# Anyone tried Youtube Tv and can compare it to Tivo?



## omelet1978

Hi,

Long time Tivo owner that currently has a Tivo Bolt 4K 1Tb with lifetime service. I'm going to be done with my subscription with Xfinity in a few months and have been looking at YouTube Tv. Specifically the unlimited DVR storage for 9 months (now with fast forwarding), and their updated channel lineup which now has all the channels I usually watch.

My Tivo Bolt is not updated to Hydra and I'm not going to because the Live Guide is gone. That being said everything works fine as is, and my goal was to use it for years (it's 2 years old now). That being said, I'm periodically tempted to cut cable even though I really like Tivo, so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts or recommendations (for or against) YouTube Tv? It'd be cheaper than Xfinity, but then again I've always been a fan of the TiVo interface.

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

Thanks


----------



## Tony_T

omelet1978 said:


> ... so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts or recommendations (for or against) YouTube Tv? It'd be cheaper than Xfinity, but then again I've always been a fan of the TiVo interface.


Best to try it yourself. They must have a 'try it free' offer.
Just get a Roku or FireStick, or AppleTV, or... (good to have anyway).
There are also other services you can try (i.e. DirectTV, Hulu Live, and more!!)

(When I tried a few of these services (for a vacation home), FFing through commercials didn't compare to TiVo SKIP (although YouTubeTV was one that I did not try))


----------



## hefe

Yeah, you can try it for free, see how you like it. YouTube TV is my cable tv, and has been for a year. I like it. I still use an OTA TiVo too, as it's paid up for lifetime, but I'm on YouTube TV more than the TiVo these days.


----------



## foghorn2

YouTube Tv is garbage vs TiVo with cable, and cheaper too when you consider bundling it with your internet service in some markets


----------



## samsauce29

I don't agree that it's garbage. But I will say that TiVo still wins the day operationally by a good margin. We've been running TiVo (via Spectrum) and YouTube TV in parallel for 6 weeks now. I'll turn on YTTV in the kitchen over the Spectrum app, but anywhere that we have a TiVo, we use it.

That said, Spectrum is no longer offering deals, so when the Pirates season ends, we'll likely run YTTV in parallel with Philo.

Really hoping that Spectrum changes their stance by October 1st...

(The current "killer app" for YTTV is the family plan. Up to 6 accounts on a Google family plan can use the same account with up to 3 accounts streaming at once.)


----------



## hefe

Not garbage at all. It depends what you want. It has more than I need, and is so flexible with our family's individual profiles, easy use on every device, ...it's been a pleasure.


----------



## omelet1978

samsauce29 said:


> I don't agree that it's garbage. But I will say that TiVo still wins the day operationally by a good margin. We've been running TiVo (via Spectrum) and YouTube TV in parallel for 6 weeks now. I'll turn on YTTV in the kitchen over the Spectrum app, but anywhere that we have a TiVo, we use it.
> 
> That said, Spectrum is no longer offering deals, so when the Pirates season ends, we'll likely run YTTV in parallel with Philo.
> 
> Really hoping that Spectrum changes their stance by October 1st...
> 
> (The current "killer app" for YTTV is the family plan. Up to 6 accounts on a Google family plan can use the same account with up to 3 accounts streaming at once.)


When you say Tivo wins the day operationally by a good margin is that with Hydra or with the old software? I have the old software which I'm keeping bc of the live guide.


----------



## samsauce29

omelet1978 said:


> When you say Tivo wins the day operationally by a good margin is that with Hydra or with the old software? I have the old software which I'm keeping bc of the live guide.


I'm still using the old interface. I've seen the new interface at my parents and have used it briefly. I'll be sticking with the old interface for now. We've been using it for 10+ years and everything is muscle memory at this point. If we stick with TiVo come October, will probably jump to Hydra at that point.


----------



## jrtroo

I had a hard time making it work how I wanted. An exercise in frustration. Not horrible, but important details were hard to manage.


----------



## chiguy50

omelet1978 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Long time Tivo owner that currently has a Tivo Bolt 4K 1Tb with lifetime service. *I'm going to be done with my subscription with Xfinity in a few months* and have been looking at YouTube Tv. Specifically the unlimited DVR storage for 9 months (now with fast forwarding), and their updated channel lineup which now has all the channels I usually watch.
> 
> My Tivo Bolt is not updated to Hydra and I'm not going to because the Live Guide is gone. That being said everything works fine as is, and my goal was to use it for years (it's 2 years old now). That being said, I'm periodically tempted to cut cable even though I really like Tivo, so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts or recommendations (for or against) YouTube Tv? *It'd be cheaper than Xfinity, but then again I've always been a fan of the TiVo interface.*


Before you pull the plug on Xfinity, talk to a customer retention CSR (call up and select "cancel services"). Tell them that you enjoy their service but that you are on a tight budget and your current bill is too high, forcing you to reluctantly close your account with them unless they can reduce your bill. See what reductions or discounts they offer you. If the response is inadequate, call back again later and see if you have better luck. Since the start of this year Comcast has eliminated some of the "customer courtesy" codes that CSR's could apply, but there are still interesting promotions to be had--particularly if there is competition from other MVPD's in your area. There's no need to wait until the end of your current subscription (unless you are on a contract with early termination penalties)--call now!


----------



## ah30k

I hated having to use my phone as a remote and the worst of all was that they quickly replace your recording with VoD versions that are not ad-skippable.


----------



## schatham

I tried it and it was missing some popular channels. It also froze a lot.

I would try it before canceling cable. Use it without touching your Tivo for a week and see how you like it. I doubt you will.


----------



## hefe

I don't use my phone as a remote, and only a couple channels use VOD versions. Although I have found even those helpful when my regular TiVo recording got messed up by scheduling issues.


----------



## texasPI

ah30k said:


> I hated having to use my phone as a remote and the worst of all was that they quickly replace your recording with VoD versions that are not ad-skippable.


THIS! It was the showstopper (pun intended) for me. Didn't even run out the free trial.


----------



## hefe

You don't have to use your phone as a remote. Like any service, you use its app on a set top box that supports it.


----------



## David B Gregory

omelet1978 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Long time Tivo owner that currently has a Tivo Bolt 4K 1Tb with lifetime service. I'm going to be done with my subscription with Xfinity in a few months and have been looking at YouTube Tv. Specifically the unlimited DVR storage for 9 months (now with fast forwarding), and their updated channel lineup which now has all the channels I usually watch.
> 
> My Tivo Bolt is not updated to Hydra and I'm not going to because the Live Guide is gone. That being said everything works fine as is, and my goal was to use it for years (it's 2 years old now). That being said, I'm periodically tempted to cut cable even though I really like Tivo, so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts or recommendations (for or against) YouTube Tv? It'd be cheaper than Xfinity, but then again I've always been a fan of the TiVo interface.
> 
> YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News
> 
> Thanks


I like youtube tv. LG and Samsung TV have native app as well as Roku. Best feature, I can use it in either of my homes and get the local stations where I am. I will say UI is not as easy to use as Tivo, but if you have a google home device you can set it up to use voice commands which works very well. No HGTV if you have a spouse that requires that


----------



## johnfasc

omelet1978 said:


> When you say Tivo wins the day operationally by a good margin is that with Hydra or with the old software? I have the old software which I'm keeping bc of the live guide.


Live guide? What's that! I have been switched since the update and by now it's not even thought of anymore. Hydra is good, clean, no real issues to speak of. Think of it this way...when a computer company upgrades their software, something's you may like others not so much. But you get used to them. If not, you stay in the 20th century.


----------



## wmcbrine

hefe said:


> You don't have to use your phone as a remote.


Yeah, that sounds more like a Chromecast issue than a YouTube TV issue. (Chromecast doesn't have a remote.) I used the regular Apple TV remote when I tried YouTube TV.


----------



## mattyro7878

Anybody with remote issues can just hook an HDMI cable and use your computer. A wireless keyboard helps as well. Yttv will do one passes and keep them. Unlimited recording. I never recorded more than two or three things at once. I don't know the limit of tuner usage. If you are a sports fan this service is great. I got all my local sports channels, plus all the ESPN'S. Plus the big 10 and longhorn and pac12. I'm in CT. PQ is ok but not Tivo quality. Check it out. I would go back when Xfinity starts charging full price


----------



## schatham

johnfasc said:


> Live guide? What's that! I have been switched since the update and by now it's not even thought of anymore. Hydra is good, clean, no real issues to speak of. Think of it this way...when a computer company upgrades their software, something's you may like others not so much. But you get used to them. If not, you stay in the 20th century.


You mean like windows 8?


----------



## slowbiscuit

ah30k said:


> I hated having to use my phone as a remote and the worst of all was that they quickly replace your recording with VoD versions that are not ad-skippable.


Well that's a show stopper. No way would I accept that if they claim unlimited 'recordings'.


----------



## hefe

slowbiscuit said:


> Well that's a show stopper. No way would I accept that if they claim unlimited 'recordings'.


Only on CBS, with popular network shows. And, I've heard CW, although I don't watch any of that. Everything else you can watch your DVR recording. So it still may be a show stopper for you, but I just wanted it to be clear that it is NOT all content, not even close.


----------



## slowbiscuit

If it's even one show on one channel it's utter BS, and definitely a show stopper. Ain't watching ANY show with ads.


----------



## hefe

slowbiscuit said:


> If it's even one show on one channel it's utter BS, and definitely a show stopper. Ain't watching ANY show with ads.


Sure, that's what's most important to you. It's not utter BS. I enjoy the service greatly. Gives me a lot of flexibility and access at a decent price. And I barely ever watch an ad. It's rare.


----------



## slowbiscuit

If it advertises a 'DVR' service and forces you to watch ads on shows that are 'recorded', it's a load of BS. Because it's not really a DVR as we know it - every other retail DVR ever made allowed ad-skip. As do all of the cable/sat DVRs that I know of, and you'd think they would have had unskippable recordings from the get-go.

Sorry, it's utter BS because it's false advertising IOW.


----------



## omelet1978

After doing some research, decided to pass on YoutubeTV. Actually decided to buy a second Tivo Bolt (still staying clear of Hydra though). 

That being said, the vast majority of my experiences with Comcast is negative with them being very aggressive trying to push whatever service they can on me. Hopefully they give a descent contract to me when it comes time. Right now I have 140 channels and 150mbps Internet and the total bill is $99 a month since I don't lease any equipment from them. One positive of things like Youtube TV is that it's forcing them to be a bit more competitive with their pricing, so I'm seeing some descent deals on their website.


----------



## hefe

slowbiscuit said:


> If it advertises a 'DVR' service and forces you to watch ads on shows that are 'recorded', it's a load of BS. Because it's not really a DVR as we know it - every other retail DVR ever made allowed ad-skip. As do all of the cable/sat DVRs that I know of, and you'd think they would have had unskippable recordings from the get-go.
> 
> Sorry, it's utter BS because it's false advertising IOW.


The FAQ right on the front page discloses exactly how it works, so it's not false advertising. And 99% of the content, if not more, is exactly the DVR service you describe. If CBS dropped the restriction they impose, it would be 100%.


----------



## mrizzo80

CBS is getting obnoxious with their content. 

No fast-forwarding on YouTube TV DVR functionality. 

The March Madness App on Fire TV won't show me games airing on CBS, but shows the games on the three cable stations just fine, even though I'm authenticating with my Spectrum service, which includes a large broadcast TV fee that, in part, gets sent back to CBS. 

CBS (apparently?) doesn't participate in TV Everywhere, so I can't watch a CBS feed via Fitzy TV on Fire TV, again, even after authenticating with my Spectrum service.


----------



## slowbiscuit

hefe said:


> The FAQ right on the front page discloses exactly how it works, so it's not false advertising. And 99% of the content, if not more, is exactly the DVR service you describe. If CBS dropped the restriction they impose, it would be 100%.


In other words it's just plain old VoD for that content, not a DVR.

No thanks. That is indeed a show stopper that I'm not going to pay for as long as I can use a Tivo instead.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel

has anyone hacked TiVo or other real DVR recording of VOD streams? I'm about to cut cable and move over to the new Amazon Recast. I'm going to try Philo for things like Comedy Central and AMC. But not being able to at least FF through commercials would really be a drag. I don't know that it'd be enough of a drag to go back to cable pricing, or if I'd just stop watching things like Full Frontal.


----------



## ncted

mooseAndSquirrel said:


> has anyone hacked TiVo or other real DVR recording of VOD streams? I'm about to cut cable and move over to the new Amazon Recast. I'm going to try Philo for things like Comedy Central and AMC. But not being able to at least FF through commercials would really be a drag. I don't know that it'd be enough of a drag to go back to cable pricing, or if I'd just stop watching things like Full Frontal.


Philo DVR allows FF/RW, including commercials.

The best deal in streaming includes free DVR

"Users can fast-forward and rewind during their recordings to avoid those nagging commercials. Some services, like Hulu with Live TV, make users pay a premium to skip ads, and some block fast-forwarding through the ads entirely. Skipping ads is one area in which Philo stands out."

Also, YouTube TV allows FF/RW of DVR'd content except on CBS.


----------



## tenthplanet

You might want to lurk over at AVS and read through this.. it can't hurt.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-n...ing/2820761-youtube-tv-streaming-service.html


----------



## barrey

Interesting. 
I'm currently looking at going the other way.
Leaving YTTV and going to Comcast Double Play with a Roamio Plus or Pro and some minis. 

Main reason is that we've hit the 1 TB cap two months in a row, and will hit it again this month, so I'll need to add unlimited ($50/mo) and that plus the YTTV increase to $50/Mo makes Comcast a viable option. Haven't used Tivo since the days of the DirectTivo's.

-B


----------



## NashGuy

barrey said:


> Interesting.
> I'm currently looking at going the other way.
> Leaving YTTV and going to Comcast Double Play with a Roamio Plus or Pro and some minis.
> 
> Main reason is that we've hit the 1 TB cap two months in a row, and will hit it again this month, so I'll need to add unlimited ($50/mo) and that plus the YTTV increase to $50/Mo makes Comcast a viable option. Haven't used Tivo since the days of the DirectTivo's.
> 
> -B


In case you would actually prefer to stick with YTTV, you might check to see if Comcast is offering their xFi Advantage program for your account at only $15/mo. This program gives you a gateway (modem+router) plus, more importantly, unlimited data.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Comcast/comments/a6k8d5

Or if you upgrade to their gigabit tier internet, I think they waive the data cap too.


----------



## barrey

NashGuy said:


> In case you would actually prefer to stick with YTTV, you might check to see if Comcast is offering their xFi Advantage program for your account at only $15/mo. This program gives you a gateway (modem+router) plus, more importantly, unlimited data.
> 
> Or if you upgrade to their gigabit tier internet, I think they waive the data cap too.


Thanks. I thought it was only available in the Central region, but and apparently I was wrong partially correct (see below).

I checked using a browser set to private and using address of the house across the street (who I know has AT&T).
With any tier of Internet of 250 Mbps or above, I am offered the xFi Advantage at checkout.
That makes a speed upgrade to 250 plus the unlimited option about $74 per month, which is a LOT more attractive.
Now to find a rep that can get me the "new subscriber deal" for that.

EDITS: Apparently in CA, the xFi Advantage does NOT include unlimited.
Would need to upgrade to Gig Gigabit Pro, which is gonna be $90 (based on a 2-year deal)  unavailable in my area since it requires Fiber to the Home and all our utilities are Direct Buried.


----------



## smark

Gig 


barrey said:


> Thanks. I thought it was only available in the Central region, but apparently I was wrong.
> 
> I checked using a browser set to private and using address of the house across the street (who I know has AT&T).
> With any tier of Internet of 250 Mbps or above, I am offered the xFi Advantage at checkout.
> That makes a speed upgrade to 250 plus the unlimited option about $74 per month, which is a LOT more attractive.
> Now to find a rep that can get me the "new subscriber deal" for that.
> 
> EDITS: Apparently in CA, the xFi Advantage does NOT include unlimited.
> Would need to upgrade to Gig, which is gonna be $90 (based on a 2-year deal).


Gig doesn't include unlimited data. Gigabit Pro however does but it's a higher cost.


----------



## barrey

smark said:


> Gig
> Gig doesn't include unlimited data. Gigabit Pro however does but it's a higher cost.


Thx. I've updated the post above (again) with this info. Not an option for me, unfortunately.


----------



## NashGuy

barrey said:


> Thanks. I thought it was only available in the Central region, but and apparently I was wrong partially correct (see below).
> 
> I checked using a browser set to private and using address of the house across the street (who I know has AT&T).
> With any tier of Internet of 250 Mbps or above, I am offered the xFi Advantage at checkout.
> That makes a speed upgrade to 250 plus the unlimited option about $74 per month, which is a LOT more attractive.
> Now to find a rep that can get me the "new subscriber deal" for that.
> 
> EDITS: Apparently in CA, the xFi Advantage does NOT include unlimited.
> Would need to upgrade to Gig Gigabit Pro, which is gonna be $90 (based on a 2-year deal)  unavailable in my area since it requires Fiber to the Home and all our utilities are Direct Buried.


Well, sorry about that. Everything is more expensive in CA it seems. Beautiful place, though!


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

mrizzo80 said:


> CBS is getting obnoxious with their content.
> 
> No fast-forwarding on YouTube TV DVR functionality.
> 
> The March Madness App on Fire TV won't show me games airing on CBS, but shows the games on the three cable stations just fine, even though I'm authenticating with my Spectrum service, which includes a large broadcast TV fee that, in part, gets sent back to CBS.
> 
> CBS (apparently?) doesn't participate in TV Everywhere, so I can't watch a CBS feed via Fitzy TV on Fire TV, again, even after authenticating with my Spectrum service.


They want you to pay for CBS All Access or whatever their app is called.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> Well, sorry about that. Everything is more expensive in CA it seems. Beautiful place, though!


Not just CA. I had Comcast's gigabit HSI service for most of the past 12 months and it included the data cap (which, however, I never came close to exceeding). Also note that the cap is coupled with a proviso that the first two months of excessive usage in any 12-month period are forgiven.


----------



## NashGuy

chiguy50 said:


> Not just CA. I had Comcast's gigabit HSI service for most of the past 12 months and it included the data cap (which, however, I never came close to exceeding). Also note that the cap is coupled with a proviso that the first two months of excessive usage in any 12-month period are forgiven.


Yeah, but in certain areas, including here in Nashville I believe, you can just pay $15 for xFi Advantage and avoid the cap. But not in CA! I'm also on Comcast but, like you, never come close to 1 TB in usage. I snagged a deal for 60/5 internet (always measures about 71/6) for $30/mo the first year and $40/mo the next.

Around here, the best options for folks who want standalone internet and no data cap are AT&T Fiber and Google Fiber, if one of those is available at your address. GF is pretty limited here, mostly just in urban condos and apartments, while AT&T Fiber has spread to a lot of patches throughout Nashville offering standalone symmetrical gigabit service with no cap for $70/mo the first year, then $100/mo thereafter. (Price is $10 lower if you bundle TV or home phone.)

Out in the surrounding boonies, they have Charter, which hasn't have caps on any of their broadband plans, even their starter 100 Mbps service.


----------



## Mikeguy

NashGuy said:


> Around here, the best options for folks who want standalone internet and no data cap are AT&T Fiber and Google Fiber, if one of those is available at your address. GF is pretty limited here, mostly just in urban condos and apartments, while AT&T Fiber has spread to a lot of patches throughout Nashville offering standalone symmetrical gigabit service with no cap for $70/mo the first year, then $100/mo thereafter. (Price is $10 lower if you bundle TV or home phone.)


Rumor has it that AT&T is finishing laying fiber optic cable in my neighborhood, and it will be interesting/frightening to see what happens to the cost of Internet, for the many people here on AT&T DSL. I'm assuming that many of the people don't need unlimited data and ultra-high speeds, especially when coming from an AT&T DSL 150GB/month limit.


----------



## NashGuy

Mikeguy said:


> Rumor has it that AT&T is finishing laying fiber optic cable in my neighborhood, and it will be interesting/frightening to see what happens to the cost of Internet, for the many people here on AT&T DSL. I'm assuming that many of the people don't need unlimited data and ultra-high speeds, especially when coming from an AT&T DSL 150GB/month limit.


Yeah, they did that on my street just a few months ago while I was still on AT&T Internet (formerly Uverse Internet, i.e. fiber-to-the-node, then DSL from the node to the home). What typically happens when they make AT&T Fiber available at an address is that they deprecate whatever older service was available there before, whether AT&T DSL or AT&T Internet. If you're already on the old service and want to keep it, you can. But you probably won't be able to switch to a different plan within that old service, and no new customers can sign up for the old service.

You can expect three tiers of symmetrical service with AT&T Fiber: 100 Mbps at $60, 300 Mbsp at $80 and 1 Gbps at $100. Each tier is typically discounted $10 or more during the first year. You get another $10 off if you bundle in DirecTV, Uverse TV or home phone service. Adding TV also waives the data cap on any speed tier.

I have a friend (she's not super tech-savvy) who was on AT&T home internet service for years, paying about $45/mo, IIRC. She asked me to see if I could figure out why her internet was so slow, thinking it was something to do with her router. I had assumed she was on Uverse but turns out she was only on DSL getting about 3 Mbps service! "Is that bad?" she asked. Ha! I helped her get switched to Comcast paying about the same for way faster speeds. About a year later, AT&T converted her address to Fiber.

I say all that to tell you that your neighbors on AT&T DSL will likely not pay much more (especially in the first 12 months) to upgrade from very poor internet service to excellent internet service if they switch to AT&T Fiber.


----------



## Mikeguy

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, they did that on my street just a few months ago while I was still on AT&T Internet (formerly Uverse Internet, i.e. fiber-to-the-node, then DSL from the node to the home). What typically happens when they make AT&T Fiber available at an address is that they deprecate whatever older service was available there before, whether AT&T DSL or AT&T Internet. If you're already on the old service and want to keep it, you can. But you probably won't be able to switch to a different plan within that old service, and no new customers can sign up for the old service.
> 
> You can expect three tiers of symmetrical service with AT&T Fiber: 100 Mbps at $60, 300 Mbsp at $80 and 1 Gbps at $100. Each tier is typically discounted $10 or more during the first year. You get another $10 off if you bundle in DirecTV, Uverse TV or home phone service. Adding TV also waives the data cap on any speed tier.
> 
> I have a friend (she's not super tech-savvy) who was on AT&T home internet service for years, paying about $45/mo, IIRC. She asked me to see if I could figure out why her internet was so slow, thinking it was something to do with her router. I had assumed she was on Uverse but turns out she was only on DSL getting about 3 Mbps service! "Is that bad?" she asked. Ha! I helped her get switched to Comcast paying about the same for way faster speeds. About a year later, AT&T converted her address to Fiber.
> 
> I say all that to tell you that your neighbors on AT&T DSL will likely not pay much more (especially in the first 12 months) to upgrade from very poor internet service to excellent internet service if they switch to AT&T Fiber.


Thanks, that's helpful (and reassuring) to hear. If the $ numbers are the same, the fiber rates indeed are in the neighborhood or just slightly north of the DSL rates (it's hard to tell, given AT&T's ever-changing promotions), which is good to hear--much better service, at a ~similar rate. A concern has been, would rates increase substantially, given the service enhancements and infrastructure investment.


----------



## ncted

I am on a 100/100 Fiber plan from AT&T for $50/month "for life." It has a 1 TB cap. If I were to subscribe to YTTV or the like, I'd probably switch to Spectrum Internet which promises "we never cap your data usage."


----------



## Mikeguy

ncted said:


> I am on a 100/100 Fiber plan from AT&T for $50/month "for life." It has a 1 TB cap. If I were to subscribe to YTTV or the like, I'd probably switch to Spectrum Internet which promises "we never cap your data usage."


Thanks--_very _nice to hear. Especially where AT&T's DSL, with a 150GB monthly cap, is going at $58 (without promotions).


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> I am on a 100/100 Fiber plan from AT&T for $50/month "for life." It has a 1 TB cap. If I were to subscribe to YTTV or the like, I'd probably switch to Spectrum Internet which promises "we never cap your data usage."


Wow, how'd you swing that for-life deal? The big cable and telco companies seem to want regular ongoing prices for fast (at least 100 Mbps) standalone service set to at least $60. Although Google Fiber and Starry (neither of which are very widespread) do set their everyday standalone price for fast internet (with equipment included) at just $50 (with no data cap).


----------



## NashGuy

Mikeguy said:


> Thanks--_very _nice to hear. Especially where AT&T's DSL, with a 150GB monthly cap, is going at $58 (without promotions).


I feel bad for folks paying that kind of money for DSL. Is that area not served by cable or do the AT&T DSL customers not realize that they're getting a really, really bad deal?


----------



## Mikeguy

NashGuy said:


> I feel bad for folks paying that kind of money for DSL. Is that area not served by cable or do the AT&T DSL customers not realize that they're getting a really, really bad deal?


One thing to keep in mind, the above is the AT&T rack rate, and in the past, it often could have 1, 2, or even 3 (stacked) promotions that could be applied to it, if one kept up on the account, getting the cost down into the $20s or $30s. This could get AT&T well below cable Internet, but only useful if one could live with the lower speed and the data cap (very possible, if one doesn't do much Internet TV/video). Unfortunately, AT&T has started cracking down on its promotions and the stacking of them the past few years.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Wow, how'd you swing that for-life deal? The big cable and telco companies seem to want regular ongoing prices for fast (at least 100 Mbps) standalone service set to at least $60. Although Google Fiber and Starry (neither of which are very widespread) do set their everyday standalone price for fast internet (with equipment included) at just $50 (with no data cap).


Well, I am suspicious of the "for life" moniker they give it. I assume it is for the life of the promotion which is how ever long they want it to be. All I did is call in the day after my intro 1 year promo pricing expired on my 50/50 plan and asked whether there were any deals available where I could lower my price. They said if I would upgrade to 100Mb, they would guarantee that price "for life."


----------



## Mikeguy

In my personal experience, AT&T has an interesting way of dealing with promotions it no longer likes: after speaking with a Retention/Loyalty Dept. customer service rep. and entering into a 1-year contract for DSL last October that had 2 promotional discounts attached, my next bill didn't reflect the lower rate--when I called about it, the AT&T rep. and then the supervisor simply told me that the discount did not exist. On another occasion, another AT&T rep. told me that while I had to honor a year-long contract rate, AT&T didn't and was free to breach the contract.


----------



## slowbiscuit

ncted said:


> Well, I am suspicious of the "for life" moniker they give it. I assume it is for the life of the promotion which is how ever long they want it to be. All I did is call in the day after my intro 1 year promo pricing expired on my 50/50 plan and asked whether there were any deals available where I could lower my price. They said if I would upgrade to 100Mb, they would guarantee that price "for life."


I'd love to see that in writing, CSRs can promise anything. Post an image if you have it.

I re-upped for a two-year deal on Comcast a couple of years ago and I wanted free HBO, CSR said she gave it to me for the two years (on a recorded phone call). Of course it then expired after 3 months and I had to get Comcast reps on the Xfinity forum to extend it for me.


----------



## ncted

slowbiscuit said:


> I'd love to see that in writing, CSRs can promise anything. Post an image if you have it.
> 
> I re-upped for a two-year deal on Comcast a couple of years ago and I wanted free HBO, CSR said she gave it to me for the two years (on a recorded phone call). Of course it then expired after 3 months and I had to get Comcast reps on the Xfinity forum to extend it for me.


Yeah, as you might imagine, it is not so clearly stated on the bill:


----------



## BNBTivo

I just recently switched from XFinity/Tivo to YouTube TV.

One thing that is strikingly obvious, is that Youtube TV (and similar offerings) is clearly the future. Physical cable boxes are going the way of DVD and CD's.

However, there are clear shortfalls with YTTV that make it not for everyone, at least at this time. For example, when you unbundle internet where I live, the price is much more expensive. The price for Comcast internet + tv is similar to the price of Comcast internet + Youtube TV, since Comcast jacks the price up on internet by $30 and since I'm still under contract for taking their 'we can save you money' deal, I have to pay the $80 for internet. For the same price, Comcast offers more channels.

That said, I still switched. Why? Because we have 2 homes. We had Tivo/Comcast at both homes. Youtube TV allows us to have just one package that works at both places. We don't need more than the 3 simultaneous streams limit (Hulu has an unlimited option but can't travel), so YTTV is a no brainer for us. It's saving us a lot of money and the experience with YTTV is really solid. It's as snappy as my Tivo, programs load about the same speed, and the organization of OnDemand with Recordings and Live is better than Tivo. Not only that, but Tivo is discontinuing Xfinity OnDemand... so YTTV is offering a much better experience for us if we can't even get OnDemand anymore included with our cable box. Another benefit is that YTTV gives us the same local channels from our primary residence even at our second home. Not only that, but it's the same DVR, recordings, everything. Much easier. And for me, that also means I'm getting my local sports team even at my second house. I couldn't get my teams games when at our other house with Comcast!

YTTV travels with us when we are in our camper. As long as we have internet, we can use our YTTV at campsites or on the go (we have an unlimited internet/wireless plan). It works on your phone wonderfully, too.

YTTV also does some things better than Tivo. For example, you can't "add an hour to my recording" but that's because it's not needed. Recently, even with the extra hour, Tivo cut off a triple overtime game. YTTV somehow just knows and records the whole thing. No limits on DVR, no full DVR, no "all tuners being used", no expensive equipment or lifetime service, etc.

The writing is on the wall. While for some users a Tivo/Cable Box is still the better choice, it's not going to stay that way in to the future. I'm selling my Tivo's while they still have some value. The money for all of my Tivo's should cover 1 - 2 years of TV service... plus all the savings by consolidating to 1 service for both houses, it's just such an obvious solution.

And lastly, Tivo doesn't update streaming apps very well. Still using old Hulu app, for example. Same issue with losing Xfinity onDemand. Xfinity has a Roku app, but no Tivo app! With smart TV's, Roku, etc... you are using all the latest apps and they are snappier, faster than on the Tivo with more options. Heck, my smart Tv's have an app with 150+ free channels that we often find some interesting stuff on. Tivo is fighting a losing battle. It's still a great product RIGHT NOW, in general, but it's going to age quickly.

Curious about others thoughts on it.


----------



## David B Gregory

I also use YTTV in two places and switching for locals is why I have it. I do still have a Roamio OTA as my wife does not like the interface for recordings and using the remote is much easier. Considering that 80% of what we watch is OTA it works out well. I have found that in my two communities I have two options, I own my own cable modem and when the lower price is up, if they wont renew at the lower price I switch. It can be a small PIA but worth it. I get 200Mbs for $44.95/mo


----------



## BNBTivo

David B Gregory said:


> I also use YTTV in two places and switching for locals is why I have it. I do still have a Roamio OTA as my wife does not like the interface for recordings and using the remote is much easier. Considering that 80% of what we watch is OTA it works out well. I have found that in my two communities I have two options, I own my own cable modem and when the lower price is up, if they wont renew at the lower price I switch. It can be a small PIA but worth it. I get 200Mbs for $44.95/mo


I get 150 for $80. It sucks. But those 2 year contracts...

The good thing is that you can get out of the TV as long as you remain a customer and pay full price for internet. Once contract is up, time to negotiate. We have ATT fiber at my primary as an option.

Your wife doesn't like the YTTV for recordings? That's interesting. Mine finds it easier. Just go to library and everything is there. Seamless DVR/OnDemand integration. Easy to add shows too, just add to library. No selecting options like channel preference, how long to keep, and all that stuff.

As for the remote. It depends on what TV you have. The LG smart TV has a killer remote, I like the Samsung also. Our roku TVs I don't like the remote very much but it's not a big deal for us.


----------



## rpj22

BNBTivo said:


> Because we have 2 homes. We had Tivo/Comcast at both homes. Youtube TV allows us to have just one package that works at both places.
> ......
> Curious about others thoughts on it.


I also have two houses and considered this approach. For my case, I found that almost everything I watch was available over the internet at house #2 using my cable credentials from house #1. Some would live stream - others were on demand only - but one way or the other I got almost everything.


----------



## BNBTivo

rpj22 said:


> I also have two houses and considered this approach. For my case, I found that almost everything I watch was available over the internet at house #2 using my cable credentials from house #1. Some would live stream - others were on demand only - but one way or the other I got almost everything.


Using your providers roku app or something?

I'm liking youtube TV more and more every day. It's better than Tivo. 10+ recordings at the same time, no problem. The suggestions, simplicity, search, unlimited dvr, everything about it is solid as hell for just simple TV watching. Even the picture quality is better.

Plus, at house 2, since it's all cloud, it's the same recordings and experience.


----------



## mschnebly

BNBTivo said:


> Using your providers roku app or something?
> 
> I'm liking youtube TV more and more every day. It's better than Tivo. 10+ recordings at the same time, no problem. The suggestions, simplicity, search, unlimited dvr, everything about it is solid as hell for just simple TV watching. Even the picture quality is better.
> 
> Plus, at house 2, since it's all cloud, it's the same recordings and experience.


Great points. Just launch it anywhere and everything is exactly the same. The library was a little jarring at first but now we love it. The way it's organized is perfect for us.


----------



## BNBTivo

mschnebly said:


> Great points. Just launch it anywhere and everything is exactly the same. The library was a little jarring at first but now we love it. The way it's organized is perfect for us.


Yes, exactly! The first day I regretted switching. It was just different. Then after a couple of days I appreciated the simplicity and realized it's actually laid out really well. It's designed to watch TV, not play with menus and settings. So it gets you the TV you want to watch rapidly.


----------



## NashGuy

BNBTivo said:


> The writing is on the wall. While for some users a Tivo/Cable Box is still the better choice, it's not going to stay that way in to the future. I'm selling my Tivo's while they still have some value. The money for all of my Tivo's should cover 1 - 2 years of TV service... plus all the savings by consolidating to 1 service for both houses, it's just such an obvious solution.
> 
> Tivo is fighting a losing battle. It's still a great product RIGHT NOW, in general, but it's going to age quickly.
> 
> Curious about others thoughts on it.


Yeah, I sort of agree with you on the direction this is all going. But for most traditional cable TV subscribers, the main sticking points with going with an OTT streaming cable service like YouTube TV or DirecTV Now would be:

1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?

If those points don't apply to you (or you can mentally get past them), then yes, there are definitely things about going the OTT route that make it better. Mainly the fact that your entire TV experience -- live channels, DVR, VOD -- are all available to you on just about any device you want to use, wherever (in the US) you want to use it, as long as you're connected to the internet. And, as you say, they tend to simplify DVR management somewhat. YouTube TV *really* does so -- just "like" a show and all future recordings of it are automatically recorded and added to your library.

What I expect will happen as traditional cable/telco pay TV providers move toward a cloud-based IPTV system is that their services will become more and more like the OTT services. With Xfinity TV, you can already get a lot of the same experience through the Xfinity Stream app on your phone when away from home as you get on an X1 box on your TV. I think some live channels are still unavailable out-of-home but that will eventually change. Meanwhile, because it's a service offered by the cable company, none of the concerns above apply.

It's going to be very interesting to see what AT&T does with DirecTV Now this year. I think they're going to morph it into a dual-purpose service so that, for those customers who also have AT&T Internet/Fiber home broadband, none of those 5 concerns above will apply. But unlike Xfinity TV, the service won't JUST be sold to folks with an AT&T line running to their house. It will also be a nationwide OTT service available to anyone with any internet connection, like YouTube TV.


----------



## omelet1978

My contract with Xfinity is up in January, so I’ll take a good look at YouTube TV after reading through this thread. That being said I have a 3TB Tivo Bolt and if I’m able to get a good 2 year contract with Xfinity I’ll stick around. However, I have not yet updated to Hydra, so I might say goodbye to Tivo after that. The main reason I have not updated to Hydra is the lack of Live Guide. I experimented with the Hydra Mini Guide as well and it’s nowhere near as good.

YouTube TV did raise their prices recently FYI. Also, Xfinity WiFi 60 MBPS is $30 in Atlanta so there are affordable ways to go about this but at the end of the day you are probably paying around $100 a month no matter what. That’s whether you have internet, Netflix, Hulu, etc...or a cable/internet bundle like I do.


----------



## trip1eX

I was thinking of selling my Roamio Plus and Minis too in order to get value out of them now while they are still worth something.

On the other hand, the fact I've had them for 5 years means I've got my money's worth already and the rest is gravy. And that makes cable cheaper than YTTV plus internet for me as long as I still can get deals from my cable co. I think my deal expires in August.


Also I'm more of a fan of Netflix, Amazon, HUlu, HBO and Showtime etc. Stuff is just there to watch when you want to watch it. There is no DVR. It's all "recorded." That's where tv is going. No commercials either.

So I'm not even sure I would get YTTV if my Roamio went kaput tomorrow (even though I thought it was the best of the ~4 OTT services I tried.) If my Roamio went kaput or I sold it I might just go with Netflix, HBO and Showtime and then rotate them around with a few other services every few months. I already pay for Netflix and HBO as it is so I'd see a good savings there relatively speaking to what I pay now and would have quite a lot to watch on tv. Just would have to do without sports. 


And family ...my 18 yr old hasn't touched Tivo in 9 months. 12 yr old only uses it watch movies I record that are mostly from HBO anyway that I don't even need to record on Tivo. They both watch youtube and netflix.

Wife uses Facebook while the TV on  and when actually watching it is either surfing or watching Netflix/HBO.


----------



## BNBTivo

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I sort of agree with you on the direction this is all going. But for most traditional cable TV subscribers, the main sticking points with going with an OTT streaming cable service like YouTube TV or DirecTV Now would be:
> 
> 1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
> 2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
> 3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
> 4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
> 5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?
> 
> If those points don't apply to you (or you can mentally get past them), then yes, there are definitely things about going the OTT route that make it better. Mainly the fact that your entire TV experience -- live channels, DVR, VOD -- are all available to you on just about any device you want to use, wherever (in the US) you want to use it, as long as you're connected to the internet. And, as you say, they tend to simplify DVR management somewhat. YouTube TV *really* does so -- just "like" a show and all future recordings of it are automatically recorded and added to your library.
> 
> What I expect will happen as traditional cable/telco pay TV providers move toward a cloud-based IPTV system is that their services will become more and more like the OTT services. With Xfinity TV, you can already get a lot of the same experience through the Xfinity Stream app on your phone when away from home as you get on an X1 box on your TV. I think some live channels are still unavailable out-of-home but that will eventually change. Meanwhile, because it's a service offered by the cable company, none of the concerns above apply.
> 
> It's going to be very interesting to see what AT&T does with DirecTV Now this year. I think they're going to morph it into a dual-purpose service so that, for those customers who also have AT&T Internet/Fiber home broadband, none of those 5 concerns above will apply. But unlike Xfinity TV, the service won't JUST be sold to folks with an AT&T line running to their house. It will also be a nationwide OTT service available to anyone with any internet connection, like YouTube TV.


This is a great conversation with some really fantastic input.

Your 5 sticking points are exactly why I would say "right now" it's not clear cut that YTTV would be the best option for everyone. But these are all things that will be resolved in the coming years. Channels and more full featured offerings will come. YTTV has added a lot of channels since original launch. Not missing much other than Viacom at this point. Internet providers are eventually going to be offering unlimited bandwidth without huge bundles. I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't get regulated. While I didn't like net neutrality, it would have made it impossible for Comcast, for example, to offer IPTV that wouldn't count against their data cap. Point is, eventually this stuff will get worked out. Internet is too fast and too cheap to provide, the only reason these caps and bundles and what not exist is to fight the inevitable coming of streaming cable. Even right now you can get deals on internet only products. ie. I can get 350mbps ATT Fiber, with no bundling, for $50 for a 1 year period.

What's going to happen is providers of internet will become unbundled from providers of TV. They won't be one in the same. So Comcast can try bundling and threaten to jack your internet rates up, but other internet providers will undercut them which will force Comcast to compete on only internet and to stop using the TV bundles for hostage negotiations. Just look at Google Fiber. No data caps. $50 or so for a reasonable plan.

And I think that was my point. Internet will become cheaper. It's only moderately expensive/difficult now because of legacy TV providers having control over it. Their days are numbered. I'll have all of my Tivo's listed in the next few days for sale. Looking at ebay, I should pull $1500 - $2000 for them (I have 14 devices). Imagine what I paid new.... That's 5 years of YTTV just in Tivo equipment. Ridiculous!! I've got good years out of it, and IPTV is new so I didn't have other options when I started with Tivo (15 years ago). But still, the equipment cost alone is YEARS of TV service. No need for equipment anymore. Out of my 14 TV's between my homes, I only need 5 Roku devices. All the rest had all the smart TV options and no need for any equipment at all. It's a big deal that you don't need equipment anymore. It changes everything.


----------



## BNBTivo

trip1eX said:


> I was thinking of selling my Roamio Plus and Minis too in order to get value out of them now while they are still worth something.
> 
> On the other hand, the fact I've had them for 5 years means I've got my money's worth already and the rest is gravy. And that makes cable cheaper than YTTV plus internet for me as long as I still can get deals from my cable co. I think my deal expires in August.
> 
> Also I'm more of a fan of Netflix, Amazon, HUlu, HBO and Showtime etc. Stuff is just there to watch when you want to watch it. There is no DVR. It's all "recorded." That's where tv is going. No commercials either.
> 
> So I'm not even sure I would get YTTV if my Roamio went kaput tomorrow (even though I thought it was the best of the ~4 OTT services I tried.) If my Roamio went kaput or I sold it I might just go with Netflix, HBO and Showtime and then rotate them around with a few other services every few months. I already pay for Netflix and HBO as it is so I'd see a good savings there relatively speaking to what I pay now and would have quite a lot to watch on tv. Just would have to do without sports.
> 
> And family ...my 18 yr old hasn't touched Tivo in 9 months. 12 yr old only uses it watch movies I record that are mostly from HBO anyway that I don't even need to record on Tivo. They both watch youtube and netflix.
> 
> Wife uses Facebook while the TV on  and when actually watching it is either surfing or watching Netflix/HBO.


This sounds like my house! Did I write this comment with an alternate identity? Lol.

If you are using all of those apps, Roku is flat out better. Tivo has dated versions of the apps and doesn't seem to update them. They are missing apps, too. Get a LOT more on Roku than Tivo and if the streaming services (including streaming TV) offer what you want to watch for much cheaper, than it's a no brainer. The Roku Ultra's are lightning fast, faster than Tivo and solid devices. Almost none of my family watches much TV outside of my wifes few reality shows. We use Netflix/Hulu/HBO Now/PBS for a lot of our entertainment. I can't be without some of my shows so YTTV has been great, especially for sports. And with the antiquated "tuners" a thing of the past + unlimited DVR, I often have 10+ recordings going at the same time. I just record everything now that I even moderately enjoy. It's great. And HBO Now is a better experience than through the Tivo or cable box. Heck, Xfinity doesn't have ondemand anymore with the Tivo and HBO Go won't work on Tivo with Xfinity. It's a disaster. Time to cash these boxes out!


----------



## ZobVA

johnfasc said:


> Live guide? What's that! I have been switched since the update and by now it's not even thought of anymore. Hydra is good, clean, no real issues to speak of. Think of it this way...when a computer company upgrades their software, something's you may like others not so much. But you get used to them. If not, you stay in the 20th century.


TBH I think it's kind of presumptuous to imply that if someone doesn't like Hydra then they are backwards. I love technology and look forward to advancements and new things. But when it came to Hydra, I tried it for several weeks on my Tivo Bolt and I really, really disliked it and it had nothing to do with getting used to it. I didn't like that they dumbed down the GUI with big obtrusive pictures, videos and icons for people who like to look at pictures rather than read menus. It was too much like Netflix's interface which I don't like either. Not to mention that they also rolled advertising into the Hydra format. I rolled my Bolt back to the old operating system.
But... everybody is different. I know many people do prefer to click on pictures than on text.


----------



## tenthplanet

In Hydra if you use the menu you never have to click a picture/icon. Everything can be done in text and you can read info with a nice big font. The grid guide is nice and big. Nothing is obtrusive if you don't choose it.


----------



## johnfasc

Didn't mean to put anyone's choice down or claim one is better or worse. I guess I am an easily satisfied and although I do not like the Netflix interface either I just roll with it. All is good as long as my TiVo works. ( hand shake).


----------



## omelet1978

BNBTivo said:


> This sounds like my house! Did I write this comment with an alternate identity? Lol.
> 
> If you are using all of those apps, Roku is flat out better. Tivo has dated versions of the apps and doesn't seem to update them. They are missing apps, too. Get a LOT more on Roku than Tivo and if the streaming services (including streaming TV) offer what you want to watch for much cheaper, than it's a no brainer. The Roku Ultra's are lightning fast, faster than Tivo and solid devices. Almost none of my family watches much TV outside of my wifes few reality shows. We use Netflix/Hulu/HBO Now/PBS for a lot of our entertainment. I can't be without some of my shows so YTTV has been great, especially for sports. And with the antiquated "tuners" a thing of the past + unlimited DVR, I often have 10+ recordings going at the same time. I just record everything now that I even moderately enjoy. It's great. And HBO Now is a better experience than through the Tivo or cable box. Heck, Xfinity doesn't have ondemand anymore with the Tivo and HBO Go won't work on Tivo with Xfinity. It's a disaster. Time to cash these boxes out!


I do not think it's time to cash out on the Tivo boxes just yet.

I agree that Roku is probably better when it come to apps such as Netflix and such. My solution has to stick with Tivo Experience 3 with lifetime service on a 3tb Bolt and then get the slide remote which you can type on (since Tivo voice search does not work within apps). Combination of building up a movie library by recording movies on Xfinity as well as apps that work "good" enough I'm sticking with Tivo at least a couple of more years.

The writing is on the wall though. If they brought back Live Guide to Hydra I might upgrade to the Edge, but as of now I see no reason too and will just hold on to my setup for a few years and then eventually cut the cable cord.


----------



## mattyro7878

I know it had been discussed ad nauseum but why can't Hydra have a live guide? It's basic information, not an operating system. Are they just bring stubborn?


----------



## NashGuy

mattyro7878 said:


> I know it had been discussed ad nauseum but why can't Hydra have a live guide? It's basic information, not an operating system. Are they just bring stubborn?


I don't think TiVo has ever stated. My guess is that the Live Guide was one of those UI conventions that was peculiar to TiVo and never used by other DVRs/cable boxes. (I imagine TiVo had a patent on it and they didn't license it to others.) A good many long-time TiVo users seem to like Live Guide but over the years, there are fewer and fewer of those folks still on TiVo.

When TiVo designed their new UI (Hydra/TE4), I would imagine that they mainly had their pay TV operator partners in mind, given that they account for WAY more TiVo users and revenue now than do retail TiVo users. And since those operators' customers would be coming from other cable/satellite DVRs, with the vast majority of them never having owned a TiVo before, they wouldn't be familiar with Live Guide. So it just didn't make much sense to spend the time and resources to include Live Guide as an option in Hydra/TE4 if TiVo felt like it was an option that wouldn't be understood or used by the great majority of users.


----------



## Mikeguy

NashGuy said:


> And since those operators' customers would be coming from other cable/satellite DVRs, with the vast majority of them never having owned a TiVo before, they wouldn't be familiar with Live Guide. *So it just didn't make much sense to spend the time and resources to include Live Guide as an option in Hydra/TE4 if TiVo felt like it was an option that wouldn't be understood or used by the great majority of users.*


Which is such a shame, as it is such a nice and even liberating feature (for many of us).


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

NashGuy said:


> I don't think TiVo has ever stated. My guess is that the Live Guide was one of those UI conventions that was peculiar to TiVo and never used by other DVRs/cable boxes. (I imagine TiVo had a patent on it and they didn't license it to others.) A good many long-time TiVo users seem to like Live Guide but over the years, there are fewer and fewer of those folks still on TiVo.
> 
> When TiVo designed their new UI (Hydra/TE4), I would imagine that they mainly had their pay TV operator partners in mind, given that they account for WAY more TiVo users and revenue now than do retail TiVo users. And since those operators' customers would be coming from other cable/satellite DVRs, with the vast majority of them never having owned a TiVo before, they wouldn't be familiar with Live Guide. So it just didn't make much sense to spend the time and resources to include Live Guide as an option in Hydra/TE4 if TiVo felt like it was an option that wouldn't be understood or used by the great majority of users.


I am pretty certain that at some point in the past the Verizon FIOS guide was similar to Live Guide, going more than ten years back. It was in the Dark Ages before I had a Moxi or TiVo and I remember being at friends house for poker and he was putting a basketball game on tv and the guide was formatted like Live Guide (Moxi had this as well before they folded).


----------



## NashGuy

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I am pretty certain that at some point in the past the Verizon FIOS guide was similar to Live Guide, going more than ten years back. It was in the Dark Ages before I had a Moxi or TiVo and I remember being at friends house for poker and he was putting a basketball game on tv and the guide was formatted like Live Guide (Moxi had this as well before they folded).


Interesting. Well then, perhaps TiVo did license their patents for Live Guide out to a few other DVR systems. Although I think it's fair to say that it never really caught on. OTOH, everyone is familiar with the grid guide, with each channel on its own horizontal row and time slices arranged left to right. It's just the universal standard for live TV UIs. Hulu with Live TV tried to break away from that with a more modern UI but users complained and they had to relent and bring back the good ol' grid guide.

I didn't come to TiVo until a few years ago, after having used lots of other STBs/DVRs. I never took to the Live Guide, but that's just me. Again, I tend to think that the Live Guide devotees are folks who have been using a TiVo for a long time.


----------



## powrcow

mattyro7878 said:


> I know it had been discussed ad nauseum but why can't Hydra have a live guide? It's basic information, not an operating system. Are they just bring stubborn?


TiVo has never said this (or much else about UI analytics) but maybe the Live Guide utilization was too low to move to Hydra. TiVo should be able to know exactly which guide people are using.

Unless they made a mistake and counted Grid Guide based MSO TiVos alongside retail TiVos when checking for Live Guide utilization.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

NashGuy said:


> Interesting. Well then, perhaps TiVo did license their patents for Live Guide out to a few other DVR systems. Although I think it's fair to say that it never really caught on. OTOH, everyone is familiar with the grid guide, with each channel on its own horizontal row and time slices arranged left to right. It's just the universal standard for live TV UIs. Hulu with Live TV tried to break away from that with a more modern UI but users complained and they had to relent and bring back the good ol' grid guide.
> 
> I didn't come to TiVo until a few years ago, after having used lots of other STBs/DVRs. I never took to the Live Guide, but that's just me. Again, I tend to think that the Live Guide devotees are folks who have been using a TiVo for a long time.


I may have "misremembered" the precise layout of the Verizon FIOS guide, here is a shot of it back then. Also included is the Moxi guide. I ended up going with Moxi over TiVo at the time because the Moxi guide was in HD and TiVo still has their SD guide (some of us still have it in places 10 years later lol).


----------



## NashGuy

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I may have "misremembered" the precise layout of the Verizon FIOS guide, here is a shot of it back then. Also included is the Moxi guide. I ended up going with Moxi over TiVo at the time because the Moxi guide was in HD and TiVo still has their SD guide (some of us still have it in places 10 years later lol).


The look of the Moxi UI was really nice and ahead of its time. (I don't know enough about it to comment on its functionality but I was impressed by it aesthetically.) I can see why you opted for it.


----------



## saeba

The recent TiVo updates (pre-roll and Grid ads, the dubious TiVo+) and the fact that we recently moved from cable internet to an in-building Internet connection (100/100mbps no data cap) have led us to consider dropping TiVo/Comcast and moving to YouTube TV. Here's a list of what we've noticed in considering the change:

*YouTube TV Pros*:
Unlimited simultaneous recordings
Unlimited cloud storage
Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings
No cable provider required - less cost (we spend ~$1,200 per year on the basic Comcast Xfinity HD Preferred TV package; YouTube TV is ~$600)
No specialized local hardware to buy/replace (TiVos, TiVo hard disks, etc.)
Stream to PC, phone, tablet, smart TV - better streaming capabilities than TiVo
No requirement for wired connectivity to viewing locations (TiVo now has a wireless adapter for their Mini)
Cloud recordings not subject to cable/power outages or video glitches
Auto-extends recordings to cover sports events running long
Ability to customize guide view to re-order or remove channels

*YouTube TV Cons:*
Recordings expire after nine months (but no ability to otherwise remove from library)
Limited to three simultaneous viewing streams
Missing some channels versus Comcast; examples: History, A&E, Comedy Central, DIY, Nickelodeon, MTV
Some networks replace recordings with OnDemand versions with forced commercials (though in Dec-2019, YTTV removed this restriction for CBS, CW, Smithsonian Channel and PopTV so all major channels are not restricted)
No auto-skip on commercials (though with TiVo this is limited to certain, mainly primetime, shows)
No wishlist functionality (can record by sports team/league though)
Limited recording options - record all showings versus TiVo's all/new only/starting with season/specific channel only/etc. settings
No quickmode playback of shows (TiVo quickmode speeds playback by 30% without audio distortion)
No ability to download recordings
Guide view has a large format such that a limited number of channels and time is shown on screen at a time
Guide only shows up to 7 hours of channel data (23-Dec-2010 This is being changed to a 7-day window. Available first in web version)
No manual recording (channel/time-based)
No slow-motion replay (Note: playback speed is settable in the browser version via the settings menu option on the YouTube TV playback bar. Options include: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, Normal, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2)

Have we missed any key differences?

[02-Dec-2019 Update] We decided to drop Comcast and handed in our cable cards. We're now watching TV on YTTV.
[07-Jan-2019 Update] Sent final payment to Comcast - no more cable bills!

[Edited 15-Nov-2019 to add notes from trip1eX]
[Edited 01-Dec-2019 to add misc notes from further evaluation]
[Edited 03-Dec-2019 to remove "forced commercials" for CBS. YTTV removed this restriction for CBS, CW, Smithsonian Channel and PopTV]
[Edited 18-Dec-2019 to reflect PBS joining the YTTV channel lineup]
[Edited 23-Dec-2019 to reflect guide expanding to 7-days of data]
[Edited 07-Jan-2019] to reflect release of TiVo Mini wireless adapter


----------



## trip1eX

I canceled cable 2 days ago and went to YTTV as well. 

HEre are some other differences (I think) that I have run into in 2 days:

Supposedly it records a football or basketball game etc no matter how long it runs. I hope so because there is no padding of recordings. So far so good.

You can organize the guide channels in the order you want them to appear on YTTV. 

Guide is a little slow to navigate on the ATV using the touchpad. 

YTTV only shows ~7 hours of guide data at a time afaik. 

The guide only shows ~5 channels and 1 1/2 -2 hours of programming at a time. It takes up the entire screen. It does show a nice large channel symbol and picture of what is currently airing for each channel. But the picture results in only 1 1/2 hours being displayed on the screen. 


Doesn't reboot like my Tivo. 

Picture quality has been better overall. IT's a different beast though where once in while I got a bit of lower-res picture for a few moments. With cable & Tivo you won't see that, but I always got blocky picture glitches regularly on my Tivo. So 6 of one, half dozen other so far.

No manual recording.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Supposedly it records a football or basketball game etc no matter how long it runs. I hope so because there is no padding of recordings. So far so good.


If so, that's a good one.

I wonder how it handles the Sunday night primetime issue when NFL football delays the start of shows you're recording?

Or the ESPN issue, where the start of a game is moved to another ESPN channel due to a prior game running long?


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> If so, that's a good one.
> 
> I wonder how it handles the Sunday night primetime issue when NFL football delays the start of shows you're recording?
> 
> Or the ESPN issue, where the start of a game is moved to another ESPN channel due to a prior game running long?


good questions.

I'll find out about the first this weekend. The latter can take awhile to experience. Otherwise Google.


----------



## chiguy50

saeba said:


> The recent TiVo updates (pre-roll and Grid ads, the dubious TiVo+) and the fact that we recently moved from cable internet to an in-building connection have led us to consider dropping TiVo/Comcast and moving to YouTube TV. Here's a list of what we've noticed in considering the change:
> 
> *YouTube TV pros*:
> Unlimited simultaneous recordings
> Unlimited cloud storage
> Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings
> No cable provider required - less cost (we spend ~$1,200 per year on the basic Comcast Xfinity HD Preferred TV package; YouTube TV is ~$600)
> No specialized local hardware to buy/replace (TiVos, hard disks, etc.)
> Stream to PC, phone, tablet, TV - better streaming capabilities than TiVo
> No requirement for wired connectivity to viewing locations (though TiVo has announced a wireless adapter for their Mini)
> Cloud recordings not subject to cable/power outages or video glitches
> 
> *YouTube TV cons:*
> Recordings expire after nine months
> Missing some channels; examples: History, A&E, Comedy Central, PBS, DIY, Nickelodeon, MTV (No must-haves for us)
> Some networks replace recordings with OnDemand versions with forced commercials (example: CBS)
> No auto-skip on commercials (though with TiVo this is limited to certain, mainly primetime, shows)
> No wishlist functionality (can record by sports team/league though)
> No quickmode playback of shows (*TiVo quickmode speeds playback by 30% without audio distortion*)
> No ability to download recordings
> 
> Have we missed any key differences?


QM is now user variable from 1.1X to 1.9X via SPS code.

*Adjusting QuickMode speed via SPS codes*


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> If so, that's a good one.
> 
> I wonder how it handles the Sunday night primetime issue when NFL football delays the start of shows you're recording?
> 
> Or the ESPN issue, where the start of a game is moved to another ESPN channel due to a prior game running long?


YTTV didn't record the beginning of the 2nd NBA game on TNT last night when it was temporarily moved from TNT to the NBA channel because the 1st game ran long. It did record the entire 1st NBA game though even though it ran long.


----------



## mattyro7878

How did it handle the very long NFL game with the riot/assault at the end of the game? This was Thursday night football at it's best!!


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> YTTV didn't record the beginning of the 2nd NBA game on TNT last night when it was temporarily moved from TNT to the NBA channel because the 1st game ran long. It did record the entire 1st NBA game though even though it ran long.


Thanks! Good to know. I suspect covering the case of a temporary channel shift is beyond any current capability. Extending the recording for the entire game automatically is beyond what TiVo can do though one can add time to any TiVo recordings to cover such a possibility. I'd say that's a "Pro" that YouTube TV can auto-extend. I'll add that to my post.

Another note - If the forced commercials on CBS ondemand recordings is an issue, one can purchase CBS All Access with no commercials for $9.99/mo or $99.99/year. This includes their original content such as Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, The Good Fight, etc. CBS All Access streaming apps are available for most devices (Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV, Roku, PS4, Xbox, Apple and Android phones).


----------



## trip1eX

mattyro7878 said:


> How did it handle the very long NFL game with the riot/assault at the end of the game? This was Thursday night football at it's best!!


 lol. I turned off the game with ~4 minutes to go so I didn't see it last night but the recording got it all plus ~45minutes.


----------



## trip1eX

No slow mo replay on YTTV.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> No slow mo replay on YTTV.


You're right! I had missed that one. I'll add.


----------



## mattyro7878

I think we can all agree that we are not going to find anything equal to Tivo in regards to play, trick play, freeze frame and all that. All internet or streaming based video is inferior to Tivo; so much so that I am disappointed when streaming and I want to replay or frame by frame something.


----------



## saeba

mattyro7878 said:


> I think we can all agree that we are not going to find anything equal to Tivo in regards to play, trick play, freeze frame and all that. All internet or streaming based video is inferior to Tivo; so much so that I am disappointed when streaming and I want to replay or frame by frame something.


I think it's up to the individual to decide the value of the pros and cons, I frankly don't think at this point in our evaluation that the TiVo pros are sufficient to pay the additional cost of the TiVo/Comcast solution. But my household doesn't use the frame by frame or slow-mo often at all and we can generally freeze frame on something we want to discuss when streaming. YMMV. That's why I was compiling a list of differences so that people can utilize it in their own evaluations. These are just items to consider.

And FYI - I've owned and used TiVo's for the last 16 years. So it's not an easy decision to move to a different solution.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> No slow mo replay on YTTV.


FYI - You can control the playback speed in Windows via the settings menu option on the YouTube TV playback bar. Options include: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, Normal, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2.


----------



## CelieMom

I'm posting here because I am a new member, have a related question, and can't figure out how to start a new post! I have a several years old TIVO Premiere. I tried YTTV, as I was hoping to cut the cable entirely. But I'm a tennis fan, and I recorded on YTTV the men's semi-finals of Wimbledon back in June and the women's finals. When I tried to watch (and I selected "play from beginning" NOT "play from live"), I found that YTTV had not started recording the men's match (Federer/Nadal!) until somewhere in the second set, and worse, it recorded the women's match from the beginning of the trophy ceremony -completely ruining it for me. That was it. 

But now my question is, if you have YTTV, can you connect your TV to Tivo and record streaming shows??? If so, I would think that you could cut the cable and, in the case of live sports events that are carried on your YTTV package - or any other show - record the streaming show and, if it's a live event, add a few hours to make sure you've recorded long enough. Thoughts? 

And thanks!


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> FYI - You can control the playback speed in Windows via the settings menu option on the YouTube TV playback bar. Options include: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, Normal, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2.


Oh does that then translate to the app on AppleTV? Even if it did, it sounds like too much of a hassle. I mostly only use slo mo to watch some sports play over again to see if he was out of bounds or not or whatever. And for me it's hardly much of a loss to not have it as it is. I rarely used it. Also the video quality of slo mo on my Roamio Plus is not good. Very blurry. So that limited its appeal quite a bit.

It's nice to know I guess.


----------



## trip1eX

CelieMom said:


> I'm posting here because I am a new member, have a related question, and can't figure out how to start a new post! I have a several years old TIVO Premiere. I tried YTTV, as I was hoping to cut the cable entirely. But I'm a tennis fan, and I recorded on YTTV the men's semi-finals of Wimbledon back in June and the women's finals. When I tried to watch (and I selected "play from beginning" NOT "play from live"), I found that YTTV had not started recording the men's match (Federer/Nadal!) until somewhere in the second set, and worse, it recorded the women's match from the beginning of the trophy ceremony -completely ruining it for me. That was it.
> 
> But now my question is, if you have YTTV, can you connect your TV to Tivo and record streaming shows??? If so, I would think that you could cut the cable and, in the case of live sports events that are carried on your YTTV package - or any other show - record the streaming show and, if it's a live event, add a few hours to make sure you've recorded long enough. Thoughts?
> 
> And thanks!


No. Tivo is just for cable or OTA. It doesn't record streams.

Also I've had Tivo mess up tennis and various sports recordings many times. Tivo is dependent on guide data. If it isn't accurate then you're out of luck. YTTV is probably dependent on guide data like Tivo. I do have a feeling that there is more computing intelligence with YTTV where it is smart enough to record sports events that run long or record a show that suddenly starts later. But I will have to use it for months at least to see how good it is at recording events that run long. I used Tivo for ~15 years so I really know what to expect - good and bad.

A couple weekends ago Tivo didn't record the 3pm NFL game on Sunday. The guide data for that particular game I guess was slightly changed and said something like teams TBD or something.

So Tivo isn't going to be a fail-safe solution either. But Tivo does have manual recordings so if you absolutely had to guarantee you had a recording of an event you could go record 24 hrs of channel XYZ.

PS: I noticed a few times already with YTTV that when I went into a recording it appeared to not get the whole event or be some other content. But when I backed out and ..checked a few things (not sure what I did  ) and went back to the Library and back to the recording and played it back from the beginning or from where I left off, all was normal and good. I've ran into a few minor hiccups or glitches like that so far in ~5 days.


----------



## wmcbrine

CelieMom said:


> But now my question is, if you have YTTV, can you connect your TV to Tivo and record streaming shows?


No, the TiVo doesn't record streams. BUT, you could try Channels DVR. It doesn't directly record from a service like YTTV, either, but it uses it to authorize TV Everywhere sites for each channel (note, not all channels will work), and it does record _those_ streams.


----------



## CelieMom

Thanks, everyone! I've rarely had problems with recording sports on Tivo, although I had a glitch yesterday. Things usually start mostly on time, but yesterday I must have neglected to add hours to a recording, and didn't realize there was a doubles match on before the singles, so I missed most of the latter. As a regular follower of 60 Minutes, I learned early on that afternoon football games this time of year delay the start, and Tivo won't pick that up, but I solved that by just adding an hour (2 total) to the season pass, and everything's been fine. 

I guess the answer is that, if you really want to be as sure as possible with these, weighing the likelihood of glitches, it's better to keep the cable and the Tivo. At least I cut the cable - and the expensive box - with two other TVs I don't watch as often, and learned after years that with the cable card in the Tivo, I didn't need that box I was paying for all those years on my one cabled TV!


----------



## tenthplanet

As I learned one year when the NHL Winter Classic was rain delayed, and I missed the game because the Tivo can't get real time updates if a program is moved, data can only do so much. Even with cloud dvr's, they don't get real time updates yet. I now have a new weapon, the Tivo phone app. If a one time event isn't running as scheduled, I can intervene to start and move recordings in real-time if need be.


----------



## trip1eX

tenthplanet said:


> As I learned one year when the NHL Winter Classic was rain delayed, and I missed the game because the Tivo can't get real time updates if a program is moved, data can only do so much. Even with cloud dvr's, they don't get real time updates yet. I now have a new weapon, the Tivo phone app. If a one time event isn't running as scheduled, I can intervene to start and move recordings in real-time if need be.


Yep there is a YTTV app too. There is essentially little to no change switching between YTTV at home and YTTV on your phone. UI is pretty much the same.

The beauty of YTTV on a phone is you can just select a recording and it plays just like at home.

Also it plays the live feed of each channel at the top ~1/4 of the phone as you scroll through the guide.

And of course you can record stuff from the phone or view scheduled recordings.

I imagine some people use the phone as the remote/UI with a Chromecast plugged into a tv.

If I said it runs circles around Tivo's app, it would probably be pretty accurate.

No offline recordings though. And you can't look at 2 weeks of the guide data. YOu can search for upcoming programming. Google likes its search bar.


----------



## saeba

On the TiVo side, I agree with this reviewer:

TiVo Edge review: A once-great DVR in decline

"_So it was a bit surprising when, a couple of months ago, TiVo started stuffing preroll ads into users' DVR recordings. These ads have not turned up on my review unit, and unofficially, you may be able to disable them with a call to customer service. *Still, stomping on a sacrosanct element of the DVR experience is either a tone-deaf decision or a sign that current customers don't matter in the grand scheme of TiVo's business.*_"

and:

"*Ultimately, TiVo+ feels more like a halfhearted attempt to get more ads in front of users than a service that fills an actual need.*"


----------



## tenthplanet

Tone-deaf ? It's a DVR nothing to see here move on.


----------



## SOUTHDAYTONA DON

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I sort of agree with you on the direction this is all going. But for most traditional cable TV subscribers, the main sticking points with going with an OTT streaming cable service like YouTube TV or DirecTV Now would be:
> 
> 1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
> 2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
> 3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
> 4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
> 5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?
> 
> If those points don't apply to you (or you can mentally get past them), then yes, there are definitely things about going the OTT route that make it better. Mainly the fact that your entire TV experience -- live channels, DVR, VOD -- are all available to you on just about any device you want to use, wherever (in the US) you want to use it, as long as you're connected to the internet. And, as you say, they tend to simplify DVR management somewhat. YouTube TV *really* does so -- just "like" a show and all future recordings of it are automatically recorded and added to your library.
> 
> What I expect will happen as traditional cable/telco pay TV providers move toward a cloud-based IPTV system is that their services will become more and more like the OTT services. With Xfinity TV, you can already get a lot of the same experience through the Xfinity Stream app on your phone when away from home as you get on an X1 box on your TV. I think some live channels are still unavailable out-of-home but that will eventually change. Meanwhile, because it's a service offered by the cable company, none of the concerns above apply.
> 
> It's going to be very interesting to see what AT&T does with DirecTV Now this year. I think they're going to morph it into a dual-purpose service so that, for those customers who also have AT&T Internet/Fiber home broadband, none of those 5 concerns above will apply. But unlike Xfinity TV, the service won't JUST be sold to folks with an AT&T line running to their house. It will also be a nationwide OTT service available to anyone with any internet connection, like YouTube TV.


----------



## SOUTHDAYTONA DON

saeba said:


> The recent TiVo updates (pre-roll and Grid ads, the dubious TiVo+) and the fact that we recently moved from cable internet to an in-building connection have led us to consider dropping TiVo/Comcast and moving to YouTube TV. Here's a list of what we've noticed in considering the change:
> 
> *YouTube TV Pros*:
> Unlimited simultaneous recordings
> Unlimited cloud storage
> Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings
> No cable provider required - less cost (we spend ~$1,200 per year on the basic Comcast Xfinity HD Preferred TV package; YouTube TV is ~$600)
> No specialized local hardware to buy/replace (TiVos, hard disks, etc.)
> Stream to PC, phone, tablet, TV - better streaming capabilities than TiVo
> No requirement for wired connectivity to viewing locations (though TiVo has announced a wireless adapter for their Mini)
> Cloud recordings not subject to cable/power outages or video glitches
> Auto-extends recordings to cover sports events running long
> Ability to customize guide view to re-order or remove channels
> 
> *YouTube TV Cons:*
> Recordings expire after nine months
> Missing some channels versus Comcast; examples: History, A&E, Comedy Central, PBS, DIY, Nickelodeon, MTV
> Some networks replace recordings with OnDemand versions with forced commercials (example: CBS [see note 1 below])
> No auto-skip on commercials (though with TiVo this is limited to certain, mainly primetime, shows)
> No wishlist functionality (can record by sports team/league though)
> No quickmode playback of shows (TiVo quickmode speeds playback by 30% without audio distortion)
> No ability to download recordings
> Guide view has a large format such that a limited number of channels and time is shown on screen at a time
> Guide only shows up to 7 hours of channel data
> No manual recording (channel/time-based)
> No slow-motion replay
> 
> (1) Note - If the forced commercials on CBS ondemand recordings are an issue, one can purchase CBS All Access with no commercials for $9.99/mo or $99.99/year. The subscription also includes their original content such as Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, The Good Fight, etc. CBS All Access streaming apps are available for most devices (Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV, Roku, PS4, Xbox, Apple and Android phones).
> 
> Have we missed any key differences?
> 
> [Edited 15-Nov-2019 to add notes from trip1eX]


----------



## saeba

After a couple of weeks of evaluating YouTube TV (YTTV) as an alternative to our TiVo/Comcast setup, we've decided to go with YTTV. After 15+ years of TiVo, we will miss the feature rich experience; however, our key decision points were:

Saving $600+ per year (cost of Comcast over YTTV)
No more maintaining TiVo hardware (replacing failed disk drives, replacing dead TiVos, etc.)
We watch less TV than in the past and more streaming content and TiVo's streaming capabilities are weak (slow/old apps, missing apps, etc.)
TiVo's direction of late (pre-roll and Grid ads, TiVo+, etc.) isn't matching our needs
I've pulled the cable cards from our TiVo's and will be visiting our local Comcast store this week to return and cancel service.


----------



## mdavej

saeba said:


> After a couple of weeks of evaluating YouTube TV (YTTV) as an alternative to our TiVo/Comcast setup, we've decided to go with YTTV.


Good move. I cut the cord a couple of years ago, but recently signed up for YTTV. I'm pleased so far. I miss DD5.1 and a couple of channels like Comedy Central. But the DVR and trick play functions are excellent. I also like how I can "pause" the service and save a few bucks.


----------



## omelet1978

saeba said:


> After a couple of weeks of evaluating YouTube TV (YTTV) as an alternative to our TiVo/Comcast setup, we've decided to go with YTTV. After 15+ years of TiVo, we will miss the feature rich experience; however, our key decision points were:
> 
> Saving $600+ per year (cost of Comcast over YTTV)
> No more maintaining TiVo hardware (replacing failed disk drives, replacing dead TiVos, etc.)
> We watch less TV than in the past and more streaming content and TiVo's streaming capabilities are weak (slow/old apps, missing apps, etc.)
> TiVo's direction of late (pre-roll and Grid ads, TiVo+, etc.) isn't matching our needs
> I've pulled the cable cards from our TiVo's and will be visiting our local Comcast store this week to return and cancel service.


Agreed on all points. I tried the 5 day free trial of YYTV and it's pretty nice. I'm moving to a spot that does not have the ability to use Xfinity, so I'll be using YYTV when I'm there. That being said, once you pay for the cost of Tivo and the boxes it's still just a really nice service to have (TE3 at least).


----------



## moyekj

For you guys trying out or using YTTV what client device are you using? Is there much difference between Roku or Fire Stick 4K experience as far as YTTV goes? Also does YTTV have quick skip functions similar to TiVo (8 seconds back, 30 seconds forwards) and if so, is the lag acceptable? I've always found trick play for cloud/streaming based solutions to be horrible. On Tivo when auto skip is not an option I rapidly press 30 sec skip several times to advance through commercials and get the feeling that may be frustrating to do with YTTV.


----------



## saeba

moyekj said:


> For you guys trying out or using YTTV what client device are you using? Is there much difference between Roku or Fire Stick 4K experience as far as YTTV goes? Also does YTTV have quick skip functions similar to TiVo (8 seconds back, 30 seconds forwards) and if so, is the lag acceptable? I've always found trick play for cloud/streaming based solutions to be horrible. On Tivo when auto skip is not an option I rapidly press 30 sec skip several times to advance through commercials and get the feeling that may be frustrating to do with YTTV.


I use the Nvidia Shield (Android TV). The way YTTV works on the Shield is that when you hit the arrow or ff button on the remote, the playback bar appears and a little video window appears above it (see attached screenshot). Hit the arrow key again, it goes forward 15 secs. Rewind goes back 15 seconds. Hit play to restart playback. I quite like this as you can see your progress through a set of commercials and then hit play once you've located the correct time location. Also, should you see an interesting commercial (like for an upcoming show or movie), you can chose to play it back. This is something my wife disliked about the auto-skip TiVo feature - she missed seeing commercials she wanted to see.










As to lag, I've never noticed it. Forwarding/rewinding seem immediate.

I like auto-skip of commericals best, but this is a close second.


----------



## osu1991

Fire tv works the same as the Shield, with 15sec skips and the thumbnail boxes.


----------



## mdavej

YTTV trick play is instantaneous on Fire TV. I’ve never tried it on Roku.


----------



## dlfl

mdavej said:


> YTTV trick play is instantaneous on Fire TV. I've never tried it on Roku.


Which Fire TV do you have? I have a gen1 Cube and FFW clicks give instantaneous 15 sec jumps with thumbnails, but when I hit play there is about 2 seconds of spinning circle before the video resumes. Holding down FFW gives smooth rapid advancing but again the delay before resuming.


----------



## heyadam

moyekj said:


> For you guys trying out or using YTTV what client device are you using? Is there much difference between Roku or Fire Stick 4K experience as far as YTTV goes? Also does YTTV have quick skip functions similar to TiVo (8 seconds back, 30 seconds forwards) and if so, is the lag acceptable? I've always found trick play for cloud/streaming based solutions to be horrible. On Tivo when auto skip is not an option I rapidly press 30 sec skip several times to advance through commercials and get the feeling that may be frustrating to do with YTTV.


Hi @moyekj

I am through the trial and into the paid subscription to YouTube TV. I have tried it on Roku, Android and Windows 10 (surprisingly good) apps. The experience with skipping commercials is the same on all three: as @saeba said above, you get a pop-up window that shows a frame preview blurred of where you are in the recording with the option to skip ahead 15sec. You can press it multiple times and it is very responsive going ahead in 15sec blocks. Transitioning from TiVo SkipMode auto has been pretty smooth for me and my wife. Although we have to a press a button now, the frame preview is very useful, allowing us to press play when we see the TV rating in the top left corner. We have yet to have a problem skipping forward (unless we are watching VOD where you can't skip the commercials).

Let me make one other point about the move to YouTube TV: One show "The Walking Dead" was six episodes in when I switched. I chose that as a show to record. I thought that I might have to watch the VOD of those six episodes. Within about five days of choosing the show, YTTV recorded all six of those episodes so I could watch them on the DVR and skip commercials. No worries about hard drive space like on the TiVo, of course, because YTTV has an unlimited DVR.

Please see my Pros/Cons list next that supplements the original one posted.


----------



## heyadam

saeba said:


> The recent TiVo updates (pre-roll and Grid ads, the dubious TiVo+) and the fact that we recently moved from cable internet to an in-building connection have led us to consider dropping TiVo/Comcast and moving to YouTube TV. Here's a list of what we've noticed in considering the change:
> 
> *YouTube TV Pros*:
> Unlimited simultaneous recordings
> Unlimited cloud storage
> Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings
> No cable provider required - less cost (we spend ~$1,200 per year on the basic Comcast Xfinity HD Preferred TV package; YouTube TV is ~$600)
> No specialized local hardware to buy/replace (TiVos, TiVo hard disks, etc.)
> Stream to PC, phone, tablet, TV - better streaming capabilities than TiVo
> No requirement for wired connectivity to viewing locations (though TiVo has announced a wireless adapter for their Mini)
> Cloud recordings not subject to cable/power outages or video glitches
> Auto-extends recordings to cover sports events running long
> Ability to customize guide view to re-order or remove channels
> 
> *YouTube TV Cons:*
> Recordings expire after nine months (but no ability to otherwise remove from library)
> Limited to three simultaneous streams
> Missing some channels versus Comcast; examples: History, A&E, Comedy Central, PBS, DIY, Nickelodeon, MTV
> Some networks replace recordings with OnDemand versions with forced commercials (example: CBS [see note 1 below])
> No auto-skip on commercials (though with TiVo this is limited to certain, mainly primetime, shows)
> No wishlist functionality (can record by sports team/league though)
> Limited recording options - record all showings versus TiVo's all/new only/starting with season/specific channel only/etc. settings
> No quickmode playback of shows (TiVo quickmode speeds playback by 30% without audio distortion)
> No ability to download recordings
> Guide view has a large format such that a limited number of channels and time is shown on screen at a time
> Guide only shows up to 7 hours of channel data
> No manual recording (channel/time-based)
> No slow-motion replay (Note: playback speed is settable on PC via the settings menu option on the YouTube TV playback bar. Options include: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, Normal, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2)
> 
> (1) Note - If the forced commercials on CBS ondemand recordings are an issue, one can purchase CBS All Access with no commercials for $9.99/mo or $99.99/year. The subscription also includes their original content such as Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, The Good Fight, etc. CBS All Access streaming apps are available for most devices (Apple TV, Fire TV, Android TV, Roku, PS4, Xbox, Apple and Android phones).
> 
> Have we missed any key differences?
> 
> [Edited 15-Nov-2019 to add notes from trip1eX]
> [Edited 01-Dec-2019 to add misc notes from further evalution]


-----
Let me add a few more.

YouTube TV Pros:
* Can Chromecast Live TV and DVR content to any Chromecast-compatible device such as Google Nest Home Hub/Max, Android TV, Lenovo
* Google Assistant voice interaction for playback
* Option to integrate Premium content for DVR and VOD such as Showtime and Starz
* Similar interface across platforms so easy to learn and use
* More sports channels in the package than competitors such as Hulu and others
* Slow motion and fast motion playback is available in the Windows 10 app (but not other platforms)
* (PBS and PBS Kids coming soon)
* (Recordings can be downloaded with third party software but NOT built-in functionality)

YouTube TV Cons:
* No HBO in Premium channel add-ons (probably Ok since HBO Max will only be available via a direct HBO NOW subscription in March 2020)
* Somewhat hard to tell what new shows have been recently recorded (no list view or date sort option like TiVo)
* Probably giving up LOTS of viewing information to Google rather than a smaller company like Rovi


----------



## moyekj

heyadam said:


> -----
> * (Recordings can be downloaded with third party software but NOT built-in functionality)


 Interesting. Are you talking about something like Playon or actually being able to download the recording from YTTV in native form?



heyadm said:


> * No HBO in Premium channel add-ons (probably Ok since HBO Max will only be available via a direct HBO NOW subscription in March 2020)


 I use Amazon Prime channels to occasionally subscribe a month at a time to HBO, so that is another option.


----------



## heyadam

moyekj said:


> Interesting. Are you talking about something like Playon or actually being able to download the recording from YTTV in native form?
> 
> I use Amazon Prime channels to occasionally subscribe a month at a time to HBO, so that is another option.


@moyekj PlayOn doesn't yet have support for YouTube TV and they dropped the browser plugin about one major version ago. I use Replay Media Catcher (or TubeDigger in REC mode) with the browser option and it automatically finds the video player frame and records it to MP4 720p 30fps. No direct downloader...yet. YouTube TV uses WideVine L3, though, so there are no tools in the wild to do so but they do exist in private groups. While this isn't the best solution because it is not the native file download in best quality, it suffices for archive purposes and offline viewing for the kids. I cut the commercials with Replay Splitter but there are freeware tools, too.

PM me if you would like any tips that go beyond this, uh, fair use discussion.


----------



## mdavej

dlfl said:


> Which Fire TV do you have? I have a gen1 Cube and FFW clicks give instantaneous 15 sec jumps with thumbnails, but when I hit play there is about 2 seconds of spinning circle before the video resumes. Holding down FFW gives smooth rapid advancing but again the delay before resuming.


Current gen. I don't recall any delay on play. But I can't verify as I have my plan paused for the next few weeks.


----------



## trip1eX

Commercial skip works great. You can voice commercial skip too. with the right setup, you can say skip 2 minutes 30 seconds and it starts playing again ~2 seconds later at least on the AppleTV. 

I started to like the thumbnails too for same reason as a poster above - they give you a preview of where you are at without spoiling anything so you can go back if you want. Also you don't have to be alert to stopping exactly at the right time like you do if you were fast forwarding through something. 

ON AppleTV you can right click or left click on touchpad and it insta-skip forward/backward 15 seconds. (no thumbnails.) If you tap right or left, it brings up the thumbnails like other devices. It has been more responsive than my Mini connected to my Roamio Plus was. 

ON a TCL Roku tv it is slower going back to the menus than the AppleTV and probably a tad slower at fast forwarding. It doesn't look like the Roku Tv can insta-skip forward/backward 15 seconds (without bringing up thumbnails.)

You can't really constantly skip forward and backward though on YTTV in my experience. Doing so likely to lead to beachballs/minor hiccups/spining circles.


I returned my cablecard a few days after getting the service. IT's been ~3 weeks now. I'm going to put my Tivo setup up on Ebay or something. 


I like Youtube TV better than Tivo before we talk about the cost savings. Unlimited storage and unlimited tuners is awesome. You pretty quickly start to feel like something is missing because there is no prioritizing recordings and there is no deleting anything. It seems too simple.

Oh noticed another Pro although haven't tested it to know how it exactly works. When I was beaming a game to my Dad's tv from my phone during the holiday, I noticed a 3rd viewing option besides start live and start at the beginning and that was "quickly catch up to live by watching key plays" or something like that. That was interesting. It's not on the apps on AppleTV or Roku though.


The guide only goes out ~7 hrs. So if you're used to skimming the guide to see what's coming and maybe coming across something that interests you that you hadn't thought of recording...well you can't do that. You can search though. And it does have recommendations and that sort of thing. Also on AppleTV and on a rokuTV too it's slow to move up and down that guide. This could easily be fixed. I mean on AppleTV scrolling up/down on edge of trackpad is a method used by other apps to scroll up/down very fast.


----------



## dlfl

YouTube TV tweeted this today (2 Dec 2019):

What's sweeter than unlimited DVR space? Full control of your recorded shows! Starting today, you can ️⏸, ⏪, & ⏩ through your @CBS, Smithsonian Channel, & POP TV favorites to your heart's content.

So the major complaint about CBS recordings has been eliminated.


----------



## saeba

dlfl said:


> YouTube TV tweeted this today (2 Dec 2019):
> 
> What's sweeter than unlimited DVR space? Full control of your recorded shows! Starting today, you can ️⏸, ⏪, & ⏩ through your @CBS, Smithsonian Channel, & POP TV favorites to your heart's content.
> 
> So the major complaint about CBS recordings has been eliminated.


Yes, just saw this and updated my comparison post (#78) in this thread - here's the direct link: Anyone tried Youtube Tv and can compare it to Tivo?. They also said they removed this restriction for CW as well. So YTTV is an even better choice!


----------



## moyekj

For series recordings I understand from this thread YTTV has very limited options compared to TiVo, but how bad is it? Does it record all episodes aired regardless of new or old? Does it record the exact same episode more than once? Is there an easy way to tell from recordings list what season and episode numbers are without having to go into details of each and every recording? Does it categorize different recordings of series as folders or is it just one big flat list of recordings listed in no particular good order? If you just get a long list of recordings not sorted in any smart way by season and episode (and even worse, inter-mixed with other shows) then it could get very frustrating compared to TiVo experience.


----------



## moyekj

If someone can point me to a good demo of using YTTV that would be appreciated. I searched around but have yet to find a good demo without a bunch of marketing fluff.


----------



## saeba

moyekj said:


> For series recordings I understand from this thread YTTV has very limited options compared to TiVo, but how bad is it? Does it record all episodes aired regardless of new or old? Does it record the exact same episode more than once? Is there an easy way to tell from recordings list what season and episode numbers are without having to go into details of each and every recording? Does it categorize different recordings of series as folders or is it just one big flat list of recordings listed in no particular good order? If you just get a long list of recordings not sorted in any smart way by season and episode (and even worse, inter-mixed with other shows) then it could get very frustrating compared to TiVo experience.


From my experience over the past weeks....
(1) It's not bad. I think as @trip1eX said, it's so simple that it makes it easy. You just say you want a show and with unlimited simultaneous recordings and unlimited storage, YTTV gets it.
(2) It records all episodes. Does not seem to duplicate.
(3) I'll post some screenshots to show the UI on the Nvidia Shield.

Here's the main library page:









Here's scheduled recordings (the To Do list):









And here's a program folder:










It also does show a progress bar or completion on shows watched:


----------



## saeba

moyekj said:


> If someone can point me to a good demo of using YTTV that would be appreciated. I searched around but have yet to find a good demo without a bunch of marketing fluff.


I'd suggest just taking a free trial. You should be able to test via either a mobile app or PC if you don't have a streaming device with YTTV. They're having a cyber week special this week with a 3-week free trial.


----------



## saeba

And here's the YTTV guide....


----------



## trip1eX

Yeah just do a free trial. It takes a minute at most to sign up and less time to cancel via app or website. You only need a gmail address, and credit card.


----------



## dlfl

Using my incredible powers of deduction (  ) here's how the YTTV DVR works:
They simply record and keep copies (on their servers) of every program aired on every channel they provide for the last nine months (or less depending on the terms imposed by the channel programming provider). Or for some channels maybe they let the program source's servers keep the copies (??). For each subscriber they just keep a small database of what programs you record ("add to your library") and when you started (and ended if applicable) recording them, and timeline pointers of your viewing history. 

Your access to VOD (possibly with unskippable commercials) or "recorded" (with skippable commercials) programs depends on several factors:
1. Whether the program has aired on ANY of their provided channels during the time you were "recording" it. If so, this enables access to a "recording" as opposed to VOD.
2. The terms of their agreement with the program provider. (Which sets time limits on availability of both VOD and "recorded" versions.)

