, auto-deletion of recordings are a certain amount of time, forced ads on some content). So far, these services generally do not offer integration with Netflix or other streaming services; various sources continue to be siloed into separate apps. You provide your own devices for viewing, which generally have smaller, simpler remotes. Performance and support may not be as good as with a traditional provider. Content owners (i.e. TV networks) see this new lower tier of TV services as an opportunity to experiment with different licensing arrangements, such as the prohibition against skipping ads in some shows with YouTube TV.

Increasingly, top-tier traditional providers are playing in the lower tier streaming space too, with DISH and AT&T already there and Verizon soon to join them. (Charter's Spectrum Stream TV and the upcoming Xfinity Instant TV, though not OTT, are positioned to compete in this tier within those providers' footprints.)

All of these choices are good for consumers but for folks willing to spend a little more and keep pay TV every month for an extended stretch of time, the traditional services will continue to provider a better overall experience for accessing linear-channel "cable" TV.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Does anyone here have, or has tried, Youtube TV? I have what I thought was a simple question but I can't find the answer to it. 

Is it possible to pad recordings? If so, how does it work, and can you pad by a couple of hours at least?


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

BrettStah said:


> Does anyone here have, or has tried, Youtube TV? I have what I thought was a simple question but I can't find the answer to it.
> 
> Is it possible to pad recordings? If so, how does it work, and can you pad by a couple of hours at least?


*Recording extensions*

Sports recordings will generally be extended 30 minutes beyond the scheduled end time in case games run long. YouTube TV may also detect the specific end time of a game and extend the recording to that point. 
All other recordings will be extended 1 minute past the scheduled end time in case programs run long.
 So it's not like quite like a Tivo yet. Searching under can 'I extend recordings with you tube live dvr' will bring up some other things also. Cloud Dvr's are a work in progress.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Thanks!


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

I used the 30 day option, user interface was a confusing mess (at least to me), and for the tour de france I was unable to select the prime time airing vs. the live airings, which was annoying. The streaming worked great, however.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

allan said:


> Yeah, they introduced it, but will anyone use it? Particularly anyone who's currently using a DVR? Maybe Adam1115, but I don't know anyone else with a DVR who can stand commercials.


 I can but I also used to read Advertising Age for fun. Ads rule and there is no free. The day ads are gone is the day video content will get very expensive.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

I was really excited about this service. It's the first service I've tried with Live TV since Aereo (sigh. I miss Aereo). I don't think I'm going to keep this beyond the trial. It stinks! The user interface is a total mess. I can't tell if a show has recorded or not. It's very confusing.

I just tried to turn on Kelly and Ryan and it seems this show is blacked out? Seriously? Why? I understand all of the ridiculous reasons why sports get blacked out but I see no reason why a morning talk show would be.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

When Sling tv picked up Fox locals Doctor Oz was blacked out, streaming rights are a different beast.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I haven't found a way to FF like on the TiVo with varying speeds of FF. I can only find the "-> 15 sec" button.

I don't like having to use my phone for the remote.

I hate that I can't skip ads in my DVR recordings.

It isn't any cheaper for me than TV service through my ISP.

Not enough channels signed up yet.

Other than that, it is great.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

They may fix the problems, but between Sling, DTV Now, PS Vue, and now Hulu Live TV, You Tube TV is starting to look another Google hobby that slowly fades away. I actually think their biggest threat comes from Hulu.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

I forgot one other thing I noticed...

With sports, it is very clear that the fast motion is not displayed as well as with QAM. Baseball looks great with the relatively static content but any batted baseball is a not clear at all. Jumpy and blurry.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

ah30k said:


> I forgot one other thing I noticed...
> 
> With sports, it is very clear that the fast motion is not displayed as well as with QAM. Baseball looks great with the relatively static content but any batted baseball is a not clear at all. Jumpy and blurry.