That's how you provide a DVR functionality with virtually unlimited capacity.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> Using my incredible powers of deduction (  ) here's how the YTTV DVR works:
> They simply record and keep copies (on their servers) of every program aired on every channel they provide for the last nine months (or less depending on the terms imposed by the channel programming provider). Or for some channels maybe they let the program source's servers keep the copies (??). For each subscriber they just keep a small database of what programs you record ("add to your library") and when you started (and ended if applicable) recording them, and timeline pointers of your viewing history.
> 
> Your access to VOD (possibly with unskippable commercials) or "recorded" (with skippable commercials) programs depends on several factors:
> 1. Whether the program has aired on ANY of their provided channels during the time you were "recording" it. If so, this enables access to a "recording" as opposed to VOD.
> 2. The terms of their agreement with the program provider. (Which sets time limits on availability of both VOD and "recorded" versions.)
> 
> That's how you provide a DVR functionality with virtually unlimited capacity.


yeah that's roughly how it works I'd guess.

Although technically not sure Google can record stuff on their own or if they need at least 1 user to click record first.  I'd also guess they temporarily clone recordings as needed. Only so many people can playback a recording from a harddrive at the same time. And they probably have some formula for how many separate recordings to store for a given show based on how many record it and how much those recordings are watched at a given time.

Substituting VoD instead of a recording seems to be all about contracts with program providers. Only had it happen once in ~3 weeks. A Premiere League soccer match on NBC gave me 3 options to watch. VoD, Spanish VoD and Spanish recording. All other premiere league matches I've watched haven't had this although vast majority are on NBCSports. Not sure why this one was singled out although it was a higher profile match. I watched the Spanish recording. It wasn't all bad because the announcer was the guy famous for screaming GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL after every goal and then saying it again for about as long in a slightly different manner before finally announcing who scored it. It was interesting.


----------



## samccfl99

Horrible remote control actions and it takes a lot of data, especially if running multiple tv's. Comcast usually caps at 1TB. But it seems to record many things at a time...really, I stopped at 7 when I tested it at a friend's before he cancelled. Too bad it sucked because you get 5 or 6 users as a Family Share and I would have liked to record and store more stuff as one of those users. Oh Well, NOT made for Adults!


----------



## saeba

samccfl99 said:


> Horrible remote control actions...


Certainly not my experience. What version were you running (Android TV, Apple TV, Roku, etc.)?


----------



## saeba

Just saw this.... When Will PBS Come to YouTube TV? You Asked, We Answer - Cord Cutters News

Earlier this year PBS announced that they had reached a deal with YouTube TV to bring PBS and PBS Kids to the service. According to PBS, they will be streaming on YouTube TV by the end of 2019.

Originally, PBS stations said November 4, 2019, would be the launch date, but a few days before PBS was set to go live, several PBS stations said that the launch had been delayed a few weeks. Now, when asked, PBS stations say that their contracts prevent them from commenting on any launch date other than to say they still plan to launch before the end of 2019.

So the good news is PBS is still planning to launch on YouTube TV by the end of December 2019. According to several sources, YouTube TV has the final say on when PBS and PBS Kids will go live on the service.


----------



## mschnebly

saeba said:


> [
> 
> Certainly not my experience. What version were you running (Android TV, Apple TV, Roku, etc.)?


Same here. Works great for me using an ATV4k


----------



## samccfl99

saeba said:


> [
> 
> Certainly not my experience. What version were you running (Android TV, Apple TV, Roku, etc.)?


ROKU...Just can't compare at all to what comcast gives you as a provider. This was about 6 months ago.


----------



## dlfl

samccfl99 said:


> Horrible remote control actions and it takes a lot of data, especially if running multiple tv's. Comcast usually caps at 1TB. But it seems to record many things at a time...really, I stopped at 7 when I tested it at a friend's before he cancelled. Too bad it sucked because you get 5 or 6 users as a Family Share and I would have liked to record and store more stuff as one of those users. Oh Well, NOT made for Adults!


Looks like you just don't understand how the YTTV DVR works. See posts 125 and 126. Recordings don't use your internet capacity because they don't store on your device. Only the streaming when you_ watch_ a recording (or live or VOD) uses your capacity. Internet usage is no different than Netflix or any other streaming service.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Substituting VoD instead of a recording seems to be all about contracts with program providers. Only had it happen once in ~3 weeks. A Premiere League soccer match on NBC gave me 3 options to watch. VoD, Spanish VoD and Spanish recording.


I think that YTTV has completely ended their practice of substituting VOD in place of cloud DVR recordings. They were doing it on CBS-owned channels (CBS, Pop, and Smithsonian Channel) but that just ended:

YouTube TV Removes All DVR Limitations on CBS Owned Channels - Cord Cutters News

As far as your specific example with regard to the soccer match, my hunch is that was some sort of glitch. Why would they offer the recording in Spanish if YTTV only had the rights to offer the VOD version? Can't imagine that NBC or the Premiere League contractually specified that only the Spanish, but not the English, version be made available for cloud DVR.

Anyhow, with this new development on CBS channels, it looks like YTTV at $50 is the best value right now in terms of streaming cable TV services as long as you don't need Viacom channels, A+E channels (A&E, History, Lifetime), or Hallmark channels, all of which YTTV lacks. But who knows how long that might be the case. It looks like YTTV is considering other options, including a $60 service.

YouTube TV is Surveying Subscribers About a New $59.99 Package - Cord Cutters News


----------



## Matty-Matt

I tired a trial of YTTV to watch the world series games, because I no longer subscribe to cable/satellite. YTTV seemed to work reasonably well with my Roku Smart TV, as most streaming apps do. The only drawbacks are that it's time-shift control lacks the precision, there is no commercial auto-skip, and it consumes internet bandwidth causing the performance of other devices to suffer. Also, there's the matter of cost ($49.99/month). I think the most cost effective approach is subscribing to a few basic streaming services (Hulu, Netflix) and use OTA for prime-time and local programming. Of course, this all depends on your personal viewing habits and whether you have good OTA reception. Nowadays there are plenty of choices, and I don't mind giving up basic cable programing, most of which I never watched in the first place. I'm currently paying $29.99/month combined for Tivo/Hulu/Netflix, and I'm fully contented. Here is a good article from Grounded Reason YouTube TV Channel List, Cost and Review | Grounded Reason


----------



## trip1eX

Matty-Matt said:


> I tired a trial of YTTV to watch the world series games, because I no longer subscribe to cable/satellite. YTTV seemed to work reasonably well with my Roku Smart TV, as most streaming apps do. The only drawbacks are that it's time-shift control lacks the precision, there is no commercial auto-skip, and it consumes internet bandwidth causing the performance of other devices to suffer. Also, there's the matter of cost ($49.99/month). I think the most cost effective approach is subscribing to a few basic streaming services (Hulu, Netflix) and use OTA for prime-time and local programming. Of course, this all depends on your personal viewing habits and whether you have good OTA reception. Nowadays there are plenty of choices, and I don't mind giving up basic cable programing, most of which I never watched in the first place. I'm currently paying $29.99/month combined for Tivo/Hulu/Netflix, and I'm fully contented. Here is a good article from Grounded Reason YouTube TV Channel List, Cost and Review | Grounded Reason


I didn't notice any lack of precision compared to Tivo. The only thing I can think of that isn't as precise as Tivo is you can't slowly ff/rw through something whether it's slow mo or the 1x ff/rw capability of Tivo. For me, that just isn't something I did with Tivo very much. Otherwise it skips forward/backward 15 seconds. And you can use voice to skip to any pt in time in the recording or go forward/backward any amount of time which is pretty precise. And you can also very rapidly, faster than Tivo, scrub your way to any 15 second pt in time in the recording. The effect of which is you can to whatever pt in time you want quicker which is really what precision is ultimately all about (at least to me.)

I haven't noticed any effect on internet performance in my house. Granted it runs over a cat6 (wired) network in my home so it (at least) isn't sucking up wireless bandwidth in a part of the house where it could be pretty low to begin with which could affect connections to the internet. Otherwise I only have 100mbps and currently 3 people in the household. 4th is in college.

The cost is cheap compared to what it replaces - the cost of cable plus dvr system.

IF you don't need or watch cable programming then yes there isn't a reason to get it. Really without sports I wouldn't need it and could do without it.

btw, link to article is just a copy and paste of what you find on the YTTV webpage.


----------



## moyekj

My latest Cox billing just the TV portion (I get TV, phone, internet) was $115, and that's a pretty basic lineup with no premiums at all. I called and argued that I can get YTTV for $50 and has everything I need. Retention claimed that if I used Cox Contour (which requires using their hardware instead of TiVos) I could get the TV price easily down to $79 including HBO thrown in for free. But from my point of view if I could no longer use TiVos with Cox TV then I would certainly want to get rid of Cox TV completely. I eventually got my current "Advanced TV" package required to use with cablecards down to $90 ($25 less than I had been paying), but to keep that I have to keep calling them once a year to preserve the discount. Better than nothing but still way over-priced. One issue I just found with YTTV is Spectrum Sports Net is not part of YTTV channels which means that most Lakers games would not be available to me anymore which is kind of a deal breaker. In any case I'm glad services such as YTTV are providing competition and I'm sure one day I'll probably switch over to such a service, but for now I'll stick with what I have until TiVo forces me to look for an alternative.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> I think that YTTV has completely ended their practice of substituting VOD in place of cloud DVR recordings. They were doing it on CBS-owned channels (CBS, Pop, and Smithsonian Channel) but that just ended:
> 
> YouTube TV Removes All DVR Limitations on CBS Owned Channels - Cord Cutters News
> 
> As far as your specific example with regard to the soccer match, my hunch is that was some sort of glitch. Why would they offer the recording in Spanish if YTTV only had the rights to offer the VOD version? Can't imagine that NBC or the Premiere League contractually specified that only the Spanish, but not the English, version be made available for cloud DVR.
> 
> Anyhow, with this new development on CBS channels, it looks like YTTV at $50 is the best value right now in terms of streaming cable TV services as long as you don't need Viacom channels, A+E channels (A&E, History, Lifetime), or Hallmark channels, all of which YTTV lacks. But who knows how long that might be the case. It looks like YTTV is considering other options, including a $60 service.
> 
> YouTube TV is Surveying Subscribers About a New $59.99 Package - Cord Cutters News


Yeah I read that. And yes as far as my example goes, maybe the Premiere League game was being simultaneously aired on Telemundo and YTTV recorded that version and not the NBC version. Also I can't even say for sure if the game even aired on NBC here. I didn't check the guide or anything.

And when you do a season pass you just click add to library. I think it showed sports to record and I just clicked on each league or series or whatever and clicked add and that was it. There is no setting number of episodes, HD or no HD, repeats or new, channels to record, start and stop times, and all that stuff. LIke I said in an earlier post between this and unlimited storage and unlimited tuners, you feel like something is missing. lol. And yet so far everything seems the same as Tivo as far there are my shows. I can watch them.

Note: soccer doesn't have commercials so VoD would have been fine, but the VoD quality of this specific match was terrible. It was like 1/2 the frame rate.

And I think YTTV was already the best choice even before the CBS no-forced VoD annoucement. But I don't really watch any CBS channels.

Yeah I saw something about a survey and $60 price point and more features like offline recordings and more simultaneous streams and presumably more channels ...

YTTV is missing a few big cable channels. A&E, History, LIfetime and other channels owned by A&E networks. The Viacom channels also aren't present.....Nik, MTV, comedy channel, ... Hallmark isn't there either. Neither is NFL Network. So there are holes in the channel lineup. That could bug some people. For me, ...basically I'm there for sports. I could do without cable otherwise.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> YTTV is missing a few big cable channels. A&E, History, LIfetime and other channels owned by A&E networks. The Viacom channels also aren't present.....Nik, MTV, comedy channel,


Yes, I think @NashGuy covered this quite well earlier in this thread when he posted the following guidance:

_1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?_​
Hopefully, there's sufficient info in this thread about YTTV that people can make their own determination and do a fair evaluation of options.

I was quite fortunate that my building has 100/100mbps Internet Service with no data cap for ~$6/month as part of our HOA fees. That set off a cascade of decisions for me - to drop Comcast Internet Service and then to drop Comcast TV. YTTV did have the majority of the channels I wanted and certainly all of my must haves.The YTTV interface, while very different from TiVo, still met my requirements.

But all of this will vary depending on individual situations.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> YTTV is missing a few big cable channels. A&E, History, LIfetime and other channels owned by A&E networks. The Viacom channels also aren't present.....Nik, MTV, comedy channel, ... Hallmark isn't there either. Neither is NFL Network. So there are holes in the channel lineup. That could bug some people. For me, ...basically I'm there for sports. I could do without cable otherwise.


Yeah, I think YTTV has done a good job of assembling their channel package by focusing on locals, sports and news channels. For folks who have broadband and are comfortable streaming, those three categories of linear channels are the main reasons to even bother with cable TV.


----------



## hefe

It works for me because it carries all the channels I want. In fact, I preferred when it was a little cheaper before they added the last few channels. All I need is AMC, BBC America, ESPN, CNN, FS1, NBCSN, MLB Network. I hardly watch any other cable channels.

Additional benefits that put it over the top...I signed up from my previous home, so I get my old (Chicago) locals on my set top box. I like that I can watch the network content 1 hour earlier in my time zone by watching the Chicago channels.  

I have YTTV and TiVo Roamio OTA. I find that I leave my TV input on the box with YTTV most of the time, and often watch things on it that are also recorded on the TiVo.


----------



## jzinckgra

NashGuy said:


> I think that YTTV has completely ended their practice of substituting VOD in place of cloud DVR recordings. They were doing it on CBS-owned channels (CBS, Pop, and Smithsonian Channel) but that just ended:
> 
> YouTube TV Removes All DVR Limitations on CBS Owned Channels - Cord Cutters News
> 
> As far as your specific example with regard to the soccer match, my hunch is that was some sort of glitch. Why would they offer the recording in Spanish if YTTV only had the rights to offer the VOD version? Can't imagine that NBC or the Premiere League contractually specified that only the Spanish, but not the English, version be made available for cloud DVR.
> 
> Anyhow, with this new development on CBS channels, it looks like YTTV at $50 is the best value right now in terms of streaming cable TV services as long as you don't need Viacom channels, A+E channels (A&E, History, Lifetime), or Hallmark channels, all of which YTTV lacks. But who knows how long that might be the case. It looks like YTTV is considering other options, *including a $60 service.*
> 
> YouTube TV is Surveying Subscribers About a New $59.99 Package - Cord Cutters News


At which point, prices start creeping up to where cable/satellite are. you know it's a matter of time then people will complain how expensive streaming TV is until the next technology knocks them off


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Yes, I think @NashGuy covered this quite well earlier in this thread when he posted the following guidance:
> 
> _1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
> 2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
> 3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
> 4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
> 5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?_​
> Hopefully, there's sufficient info in this thread about YTTV that people can make their own determination and do a fair evaluation of options. I was quite fortunate that my building has 100/100mbps Internet Service with no data cap for ~$6/month as part of our HOA fees. That set off a cascade of decisions for me - to drop Comcast Internet Service and then to drop Comcast TV. YTTV did have the majority of the channels I wanted and certainly all of my must haves.The YTTV interface, while very different from TiVo, still met my requirements.
> 
> But all of this will vary depending on individual situations.


Yeah best thing to do is just try it for free. And you can try it for free multiple times. Just use a different email and credit card each time. I think that does the trick. Then if you have a significant other, use their email and credit cards. You can go 4 months easily that way. Then call up your Mom and borrow their credit card number to secure another free trial. (I actually did this a year ago for YTTV because I wanted to test locals and my area didn't have them and my credit card data grounded me to only my local area.) Oh and a new idea just came to me, Apple Card. Yeah I signed up for that and anyway you change your credit card number right on the phone. I wonder if that would allow a person to keep using the same card for free trial after free trial. Would that get by Google's system? Maybe. /tangent. Point is free trial it.

And I like it more now than I did when I was trialing it. So much that, even though I think about not getting cable at all, I will continue with it for awhile becasue it's simple and works great. Knock on wood.


----------



## jzinckgra

hefe said:


> It works for me because it carries all the channels I want. In fact, I preferred when it was a little cheaper before they added the last few channels. *All I need is AMC, BBC America, ESPN, CNN, FS1, NBCSN, MLB Network.* I hardly watch any other cable channels.
> 
> Additional benefits that put it over the top...I signed up from my previous home, so I get my old (Chicago) locals on my set top box. I like that I can watch the network content 1 hour earlier in my time zone by watching the Chicago channels.
> 
> I have YTTV and TiVo Roamio OTA. I find that I leave my TV input on the box with YTTV most of the time, and often watch things on it that are also recorded on the TiVo.


This is just like cable/satellite. You get a lot of fluff channels you don't need. Why can't they offer ala carte?


----------



## saeba

jzinckgra said:


> This is just like cable/satellite. You get a lot of fluff channels you don't need. Why can't they offer ala carte?


As people have been asking this question since the very beginning of cable channel packages, I can only guess that by offering channels in large packages, they use volume of watchers to lower the prices (quantity discounts). So if you pick and choose, the less popular channels become very expensive, so still fewer people pick them and they become even more expensive....


----------



## NashGuy

jzinckgra said:


> This is just like cable/satellite. You get a lot of fluff channels you don't need. Why can't they offer ala carte?


We'll never get a la carte in the sense of individual linear channels being offered. "I'd like to purchase ESPN 2 and Discovery Family, please, and only those two specific channels." But what we ARE moving towards is each network owner offering their own direct-to-consumer streaming service that offers all, or nearly all, of the content available on their various linear channels.

That's what HBO Max is for WarnerMedia. That's what Hulu combined with Disney+ is for Disney. That's what Peacock will become for NBCUniversal. That's probably what CBS All Access combined with Showtime will become for ViacomCBS. Discovery is cooking up one or two big new streaming services for 2020 too. The only significant cable network operators that leaves are Fox, A+E, and Hallmark. Since Fox focuses on content typically consumed live (sports, news, reality/competition), and they probably have some kind of long-term tie-up with Hulu for on-demand rights to the Fox broadcast network's shows, they have no plans to launch their own streaming service. As for A+E (which owns the A&E, History, and Lifetime cable nets) and Hallmark, I'd say it's just a matter of time until they get swallowed up by one of the bigger fish. Discovery, which has a focus on unscripted content, would be the most logical buyer for A&E and History and their content libraries to put on their own forthcoming streaming service. Lifetime and the Hallmark nets would make sense as part of either ViacomCBS or NBCUniversal.


----------



## mschnebly

The best part of all this is we are no longer locked into just 2 options... either cable with it's contracts and price or OTA with it's problems with antennae. The better YTTV gets the better the others will have to be to keep competitive. Over time I'm betting we will get better choices and better PQ. Soon the days of just 1 ISP will be gone. I'm using T-Mobile Home with no data caps instead of having to go with COX at 1T. Couldn't do that even a year ago. More choices are coming. Channels DVR with TVE, etc pick and choose.


----------



## trip1eX

mschnebly said:


> The best part of all this is we are no longer locked into just 2 options... either cable with it's contracts and price or OTA with it's problems with antennae. The better YTTV gets the better the others will have to be to keep competitive. Over time I'm betting we will get better choices and better PQ. Soon the days of just 1 ISP will be gone. I'm using T-Mobile Home with no data caps instead of having to go with COX at 1T. Couldn't do that even a year ago. More choices are coming. Channels DVR with TVE, etc pick and choose.


true except satellite was already competition for pay tv. Most people always had the choice of DTV, Dish or cable.

And ultimately even YTTV is still just the old legacy tv model that is going to die out. Sports is really the only thing keeping it up.


----------



## NashGuy

hefe said:


> I have YTTV and TiVo Roamio OTA. I find that I leave my TV input on the box with YTTV most of the time, and often watch things on it that are also recorded on the TiVo.


Why even bother with the Roamio OTA when you've got YTTV? Is it just for those locals that YTTV doesn't carry, like PBS and diginets like MeTV? Although YTTV will be getting PBS soon and there's a free PBS app that streams nearly all their recent stuff. If I subscribed to any cable TV service, I don't think I'd even bother with OTA, especially if it meant switching TV inputs...


----------



## hefe

NashGuy said:


> Why even bother with the Roamio OTA when you've got YTTV?


I had it first, it's paid for lifetime.

Plus, it records my current locals, while YTTV records my Chicago locals.


----------



## dlfl

jzinckgra said:


> This is just like cable/satellite. You get a lot of fluff channels you don't need. Why can't they offer ala carte?





jzinckgra said:


> At which point, prices start creeping up to where cable/satellite are. you know it's a matter of time then people will complain how expensive streaming TV is until the next technology knocks them off


Streaming TV will not be a long-term solution to either the high cost of content or being forced to take packages with fluff. These things occur due to factors that are present regardless of the delivery mechanism. But it's a great thing anyway for at least two reasons:
1. Competition with cable TV and SATTV has to be a good thing.
2. Giving many of us freedom from being jerked around by cable TV.

#2 is a huge factor to me personally. My experience with Spectrum cable was a major PITA in several ways:
1. Virtually non-existent support for the required Tuning Adapter.
2. Every year (or even more often) a huge price increase and painful hours spent on the phone needed to get even a small reduction.
3. They even made cutting cable and returning my CableCARD and TA an insultingly painful experience that took several hours.

They got away with some of this because they are a local monopoly. That's why the competition offered by streaming services is important.*

I turned in my TA on 22 Nov and was sorry I couldn't take it out in a field and smash it with a sledge hammer. (Equipment charge would be over $100.). So far I'm loving YTTV and singing "free at last, free at last". 

*Unfortunately Spectrum is currently a local monopoly for internet but that is ending. Metronet is building out fiber-to-the-home here with Gigabit service at prices already competitive with Spectrum.


----------



## osu1991

Data caps 

It wastes data watching locals over YTTV, if you already have a TiVo with lifetime service and OTA for locals.

If however, you’re like my sister and have symmetrical 500/500 fiber service and no data cap from windstream, then yes, don’t bother switching inputs and just use TiVo as backup in case of an outage or for local content not available via a streaming service.


----------



## samsauce29

@dlfl Wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment! YouTube TV is certainly NOT TiVo in terms of trick play. At least not yet. But, the ability to never speak to Spectrum sales or retention again is priceless!


----------



## dlfl

Of course, as soon as I said how much I liked YTTV, a major fail tonight. Tried to play my recording of tonight's "The Five" on Fox News and get nothing but spinning circles forever. Everything else seems fine.

This was using my Fire TV Cube. The same recording plays OK on my iPad app.


----------



## moyekj

Greg is messing with you.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Greg is messing with you.


That's not funny! I need my dose of Greg tonight -- on a big screen!


----------



## saeba

FYI - Another nice new feature coming to YTTV - YouTube TV Will Soon Be Adding a Mark as Watched Option for DVR & On-Demand Programs - Cord Cutters News.

_One of the most requested features for the YouTube TV app is the ability to mark shows and movies in your Library as watched. With the way YouTube TV adds every program of a show, many have hoped that they would be able to mark a show as watched so it would no longer be recommended._


----------



## dlfl

dlfl said:


> Of course, as soon as I said how much I liked YTTV, a major fail tonight. Tried to play my recording of tonight's "The Five" on Fox News and get nothing but spinning circles forever. Everything else seems fine.
> 
> This was using my Fire TV Cube. The same recording plays OK on my iPad app.


And of course, this morning that episode _will_ play, and I get an email response from YTTV thanking me for reporting the problem but they _couldn't_ fix it. 

Edit -- update:
This morning the same problem with recording of "Morning Joe", but only on the Fire TV Cube and not for other recordings made this morning. Had a long chat with YTTV and they finally "escalated" case to support.


----------



## moyekj

If TiVo ever rolls out pre-roll ads or TiVo+ guide entries to T3 TiVos (non Hydra) then that will be my cue to switch to YTTV or something similar.


----------



## ManeJon

My son has YTTV and really likes it. What he misses (or maybe can't find how) is to record a program that is currently on- so he wants to record a sports because he has to go out or wants to so he can watch in a while and skip ads. Maybe he just hasn't figured out how to yet


----------



## mdavej

ManeJon said:


> My son has YTTV and really likes it. What he misses (or maybe can't find how) is to record a program that is currently on- so he wants to record a sports because he has to go out or wants to so he can watch in a while and skip ads. Maybe he just hasn't figured out how to yet


It records live from the moment he hits the "+".


----------



## trip1eX

ManeJon said:


> My son has YTTV and really likes it. What he misses (or maybe can't find how) is to record a program that is currently on- so he wants to record a sports because he has to go out or wants to so he can watch in a while and skip ads. Maybe he just hasn't figured out how to yet


Press down/scroll down on remote while watching the live show and move over to the "+" option and select it to "add to library" which is a euphemism for record and/or season pass.


----------



## HerronScott

mdavej said:


> I cut the cord a couple of years ago, but recently signed up for YTTV. I'm pleased so far. I miss DD5.1


I didn't see this one mentioned in the lists of Pros/Cons and it would be a big con for us.

Scott


----------



## dlfl

FYI for those using YTTV app on Fire TV devices:
Updated on 12/6/2019 to Ver. 1.5.64.0, described as "Support for Fire TV improvements and bug fixes". Can always hope this addressed the issue I had escalated recently in which several recordings would not play (spinning circles forever) until they were about a day old.


----------



## dlfl

trip1eX said:


> Press down/scroll down on remote while watching the live show and move over to the "+" option and select it to "add to library" which is a euphemism for record and/or season pass.


I just did this on my Fire TV app for a program ("Click") in progress on BBC World News. It did create a recording starting at the point where I did it, although it seemed strange to me the recording shows up in my library in the "Shows" section rather than in "New in your library". Maybe this was because the program in question was a repeat, which BBC World does a lot of?

Also, although I had joined this program half way through, the _live_ playback offered access via rewind to the entire program from its starting point. Given this, it seems like the "recording" could easily include the entire show, instead of just from the point where I added it to the library.

Both minor points, I admit.


----------



## samccfl99

mschnebly said:


> The best part of all this is we are no longer locked into just 2 options... either cable with it's contracts and price or OTA with it's problems with antennae. The better YTTV gets the better the others will have to be to keep competitive. Over time I'm betting we will get better choices and better PQ. Soon the days of just 1 ISP will be gone. I'm using T-Mobile Home with no data caps instead of having to go with COX at 1T. Couldn't do that even a year ago. More choices are coming. Channels DVR with TVE, etc pick and choose.


I just checked that T-Mobile Home out and they want ALL of your info just to check availability. How fast could it be on LTE? Terrible in my location in Broward County, FL. When 5G comes, that would solve that problem, if there is one. In some places around here, I could get 20mb down (if the Speedtest app is correct...LOL). That would be enough to stream. But inside my condo, I am lucky to get 8 without wifi...


----------



## samccfl99

dlfl said:


> Looks like you just don't understand how the YTTV DVR works. See posts 125 and 126. Recordings don't use your internet capacity because they don't store on your device. Only the streaming when you_ watch_ a recording (or live or VOD) uses your capacity. Internet usage is no different than Netflix or any other streaming service.


I never said that. I know that data is taken up by streaming and not recording. Also YTTV is being watched much more than Netflix in most households, I am assuming. Too much Fake Fox News on that brain of yours (of which I do remember your username...). Figures. Sorry, but you said the F word...LOL


----------



## JoeKustra

dlfl said:


> Recordings don't use your internet capacity because they don't store on your device.


Could you explain where they are stored?


----------



## samccfl99

trip1eX said:


> Yeah best thing to do is just try it for free. And you can try it for free multiple times. Just use a different email and credit card each time. I think that does the trick.
> 
> And I like it more now than I did when I was trialing it. So much that, even though I think about not getting cable at all, I will continue with it for awhile becasue it's simple and works great. Knock on wood.


But you would lose recordings that you want to save doing it that way, but if you don't care about that, it would be a good deal to do it that way. I have about 20 cards in my drawer that WERE zero int and stmt credit promos, most that are still active...LOLOL. Also I live in a condo that pays for basic, hbo and the ridiculous "broadcast and regional sports fee"s and I think there is no data cap. I have tivos, my own modem and router for over 10 years. My bill has been real cheap, but Comcast, in their INSANE GREED, has retired my package, which I have been getting $30 a month promo for maybe 8 years. They have grandfathered it in and the new packages are even more expensive, like $95 for what I have and it used to be $50, now $80. I am poor now...LOL.


----------



## samccfl99

Not sure if this was said, but today is the last day of a 3 week free trial. Also I found a coupon for 1 month trial (not sure if that works...NOPE, WASTE...)

Also, there is NO CSPAN! It would be nice if they would put all 3 CSPAN channels in HD, something Comcast does not do, and they do "broadcast" in HD because all the Networks show it like that.


----------



## mdavej

HerronScott said:


> I didn't see this one mentioned in the lists of Pros/Cons and it would be a big con for us.
> 
> Scott


Kind of a bummer for me too. But I'm not willing to pay huge amounts of money for it (i.e., going back to cable or AT&T TV NOW). PLII is decent enough on the cable TV content I watch. I still have 5.1 on a lot of TVE content and on my OTA networks on my Recast.

Youtube has claimed they're working on it. We shall see.


----------



## saeba

Regarding lack of DD5.1.... I didn't include it on my list of pros and cons as I've simplified my home theater systems from AVR and 5.1 speakers to just a sound bar w/sub. I know this is heresy, but I really never heard much difference in most content between DD5.1 and just simple stereo.


----------



## dlfl

JoeKustra said:


> Could you explain where they are stored?


I explained where (I believe) they are stored in post #125, which I referenced in my post which you only partially quoted. TL;DR they are stored in the cloud. "Your recordings" are really just a few flags and pointers, and I think most of that is in the cloud too.


----------



## dlfl

samccfl99 said:


> I never said that. I know that data is taken up by streaming and not recording. Also YTTV is being watched much more than Netflix in most households, I am assuming. Too much Fake Fox News on that brain of yours (of which I do remember your username...). Figures. Sorry, but you said the F word...LOL


After reviewing your post to which I was responding, I have to say my assumption of your misunderstanding seems justified. Sorry, maybe your brain has suffered from insufficient viewing of the F channel. 

I agree that most YTTV users probably use more streamed bytes than most Netflix users, and that can be a negative factor for some users (e.g., those with data caps). But the pipes are continually getting fatter and the cost per streamed byte is getting smaller. (This is true even though internet prices get larger.). My spectrum internet has no caps, and when I wanted to find out what my data usage was, just out of curiosity, I was told by a Spectrum chat person they don't even track usage. (I'm skeptical about that. -- I suspect they just don't want to bother making that info available to customers.)


----------



## JoeKustra

dlfl said:


> I explained where (I believe) they are stored in post #125, which I referenced in my post which you only partially quoted. TL;DR they are stored in the cloud. "Your recordings" are really just a few flags and pointers, and I think most of that is in the cloud too.


In the same post you posted that it's just like Netflix. So if I get a YTTV and my recordings are stored in the cloud, it doesn't use my internet bandwidth or count against my monthly cap? I'll need to check that.


----------



## Steve

JoeKustra said:


> So if I get a YTTV and my recordings are stored in the cloud, it doesn't use my internet bandwidth or count against my monthly cap? I'll need to check that.


Recording won't count against your monthly cap. Playback will.


----------



## dlfl

JoeKustra said:


> In the same post you posted that it's just like Netflix. So if I get a YTTV and my recordings are stored in the cloud, it doesn't use my internet bandwidth or count against my monthly cap? I'll need to check that.


I hope you do that. I'm only 99% sure that's the way it works. If you disprove my theory it will be a devastating blow to "my incredible powers of deduction"  (See post #125: Anyone tried Youtube Tv and can compare it to Tivo? )

Of course the longest a recording is kept is 9 months and it can be less, depending on the terms YTTV has negotiated with the content provider. But as I understand it, there is no limit to the number of recordings, or the number of programs being simultaneously recorded.


----------



## hefe

JoeKustra said:


> In the same post you posted that it's just like Netflix. So if I get a YTTV and my recordings are stored in the cloud, it doesn't use my internet bandwidth or count against my monthly cap? I'll need to check that.


Correct. It's all in the cloud, on YouTube's servers. You could set up a bunch of shows to record, and then turn off all your devices. When you turn them on and log in, all your recordings are available from YTTV online, and you can stream them to any device logged in to the service...a set top box, a phone or tablet, a browser...whatever.


----------



## mdavej

JoeKustra said:


> In the same post you posted that it's just like Netflix. So if I get a YTTV and my recordings are stored in the cloud, it doesn't use my internet bandwidth or count against my monthly cap? I'll need to check that.


I can't quite tell if you're joking or not (I think you are). But the implication in the question was that when you record on YTTV (or any cloud DVR), that when making the recording, the program is streamed to your streaming device and back up to the cloud, then streamed to it again when you watch. The OP is simply trying to say that zero data is transferred to/from your streaming device DURING the recording process (unless you're actually watching at the same time). Nobody is saying that WATCHING YTTV doesn't use any data. That's ridiculous.

There are systems like Channels DVR that do indeed consume bandwidth during recording since they must stream the program locally and screen-scrape every frame in order to save it to a local file. Obvious this will consume far more bandwidth than a traditional cloud DVR like YTTV.


----------



## JoeKustra

mdavej said:


> I can't quite tell if you're joking or not (I think you are).


No, not joking. Yes, learning. Thinking about it, I realized that since the content is not being viewed, it can be anywhere until needed. I guess I'm not too old to learn. It was the Netflix reference that threw me off.


----------



## trip1eX

OK I experienced a couple of YTTV glitches/technical difficulties this weekend. 

First one was an NBA game didn't appear to record. I did find a game from the same teams a few weeks back. And thought maybe that was why it didn't record which wouldn't be good for sports. lol. 


But then under 'recordings' of that old game of the same teams I found the newest recording aka the newest game and could play it. (A lot of shows give you recording options under the show/episode icon- usually between voD vs recording or spanish vs english and now I guess between different dates of games in the case of sports.) Anyway I guess longer term I will find out if this a thing for same team matchups that were previously recorded. In the end I guess the result was the locating process of the recording was a bit more tedious. 


The 2nd issue, yesterday, was an NFL game yesterday had no picture. It had technical difficulties and the 2nd half was a yellow followed for 30 minutes followed by a technical difficulties acknowledgement. Happened to be the local NFL game - aka the one the highest priority game for me.  The only good news was that the local team only scored 2 field goals in the 2nd half and still won so I didn't miss much. lol. 

But if the 2nd half was bad then...maybe their feed was bad for everyone?


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> I just did this on my Fire TV app for a program ("Click") in progress on BBC World News. It did create a recording starting at the point where I did it, although it seemed strange to me the recording shows up in my library in the "Shows" section rather than in "New in your library". Maybe this was because the program in question was a repeat, which BBC World does a lot of?
> 
> Also, although I had joined this program half way through, the _live_ playback offered access via rewind to the entire program from its starting point. Given this, it seems like the "recording" could easily include the entire show, instead of just from the point where I added it to the library.
> 
> Both minor points, I admit.


Yep I think I've seen that you can start a show from the beginning in the guide but the recording might only be where you started recording from. I would guess that just means it's available via VoD. or something.

And there are some 'glitches' with finding shows. Nothing major or at least nothing that is consistent enough to point out for me. But once awhile there is a some weird difference or hiccup.


----------



## saeba

New feature coming to YTTV:


----------



## jcliff

I found Hulu TV and YouTube TV comparable in terms of price and content. 

But the YouTube TV interface is better than the newer Hulu interface. The new Hulu looks fancier, but you have to use the back button constantly because you end up scrolling down these lists, and the interface is like having sub-sub-menus on a website.

One big minus is if you like recording/converting your shows for Plex, there's just no options for that on YouTube or Hulu.


----------



## saeba

PBS and OWNTV joining the YTTV lineup:


----------



## allan

jcliff said:


> I found Hulu TV and YouTube TV comparable in terms of price and content.
> 
> But the YouTube TV interface is better than the newer Hulu interface. The new Hulu looks fancier, but you have to use the back button constantly because you end up scrolling down these lists, and the interface is like having sub-sub-menus on a website.
> 
> One big minus is if you like recording/converting your shows for Plex, there's just no options for that on YouTube or Hulu.


I picked Hulu for 2 reasons. One, Hulu has a big library of shows, YT doesn't. Two, YT has commercials, most Hulu shows don't + my Apple TV remote is crap for FFing.


----------



## saeba

I had Hulu, but dropped it and retained Netflix and Amazon Prime Video (though have this in part for the shopping value) when I went to YTTV. But I have no problem with the YTTV <FF> ability on the Nvidia Shield. Also:

*Hulu will raise Live TV streaming plan price $10 to $54.99 on Dec. 18*

The price for the basic Hulu + Live TV plan (with ads on the on-demand content) will increase from $44.99 to $54.99. The price for Hulu + Live TV with no ads while watching on-demand content will be $60.99.​


----------



## hefe

saeba said:


> New feature coming to YTTV:
> 
> View attachment 45121


That's not new, I've used it for hockey and baseball for quite a while. It's neat.


----------



## saeba

hefe said:


> That's not new, I've used it for hockey and baseball for quite a while. It's neat.


Still only available on certain devices though per YouTube TV. Refer to the Twitter post from them that I attached.


----------



## trip1eX

So far so good overall. I did have another weird hiccup/glitch. in the beginning of an NBA game on NBATV, the recording suddenly went to commercial as the announcer was talking. The score was 2-2 at the time and then when it came back from commercial the score was 10-5. lol. I've seen a few of these of glitches. NOt the same exact one. and I don't consider these show stoppers or close to that. But just glitches that are different in nature than you would see on a Tivo.

POssibly it could been NBA TV itself. I never had that channel before so maybe they goofed and had to air another commercial.


----------



## trip1eX

And YTTV btw is still kind of weird in like ...that's all there is. I feel like I should be deleting my shows when I'm done or making room for new stuff by looking over the old stuff or checking the To Do list to delete stuff or reordering OnePasses. I've been programmed for ~15 years to do that and it's a weird still to not have to do that stuff. 

I have started to look at the "Scheduled" recordings in YTTV just to help satiate some of that Tivo OCD.


----------



## saeba

And even if you miss recording something, you can often still watch an ondemand copy of it. We missed recording the HGTV Very Brady Holiday edition show and just watched an available ondemand copy.


----------



## hefe

saeba said:


> Still only available on certain devices though per YouTube TV. Refer to the Twitter post from them that I attached.


Yeah, it's not real clear. I use mobile and Android TV app on shield. Have had it quite some time now. Must be some unnamed devices lagging behind...


----------



## jcliff

allan said:


> I picked Hulu for 2 reasons. One, Hulu has a big library of shows, YT doesn't. Two, YT has commercials, most Hulu shows don't + my Apple TV remote is crap for FFing.


That's a good point. Hulu definitely has a larger archive so to speak, if you like watching stuff that already aired.

Did you get the DVR upgrade/multi user upgrade? Once those get added on these services really do get in the cable package range. Although if transfer to Plex were possible it'd still be worth it to ditch Cox.


----------



## trip1eX

hefe said:


> Yeah, it's not real clear. I use mobile and Android TV app on shield. Have had it quite some time now. Must be some unnamed devices lagging behind...


yeah mobile has the feature. the YTTV apps on other platforms that connect to the TV don't have it yet. roku, appletv and i assume fire tv. Also probaby YTTV on other SMARTtvs. I don't recall seeing the feature on my parent's Samsung tv during Thanksgiving.


----------



## trip1eX

allan said:


> I picked Hulu for 2 reasons. One, Hulu has a big library of shows, YT doesn't. Two, YT has commercials, most Hulu shows don't + my Apple TV remote is crap for FFing.


Did you know you can tap (not click) the right or left edge of the AppleTV remote touchpad to go forward or back 15 seconds? Made a world of difference for me because that pauses the show and moves the video thumbnail forward or backward 15 seconds. From there, you can rapidly edge tap as many times as you need to skip the commercials. 2 1/2 minutes of commercials? 10 rapid right edge taps. And once you are where you want to be, you hit play to resume playback or click the touchpad.

Also you can hold the voice button down and say skip 3 minutes or whatever.

And, as you probably know, you can use the touchpad to scroll the timeline very quickly to cover larger amts of time. And from there you can edge tap to fine tune within 15 seconds of where you want to be.

NOte: Hulu is totally different type of tv product than YTTV.

Hulu + Live TV is the analog to YTTV. And Hulu + Live TV has commercials.

Also don't forget Youtube is not YoutubeTV. lol.


----------



## allan

trip1eX said:


> Did you know you can tap (not click) the right or left edge of the AppleTV remote touchpad to go forward or back 15 seconds? Made a world of difference for me because that pauses the show and moves the video thumbnail forward or backward 15 seconds. From there, you can rapidly edge tap as many times as you need to skip the commercials. 2 1/2 minutes of commercials? 10 rapid right edge taps. And once you are where you want to be, you hit play to resume playback or click the touchpad.
> 
> Also you can hold the voice button down and say skip 3 minutes or whatever.
> 
> And, as you probably know, you can use the touchpad to scroll the timeline very quickly to cover larger amts of time. And from there you can edge tap to fine tune within 15 seconds of where you want to be.
> 
> NOte: Hulu is totally different type of tv product than YTTV.
> 
> Hulu + Live TV is the analog to YTTV. And Hulu + Live TV has commercials.
> 
> Also don't forget Youtube is not YoutubeTV. lol.


I knew about the touchpad, but not about the edge tap or voice. That would help my complaint about the FF. 

The thing about Hulu is, the Live and the On Demand library are all bundled together. Hulu Live seems comparable to YTTV, but YTTV doesn't have anything that matches the Hulu library. And, with one exception, the only time I've ever seen ads on Hulu is when I'm REALLY watching live. When I'm a day late, I don't even have to FF. Though, I'll admit that if those tips you mention work as well as they sound, YTTV won't be any worse that way than a DVR.


----------



## trip1eX

allan said:


> I knew about the touchpad, but not about the edge tap or voice. That would help my complaint about the FF.
> 
> The thing about Hulu is, the Live and the On Demand library are all bundled together. Hulu Live seems comparable to YTTV, but YTTV doesn't have anything that matches the Hulu library. And, with one exception, the only time I've ever seen ads on Hulu is when I'm REALLY watching live. When I'm a day late, I don't even have to FF. Though, I'll admit that if those tips you mention work as well as they sound, YTTV won't be any worse that way than a DVR.


Yeah much much much better than clicking the touchpad on the edge to go forward. Night and day. As you discovered, it's kind of a show stopper otherwise. ...if the only method to skip forward was to click the touchpad. I use voice a lot to skip too. It depends on my mood and how late it is. Sometimes I get tired of saying skip 3 minutes. (btw, I even connected my HOmepods wireless to the ATV so I can skip commercials without the remote. I do have to say "Hey Siri" each time. Also I have to "reconfigure" the sound output of the ATV to the Homepod at least every day. I wish it would stay that way. )

And yeah you're very right about Hulu + LIve tv being more like YTTV plus Hulu than just being like YTTV. ...although it is complicated. When you said you didn't have commercials I didn't think that applied to Hulu + Live TV. I thought that means the commercial free of just Hulu.

So you're saying you get commercial free Hulu with the Live Tv add on? IF so that is a good feature.

But I assume then it's (the commercail free on demand stuff) is limited to the Hulu content which is the 3 or 4 major networks and from what I recall a cable channel or two maybe? Plus of course Hulu original content. Correct me if I'm wrong.

YTTV does have a lot of on-demand where if you don't record something, you can watch the on-demand version. But with their on-demand...there are limited commercials I think that I don't believe you can skip.


----------



## allan

trip1eX said:


> So you're saying you get commercial free Hulu with the Live Tv add on? IF so that is a good feature.
> 
> But I assume then it's (the commercail free on demand stuff) is limited to the Hulu content which is the 3 or 4 major networks and from what I recall a cable channel or two maybe? Plus of course Hulu original content. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> YTTV does have a lot of on-demand where if you don't record something, you can watch the on-demand version. But with their on-demand...there are limited commercials I think that I don't believe you can skip.


The Hulu package I have is commercial free with Live TV. Of course, if I'm actually watching Live, I can't FF, anymore than I could with a DVR in realtime. The on demand stuff includes the major networks and a bunch of cable channels (not all, but most of the ones I watch), Hulu original content, and a bunch of older shows (I'm currently rewatching Stargate SG1 for example). For most of the network shows, I avoid commercials entirely if I watch a day late (I've occasionally gotten bit by trying to watch a show too early and gotten ads), and a few shows have some ads at the beginning of the show (Gray's Anatomy is the only one I've encountered).

The big thing I think I'd miss by switching are the older shows, especially during the summer, or the various hiatus periods that come up.


----------



## trip1eX

allan said:


> The Hulu package I have is commercial free with Live TV. Of course, if I'm actually watching Live, I can't FF, anymore than I could with a DVR in realtime. The on demand stuff includes the major networks and a bunch of cable channels (not all, but most of the ones I watch), Hulu original content, and a bunch of older shows (I'm currently rewatching Stargate SG1 for example). For most of the network shows, I avoid commercials entirely if I watch a day late (I've occasionally gotten bit by trying to watch a show too early and gotten ads), and a few shows have some ads at the beginning of the show (Gray's Anatomy is the only one I've encountered).
> 
> The big thing I think I'd miss by switching are the older shows, especially during the summer, or the various hiatus periods that come up.


yeah I read up on it a little bit after I posted. I noticed YTTV plus Hulu (commercial free) would be basically the same price as Hulu (commercial free) + Live TV.  Plus one wouldn't have to carry Hulu all year long if they didn't want to.


----------



## pl1

I just cancelled Comcast TV because they increased the Broadcast TV fee from $10 to $15, not to mention the sports fee of $9. So my double play package for $109 is now actually $140 with the taxes & fees. The worst part about the Broadcast fee is that I have access to way more stations for FREE Over The Air.

So, I downgraded to Internet Only for $50/Mo. with no fees and 25Mbps. I have two Lifetime Tivos, a Bolt and a Roamio, both on OTA. I will probably sell the Roamio. I would actually prefer the TiVo OTA coming in with a true HD (compared to the Comcast compressed feed). Plus I'd rather use the TiVo interface. I do not have a data cap, so streaming is no issue.

That said, I am on my third day of the YTTV 5 day trial. The first day was overwhelming and I thought I was not going to like it. But the second day I started to warm up to the interface and now I do like it. I did a comparison on cordcutters.com which lets you compare all of the stations and I chose YTTV. The main thing I wanted was Regional Sports and a few other cable stations. I realize it is missing A&E affiliated stations, but no big deal. If I want them, I can go to philo for $20.

One thing that really jumps out for me is that I get instant response to the trick play, unlike almost every other service I've tried. I used to have the NHL Center Ice and every time you skipped, you had to wait for it to startup again. Once a show starts playing, it is very responsive. Sometimes, it does take time for a stream to "start", but it is bearable.

I like the replay/skip. it goes 15 secs each way with a push on the left or right rocker. You can see each picture as you do this. But, no Slow Mo. Hold the rocker left or right to FF/RW. Other than that, everything is very similar to TiVo, although I like TiVo's Now playing a lot better.

My BIGGEST gripe is that there is no resume option after exiting or changing TV's. You can only start from the beginning or start live. But chasing works fine. There are some programs that force you to watch on demand with commercials, but I doubt that will affect me since I'm using my TiVo for locals. My next biggest issue is the lack of a guide data. I think it is two days. But, a search will look for two weeks I believe. My next issue is not having a light reminding me of a recording like the TiVO has. But, with time I will get used to that.

Overall, for $50/Mo., I think this is a great service. Total bill for Internet and TV goes from $140 to $100/Mo.

Final thoughts, I guess I could see TiVo moving to this format, although, I guess it is a little too late now. Although, there is something to be said for having shows available offline in the event you lose Internet access. Having both options does make for a more complete package.



omelet1978 said:


> That being said, I'm periodically tempted to cut cable even though I really like Tivo, so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts or recommendations (for or against) YouTube Tv? It'd be cheaper than Xfinity, but then again I've always been a fan of the TiVo interface.
> 
> YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News
> 
> Thanks


----------



## moyekj

pl1 said:


> My BIGGEST gripe is that there is no resume option after exiting or changing TV's. You can only start from the beginning or start live.


 Wow, seems like a huge limitation. Can you clarify this? Do you mean when you partially watch a "recording" it does not automatically bookmark where you left off viewing and offer a chance to resume from where you left off? That would be a major disadvantage if so. If true, is this limitation just when switching which client device you are using to access YTTV or is it also the case when using the same device?


----------



## pl1

Yes, that is correct. And it is true on both of the devices I'm using, a Samsung Smart TV and a Fire TV. Besides THAT limitation, YTTB controls are pretty much identical to watching Netflix.

This is true when watching on the same device. Once you exit and come back, you are offered to start at the beginning or live. I just tested a Hockey game I was watching last night and when I hit play, I was not even given an option. It started playing from the beginning.

Resume is one of the features I really love about TiVo. (Just like a Kindle.) Where ever you are watching, you can resume on another TV where you left off. I will say, I've had quite a few instances where my TiVo loses that ability, which is annoying. I think it mostly happens when I am chasing a show and I catch up to live.



moyekj said:


> Wow, seems like a huge limitation. Can you clarify this? Do you mean when you partially watch a "recording" it does not automatically bookmark where you left off viewing and offer a chance to resume from where you left off? That would be a major disadvantage if so. If true, is this limitation just when switching which client device you are using to access YTTV or is it also the case when using the same device?


----------



## osu1991

moyekj said:


> Wow, seems like a huge limitation. Can you clarify this? Do you mean when you partially watch a "recording" it does not automatically bookmark where you left off viewing and offer a chance to resume from where you left off? That would be a major disadvantage if so. If true, is this limitation just when switching which client device you are using to access YTTV or is it also the case when using the same device?


That's not correct. It keeps track of where you are viewing recordings and resumes from there on any device. I've switched between firetv on the big screen and iPad many times.

If it's not, the you may need to go into your account and make sure watch history is turned on in the privacy settings. It won't keep track if that is turned off.


----------



## moyekj

osu1991 said:


> That's not correct. It keeps track of where you are viewing recordings and resumes from there on any device. I've switched between firetv on the big screen and iPad many times.
> 
> If it's not, the you may need to go into your account and make sure watch history is turned on in the privacy settings. It won't keep track if that is turned off.


OK thanks, that makes more sense. I guess @pl1 must not have that setting enabled in privacy settings.


----------



## saeba

osu1991 said:


> That's not correct. It keeps track of where you are viewing recordings and resumes from there on any device. I've switched between firetv on the big screen and iPad many times.


Agreed. I use on the Nvidia Shield TV, an Android tablet and a Windows PC and resume works fine.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> My BIGGEST gripe is that there is no resume option after exiting or changing TV's. You can only start from the beginning or start live. But chasing works fine. There are some programs that force you to watch on demand with commercials, but I doubt that will affect me since I'm using my TiVo for locals. My next biggest issue is the lack of a guide data. I think it is two days. But, a search will look for two weeks I believe. My next issue is not having a light reminding me of a recording like the TiVO has. But, with time I will get used to that.
> 
> Overall, for $50/Mo., I think this is a great service. Total bill for Internet and TV goes from $140 to $100/Mo.
> 
> Final thoughts, I guess I could see TiVo moving to this format, although, I guess it is a little too late now. Although, there is something to be said for having shows available offline in the event you lose Internet access. Having both options does make for a more complete package.


It resumes for me. Not sure if it does when changing tvs though. I'll have to test that. I don't change tvs enough to know yet. (edit: others above confirmed it resumes across devices.)

Supposedly there is or soon will be no more forced on-demand including CBS. Google announced that a few weeks ago and it was posted here somewhere.

Not sure what you mean by recording light. You mean on the hardware itself? Or in the guide? Or something else? I don't see a need to have the hardware tell you something is recording in the case of YTTV. The guide should tell you a show is recording but it doesn't.

Yeah I don't see Tivo having a chance in heel to do what YTTV does. I think Google is setup for it because of their expertise with data centers and moving data and searching data and all that stuff and because of their deep pockets. Sony had a good service in Vue and have some decent pockets but they couldn't make it stick and it's shutting down in January.


----------



## trip1eX

I ran into another glitch. I watching an NBA game in the bakc ground and it started over a few times after 5-10 minutes. I don't know what happened. I don't know if I hit the remote weird or something or not. The first time I think I skipped commercials and then ntoiced it restarted after that. I was on the computer with it playing in the background. And so what I did was skip ahead about 15 minutes and smooth sailing after that.

Well ok not quite smooth sailing. Late in the game, I think it was the same game, the thumbnails were out of sync with the actual game. ...so I couldn't use them as an accurate guide for when the commercials were over. I just went on memory of how long the commercials were going to be. Possibly a restart of the app would have cured that. 

But I run into these types of issues on the AppleTV. Little weird random glitches.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Supposedly there is or soon will be no more forced on-demand including CBS. Google announced that a few weeks ago and it was posted here somewhere.


I can confirm that the CBS forced ondemand is gone !


----------



## pl1

osu1991 said:


> That's not correct. It keeps track of where you are viewing recordings and resumes from there on any device. I've switched between firetv on the big screen and iPad many times.
> 
> If it's not, the you may need to go into your account and make sure watch history is turned on in the privacy settings. It won't keep track if that is turned off.


Ok, that must be the problem. I have all privacy turned off for Google. Sorry for the misinformation. And I'm glad it came up so now I can fix that!


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Not sure what you mean by recording light. You mean on the hardware itself? Or in the guide? Or something else? I don't see a need to have the hardware tell you something is recording in the case of YTTV. The guide should tell you a show is recording but it doesn't.


I've had TiVo for so long that I've come to depend on it to record whatever I want, and I often forget what is on, and when it is on. If you recall, (or in case you were not aware) the Original S3 HD with the OLED display had a display of what was recording with an actual description on the front plate. The next version of the S3 HD took away the OLED and left us with red lights. Now the newest TiVo's have 1 red light. It just let's me know something is recording and jogs my memory to look for what is on.

With YTTV, I often forget there might be something I want to see without looking. It is just a matter of changing my viewing habits.


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> OK thanks, that makes more sense. I guess @pl1 must not have that setting enabled in privacy settings.


Ok, I changed my Youtube history settings to being "on" and it does remember where you were. I just started last night's hockey game and quit at 4 minutes. When I came back to the game it started where I left off without asking. Thank-You for asking since I Ass-U-Me'd that was normal. So we can eliminate my BIGGEST gripe!


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> I've had TiVo for so long that I've come to depend on it to record whatever I want, and I often forget what is on, and when it is on. If you recall, (or in case you were not aware) the Original S3 HD with the OLED display had a display of what was recording with an actual description on the front plate. The next version of the S3 HD took away the OLED and left us with red lights. Now the newest TiVo's have 1 red light. It just let's me know something is recording and jogs my memory to look for what is on.
> 
> With YTTV, I often forget there might be something I want to see without looking. It is just a matter of changing my viewing habits.





pl1 said:


> I've had TiVo for so long that I've come to depend on it to record whatever I want, and I often forget what is on, and when it is on. If you recall, (or in case you were not aware) the Original S3 HD with the OLED display had a display of what was recording with an actual description on the front plate. The next version of the S3 HD took away the OLED and left us with red lights. Now the newest TiVo's have 1 red light. It just let's me know something is recording and jogs my memory to look for what is on.
> 
> With YTTV, I often forget there might be something I want to see without looking. It is just a matter of changing my viewing habits.


yeah old habits die hard. Less need for that feature with YTTV because Of unlimited timers and it is a service not a physical box in the home.

You can check the app on the phone or tablet for scheduled recordings and I think it will tell what is recording too to some degree. Might even send notifications when something records through the mobile app if you let it. Not sure.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> You can check the app on the phone or tablet for scheduled recordings and I think it will tell what is recording too to some degree. Might even send notifications when something records through the mobile app if you let it. Not sure.


Yup, I have seen that option in the app. It says to set a notification, "Search for shows, teams, movies or events and then use their bell button to set notifications."


----------



## jzinckgra

I'm trying the demo on Android TV but can't figure out how to get to the YouTube TV guide with the TV remote. This is a Sony Bravia tv. all I can access is play fast forward rewind and pause. I cannot get to the guide or any other options for streaming.


----------



## pl1

jzinckgra said:


> I'm trying the demo on Android TV but can't figure out how to get to the YouTube TV guide with the TV remote. This is a Sony Bravia tv. all I can access is play fast forward rewind and pause. I cannot get to the guide or any other options for streaming.


I have the same problem on one of my android boxes. I need to use a mouse once I open the app. In that device I can't even access the play button. When I use the Fire TV (F̶i̶r̶e̶s̶t̶i̶c̶k̶̶) or the Samsung TV, the remote works on all functions.

Where yours is an android TV, if there is a USB slot you could try a mouse to see if it works.


----------



## jzinckgra

pl1 said:


> I have the same problem on one of my android boxes. You need to use a mouse once you open the app. When I use the Firestiock or the Samsung TV, the remote works or all functions.


Do you mean you have no issues using the fire stick remote?


----------



## pl1

jzinckgra said:


> Do you mean you have no issues using the fire stick remote?


I did write that in error, because I'm actually using the remote for a Fire TV, but I believe the Fire Stick uses the same app so that should work fine. I can't promise that, maybe someone who has one can chime in.


----------



## osu1991

jzinckgra said:


> I'm trying the demo on Android TV but can't figure out how to get to the YouTube TV guide with the TV remote. This is a Sony Bravia tv. all I can access is play fast forward rewind and pause. I cannot get to the guide or any other options for streaming.


So you are using the YouTubeTV app from the android play store on the tv or something else?

I'm not familiar with the Sony from memory, as it's at my dads house. I just loaded the YouTubeTV app from the play store on the tv for them. It works like the fire tv and such with the direction pad and back buttons.

You would click on Live at the top to access the guide or click the back button to back out of live tv to the guide.


----------



## pl1

jzinckgra said:


> I'm trying the demo on Android TV but can't figure out how to get to the YouTube TV guide with the TV remote. This is a Sony Bravia tv. all I can access is play fast forward rewind and pause. I cannot get to the guide or any other options for streaming.


I realize yours is an Android TV (versus an android box), but I almost got my Android TV Box working with an apk from this site https://github.com/MapGuy11/YouTubeTV-FireTV . It installed fine and the remote control worked fine, but I could not get it to play any video. It kept coming up with playback errors. Reverting back to the app offered by google play, I still have to use a mouse, but the video plays. I found a list of supported devices.

From what I've been reading on Reddit, people are using Sony Android TV's successfully, example "Agreed. My 66" Android TV Sony is a couple years old. Yttv runs fine on it just slow to get going sometimes".


----------



## jzinckgra

pl1 said:


> I realize yours is an Android TV (versus an android box), but I almost got my Android TV Box working with an apk from this site https://github.com/MapGuy11/YouTubeTV-FireTV . It installed fine and the remote control worked fine, but I could not get it to play any video. It kept coming up with playback errors. Reverting back to the app offered by google play, I still have to use a mouse, but the video plays. I found a list of supported devices.
> 
> From what I've been reading on Reddit, people are using Sony Android TV's successfully, example "Agreed. My 66" Android TV Sony is a couple years old. Yttv runs fine on it just slow to get going sometimes".


I picked up firestick4k today and plugged into my avr. Works really well. Local channels are really good, but maybe a tad less clear than ota. The firestick interface and apps are much better and smoother then my Sony TV apps. I kinda knew this based on reports here, but was hoping not to spend more money, but for $35, the stick is worth it for the apps alone. Jury is still out on whether I'll keep the yttv for $50/month when TiVo only runs us $6. Obviously TiVo does not offer a lot of the non local channels that yttv does, but I doubt we'll watch that many of them.


----------



## pl1

jzinckgra said:


> I picked up firestick4k today and plugged into my avr. Works really well. Local channels are really good, but maybe a tad less clear than ota. The firestick interface and apps are much better and smoother then my Sony TV apps. I kinda knew this based on reports here, but was hoping not to spend more money, but for $35, the stick is worth it for the apps alone. Jury is still out on whether I'll keep the yttv for $50/month when TiVo only runs us $6. Obviously TiVo does not offer a lot of the non local channels that yttv does, but I doubt we'll watch that many of them.


Sounds good! For myself, I was just trying to see if I could utilize the box I have rather than having to buy a stick. There is an HD version (non 4K) they sell for $25 too. But I already have three TV's with built in apps, so it's not a need to have item.

You might also want to take a look at Philo for $20/mo. The only thing really missing is sports. Otherwise, pretty good deal for $20. I really want the regional sports, so if anything, I might ADD that to get A&E.


----------



## mdavej

jzinckgra said:


> I picked up firestick4k today and plugged into my avr. Works really well. Local channels are really good, but maybe a tad less clear than ota. The firestick interface and apps are much better and smoother then my Sony TV apps. I kinda knew this based on reports here, but was hoping not to spend more money, but for $35, the stick is worth it for the apps alone. Jury is still out on whether I'll keep the yttv for $50/month when TiVo only runs us $6. Obviously TiVo does not offer a lot of the non local channels that yttv does, but I doubt we'll watch that many of them.


So you only have a stick or do you have a Recast? How does a stick alone get locals? Are you using it will some other OTA tuner?

BTW, I have several 4k sticks, all of which were about $25 on sale a couple of weeks ago. Paired with a Recast, they make great Tivo/Mini replacements and have no monthly fees like Tivo.


----------



## jzinckgra

mdavej said:


> So you only have a stick or do you have a Recast? How does a stick alone get locals? Are you using it will some other OTA tuner?
> 
> BTW, I have several 4k sticks, all of which were about $25 on sale a couple of weeks ago. Paired with a Recast, they make great Tivo/Mini replacements and have no monthly fees like Tivo.


I'm using the stick with youtube tv. Locals are avail with yttv.


----------



## heyadam

I still like the Roku devices over the Amazon Fire. I have Roku TV's or Roku Premiere+ running YouTube TV a Google Nest Home Hub Max and Home Hub and I can watch/resume anything, anywhere. The YTTV experience has been fantastic over the last month. One feature I really wanted, the ability to block certain, uh, channels, isn't on TiVo or YTTV--both let you remove them from the guide or channel list but not block them. I put in a feature request.

Overall, sometimes I wonder why I didn't move to YTTV sooner! Their recent additions of FF on CBS, PBS and OWN have been icing on the cake.


----------



## Beryl

When I told a Xfinity on-site service rep today that I was looking at YTTV & Xfinity internet, he confessed that if he wasn’t an employee, he would do the same. 

- One customer showed him a huge spreadsheet comparing several services and YTTV came out on top. We talked about some of the missing channels and he said that YTTV is new so they will be adding them.

- Xfinity is gearing up to compete with YTTV with their streaming service. They need to add DVR in the Cloud though.

- TiVo guide is far superior to Xfinity’s. He noticed it when I was looking at the content on a particular channel that wasn’t coming in over a week. He was surprised about the pre-roll ad drama because his customers love their TiVos but no one likes ads. He dropped Hulu due to ads. 

I’m keeping Xfinity for 1 more year. The Xfinity-caused drama this week led them to offer me a 12 month double play package that was too good to pass up — for now. Next year, YTTV will be perfect so Xfinity needs to step up their game.


----------



## dlfl

mdavej said:


> So you only have a stick or do you have a Recast? How does a stick alone get locals? Are you using it will some other OTA tuner?
> ..............


Confused. I thought you had YTTV? And you didn't have any locals on it?


----------



## jzinckgra

More comparison between TiVo ota and yttv locals shows very washed out dull colors on yttv. I keep switching back and forth and it's noticeable. I saw yttv settings for color were 8 bit, so I switched to "up to 12 bit". Color format is set to Auto. Anyone else notice the poorer colors on locals?


----------



## dlfl

jzinckgra said:


> More comparison between TiVo ota and yttv locals shows very washed out dull colors on yttv. I keep switching back and forth and it's noticeable. I saw yttv settings for color were 8 bit, so I switched to "up to 12 bit". Color format is set to Auto. Anyone else notice the poorer colors on locals?


This not at all for me. I assume you use different HDMI inputs on your TV for YTTV and TiVo. If so you may need to adjust the picture settings for the YTTV input. On my TV at least there are distinct settings for each input. My YTTV picture is every bit as good as my TiVo picture, in terms of color, contrast, resolution, etc.


----------



## jzinckgra

dlfl said:


> This not at all for me. I assume you use different HDMI inputs on your TV for YTTV and TiVo. If so you may need to adjust the picture settings for the YTTV input. On my TV at least there are distinct settings for each input. My YTTV picture is every bit as good as my TiVo picture, in terms of color, contrast, resolution, etc.


To clarify, I have the firestick 4k plugged into my avr vs tv. Do you think this would matter? I can certainly adjust tv settings but then that screws up the color settings for Prime and Netflix movies which look good otherwise. Thanks


----------



## dlfl

jzinckgra said:


> To clarify, I have the firestick 4k plugged into my avr vs tv. Do you think this would matter? I can certainly adjust tv settings but then that screws up the color settings for Prime and Netflix movies which look good otherwise. Thanks


Does seem to point the finger at YTTV. Are all YTTV videos this way or just the locals? If it's just the locals YTTV should be able to fix it.


----------



## jzinckgra

dlfl said:


> Does seem to point the finger at YTTV. Are all YTTV videos this way or just the locals? If it's just the locals YTTV should be able to fix it.


Think I figured it out. It was one of the yttv video settings. Specifically under dynamic range settings, I had it set to Always HDR. I switched to Adaptive and that seems to have fixed the bad color I was getting


----------



## saeba

Another much requested YTTV change. First available in web version then to other devices in future.


----------



## saeba

saeba said:


> Another much requested YTTV change. First available in web version then to other devices in future.


Posting these updates to keep my post in this thread up to date on comparing TiVo vs YTTV; however, can't help but also notice the speed of change with YTTV as opposed with TiVo. TiVo seemed to take forever to make updates, whereas Google is releasing a constant flow of changes that their user community has requested. I'm liking this!


----------



## slowbiscuit

Yeah, but a big part of that is YTTV is either web or app-based whereas Tivo has a lot of different hardware/UI versions to deal with. Not excusing Tivo just saying that it's a lot easier for Google and of course they actually care more.


----------



## trip1eX

Google has so many more resources than Tivo. And that is an understatement.


It is a pretty cool to have the ability to change the web ui first in order to test and get feedback before rolling out the changes out to each platform’s app. Or so it seems.


----------



## trip1eX

new 7 day guide is ok. you can only skip forward 2hrs at a time on the web UI afaik. This is too slow to be useful. it needs Tivo-like controls. skip a day at a time or 12 hrs of whatever. also page up/down. Perhaps some of this is already present through special keys or remote controls on some apps and I'm just not aware of it.

Also needs to show the date at the top (keep the date at the top) as you scroll down (and scroll forward through ) the channel list and times and show the time at the top as well. It has a weird system of dealing with times as in doesn't have a column showing 8pm for example. It will list the time each show started next to the title of each show. But that makes it confusing when you see some shows at 8pm and some at 7pm etc. Also should show shows that are going to be or currently are being recorded.

Guide isn't a strong point of the YTTV. And don't think that changes with the 7 days of show info added the way they added it.

But I have adapted I guess and just use the guide to see what's on now. It is called Live after all and so I treat it basically as what's on now and just about to come up. I just use as it seems they intended. Search is used to locate stuff farther (out) more quickly. Any more than that and I think a person is asking too much of it.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Guide isn't a strong point of the YTTV. And don't think that changes with the 7 days of show info added the way they added it.


I agree with everything you said. There is one thing the guide does that excels over TiVo. There is an ongoing preview playing on every live channel in the guide. And it is big enough to be useful. With TiVo, you only get a text description while scrolling so if you don't recognize something by text, you may miss something you might be interested in. I did not really realize this before I started watching YTTV.

Oh, and I also like that you can re-arrange the order on your guide. So, if you have a few most watched channels, you can place them at the top. That is a nice feature as well.


----------



## dlfl

pl1 said:


> ......... There is one thing the guide does that excels over TiVo. There is an ongoing preview playing on every live channel in the guide. And it is big enough to be useful. ..........


What device are you seeing this on? It's not in the Fire TV YTTV app.


----------



## pl1

dlfl said:


> What device are you seeing this on? It's not in the Fire TV YTTV app.


Web page and the Android app. Hopefully it will show up on the other apps. I do not see it on my Samsung TV either.


----------



## NightmarePatrol

Tomorrow we make the switch from Frontier to YTTV. We have a bolt that has a lifetime contract on it. If TiVo has a YTTV app that would be spectacular. It would be even better if it record YTTV broadcasts. We're in the minority in that we have mycj larger than average bandwith to the house and can easily support all 4 tuners recording a 4K show. I'm not tossing the bolt just yet, but the cost of cable TV is the driving factor. If we could get OTA locals where I live we could just do pluto.tv and pay the extra for a the few channels we watch. The entertaiment content is much better on streaming.


----------



## pl1

NightmarePatrol said:


> Tomorrow we make the switch from Frontier to YTTV. We have a bolt that has a lifetime contract on it. If TiVo has a YTTV app that would be spectacular. It would be even better if it record YTTV broadcasts. We're in the minority in that we have mycj larger than average bandwith to the house and can easily support all 4 tuners recording a 4K show. I'm not tossing the bolt just yet, but the cost of cable TV is the driving factor. If we could get OTA locals where I live we could just do pluto.tv and pay the extra for a the few channels we watch. The entertaiment content is much better on streaming.


YTTV does all of your recording for you. No 4K, but I doubt you were getting that from cable either.


----------



## schatham

NightmarePatrol said:


> Tomorrow we make the switch from Frontier to YTTV. We have a bolt that has a lifetime contract on it. If TiVo has a YTTV app that would be spectacular. It would be even better if it record YTTV broadcasts. We're in the minority in that we have mycj larger than average bandwith to the house and can easily support all 4 tuners recording a 4K show. I'm not tossing the bolt just yet, but the cost of cable TV is the driving factor. If we could get OTA locals where I live we could just do pluto.tv and pay the extra for a the few channels we watch. The entertaiment content is much better on streaming.


I hope your loading up the Tivo full of shows first. You can still watch them whenever you want.


----------



## NightmarePatrol

No, no 4K from Frontier. As far as I know no auto-skip on YTTV either. It's going to be a paradim shift. Tomorrow we get bumped to 500/500 on the FiOS though. I have a feeling this is going to be a one way trip since FiOS isn't taking on any new accounts with cable cards. If we ever want to come back we'll have to rent one of their awful DVR's at a premium price. 

If TiVO came out with a DVR that would record shows from streaming service AND cut out the ads... it would be gold.


----------



## pl1

NightmarePatrol said:


> No, no 4K from Frontier. As far as I know no auto-skip on YTTV either. It's going to be a paradim shift. Tomorrow we get bumped to 500/500 on the FiOS though. I have a feeling this is going to be a one way trip since FiOS isn't taking on any new accounts with cable cards. If we ever want to come back we'll have to rent one of their awful DVR's at a premium price.
> 
> If TiVO came out with a DVR that would record shows from streaming service AND cut out the ads... it would be gold.


But the way I look at it is, at least you CAN skip commercials. Even if it is a pain to push a button a bunch of times, it is way better than most On-Demand, which requires you to sit through commercials. I have found, that on YTTV, there are a few times when you choose to record a show, it will insert V.O.D. for older shows. But it is rare.

I still prefer the TiVo interface, of course that is still a pretty big upfront investment. So, personally I intend on keeping the Lifetime Bolt cable/OTA for OTA and possibly selling my Lifetime Roamio Cable/OTA. And I agree with you that it would be nice if we could have a streaming version of TiVo. You will find that you will get used to having everything available to you, just like TiVo's Season Pass.


----------



## NightmarePatrol

Yeah, the TiVO interface has been with us for a while and it's grown on us. The ever increasing cost of cable and us paying for a ton of things we don't want is becomng a problem. We'll see how it goes...


----------



## Beryl

dlfl said:


> What device are you seeing this on? It's not in the Fire TV YTTV app.


Shows that way on the Apple TV also.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> What device are you seeing this on? It's not in the Fire TV YTTV app.


AppleTv has this as well. (as I just saw was already said.  ) But seeing a thumbnail of live tv for each channel as you scroll through the guide is more noticeable on mobile because it takes up the top ~1/4 of the phone.

On AppleTV it's pretty small. IT's at least big enough so you can make out a familiar scene or if it's a commercial or not and that sort of thing.


----------



## jzinckgra

How do you show channel info when in the live guide? Only way I can see it is when I select channel, but I want to see preview info for a channel in the guide but before selecting that channel


----------



## NashGuy

Beryl said:


> When I told a Xfinity on-site service rep today that I was looking at YTTV & Xfinity internet, he confessed that if he wasn't an employee, he would do the same.
> 
> - One customer showed him a huge spreadsheet comparing several services and YTTV came out on top. We talked about some of the missing channels and he said that YTTV is new so they will be adding them.
> 
> - Xfinity is gearing up to compete with YTTV with their streaming service. They need to add DVR in the Cloud though.


Xfinity TV has offered cloud DVR for awhile now. In some parts of their footprint (including much or all of the Central Division), if you sign up for both Xfinity Internet and TV, you will get 100% IPTV service by default and your only DVR will be cloud DVR. They'll give you little X1 boxes like the Xi5 or Xi6 unless you ask for an older X1 box with QAM tuners and hard drive (or a CableCARD).

Will be interesting to see how Xfinity cable TV service may evolve in 2020 with the launch of Peacock and the potential acquisition of Xumo by Comcast. They'll definitely include Peacock in for free with Xfinity TV.


----------



## Beryl

NashGuy said:


> Xfinity TV has offered cloud DVR for awhile now. In some parts of their footprint (including much or all of the Central Division), if you sign up for both Xfinity Internet and TV, you will get 100% IPTV service by default and your only DVR will be cloud DVR. They'll give you little X1 boxes like the Xi5 or Xi6 unless you ask for an older X1 box with QAM tuners and hard drive (or a CableCARD).


True. I've been trying it out over the last week. It's pretty limited but usable. I was surprised that the on-site service rep wasn't familiar with it.


----------



## BeerPimp

All my Spectrum discounts dropped off this month. I would consider YTTV but they don't have A&E channel. Out of all the streaming services YTTV seems the best. I am going to call and see if I can get some discounts but I know that is going to be difficult.


----------



## NashGuy

BeerPimp said:


> All my Spectrum discounts dropped off this month. I would consider YTTV but they don't have A&E channel. Out of all the streaming services YTTV seems the best. I am going to call and see if I can get some discounts but I know that is going to be difficult.


There have been some rumblings lately about a possible price hike for YTTV, taking it to $60 or 61/mo.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubetv/comments/dxv5xj

YouTube TV is Surveying Subscribers About a New $59.99 Package - Cord Cutters News

It wouldn't surprise me to see that happen in the new year, but if they do, I expect they might add a few missing channels like those from A&E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetime) and/or the Hallmark channels and/or the Viacom channels (MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, etc.). Those are really the only channels YTTV is missing.

Back in April, YTTV implemented a $10 increase and added the Discovery Networks.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> There have been some rumblings lately about a possible price hike for YTTV, taking it to $60 or 61/mo.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me to see that happen in the new year, but if they do, I expect they might add a few missing channels like those from A&E Networks (A&E, History, Lifetime) and/or the Hallmark channels and/or the Viacom channels (MTV, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, etc.). Those are really the only channels YTTV is missing.
> 
> Back in April, YTTV implemented a $10 increase and added the Discovery Networks.


I think I'd rather save $10/mo than get those channels.

ON the other hand, my Mom was turned off from YTTV because it didn't have Hallmark and because of that, wouldn't entertain the possibility of splitting the cost with me. ....although since I realized that 6 accounts doesn't mean 6 simultaneous streams. Be tough to make that work.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I think I'd rather save $10/mo than get those channels.
> 
> ON the other hand, my Mom was turned off from YTTV because it didn't have Hallmark and because of that, wouldn't entertain the possibility of splitting the cost with me. ....although since I realized that 6 accounts doesn't mean 6 simultaneous streams. Be tough to make that work.


Fair enough, although the way I see it is that it wouldn't cost Google an additional $10 in carriage fees to add whatever channels they may add, which means that each subscriber becomes more profitable for them. (I wonder if they're breaking even now with the current line-up priced at $50?) And while some current subs would cancel over the price hike and the addition of channels they don't care about, they might all be replaced by new subs who care about those channels, like your mom.

In the end, I expect that YTTV will end up with the most popular channels from all the channel groups, essentially becoming the standard core bundle of cable channels (and priced likewise). The channels not in YTTV will be those channels that are relegated to other MVPDs' upper/add-on tiers and will be the ones likely to disappear completely in the first half of the 2020s. No one's going to end up saving a ton of money by going with YTTV or another vMVPD but the competition they provide and the slight trimming of fat from the standard channel bundle will help keep costs in check a bit. But live cable TV will really remain an option for consumers willing to spend significant money on TV. For those who want to spend under $50, they'll all shift to direct-to-consumer on-demand services (and/or free OTA TV).

As far as sharing a YTTV account with another household, be aware that Google discourages that by tracking the locations of where each profile accesses the service. If you set up a profile for your mom, that profile would need to be logged into and used at your home (the main account location) periodically.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Fair enough, although the way I see it is that it wouldn't cost Google an additional $10 in carriage fees to add whatever channels they may add, which means that each subscriber becomes more profitable for them. (I wonder if they're breaking even now with the current line-up priced at $50?) And while some current subs would cancel over the price hike and the addition of channels they don't care about, they might all be replaced by new subs who care about those channels, like your mom.
> 
> In the end, I expect that YTTV will end up with the most popular channels from all the channel groups, essentially becoming the standard core bundle of cable channels (and priced likewise). The channels not in YTTV will be those channels that are relegated to other MVPDs' upper/add-on tiers and will be the ones likely to disappear completely in the first half of the 2020s. No one's going to end up saving a ton of money by going with YTTV or another vMVPD but the competition they provide and the slight trimming of fat from the standard channel bundle will help keep costs in check a bit. But live cable TV will really remain an option for consumers willing to spend significant money on TV. For those who want to spend under $50, they'll all shift to direct-to-consumer on-demand services (and/or free OTA TV).
> 
> As far as sharing a YTTV account with another household, be aware that Google discourages that by tracking the locations of where each profile accesses the service. If you set up a profile for your mom, that profile would need to be logged into and used at your home (the main account location) periodically.


Yeah Google will do whatever is best for their business.

For me, a price hike for channels I don't really care about is just more incentive to try some direct to consumer streaming sports packages and use OTA for NFL games and other big sporting events and carry more scripted show streaming services instead.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> For me, a price hike for channels I don't really care about is just more incentive to try some direct to consumer streaming sports packages and use OTA for NFL games and other big sporting events and carry more scripted show streaming services instead.


That's pretty much where I've been for a few years now. I'm not a huge sports fan, so I make do fine with OTA plus a couple streaming services at any given time. Looking forward to HBO Max next spring. I'll give Peacock a whirl if the version with ads is free but, so far, it doesn't look like it'll have too much that would tempt me to pay for. I still haven't tried out Apple TV+ but I'm hearing some good things about The Morning Show.


----------



## jzinckgra

Been using YTTV for a week or so with Firestick 4K direct into my Yammi AVR. Some good some not so good. PQ is as good as my Tivo OTA for locals. No one-button click commercial skip, unlike Tivo is a bit of a downer. Also, can't seem to rewind a show in progress any farther back then where you pick up with it, unlike Tivo which you can go back 30min. Getting a lot of lip sync issues with locals and streaming app movies. Read about it online and tried setting sound setting to "stereo only", but that doesn't work. The longer a show stays on without changing the channel, the worse it gets. Maybe it is a streaming issue where the video is coming in slower than sound, however streaming movies through the Tivo Netflix/Prime apps never has sync issues, so must be Firestick 4K related.


----------



## trip1eX

jzinckgra said:


> Been using YTTV for a week or so with Firestick 4K direct into my Yammi AVR. Some good some not so good. PQ is as good as my Tivo OTA for locals. No one-button click commercial skip, unlike Tivo is a bit of a downer. Also, can't seem to rewind a show in progress any farther back then where you pick up with it, unlike Tivo which you can go back 30min. Getting a lot of lip sync issues with locals and streaming app movies. Read about it online and tried setting sound setting to "stereo only", but that doesn't work. The longer a show stays on without changing the channel, the worse it gets. Maybe it is a streaming issue where the video is coming in slower than sound, however streaming movies through the Tivo Netflix/Prime apps never has sync issues, so must be Firestick 4K related.


I only have lip sync issues if I don't close the YTTV app when I change the sound output of the AppleTV to Homepods. And since YTTV doesn't remember the sound output setting (in the case of Homepods,) I have to do chane it 1x sometimes 2x per day. Netflix on the ATV doesn't have the same problem. So I don't think it's the ATV's fault even though I don't think this is a main feature of the Homepod and ATV. I just happen to have them in my office so why not.  It seems to be YTTV issue.

But otherwise, just outputting sound to the tv, I haven't had any lip sync issues.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> That's pretty much where I've been for a few years now. I'm not a huge sports fan, so I make do fine with OTA plus a couple streaming services at any given time. Looking forward to HBO Max next spring. I'll give Peacock a whirl if the version with ads is free but, so far, it doesn't look like it'll have too much that would tempt me to pay for. I still haven't tried out Apple TV+ but I'm hearing some good things about The Morning Show.


I did NBA League Pass last night. I broke down and paid for a month even to follow a certain team and to test it out. And what was nice was there was a replay available not long after the game ended and it was commercial free. And I watched it starting in the 2nd quarter because I had watched it live for the 1st quarter earlier. But having your sports automatically stripped of commercials was nice. You do have to wait shortly after it ends for the replay. Last night was less than an hour. The other good thing about getting something like NBA League Pass is being to watch the team or game you want to watch. Plus you get an option to watch a 15 minute condensed version of a game shortly after it ends. or 5 minutes of highlights. but they still protect the local team games and the nationally televised games. None of those are available until many hours or even days afterwards in the case of local teams supposedly.


----------



## saeba

jzinckgra said:


> Getting a lot of lip sync issues with locals and streaming app movies ....
> text deleted]
> ....so must be Firestick 4K related.


Haven't ever experienced this with my Nvidia Shield TV units. I would notice as it drives me crazy when the sync is off.


----------



## pl1

jzinckgra said:


> Been using YTTV for a week or so with Firestick 4K direct into my Yammi AVR. Some good some not so good. PQ is as good as my Tivo OTA for locals. No one-button click commercial skip, unlike Tivo is a bit of a downer. Also, can't seem to rewind a show in progress any farther back then where you pick up with it, unlike Tivo which you can go back 30min. Getting a lot of lip sync issues with locals and streaming app movies. Read about it online and tried setting sound setting to "stereo only", but that doesn't work. The longer a show stays on without changing the channel, the worse it gets. Maybe it is a streaming issue where the video is coming in slower than sound, however streaming movies through the Tivo Netflix/Prime apps never has sync issues, so must be Firestick 4K related.


I personally do not really think comparing YTTV (or any streaming solution) to TiVo as a replacement on its own is worthwhile. I think the majority of TiVo users would agree that TiVo is the best device for time-shifting TV. It is possible that the streaming services of the future could compare, but it is really a different model.

For me, I cut the cable. It is not because of TiVo, it is because of the cableco. I can still use my TiVO OTA. (I always purchase a TiVo that can do both, since I could always change to either OTA or cableco.)

So, it is still valid to compare TiVo to YTTV for the sake of deciding if one can live with the streaming versus the equivalent of having cable TV. Based on my experience, I am satisfied functionally. The quality is as good or better than Comcast. There is no stutter. I can skip commercials. I can rewind or fast forward pretty quickly, and the DVR function records just as good as TiVo. What I am saying is that I can live with it.

But, like cable, I still have a MAJOR problem with paying $50/mo for one regional sports channel, and maybe 2 or 3 channels I care about. I can get ALL of the locals in my area including neighboring states with my TiVo.

So, the bottom line IMHO is that YTTV is a very good replacement for cable TV. It is less money than the equivalent cableco pricing and seems rock solid.

I'm not sure if I'm willing to pay more than the current $50. If they increase price I probably WILL go to sling for $30 with a 10 hour DVR and no regional sports. The only sport I care about is Hockey, so I could just get that from NHL.com and a VPN. (Although the few times I've used them, the stream sucked.)

Also, you will notice how these prices are all over the place. The beauty of being a cord-cutter is that you can just stop one and start another at anytime. No hemming an hawing about the cableCARD.


----------



## saeba

pl1 said:


> I personally do not really think comparing YTTV (or any streaming solution) to TiVo as a replacement on its own is worthwhile. I think the majority of TiVo users would agree that TiVo is the best device for time-shifting TV.


Perhaps it isn't for you, but the comparison certainly is valuable for me. I appreciated the discussion in this thread as I was making exactly that decision - could I replace my TiVo's with YTTV for time-shifting TV? And I ended up finding that TiVo *isn't* the best device for time-shifting TV because for me: OTA is not an option, cost of solution is important, TiVo's recent updates (pre-roll and Grid ads, TiVo+) show they're not currently aligned with my needs, I have cheap Internet access with no data cap, etc..

It really depends on each individual's situation and hopefully this thread allows them to consider and make the decision that works best for them.


----------



## pl1

saeba said:


> Perhaps it isn't for you, but the comparison certainly is valuable for me. I appreciated the discussion in this thread as I was making exactly that decision - could I replace my TiVo's with YTTV for time-shifting TV? And I ended up finding that TiVo *isn't* the best device for time-shifting TV because for me: OTA is not an option, cost of solution is important, TiVo's recent updates (pre-roll and Grid ads, TiVo+) show they're not currently aligned with my needs, I have cheap Internet access with no data cap, etc..
> 
> It really depends on each individual's situation and hopefully this thread allows them to consider and make the decision that works best for them.


I used the wrong phrase when I said the comparison wasn't worthwhile. I should have said it is not fair to compare hardware based time shifting to online streaming based time shifting. I was replying to:


jzinckgra said:


> No one-button click commercial skip, unlike Tivo is a bit of a downer. Also, can't seem to rewind a show in progress any farther back then where you pick up with it, unlike Tivo which you can go back 30min."


 To expect a cloud DVR to act like a hardware solution is too much to expect, although it is possible it could be equivalent in the future.

As you will note, I DID find that YTTV is an acceptable replacement (even with the conditions you mention, that you do not have access to OTA). In your case, I think YTTV is a great alternative. But, in the event you DO have OTA accessibility, it makes the decision a little tougher because, just like cable TV, I have to pay for locals when I do not need them.

Anyway, I also think the discussion is valuable, AAMOF, if I had not read the discussion here, I might not have looked into it. I did a very thorough comparison of all of the services and the two services that satisfied my needs best are YTTV and FUBO. But, both of these services have way more filler stations I will never use. That is the SAME problem I have with cable TV.

EDIT: Although, by using YTTV, I'm saving $40/month over cable TV which is huge!


----------



## NightmarePatrol

So here's some pros and cons in comparing TiVo to YTTV, even though it's not even close to the proverbial apples-to-apples comparison. We outfitted our TV's with Roku Premiere sticks for the record.

Pros:

No space restrictions
No PQ issues even when viewing 4K video
Access to lots of free programming though how interesting is really is would be a YMMV situation.
We have the option to start any live program from the beginning or join in progress. The TiVo would give you something like this IF one of the tuners was already on the channel
You can order your channels to put your favorites at the top (or bottom if you want) or even hide channels from the guide
If you forgot to set something up you can always watch it (but with commercials)
Cons:

Not a lot of detailed information in the guide
The recording options are rather a PITA. You can record an entire series, but not set up anything that resembles a season pass.
The interface on the Roku and YTTV takes some getting used to 
No History channel - We like the History channel and now I have to get the shows we watch via nefarious means. A&E is okay, but we can live without the rest. 
Recordings are only kept for 9 months. To be fair if you haven't watched it in 9 months you probably won't.
I will leave the discovery remainder of the intricacies up to my wife to discover as I'm just the infrastructure guy around the house ans she manages all the shows, etc. The final step of our ISP upgrade happened this morning and we have gone from 100/100 to 500/500 so we should not have much in the line of pixelization.

I can't say if we are going to like it long term or not. Streaming has finally gotten it's legs and has a very long way to go. If TiVo had an offering that would "streamline the streaming process" and give is back to the TiVo functionality I'd be willing to give it a show (or beta test it for them) For now though, it appears that we have cut the cord and not suffered anything we can't live without.

I guess I'm going to have a bolt, a mini and qwerty remote to sell soon too.


----------



## trip1eX

NightmarePatrol said:


> So here's some pros and cons in comparing TiVo to YTTV, even though it's not even close to the proverbial apples-to-apples comparison. We outfitted our TV's with Roku Premiere sticks for the record.
> 
> Pros:
> 
> No space restrictions
> No PQ issues even when viewing 4K video
> Access to lots of free programming though how interesting is really is would be a YMMV situation.
> We have the option to start any live program from the beginning or join in progress. The TiVo would give you something like this IF one of the tuners was already on the channel
> You can order your channels to put your favorites at the top (or bottom if you want) or even hide channels from the guide
> If you forgot to set something up you can always watch it (but with commercials)
> Cons:
> 
> Not a lot of detailed information in the guide
> The recording options are rather a PITA. You can record an entire series, but not set up anything that resembles a season pass.
> The interface on the Roku and YTTV takes some getting used to
> No History channel - We like the History channel and now I have to get the shows we watch via nefarious means. A&E is okay, but we can live without the rest.
> Recordings are only kept for 9 months. To be fair if you haven't watched it in 9 months you probably won't.
> I will leave the discovery remainder of the intricacies up to my wife to discover as I'm just the infrastructure guy around the house ans she manages all the shows, etc. The final step of our ISP upgrade happened this morning and we have gone from 100/100 to 500/500 so we should not have much in the line of pixelization.
> 
> I can't say if we are going to like it long term or not. Streaming has finally gotten it's legs and has a very long way to go. If TiVo had an offering that would "streamline the streaming process" and give is back to the TiVo functionality I'd be willing to give it a show (or beta test it for them) For now though, it appears that we have cut the cord and not suffered anything we can't live without.
> 
> I guess I'm going to have a bolt, a mini and qwerty remote to sell soon too.


Don't forget unlimited tuners. That's the other great advantage of YTTV in addition to unlimited storage. These things eliminate most of the system maintenance that Tivo has. Plus no need to add extra time to recordings or start recordings early or choose reruns or new or channel or HD. There is none of that. You hit record and it records. at least so far. (knock on wood. Crosses Fingers).

Yeah you can't do a wishlist (keyword) season pass like record every movie with Al Pacino or something. Although if you type in Al Pacino in search then every upcoming movie with Al Pacino shows up. Seems like something that could easily be added in the next year considering this and considering it's Google. Maybe they want you to manually search every few weeks though. And will eventually put small ads in there. 

YOu can record some sports with just one click. For example, I clicked on NFL after searching for it and it has recorded every NFL game since. The NBA though was convoluted. I couldn't just click NBA. I also had to click every team (under NBA) to record all the NBA games. And that is a little bit annoying in the recordings library as well because the games show up under NBA and then under each individual team. IT's messy. So if one NBA game is recorded between the Lakers and Sun, you'll see NBA, Phoenix Suns and Lakers icons in the recordings library....for one game. IT's a bit messy for that sport.

The UI is something I got used to very quickly. It's pretty simple

3 tabs:

1) The Library tab is recordings. Also where scheduled recordings are located.

2) The Live tab is your tv guide/live tv.

3) The Home tab is recommendations. Last played. Just recorded. Currently recording. Various filters to find sports or movies etc. And various other recommendations and filters plus access to on-demand stuff. IT's pretty extensive.
_
([tangent] And some of it is a bit buried. I only very recently realized there is a list of your channels at the bottom of the Home tab and each channel has among other things a nice visual (thumbnail) list of the upcoming programming on the channel and unlike the LIve tab currently, it shows 24-48 hrs worth upcoming programming. Just for that channel though. IT's too buried though to make quick (practical) use of. [/tangent])_

That's basically it. There's a search icon at the top right along with an account/profile button to switch accounts. IF you are watching something while in the menus then you can go back to it by going to very top of the UI. and clicking on it.

The UI was almost too simple to me. ..coming from Tivo, it feels like you're missing something.


----------



## saeba

pl1 said:


> To expect a cloud DVR to act like a hardware solution is too much to expect, although it is possible it could be equivalent in the future.


We probably agree more than disagree, but here I do differ in opinion.... I expect the same level of user experience for whatever solution I use to watch TV. There are lots of different solutions (Comcast DVR vs TiVo DVR vs YTTV, etc.), but in the end the question is: Do they serve my requirements? And yes, TiVo does have some nice functionality beyond what YTTV has - auto-skip commercials, ability to mark shows as watched (though this is coming in YTTV), quick-play, etc.; however, I find, for my needs, YYTV is quite capable. And Google seems quite keen on rapidly enhancing their solution to make it better and better (an area that TiVo has long struggled).

As an example of that user experience:



NightmarePatrol said:


> Cons:
> 
> The recording options are rather a PITA. You can record an entire series, but not set up anything that resembles a season pass.


I found this worrisome when I first started using YTTV because there weren't all the recording options that TiVo has; however, as @trip1eX posted, the simplicity of YTTV actually makes it better and much easier to use. YTTV has the benefit of unlimited simultaneous recordings and unlimited storage so it takes the design of "record it all and let the user sort out what they want to watch". It makes it almost impossible to miss recording something I want which I did have happen with TiVo. I haven't had a situation yet where I couldn't easily get the recordings I wanted (shows, movies, Formula1 races, NCAA football and basketball games, etc.).

My detailed post of YTTV pros and cons (with recent updates) is here: Anyone tried Youtube Tv and can compare it to Tivo?


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Plus no need to add extra time to recordings or start recordings early or choose reruns or new or channel or HD. There is none of that. You hit record and it records. at least so far.


I just noticed that last night. I had a few games I recently watched and all of them went into overtime. I never had to add any buffer, it just recorded everything. How do you suppose they do that? Do you think there is some manual intervention? Or is there some notification that the station operator lets them know when the show ends? And if so, why wouldn't TiVo use that I wonder?


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I did NBA League Pass last night. I broke down and paid for a month even to follow a certain team and to test it out. And what was nice was there was a replay available not long after the game ended and it was commercial free. And I watched it starting in the 2nd quarter because I had watched it live for the 1st quarter earlier. But having your sports automatically stripped of commercials was nice. You do have to wait shortly after it ends for the replay. Last night was less than an hour. The other good thing about getting something like NBA League Pass is being to watch the team or game you want to watch. Plus you get an option to watch a 15 minute condensed version of a game shortly after it ends. or 5 minutes of highlights. but they still protect the local team games and the nationally televised games. None of those are available until many hours or even days afterwards in the case of local teams supposedly.


This sounds similar to how MLB.TV works. Very slick. I think these direct-from-the-league/team services are the future of sports distribution and will eventually allow access to local in-market games too.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> I just noticed that last night. I had a few games I recently watched and all of them went into overtime. I never had to add any buffer, it just recorded everything. How do you suppose they do that? Do you think there is some manual intervention? Or is there some notification that the station operator lets them know when the show ends? And if so, why wouldn't TiVo use that I wonder?


I bet it's automated. But otherwise not sure. They pad everything a good amt to begin with. Maybe that's all they need.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> I bet it's automated. But otherwise not sure. They pad everything a good amt to begin with. Maybe that's all they need.


Again, it seems to go with YTTV's design approach based on unlimited storage and simultaneous recordings. Whereas with TiVo, you have neither capability and therefore have to carefully select what gets recorded and if padding should be added for sporting events, YTTV just records it all. To paraphrase your postings - It's just too easy and removes all the worries ;-)!


----------



## cmeinck

I've just started a 14 day trial with YTTV, comparing to TiVo. One big drawback is the lack of 5.1 audio. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that's accessible with on-demand, but then we have commercials. I'm assuming that's in the works. The only real issue for me is the lack of NFL network and MSG (local NY hockey). I suppose I could get the NHL package and hope they don't block me if I use a VPN.


----------



## saeba

cmeinck said:


> One big drawback is the lack of 5.1 audio.


I'm curious.. how much difference does 5.1 audio really make for you? I ask because I previously had a home theater setup with TiVo 5.1 audio out, an AVR and mid-level 5.1 speakers. I now use YTTV and a mid-level soundbar w/sub. I haven't really noticed a significant difference - but then I've never really had a "hifi audio" ear.


----------



## trip1eX

Here's a glitch that happens on YTTV (on ATV) sometimes. I think it has something to do with the app/UI not "refreshing." Could be only the ATV app for all I know. 

AS an example, I clicked on an NBA game last night. And selected play from the beginning. And ...suddenly was watching an NBA highlight show. And noticed it was in the middle of the recording timeline. And almost like I watching live tv. And then I saw scores and stat ticker at the bottom and caught the end of the stats for the game I was going to watch.  

I have gotten a glitch like this a few times. (there is a possibility I guess that I could have clicked Join Live instead of Play from the Beginning. maybe. perhaps. 1 in a million. )

To fix, I either restart the app or in this case I went back out of the Library to the Home tab and then back into the LIbrary and all was good. I "refreshed" it. Luckily, I just missed seeing the score of the game I was about to watch. first world problems.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Here's a glitch that happens on YTTV (on ATV) sometimes. I think it has something to do with the app/UI not "refreshing." Could be only the ATV app for all I know.


Just for feedback purposes, I have never had any issue similar to what you are describing. I do not have any addons like NBA, and I am just using a Samsung TV and an Amazon Fire TV.


----------



## JoeKustra

saeba said:


> I'm curious.. how much difference does 5.1 audio really make for you? I ask because I previously had a home theater setup with TiVo 5.1 audio out, an AVR and mid-level 5.1 speakers. I now use YTTV and a mid-level soundbar w/sub. I haven't really noticed a significant difference - but then I've never really had a "hifi audio" ear.


I have that type of "ear". However I find it's more a PCM vs. Dolby issue. When watching Real Time or The Daily Show, both of which are DD 2.0, I can tell the difference but it's not so bad. Streaming via the network's apps on my Roku sound really bad. Perhaps my AVR does a better job with DD and its DSP has more to work with. Like anything, there are different bit rates (quality) for content. It seems that when I miss a program from my cable feed and then watch it on the network's app, the sound is really different. But I grew up with TV speakers.


----------



## NightmarePatrol

It's going to be a process for us. Some things it does are really great. Some things (as trip1eX pointed out) are simply different, and we will find them to be better over time after the adjustment wears off. Once I get a VPN and build out a new home server I will spin up a VM with plex on it to make things more convenient. It's going to be a gradual process for us. The good thing (as pointed out) is the UI is extremely simple, easy to understand and follow. At least we aren't juggling a stack of VHS tapes with manifests and cue positions marked on tapes any more. It's new, it's different and we'll adjust. In the end I'm pretty sure we'll look back and fondly remember that the TiVo prevented me from hurling the FiOS DVR out the window.


----------



## mschnebly

trip1eX said:


> Don't forget unlimited tuners. That's the other great advantage of YTTV in addition to unlimited storage. These things eliminate most of the system maintenance that Tivo has. Plus no need to add extra time to recordings or start recordings early or choose reruns or new or channel or HD. There is none of that. You hit record and it records. at least so far. (knock on wood. Crosses Fingers).
> 
> Yeah you can't do a wishlist (keyword) season pass like record every movie with Al Pacino or something. Although if you type in Al Pacino in search then every upcoming movie with Al Pacino shows up. Seems like something that could easily be added in the next year considering this and considering it's Google. Maybe they want you to manually search every few weeks though. And will eventually put small ads in there.
> 
> YOu can record some sports with just one click. For example, I clicked on NFL after searching for it and it has recorded every NFL game since. The NBA though was convoluted. I couldn't just click NBA. I also had to click every team (under NBA) to record all the NBA games. And that is a little bit annoying in the recordings library as well because the games show up under NBA and then under each individual team. IT's messy. So if one NBA game is recorded between the Lakers and Sun, you'll see NBA, Phoenix Suns and Lakers icons in the recordings library....for one game. IT's a bit messy for that sport.
> 
> The UI is something I got used to very quickly. It's pretty simple
> 
> 3 tabs:
> 
> 1) The Library tab is recordings. Also where scheduled recordings are located.
> 
> 2) The Live tab is your tv guide/live tv.
> 
> 3) The Home tab is recommendations. Last played. Just recorded. Currently recording. Various filters to find sports or movies etc. And various other recommendations and filters plus access to on-demand stuff. IT's pretty extensive.
> _
> ([tangent] And some of it is a bit buried. I only very recently realized there is a list of your channels at the bottom of the Home tab and each channel has among other things a nice visual (thumbnail) list of the upcoming programming on the channel and unlike the LIve tab currently, it shows 24-48 hrs worth upcoming programming. Just for that channel though. IT's too buried though to make quick (practical) use of. [/tangent])_
> 
> That's basically it. There's a search icon at the top right along with an account/profile button to switch accounts. IF you are watching something while in the menus then you can go back to it by going to very top of the UI. and clicking on it.
> 
> The UI was almost too simple to me. ..coming from Tivo, it feels like you're missing something.


One thing I like about the Home tab is the list of genres you can scroll through. You are right, it is about as simple as can be. For the cloud DVR, tuners and simplicity they sure did it right for a first shot at it. I see where they are getting ready to roll out a 2 week guide too. That was kind of a missing piece.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I bet it's automated. But otherwise not sure. They pad everything a good amt to begin with. Maybe that's all they need.


Yeah, the extension of recordings of live sports that run over their allotted timeframe is almost certainly automated. Google keeps track, in real-time, of all sorts of popular sports. For instance, on my Android phone, I've noted a couple of teams I like in the Google app, so I get notifications on the phone when a game is about to begin and then updated notifications each time the score changes. Perhaps the same real-time data feeds that power those notifications also alert the YTTV servers to extend recording times. (How are those underlying data feeds created, though? My guess is that Google uses machine learning/AI to monitor video feeds of the games and scape out the scores, game clocks, etc. Hard to imagine Google hiring a bunch of folks to sit and live-view all those games in order to manually type in the data.)


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, the extension of recordings of live sports that run over their allotted timeframe is almost certainly automated. Google keeps track, in real-time, of all sorts of popular sports. For instance, on my Android phone, I've noted a couple of teams I like in the Google app, so I get notifications on the phone when a game is about to begin and then updated notifications each time the score changes. Perhaps the same real-time data feeds that power those notifications also alert the YTTV servers to extend recording times. (How are those underlying data feeds created, though? My guess is that Google uses machine learning/AI to monitor video feeds of the games and scape out the scores, game clocks, etc. Hard to imagine Google hiring a bunch of folks to sit and live-view all those games in order to manually type in the data.)


Yeah figured they could easily just look for the "F" in the database for each game. Or lack of one. As you said Google and everyone else has real time scores. Do they scrape video feeds or does someone at the game enter it into a data feed that is picked up over the internet? Seems like it would be the latter or the latter would be automated too in this day and age.

I mean the scorekeeper at an NBA game is probably entering the score into a laptop program to begin with and then that data is probably fed into a database where it can be accessed by services over the internet.


----------



## pl1

NashGuy said:


> (How are those underlying data feeds created, though? My guess is that Google uses machine learning/AI to monitor video feeds of the games and scape out the scores, game clocks, etc. Hard to imagine Google hiring a bunch of folks to sit and live-view all those games in order to manually type in the data.)


When I had NHL Center Ice (Both on Cable TV and Streaming), when the game ended, the feed was cut. On the dot. I was never sure how they determined that either. What will be interesting to see during the upcoming playoffs (where there can be unlimited overtime periods), is if the recording is extended properly when there is a double OT. From what I've seen I'm thinking yes.

I have noticed a lot of nice features with the Android app including stats and key plays. That would be great if some of these things come over to the TV apps.

For some reason though, I am having trouble with getting the notifications to work for me. Where do you set up notifications for scores out of curiosity? (Personally, I don't like knowing the score before I watch it. For example, If I already know the score is 0-1, then I already know it is impossible for my team to score a goal.)

EDIT: I think I figured out why my notifications were not working. I had "No sound" set for some reason.


----------



## trip1eX

mschnebly said:


> One thing I like about the Home tab is the list of genres you can scroll through. You are right, it is about as simple as can be. For the cloud DVR, tuners and simplicity they sure did it right for a first shot at it. I see where they are getting ready to roll out a 2 week guide too. That was kind of a missing piece.


yeah the HOme tab is crammed full of stuff. I am only now seeing there is so much there. I tried the new guide on pc. It was a pain in the arse to scroll through the timeline. part of the problem seemed to be it isn't stored locally. and every 2 hrs needed to be uploaded. and it only skipped 2 hrs at a time.

You should be able to zip through the hours and days of the guide pretty quickly. Ironic thing is you can do this pretty quickly per channel in the HOme tab at the bottom under each circular Channel icon.


----------



## NashGuy

pl1 said:


> For some reason though, I am having trouble with getting the notifications to work for me. Where do you set up notifications for scores out of curiosity? (Personally, I don't like knowing the score before I watch it. For example, If I already know the score is 0-1, then I already know it is impossible for my team to score a goal.)
> 
> EDIT: I think I figured out why my notifications were not working. I had "No sound" set for some reason.


In the Google app on your phone, go to Settings, then Notifications. There are lots of different types of notifications you can turn on or off, among them "Game reminders" and "Sports scores". As far as which sports and teams you will get notifications for, I think Google just figures that out based on your Google searches. But once it learns that you follow a team (or musical artist or TV show or topic, etc.), then it should show up under the Interests menu in the Google app.


----------



## pl1

NashGuy said:


> In the Google app on your phone, go to Settings, then Notifications. There are lots of different types of notifications you can turn on or off, among them "Game reminders" and "Sports scores". As far as which sports and teams you will get notifications for, I think Google just figures that out based on your Google searches. But once it learns that you follow a team (or musical artist or TV show or topic, etc.), then it should show up under the Interests menu in the Google app.


Sounds good, thanks.


----------



## trip1eX

The overtime NFL playoff game yesterday was recorded in its entirety with no problem.


----------



## saeba

After using YTTV for about 6 weeks, I'm very impressed with the ease of use. Setting up recordings is much simpler and quicker to do. Watching on various devices (PC, tablet, phone) is easier as well and I find myself doing this more than I ever did with TiVo. One big feature I like is this one:

Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings
I'd asked TiVo repeatedly for this feature, but it never made it on their development list. My wife records all kinds of programs and with TiVo, the only way to keep her content separate from my stuff was to purchase a second TiVo for her use. I would have preferred to have one shared TiVo with profiles to separate content and then utilize TiVo Mini's for our secondary TVs, but this wasn't really workable. So, two TiVo's along with the costs associated (cable cards, TiVo service) and the work maintaining the devices over the years (replacing disks or TiVos upon failure). YTTV allows me to login with my account and see only my content and the same for her. We can each also switch accounts to watch the other's content if necessary.

Also, she rarely deletes content so that would make sharing a TiVo challenging; however, with unlimited storage on YTTV this isn't an issue. Additionally, YTTV automatically purges content older than nine months taking care of the clean-up for her. Would like to be able to download and save content, but there isn't a simple option for this (other than screen recording it on a PC).

As to losing automatic ad skip, pros and cons. YTTV's manual skip through ads is pretty simple and it does provide the opportunity to scan the ads and watch any of interest.

Just paid off our final Comcast bill. Happy to see the end of cable bills!


----------



## dave13077

saeba said:


> After using YTTV for about 6 weeks, I'm very impressed with the ease of use. Setting up recordings is much simpler and quicker to do. Watching on various devices (PC, tablet, phone) is easier as well and I find myself doing this more than I ever did with TiVo. One big feature I like is this one:
> 
> Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings
> I'd asked TiVo repeatedly for this feature, but it never made it on their development list. My wife records all kinds of programs and with TiVo, the only way to keep her content separate from my stuff was to purchase a second TiVo for her use. I would have preferred to have one shared TiVo with profiles to separate content and then utilize TiVo Mini's for our secondary TVs, but this wasn't really workable. So, two TiVo's along with the costs associated (cable cards, TiVo service) and the work maintaining the devices over the years (replacing disks or TiVos upon failure). YTTV allows me to login with my account and see only my content and the same for her. We can each also switch accounts to watch the other's content if necessary.
> 
> Also, she rarely deletes content so that would make sharing a TiVo challenging; however, with unlimited storage on YTTV this isn't an issue. Additionally, YTTV automatically purges content older than nine months taking care of the clean-up for her. Would like to be able to download and save content, but there isn't a simple option for this (other than screen recording it on a PC).
> 
> As to losing automatic ad skip, pros and cons. YTTV's manual skip through ads is pretty simple and it does provide the opportunity to scan the ads and watch any of interest.
> 
> Just paid off our final Comcast bill. Happy to see the end of cable bills!


If you are no longer using Comcast who is your internet provider?


----------



## saeba

dave13077 said:


> If you are no longer using Comcast who is your internet provider?


Our condo has an in-building solution (100/100mbps with no data cap) from a local provider (Net2Atlanta). Cost is about $6 per month.


----------



## WVZR1

saeba said:


> Our condo has an in-building solution (100/100mbps with no data cap) from a local provider (Net2Atlanta). Cost is about $6 per month.


An agreement similar to that for Internet certainly makes a decision much easier. A user with no such agreement and a Tivo with PLS certainly requires much more thought!


----------



## saeba

WVZR1 said:


> An agreement similar to that for Internet certainly makes a decision much easier. A user with no such agreement and a Tivo with PLS certainly requires much more thought!


Absolutely! There is no "one fits all" solution. I'd posted details of how I made my choice earlier in this thread via this post - Anyone tried Youtube Tv and can compare it to Tivo?


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Our condo has an in-building solution (100/100mbps with no data cap) from a local provider (Net2Atlanta). Cost is about $6 per month.


$6 a month? What planet do you live on? lol. And do I need to be friends with Elon Musk to get there.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> $6 a month? Well planet do you live on? lol. And do I need to be friends with Elon Musk to get there.


I know! We have about 200 homes in the building and this is part of our HOA fees (so you pay for it regardless of using it). So that adds up. I was worried there would be network contention, but I haven't really seen any network speed drops. I've had zero streaming issues. Ping times to internet sites are in the 3ms range which is 5x better than what I had with Comcast (150/10mbps 15ms ping times).


----------



## tenthplanet

saeba said:


> I know! We have about 200 homes in the building and this is part of our HOA fees (so you pay for it regardless of using it). So that adds up. I was worried there would be network contention, but I haven't really seen any network speed drops. I've had zero streaming issues. Ping times to internet sites are in the 3ms range which is 5x better than what I had with Comcast (150/10mbps 15ms ping times).


Your secret is safe with us..


----------



## chiguy50

tenthplanet said:


> Your secret is safe with us..


I think saeba is getting a great deal on HSI. But, in fairness, the true cost of the service is a lot more than $6 per month as you might imagine. That is just the monthly fee to individual residents at his condominium complex for maintaining an active connection to the unit. The bulk of the costs are covered by the HOA dues assessments. He and I have exchanged PM's on the subject so I am generally aware of his setup, but we do not know how much the actual costs are. Nonetheless, his assessments are not exorbitant so I assume that the deal is an excellent one if he is indeed satisfied with the quality of the service.


----------



## saeba

chiguy50 said:


> The bulk of the costs are covered by the HOA dues assessments.


@chiguy50's point is that our building utilizes the internet connectivity as well for office services, in-building wifi, guest suite wifi, etc. and these costs are then part of the overall HOA fees. Any condo with in-building staff and facilities would have similar costs whether they then extend the internet service out to the residents for use or not. As to "the bulk of the costs".... that's not the case. From our building financials, I see there's a line item for "Internet/Cable TV" which is $27,000/year with $18,000 being recovered from per unit HOA fees. So that means the 200+ units split an additional $9,000/year for this (~$3-4/month/unit).

So my cost for internet service is $6.52/month and I pay an additional $3-4/month for the building admin use of internet. By us all sharing our network connection, we get a great deal.


----------



## chiguy50

Yes, that is truly a phenomenal deal for HSI if that is the true end cost. In comparison, a bulk-services deal for Google Fiber 100Mbps service (if you could get one) would run you at least three times as much if not more. (Of course, that would include provision of all of the supporting infrastructure as opposed to your current situation.)

At the same time, not every HOA is configured to take advantage of this arrangement and, besides, there are other considerations to be taken into account that complicate the picture. For instance, you are left to negotiate your own individual video service as a retail customer. If your HOA were to conclude a BSA with Comcast for both CTV and HSI, the end price would almost certainly be less than the combined total you (and most of your fellow residents) are now paying for comparable services.

In short, there is no "one size fits all" solution (as I well know, having had to grapple with 335 unit owners and a board of directors on these issues for the past 10 years).


----------



## saeba

chiguy50 said:


> For instance, you are left to negotiate your own individual video service as a retail customer. If your HOA were to conclude a BSA with Comcast for both CTV and HSI, the end price would almost certainly be less than the combined total you (and most of your fellow residents) are now paying for comparable services.


The building did discuss doing a building-wide agreement with Comcast for cable TV. This was about a year or so ago and at the time, I was quite interested in order to cut costs. However, after moving to YouTube TV, I'm quite happy with their costs ($49.99/month) and don't believe that we could negotiate a better deal with Comcast - I was paying Comcast $104/mo for their Xfinity HD Preferred TV package (with no premium channels) with 2 cable cards (for TiVos).


----------



## chiguy50

In fact, the deals are there for the asking. 

For less than the combined cost of your current arrangement (let's say around $60 total), your HOA could easily get Blast! HSI (effectively 240Mbps) combined with either the Extra or Preferred channel pack plus all or most of the customer-provided equipment (XB3/6 gateway and/or Xi3/5/6 STB). I am reasonably certain that you can even get one or more premium channels added in as well. There are trade-offs to be weighed, but as a current non-customer of Comcast's broadband service your HOA is well-positioned to negotiate for a highly-discounted package.

Apples-to-apples, a bundled multi-year deal with Comcast would definitely be financially advantageous for most end users. Whether you and your fellow homeowners would welcome the change is another question entirely based on their preferred content providers and willingness to commit their dues obligations to a long-term deal.


----------



## NashGuy

chiguy50 said:


> In fact, the deals are there for the asking.
> 
> For less than the combined cost of your current arrangement (let's say around $60 total), your HOA could easily get Blast! HSI (effectively 240Mbps) combined with either the Extra or Preferred channel pack plus all or most of the customer-provided equipment (XB3/6 gateway and/or Xi3/5/6 STB). I am reasonably certain that you can even get one or more premium channels added in as well. There are trade-offs to be weighed, but as a current non-customer of Comcast's broadband service your HOA is well-positioned to negotiate for a highly-discounted package.
> 
> Apples-to-apples, a bundled multi-year deal with Comcast would definitely be financially advantageous for most end users. Whether you and your fellow homeowners would welcome the change is another question entirely based on their preferred content providers and willingness to commit their dues obligations to a long-term deal.


But I wonder how many of the tenants in his building aren't interested in paying for cable TV service from any provider but would rather just use Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, HBO, OTA antenna, etc? There are a growing number of US households that fall into that category. Those folks are coming out great just paying $6.52/mo for broadband and then adding whatever additional options they want on their own.


----------



## trip1eX

chiguy50 said:


> I think saeba is getting a great deal on HSI. But, in fairness, the true cost of the service is a lot more than $6 per month as you might imagine. That is just the monthly fee to individual residents at his condominium complex for maintaining an active connection to the unit. The bulk of the costs are covered by the HOA dues assessments. He and I have exchanged PM's on the subject so I am generally aware of his setup, but we do not know how much the actual costs are. Nonetheless, his assessments are not exorbitant so I assume that the deal is an excellent one if he is indeed satisfied with the quality of the service.


Don't ruin the story. lol. But yeah I realized, once he said HOA, that the costs are covered in there. PLus the customer density in a building can bring its own discounts.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> But I wonder *how many of the tenants in his building aren't interested in paying for cable TV service from any provider* but would rather just use Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, HBO, OTA antenna, etc? There are a growing number of US households that fall into that category. Those folks are coming out great just paying $6.52/mo for broadband and then adding whatever additional options they want on their own.


That is one of the trade-offs I was referring to. There is no free lunch, bubbele.

As you may recall, I have been able to get Comcast to slash 60% off the lowest available discounted retail pricing in return for a 10-year bulk services commitment for our complex (in addition to other tangible inducements such as a signing bonus, infrastructure upgrades, and common-area service comps). But, particularly when there are considerable CPE costs involved, their bean-counters will insist on some guarantee of ROI.


----------



## dlfl

chiguy50 said:


> That is one of the trade-offs I was referring to. There is no free lunch, bubbele.
> 
> As you may recall, I have been able to get Comcast to slash 60% off the lowest available discounted retail pricing in return for a 10-year bulk services commitment for our complex (in addition to other tangible inducements such as a signing bonus, infrastructure upgrades, and common-area service comps). But, particularly when there are considerable CPE costs involved, their bean-counters will insist on some guarantee of ROI.


Hmmm. Have to wonder how you structure a 10-year commitment so as to protect yourself from overpaying for obsolete performance in the last few years.


----------



## chiguy50

dlfl said:


> Hmmm. Have to wonder how you structure a 10-year commitment so as to protect yourself from overpaying for obsolete performance in the last few years.


That's a good question and a valid concern.

When the deal includes a signing bonus (and perhaps to a lesser extent in cases where there is no upfront cash payout), the first few years might typically entail a pro-rated payback or some other penalty. For the last 10-year BSA I negotiated, our signing bonus was just over $20,000 and the payback period was five years. After the initial five years the HOA could cancel with 60 days notice and keep the full bonus amount.

I also anticipated CPE antiquation (let alone obsolescence) by stipulating the provision of all top-of-the-line devices and the ability for unit owners to upgrade without penalty whenever newer models became available.

As I said, there are many trade-offs and complex factors--both pro and con--that have to be weighed before you can properly judge the relative desirability of entering into such a contract. For example, one of the factors that mitigates in favor of a longer term is inflation protection. A typical contract will contain a cap on the amount that the provider can increase fees per annum (typically between 3% and 5%). If you look at Comcast retail price increases over a 10-year period, the resulting difference in payments can be very substantial.


----------



## NashGuy

Makes you wonder what TV services from Comcast will even look like ten years from now! Perhaps they'll just automatically include Peacock with their broadband and then optionally sell you other video services too...


----------



## chiguy50

I think that's as good a guess as any. 

But changes are advancing so rapidly there is no earthly way anyone can accurately predict the media landscape five years from now, let alone ten. The best protection IMHO is to lock in price controls while leaving yourself enough flexibility to adapt over the medium term as needed.


----------



## tenthplanet

chiguy50 said:


> I think that's as good a guess as any.
> 
> But changes are advancing so rapidly there is no earthly way anyone can accurately predict the media landscape five years from now, let alone ten. The best protection IMHO is to lock in price controls while leaving yourself enough flexibility to adapt over the medium term as needed.


That one of the sanest ideas I've read in this forum in a long time.  If we had a digital wall here we could have the idea framed and hung on the wall.


----------



## WVZR1

NashGuy said:


> Makes you wonder what TV services from Comcast will even look like ten years from now! Perhaps they'll just automatically include Peacock with their broadband and then optionally sell you other video services too...


All the more reason that a person needs to consider tolerating what's out there 'NOW' if they've the devices to use it and can negotiate reasonable provider fees from any 'provider'!!!

@chiguy50 has done a damn good job it seems for his HOA and 'gets it' I'd say!


----------



## ncted

Well, after much hassle and hair-pulling, I've decided I am going to need to subscribe to YTTV for the long term. Even if/when our local stations return to full power, my Amazon Fire Recast has proven to be unreliable. It routinely misses a recording or two each week. That is just not going to fly with us. I'll keep it as a backup in the rare case where YTTV misses something on our locals or we lose Internet access for some period of time, but that probably will be way less often than the Recast missing a recording. If I thought Tivo was really committed to OTA in the long term, I might consider giving it another try, but alas...


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Well, after much hassle and hair-pulling, I've decided I am going to need to subscribe to YTTV for the long term. Even if/when our local stations return to full power, my Amazon Fire Recast has proven to be unreliable. It routinely misses a recording or two each week. That is just not going to fly with us. I'll keep it as a backup in the rare case where YTTV misses something on our locals or we lose Internet access for some period of time, but that probably will be way less often than the Recast missing a recording. If I thought Tivo was really committed to OTA in the long term, I might consider giving it another try, but alas...


hard to beat YTTV. That's where I'm at after ~2 months of using it.


----------



## trip1eX

FYI: Ok looks like Walmart put GooglePlay cards on sale on BF for ~25% off. Also at least in the recent past you could use these cards to pay for YTTV. 

Looks like everyday prices are 5% off at Sams Club and then somewhere like Target is 5% off everyday with a Red card. And one can price match Sams Club at Target. So ~10% off at Target every day pricing looks like a lock. $60/yr savings ...almost enough to cover a year's worth of Disney+. lol. That's with pricing available everyday. (knock on wood. I will see if I can do this this weekend when I'm Target's neighborhood.)

Load up on BF or another good sale and the savings would ~pay for Netflix.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> FYI: Ok looks like Walmart put GooglePlay cards on sale on BF for ~25% off. Also at least in the recent past you could use these cards to pay for YTTV.
> 
> Looks like everyday prices are 5% off at Sams Club and then somewhere like Target is 5% off everyday with a Red card. And one can price match Sams Club at Target. So ~10% off at Target every day pricing looks like a lock. $60/yr savings ...almost enough to cover a year's worth of Disney+. lol. That's with pricing available everyday. (knock on wood. I will see if I can do this this weekend when I'm Target's neighborhood.)
> 
> Load up on BF or another good sale and the savings would ~pay for Netflix.


No specific need to go to the store, FWIW. I get my prepaid wireless refill cards at Target.com all the time. 5% discount minimum (usually more) and email/secure web delivery, so no physical cards to mess around with. I have gotten Play and iTunes this way as well. It works great.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> No specific need to go to the store, FWIW. I get my prepaid wireless refill cards at Target.com all the time. 5% discount minimum (usually more) and email/secure web delivery, so no physical cards to mess around with. I have gotten Play and iTunes this way as well. It works great.


yeah I am going to price match to sam's club or costco. maybe can do that over the phone or chat. But... that's the only reason i was going to stop in at Target.


----------



## HerronScott

ncted said:


> Well, after much hassle and hair-pulling, I've decided I am going to need to subscribe to YTTV for the long term. Even if/when our local stations return to full power, my Amazon Fire Recast has proven to be unreliable. It routinely misses a recording or two each week. That is just not going to fly with us. I'll keep it as a backup in the rare case where YTTV misses something on our locals or we lose Internet access for some period of time, but that probably will be way less often than the Recast missing a recording. If I thought Tivo was really committed to OTA in the long term, I might consider giving it another try, but alas...


So you sold off any TiVo's you had before? I would think that a used Roamio OTA (with All-in service) would not be that expensive of an investment at this time.

Scott


----------



## ncted

HerronScott said:


> So you sold off any TiVo's you had before? I would think that a used Roamio OTA (with All-in service) would not be that expensive of an investment at this time.
> 
> Scott


I haven't had a Tivo in years. Also, I'd really rather not go back to a setup where I have to switch interfaces all the time to use a streaming app.


----------



## trip1eX

another glitch or variation on a glitch. I recorded the college football championship. I was chase watching it. And then I got to the end of the recording but the game hadn't ended. 

ON top of it when I got the end I went to some weird short recording or additional time line that extended the game some. But suddenly it seemed like the timeline shrank to ~10 minutes. 

I also recorded on ESPN2 with their sideline reporter/3 screen approach and full game was there - although I think that was scheduled to run 1/2 hr longer.

I had a feeling that if I rebooted the app and came back the whole recording would be there. Just my experience so far that the system can be a little weird chase watching a recording that might run long over scheduled recording time.

But I didn't reboot because I wasn't too interested in the game in the first place and by late 3rd quarter it looks liked it might be over and man the game was long!!!! Ultimately it ran over 4 hrs with no overtime or anything. halftime was extra long too. I don't watch much college football so wasn't sure if this was normal or not.

But one thing Europeans do right with the sports over there like F1 or Soccer is ~2 hrs is your max even length. Our sports have just bloated over there. I mean baseball in the 70s, the length of a game was ~2 hrs. Now baseball games are 3 1/2 hours even longer. Sorry I digress. /tangent. 

Today though, late this morning, I check the recording because of my feeling above. And sure enough recording made ~16 hours ago was complete in its entirety. I'm guessing I could have restarted the app or something and got the whole recording last night. Or maybe I hit live tv and wasn't aware of it. Anyway, it wasn't elegant in the way it handled that.


----------



## saeba

YouTube TV is Now Available on The PlayStation 4 - Cord Cutters News


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> YouTube TV is Now Available on The PlayStation 4 - Cord Cutters News


Interesting part of the link is Sony put up the rights to market to Vue's 550k subscribers up for bid supposedly last month and also the right to be the recommended replacement app. Or something like that. Sounds like YTTV won that.


----------



## osu1991

Returned my cable card and tuning adapter to Cox this afternoon. 17 yrs with Dish, then 5 yrs with Cox/Tivo to now just OTA with Tivo and/or Plex. Will use Philo and YouTubeTV when the mood hits me to supplement the OTA and Prime.


----------



## Dave in Phoenix

I had never heard of YTTV until read about it here! My Bolt had a failed hard drive after 7 months and is being replaced for free by TIVO but won't get for about a week. Need something now since a news junkie and lots of mostly OTA programs. However, I can not get OTA since blocked by a mountain from TV towers.

I kind of like YTTV except it saves all episodes to your Library and you can not delete what already watched so hard to keep track of what you have seen or not. But I am only 1 day of trying it. Otherwise, it gets most of what I record on TIVO/Cable. I have no interest in sports so did not get those extras just the basic about $50month.

None of the promotional coupons I found worked for their 15 or 30 day free trial, so only have for 5 days free. 

I probably will keep it along with cable/Tivo since I need protection to not lose some saved programs if Tivo fails again. I much prefer the Tivo Interface, but not the frequent hard drive failures losing all I have saved or not had time to watch yet. YTTV being in the cloud solves that - but only for 9 months. Just wish could off load like I can with TIVO for non-protected content via IP address. Even more, I wish I could off load copy-protected stuff but the ways to do it seem far more technical for me. A recorder that records from a PC screen would work with YTTV.

I often want to keep some stuff forever. i.e. non protected America's Got Talent I off load and edit down maybe the best 15 minutes out of two hours really great performances. There is other historical stuff I like to edit down and keep. I use Video Redo to edit TIVO files.


----------



## moyekj

Dave in Phoenix said:


> I kind of like YTTV except it saves all episodes to your Library and you can not delete what already watched so hard to keep track of what you have seen or not.


 That sounds like a major issue. So there's no indication of what you have watched, or partially watched already?


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> That sounds like a major issue. So there's no indication of what you have watched, or partially watched already?


Yes, it shows what you have watched, it is just a different paradigm. There is a folder under "Library" called "New In Your Library". Those would be equivalent to "Now Playing" on the TiVo with a "New" tag. But, instead of every show you have scheduled, it is only the recent "New" recordings.

When you select something in your "New In Your Library", there is a Red Line which shows the time/place you left off, or if you have watched the whole show it says "Watched". There is also an indicator for the show's length stated in hours and minutes.

If you go to "Shows", there you will see EVERY show you have scheduled and YTTV fills in any episodes in the series which have not recorded with VOD if it is available.

It's just a different way of doing things.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> That sounds like a major issue. So there's no indication of what you have watched, or partially watched already?


No. That's not accurate. It says Watched when you have watched something in its entirety. And much like Netflix, a red line at the bottom of every thumb nail indicates how long an episode, movie, event or game has been watched for.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> Yes, it shows what you have watched, it is just a different paradigm. There is a folder under "Library" called "New In Your Library". Those would be equivalent to "Now Playing" on the TiVo with a "New" tag. But, instead of every show you have scheduled, it is only the recent "New" recordings.
> 
> When you select something in your "New In Your Library", there is a Red Line which shows the time/place you left off, or if you have watched the whole show it says "Watched". There is also an indicator for the show's length stated in hours and minutes.
> 
> If you go to "Shows", there you will see EVERY show you have scheduled and YTTV fills in any episodes in the series which have not recorded with VOD if it is available.
> 
> It's just a different way of doing things.


Yeah but I would say it's pretty much the same thing as Tivo. I mean there is only so many ways to display a list of recordings.  It's much more the same than different.

And the inclusion of on-demand is analogous to what Tivo does with streaming where it displays streaming episodes/seasons in with recordings in the same UI.

Also below the thumbnail of each recorded episode or movie etc, it will say "Recorded days/weeks/months ago." On-demand stuff will say "Released days/weeks/months."


----------



## pdhenry

My recordings are ordered so that the most recent unwatched recordings are shown first. Once I've watched a show its icon moves down the screen appropriately.

I also like that recordings are padded at both ends. It I record the Late Show followed by the Late Late Show there's about a minute in common between them.


----------



## mdavej

moyekj said:


> That sounds like a major issue. So there's no indication of what you have watched, or partially watched already?


Everything I've watched also has a bar across the bottom of the thumbnail indicating how much I've watched. It's not an issue at all.

People who complain about no "watched" history at all usually have inadvertently disabled it.

However, keeping both cable and YTTV makes absolutely no sense to me. Nothing on TV is important enough for me to pay double just to have a cloud copy and a local copy in case one fails.


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> My recordings are ordered so that the most recent unwatched recordings are shown first. Once I've watched a show its icon moves down the screen appropriately.
> 
> I also like that recordings are padded at both ends. It I record the Late Show followed by the Late Late Show there's about a minute in common between them.


YTTV pads recordings.


----------



## pdhenry

ncted said:


> YTTV pads recordings.


Yeah, I like that.


----------



## saeba

cnet just named YouTube TV best overall TV streaming service in 2020:
Best live TV streaming services for cord-cutters in 2020

YouTube TV has more top channels for the base price than any competitor, including all four local channels (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC; note that CBS is the parent company of CNET) in most areas of the country. It also has the best cloud DVR of the bunch, including unlimited storage and a generous nine months to watch recordings (most are 30 days). YouTube TV's interface is no-nonsense, if a little drab, and yet it offers most of the features a cable service can give you. And unlike Sling and others, it's dead simple: One package, one price, done.

With its best-in-class channel selection and cloud DVR, YouTube TV is our favorite option for cord-cutters who want the perks of cable without the hassle. Like all premium-priced ($50-ish) services, however, its relatively high monthly fee makes it more difficult to save money over a traditional cable subscription.

*Top channels not available:* A&E, Comedy Central, History, Lifetime, NFL Network, Nickelodeon. Read the YouTube TV review.


----------



## foghorn2

Youtube would charge me for locals I already have for free, therefore its not the best service out there.


----------



## saeba

foghorn2 said:


> Youtube would charge me for locals I already have for free, therefore its not the best service out there.


If you've read through the thread, I've repeatedly told people that they need to define their own requirements and then evaluate available services (cable, streaming, OTA, etc.) versus these needs. The cnet article is targeting people who are using cable as their source for TV and are looking to replace it. For this purpose, they find YouTube TV to be the best overall.

If you want to argue their scoring system, take it to the cnet site.


----------



## trip1eX

AT&T Watch Now is the ultimate YTTV add-on channel package. $15/mo and basically fills in all the gaps. Even better than Philo. lol.

YTTV has been a great service so far for me.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> AT&T Watch Now is the ultimate YTTV add-on channel package. $15/mo and basically fills in all the gaps.


Unfortunately not for me. Here "Spectrum Sportsnet" channel which carries local sports including Lakers is only carried via cable TV (Spectrum, Cox, etc) in southern CA. None of the streaming services carry it. I believe there are a few other regions with regional sports channels not covered, so streaming has yet to catch up with those at least. Don't see much incentive for Spectrum to change that at least in short term.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Unfortunately not for me. Here "Spectrum Sportsnet" channel which carries local sports including Lakers is only carried via cable TV (Spectrum, Cox, etc) in southern CA. None of the streaming services carry it.


lol. you can see how it would be the ultimate add-on package for YTTV users though right? 

I did read an article about sports in your area I think. Where some major sports were only available from a specific cable company. Not just any cable or satellite company. Or something like that. Maybe that was resolved or whatever. I think it was Dodgers games. If you lived in an area without Spectrum and had a different cable co then you couldn't get the games. Something like that.


----------



## pdhenry

I can get the locals OTA for free but after a week of YTTV it's nice to have everything in the same app on the same device. If I had Sling Blue + Gold and added TCM I'd still be at $50.

YTTV gives me the Baltimore PBS station in addition to the Harrisburg, PA PBS station and I can't get the Baltimore station OTA.

I miss MeTV which is in my OTA lineup (and is in Philo's lineup) but since I have one Premiere TiVo connected to OTA and Bolts at the other TVs in the house I can live with that.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> lol. you can see how it would be the ultimate add-on package for YTTV users though right?
> 
> I did read an article about sports in your area I think. Where some major sports were only available from a specific cable company. Not just any cable or satellite company. Or something like that. Maybe that was resolved or whatever. I think it was Dodgers games. If you lived in an area without Spectrum and had a different cable co then you couldn't get the games. Something like that.


 I'm with Cox and can get that channel, so it's not Spectrum only. I believe satellite services have it too.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> I'm with Cox and can get that channel, so it's not Spectrum only. I believe satellite services have it too.


Oh. Maybe they resolved it. But according to this article from March 2019, 6 years in a row most fans can't watch the Dodgers.


----------



## pl1

Update after using YTTV for over 1 Month:

I have to say I am actually more satisfied with my viewing experience with YTTV than I was with cable TV.

Although I still prefer the interface with TiVo (which I am still using for OTA), I find the reliability of the picture is better than it was with cable (I used to get occasional pixilation on some channels) and the quality of the picture looks better to me.

While I was concerned there might be stuttering, especially when trick playing, that has not been the case. I actually prefer the fast forward and rewind with mini-video windows showing me where I am versus TiVo's fast forward and rewind, which sometimes does not go fast enough between the hour slots on long recordings.

I like the fact that I can just pause the service whenever I want to and catch up. Much easier that fighting with the cableco.

Overall, I do give it a 10 for my needs at this price. If they start tacking on broadcast fees, sports fees, and taxes, I'm outa here!


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> Update after using YTTV for over 1 Month:
> 
> I have to say I am actually more satisfied with my viewing experience with YTTV than I was with cable TV.
> 
> Although I still prefer the interface with TiVo (which I am still using for OTA), I find the reliability of the picture is better than it was with cable (I used to get occasional pixilation on some channels) and the quality of the picture looks better to me.
> 
> While I was concerned there might be stuttering, especially when trick playing, that has not been the case. I actually prefer the fast forward and rewind with mini-video windows showing me where I am versus TiVo's fast forward and rewind, which sometimes does not go fast enough between the hour slots on long recordings.
> 
> I like the fact that I can just pause the service whenever I want to and catch up. Much easier that fighting with the cableco.
> 
> Overall, I do give it a 10 for my needs at this price. If they start tacking on broadcast fees, sports fees, and taxes, I'm outa here!


Same here except I sold my Tivo after a month of using YTTV.

Pretty amazing that it is actually a better experience than cabletv/Tivo for me. Who woulda thought.


----------



## saeba

And since there's been much discussion regarding the UI for locating new content in YTTV, here are some pictures from the Android TV version. First, the Library screen using the "New in Your Library" sort (default sort with others selectable from the left menu):









You can see the most recent recordings as well as the count of unwatched new shows and can scroll down to see further recordings.

When you select one of the shows, this screen appears:










And you can see the new and watched shows (watched shows are tagged with "Watched" in lower left corner and with a red played bar). NOTE: The "Added to library" checkmark shows that this show is currently scheduled for recordings. It also shows the next new episode will be recorded on Tue, Jan 28.


----------



## moyekj

Thanks for the pictures. It would take some getting used to having to deal with large thumbnails instead of simple lists for seeing "recorded" shows (why I like TE3 much better than TE4). But seems to be the trend with all GUIs these days is people like to see pictures all over the place instead of text.


----------



## saeba

moyekj said:


> Thanks for the pictures. It would take some getting used to having to deal with large thumbnails instead of simple lists for seeing "recorded" shows (why I like TE3 much better than TE4). But seems to be the trend with all GUIs these days is people like to see pictures all over the place instead of text.


Agreed. I suspect this style interface may be desirable on mobile devices or smaller screen TVs; however, on a 65" screen, there are better ways to use the screen real-estate than with very large thumbnails. Scrolling down to locate content is quite crisp so it's not a showstopper for me. And: Big feature of YTTV that helps - Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings. So I'm just scrolling through just my recordings, not my wife's as well.


----------



## pdhenry

One thing I wish they'd improve (or someone could give me a pointer for):

I like that I can browse the live listings while a live broadcast or a recording plays in the background. I see that I can cursor to a future show in the listings and select "more info" to view the program's description or add it to the library so it records. But there doesn't seem to be a way to view the description for a show that's currently airing without switching to that show's stream.


----------



## JoeKustra

saeba said:


> And since there's been much discussion regarding the UI for locating new content in YTTV, here are some pictures from the Android TV version. First, the Library screen using the "New in Your Library" sort (default sort with others selectable from the left menu):
> You can see the most recent recordings as well as the count of unwatched new shows and can scroll down to see further recordings.
> When you select one of the shows, this screen appears:
> And you can see the new and watched shows (watched shows are tagged with "Watched" in lower left corner and with a red played bar). NOTE: The "Added to library" checkmark shows that this show is currently scheduled for recordings. It also shows the next new episode will be recorded on Tue, Jan 28.


I am impressed. May I inquire what audio is used? (DD, PCM, 2.0, 5.1, etc.)


----------



## saeba

JoeKustra said:


> I am impressed. May I inquire what audio is used? (DD, PCM, 2.0, 5.1, etc.)


Yes, this question came up earlier in this thread. YTTV currently is 2.0 stereo. As I posted then:

_I'm curious... how much difference does 5.1 audio really make for you? I ask because I previously had a home theater setup with TiVo 5.1 audio out, an AVR and mid-level 5.1 speakers. I now use YTTV and a mid-level soundbar w/sub. I haven't really noticed a significant difference - but then I've never really had a "hifi audio" ear.
_
And I do understand that this could be a showstopper for folks.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> One thing I wish they'd improve (or someone could give me a pointer for):
> 
> I like that I can browse the live listings while a live broadcast or a recording plays in the background. I see that I can cursor to a future show in the listings and select "more info" to view the program's description or add it to the library so it records. But there doesn't seem to be a way to view the description for a show that's currently airing without switching to that show's stream.


You can't. Guide isn't the best. Probably the weakest point. It should have 1 touch record in the guide too.

But you can whip out your phone or tablet and use the guide in the app while watching on your tv. That way it will only switch switch streams on your phone or tablet. 

Scrolling through channels in the guide is way faster/slicker on the tablet/phone for me at least. IT's not too quick on the AppleTV.

But the show info is in a pretty tiny font and a bit clumsy to find at least at first. (on an iphone 7.)

If it's a movie, you can say "Hey Siri what is the Safe House movie about" right into the remote for Apple TV, for example. Siri will bring up some movie thumbnails and then you select the movie and it will display a description. This isn't part of YTTV. But it seems to work ok. And when you back out of it, you go right back into YTTV like you never left. So it's kind of overlaid on top of it.

I just did it now a few times for the fun of it to see if it was possible and how it worked.

I guess it's pretty dumb though lol. Probably not worth it.


----------



## pdhenry

I recorded a movie on IFC today but all it's offering to play is a VOD version. On other channels (including TCM and NBC) it lets me choose to watch either the VOD version or the recorded version.

In the Android app it appears that it shows me what's on any particular channel, and with some fidgeting it will tell me what's up next on that channel but I can't see a programming grid for the evening for all channels.


----------



## mdavej

pdhenry said:


> I recorded a movie on IFC today but all it's offering to play is a VOD version. On other channels (including TCM and NBC) it lets me choose to watch either the VOD version or the recorded version.


Either it didn't air today or you attempted to record after it aired.


> In the Android app it appears that it shows me what's on any particular channel, and with some fidgeting it will tell me what's up next on that channel but I can't see a programming grid for the evening for all channels.


"Live" is the grid. The mobile apps only show what's currently on. Use the website or a streaming device for a full grid.


----------



## pdhenry

mdavej said:


> Either it didn't air today or you attempted to record after it aired.


It might have been just as it was starting - or a minute or two before.


mdavej said:


> Live" is the grid. The mobile apps only show what's currently on. Use the website or a streaming device for a full grid.


Is there a way to schedule a future recording from the mobile app? Only via Search, I guess. I'd rather browse the evening and select what to record - which I can do on the TV...


----------



## mdavej

pdhenry said:


> Is there a way to schedule a future recording from the mobile app? Only via Search, I guess. I'd rather browse the evening and select what to record - which I can do on the TV...


I'll leave that to others. I only use the mobile app to manage my location and custom lists, so I really have no idea what else it can or can't do. I tapped the Live button for the first time just to answer your question.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> It might have been just as it was starting - or a minute or two before.
> 
> Is there a way to schedule a future recording from the mobile app? Only via Search, I guess. I'd rather browse the evening and select what to record - which I can do on the TV...


Nope. Guide on mobile is only what's playing. Try pc for their expanded guide that they are testing. Last I checked it was slow though.

I guess if want a good guide you have to get a TV Guide or something.  And then if you see a show type it in or tell a voice assistant.

Actually it would be a good idea for an app. A zippy tv guide app with 1 touch recording that talked to YTTV (and even other services including tivo.)


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Nope. Guide on mobile is only what's playing. Try pc for their expanded guide that they are testing. Last I checked it was slow though.


Just looking at the PC multi-day guide, scrolling up/down through the channel list is instantaneous. Clicking to move forward through time refreshes the screen with the new timeframe with a second delay for the refresh. I suspect that time is dependent on network speed and PC capability (speed, graphics speed, etc.).


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> AT&T Watch Now is the ultimate YTTV add-on channel package. $15/mo and basically fills in all the gaps. Even better than Philo. lol.
> 
> YTTV has been a great service so far for me.


I keep looking for AT&T to shut down their little unadvertised Watch Now service before long. Seems like its main reason to exist was to serve as a freebie to give away with their unlimited AT&T Wireless plans. But they're not doing that any more for new customers. The way they're currently structuring those plans is Unlimited Starter, Unlimited Extra, and Unlimited Elite. Key differentiators between the Extra plan and the most expensive Elite plan are that the latter streams video in HD rather than SD and also comes with HBO (soon to be HBO Max) bundled in. Elite always costs $10 more per line than Extra, regardless of the number of lines you get.

My expectation for current Wireless subs that get free Watch TV with their grandfathered unlimited plan is that they'll swap it out for HBO Max once that launches in May, and then kill Watch TV. But I also think that the Watch TV package of channels might become a new Starter tier inside of AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. Like their Plus and Max packages, it would include HBO Max, 500 hours of cloud DVR storage, and 3 simultaneous streams. Maybe price it at $35/mo. If AT&T did that and also began selling their own OTA network tuner/DVR device, similar to Sling's AirTV 2 box, that could be a nice little bundle for value-focused consumers who want pay TV but don't care much about sports.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> I keep looking for AT&T to shut down their little unadvertised Watch Now service before long. Seems like its main reason to exist was to serve as a freebie to give away with their unlimited AT&T Wireless plans. But they're not doing that any more for new customers. The way they're currently structuring those plans is Unlimited Starter, Unlimited Extra, and Unlimited Elite. Key differentiators between the Extra plan and the most expensive Elite plan are that the latter streams video in HD rather than SD and also comes with HBO (soon to be HBO Max) bundled in. Elite always costs $10 more per line than Extra, regardless of the number of lines you get.
> 
> My expectation for current Wireless subs that get free Watch TV with their grandfathered unlimited plan is that they'll swap it out for HBO Max once that launches in May, and then kill Watch TV. But I also think that the Watch TV package of channels might become a new Starter tier inside of AT&T TV and AT&T TV Now. Like their Plus and Max packages, it would include HBO Max, 500 hours of cloud DVR storage, and 3 simultaneous streams. Maybe price it at $35/mo. If AT&T did that and also began selling their own OTA network tuner/DVR device, similar to Sling's AirTV 2 box, that could be a nice little bundle for value-focused consumers who want pay TV but don't care much about sports.


Yeah I have no interest in Watchtv.  I just found it interesting that for $15/mo you could get the channels YTTV is missing and that the price was only $5/mo more than the extra cost the YTTV survey attached to including those channels within YTTV itself.

I wouldn't see much point in a WatchTV service that includes HBO Max at $35/mo. I don't see any discount there.

I still think these OTT cable servcies are layovers on the way to your direct to consumer streaming services like the upcoming HBO Max.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Just looking at the PC multi-day guide, scrolling up/down through the channel list is instantaneous. Clicking to move forward through time refreshes the screen with the new timeframe with a second delay for the refresh. I suspect that time is dependent on network speed and PC capability (speed, graphics speed, etc.).


Yeah SCrolling down the channel list is fast on pc with the mouse wheel. Instant. Basically same as scrolling through pages of a Word document.

Moving forward through time sucks tho. Yes it takes only 1 second to refresh but you're only refreshing a few hours at a time and you can't immediately hit the refresh button again. YOu have to wait that second or two to hit it again. And every time it refreshes the new data scrolls into place horizontally, and that only adds another second to how long it takes to process the data. It's a pain.

I guess maybe on tivo it was only a few hours of data at a time too (it could have been closer to 4 hrs I forget) but it was just much zippier because there was no delay and you could instantly skip 24 hours or 12 hours with the shortcut buttons. And data was popping into place instantly - no animation. So you could quickly navigate the entire guide.

Right now the YTTV guide on pc has no grid lines. I mean it's a pure white page with black lettering and no vertical or horizontal lines to separate channels and shows from each other.

btw, I was reading the Washington Post recently - looking at the actual newspaper pages online, instead of just reading it article by article. And I came across a newspaper tv guide - I hadn't looked at one in the paper in a long time. Back in the day, that was how you looked at everything. And you know the paper TV guide where, at glance, you can see every channel and ~6 hours of programming at once is a breath of fresh air from the past. nice if you could glance at something like that and touch to record or get info.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I wouldn't see much point in a WatchTV service that includes HBO Max at $35/mo. I don't see any discount there.


No, that hypothetical bundle I imagined wouldn't really offer a discount at $35/mo, which is why that price is potentially plausible. (The days of streaming cable TV packages that are discounted so deeply that they barely break even or lose money are inevitably coming to an end.) I still believe that, starting later this year, AT&T won't sell any channel packages that don't include HBO Max. Which is another reason that Watch TV has to die. Why sell that $15 service as a competitor to their $15 HBO Max, given that AT&T enjoys only partial ownership economics on the former but total on the latter?



trip1eX said:


> I still think these OTT cable servcies are layovers on the way to your direct to consumer streaming services like the upcoming HBO Max.


Yes, I certainly agree. The one exception would be YTTV. Google doesn't really have their own DTC service other than YouTube (for which you can buy an add-free Premium version). But I don't see YTTV being a transitional vehicle between traditional cable TV and YouTube the way that I can see AT&T TV playing that role between traditional cable and HBO Max. (Hulu plays a similar role.)

It makes me wonder what Google's long-term strategic goals are for YTTV. Knowing Google, they probably don't really have one but rather just started YTTV as an experiment, because they had the necessary tech and ad infrastructures, so the barriers to entry were low for them.

At any rate, it seems like YTTV is really starting to take off. I've noticed a growing consensus lately among cord-cutters posting on various websites, as well as professional tech reviewers in the media, that YTTV is the overall best streaming cable TV service for most people. It seems like it's on the verge of going mainstream. But if it's really going to establish itself among the nation's largest MVPDs, Google will need to strike up a lot more distribution agreements with broadband providers as they've recently done with Verizon, Cincinnati Bell and one or two others. And those providers will need to offer an Android TV device with a UI that's slightly customized toward YTTV, with a remote that features channel and volume up/down buttons (along with all the other buttons you typically see on a streaming remote). Give them away for free to new customers who sign up for both broadband and YTTV and/or new YTTV customers who commit to stick with the service for a few months. Because while there's a growing number of cable TV subs who are adventurous enough to find and try out a service like YTTV on their own, lots of consumers would need to be shepherded toward it with hardware their MSO provides them.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> No, that hypothetical bundle I imagined wouldn't really offer a discount at $35/mo, which is why that price is potentially plausible. (The days of streaming cable TV packages that are discounted so deeply that they barely break even or lose money are inevitably coming to an end.) I still believe that, starting later this year, AT&T won't sell any channel packages that don't include HBO Max. Which is another reason that Watch TV has to die. Why sell that $15 service as a competitor to their $15 HBO Max, given that AT&T enjoys only partial ownership economics on the former but total on the latter?


Why? different strokes for different folks.

The 2 are not analogous products. ATT Watch competes with something like Philo. If ATT drops it, there will still be Philo. So keeping ATTWatch would keep that customer with ATT and make it easier to upsell that customer on other ATT services.

Not that I know if ATT WAtch is successful for them. I have no idea.

But I don't think they drop it just because they have HBO Max. I think they will let the customer make the decision.



NashGuy said:


> Yes, I certainly agree. The one exception would be YTTV. Google doesn't really have their own DTC service other than YouTube (for which you can buy an add-free Premium version). But I don't see YTTV being a transitional vehicle between traditional cable TV and YouTube the way that I can see AT&T TV playing that role between traditional cable and HBO Max. (Hulu plays a similar role.)
> 
> It makes me wonder what Google's long-term strategic goals are for YTTV. Knowing Google, they probably don't really have one but rather just started YTTV as an experiment, because they had the necessary tech and ad infrastructures, so the barriers to entry were low for them.
> 
> At any rate, it seems like YTTV is really starting to take off. I've noticed a growing consensus lately among cord-cutters posting on various websites, as well as professional tech reviewers in the media, that YTTV is the overall best streaming cable TV service for most people. It seems like it's on the verge of going mainstream. But if it's really going to establish itself among the nation's largest MVPDs, Google will need to strike up a lot more distribution agreements with broadband providers as they've recently done with Verizon, Cincinnati Bell and one or two others. And those providers will need to offer an Android TV device with a UI that's slightly customized toward YTTV, with a remote that features channel and volume up/down buttons (along with all the other buttons you typically see on a streaming remote). Give them away for free to new customers who sign up for both broadband and YTTV and/or new YTTV customers who commit to stick with the service for a few months. Because while there's a growing number of cable TV subs who are adventurous enough to find and try out a service like YTTV on their own, lots of consumers would need to be shepherded toward it with hardware their MSO provides them.


Exactly. YTTV makes perfect sense for Google's core competencies.

And it does seem like a handful of people on this forum have switched to YTTV recently. And a handful of others are considering it.

For me it was like I woke up one day and found YTTV had reached a point where it was the better option than cable+Tivo.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> For me it was like I woke up one day and YTTV had reached a point where it was the better option than cable+Tivo.


When I first moved off of Comcast for cable (April 2019), the thought occurred to me that I should look into streaming options to replace their TV service. But my wife dearly loves TiVo and I was enjoying TiVo's new auto-skip capability so I put that aside as a "someday project".

Then TiVo brought out their pre-roll and Grid ads and when TiVo refused to listen to the outcry of negative feedback from their users, I realized that TiVo's path forward and my needs differed. And I was pleasantly surprised to find that YTTV provided a very reasonable replacement solution at a better price.

Wife still misses TiVo, but likes the cash saved with YTTV. Perhaps the TiVo 4K streamer can someday provide the best of both worlds.


----------



## pdhenry

trip1eX said:


> For me it was like I woke up one day and found YTTV had reached a point where it was the better option than cable+Tivo.


I'm feeling odd knowing that in the near term my two Bolt TiVos will be most useful as secondary viewers for the TiVo Premiere that's on an antenna (I have 2 Bolts and 2 Premieres, all with Lifetime). But I haven't switched TV inputs to the Bolts in two weeks, so...


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Why? different strokes for different folks.
> 
> The 2 are not analogous products. ATT Watch competes with something like Philo. If ATT drops it, there will still be Philo. So keeping ATTWatch would keep that customer with ATT and make it easier to upsell that customer on other ATT services.
> 
> Not that I know if ATT WAtch is successful for them. I have no idea.
> 
> But I don't think they drop it just because they have HBO Max. I think they will let the customer make the decision.


No, I'd say that Watch TV and HBO Max are similar in that both are $15 services that offer a variety of non-sports/non-news/non-local content. Except that Watch TV is a vestige of the old channel-based TV system (where AT&T owns a fraction of the channels included) and HBO Max is part of the new wave of direct-to-consumer on-demand services, totally owned by AT&T.

Based on everything that AT&T is communicating so far, HBO Max will be the cornerstone of their entertainment strategy going forward. If you only buy one video service from them, they want it to be HBO Max. Yes, they'll still sell bundles of cable channels but those will be add-ons to HBO Max (just as for Comcast, channel bundles will be add-ons to Peacock, and just as for Hulu, channel bundles are add-ons to their core Hulu on-demand service). Just as you won't be able to buy a cable channel package from Comcast that doesn't include Peacock Premium, I don't think you'll be able to buy a channel package from any of AT&T's brands (AT&T TV, DirecTV, AT&T TV Now) that doesn't include HBO Max.

I think the vision is that the cable bundle will remain a more expensive proposition for customers willing to shell out for it while each company's own DTC service will be the widely distributed low-cost option. Meanwhile, we're increasingly seeing cable TV services edging away from big discounts to lure and retain subs. Why bother? It's a losing battle for the bundle to try to compete value-wise with Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, etc. May as well let price-sensitive cable TV subs walk away. Because they'll still need the MSO's broadband service anyhow, and that has a much higher profit margin than their cable TV service.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> No, I'd say that Watch TV and HBO Max are similar in that both are $15 services that offer a variety of non-sports/non-news/non-local content. Except that Watch TV is a vestige of the old channel-based TV system (where AT&T owns a fraction of the channels included) and HBO Max is part of the new wave of direct-to-consumer on-demand services, totally owned by AT&T.
> 
> Based on everything that AT&T is communicating so far, HBO Max will be the cornerstone of their entertainment strategy going forward. If you only buy one video service from them, they want it to be HBO Max. Yes, they'll still sell bundles of cable channels but those will be add-ons to HBO Max (just as for Comcast, channel bundles will be add-ons to Peacock, and just as for Hulu, channel bundles are add-ons to their core Hulu on-demand service). Just as you won't be able to buy a cable channel package from Comcast that doesn't include Peacock Premium, I don't think you'll be able to buy a channel package from any of AT&T's brands (AT&T TV, DirecTV, AT&T TV Now) that doesn't include HBO Max.
> 
> I think the vision is that the cable bundle will remain a more expensive proposition for customers willing to shell out for it while each company's own DTC service will be the widely distributed low-cost option. Meanwhile, we're increasingly seeing cable TV services edging away from big discounts to lure and retain subs. Why bother? It's a losing battle for the bundle to try to compete value-wise with Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, etc. May as well let price-sensitive cable TV subs walk away. Because they'll still need the MSO's broadband service anyhow, and that has a much higher profit margin than their cable TV service.


Well I'm sure WatchTV isn't the cornerstone of their future plans. 

But don't see why they would drop WatchTV unless it isn't a successful product for them. You can't make WatchTV customers subscribe to HBO Max. PResumably people who pay for Watchtv do so to get specific cable channels for a low price. They aren't doing so just because it's $15 and has content. IF that was the case, they would just get PlutoTv. IT's got content and it's free.


----------



## pl1

I had previously read that you could change YTTV channels with some TV's. I have a newer Samsung 4K and I just tried it out and sure enough, I can change channels up and down with my Samsung remote! Just thought I'd share.

YouTube TV Now Lets You use Your TV Remote to Channel Surf on Some TVs


----------



## pdhenry

That sure didn't work on my older Samsung TV. It kicked me out into the TV's internal tuner, which isn't connected to an antenna.


----------



## pl1

pdhenry said:


> That sure didn't work on my older Samsung TV. It kicked me out into the TV's internal tuner, which isn't connected to an antenna.


I'm using the Samsung app for YTTV, which may be why it works for me.
I also see it is working for some using Fire TV's and the Fire TV Cube.


----------



## NashGuy

pl1 said:


> I'm using the Samsung app for YTTV, which may be why it works for me.
> I also see it is working for some using Fire TV's and the Fire TV Cube.


The ability to channel surf with channel up/down buttons on your smart TV remote make YTTV that much more of a direct substitute for traditional cable. Nice.

But how can you do this with the Fire TV remote? It doesn't have channel up/down buttons.


----------



## pl1

I just noticed that myself. I was only going by the couple of reviews on cordcuttersnews.com. But! I have a Logitech Harmony Remote hooked up to my Insignia Fire TV, and it does work with the Logitech remote!


----------



## dlfl

NashGuy said:


> The ability to channel surf with channel up/down buttons on your smart TV remote make YTTV that much more of a direct substitute for traditional cable. Nice.
> 
> But how can you do this with the Fire TV remote? It doesn't have channel up/down buttons.


With the up/down portions of the ring. On the Fire TV Cube gen 1, this was somewhat sluggish. On the gen 2 model it's quite snappy.


----------



## pl1

Something else where YTTV shines over TiVo. I have a recording that airs multiple times. So, while the latest recording aired, there was the impeachment trial which blocked the episode. So, I was looking and I noticed it copied all 4 of the same episode and let me pick one. With TiVo, it would be all 4 episodes on the Now Playing list, or a manual recording each week.


----------



## pl1

dlfl said:


> With the up/down portions of the ring. On the Fire TV Cube gen 1, this was somewhat sluggish. On the gen 2 model it's quite snappy.


That does not seem to work on my Insignia Fire TV. The ring up or down just goes to the timeline. From there you can go to "Networks".


----------



## pl1

Something I DO NOT like about YTTV is that there is no buffer. Once you do start watching and create a buffer, the buffer is lost when you change channels. I would love it if it kept multiple buffers akin to TiVo's four/six tuners.

I have figured out a way to watch two stations at a time with two buffers, using the app on my Samsung TV along with a Fire Stick in one of the HDMI ports.


----------



## trip1eX

YTTV's version of channel surfing is the thumbnail-sized live tv feed for each channel as you scroll through the guide.


----------



## johnh123

pl1 said:


> Something I DO NOT like about YTTV is that there is no buffer. Once you do start watching and create a buffer, the buffer is lost when you change channels. I would love it if it kept multiple buffers akin to TiVo's four/six tuners.
> 
> I have figured out a way to watch two stations at a time with two buffers, using the app on my Samsung TV along with a Fire Stick in one of the HDMI ports.


Why don't you just record both shows and not watch live?


----------



## saeba

johnh123 said:


> Why don't you just record both shows and not watch live?


Well... From a PC, you can use Chrome to share your desktop to your TV (using a Chromecast or equivalent) and then bring up multiple browser windows with multiple YouTube TV screens running different content. From the desktop, you can choose which (or all) audios are active - perhaps best to make one YTTV window with active audio and mute and closed caption the others.

If you really want to watch more than one show at a time ;-)!


----------



## trip1eX

johnh123 said:


> Why don't you just record both shows and not watch live?


yah i always figured if a person really wants to watch multiple live programs then they record them. and always figured if a person is flipping between live channels with a 1TB hard drive full of recordings on Tivo then something is wrong. The person is saying to themselves, the 1tb of recordings I have don't appeal to me. lol.


----------



## Aaron Malloy

50 bucks a month for YouTube TV is way too much. Add in a couple of streaming services and you're right back up into cable and satellite bill territory. 

But I'm glad we're finally at a time, with cord-cutting, where we longer have to subsidize channels like ESPN when we don't even watch it that much. Let the sports nuts pay out the big bucks, while the rest of us save big coin.


----------



## trip1eX

Aaron Malloy said:


> 50 bucks a month for YouTube TV is way too much. Add in a couple of streaming services and you're right back up into cable and satellite bill territory.


doesn't make any sense.



Aaron Malloy said:


> But I'm glad we're finally at a time, with cord-cutting, where we longer have to subsidize channels like ESPN when we don't even watch it that much. Let the sports nuts pay out the big bucks, while the rest of us save big coin.


makes sense.

The first part doesn't make sense because it's a case of, " compared to what?" Everything is too much for you if it's not for you.  Also taking YTTV and adding in some streaming services and then comparing to the cost of cable seems like apples to oranges. I'd compare YTTV to what it replaces which is the cost of cable plus Tivo. Its cost compares very favorably to that. I would also add that I'm finding it more desirable than cable+tivo irregardless of the $$$ savings.

The last part makes sense. And probably explains the first part which is you don't care about the sports content in YTTV and thus aren't interested and thus it is too much money for you. 

I am glad that people don't have to subsidize sports though. And I'm a sports fan. To me, they just keep asking people to pay more money and people keeping doing it and that's the reason we have dramatically higher sports costs than 20-30 yrs ago.


----------



## saeba

Aaron Malloy said:


> 50 bucks a month for YouTube TV is way too much. Add in a couple of streaming services and you're right back up into cable and satellite bill territory.


It must be my unique misfortune then to have Comcast as my sole cable option. Their basic HD package was $104/month for me (before their recent price increases) which was way more than $49.99/month for YTTV. And with YTTV, I don't need any further streaming services to replace the Comcast cable package.

But there are folks who want channels beyond what YTTV provides and so it won't work for everyone. YMMV.


----------



## mdavej

Aaron Malloy said:


> 50 bucks a month for YouTube TV is way too much. Add in a couple of streaming services and you're right back up into cable and satellite bill territory.


I wish it was less than $50. But a comparable cable package would be at least double that. Why do you have to add in a couple of streaming services? Do you not subscribe to those extra services already?


----------



## Aaron Malloy

mdavej said:


> I wish it was less than $50. But a comparable cable package would be at least double that. Why do you have to add in a couple of streaming services? Do you not subscribe to those extra services already?


I'm talking about adding them them in as in regards to one's overall monthly costs.


----------



## foghorn2

Aaron Malloy said:


> 50 bucks a month for YouTube TV is way too much. Add in a couple of streaming services and you're right back up into cable and satellite bill territory.
> 
> But I'm glad we're finally at a time, with cord-cutting, where we longer have to subsidize channels like ESPN when we don't even watch it that much. Let the sports nuts pay out the big bucks, while the rest of us save big coin.


With Youtube TV you are subsidizing ESPN. With Sling, you dont have to with their Blue package.


----------



## Aaron Malloy

trip1eX said:


> I am glad that people don't have to subsidize sports though. And I'm a sports fan. To me, they just keep asking people to pay more money and people keeping doing it and that's the reason we have dramatically higher sports costs than 20-30 yrs ago.


I remember being slightly shocked a couple years ago when hearing about ESPN paying the NFL *a billion dollars* just to run *one* season of Monday night football. There is no way the revenue from the advertising they collected would make up that amount. The rest, and maybe even the bulk of that, would be paid by cable and satellite subscribers.

I generally likes sports, but it's become such an overpiced commodity that it's put me off.


----------



## trip1eX

Aaron Malloy said:


> I remember being slightly shocked a couple years ago when hearing about ESPN paying the NFL *a billion dollars* just to run *one* season of Monday night football. There is no way the revenue from the advertising they collected would make up that amount. The rest, and maybe even the bulk of that, would be paid by cable and satellite subscribers.
> 
> I generally likes sports, but it's become such an overpiced commodity that it's put me off.


Don't know how the cost of MNF breaks down between ad revenue and subscriber revenue. But either way a person is paying for it. 

I don't see anything wrong with charging what you can get for something. I mean Avengers the movie (newest one) took in what? $2 billion in revenue?

IF you generally like sports, also realize that having people who don't like sports does help keep your share of the costs down.

But I definitely feel like there was a vicious circle going on with the costs of sports programming. LIke I sort of had no say in it. Other than to shut cable off completely. at least with going to see a game in person, i can choose to go or not go. I like that transparency. But the costs of sports programming was snuck in through increases in the cost of one's cabletv package. It wasn't transparent. People were sort of held hostage in a way. IT was all or nothing. I think that enabled sports programming costs to dramatically increase.


----------



## trip1eX

foghorn2 said:


> With Youtube TV you are subsidizing ESPN. With Sling, you dont have to with their Blue package.


Yep you're only subsidizing NBCSN, TNT, TBS, FS1, NFL Network, ...


----------



## pl1

johnh123 said:


> Why don't you just record both shows and not watch live?


You are right. I could do that in the future.

What I was referring to was when I was trying to watch something on one station and then they interrupted it while I was chasing it about 1/2 hour behind. When I went to another station it blew out the buffer from the first one, so I missed about 1/2 hour or so of the program.

With TiVo, I would have had both buffers. But, going forward, I will probably record while watching two shows. I just have to get used to the change from what I have always taken for granted with TiVo.


----------



## pdhenry

Aaron Malloy said:


> 50 bucks a month for YouTube TV is way too much. Add in a couple of streaming services and you're right back up into cable and satellite bill territory.


After taxes and junk fees I was paying about $43 to Comcast for limited basic (just the locals, plus CSPAN and all the shopping channels). $50 for around 70 channels (_including_ TCM) is a freaking bargain.


----------



## foghorn2

pdhenry said:


> After taxes and junk fees I was paying about $43 to Comcast for limited basic (just the locals, plus CSPAN and all the shopping channels). $50 for around 70 channels (_including_ TCM) is a freaking bargain.





pdhenry said:


> After taxes and junk fees I was paying about $43 to Comcast for limited basic (just the locals, plus CSPAN and all the shopping channels). $50 for around 70 channels (_including_ TCM) is a freaking bargain.


No fees? fess for locals? sports surcharges? equipment fees? Taxes? The true cost of cable is never advertised.


----------



## Aaron Malloy

trip1eX said:


> I don't see anything wrong with charging what you can get for something. I mean Avengers the movie (newest one) took in what? $2 billion in revenue?


At least movies are completely ala carte. If I want to see a good indie movie, I don't have to pay for ALL the films that are showing at the theaters, even if most don't interest me. That's what people do when paying for cable and satellite.


----------



## Aaron Malloy

pdhenry said:


> $50 for around 70 channels (_including_ TCM) is a freaking bargain.


But wouldn't you rather pay _just_ for TCM? Even with YTTV, you're still subsidizing. But ala carte will never happen, because 2/3rds of the channels would probably go belly up. They're just filler.


----------



## pdhenry

foghorn2 said:


> No fees? fess for locals? sports surcharges? equipment fees? Taxes? The true cost of cable is never advertised.


The local rate card shows limited basic as $21.99. I had two TiVos on the account so that adds a couple of dollars ($5, maybe?). 
The broadcast TV fee is $13.70. Add 6% sales tax and you're getting close to $43, my most recent bill.

Limited basic doesn't provide ESPN or regional sports channels, so per the rate card the regional sports fee doesn't apply.


----------



## pdhenry

Aaron Malloy said:


> But wouldn't you rather pay _just_ for TCM? .


No. Why?
$43 gets me just the locals plus crap.
$50 gets me 70 channels _including_ the locals.
I fired Xfinity completely today after a trial period with YTTV.



> Even with YTTV, you're still subsidizing.


I don't get what you're driving at. Are you saying there's at least one channel I "pay for" that I don't watch? Probably. Want to guess how many of Comcast's channels I didn't watch?


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> After taxes and junk fees I was paying about $43 to Comcast for limited basic (just the locals, plus CSPAN and all the shopping channels). $50 for around 70 channels (_including_ TCM) is a freaking bargain.


In Comcast markets that have adopted their new "Simple & Easy" system, they offer their broadband subs a package called Choice TV for an extra $25, all junk fees included. It's just Limited Basic (i.e. locals), with HD and 20 hours of cloud DVR, plus on-demand. No extra fees, except for optional X1 box rentals at $5/mo each. But you can just stream via the Xfinity Stream app if you like and pay a flat $25 on top of the standalone broadband price.

That said, yeah, YouTube TV is a bargain at $50/mo for what it offers. Which is why it won't last. Google isn't making much, if anything, on that service. I look for them to hike the price again, probably to $60, before long this year.


----------



## trip1eX

Aaron Malloy said:


> At least movies are completely ala carte. If I want to see a good indie movie, I don't have to pay for ALL the films that are showing at the theaters, even if most don't interest me. That's what people do when paying for cable and satellite.


People are paying a discounted rate to get large swath of content on cable. They aren't paying full price for every piece of content.

Also remember 1 movie ticket is $10+ these days. And you gotta drive there. And heaven forbid if you get tempted by snacks. And heaven forbid if you have to take along the wife and 2 kids. That's $40 minimum. Yet YTTV at $50/mo is overpriced just because you say so? 

Also we have ala carte options for tv shows and movies. $2-$3/episode. $5-$10/movie rental. We've had that option for 5-10 years now.

Don't have that option with sports so much. But you got pay per view....which is usually $50-$100 per view for the big fights or other events. The NBA lets you pay $6 to watch a game. ... and there are probably more examples.


----------



## Aaron Malloy

trip1eX said:


> Yet YTTV at $50/mo is overpriced just because you say so?


Yes. And others think so as well.You _think_ it's a good deal just because you've been paying exorbitant prices previously.

That's why streaming is so popular. Now that's the _real_ bargain. An ultra low price and content that people _want_ to watch, completely devoid of any advertising. Not just the same old crap basic cable channels that have been around forever, that aren't really offering anything different than the next one over on the channel list. To think that's worth $600 a year is mind-boggling.


----------



## pdhenry

NashGuy said:


> Which is why it won't last. Google isn't making much, if anything, on that service.


My home phone is Google Voice. They're making less on that.

I expect Google to fine tune the ads that they serve with the On-Demand programming. Right now it appears to be generic (and it says so when you click the info bubble on the ad screen) but I can see value for Google in pushing unskippable ads tailored for the viewer.


----------



## pdhenry

NashGuy said:


> In Comcast markets that have adopted their new "Simple & Easy" system, they offer their broadband subs a package called Choice TV for an extra $25, all junk fees included.


Choice TV is $30 here, but it's still just limited basic + Streampix + HD. It's not clear on the rate card whether it includes junk fees.


----------



## vaquero

Aaron Malloy said:


> Yes. And others think so as well.You _think_ it's a good deal just because you've been paying exorbitant prices previously.
> 
> That's why streaming is so popular. Now that's the _real_ bargain. An ultra low price and content that people _want_ to watch, completely devoid of any advertising. Not just the same old crap basic cable channels that have been around forever, that aren't really offering anything different than the next one over on the channel list. To think that's worth $600 a year is mind-boggling.


I think YTTV is a good deal because it carries a lot of channels that I like, some of them are what you call "old crap". Obviously, if you don't watch those channels, then it's not a good deal. YTTV also has the Golf Channel. Tell me where else I can get the Golf Channel for $50. Heck, the sat and cable companies are charging $12 to $15 per month for locals. They only include ESPN on their higher tier packages and I believe they are paying over $10 per month for it. If you watch those channels, $50 is a good price for a package like YTTV offers.


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> Choice TV is $30 here, but it's still just limited basic + Streampix + HD. It's not clear on the rate card whether it includes junk fees.


Per our rate card, it's $25 without a box or $30 with a box. And it includes the broadcast TV fee, the HD fee, and 20 hours of cloud DVR. Only other charges that could apply are government-imposed taxes.


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> My home phone is Google Voice. They're making less on that.
> 
> I expect Google to fine tune the ads that they serve with the On-Demand programming. Right now it appears to be generic (and it says so when you click the info bubble on the ad screen) but I can see value for Google in pushing unskippable ads tailored for the viewer.


Google Voice is one of those little hobbies that Google could kill at any time. I'm sure it adds nothing to their bottom line. Hopefully they don't kill it but just be aware that they have a history of doing that kind of thing.

As for monetizing YTTV through ads, yeah, that has to be Google's angle but I think they'll need to scale it up quite a bit more to make it profitable, and also raise rates some more too. Keep in mind:

April 2017: YYTV introduced in select markets at $35/mo
March 2018: increased to $40
April 2019: increased to $50
2020: ?


----------



## tenthplanet

NashGuy said:


> Google Voice is one of those little hobbies that Google could kill at any time. I'm sure it adds nothing to their bottom line. Hopefully they don't kill it but just be aware that they have a history of doing that kind of thing.
> 
> As for monetizing YTTV through ads, yeah, that has to be Google's angle but I think they'll need to scale it up quite a bit more to make it profitable, and also raise rates some more too. Keep in mind:
> 
> April 2017: YYTV introduced in select markets at $35/mo
> March 2018: increased to $40
> April 2019: increased to $50
> 2020: ?


Don't forget to add in high speed internet costs... maybe another say 60 dollars or so. Now compare that to cable costs.


----------



## saeba

tenthplanet said:


> Don't forget to add in high speed internet costs... maybe another say 60 dollars or so. Now compare that to cable costs.


Seriously? Are there truly people out there who don't have a sufficient internet connection for other reasons and would have to buy it just for streaming? Wow.


----------



## tenthplanet

saeba said:


> Seriously? Are there truly people out there who don't have a sufficient internet connection for other reasons and would have to buy it just for streaming? Wow.


For what most people actually need to to do on the internet 4g on a phone would suffice. Video streaming is a luxury use. My point is high speed internet has to be factored in to your total costs for real word costs of streaming.


----------



## ncted

tenthplanet said:


> For what most people actually need to to do on the internet 4g on a phone would suffice. Video streaming is a luxury use. My point is high speed internet has to be factored in to your total costs for real word costs of streaming.