 The dreaded 30 fps frame rate vs. 60 fps frame rate. Cable and over the air television look smooth because it's 60 frames per second, not all sports streaming does. A little light reading
The quest for smooth 60-frames-per-second sports in streaming TV bundles
Eventually any service streaming sports will have to adopt 60 fps or their subscribers will leave. This article is from March so a couple of little things may have changed.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, that's why you have 720p and 1080i. Choose 1080i where you want resolution, but your framerate is halved because of the interlacing (i.e., 30 fps). Use 720p when you want framerate because it gives you buttery smooth 60 frames per second at the expense of resolution, great for fast action like sports. We have those because those consume roughly the same bandwidth (ignoring tricks that some companies do to reduce bitrate, of course).

Most streaming services are good for 1080p30, which is very close to 1080i60 used for most programming (through deinterlacing). I'm surprised YouTube doesn't have a 60p option since they do offer it on their regular "programming".


----------



## nuraman00 (Dec 28, 2012)

Will there ever be a way to integrate Tivo with YouTube TV?

So you can keep the recordings on the DVR, and fast forward as desired.

Also, only being able to extend live recordings by 30 mins is too low. For sports like MLB or Tennis, they can easily extend 1 - 2 hours beyond the scheduled time, if not more. That's why I like Tivo's 3 hour extension.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

nuraman00 said:


> Will there ever be a way to integrate Tivo with YouTube TV?


No. Highly unlikely.


----------



## Paul Adams (Apr 30, 2018)

abovethesink said:


> Another OTT cable package, this time by Google/Youtube.
> 
> YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News
> 
> ...


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

From what I've read, YouTube TV's DVR capability has changed radically within the past couple weeks. Nearly all recordings are replaced with VOD with ads that you can't skip. That would be a total deal breaker for me.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252Fyoutubetv%252Fcomments%252F8ed5g4%252F


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

mrizzo80 said:


> From what I've read, YouTube TV's DVR capability has changed radically within the past couple weeks. Nearly all recordings are replaced with VOD with ads that you can't skip. That would be a total deal breaker for me.


I think it's been that way from the start, it's just that it's suddenly getting a lot more attention. Perhaps the time window that it takes for DVR recordings to get replaced with VOD is shortening, e.g. from 3 days post-airing to 12 hours. (Those are made-up figures; I'm not sure how long it actually takes for recordings to get replaced with VOD, although I don't think I'm off by much.) At any rate, this has always been a thing with YouTube TV.

As I posted elsewhere on here recently, these vMVPDs aimed at cord-cutters all have compromises vs. traditional full-scale TV service. But then they also cost less (at least on a standalone basis), so what do you expect?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

As noted in the above thread, YouTubeTV did not actually make a change. This was always how it worked. What I heard is that providers started providing VOD versions quicker, which means that YTTV has to default to those when available. Most of the stuff I use YTTV for doesn't have VOD versions, so it's not much of an impact. I wouldn't say "nearly all." I'd say that CBS and NBC have increased the number of shows with VOD available.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

NashGuy said:


> I think it's been that way from the start, it's just that it's suddenly getting a lot more attention. Perhaps the time window that it takes for DVR recordings to get replaced with VOD is shortening, e.g. from 3 days post-airing to 12 hours.


You are right, which is why I always considered YTTV on a non-starter for me personally, but the recent changes are going to take it from acceptable to unacceptable for a lot of subscribers I think because they are now compressing the window on so many networks. It's going to VOD mode within minutes of airing on some shows.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> As I posted elsewhere on here recently, these vMVPDs aimed at cord-cutters all have compromises vs. traditional full-scale TV service. But then they also cost less (at least on a standalone basis), so what do you expect?


Per-service, yes. To replace a cable package in a bundle, no. I've posted many times that my full cable + HBO package only adds $40-50 to my HSI bill, and I don't think this is uncommon.