Respectfully disagree. HSI is considered a necessary utility these days, like electricity, which is why the FCC has been subsidizing broadband expansion for years. Knowing how my brother struggles to get by with 6Mbps fixed wireless because he lacks other options makes it obvious to me that it is a requirement to live in the present. Sure there are "off the grid" folks who don't need it, but that is a life choice like not having running water, and there are many things they struggle to do to get by. Business and governments assume decent internet access in so much of what they do now. HSI has replaced the landline for the must-have utility. The vast majority of people will have it whether they stream video or not. At best, I would say any extra price you pay for higher tier speeds could be included, but only if you are doing it specifically for streaming performance.


----------



## saeba

tenthplanet said:


> My point is high speed internet has to be factored in to your total costs for real word costs of streaming.


And my point is that I suspect the vast majority of people already have sufficient bandwidth to support streaming and can leverage the internet connection they already have at *no additional cost*. According to Pew and NCTA analysis, 80% of Americans have broadband internet access at home - Broadband by the Numbers | NCTA - The Internet & Television Association.

As to high speed, it really depends on how many simultaneous streams, what content, etc.

_The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recommends internet speeds of 12-25 Mbps for families with multiple internet users or for frequent online streaming._

That isn't exactly high-speed in today's world. Other guidance:

_In general, to stream most videos in standard definition, you'll need internet speeds of at least 3 Mbps. You need at least 25 Mbps for 4K streaming video on your computer or Ultra HD enabled devices. Some streaming services suggest faster speeds, such as Fubo TV which suggests minimum speeds of 40 Mbps._
_
see: What Internet Speed Do I Need? | FAQs On Internet Speeds_


----------



## dlfl

saeba said:


> Seriously? Are there truly people out there who don't have a sufficient internet connection for other reasons and would have to buy it just for streaming? Wow.


I'm sure there are, although I think:
1. Many of the people in that category don't have _any_ (higher cost) option for true HSI.
2. Many others already have true HSI because it's the minimum service offered by their ISP. For example, the minimum offered by Spectrum at my location is 100 Mbps.
3. Many others have already upgraded to HSI to support multiple viewers of Netflix and/or Amazon streaming.

Obviously the correct way to apportion internet cost for a cable-TV replacement (like YTTV) is the cost of upgrading internet speed above what one already has. But in many cases this can't be done (#1 above) or is zero (#2 and #3 above).


----------



## saeba

dlfl said:


> I'm sure there are, although I think:
> 1. Many of the people in that category don't have _any_ (higher cost) option for true HSI.
> ....
> But in many cases this can't be done (#1 above)...


That should be changing in the near term. With low-latency satellite options and 5G coming there should be competitive options for all of the US. Time will tell if and when these technologies deliver on their promises.


----------



## lparsons21

saeba said:


> That should be changing in the near term. With low-latency satellite options and 5G coming there should be competitive options for all of the US. Time will tell if and when these technologies deliver on their promises.


For rural customers with no access to HSI today, odds are that if the low-latency satellite works as well as the hype suggests, it will be in place and working much sooner than 5G will be there.

Reading the tea leaves and looking the history of how the cell providers roll out new technology, 5G will show up in the cities first and then slowly roll out to lesser populated areas. IOW, 5G is at this stage a great thing for click bait articles to talk about and not much else. And going forward, won't be a player for more rural customers for a very long time. I mean, even today some rural customers can't even get cell service.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## pl1

̶R̶e̶g̶a̶r̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶f̶f̶e̶r̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶g̶u̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶o̶t̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶ ̶u̶p̶/̶d̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶t̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶Y̶T̶T̶V̶ ̶r̶e̶t̶a̶i̶n̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶f̶f̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶.̶ ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶u̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶u̶f̶f̶e̶r̶ ̶(̶o̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶r̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶c̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶e̶a̶c̶h̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶)̶.̶
̶
̶
̶
̶
̶I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶s̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶b̶a̶c̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶"̶L̶I̶V̶E̶"̶ ̶g̶u̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶(̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶)̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶r̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶d̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶t̶w̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶"̶c̶h̶a̶n̶n̶e̶l̶s̶"̶,̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶f̶f̶e̶r̶.

I Can't successfully repeat my findings. It seems to lose the buffer after a few minutes.


----------



## NashGuy

tenthplanet said:


> Don't forget to add in high speed internet costs... maybe another say 60 dollars or so. Now compare that to cable costs.


Well, let's assume that a person is going to have home broadband anyway. (That describes the vast majority of Americans who want to subscribe to a cable TV bundle that costs $50 or more, I believe.) So then the honest way to compare costs would be to look at the cost of standalone broadband plus the separate cost of YouTube TV vs. the cost of a bundle of broadband and a comparable TV bundle from your cable/telco/fiber provider.

Here's what that looks like in my area if you use Comcast as your local broadband/cable TV provider. I'm using regular non-promo pricing here, which is what you would pay if your initial new customer promos had expired and you didn't bother or were unable to negotiate any new discounts.

*All Comcast*
Internet - Performance (100/5): $73
TV - Extra: $70
TV - Broadcast TV Fee: $15
TV - RSN Fee: $8
TV - DVR Fee (60 Hrs): $10
Bundling Discount: -$20
*Total: $156*

*Comcast Internet + YouTube TV*
Internet - Performance (100/5): $73
TV - YouTube TV: $50
*Total: $123*

Now, those two TV services aren't totally equal but I went with the closest thing Comcast has to YTTV, which is their Extra package plus the DVR add-on (60 hours of cloud storage, retained for 1 year). Extra has a few channels that YTTV doesn't have (including channels from A+E, Hallmark and Viacom), although YTTV may include a few things that Extra doesn't have. And, of course, YTTV gives you unlimited cloud DVR storage (retained for 9 months) with individual user profiles, which is better than Comcast. In both cases, you're providing your own streaming devices and using their app (although YTTV gives you a lot more device choices than Comcast, which restricts you to Roku and certain smart TVs). Comcast does offer the option of renting their X1 4K HDR boxes, custom-designed for their own TV service, for $5/mo each. As best I can tell, you can stream Comcast TV to multiple screens in your home at the same time for no additional charge, just as you can with YTTV. (Under their new pricing scheme, Comcast isn't charging based on service to each outlet/screen but rather based on the number of X1 boxes you rent from them, which can be anywhere from 0 to 6, I think.)

As you can see, you're saving about $33 per month by going with YTTV over Comcast TV. (Note: I rounded all figures above to the nearest half-dollar.) If you were using your own TiVo for DVR service with Comcast (and assuming you had already paid for lifetime TiVo service on that unit), then the difference would be down to only $23 per month. Still though, nothing to sneeze at.

As I've said before, my hunch is that YTTV will add at least a few of those missing channels this year but also increase their price to something like $60. But even if they do that, they'll still be the better deal in this comparison.


----------



## trip1eX

Aaron Malloy said:


> Yes. And others think so as well.You _think_ it's a good deal just because you've been paying exorbitant prices previously.
> 
> That's why streaming is so popular. Now that's the _real_ bargain. An ultra low price and content that people _want_ to watch, completely devoid of any advertising. Not just the same old crap basic cable channels that have been around forever, that aren't really offering anything different than the next one over on the channel list. To think that's worth $600 a year is mind-boggling.


No what I think is you are picking and choosing what is overpriced based on your own whims.


----------



## pl1

NashGuy said:


> *Comcast Internet + YouTube TV*
> Internet - Performance (100/5): $73
> TV - YouTube TV: $50
> *Total: $123*


Also, if you are willing to lower the speed of your Internet with Comcast, The lowest price is $49.00 with no taxes for:

Internet Plan: HSD Performance Starter
Download Speed: 25Mbps
Upload Speed: 3Mbps

So, In my case, my bill went from $143.00 for Comcast vs. $100 for YTTV & Comcast Internet.


----------



## foghorn2

Everyone's calculations will differ. Glad there's choices now, eventually I hope we get closer and close to Allah cart 
So far sling is the closest to that. Youtube is still bundling way too much together just like cable.


----------



## trip1eX

tenthplanet said:


> For what most people actually need to to do on the internet 4g on a phone would suffice. Video streaming is a luxury use. My point is high speed internet has to be factored in to your total costs for real word costs of streaming.


Sure if you are that person who only gets internet from 4g then yes. Are you that person? 

But that person can also do the "cost of a cheap cellular plan + broadband _vs_ cost of an expensive cellular plan" math to see if they would even have to factor in the extra cost of broadband. IT might not add additional cost because it can be offset by dropping down to a cheaper cell plan. They can go to a cheaper cellular plan because they will be offloading a lot of data usage to wifi when at home.


----------



## mdavej

Aaron Malloy said:


> Yes. And others think so as well.You _think_ it's a good deal just because you've been paying exorbitant prices previously.


Please tell all us rubes paying $50 for 70 channels and unlimited DVR what you're paying and what you get for your money. You seem to be recommending a la carte which doesn't exist. So how do I do better than $50 in the real world for the same content I had on cable?


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> But that person can also do the "cost of a cheap cellular plan + broadband _vs_ cost of an expensive cellular plan" math to see if even they would have to factor in the extra cost of broadband.


Good point. We use Google Fi for mobile with a "pay as you use" cellular data model at $10/gb of data. However, we primarily use WiFi (at home and at work) and very little data so our monthly phone bill for the two of us is generally under $50/month (w/unlimited calls and texts). So we have a cheap mobile plan by leveraging our internet connection.


----------



## lparsons21

foghorn2 said:


> Everyone's calculations will differ. Glad there's choices now, eventually I hope we get closer and close to Allah cart
> So far sling is the closest to that. Youtube is still bundling way too much together just like cable.


Yep, calculations will differ with whatever selections one wants. In my case I looked at what shows I wanted to watch, and I can get a few locals OTA. What I found that works for me is :
Hulu no ads = $12
CBS no ads = $8.34 (if paid annually)
Currently that covers all the shows current and some older seasons.
Netflix = $16 Covers other older seasons and more
Amazon = $0 Since I had it before video for the shipping

So about $47 to cover the TV shows on nearly all the channels out there. Notably missing is sports, but while I do watch some, I'm not what you'd call a fan. And live events, but I never watch anything live anyway, so I'll see them delayed as I do now. It should be noted that I have those subs even though I have a cable subscription right now. I'll be making a change soon, but an OTT service won't be part of the picture because since I can get and watch the shows delayed a day or two with those, I don't need it.

Of course the downside is that I won't have a 'channel guide' nor DVR service, but in reality so what? Since with an OTT service DVR is still streamed and those streams are already available, why add a step?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## KevTech

NashGuy said:


> *Comcast Internet + YouTube TV*
> Internet - Performance (100/5): $73
> TV - YouTube TV: $50
> *Total: $123*


If you are doing all your TV through YTTV plus all your internet use you may well go over the cap so add in another 50 a month for unlimited data if you are in an area with the 1TB data cap.

That would bring the cost to 173 a month.


----------



## trip1eX

KevTech said:


> If you are doing all your TV through YTTV plus all your internet use you may well go over the cap so add in another 50 a month for unlimited data if you are in an area with the 1TB data cap.
> 
> That would bring the cost to 173 a month.


If are watch OTA and borrow DVDs from the library then subtract out $173 and that would bring your streaming, broadband and cabletv costs down to $0/month. 

Disney+ is overpriced!!!


----------



## Aaron Malloy

mdavej said:


> Please tell all us rubes paying $50 for 70 channels and unlimited DVR what you're paying and what you get for your money. You seem to be recommending a la carte which doesn't exist. _So how do I do better than $50 in the real world for the same content I had on cable?_


I'm simply saying, yet again, that $50 only sounds like a deal because we've been completely over-paying for that content for way too long. I think most cable content is crap, so it really as no value to me at all. And more than a 1/4 of the offerings on YTTV are simply OTA channels you can get with a good antennae for free.


----------



## trip1eX

Aaron Malloy said:


> I'm simply saying, yet again, that $50 only sounds like a deal because we've been completely over-paying for that content for way too long. I think most cable content is crap, so it really as no value to me at all. And more than a 1/4 of the offerings on YTTV are simply OTA channels you can get with a good antennae for free.


Yeah and some of us are simply saying compared to what?

Just because you don't want the content on YTTV doesn't make it over priced.


----------



## NashGuy

KevTech said:


> If you are doing all your TV through YTTV plus all your internet use you may well go over the cap so add in another 50 a month for unlimited data if you are in an area with the 1TB data cap.
> 
> That would bring the cost to 173 a month.


Yes, that's a good point. I personally wouldn't go over the 1 TB cap because I already stream a lot of what I watch via various on-demand apps (and use OTA for the rest) and I've never hit half that. But switching from Comcast's own cable TV service to a streaming cable TV service like YYTV definitely would cause some households (especially families) to exceed their data cap when they otherwise would not. It's something to be considered.


----------



## saeba

Yes, way back in May 2019 and in this forum thread, you (@NashGuy) posted the following guidance for evaluating choices:

1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?​
Well stated. We seem to be circling back through the same points in this thread over and over again.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Yes, way back in May 2019 and in this forum thread, you (@NashGuy) posted the following guidance for evaluating choices:
> 
> 1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
> 2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
> 3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
> 4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
> 5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?​
> Well stated. We seem to be circling back through the same points in this thread over and over again.


I think the other thing to consider is what does a service like a YTTV do better than cable+Tivo? What features/advantages does it provide that cable+Tivo doesn't or can't?


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> I think the other thing to consider is what does a service like a YTTV do better than cable+Tivo? What features/advantages does it provide that cable+Tivo can't or don't?


Yes, and in this thread in November, I posted this list of what I found in evaluating YTTV vs TiVo/Comcast for my needs:

*YouTube TV Pros*:

Unlimited simultaneous recordings
Unlimited cloud storage
Up to six family members can have their own profile and library of recordings
No cable provider required - less cost (we spend ~$1,200 per year on the basic Comcast Xfinity HD Preferred TV package; YouTube TV is ~$600)
No specialized local hardware to buy/replace (TiVos, TiVo hard disks, etc.)
Stream to PC, phone, tablet, smart TV - better streaming capabilities than TiVo
No requirement for wired connectivity to viewing locations (TiVo now has a wireless adapter for their Mini)
Cloud recordings not subject to cable/power outages or video glitches
Auto-extends recordings to cover sports events running long
Ability to customize guide view to re-order or remove channels

*YouTube TV Cons:*

Recordings expire after nine months (but no ability to otherwise remove from library)
Limited to three simultaneous viewing streams
Missing some channels versus Comcast; examples: History, A&E, Comedy Central, DIY, Nickelodeon, MTV
Some networks replace recordings with OnDemand versions with forced commercials (though in Dec-2019, YTTV removed this restriction for CBS, CW, Smithsonian Channel and PopTV so all major channels are not restricted)
No auto-skip on commercials (though with TiVo this is limited to certain, mainly primetime, shows)
No wishlist functionality (can record by sports team/league though)
Limited recording options - record all showings versus TiVo's all/new only/starting with season/specific channel only/etc. settings
No quickmode playback of shows (TiVo quickmode speeds playback by 30% without audio distortion)
No ability to download recordings
Guide view has a large format such that a limited number of channels and time is shown on screen at a time
Guide only shows up to 7 hours of channel data (23-Dec-2010 This is being changed to a 7-day window. Available first in web version)
No manual recording (channel/time-based)
No slow-motion replay (Note: playback speed is settable in the browser version via the settings menu option on the YouTube TV playback bar. Options include: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, Normal, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2)
And then there was further discussion on pros and cons.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Yes, and in this thread in November, I posted this list of what I found in evaluating YTTV vs TiVo/Comcast for my needs:
> 
> And then there was further discussion on pros and cons.


Yep I know. But the 5 pt list bugged me. IT didn't consider that the service you're switching to might do some cool new things. And might be better than cable. IT was just a "is this cheaper but at least does the job" criteria questionnaire. And sure I looked at it like (that) too. But I needed something more. I needed it to be the better overall choice. Not just be a poor man's Tivo+cable.


----------



## lparsons21

The streamers already do at least one cool thing, they let you pick exactly what reruns you want to watch instead of the daily grind on cable channels daytime lineup. I mean just how many times do you want to watch the exact same episode of one or the other cop procedural show?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

saeba said:


> Yes, way back in May 2019 and in this forum thread, you (@NashGuy) posted the following guidance for evaluating choices:
> 
> 1. Does it have all the channels I really want?
> 2. Because I won't be getting a bundle discount for TV + broadband from the same company, will I end up paying as much or more in total?
> 3. Will I end up exceeding my broadband data cap since I'll be streaming everything I watch?
> 4. Can I get used to watching all my TV through an app on a streaming device as opposed to a regular cable box (or TiVo) with its full-featured remote?
> 5. Will the cloud DVR experience on the OTT service (amount of storage, length of storage, ability to FF through ads, trick play performance) be as good as on my cable DVR (or TiVo), or at least be "good enough"?​
> Well stated. We seem to be circling back through the same points in this thread over and over again.


Yes, thank you. We seem to repeat ourselves on here don't we? We say the same things over and over. And then we repeat ourselves. And then we say the same stuff again and again...


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Yep I know. But the 5 pt list bugged me. IT didn't consider that the service you're switching to might do some cool new things. And might be better than cable. IT was just a "is this cheaper but at least does the job" criteria questionnaire. And sure I looked at it like (that) too. But I needed something more. I needed it to be the better overall choice. Not just be a poor man's Tivo+cable.


That's a fair point. As some of these OTT services have matured, they've brought with them some features/advantages that traditional cable doesn't have, like YTTV's automatic extension of recordings of live events (e.g. sports) that run past their scheduled time slot. And the fact that you have unlimited tuners since all the recording is done in the cloud. (Again, these are things I've posted on this forum before, though they weren't included in the five point list above which was really intended as a way for traditional cable/TiVo users to decide if a potential OTT replacement might have any deal-breaker flaws for them.)


----------



## WVZR1

NashGuy said:


> like YTTV's automatic extension of recordings of live events (e.g. sports) that run past their scheduled time slot.


What happens for let's say a 'several hour weather delay' of a sports event? An example might be NASCAR - 1:00 start ABC but rain-delay the event gets moved to ESPN, NBC moved to say NBCSN, FOX to FX1 or maybe FX2? What I never thought I'd care for and didn't with even L3TV was the opportunity to schedule 'timed recordings'. L3TV(-T--Vision) even tough it included 1T HDD unless you had a connection with server there was no service! I caught L3TV maybe at a bad time in their transition but I did stick it out for 13 months. I gave it a try!!


----------



## vaquero

Aaron Malloy said:


> And more than a 1/4 of the offerings on YTTV are simply OTA channels *you can get with a good antennae for free.*


You're making one huge assumption there, unless you directed this toward a particular person and you know that he/she has that capability. I personally have a huge Channel Master amplified antenna on a 20' pole and get the local Fox station all of the time, CBS most of the time, ABC and NBC some of the time, and PBS never.


----------



## NashGuy

WVZR1 said:


> What happens for let's say a 'several hour weather delay' of a sports event? An example might be NASCAR - 1:00 start ABC but rain-delay the event gets moved to ESPN, NBC moved to say NBCSN, FOX to FX1 or maybe FX2?


In a case as drastic as that, I don't know if YouTube TV will adjust the recording time on the fly, much less switch over to a different channel. (If it's just a matter of a football game going into overtime and running 25 minutes long, yeah, it'll cover that, based on multiple reports I've read.)

Hopefully someone else can give you an answer based on their firsthand experience.


----------



## NashGuy

WVZR1 said:


> What I never thought I'd care for and didn't with even L3TV was the opportunity to schedule 'timed recordings'. L3TV(-T--Vision) even tough it included 1T HDD unless you had a connection with server there was no service! I caught L3TV maybe at a bad time in their transition but I did stick it out for 13 months. I gave it a try!!


Yeah, I've read your posts about your experience with TVision. Based on yours and other folks' reports, it just sounds like a service that they've never been able to work the bugs out of. The whole technology set-up seems weird to me. It's delivered via the internet but not just *any* internet connection. You have to use one of their approved broadband partners in one of the few cities where they offer the service. And, yes, your recordings are stored locally, not in the cloud, but if your broadband connection goes down, sorry, you can't watch your recordings. And no, you can't access the service on apps on your Roku, Apple TV, or Fire TV at home, or on a smartphone when you're away.

Just seems like it combines some of the worst aspects of both traditional cable TV and streaming cable TV.


----------



## WVZR1

NashGuy said:


> And no, you can't access the service on apps on your Roku, Apple TV, or Fire TV at home, or on a smartphone when you're away.
> 
> Just seems like it combines some of the worst aspects of both traditional cable TV and streaming cable TV.


That's NOT so ...Their TVE should get you anything that's available. L3TV was 'I believe' one of the first to dig into TVE! I had 0 issues with TVE. Their reason for developing particular DMA is reasonable! They can obtain 'RIGHTS' much easier than some/most for programming that's most desired in those areas. I hear very little uncomplimentary regarding the service these days. I've been gone 5 months. The only time a TVE issue is when there's a server error allowing 'log-in' much the same as any major provider. I have my TiVo hardware and decided to run QAM/CableCARD until it goes away!!

Like I said - I tried!! They had much 4K to actually DVR and could've/should've done more - MUCH MORE. They had access to all of FOX 4K



> NashGuy - Just seems like it combines some of the worst aspects of both traditional cable TV and streaming cable TV.


That just isn't so!!


----------



## pdhenry

tenthplanet said:


> For what most people actually need to to do on the internet 4g on a phone would suffice. Video streaming is a luxury use. My point is high speed internet has to be factored in to your total costs for real word costs of streaming.





trip1eX said:


> Sure if you are that person who only gets internet from 4g then yes. Are you that person?


I have a 4G for home internet (T-Mobile). It's more than adequate for 1080P x 60 streaming close to 100% of the time (T-Mobile's terms say I can be deprioritized during network congestion at any time, and this manifests itself as increased blockiness in the picture). I don't have experience with bandwidth required for 4K streaming.

Streaming as your sole TV source requires a high or unlimited data cap. I'm currently at 561 GB for January and I didn't start investigating streaming solutions until about the second week of the month.

For $50 per month I get much better speeds than Comcast's $49 package. I just checked with Speedtest and go 44 Mb/sec down and 12 up. Even on a bad day my upload speed is better than the 6Mb/sec that seems to be standard with Comcast.


----------



## NashGuy

WVZR1 said:


> That's NOT so ...Their TVE should get you anything that's available.


I'm not talking about using each individual channel's TVE app. I'm talking about the fact that there's no TVision app for iPhone, Android, Roku, etc. that lets you access the overall service all in one place on your various devices, whether in or out of home, the way you can with YouTube TV, AT&T TV, etc.


----------



## WVZR1

NashGuy said:


> I'm not talking about using each individual channel's TVE app. I'm talking about the fact that there's no TVision app for iPhone, Android, Roku, etc. that lets you access the overall service all in one place on your various devices, whether in or out of home, the way you can with YouTube TV, AT&T TV, etc.


I can't actually see the 'value' to have that capability. Multiple 'tuners' for my iPhone! I don't think so. If I've no idea what interests me to stream at any particular moment 'out of the house' I needn't be on the damn thing!! Each media source can have an individual app that accommodates essentially the same thing!


----------



## pdhenry

vaquero said:


> You're making one huge assumption there, unless you directed this toward a particular person and you know that he/she has that capability. I personally have a huge Channel Master amplified antenna on a 20' pole and get the local Fox station all of the time, CBS most of the time, ABC and NBC some of the time, and PBS never.


I can get all the networks on an amplified external antenna sitting on top of a bookcase in an upstairs bedroom* but for the time being I prefer having the "broadcast" channels in the same UI as the "cable" channels - so for now I prefer YTTV.

*One catch is that the antenna can drive a TV or a 2-tuner TiVo Premiere but if I connect it to a 4-tuner Bolt I start to lose the weaker channels. Going OTA for the whole house would require a distribution amp capable of driving 10 tuners (12 if I upgrade the Premiere to another Bolt), while every TV also has a Roku device connected to it.


----------



## WVZR1

pdhenry said:


> I can get all the networks on an amplified external antenna sitting on top of a bookcase in an upstairs bedroom* but for the time being I prefer having the "broadcast" channels in the same UI as the "cable" channels - so for now I prefer YTTV.
> 
> *One catch is that the antenna can drive a TV or a 2-tuner TiVo Premiere but if I connect it to a 4-tuner Bolt I start to lose the weaker channels. Going OTA for the whole house would require a distribution amp capable of driving 10 tuners (12 if I upgrade the Premiere to another Bolt), while every TV also has a Roku device connected to it.


We ALL need to use what 'WORKS' for us!! I certainly understand your approach!!

I have - 0 OTA options! 0 !!


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> I have a 4G for home internet (T-Mobile). It's more than adequate for 1080P x 60 streaming close to 100% of the time (T-Mobile's terms say I can be deprioritized during network congestion at any time, and this manifests itself as increased blockiness in the picture). I don't have experience with bandwidth required for 4K streaming.
> 
> Streaming as your sole TV source requires a high or unlimited data cap. I'm currently at 561 GB for January and I didn't start investigating streaming solutions until about the second week of the month.
> 
> For $50 per month I get much better speeds than Comcast's $49 package. I just checked with Speedtest and go 44 Mb/sec down and 12 up. Even on a bad day my upload speed is better than the 6Mb/sec that seems to be standard with Comcast.


I consider that the same difference as Comcast broadband if it's $50/mo for high speed data service only at your house.

I was talking about using your smartphone data plan for internet. And having cable tv. I think for some people that is very doable. Their internet needs are perfectly met by their smartphone data plan. IF those people switched to streaming video, they would have to get a home broadband plan I would assume. And thus figure in that extra cost.


----------



## trip1eX

WVZR1 said:


> What happens for let's say a 'several hour weather delay' of a sports event? An example might be NASCAR - 1:00 start ABC but rain-delay the event gets moved to ESPN, NBC moved to say NBCSN, FOX to FX1 or maybe FX2? What I never thought I'd care for and didn't with even L3TV was the opportunity to schedule 'timed recordings'.


You're probably SOL. But maybe a major once a week event like a Nascar would get recorded. I'm going to say 99% chance of rain.


----------



## pdhenry

trip1eX said:


> I consider that the same difference as Comcast broadband if it's $50/mo for high speed data service only at your house


Comcast's $49 broadband is 25 x 3, though. That's not great.


trip1eX said:


> I was talking about using your smartphone data plan for internet.


 I thought cellular plans limit hotspot use to 10 GB or so. You could get around that by watching _*on*_ your phone or tablet, but that's not ideal in a group setting.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> Comcast's $49 broadband is 25 x 3, though. That's not great.


I'm not saying what you got isn't a better deal and the better choice. Just saying it's the same type of product as cable broadband. IT's a home broadband product.


----------



## pdhenry

Yeah. I was misreading.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Yep I know. But the 5 pt list bugged me. IT didn't consider that the service you're switching to might do some cool new things. And might be better than cable. IT was just a "is this cheaper but at least does the job" criteria questionnaire.


Hmmm..... This caused me to pause and think for a bit. I've now been using YTTV for 2+ months and I'm still not sure how to answer that from my experience. Let's see:

I have come to appreciate the simpler process for flagging content for recording. Just search for a title, tag it for recording and YTTV records it from whatever channels it's on and regardless of rerun or new. Since YTTV has unlimited storage and no limit on simultaneous recordings, there's no reason to try to restrict the recording request (like TiVo does to protect storage space and limited tuners for recordings). And I don't find it an issue to locate the recordings I then want to watch.
Though there are some positives to manually skipping through commercials (and the YTTV interface makes this easy to do), I do sometimes miss auto-skip. Hands-free auto-skip has advantages.
I do like that my wife has her profile and content which is separate from my content; however, we were able to do this via having separate TiVos (though at additional cost and maintenance headaches).
I do like the picture quality. In my years of cable (TWC, Brighthouse, Comcast), I always had issues with video glitches and signal quality. That's now gone.

I am more inclined to watch YTTV on various devices (TV, phone, tablet, PC) than I was with TiVo. YTTV is easier to launch and faster to utilize across all these devices.
But I'd still have to say the biggest positive for me is that I'm saving money.

Have you discovered some "cool new thing" that makes YTTV clearly better?


----------



## dlfl

saeba said:


> . ...........
> Have you discovered some "cool new thing" that makes YTTV clearly better?


Not yet but I'm optimistic YTTV, with Google's resources and a rapidly growing subscriber base, will be improving and innovating, while TiVo's new things are questionable improvements over recent history. There's plenty of obvious opportunity for YTTV to improve their DVR.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> Here's what that looks like in my area if you use Comcast as your local broadband/cable TV provider. *I'm using regular non-promo pricing here, which is what you would pay if your initial new customer promos had expired and you didn't bother or were unable to negotiate any new discounts.*
> 
> *All Comcast*
> Internet - Performance (100/5): $73
> TV - Extra: $70
> TV - Broadcast TV Fee: $15
> TV - RSN Fee: $8
> TV - DVR Fee (60 Hrs): $10
> Bundling Discount: -$20
> *Total: $156*
> 
> *Comcast Internet + YouTube TV*
> Internet - Performance (100/5): $73
> TV - YouTube TV: $50
> *Total: $123*


That's not really a fair comparison since you are mischaracterizing the nature of those discounts that you have removed. They are not "new customer" discounts anymore; Comcast now refers to them as "Always On Discounts"--meaning that they are designed to be routinely available to anyone who agrees to the associated terms (e.g., a 24-month agreement with a declining ETF).

Therefore, in your area (Nashville) as in other areas under the Simple & Easy fee structure, the bundled price for Performance HSI + Extra TV comes to $75 rather than the combined $123 (($73 + $70) - $20) you have cited, making the total approx. $108 rather than the $156 you arrived at.

Therefore, using your argument, the more accurate price comparison would be $108 for all Comcast vs. $123 for Comcast HSI + YTTV.



pdhenry said:


> Comcast's $49 broadband is 25 x 3, though. That's not great.
> I thought cellular plans limit hotspot use to 10 GB or so. You could get around that by watching _*on*_ your phone or tablet, but that's not ideal in a group setting.


As I pointed out above, the Always On Discounts bring that retail pricing down to a more affordable level. Stand-alone Performance Starter (25Mbps) comes in at a discounted $20, while Performance (100Mbps) is $40 and Blast! (200Mbps) is $50. Those prices are net assuming you do not rent the Comcast gateway or other equipment. And real-world download speeds are usually 20% higher than those advertised by Comcast, so, for example, under Blast! (which I currently have) you should get 240Mbps.


----------



## pdhenry

Are you here to convince me to go back to Comcast?

WTH are Always On Discounts?


> (e.g., a 24-month agreement with a declining ETF).


Strings attached...

And you have to request them. And they expire without notice (but on schedule, granted).

I know my T-Mobile internet cost won't increase unless I change something.


----------



## chiguy50

pdhenry said:


> WTH are Always On Discounts?


Those are the discounts that are baked into the Simple & Easy fee structure, as opposed to special promotional pricing that may be limited in time or customer base.

I have posted this slide several times before. It is from an internal Comcast presentation:












pdhenry said:


> Strings attached...
> 
> And you have to request them. And they expire without notice (but on schedule, granted).
> 
> I know my T-Mobile internet cost won't increase unless I change something.


Yes, of course, there are stipulations for the discounts. But the point is that they are available to everyone at any time (ergo, "always on"). But you should not have to request them: They should be routinely applied when you sign up for the service unless you decline them.

I don't know what T-Mobile plan you have, but prices are always increasing. Comcast just had an across-the-board price increase as of this month and is planning at least one more (and probably more than one) again this calendar year.


----------



## mschnebly

pdhenry said:


> Are you here to convince me to go back to Comcast?
> 
> WTH are Always On Discounts?
> Strings attached...
> 
> And you have to request them. And they expire without notice (but on schedule, granted).
> 
> I know my T-Mobile internet cost won't increase unless I change something.


Like you, I also have T-mobile internet. For me it's the best bang for the buck by far. I usually run around 75Mbps on mine (I'm close to a tower). YTTV runs great on it and I'm surprised at the quality of the video. I also have and antenna and get 80 or so channels (flat desert between me and towers on a mountain). My antenna is sitting on a ledge in a spare BR/Office connected to 2 SD boxes and I can get Channels DVR and YTTV on any TV in the house with my Wifi no problem. It's still a $100/mo but the freedom of starting and stopping services with a click and no contracts is great.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Hmmm..... This caused me to pause and think for a bit. I've now been using YTTV for 2+ months and I'm still not sure how to answer that from my experience. Let's see:
> 
> I have come to appreciate the simpler process for flagging content for recording. Just search for a title, tag it for recording and YTTV records it from whatever channels it's on and regardless of rerun or new. Since YTTV has unlimited storage and no limit on simultaneous recordings, there's no reason to try to restrict the recording request (like TiVo does to protect storage space and limited tuners for recordings). And I don't find it an issue to locate the recordings I then want to watch.
> Though there are some positives to manually skipping through commercials (and the YTTV interface makes this easy to do), I do sometimes miss auto-skip. Hands-free auto-skip has advantages.
> I do like that my wife has her profile and content which is separate from my content; however, we were able to do this via having separate TiVos (though at additional cost and maintenance headaches).
> I do like the picture quality. In my years of cable (TWC, Brighthouse, Comcast), I always had issues with video glitches and signal quality. That's now gone.
> 
> I am more inclined to watch YTTV on various devices (TV, phone, tablet, PC) than I was with TiVo. YTTV is easier to launch and faster to utilize across all these devices.
> But I'd still have to say the biggest positive for me is that I'm saving money.
> 
> Have you discovered some "cool new thing" that makes YTTV better?


yeah unlimited storage and unlimited tuners. plus profiles plus pic quality plus ease of use and siimplicity plus mobile integration along with ability to cancel anytime, start up immediately and pause service for long periods.


----------



## trip1eX

chiguy50 said:


> That's not really a fair comparison since you are mischaracterizing the nature of those discounts that you have removed. They are not "new customer" discounts anymore; Comcast now refers to them as "Always On Discounts"--meaning that they are designed to be routinely available to anyone who agrees to the associated terms (e.g., a 24-month agreement with a declining ETF).
> 
> Therefore, in your area (Nashville) as in other areas under the Simple & Easy fee structure, the bundled price for Performance HSI + Extra TV comes to $75 rather than the combined $123 (($73 + $70) - $20) you have cited, making the total approx. $108 rather than the $156 you arrived at.
> 
> Therefore, using your argument, the more accurate price comparison would be $108 for all Comcast vs. $123 for Comcast HSI + YTTV.


But don't you have to add in the broadcast fee ? REgional sports fee? Then taxes and fees.

Then if you want a dvr and support for additional tvs then you need to add in those costs whether you rent it from Comcast or buy your own Tivo. ...

Also gotta love them calling their chart "simple and easy." lol.


----------



## chiguy50

trip1eX said:


> But don't you have to add in the broadcast fee ? REgional sports fee? Then taxes and fees.


NashGuy included the BTV and RSN fees in his calculation to arrive at the $156 figure, which I corrected to $108 to reflect the Always On Discounts which he had omitted (although he did include the Bundled discount of $20). IOW, using his formula: $75 + $15 (BTV) + $8 (RSN) + $10 (DVR) = $108. You are correct that he did not factor Franchise Fees and taxes in his equation, but those should be minimal for the purposes of this package and will vary quite a bit depending on locality. Figure around $5 to $8 additional for those, maximally, and you should be on safe ground.



trip1eX said:


> Also gotta love them calling their chart "simple and easy." lol.


Oh, yes. The first time our account exec told me about the pending transition to Simple & Easy back in March of last year, I told her snidely: "When I hear you say 'Simple & Easy,' I hear 'More Profits For Us.'" Then I made some dismissive comment about Brian Roberts needing a second private yacht . . .

In fairness, though, the new system is designed to streamline and standardize Comcast's offering across their footprint, which is a laudable and customer-friendly goal. Whether it amounts to a better deal on balance is another question altogether.


----------



## trip1eX

chiguy50 said:


> NashGuy included the BTV and RSN fees in his calculation to arrive at the $156 figure, which I corrected to $108 to reflect the Always On Discounts which he had omitted (although he did include the Bundled discount of $20). IOW, using his formula: $75 + $15 (BTV) + $8 (RSN) + $10 (DVR) = $108. You are correct that he did not factor Franchise Fees and taxes in his equation, but those should be minimal for the purposes of this package and will vary quite a bit depending on locality. Figure around $5 to $8 additional for those, maximally, and you should be on safe ground.


OK but I get $70 (preferred HSI) plus $70 (cabletv extra) - $20(2 service discount) - $35 (24 month discount) = $85 Plus $15 (btv) plus $8 (rsn) plus $10 (dvr) = $118.

That's for 1 tv. Want additional tvs? I assume we add in more money. $5-$8/tv probably?

TAxes and other fees I assume are an additional $5-$10.

How much for 2 extra tvs?

edit: Oh I do see a autopay discount. $10/mo. I guess that's where you get $108 before extra tvs and taxes?



chiguy50 said:


> In fairness, though, the new system is designed to streamline and standardize Comcast's offering across their footprint, which is a laudable and customer-friendly goal. Whether it amounts to a better deal on balance is another question altogether.


I would say it is not really customer friendly to streamline the product across Comcast's footprint because the customer never cared what the prices are in California if they lived in Philadelphia. It might help discussions on this forum though. lol. But it looks designed to help Comcast internally and not the customer.

And now they seem to hide even more fees in the fine print than ever. ...which is funny because I read Congress/FCC passed a law/regulation against that practice. But yet the fees seem bigger than ever.


----------



## humbb

How does YTTV avoid charging for Broadcast and Regional Sports fees? Are these included in their total price? Or are they just absorbing those for now and will pass those on to the customer at a later date?


----------



## mdavej

chiguy50 said:


> ... in your area (Nashville) as in other areas under the Simple & Easy fee structure, the bundled price for Performance HSI + Extra TV comes to $75 rather than the combined $123 (($73 + $70) - $20) you have cited, making the total approx. $108 rather than the $156 you arrived at.
> 
> Therefore, using your argument, the more accurate price comparison would be $108 for all Comcast vs. $123 for Comcast HSI + YTTV.


Sorry, I'm not following your math at all. According to the picture you posted, it's $70 + $70 - $20, which would be the same as the YTTV option ($70 + $50), before you add all the fees (3 boxes, DVR fee, RSN fee, broadcast fee, FCC admin fees), easily another $50 or so, as it would be for any cable company.

Comcast isn't available in my market, but my bare bones Spectrum $25 TV package ended up being close to $50 after all the fees, yet had only a fraction of the channels YTTV had. Plus Spectrum only works in one household. I can use YTTV in 3 households, resulting in massive savings since homes 2 and 3 don't need to pay for any TV package at all.

In any case, I'm not convinced cable is cheaper than YTTV, not by a long shot. If it were, I'd still have cable.


----------



## lparsons21

humbb said:


> How does YTTV avoid charging for Broadcast and Regional Sports fees? Are these included in their total price? Or are they just absorbing those for now and will pass those on to the customer at a later date?


At the moment the financial guys all are sure the OTT services are losing money, betting on the future. So yes, they are including those fees in their total price and at some point may either break them out separately or just raise rates. It is almost a certainty that today's rates won't hold for all that long.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mdavej

humbb said:


> How does YTTV avoid charging for Broadcast and Regional Sports fees? Are these included in their total price? Or are they just absorbing those for now and will pass those on to the customer at a later date?


Because those are made up fees. All service providers pay for whatever channels they carry, mark up the price and charge their customers. Cable companies choose to lowball on the "basic" channels, then break out the more expensive channels separately and tack that onto your bill AFTER you sign up as broadcast and RSN fees. So it's all about false advertising.

YTTV pays whatever the channels cost and charges you $50. I have no idea what their profit margin is. I don't really care*. As long as I get the content I want for $50, I'm in. If they raise the price too much in the future, I'm out. Simple as that.

* I actually do care a little as a Google stockholder ;-)


----------



## chiguy50

trip1eX said:


> OK but I get $70 (preferred HSI) plus $70 (cabletv extra) - $20(2 service discount) - $35 (24 month discount) = $85 Plus $15 (btv) plus $8 (rsn) plus $10 (dvr) = $118.
> 
> That's for 1 tv. Want additional tvs? I assume we add in more money. $5-$8/tv probably?
> 
> TAxes and other fees I assume are an additional $5-$10.
> 
> How much for 2 extra tvs?
> 
> edit: Oh I do see a autopay discount. $10/mo. I guess that's where you get $108 before extra tvs and taxes?


Here's what that looks like graphically on the Xfinity.com Plan Builder:










I believe NashGuy's comparison assumes that the customer will use his/her own video devices for reception, but if one wishes to rent a STB from Comcast, the cost is $5 apiece. NashGuy is also adding the $10 upgrade from 20 to 60 hours of cloud storage, so that is an add-on to the $75 basic charge in addition to the BTV, RSN and Franchise Fees and local sales taxes. My own rule of thumb for those latter miscellaneous fees and taxes is between $25 and $30 for the typical consumer.



trip1eX said:


> I would say it is not really customer friendly to streamline the product across Comcast's footprint because the customer never cared what the prices are in California if they lived in Philadelphia. It might help discussions on this forum though. lol. But it looks designed to help Comcast internally and not the customer.


I disagree. It has been a constant complaint here and in other fora that Comcast's offerings and prices have been wildly different from region to region, and sometimes even within a single zip code. Besides being inefficient and confusing for the corporate entity, this mishmash has also been perplexing to any consumer who wants to comparison shop for the best deals.



trip1eX said:


> And now they seem to hide even more fees in the fine print than ever. ...which is funny because I read Congress/FCC passed a law/regulation against that practice. But yet the fees seem bigger than ever.


AFAICT the fees seem more transparent now since the CSR's are apparently being trained to provide the customer with the estimated net monthly recurring cost (MRC) at the time of purchase rather than the previous practice of telling them to wait for their first bill to find out how much the service is actually costing them.


----------



## chiguy50

mdavej said:


> *Because those are made up fees. *All service providers pay for whatever channels they carry, mark up the price and charge their customers. Cable companies choose to lowball on the "basic" channels, then break out the more expensive channels separately and tack that onto your bill AFTER you sign up as broadcast and RSN fees. So it's all about false advertising.
> 
> YTTV pays whatever the channels cost and charges you $50. I have no idea what their profit margin is. I don't really care*. As long as I get the content I want for $50, I'm in. If they raise the price too much in the future, I'm out. Simple as that.
> 
> * I actually do care a little as a Google stockholder ;-)


Yes, "made up fees" indeed.

Sadly, it is a common practice in the telecommunications industry as well as many other consumer-oriented fields to market your service prices arbitrarily low by separating out additional mandatory or hard to avoid costs to the consumer that are in actuality intrinsic to the service being provided.

As an example, bulk service customers have typically not been subject to the RSN fee and can negotiate a reduced BTV fee. The Franchise Fees OTOH are an actual pass-through based on locally-assessed rates, and the sales tax is State-mandated, so there is no deception involved there unless it can be shown that Comcast is inflating those fees (and I have found their internal accounting to be accurate in my jurisdiction).


----------



## trip1eX

chiguy50 said:


> I believe NashGuy's comparison assumes that the customer will use his/her own video devices for reception, but if one wishes to rent a STB from Comcast, the cost is $5 apiece. NashGuy is also adding the $10 upgrade from 20 to 60 hours of cloud storage, so that is an add-on to the $75 basic charge in addition to the BTV, RSN and Franchise Fees and local sales taxes. My own rule of thumb for those latter miscellaneous fees and taxes is between $25 and $30 for the typical consumer.


ok so $5/tv unless someone uses their streaming boxes. I do wonder how well that would work though. If somone bought a Tivo system then that cost would have to pro-rated over ~5 years and factored in.

The need for cloud storage would depend on the built-in cable DVR storage if there is any. I'm not up what Comcast's DVR is. IF it's a cloud dvr nowadays with next to no storage then $10 for more cloud storage would be more of a necessity.

so $108 plus taxes. maybe $10/mo for another 2 tvs. Maybe $10 for cloud storage if the dvr doesn't provide much storage locally.



chiguy50 said:


> I disagree. It has been a constant complaint here and in other fora that Comcast's offerings and prices have been wildly different from region to region, and sometimes even within a single zip code. Besides being inefficient and confusing for the corporate entity, this mishmash has also been perplexing to any consumer who wants to comparison shop for the best deals.


It's not without any use. But customers could already find out what their cable costs in their region and thus could price shop. They just couldn't have very easy discussions with other people in other regions on the internet.  And even now with the various fees and discounts, not sure it really gets much easier.



chiguy50 said:


> AFAICT the fees seem more transparent now since the CSR's are apparently being trained to provide the customer with the estimated net monthly recurring cost (MRC) at the time of purchase rather than the previous practice of telling them to wait for their first bill to find out how much the service is actually costing them.


I guess this is the new law or effect of the new law:

"
1. Cable and satellite TV operators will have to disclose the full price of their service - including all fees, charges and taxes, as well as when promotional discounts will expire - within 24 hours after consumers sign up.

2. New subscribers will be able to cancel with no penalty within 24 hours after receiving the full-price disclosure.

3. Providers are forbidden from charging customers to rent equipment they don't use, such as charging to rent a router or modem, when customers choose to use equipment of their own."

But

"
The new law wasn't a grand slam for consumers and Consumer Reports. _The House version required disclosure of add-on fees before consumers sign up_. *But* the _version passed by the Senate shifts the disclosure requirement to within 24 hours after sign-up_, according to the pay-TV industry watchdog site FierceVideo.com.

Also, the _law only applies to pay-TV providers_, and *not* i_nternet service providers (ISPs_). Consumer Reports' report points out that while TV consumers can fight back by "cutting the cord" and relying on over-the-air and streaming apps, "hidden fees are starting to creep into 'internet only' service packages as well.""

******

I thought the new law was going to mean they couldn't advertise prices of packages that weren't close to what the thing actually costs. But I guess not. They only have to tell the customer within 24 hrs after signing up what the actual price is.


----------



## trip1eX

mdavej said:


> Because those are made up fees. All service providers pay for whatever channels they carry, mark up the price and charge their customers. Cable companies choose to lowball on the "basic" channels, then break out the more expensive channels separately and tack that onto your bill AFTER you sign up as broadcast and RSN fees. So it's all about false advertising.
> 
> YTTV pays whatever the channels cost and charges you $50. I have no idea what their profit margin is. I don't really care*. As long as I get the content I want for $50, I'm in. If they raise the price too much in the future, I'm out. Simple as that.
> 
> * I actually do care a little as a Google stockholder ;-)


yeah but they make all their money from search and google maps and cloud and maybe youtube. yttv could fall off a cliff and us stock holders wouldn't notice lol. probably would actually increase profits.


----------



## dlfl

Both Cable operators and streaming services have these common things:

1. Deceptive marketing practices can and will be used whenever they work. This includes hiding add-on costs (primarily used by cable tv at the moment) and buying in by temporarily losing money (allegedly what streaming services are doing at the moment).
2. Content costs money, no matter how it’s delivered.

What will determine winners in the long run are factors like this:
1. Competition. Frequently not there in regions where cable TV is a local monopoly. But will always be there for streaming services.
2. Flexibility and transparency. Compare what you do to choose a streaming package and turn it on or off (i.e., a few views and clicks in your browser) to what you go through doing that with a cable tv company (usually talking to an agent who at best doesn’t know enough to be helpful, or worse, is playing car salesman with you).

Arguing about which is cheaper now may be interesting but in the long run streaming will win out, although it may not be cheaper then.


----------



## NashGuy

chiguy50 said:


> That's not really a fair comparison since you are mischaracterizing the nature of those discounts that you have removed. They are not "new customer" discounts anymore; Comcast now refers to them as "Always On Discounts"--meaning that they are designed to be routinely available to anyone who agrees to the associated terms (e.g., a 24-month agreement with a declining ETF).
> 
> Therefore, in your area (Nashville) as in other areas under the Simple & Easy fee structure, the bundled price for Performance HSI + Extra TV comes to $75 rather than the combined $123 (($73 + $70) - $20) you have cited, making the total approx. $108 rather than the $156 you arrived at.
> 
> Therefore, using your argument, the more accurate price comparison would be $108 for all Comcast vs. $123 for Comcast HSI + YTTV.


Sorry, no, you're trying to give Comcast an unfair advantage by assuming the customer wants to keep agreeing to 2-year contracts to score more discounts. YouTube TV is completely contract-free. So the fair comparison is to show the pricing you can get from Comcast without agreeing to more long-term contracts.

That said, I wasn't aware that Comcast had officially enacted this new "Always On Discounts" policy to allow existing customers to keep getting "new customer" promos as long as they keep renewing their contract. Also, in my experience of checking Comcast pricing, the amount of discount that they offer customers in exchange for taking a contract is continually in flux, and also depends on which services and tiers you take, as well as whether you take a 1-year or 2-year contract. Are you saying that they've now created a new standard set of contract-based discounts that will remain in place long-term?

Their Plan Builder continues to show three different types of discounts offered here: a "Promo" discount that new customers get, regardless of whether they take a contract; an "Agreement" discount, based on taking a 1 or 2-yr contract; and the Autopay Paperless Billing discount, which has been a standard non-expiring discount for a long while now. Are all three discounts considered "Always On"? Does the Promo discount never actually expire? Or does renewal of the Promo discount depend on renewing the contract (which, if so, would make the distinction of the Promo discount and the Agreement discount meaningless)?



chiguy50 said:


> As I pointed out above, the Always On Discounts bring that retail pricing down to a more affordable level. Stand-alone Performance Starter (25Mbps) comes in at a discounted $20, while Performance (100Mbps) is $40 and Blast! (200Mbps) is $50. Those prices are net assuming you do not rent the Comcast gateway or other equipment. And real-world download speeds are usually 20% higher than those advertised by Comcast, so, for example, under Blast! (which I currently have) you should get 240Mbps.


This is all news to me. My parents, for instance, have had standalone Performance Starter for years. We were able to get them to extend the initial new-subscriber discount once, I think, but since then, no dice. They have to pay the full price and were not given the option of taking a contract in exchange for a discount. Although we haven't checked lately. (They may switch to AT&T Fiber soon.)

What their Plan Builder is currently showing here for stand-alone Performance (reg. $73) is that you get a $13 promo discount for 12 months whether you take the 1-yr contract or not. If you do take it, you get an additional $10 discount over those 12 months. And there's an ongoing $10 autopay paperless bill discount. All combined, that brings the price down to $40. Are you saying that Comcast's official policy now is that those customers will be able to take another 1-yr contract after the first year is up and will be given all three discounts again? And that all three discount amounts are now standardized and not going to fluctuate from month to month?

I recently helped a friend thinking about switching from AT&T to Comcast for broadband. Up until early this month (Jan. 3, I think), there was a larger initial promo discount for Performance, so that the final discounted price was $30, not $40. Over the past year, the initial year pricing has usually been $40 but at times they bring it down to $30 for a month or two. As I say, Comcast's promotional rates are constantly in flux, or have been in the past.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> Both Cable operators and streaming services have these common things:
> 
> 1. Deceptive marketing practices can and will be used whenever they work. This includes hiding add-on costs (primarily used by cable tv at the moment) and buying in by temporarily losing money (allegedly what streaming services are doing at the moment).
> 2. Content costs money, no matter how it's delivered.
> 
> What will determine winners in the long run are factors like this:
> 1. Competition. Frequently not there in regions where cable TV is a local monopoly. But will always be there for streaming services.
> 2. Flexibility and transparency. Compare what you do to choose a streaming package and turn it on or off (i.e., a few views and clicks in your browser) to what you go through doing that with a cable tv company (usually talking to an agent who at best doesn't know enough to be helpful, or worse, is playing car salesman with you).
> 
> Arguing about which is cheaper now may be interesting but in the long run streaming will win out, although it may not be cheaper then.


YTTV doesn't have any of the deceptive marketing. Something like Sling has some of that though. No doubt because they are owned by Dish.

I don't think any of these OTT cable services or cable/satellite wins out. I see YTTV as a layover on the way to direct to consumer streaming.


----------



## NashGuy

chiguy50 said:


> That's not really a fair comparison since you are mischaracterizing the nature of those discounts that you have removed. They are not "new customer" discounts anymore; Comcast now refers to them as "Always On Discounts"--meaning that they are designed to be routinely available to anyone who agrees to the associated terms (e.g., a 24-month agreement with a declining ETF).
> 
> Therefore, in your area (Nashville) as in other areas under the Simple & Easy fee structure, the bundled price for Performance HSI + Extra TV comes to $75 rather than the combined $123 (($73 + $70) - $20) you have cited, making the total approx. $108 rather than the $156 you arrived at.
> 
> Therefore, using your argument, the more accurate price comparison would be $108 for all Comcast vs. $123 for Comcast HSI + YTTV.


I went into the Plan Builder and figured out the price here that a new customer will pay Comcast for a combo of Performance Internet (100/5) and the Extra TV package with the $10 DVR service (60 hrs), then added on $15 for the broadcast TV fee and $8 for the RSN fee, as I did before. As you calculated, that comes to $108 after all discounts are applied. (Yes, I assume that you're using all your own equipment: modem, router, TV streaming box. And no, I didn't add the franchise fee or other government-imposed taxes/fees.)

But you're not quoting the correct figure for a combination of standalone Performance Internet plus YTTV. The standard price is $73 but after all the discounts are applied -- discounts that can apparently keep getting extended over and over if you keep agreeing to a new 1-yr contract, if you're correct -- it's only $40. And YTTV costs $50. So that's a total of $90, which is still $18/mo less than the contract/promo rate for Performance + Extra. (And because Comcast will charge a local government franchise fee to their TV subs, and YTTV does not, the price difference will probably be a little over $20/mo.)


----------



## trip1eX

good pt about the 2 yr contract. It is nice to be able to quit YTTV, or pause it or restart it with zero hassle.

Although I did read somewhere here that one can just move down to internet only without paying ETF. IF that's accurate then it's not really a 2 yr contract if one is going to have internet no matter what. Still not as convenient as starting/stopping YTTV tho. 

Also btw as far as prices goes, one can play the GooglePLay gift card game. IT was possible to get them 20% off during Black Friday. IF that comes around again, one can stock up. Although then that becomes kind of a contract discount of sort. Unless you have a use for them other than for YTTV.


----------



## humbb

lparsons21 said:


> At the moment the financial guys all are sure the OTT services are losing money, betting on the future. So yes, they are including those fees in their total price and at some point may either break them out separately or just raise rates. It is almost a certainty that today's rates won't hold for all that long.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I see, so it's kind of like the MoviePass model, except not nearly as extreme. And their VC's are the deep-pocketed Google (as was Sony with the recently deceased Vue).


mdavej said:


> YTTV pays whatever the channels cost and charges you $50. I have no idea what their profit margin is. I don't really care*. As long as I get the content I want for $50, I'm in. If they raise the price too much in the future, I'm out. Simple as that.
> 
> * I actually do care a little as a Google stockholder ;-)


To me, this sounds an awful lot like posts I read in the MoviePass discussion thread. At least Google has the resources to subsidize a losing "profit" center (unlike Sony, I guess) and keep it going a lot longer.


----------



## trip1eX

humbb said:


> I see, so it's kind of like the MoviePass model, except not nearly as extreme. And their VC's are the deep-pocketed Google (as was Sony with the recently deceased Vue).
> 
> To me, this sounds an awful lot like posts I read in the MoviePass discussion thread. At least Google has the resources to subsidize a losing "profit" center (unlike Sony, I guess) and keep it going a lot longer.


lol nothing like moviepass. 

it's just cabletv over the internet. same one price for tv package (business model) that has been around for 30-40 years.

Sony or Google don't have to buy the show from the cable company every time you want to watch it. And then hope you don't watch too many shows. 

Sony could have gotten out for many reasons:

1) weren't making any money or not making enough money.

2) branding was bad which helped cause #1

3) doesn't fit their core strengths
4) competition
5) they saw the market was moving to the direction of Netflix etc especially their Playstation customer base.


----------



## saeba

lparsons21 said:


> At the moment the financial guys all are sure the OTT services are losing money, betting on the future.


Who are "the financial guys" and do they have any shred of evidence to support this? Or is this more of the typical speculation that gets passed on as truth on the internet?


----------



## lparsons21

saeba said:


> Who are "the financial guys" and do they have any shred of evidence to support this? Or is this more of the typical speculation that gets passed on as truth on the internet?


Hard to say who and how correct they are, but it has been in a number of financial news articles for quite some time. Except for public traded companies it is probably educated guesses.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Hard to say who and how correct they are, but it has been in a number of financial news articles for quite some time. Except for public traded companies it is probably educated guesses.


Yeah I doubt anyone makes much money off of OTT cable services.

The cable channel packages were never really overpriced because, in most areas, a person or home or place had a choice between cable and 2 satellite companies. Sometimes 2 cable companies.

The problem was the packages started to get bloated.

YTTV mainly saves you money by having a few less channels while also saving you on expensive equipment costs.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I doubt anyone makes much money off of OTT cable services.
> 
> The cable channel packages were never really overpriced because, in most areas, a person or home or place had a choice between cable and 2 satellite companies. Sometimes 2 cable companies.
> 
> The problem was the packages started to get bloated.
> 
> YTTV mainly saves you money by having a few less channels while also saving you on expensive equipment costs.


I can't find it now, but I recall reading an article at the time that stated YTTV was likely breaking even on content and delivery costs when they went to $50/month. I also recall the same article saying Hulu Live was barely making a profit at their current price point. I don't think anyone is losing money on Live Streaming at this point, but I also don't think anyone is making bundles of money either.


----------



## saeba

ncted said:


> I can't find it now, but I recall reading an article at the time that stated YTTV was likely breaking even on content and delivery costs when they went to $50/month


I found this article from April 2019: YouTube TV Still Isn't Profitable After Its Price Increase | The Motley Fool

Interesting points:

_It's hard to blame YouTube [for their recent price increase]. At $40 per month, it was losing about $9 per month per subscriber on programming costs alone, according to The Information [paywall]. _
_
There's not much room for YouTube to keep increasing its price, especially in light of the competition in this space.

Ultimately, the company expects to generate $15 to $16 per subscriber in ad revenue per month, according to The Information's source.
That kind of ad revenue will more than cover YouTube TV's shortfall on programming expenses from subscriber revenue at $50 per month. But it might require greater scale in order to also cover its operating expenses. With intense competition in the space, YouTube will face a challenge to keep growing with its less competitive pricing, but if it can keep attracting new subscribers, it can become profitable at $50 per month._


----------



## lparsons21

I did a search and most articles were fairly old. Searching on Hulu Live, YouTube TV and Sling showed only SlingTV being profitable but barely so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slowbiscuit

Biggest problem I have with YTTV right now is lack of DD 5.1. As a big sports fan this is a must for me, and I'm not the only one that doesn't understand why they're not passing it through. Perhaps they'll add it this year before my Comcast contract is up.


----------



## mschnebly

Sorry if this is a boneheaded question. Does the price that a service like YTTV pays for it's channels change depending on how many customers they have or is it just a fixed price?


----------



## saeba

slowbiscuit said:


> Biggest problem I have with YTTV right now is lack of DD 5.1. As a big sports fan this is a must for me, and I'm not the only one that doesn't understand why they're not passing it through. Perhaps they'll add it this year before my Comcast contract is up.


Funny.... I had mid-tier 5.1 surround systems for 20 years. After moving, I went with a simpler mid-tier soundbar (2.1) setup. I don't really notice a significant difference. That's why it is different solutions for different folks -what's important to you is not important to everyone.


----------



## WVZR1

saeba said:


> Funny.... I had mid-tier 5.1 surround systems for 20 years. After moving, I went with a simpler mid-tier soundbar (2.1) setup. I don't really notice a significant difference. That's why it is different solutions for different folks -what's important to you is not important to everyone.


For 'Broadcast Television' many I know are happy with this. Having a quite nice 5.1 system in the 2 rooms I use for TV I don't believe I'd be good with that.


----------



## moyekj

saeba said:


> _Ultimately, the company expects to generate $15 to $16 per subscriber in ad revenue per month, according to The Information's source.
> That kind of ad revenue will more than cover YouTube TV's shortfall on programming expenses from subscriber revenue at $50 per month. _


 That's disturbing albeit of course not surprising giving this is Google we are talking about. So are the Advertisements very prominent as part of the YTTV experience?


----------



## saeba

moyekj said:


> That's disturbing albeit of course not surprising giving this is Google we are talking about. So are the Advertisements very prominent as part of the YTTV experience?


I would call that "worrisome"... as I haven't seen added ads in any of the YTTV apps (Android, Android TV, PC) as of yet. So they may add in ads much like those that exist in the YouTube app (which then has the YouTube premium offering for ad-free access). My opinion is that this is more likely than an overall increase in the $49.99/mo YTTV fee.


----------



## ManeJon

My son has YTTV and his biggest issue is that ESPN3 apparently doesn't recognize YTTV as a service for which they provide stuff on the ESPN app on TV. It has a list of cable services that allow you to sign up to ESPN app but YTTV isn't on that list - or wasn't the last time he checked a week or so ago.


----------



## mrizzo80

Isn’t the ad revenue Google gets just from the cut the cable provider gets for the local ads they sell?


----------



## saeba

ManeJon said:


> My son has YTTV and his biggest issue is that ESPN3 apparently doesn't recognize YTTV as a service for which they provide stuff on the ESPN app on TV. It has a list of cable services that allow you to sign up to ESPN app but YTTV isn't on that list - or wasn't the last time he checked a week or so ago.


Just went to espn3.com on my PC web browser, tried to watch the Tenn vs Miss St game, asked me to login and then choose a TV provider and YouTube TV was on the list.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> I went into the Plan Builder and figured out the price here that a new customer will pay Comcast for a combo of Performance Internet (100/5) and the Extra TV package with the $10 DVR service (60 hrs), then added on $15 for the broadcast TV fee and $8 for the RSN fee, as I did before. As you calculated, that comes to $108 after all discounts are applied. (Yes, I assume that you're using all your own equipment: modem, router, TV streaming box. And no, I didn't add the franchise fee or other government-imposed taxes/fees.)
> 
> But you're not quoting the correct figure for a combination of standalone Performance Internet plus YTTV. The standard price is $73 but after all the discounts are applied -- discounts that can apparently keep getting extended over and over if you keep agreeing to a new 1-yr contract, if you're correct -- it's only $40. And YTTV costs $50. So that's a total of $90, which is still $18/mo less than the contract/promo rate for Performance + Extra. (And because Comcast will charge a local government franchise fee to their TV subs, and YTTV does not, the price difference will probably be a little over $20/mo.)


You are, of course, correct that the true cost comparison should be $108 (plus Franchise Fees and sales tax, if any) vs. $90, making the combination of Comcast HSI + YTTV in your analysis about $20 cheaper, all things considered and under the conditions of this particular scenario. You could always tinker with the levels of service and/or CPE to arrive at different conclusions so I'm not sure just how useful this exercise is to any individual subscriber. Additionally, there are a lot of variables and trade-offs which impact on the relative value beyond the dollars and cents, most of which are entirely subjective.

Also, I should correct my implication that the 12- or 24-month agreement promotion discount is an "Always On Discount." I tend to conflate the two in my mind, but they are not the same thing. The promo discount, by contrast, could come and go (although it has been a standard offering for quite some time AFAICT), but it is, nevertheless, available to any customer whether new or existing just like the Always-On Discounts. There are also additional discounts and amenities that may be offered solely to new subscribers beyond those mentioned here as an incentive to get them to sign up. On top of all this, there are short-term fillips that Comcast will throw at customers of good standing from time to time for the asking, such as free SHO (which I currently have), free HBO (which I had for a number of years), military appreciation offer ($25), ad nauseam.

In short, it's very difficult to make a blanket cost comparison except as a snapshot analysis under strictly predefined parameters.


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> That's disturbing albeit of course not surprising giving this is Google we are talking about. So are the Advertisements very prominent as part of the YTTV experience?


I think this refers to the commercial slots that would normally be populated by the cable or satellite company in a traditional setup. When I've watched some live content F1 races, YTTV often has a placeholder instead of an ad for certain spots. If they could sell an ad to put there, that would be revenue to Alphabet. Otherwise, I have not seen much in the way of advertising.


----------



## ncted

saeba said:


> I found this article from April 2019: YouTube TV Still Isn't Profitable After Its Price Increase | The Motley Fool
> 
> Interesting points:
> 
> _It's hard to blame YouTube [for their recent price increase]. At $40 per month, it was losing about $9 per month per subscriber on programming costs alone, according to The Information [paywall].
> 
> There's not much room for YouTube to keep increasing its price, especially in light of the competition in this space.
> 
> Ultimately, the company expects to generate $15 to $16 per subscriber in ad revenue per month, according to The Information's source.
> That kind of ad revenue will more than cover YouTube TV's shortfall on programming expenses from subscriber revenue at $50 per month. But it might require greater scale in order to also cover its operating expenses. With intense competition in the space, YouTube will face a challenge to keep growing with its less competitive pricing, but if it can keep attracting new subscribers, it can become profitable at $50 per month._


That may have been the one I was thinking of. My take away was they can make money at the $50 price point as long as they keep growing.


----------



## NashGuy

saeba said:


> I found this article from April 2019: YouTube TV Still Isn't Profitable After Its Price Increase | The Motley Fool
> 
> Interesting points:
> 
> _It's hard to blame YouTube [for their recent price increase]. At $40 per month, it was losing about $9 per month per subscriber on programming costs alone, according to The Information [paywall].
> 
> There's not much room for YouTube to keep increasing its price, especially in light of the competition in this space.
> 
> Ultimately, the company expects to generate $15 to $16 per subscriber in ad revenue per month, according to The Information's source.
> That kind of ad revenue will more than cover YouTube TV's shortfall on programming expenses from subscriber revenue at $50 per month. But it might require greater scale in order to also cover its operating expenses. With intense competition in the space, YouTube will face a challenge to keep growing with its less competitive pricing, but if it can keep attracting new subscribers, it can become profitable at $50 per month._


As I expounded in another thread already today, I find it hard to believe that YouTube TV is breaking even at $50 given the high-value channel line-up it has with all the major locals, ESPN, RSNs and several other sports channels, Fox News, etc.

Sling (which can rely on DISH's more favorable carriage rates) is supposedly only modestly profitable. And to get something similar to the YouTube TV line-up there, you'd need to get their Orange + Blue + Sports Extra + Cloud DVR for a total of $60, and then you're still missing your RSNs plus your major broadcast locals (except for those few locals in major markets that are directly owned and operated by NBC, ABC and Fox).

Another point of comparison: PS Vue. They offered four different packages, most recently priced at $50, $55, $65, and $85. The $55 "Core" package was the one most similar to YTTV, including RSNs and additional sports channels like MLB Network and NBA TV. As everyone knows, Sony was never able to get PS Vue to profitability, so it was completely shut down yesterday.

So I'm still expecting another YTTV price hike this March or April, as they did in both 2018 and 2019.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> As I expounded in another thread already today, I find it hard to believe that YouTube TV is breaking even at $50 given the high-value channel line-up it has with all the major locals, ESPN, RSNs and several other sports channels, Fox News, etc.
> 
> Sling (which can rely on DISH's more favorable carriage rates) is supposedly only modestly profitable. And to get something similar to the YouTube TV line-up there, you'd need to get their Orange + Blue + Sports Extra + Cloud DVR for a total of $60, and then you're still missing your RSNs plus your major broadcast locals (except for those few locals in major markets that are directly owned and operated by NBC, ABC and Fox).
> 
> Another point of comparison: PS Vue. They offered four different packages, most recently priced at $50, $55, $65, and $85. The $55 "Core" package was the one most similar to YTTV, including RSNs and additional sports channels like MLB Network and NBA TV. As everyone knows, Sony was never able to get PS Vue to profitability, so it was completely shut down yesterday.
> 
> So I'm still expecting another YTTV price hike this March or April, as they did in both 2018 and 2019.


I don't think it it is safe to assume that Dish/Sling are getting better carriage rates than YTTV for a couple of reasons:

1. Alphabet has a lot of leverage with other, existing advertising contracts with (almost?) every media company in the US. They can discount those other contracts a lot and still make tons of money while ensuring the best rate for their fledgling "tv" business.
2. Channel owners need things like YTTV to be successful in their retransmission fights with the entrenched big cable/satellite MVPDs. The quickest way to get that is favorable rates to Live OTT services. Obviously, I'd expect that to change in a few years.

Also, YTTV's bandwidth costs are likely way below Sling, Hulu, PSN, and maybe ATTN. Google owns so much of their own fiber, they don't need to pay the same amounts for data transit that vMVPDs without their own "backbone" do. Of course, that doesn't mean that there is no expense there, but Alphabet could to choose to include that in their profitability calculation or not since the network would exist whether YTTV was a thing or not. It is an unknown, but they could consider their delivery costs to be very low in comparison to competitors. The same goes for a lot of the other overhead involved with running an enormous online video network.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> I don't think it it is safe to assume that Dish/Sling are getting better carriage rates than YTTV for a couple of reasons:
> 
> 1. Alphabet has a lot of leverage with other, existing advertising contracts with (almost?) every media company in the US. They can discount those other contracts a lot and still make tons of money while ensuring the best rate for their fledgling "tv" business.
> 2. Channel owners need things like YTTV to be successful in their retransmission fights with the entrenched big cable/satellite MVPDs. The quickest way to get that is favorable rates to Live OTT services. Obviously, I'd expect that to change in a few years.
> 
> Also, YTTV's bandwidth costs are likely way below Sling, Hulu, PSN, and maybe ATTN. Google owns so much of their own fiber, they don't need to pay the same amounts for data transit that vMVPDs without their own "backbone" do. Of course, that doesn't mean that there is no expense there, but Alphabet could to choose to include that in their profitability calculation or not since the network would exist whether YTTV was a thing or not. It is an unknown, but they could consider their delivery costs to be very low in comparison to competitors. The same goes for a lot of the other overhead involved with running an enormous online video network.


Well, it's not an assumption on my part that fledgling vMVPDs (e.g. YTTV) pay higher carriage rates than traditional MVPDs (e.g. DISH) that have far larger subscriber bases. That's been reported as fact by various sources in the industry press. The network owners did this, it was reported, to ensure that even if the MVPDs lost subscribers to the new vMVPDs, the network owners still came out ahead. (You just can't win with these guys.)

I can understand that YTTV subscribers/fans would like to believe that the current $50 price point will hold. And, who knows, maybe I'm wrong and it will. We'll see.

I have to believe that YTTV would be acceptable to quite a few more folks as a replacement for traditional cable TV if it included Hallmark Channel, History, A&E, and Lifetime, which were 2019's 11th, 14th, 20th, and 28th highest-rated networks, respectively. Adding all of those would require striking only two new carriage contracts (with Crown Media and A+E Networks). Adding those four channels and raising the price to $60/mo (plus maybe extending the cloud DVR retention period from 9 months to a full year?) looks like a pretty plausible scenario to me.

At that point, the only major channel group missing from YTTV would be the Viacom channels. But their most-watched networks aren't really all that popular (and, even worse, many of them skew toward younger viewers who are leaving linear TV in droves). Nickelodeon ranked at 25 last year, followed by TV Land (32), MTV (34), Nick at Nite (37), VH1 (38), Paramount Network (43), and Nick Jr. (49). If I were running YTTV, I'd hold off adding any of the Viacom channels until it's time to renew the contract with CBS -- now ViacomCBS -- at which point it will probably be unavoidable.


----------



## pdhenry

saeba said:


> I would call that "worrisome"... as I haven't seen added ads in any of the YTTV apps (Android, Android TV, PC) as of yet. So they may add in ads much like those that exist in the YouTube app (which then has the YouTube premium offering for ad-free access). My opinion is that this is more likely than an overall increase in the $49.99/mo YTTV fee.


In fact, on the "cable" channels during the ad breaks you can see 15 second spots that on a cable company would have a local ad but on YTTV just have a nice color scene with the YouTube TV logo in the corner. These are skippable on a recording like any other ad, but they appear to represent where Google can insert custom ads in the future.


----------



## foghorn2

Most-Watched Television Networks: Ranking 2019's Winners and Losers
"
1. *CBS* 7,140 -4%
2. *NBC* 6,330 -19%
3. *ABC* 5,192 -4%
4. *Fox* 4,623 +3%
5. *Fox News Channel* 2,501 +1%
6. *ESPN* 1,749 -2%
7. *MSNBC* 1,741 -3%
8. *ION* 1,344 0%
9. *HGTV* 1,307 -10%
10. *Univision * 1,304 -10%
11. *Hallmark Channel* 1,265 +3%
12. *USA Network* 1,230 -19%
13. *Telemundo* 1,201 -1%
14. *History* 1,193 -4%
15. *TLC* 1,185 +11%
16. *TBS* 1,155 -16%
17. *Discovery Channel * 1,130 -4%
18. *TNT* 1,122 -14%
19. *The CW* 1,093 -24%
20. *A&E* 1,058 +4%
21. *Investigation Discovery* 992 -10%
22. *CNN * 965 -2%
23. *Food Network* 941 -5%
24. *Bravo* 883 -1%
25. *Nickelodeon* 728 -21%
26. *AMC* 723 -22%
27. *Me TV* 719 +2%
28. *Lifetime* 705 0%
29. *FX * 703 -21%
30. *Adult Swim* 646 -23%
"

I pay $30/month, heres the top channels 2019, I get all the channels within that list that I want with my subscription/setup. This is the cheapest way to get the channels I want. No way in hell am I going to pay $50+ for the same thing. That would be insane.


----------



## pdhenry

Who is your supplier? Is it legitimate?
I can get all of those for $10 but I'm pretty sure it's all pirated.


----------



## foghorn2

pdhenry said:


> Who is your supplier? Is it legitimate?
> I can get all of those for $10 but I'm pretty sure it's all pirated.


 SlingTV and AirTv for locals.

Im not saying I get all those, I get all I want within that list.


----------



## pdhenry

I could probably live with Sling Blue (perhaps with the Hollywood add-on for TCM) once I have a permanent house-wide solution for locals. That would save me $15-20/month but involves some up-front costs for antenna installation and a good distribution amp.

Every time I look at the depth of YTTV's on-demand library (I think it just integrates the on-demand offerings of the entire lineup) I'm impressed. It's like TiVo's unified search but better.


----------



## foghorn2

pdhenry said:


> I could probably live with Sling Blue (perhaps with the Hollywood add-on for TCM) once I have a permanent house-wide solution for locals. That would save me $15-20/month but involves some up-front costs for antenna installation and a good distribution amp.
> 
> Every time I look at the depth of YTTV's on-demand library (I think it just integrates the on-demand offerings of the entire lineup) I'm impressed. It's like TiVo's unified search but better.


Yeah I was tempted to get the add on for TCM for $5, but Im more of a late 70's-80's fan, not 20's-60's and most movies I like I already own and can stream locally.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Well, it's not an assumption on my part that fledgling vMVPDs (e.g. YTTV) pay higher carriage rates than traditional MVPDs (e.g. DISH) that have far larger subscriber bases. That's been reported as fact by various sources in the industry press. The network owners did this, it was reported, to ensure that even if the MVPDs lost subscribers to the new vMVPDs, the network owners still came out ahead. (You just can't win with these guys.)
> 
> I can understand that YTTV subscribers/fans would like to believe that the current $50 price point will hold. And, who knows, maybe I'm wrong and it will. We'll see.
> 
> I have to believe that YTTV would be acceptable to quite a few more folks as a replacement for traditional cable TV if it included Hallmark Channel, History, A&E, and Lifetime, which were 2019's 11th, 14th, 20th, and 28th highest-rated networks, respectively. Adding all of those would require striking only two new carriage contracts (with Crown Media and A+E Networks). Adding those four channels and raising the price to $60/mo (plus maybe extending the cloud DVR retention period from 9 months to a full year?) looks like a pretty plausible scenario to me.
> 
> At that point, the only major channel group missing from YTTV would be the Viacom channels. But their most-watched networks aren't really all that popular (and, even worse, many of them skew toward younger viewers who are leaving linear TV in droves). Nickelodeon ranked at 25 last year, followed by TV Land (32), MTV (34), Nick at Nite (37), VH1 (38), Paramount Network (43), and Nick Jr. (49). If I were running YTTV, I'd hold off adding any of the Viacom channels until it's time to renew the contract with CBS -- now ViacomCBS -- at which point it will probably be unavoidable.


References please? I can't find any decent reporting on the subject. Everything seems to trace back to a single article by The Information which is paywalled, and the "publication" has only been around since 2013. My friends at Alphabet have been telling me they own the networks because they all want better advertising deals on the Internet to make up for lost eyeballs on TVs. I don't work for YTTV, so I don't know what to believe, and a price hike certainly seems as likely as anything else. I still think the that YTTV is in a much better position than most of the other vMVPDs due to the reasons I cited above. I also don't think Charlie's practice of hard bargaining is going to work as well in the era of Live OTT streaming without contracts which is ironic since his company essentially created the market with Sling.


----------



## trip1eX

foghorn2 said:


> Most-Watched Television Networks: Ranking 2019's Winners and Losers
> "
> 1. *CBS* 7,140 -4%
> 2. *NBC* 6,330 -19%
> 3. *ABC* 5,192 -4%
> 4. *Fox* 4,623 +3%
> 5. *Fox News Channel* 2,501 +1%
> 6. *ESPN* 1,749 -2%
> 7. *MSNBC* 1,741 -3%
> 8. *ION* 1,344 0%
> 9. *HGTV* 1,307 -10%
> 10. *Univision * 1,304 -10%
> 11. *Hallmark Channel* 1,265 +3%
> 12. *USA Network* 1,230 -19%
> 13. *Telemundo* 1,201 -1%
> 14. *History* 1,193 -4%
> 15. *TLC* 1,185 +11%
> 16. *TBS* 1,155 -16%
> 17. *Discovery Channel * 1,130 -4%
> 18. *TNT* 1,122 -14%
> 19. *The CW* 1,093 -24%
> 20. *A&E* 1,058 +4%
> 21. *Investigation Discovery* 992 -10%
> 22. *CNN * 965 -2%
> 23. *Food Network* 941 -5%
> 24. *Bravo* 883 -1%
> 25. *Nickelodeon* 728 -21%
> 26. *AMC* 723 -22%
> 27. *Me TV* 719 +2%
> 28. *Lifetime* 705 0%
> 29. *FX * 703 -21%
> 30. *Adult Swim* 646 -23%
> "
> 
> I pay $30/month, heres the top channels 2019, I get all the channels within that list that I want with my subscription/setup. This is the cheapest way to get the channels I want. No way in hell am I going to pay $50+ for the same thing. That would be insane.


I'm waiting for a person to come in and say it would be insane to get Sling when they can get Philo instead and get all the channels they want for $10/mo cheaper. lol.

IF Sling works for you great. I checked it out a but I could not get either $30 package to work for me. If you get Orange you have no ESPN. CNBC is an extra $5/mo for Blue but not an even an option for Orange? To add the rest of YTTV's sports channels, it's $10/mo extra. You get no locals. And the DVR sucks. And the service wasn't as good as YTTV overall when I sampled it. YTTV seemed more responsive and slicker and better pic quality. Oh you also have no accounts with Sling. If you have a wife and kids that sucks as does sharing such a paltry amt of dvr storage. Unlimited storage/tuners is beautiful.

IN the end Sling wasn't worth trying to save a few bucks.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> References please? I can't find any decent reporting on the subject. Everything seems to trace back to a single article by The Information which is paywalled, and the "publication" has only been around since 2013. My friends at Alphabet have been telling me they own the networks because they all want better advertising deals on the Internet to make up for lost eyeballs on TVs. I don't work for YTTV, so I don't know what to believe, and a price hike certainly seems as likely as anything else. I still think the that YTTV is in a much better position than most of the other vMVPDs due to the reasons I cited above. I also don't think Charlie's practice of hard bargaining is going to work as well in the era of Live OTT streaming without contracts which is ironic since his company essentially created the market with Sling.


YTTV ran a survey trying to gauge interest in a $60/mo package with the missing AE channels, Viacom stuff and Hallmark.

From what I read targeted ads bring in more money because they are more effective. I imagine Google is in position to take advantage of this with a service like YTTV.

I wouldn't worry too much about what prices Google can get channels at. Google has too much money. If YTTV's popularity keeps going up they will eventually reach a good scale.

I'd question how many really want something like a YTTV. Do the 'yutes care about it? Is it enough to get people away from cable who otherwise want to stay on cable. ... I think answers to those questions will determine its ultimate success.

But I don't think YTTV is where tv ends up. I mean it's just the old cable model over the internet. There is no reason to have time slotted channels on the internet. IF the internet came first we wouldn't have them. They are only there because that is how the broadcast tech worked. And the tv business model was built on top of it.

Now we have new tech and thus a new tv business model will be built on top of it.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> YTTV ran a survey trying to gauge interest in a $60/mo package with the missing AE channels, Viacom stuff and Hallmark.
> 
> From what I read targeted ads bring in more money because they are more effective. I imagine Google is in position to take advantage of this with a service like YTTV.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about what prices Google can get channels at. Google has too much money. If YTTV's popularity keeps going up they will eventually reach a good scale.
> 
> I'd question how many really want something like a YTTV. Do the 'yutes care about it? Is it enough to get people away from cable who otherwise want to stay on cable. ... I think answers to those questions will determine its ultimate success.
> 
> But I don't think YTTV is where tv ends up. I mean it's just the old cable model over the internet. There is no reason to have time slotted channels on the internet. IF the internet came first we wouldn't have them. They are only there because that is how the broadcast tech worked. And the tv business model was built on top of it.
> 
> Now we have new tech and thus a new tv business model will be built on top of it.


An increase to $60 to get more channels makes sense. An increase to $60 for the same thing does not, at least not right away. Given what Google knows about its viewers, I would expect them to be able to make more money on inserted ads than a traditional cable/satellite company.

Not sure how big the vMVPD business will get, especially if the prices go too high. It feels like an interim step to me in any case. If my OTA options were better, I would be doing something other than YTTV.


----------



## lparsons21

I agree, YTTV and other cable/sat replacement services are not the future of TV. But right now the majority of people are familiar with how cable/sat works and are more comfortable with that same paradigm on streaming. 

Where it is going has already started but sports and live events are a thorn in the streaming providers side. For sports the ability to imbed their high cost in fat channel bundles and only fairly recently have we seen a portion of the cost broken out in the form of RSN fees. Currently sports fans are seeing their need for sports being subsidized by everyone else. 

Here’s what I think will be close to where the future is. 

CBS made waves when they brought out CBS All Access, a pay streamer that was a combo of current CBS shows, some catalog of back shows and originals. Now NBC is jumping in with Peacock which will be similar in makeup. Hulu has been there for years and covers Fox and ABC, and others currently.

If you sub to no ad versions of all these, CBS, Peacock, Hulu and HBO Max, the total bill is less than $50/month and you’ve covered almost everything out there with the exception of sports. Add in something like what Apple is doing with the AppleTV+ app to aggregate those and you’ve got a pretty darned powerful package.

Sports is still the problem and no one has figured out a way to solve it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## slowbiscuit

WVZR1 said:


> For 'Broadcast Television' many I know are happy with this. Having a quite nice 5.1 system in the 2 rooms I use for TV I don't believe I'd be good with that.


Yeah, exactly. It's fine not to have it for most entertainment news etc., inconceivable to me not to have it for sports. Huge difference in sound.


----------



## slowbiscuit

ncted said:


> I think this refers to the commercial slots that would normally be populated by the cable or satellite company in a traditional setup. When I've watched some live content F1 races, YTTV often has a placeholder instead of an ad for certain spots. If they could sell an ad to put there, that would be revenue to Alphabet. Otherwise, I have not seen much in the way of advertising.


That's interesting given that ESPN has been showing F1 races ad-free for the last couple of years. There shouldn't be any ads no matter how you get ESPN.


----------



## ncted

slowbiscuit said:


> That's interesting given that ESPN has been showing F1 races ad-free for the last couple of years. There shouldn't be any ads no matter how you get ESPN.


The ones on F1 are between the pre-race show and the race, and then after the race. YTTV puts up a message saying ESPN will be right back or something to that effect.


----------



## foghorn2

ncted said:


> An increase to $60 to get more channels makes sense. An increase to $60 for the same thing does not, at least not right away. Given what Google knows about its viewers, I would expect them to be able to make more money on inserted ads than a traditional cable/satellite company.
> 
> Not sure how big the vMVPD business will get, especially if the prices go too high. It feels like an interim step to me in any case. If my OTA options were better, I would be doing something other than YTTV.


Why not charge 10 extra for those who want those channels instead of charging everyone. See what I mean, Google/YTV is no different than cable.


----------



## ncted

foghorn2 said:


> Why not charge 10 extra for those who want those channels instead of charging everyone. See what I mean, Google/YTV is no different than cable.


In some ways, like the one you reference, YTTV is just like cable. In other ways, like monthly equipment charges/requirements, RSN fees, Local Channel fees, contracts (in some cases), promotional rates that disappear, sucky but necessary customer service, and terrible picture quality it is not, or at least not in my particular experience.


----------



## vaquero

I predict that after all these streaming services have put the cable and satellite providers out of business, they'll cost just as much as the cable and satellite providers.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> References please?


Believe me or not. The assertion that these vMVPDs are paying higher carriage rates than established MVPDs is something that I read more than once in articles months ago. I'm not going to spend the time searching. I don't recall that assertion being made specifically with regard to YouTube TV but with the vMVPDs generally.

I assume you at least accept that the known fact that the more subscribers an MVPD has, the better the rates that it can negotiate with networks?


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> In some ways, like the one you reference, YTTV is just like cable. In other ways, like monthly equipment charges/requirements, RSN fees, Local Channel fees, contracts (in some cases), promotional rates that disappear, sucky but necessary customer service, and terrible picture quality it is not, or at least not in my particular experience.


I tend to think that the traditional MVPDs that survive will adopt some of those things, though. In fact, a law passed by Congress recently says that MVPDs must include those non-optional fees, like broadcast TV and RSN fees, in their advertised package prices. Comcast has already removed the cost of their TV box rentals from the programming package and, if you use their broadband, give you the option of just streaming their IPTV service via their own app (similar to YTTV).

I think all of this stuff will increasingly blur and meet in the middle. The traditional MVPDs are shifting toward IPTV and/or OTT. YTTV is striking deals to get distributed by broadband operators as replacement for their traditional cable TV services.


----------



## NashGuy

foghorn2 said:


> Why not charge 10 extra for those who want those channels instead of charging everyone. See what I mean, Google/YTV is no different than cable.