Streaming has way too many compromises as you can see with YTTV here, but yeah it can be cheaper if you don't want to replace cable. Tivo is always going to be the best DVR experience you can get.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

It's not "nearly all" recordings btw. The great majority of my recordings on YTTV are accessible as traditional DVR recordings. It's shows from CBS, NBC, & FOX networks that seem to quickly default to VOD recordings. However, ABC and other networks do not. My DVR is filled with shows like Archer, MASH, Cheers, Frasier, BB99 (syndicated repeats), The Last OG, sports, news, Seinfeld, ALL ABC shows and many, many more that have no forced VOD.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Per-service, yes. To replace a cable package in a bundle, no. I've posted many times that my full cable + HBO package only adds $40-50 to my HSI bill, and I don't think this is uncommon.
> 
> Streaming has way too many compromises as you can see with YTTV here, but yeah it can be cheaper if you don't want to replace cable. Tivo is always going to be the best DVR experience you can get.


Agreed - and I've tried them all. Plus, I save nothing in my area. FiOS bundles so much TV relatively cheaply for me that the savings are minuscule. (Literally, I'm talking pennies.)


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mrizzo80 said:


> You are right, which is why I always considered YTTV on a non-starter for me personally, but the recent changes are going to take it from acceptable to unacceptable for a lot of subscribers I think because they are now compressing the window on so many networks. It's going to VOD mode within minutes of airing on some shows.


The networks are compressing the window. I don't know about "so many." I've seen an increase in CBS and NBC shows. Haven't noticed it on other networks yet. As far as I can tell, none of my ABC or FOX shows are VOD versions.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> Per-service, yes. To replace a cable package in a bundle, no. I've posted many times that my full cable + HBO package only adds $40-50 to my HSI bill, and I don't think this is uncommon.


You're getting a good deal then. I kinda think your situation is uncommon, at least with Comcast (the largest cable provider in the nation). Even if you're paying your DVR hardware and service costs to TiVo rather than Comcast (don't forget to add those costs in, which aren't incurred with vMVPDs), I'm not aware of packages around here from Comcast that add only $40-50 for "full cable" plus HBO on top of the regular price for internet.

Let's look at the standard Comcast pricing for the Nashville area a couple of ways. These are regular contract-free non-promo prices. I'm aware that you can often call up, threaten to leave and haggle for a little bit better prices (or sign a 1-2 yr contract). I'm listing prices for the Digital Preferred "full cable" TV package (220+ non-premium channels). If you stepped down to the Digital Starter package (140+ non-premium channels), it would subtract $18-20 per month.

Comcast TV + internet + TiVo (unbundled services)
Blast! internet (100 Mbps): $79.95
Digital Preferred (220+ channels): $87.90
Broadcast TV fee: $8
RSN fee: $6.75
HBO: $15
HD technology fee: ? - some TiVo owners must pay it but many don't - we won't add it in here.
TiVo: $11*
CableCARD rebate: $2.50
total = $206.10
_This is $126.15 more than standalone internet._

Comcast X1 Preferred Double Play (bundled at $155/mo)
Blast! internet (100 Mbps): included
Digital Preferred (220+ channels): included
Broadcast TV fee: $8
RSN fee: $6.75
Starz: included (We'll go with Starz in lieu of HBO here, since Starz is already included.)
HD technology fee: included
TiVo: $11*
CableCARD rebate: $2.50
total = $178.25
_This is $98.30 more than standalone internet._

OK, now instead of going with Comcast + TiVo to meet your TV needs, let's say you go with standalone Comcast internet along with the best, most expensive version of Hulu with Live TV, plus HBO.

Comcast internet + Hulu with Live TV
Blast! internet (100 Mbps): $79.95
Hulu with Live TV: $40
Enhanced Cloud DVR + Unlimited Concurrent Streams: $20 (This lets you FF through ads in DVR recordings and expands storage to 200 hours. It also increases the number of screens that can simultaneously use Hulu from 2 to unlimited.)
Ad-free on-demand content: $4
HBO: $15
total= $158.95
_This is $79 more than standalone internet.
_
Granted, most Hulu with Live TV subscribers probably don't tack on all those add-ons, which really pump up the price. But I wanted to show what it would cost for a Hulu experience that comes as close as possible to traditional cable TV with TiVo, in which you can always zip past ads if you want. Beyond that, some folks will find the Hulu route to be a better overall user experience while others will prefer the traditional TV route.

And keep in mind that I kept pricing low on the traditional TV route by assuming that one is using a TiVo rather than Comcast's own DVRs for every TV served. As I demonstrated in another post, only about 1.25% of cable TV subscribers use a TiVo or other CableCARD device, so virtually everyone who opts for a vMVPD such as Hulu, YouTube TV, DirecTV Now, etc., is going to be saving much more than what the above figures indicate. For instance, adding HD DVR service to 2 TVs using Comcast's hardware increases the monthly bill by $20-30.

*I came up with $11 per month to use a TiVo by looking at recent sales prices for used Roamio Plus and Roamio Pro units with lifetime service on eBay. I assumed that those units had been bought new for prices of $400 and $600 respectively, plus lifetime service for $500, then used by the original owner for 60 months (5 years). From those totals, I subtracted the net amount earned from the eBay sales after fees and shipping, then divided by 60. On average, the monthly depreciation was about $11. I didn't bother considering the use of TiVo Minis for additional TVs, although those units would incur a bit of depreciation over time too.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And keep in mind that I kept pricing low on the traditional TV route by assuming that one is using a TiVo rather than Comcast's own DVRs for every TV served. As I demonstrated in another post, only about 1.25% of cable TV subscribers use a TiVo or other CableCARD device, so virtually everyone who opts for a vMVPD such as Hulu, YouTube TV, DirecTV Now, etc., is going to be saving much more than what the above figures indicate. For instance, adding HD DVR service to 2 TVs using Comcast's hardware increases the monthly bill by $20-30.


Yeah, add in your average 3-4 cable boxes, and the savings is much larger. I would just use YTTV at $40/mo. You also didn't factor in the fact that you could subscribe to YTTV only during a sports season, and then drop it. And actual cord cutters who don't have CoIP/vMVPD service are saving that much more. FiOS is really the exception to the rule.


----------



## mschnebly (Feb 21, 2011)

There is also a 1T limit on a lot of Comcast internet plans. If you have the TV on a lot that might be a factor too.


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

mschnebly said:


> There is also a 1T limit on a lot of Comcast internet plans. If you have the TV on a lot that might be a factor too.


I think less than having the TV on vs. having multiple TVs on and streaming a lot. But you'd still need other items as well such as game downloads.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mschnebly said:


> There is also a 1T limit on a lot of Comcast internet plans. If you have the TV on a lot that might be a factor too.


True. I'm lucky enough to be in the Northeast, where Comcast can't cap (thanks Verizon even though they're only in part of one town in CT).


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> You're getting a good deal then. I kinda think your situation is uncommon, at least with Comcast (the largest cable provider in the nation). Even if you're paying your DVR hardware and service costs to TiVo rather than Comcast (don't forget to add those costs in, which aren't incurred with vMVPDs), I'm not aware of packages around here from Comcast that add only $40-50 for "full cable" plus HBO on top of the regular price for internet.


Of course I'm talking about a new customer, 2-year agreement that I get by calling retention every couple of years. You can't just dismiss this promo, anyone can get it. I've done it for over 10 years now.

My current bill, taxes and junk fees included, is $127/mo. for Blast HSI + Preferred + HBO. It's available to all in my area, copied from their webpage here (new customer X1 Preferred Double Play, I just looked it up). See last line, $110 for 2 years + tax + junk + $2.50 cablecard credit. Current offer is free Starz instead of HBO, I just get them to add HBO on for free too. Therefore, cable adds less than $50 to the HSI bill.

*Download speeds up to 100 Mbps *

The most WiFi coverage for your home
*220+ *Channels

*X1 Preferred Double Play includes:*

STARZ® included
Speed good for up to 8 devices at the same time
Select to Compare this offer in the compare drawer at the top of the page
*114.99 dollars per month*
$114.99/mo for the first 24 months

Choose Contract Length
$109.99/mo. for 24 mos. with 2 year agreement and Autopay and EcoBill enrollment


----------



## smark (Nov 20, 2002)

YouTube TV finally lets you choose between DVR and VOD versions of your saved content

Up to the channels. I expect them to lean towards their VOD unskippable ads.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

smark said:


> YouTube TV finally lets you choose between DVR and VOD versions of your saved content
> 
> Up to the channels. I expect them to lean towards their VOD unskippable ads.