Probably because A+E, Hallmark and Viacom aren't interested in participating in YTTV unless they can get their most popular channels in the main base package. They don't want YTTV to only sell them as an optional add-on pack.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> I think all of this stuff will increasingly blur and meet in the middle.


yeah and YTTV and even Comcast and probably more blur the line a lot by integrating on-demand in with the recordings and UI so YTTV is partly an ad-supported Netflix-type of service. One could watch lots of programming on demand if desired without ever watching anything live or recording anything.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> yeah and YTTV and even Comcast and probably more blur the line a lot by integrating on-demand in with the recordings and UI so YTTV is partly an ad-supported Netflix-type of service. One could watch lots of programming on demand if desired without ever watching anything live or recording anything.


Yup. It's all a battle for who controls the UI/device you use to access a blend of content. You can add an optional bundle of linear channels inside the Hulu app. HBO Max will offer the same. Comcast's X1/Flex platform will basically do that with Peacock.

The odd thing about YTTV, to me, is that it doesn't really follow that same paradigm. Google isn't really a player in direct-to-consumer subscription video. Although they do run the free ad-supported YouTube and offer some free premium content they produce on there. I wonder if we won't eventually see YTTV become a subsection of the main YouTube app?


----------



## pdhenry

If I scroll way down on the YTTV Home screen I see several "You Tube Originals." I haven't heard of any of the programs.

Sideswiped
Best Shot
Origin
Escape the Night
Sugar
Foursome
Liza On Demand S2
Cobra Kai
Step Up: High Water
Ariana Grande: Dangerous Woman Diaries
Any idea what these are? Part of some other YT service ported to YTTV?


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> If I scroll way down on the YTTV Home screen I see several "You Tube Originals." I haven't heard of any of the programs.
> 
> Sideswiped
> Best Shot
> Origin
> Escape the Night
> Sugar
> Foursome
> Liza On Demand S2
> Cobra Kai
> Step Up: High Water
> Ariana Grande: Dangerous Woman Diaries
> Any idea what these are? Part of some other YT service ported to YTTV?


Yeah, these are examples of the "free premium content" I referred to above that YouTube makes. Originally, this content was restricted to a paid ad-free version of YouTube ("YouTube Premium" I think it's called). And then they also made it available to YTTV subscribers. And then they decided that they would scale back their production of such content and make it all available on regular YouTube, although I think you get new content sooner if you subscribe to YouTube Premium (or YTTV, I guess).

It's all pretty much aimed at the young demographic that's really into YouTube. The only one that broke through to be a hit, I'd say, was Cobra Kai, which is based on the old Karate Kid movies.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Believe me or not. The assertion that these vMVPDs are paying higher carriage rates than established MVPDs is something that I read more than once in articles months ago. I'm not going to spend the time searching. I don't recall that assertion being made specifically with regard to YouTube TV but with the vMVPDs generally.
> 
> I assume you at least accept that the known fact that the more subscribers an MVPD has, the better the rates that it can negotiate with networks?


Not saying I don't believe you. Just trying to get the full picture, especially in the face of some conflicting, albeit anecdotal, information.

Of course the vMVPDs have fewer viewers, and you would expect the wouldn't get as good a deal. I'll agree to that. 10 years ago, I think that would matter more than it does today. These channels have been losing viewers at an alarming rate, and any incremental income they can get is a win, so I think they are more likely to give these small, but growing services a better deal than they might have in the past. Add in Google's internet advertising behemoth (another source of incremental revenue), and I expect they are getting a better deal than say PSN did. Perhaps my 12 years working for a shrinking media company is coloring my perspective some, but that is my read on the situation. I am certainly not stating anything as fact, just my opinions.


----------



## mrizzo80

I signed up over the weekend. 

I’m very impressed with the trick play controls - it’s nearly as responsive as a TiVo. 

I have a slight audio sync issue. Can’t tell if it’s ahead or behind the video. It’s small but slightly annoying. PS Vue developed a severe audio sync issue in the last few months, which makes me sensitive to this type of issue. 

Google is much better at recommendations than Vue was.

YTTV starts up, changes channels, and loads images much quicker. 

I like the stackable “tag” approach for filtering content. 

The UI is much more functional. 

I never warmed up to Vue, for multiple reasons. It was like a 5/10 for me. YTTV is like a 9/10. 

I’m using a Firestick 4K. 

I wish Google would map the menu button to the menu though. Tying it to the Back button isn’t a great choice. 

AmEx gives 6% back on YTTV with the Blue Cash Preferred card.


----------



## mdavej

Turning audio mix off in settings fixed my sync issues.


----------



## pdhenry

mrizzo80 said:


> I have a slight audio sync issue.
> ...
> I'm using a Firestick 4K.


I occasionally see a developing loss of audio/video sync with my Firestick 4K. I haven't seen that happen with the app on a Roku but I haven't used it with a Roku enough to see whether it's also an issue there.
I've been able to regain the sync by backing the program up 15 seconds (and jumping ahead during an ad to catch up if watching live).


----------



## dlfl

YTTV has over 2 million subscribers:
https://thestreamable.com/news/youtube-tv-surpasses-2-million-subscribers
They are 3rd place - Sling and Hulu Live have about 2.7 each.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> YTTV has over 2 million subscribers:
> https://thestreamable.com/news/youtube-tv-surpasses-2-million-subscribers
> They are 3rd place - Sling and Hulu Live have about 2.7 each.


Hulu Live is now at 3.2 million subs as of the end of Q4 2019. Disney just reported.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Hulu Live is now at 3.2 million subs as of the end of Q4 2019. Disney just reported.


This surprises me a bit, having tried Hulu Live out and found it annoying in several respects, but my brother has it and loves it, so I assume I am again just the oddball.


----------



## dave13077

trip1eX said:


> Hulu Live is now at 3.2 million subs as of the end of Q4 2019. Disney just reported.


I have moved from Tivo (Spectrum) to Hulu live around 3 months ago. All in all a good replacement but their "My Stuff" (My Shows, DVR) section is a mess. Hard to tell what was watched and what as been recorded. Hopefully that will improve over time.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> This surprises me a bit, having tried Hulu Live out and found it annoying in several respects, but my brother has it and loves it, so I assume I am again just the oddball.


I haven't tried it. But it probably benefits from the Hulu association. People who have cable (and maybe don't have cable) get Hulu to watch a few shows and then discover Hulu Live. Same app too afaik.

YYTV is sort of the opposite where it confuses customers with the name. YTTV is a totally separate app from YouTube. And the 2 have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## mdavej

ncted said:


> This surprises me a bit, having tried Hulu Live out and found it annoying in several respects, but my brother has it and loves it, so I assume I am again just the oddball.





trip1eX said:


> I haven't tried it. But it probably benefits from the Hulu association. People who have cable get Hulu to watch a few shows and then discover Hulu Live. Same app too afaik.


Hulu's popularity has always been a mystery to me. In terms of features, content and functionality, it's far behind YTTV. I can only imagine it's because they have the name recognition from being first, as well as more and better marketing.

Hulu, Fubo and Philo at least got branding right. They made up new words that everybody now associates with streaming TV. Youtube, AT&T, Sling and Sony all have very confusing and ambiguous branding. The name Youtube TV is essentially identical to Youtube. AT&T's was "DirecTV NOW", using their satellite service's name. Now they just add nonsense words to the end of AT&T to differentiate 3 distinct streaming services. Sony was worst of all with "Playstation" Vue. Their branding was so confusing, it ultimately killed them. Sling refers to a long dead product only tangentially related.


----------



## ncted

mdavej said:


> Hulu's popularity has always been a mystery to me. In terms of features, content and functionality, it's far behind YTTV. I can only imagine it's because they have the name recognition from being first, as well as more and better marketing.
> 
> Hulu, Fubo and Philo at least got branding right. They made up new words that everybody now associates with streaming TV. Youtube, AT&T, Sling and Sony all have very confusing and ambiguous branding. The name Youtube TV is essentially identical to Youtube. AT&T's was "DirecTV NOW", using their satellite service's name. Now they just add nonsense words to the end of AT&T to differentiate 3 distinct streaming services. Sony was worst of all with "Playstation" Vue. Their branding was so confusing, it ultimately killed them. Sling refers to a long dead product only tangentially related.


Maybe if I watched more content in Hulu it would make more sense to me? As for the naming, marketing is a black art to me. I think Dish would've been better off using their Blockbuster brand than Sling IMHO. YTTV makes as much sense to me as Hulu Live. They both emerged from existing on-demand products.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Maybe if I watched more content in Hulu it would make more sense to me? As for the naming, marketing is a black art to me. I think Dish would've been better off using their Blockbuster brand than Sling IMHO. YTTV makes as much sense to me as Hulu Live. They both emerged from existing on-demand products.


hulu live is confusing but at least it uses the same app and Hulu was already just on demand day after cabletv for the most part.

YouTube name is what people associate with user made videos and it is a different UI and different app and is totally separate from YTTV.

They probably didn't use DISH in case it failed and also to avoid confusing it with the satellite service. Sling was a product that let people watch someone's cable over the internet right so it makes some sense from that perspective. Also it sort of is a dead product afaik. So they could use it for something slightly different.

my $1.732


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> hulu live is confusing but at least it uses the same app and Hulu was already just on demand day after cabletv for the most part.
> 
> YouTube name is what people associate with user made videos and it is a different UI and different app and is totally separate from YTTV.
> 
> They probably didn't use DISH in case it failed and also to avoid confusing it with the satellite service. Sling was a product that let people watch someone's cable over the internet right so it makes some sense from that perspective. Also it sort of is a dead product afaik. So they could use it for something slightly different.
> 
> my $1.732


Sling makes sense if you know about the tech. I just don't think that many people really knew anything about it, unlike Blockbuster, which Dish also owns.

Is that adjusted for inflation? If so, from what starting point?


----------



## mschnebly

ncted said:


> Maybe if I watched more content in Hulu it would make more sense to me? As for the naming, marketing is a black art to me. I think Dish would've been better off using their Blockbuster brand than Sling IMHO. YTTV makes as much sense to me as Hulu Live. They both emerged from existing on-demand products.


Google TV might even be better than YTTV.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Sling makes sense if you know about the tech.
> 
> Is that adjusted for inflation? If so, from what starting point?


sorry meant ¥ not $.

Sling is just a new brand if you don't know about the tech.


----------



## trip1eX

mschnebly said:


> Google TV might even be better than YTTV.


They could release hardware called Google TV and then call YTTV GoogleTV+. And be as confusing as Apple is. Ok not quite because has the Apple TV(hardware,) Apple TV app and the Apple TV+ service. Oh and none are a tv but apple tv is found on some TVs.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> Maybe if I watched more content in Hulu it would make more sense to me?


Hulu Live makes sense to those who have already subscribed to the core Hulu service since the live TV part really just acts as an extension of it there in the same app. I've said for years that the future of TV looks like Hulu. The Hulu UI really blurs the distinctions between on-demand, what's live, and what's recorded. It's all really integrated.

That said, a lot of folks coming from traditional cable TV don't like Hulu's more modern approach. They still think of live linear channel TV as one kind of system, and on-demand streaming as something else. Obviously, the YTTV approach holds more appeal for that crowd.

I suspect AT&T will try to cater to both, with AT&T TV for the traditional group and HBO Max (with its future live TV add-on) for the modern/cord-never crowd.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Hulu Live makes sense to those who have already subscribed to the core Hulu service since the live TV part really just acts as an extension of it there in the same app. I've said for years that the future of TV looks like Hulu. The Hulu UI really blurs the distinctions between on-demand, what's live, and what's recorded. It's all really integrated.


LOL! I've subscribed to Hulu since their very early days and NEVER liked their UI. And it makes even less sense as a cable/sat replacement add-on.
If the future of TV is Hulu's UI then I need to start collecting books to read!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## foghorn2

Hulu has the worse UI of them all, and overpriced.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> LOL! I've subscribed to Hulu since their very early days and NEVER liked their UI. And it makes even less sense as a cable/sat replacement add-on.
> If the future of TV is Hulu's UI then I need to start collecting books to read!


The Hulu UI, like the Apple TV app UI, weaves live content into what is mainly a design built around on-demand choices. And at some point way down the road, that's all TV will be: lots of on-demand stuff plus whatever is actually happening live at that moment (mainly sports and news).

But yeah, as I say, middle-aged and older folks who used cable boxes and their grid guides for decades and now just want an online replacement for that experience seem to hate the Hulu UI, at least based on all the comments I've seen posted...


----------



## pdhenry

NashGuy said:


> The Hulu UI, like the Apple TV app UI, weaves live content into what is mainly a design built around on-demand choices.


I haven't used Hulu Live, but in a way YTTV does the same thing.

You seem really condescending toward people who prefer YTTV though, so I don't expect you to be even-handed in a discussion of the two.


----------



## lparsons21

pdhenry said:


> I haven't used Hulu Live, but in a way YTTV does the same thing.
> 
> You seem really condescending toward people who prefer YTTV though, so I don't expect you to be even-handed in a discussion of the two.


If you've watched his postings he is big on ATT.

I'm doing the 2 week trial with YTTV now. Overall it seems to be a really good cable/sat replacement service. Compared to cable full retail pricing, it is a very good value. Compared to satellite it is at a great price! Of course cable's bundling deals can make it not so good.

While they have a grid guide it isn't all that good though it works OK. Not wide enough to suit me, but I can live with it. The DVR is way different compared to just about anybody. A mix of recordings and VOD and it shows all episodes of a series and not just the ones you want recorded. Of course with unlimited DVR space that isn't such a big deal, but managing it is a little bit of a PITA.

Hulu's UI is more with a design that seems to be there to tick off the customer. Just a royal PITA to deal with IMO. And unlike NashGuy I do not think it is the kind of UI we'll see going forward. Something closer to YTTV's would be my guess.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

YTTV continues to be just great. 

The only sad thing to me is...such a service finally got to the pt where it was great and now it feels like any success will be fleeting as the world moves over to direct to consumer offerings. 

CBS Viacom are going to offer a streaming now with CBS All Access and Viacom stuff and Paramount and more plus Showtime. No details yet. 

And Discovery said they are doing the same thing now as well. They will create a streaming service with all their properties: TLC, HGTV, Food, Discovery, OWN, ID, Animal Planet, Travel Channel, ...


----------



## pdhenry

lparsons21 said:


> While they have a grid guide it isn't all that good though it works OK. Not wide enough to suit me, but I can live with it.


I agree. It's difficult to browse the evening's listings in mid-afternoon because it doesn't scroll to the right enough. I'm grabbing TCM movies that I'm interested in, and the guide data goes out a couple of weeks, you just cant scroll the live TV listing more than a few hours.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> YTTV continues to be just great.
> 
> The only sad thing to me is...such a service finally got to the pt where it was great and now it feels like any success will be fleeting as the world moves over to direct to consumer offerings.
> 
> CBS Viacom are going to offer a streaming now with CBS All Access and Viacom stuff and Paramount and more plus Showtime. No details yet.
> 
> And Discovery said they are doing the same thing now as well. They will create a streaming service with all their properties: TLC, HGTV, Food, Discovery, OWN, ID, Animal Planet, Travel Channel, ...


The question in my mind is what happens to that content when those individual service have their own product. Will it then only be available there, or will it still be on the cable/sat replacement services?

The main disadvantage to using the individual services is remembering just where that show was. That's a big advantage with the cable/sat replacements.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> The question in my mind is what happens to that content when those individual service have their own product. Will it then only be available there, or will it still be on the cable/sat replacement services?
> 
> The main disadvantage to using the individual services is remembering just where that show was. That's a big advantage with the cable/sat replacements.


I'm sure shows will be on both for now.

And there are already companies aggregating streaming services. Even Tivo is getting in on that soon.


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> I haven't used Hulu Live, but in a way YTTV does the same thing.
> 
> You seem really condescending toward people who prefer YTTV though, so I don't expect you to be even-handed in a discussion of the two.


LOL. OK. (For the record, I don't use either as I don't have any cable TV subscription.) I do find the whole concept of "cord-cutting" amusing, though, when it just boils down to essentially replacing cable TV delivered to a box with cable TV delivered to an app.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> YTTV continues to be just great.
> 
> The only sad thing to me is...such a service finally got to the pt where it was great and now it feels like any success will be fleeting as the world moves over to direct to consumer offerings.
> 
> CBS Viacom are going to offer a streaming now with CBS All Access and Viacom stuff and Paramount and more plus Showtime. No details yet.
> 
> And Discovery said they are doing the same thing now as well. They will create a streaming service with all their properties: TLC, HGTV, Food, Discovery, OWN, ID, Animal Planet, Travel Channel, ...


Yep. YTTV is still the same ol' linear channel cable bundle model (TV 2.0, I call it). Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that the video landscape will continue to evolve toward TV 3.0 (direct-to-consumer services). So it's hard to see YTTV as anything but a transitional piece of the larger puzzle. Still though, it could be around for several years.


----------



## pdhenry

NashGuy said:


> LOL. OK. (For the record, I don't use either as I don't have any cable TV subscription.) I do find the whole concept of "cord-cutting" amusing, though, when it just boils down to essentially replacing cable TV delivered to a box with cable TV delivered to an app.


OK, fine. Have you used any? Free trials, perhaps?


----------



## mrizzo80

pdhenry said:


> I agree. It's difficult to browse the evening's listings in mid-afternoon because it doesn't scroll to the right enough. I'm grabbing TCM movies that I'm interested in, and the guide data goes out a couple of weeks, you just cant scroll the live TV listing more than a few hours.


I think I read an update is rolling out to all platforms soon. The guide goes out a week. It's already live on the web version I think.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> I'm sure shows will be on both for now.
> 
> And there are already companies aggregating streaming services. Even Tivo is getting in on that soon.


From a few articles, many not really clearly written, it seems that NBCUniversal is to be available on Hulu over the next 5 years per some agreement. ATT's stuff is not so cut and dried as I've seen at least one article indicating they may pull theirs. Of course all is subject to change as they put the streaming puzzle together.

As to Tivo and aggregating, well they have been doing that for a long time though only for a very few.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## pdhenry

Yeah, I've noticed that the web view goes out longer.

Does anyone understand how Local Playback Area works? I'd assume that the local channels remain associated with the Home Area. The YTTV help page on the topic says

"If you're a frequent traveler, make sure to use YouTube TV at least once every 3 months in your home area. This check in makes sure YouTube TV can continue to offer you the correct local networks. "​
I can see the case that the above would just apply to any device on the account (to limit your ability to receive lineups not associated with your home area) or to a given device (to limit account sharing). The text suggests it's the former, which is good for someone with a vacation home, for example.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yep. YTTV is still the same ol' linear channel cable bundle model (TV 2.0, I call it). Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just that the video landscape will continue to evolve toward TV 3.0 (direct-to-consumer services). So it's hard to see YTTV as anything but a transitional piece of the larger puzzle. Still though, it could be around for several years.


The whole of the streaming market is a transitional product. YTTV and Sling offer both a somewhat traditional grid guide, but also a more content oriented UI. 
Hulu offers a much more limited guide, but still has that god awful default screen. The exception I've actually worked with is on the iPad, possibly also iPhone and Android tablets and phones.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## osu1991

pdhenry said:


> Yeah, I've noticed that the web view goes out longer.
> 
> Does anyone understand how Local Playback Area works? I'd assume that the local channels remain associated with the Home Area. The YTTV help page on the topic says
> 
> "If you're a frequent traveler, make sure to use YouTube TV at least once every 3 months in your home area. This check in makes sure YouTube TV can continue to offer you the correct local networks. "​
> I can see the case that the above would just apply to any device on the account (to limit your ability to receive lineups not associated with your home area) or to a given device (to limit account sharing). The text suggests it's the former, which is good for someone with a vacation home, for example.


We now use it in Tulsa and Las Vegas. Tulsa is the Home viewing area. The app on your phone pops up as you move to new locations saying those locals are now available for viewing. Your recordings are still done on the locals from your home market. Sometimes it lets you watch those recordings as soon as they are complete, other times it makes you wait until they've aired in whatever market you're in.

For example Jeopardy. My dad and stepmom are in Las Vegas currently and Jeopardy records at 4:30pm central from the local Tulsa channel. Sometimes YTTV lets them watch the recording before it airs 3hrs later in Las Vegas and other days it says the recording isn't available and they have to wait until it finishes airing in Las Vegas.

The same has happened on regular network programming. Sometimes you can watch the recording once it completes and before the west coast broadcast and other days it will make you wait until the west coast broadcast finishes.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> From a few articles, many not really clearly written, it seems that NBCUniversal is to be available on Hulu over the next 5 years per some agreement. ATT's stuff is not so cut and dried as I've seen at least one article indicating they may pull theirs. Of course all is subject to change as they put the streaming puzzle together.
> 
> As to Tivo and aggregating, well they have been doing that for a long time though only for a very few.


different story if we're talking whether or not NBC or Viacom or ATT content will be on Hulu which is now owned by Disney.

streaming services do all seem to have some original exclusive content. And to me that was to upsell cable customers who otherwise wouldn't have as much of a reason to get something like a Hulu.

yeah point about aggregation was that it was already addressing your concern. work in progress no doubt.


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> OK, fine. Have you used any? Free trials, perhaps?


Yup.


----------



## pdhenry

osu1991 said:


> We now use it in Tulsa and Las Vegas. Tulsa is the Home viewing area. The app on your phone pops up as you move to new locations saying those locals are now available for viewing.


Do you have a device that's used exclusively outside of the Home area? 
I saw a mention on the help pages about using YTTV in the home area every 3 months. If I have a Roku at a vacation home do I need to use it in the home area periodically, or does using my phone in my home area qualify and therefore the Roku keeps working?


----------



## osu1991

pdhenry said:


> Do you have a device that's used exclusively outside of the Home area?
> I saw a mention on the help pages about using YTTV in the home area every 3 months. If I have a Roku at a vacation home do I need to use it in the home area periodically, or does using my phone in my home area qualify and therefore the Roku keeps working?


Just your phone, will do. Something that it can verify the account is being used in the home area once every three months. The devices themselves don't have to be moved.

We leave 2 4k Fire sticks in Las Vegas at the condo. Just in case though, my dad left his old phone here in Tulsa so if there is need to reauthenticate his acct from the home area, I can do it for him. 3 months is right at the edge of how long they spend out there, before they return to Tulsa for doctors appts and things. A month is about as long as I'm ever out there at one time.


----------



## tenthplanet

mschnebly said:


> Google TV might even be better than YTTV.


That would make it Google TV 3.0 the first two generations didn't do well. Google TV has too much baggage. There were wise not to use the name.


----------



## pdhenry

osu1991 said:


> Just your phone, will do. Something that it can verify the account is being used in the home area once every three months. The devices themselves don't have to be moved


Perfect. My friend is considering using his account at his home in PA and his weekend home in NJ, with Fire sticks in both places.


----------



## CajunRuss

When your recorded show is replaced by the ondemand version, does the ondemand version have commercials, and if so can you skip the commercials?


----------



## lparsons21

CajunRuss said:


> When your recorded show is replaced by the ondemand version, does the ondemand version have commercials, and if so can you skip the commercials?


Yes, the on demand version usually has ads and usually you cannot skip over them. That's a big deal for some. For me it is just a minor irritant as I'm usually doing something else besides watching the show intently.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

CajunRuss said:


> When your recorded show is replaced by the ondemand version, does the ondemand version have commercials, and if so can you skip the commercials?


YTTV doesn't replace recorded shows with on-demand versions. but on-demand does have (unskippable) ads.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> YTTV doesn't replace recorded shows with on-demand versions. but on-demand does have ads.


Better to say that YTTV *used* to replace recordings with on-demand versions; however, they've stopped doing this and that the on-demand versions had non-skippable commercials.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Better to say that YTTV *used* to replace recordings with on-demand versions; however, they've stopped doing this and that the on-demand versions had non-skippable commercials.


Nah just better to say what it does. 

but I should have inserted the word *unskippable *in front of the word "ads" in my post.


----------



## pdhenry

I've been trying to figure out the technical numbers behind retaining all recorded shows for nine months, without any user-selectable means of deleting a recording. If every user records, say, six hours of programming a day that can add up tremendously over the nine-month retention period for each user. 
It occurred to me that every channel has a defined market area - local broadcast channels have a local/regional market and the national "cable" channels have a national market. Technically YTTV only has to record (at most) one instance of a program in each local and national market and everyone who has requested that the show is recorded views that same file (the one file duplicated as necessary for optimal server performance...). That reduces the amount of disk space per user considerably, particularly where popular programs are recorded and later watched. I believe the recording performance of YTTV is consistent with this - you can't record a portion of a show, for example if you tune in after it starts. You can add it to your library and subsequent airings of that show are recorded, but not the one you joined in progress. That is, there are no custom recordings.
I'm not sure whether that meets copyright restrictions on redistribution of content as opposed to the concept of each user having their own cloud DVR, but it certainly makes the storage problem manageable in my opinion.
Thoughts?


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Nah just better to say what it does.


No, I'll stand by my statement. The YTTV change to stop replacing recordings with on-demand versions only happened a little over a month ago so people are still hearing about this issue or would have experienced it in a recent past trial of YTTV. Better to be clear that:

It was previously an issue.
The issue is now gone.
And also note... people still stumble on this problem if they watch on-demand content on YTTV rather than a recorded copy. I hit it recently when I requested a movie to be recorded and it then appeared on my watch list in YTTV. Turned out to be an on-demand copy with unskippable commercials. I had to wait for YTTV to eventually record a copy to get it with skippable commercials.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> No, I'll stand by my statement. The YTTV change to stop replacing recordings with on-demand versions only happened a little over a month ago so people are still hearing about this issue or would have experienced it in a recent past trial of YTTV. Better to be clear that:
> 
> It was previously an issue.
> The issue is now gone.
> And also note... people still stumble on this problem if they watch on-demand content on YTTV rather than a recorded copy. I hit it recently when I requested a movie to be recorded and it then appeared on my watch list in YTTV. Turned out to be an on-demand copy with unskippable commercials. I had to wait for YTTV to eventually record a copy to get it with skippable commercials.


Nah. There's no point to it. Tell them what it does now. IF they want a history lesson they'll ask for it.

Besides ~95% of the channels never replaced a recording with on-demand in the first place afaik.

And I don't consider it a problem if you stumble upon on-demand content before it had a chance to record said content. I consider that a good choice to have. IT's also not the same thing at all.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Nah. There's no point to it. Tell them what it does now. IF they want a history lesson they'll ask for it.
> 
> Besides ~95% of the channels never replaced a recording with on-demand in the first place afaik.
> 
> And I don't consider it a problem if you stumble upon on-demand content before it had a chance to record said content. I consider that a good choice to have. IT's also not the same thing at all.


OK, well obviously we don't agree. Can we at least agree on one thing - that I'm right ;-)?


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> I've been trying to figure out the technical numbers behind retaining all recorded shows for nine months, without any user-selectable means of deleting a recording. If every user records, say, six hours of programming a day that can add up tremendously over the nine-month retention period for each user.
> It occurred to me that every channel has a defined market area - local broadcast channels have a local/regional market and the national "cable" channels have a national market. Technically YTTV only has to record (at most) one instance of a program in each local and national market and everyone who has requested that the show is recorded views that same file (the one file duplicated as necessary for optimal server performance...). That reduces the amount of disk space per user considerably, particularly where popular programs are recorded and later watched. I believe the recording performance of YTTV is consistent with this - you can't record a portion of a show, for example if you tune in after it starts. You can add it to your library and subsequent airings of that show are recorded, but not the one you joined in progress. That is, there are no custom recordings.
> I'm not sure whether that meets copyright restrictions on redistribution of content as opposed to the concept of each user having their own cloud DVR, but it certainly makes the storage problem manageable in my opinion.
> Thoughts?


Perhaps with storage deduplication technologies they could theoretically meet any requirement that each user has their own DVR without actually using all the disk space required to make that happen, although I suspect that whatever contract they have with the networks/channels allow for only keeping one copy of each recording as part of the T&Cs.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> I've been trying to figure out the technical numbers behind retaining all recorded shows for nine months, without any user-selectable means of deleting a recording. If every user records, say, six hours of programming a day that can add up tremendously over the nine-month retention period for each user.
> It occurred to me that every channel has a defined market area - local broadcast channels have a local/regional market and the national "cable" channels have a national market. Technically YTTV only has to record (at most) one instance of a program in each local and national market and everyone who has requested that the show is recorded views that same file (the one file duplicated as necessary for optimal server performance...). That reduces the amount of disk space per user considerably, particularly where popular programs are recorded and later watched. I believe the recording performance of YTTV is consistent with this - you can't record a portion of a show, for example if you tune in after it starts. You can add it to your library and subsequent airings of that show are recorded, but not the one you joined in progress. That is, there are no custom recordings.
> I'm not sure whether that meets copyright restrictions on redistribution of content as opposed to the concept of each user having their own cloud DVR, but it certainly makes the storage problem manageable in my opinion.
> Thoughts?


yep I don't think they are storing separate recordings for everyone.


----------



## lparsons21

To me the DVR issue is simple. It will record as in a normal DVR, but it also puts in VOD stuff. Unlimited DVR sounds good, but since you can’t actually delete anything until it drops off at 9 months. That’s going to make a huge mess IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> To me the DVR issue is simple. It will record as in a normal DVR, but it also puts in VOD stuff. Unlimited DVR sounds good, but since you can't actually delete anything until it drops off at 9 months. That's going to make a huge mess IMO.


I'm not concerned. They got lots of filters. You can find stuff pretty easily. Your recordings will pop up in Search as well.

And for families, the use of accounts thins the herd as well.


----------



## pdhenry

I have noted that if it records an old rerun (for example, the 10 PM Saturday airing of SNL) it can be difficult to find without somehow knowing what season and episode was shown. If/when you find it it will give you the option of watching the recorded version or the VOD version (and in the case of SNL they aren't necessarily the same skits in the same order).


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> I have noted that if it records an old rerun (for example, the 10 PM Saturday airing of SNL) it can be difficult to find without somehow knowing what season and episode was shown. If/when you find it it will give you the option of watching the recorded version or the VOD version (and in the case of SNL they aren't necessarily the same skits in the same order).


does the 1 hour long repeat SNL record under the real SNL icon?

I checked Criminal Intent (Law & Order) for buried recorded episodes only to find it recorded all episodes in every season already lol.

Oh same with Law & Order. and that's 19 seasons. Does cable really air all 19 seasons of law & order within ~3 months? Maybe they do given it is on many cable channels and a season can be aired in 1 day basically. A bit of a surprise though.

(not that I watch these shows. i just picked something when I first got YTTV to see how the whole thing works.)


----------



## pdhenry

trip1eX said:


> does the 1 hour long repeat SNL record under the real SNL icon?


I think/thought it did - but I looked for the Buck Henry episode from S1 that aired a few weeks ago (which I recorded) and only found two copies of on-demand episodes for that particular airing and no "recording."


----------



## lparsons21

Currently I’m on cable but evaluating a couple of methods to cut the cord and the cost. The two choices that make the most sense to me are YouTubeTV or a combo of Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS All Access. So far here’s what I’m finding I like and don’t like about each.

YTTV - This is the easiest way to switch since in many ways it is just a straight up cable/sat replacement service.
Likes - Good channel selection over a wide variety of channels. Only missing Comedy Central which has a free app that doesn’t require payment to use or a link to a provider. UI fairly easy to navigate overall. Excellent search. Everything all under one roof. Good sports.

Dislikes - No per episode description until you are actually playing a show. DVR mixes actual recordings I make and VOD with non-skippable ads. DVR can’t delete shows.

Sling/Hulu/CBS - Requires a little more interaction with 3 different apps, but is not daunting.
Likes - need to separate this a bit.
Sling - Guide is better than YTTV with episodic descriptions in the guide. Has some sports, enough to suit me. DVR is similar in operation to cable/sat DVR.

Hulu/CBS - Gives live local CBS which I can’t get via OTA, some originals of interest, integrates with AppleTV app for ‘up next’ and search. In the case of Hulu, large library of older shows.

Dislikes - Only applies to Hulu/CBS, no dislikes with Sling. Not as unified as using YTTV. In the case of Hulu, not in love with the UI and never have been. 

From a cost standpoint the combo of Sling/Hulu/CBS is about $20 cheaper than YTTV. If I went with YTTV and cancelled Hulu/CBS then cost difference is nearly a wash. But then I lose the huge library of Hulu and the originals of CBS which means I probably wouldn’t cancel them.

If I go with Sling/Hulu/CBS it is just a step to Sling/Hulu/CBS/Peacock/HBO Max which would give another $10 reduction in cost. But whether or not I would do that depends on just exactly what is in Peacock and HBO Max.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Currently I'm on cable but evaluating a couple of methods to cut the cord and the cost. The two choices that make the most sense to me are YouTubeTV or a combo of Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS All Access. So far here's what I'm finding I like and don't like about each.
> 
> YTTV - This is the easiest way to switch since in many ways it is just a straight up cable/sat replacement service.
> Likes - Good channel selection over a wide variety of channels. Only missing Comedy Central which has a free app that doesn't require payment to use or a link to a provider. UI fairly easy to navigate overall. Excellent search. Everything all under one roof. Good sports.
> 
> Dislikes - No per episode description until you are actually playing a show. DVR mixes actual recordings I make and VOD with non-skippable ads. DVR can't delete shows.
> 
> Sling/Hulu/CBS - Requires a little more interaction with 3 different apps, but is not daunting.
> Likes - need to separate this a bit.
> Sling - Guide is better than YTTV with episodic descriptions in the guide. Has some sports, enough to suit me. DVR is similar in operation to cable/sat DVR.
> 
> Hulu/CBS - Gives live local CBS which I can't get via OTA, some originals of interest, integrates with AppleTV app for 'up next' and search. In the case of Hulu, large library of older shows.
> 
> Dislikes - Only applies to Hulu/CBS, no dislikes with Sling. Not as unified as using YTTV. In the case of Hulu, not in love with the UI and never have been.
> 
> From a cost standpoint the combo of Sling/Hulu/CBS is about $20 cheaper than YTTV. If I went with YTTV and cancelled Hulu/CBS then cost difference is nearly a wash. But then I lose the huge library of Hulu and the originals of CBS which means I probably wouldn't cancel them.
> 
> If I go with it is just a step to Sling/Hulu/CBS/Peacock/HBO Max which would give another $10 reduction in cost. But whether or not I would do that depends on just exactly what is in Peacock and HBO Max.


Dear Diary, .... 

Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS isn't $20 less than YTTV afaik. $42/mo bare minimum. $30+$6+$6. That's with next to no DVR storage on Sling and ads on Hulu and CBS. YTTV is $50/mo.


----------



## pdhenry

lparsons21 said:


> No per episode description until you are actually playing a show.


I find it difficult to see a description of a show that I'm actually watching. It's easy for an upcoming show, though.


----------



## pdhenry

Something interesting (but useless) that I noticed. I can see my YTTV viewing history in the History section of YouTube, although it throws an error if you try to actually watch a show from there ("Something went wrong. This video is not available"). Then don't show it to me there!


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> I find it difficult to see a description of a show that I'm actually watching. It's easy for an upcoming show, though.


Hit down twice and you'll see a description of what you're watching. MIght have to also move over to the + button.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Dear Diary, ....
> 
> Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS isn't $20 less than YTTV afaik. $42/mo bare minimum. $30+$6+$6. That's with next to no DVR storage on Sling and ads on Hulu and CBS. YTTV is $50/mo.


Yeah you could do it that way, but I wouldn't, I don't do ads now, why in heck would I want to if I switched?Expand Sling's DVR, no ads on Hulu or CBS and now it is $35+12+10. Total $57 for that.

YTTV + Hulu + CBS would be $50+12+10. total $72

So my math's a little off

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah you could do it that way, but I wouldn't, I don't do ads now, why in heck would I want to if I switched?Expand Sling's DVR, no ads on Hulu or CBS and now it is $35+12+10. Total $57 for that.
> 
> YTTV + Hulu + CBS would be $50+12+10. total $72
> 
> So my math's a little off


 YOu said Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS is ~$20 less than YTTV. But you mean it's ~$20 less than YTTV + Hulu + CBS. Ok.

IF you get YTTV then you don't need Hulu and CBS. That's the point of getting YTTV.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> YOu said Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS is ~$20 less than YTTV. But you mean it's ~$20 less than YTTV + Hulu + CBS. Ok.
> 
> IF you get YTTV then you don't need Hulu and CBS. That's the point of getting YTTV.


One man's need is another's who cares? 

Hulu brings a huge library of older shows as well as some originals, a few of which are at least good. CBS brings good originals. So I could do a comparison with taking those out, but I know that I wouldn't take them out, so it would make the comparison that way just invalid.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV is my Comcast alternative. I really haven't considered the degree to which it might overlap with VOD services like Hulu or Netflix (both of which I still have).


----------



## lparsons21

pdhenry said:


> YTTV is my Comcast alternative. I really haven't considered the degree to which it might overlap with VOD services like Hulu or Netflix (both of which I still have).


Yeah, there is some overlap, but there's also all the originals and old libraries of shows to be considered. I've had Netflix and Hulu since both came out as I find value in them. Same goes for CBS All Access, have had that about a year after it came out.

YTTV to me is the simplest alternative to cable/sat because of the channel lineup and cost. But I've been spoiled far too long to want to go back to having ads I can't skip. So last week was all YTTV, Hulu & CBS. This week will be the Sling/Hulu/CBS/OTA combo. At the end of the week I'll know which way I'm going to jump.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> One man's need is another's who cares?
> 
> Hulu brings a huge library of older shows as well as some originals, a few of which are at least good. CBS brings good originals. So I could do a comparison with taking those out, but I know that I wouldn't take them out, so it would make the comparison that way just invalid.


well as I said, Dear Diary.... right.

but it's a bit of a bs price comparison.

You're not adding on content Sling Blue doesn't have that YTTV has. 

But yet the price comparison is I have to carry CBS All Access with YTTV for $12/mo even though YTTV has CBS.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> You're not adding on content Sling Blue doesn't have that YTTV has.
> 
> But yet the price comparison is I have to carry CBS All Access with YTTV for $12/mo even though YTTV has CBS.


Correct, I'm not adding content differences as the differences don't matter for my preferred viewing pleasure. 

Yes, YTTV has CBS, do they have Star Trek Discovery or Picard to name just a couple originals.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mdavej

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah you could do it that way, but I wouldn't, I don't do ads now, why in heck would I want to if I switched?Expand Sling's DVR, no ads on Hulu or CBS and now it is $35+12+10. Total $57 for that.
> 
> YTTV + Hulu + CBS would be $50+12+10. total $72
> 
> So my math's a little off
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Hulu Live TV is $55 for new subscribers.

CBS All Access is extra no matter which service you get. Not sure why it's even in this comparison. The bottom line is YTTV is $50 and Hulu Live TV is $55.


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> Hulu Live TV is $55 for new subscribers.
> 
> CBS All Access is extra no matter which service you get. Not sure why it's even in this comparison. The bottom line is YTTV is $50 and Hulu Live TV is $55.


Not a fair comparison.

YTTV = $50
Hulu Live no ads + enhanced DVR = $71

And for me, Hulu Live is a non-starter as it doesn't have BBC and AMC.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> I think/thought it did - but I looked for the Buck Henry episode from S1 that aired a few weeks ago (which I recorded) and only found two copies of on-demand episodes for that particular airing and no "recording."


I wonder if those rerun episodes of SNL that air during primetime on Sat. night are under a different title in YTTV's system? When those shows air, the initial title card says "SNL Vintage," I think (although Gracenote guide data still labels it as "Saturday Night Live," causing my OTA DVR to record them). And they're edited down to a 60-minute show versus the original 90-minute version.


----------



## allan

I'm still undecided between YTTV and Hulu Live. They're close in price & channels. YTTV has the DVR, Hulu has the library of older shows.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Not a fair comparison.
> 
> YTTV = $50
> Hulu Live no ads + enhanced DVR = $71
> 
> And for me, Hulu Live is a non-starter as it doesn't have BBC and AMC.


Yeah. As it's currently priced, YTTV offers the most bang for the buck for the average viewer. It's the value champ, IMO, if you're looking for a fairly well-rounded cable TV service with a generous DVR.


----------



## NashGuy

allan said:


> I'm still undecided between YTTV and Hulu Live. They're close in price & channels. YTTV has the DVR, Hulu has the library of older shows.


You could always get YTTV for $50 and the core Hulu service for $6. In that case, you're paying $56 and getting YTTV's cloud DVR. You'd be paying about that same amount ($55) for Hulu with Live TV and only have their basic cloud DVR.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Correct, I'm not adding content differences as the differences don't matter for my preferred viewing pleasure.
> 
> Yes, YTTV has CBS, do they have Star Trek Discovery or Picard to name just a couple originals.


as I said it's a big Dear Diary. 

BUt do you have to carry CBS all year to watch Picard or ST Discovery? No. You can literally pay for 1 month and watch those shows during that month. ...paying ~$144/yr for those 2 shows seems pricey.

Anyway, it just occurred to me why even bring up either Hulu or CBS? If those are must haves no matter what then they cancel out. So they are neither here nor there. Seems like a big doh to me now. lol.

And we're left with YTTV being $15/mo more than Sling Blue with DVR option. AS I said last week, if you can make that work great. I couldn't do it. Wasn't worth trying to save a few bucks. RATher have unlimited storage, responsive UI, better pic quality, accounts, ESPN CNBC etc, everything under one roof, not have to buy and manage OTA equipment, ...


----------



## lparsons21

Actually I pay $99/year for CBS on their annual plan, and I only mentioned 2 originals. But yeah, I could do the sub now and then similar to what I do with the premium movie channels.

In my case no new equipment needed. I’m a geek and have a slew of tech crap. And pic quality between all of the streamers I’ve looked at is fine with no one really standing out, so that’s a wash. And the channel selection on YTTV is great, but it has channels I don’t actually care about, including ESPN.

YTTV itself is certainly the easy choice for convenience and since it is so similar in many ways to the cable/sat boxes we all have used, it is the easiest to learn.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Actually I pay $99/year for CBS on their annual plan, and I only mentioned 2 originals. But yeah, I could do the sub now and then similar to what I do with the premium movie channels.
> 
> In my case no new equipment needed. I'm a geek and have a slew of tech crap. And pic quality between all of the streamers I've looked at is fine with no one really standing out, so that's a wash. And the channel selection on YTTV is great, but it has channels I don't actually care about, including ESPN.
> 
> YTTV itself is certainly the easy choice for convenience and since it is so similar in many ways to the cable/sat boxes we all have used, it is the easiest to learn.


 YTTV is easy to learn because it is simply laid out - 3 tabs - easier than cable systems I have used. Even more simply laid out than Tivo. Both Sling and YTTV provide a selection of linear cable channels. So that cable familiarity alone doesn't separate YTTV from Sling in the easy to learn/use dept.

Anyway if you don't like the channels in YTTV especially sports, like to mess around with OTA equipment, want to save a few dollars, don't find a single dislike of Sling and have plenty of other streaming services for content then I guess YTTV isn't for you.


----------



## pdhenry

NashGuy said:


> I wonder if those rerun episodes of SNL that air during primetime on Sat. night are under a different title in YTTV's system? When those shows air, the initial title card says "SNL Vintage," I think (although Gracenote guide data still labels it as "Saturday Night Live," causing my OTA DVR to record them). And they're edited down to a 60-minute show versus the original 90-minute version.


I don't know. For the Season 1 episode that I recorded a few weeks ago, only the OnDemand version is now available in the Roku app.
BUT, it's frustrating because if I search for Saturday Night Live on the PC browser I get a view with separate rows for "From Your Library" and "On Demand" episodes of the show. I can watch the "From Your Library" version which is the recording from a couple of weeks ago, including some local ads (all skippable). Compared to the On Demand episode it's missing a Toni Basil performance and a Muppet skit and the remaining skits are in a different order. I just don't know how to bring that particular show up in the app.
It doesn't look like it's airing at 10:00 for the next couple of weeks (NHL Hockey this coming Saturday) but I think that show would appear in the library if it aired then.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> YTTV is easy to learn because it is simply laid out - 3 tabs - easier than cable systems I have used. Even more simply laid out than Tivo. Both Sling and YTTV provide a selection of linear cable channels. So that cable familiarity alone doesn't separate YTTV from Sling in the easy to learn/use dept.
> 
> Anyway if you don't like the channels in YTTV especially sports, like to mess around with OTA equipment, want to save a few dollars, don't find a single dislike of Sling and have plenty of other streaming services for content then I guess YTTV isn't for you.


I haven't yet ruled out using YTTV though I am leaning away from it a bit. Last week was all YTTV, this week will be all Sling/Hulu/CBS to see if I really can deal with the how it all works. OTA this week will be just for local news as there isn't anything on I can't get the next day on one or the other of those. This will also give me a chance to decide whether OTA will be part of the picture, other than for local interest/news stuff or not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> I haven't yet ruled out using YTTV though I am leaning away from it a bit. Last week was all YTTV, this week will be all Sling/Hulu/CBS to see if I really can deal with the how it all works. OTA this week will be just for local news as there isn't anything on I can't get the next day on one or the other of those. This will also give me a chance to decide whether OTA will be part of the picture, other than for local interest/news stuff or not.


Yeah sounds like you were never there in the first place. I mean you didn't even list unlimited DVR space as a "like" for YTTV. And actually you criticized it even. 

That's the biggest pro of YTTV. You can just record and forget.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Yeah sounds like you were never there in the first place. I mean you didn't even list unlimited DVR space as a "like" for YTTV. And actually you criticized it even.
> 
> That's the biggest pro of YTTV. You can just record and forget.


I didn't list the unlimited DVR space because of the way they mix DVR and VOD stuff, and you can't delete anything. Because of doing it that way you'd need unlimited!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> I don't know. For the Season 1 episode that I recorded a few weeks ago, only the OnDemand version is now available in the Roku app.
> BUT, it's frustrating because if I search for Saturday Night Live on the PC browser I get a view with separate rows for "From Your Library" and "On Demand" episodes of the show. I can watch the "From Your Library" version which is the recording from a couple of weeks ago, including some local ads (all skippable). Compared to the On Demand episode it's missing a Toni Basil performance and a Muppet skit and the remaining skits are in a different order. I just don't know how to bring that particular show up in the app.


Huh. Weird. Maybe just a glitch in the app? Can you find it in the YTTV app for a different device, like a phone or tablet?


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> I didn't list the unlimited DVR space because of the way they mix DVR and VOD stuff, and you can't delete anything. Because of doing it that way you'd need unlimited!


Not having to delete stuff is what makes unlimited storage great! That's the point. No hassle.

And the on-demand mixed with recordings....not really seeing the concern. I haven't recorded every show on every channel.

But another show I record (besides the two mentioned a page or two ago) - Shark Tank - already has recorded every episode for every season. It probably had a lot of on-demand day one. But whatever it had, now I see none. It doesn't even look like I can select an on-demand version for any episode.

Dateline (NBC) has some on-demand mixed in with recordings but new episodes are front and center. And the on-demand doesn't go too far back (~10 episodes from past year) so there isn't much of it. Felt like a bonus to have 10 recent episodes available to watch on-demand the day I hit record.

SNL has all 45 seasons on-demand. Maybe an older repeat recording is buried in there but I'm not going to look. New episodes are all front and center. But for SNL, I think having that seamless access to all past episodes via on-demand even with ads outweighs having some old random repeat recording with no ads.

Or I just added Family Guy. I see a bunch of recent episodes available on-demand then some scattered episodes in ~4 seasons. Given a lot of repeats are aired, recordings should fill in the gaps pretty quickly and also replace the on-demand.

So far, any show that has lots of repeats...eventually and fairly quickly will fill up with all recordings and on-demand will at best be an option that you have to go out of your way to select. And the amount of on-demand to start wtih varies per show/channel.


----------



## moyekj

VOD versus "recording" seems to be a pretty consistent complaint about YTTV. I guess there's no easy way to tell from the interface when choosing what to watch if it is one type versus the other?
And the fact you can't delete anything probably would be very annoying after using the service for a while - probably just gets harder to find what you actually want to watch versus old already watched episodes you have no more interest in.


----------



## pdhenry

Don't forget to add $5/month for Sling to increase the DVR above 10 hours.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> I guess there's no easy way to tell from the interface when choosing what to watch if it is one type versus the other?


No, it's straightforward. Recordings say "Recorded On... and OnDemand says "Released On..." and if you've recorded something that's also available On Demand it gives you the option to select one or the other (the default is your recording).


moyekj said:


> And the fact you can't delete anything probably would be very annoying after using the service for a while - probably just gets harder to find what you actually want to watch versus old already watched episodes you have no more interest in.


Not so far. There are several views/sortings of programs. Recently recorded (newest first), just the programs (sort by title, or rating or date), just movies, just sports, etc. Each program has a progress bar that shows whether you've watched all or part of a show.

I originally thought I'd be overwhelmed by the time I'd accumulated six months or so of recordings but so far it all seems to be fairly intuitive and (aside from the odd thing with the SNL episode) I've easily been able to find what I've been looking for.


----------



## lparsons21

pdhenry said:


> Don't forget to add $5/month for Sling to increase the DVR above 10 hours.


In my calculations that's there as DVR on Sling is pretty useless without getting the expanded DVR option.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ncted

I really prefer the YTTV trick play compared to Sling's DVR, unless they've changed it in the past few months. Also, used to be Sling didn't allow you to DVR shows on certain channels (ABC/ESPN). Has that changed?


----------



## lparsons21

ncted said:


> I really prefer the YTTV trick play compared to Sling's DVR, unless they've changed it in the past few months. Also, used to be Sling didn't allow you to DVR shows on certain channels (ABC/ESPN). Has that changed?


I don't know if it has limits like that now, but I'm on Sling Blue and can use trick play on any recordings in those channels.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tenthplanet

ncted said:


> I really prefer the YTTV trick play compared to Sling's DVR, unless they've changed it in the past few months. Also, used to be Sling didn't allow you to DVR shows on certain channels (ABC/ESPN). Has that changed?


The latest is ESPN channels can now be recorded with Sling Orange, the other Disney channels not yet. It's mainly ESPN you need to dvr since sports is rarely on vod, the other channels have a deep vod library.


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> VOD versus "recording" seems to be a pretty consistent complaint about YTTV. I guess there's no easy way to tell from the interface when choosing what to watch if it is one type versus the other?


In my case, YTTV is providing VOD which is something I could never get to work with my TiVo and Comcast. So, that is a big PLUS for me. A recent series I'm watching on the Food channel has NO commercials at all!

Plus, I find it much easier to use than Comcast VOD since the VOD sits in the same space as the recordings. And as far as telling the difference between recordings and VOD, it really could not be any easier. VOD says VOD! If there are both VOD and recordings, when you select an episode, it asks which one you want. (I have seen four different recordings available for one episode.)


moyekj said:


> And the fact you can't delete anything probably would be very annoying after using the service for a while - probably just gets harder to find what you actually want to watch versus old already watched episodes you have no more interest in.


Just so you know, the "LIBRARY" is divided up into folder sections.

All "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" recordings are separated out into folders just like TiVo.

All old recordings and VOD are separated out into a "RECORDINGS" folder. (You could almost think of it as TiVo's "Recently Deleted Programs", sorted by show.)

And then there is a "SCHEDULED" folder equivalent to TiVo's "TO DO" list, but, sorted into folders by show, unlike TiVo where everything is sorted by date only.

Once you use YTTV for a month or so, it really makes perfect sense.

One thing I miss is the trick play, like pause (the screen is covered by the status bar) and slow mo. And the guide does suck right now. But the search makes up for it.

EDIT: I did not realize the folders are different for different interfaces. These I noted above are the folders from the YTTV web pages.

These folders are all sorted out on the Fire TV" (kind of equivalent to TiVo's "Recently Deleted Recordings")
"SHOWS"
"MOVIES"
"SPORTS"
"EVENTS"


----------



## dlfl

pl1 said:


> ...........
> Just so you know, the "LIBRARY" is divided up into folder sections.
> 
> All "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" recordings are separated out into folders just like TiVo.
> 
> All old recordings and VOD are separated out into a "RECORDINGS" folder. (You could almost think of it as TiVo's "Recently Deleted Programs", sorted by show.)
> 
> And then there is a "SCHEDULED" folder equivalent to TiVo's "TO DO" list, but, sorted into folders by show, unlike TiVo where everything is sorted by date only.
> ........


These are not the library sections shown in my Fire TV app. Instead there is:
NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY
MOST WATCHED
SCHEDULED
SHOWS
MOVIES
SPORTS
EVENTS

Discussions of YTTV behavior can be confusing because different viewing devices/apps don't have identical interfaces.
What app are you using?


----------



## saeba

pl1 said:


> One thing I miss is the trick play, like pause (the screen is covered by the status bar) and slow mo.


Agree on the pause/status bar item. As to slow mo, if you use the browser YTTV, you can set the playback speed via the settings menu option on the YouTube TV playback bar. Options include: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, Normal, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2. Perhaps they'll bring that to other devices.


----------



## pl1

dlfl said:


> These are not the library sections shown in my Fire TV app. Instead there is:
> NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY
> MOST WATCHED
> SCHEDULED
> SHOWS
> MOVIES
> SPORTS
> EVENTS
> 
> Discussions of YTTV behavior can be confusing because different viewing devices/apps don't have identical interfaces.
> What app are you using?


You are correct! I didn't realize the interfaces were different. When I wrote the post, I looked at the web page interface.
With my Amazon Fire TV, the "RECORDINGS" folder is the "SHOWS" folder.


----------



## pl1

saeba said:


> Agree on the pause/status bar item. As to slow mo, if you use the browser YTTV, you can set the playback speed via the settings menu option on the YouTube TV playback bar. Options include: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, Normal, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2. Perhaps they'll bring that to other devices.


It would be great if they do bring it to other devices, but still, if you wanted to replay in Slow Mo for one sports play, you wouldn't want to have to set the playback speed just for that, would you?


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> It would be great if they do bring it to other devices, but still, if you wanted to replay in Slow Mo for one sports play, you wouldn't want to have to set the playback speed just for that, would you?


You would want a slow mo button or shortcut. For example, hold the play button down for slowmo. Or double click it to turn it off and on.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> You are correct! I didn't realize the interfaces were different. When I wrote the post, I looked at the web page interface.
> With my Amazon Fire TV, the "RECORDINGS" folder is the "SHOWS" folder.


Shows is the filter for TV shows. It shows new and old TV shows. It is more the equivalent of the filters on the left-hand side of the TiVo UI.

right? you can basically sort your content into TV shows movies sports and events.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Shows is the filter for TV shows. It shows new and old TV shows. It is more the equivalent of the filters on the left-hand side of the TiVo UI.
> 
> right? you can basically sort your content into TV shows movies sports and events.


Right. I actually thought "SHOWS" was for everything you requested for recordings on the Fire TV, but I do see now that it is broken out.

For example, I have two sports recordings (like TiVo wish lists) and they show up under the "SPORTS" folder. If I look on the web page, they are NOT broken up.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> You would want a slow mo button or shortcut. For example, hold the play button down for slowmo. Or double click it to turn it off and on.


Exactly!


----------



## foghorn2

lparsons21 said:


> In my calculations that's there as DVR on Sling is pretty useless without getting the expanded DVR option.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


The 10hr is good enough, I just use it to record live shows I want to skip commercials or trick play. Theres enough VOD and have my own library. No need to record and hoard streaming channels and get charged extra. But if I need that option, its there.


----------



## lparsons21

foghorn2 said:


> The 10hr is good enough, I just use it to record live shows I want to skip commercials or trick play. Theres enough VOD and have my own library. No need to record and hoard streaming channels and get charged extra. But if I need that option, its there.


For me the 10 hours could be enough sometimes but not at others. For instance, right now the 10 hours would be plenty since there are so few shows on the cable type channels in Sling that I'm interested in that to just delay watch wouldn't take up that much space. But later on this year, when the cable channels bump up their original offerings, it might not be.

For info, my test so far this week with OTA/Sling/Hulu/CBS is going pretty well. A bit more awkward to get things set up the way I think makes the most sense, but after that it is working fine. YTTV is certainly simpler because of the similarities between how it works and how cable/sat works.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> VOD versus "recording" seems to be a pretty consistent complaint about YTTV. I guess there's no easy way to tell from the interface when choosing what to watch if it is one type versus the other?
> And the fact you can't delete anything probably would be very annoying after using the service for a while - probably just gets harder to find what you actually want to watch versus old already watched episodes you have no more interest in.


It's easy to tell the difference, but might not be intuitive or immediately apparent to someone new. And part of that reason is many aren't looking for it in the first place. They aren't expecting some on-demand to be in with recordings. The other reason is the difference is just 1 word - as was mentioned earlier - recording vs released.

And initially, minute 1 after adding a show to your library, you're going to have zero recordings and 0, 1, 5, 10 or 20 ... episodes of VoD depending on the show. This is going to make some people paranoid or confused or concerned. The reality is new episode recordings will be front and center and any show with enough repeats will eventually and fairly quickly fill in and fill up with recordings and also replace VoD episodes.

Finding the content is easy. So far I use it the same way as Tivo. I mostly watch newly recorded stuff. Tivo has folders. YTTV has graphical folders (icons.)

On Tivo, the first page or two or three are your new recordings essentially and, if you want older stuff, you page down until you find it.

With YTTV, your new recordings are listed by default. And they only go so far back.

If you want older stuff you go to one of the other filters - shows, movies, sports, events. Those filters will have everything in those categories. There is also a most watched filter and the Scheduled (to-do list) filter.

And then you just page down like with Tivo. With YTTV, you have 2 rows of 3 icons(folders) shown at a time. You just go down through the list. If you want you can sort the list in ~6 ways. Or go to search (even with voice dictation at least on the Apple Tv.)

Also for each show, you can quickly search through episodes by season in some cases or per week in other cases (for shows that air daily.) This is organized like Netflix.

Also you can actually remove stuff from your library. If you watch a movie and don't want it there any more, you can select remove from library and you won't see it. Yet the recording will still be available via Search until it expires. I don't bother but it might come in handy for movies I guess.

It's the same with other content. But you remove the whole show in the case of a tv show.


----------



## pl1

saeba said:


> Agree on the pause/status bar item.


I figured out how to PAUSE without any portion of the screen being blocked.

At least on my Samsung Smart TV:

Hit PAUSE then hit the RETURN (with back arrow) button.


----------



## pdhenry

That works on the Roku also. Use the left-pointing back arrow button next to the Home button.


----------



## trip1eX

Sweet. I just translated it to the AppleTV. There, it's hit Play/pause button and then hit the Menu button to clear the paused screen.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Sweet. I just translated it to the AppleTV and there it's hit Play/pause button and then hit the Menu button to PAUSE without any portion of the screen being blocked.


Yes, one can do a similar function on the Nvidia Shield. I thought the complaint was regarding why the pause function brings up a play bar that obscures most of the screen. I do miss the TiVo mechanism which wasn't so obtrusive.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> I thought the complaint was regarding why the pause function brings up a play bar that obscures most of the screen.


Yeah and the above is how you get rid of that.


----------



## pl1

dlfl said:


> Discussions of YTTV behavior can be confusing because different viewing devices/apps don't have identical interfaces.


The more I think about what you said here, the more I have to say you are 100% correct. Almost every device is a little different in how YTTV works. AAMOF, I was using an android TV box and there were controls that would not work at all with the remote. I had to use a mouse.

On the one hand, it is nice that Google is allowing vendors to make their own interface, on the other hand, it must be awful hard to support, and it is hard for us to discuss. I guess it is comparable to cell phones where there are small differences based on carrier software decisions.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Yeah and the above is how you get rid of that.


It removes it for that time; however, next pause brings it back. Why not have a less obtrusive pause indicator like TiVo has?


----------



## pdhenry

saeba said:


> Why not have a less obtrusive pause indicator like TiVo has?


Because it's a different UI, I guess
I don't need to exorcise it for all time, but some times I pause because I want to look at something onscreen for more than the fleeting moment. This permits that in those rare instances.


----------



## pl1

pdhenry said:


> Because it's a different UI, I guess
> I don't need to exorcise it for all time, but some times I pause because I want to look at something onscreen for more than the fleeting moment. This permits that in those rare instances.


Exactly true for me. Especially if there is something I would like to read and there is not enough screen time. I was watching a hockey game last night and there was a list of greatest players and I wanted to study it. Perfect example.


----------



## trip1eX

Also on Tivo the playback bar often blocked stuff particularly the ticker or scores. I think it stayed there until you cleared it too. But I could be wrong on that. I'm already forgetting lol.


----------



## pdhenry

The progress bar on a TiVo eventually clears on its own. I waited and waited for that to happen on YTTV...


----------



## trip1eX

Yeah I don't pause the screen too often either in order to study something on the screen. IT's rare. So an extra button is nothing. Especially on the simple minimalist ATV remote I'm using.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> Also on Tivo the playback bar often blocked stuff particularly the ticker or scores. I think it stayed there until you cleared it too. But I could be wrong on that. I'm already forgetting lol.


One of the TiVo SPS backdoors I use the most is the "Quick clear play bar", so pressing pause for me is almost immediately clear. Trick play is a big deal for my viewing and no other player I've tried does it as well as TiVo when combined with the above SPS backdoor.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> One of the TiVo SPS backdoors I use the most is the "Quick clear play bar", so pressing pause for me is almost immediately clear. Trick play is a big deal for my viewing and no other player I've tried does it as well as TiVo when combined with the above SPS backdoor.


I think I did that on my Tivo. But I don't think it cleared that quick. Anyway on YTTV you can press a button and clears it in an instant. Problem solved.

Tivo trick play is a wash compared to YTTV overall.

Tivo has slo mo. I used that in sports sometimes. YTTV doesn't have that unless you go on pc and even then it's not a button you can hit.

Tivo has more responsive 8 sec backwards and 30 seconds forward skips. YTTV does a 15 second skip fwd/bck and if you do one, it's pretty responsive. But 2 or more in quick succession and it probably will bog down a bit. But that's if you do live skips.

YTTV also has 15 second "thumbnail" skips though. This is where the comparisons get difficult because this is a different system. But if you do a bunch of 15 second "thumbnail" skips and then hit play, it is pretty responsive. Maybe not more responsive technically speaking than Tivo but close enough to be in the same ballpark.

But thumbnails also have the advantage of not having to time 30 second skips. They aren't realtime. The action is paused while you skip. So you can do a bunch and then see where the show is in the thumbnail before hitting play.

Also I can't speak for voice on Tivo as I never had the voice remote, but I can say, "skip 4 minutes" and YTTV skips 4 minutes - whether that's hands-free with "hey Siri" or holding down a button and saying the command. And it takes like a second or two. OR you can say "go to the 60 minute mark" and it goes to the 60 minute mark.

Also on the Apple TV I can use the touchpad and very quickly scroll to any minute in the timeline. That's something that Tivo is slower at especially in longer recordings when the hashmarks are 30 minutes long and maybe even 1 hr.

Tivo comes back with auto commercial skip. IT's pretty cool when it happens but for me and what I watched and when I watched, it's availability was very hit and miss. My kid though seemed to have it all the time on his ~2 must have shows when we had a Tivo. He liked it.

I add all that up and I think it's a wash in the trick play dept.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> I think I did that on my Tivo. But I don't think it cleared that quick. Anyway on YTTV you can press a button and clears it in an instant. Problem solved.


No, not at all. That's a workaround, not a solution. The real issue: There is no need for the entire screen to dim and a very large playback bar to appear as it does on the Android TV UI. Plex has a similar brain dead UI on it's Android TV, though it's thankfully removed this on other devices. Bad UI is Bad UI regardless of workarounds.


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> One of the TiVo SPS backdoors I use the most is the "Quick clear play bar", so pressing pause for me is almost immediately clear. Trick play is a big deal for my viewing and no other player I've tried does it as well as TiVo when combined with the above SPS backdoor.


I don't know WHY I haven't done that all of this time. Well, it's turned on now on my TiVo.


----------



## pl1

saeba said:


> No, not at all. That's a workaround, not a solution. The real issue: There is no need for the entire screen to dim and a very large playback bar to appear as it does on the Android TV UI. Plex has a similar brain dead UI on it's Android TV, though it's thankfully removed this on other devices. Bad UI is Bad UI regardless of workarounds.


While what you say is true, it's not a deal breaker for me.


----------



## ncted

FYI: YouTube TV Ending Support for App Store Subscriptions in March


----------



## pdhenry

Apple's 30% cut will do that. It doesn't look like they can just link to a Google payment page from within the app either.

IME app vendors should file a class action over Apple's fee.


----------



## wmcbrine

pdhenry said:


> IME app vendors should file a class action over Apple's fee.


On what grounds?


----------



## pdhenry

It seems abusive of their monopoly position for iPhone apps.

Google's fee for Android appstore purchases is also 30%, though. I don't believe either represents anything related to their cost for processing the payments or hosting the apps.


----------



## pl1

pdhenry said:


> The progress bar on a TiVo eventually clears on its own. I waited and waited for that to happen on YTTV...


I just noticed that if you hit the TiVo CLEAR button while in PAUSE, it clears instantly.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> No, not at all. That's a workaround, not a solution. The real issue: There is no need for the entire screen to dim and a very large playback bar to appear as it does on the Android TV UI. Plex has a similar brain dead UI on it's Android TV, though it's thankfully removed this on other devices. Bad UI is Bad UI regardless of workarounds.


It's not a work around. You press a button to clear the screen. It is also not a big deal at all. IT's not even a deal. It's a nothing burger. I don't even consider this bad UI now that I know you just press a button (back button) to clear the screen.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> FYI: YouTube TV Ending Support for App Store Subscriptions in March


And you already couldn't pay via the apple store anyway. This is for the grandfathered-in customers.

Sling doesn't allow this either. Netflix doesn't although Netflix I think supports the grandfathered-in customers still. List goes on.

IT's a big fee to pay. Although the 2nd year of a subscription the fee (Apple's cut) drops to 15% from 30%.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> It seems abusive of their monopoly position for iPhone apps.
> 
> Google's fee for Android appstore purchases is also 30%, though. I don't believe either represents anything related to their cost for processing the payments or hosting the apps.


Yeah that's why itunes cards go on sale a lot. I stock up every xmas when I see 20% off. Doesn't help the YTTVs etc of the world though.


----------



## mrizzo80

I’d like to see a News category in the Library. Right now, news programs land in Shows. I’d rather they be separated so I can just pick from a list of entertainment shows. (Firestick)


----------



## lparsons21

Well, after a couple of weeks of trying out YTTV and a combo of Sling/Hulu/CBS All Access, I’ve decided to switch to YTTV.

My preferred hardware is an AppleTV4K and Sling is a bit hinky on it, often locking up and the skip function is awkwardly implemented.

I’ll keep Hulu and CBS but since I’ll use them less I’ll switch both over to ‘with ads’. That makes the cost difference less than $5/month.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## pdhenry

NashGuy said:


> I wonder if those rerun episodes of SNL that air during primetime on Sat. night are under a different title in YTTV's system?


The schedule goes out about two weeks and in the show info for SNL I can see both the prime time showing and the 11:29 showing for Feb 29. It should record both, I think.


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> The schedule goes out about two weeks and in the show info for SNL I can see both the prime time showing and the 11:29 showing for Feb 29. It should record both, I think.


They both show up as recorded.


----------



## Richard Barg

I have Xfinity/Tivo and Apple TV. The Apple TV app which serves as a dashboard for all premium streaming except for Netflix which refuses to participate is outstanding. I now get Showtime and HBO as premium additions to the Apple TV app. When I paid Xfinity for these I constantly had to re-authenticate which is a nuisance. So on my "home theatre", I have to switch between Apple TV and Tivo. I tried YTTV out while I was out of town and wanted to watch a football game at the airport. It was great, but even though the game was recorded, i found I could not fast-forward through some commercials and that the scrubbing was unreliable. it was very possible and in fact it happened that I was all of sudden in in the 4th quarter and learned the score before I had watched the 2nd quarter defeating the entire purpose of recording and watching. According to YTTV's FAQ, if there is an on demand version of a show you recorded, the on demand version takes precedence and you can't fast forward. For these two reasons I would not switch. Tivo is clunky. The cable cards and Tivo Box are hardware based. The fan on the Tivo Bolt is loud (to some in my household, but not to me). I'm limited to one TV. I had another Tivo product for another TV but it was unreliable and eventually failed. The Tivo IOS app requires password authentication way too often which is obnoxious. Yet Tivo delivers in a way that YTTV doesn't. I would save 40 bucks per month by cutting the cord (downgrading on Xfinity to Internet only [assuming my 2-year contract would allow it] and disconnecting Tivo for YYTV, but its just not worth it because of the fast-forwarding limitation. Google (YTTV) is beholden to advertisers in a way that Tivo is not. That's why you are at times, forced to watch commercials. Tivo would never make you do this. Tivo is to YYTV the way the iPhone is to some Android phones that come preloaded with commercial bloatware from cellphone companies. So for now, I will stick w/Tivo.


----------



## pdhenry

Richard Barg said:


> According to YTTV's FAQ, if there is an on demand version of a show you recorded, the on demand version takes precedence and you can't fast forward.


That's no longer the case. Most of what I record is also available VOD. In that case there's a option to watch the recorded version or the VOD version. I haven't yet tried to watch a recorded show away from my Home Location, so VOD behavior might be different if you're traveling.

FF is a little odd in that it jumps in 15 second increments only. I've noticed that holding down the FF button on a Fire TV remote repeats the steps much faster than the button on a Roku remote, where it's faster to hit the FF button repeatedly.

Where a user really saves money is if he/she has cable service in multiple locations, like a vacation home. The same YTTV account can be used at both locations although only one of them can be the "Home" location and you're limited in how often you can change the Home location.


----------



## Richard Barg

I had the issue of not being able to fast forward of a football game that was over last Dec. The YTTV FAQ says sometimes, not all the time, which I am sure has to do with money. The speed, accuracy, and dependability of fast forwarding via high speed scrubbing on YTTV is a deal breaker. It’s a walking spoiler alert. I saw similar though worse problems with Fubo. YTTV clearly has huge benefits for multiple users and multiple locations.


----------



## trip1eX

Richard Barg said:


> I tried YTTV out while I was out of town and wanted to watch a football game at the airport. It was great, but even though the game was recorded, i found I could not fast-forward through some commercials and that the scrubbing was unreliable. it was very possible and in fact it happened that I was all of sudden in in the 4th quarter and learned the score before I had watched the 2nd quarter defeating the entire purpose of recording and watching. According to YTTV's FAQ, if there is an on demand version of a show you recorded, the on demand version takes precedence and you can't fast forward. For these two reasons I would not switch.


Never had that happen. I have 3+ months of YTTV sports watching including football. Almost for sure (99%+) you were watching an on-demand version and did not record the game you were watching.

On-demand doesn't take precedence. Opposite. The recording does. You have to go out of your way to watch an on-demand version of a game that you recorded if there even is an on-demand version.

I have had a few times where I thought I started the recording from the beginning and instead it went live. This was on AppleTv. IT's either a rare glitch or possibly when one clicks on the touchpad one also slides up in one quick motion (unknowingly) so as to accidentally select Live instead of Start at the Beginning.

Also seems like your big example was from an airport where one is at the whims of the wifi or cellular connection at the airport. I would take that experience with a grain of salt.


----------



## trip1eX

Richard Barg said:


> I had the issue of not being able to fast forward of a football game that was over last Dec. The YTTV FAQ says sometimes, not all the time, which I am sure has to do with money. The speed, accuracy, and dependability of fast forwarding via high speed scrubbing on YTTV is a deal breaker. It's a walking spoiler alert. I saw similar though worse problems with Fubo. YTTV clearly has huge benefits for multiple users and multiple locations.


Fast forwarding through commercials on YTTV works as well as manually doing it on a Tivo. I can't speak for airports though.

But if you're on an AppleTV at home, you gotta tap the touchpad instead of clicking it to skip thru commercials. Tap right to go forward and tap left to go back. If you don't know this then it's a bit of show stopper on the ATV.


----------



## ncted

Ads on YouTube TV - YouTube TV Help



> *Note about recordings:* In certain rare cases, if you've recorded a program that's also available on-demand at the time you're watching, recorded content may still have unskippable ads. This is because the network requires the video on-demand version to be played back instead of your recording. However, for the vast majority of networks, you'll be able to watch a recorded version by default, and can skip ads.


Sounds like this could happen. That said, I've never seen it. If it was going to happen, I expect sports is where you'd see it. It also could be a local channel thing, and not a national network or league requirement.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Ads on YouTube TV - YouTube TV Help
> 
> Sounds like this could happen. That said, I've never seen it. If it was going to happen, I expect sports is where you'd see it. It also could be a local channel thing, and not a national network or league requirement.


That information could be outdated too. A few months ago there was still ~1 channel showing VoD instead of some recordings.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> That information could be outdated too. A few months ago there was still ~1 channel showing VoD instead of some recordings.


I think that is the updated language. Previously, they definitely spelled out which channels would have recordings replaced by VOD versions. I suspect it is just affecting @Richard Barg and not you or me due to his specific circumstances.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> I think that is the updated language. Previously, they definitely spelled out which channels would have recordings replaced by VOD versions. I suspect it is just affecting @Richard Barg and not you or me due to his specific circumstances.


It could be. I don't know what the previous language was. CBS channels were the lone holdout for forcing on-demand (though) and that only lifted in December. (he) watched his game in December.

I (googled it) and found 1 complaint of someone not being able to skip commercials in a college football game on ESPN in early January 2020. YTTV product manager said, if you skip the commercials before they start then you can skip them all and he tested it on the same recording id. OTherwise trying to skip them will restart them and it is working as intended he said. Every other reply was I haven't seen this behavior. Although those people probably didn't have that specific recording.

I guess, as the language said, it's certain rare cases. Maybe it has to do with contracts for a specific sport, team, league on a specific channel.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> I guess, as the language said, it's certain rare cases. Maybe it has to do with contracts for a specific sport, team, league on a specific channel.


Another possibility is, even if the contract doesn't specify he can't skip ads, there may be a bug or misconfiguration in software that is preventing it depending on the team, league, channel, or his physical location (or what Google thinks his physical location is). Translating contracts like this into software never seems to work exactly as is should based on my years in online media. Geofencing in particular is really only about 80-85% accurate.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I did google and found 1 complaint of someone not being able to skip commercials in a college football game on ESPN in early January 2020. YTTV product manager said, if you skip the commercials before they start and you can skip them and he tested it on the same recording id. OTherwise trying to skip them will restart them and it is working as intended he said. Every other reply was I haven't seen this behavior. Although those people probably didn't have that specific recording.


So if you began to FF the recording before a commercial break began, you could continue to FF past the break. But if you tried to start FFing during the break, it would reset you back to the start of the break?

That is really weird. If something like that happens with the rare recording, due to quirks of the relevant business contracts, then YTTV should put some kind of message on screen to indicate that the recording is subject to special rules that don't usually apply. Having that kind of _planned_ UX inconsistency would seem like a frustrating bug to the typical user if they weren't notified otherwise.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> So if you began to FF the recording before a commercial break began, you could continue to FF past the break. But if you tried to start FFing during the break, it would reset you back to the start of the break?
> 
> That is really weird. If something like that happens with the rare recording, due to quirks of the relevant business contracts, then YTTV should put some kind of message on screen to indicate that the recording is subject to special rules that don't usually apply. Having that kind of _planned_ UX inconsistency would seem like a frustrating bug to the typical user if they weren't notified otherwise.


well i've never seen that. But YTTV isn't without bugs/glitches or whatever. I've had a few weird things happen. But nothing close to a show stopper.



ncted said:


> Another possibility is, even if the contract doesn't specify he can't skip ads, there may be a bug or misconfiguration in software that is preventing it depending on the team, league, channel, or his physical location (or what Google thinks his physical location is). Translating contracts like this into software never seems to work exactly as is should based on my years in online media. Geofencing in particular is really only about 80-85% accurate.


Yeah i do encounter the occasional weird glitch on YTTV. IT could be that too.


----------



## trip1eX

YTTV to get HBO and HBO Max. 

...meaning those services can be ordered through YTTV and both their linear channels and on-demand incorporated into the YTTV UI. Skinemax too.

Showtime and NBA League Pass currently work like this.

not that I care. if anything i feel like the more i would get these extra services, the less likely I am to keep YTTV. 

I'm already feeling like I can dump YTTV for the summer.


----------



## pdhenry

trip1eX said:


> if anything i feel like the more i would get these extra services, the less likely I am to keep YTTV.


It's not as if you're paying for it if you don't use it, though.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> YTTV to get HBO and HBO Max.
> 
> ...meaning those services can be ordered through YTTV and both their linear channels and on-demand incorporated into the YTTV UI. Skinemax too.
> 
> Showtime and NBA League Pass currently work like this.
> 
> not that I care. if anything i feel like the more i would get these extra services, the less likely I am to keep YTTV.
> 
> I'm already feeling like I can dump YTTV for the summer.


My favorite part about YTTV and its ilk is you can drop it and add it back at a later time very easily.


----------



## wendlan

Just to add an additional perspective, I just cancelled Tivo after 20 years due to cable company CableCARD activation woes. I've been using YouTubeTV for a few weeks and really like and recommend it so far! For how our family used Tivo, a pro/con list is:

*Where Tivo is better:*

Basic DVR activities, like fast-forwarding, commercial skip, and browsing the guide (still love the TE3 live guide). This is a really huge pro, and the biggest thing I'll miss.
At a glance, seeing what is new to be watched, as you can delete from Now Showing when you're done with something.
Maybe because I'm used to it, but the TE3 interface is simpler to navigate and being all text, there is lots of info on every screen. I haven't used TE4, but YTTV has a somewhat deep menu structure, so there is lots of "going back" to reach the top of the menu stack. Fine for me, but my older parents would probably find it confusing for a while.
Being able to schedule a manual recording by date/time/channel if you don't know the title but know when it will be showing.
*Where YTTV is better*:

Finding content is probably the biggest benefit here. VOD and stuff available to record are blended together seamlessly. When viewing the library, everything is organized by season/episode, and VOD seamlessly fills in the gaps for what you don't have recorded. It's more like "Here's S3E12 of program X - and I'll find a way to show it to you".
There are essentially much richer recommendations when browsing shows and actors.
And finally, it's smarter on its search. Trying searching Tivo for the CBS show "Survivor" - you have to wade through several items named "Survivor" to find the right one. On YTTV, it's the first hit and it's obvious.

Unlimited "tuners" and infinite storage in the cloud is nice. No conflicts, no managing hard drive space, no failed hardware, no missed recordings to due to some outage.
The "Season Pass" concept is way more powerful for sports. You can subscript to an event, like "Monday Night Football", or any game that includes the Cowboys - all with one click. Yes, you can get close on Tivo with Wishlists and OnePasses with some fiddling, but it's so seamless here, and even with college games. It even shows you the scores and stats for the teams in a convenient way.
And, when recording sports, it automatically extends the recording time when the game runs long. I haven't had a chance to experience that personally, but people seem to say that works well.

Since it's in the cloud, the same content is available everywhere without any additional hardware - every TV with a Roku or Firestick, phone, tablet, PC - regardless of location or if you are or out of your house, Wifi or Cellular - doesn't matter. And when you are travelling, you automatically get access to all of the local major networks for that market.
User profiles - up to 5 family members can have their own customized channel lineup and list of programs to record. And I think you can restrict a given profile to only G/PG content - so it's possible to make it kid friendly.
Oops, this post is probably too long now, but I'm also happy to answer specific questions!


----------



## mdavej

trip1eX said:


> YTTV to get HBO and HBO Max.
> 
> ...meaning those services can be ordered through YTTV and both their linear channels and on-demand incorporated into the YTTV UI. Skinemax too.
> 
> Showtime and NBA League Pass currently work like this.
> 
> not that I care. if anything i feel like the more i would get these extra services, the less likely I am to keep YTTV.
> 
> I'm already feeling like I can dump YTTV for the summer.


The story I read said the channels would NOT be in the YTTV UI but that you could use your login for the apps.

That's how I watched HBO when I had AT&T TV, so no big change for me. It will be nice to be able to easily drop/add as needed.


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> The story I read said the channels would NOT be in the YTTV UI but that you could use your login for the apps.
> 
> That's how I watched HBO when I had AT&T TV, so no big change for me. It will be nice to be able to easily drop/add as needed.


Weird. The story I read indicated that the linear HBO and Cinemax channels, as well as their associated on-demand libraries, would be offered by YTTV, which I understood to mean inside the YTTV app itself. (Presently, there are no apps offered directly from HBO that carry *any* live linear channels from either HBO or Cinemax.)

Now, when it comes to all of that non-HBO content that will be part of the broader HBO Max service, no, I do not think any of that will be included in YTTV's on-demand platform. (I also don't think any of it will show up inside Comcast's X1 VOD platform, or Verizon's FiOS VOD platform, etc.) To access that stuff, you'll need to use your YTTV credentials to log into the forthcoming HBO Max app. You can see how, in time, that app will replace the existing HBO Now and HBO Go apps.


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV currently offers SHO (I think for a lower price than Comcast charges for SHO). How is it integrated into the linear channels and VOD lineup? I don't have SHO on my subscription.


----------



## zalusky

pdhenry said:


> YTTV currently offers SHO (I think for a lower price than Comcast charges for SHO). How is it integrated into the linear channels and VOD lineup? I don't have SHO on my subscription.


Thats if you look at things ala carte but their for me beat ala carte pricing. I would not mind unbundling HBO and Showtime but it would be more expensive and internet speed would be slower. Now if they would give me a package with less basic TV channels and the HBO/Showtime and good internet speed for less than I am paying now.


----------



## pdhenry

I'm just asking whether SHO has its own row on the Live screen and SHO programs appear among the suggestions on the Home screen.

If it feels like I have to exit the YTTV UI to watch Showtime I might as well jump to a cheaper service that doesn't integrate the locals either.


----------



## trip1eX

wendlan said:


> Just to add an additional perspective, I just cancelled Tivo after 20 years due to cable company CableCARD activation woes. I've been using YouTubeTV for a few weeks and really like and recommend it so far! For how our family used Tivo, a pro/con list is:
> 
> *Where Tivo is better:*
> 
> Basic DVR activities, like fast-forwarding, commercial skip, and browsing the guide (still love the TE3 live guide). This is a really huge pro, and the biggest thing I'll miss.
> At a glance, seeing what is new to be watched, as you can delete from Now Showing when you're done with something.
> Maybe because I'm used to it, but the TE3 interface is simpler to navigate and being all text, there is lots of info on every screen. I haven't used TE4, but YTTV has a somewhat deep menu structure, so there is lots of "going back" to reach the top of the menu stack. Fine for me, but my older parents would probably find it confusing for a while.
> Being able to schedule a manual recording by date/time/channel if you don't know the title but know when it will be showing.
> *Where YTTV is better*:
> 
> Finding content is probably the biggest benefit here. VOD and stuff available to record are blended together seamlessly. When viewing the library, everything is organized by season/episode, and VOD seamlessly fills in the gaps for what you don't have recorded. It's more like "Here's S3E12 of program X - and I'll find a way to show it to you".
> There are essentially much richer recommendations when browsing shows and actors.
> And finally, it's smarter on its search. Trying searching Tivo for the CBS show "Survivor" - you have to wade through several items named "Survivor" to find the right one. On YTTV, it's the first hit and it's obvious.
> 
> Unlimited "tuners" and infinite storage in the cloud is nice. No conflicts, no managing hard drive space, no failed hardware, no missed recordings to due to some outage.
> The "Season Pass" concept is way more powerful for sports. You can subscript to an event, like "Monday Night Football", or any game that includes the Cowboys - all with one click. Yes, you can get close on Tivo with Wishlists and OnePasses with some fiddling, but it's so seamless here, and even with college games. It even shows you the scores and stats for the teams in a convenient way.
> And, when recording sports, it automatically extends the recording time when the game runs long. I haven't had a chance to experience that personally, but people seem to say that works well.
> 
> Since it's in the cloud, the same content is available everywhere without any additional hardware - every TV with a Roku or Firestick, phone, tablet, PC - regardless of location or if you are or out of your house, Wifi or Cellular - doesn't matter. And when you are travelling, you automatically get access to all of the local major networks for that market.
> User profiles - up to 5 family members can have their own customized channel lineup and list of programs to record. And I think you can restrict a given profile to only G/PG content - so it's possible to make it kid friendly.
> Oops, this post is probably too long now, but I'm also happy to answer specific questions!


Tivo is better:

I think YTTV beats Tivo in some areas of commercial skip and fast forwarding. 1) I can say, skip 4 minutes on my ATV remote and it skips in a second or two. It doesn't get easier nor quicker on Tivo unless you have auto skip on your show. 2) Also the use of thumbnails to skip forward past commercials has its advantages as well. you don't have to time it. you don't have to start the video again to see where you are at. You can quickly tell at a glance where you at. 3) you can scrub instantly to any place in a recording. Either through voice or on the ATV through the touchpad. IT's faster than Tivo.

On the other hand, Tivo has slow mo and responsive 30 second live FWD skips or 8 seconds backward skips that don't get less responsive the more you hit them. You also can "real-time" fast forward scrub through videos for whatever that it is worth. and then you got autoskip on some shows (sometimes) sometime after the show ends . Guide is better on Tivo overall. EAsier to navigate. Faster. More data. YTTV does have the live thumbnail view for each channel in the guide though which is neat.

I don't think Tivo is better at seeing what's new. YTTV's Library tab shows you the newest recordings. Home tab shows new stuff and just recording stuff. All at a glance. Not seeing this one.

There might be some more going back in the YTTV interface in some spots. I'll give that to Tivo too. But otherwise I think YTTV wins ease of use interface overall. There's no deleting stuff. No padding stuff. No prioritizing stuff. IT's 3 simple tabs. Scheduled recordings (to do) is a filter in your (recording) Library. ...there are a lot fewer steps on YTTV overall.

Tivo wins manual recording obviously because there is none on YTTV.

YTTV is better:

AGree on all. But I didn't think YTTV search so much better than Tivo's. I mean all you need to do is search for tv and movies and sports and actors and directors and I felt like Tivo did that as well as needed. And you could do the actor wishlist on Tivo or whatever. You can't on YTTV. But I think YTTV search is quicker and easier to access and shows thumbnails for the results.

Sports recording definitely pretty powerful on YTTV. To record every football game I just clicked NFL. That was it. Done. Every game every channel no matter how long - recorded.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> I'm just asking whether SHO has its own row on the Live screen and SHO programs appear among the suggestions on the Home screen.
> 
> If it feels like I have to exit the YTTV UI to watch Showtime I might as well jump to a cheaper service that doesn't integrate the locals either.


it's all integrated into the YTTV UI.


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV needs to improve the grid schedule on TV devices. Depth and scrolling speed
YTTV won't record a show that you discover after it has started. You have to hope for VOD (pretty common, but with ads, VOD is generally not available for a locally-produced show) or a second airing.
YTTV auto-padding is a marvel, but again less likely to work for a locally-produced show.
YTTV gracefully adapts to very low internet bandwidth (I'm not happy with T-Mobile home internet this week).


----------



## saeba

pdhenry said:


> YTTV needs to improve the grid schedule on TV devices. Depth and scrolling speed


Great example of how everyone is different. I don't use the grid schedule. I search for and then schedule shows and events to record and then use the library page for playback.