I actually saw this on one program, but couldn't remember which and couldn't reproduce it.

I used to have Playstation Vue, and they had that choice too.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> Of course I'm talking about a new customer, 2-year agreement that I get by calling retention every couple of years. You can't just dismiss this promo, anyone can get it. I've done it for over 10 years now.
> 
> My current bill, taxes and junk fees included, is $127/mo. for Blast HSI + Preferred + HBO. It's available to all in my area, copied from their webpage here (new customer X1 Preferred Double Play, I just looked it up). See last line, $110 for 2 years + tax + junk + $2.50 cablecard credit. Current offer is free Starz instead of HBO, I just get them to add HBO on for free too. Therefore, cable adds less than $50 to the HSI bill.
> 
> ...


Yeah, if you're continually getting that at $110 per month plus fees ($8 broadcast + $6.75 RSN + $11 TiVo - $2.50 CableCARD rebate), that's $133.25 per month (before taxes). So that means your *promo pricing* is $53.30 more than standalone Blast! internet at its *standard pricing*.

But there's a couple things wrong with your analysis:

* You're assuming that Comcast will always continue to provide new customer promo pricing to all existing customers. My results with trying that in the past (both for myself in Nashville and my parents in Chattanooga) has been mixed. We've gotten lucky in extending promo pricing for one additional period but not beyond that. Also, I don't believe that it's the norm that Comcast just gives away HBO for free perpetually to any TV customers who calls up and asks for it. And beyond that, a lot of folks are drawn to cord-cutting/vMPVDs (with clear, standard pricing and no contracts) because they just don't want to deal with the BS of haggling with the cable company for better pricing every 12 months like they're at a used car lot.

* You're comparing apples and oranges by mixing promo and standard pricing. Of course it minimizes the difference between a double-play (TV+internet) package and standalone internet when you use promo pricing for the former but standard pricing for the latter. But Comcast offers promo new customer prices for standalone internet too. Currently they're offering Blast! 60 Mbps internet for $49.99/mo with a 1-yr contract as well as Performance Starter 25 Mbps internet for $24.99/mo with a 1-yr contract. *So if you subtract that $49.99 promo internet price from your $133.25 promo double play price, you get a difference of $83.26.*


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

But that HSI promo is only one year, so a *two-year* combo deal is different because you can't get that with HSI.

Look, we're quibbling here - if you can continually get a new customer double play from Comcast as I have done, there's no real benefit to dropping cable cost-wise. And a much better experience overall with Tivo, assuming you can deal with Comcast video quality (it doesn't bother me). You're dropping cable for other reasons.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> But that HSI promo is only one year, so a *two-year* combo deal is different because you can't get that with HSI.
> 
> Look, we're quibbling here - if you can continually get a new customer double play from Comcast as I have done, there's no real benefit to dropping cable cost-wise. And a much better experience overall with Tivo, assuming you can deal with Comcast video quality (it doesn't bother me). You're dropping cable for other reasons.


I have FiOS GB internet with Ultimate HD - which in my area includes HBO, Epix, Max, Sho, Movie Channel, and Starz - for $169 per month (before taxes), that includes two cable cards. To get that same type of channel package using a streaming service is so much more expensive (even with the discount & free HBO I get from AT&T for Directv Now). Besides, if I remove the channel package, the GB internet alone costs about $130. And as you pointed out, a much better experience with TiVo. I tried all these streaming services and while there were parts of all that I enjoyed, they're just not there yet.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

slowbiscuit said:


> Look, we're quibbling here - if you can continually get a new customer double play from Comcast as I have done, there's no real benefit to dropping cable cost-wise.


Yes, IF you can continually get that double-play promo pricing and IF you're someone who owns a TiVo with lifetime service and you're able and willing to use it for a few years and then resell it on eBay to get the monthly cost of ownership down, then yes, there's little or no cost savings by going the standalone internet + vMVPD route. But then, the portion of current or potential Comcast customers for whom all those IFs apply is _insignificantly_ _small_.

I've never been quibbling that the pricing you get isn't a good deal for you. I'm just saying that your case is so unusual -- because you're not paying to rent cable boxes (but instead bought a lifetime TiVo that you will presumably resell); and because you're successful in continually obtaining special pricing from Comcast when you repeatedly haggle for it; and because you want and are willing pay for a huge package of linear cable channels -- that your general statement -- that vMVPD + standalone internet isn't cheaper than a cable double play -- isn't really true, at least when it comes to Comcast. (Obviously, there are other double-play providers out there, including Charter, AT&T, Verizon, Cox and Altice. I'm not going to bother looking up pricing for all of them!)

And when you factor in that a lot of would-be vMVPD subscribers realize that they don't need 100 Mbps internet (much less gigabit internet) in order to handle all of their household's streaming needs, some of them will drop to less expensive but slower standalone internet service. A year ago, I had Comcast's 25 Mbps service and it was always sufficient for everything I streamed, even 4K HDR. (And if, like me, you have the choice between two competing broadband providers, that makes standalone internet pricing even better. I'm currently paying $40/mo with no taxes or fees, all equipment included, for 50/10 internet from AT&T.)

Another pricing consideration is that, since vMPVDs never require contracts and there's no economic penalty for dropping and re-adding them, some folks will do exactly that. Just subscribe during the portion of the year when their favored sports are in-season, or just subscribe in the fall and spring when new episodes of their favorite series are airing. That obviously brings down the average monthly cost over the course of the year.



slowbiscuit said:


> And a much better experience overall with Tivo, assuming you can deal with Comcast video quality (it doesn't bother me).


Again, depends on how one defines "much better experience". For a lot of folks, myself included, the quality of the content you're watching and the picture and sound quality of that content are more important than the specific feature set and UI of the DVR. Some folks don't notice or care about Comcast's inferior HD picture quality. Some folks don't notice or care that vMVPDs typically don't offer DD 5.1 surround sound. And some folks don't mind that YouTube TV's cloud DVR/on-demand system will force them to watch ads on some shows.

The best situation is when you have great HD picture quality and ad-free on-demand, as I have with Hulu ($12 basic version, not with live TV). No fooling with setting up and managing recordings, and no need to even press a skip button to zip past ads since there aren't any to begin with.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> Look, we're quibbling here - if you can continually get a new customer double play from Comcast as I have done, there's no real benefit to dropping cable cost-wise. And a much better experience overall with Tivo, assuming you can deal with Comcast video quality (it doesn't bother me). You're dropping cable for other reasons.


I was in that position until the VQ went to hell, and it was unwatchable, so I switched to another cable company and eventually cut the cord. TV alone was costing me a net of $90/mo, but they also offered unbundled 25/5 internet for $38/mo. I don't know what I'll have next time I move, but hopefully I'll have VDSL available so I'll have some sort of option.



sangs said:


> I have FiOS GB internet with Ultimate HD - which in my area includes HBO, Epix, Max, Sho, Movie Channel, and Starz - for $169 per month (before taxes), that includes two cable cards.


Wow. You are lucky that you have competition. That's $250/mo+ on Comcast, and more than that on Cox.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

sangs said:


> Besides, if I remove the channel package, the [FiOS] GB internet alone costs about $130.


It's $79 for new customers. The trick is to become a "new" customer.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Wow. You are lucky that you have competition. That's $250/mo+ on Comcast, and more than that on Cox.


$168 _after_ taxes on Comcast, here. (Eh, minus Epix -- Comcast doesn't carry it.) New user + I'm in FiOS land.


----------



## sangs (Jan 1, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> It's $79 for new customers. The trick is to become a "new" customer.