When do you use the grid schedule?


----------



## wendlan

pdhenry said:


> YTTV won't record a show that you discover after it has started. You have to hope for VOD (pretty common, but with ads, VOD is generally not available for a locally-produced show) or a second airing.


This has not been my experience as for both shows and movies (unless I'm misunderstanding) - as if I "add it to the library", it will start recording immediately at that point, even it started X minutes ago. What I haven't see a way to do though is the opposite - in that if the show is already in progress, but it's X minutes in, how to tell it to record the next full instance of that same episode that shows again a few hour or days later (so that I don't miss the start).


----------



## wendlan

trip1eX said:


> I don't think Tivo is better at seeing what's new.


I generally agree, but for one aspect: Because VOD is seamlessly mixed in with DVR recordings, you can't tell what is a new recording or the new recording is hard to find. For example:

"Better Call Saul" showed up as new. But that was because a new 5 minute VOD teaser was released, not because there was a new episode recorded.
I recently added "Colbert" to the library, and it showed up as new. But, the newest several episodes were VOD released days ago and not my recording last night - what? Turns out they are replaying old episodes from January, so you have to scroll back several pages of VOD to the January episodes to find the Feb 19 recording.
From a literal sense, it is showing what is "newest" so I can't fault it, but I wish there was an optional way to filter out VOD and only show recordings.


----------



## pdhenry

saeba said:


> When do you use the grid schedule?


The most common example is when I want to browse what's airing on AMC that day, or a couple of days into the future. More generally, when I'm "browsing" rather than having a specific program in mind.

For AMC what I do instead is pull up amc.com on my computer to browse the schedule there and then search for the movies that interest me.



wendlan said:


> as if I "add it to the library", it will start recording immediately at that point, even it started X minutes ago.


I think it was another AMC movie - I was browsing the grid and saw that a movie was just starting. Added it to my library and it didn't record until the next time it aired.


wendlan said:


> What I haven't see a way to do though is the opposite - in that if the show is already in progress, but it's X minutes in, how to tell it to record the next full instance of that episode.


My experience has been that every time it airs it records the latest airing. The clearest way to see this is how the order of the programs in "New in Your Library" changes since the latest recorded show at the top of the list. When you highlight a specific show you might see "Choose a recording" and it may have one or more DVR recordings plus a VOD option. If there's only one recording you don't get the choice. It might say "Recorded XX hours ago" but actually contain multiple recordings and a VOD. (I'm looking at a specific example at the moment).


----------



## trip1eX

wendlan said:


> I generally agree, but for one aspect: Because VOD is seamlessly mixed in with DVR recordings, you can't tell what is a new recording or the new recording is hard to find. For example:
> 
> "Better Call Saul" showed up as new. But that was because a new 5 minute VOD teaser was released, not because there was a new episode recorded.
> I recently added "Colbert" to the library, and it showed up as new. But, the newest several episodes were VOD released days ago and not my recording last night - what? Turns out they are replaying old episodes from January, so you have to scroll back several pages of VOD to the January episodes to find the Feb 19 recording.
> From a literal sense, it is showing what is "newest" so I can't fault it, but I wish there was an optional way to filter out VOD and only show recordings.


Meh the teaser thing is something Tivo would record too if the teaser aired on cable. If anything the presence of the teaser lets you know a new season is coming which seems good to me. It's a nothing burger.

And the "Colbert" example is something that happens, but if you're following a show and watching all the new episodes and it takes a break for a few weeks and airs some recent repeats, do you really care about a repeat of a recent episode? And if the show is heavy on repeats because it is syndicated, the slight inconvenience of just having a few recordings among a bit of VoD day one goes away pretty quick. The show will fill up with 100% recordings within a month or three. If anything having Vod right there day one is a bonus. To be used or ignored at your whim.

with something like "Colbert", I mean give it a few months and you'll have 40-60 recent repeat recordings to watch.


----------



## trip1eX

wendlan said:


> This has not been my experience as for both shows and movies (unless I'm misunderstanding) - as if I "add it to the library", it will start recording immediately at that point, even it started X minutes ago.


This is what does for me. I recorded Godfather on AMC 30 minutes in and it started recording it right from that point.



wendlan said:


> What I haven't see a way to do though is the opposite - in that if the show is already in progress, but it's X minutes in, how to tell it to record the next full instance of that same episode that shows again a few hour or days later (so that I don't miss the start).


It does this automatically. Just click " choose a recording" on the movie or show in your library and you will see the various recent recordings of that movie (or show episode.) IN the Godfather example above, I still have the recording from a month ago with the 30 minutes missing at the start. But I also now (have) 3 more recent recordings and they are all full length.


----------



## lparsons21

Overall I like what YTTV brings to the table, but like all the services, there are warts. And what those warts are is somewhat subjective.

For me the Library is a hot mess! That’s because it only deletes things on its own and you end up with a plethora of things you may or may not want to keep around. No deletion of shows is allowed. I keep a neat list of DVR stuff on the Tivo, and I know that all of it is shows I haven’t yet seen and want to. No older ones and certainly none with no skip ads. And that has zero to do with space, just neatness. Basically there just isn’t any meaningful management of the library.

The grid guide is nearly useless because it isn’t a wide enough timeline and it doesn’t go out very far. So that means I use my TVGuide app to get a good grid guide and the excellent search in YTTV. Not earth shattering, just a minor irritant.

Currently I’m still using YTTV comparing it to the combo of OTA/Sling/Hulu/CBS. YTTV wins hands down for having everything under one UI at a fair price. The combo of Sling is better for watching lots of shows without ads at all, or allowing ad skipping on all the shows that I watch, and because the shows that I watch that are on Hulu or CBS delayed a day are also have DD5.1 often, they are more enjoyable.

The jury is still out on which I will keep, but I have about a week left before Sling renews and 3 weeks or so before YTTV renews. It really is getting down to is the convenience of YTTV worth $15/month more than the Sling combo?


----------



## NashGuy

wendlan said:


> From a literal sense, it is showing what is "newest" so I can't fault it, but I wish there was an optional way to filter out VOD and only show recordings.


I tend to think that the YTTV UI is engineered, to some degree, to increase the chances that the average viewer watches something via VOD rather than via cloud DVR. Because, of course, Google is an ad company and it's in their interests for the viewer to watch more ads. But they also understand that that has to be balanced carefully against consumers' desire to avoid ads if they're going to have a product that consumers want to buy.

All that to say, I think it's by design that there's no way to filter out VOD from your content library, leaving only recordings as available selections. If they got a lot of pushback on that from users, then maybe that would change. But otherwise, it's probably not in their interests to.


----------



## pdhenry

Recordings are always the default played where available, and I think it's a feature not a burden that available VOD is offered alongside recorded episodes of a program. I'm not sure how an average user would end up inadvertently watching a VOD episode that s/he had also recorded.


----------



## trip1eX

LIbrary is great. i use it pretty much use it the same way I used Tivo. I mostly watch the new recordings and those are always at the top. Once in awhile I scroll down and watch something else. And YTTV marks what you watch. 

The whole advantage of YTTV is you don't have to go through all the system maintenance. That's the beauty of it. YOu gotta let go of your OCD.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> I tend to think that the YTTV UI is engineered, to some degree, to increase the chances that the average viewer watches something via VOD rather than via cloud DVR. Because, of course, Google is an ad company and it's in their interests for the viewer to watch more ads. But they also understand that that has to be balanced carefully against consumers' desire to avoid ads if they're going to have a product that consumers want to buy.
> 
> All that to say, I think it's by design that there's no way to filter out VOD from your content library, leaving only recordings as available selections. If they got a lot of pushback on that from users, then maybe that would change. But otherwise, it's probably not in their interests to.


I think it's engineered as a feature because you start with 0 recordings.

Once your recordings start to take root, the VoD gets weeded out.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> I tend to think that the YTTV UI is engineered, to some degree, to increase the chances that the average viewer watches something via VOD rather than via cloud DVR. Because, of course, Google is an ad company and it's in their interests for the viewer to watch more ads. But they also understand that that has to be balanced carefully against consumers' desire to avoid ads if they're going to have a product that consumers want to buy.
> 
> All that to say, I think it's by design that there's no way to filter out VOD from your content library, leaving only recordings as available selections. If they got a lot of pushback on that from users, then maybe that would change. But otherwise, it's probably not in their interests to.


Knowing Google, I'd tend to agree and expect that behavior. However, that has not been my experience at all. VOD is essentially non-existent in my experience so far. I am not sure why people talk about it so much with respect to YTTV.

Google can insert ads in Live and Recorded content as well, just like any MVPD, so perhaps the incentive isn't as big as we might think.


----------



## hefe

I can't remember the last time I watched any VOD on YTTV. Seems like all my content is just the recording. What they do now though is that during commercial breaks, they overlay or replace the local ad with a web based commercial. But it never interferes with the program content.


----------



## pdhenry

I'll watch a show VOD if I just want to catch an episode without recording all showings everywhere and keeping them for nine months. It's helpful when you're browsing.


----------



## pdhenry

hefe said:


> What they do now though is that during commercial breaks, they overlay or replace the local ad with a we based commercial.


I've seen that on "cable" programming where the MSO is expected to insert the local ad. YTTV will even do that on the live airing since they're essentially the MSO. They don't replace any ads on broadcast airings from the local stations that I've seen.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> Knowing Google, I'd tend to agree and expect that behavior. However, that has not been my experience at all. VOD is essentially non-existent in my experience so far. I am not sure why people talk about it so much with respect to YTTV.
> 
> Google can insert ads in Live and Recorded content as well, just like any MVPD, so perhaps the incentive isn't as big as we might think.


Yes, but you can FF past ads in recordings and you cannot in VOD. That's a pretty key difference. And if you cannot simply click something so that you can browse through *only* recordings, as opposed to a mixture of recordings and VOD, then that has to increase the aggregate chance that users will select VOD options. IOW, if the YTTV UI segregated all VOD content off under its own menu option, completely separate from recordings, and never intermingled the two within the UI, I believe that Google would serve up fewer ads that are fully viewed than is the case now.


----------



## hefe

NashGuy said:


> Yes, but you can FF past ads in recordings and you cannot in VOD. That's a pretty key difference. And if you cannot simply click something so that you can browse through *only* recordings, as opposed to a mixture of recordings and VOD, then that has to increase the aggregate chance that users will select VOD options. IOW, if the YTTV UI segregated all VOD content off under its own menu option, completely separate from recordings, and never intermingled the two within the UI, I believe that Google would serve up fewer ads that are fully viewed than is the case now.


I'm not getting it. When I browse my shows and select something to play, I get the recording. For all my shows. I can get a VOD version if it exists if I want by selecting it optionally. For example, Better Call Saul was on last night. When I click to play, I get the recording. But I can optionally select the VOD version if I want.


----------



## NashGuy

hefe said:


> I'm not getting it. When I browse my shows and select something to play, I get the recording. For all my shows. I can get a VOD version if it exists if I want by selecting it optionally. For example, Better Call Saul was on last night. When I click to play, I get the recording. But I can optionally select the VOD version if I want.


Right. And let's say that you didn't begin recording Better Call Saul until episode 5 of this season. Doesn't the UI show you episodes 1-4 as VOD options right beside the episode 5 recording?

I'm not saying that's a bad or sneaky thing on YTTV's part. A lot of consumers would find that convenient, in fact. What I am saying is that by intermingling VOD options in that part of the app's UI where consumers go to browse their recordings, it increases the chances that you'll watch something via VOD. Not saying that you're more likely to watch the VOD version of a given episode than the recorded version, just that you're more likely to watch *anything* via VOD than if it all that content was segregated away completely from your recordings.


----------



## hefe

NashGuy said:


> Right. And let's say that you didn't begin recording Better Call Saul until episode 5 of this season. Doesn't the UI show you episodes 1-4 as VOD options right beside the episode 5 recording?
> 
> I'm not saying that's a bad or sneaky thing on YTTV's part. A lot of consumers would find that convenient, in fact. What I am saying is that by intermingling VOD options in that part of the app's UI where consumers go to browse their recordings, it increases the chances that you'll watch something via VOD. Not saying that you're more likely to watch the VOD version of a given episode than the recorded version, just that you're more likely to watch *anything* via VOD than if it all that content was segregated away completely from your recordings.


I don't recall the UI exactly, but yes, you can get the VOD versions for shows you didn't record. I guess it does increase the chances you'll watch something via VOD, but the alternative is that you didn't record it so you don't even have it. I don't know why I would want those listings separate between recordings and VOD, but I don't know...I guess some people might.


----------



## trip1eX

If they really wanted to make ad money on VoD they would put it front and center and we would have an increasing number of channels replacing recordings with VoD.

Instead we have the opposite. Recordings are front and center and now zero channels replace recordings with VoD - down from what it was a year or two ago.

We also wouldn't have unlimited storage because all that does is pile up the recordings and make the VoD quickly disappear.

VoD is in with recordings for convenience. All because seeing a few VoD episodes when you start with 0 recordings is better than nothing.

If I forgot to (record) Better Call Saul until episode 4 and I saw episode 1-3 already there (in the form of VoD) then I would be quite happy about that. ...Because otherwise I'm either buying them on Amazon to catch up or waiting for them to repeat or waiting for them to come to Netflix.


btw, I am wondering when Google will bring in Youtube-like ads to VoD where you can skip them in 5 seconds. Something like that would get more of us not to record stuff. On Youtube I actually watch a commercial once in awhile when it looks interesting. I don't think I've done that on TV for a long time except for the Super Bowl.


----------



## pdhenry

NashGuy said:


> Yes, but you can FF past ads in recordings and you cannot in VOD. That's a pretty key difference. And if you cannot simply click something so that you can browse through *only* recordings, as opposed to a mixture of recordings and VOD, then that has to increase the aggregate chance that users will select VOD options. IOW, if the YTTV UI segregated all VOD content off under its own menu option, completely separate from recordings, and never intermingled the two within the UI, I believe that Google would serve up fewer ads that are fully viewed than is the case now.


As a counterexample, I put The Goldbergs in my library when I first got YTTV (maybe a month ago?) and it has been merrily grabbing new and rerun episodes on every channel it airs on, so now my library has recordings of the majority of programs for all 7 seasons.

Inadvertant VOD just doesn't happen, aside from episodes that aired prior to your putting the show in your library, and then it's like having free Hulu with your DVR.


----------



## windracer

I cut the cord over the weekend and turned in my tuning adapters and CableCARDs to Spectrum. I've switched to the YTTV/Fire Stick solution which has significantly simplified the home theater setup. I'm sure there are some things about TiVo I will miss, having been a customer for 17 years, but the money I'll (hopefully) be saving annually will help make up for that.


----------



## pdhenry

FWIW, with the fire sick I had issues with audio & video falling out of sync on YTTV. I switched to using Roku and don't have that issue.


----------



## pldoolittle

pdhenry said:


> FWIW, with the fire sick I had issues with audio & video falling out of sync on YTTV. I switched to using Roku and don't have that issue.


Same. Two week trial, zero issues.


----------



## trip1eX

wendlan said:


> I recently added "Colbert" to the library, and it showed up as new. But, the newest several episodes were VOD released days ago and not my recording last night - what? Turns out they are replaying old episodes from January, so you have to scroll back several pages of VOD to the January episodes to find the Feb 19 recording.


btw, i added Colbert last week and checked today and there is no VoD. I just have last Friday's episode and today's.


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> FWIW, with the fire sick I had issues with audio & video falling out of sync on YTTV. I switched to using Roku and don't have that issue.


Interesting. I had the almost the opposite experience. When I first tried YTTV last summer, it was on a Roku Ultra, and had sync issues. When I tried it again at the end of last year once I realized my Recast wasn't cutting it, I used the Firestick 4Ks I had acquired, and I didn't have any audio sync issues. I haven't gone back the Roku to see if the issues are still there, but the Firesticks are working great so far.


----------



## ncted

Add Windstream to the Growing YouTube TV Partnerships for Streaming TV - Telecompetitor

Seems like I am seeing more and more of these deals with ISPs.


----------



## windracer

pdhenry said:


> FWIW, with the fire sick I had issues with audio & video falling out of sync on YTTV. I switched to using Roku and don't have that issue.


I did see an audio sync issue once, but pausing and restarting the stream fixed it and I haven't really noticed any others since.

I love being able to turn ON the TV with voice ("Alexa, watch Fire TV") but wish I could turn it off the same way.


----------



## pdhenry

windracer said:


> pausing and restarting the stream fixed it


Yeah, that's how to fix it but on my Roku it doesn't break.

I don't like the Fire Stick's home screen layout either but that's more a matter of preference. Essentially it makes your TV a big tablet, I get it.


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> Yeah, that's how to fix it but on my Roku it doesn't break.
> 
> I don't like the Fire Stick's home screen layout either but that's more a matter of preference. Essentially it makes your TV a big tablet, I get it.


I also prefer the Roku's UI to the Firestick, but as the Recast was the the only DVR that seems to be able to pull in my locals decently, that kind of forced me in that direction. Also, until recently, Roku remotes didn't have mute buttons, and even then not on all models, which was a huge downside when deciding between Roku and Firestick.


----------



## rrman

windracer said:


> I cut the cord over the weekend and turned in my tuning adapters and CableCARDs to Spectrum. I've switched to the YTTV/Fire Stick solution which has significantly simplified the home theater setup. I'm sure there are some things about TiVo I will miss, having been a customer for 17 years, but the money I'll (hopefully) be saving annually will help make up for that.


I've got Spectrum as well (with 3 TiVo DVRs and associated CableCARDs and tuning adapters). I did the YTTV trial. Picture looks fine on smaller TVs as well as on my iOS devices. However, on my 65" TV and 106" projection screen (using Apple TV and Nvidia Shield TV), the resolution of YTTV wasn't as sharp as my TiVos. The colors on YTTV looked washed out too. I played with a lot of settings but haven't gotten the YTTV picture quality as good as the TiVo's yet. My devices are wired via Ethernet and my network bandwidth is very good (475 Mbps download). So, not sure if the picture resolution is just due to it being streamed (although my Apple TV and Netflix programs, which are streamed do look sharper than YTTV). Anyone have suggestions?

I also didn't like how some shows use VOD instead of recording seemingly forced on me. I badly missed the TiVo's ability to skip commercials. I guess a 5 day trial wasn't enough to assess if the inability to skip commercials would be a common problem for me or if it would just be an occasional annoyance. I suppose I didn't have enough time to collect recordings on the 5 day trial.

Also, when watching NFL games, is it possible to skip commercials? With TiVo, I usually start watching an NFL game an hour after it has started, so that I can skip most or all the commercials. Can this be done with YTTV, or are NFL games VOD the day the game is broadcast?

I do like the customization of TiVo season passes, though the YTTV does make things simple. I do like how YTTV makes it easy to watch with any device. I do have TiVo Stream, but it is a bit slow when accessing remotely, and a lot of times, it doesn't work (and I may need to reboot it).

So, I'm on the fence on whether the over 50% cost savings, and convenience of YTTV compensates for the picture quality difference. I suppose I'll need to unsuspend my YTTV and play with it more before finally cutting off my cable TV.


----------



## pdhenry

ncted said:


> Also, until recently, Roku remotes didn't have mute buttons, and even then not on all models, which was a huge downside when deciding between Roku and Firestick.


The remotes for my standalone Rokus both have volume buttons but on the older one they just control the volume of the remote's headset jack, which is useless to me.


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> The remotes for my standalone Rokus both have volume buttons but on the older one they just control the volume of the remote's headset jack, which is useless to me.


My Ultra and original Premier have volume buttons that control TV/Soundbar/AVR volume via HDMI-CIC, but no mute. The newer Ultras at least have finally added mute.


----------



## ncted

rrman said:


> I've got Spectrum as well (with 3 TiVo DVRs and associated CableCARDs and tuning adapters). I did the YTTV trial. Picture looks fine on smaller TVs as well as on my iOS devices. However, on my 65" TV and 106" projection screen (using Apple TV and Nvidia Shield TV), the resolution of YTTV wasn't as sharp as my TiVos. The colors on YTTV looked washed out too. I played with a lot of settings but haven't gotten the YTTV picture quality as good as the TiVo's yet. My devices are wired via Ethernet and my network bandwidth is very good (475 Mbps download). So, not sure if the picture resolution is just due to it being streamed (although my Apple TV and Netflix programs, which are streamed do look sharper than YTTV). Anyone have suggestions?
> 
> I also didn't like how some shows use VOD instead of recording seemingly forced on me. I badly missed the TiVo's ability to skip commercials. I guess a 5 day trial wasn't enough to assess if the inability to skip commercials would be a common problem for me or if it would just be an occasional annoyance. I suppose I didn't have enough time to collect recordings on the 5 day trial.
> 
> Also, when watching NFL games, is it possible to skip commercials? With TiVo, I usually start watching an NFL game an hour after it has started, so that I can skip most or all the commercials. Can this be done with YTTV, or are NFL games VOD the day the game is broadcast?
> 
> I do like the customization of TiVo season passes, though the YTTV does make things simple. I do like how YTTV makes it easy to watch with any device. I do have TiVo Stream, but it is a bit slow when accessing remotely, and a lot of times, it doesn't work (and I may need to reboot it).
> 
> So, I'm on the fence on whether the over 50% cost savings, and convenience of YTTV compensates for the picture quality difference. I suppose I'll need to unsuspend my YTTV and play with it more before finally cutting off my cable TV.


I would say it is your local Spectrum TV service that is looking better than YTTV. Spectrum where I live is a bit-starved, over-compressed mess, so YTTV looks pretty good in comparison.

I'll say it again: VOD just isn't a thing I've run into very much at all with YTTV. I really don't know why it keeps being brought up as an issue. The only time I ever even see VOD in the UI is if there are some VOD episodes of a show that are available, but they are clearly marked as such. If I record a show, I would have to take extra steps to get the VOD version rather than the recording. I have never even watched a VOD show on YTTV or had one forced on me instead of a recording.

Not sure about all NFL games, but I was able to FF commercials to catch up at the end of the SuperBowl.


----------



## pdhenry

ncted said:


> My Ultra and original Premier have volume buttons that control TV/Soundbar/AVR volume via HDMI-CIC, but no mute. The newer Ultras at least have finally added mute.


My Premiere+ doesn't control the TV volume for some reason (although the Fire TV on the same set does...) You're right, no mute button the the Premiere+ remote.


----------



## rrman

ncted said:


> I would say it is your local Spectrum TV service that is looking better than YTTV. Spectrum where I live is a bit-starved, over-compressed mess, so YTTV looks pretty good in comparison.
> 
> I'll say it again: VOD just isn't a thing I've run into very much at all with YTTV. I really don't know why it keeps being brought up as an issue. The only time I ever even see VOD in the UI is if there are some VOD episodes of a show that are available, but they are clearly marked as such. If I record a show, I would have to take extra steps to get the VOD version rather than the recording. I have never even watched a VOD show on YTTV or had one forced on me instead of a recording.
> 
> Not sure about all NFL games, but I was able to FF commercials to catch up at the end of the SuperBowl.


Yeah, I think my local Spectrum TV is particularly good. Even though Spectrum TV is mostly 1080i resolution, it still looks a bit better than YTTV's 1080p channels. On 32" TVs, I can't tell the difference, but on larger TVs (65" and 106" projection), the resolution and colors are better on the TiVo. Just need to decide whether the picture quality difference is worth it to me to keep cable TV (I'm much more finicky on picture quality when it comes to movies than broadcast TV).

With regards to the ability to skip commercials (or not), I only tried YTTV for 5 days as part of the trial, so maybe my running into VOD was more prevalent than it would be if I had YTTV much longer. I just reactivated my YTTV account today since the 5 day trial wasn't long enough so I'll have more time to play with it.

After close to 19 years with TiVo, it would be hard to give it up, but YTTV is much cheaper (and convenient and available in more devices) than cable TV. I'll keep both cable and YTTV while I play with YTTV more. Maybe I'll get antennas for my TiVo's for old time's sake (so at least no cable fees; my TiVos have lifetime subscription), although OTA in my area is really poor.


----------



## trip1eX

rrman said:


> With regards to the ability to skip commercials (or not), I only tried YTTV for 5 days as part of the trial, so maybe my running into VOD was more prevalent than it would be if I had YTTV much longer. I just reactivated my YTTV account today since the 5 day trial wasn't long enough so I'll have more time to play with it.


you can skip commercials day one hour one. record anything and you can skip commercials. Works just like Tivo.

I mean find a show in the guide. HIt record. Wait long enough for it to have commercials in it. Then go to library. Watch recording from beginning. Skip commercials when they come. Magic.


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve been bouncing back and forth with a Sling combo or YTTV. Sling works fine with my combo but I’m not finding bouncing around between various apps all the much fun. And my outdoor antenna decided not to catch the CBS channel today for no reason I can figure out, has been working fine for the last bit of time.

So for what its worth and all its warts, I’m keeping YTTV and changing my Hulu and CBS subs to ad-supported since their use will decrease a fair bit. Still not enamored of the clutter in the Library but can deal with it.


----------



## ncted




----------



## moyekj

Regional sports channels continue to be an issue with all of these streaming services. It's what stopped me from considering YTTV a while back. Looks like it will only be getting worse now.


----------



## wendlan

moyekj said:


> Regional sports channels continue to be an issue with all of these streaming services. It's what stopped me from considering YTTV a while back. Looks like it will only be getting worse now.


Dish, Sling and Fubo also all lost regional Fox sports in the last year. Reddit discussion on this here.


----------



## BobCamp1

wendlan said:


> Dish, Sling and Fubo also all lost regional Fox sports in the last year. Reddit discussion on this here.


That's Sinclair for you. Next up is Spectrum, FIOS, etc.


----------



## foghorn2

wow, Youtube and all its billions cant afford Sinclair. What a farce.


----------



## trip1eX

wow. just paid for another month yesterday. would have thought twice if I knew Fox Sports was going away.

btw, DISH (satellite) also not carrying some RSNs currently either.

This what Charlie Ergen said about the subject:

_"Look, everything we do here is somewhat mathematical in the sense that we have real data for a long time of what our customers watch. And I don't think it takes real rocket science to see when customers watch and how much they watch, what the value of programming is. And the marketplace has been historical, and somebody got a price, and so their typical negotiating tactic is well, we were getting paid X. We now want X plus for the next contract. And it's always X plus, and that can be -- as you've seen in the marketplace, that can be in the high single-digits in terms of price increases that people want. What we see is the exact opposite, which is people are watching less of many people's programmers, and we would say that your price should go down if people are watching less. And one of the big outliers was regional sports in terms of the amount of money they charge and collect versus the amount of people who actually view them. So, we would love to do a deal with regional sports.

We really like Sinclair the company. We would -- it was unfortunate circumstance in that Sinclair did not own the regional sports on our contract was up. And then once somebody leaves our network that wants regional sports, it doesn't make sense to burden the -- because we have less people today on our network, we still have some people that might want to watch regional sports. But it's a fraction of what it was last August when they came down. So, the programmers have a hard time understanding that once somebody leaves their network, there's no reason to put something back and tax the rest of people because the people who really watch the channel leave us because they have alternatives. So, the math was clear that the kind of offer we had from the Disney folks at the time that our contract was up was not even close to something that made sense for us.

A lot of times in business, it's really easy decisions, and some you got to think about. But this was an easy one, and that's where we are today. And obviously, Sinclair now owns it. We've had a great relationship with Sinclair for a long period of time. But whether you can put Humpty Dumpty back together again remains an open question."_


----------



## dishrich

Add Comcast to that list, who has already said they have NO intention of paying for that Sinclair-owned Marquee Sports Net (Cubs) at the current rates...& could VERY possibly be dropping the other Fox RSN's as well when their contract runs out...


----------



## lparsons21

foghorn2 said:


> wow, Youtube and all its billions cant afford Sinclair. What a farce.


Wow, I can't believe you think it is about YouTube (Google) being able to afford it. It is about how much they would have to raise the cost of a YTTV subscription to cover the increased cost.

Or do you just believe in paying whatever someone wants to charge you?


----------



## foghorn2

lparsons21 said:


> Wow, I can't believe you think it is about YouTube (Google) being able to afford it. It is about how much they would have to raise the cost of a YTTV subscription to cover the increased cost.
> 
> Or do you just believe in paying whatever someone wants to charge you?


Youtube could just force everyone to pay for it, like they for locals and all the other channels they offer.

At least Sling breaks it down quite bit and has add ons, so you pay less for the few channels you do want. No one else does, with all the others, its one price for mostly garbage channels, or the highway.


----------



## hefe

foghorn2 said:


> wow, Youtube and all its billions cant afford Sinclair. What a farce.


It's not just about affording it, it's also about paying what it's worth. For what they're probably asking, Sinclair can take a flying leap...


----------



## NashGuy

Well, on the bright side for those with YTTV, if the Sinclair RSNs remain out, that might mean no price hike this March/April, as we've seen them do the past 2 years. OTOH, given that most folks who sign up for YTTV seem to do so because they want to watch sports, losing those RSNs will damage the perceived value of the service. I expect to read about a lot of YTTV viewers switching over to Hulu with Live TV for $55/mo, especially once baseball season starts.


----------



## ncted

RSNs need to go streaming only. They simply aren't worth what they are charging MVPDs since the audience isn't there for them.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> RSNs need to go streaming only. They simply aren't worth what they are charging MVPDs since the audience isn't there for them.


Eh, Sinclair has talked up the possibility of offering RSNs as a direct-to-consumer streaming service but I tend to think that's a bluff. The Denver-area RSN Altitude confirms that the economics of their business won't work if they're sold on an a la carte basis (as DISH has offered to do) rather than as part of a broader popular bundle of channels. My read of the situation is that the economics of sports is a bubble (both the cost of television rights and the underlying pay for pro athletes) that looks set to burst. And Sinclair is the company holding the bubble when it bursts. They bought those Fox Sports RSNs at top dollar and now they can't get the carriage fees from MVPDs they need to make the numbers work. Meanwhile, AT&T recently tried to offload their four RSNs and only got offers equal to about half the amount they were expecting. _<pop>_


----------



## dlfl

I will miss the Reds on Fox Sports Ohio. I can see why it costs so much. I could settle for fewer cameras and fewer people doing commentary. I like what they do but could settle for less.

Come to think of it, professional sports is pricing itself out of business. I will learn to do without.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

NashGuy said:


> Eh, Sinclair has talked up the possibility of offering RSNs as a direct-to-consumer streaming service but I tend to think that's a bluff. The Denver-area RSN Altitude confirms that the economics of their business won't work if they're sold on an a la carte basis (as DISH has offered to do) rather than as part of a broader popular bundle of channels. My read of the situation is that the economics of sports is a bubble (both the cost of television rights and the underlying pay for pro athletes) that looks set to burst. And Sinclair is the company holding the bubble when it bursts. They bought those Fox Sports RSNs at top dollar and now they can't get the carriage fees from MVPDs they need to make the numbers work. Meanwhile, AT&T recently tried to offload their four RSNs and only got offers equal to about half the amount they were expecting. _<pop>_


I think this is very true for MLB, NBA, and the NHL since all of the teams in those leagues derive significant revenue from their RSN deals (I think the Phillies have a 10 year, $2.5 billion deal with Comcast). The NFL teams and players stand the best chance with continued riches as cable collapses since so much of their TV dollars come from broadcast networks. Wouldn't be surprising at all if Monday Night Football ends up back on broadcast TV as well and the Sunday Ticket moves from DTV to one of the streamers/tech giants.


----------



## trip1eX

The sports networks are definitely feeling the pressure on the bottom line because of continued subscriber losses.

But note that subscriber losses not the same as a decline in viewership. I think sports viewership is mostly holding up.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Eh, Sinclair has talked up the possibility of offering RSNs as a direct-to-consumer streaming service but I tend to think that's a bluff. The Denver-area RSN Altitude confirms that the economics of their business won't work if they're sold on an a la carte basis (as DISH has offered to do) rather than as part of a broader popular bundle of channels. My read of the situation is that the economics of sports is a bubble (both the cost of television rights and the underlying pay for pro athletes) that looks set to burst. And Sinclair is the company holding the bubble when it bursts. They bought those Fox Sports RSNs at top dollar and now they can't get the carriage fees from MVPDs they need to make the numbers work. Meanwhile, AT&T recently tried to offload their four RSNs and only got offers equal to about half the amount they were expecting. _<pop>_


I can only hope the bubble bursts soon.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> The sports networks are definitely feeling the pressure on the bottom line because of continued subscriber losses.
> 
> But note that subscriber losses not the same as a decline in viewership. I think sports viewership is mostly holding up.


Viewership is pretty stable, yeah, but it is tiny on a per-RSN basis. If only the people who watched those channels paid for them, the subscriber revenue would be very small compared to what they are used to.


----------



## lparsons21

ncted said:


> Viewership is pretty stable, yeah, but it is tiny on a per-RSN basis. If only the people who watched those channels paid for them, the subscriber revenue would be very small compared to what they are used to.


Yep, that's the problem in a nutshell! The RSNs know that if they were forced to sell direct subscriptions that it would lead to failure as any price they want means less income. Only by hiding their true cost and spreading it across almost all users of a cable/sat/streamer does it work.


----------



## foghorn2

Socialism for atheletes. This needs to end. remove all sports from all packages and make them add ons.


----------



## BobCamp1

I love it when people say that Google is losing money on YouTube TV because they're only charging $50/month and/or they don't have enough subscribers. Then when they have to drop the RSNs because Sinclair wants too much money, Google is accused of being greedy.

Also, MLB TV offers your favorite team for $94 per season including the spring training games. Feb. 21st through Sept. 27th. Seven months, $13.43 per month gets you every single game of your favorite baseball team. For $123 per season, you get every single baseball game ever played in 2020. Roku and Fire TV and Android and Apple have MLB TV apps. And I know this is shocking, but the NBA has a similar app. at even cheaper rates.

This is a la carte. This is what we wanted. I don't watch baseball or the NBA, so I'm willing to pay $0 extra per month to keep the RSNs. If you watch them, then you pay extra, not me.


----------



## hefe

BobCamp1 said:


> I love it when people say that Google is losing money on YouTube TV because they're only charging $50/month and/or they don't have enough subscribers. Then when they have to drop the RSNs because Sinclair wants too much money, Google is accused of being greedy.
> 
> Also, MLB TV offers your favorite team for $94 per season including the spring training games. Feb. 21st through Sept. 27th. Seven months, $13.43 per month gets you every single game of your favorite baseball team. For $123 per season, you get every single baseball game ever played in 2020. Roku and Fire TV and Android and Apple have MLB TV apps. And I know this is shocking, but the NBA has a similar app. at even cheaper rates.
> 
> This is a la carte. This is what we wanted. I don't watch baseball or the NBA, so I'm willing to pay $0 extra per month to keep the RSNs. If you watch them, then you pay extra, not me.


But only out of market games. Which is good for some of us, but not the vast majority.


----------



## BobCamp1

hefe said:


> But only out of market games. Which is good for some of us, but not the vast majority.


I'm not sure what you mean. MLB TV includes in market games that are not being broadcast nationally which is not a problem since you get network affiliates. Otherwise it is the same local blackouts as the RSNs and local channels have. And there are ways to get around the blackouts. My Dad is a Yankees fan so there are never any blackouts as it's always sold out.

When the game was broadcast on a local channel only and not nationally televised, MLB TV will still show that game. Is your experience different? Plus, there are ways to get around that too.


----------



## hefe

BobCamp1 said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. MLB TV includes in market games that are not being broadcast nationally which is not a problem since you get network affiliates. Otherwise it is the same local blackouts as the RSNs and local channels have. And there are ways to get around the blackouts. My Dad is a Yankees fan so there are never any blackouts as it's always sold out.
> 
> When the game was broadcast on a local channel only and not nationally televised, MLB TV will still show that game. Is your experience different? Plus, there are ways to get around that too.


No, that is not the case. The game for the team in the market you are located in is always blacked out. There was some talk in recent years that for people that subscribe to the cable system that carries the local games, you can authenticate and then stream local games, but I don't think that is available in every market, and that means you're still paying for the local sports net.

MLB.TV Out-Of-Market Packages


> *Blackout Restrictions*
> All live games streamed within any MLB.TV product and available through the MLB App and any other location or device where MLB.TV is sold or available are subject to local and national blackouts. If a game is blacked out in an area, it is not available for live game viewing through MLB.TV. If you are an MLB.TV subscriber within an area subject to blackout, the applicable game will be available as an archived game approximately 90 minutes after the conclusion of the game.
> 
> Regular Season Local Blackout: Except for certain MLB regular season and Postseason games as described below or in certain MLB Club home television territories for which MLB may offer in-market subscription services, all live games will be blacked out in each applicable Club's home television territory.
> 
> In addition, note:
> 
> 
> Home television territory blackout restrictions apply regardless of whether a Club is home or away and regardless of whether or not a game is televised in a Club's home television territory.


----------



## BobCamp1

Weird that's not what's happening with my Dad. Unless the Yankees are an exception due to some other agreement. He's definitely considered to be in Yankee's home territory. I don't think he's savvy enough to use a VPN, which is what everybody else does in that situation.


----------



## hefe

BobCamp1 said:


> Weird that's not what's happening with my Dad. Unless the Yankees are an exception due to some other agreement. He's definitely considered to be in Yankee's home territory. I don't think he's savvy enough to use a VPN, which is what everybody else in that situation.


I've been a subscriber for about the last 5 years, and I can affirm that our local games are all blacked out. Fortunately, I AM an out-of-market fan, so I can watch all my team's games, except when they play here in Denver. I've never attempted to use a VPN on MLB.TV, but that's a bit out of the range of most people. Also, I know some services, YouTube TV included, detect VPNs and won't play if you use them. (I have ExpressVPN and YTTV rejects it. Don't know about MLB)


----------



## trip1eX

You can't watch your local team on NBA League Pass either.


----------



## ncted

Cubs Channel That Fans Can't See Symbolizes Sports Network Woes

"From Los Angeles to Denver and now Chicago, the ranks of angry fans are growing. In recent years, giants like Sinclair, Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. have paid huge sums to carry pro baseball, basketball and hockey in local markets. There's just one problem: The companies are demanding high fees from rival pay-TV providers and their subscribers in those markets, and some are saying no.

Sinclair investors have been especially hard hit. Their shares have lost about half their value since the company agreed to buy 21 regional sports networks last May."


----------



## trip1eX

Wow Comcast hasn't carried Altitude in Denver since September from what I'm reading. I lived there for 10 years. Altitude carries local NBA and NHL teams and maybe MLB too. Dish doesn't carry Altitude either. ATT finally came to an agreement late 2019 so people who want to watch local pro teams in Denver can get DTV.

But like Charlie said, if the customers leave to find those channels somewhere else (like leave to DTV) then they are gone and someone like a DISH is only going to want to pay even less for those channels than when the disagreement started.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> Cubs Channel That Fans Can't See Symbolizes Sports Network Woes
> 
> "From Los Angeles to Denver and now Chicago, the ranks of angry fans are growing. In recent years, giants like Sinclair, Comcast, AT&T Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. have paid huge sums to carry pro baseball, basketball and hockey in local markets. There's just one problem: The companies are demanding high fees from rival pay-TV providers and their subscribers in those markets, and some are saying no.
> 
> Sinclair investors have been especially hard hit. Their shares have lost about half their value since the company agreed to buy 21 regional sports networks last May."


The MVPD to really keep an eye on in Comcast. Will they end up picking up Marquee (Sinclair's new Cubs RSN) before the season starts? And the even bigger question: will Comcast renew their deal for the Fox Sports RSNs with Sinclair when their current contract ends this Sept?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233097335204392960
If Comcast does not strike a deal, I don't know if Sinclair's new RSN business survives. Did they pay so much to acquire them that they simply can't come down to an asking price that DISH, YTTV or Comcast will agree to?

(BTW, AT&T renewed their deal for the Fox Sports RSNs last summer, shortly before they changed hands over to Sinclair. So their carriage on DirecTV, AT&T TV and Uverse TV would seem to be safe for the next few years, assuming those channels continue to exist.)


----------



## trip1eX

“So, in response to cord cutting, broadcasters seek even higher fees,” said Tony Lenoir, a senior research analyst at Kagan, which is part of S&P Global Market Intelligence. “You can already tell that this is a vicious cycle.”


The networks will feel the heat too. They all get big retransmission fees and customers can leave and get those channels for free.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Wow Comcast hasn't carried Altitude in Denver since September from what I'm reading.


Altitude is experimenting with simulcasting an upcoming NBA and NHL game on Denver's local My Network TV affiliate, KTVD.

ALTITUDE TV TO BROADCAST A NUGGETS AND AN AVALANCHE GAME LOCALLY ON KTVD CHANNEL 20 - Altitude Sports

From what I read elsewhere, it sounds like they had to get AT&T's blessing to do that.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Altitude is experimenting with simulcasting an upcoming NBA and NHL game on Denver's local My Network TV affiliate, KTVD.
> 
> ALTITUDE TV TO BROADCAST A NUGGETS AND AN AVALANCHE GAME LOCALLY ON KTVD CHANNEL 20 - Altitude Sports
> 
> From what I read elsewhere, it sounds like they had to get AT&T's blessing to do that.


Funny a few minutes ago I was thinking RSNs should try that. It makes lots of sense. Well at least in terms of getting the biggest audience as possible.

And the networks have been able to get large fees from cable and satellite the past 10 years while never leaving free OTA.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> The MVPD to really keep an eye on in Comcast. Will they end up picking up Marquee (Sinclair's new Cubs RSN) before the season starts? And the even bigger question: will Comcast renew their deal for the Fox Sports RSNs with Sinclair when their current contract ends this Sept?
> 
> If Comcast does not strike a deal, I don't know if Sinclair's new RSN business survives. Did they pay so much to acquire them that they simply can't come down to an asking price that DISH, YTTV or Comcast will agree to?
> 
> (BTW, AT&T renewed their deal for the Fox Sports RSNs last summer, shortly before they changed hands over to Sinclair. So their carriage on DirecTV, AT&T TV and Uverse TV would seem to be safe for the next few years, assuming those channels continue to exist.)


I'd like to know what Comcast charges its own customers for its own RSNs.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

ncted said:


> Viewership is pretty stable, yeah, but it is tiny on a per-RSN basis. If only the people who watched those channels paid for them, the subscriber revenue would be very small compared to what they are used to.


I think honestly if people had to pay full price with no subsidies from other subscribers the viewership would decrease for RSNs. Same with ESPN/FS1.


----------



## trip1eX

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I think honestly if people had to pay full price with no subsidies from other subscribers the viewership would decrease for RSNs. Same with ESPN/FS1.


Yeah it wouldn't help that's for sure.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

trip1eX said:


> I'd like to know what Comcast charges its own customers for its own RSNs.


I'm in the Philly area and pay $8.75 a month for the Phillies, Flyers, and Sixers games.


----------



## trip1eX

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I'm in the Philly area and pay $8.75 a month for the Phillies, Flyers, and Sixers games.


seems like a lot but maybe not. I the RSN fee for Comcast in Denver was ~$8/mo before the current disagreement.


----------



## trip1eX

Comcast raising local TV fees 57% in January; Altitude Sports missing from 2020 lineup


----------



## hefe

trip1eX said:


> I'd like to know what Comcast charges its own customers for its own RSNs.


Yeah, in the case of the Chicago sports channel, since they've lost Cubs programming this year without picking anything up that I'm aware of, I wonder if they would reduce the fee...


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

trip1eX said:


> seems like a lot but maybe not. I the RSN fee for Comcast in Denver was ~$8/mo before the current disagreement.


Yeah, they keep creeping up every year, if you don't like sports or only one sport I would totally understand why you don't want to pay it. If I had a choice I'd only pay for the Phillies and watch the Sixers/Flyers in the playoffs on other sports cable channels or NBC.


----------



## NashGuy

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I'm in the Philly area and pay $8.75 a month for the Phillies, Flyers, and Sixers games.


I think that's fairly typical for Comcast. Here in Nashville, their RSN fee is now $8.10 to get Fox Sports Southeast (Atlanta teams) and Fox Sports Tennessee.


----------



## trip1eX

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Yeah, they keep creeping up every year, if you don't like sports or only one sport I would totally understand why you don't want to pay it. If I had a choice I'd only pay for the Phillies and watch the Sixers/Flyers in the playoffs on other sports cable channels or NBC.


I watch sports. But I'd rather have the fees transparent and more direct. I think we're paying more because for a long time they've been able to sneak in fees because it was never that much in any one year. But after 10 years it adds up.

I mean football is free on OTA. I would think NBA and NHL and MLB could be free on OTA. Especially now ,even in the boondock town I live in, when there so many channel slots available via OTA compared to 10 years ago.


----------



## BobCamp1

hefe said:


> Also, I know some services, YouTube TV included, detect VPNs and won't play if you use them. (I have ExpressVPN and YTTV rejects it. Don't know about MLB)


OK, but you don't need a VPN for YouTube TV. My parents are in Florida watching New York locals right now, so YTTV doesn't do a good job of detecting where you are. They brought the Fire TV and Roku up with them during the summer and didn't bother to let YTTV know when they brought them back down to Florida for the winter. Eventually that might not work but for now it is.

So that means my Dad could also pick up the Yankees games on the "local" channels when they broadcast them.

Anyway, it's sad that the same problems that plagued cable TV are finding their way to streaming services. But YTTV is still good at $50/month.


----------



## hefe

trip1eX said:


> I mean football is free on OTA. I would think NBA and NHL and MLB could be free on OTA. Especially now ,even in the boondock town I live in, when there so many channel slots available via OTA compared to 10 years ago.


Because football gets such high ad revenue, even on the "free" networks. The others don't command as much. The networks don't want to be in that business except for post season and occasional games.


----------



## hefe

BobCamp1 said:


> OK, but you don't need a VPN for YouTube TV. My parents are in Florida watching New York locals right now, so YTTV doesn't do a good job of detecting where you are. They brought the Fire TV and Roku up with them during the summer and didn't bother to let YTTV know when they brought them back down to Florida for the winter. Eventually that might not work but for now it is.
> 
> So that means my Dad could also pick up the Yankees games on the "local" channels when they broadcast them.
> 
> Anyway, it's sad that the same problems that plagued cable TV are finding their way to streaming services. But YTTV is still good at $50/month.


Yes, I'm aware of that, most people aren't. It's a kludgey hack you can't rely on. I live in CO, but my "home" in the YTTV settings is Chicago. My Nvidea Shield doesn't report the location, and on that device, I can watch the Chicago stations. On all my other devices, it detects my location and I can't watch. Additionally, if I don't positively access my account from Chicago every so often (I think it's 30 days) it blacks out all my sports channels until I do. I then use my work VPN to do that, as it's Chicago based.


----------



## trip1eX

hefe said:


> Because football gets such high ad revenue, even on the "free" networks. The others don't command as much. The networks don't want to be in that business except for post season and occasional games.


Yeah not the networks but the other OTA channels - all the sub channels ...I mean the Laff channel? And all the other ones.

~10 years ago those sub-channels weren't there.


----------



## hefe

trip1eX said:


> Yeah the networks but the other OTA channels - all the sub channels ...I mean the Laff channel? And all the other ones.
> 
> ~10 years ago those sub-channels weren't there.


They've decided that that's not a good business model, or they'd be doing it. I would think that the leagues wouldn't even like that, as they want to be on more prominent channels than sub-channels. Would you rather have your product on a destination sports channel that a sports fan might have tuned in a lot, or channel 23.2?


----------



## foghorn2

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Yeah, they keep creeping up every year, if you don't like sports or only one sport I would totally understand why you don't want to pay it. If I had a choice I'd only pay for the Phillies and watch the Sixers/Flyers in the playoffs on other sports cable channels or NBC.


I like sports, but I dont want to pay for what others want to watch, and its too fragmented.

Plus I dont want to subsidize kneelers, just the Steelers


----------



## trip1eX

hefe said:


> They've decided that that's not a good business model, or they'd be doing it. I would think that the leagues wouldn't even like that, as they want to be on more prominent channels than sub-channels. Would you rather have your product on a destination sports channel that a sports fan might have tuned in a lot, or channel 23.2?


Why can't channel 23.2 be the destination sports channel? I mean every sports channel on cable has a channel number too you know.  NO difference between 23.2 and 735. Maybe pic quality would suck too much. Although not super great on cable either.

And 10 years ago there was no reason to look at OTA as a business model in the first place. Everyone still was on cable and it was the start of the RSNs collecting higher and higher fees. But now it's going the other way. Subscribers are leaving cable. RSN fee revenue is decreasing. What's cable going to look like in 5 years? If the RSNs start raising fees and RSNs get put into optional more expensive packages in order to make up for loss in fee revenue then viewership will surely start declining. The fringe viewers will start dropping not just the non-viewers who were subsidizing it. ....that's where I can see OTA making some sense.


----------



## hefe

trip1eX said:


> Why can't channel 23.2 be the destination sports channel? I mean every sports channel on cable has a channel number too you know.  NO difference between 23.2 and 735. Maybe pic quality would suck too much. Although not super great on cable either.
> 
> And 10 years ago there was no reason to look at OTA as a business model in the first place. Everyone still was on cable and it was the start of the RSNs collecting higher and higher fees. But now it's going the other way. Subscribers are leaving cable. Their fee revenue is decreasing. ...what's cable going to look like in 5 years. If the RSNs start raising fees and RSNs get put into optional more expensive packages in order to make up for loss in fee revenue then viewership starts declining. Now the fringe viewers start droppping not just the non-viewers who were subsidizing it. ....that's when OTA would start to make perhaps some sense.


If they're going to program 23.2 as a sports channel, then it just becomes what we have now...a regional sports channel. And then they're going to charge for it because they can. And we're back in the current situation all over again. A lot of the current ones are already owned by current broadcast networks. Any idea that results in a network leaving money on the table just isn't going to happen.


----------



## trip1eX

hefe said:


> If they're going to program 23.2 as a sports channel, then it just becomes what we have now...a regional sports channel. And then they're going to charge for it because they can. And we're back in the current situation all over again. A lot of the current ones are already owned by current broadcast networks. Any idea that results in a network leaving money on the table just isn't going to happen.


But that's the thing. They are finding they can't just charge for it because they can. Do we get to a point where charging a lot for a few customers makes less sense than giving it away for free via OTA and collecting on advertising from a bigger audience?


----------



## hefe

trip1eX said:


> But that's the thing. They are finding they can't just charge for it because they can. Do we get to a point where charging a lot for a few customers makes less sense than giving it away for free via OTA and collecting on advertising from a bigger audience?


If it did, they would have done it.


----------



## NashGuy

Due to the popularity (i.e. ratings) of individual games, football can work on broadcast TV while other sports can't (outside of the playoffs/championship). There are just so many games in a basketball/baseball/hockey season that each individual game isn't a big event the way they are in a football season, which in the NFL has only 16 games before the playoffs. And I suspect that there's just a bigger portion of the public who likes NFL and certain major NCAA football conferences than who like NBA, MLB or NHL.


----------



## pdhenry

BobCamp1 said:


> My parents are in Florida watching New York locals right now, so YTTV doesn't do a good job of detecting where you are. They brought the Fire TV and Roku up with them during the summer and didn't bother to let YTTV know when they brought them back down to Florida for the winter. Eventually that might not work but for now it is.


Are they watching live or recorded programming?

What you can see while traveling domestically

Local networks for the location you're visiting. Note: You can't record local programming outside of your home area.
All of your recorded programs from your home area. Programs will be recorded once they've completed airing on live TV.
Nationally available networks, including both live and on-demand programs. Note: Some networks have different versions for different timezones. You'll see the live version that matches your travel location.
What you can do while traveling domestically

Record programs from your home area or nationally available networks.
Search and browse for shows, events, and movies.

Notes:

If you're a frequent traveler, make sure to use YouTube TV at least once every 3 months in your home area. This check makes sure YouTube TV can continue to offer you the correct local networks.
If you're an MLB fan, make sure to use YouTube TV once every 30 days in your home area. Checking in will help to avoid sports game-related viewing restrictions.
If you move out of the home area you signed up in, you'll need to update your location in YouTube TV.
Use YouTube TV while traveling - YouTube TV Help


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Due to the popularity (i.e. ratings) of individual games, football can work on broadcast TV while other sports can't (outside of the playoffs/championship). There are just so many games in a basketball/baseball/hockey season that each individual game isn't a big event the way they are in a football season, which in the NFL has only 16 games before the playoffs. And I suspect that there's just a bigger portion of the public who likes NFL and certain major NCAA football conferences than who like NBA, MLB or NHL.


Yeah on major networks that's the way it is. The major networks would not put a sports event in prime time if the ratings were lower than the programming they already offer. NFL is big enough that it gets on the major networks. The others not except, as you say, the finals or the occasional weekend game.

But OTA has all these sub-channels now. And they really only became a thing in the past 10 years.

Altitude isn't putting their promotional NBA and NHL OTA game on ABC, or CBS or NBC or Fox. IT's on MyTV or meTv or whatever.

I just wonder if this couldn't become a thing in the future as RSN fees continue to shrink each year with no sign of letting up anytime soon. It's all sort of leading to RSN becoming a premium channel eventually but then I imagine they have to charge more then and I imagine that will result in even fewer subscribers and then what's the ad revenue like for such a premium channel? HOw much of the viewing audience do you lose doing that? How does that viewing audience compare to what the viewing audience on free OTA would be?

Or what if they could do both? LIke the networks have been doing for 10+ years where they get fees while the networks are free as always on OTA? Or what if they air only some games via OTA while keeping every game on cable. The diehard who wants everything no matter what would have the premium subscription via cable/satellite/streaming even. And the "part-time" viewer who isn't going to pay for a premium RSN subscription could watch the occasional game via OTA.


----------



## wendlan

Latest news on the RSNs:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233578974443339776


----------



## trip1eX

wendlan said:


> Latest news on the RSNs:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233578974443339776


Sweet. I am watching Fox Sports North as I type. That's the great thing about sports - I can surf away on the internets and still get a game in. lol.


----------



## tenthplanet

trip1eX said:


> Yeah on major networks that's the way it is. The major networks would not put a sports event in prime time if the ratings were lower than the programming they already offer. NFL is big enough that it gets on the major networks. The others not except, as you say, the finals or the occasional weekend game.
> 
> But OTA has all these sub-channels now. And they really only became a thing in the past 10 years.
> 
> Altitude isn't putting their promotional NBA and NHL OTA game on ABC, or CBS or NBC or Fox. IT's on MyTV or meTv or whatever.
> 
> I just wonder if this couldn't become a thing in the future as RSN fees continue to shrink each year with no sign of letting up anytime soon. It's all sort of leading to RSN becoming a premium channel eventually but then I imagine they have to charge more then and I imagine that will result in even fewer subscribers and then what's the ad revenue like for such a premium channel? HOw much of the viewing audience do you lose doing that? How does that viewing audience compare to what the viewing audience on free OTA would be?
> 
> Or what if they could do both? LIke the networks have been doing for 10+ years where they get fees while the networks are free as always on OTA? Or what if they air only some games via OTA while keeping every game on cable. The diehard who wants everything no matter what would have the premium subscription via cable/satellite/streaming even. And the "part-time" viewer who isn't going to pay for a premium RSN subscription could watch the occasional game via OTA.


My TV, which is owned by Fox of all things.


----------



## slowbiscuit

NashGuy said:


> Well, on the bright side for those with YTTV, if the Sinclair RSNs remain out, that might mean no price hike this March/April, as we've seen them do the past 2 years. OTOH, given that most folks who sign up for YTTV seem to do so because they want to watch sports, losing those RSNs will damage the perceived value of the service. I expect to read about a lot of YTTV viewers switching over to Hulu with Live TV for $55/mo, especially once baseball season starts.


It will certainly cause problems for sports fans here in the ATL, because almost all the Braves games are on Fox RSNs.

Having said that, I applaud YTTV's stand on this - they know how many folks watch and are willing to pay accordingly. Sinclair needs to get a sniff.


----------



## slowbiscuit

NashGuy said:


> I think that's fairly typical for Comcast. Here in Nashville, their RSN fee is now $8.10 to get Fox Sports Southeast (Atlanta teams) and Fox Sports Tennessee.


I really wish Comcast would have pushed the RSNs into the Sports and Entertainment tier instead of charging everyone for them. The only stuff worth watching here is baseball and it's not worth what they stick everyone for per month.


----------



## chiguy50

slowbiscuit said:


> I really wish Comcast would have pushed the RSNs into the Sports and Entertainment tier instead of charging everyone for them. The only stuff worth watching here is baseball and it's not worth what they stick everyone for per month.


I view Comcast's RS Fee as a duplicitous ploy implemented as a means to keep the advertised service rate artificially low. There is no other rationale for separating out this one expense (if indeed it is a true reflection of that actual corporate cost) from the other costs of doing business. It is similar to what most of the major commercial airlines have been doing with their additional fees for baggage, seat assignments, etc., except that at least the latter services (which used to be included in the advertised ticket price) are at the customer's option whereas the RS Fee is imposed unilaterally.

BTW--and just to emphasize the capriciousness of the issue--my HOA is not subject to the RS Fee under the terms of our bulk service account (although we do pay a reduced BTV Fee). Our residents still receive those same sports network transmissions, but the cost is folded into the basic video service charge on the bulk account.


----------



## trip1eX

chiguy50 said:


> I view Comcast's RS Fee as a duplicitous ploy implemented as a means to keep the advertised service rate artificially low. There is no other rationale for separating out this one expense (if indeed it is a true reflection of that actual corporate cost) from the other costs of doing business. It is similar to what most of the major commercial airlines have been doing with their additional fees for baggage, seat assignments, etc., except that at least the latter services (which used to be included in the advertised ticket price) are at the customer's option whereas the RS Fee is imposed unilaterally.


Yep no doubt Comcast is breaking them out to lower their advertised price. But they are real costs. The RSN and broadcast network fees have dramatically increased over the past 6 years. In the Colorado Sun article linked not too far above, they have a chart showing the increase in tehse fees over the past 6 years. They have gone up a ton.


----------



## chiguy50

trip1eX said:


> Yep no doubt Comcast is breaking them out to lower their advertised price. But they are real costs. The RSN and broadcast network fees have dramatically increased over the past 6 years. In the Colorado Sun article linked not too far above, they have a chart showing the increase in tehse fees over the past 6 years. They have gone up a ton.


This is all true. But it is equally true of many other business expenses underlying Comcast's operations (fuel, health and liability insurance, utilities, raw materials, ad nauseam), none of which have occasioned a separate fee (so far).

I don't mean to single out Comcast for criticism since this practice is widespread, but that does not make it any less duplicitous and customer-unfriendly IMHO.


----------



## mrizzo80

I don’t want true a la carte, but is there any talk of any company launching a sports & news skinny bundle? I can get entertainment programming anywhere (Hulu, Netflix, etc). I really like YTTV, but I only watch a handful of channels. I’d rather pay $20/10 channels than $50/whatever number I have access to right now. There was a rate card that showed carriage rates several years ago. I think SNL Kagan published it. Anyone see a recent one of those? Maybe $20 for news and sports won’t work.


----------



## trip1eX

"This legislation ensures that cable and satellite subscribers won't face constant blackouts or runaway fees when pay-TV providers and broadcasters can't come to agreements because of unfair negotiating tactics," said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, in a statement. "The bill ensures that these big businesses can never again use consumers as a bargaining chip."

Congress Passes Bill to Fight Surprise Cable TV Fees

I had to laugh at this quote from the linked article. Good thing none of us are facing blackouts of RSNs. Not sure how the bill is worded (or could be worded) to prevent parties from not coming to agreements on carrying content.

Also not sure why Congress doesn't make it so you have to advertise the actual price. Not fake prices.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Yeah on major networks that's the way it is. The major networks would not put a sports event in prime time if the ratings were lower than the programming they already offer. NFL is big enough that it gets on the major networks. The others not except, as you say, the finals or the occasional weekend game.
> 
> But OTA has all these sub-channels now. And they really only became a thing in the past 10 years.
> 
> Altitude isn't putting their promotional NBA and NHL OTA game on ABC, or CBS or NBC or Fox. IT's on MyTV or meTv or whatever.
> 
> I just wonder if this couldn't become a thing in the future as RSN fees continue to shrink each year with no sign of letting up anytime soon. It's all sort of leading to RSN becoming a premium channel eventually but then I imagine they have to charge more then and I imagine that will result in even fewer subscribers and then what's the ad revenue like for such a premium channel? HOw much of the viewing audience do you lose doing that? How does that viewing audience compare to what the viewing audience on free OTA would be?
> 
> Or what if they could do both? LIke the networks have been doing for 10+ years where they get fees while the networks are free as always on OTA? Or what if they air only some games via OTA while keeping every game on cable. The diehard who wants everything no matter what would have the premium subscription via cable/satellite/streaming even. And the "part-time" viewer who isn't going to pay for a premium RSN subscription could watch the occasional game via OTA.


You're asking all the right questions and suggesting some potentially good solutions but they would probably work ONLY if the underlying economics of televised sports are rationalized. In other words, the RSNs (or whatever channels/services airs and/or streams the games) will need to pay lower fees to the teams for the rights to televise these sports. The costs of those rights have gotten way out of line and are only sustainable so long as there continue to be WAY more people who pay to access the RSNs than the number who actually watch them. But that's not happening as more and more consumers ditch cable while, at the same time, cable operators are increasingly willing to ditch the RSNs from some or all of their core channel packages.

Somethin's gotta give.


----------



## NashGuy

slowbiscuit said:


> I really wish Comcast would have pushed the RSNs into the Sports and Entertainment tier instead of charging everyone for them. The only stuff worth watching here is baseball and it's not worth what they stick everyone for per month.


Yeah, that would be great for Comcast customers if they relegated RSNs off into the S&E add-on pack but I'm sure that the existing contract that Comcast has with all those RSNs won't allow it. If you want anything more than Basic (essentially, just your locals), then you have to step up to a package that includes RSNs.

DirecTV and AT&T TV at least offer mainstream base packages with the most popular channels, including national sports channels like ESPN, FS1, and NBCSN, but without the RSNs or more specialized sports channels (MLB TV, SEC Network, etc.).

Comcast's contract with Sinclair's Fox Sports RSNs is reportedly up this Sept. and the company is signaling that they will drop them. My guess is that they do insist on pushing them into the optional S&E pack and if Sinclair doesn't allow it, Comcast will completely drop them. (Maybe they can extend negotiations to hold onto them until the regular MLB season ends on Sept. 27 before dropping them.)


----------



## NashGuy

mrizzo80 said:


> I don't want true a la carte, but is there any talk of any company launching a sports & news skinny bundle? I can get entertainment programming anywhere (Hulu, Netflix, etc). I really like YTTV, but I only watch a handful of channels. I'd rather pay $20/10 channels than $50/whatever number I have access to right now. There was a rate card that showed carriage rates several years ago. I think SNL Kagan published it. Anyone see a recent one of those? Maybe $20 for news and sports won't work.


The head of Hulu (who's now leaving as Disney takes full control) said over a year ago that they were exploring the concept of a skinny bundle of live channels without entertainment channels. Presumably it would include just news, sports and local channels.

Hulu Eyes Cheaper Live TV Bundles That Strip Out Entertainment Cable Networks

I've given some thought to how much such a package could plausibly be priced. Hulu's current Live TV package now costs $55/mo (i.e. $49 on top of the core $6/mo Hulu on-demand library). If you took out everything from it except the local broadcast affiliates for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, plus the national news and sports channels affiliated with/owned by those networks, plus the RSNs, well, you're not really cutting out that much expense. You'd be dumping all the Discovery, A+E and Turner nets (including CNN, TBS and TNT), plus Disney, FX, USA, Bravo and SyFy.

I have to think the resulting package would retain about 2/3 of the carriage costs of the existing fuller package. 2/3 * (49) = $32.67. Add the $6 core back on and you're up to about $39. If the RSNs were dumped, they could maybe get the price down to the low 30s.

Here's a link to network carriage costs from 2016-17 as published in Variety. This may be what you're recalling. I haven't seen anything similar that's more updated.


----------



## trip1eX

I would create one that can probably go for $20.

I would do core sports plus 1 news channel of choice.

Core sports would be 2 ESPNs, NBCSports, FSN (your local sports channel) and TNT. (TNT for NBA only.) 

And then 1 news channel of your choice. Personally I would pick CNBC ( from a pool of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FoxBusiness, etc)

Additional sports and news would be in optional packages.

Networks are good and needed (for weekend sports,) but should be optional so one can do OTA if they want.


----------



## rrman

hefe said:


> Yes, I'm aware of that, most people aren't. It's a kludgey hack you can't rely on. I live in CO, but my "home" in the YTTV settings is Chicago. My Nvidea Shield doesn't report the location, and on that device, I can watch the Chicago stations. On all my other devices, it detects my location and I can't watch. Additionally, if I don't positively access my account from Chicago every so often (I think it's 30 days) it blacks out all my sports channels until I do. I then use my work VPN to do that, as it's Chicago based.


I noticed YTTV on Shield doesn't check location data. However, I haven't had YTTV long enough to determine if ONLY using YTTV on Shield (and no other devices are used) will eventually result in being denied "local" channels in one's home area? Can you confirm that if you only use YTTV on the Shield, and never use any other device that supports geolocation, then eventually (30 days as you said or 3 months from what I read on Google?) you will lose access to the Home area "local" channels? Wouldn't this inconvenience folks who only ever use a TV device (e.g. Shield, Apple TV, Roku, Firestick) and never get on a laptop or iPhone to watch YTTV?


----------



## mdavej

rrman said:


> I noticed YTTV on Shield doesn't check location data. However, I haven't had YTTV long enough to determine if ONLY using YTTV on Shield (and no other devices are used) will eventually result in being denied "local" channels in one's home area? Can you confirm that if you only use YTTV on the Shield, and never use any other device that supports geolocation, then eventually (30 days as you said or 3 months from what I read on Google?) you will lose access to the Home area "local" channels? Wouldn't this inconvenience folks who only ever use a TV device (e.g. Shield, Apple TV, Roku, Firestick) and never get on a laptop or iPhone to watch YTTV?


The 3 month location thing only applies to other profiles, not the main account.

Since you can't even create a custom channel list without the app, how have you been able to avoid the app or website?


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I would create one that can probably go for $20.
> 
> I would do core sports plus 1 news channel of choice.
> 
> Core sports would be 2 ESPNs, NBCSports, FSN (your local sports channel) and TNT. (TNT for NBA only.)
> 
> And then 1 news channel of your choice. Personally I would pick CNBC ( from a pool of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FoxBusiness, etc)
> 
> Additional sports and news would be in optional packages.
> 
> Networks are good and needed (for weekend sports,) but should be optional so one can do OTA if they want.


I can imagine there being some amount of consumer demand for such a package but I can't see the network owners ever participating in it in something *that* skinny. At some point, Disney will offer all of their live sports (all the stuff currently aired on ESPN, ESPN 2, SEC Network, ACC Network, etc.) as a standalone ESPN OTT service. When ESPN finally does this, we'd probably see NBC Sports become an add-on to Peacock. (Likewise, Warner has intimated that live Turner sports and live CNN may become somehow packaged in with HBO Max.) I can also see Hulu and Peacock at some point including live local ABC and NBC stations, respectively, just as CBS All Access already does with CBS locals.

As for what's left of Fox, they don't have anything in the OTT market yet to build on. They're looking to buy Tubi, so my guess is that they want to get a toehold in free ad-supported streaming onto which they can eventually sell upgrades to their live locals, sports and news channels.


----------



## hefe

mdavej said:


> The 3 month location thing only applies to other profiles, not the main account.
> 
> Since you can't even create a custom channel list without the app, how have you been able to avoid the app or website?


It applies on the main account for sports. I've had it happen several times.


----------



## pdhenry

mdavej said:


> The 3 month location thing only applies to other profiles, not the main account.


The YTTV Help/FAQs don't make that distinction IIRC.


----------



## BobCamp1

pdhenry said:


> Are they watching live or recorded programming?


Both. It's been 8 weeks since they last used YTTV in their NY home, yet they continue to get NY local channels in FL.

Someone could start a side business of receiving and sending other people's Fire TVs and Rokus back and forth just to plug them in a desired location for 24 hours. That'll apparently reset the three month clock. I think there are apps that can do this too.


----------



## pdhenry

It seems to apply to the account, not the device (again, from what I've read). 
If you live in LA and never visit New York it's hard to fake the address but if you live in one city and have a vacation home at the shore you can have a device at each location without needing to periodically move the shore device to your home address.


----------



## rrman

mdavej said:


> The 3 month location thing only applies to other profiles, not the main account.
> 
> Since you can't even create a custom channel list without the app, how have you been able to avoid the app or website?


I edited my Live TV Channels on a laptop via VPN a while back while logged into my Home Area. But I normally wouldn't use a laptop. Only Apple TV or Nvidia Shield. So I was wondering if I still need to occasionally login with a laptop while it is on the Home Area for Apple TV and Nvidia Shield to continue working.


----------



## rrman

BobCamp1 said:


> Both. It's been 8 weeks since they last used YTTV in their NY home, yet they continue to get NY local channels in FL.
> 
> Someone could start a side business of receiving and sending other people's Fire TVs and Rokus back and forth just to plug them in a desired location for 24 hours. That'll apparently reset the three month clock. I think there are apps that can do this too.


Please let us know once they hit the 3 month mark if it continues to work.


----------



## hefe

BobCamp1 said:


> Both. It's been 8 weeks since they last used YTTV in their NY home, yet they continue to get NY local channels in FL.
> 
> Someone could start a side business of receiving and sending other people's Fire TVs and Rokus back and forth just to plug them in a desired location for 24 hours. That'll apparently reset the three month clock. I think there are apps that can do this too.


I think it applies to sports...at least the 30 day one. I got that a couple times when trying to watch a ball game.

My other family member profiles I think only had a 3 month issue.

Actually support page confirms this...

"Notes:

If you're a frequent traveler, make sure to use YouTube TV at least once every 3 months in your home area. This check makes sure YouTube TV can continue to offer you the correct local networks. 
If you're an MLB fan, make sure to use YouTube TV once every 30 days in your home area. Checking in will help to avoid sports game-related viewing restrictions."


----------



## trip1eX

AT&T TV looks DOA. $55/mo for the package with similar sports as YTTV and you have to pay taxes + RSN fee + sign up for a 2 yr contract and the price goes up after the 1st year but only to $110/mo. 

AT&T TV - Live Streaming TV + Apps, Voice Controlled


----------



## pdhenry

I have to pay taxes on YTTV in PA - at 6% it's $3 more.


----------



## ncted

Yep. 7.5% here in NC.


----------



## trip1eX

no taxes here. didn't think anyone paid taxes on it.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> no taxes here. didn't think anyone paid taxes on it.


They went to a flat income tax in NC, and then decided to tax everything else that wasn't currently taxed, like services to make up the shortfall. I think a lot of states are doing similar things, so taxes on these "information services" are popping up everywhere, for better or worse.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> They went to a flat income tax in NC, and then decided to tax everything else that wasn't currently taxed, like services to make up the shortfall. I think a lot of states are doing similar things, so taxes on these "information services" are popping up everywhere, for better or worse.


that or you have a Google presence in NC.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> that or you have a Google presence in NC.


We do, but states are allowed to require out of state companies to collect sales taxes on remote goods and services per South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. Any state can do it if they want.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> We do, but states are allowed to require out of state companies to collect sales taxes on remote goods and services per South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. Any state can do it if they want.


Do you pay taxes
on Netflix ? Sling?

didn't think it was a thing for services like these.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Do you pay taxes
> on Netflix ? Sling?
> 
> didn't think it was a thing for services like these.


Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, CBS All Access, Apple Music, iCloud Storage, yes.

Sling, yes, when I had it.

Any movie rentals on Prime or Vudu, yes.

However, AT&T Fiber, no.


----------



## pdhenry

trip1eX said:


> Do you pay taxes
> on Netflix ? Sling?
> 
> didn't think it was a thing for services like these.


Netflix, yes. Don't have Sling but I can guess...


----------



## ncted

Here is an excerpt from my Sling billing history.


----------



## trip1eX

i pay no tax on Netflix nor on iCloud or Apple Music. And no tax on YTTV.

But checking some records, I did pay tax on a season pass for an ioS game for my kid. And I paid tax for a month of ESPN+ thru iOS. And paid tax on Showtime thru iOS.

Doesn't exactly make much sense does it? lol


----------



## mrizzo80

I pay ~6% tax on all streaming services here in Ohio. YTTV is $53.36/mo.


----------



## tenthplanet

trip1eX said:


> AT&T TV looks DOA. $55/mo for the package with similar sports as YTTV and you have to pay taxes + RSN fee + sign up for a 2 yr contract and the price goes up after the 1st year but only to $110/mo.
> 
> AT&T TV - Live Streaming TV + Apps, Voice Controlled


It's a Uverse replacement and aimed as people who can't use a dish. It's not intended for the cord cutting market, the question is how do Spectrum and Comcast and T-mobile's T-Vision (Formerly Layer 3 )respond (I think T-mobile's video boat maybe be good as sunk at this point ) since they are what AT&T is aiming at. Well see how long YTTV can hold down rates, with what happening with Sinclair and the former Fox RSNs the signal has gone out to the sharks (errr content providers) and there is blood in the water. We have now entered an era where a provider can go on the internet on their own and take their marbles away from anyone they don't want to do business with. 
Pop some corn and prepare for a fight that will make UFC look like a gym class.  Don't ditch your cable cards and antennas (or your Tivo's for that matter)just yet.


----------



## trip1eX

tenthplanet said:


> It's a Uverse replacement and aimed as people who can't use a dish. It's not intended for the cord cutting market, the question is how do Spectrum and Comcast and T-mobile's T-Vision (Formerly Layer 3 )respond (I think T-mobile's video boat maybe be good as sunk at this point ) since they are what AT&T is aiming at. Well see how long YTTV can hold down rates, with what happening with Sinclair and the former Fox RSNs the signal has gone out to the sharks (errr content providers) and there is blood in the water. We have now entered an era where a provider can go on the internet on their own and take their marbles away from anyone they don't want to do business with.
> Pop some corn and prepare for a fight that will make UFC look like a gym class.  Don't ditch your cable cards and antennas (or your Tivo's for that matter)just yet.


IT's gotta compete with YTTV and the rest of the OTT cable services. I don't think paying a much higher rate for the privilege of signing a 2 yr contract is competitive with the OTT cable services already on the market.

Negotiations with media companies are no different than they've always been. It's only the back drop that has changed. Customers aren't locked into the cable model like they were in the past. They have options. They are leaving. And the pricing power for the traditional media companies isn't there like it was before particularly for the media companies whose pricing was most out of whack with the number of viewers watching.


----------



## pdhenry

T-Mobile TV is probably great but they definitely have a Cable TV pricing model compared to YTTV's $50 all-in model.


----------



## saeba

*YouTube TV is Rolling Out a New Mark as Watched Feature*

*YouTube TV is Rolling Out a New Mark as Watched Feature - Cord Cutters News*

I know this is something we've all been wanting !


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> *YouTube TV is Rolling Out a New Mark as Watched Feature*
> 
> *YouTube TV is Rolling Out a New Mark as Watched Feature - Cord Cutters News*
> 
> I know this is something we've all been wanting !


Yeah I saw that in the other forum here. I should have posted it but I guess I didn't care. lol. Everything i watch is marked as watched or has a red bar on it.

I don't think I would be using this at all because I don't see the need. Also I think it's only phone so far right? Happy for those want it I guess. Only downside is it contributes to feature creep.


----------



## moyekj

It's useful for example if you already watched an episode outside YTTV environment but now will be continuing to watch a series in YTTV.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> Also I think it's only phone so far right? Happy for those want it I guess. Only downside is it contributes to feature creep.


Per the article:
*YouTube TV *is rolling out a new feature that has been highly requested by subscribers. A 'mark as watched' feature is being rolled out to new devices, with some seeing the addition on* iOS devices today*.​
I also checked, and it's available in the *web version*.

As to "feature creep"... LOL! The complexity really isn't in the UI, but it is challenging to support across all the different devices. But this is Google we're talking about, not TiVo. They have a proven ability to support products across multiple devices (Mail, Photos, Docs, Sheets, Drive, Calendar, Maps, YouTube, etc., etc.). That's the greatest part of YTTV - A company with significant resources is supporting it and driving it forward.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Per the article:
> *YouTube TV *is rolling out a new feature that has been highly requested by subscribers. A 'mark as watched' feature is being rolled out to new devices, with some seeing the addition on* iOS devices today*.​
> I also checked, and it's available in the *web version*.
> 
> As to "feature creep"... LOL! The complexity really isn't in the UI, but it is challenging to support across all the different devices. But this is Google we're talking about, not TiVo. They have a proven ability to support products across multiple devices (Mail, Photos, Docs, Sheets, Drive, Calendar, Maps, YouTube, etc., etc.). That's the greatest part of YTTV - A company with significant resources is supporting it and driving it forward.


iphone and web is the same difference as phone. 

"feature creep" is you wake up one day and the UI isn't simple any more because they started putting in little "requested" features here and there. Luckily YTTV is still safe.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> iphone and web is the same difference as phone.


There's not an app on iOS for YTTV? I thought everything there was via an app. The web version is what one uses say on a Windows PC using the Chrome web browser.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> There's not an app on iOS for YTTV? I thought everything there was via an app. The web version is what one uses say on a Windows PC using the Chrome web browser.


ios is iphone.

and yes web is on the computer.

it's the same difference as in it's not on the TV. I assume most watch on tv.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> ios is iphone.
> 
> and yes web is on the computer.
> 
> it's the same difference as in it's not on the TV. I guess I not only watch YTTV on the tv but i assume most do especially on this forum.


Best to be precise:

iOS runs on Apple devices such as iPad, iPod Touch and iPhone.

Phone would generically include both iPhone and Android (and other phone OS's as well).

TV would include Smart TVs, Android TV, Apple TV, Roku, FireTV, etc.

You're focused on Apple TV, but we have folks participating in this thread using one or more of all of these devices ! I personally use the web version (on my PC), Android version (on my phone), Android TV version (via my Nvidia Shield) and the Smart TV Version (on Vizio TV).


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> Best to be precise:
> 
> iOS runs on Apple devices such as iPad, iPod Touch and iPhone.
> 
> Phone would generically include both iPhone and Android (and other phone OS's as well).
> 
> TV would include Smart TVs, Android TV, Apple TV, Roku, FireTV, etc.
> 
> You're focused on Apple TV, but we have folks participating in this thread using one or more of all of these devices ! I personally use the web version (on my PC), Android version (on my phone), Android TV version (via my Nvidia Shield) and the Smart TV Version (on Vizio TV).


IT's not best to be precise. IT's best to convey the meaning in as few words as possible.

I mean when I say it's phone only, the pt is conveyed even if not technically correct.

I did the maths on how many people might care if it's on the web or not. And that came up zero even if not technically correct.

I also did the maths on whether saying, "phone only" would fool tablet owners and that came up zero. Even if technically that isn't correct.

That leaves tv. The maths said everyone watches YTTV on a tv. Even if that isn't technically correct. 

Therefore saying phone only is the same difference as saying not on your tv. 

Anyway feature is useless. Still trying to figure out the use case for it and I'm coming up all zeros.


----------



## hefe

I use it on the TV, the phone, and the web.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> IT's not best to be precise. IT's best to convey the meaning in as few words as possible.


You're rather like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland - "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." But many of the rest of us live in a world with a richer and broader context than yours where there are other products than an Apple TV, other phones than an iPhone, etc. And your "shorthand statements" just lead to confusion.

As your statement - "feature is useless"... no, it isn't. You may see it as useless, however you are only one person in the sample set of this forum. It's a tad arrogant to believe that one person can represent or determine the needs of everyone. But again, this is probably just your "shorthand speak" for "this feature is useless to me and that's all I care about".

As for me, I've found several times where marking a program as "watched" was useful. I ended up just fast forwarding through the playback to do so; however, having this feature will be a better solution.


----------



## pdhenry

Precision is nice because then I'd know what you're saying.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> You're rather like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland - "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." But many of the rest of us live in a world with a richer and broader context than yours where there are other products than an Apple TV, other phones than an iPhone, etc. And your "shorthand statements" just lead to confusion.
> 
> As your statement - "feature is useless"... no, it isn't. You may see it as useless, however you are only one person in the sample set of this forum. It's a tad arrogant to believe that one person can represent or determine the needs of everyone. But again, this is probably just your "shorthand speak" for "this feature is useless to me and that's all I care about".
> 
> As for me, I've found several times where marking a program as "watched" was useful. I ended up just fast forwarding through the playback to do so; however, having this feature will be a better solution.


YOu want to make a bet that everyone in this thread watches YTTV mainly on the tv? I'd be willing to make that bet.

And it's useless feature. YOu watch a show it's marked watch. You partially watch a show it has a red line on it.

Anyway some people can read for meaning and context and other people get tripped up and have problems.


----------



## pdhenry

I use YTTV on my phone at the gym. But mostly at home on a TV...


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> YOu want make a bet that everyone on this thread watches YTTV mainly on the tv? I'd be willing to make that bet.
> 
> I'd also bet the feature is useless to most.


The YTTV team rolls out new features first to the web version and then to other devices. The fact that this feature is now available on the web and on iOS is interesting as it means that the initial rollout is tested and done and other devices are in progress with the iOS version complete. We can expect other devices (including the various TV apps) to have the feature as well in the future. The important message is that the feature has now finally been added to YTTV. I'm happy to hear that and suspect others are as well.

And.... For those who really want to utilize this feature today, they can by using the web version of YTTV. And I would suspect that the majority of folks on this forum would have access to the web version.

And to the second, I would bet that this feature *is* of benefit to many on this forum who use YTTV as it is a top requested feature and a long awaited one as well. I doubt that folks here are that much different than the general YTTV population.


----------



## trip1eX

saeba said:


> The YTTV team rolls out new features first to the web version and then to other devices. The fact that this feature is now available on the web and on iOS is interesting as it means that the initial rollout is tested and done and other devices are in progress with the iOS version complete. We can expect other devices (including the various TV apps) to have the feature as well in the future. The important message is that the feature has now finally been added to YTTV. I'm happy to hear that and suspect others are as well.
> 
> And.... For those who really want to utilize this feature today, they can by using the web version of YTTV. And I would suspect that the majority of folks on this forum would have access to the web version.
> 
> And to the second, I would bet that this feature *is* of benefit to many on this forum who use YTTV as it is a top requested feature and a long awaited one as well. I doubt that folks here are that much different than the general YTTV population.


IT's a useless feature. It's a nothing burger. Manually mark stuff watched that is already automatically marked watched. Great.


----------



## hefe

I mainly watch on a TV. But I watch a not insignificant portion on phone and web.


----------



## pdhenry

trip1eX said:


> IT's a useless feature. It's a nothing burger. Manually mark stuff watched that is already automatically marked watched. Great.


It's only automatically marked watched if you watch it in YTTV. Can you really not understand a use case for watching a show via other means and wanting to clear it out of "New In Your Library"?


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> It's only automatically marked watched if you watch it in YTTV. Can you really not understand a use case for watching a show via other means and wanting to clear it out of "New In Your Library"?


No. 

I can see it's mathematically possible. But that isn't enough to make it a useful feature.


----------



## windracer

windracer said:


> I'm sure there are some things about TiVo I will miss, having been a customer for 17 years, but ...


So far my wife says she's "adjusting" to life without TiVo. Right now her biggest complaint about YTTV is watching Live TV. In the mornings she's used to flipping back and forth between things like the Today show and local news. And with the Bolt's multiple tuners she could go back in the buffers on each and scan through what she missed. With Live TV on YTTV this is not as intuitive (no concept of a Live TV "buffer"). I told her to just mark those shows to record and then they should be available to do something like what she's used to, but this is just another example of the mentality shift needed to go from a physical DVR to a cloud "DVR".

And the Sinclair thing, ugh. When I saw that last week (before I went out to AZ for my annual Indians spring training trip) I thought "figures, right after I dump cable for YTTV this happens." But so far I can still watch my Lightning games so fingers crossed.



rrman said:


> I've got Spectrum as well (with 3 TiVo DVRs and associated CableCARDs and tuning adapters). I did the YTTV trial. Picture looks fine on smaller TVs as well as on my iOS devices. However, on my 65" TV and 106" projection screen (using Apple TV and Nvidia Shield TV), the resolution of YTTV wasn't as sharp as my TiVos.


On my 55" main TV I did initially notice some duller colors. I think I messed with the color settings on my TV (and also in the settings of my Amazon Fire TV Stick) and haven't noticed it again. Picture quality looks fine to me, although every now and then I will notice a slight macroblocking.



rrman said:


> I also didn't like how some shows use VOD instead of recording seemingly forced on me.


I've only run into this once so far, where the VOD episode was presented instead of the recording. I do agree, though, that skipping commercials in YTTV is not as easy as TiVo. Too many years of muscle memory with the FF/skip and TiVo's auto-correction to skip back a few seconds.

Now I need to go check out this new "mark as watched" feature because that has been driving me nuts. (_edit:_ drat, I don't have it yet)


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> iphone and web is the same difference as phone.
> 
> "feature creep" is you wake up one day and the UI isn't simple any more because they started putting in little "requested" features here and there. Luckily YTTV is still safe.


[PEDANT]
To be precise 

Feature creep is adding features during development which delay or prevent a project from being completed on time.

What this new feature represents is a product enhancement at best and possibly code bloat at worst.
[/PEDANT]


----------



## mschnebly

trip1eX said:


> IT's a useless feature. It's a nothing burger. Manually mark stuff watched that is already automatically marked watched. Great.


Like you I just look for something and if I see the red line I move on. Is this just a bigger red line or some check mark on the corner or what. Just the red line makes it pretty obvious to me. Or is there no red line on other devices?


----------



## trip1eX

mschnebly said:


> Like you I just look for something and if I see the red line I move on. Is this just a bigger red line or some check mark on the corner or what. Just the red line makes it pretty obvious to me. Or is there no red line on other devices?


I think it's the same everywhere. I haven't heard otherwise at least. I have Roku too and it's the same there. I think I recall seeing red lines on the pc. I think I've seen them on iPHone too. But I seldom use those platforms.

I think the desire for the feature is just an OCD need born out of habit. 

Someone else said, what if you watch a show somewhere else and then go back to YTTV. What are you going to do then? I guess this is for that crowd. lol. Seems like a low use case to me. How does one even know what episode is what anyway without watching it? I mean if you can tell so easily without watching it that you've watched it then why do you need to mark it?  If you need to watch it some then it's marked automatically or you can skip ahead 30 minutes to ensure it's marked.

And how many times is one watching something somewhere else and coming back into YTTV and watching the same show but different episodes? I'm trying to imagine that scenario and while I can see it is theoretically possible (  ), I just don't see that it is even close to an everyday thing.