Yeah, I know, but there's only so much effort I can put into playing the "game." Besides, with the relatively cheap TV prices FiOS gives me for all that programming, I never feel like I'm paying too much. I mean, HBO, MAX, SHO, Epix, Starz, TMC, Encore and NFL Red Zone are ALL included in my $169 per month price. Price those out separately and the savings FiOS gives me more than makes up for not getting the "new customer" internet price.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I was in that position until the VQ went to hell, and it was unwatchable, so I switched to another cable company and eventually cut the cord. TV alone was costing me a net of $90/mo, but they also offered unbundled 25/5 internet for $38/mo. I don't know what I'll have next time I move, but hopefully I'll have VDSL available so I'll have some sort of option.
> 
> Wow. You are lucky that you have competition. That's $250/mo+ on Comcast, and more than that on Cox.





wmcbrine said:


> $168 _after_ taxes on Comcast, here. (Eh, minus Epix -- Comcast doesn't carry it.) New user + I'm in FiOS land.


I pay $150 a month after taxes, fees and two cables cards. For Ultimate HD, GigE Internet and phone service. It's a great deal. And in my third year that price only goes up $10.

Heck, back in 2001 I paid $120 a month just for TV with only a handful of HD channels.
I've never had so much bang for the buck. I have over 160 HD channels and gigabit Internet. Plus phone service. Even when I first got FiOS in 2007 had to pay over $200. And that was with only 30 Mb/s Internet and much fewer HD channels.

Every year I look at cutting the cord. And every year I find that it would cost me much more to watch the same programming. And this year has been no different. Now while the prices are down some from previous years, the cost would still be much more than I currently pay for what I have with FiOS.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

aaronwt said:


> I pay $150 a month after taxes, fees and two cables cards. For Ultimate HD, GigE Internet and phone service. It's a great deal. And in my third year that price only goes up $10.
> 
> Heck, back in 2001 I paid $120 a month just for TV with only a handful of HD channels.
> I've never had so much bang for the buck. I have over 160 HD channels and gigabit Internet. Plus phone service. Even when I first got FiOS in 2007 had to pay over $200. And that was with only 30 Mb/s Internet and much fewer HD channels.
> ...


That's a good deal, while other pseduo- consumer, kool aid drinking, trouble makers are doing their howler monkey routine on the internet, you get value and you go about living your life.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

While many of us trouble makers who have also done the math on our situations legitimately pay a fraction of what cable would cost for all the value we can handle.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> Every year I look at cutting the cord. And every year I find that it would cost me much more to watch the same programming. And this year has been no different. Now while the prices are down some from previous years, the cost would still be much more than I currently pay for what I have with FiOS.


You're lucky to have competition.


----------



## parkcastle (Jan 14, 2016)

I love my Youtube TV with Cloud DVR. So easy to set up recordings. Have been recording the World Cup, SF Giants games along with Warriors games and have had zero issues. I also had Direct TV Now, but Youtube TV has all the local channels, no matter where I travel to.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

parkcastle said:


> I love my Youtube TV with Cloud DVR. So easy to set up recordings. Have been recording the World Cup, SF Giants games along with Warriors games and have had zero issues. I also had Direct TV Now, but Youtube TV has all the local channels, no matter where I travel to.


I think Google was pretty clever in how they structured YouTube TV. They knew that the main things missing from the video diets of their target demo were sports and news (both national and local). Pretty much all the other kinds of content that those younger consumers might want, they could already stream from Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, Showtime, Prime Video, YouTube, etc. It was very intentional that they made their first big marketing push for YouTube TV in conjunction with MLB during the World Series.

So Google nailed down deals with the big four networks groups (a necessity if you want their local affiliates in the largest TV markets), which of course also included their sports channels like ESPN, FS1 and NBCSN, as well as major news channels Fox News and MSNBC. And they rolled out their service gradually, typically launching in a market only when they had at least 3 of the 4 major locals on board.

Lastly, they updated the way a DVR works so that it's much simpler and feels more at home in a modern app. Rather than "setting up recordings," you just add a series, event, sports team, etc. to your library by clicking the ubiquitous (+) icon next to a title. And there's no need to manage recordings as there's unlimited storage space. Everything just auto-deletes after 9 months (but that deadline gets extended if a particular show gets re-recorded in the interim, I believe).