So I think it's an OCD thing. In this forum we got people coming from Tivo and some have trouble breaking those habits or adapting to something that works a bit different and that has a bit of a different approach. And this probably soothes those people.

But I hope my thoughts on this don't make it seem like I really care. I'm just having fun making a judgement call on where this feature belongs - in the useful or useless camp?  Be kind of boring otherwise. 

The fact Google said it is the most requested feature does boggle my mind tho. I think it's more likely the most requested "easiest to implement" feature. Nevermind I don't trust people a lot of times on what they want for a product - as Henry Ford said, if he asked a customer what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.

But actually I'm thinking it's more a reactionary request. Just going what I read from people trying out YTTV for the first time in this forum. A lot of reactions to YTTV basically amount to " where's this or that feature like Tivo had?" And so a request for something like that is more a reaction to trying a service for the first time that works a bit differently. Not actually a big need.


----------



## pdhenry

mschnebly said:


> Like you I just look for something and if I see the red line I move on. Is this just a bigger red line or some check mark on the corner or what. Just the red line makes it pretty obvious to me. Or is there no red line on other devices?


How does the red line get there if you *didn't use YTTV to watch an episode? *That's the use case.


----------



## mdavej

pdhenry said:


> How does the red line get there if you *didn't use YTTV to watch an episode? *That's the use case.


Of course not. But who is anal enough to go back and mark the first 10 seasons of some program watched? You already know you saw the first 10 seasons. The whole idea behind YTTV is that you don't have to do any recording management.

I wish they'd focus their efforts on useful features rather than give us ones we already have. For example, I'd like to see more detailed show info in the guide and be able to scroll ahead 2 weeks.


----------



## hefe

pdhenry said:


> How does the red line get there if you *didn't use YTTV to watch an episode? *That's the use case.


I have that sometimes. I have an OTA TiVo and YTTV. Sometimes I watch shows on the different devices. It would be nice to mark it watched in YTTV when I've watched it elsewhere. It's not a to-die-for feature, just a nice to have thing.


----------



## trip1eX

Looks like YTTV came to an agreement with the Fox (Sinclair) RSNs...except for 2 or 3. YES network is gone. Then possibly Fox Sports West and Fox Prime WEst or something like that. Less sure about the last two. 

The rest stay on YTTV.


----------



## mattyro7878

lparsons21 said:


> For me the 10 hours could be enough sometimes but not at others. For instance, right now the 10 hours would be plenty since there are so few shows on the cable type channels in Sling that I'm interested in that to just delay watch wouldn't take up that much space. But later on this year, when the cable channels bump up their original offerings, it might not be.
> 
> For info, my test so far this week with OTA/Sling/Hulu/CBS is going pretty well. A bit more awkward to get things set up the way I think makes the most sense, but after that it is working fine. YTTV is certainly simpler because of the similarities between how it works and how cable/sat works.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


10 hours would not cut it for March Madness (patented) and the beginning of baseball as well as regular tv shows. I guess I could live with just 10 hoiurs but why should I have to?


----------



## lparsons21

mattyro7878 said:


> 10 hours would not cut it for March Madness (patented) and the beginning of baseball as well as regular tv shows. I guess I could live with just 10 hoiurs but why should I have to?


You don't have to, you could pay for more. For me March Madness and baseball are of little interest though I'll probably watch some of March Madness.

As to baseball, well if baseball is on my TV you can bet your bippy my recliner is fully reclined with strange noises emanating from it!!


----------



## mattyro7878

Strange noises indeed!! Especially now that YTTV no longer carries the YES network and my beloved Yankees. All YES says to do is subscruibe with another provider. But...if you are using YTTV you have ALREADY made the move from a provider and settled on YTTV. I dont see folks dropping you tube and going to Hulu or back to cable for YES. I guess ya just cant stream the Yanks thru YES. Maybe a subscription through MLB?? MLB wont let you watch your local teams, correct? This is not good for YTTV subscribers who are Yankee fans. Im still on Xfinity but have had YTTV and was happy with it.


----------



## lparsons21

If I was a big sports fan and lived in the areas that are covered by the RSNs that YTTV has dropped, I’d just change service. That’s literally one of the biggest benefits to streaming, you are not locked in. the downside is if you have a bunch of recorded shows you haven’t yet watched.


----------



## trip1eX

Never sure why YTTV can't just let a customer subscribe to YES for $x.xx extra except I take it YES probably said no?


----------



## trip1eX

btw, also read ~20 Yankees games on YES will be streamed free for Amazon Prime members in a ~4-state area.


----------



## saeba

trip1eX said:


> btw, also read ~20 Yankees games on YES will be streamed free for Amazon Prime members in a ~4-state area.


To take your approach  - Yankees are useless anyway. Can't believe anyone on this forum would care. Glad they were dropped as just taking up space on the guide.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Never sure why YTTV can't just let a customer subscribe to YES for $x.xx extra except I take it YES probably said no?


That's not the RSN business model. Their model requires that nearly all subscribers pay. IOW, the 90% that don't watch RSNs get to share in paying for the stuff 10% want to watch.


----------



## trip1eX

Fox Prime Ticket is the 3rd channel besides Fox West and YES.


----------



## chelman

I signed for YouTuveTV as an alternative to Spectrum. So far, the commercials are a show stopper. I love my Tivo skip function.


----------



## mdavej

chelman said:


> I signed for YouTuveTV as an alternative to Spectrum. So far, the commercials are a show stopper. I love my Tivo skip function.


Should have signed up for Youtube TV instead of YouTuveTV. You can skip all the commercials on Youtube TV recordings. Watch some on-demand video on your Tivo and see how well skip works on it. Oh I forgot, Tivo doesn't have on-demand.


----------



## mattyro7878

I guess YES and YTTV have settled. It is a major issue. Why can't I pay $5.99/mnth to stream the Yankees? This whole regional sports networks issue will evolve quickly. Especially now that there is more than just cable and satellite. Maybe MLB will come to thier senses and drop the blackout stupidity. Worse comes to worse...break out the AM radios!


----------



## lparsons21

mattyro7878 said:


> I guess YES and YTTV have settled. It is a major issue. Why can't I pay $5.99/mnth to stream the Yankees? This whole regional sports networks issue will evolve quickly. Especially now that there is more than just cable and satellite. Maybe MLB will come to thier senses and drop the blackout stupidity. Worse comes to worse...break out the AM radios!


Mostly because it wouldn't be $5.99/month if only those that want Yes were paying for it. It would be substantially higher. The RSN business model depends on hiding the true cost per actual viewer by making almost everyone on a particular service pay that $5.99.


----------



## pdhenry

mdavej said:


> Of course not. But who is anal enough to go back and mark the first 10 seasons of some program watched?


Who said anything about the first 10 episodes??

Maybe I'm at my friend's house and we watch Better Call Saul on his TV. I have BCS in my library so when I get home I can either (a) FF through the episode so it clears out of my Recent Recordings screen, or (b) mark it as watched.

If I don't do one or the other it will clutter up my Recent Recordings.

Just because *you* won't use it doesn't mean no one should be able to.


----------



## moyekj

My darn bear bones Cox TV rates just went up yet again - $125/month for just TV with no premium channels. Ludicrous. It's time to seriously thing about switching... Every time my Cox bill goes over $200 I have to call in and try and get some kind of concession, but it's just tiresome.


----------



## moyekj

Reading more about YTTV I see there is a limit of 3 simultaneous streams at a time which is not great for family use.


----------



## lparsons21

moyekj said:


> Reading more about YTTV I see there is a limit of 3 simultaneous streams at a time which is not great for family use.


I think all the streaming services have simultaneous stream limits. Varies by service.


----------



## osu1991

I wish I could get better OTA reception in Las Vegas. I think our bare bones Cox service in Las Vegas for locals, cable card and Internet is around $128 now. . My dad still likes to keep it and use the TiVo for locals when out there.

Our homes here in Tulsa, we both have dropped Cox tv services and just have Internet only with an antenna, YTTV and/or Philo.


----------



## mdavej

moyekj said:


> Reading more about YTTV I see there is a limit of 3 simultaneous streams at a time which is not great for family use.


Looks like you've been analyzing YTTV for about 6 months. Just about every aspect of it appears to be a show stopper for you. If you can't make any concessions whatsoever, you're just going to have to keep paying $200/month for crappy cable forever. If you're willing to give up a little bit and adapt to a different paradigm, you can pay $50 like the rest of us who manage to get along just fine with YTTV.

If I ever hit the 3 stream limit, I (or other family members) use a TVE app or find something on Neflix or Youtube or read a book or go outside. The $150/month that I save improves my overall quality of life more than having that extra stream or channel that I'm missing.


----------



## moyekj

mdavej said:


> Looks like you've been analyzing YTTV for about 6 months. Just about every aspect of it appears to be a show stopper for you. If you can't make any concessions whatsoever, you're just going to have to keep paying $200/month for crappy cable forever. If you're willing to give up a little bit and adapt to a different paradigm, you can pay $50 like the rest of us who manage to get along just fine with YTTV.
> 
> If I ever hit the 3 stream limit, I (or other family members) use a TVE app or find something on Neflix or Youtube or read a book or go outside. The $150/month that I save improves my overall quality of life more than having that extra stream or channel that I'm missing.


 At this point I think it's mostly looking for excuses not to change more than anything else.


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> Reading more about YTTV I see there is a limit of 3 simultaneous streams at a time which is not great for family use.


With the money you save, you can spend a little on other streaming services like Netflix, Prime, Hulu, or whatever. And each of these services allow at least 2 streams I believe. (I know the cheapest Netflix plan is one stream only.)


----------



## Beryl

moyekj said:


> Reading more about YTTV I see there is a limit of 3 simultaneous streams at a time which is not great for family use.


It depends. It is 3 streams per account. An additional YTTV account (6 streams) may work out cheaper than additional cable boxes.

How many simultaneous streams do cable companies allow? 
How many cable boxes are included with a base plan? 
How much does is additional box rentals?

(I honestly don't know anymore as I've had TiVo for a long time.)


----------



## BobCamp1

Beryl said:


> It depends. It is 3 streams per account. An additional YTTV account (6 streams) may work out cheaper than additional cable boxes.
> 
> How many simultaneous streams do cable companies allow?
> How many cable boxes are included with a base plan?
> How much does is additional box rentals?
> 
> (I honestly don't know anymore as I've had TiVo for a long time.)


I would also add, how many simultaneous streams does one really need? Millennials and Gen Z don't watch TV like Gen X and baby boomers do. And the Millennials should have their own place to live or at least their own YTTV service. In my case I'd only ever need two streams -- one for me and one for my wife. My kids couldn't care less about TV and haven't watched any in years.


----------



## moyekj

Another point in the loss column for YTTV is there is no way to download any "recording" to a mobile device for offline viewing (such as in an airplane) right? I guess for those situations one is stuck with downloading from services that do support that such as Amazon or Netflix.


----------



## wendlan

moyekj said:


> Another point in the loss column for YTTV is there is no way to download any "recording" to a mobile device for offline viewing (such as in an airplane) right? I guess for those situations one is stuck with downloading from services that do support that such as Amazon or Netflix.


That is true - no offline downloading. However, one in the YTTV plus column is that streaming on any device works as well as when you are sitting at home -- no restrictions on what can be streamed, no Tivo Stream flakiness, no out-out-home restrictions on a web browser, etc.


----------



## mlsnyc

moyekj said:


> Another point in the loss column for YTTV is there is no way to download any "recording" to a mobile device for offline viewing (such as in an airplane) right? I guess for those situations one is stuck with downloading from services that do support that such as Amazon or Netflix.


Maybe you're using the Android version of the app and that works well for you. But the iOS version doesn't work at all for me.

I tried it several weeks ago ahead of a vacation. I didn't get any download to complete. I tried downloading each recording one at a time in case downloading multiple recordings was the problem. Didn't matter. It was slow when I was keeping an eye on it. And when I let it run in the foreground, when I came back to check hours later all I'd see was the download failed.

So the download feature, at least for me, is not a win for TiVo.


----------



## Agrajag

I just got done a second trial and if I go streaming I think YTTV would be my choice. One thing it does better than anything is accessing your content from virtually anywhere. Since it's basically YouTube, it's built to be accessed anywhere and to work WELL. Every competitor (including TiVo) should realize that and respond. TiVo Stream doesn't work anywhere as reliably or fluidly as this. 

It's also a nice package for an okay price. However, it does have its issues. Limited simultaneous streams. Can be poor for sports viewing as you don't have fine control for things like slo-mo, FF/RW, etc. It doesn't have commercial skip. The picture quality is a bit softer than I like. The price, while competitive, is actually on par with what I pay for FiOS TV with 100 more channels in higher quality. As long as you have your own DVR (which we all do) there's very little reason to switch.


----------



## moyekj

mlsnyc said:


> Maybe you're using the Android version of the app and that works well for you. But the iOS version doesn't work at all for me.
> 
> I tried it several weeks ago ahead of a vacation. I didn't get any download to complete. I tried downloading each recording one at a time in case downloading multiple recordings was the problem. Didn't matter. It was slow when I was keeping an eye on it. And when I let it run in the foreground, when I came back to check hours later all I'd see was the download failed.
> 
> So the download feature, at least for me, is not a win for TiVo.


I do use the Android app. It has problems, especially out of home, but I usually get it to work to download shows while at home. In any case there are other ways that don't rely on TiVo Stream for downloading shows to your computer and decrypt and from there upload/recode as needed to your mobile device, so that option is there even though it's more work. I do agree that YTTV out of home streaming is likely much more reliable so certainly a plus there.


----------



## trip1eX

Agrajag said:


> I just got done a second trial and if I go streaming I think YTTV would be my choice. One thing it does better than anything is accessing your content from virtually anywhere. Since it's basically YouTube, it's built to be accessed anywhere and to work WELL. Every competitor (including TiVo) should realize that and respond. TiVo Stream doesn't work anywhere as reliably or fluidly as this.
> 
> It's also a nice package for an okay price. However, it does have its issues. Limited simultaneous streams. Can be poor for sports viewing as you don't have fine control for things like slo-mo, FF/RW, etc. It doesn't have commercial skip. The picture quality is a bit softer than I like. The price, while competitive, is actually on par with what I pay for FiOS TV with 100 more channels in higher quality. As long as you have your own DVR (which we all do) there's very little reason to switch.


Anyone tried Youtube Tv and can compare it to Tivo?

PRos and cons discussed a bunch before.

You didn't even cover the biggest benefit - unlimited storage and tuners. You don't have to manage anything. I'll take those over slo mo and Tivo's trick play etc any day.

And YTTV has commercial skip. IT doesn't have auto commercial skip but auto skip was only available on some stuff some of the time. YTTV trick play has advantages. It's responsive skipping commercials. Can say, 'skip 4 minutes' and 4 minutes are skipped in a second or two. CAn instantly go anywhere in a recording. The thumbnail stills let you see where you are in a recording as you go through it before starting playback. ...

PIc quality for me was better than cable and Tivo.

I mainly watch sports on YTTV and it works great for that. Especially awesome that I can record all kinds of sports and never worry about storage and tuners.

Also seems to never a miss a game and always pads every event properly. Knock on wood. Even automatically recorded the Daytona 500 the day after it rained out. Tivo's guide would not have been updated in time. And just click NFL, for example, and every NFL game is recorded. No fuss. No muss.

OH and has a 'watch key plays' feature if you don't want to watch the entire game and also if you want to catch up to live I think it is available as well. Plus you can look up sport scores right in the UI. ...

I barely used slo mo. Also slo mo on Tivo is blurry which only contributed to me using it even less.

Another pro for YTTV is one input for tv watching as well as all streaming apps are available. And accounts is a pro as well. Nice for the family. I read some people talk about clutter, but on Tivo, man, with the wife and kids, you were always scrolling past stuff you never recorded yourself and don't watch. Plus you never knew if the wife or kid would delete their stuff or not. Or you would set it to record some show they wanted that aired 10x a day but you didn't want to devote much storage to the show so the first 5 recordings would be recorded over by the time they sat down. Not that they cared or noticed. But I mean what if it was an episode they would have enjoyed. Nevermind the constant use of tuners. And just managing the storage between 4 family members. And the other family members record stuff and then you have to go and change their settings so it doesn't hog storage space or tuners etc.

last ...channel lineup and price.

Always YMMV. YTTV is missing ~5 of the more well known cable channels. But I bet the cheapest FIOS standard cable lineup package is missing channels that YTTV has. Again though what those are and whether it matters to someone is a YMMV.

I did own a Tivo system but sold it and netted $300. That's a $5/mo discount on YTTV for 5 years.  YTTV for me was cheaper. Not including the original cost of a Tivo. But it wasn't dramatically cheaper. I probably save $30/mo before the cost of a dvr system would be figured in. Although maybe there was extra fees too. IT's been 4 months. I forget already. In the end I like YTTV better overall actually. It makes the dvr feel antiquated.


----------



## mdavej

Agrajag said:


> The price, while competitive, is actually on par with what I pay for FiOS TV with 100 more channels in higher quality.


I wish I were in a FiOS market. Here in Charter Spectrum land, even the cheapest $30 package is a lot more the YTTV after all the fees (local broadcast fee, RSN fee, adminstrative fee, FCC compliance fee, made-up-just-for-the-hell-of-it fee). Price is the ONLY reason I have YTTV instead of cable. If I could get a cable package equal or better than YTTV for the same price after bait-and-switch promos, I'd go back to cable in a heartbeat.


----------



## Beryl

trip1eX said:


> I mainly watch sports and it works great for that.


I noticed that right away. I do not watch sports so although, YTTV is currently my preferred alternative to TiVo, I wish there was a way to substitute the many sports channels for the missing non-sports ones.


----------



## pdhenry

Who said Alphabet having everyone work from home was going to screw up YTTV?

My library is hosed big time. "New in Your Library" is empty and "Scheduled" doesn't have any of tonight's late night talk shows. Oh, wait, now it knows I'm recording some shows, and for the others it knows I'm recording _something_ but it doesn't know what.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> Who said Alphabet having everyone work from home was going to screw up YTTV?
> 
> My library is hosed big time. "New in Your Library" is empty and "Scheduled" doesn't have any of tonight's late night talk shows. Oh, wait, now it knows I'm recording some shows, and for the others it knows I'm recording _something_ but it doesn't know what.


Yeah I had same problem. I closed the app and restarted it and it all came back. Must haev been the shock that they suspended the NBA.

SEems like all sports are going to be suspended if they aren't yet. I shouldn't have renewed YTTV for the month lol.


----------



## pdhenry

I exited to regular YT and have been listening to music. I didn't get a chance to reload YTTV...

Edit: yeah YTTV looks better now...


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

Beryl said:


> I noticed that right away. I do not watch sports so although, YTTV is currently my preferred alternative to TiVo, I wish there was a way to substitute the many sports channels for the missing non-sports ones.


^^^ This. It really amazes me in this era of TV there still does not exist a vendor who will allow you to build your own package of channels, just what you want, and nothing more.


----------



## mdavej

PSU_Sudzi said:


> ^^^ This. It really amazes me in this era of TV there still does not exist a vendor who will allow you to build your own package of channels, just what you want, and nothing more.


Charter Spectrum TV Choice is an a la carte plan of (almost) any 10 channels you want. Had it for a couple of years and loved it until the hidden fees nearly doubled the price.


----------



## dlfl

mdavej said:


> Charter Spectrum TV Choice is an a la carte plan of (almost) any 10 channels you want. Had it for a couple of years and loved it until the hidden fees nearly doubled the price.


And the choice of ten didn't allow a couple of channels we want. With the fees, taxes, etc. if costs almost as much as YTTV and - no DVR. Don't look for Spectrum to be competitive, it's not in their monopolistic nature.


----------



## hefe

They're always very good at making that one or two channels you really want part of the next tier.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

That's really why I think this cord cutting is really not causing the shift in TV some thought, meaning that sure old cable companies are losing customers and new competitors have taken market share, but its just the same thing (a package of channels) in a different wrapper.


----------



## lparsons21

PSU_Sudzi said:


> That's really why I think this cord cutting is really not causing the shift in TV some thought, meaning that sure old cable companies are losing customers and new competitors have taken market share, but its just the same thing (a package of channels) in a different wrapper.


That's part of it, of course. But it is just a step in the direction of that changing. As people get more comfortable with live streaming, they'll most likely find that they can't quite get all the content they want. Then they look at things like Netflix, Hulu, and their ad-supported brethren like Pluto and others. Once people are comfortable with changing apps to get the content, then the 'cable/sat' alike services start becoming less important.

I think we'll see more of this. Bring on HBO Max and Peacock to go with Hulu, CBS and you've covered a hell of a lot of content.


----------



## trip1eX

with all the sports being canceled I might as well pause YTTV. It doesn't take effect until the next billing period though.


----------



## lparsons21

Well I finally shifted to YTTV. I was using a combo of Sling Blue/Hulu/CBS:AA which met what I thought I wanted at the time. But as always seems to happen, I decided I needed the Sports add on and the Hollywood add on, and with the enhanced DVR the total cost was $50.

That made me re-evaluate. For the same $50 YTTV gave me some things missing from that Sling combo. Like ESPN, Golf Channel and a few others. The only channel loss was Paramount, but that is for only one show.

Still not overly fond of the way it does DVR, nor the lack of episode descriptions without digging down and a wider guide would be nice. I get around the lack of descriptions and wider guide by using the TVGuide app. And while I still don’t care for the way DVR/VOD are intermixed, I’ve gotten used to it.

Even ended up saving some money because I didn’t need to keep the CBS:AA subscription.


----------



## pdhenry

Tonight I discovered another YTTV feature - a buffer at least an hour long. Probably longer.

I began watching a show while it was being recorded, maybe about 45 minutes after it began. I paused for awhile while I was watching it and at the end the next program began and I thought "Oh, this one's interesting but I didn't set it to record so I'm going to lose it when the recording I'm watching ends." Nope, since I had begun watching the first show while it was recording I was watching the "buffer" rather than the "recording" so I managed to watch the entire next program even though I began watching it after it had actually ended.


----------



## tenthplanet

PSU_Sudzi said:


> That's really why I think this cord cutting is really not causing the shift in TV some thought, meaning that sure old cable companies are losing customers and new competitors have taken market share, but its just the same thing (a package of channels) in a different wrapper.


And it won't most cable channels, TV networks, film studios, and streaming services are owned by the same handful of companies. The content owners command the future, and always will. The revolution will not be televised..


----------



## trip1eX

PSU_Sudzi said:


> That's really why I think this cord cutting is really not causing the shift in TV some thought, meaning that sure old cable companies are losing customers and new competitors have taken market share, but its just the same thing (a package of channels) in a different wrapper.


Yeah except it's the Netflix's of the world that are causing the shift in tv viewing. Not the YTTVs and Slings and Hulu Live's.

The new (cable) services like YTTV and Hulu Live aren't taking most of the customers leaving (traditional) cable. It's Netflix and Amazon and Hulu and HBO and Showtime and Disney+ and AppleTV+ etc that are taking those customers.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Yeah except it's the Netflix's of the world that are causing the shift in tv viewing. Not the YTTVs and Slings and Hulu Live's.
> 
> The new services like YTTV and Hulu Live aren't taking most of the customers leaving cable. It's Netflix and Amazon and Hulu and HBO and Showtime and Disney+ and AppleTV+ etc that are taking those customers.


And in no small part by the free ad-supported streaming services like Pluto, Tubi and others.

Right now I suspect we'll see a fair number cancelling the live streamers for awhile since the programming on them isn't going to be new. I know when they run out of shows/episodes already in the can and start with incessant reruns, I'll be looking elsewhere for awhile.


----------



## pdhenry

I figured out how to scroll a given channel's listings.

Scroll down to the channel in the Live screen, then scroll left so the channel icon is highlighted and select that.

The next screen highlights OnDemand offerings for that channel and below that you can quickly scroll the schedule for that channel for up to 24 hours into the future.

24 hours really isn't long enough (a minimum of 3 days would be much better) but it's better than trying to scroll forward in the channel grid.


----------



## wmcbrine

moyekj said:


> Another point in the loss column for YTTV is there is no way to download any "recording" to a mobile device for offline viewing (such as in an airplane) right?


Not YTTV by itself, but if you also subscribe to Channels DVR, you can use YTTV to authorize TV Everywhere, for supported channels (most, but not premiums), and record those.


----------



## rsday75

So, looking to move to YTTV from standard cable and my Bolt. i will likely do Philo as well for all channels....Same cost for this as I pay for cable and internet now almost to the penny.

Looks like the 4th bolt in 3-4 years is dying on me.....Lost an HDMI port, Lost a hard disk (easy to replace, but still lost all recordings...., one just seemed to totally fail (no boot, and not powersupply or disk), and now this one seems to be losing the tuner(s). Channels are fine on other devices, and I have had the cable guys out to check things. Also, the Tivo glitches out and cannot tune the same channels on different drops in the house that are fine with other gear. Cable card swapped as well. All signs point to another dying Bolt.......
I am doing the trial....like it enough on all devices....my main is an Apple TV.

Picture Quality is fine....but the 2.0 sound is killing me.....

We will see......wife is trialing it....wife acceptance factor is a huge part.....

Just hate it that I seem to be paying $80 to $150 every year for a new Bolt depending on how generous Tivo is at the time.....plus the loss of all my recordings every time.....

I got a month trial of YTTV.....will add Philo if we go this way....some pluses and minuses to each option....


----------



## pdhenry

What's the overlap with YTTV + Philo?

I'd consider going with just Philo if I had a better way to distribute OTA to all TVs.


----------



## rsday75

pdhenry said:


> What's the overlap with YTTV + Philo?
> 
> I'd consider going with just Philo if I had a better way to distribute OTA to all TVs.


For $20 a month, it gets my wife the Hallmark & Lifetime channels she is missing....Gets me History and a couple more I am missing....
Only a 30 day DVR, though.....


----------



## trip1eX

Overlap between Philo and YTTV are the AMC Network channels and the Discovery Channels. Plus Cheddar for whatever that is worth.

The non-overlap for Philo are the A&E, Viacom and Hallmark channels.

I canceled my YTTV subscription because of no sports.


----------



## CajunRuss

New user to YouTube TV. When I exit the app and then reopen, the app continues with the channel I was watching at the time point that I closed the app. The progress bar has moved by the amount of time the app was closed. This behavior occurs for my Fire TV Stick and my MI Box 4. My ROKU will initialize the app each time I open it. My question is the app continuing to stream even though I exited the app? I would appreciate hearing from other peoples experience. Thanks!


----------



## pdhenry

If you close the Roku app (hit the Home button on the remote) rather than just turning off your TV, it won't continue to stream.

Even if you do leave the app running, in my experience the app closes (or crashes) within a couple of hours with no button presses anyway.


----------



## CajunRuss

pdhenry said:


> If you close the Roku app (hit the Home button on the remote) rather than just turning off your TV, it won't continue to stream.
> 
> Even if you do leave the app running, in my experience the app closes (or crashes) within a couple of hours with no button presses anyway.


I do exit back to the ROKU home screen, it is my only streamer that will allow me to open the app and initialize each time. I do not turn off my TV while the app is running.


----------



## mdavej

CajunRuss said:


> New user to YouTube TV. When I exit the app and then reopen, the app continues with the channel I was watching at the time point that I closed the app. The progress bar has moved by the amount of time the app was closed. This behavior occurs for my Fire TV Stick and my MI Box 4. My ROKU will initialize the app each time I open it. My question is the app continuing to stream even though I exited the app? I would appreciate hearing from other peoples experience. Thanks!


No, it stops.


----------



## CajunRuss

mdavej said:


> No, it stops.


Thanks


----------



## windracer

Finally got the "marked as watched" feature!


----------



## dlfl

windracer said:


> Finally got the "marked as watched" feature!


Hmm .... I see from prior post you are using the Fire Stick. Where is this feature in the Fire TV YTTV app's UI?


----------



## osu1991

dlfl said:


> Hmm .... I see from prior post you are using the Fire Stick. Where is this feature in the Fire TV YTTV app's UI?


I think it's mobile, tablet and computer only. It showed up on my account a few days ago too, but I don't see it on the fire sticks. It's not a big deal to me, as I only watch via the fire sticks and manage things via tablet or phone.

I like it, I was finally able to mark watched several things I had set to record, but usually watched via OTA/TiVo because of Cox's data cap


----------



## ncted

I had an issue this weekend, where YTTV did not "record" Dateline NBC. There isn't even any OnDemand version of the episode available. I notified YTTV support of the issue. I got an immediate response from a person who said the recording should be there along with some troubleshooting steps, so I provided some screenshots showing it wasn't, even after the recommended steps. My issue has not been escalated to engineering to investigate further. When I had similar issues with my Recast, I never heard back anything useful, and then nothing else. When I had issues on Dish, I got a new DVR sent to me after hours on the phone, and it didn't solve the issue.


----------



## tenthplanet

ncted said:


> I had an issue this weekend, where YTTV did not "record" Dateline NBC. There isn't even any OnDemand version of the episode available. I notified YTTV support of the issue. I got an immediate response from a person who said the recording should be there along with some troubleshooting steps, so I provided some screenshots showing it wasn't, even after the recommended steps. My issue has not been escalated to engineering to investigate further. When I had similar issues with my Recast, I never heard back anything useful, and then nothing else. When I had issues on Dish, I got a new DVR sent to me after hours on the phone, and it didn't solve the issue.


Was it a new episode ? If it's a re-run VOD doesn't always carry news type of shows past a point, if it's a rerun you can check the NBC app and Hulu and see if it's still available.


----------



## dlfl

ncted said:


> I had an issue this weekend, where YTTV did not "record" Dateline NBC. There isn't even any OnDemand version of the episode available. I notified YTTV support of the issue. I got an immediate response from a person who said the recording should be there along with some troubleshooting steps, so I provided some screenshots showing it wasn't, even after the recommended steps. My issue has not been escalated to engineering to investigate further. When I had similar issues with my Recast, I never heard back anything useful, and then nothing else. When I had issues on Dish, I got a new DVR sent to me after hours on the phone, and it didn't solve the issue.


Yep, YTTV isn't perfect - and apparently neither are the Recast or Dish. My pet YTTV peeve is that their metadata for TCM movies doesn't provide the release year for about half the movies. And I have complained in several places including their support portals, several times. As soon as I can determine what video service is perfect, I plan to switch to it!


----------



## ncted

tenthplanet said:


> Was it a new episode ? If it's a re-run VOD doesn't always carry news type of shows past a point, if it's a rerun you can check the NBC app and Hulu and see if it's still available.


Yes, it was a new episode. It is available in the NBC app (with commercials). I provided them with some more info and logs from my iOS app. It is currently being reviewed by engineering. I was just impressed by the customer support response on a holiday weekend, although the people responding were presumably overseas.


----------



## ncted

Ironically, I haven't heard anything since, and the episode still does not show up.


----------



## osu1991

Once again missed recording a Discovery Channel show last night, probably due to the guide information being Incorrect or having incorrect episode numbers. 

Philo caught it. Philo catches episodes that YTTV misses and usually those episodes just have a season number and no episode number. 

I remember seeing the Fast N Loud episode in the YTTV guide last night with the correct title, but didn’t look at the scheduled recordings to make sure it was going to record.


----------



## zubinh

The hard drive on my Bolt failed and it took Amazon 10 days to deliver a new one. In the interim I used YT TV. IMHO, the picture quality was no where near as good as Fios TV ( I have Gigabit Fios service and accessed YTTV with Apple TV 4K) . The UI is not as user friendly as Tivo (why call it library when you can just call it my shows?, Why call it Live when you can just call it Guide?) and navigating it with my Apple TV remote was a nightmare compared to controlling my Bolt with a Harmony Remote. I was ecstatic when that Hard drive arrived.


----------



## mdavej

zubinh said:


> The hard drive on my Bolt failed and it took Amazon 10 days to deliver a new one. In the interim I used YT TV. IMHO, the picture quality was no where near as good as Fios TV ( I have Gigabit Fios service and accessed YTTV with Apple TV 4K) . The UI is not as user friendly as Tivo (why call it library when you can just call it my shows?, Why call it Live when you can just call it Guide?) and navigating it with my Apple TV remote was a nightmare compared to controlling my Bolt with a Harmony Remote. I was ecstatic when that Hard drive arrived.


YTTV user who has never used a Tivo would ask: Why can't Tivo just call it library? Why call it guide when you can just call it live? Why not control your Apple TV with your Harmony like you control your Bolt?

Things a YTTV user would never say: My hard drive failed, and I missed 10 days worth of recordings. I wish every member of my household has his/her own profile, each with its own recording library and custom channel list. I wish I could go back and watch any show even if I forgot to record it. I wish I could run other streaming apps other than the few that are built in. I wish I didn't have to buy a $180 device to watch my shows in another room. I wish I didn't have to use a cable card and tuning adapter. I wish my cable bill wasn't $120 a month.


----------



## ncted

zubinh said:


> The hard drive on my Bolt failed and it took Amazon 10 days to deliver a new one. In the interim I used YT TV. IMHO, the picture quality was no where near as good as Fios TV ( I have Gigabit Fios service and accessed YTTV with Apple TV 4K) . The UI is not as user friendly as Tivo (why call it library when you can just call it my shows?, Why call it Live when you can just call it Guide?) and navigating it with my Apple TV remote was a nightmare compared to controlling my Bolt with a Harmony Remote. I was ecstatic when that Hard drive arrived.


Based on your description here, it sounds like YTTV is definitely not for you. For me, it is about how much I want to spend on something that only represents about 20% of our viewing, and how annoying it is to switch inputs back and forth all the time. If Tivo had ever followed through on the promise of an app store full of streaming apps, things might look very different.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Based on your description here, it sounds like YTTV is definitely not for you. For me, it is about how much I want to spend on something that only represents about 20% of our viewing, and how annoying it is to switch inputs back and forth all the time. If Tivo had ever followed through on the promise of an app store full of streaming apps, things might look very different.


I think the only thing for him is buying new hard drives for the Bolt. He's used to it so it doesn't bug him.


----------



## zubinh

Haha....Look I know Tivo is not perfect, but maybe I'm just so used to it, change is a killer. My Bolt is great for TV and my Apple TV 4K is great for streaming. I'm glad YTTV is working for you, all I'm sayin is that a long time Tivo user is going to find the change difficult, IMHO.


----------



## trip1eX

zubinh said:


> Haha....Look I know Tivo is not perfect, but maybe I'm just so used to it, change is a killer. My Bolt is great for TV and my Apple TV 4K is great for streaming. I'm glad YTTV is working for you, all I'm sayin is that a long time Tivo user is going to find the change difficult, IMHO.


i used TiVo for 15 years. I had no problem with the change. I found it simpler than TiVo.

But if a person can't handle that Library wasn't named My Shows like on their TiVo well maybe then that person should stay away. lol.


----------



## wendlan

trip1eX said:


> i used TiVo for 15 years. I had no problem with the change. I found it simpler than TiVo.
> 
> But if a person can't handle that Library wasn't named My Shows like on their TiVo well maybe then that person should stay away. lol.


I agree - I've been using Tivo since 2001 and moved to YTTV a few months ago. It was a surprisingly easy transition for my wife and I. Yes, Tivo does some things better (mostly around the actually playing/viewing controls), and YTTV does other things better (infinite DVR, great search/guide data/superior season pass, automatically extending recordings for sports, no local hardware, phone app/"streaming" is excellent, no cable card/TA, 5 user profiles). For us, the YTTV pros far outweigh the cons.


----------



## mschnebly

If your house gets blown away by a tornado YTTV never misses a recording!


----------



## nshahzad

I'm waiting for my cable contract to be up in June to switch. TiVo is increasingly frustrating both my wife and I. Now we have garbage showing up in the DVR "my shows" under Recordings that is super old (like 2019 shows showing up as new, dated in 2019 too).

The only "problem" we had with YT is that there's a lot more shows in Hulu, but the DVR caught everything anyway. Once we added it to our favorites, it was easy to find the backlog, if YT had a contract.

The interface is MUCH faster than TiVo. I'm noticing it slowing down more and more. It takes a few seconds now to switch into show screens and when trying to play something from the DVR, it lags. Very frustrating.

RE: Sports, I mainly watch soccer, I added Sling TV's seperate La Liga package for $5/mo if paid yearly. Much cheaper than the offerings on cable too.

I did miss the commercials skip, but it's only on a limited number of shows, so it's not a dealbreaker.

Multiple profiles is great too. I use the NVIDIA Shield.


----------



## windracer

dlfl said:


> Hmm .... I see from prior post you are using the Fire Stick. Where is this feature in the Fire TV YTTV app's UI?





osu1991 said:


> I think it's mobile, tablet and computer only. It showed up on my account a few days ago too, but I don't see it on the fire sticks.


Yeah, sorry. I have it on mobile and the web, not on the Fire Sticks. Still, I can at least mark episodes (and seasons) as watched _somehow_ now.


----------



## trip1eX

Popular cable brands such as Comedy Central, BET, VH1 and CMT are all headed for YouTube TV this summer

MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Network and TV Land are among the channels launching on YouTube TV in the coming months. BET Her, MTV2, Nick Jr., NickToons, TeenNick and MTV Classic will be available on the platform at a later date, ViacomCBS said.

YouTube TV to add MTV, VH1, TV Land, CMT, other channels this summer


----------



## osu1991

more crap, becoming more and more like linear cable/satellite


----------



## trip1eX

osu1991 said:


> more crap, becoming more and more like linear cable/satellite


lol yttv is linear cable/satellite. that's the whole pt of it.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE

osu1991 said:


> more crap, becoming more and more like linear cable/satellite


I for one, am looking forward to this crap.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## osu1991

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I for one, am looking forward to this crap.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


No surprise, there is always one.


----------



## mrizzo80

I’m ok with Comedy Central. Couldn’t care less about the others.


----------



## dlfl

The more channels the merrier! It’s all fun and games ..... until they raise the rate.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Popular cable brands such as Comedy Central, BET, VH1 and CMT are all headed for YouTube TV this summer


They recently added Court TV. I just noticed it was added to my lineup.


----------



## hahathatsfunny

Court TV is now a "digital broadcast network", and is owned by Katz Broadcasting, which is owned by Scripps. And I deduce that Katz/Scripps permits national feed versions of its digital broadcast networks to be carried by providers.

SONY owns getTV, another digital broadcast network, is permitting the national feed to be offered on Fubo and TikiLive, and Light TV, owned by MGM, also is allowing FrndlyTV to carry its national feed.

I like MeTV/Decades the most for classic TV programming, and over TV Land/Logo from CBSViacom, but after I spoke with a person at MeTV office in Chicago, I found out they want viewers to view MeTV via their local affiliate only. Apparently, the national feed of MeTV on Dish Network is only permitted to those that don't have a local MeTV station. I suppose Weigel (owner of MeTV) won't allow Decades or any of its other digital broadcast networks to be sourced on a OTT carrier via a national feed either.

It's been awhile since I tried YouTube TV, but does the Cozi channel that it offers, from the local affiliate or is it off a national feed? I realize that it maybe be only carried because of pressure from Comcast/NBC to carry the NBC affiliates and other NBCUniversal channels.


----------



## smark

hahathatsfunny said:


> Court TV is now a "digital broadcast network", and is owned by Katz Broadcasting, which is owned by Scripps. And I deduce that Katz/Scripps permits national feed versions of its digital broadcast networks to be carried by providers.
> 
> SONY owns getTV, another digital broadcast network, is permitting the national feed to be offered on Fubo and TikiLive, and Light TV, owned by MGM, also is allowing FrndlyTV to carry its national feed.
> 
> I like MeTV/Decades the most for classic TV programming, and over TV Land/Logo from CBSViacom, but after I spoke with a person at MeTV office in Chicago, I found out they want viewers to view MeTV via their local affiliate only. Apparently, the national feed of MeTV on Dish Network is only permitted to those that don't have a local MeTV station. I suppose Weigel (owner of MeTV) won't allow Decades or any of its other digital broadcast networks to be sourced on a OTT carrier via a national feed either.
> 
> It's been awhile since I tried YouTube TV, but does the Cozi channel that it offers, from the local affiliate or is it off a national feed? I realize that it maybe be only carried because of pressure from Comcast/NBC to carry the NBC affiliates and other NBCUniversal channels.


I believe that and Comet are national.


----------



## osu1991

Cozi, Comet, Start TV and Court TV are the national diginets on my YoutubeTV channel list.


----------



## hahathatsfunny

I found a free service that works on Roku, and it's for local channels and has a DVR. It does not have the major networks (ABC NBC CBS Fox PBS) but can be complementary to YouTube TV, Fubo, Sling or Philo.

It's: https://www.localbtv.com/

It is free but the website indicates free _*trial*_ and is available currently in the San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Philadelphia and Phoenix markets. To register, I started with providing my zip code through the web form. I'm in the Philly region, so could try out it, but I'm not sure if it geo-locates me and if I travel to Maryland, if it'd lose access. I checked the lineups of the other markets, and it includes many of the same digital sub channels.

It is kind of neat as it includes a lot of digital broadcast channels not carried by YouTube, Sling, Philo and has a DVR. I can also edit out channels I don't want to see on the guide, including channels airing mostly shopping channels, e.g. HSN and QVC.

It has Antenna TV, RetroTV, Buzzr, GetTV, Cozi*, Estrella and Azteca, and a few others in my market, including the primary feed of WPHL 17 (previously a WB affiliate).

One interesting caveat though is it carries Cozi, but it says recording is not permitted on this channel. With all other channels, I can record. So, it's kind of interesting that Comcast/NBC is permitting Cozi to be offered without NBC here, but blocking off any recording.

And some channels are subchannels from a station, but other subchannels are missing.

It does not carry the primary signals of PBS, but has NHK World from WNJS. I always thought PBS stations tried to make their signals available without retransmission and money asked for the feed.

And in the Philly region, it carries WDPN 2.5 RetroTV but none of the other digital channels from Ch.2 including MeTV which is on the primary signal. It is a low VHF station which is hard to receive with most indoor antennas.

I'll reach out to the WFMZ/WDPN station to inquire why only Retro is permitted. My guess is it is the only free one permitted. WFMZ has tried to get Verizon Fios to carry Decades (from WDPN), but Fios for some reason is refusing, and my hunch is it isn't a freebie in costs. Decades' content is a lot better over RetroTV, but to no surprise, Fios carries RetroTV from WDPN over Decades.


----------



## tenthplanet

hahathatsfunny said:


> I found a free service that works on Roku, and it's for local channels and has a DVR. It does not have the major networks (ABC NBC CBS Fox PBS) but can be complementary to YouTube TV, Fubo, Sling or Philo.
> 
> It's: https://www.localbtv.com/
> 
> It is free but the website indicates free _*trial*_ and is available currently in the San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Philadelphia and Phoenix markets. To register, I started with providing my zip code through the web form. I'm in the Philly region, so could try out it, but I'm not sure if it geo-locates me and if I travel to Maryland, if it'd lose access. I checked the lineups of the other markets, and it includes many of the same digital sub channels.
> 
> It is kind of neat as it includes a lot of digital broadcast channels not carried by YouTube, Sling, Philo and has a DVR. I can also edit out channels I don't want to see on the guide, including channels airing mostly shopping channels, e.g. HSN and QVC.
> 
> It has Antenna TV, RetroTV, Buzzr, GetTV, Cozi*, Estrella and Azteca, and a few others in my market, including the primary feed of WPHL 17 (previously a WB affiliate).
> 
> One interesting caveat though is it carries Cozi, but it says recording is not permitted on this channel. With all other channels, I can record. So, it's kind of interesting that Comcast/NBC is permitting Cozi to be offered without NBC here, but blocking off any recording.
> 
> And some channels are subchannels from a station, but other subchannels are missing.
> 
> It does not carry the primary signals of PBS, but has NHK World from WNJS. I always thought PBS stations tried to make their signals available without retransmission and money asked for the feed.
> 
> And in the Philly region, it carries WDPN 2.5 RetroTV but none of the other digital channels from Ch.2 including MeTV which is on the primary signal. It is a low VHF station which is hard to receive with most indoor antennas.
> 
> I'll reach out to the WFMZ/WDPN station to inquire why only Retro is permitted. My guess is it is the only free one permitted. WFMZ has tried to get Verizon Fios to carry Decades (from WDPN), but Fios for some reason is refusing, and my hunch is it isn't a freebie in costs. Decades' content is a lot better over RetroTV, but to no surprise, Fios carries RetroTV from WDPN over Decades.


You need to create an account to make this work.


----------



## hahathatsfunny

tenthplanet said:


> You need to create an account to make this work.


Yes, but no credit card or personal information is needed. Only zip code. But, it uses geolocation as well, as I tried creating another account and used 90210 as a zip code for the LA region, and but I got a message: Sorry, SoCalBTV is only available to viewers inside the Los Angeles viewing area.

The DVR function is actually better than that of FrndlyTV's which is paid. I think Local BTV business model is better than Locast, a sham with donation interruptions inserted over local channel broadcasts, and Locast bypassing obtaining agreements.

On the other hand, from the articles I've read about LocalBTV, it is obtaining agreements for the stations. (And the way Cozi is offered, seems to indicate some restrictions as well). In the LA and Bay Area, it has a lot of foreign language content on the OTA channels, so it might be appealing there.

Here in Philly, a Comcast internet subscriber would likely have access to Xfinity Instant TV already which includes local channels. Most of the channels LocalBTV has are easily receivable with an rabbit ear, but the DVR part is probably most impressive.. I don't know how they plan a business model on this platform, but maybe it would one day be integrated with YouTube or another OTT provider, and it would be more appealing than isolated in another app.


----------



## Bierboy

trip1eX said:


> i used TiVo for 15 years. I had no problem with the change. I found it simpler than TiVo.
> 
> But if a person can't handle that Library wasn't named My Shows like on their TiVo well maybe then that person should stay away. lol.


Identical situation here. TiVo user for the past 16 years and went OTA exclusively three years ago (using the Roamio OTA). Then added streaming about a year and a half ago (still using Roamio OTA); tried Hulu then switched to YTTV. No problems making the "transition". The Roamio is hardly used when OTA shows shut down for the summer (like now). So streaming takes precedence.


----------



## Bierboy

dlfl said:


> The more channels the merrier! It's all fun and games ..... until they raise the rate.


Still WAY cheaper than cable.


----------



## zalusky

Bierboy said:


> Still WAY cheaper than cable.


Not for me. Cable tends to discount the premiums once you bundle them.

My triple play package is $140 which includes 500MB Internet, Preferred channel list, HBO, Showtime, EPIX, and landline plus the usual taxes, and fees.
I don't think I can beat that going unbundled. I would like too but I haven't found the combination.

The wife likes the cooking channels, and news channels. I watch mostly premium channel stuff.


----------



## mdavej

zalusky said:


> Not for me. Cable tends to discount the premiums once you bundle them.
> 
> My triple play package is $140 which includes 500MB Internet, Preferred channel list, HBO, Showtime, EPIX, and landline *plus the usual taxes, and fees*.
> I don't think I can beat that going unbundled. I would like too but I haven't found the combination.


It's those darn* usual fees* that always push cable, even bundled, WAY over the top for me. I absolutely loved my $29 a-la-carte 10 channel package from Spectrum until they raised the local broadcast fee to $13, plus various other bogus fees, pushing the price to the same level as Youtube TV which has far more channels and features.

I'll take unbundled, uncapped internet for $45 plus $50 for streaming versions of my cable channels any day.


----------



## Bierboy

mdavej said:


> ...I'll take unbundled, uncapped internet for $45 plus $50 for streaming versions of my cable channels any day.


That's where I'm at, too. And way more reliable than cable...


----------



## trip1eX

no use comparing price without including taxes, fees and cost of equipment including Tivo.


----------



## ncted

I could save a little money by going to cable in the short term, but not much once you factor in equipment and fees, and I would not have an unlimited cloud DVR, Symmetrical Gigabit (at times) Low Latency Fiber Internet, or decent picture quality. Also, I would have to deal with a cable company.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Bierboy said:


> That's where I'm at, too. And way more reliable than cable...


?? How do you get your HSI? Same reliability in almost all cases.


----------



## Bierboy

slowbiscuit said:


> ?? How do you get your HSI? Same reliability in almost all cases.


Metronet Fiber. And, yes, it's way more reliable than cable I've had. Plus CS is head and shoulders above most cablecos


----------



## WVZR1

Bierboy said:


> Metronet Fiber. And, yes, it's way more reliable than cable I've had. Plus CS is head and shoulders above most cablecos


It's all about 'Location'!


----------



## dlfl

Bierboy said:


> Metronet Fiber. And, yes, it's way more reliable than cable I've had. Plus CS is head and shoulders above most cablecos


Good to hear! Yeah, I know where Fishers is (NE suburb of Indy). I'm in Englewood OH (NW suburb of Dayton) and Metronet is building out here. Curious: how long have you used Metronet? Which speed? What rate?


----------



## mattyro7878

hahathatsfunny said:


> Court TV is now a "digital broadcast network", and is owned by Katz Broadcasting, which is owned by Scripps. And I deduce that Katz/Scripps permits national feed versions of its digital broadcast networks to be carried by providers.
> 
> SONY owns getTV, another digital broadcast network, is permitting the national feed to be offered on Fubo and TikiLive, and Light TV, owned by MGM, also is allowing FrndlyTV to carry its national feed.
> 
> I like MeTV/Decades the most for classic TV programming, and over TV Land/Logo from CBSViacom, but after I spoke with a person at MeTV office in Chicago, I found out they want viewers to view MeTV via their local affiliate only. Apparently, the national feed of MeTV on Dish Network is only permitted to those that don't have a local MeTV station. I suppose Weigel (owner of MeTV) won't allow Decades or any of its other digital broadcast networks to be sourced on a OTT carrier via a national feed either.
> 
> It's been awhile since I tried YouTube TV, but does the Cozi channel that it offers, from the local affiliate or is it off a national feed? I realize that it maybe be only carried because of pressure from Comcast/NBC to carry the NBC affiliates and other NBCUniversal channels.


It is really something- 4k ,Atmos, the best picture weve ever had...and we watch 70s and 80s shows in 4x3 480i. Should have hung on to that old CRT and watched properly!


----------



## Bierboy

dlfl said:


> Good to hear! Yeah, I know where Fishers is (NE suburb of Indy). I'm in Englewood OH (NW suburb of Dayton) and Metronet is building out here. Curious: how long have you used Metronet? Which speed? What rate?


16 months, we've had it. 100/100 (although right now it's 200/200 because of the quarantine) at $59/mo. In that time only one fairly brief outage when a third party sliced a cable. And they're excellent at communicating outages (both planned and unplanned).


----------



## moyekj

Anyone know a more precise date for when MTV will be added to YTTV? All the searching I've done indicates sometime in summer 2020 but no indication of exactly when. Checking YTTV channel list I don't see it on there currently. I only watch one show on that channel (The Challenge), but would like to have it before dropping Cox in favor of YTTV.


----------



## samsauce29

moyekj said:


> Anyone know a more precise date for when MTV will be added to YTTV? All the searching I've done indicates sometime in summer 2020 but no indication of exactly when. Checking YTTV channel list I don't see it on there currently. I only watch one show on that channel (The Challenge), but would like to have it before dropping Cox in favor of YTTV.


Was looking for the date myself the other day... No luck finding it here either.


----------



## Bierboy

Probably won't be announced until they go live; that's YTTV's MO...


----------



## moyekj

Finally ready to try YTTV trial, but when I go sign up the trial is a pitiful 2 days! I searched around and ran into a lot of spam trying to find promo codes for an extended trial. Anybody know of a promo code to get a longer free trial? 2 days is nowhere near enough. Thanks.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Finally ready to try YTTV trial, but when I go sign up the trial is a pitiful 2 days! I searched around and ran into a lot of spam trying to find promo codes for an extended trial. Anybody know of a promo code to get a longer free trial? 2 days is nowhere near enough. Thanks.


He who hesitates is lost! Maybe after following this thread for months you know enough to make your decision in just 2 days. Don't know why they reduced it. Don't think it was ever less than 7 days before.

I'll give you what would have been the most helpful tip for me when I started YTTV:
If you have issues with buffering (spinning circles) or video quality, your first troubleshooting step should be to activate the "Stats for nerds" overlay. Standard internet speed tests are not enough to assess connection health. The Connection Speed shown in SFN is what counts for YTTV.


----------



## trip1eX

snooze you lose.

you can create multiple trials with different emails/ccs as a workaround.

I had to use it for a good month or so before I decided to get rid of my Tivo. 


I haven't had YTTV for 3 months now though. Not sure I'll renew anytime soon with sports being what they are. NFL i can suffer on OTA without a dvr. I got the parent's cable login too which I can use to watch other stuff. 

REality is lately I watch an hour of tv a day. I read a lot more the past few months. lol.


----------



## moyekj

Reached out via chat in YTTV support pages and that went nowhere. No interest in offering a trial period beyond 2 days. The comment was "we experiment with different trial periods all the time but currently 2 days is what you get. Sorry no current promotions available".


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Reached out via chat in YTTV support pages and that went nowhere. No interest in offering a trial period beyond 2 days. The comment was "we experiment with different trial periods all the time but currently 2 days is what you get. Sorry no current promotions available".


I've found YTTV chat to be less than stellar - but I could say that about almost every chat support service I've tried. Actually your issue is one of the more clear cut ones - the company has set a definite clear policy with no exceptions. (_Why_ is unclear of course.). I bet they will change back to one week or more soon. Maybe you should wait for that, given you've already been waiting for months?

They have more than 2 million subscribers, which means revenue over $100 million/month! They seem to be making improvements all the time, although I wish they would give improvements to their DVR UI higher priority. The only reason people tolerate its clunkiness is the unlimited capacity (a killer feature), IMO.

I've had YTTV since 22 Nov 2019 and I'm not about to leave it.


----------



## moyekj

Sounds like if I want a real trial then basically just have to spend at least $50 for 1 month and see how it goes. Will probably just have to do that before deciding to ditch TiVo for good. Ditching TiVo would probably save quite a bit on electric bill too. 9 pieces of equipment. Each TiVo has a Tuning Adapter and MOCA unit, so 9 electronics to get rid of if I do ditch TiVo is actually quite enticing.


----------



## dlfl

Be sure to get a receipt for your TA’s and CableCARD’s when you turn them in. Spectrum will charge you more than $100 per TA if their system doesn’t register that you’ve returned them. (It has happened.) Talk about adding insult to injury — over $100 for a POS device like a TA, which they’ve never properly supported!


----------



## MustHaveTivo

We just made the decision yesterday and went and turned in the Spectrum equipment. We got a 5-day free trial on Sunday (shrug). There are pros and cons... in the end we decided it was good enough and outweighed the negatives. If we hadn't had a (never solved) channel loss issue we probably would have stuck with TiVo but I feel quite done with the cablecard paradigm. We're keeping the TiVo service on another month to watch stored up stuff on tablets in other rooms. It's reversible until we sell the TiVo equipment, I guess.


----------



## wendlan

> We just made the decision yesterday and went and turned in the Spectrum equipment. We got a 5-day free trial on Sunday (shrug). There are pros and cons... in the end we decided it was good enough and outweighed the negatives. If we hadn't had a (never solved) channel loss issue we probably would have stuck with TiVo but I feel quite done with the cablecard paradigm. We're keeping the TiVo service on another month to watch stored up stuff on tablets in other rooms. It's reversible until we sell the TiVo equipment, I guess.


Good choice! Ours was a similar experience in that our home Tivo setup ran fine enough, but a hard drive failure and inability to get a new CableCard working sealed the deal. After 15 years of Tivo, six months in, we don't really miss it and are totally loving the new features and flexibility of YTTV.


----------



## moyekj

Am I missing something or is there no way to add shows to your library without current airings in YTTV? For example, couldn't find ways to add:
Survivor
Dancing with the stars


----------



## wendlan

moyekj said:


> Am I missing something or is there no way to add shows to your library without current airings in YTTV? For example, couldn't find ways to add:
> Survivor
> Dancing with the stars




__
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubetv/comments/fck6wg


----------



## moyekj

wendlan said:


> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubetv/comments/fck6wg


Thanks! That worked for Survivor, but not for Dancing with the stars. Searches for that one with + "Youtube TV" resulted in regular youtube links.


----------



## moyekj

Got a lot of my TiVo Season passes added, but these can't seem to be added even with the google search workaround:

The Amazing Race
So You Think You Can Dance
Dancing With the Stars
The Walking Dead - this one can be found but insists that you have "AMC Premiere" add on channel to be able to add to your library which is no good.


----------



## moyekj

Has anyone tried adding family members in different states? I see that the main account owner can add up to 5 family members (only requirement is you need a separate google account for each). In my trial I was able to add my wife as a family member and then the YTTV running on the TS4K stick she's using I setup to use that profile.

But then it got me thinking, my brother in law in Florida has a YTTV account, so is there are any issue with him adding me as a family member living in California? (In some respects would be nice to have east coast programming schedule as well for me).

EDIT: Reading terms of service of family members it seems like only requirement is to live in USA and each have a google account. Of course there's the 3 stream at a time limitation as well which could come into the picture, but I don't see anything indicating this is improper use of family members (especially since they are family).


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Has anyone tried adding family members in different states? I see that the main account owner can add up to 5 family members (only requirement is you need a separate google account for each). In my trial I was able to add my wife as a family member and then the YTTV running on the TS4K stick she's using I setup to use that profile.
> 
> But then it got me thinking, my brother in law in Florida has a YTTV account, so is there are any issue with him adding me as a family member living in California? (In some respects would be nice to have east coast programming schedule as well for me).
> 
> EDIT: Reading terms of service of family members it seems like only requirement is to live in USA and each have a google account. Of course there's the 3 stream at a time limitation as well which could come into the picture, but I don't see anything indicating this is improper use of family members (especially since they are family).


should have no problem. but forget how it works with local stations in a different state, ie whether you each get your local content or just the local content of the account owner.


----------



## mdavej

moyekj said:


> Has anyone tried adding family members in different states? I see that the main account owner can add up to 5 family members (only requirement is you need a separate google account for each). In my trial I was able to add my wife as a family member and then the YTTV running on the TS4K stick she's using I setup to use that profile.
> 
> But then it got me thinking, my brother in law in Florida has a YTTV account, so is there are any issue with him adding me as a family member living in California? (In some respects would be nice to have east coast programming schedule as well for me).
> 
> EDIT: Reading terms of service of family members it seems like only requirement is to live in USA and each have a google account. Of course there's the 3 stream at a time limitation as well which could come into the picture, but I don't see anything indicating this is improper use of family members (especially since they are family).


Mine is shared among 6 family members, most of whom are in different states. Each get their own locals. However, they need to log in to the phone app and set their location to get their locals instead of yours. It isn't done from the streaming device itself.

But here's the kicker. Each user has to log in to the phone app from your home area at least once every 90 days. For this reason, I put both my log in and my mother's on my phone app so I can log her in every so often. This is done to allow you to travel, but discourage sharing all across the country.


----------



## moyekj

mdavej said:


> Mine is shared among 6 family members, most of whom are in different states. Each get their own locals. However, they need to log in to the phone app and set their location to get their locals instead of yours. It isn't done from the streaming device itself.
> 
> But here's the kicker. Each user has to log in to the phone app from your home area at least once every 90 days. For this reason, I put both my log in and my mother's on my phone app so I can log her in every so often. This is done to allow you to travel, but discourage sharing all across the country.


Does it have to be the phone app specifically (I presume because of the location sharing of the phone)? What if I only use YTTV on say a Fire Stick? I would have thought they just get the location based on your ISP IP # to figure out approximately where you are (or at least which state you are in), so using the phone app shouldn't be necessary.


----------



## moyekj

Looks


mdavej said:


> Mine is shared among 6 family members, most of whom are in different states. Each get their own locals. However, they need to log in to the phone app and set their location to get their locals instead of yours. It isn't done from the streaming device itself.
> 
> But here's the kicker. Each user has to log in to the phone app from your home area at least once every 90 days. For this reason, I put both my log in and my mother's on my phone app so I can log her in every so often. This is done to allow you to travel, but discourage sharing all across the country.


I think I understand better now. Yes looks like it was designed for sharing in same household, so you found the workaround.


----------



## moyekj

Well I'm on my brother in law YTTV account as family member for now. It will serve as a nice extended trial until it doesn't work anymore (I guess around 90 days). At that point if I like it well enough $50/month will be OK with me. I can keep cable for a little longer while I try it.


----------



## samsauce29

moyekj said:


> Well I'm on my brother in law YTTV account as family member for now. It will serve as a nice extended trial until it doesn't work anymore (I guess around 90 days). At that point if I like it well enough $50/month will be OK with me. I can keep cable for a little longer while I try it.


That seems like a good way to get that extended trial! Good luck.

As a data point, my sister and niece have never been asked to reauthorize at all (easily 9 months). We're all in Western PA, but all different zip codes and my niece has different locals.


----------



## moyekj

I don't have any ability to resume play where I left off. Every time I select a partially watched episode it starts playing from the start. Why it defaults that way is nuts! Must be doing something wrong or have some wrong setting somewhere. Can someone tell me how to adjust settings so you can resume play where you left off? I searched for that quite a lot via google but didn't find an answer. I also didn't find the recently added ability to mark as watched either...

EDIT: Found the "RESUME WATCHING" section under "HOME" section. Not intuitive at all. Why is that not in the "LIBRARY" section where you can more easily get to most recordings.


----------



## moyekj

OK the mark as watched I can do on computer. Can't do it on FireTV. I'm not pleased with FireTV app to this point. Simply trying to skip 30 seconds ahead is 3 right clicks followed by ok, so 4 clicks. Horrible! Using Alexa works but that's annoying way to do it. Why it can't be like Prime Video where each press of right/left immediately just skips 15 seconds forward/back beats me...

Other beefs via FireTV app:
Getting to play an episode takes a bunch of clicks.
Returning back to main Library is a bunch more clicks of "back" button.

Don't see how I'm going to get used to this.


----------



## mdavej

I get a different behavior on my Fire TV. 15 sec per click, instant thumbnails, OK to resume. So only 3 clicks, as fast as you can click, and you can see exactly where you are. So if you overshoot and need to go back, you're not already in the middle of playback. I think instant playback would be worse. I can skip commercials very quickly and precisely.

As you build up a history, it takes fewer clicks to get to stuff you regularly watch.


----------



## trip1eX

Yep 15 second thumbnail skips is how it worked on the ATV too. ATV also had the ability to live skip 15 seconds, but that wasn't good for skipping commercials because you quickly run out of buffer doing that and it will lag. 

I didn't have a problem resuming shows from where I left off. I did it from the Library. And yeah sometimes from Home which shows the last 5-10 shows played/channels watched. I think this is also in a shortcut menu you can bring by scrolling up (on the ATV) while watching a show. 

I don't think it was any more clicks to play an episode than it was on a Tivo. It's just a basic folder list.


----------



## JolDC

moyekj said:


> I don't have any ability to resume play where I left off. Every time I select a partially watched episode it starts playing from the start. Why it defaults that way is nuts! Must be doing something wrong or have some wrong setting somewhere. Can someone tell me how to adjust settings so you can resume play where you left off? I searched for that quite a lot via google but didn't find an answer. I also didn't find the recently added ability to mark as watched either...
> 
> EDIT: Found the "RESUME WATCHING" section under "HOME" section. Not intuitive at all. Why is that not in the "LIBRARY" section where you can more easily get to most recordings.


If you can't resume normally please check your privacy settings. Specifically one like pause watch history. It is usually active by default and will forget what you watch by design.


----------



## dlfl

@moyekj Hey! I told you the UI was clunky! I use the Fire TV app too, BTW. Another example: Just as a test I did the Google survivor+ youtube tv thing and added it to my library. But since I don't actually want it in my library, I immediately removed (unchecked) it. However now that icon appears to be permanently stuck in the (already ridiculously huge). Shows portion of my library.

Also, the preview thumbnail icons during fast forward frequently fail to appear (go blank) when you scrub near the live end of the time line of a show currently airing. However, compared to dealing with Tuning Adapters and cable TV's poor support and sleazy billing practices, not to mention competitive pricing, YTTV wins easily IMHO. And -- there is at least the hope that YTTV will improve. - not so for cable TV.


----------



## moyekj

JolDC said:


> If you can't resume normally please check your privacy settings. Specifically one like pause watch history. It is usually active by default and will forget what you watch by design.


I had toggled that off yesterday since as you mentioned it's on by default (which means forget history). Seems like it just took a while to take effect though as it did not work right away to resume play where I left off. Appears to be working now.

I still was finding it very difficult though at a glance to figure out what is actually newly recorded versus a bunch of VOD episodes. So to fix that I went on a computer to mark all the VOD episodes as already watched, and that has helped cleared up my "New Recordings" section of LIBRARY

Still finding it a very clunky and non intuitive GUI in general on the Fire TV. The web version on computer seems a little more sane and is probably where I will do most of the management of LIBRARY items. Things would be a lot worse without the "Mark as watched" ability on the computer which was something only recently added apparently.

The trick play while watching is also kind of clunky and will take getting used to compared to TiVo playback, and I will be wearing out the right button of the dpad on the remote with rapid 15 sec skips. I can see now that skipping through commercials with thumbnails does help you zoom in on where to resume versus the blind 30 sec skip on TiVo, so in that respect may be better. Just takes getting used to after so many years of TiVo playback.

The tip about clicking "back" button to clear the overlay was also a good one. I hate overlays in general and with quick clear setting on TiVo it never bothered me, but on Fire TV GUI it is very annoying. It is not intuitive to use the "back" button for clearing it, but was glad to find that trick searching this thread history.


----------



## moyekj

samsauce29 said:


> That seems like a good way to get that extended trial! Good luck.
> 
> As a data point, my sister and niece have never been asked to reauthorize at all (easily 9 months). We're all in Western PA, but all different zip codes and my niece has different locals.


That's interesting. When I go to my profile in Fire TV GUI (top right) and choose "Location" and then "Home area" it says:

"Please sign in from your home area -- or contact us to update it -- by Sep 24. Otherwise your access to YouTube TV will be limited"

i.e. It does seem to have a 90 day limit. So at this point I will just ride out that limit and by then will have a very good idea if I want to pay for YTTV or try something else. Still looking forward to dropping Cox cable + phone soon regardless (once The Challenge series on MTV season ends).

Will be curious to know the info your "Location--Home area" says.
I think the "home" areas are pretty broad, so perhaps you are all living in the same "home" play area for YouTube TV and hence not a problem. My case is very clear cut different state and time zone.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> The trick play while watching is also kind of clunky and will take getting used to compared to TiVo playback, and I will be wearing out the right button of the dpad on the remote with rapid 15 sec skips.


I have noticed that the Fire TV is much more capable than the Roku at interpreting holding down the FF button as a rapid fire sequence of skips. OTOH I'm faster on the Roku at repeatedly pressing that FF button as you suggest than holding it down.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> I had toggled that off yesterday since as you mentioned it's on by default (which means forget history). Seems like it just took a while to take effect though as it did not work right away to resume play where I left off. Appears to be working now.
> 
> I still was finding it very difficult though at a glance to figure out what is actually newly recorded versus a bunch of VOD episodes. So to fix that I went on a computer to mark all the VOD episodes as already watched, and that has helped cleared up my "New Recordings" section of LIBRARY
> 
> Still finding it a very clunky and non intuitive GUI in general on the Fire TV. The web version on computer seems a little more sane and is probably where I will do most of the management of LIBRARY items. Things would be a lot worse without the "Mark as watched" ability on the computer which was something only recently added apparently.
> 
> The trick play while watching is also kind of clunky and will take getting used to compared to TiVo playback, and I will be wearing out the right button of the dpad on the remote with rapid 15 sec skips. I can see now that skipping through commercials with thumbnails does help you zoom in on where to resume versus the blind 30 sec skip on TiVo, so in that respect may be better. Just takes getting used to after so many years of TiVo playback.
> 
> The tip about clicking "back" button to clear the overlay was also a good one. I hate overlays in general and with quick clear setting on TiVo it never bothered me, but on Fire TV GUI it is very annoying. It is not intuitive to use the "back" button for clearing it, but was glad to find that trick searching this thread history.


IT's easy to tell the difference between recordings and VOD. IT might not be obvious at first glance tho. It's been discussed before. I forget the exact wording but there is a difference in wording between VoD and Recording. btw, if you search this thread everything is pretty much addressed that could be addressed about YTTV. 

I never marked anything as watched. It defeats the whole purpose of simplicity and the red timeline going all the way across the icon is aready an indication of whether you watched it or not.

Well it would be nice if the 15 second skip could be changed to 30 seconds if desired, but otherwise not sure what the complaint is. I mean you gotta click the button to skip x length of time. Maybe it's a chore on the FTV remote. I guess I wouldn't know. btw, I actually used voice quite a bit to skip commercials with the ATV remote. I just would press the Siri button and say skip 3 minutes or skip 4 minutes etc and boom, all commercials skipped. I could even whisper it extra extra quietly into the ATV remote and it would work.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> @moyekj Hey! I told you the UI was clunky! I use the Fire TV app too, BTW. Another example: Just as a test I did the Google survivor+ youtube tv thing and added it to my library. But since I don't actually want it in my library, I immediately removed (unchecked) it. However now that icon appears to be permanently stuck in the (already ridiculously huge). Shows portion of my library.
> 
> Also, the preview thumbnail icons during fast forward frequently fail to appear (go blank) when you scrub near the live end of the time line of a show currently airing. However, compared to dealing with Tuning Adapters and cable TV's poor support and sleazy billing practices, not to mention competitive pricing, YTTV wins easily IMHO. And -- there is at least the hope that YTTV will improve. - not so for cable TV.


The UI and YTTV might not be perfect. But clunky isn't a word that entered my mind with regards to the YTTV UI at all.

The show you stopped recording will pretty quickly fall down on your show list as new stuff is recorded aka it will buried soon enough.

A primary appeal of YTTV is not having to manage that stuff. You just let it go and it gets buried at the bottom of your Show list.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> I never marked anything as watched. It defeats the whole purpose of simplicity and the red timeline going all the way across the icon is aready an indication of whether you watched it or not.


 When your first start YTTV and nothing has recorded, everything you add to your library has only VOD episodes, and it's annoying for all the VOD entries to show up in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section. I added about 30 shows to my LIBRARY, and pretty much all of them showed up in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section even though every single thing under them were all VOD episodes which I have no desire to watch. Then as actual episodes start to record you have to push into each show individually to see if there are any non VOD episodes there which is very painful.
Marking them all as "already watched" got rid of them all from that section such that only new actual recordings will show up there.

So if nothing else it's useful when you first add new items to your LIBRARY to get rid of the VOD junk that populates there.

I think another issue is since YTTV records every episode, regardless if new or not, there are several times it re-records episodes you've already seen (even multiple airings of the same episode on same day), so I'm guessing I will probably have to go manually mark those as already seen as well to get them out of the "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section. I don't know if it's smart enough to know an episode you have watched previously if it retains the already watched status for new recordings, but I suspect it does not.

Bottom line is when you have a lot of stuff in your library, how to quickly get to content you actually have not already watched without descending in to each and every show to get to episodes views of each, that's my struggle. I'm hoping there's a better way than using "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" which does seem to need a lot of manual management to keep it clean. If there was a way to get a flat list of all recent recordings (across all library elements) as I can do on TiVo that would be fine with me. Having to push into each library element individually, get to episodes list to review, then back all the way up and rinse and repeat for a whole bunch of shows is just a ridiculous way of doing things.


----------



## dlfl

trip1eX said:


> The UI and YTTV might not be perfect. But clunky isn't a word that entered my mind with regards to the YTTV UI at all.
> 
> The show you stopped recording will pretty quickly fall down on your show list as new stuff is recorded aka it will buried soon enough.
> 
> A primary appeal of YTTV is not having to manage that stuff. You just let it go and it gets buried at the bottom of your Show list.


Well, since you don't favor "clunky", what adjective(s) would you find better? (Something more descriptive than just "not perfect" that is.). How about "semi-inscrutable"? 

I think many of us would like a little more capability to manage our recordings, or at least a better understanding of how YTTV manages them. I still have to wonder where recent recordings will appear. What determines whether it's "New in your library" or "Shows"? And what determines the listing order of shows in "Shows"? It doesn't appear to be recording date or alphabetical.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> When your first start YTTV and nothing has recorded, everything you add to your library has only VOD episodes, and it's annoying for all the VOD entries to show up in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section. I added about 30 shows to my LIBRARY, and pretty much all of them showed up in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section even though every single thing under them were all VOD episodes which I have no desire to watch. Then as actual episodes start to record you have to push into each show individually to see if there are any non VOD episodes there which is very painful.
> Marking them all as "already watched" got rid of them all from that section such that only new actual recordings will show up there.
> 
> So if nothing else it's useful when you first add new items to your LIBRARY to get rid of the VOD junk that populates there.
> 
> I think another issue is since YTTV records every episode, regardless if new or not, there are several times it re-records episodes you've already seen (even multiple airings of the same episode on same day), so I'm guessing I will probably have to go manually mark those as already seen as well to get them out of the "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section. I don't know if it's smart enough to know an episode you have watched previously if it retains the already watched status for new recordings, but I suspect it does not.
> 
> Bottom line is when you have a lot of stuff in your library, how to quickly get to content you actually have not already watched without descending in to each and every show to get to episodes views of each, that's my struggle. I'm hoping there's a better way than using "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" which does seem to need a lot of manual management to keep it clean.


WE already discussed that a bunch.

For one, when you have zero recordings like when you first record a show, it's a bonus to have VoD episodes immediately right in your library. I mean otherwise you have zero to watch.

Next, recordings of new episodes will show up at the beginning. EAsy to find.

Last, any show, where a lot of repeats are being recorded, will fairly quickly be filled up with recordings and push any VoD out.

Also most shows only had a few VoD episodes. And for a show like SNL, which had every episode in every season available via VoD immediately, well it seemed like a bonus as well to have that at your fingertips.

So I never saw a need to mark as watched in order to get rid of VoD.

I never had a problem with it rerecording stuff I watched and it showing up as unwatched. Maybe it happens after 9 months though for all i know. But I seem to remember Tivo would forget after so many months as well.

I never had a problem getting to content. I mean you go to a show and click on an episode to play it.

YOu don't need any manual management. You just watch shows and accept that you don't have to get rid of stuff.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> Well, since you don't favor "clunky", what adjective(s) would you find better? (Something more descriptive than just "not perfect" that is.)
> 
> I think many of us would like a little more capability to manage our recordings, or at least a better understanding of how YTTV manages them. I still have to wonder where recent recordings will appear. What determines whether it's "New in your library" or "Shows"? And what determines the listing order of shows in "Shows"? It doesn't appear to be recording date or alphabetical.


I think the UI is well organized and drop dead simple.

YOu gotta let go of the need to manage recordings. You don't have to manage them. That's the big appeal of YTTV.

I never had a problem finding recordings. The shows with the newest recordings were at the top. That's basically how it worked.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> I never had a problem getting to content. I mean you go to a show and click on an episode to play it.
> YOu don't need any manual management. You just watch shows and accept that you don't have to get rid of stuff.


 I think that's where our viewing habits diverge. I rarely have a pre-determined show in mind to watch when I go to watch TV. I want a quick view of everything that has recorded recently to then decide what I feel like watching at the time. The TiVO TE3 let me view a flat list of everything that recorded recently such that picking one out of that list was easy. With YTTV you have to go examine each show individually which takes a lot of clicks to do.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> I never had a problem finding recordings. The shows with the newest recordings were at the top. That's basically how it worked.


 Where are they at the top? Maybe inside the episode list of each show they are, but at LIBRARY or SHOW level how do you know what recently recorded? Do you live primarily in the LIBRARY view or SHOW view? I haven't found the SHOW view to be very useful at all so spending most of my time in LIBRARY view. I have not seen useful organization yet in SHOW view.

I am genuinely trying to understand your use model where you find it so easy to see if I can adapt to that model so appreciate your patience in explaining.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> I think that's where our viewing habits diverge. I rarely have a pre-determined show in mind to watch when I go to watch TV. I want a quick view of everything that has recorded recently to then decide what I feel like watching at the time. The TiVO TE3 let me view a flat list of everything that recorded recently such that picking one out of that list was easy. With YTTV you have to go examine each show individually which takes a lot of clicks to do.


well Tivo worked the same way to me as YTTV. You saw a list of folders. The ones at the top had the newer recordings. You clicked on a folder to see the episodes. clicked on an episode to play it.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> well Tivo worked the same way to me as YTTV. You saw a list of folders. The ones at the top had the newer recordings. You clicked on a folder to see the episodes. clicked on an episode to play it.


 Which view do they show up "at the top". LIBRARY, SHOW, where?


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Where are they at the top? Maybe inside the episode list of each show they are, but at LIBRARY or SHOW level how do you know what recently recorded? Do you live primarily in the LIBRARY view or SHOW view. I haven't found the SHOW view to be very useful at all so spending most of my time in LIBRARY view. I have not seen useful organization yet in SHOW view.


The stuff at the top of your Library in the default view has the newer recordings.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Which view do they show up "at the top". LIBRARY, SHOW, where?


Default view. New I think.


----------



## dlfl

trip1eX said:


> I think the UI is well organized and drop dead simple.
> 
> YOu gotta let go of the need to manage recordings. You don't have to manage them. That's the big appeal of YTTV.
> 
> I never had a problem finding recordings. The shows with the newest recordings were at the top. That's basically how it worked.


Well OK, but I'm still wondering what the answers to these questions are:


dlfl said:


> ............where recent recordings will appear[?]. What determines whether it's "New in your library" or "Shows"? And what determines the listing order of shows in "Shows"? It doesn't appear to be recording date or alphabetical.


These would help me navigate the library, especially with the huge number of shows in "Shows". Also I see some new shows (episodes) recorded perhaps 2 to 4 hours ago, and un-watched, that to NOT appear in "New in your lbrary" while others like that DO appear there.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> The stuff at the top of your Library in the default view has the newer recordings.





trip1eX said:


> Default view. New I think.


OK, so that is the LIBRARY--NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY section. Things like news shows that in some cases re-record multiple same episodes a day of the same thing show up there too right and therefore are at the top even though you already watched them.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> Well OK, but I'm still wonder what the answers to these questions are:
> [QUOTE="dlfl, post: 12082283, member: 145748"............where recent recordings will appear[?]. What determines whether it's "New in your library" or "Shows"? And what determines the listing order of shows in "Shows"? It doesn't appear to be recording date or alphabetical.
> These would help me navigate the library, especially with the huge number of shows in "Shows". Also I see some new shows (episodes) recorded perhaps 2 to 4 hours ago, and un-watched, that to NOT appear in "New in your lbrary" while others like that DO appear there.


REcent recordings...you mean like a recently recorded repeat? It's going to be filed under the appropriate season/episode #. So you don't watch based on recent recording. You watched based on season/episode.

NOt sure what you mean by the 2nd question - Show vs New in Library. The Show tab is just a filter to show your Shows only and not sports and movies etc. I believe you can further filter that alphabetically etc or if left alone that may default to showing shows with new episodes first.

Not sure if by new shows you mean new episodes or... But overall in my experience the shows with the new episodes appear at the top under New. And under any category like Shows you have a few ways to filter.


----------



## moyekj

dlfl said:


> These would help me navigate the library, especially with the huge number of shows in "Shows". Also I see some new shows (episodes) recorded perhaps 2 to 4 hours ago, and un-watched, that to NOT appear in "New in your lbrary" while others like that DO appear there.


 I've seen that too unfortunately, along with re-recordings of stuff you already watched getting in there.


----------



## JolDC

moyekj said:


> Where are they at the top? Maybe inside the episode list of each show they are, but at LIBRARY or SHOW level how do you know what recently recorded? Do you live primarily in the LIBRARY view or SHOW view? I haven't found the SHOW view to be very useful at all so spending most of my time in LIBRARY view. I have not seen useful organization yet in SHOW view.
> 
> I am genuinely trying to understand your use model where you find it so easy to see if I can adapt to that model so appreciate your patience in explaining.


Once you have cleaned up the initial time in New in Your Library (marking as watched or watching episodes) that section will only show new episodes recorded (or released for VOD), not new recordings of old episodes or new recordings of already watched shows.

For me, 2 or 3 shows I have partially watched show up in the top row of Home. If I have more partially watched shows I will need to scroll down a couple rows to the resume watching row. It might be a few days for you since you just enabled watch history.

The top row of Home does a good job of showing the next episode of a couple of series I am actively watching but it doesn't show up there immediately.

For stuff that doesn't get intelligently added to Home, I have to jump to New in Library but when sorted by recently recorded and after the initial clean out, that is easy to use.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> OK, so that is the LIBRARY--NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY section. Things like news shows that in some cases re-record multiple same episodes a day of the same thing show up there too right and therefore are at the top even though you already watched them.


I don't know about that part. But the gist is yes shows with new episodes appear at the top of New in your Library.


----------



## moyekj

JolDC said:


> Once you have cleaned up the initial time in New in Your Library (marking as watched or watching episodes) that section will only show new episodes recorded (or released for VOD), *not new recordings of old episodes or new recordings of already watched shows*.


 OK, I guess I need more time to confirm that, but I got the impression re-recordings of shows I already watched were creeping in there. But that just might be because the watch history seems to take a while to actually take effect in the GUI.


----------



## moyekj

JolDC said:


> Once you have cleaned up the initial time in New in Your Library (marking as watched or watching episodes) that section will only show new episodes recorded (or released for VOD), not new recordings of old episodes or new recordings of already watched shows.


 Yes, hence the importance of being able to mark things as watched when adding new things to your library that you already watched elsewhere to that point (like when transitioning from TiVo).


----------



## JolDC

moyekj said:


> OK, I guess I need more time to confirm that, but I got the impression re-recordings of shows I already watched were creeping in there. But that just might be because the watch history seems to take a while to actually take effect in the GUI.


It only knows about what you watched since you enabled watch history yesterday, so you might need to mark watched again, but you will quickly get to where you want to be. New-new episodes in New in Library and everything else via Shows by season order. (Note my device is Apple TV, YMMV).


----------



## moyekj

Appreciate the comments guys. At some point we will need to collect the best tips given so far and have a thread where the first post summarizes them as "tips for new YTTV users coming from TiVo".


----------



## JolDC

moyekj said:


> Yes, hence the importance of being able to mark things as watched when adding new things to your library that you already watched elsewhere to that point (like when transitioning from TiVo).


I know. When I switched months ago, they were trickling out the Mark As Watched feature. I had to wait probably 3 weeks before I got it and it was killing me to have all those episodes in New.


----------



## lparsons21

I had YTTV for a few months and never grew fond of the way they do DVR/VOD. I got used to it but never liked it, too much clutter!


----------



## moyekj

moyekj said:


> Appreciate the comments guys. At some point we will need to collect the best tips given so far and have a thread where the first post summarizes them as "tips for new YTTV users coming from TiVo".


In the spirit of this and while still fresh in my mind, here's some tips I've collected so far thanks in large part to this thread:

YTTV TIPS FOR NEW USERS

*ENABLE WATCH HISTORY (SO YOU CAN RESUME PLAYBACK FOR SHOWS YOU DID NOT WATCH COMPLETELY)*
Log into tv.youtube.com on a computer and click on your profile circle in top right of the web page:
- Select "settings"
- Click on "Privacy"
- Set "Pause watch history" to off (it defaults to on)

*CUSTOMIZE LIVE GUIDE*
Log into tv.youtube.com on a computer and click on your profile circle in top right of the web page:
- Select "settings"
- Click on "Live Guide"
- You can now drag items to change the order of the channels as well as to disable some channels from view
- Then go back to main YTTV interface "LIVE" view and in upper right corner change Sort from "Default" to "Custom" to see channels you want and in the order you want

*CLEAR OVERLAYS USING "Back" BUTTON DURING SHOW VIEWING*
After using a trick play function such as "pause" or skip forwards, the video feed you are watching darkens with to show the timeline and information about the show. In case of "pause" it stays that way indefinitely. To clear this overlay simply click the "Back" button on the remote once.

*CLEAR SCREEN WHEN SHOW YOU ARE WATCHING IS PLAYING IN BACKGROUND*
Once you start playing a show, whether a previous recording or live TV, when you leave the show to do something else it will keep playing in the background. It can be a little confusing to new users how to get rid of all overlays and return to just the video. This combination of buttons is what you need to remember to use for all those cases:
Back, Up, Select

*USER PROFILES FOR FAMILY MEMBERS*
YTTV allows you to setup profiles for up to 5 additional users using your YTTV account. This is targeted at family members living in the same household all using the same YTTV account of the "primary" family member. The nice thing about this is each family member can completely customize their preferences, libraries, etc. to their own liking completely independent of anyone else. To set this up it's easiest from a computer:
The primary account owner should log into tv.youtube.com on a computer and click on your profile circle in top right of the web page:
- Select "settings"
- Click on "Family sharing" and enable it.
- Once enabled then you are able to invite family members to be able to share your YTTV account by sending an email to their google account.
- The recipient of the email can then click on a link in the email to join. Then they can install YTTV on their own device and login using their google account.
- NOTE: There is a limitation of up 3 simultaneous users at once for YTTV, so you have to be careful with sharing with too many people.
- NOTE: While you can use the above to share with relatives or others outside your household, the catch is that you need to be in the same YTTV market as the primary account holder for it to work indefinitely. Otherwise Google gives you 90 days maximum when it detects your location is outside the primary account holder location.

*MARK SHOWS AS ALREADY WATCHED (USEFUL WHEN ADDING NEW LIBRARY ENTRIES)*
In order for "LIBRARY" view "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" to really only show items that are new to you, you have to do some manual management from a computer to mark episodes you already watched previously elsewhere. For example when you first add a show to your Library, YTTV may well list a bunch of VOD episodes and put the show in your "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section even though you may have watched all episodes to date already. To fix this:
1. Make sure you enable "Watch History" (see first item above)
2. Log into tv.youtube.com on a computer and go "LIBRARY" section and click on a show. Select the "EPISODES" tab to list all available episodes of the show. To the right of the show you will see 3 vertical dots where you can then select "Mark episode as watched" or "Mark season X as watched" options.

*THE MEANING OF "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" SECTION*
Shows that show up in "LIBRARY"--"NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section of the GUI are reserved for first airings of shows that you added to your library. Hence if you have a new recording of something that aired for first time it should show up in that section. If you have a recording of something that was previously aired then it won't show up in that section. i.e. New means first aired, so this is a good filter if you are interested in first aired recordings only.

*ORGANIZATION OF "LIBRARY--RECORDINGS" SECTION*
With Sort set to "Recently Recorded", top level show thumbnails are sorted by most recently recorded (DVR) first. However, note that when you drill into a particular show, the default is to show the latest season of the show which may or may not contain your recent recordings. So you then might have to dig around different seasons to find the recent recordings.