And unlike DTV Now, YouTube TV gets strong marks for the reliability of their service, which is no surprise given YouTube's years of experience in streaming tons of content, including live stuff, via the original YouTube app.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I think Google was pretty clever in how they structured YouTube TV. They knew that the main things missing from the video diets of their target demo were sports and news (both national and local). Pretty much all the other kinds of content that those younger consumers might want, they could already stream from Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, Showtime, Prime Video, YouTube, etc. It was very intentional that they made their first big marketing push for YouTube TV in conjunction with MLB during the World Series.


Exactly. YTTV did a really good job of targeting what live TV is good at, and nothing more, in order to keep the cost in control. When you look at the channels available, they have more news and sports (at least for me) than any other provider at anywhere close to that price point.


----------



## parkcastle (Jan 14, 2016)

NashGuy said:


> And unlike DTV Now, YouTube TV gets strong marks for the reliability of their service, which is no surprise given YouTube's years of experience in streaming tons of content, including live stuff, via the original YouTube app.


Yes, I fly a lot with Southwest and have been able to reliably stream live tv and recordings on my iPad over the Southwest Wi-Fi, which admittedly isn't that great. I couldn't do this with Direct TV Now, nor TiVo Out-of-Home.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

Does YouTubeTV still swap most recordings with VoD versions that you can't FF through commercials?

That happened very frequently and quickly became a deal breaker for me.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ah30k said:


> Does YouTubeTV still swap most recordings with VoD versions that you can't FF through commercials?
> 
> That happened very frequently and quickly became a deal breaker for me.


Yes, as far as I know. (I don't have YTTV but if they changed their policy, I'm sure I would have seen something about it.)

For those who can't stand to watch any commercials, yeah, YouTube TV probably isn't going to suit them.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

ah30k said:


> Does YouTubeTV still swap most recordings with VoD versions that you can't FF through commercials?
> 
> That happened very frequently and quickly became a deal breaker for me.


Most? No, but a lot of network shows, particularly on CBS and NBC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

parkcastle said:


> Yes, I fly a lot with Southwest and have been able to reliably stream live tv and recordings on my iPad over the Southwest Wi-Fi, which admittedly isn't that great. I couldn't do this with Direct TV Now, nor TiVo Out-of-Home.


And what does streaming from a server 20 feet away from you have to do with anything?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I had assumed that streaming over YTTV and streaming via the onboard Southwest.com portal was different enough in its UI to be obvious.


----------



## ah30k (Jan 9, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> I had assumed that streaming over YTTV and streaming via the onboard Southwest.com portal was different enough in its UI to be obvious.


Last time I trialed it, the UI was surprisingly NOT any different from the web or phone app experience. YTTV didn't really have a 10ft experience at all and required you to use your personal device to browse for what to watch and then cast it to your big screen. Your personal device was your remote and 2nd screen UI (really no 1st screen UI to speak of).


----------



## parkcastle (Jan 14, 2016)

Bigg said:


> And what does streaming from a server 20 feet away from you have to do with anything?


Not sure what you mean? Southwest WiFi is not that great and even loading web pages is slow. However, watching YouTube TV on the iPad app with a good picture is possible. This is not the case for the Direct TV Now app or Tivo's app. Neither one works on Southwest.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

parkcastle said:


> Not sure what you mean? Southwest WiFi is not that great and even loading web pages is slow. However, watching YouTube TV on the iPad app with a good picture is possible. This is not the case for the Direct TV Now app or Tivo's app. Neither one works on Southwest.


Are you talking about Southwest's TV or YTTV? If you're watching YTTV, you found a loophole of something that isn't blocked but should be. Fun to find, but very rude to use for an extended period of time. They can't let one moron trying to stream video from the internet clog up the whole plane's satellite link. Their Wi-Fi sucks, but who cares, you're on a plane, chill out for an hour or two.


----------