*ADDING SHOWS TO YOUR LIBRARY THAT DON'T HAVE ANY CURRENT AIRINGS*
- Via a web browser make sure you are logged into your google account.
- Go to google search and enter:
Name of your show + "Youtube TV"
- Look for a result similar to: "Watch showname online | YouTube TV (Free Trial)" and click on that. If you are lucky you will be presented a popup with opportunity to click on "+" symbol on top right of the popup to add to your YTTV library.


----------



## trip1eX

I wouldn't say Marked as Watched is useful for adding new library entrees at all. I would say it is completely not needed. 

The easier thing to do is just give up your Tivo OCD. And realize it doesn't matter. VoD will be buried soon enough if you do nothing.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> I wouldn't say Marked as Watched is useful for adding new library entrees at all. I would say it is completely not needed.
> 
> The easier thing to do is just give up your Tivo OCD. And realize it doesn't matter. VoD will be buried soon enough if you do nothing.


 For your viewing habits, yes. But for several of us here and the fact that YTTV developers went through the trouble of adding the capability to begin with means this was a feature seen as useful/necessary to many. I applauded the addition back in this thread when it was first announced without even realizing the full extent of its value.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> For your viewing habits, yes. But for several of us here and the fact that YTTV developers went through the trouble of adding the capability to begin with means this was a feature seen as useful/necessary to many. I applauded the addition back in this thread when it was first announced without even realizing the full extent of its value.


IT's nothing to do with viewing habits. IT's OCD.


----------



## NashGuy

moyekj said:


> Finally ready to try YTTV trial, but when I go sign up the trial is a pitiful 2 days! I searched around and ran into a lot of spam trying to find promo codes for an extended trial. Anybody know of a promo code to get a longer free trial? 2 days is nowhere near enough. Thanks.


I realize you've already signed up for YTTV but for anyone else whom this may help, it appears that if you sign up for YTTV via your Verizon account (whether that's Verizon Wireless, FiOS, or 5G Home), they give you the first month free.


----------



## moyekj

NashGuy said:


> I realize you've already signed up for YTTV but for anyone else whom this may help, it appears that if you sign up for YTTV via your Verizon account (whether that's Verizon Wireless, FiOS, or 5G Home), they give you the first month free.


Thanks. Actually I ended up just joining my brother in Law's account as a family member, so essentially a 90 day free trial period for me (since we are in different states).


----------



## trip1eX

The task of going in and marking episodes you've watched seems to be just as much as work as the problem it is trying to solve and likely more work.


----------



## mdavej

trip1eX said:


> The task of going in and marking episodes you've watched seems to be just as much as work as the problem it is trying to solve and likely more work.


I have found one case where this is useful. There is a particular show I watched years ago and stopped. Then I watched a few other episodes haphazardly over the years. So I can easily go in an mark entire seasons as watched with one click, then mark the others I recognize that are randomly spread everywhere. This way, I don't have to think about it when I pick the next episode to watch. With that baseline set, I can then rely on the red bar to keep track moving forward.


----------



## dlfl

Here is a quote from a post on the YTTV subreddit that illustrates how irritating the organization of the Library is to many of us:


> This is my single biggest gripe with YTTV. Why should I have to manually sift through 10s or sometimes 100s of VOD offerings to find the episode that recorded last night?
> 
> It drives me bonkers that such a simple and obvious function is missing in what otherwise is a fantastic service.
> 
> What makes matters more frustrating is that the functionality IS ALREADY THERE. Often times, for just a split second, the interface will show just my DVR recordings before inserting all the VOD content available. All I need is a simple toggle to turn that VOD content insertion off.


And I would note the irony of this detailed discussion of YTTV occurring on a TiVo-centric forum.  I suspect this is because so many TiVo users are getting fed up with TA issues and sleazy cable TV pricing practices, and are seeing YTTV as a very attractive alternative.


----------



## trip1eX

The system will record over VoD. So you just ignore it. If anything it's a bonus.


----------



## moyekj

I'm not seeing much rhyme or reason how the "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" works. There were 3 recordings last night that never made it into that section and in fact are nowhere obvious to be shown on the top of LIBRARY or HOME section. No bubbling up to the top of anywhere easy to find and instead buried in the weeds. Unless I had some idea they were going to record last night since I'm watching closely I would have no idea they recorded unless I went looking for them under the show episodes themselves. Kind of ridiculous there's no consistent way to see what has recorded recently.

Some stuff goes to "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY", some does not. Can't figure out what the algorithm is that determines what should go in that section.

EDIT: Maybe "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" actually means programs that aired for the first time recently? 2 recordings from last night were re-runs of episodes first aired around a year ago, the 3rd recording was a re-run of a news program that aired last week. Recordings that did make it into "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" so far have been first airings (though there were a bunch of VOD episodes I had to mark as already watched to get them out of there). So looks like that is the pattern based on a very small sample size so far. If that's the case I'm OK with that as I'm mostly interested in new airings of something anyway. Will see if that trend holds.

EDIT 2: After some googling around I found several reddit posts confirming that indeed "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" means first airings only. Hopefully that is indeed the case and I'm happy with that if it works properly.

(I added the information to my "tips" post)


----------



## JolDC

moyekj said:


> EDIT: Maybe "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" actually means programs that aired for the first time recently? 2 recordings from last night were re-runs of episodes first aired around a year ago, the 3rd recording was a re-run of a news program that aired last week. Recordings that did make it into "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" so far have been first airings (though there were a bunch of VOD episodes I had to mark as already watched to get them out of there). So looks like that is the pattern based on a very small sample size so far. If that's the case I'm OK with that as I'm mostly interested in new airings of something anyway. Will see if that trend holds.


Yes that is what I was trying to say here:



JolDC said:


> Once you have cleaned up the initial time in New in Your Library (marking as watched or watching episodes) that section will only show new episodes recorded (or released for VOD), not new recordings of old episodes or new recordings of already watched shows.


But it is hard to make the whole new but not new thing clear.


----------



## moyekj

JolDC said:


> Yes that is what I was trying to say here:
> 
> But it is hard to make the whole new but not new thing clear.


Sorry, I read it as it won't put re-runs of things you already watched or marked as watched previously. Reading again now it makes sense, but my tunnel vision at the time caused my misunderstanding.


----------



## Tag

dlfl said:


> And I would note the irony of this detailed discussion of YTTV occurring on a TiVo-centric forum.  I suspect this is because so many TiVo users are getting fed up with TA issues and sleazy cable TV pricing practices, and are seeing YTTV as a very attractive alternative.


I've been having nothing but issues with my Bolt over the past several months. TiVo support is a joke, they've been no help. I'm at the point where I'm reluctantly looking for alternatives and will be giving YTTV a try. I've had TiVo since they first came out so It'll be sad to walk away. It was a good run, while it lasted.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> ........ Maybe "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" actually means programs that aired for the first time recently? ........
> ........... After some googling around I found several reddit posts confirming that indeed "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" means first airings only. Hopefully that is indeed the case and I'm happy with that if it works properly.
> ........


That would be nice but I encountered two exceptions just tonight. First (USA) airings of new episodes of Beecham House and Grantchester occured at 9 and 10 pm and were "recorded". At 11:15 pm neither episode is in my New in your library. They are in the first two slots of Shows, however. Perhaps these exceptions occur because these PBS shows probably first aired several months ago in the UK? Will have to test the theory on some other shows I guess, although YTtV should know these are first airings, since PBS cleary considers them such per their promos.

This reminds me of another couple of dings on YTTV. They don't show first aired dates in episode metadata, and release year is missing on about half of the TCM movies. Even the crappy TiVo guide data faithfully provides these items.


----------



## moyekj

dlfl said:


> That would be nice but I encountered two exceptions just tonight. First (USA) airings of new episodes of Beecham House and Grantchester occured at 9 and 10 pm and were "recorded". At 11:15 pm neither episode is in my New in your library. They are in the first two slots of Shows, however. Perhaps these exceptions occur because these PBS shows probably first aired several months ago in the UK? Will have to test the theory on some other shows I guess, although YTtV should know these are first airings, since PBS cleary considers them such per their promos.
> 
> This reminds me of another couple of dings on YTTV. They don't show first aired dates in episode metadata, and release year is missing on about half of the TCM movies. Even the crappy TiVo guide data faithfully provides these items.


Yes, I remember on TiVo for some UK shows they weren't considered new/first aired either, so for those shows you had to set them up as new & repeats to catch them.


----------



## JolDC

Tag said:


> I've been having nothing but issues with my Bolt over the past several months. TiVo support is a joke, they've been no help. I'm at the point where I'm reluctantly looking for alternatives and will be giving YTTV a try. I've had TiVo since they first came out so It'll be sad to walk away. It was a good run, while it lasted.


I was in the same boat. TiVo owner from year 1. It was a tough decision at the time but I am happier now. Now keep in mind that my situation was one where my network-based TV viewing had been reduced to almost nothing. Basically daily shows or shows where we didn't want to wait until they were available from a streaming service.

For those reading this that decide to stick with TiVo, I have 2 Bolts (no service included) in need of a new home. No charge, just shipping.


----------



## mattyro7878

moyekj said:


> Sounds like if I want a real trial then basically just have to spend at least $50 for 1 month and see how it goes. Will probably just have to do that before deciding to ditch TiVo for good. Ditching TiVo would probably save quite a bit on electric bill too. 9 pieces of equipment. Each TiVo has a Tuning Adapter and MOCA unit, so 9 electronics to get rid of if I do ditch TiVo is actually quite enticing.


Just getting rid of my 3 boxes and 3 cablecards would pay for YTTV. My Comcast contract is up in a few weeks. If they give me some decent speed for $60-$70 plus $14 for modem I will go you tube. Then again the quality of trick play on Tivo is unparalleled. I try to frame by frame or go back 7 seconds when streaming and I want to go nuts. After 3 attempts I end up 20 minutes behind or ahead of where I was ...cant take it.


----------



## trip1eX

JolDC said:


> Yes that is what I was trying to say here:
> 
> But it is hard to make the whole new but not new thing clear.


Except you don't have to clean up anything. You just start watching.

I didn't understand your phrasing because of the "once you clean stuff up...." part of it. That part is only for the OCD in a person. 

New just organizes stuff pretty much like My Shows on Tivo did. That's the gist of it at least.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> That would be nice but I encountered two exceptions just tonight. First (USA) airings of new episodes of Beecham House and Grantchester occured at 9 and 10 pm and were "recorded". At 11:15 pm neither episode is in my New in your library. They are in the first two slots of Shows, however. Perhaps these exceptions occur because these PBS shows probably first aired several months ago in the UK? Will have to test the theory on some other shows I guess, although YTtV should know these are first airings, since PBS cleary considers them such per their promos.
> 
> This reminds me of another couple of dings on YTTV. They don't show first aired dates in episode metadata, and release year is missing on about half of the TCM movies. Even the crappy TiVo guide data faithfully provides these items.


It's got its idiosyncrasies. But it was the same difference with Tivo. IT's just a new set to learn.


----------



## pdhenry

mattyro7878 said:


> If they give me some decent speed for $60-$70 plus $14 for modem I will go you tube.


Why not buy a modem? It would pay for itself within a year +/-.


----------



## JolDC

trip1eX said:


> Except you don't have to clean up anything. You just start watching.
> 
> I didn't understand your phrasing because of the "once you clean stuff up...." part of it. That part is only for the OCD in a person.
> 
> New just organizes stuff pretty much like My Shows on Tivo did. That's the gist of it at least.


Can you please not jump in to every mention of this claiming we have a serious psychological disorder just because we want things different than you? We get it.


----------



## JolDC

mattyro7878 said:


> Just getting rid of my 3 boxes and 3 cablecards would pay for YTTV. My Comcast contract is up in a few weeks. If they give me some decent speed for $60-$70 plus $14 for modem I will go you tube. Then again the quality of trick play on Tivo is unparalleled. I try to frame by frame or go back 7 seconds when streaming and I want to go nuts. After 3 attempts I end up 20 minutes behind or ahead of where I was ...cant take it.


I was able to get a 600M deal for $99. $25 of that was the boost from 300M so you should be able to get 300M for around $75.

I used their subreddit to handle it. It took them a few weeks to get to my request but it allowed me to make the change dropping TV service without dealing with their retention team.


----------



## ncted

I just wish YTTV would provide an option to view the recordings of a given show in the order they were recorded as opposed to the season & episode or original airdate.


----------



## moyekj

Maybe a silly question with an obvious answer, but here goes. What is the proper/easy way to stop playback of a recording such that it doesn't continue playing in the background? Normally most recorded titles I don't reach the very end of the recording because there is some padding at the end. If you just use "Back" button to exit it keeps playing. Is the only sane way to do it then to pause it and then back out? What do you YTTV users do when done watching something?

On a related note, how to quickly get back to top "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" view without having to press a bunch of "Back" buttons? I'm constantly annoyed by this GUI and these app GUIs in general how many times you have to press "Back" when navigating around. I really miss a home type button (like TIVo button for TiVos) where you just go straight to a starting point without a whole bunch of presses. That kind of thing annoyed me too with TE4 making heavy use of Back button for certain things.


----------



## mdavej

@moyekj, Am I reading correctly that a long-time Tivo user is complaining about not being able to stop playback? I've complained about that aspect of Tivo for years only to be met with ridicule and bewilderment. "That's insane. Why would anybody ever want to stop playback when they can just pause or pick a different program? You need to have your head examined."


----------



## moyekj

mdavej said:


> @moyekj, Am I reading correctly that a long-time Tivo user is complaining about not being able to stop playback? I've complained about that aspect of Tivo for years only to be met with ridicule and bewilderment. "That's insane. Why would anybody ever want to stop playback when they can just pause or pick a different program? You need to have your head examined."


 On my TE3 TiVos the "spoiler" window (as I always called it) is turned off, so when I stopped playback there was nothing playing in the background. In fact as a TiVo user I complained about the guide having live tv in background as the only place I could not turn off, but I rarely use the guide anyway so didn't matter.


----------



## moyekj

Another weirdness: For recordings on "local" channels they are actually being recorded from Florida local channels (home of the primary YTTV family member) even though I'm in California. The weird thing is they are blocked from playing back until fully recorded for some odd reason. I can understand recording local channels from the primary region, but why block them from playback until fully recorded? So effectively instead of getting local recordings 3 hours earlier, it's (3 hours - length of recording) before I can watch them. Very odd...


----------



## osu1991

moyekj said:


> Another weirdness: For recordings on "local" channels they are actually being recorded from Florida local channels (home of the primary YTTV family member) even though I'm in California. The weird thing is they are blocked from playing back until fully recorded for some odd reason. I can understand recording local channels from the primary region, but why block them from playback until fully recorded? So effectively instead of getting local recordings 3 hours earlier, it's (3 hours - length of recording) before I can watch them. Very odd...


Yep that happens to us too when at our home in Vegas. Our accounts primary address is our home in Oklahoma. We can watch the Vegas locals live when out there, but recordings come from Tulsa locals and can't be watched until they're finished and some times can't be watched until after the west coast airing is over.


----------



## moyekj

osu1991 said:


> Yep that happens to us too when at our home in Vegas. Our accounts primary address is our home in Oklahoma. We can watch the Vegas locals live when out there, but recordings come from Tulsa locals and can't be watched until they're finished and some times can't be watched until after the west coast airing is over.


OK thanks, must be some restriction to comply with streaming rights of some sort no doubt. I haven't spent any time examining commercials to see if they are Florida local as well, or if some kind of commercial insertion is happening such that Florida local commercials are being replaced (hence perhaps the wait time for playing back). I have noticed on some recordings from Discovery channel some weird "empty" spots where commercials should be which indicates some manipulation of commercials is happening. Probably just overthinking this though...


----------



## JolDC

moyekj said:


> Maybe a silly question with an obvious answer, but here goes. What is the proper/easy way to stop playback of a recording such that it doesn't continue playing in the background? Normally most recorded titles I don't reach the very end of the recording because there is some padding at the end. If you just use "Back" button to exit it keeps playing. Is the only sane way to do it then to pause it and then back out? What do you YTTV users do when done watching something?
> 
> On a related note, how to quickly get back to top "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" view without having to press a bunch of "Back" buttons? I'm constantly annoyed by this GUI and these app GUIs in general how many times you have to press "Back" when navigating around. I really miss a home type button (like TIVo button for TiVos) where you just go straight to a starting point without a whole bunch of presses. That kind of thing annoyed me too with TE4 making heavy use of Back button for certain things.


I pause then back out. Don't know another way.

For getting back to library, it is just one back for me which takes me to a page with "Library Home Live" across the top. One or two lefts gets me to library which defaults to New.


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> Maybe a silly question with an obvious answer, but here goes. What is the proper/easy way to stop playback of a recording such that it doesn't continue playing in the background? Normally most recorded titles I don't reach the very end of the recording because there is some padding at the end. If you just use "Back" button to exit it keeps playing. Is the only sane way to do it then to pause it and then back out? What do you YTTV users do when done watching something?
> 
> On a related note, how to quickly get back to top "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" view without having to press a bunch of "Back" buttons? I'm constantly annoyed by this GUI and these app GUIs in general how many times you have to press "Back" when navigating around. I really miss a home type button (like TIVo button for TiVos) where you just go straight to a starting point without a whole bunch of presses. That kind of thing annoyed me too with TE4 making heavy use of Back button for certain things.


Pause, then back out is the only way I have found.

For the second question, I have not found a quick way, but if you wanted to go to Live TV, you press the down on the navigation pad to get to a list of live channels.


----------



## pdhenry

You can hit pause while it's playing in the background, BTW.

I don't know how playing in the background affects the point at which the show resumes when you go back in the next session though.Ideally it should resume where you backed out to the menus.


----------



## NotVeryWitty

moyekj said:


> Another weirdness: For recordings on "local" channels they are actually being recorded from Florida local channels (home of the primary YTTV family member) even though I'm in California. The weird thing is they are blocked from playing back until fully recorded for some odd reason. I can understand recording local channels from the primary region, but why block them from playback until fully recorded? So effectively instead of getting local recordings 3 hours earlier, it's (3 hours - length of recording) before I can watch them. Very odd...


Does that mean that time-shifting sports events requires you to wait for the end of the game before you can start watching it? That would be a deal-breaker for me.


----------



## trip1eX

JolDC said:


> Can you please not jump in to every mention of this claiming we have a serious psychological disorder just because we want things different than you? We get it.


Stop being hysterical. I said a lot more than my little OCD joke. YOur post and wording were confusing. You don't have to delete anything for the New tab to work like it works.

Also pretty obvious that my OCD joke about some of the features people think YTTV needs is also half-true.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> I just wish YTTV would provide an option to view the recordings of a given show in the order they were recorded as opposed to the season & episode or original airdate.


Why?


----------



## pdhenry

NotVeryWitty said:


> Does that mean that time-shifting sports events requires you to wait for the end of the game before you can start watching it? That would be a deal-breaker for me.


Not in the normal use case, where the account holder is watching at their own home.

In that instance for any recorded program in progress you're given the option to join it live or watch from the beginning.


----------



## moyekj

NotVeryWitty said:


> Does that mean that time-shifting sports events requires you to wait for the end of the game before you can start watching it? That would be a deal-breaker for me.


Yes as mentioned, this is only issue if recording YTTV out of your home market. It's not an issue for normal/home YTTV recordings.


----------



## hefe

I just discovered a feature I didn't know existed. I was watching a news type program, (on the Android TV app) and when skipping about I noticed the "Jump to" selection near the other options. Selecting that on a recording allowed me to jump directly to a topic in the show, like you would with chapters on a movie. Pretty neat.


----------



## hefe

hefe said:


> I just discovered a feature I didn't know existed. I was watching a news type program, (on the Android TV app) and when skipping about I noticed the "Jump to" selection near the other options. Selecting that on a recording allowed me to jump directly to a topic in the show, like you would with chapters on a movie. Pretty neat.


Apparently it's a new thing that isn't widely used yet.
https://www.cnet.com/news/youtubes-...ts-you-jump-to-a-specific-section-of-a-video/


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Why?


There are shows that have many, many episodes -- news shows like 48 Hours and Dateline NBC re-run often. The way YTTV organizes these is by original air date by week or similar time period. So, if it records a rerun from 2017, you have to scroll though dozens of weeks to find the most recently recorded episode. These aren't serialized, so it is likely that someone hasn't seen every episode in order it was broadcast, especially given how long they have been on. The easiest thing to do is just watch ones that rerun as they re-air, but YTTV handles this in a way that it is difficult to find the newest reruns.


----------



## JolDC

For those deciding on YTTV, the price just went up to $65 with today's addition of some Viacom channels

http://goo.gle/3g9d3KT


----------



## ncted

JolDC said:


> For those deciding on YTTV, the price just went up to $65 with today's addition of some Viacom channels
> 
> http://goo.gle/3g9d3KT


Dislike


----------



## trip1eX

Wowza. $65. That's a big increase. Not sure I'll be resubscribing anytime soon.

I don't watch much cable to begin with. IT's really mainly for sports for me as I otherwise watch Netflix and Showtime and HBO etc these days.

And I was already thinking of just getting some streaming season passes for a few sports and seeing how I like that. PLus supplementing with some OTA. NFL is mostly OTA. I would miss some things but I also have the parent's cable login if I really want to watch something which makes it easy for me to "experiment."


----------



## NashGuy

Seemed pretty likely that YouTube TV would once again add channels and hike their price in 2020. I was wrong on the details -- I predicted a spring price increase (as they did in '18 and '19) and figured the new channels would be the A+E and Hallmark channel groups (which offer more top-rated channels than Viacom), with the price going up to $60.

Perhaps their original contract with CBS was coming to an end soon and in order to renew it they had to take on the Viacom channels, now that they've merged with CBS to form ViacomCBS. My guess is that relatively few YTTV viewers will think those Viacom channels are worth an additional $15/mo. Although my guess is that YTTV still wasn't profitable at $50/mo with the channel line-up at that price. Maybe they will be at $65/mo with the addition of the Viacom channels?

I'm a little surprised that YTTV didn't opt to do what Hulu Live has done, which is to carve off some less-popular channels into an add-on pack for another $7-10.


----------



## moyekj

JolDC said:


> For those deciding on YTTV, the price just went up to $65 with today's addition of some Viacom channels
> 
> http://goo.gle/3g9d3KT


GULP! That's a 30% increase in price! Makes YTTV a much less attractive alternative to cable TV subscribers. We knew a price increase was bound to come, but I thought it would be $60/month not $65.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> There are shows that have many, many episodes -- news shows like 48 Hours and Dateline NBC re-run often. The way YTTV organizes these is by original air date by week or similar time period. So, if it records a rerun from 2017, you have to scroll though dozens of weeks to find the most recently recorded episode. These aren't serialized, so it is likely that someone hasn't seen every episode in order it was broadcast, especially given how long they have been on. The easiest thing to do is just watch ones that rerun as they re-air, but YTTV handles this in a way that it is difficult to find the newest reruns.


I hear ya, but Dateline NBC reruns are mostly very recent airings like almost all of them are of the past year/season. The odds you haven't seen one of them if the follow the show are very low. And you'll already have the first airings recorded going back 9 months.

Also ...the workaround or the new habit to develop is just check it less frequently for reruns. Let them pile up for three months and then check. It will be the same difference.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> I hear ya, but Dateline NBC reruns are mostly very recent airings like almost all of them are of the past year/season. The odds you haven't seen one of them if the follow the show are very low. And you'll already have the first airings recorded going back 9 months.
> 
> Also ...the workaround or the new habit to develop is just check it less frequently for reruns. Let them pile up for three months and then check. It will be the same difference.


Well, I am not sure it matters a whole lot now. I'll be looking for less expensive options going forward.


----------



## trip1eX

I need the Philo of sports. 

ESPN 1&2, NBC Sports, TNT, and then my regional sports channel. That would cover the vast majority of the reason why I get cable these days. And ...TNT I only need for NBA and NCAA tourney maybe. You can take out all the sitcom reruns and original shows. Just need the pre-game/post-game show at most. 

PUt that in package for $20/mo.


----------



## moyekj

Just had a long chat with Cox about cancelling TV and phone portion of my TV/cablecards/phone/internet (150Mbps) services and true to form they remain as sleazy as ever. My bill is currently $210/month for all 3, with just the TV portion at $126/month which is ridiculous and $75/month for 150 Mbps internet (which I consider high). So I tell them give me pricing with phone and TV dropped but keeping internet the same, and they come back with... wait for it... $190/month just for 150Mbps internet!! They say because the bundling of 3 services is really dropping the prices compared to what they are standalone (which doesn't match anything I saw in their web pages). Talk about sleazy! Has anyone heard of paying close to $200/month for << 1 Gbps internet, and with a data cap of 1TB/month? Of course they have a monopoly, with next best option here for Internet being AT&T DSL which is really crappy by many accounts. So after a lot of arguing they dropped the bill down to $180/month for TV/cablecards/phone/internet which is less than the $190/month they wanted for just internet alone. But no doubt I have to keep calling them every few months to retain my "discounts".

So looks like to really ditch Cox I'm going to have to first find a viable ISP replacement, which in this area I don't think there are any... Very frustrating.


----------



## hefe

Well crap. Now I'm rethinking things.


----------



## osu1991

moyekj said:


> Just had a long chat with Cox about cancelling TV and phone portion of my TV/cablecards/phone/internet (150Mbps) services and true to form they remain as sleazy as ever. My bill is currently $210/month for all 3, with just the TV portion at $126/month which is ridiculous and $75/month for 150 Mbps internet (which I consider high). So I tell them give me pricing with phone and TV dropped but keeping internet the same, and they come back with... wait for it... $190/month just for 150Mbps internet!! They say because the bundling of 3 services is really dropping the prices compared to what they are standalone (which doesn't match anything I saw in their web pages). Talk about sleazy! Has anyone heard of paying close to $200/month for << 1 Gbps internet, and with a data cap of 1TB/month? Of course they have a monopoly, with next best option here for Internet being AT&T DSL which is really crappy by many accounts. So after a lot of arguing they dropped the bill down to $180/month for TV/cablecards/phone/internet which is less than the $190/month they wanted for just internet alone. But no doubt I have to keep calling them every few months to retain my "discounts".
> 
> So looks like to really ditch Cox I'm going to have to first find a viable ISP replacement, which in this area I don't think there are any... Very frustrating.


Possibly that included the $50 fee for unlimited data. Cox has been including that in their all in price around here. Without the extra data fee, 150/10 internet is $79 in Tulsa with Cox and I think it's $89 for us in Las Vegas with Cox.

I have no choice either as 4Mbps windstream DSL is my other option here and the same from Centurylink in Vegas. My dad on the other hand just moved and is now in a new fiber neighborhood across the street from me and could get 1000/1000 from windstream for $75, but goes with 200/200 for $45 a month.

The Cox advanced tv/internet bundle with cable card was $180 a month back in January when I dropped it. I figured it would have gone up with their annual price increases that happen in March.


----------



## moyekj

osu1991 said:


> Possibly that included the $50 fee for unlimited data.


 Yes, I think on the phone they called it "streaming package" or something like that, but I think you're right. I could probably get internet service without that, but still would be something like $140/month with 1TB data cap which is absurd. Going by their web pages, no way it's that much, so no doubt it was retention services lying/exaggerating to make it seem a lot worse than reality had I dropped TV and phone.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> I'll be looking for less expensive options going forward.


YouTube TV and Fubo TV (which will soon get the Disney-owned nets, including ABC and ESPN) are now essentially full-scale cable TV services. We know YTTV is now $65. I wonder what Fubo's base package (which only has a 30-hr cloud DVR) will jump to? It's now $55. Hard to see how it doesn't hit $70 with those Disney nets added. Maybe they soften the blow by expanding the DVR.

For those who want to spend less for a streaming cable TV package, there aren't a lot of great choices.

Hulu with Live TV costs $55 in its most basic iteration (ads included in core Hulu library, basic 50-hr cloud DVR that forces ads). Upgrade the cloud DVR so you get 200 hrs and the ability to FF through ads and the cost goes up to $65, same as YTTV (which offers more channels and has an unlimited cloud DVR, although does not have the core Hulu on-demand library). So unless you value the core Hulu service and would have it anyway, Hulu with Live TV probably isn't a good option for folks leaving YTTV due to cost.

If you're willing to forego channels from Discovery, AMC, and A+E Networks, plus don't need RSNs or other upper-tier sports nets, then the $55 Plus package on AT&T TV Now would work. Comes with major locals (but no PBS and probably no CW), 500 hours of cloud DVR and the ability to FF through ads on all channels. But is it worth giving up that much versus YTTV to only save $10/mo?

So then there's Sling TV. If you're really willing to cut corners to save money, it could work. Their two core packages (Orange and Blue) cost $30 each, or you can combine them for $45. But you probably won't get any locals (although you might get your local ABC and/or Fox if you live in a top-10 market). And lots of other channels are missing too. Some are available via add-on "Extra Packs," although not any RSNs. The core packages only offer 10 hours of cloud DVR. Expanding that to 50 hours costs an extra $5. Not even sure if you can FF past ads in recordings from all channels, though.

If you have rather niche tastes in cable channels and don't need any sports or locals, Philo ($20) or Frndly TV ($6+) might work.

Only other option I know of is Vidgo, the newest entrant into this space. (I don't look for them to survive very long, but we'll see.) Their English-language Core package of channels regularly costs $40, while the Plus package costs $50. Pretty decent selection of channels, including sports, but no CBS, no Warner, and no RSNs. But popular nets from the Disney, NBCU, Fox, Discovery, Viacom, A+E, and Hallmark groups, plus various upper-tier sports nets like NFL Network. They say they offer locals "in select markets" -- not many, I'm guessing. But here's the big drawback: Vidgo currently doesn't offer ANY cloud DVR. Although they've recently stated that they intend to soon add that feature, along with 72-hr playback and VOD.


----------



## mdavej

Man, I hate to leave Youtube. I was ok with a $5-$10 bump for the additional channels. But $15 puts it back up there in cable TV territory. I've got one more month at $50, then I guess I'll have to switch to Sling. At least Sling is integrated into my Recast guide.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Just had a long chat with Cox about cancelling TV and phone portion of my TV/cablecards/phone/internet (150Mbps) services and true to form they remain as sleazy as ever. My bill is currently $210/month for all 3, with just the TV portion at $126/month which is ridiculous and $75/month for 150 Mbps internet (which I consider high). So I tell them give me pricing with phone and TV dropped but keeping internet the same, and they come back with... wait for it... $190/month just for 150Mbps internet!! They say because the bundling of 3 services is really dropping the prices compared to what they are standalone (which doesn't match anything I saw in their web pages). Talk about sleazy! Has anyone heard of paying close to $200/month for << 1 Gbps internet, and with a data cap of 1TB/month? Of course they have a monopoly, with next best option here for Internet being AT&T DSL which is really crappy by many accounts. So after a lot of arguing they dropped the bill down to $180/month for TV/cablecards/phone/internet which is less than the $190/month they wanted for just internet alone. But no doubt I have to keep calling them every few months to retain my "discounts".
> 
> So looks like to really ditch Cox I'm going to have to first find a viable ISP replacement, which in this area I don't think there are any... Very frustrating.


Don't know about Cox but my local Spectrum would not get serious about negotiating until I actually _requested_ to cut the cord, i.e., just discussing it or threatening it got me nowhere. (In my case it was too late when they finally got reasonable - I had already removed my CableCARD and TA and converted my base Roamio to OTA. I'm so down on Cable TV pricing games that I will NEVER go back to it, even though YTTV's price increase to $65 is causing me to quit that too.)


----------



## dlfl

mdavej said:


> Man, a hate to leave Youtube. I was ok with a $5-$10 bump for the additional channels. But $15 puts it back up there in cable TV territory. I've got one more month at $50, then I guess I'll have to switch to Sling. At least Sling is integrated into my Recast guide.


Absolutely ridiculous - I'm gone from YTTV. I'll never go back to cable TV but there are other streaming options and my lifetime Roamio basic covers my local OTA stations fine. Also I'm curious to see what the new TV service Amazon has announced will be.


----------



## zalusky

Well it was one of the options when my Xfinity contract expires next year but now I don't think its competitive. If I try to piece together my triple play as separate services there is no way I can get all that stuff. Now if the simple and easy pricing kicks in here I will have to do the math again.

People cut the cord because they wanted a cheaper price first and not have to pay for channels they don't watch second and this is a move back to the old ways.


----------



## samsauce29

dlfl said:


> Absolutely ridiculous - I'm gone from YTTV. I'll never go back to cable TV but there are other streaming options and my lifetime Roamio basic covers my local OTA stations fine. Also I'm curious to see what the new TV service Amazon has announced will be.


Agreed. A $15 increase for ZERO new channels I care about. Still doesn't have the Pittsburgh RSN.

For reasons of family harmony, I need to retain either YTTV or cable. Currently running the math to see which wins. (Good thing I never sold my lifetime TiVo!)


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I need the Philo of sports.
> 
> ESPN 1&2, NBC Sports, TNT, and then my regional sports channel. That would cover the vast majority of the reason why I get cable these days. And ...TNT I only need for NBA and NCAA tourney maybe. You can take out all the sitcom reruns and original shows. Just need the pre-game/post-game show at most.
> 
> PUt that in package for $20/mo.


Dream on. Disney will, sooner or later, offer all of the live sports content from the various ESPN channels/outlets in one big standalone streaming option via the ESPN app and I would think the price for that alone will be in the $15-20 range. Never mind the sports from NBC, Turner/Warner, Sinclair (RSNs), etc.


----------



## Bigg

$65 a month for YTTV. Holy ****. That's a LOT of money for news and sports!


----------



## moyekj

dlfl said:


> Don't know about Cox but my local Spectrum would not get serious about negotiating until I actually _requested_ to cut the cord, i.e., just discussing it or threatening it got me nowhere. (In my case it was too late when they finally got reasonable - I had already removed my CableCARD and TA and converted my base Roamio to OTA. I'm so down on Cable TV pricing games that I will NEVER go back to it, even though YTTV's price increase to $65 is causing me to quit that too.)


Which streaming service are you looking to switch to next? Also what was your resulting Spectrum Internet speed and price per month if you care to share?


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> Well it was one of the options when my Xfinity contract expires next year but now I don't think its competitive. If I try to piece together my triple play as separate services there is no way I can get all that stuff. Now if the simple and easy pricing kicks in here I will have to do the math again.


Just for kicks, I headed over to the Xfinity website and plugged in a friend's local address as if signing up as a new customer. If you're willing to bundle their Extra (125+ channel) TV package in with broadband, and you rent one X1 box ($5) and get the expanded cloud DVR ($10), AND you take a 2-yr contract on the whole bundle, then it looks like you end up paying about $68 more per month than you would if you just got standalone 100 Mbps broadband. And yes, I included the pesky broadcast TV and RSN fees. (Although if you just took broadband, you only have a 1-yr contract, not 2-yr.)

That Extra channel package includes a fair number of channels that YouTube TV doesn't have, even after adding Viacom today. Although YTTV has much better HD PQ and unlimited 9-month cloud DVR storage. Xfinity's expanded cloud DVR now offers 150 hours with 12-month retention. And, of course, YTTV is contract-free, so you can subscribe and drop it at will.

So, even at $65, YTTV is a very competitive option for what it offers. But not the bargain it used to be at $50.

[EDIT: This is in Nashville, which is a region that has converted over to Comcast's "Simple & Easy" pricing/packaging structure.]


----------



## MustHaveTivo

Was kind of expecting $10. Well, still up $51/month over our Charter bill. They should hand back Fox Sports West though. Cost wasn't our primary decision point, but it was certainly in the mix.


----------



## samsauce29

NashGuy said:


> Just for kicks, I headed over to the Xfinity website and plugged in a friend's local address as if signing up as a new customer. If you're willing to bundle their Extra (125+ channel) TV package in with broadband, and you rent one X1 box ($5) and get the expanded cloud DVR ($10), AND you take a 2-yr contract on the whole bundle, then it looks like you end up paying about $68 more per month than you would if you just got standalone 100 Mbps broadband. And yes, I included the pesky broadcast TV and RSN fees. (Although if you just took broadband, you only have a 1-yr contract, not 2-yr.)
> 
> That Extra channel package includes a fair number of channels that YouTube TV doesn't have, even after adding Viacom today. Although YTTV has much better HD PQ and unlimited 9-month cloud DVR storage. Xfinity's expanded cloud DVR now offers 150 hours with 12-month retention. And, of course, YTTV is contract-free, so you can subscribe and drop it at will.
> 
> So, even at $65, YTTV is a very competitive option for what it offers. But not the bargain it used to be at $50.


Agreed. I've just been running similar numbers for Spectrum. It's really within a few dollars per month at this point. Still super annoyed though!


----------



## windracer

Even after the increase YTTV is still $23/mo cheaper than my old Spectrum TV package, so I'll hold fast for now. It's only been 4 months I can't go crawling back to Spectrum so soon!


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> So, even at $65, YTTV is a very competitive option for what it offers. But not the bargain it used to be at $50.


It might be "competitive" if you just compare it to other MVPDs and vMVPDs, but not against cutting the cord. Different people's pain points are different, but moves like this in aggregate will just further accelerate cord cutting as more people reach that pain point, and people look to get their finances in order during and after COVID. Pay TV is an easy place to cut month after month.


----------



## zalusky

NashGuy said:


> Just for kicks, I headed over to the Xfinity website and plugged in a friend's local address as if signing up as a new customer. If you're willing to bundle their Extra (125+ channel) TV package in with broadband, and you rent one X1 box ($5) and get the expanded cloud DVR ($10), AND you take a 2-yr contract on the whole bundle, then it looks like you end up paying about $68 more per month than you would if you just got standalone 100 Mbps broadband. And yes, I included the pesky broadcast TV and RSN fees. (Although if you just took broadband, you only have a 1-yr contract, not 2-yr.)
> 
> That Extra channel package includes a fair number of channels that YouTube TV doesn't have, even after adding Viacom today. Although YTTV has much better HD PQ and unlimited 9-month cloud DVR storage. Xfinity's expanded cloud DVR now offers 150 hours with 12-month retention. And, of course, YTTV is contract-free, so you can subscribe and drop it at will.
> 
> So, even at $65, YTTV is a very competitive option for what it offers. But not the bargain it used to be at $50.
> 
> [EDIT: This is in Nashville, which is a region that has converted over to Comcast's "Simple & Easy" pricing/packaging structure.]


Yea we have talked about this before right now my bill total is $165 (2 year contract - 1 to go) thanks to my Roamio and Minis for 
500 MB Internet
Preferred Pro
HBO
Showtime
Landline

Internet by itself is $100
HBO @ $15
Showtime @ $11 or thereabouts
Landline varies a lot depending how you do it
YTTV $65 / Hulu Live $55(???)

If we gave up our landline and only subscribed to premiums as we watched stuff we could probably make it work.
Once my contract ends things future options with Comcast, Tivos future, as well as the competition might force change.
No matter what we dont watch broadcast so that is not an option.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> It might be "competitive" if you just compare it to other MVPDs and vMVPDs, but not against cutting the cord.


Yes. Also, the cost of eating at fine dining restaurants isn't "competitive" with the cost of buying generic brand groceries and doing your own cooking. When I referred to YTTV as competitively priced, I was obviously comparing it against like products, i.e. other full-scale live cable TV services with DVR.

That said, sure, as these vMVPDs all increase their prices, it will only accelerate the cord-cutting trend as folks move to a combination of a few SVODs, plus free AVODs, and for some, free OTA TV.


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> Yes. Also, the cost of eating at fine dining restaurants isn't "competitive" with the cost of buying generic brand groceries and doing your own cooking. When I referred to YTTV as competitively priced, I was obviously comparing it against like products, i.e. other full-scale live cable TV services with DVR.


But you have to look at whether the whole market makes sense to begin with. And it doesn't. Cord cutting is going to continue to spiral faster and faster.



> That said, sure, as these vMVPDs all increase their prices, it will only accelerate the cord-cutting trend as folks move to a combination of a few SVODs, plus free AVODs, and for some, free OTA TV.


Exactly. The whole pay TV ecosystem is swirling the toilet. It's going to be swirling for another decade or more, but it's swirling for sure.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> Yea we have talked about this before right now my bill total is $165 (2 year contract - 1 to go) thanks to my Roamio and Minis for
> 500 MB Internet
> Preferred Pro
> HBO
> Showtime
> Landline
> 
> Internet by itself is $100
> HBO @ $15
> Showtime @ $11 or thereabouts
> Landline varies a lot depending how you do it
> YTTV $65 / Hulu Live $55(???)
> 
> If we gave up our landline and only subscribed to premiums as we watched stuff we could probably make it work.
> Once my contract ends things future options with Comcast, Tivos future, as well as the competition might force change.
> No matter what we dont watch broadcast so that is not an option.


Yeah. I mean, you did pay for lifetime TiVo service plus the cost of the TiVo hardware. But still, to have a total Comcast bill for what you get of $165 is pretty good (relatively speaking). And, of course, when your 2-yr contract is up, they'll offer another deal to keep you (although probably with another contract).

Obviously, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to trade your bigger Comcast channel package plus HBO Max plus Showtime plus home phone service in exchange for YTTV, which would result in the same $165 monthly cost.


----------



## CommunityMember

JolDC said:


> For those deciding on YTTV, the price just went up to $65 with today's addition of some Viacom channels


It was always sort of expected that there would be an increase at some point. Those with some visibility into the numbers have consistently stated that YTTV was losing money on every subscriber in order to achieve market share (something that is a very common approach in the tech world). The reality is that while the largest of the cable/OTT companies do get some discount, the cost of content is not dramatically different across the market.

I would like to see YTTV consider breaking up the bundle into smaller pieces, but that is probably a complexity they do not wish to go down (and the Disney consortium requirements limit some of the options some would like to see (i.e. a no sports bundle)).


----------



## mrizzo80

Price increase sucks. I watch a couple cable news channels and some sports channels. That’s it. No entertainment channels. No locals. 

I like the YTTV interface (came from PS Vue) a lot and the responsiveness of the trick play controls is impressive, but my usage is so little that I’m not sure I can justify it. 

There’s no package for me at any provider. There’s nothing even close to my knowledge.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> YouTube TV and Fubo TV (which will soon get the Disney-owned nets, including ABC and ESPN) are now essentially full-scale cable TV services. We know YTTV is now $65. I wonder what Fubo's base package (which only has a 30-hr cloud DVR) will jump to? It's now $55. Hard to see how it doesn't hit $70 with those Disney nets added. Maybe they soften the blow by expanding the DVR.
> 
> For those who want to spend less for a streaming cable TV package, there aren't a lot of great choices.
> 
> Hulu with Live TV costs $55 in its most basic iteration (ads included in core Hulu library, basic 50-hr cloud DVR that forces ads). Upgrade the cloud DVR so you get 200 hrs and the ability to FF through ads and the cost goes up to $65, same as YTTV (which offers more channels and has an unlimited cloud DVR, although does not have the core Hulu on-demand library). So unless you value the core Hulu service and would have it anyway, Hulu with Live TV probably isn't a good option for folks leaving YTTV due to cost.
> 
> If you're willing to forego channels from Discovery, AMC, and A+E Networks, plus don't need RSNs or other upper-tier sports nets, then the $55 Plus package on AT&T TV Now would work. Comes with major locals (but no PBS and probably no CW), 500 hours of cloud DVR and the ability to FF through ads on all channels. But is it worth giving up that much versus YTTV to only save $10/mo?
> 
> So then there's Sling TV. If you're really willing to cut corners to save money, it could work. Their two core packages (Orange and Blue) cost $30 each, or you can combine them for $45. But you probably won't get any locals (although you might get your local ABC and/or Fox if you live in a top-10 market). And lots of other channels are missing too. Some are available via add-on "Extra Packs," although not any RSNs. The core packages only offer 10 hours of cloud DVR. Expanding that to 50 hours costs an extra $5. Not even sure if you can FF past ads in recordings from all channels, though.
> 
> If you have rather niche tastes in cable channels and don't need any sports or locals, Philo ($20) or Frndly TV ($6+) might work.
> 
> Only other option I know of is Vidgo, the newest entrant into this space. (I don't look for them to survive very long, but we'll see.) Their English-language Core package of channels regularly costs $40, while the Plus package costs $50. Pretty decent selection of channels, including sports, but no CBS, no Warner, and no RSNs. But popular nets from the Disney, NBCU, Fox, Discovery, Viacom, A+E, and Hallmark groups, plus various upper-tier sports nets like NFL Network. They say they offer locals "in select markets" -- not many, I'm guessing. But here's the big drawback: Vidgo currently doesn't offer ANY cloud DVR. Although they've recently stated that they intend to soon add that feature, along with 72-hr playback and VOD.


With the coming increase, I am revisiting the OTA+Sling Orange option. That gets me all the channels I care about. The hard part is the OTA reception. I have 7 weeks or so to figure it out. That was my original plan, but the repack made my existing setup worthless for CBS and ABC. If I am going to be saving $30-35 per month vs. YTTV, investing in a better OTA solution, professionally installed makes a lot more sense. My wife is also more willing to have an outdoor antenna with the 30% price increase being the alternative. We actually prefer the Sling interface, so there is a win there too. At least, that is what I am thinking right now. I am going to do some more research and give it a lot of thought first.


----------



## NashGuy

mrizzo80 said:


> Price increase sucks. I watch a couple cable news channels and some sports channels. That's it. No entertainment channels. No locals.
> 
> I like the YTTV interface (came from PS Vue) a lot and the responsiveness of the trick play controls is impressive, but my usage is so little that I'm not sure I can justify it.
> 
> There's no package for me at any provider. There's nothing even close to my knowledge.


The only cheaper option I know of that *might* work for you is Sling. Their Blue package costs $30/mo and includes CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, HLN, Bloomberg and Cheddar for news and FS1, NBCSN, TBS and TNT for sports. For another $15 ($45 total), you can add the Orange package and get ESPN/2/3. For another $10 ($55 total), you can add the Sports Extra pack and get NBA TV, SEC Network, SEC Network+, Pac-12, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, NHL Network, beIN SPORTS, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, Stadium, Outside Television, and Motorsport TV.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> With the coming increase, I am revisiting the OTA+Sling Orange option. That gets me all the channels I care about. The hard part is the OTA reception. I have 7 weeks or so to figure it out. That was my original plan, but the repack made my existing setup worthless for CBS and ABC. If I am going to be saving $30-35 per month vs. YTTV, investing in a better OTA solution, professionally installed makes a lot more sense. My wife is also more willing to have an outdoor antenna with the 30% price increase being the alternative. We actually prefer the Sling interface, so there is a win there too. At least, that is what I am thinking right now. I am going to do some more research and give it a lot of thought first.


If you're going that route, it might be worth your while to consider buying an AirTV Mini (Android TV streamer with a UI customized for Sling) and an AirTV 2 (OTA tuner+DVR that integrates with the Sling app). The former costs $80 and the latter $100, although they each have a $25 credit toward Sling, so a net cost of $130 for both.

Stream Local TV in HD | AirTV


----------



## mrizzo80

NashGuy said:


> The only cheaper option I know of that *might* work for you is Sling. Their Blue package costs $30/mo and includes CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, HLN, Bloomberg and Cheddar for news and FS1, NBCSN, TBS and TNT for sports. For another $15 ($45 total), you can add the Orange package and get ESPN/2/3. For another $10 ($55 total), you can add the Sports Extra pack and get NBA TV, SEC Network, SEC Network+, Pac-12, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, NHL Network, beIN SPORTS, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, Stadium, Outside Television, and Motorsport TV.


I may also consider the Spectrum "pick 10" channels. The package for $25 (which escalates to $40 with fees.)

I just bought a Stream 4K and it doesn't look like their app works on it though. I may buy an Apple TV this fall when they drop new hardware.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Which streaming service are you looking to switch to next? Also what was your resulting Spectrum Internet speed and price per month if you care to share?


I'm mulling it over. Perhaps Sling Blue. I have Spectrum's lowest-priced internet which is 100/10 and costs $70 with no taxes or fees. Metronet fiber-to-the-home is buliding out in my area and I plan to try that. It offers only slightly better cost/performance than Spectrum. I have no complaint about Spectrum internet, which is solid and has no caps. Even just the 100 Mbps is more than enough for our single-stream household.


----------



## tommiet

moyekj said:


> Which streaming service are you looking to switch to next? Also what was your resulting Spectrum Internet speed and price per month if you care to share?


In my area, Spectrum would raise my 200 Mbps internet bill $30.00 a month if I drop cable TV. So YTTV would end up costing me $94.99 a month. Streaming services with Spectrum.... just can't do it. Maybe when Starlink comes on line, I can dump Spectrum and (no rocks please... TiVo.)


----------



## mrizzo80

dlfl said:


> I'm mulling it over. Perhaps Sling Blue. I have Spectrum's lowest-priced internet which is 100/10 and costs $70 with no taxes or fees. Metronet fiber-to-the-home is buliding out in my area and I plan to try that. It offers only slightly better cost/performance than Spectrum. I have no complaint about Spectrum internet, which is solid and has no caps. Even just the 100 Mbps is more than enough for our single-stream household.


I'm in Cincinnati. I moved from a TWC 15MB plan about a year ago to the lowest Spectrum plan (200) and enjoyed the "new customer" promo rate of $45 for 12 months. I got a letter in the mail a few months ago saying it would jump to $70, but it only jumped to $60. That temporarily reprieve could be related to the lockdown. I'd choose 50MB for $45/mo if I could.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> If you're going that route, it might be worth your while to consider buying an AirTV Mini (Android TV streamer with a UI customized for Sling) and an AirTV 2 (OTA tuner+DVR that integrates with the Sling app). The former costs $80 and the latter $100, although they each have a $25 credit toward Sling, so a net cost of $130 for both.
> 
> Stream Local TV in HD | AirTV


I already have a Recast 4-tuner DVR. I've been using it as a backup for YTTV for Fox and NBC, not that much has been on.


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> The only cheaper option I know of that *might* work for you is Sling. Their Blue package costs $30/mo and includes CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, HLN, Bloomberg and Cheddar for news and FS1, NBCSN, TBS and TNT for sports. For another $15 ($45 total), you can add the Orange package and get ESPN/2/3. For another $10 ($55 total), you can add the Sports Extra pack and get NBA TV, SEC Network, SEC Network+, Pac-12, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, NHL Network, beIN SPORTS, ESPN Goal Line, ESPN Bases Loaded, Stadium, Outside Television, and Motorsport TV.


$30/mo is still crazy basically for cable news.


----------



## moyekj

Hopefully someone knows the answer to this: If you "pause" YTTV for a month or two and then return, does it still continue your DVR recordings while paused. I doubt it does but thought I would ask. If it did, then it's conceivable to just go a month or two without and then binge watch the recordings and pause again.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Hopefully someone knows the answer to this: If you "pause" YTTV for a month or two and then return, does it still continue your DVR recordings while paused. I doubt it does but thought I would ask. If it did, then it's conceivable to just go a month or two without and then binge watch the recordings and pause again.


yeah it doesn't keep recording new stuff. you don't lose current recordings though.


----------



## trip1eX

Fubo hiked their price too. $10/mo according to TheVerge. Possibly could only be $5/mo. Fubo also lost the Time Warner channels.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Dream on. Disney will, sooner or later, offer all of the live sports content from the various ESPN channels/outlets in one big standalone streaming option via the ESPN app and I would think the price for that alone will be in the $15-20 range. Never mind the sports from NBC, Turner/Warner, Sinclair (RSNs), etc.


It might be optimistic at $20 for the 5 sports channels. But could throw out the RSN and probably could be done. RSN cost will vary anyway. I know the rough cost of the cable channels.

The bigger obstacle is each media company agreeing to give only one of their channels to such a service. I mean I wouldn't doubt if somebody out there had this idea and tried to make it work and were shut down. Also contract/rights issues are probably an obstacle as well.


----------



## zalusky

I am kind of wondering if the cats out of the bag so to speak and the big media companies will eventually force direct pay and cut the cable business units out of the tv package loop. Originally the cable companies had all the power and would not even allow OTT and then HBO offered it and the damn started breaking. Now many internet vehicles OTT has broken out and all the media companies with their consolidated content are offering packages Peacock being sort of late to the game.

I think this future is a big reason that Comcast bought NBC and ATT bought Time Warner media to get content and keep revenue. Will Verizon buy CBS next?


----------



## slowbiscuit

Bigg said:


> It might be "competitive" if you just compare it to other MVPDs and vMVPDs, but not against cutting the cord. Different people's pain points are different, but moves like this in aggregate will just further accelerate cord cutting as more people reach that pain point, and people look to get their finances in order during and after COVID. Pay TV is an easy place to cut month after month.


LOL my $130/mo. all-in double play with Comcast looks better all the time.

YTTV at $65/mo. is a non starter vs. my Tivo setup and that package.


----------



## moyekj

moyekj said:


> Just had a long chat with Cox about cancelling TV and phone portion of my TV/cablecards/phone/internet (150Mbps) services and true to form they remain as sleazy as ever. My bill is currently $210/month for all 3, with just the TV portion at $126/month which is ridiculous and $75/month for 150 Mbps internet (which I consider high). So I tell them give me pricing with phone and TV dropped but keeping internet the same, and they come back with... wait for it... $190/month just for 150Mbps internet!! They say because the bundling of 3 services is really dropping the prices compared to what they are standalone (which doesn't match anything I saw in their web pages). Talk about sleazy! Has anyone heard of paying close to $200/month for << 1 Gbps internet, and with a data cap of 1TB/month? Of course they have a monopoly, with next best option here for Internet being AT&T DSL which is really crappy by many accounts. So after a lot of arguing they dropped the bill down to $180/month for TV/cablecards/phone/internet which is less than the $190/month they wanted for just internet alone. But no doubt I have to keep calling them every few months to retain my "discounts".
> 
> So looks like to really ditch Cox I'm going to have to first find a viable ISP replacement, which in this area I don't think there are any... Very frustrating.


I turned off WiFi on my phone to research Cox internet pricing as a new customer (since if I use Cox internet they refuse to show new customer pricing in their horrible web pages). Cox "Internet preferred 150" which is the same 150/5 Mbps plan I have now with 1.25TB data cap is $84/month without any promotions and using my own modem (which I already own). So obviously the $190/month for just internet was a complete fabrication or assuming all the add on internet packages (renting their WiFi gateway, the low lag option for gamers, the unlimited data, plus Cox Care, etc). That is much more like it. So with $65/month YTTV that would put monthly total at $149/month compared to the triple play $180/month special pricing I have now through Cox. That is the true comparison. So not a lot of savings/month to stick with Cox for now, but I know in a few months the bill will go up and current "savings" will go away and I'll have to fight to lower the price again, so may be worth just doing it now to get rid of that hassle.


----------



## gkottner

dlfl said:


> I'm mulling it over. Perhaps Sling Blue. I have Spectrum's lowest-priced internet which is 100/10 and costs $70 with no taxes or fees. Metronet fiber-to-the-home is buliding out in my area and I plan to try that. It offers only slightly better cost/performance than Spectrum. I have no complaint about Spectrum internet, which is solid and has no caps. Even just the 100 Mbps is more than enough for our single-stream household.


Sling currently has an offer for one month of Blue (or Orange) and 1 month of Epix, Starz and Showtime for $20. Included DVR is only 10 hrs. You can raise it to 50 hours for $5. I'm an on and off again user of Sling since it has AXS TV. (Old 60s rocker here) The DVR works, but it is not fluid nor intuitive. You'll get messages that say "This action is not allowed" and then you press the button again and it will work. To get to the DVR version of your show, you have to select the show from the DVR row. If you pause the show and then re-access in any other manner than the DVR row, you'll end with with a VOD version. Also, if you have a fire tv, the voice controls work for the most part. Good Luck.


----------



## mdavej

slowbiscuit said:


> LOL my $130/mo. all-in double play with Comcast looks better all the time.
> 
> YTTV at $65/mo. is a non starter vs. my Tivo setup and that package.


The key to my savings with YTTV is the fact that mine is shared. Just sharing with my parents (whose TV I pay for anyway) replaces their $120 TV bill and my $120 TV bill with a single $65 TV bill. Yes, if I beg and plead or threaten to cancel every year, I can usually get a deal on cable. But even with hefty discounts, all the extra fees wipe out most of those savings.

Bottom line, for two households combined, I'm looking a $30 for internet in one home plus $45 for internet and $65 for TV in the other, for a grand total of $140. If it were just me, I wouldn't get cable/streaming TV at all, just free OTA.


----------



## mdavej

gkottner said:


> Sling currently has an offer for one month of Blue (or Orange) and 1 month of Epix, Starz and Showtime for $20. Included DVR is only 10 hrs. You can raise it to 50 hours for $5. I'm an on and off again user of Sling since it has AXS TV. (Old 60s rocker here) The DVR works, but it is not fluid nor intuitive. You'll get messages that say "This action is not allowed" and then you press the button again and it will work. To get to the DVR version of your show, you have to select the show from the DVR row. If you pause the show and then re-access in any other manner than the DVR row, you'll end with with a VOD version. Also, if you have a fire tv, the voice controls work for the most part. Good Luck.


I was looking hard at Sling too. The cable channels would work fine, but it's the lack of locals that kills it for me. YTTV is the only one that has all my locals, including PBS. So I'm still kind of stuck with YTTV.

But if locals weren't an issue, I'd go for Sling Blue and the free AirTV offer to get locals via antenna.


----------



## gkottner

mdavej said:


> I was looking hard at Sling too. The cable channels would work fine, but it's the lack of locals that kills it for me. YTTV is the only one that has all my locals, including PBS. So I'm still kind of stuck with YTTV.
> 
> But if locals weren't an issue, I'd go for Sling Blue and the free AirTV offer to get locals via antenna.


I should have added that I can get all my locals with OTA, so Sling doesn't have that drawback for me.


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> I was looking hard at Sling too. The cable channels would work fine, but it's the lack of locals that kills it for me. YTTV is the only one that has all my locals, including PBS. So I'm still kind of stuck with YTTV.
> 
> But if locals weren't an issue, I'd go for Sling Blue and the free AirTV offer to get locals via antenna.


 You can't get any locals, or just not some locals? You do know that Hulu basic has next day showings of broadcast shows for all but CBS, right?


----------



## chiguy50

zalusky said:


> Yea we have talked about this before right now my bill total is $165 (2 year contract - 1 to go) thanks to my Roamio and Minis for
> 500 MB Internet
> Preferred Pro
> HBO
> Showtime
> Landline
> 
> Internet by itself is $100
> HBO @ $15
> Showtime @ $11 or thereabouts
> Landline varies a lot depending how you do it
> YTTV $65 / Hulu Live $55(???)
> 
> If we gave up our landline and only subscribed to premiums as we watched stuff we could probably make it work.
> Once my contract ends things future options with Comcast, Tivos future, as well as the competition might force change.
> No matter what we dont watch broadcast so that is not an option.


You might have a couple of better options right now with Comcast, particularly if you were willing to let go of their VoIP phone service. Bear in mind that you don't have to wait until the end of your current 2-year agreement to switch plans since in most cases you will be exempt from any early termination fees as long as you retain at least one Comcast service on your account. If in doubt, check the terms of your contract and/or talk with a Comcast CSR about your options.

Looking at current offers in Cupertino (zip code 95014), there is, e.g., the *X1 Premier Pro+ Double Play with HBO Max* ($130 plus fees & taxes w/12-mo. agreement), which should be similar to what you have now except without the VoIP but with a HSI speed boost to gigabit; it does not include the X1 STB rental but should add a few additional channels over your older Preferred tier; and it offers a $10/p.m. discount if you have Xfinity Mobile cellular service.

Alternatively, there's the similar *X1 Preferred Pro+ Double Play* ($105 plus fees & taxes), which should have the same channel lineup as your current plan minus HBO but with a small speed boost to 600Mbps. One advantage of this plan is that you can add HBO Max for $15 p.m. and then drop and re-add it as you like to save subscription fees from time to time since Xfinity (unlike every other provider AFAIK) will only charge you a pro-rata fee (approx. $0.50) for the number of days in the billing period that the premium channel subscription is active.










Or, if you want to keep the VoIP, you can opt for a new 2-year agreement with the *X1 Preferred Pro+ Triple Play with HBO Max* ($140 plus fees & taxes). The end price should be about the same as you are paying now (assuming that the price you quoted is the net monthly recurring cost), but you get double the HSI speed and an additional year of service price freeze under the agreement. And, as with the other two plans, you can get another $10 off with XM cellular service.


----------



## mdavej

lparsons21 said:


> You can't get any locals, or just not some locals? You do know that Hulu basic has next day showings of broadcast shows for all but CBS, right?


It's complicated due to the sharing situation I posted about earlier. Personally, I can get all my locals via OTA, but my parents can only get a few. So Sling Blue plus AirTV would work perfectly if it was just me.

Good to know about Hulu. I already have Hulu but rarely use it. I need to poke around and see how many of my fav network shows are on there.


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> It's complicated due to the sharing situation I posted about earlier. Personally, I can get all my locals via OTA, but my parents can only get a few. So Sling Blue plus AirTV would work perfectly if it was just me.
> 
> Good to know about Hulu. I already have Hulu but rarely use it. I need to poke around and see how many of my fav network shows are on there.


The only broadcast show that I know of that isn't on Hulu next day is Blacklist.

But here's something you might find interesting:

Sling TV Won't Raise Prices for Existing Customers, Guaranteed Through August 2021 | Cord Cutters News


----------



## foghorn2

Bigg said:


> $30/mo is still crazy basically for cable news.


Not really if there's other channels you like, Right now to get Fox News, Sling is the best option. For $30 bucks I can buffer it and skip the commercials, and then glance over to the other two and see what they are not reporting at all.
I do end up watching the commercials at times on Fox when I multitask or cook and dont skip ahead. I purchased 3 my pillows already 

I also get the Food Network , IFC and NatGeo and a few others I watch. $30 is a bargain if you have free OTA (I use the Air TV tuner which is integrates into the guide) and dont need more sports.


----------



## trip1eX

mdavej said:


> It's complicated due to the sharing situation I posted about earlier. Personally, I can get all my locals via OTA, but my parents can only get a few. So Sling Blue plus AirTV would work perfectly if it was just me.
> 
> Good to know about Hulu. I already have Hulu but rarely use it. I need to poke around and see how many of my fav network shows are on there.


Sling doesn't have accounts either. And paltry dvr space even with the extra $5 fee. For sharing that would suck compared to YTTV.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Sling doesn't have accounts either. And paltry dvr space even with the extra $5 fee. For sharing that would suck compared to YTTV.


YTTV's multiple accounts are nice, I miss having them.

DVR? Well not so much since there is so little of anything new to record it just never was an issue for me when I had Sling. But for those that DVR everything it would be a downside for sure.


----------



## trip1eX

I just noticed Sling has La Liga for $10/mo. And you don't need anything else. I'll be trying that out soon.

I'm going to try the sports direct route. Besides the above, Indycar is $55/season. F1 is $3/mo for replays which works because almost every race is shown from 12 am to 8am. Premiere League is $60/season. NFL is OTA for the most part. NBA League Pass to follow one team is $15/mo maybe on average. ONly need for 6 months max. 

And there I get a lot of the sports I watch. Price would be $55, $30, $60, $90 or $235/yr which is just shy of $20/mo. La LIga would make for 6 months of the year would make it almost $300/yr. or $25/mo.


----------



## zalusky

chiguy50 said:


> You might have a couple of better options right now with Comcast, ...


Thanks we are pretty happy with our T-Mobile 55+ plan at $30 each for two of us. So we have no interest in their mobile offering. Yea the big question is dumping their VOIP. We have a fax machine and recently dumped a second line that it was on. We moved it to our primary VOIP line. We use the fax a lot less these days but do have an occasional need. I have looked at eFax options but have not seen one that is competitive with a straight line. So the question is moving our landline to another VOIP provider and I don't see it as competitive as just having it on Comcast as a triple play option.

So the question after that is dumping the landline entirely, we have had that number forever and its in everybodies phonebook. I suppose we could get a google voice number that aliases to one or both of our cell phones. I know the "kids today" as they say are dumping landline numbers pretty fast. Maybe at some point but the WAF is a crucial point in that decision.

Thanks for the suggestions.


----------



## pdhenry

tommiet said:


> Maybe when Starlink comes on line, I can dump Spectrum and (no rocks please... TiVo.)


I don't think Starlink will be positioning themselves to be price-competitive where (cable) broadband services already exist. They plan to be the option for those who aren't currently served, perhaps at at a lower price point than satellite internet (which has higher latency and lower bandwidth, so perhaps not).


----------



## mdavej

trip1eX said:


> Sling doesn't have accounts either. And paltry dvr space even with the extra $5 fee. For sharing that would suck compared to YTTV.


Yes, there are many sucky things about Sling. You get what you pay for I guess.


----------



## dlfl

Well, after revisiting streaming service options after proclaiming I was done with YTTV (in response to their $15 increase), I’m beginning to waver. I can’t find anything that suits my needs for a lower overall cost! This in spite of the fact that I don’t need local stations (because I have an OTA TiVo for those). Sling almost does it for me except for two show stoppers: BBC America and Fox Sports Ohio (for my Cincy Reds, new games starting late this month!). Other services (e.g., Hulu Live Plus with a decent DVR capacity added) cost as much or more as YTTV.

What this, and the recent discussion in this thread, is illustrating is what actually should have been obvious already: content providers are in the drivers seat regardless of how the content is delivered. And content is expensive and getting more so all the time. We consumers are addicted to costly content and will pay through the nose for it. At least until we decide we can’t afford it ......

I have railed against YTTV on the subreddit for not improving their DVR features in spite of revenue over $100 Million. But assuming it is true that YTTV was actually losing money at $50/month, as is frequently claimed, then this is just another illustration of content cost domination.

EDIT: Should have said BBC World News rather than BBC America


----------



## foghorn2

zalusky said:


> Thanks we are pretty happy with our T-Mobile 55+ plan at $30 each for two of us. So we have no interest in their mobile offering. Yea the big question is dumping their VOIP. We have a fax machine and recently dumped a second line that it was on. We moved it to our primary VOIP line. We use the fax a lot less these days but do have an occasional need. I have looked at eFax options but have not seen one that is competitive with a straight line. So the question is moving our landline to another VOIP provider and I don't see it as competitive as just having it on Comcast as a triple play option.
> 
> So the question after that is dumping the landline entirely, we have had that number forever and its in everybodies phonebook. I suppose we could get a google voice number that aliases to one or both of our cell phones. I know the "kids today" as they say are dumping landline numbers pretty fast. Maybe at some point but the WAF is a crucial point in that decision.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions.


Just use google voice and OBI 200 series device, all you pay for is the OBI one time, faxes are free


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> Well, after revisiting streaming service options after proclaiming I was done with YTTV (in response to their $15 increase), I'm beginning to waver. I can't find anything that suits my needs for a lower overall cost! This in spite of the fact that I don't need local stations (because I have an OTA TiVo for those). Sling almost does it for me except for two show stoppers: BBC America and Fox Sports Ohio (for my Cincy Reds, new games starting late this month!). Other services (e.g., Hulu Live Plus with a decent DVR capacity added) cost as much or more as YTTV.


Yeah that's my conclusion as well. YTTV still my #1 choice if I get a cable service again.


----------



## zalusky

foghorn2 said:


> Just use google voice and OBI 200 series device, all you pay for is the OBI one time, faxes are free


I will give it a look. Thanks!


----------



## foghorn2

BBC America (oxymoron and theres no BBC shows on it and why is star trek on it, and BBC has a different meaning now days  ) is on Sling

Sling BBC!!!


----------



## moyekj

Sling with their crappy DVR option and no locals is off the table for me. YTTV seems like the only streaming service I've seen so far with decent DVR capability. Even at $65/month YTTV can save me $30/month over using TiVo with my current special cable pricing, and probably more savings in a few months, so it's still an option I consider, but seems like with price increases happening every year so far it's going to get back to about same cost as cable ultimately. As also mentioned above, ultimately it's the content providers driving the cost no matter how you get access to it.


----------



## chiguy50

zalusky said:


> Thanks we are pretty happy with our T-Mobile 55+ plan at $30 each for two of us. So we have no interest in their mobile offering. Yea the big question is dumping their VOIP. We have a fax machine and recently dumped a second line that it was on. We moved it to our primary VOIP line. We use the fax a lot less these days but do have an occasional need. I have looked at eFax options but have not seen one that is competitive with a straight line. So the question is moving our landline to another VOIP provider and I don't see it as competitive as just having it on Comcast as a triple play option.
> 
> So the question after that is dumping the landline entirely, we have had that number forever and its in everybodies phonebook. I suppose we could get a google voice number that aliases to one or both of our cell phones. I know the "kids today" as they say are dumping landline numbers pretty fast. Maybe at some point but the WAF is a crucial point in that decision.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions.


Determining the right cellular provider and plan is very subjective, so you have to make your own personal decision beyond the simple dollars and cents of it. However, by comparison, if XM suits your service needs, it should be considerably cheaper that your current $60 p.m. for two lines. If you use very little data, you can sign up for XM's by-the-gig plan, which will cost you $15 p.m. plus taxes for up to five lines (any data usage over one gig combined for all lines is another $15 per gig). Or, you can opt for the 3gig plan for $30 p.m. (also $15 for each additional gig of data). Subtract the $10 p.m. discount on your CATV/HSI package, and the total cost should be very attractive assuming you like the service (XM uses the Verizon network). Full disclosure: My wife and I switched to XM beginning in September 2018 and like it a lot. Our total monthly bill is in the neighborhood of $16 on the legacy $12 per gig plan. We also got $700 worth of credits for porting our numbers (in my case it was a secondary VoIP number) and purchasing new iPhones.

As far as VoIP services are concerned, there are a number of them to choose from. I have been using Ooma, which costs around $6 p.m. for the basic service and another $10 p.m. for the premium service with additional features. You would have to purchase the Ooma Telo device, which will run you another $75 or so depending on the retail source. Porting of your current telephone number should be relatively easy.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> I already have a Recast 4-tuner DVR. I've been using it as a backup for YTTV for Fox and NBC, not that much has been on.


Ah. Does the native Fire TV UI -- grid guide, etc. -- that shows OTA channels from the Recast also incorporate streaming channels from Sling? I know it does that with Philo and used to do so with PS Vue. I figure if Sling is willing to do it for the TiVo Stream 4K, maybe they also do it for Fire TV.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Ah. Does the native Fire TV UI -- grid guide, etc. -- that shows OTA channels from the Recast also incorporate streaming channels from Sling? I know it does that with Philo and used to do so with PS Vue. I figure if Sling is willing to do it for the TiVo Stream 4K, maybe they also do it for Fire TV.


It didn't used to. Not a big deal really. Almost everything we watch on "cable" channels would be DVR'd anyway.


----------



## NashGuy

dlfl said:


> Well, after revisiting streaming service options after proclaiming I was done with YTTV (in response to their $15 increase), I'm beginning to waver. I can't find anything that suits my needs for a lower overall cost! This in spite of the fact that I don't need local stations (because I have an OTA TiVo for those). Sling almost does it for me except for two show stoppers: BBC America and Fox Sports Ohio (for my Cincy Reds, new games starting late this month!). Other services (e.g., Hulu Live Plus with a decent DVR capacity added) cost as much or more as YTTV.


Yep, I think a lot of folks upset about the YTTV price increase will end up finding that there's nothing else that gives them the channels and features they want for less money. As a point of comparison, if you went with standalone AT&T TV (their new flagship service will a full set of channel packages, 500-hr cloud DVR, an included custom box + remote), their Choice package might work for you as it includes both BBC America and Fox Sports Ohio. But you have to sign a 2-yr contract. You get $300 in Visa gift cards up-front, low monthly price plus free HBO Max the first year, then regular high price in the second year. When you sum it all up, it averages out to about $83 per month. Pretty similar channel line-up to YTTV, except AT&T TV does have Hallmark, A&E, History, Lifetime, and Game Show Network, all of which are missing on YTTV. For those who were going to spend $15/mo on HBO Max anyway, then it _might_ make sense to go with AT&T TV (since you get HBO Max free the first year). But most would find YTTV to be the better deal, even at $65.


----------



## zalusky

chiguy50 said:


> Determining the right cellular provider and plan is very subjective, so you have to make your own personal decision beyond the simple dollars and cents of it. However, by comparison, if XM suits your service needs, it should be considerably cheaper that your current $60 p.m. for two lines. If you use very little data, you can sign up for XM's by-the-gig plan, which will cost you $15 p.m. plus taxes for up to five lines (any data usage over one gig combined for all lines is another $15 per gig). Or, you can opt for the 3gig plan for $30 p.m. (also $15 for each additional gig of data). Subtract the $10 p.m. discount on your CATV/HSI package, and the total cost should be very attractive assuming you like the service (XM uses the Verizon network). Full disclosure: My wife and I switched to XM beginning in September 2018 and like it a lot. Our total monthly bill is in the neighborhood of $16 on the legacy $12 per gig plan. We also got $700 worth of credits for porting our numbers (in my case it was a secondary VoIP number) and purchasing new iPhones.
> 
> As far as VoIP services are concerned, there are a number of them to choose from. I have been using Ooma, which costs around $6 p.m. for the basic service and another $10 p.m. for the premium service with additional features. You would have to purchase the Ooma Telo device, which will run you another $75 or so depending on the retail source. Porting of your current telephone number should be relatively easy.


I use all data and very little voice although with the pandemic lately I do all the shopping so I am calling the wife and face-timing in the stores a lot. I also use T-Mobile free international data when traveling as well. It's not unusual for the wife to stream some video when we are out the car as well. Have you faxed on an Ooma line?


----------



## dlfl

foghorn2 said:


> BBC America (oxymoron and theres no BBC shows on it and why is star trek on it, and BBC has a different meaning now days  ) is on Sling
> 
> Sling BBC!!!


I meant BBC World News.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> I use all data and very little voice although with the pandemic lately I do all the shopping so I am calling the wife and face-timing in the stores a lot. I also use T-Mobile free international data when traveling as well. It's not unusual for the wife to stream some video when we are out the car as well. Have you faxed on an Ooma line?


You can fax on an Ooma line. As they explain, faxing may not work as well as on a dedicated landline but I see no reason why it wouldn't work as well as the Comcast VOIP line you're already using.

Faxing with Ooma

As for switching to Xfinity Mobile or any other plan that doesn't included unlimited data, you really just have to figure out how much data you tend to use by pulling out your past monthly phone bills. Lots of folks overpay for unlimited data that they don't need but then others use so much data that unlimited is a better deal for them.


----------



## zalusky

NashGuy said:


> You can fax on an Ooma line. As they explain, faxing may not work as well as on a dedicated landline but I see no reason why it wouldn't work as well as the Comcast VOIP line you're already using.
> 
> Faxing with Ooma
> 
> As for switching to Xfinity Mobile or any other plan that doesn't included unlimited data, you really just have to figure out how much data you tend to use by pulling out your past monthly phone bills. Lots of folks overpay for unlimited data that they don't need but then others use so much data that unlimited is a better deal for them.


True enough. We also have ATT Fiber in our neighborhood so I have to enter that into the equation when our contract discount expires which would negate any triple/double play arguments regarding Xfinity mobile.


----------



## tommiet

pdhenry said:


> I don't think Starlink will be positioning themselves to be price-competitive where (cable) broadband services already exist. They plan to be the option for those who aren't currently served, perhaps at at a lower price point than satellite internet (which has higher latency and lower bandwidth, so perhaps not).


Cost may be an issue. But they also are saying that they will qualify for billions of federal money as their latency is low enough. So they say..... But I can't believe they will spend tons of money for limited access.

If the cost is close to Spectrum, I'll take it as I will have internet access anywhere in the world. Could also dump my cell phone service and use internet for all my needs.


----------



## mdavej

zalusky said:


> Thanks we are pretty happy with our T-Mobile 55+ plan at $30 each for two of us. So we have no interest in their mobile offering. Yea the big question is dumping their VOIP. We have a fax machine and recently dumped a second line that it was on. We moved it to our primary VOIP line. We use the fax a lot less these days but do have an occasional need. I have looked at eFax options but have not seen one that is competitive with a straight line. So the question is moving our landline to another VOIP provider and I don't see it as competitive as just having it on Comcast as a triple play option.
> 
> So the question after that is dumping the landline entirely, we have had that number forever and its in everybodies phonebook. I suppose we could get a google voice number that aliases to one or both of our cell phones. I know the "kids today" as they say are dumping landline numbers pretty fast. Maybe at some point but the WAF is a crucial point in that decision.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions.


For fax, I use FaxZero.

I also use free Google Voice and OBI. You have to jump through some hoops to port a land line number. But I did it, and it worked fine. I also have Ooma in another place, which is more expensive ($4 versus free), but much easier to port from a land line.


----------



## Bigg

slowbiscuit said:


> LOL my $130/mo. all-in double play with Comcast looks better all the time.
> 
> YTTV at $65/mo. is a non starter vs. my Tivo setup and that package.


I guess if you compare it to YTTV, it's equally as horrendous.



foghorn2 said:


> Not really if there's other channels you like, Right now to get Fox News, Sling is the best option. For $30 bucks I can buffer it and skip the commercials, and then glance over to the other two and see what they are not reporting at all.


Fake News should pay people to watch their garbage. But even for CNN and MSNBC, they're just not worth $30/mo. Some of the shows including Rachel Maddow you can get the next day with fewer commercials as a podcast for free. I'd pay about $4/mo for CNN and MSNBC, maybe a tad more if they threw in BBC and a few other news channels.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> True enough. We also have ATT Fiber in our neighborhood so I have to enter that into the equation when our contract discount expires which would negate any triple/double play arguments regarding Xfinity mobile.


Around here, AT&T Fiber is only offering new customers symmetrical 1 gigabit service, with HBO Max included. You get a better deal, of course, taking AT&T TV too, which requires a 2-yr contract. (AT&T Fiber is contract-free.) If you combine gigabit internet with their largest channel package ("Ultimate") on AT&T TV, the cost including all fees (but not including taxes) is $138/mo the first year then $223/mo the second year at the regular price. (But lots of folks on AT&T Fiber say they've succeeded at getting their first-year promo price extended if they call just before the first year ends. AT&T TV might offer some kind of concession in the second year too, although I'd say that's less likely since you're under contract.) You get $400 in Visa gift cards. All summed and averaged out over the 24 months, it comes out to about $164/mo, which is right about what you pay Comcast now. Except Comcast also gives you Showtime ($11 value) and home phone VOIP (which would cost you a few bucks per month with Ooma).

Good thing about AT&T TV, though, is that it has excellent HD picture quality. Blows Comcast out of the water.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> But even for CNN and MSNBC, they're just not worth $30/mo. Some of the shows including Rachel Maddow you can get the next day with fewer commercials as a podcast for free. I'd pay about $4/mo for CNN and MSNBC, maybe a tad more if they threw in BBC and a few other news channels.


The NBC News app for Apple TV (not sure about other devices) offers pretty much all of the daily MSNBC shows for free, including Rachel Maddow. They're chopped up into long segments, with one forced ad at the start. Maddow airs live at 8 Central and the app usually has the segments available by midnight.


----------



## foghorn2

NashGuy said:


> The NBC News app for Apple TV (not sure about other devices) offers pretty much all of the daily MSNBC shows for free, including Rachel Maddow. They're chopped up into long segments, with one forced ad at the start. Maddow airs live at 8 Central and the app usually has the segments available by midnight.


Thats not live news, actually not real news at all, look at its ratings , even when its free.
As Bigg said, you cant you'd have to pay people to watch that fake news from MSDNC

If you want 1 balanced news channel that actually reports the real events happening live, and two others that pick and choose woke related news to divide people for political gain, Sling @ $30 is the cheapest option.


----------



## mdavej

foghorn2 said:


> Thats not live news, actually not real news at all, look at its ratings , even when its free.
> As Bigg said, you cant you'd have to pay people to watch that fake news from MSDNC


I'm as disappointed in RNC... I mean FNC as senator Grassley is. He says the fair and balanced channel isn't working hard enough to get Trump re-elected. C'mon free press, do your job for once!
Sen. Grassley Thinks Fox Isn't Working Hard Enough to Get Trump Re-Elected


----------



## pl1

gkottner said:


> Sling currently has an offer for one month of Blue (or Orange) and 1 month of Epix, Starz and Showtime for $20.


I just wanted to point out that there is also a 14 day free trial as well. Plus the offer for 30 day SHO, Epix, Star. The different options can be a bit hard to find. I am trying out the Blue Package for $30 and the Total TV Deal for $20. (Comedy Extra, News Extra, Heartland Extra, Sports Extra, Kids Extra, Lifestyle Extra, Hollywood Extra _and _Cloud DVR Plus)

The only thing missing for me is the locals (I have an antenna with TiVo) and my Regional Sports Network (NESN).

Sling TV is convoluted when compared to YTTV. But, it is also quite a bit cheaper. I can get by paying $35/mo for Sling vs $65/mo for YTTV. (I will just use a sports app to eliminate the need for their regional sports package.)

14 days should be a good test of Sling TV. I really am willing to pay more for YTTV because I love the interface. But, I just don't need the locals, not to mention the many channels I will never watch which I'm still paying for. I feel like we are seeing the exact same thing we saw with the cableco. Just keep jacking up the prices. At least some providers are going a-la-cart, although so aren't some cableco's.


----------



## dlfl

AFAIK, there is no way to get the RSN I want, which is Fox Sports Ohio, other than as part of a large package (e.g., YTTV or Hulu Live) that costs over $50. Is there any other way to get every Reds game (when they play that is)? My little understanding of the MLB video packages is that they cost a lot and still would not let me see every Reds game — is that incorrect?


----------



## mrizzo80

Bigg said:


> I guess if you compare it to YTTV, it's equally as horrendous.
> 
> Fake News should pay people to watch their garbage. But even for CNN and MSNBC, they're just not worth $30/mo. Some of the shows including Rachel Maddow you can get the next day with fewer commercials as a podcast for free. I'd pay about $4/mo for CNN and MSNBC, maybe a tad more if they threw in BBC and a few other news channels.


MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC live simulcast streams are "free" with satellite radio. I have the cheapest package and get them. I listen regularly on my Echo devices, too.

I don't think Fox is available. Fox Business might be.


----------



## pl1

dlfl said:


> AFAIK, there is no way to get the RSN I want, which is Fox Sports Ohio, other than as part of a large package (e.g., YTTV or Hulu Live) that costs over $50. Is there any other way to get every Reds game (when they play that is)? My little understanding of the MLB video packages is that they cost a lot and still would not let me see every Reds game - is that incorrect?


I did a quick search for MLB and VPN. Here is the first link I found.
MLB.tv Blackouts Workaround using a VPN : Tested March 2020!


----------



## pl1

mrizzo80 said:


> MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC live simulcast streams are "free" with satellite radio. I have the cheapest package and get them. I listen regularly on my Echo devices, too.
> 
> I don't think Fox is available. Fox Business might be.


Both of those channels are on SiriusXM. I can listen to both of those channels with the siriusxm app on my Fire TV.

EDIT: Oh, not free. I have a Lifetime sub.
EDIT:Further clarification. I have a Lifetime Sub to SiriusXM radio. That includes free streaming to all of the former Sirius Satellite Radio channels.


----------



## mrizzo80

pl1 said:


> Both of those channels are on SiriusXM. I can listen to both of those channels with the siriusxm app on my Fire TV.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, not free. I have a Lifetime sub.


Ah, the Echos must be using TuneIn for the feed. I was thinking I had linked my SiriusXM account, but I don't pay for their streaming add-on.

So I guess you don't even need a satellite radio subscription to get various news feeds.


----------



## pl1

mrizzo80 said:


> Ah, the Echos must be using TuneIn for the feed. I was thinking I had linked my SiriusXM account, but I don't pay for their streaming add-on.
> 
> So I guess you don't even need a satellite radio subscription to get various news feeds.


I never noticed that. I have the Tune-in app on my TV and there I see CNN and MSNBC, and FOX Talk, and CNBC. Even Bloomberg. Wow!
Anyway, I do not pay anything extra for online. It comes with my Lifetime sub, which is a nice plus. I wasn't expecting it, but the Life did cost $500 or $600 or something back in 2000


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> The NBC News app for Apple TV (not sure about other devices) offers pretty much all of the daily MSNBC shows for free, including Rachel Maddow. They're chopped up into long segments, with one forced ad at the start. Maddow airs live at 8 Central and the app usually has the segments available by midnight.


That's interesting. The problem is, they're very time-sensitive, so I usually want them that day, or the next day if I'm out and about via podcast. I can get Maddow down to 35-40 minutes, even with a couple of ads by speeding her up a bit to 1.2-1.3x.

Comcast alludes to MSNBC being available through Peacock, I don't know about CNN and HBO Max.



foghorn2 said:


> Thats not live news, actually not real news at all, look at its ratings , even when its free.
> As Bigg said, you cant you'd have to pay people to watch that fake news from MSDNC


That's the opposite of what I said. I said you'd need to pay people to watch Fake News on Fake News. CNN and MSNBC are actually journalistic enterprises unlike the clowns over at State TV.



> If you want 1 balanced news channel that actually reports the real events happening live, and two others that pick and choose woke related news to divide people for political gain, Sling @ $30 is the cheapest option.


CNN is the closest you're getting to a "balanced" news channel. MSNBC is a real journalistic enterprise, but has a center-left slant, while Fox is just pure propaganda right-wingnut garbage. On top of that, they charge providers more than CNN and MSNBC. Unfortunately, the MVPDs can't just drop Fox News like they should because the brainwashed hordes would come out of the woodwork b*tching and moaning.



mrizzo80 said:


> MSNBC, CNN, and CNBC live simulcast streams are "free" with satellite radio. I have the cheapest package and get them. I listen regularly on my Echo devices, too.


That's literally not free, and audio-only.


----------



## NashGuy

foghorn2 said:


> Thats not live news, actually not real news at all, look at its ratings , even when its free.
> As Bigg said, you cant you'd have to pay people to watch that fake news from MSDNC
> 
> If you want 1 balanced news channel that actually reports the real events happening live, and two others that pick and choose woke related news to divide people for political gain, Sling @ $30 is the cheapest option.


Not interested in your political opinions.


----------



## zalusky

At least Rachel asks every guest Expert, did I get it right or would you like to correct something I said.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> That's interesting. The problem is, they're very time-sensitive, so I usually want them that day, or the next day if I'm out and about via podcast.


I'm a night owl (and live in the Central time zone), so if I watch her, it's usually that night. I've also noticed that MSNBC does a highlight reel of her show from the night before and puts it on YouTube each day. Not sure about what time of the day it goes up though.



Bigg said:


> Comcast alludes to MSNBC being available through Peacock, I don't know about CNN and HBO Max.


Yeah, I think some of the shows from MSNBC are maybe doing something extra for Peacock. And, who knows, they may also put in Peacock whatever free stuff they offer in the NBC News app (and YouTube). Why not? But I don't think Peacock Premium is going to include the actual live MSNBC channel.

As for HBO Max, there've been a few reports that they intend to eventually include some live news and sports, which I presume would come from CNN and, for sports, TBS, TNT and/or Bleacher Report Live. Maybe next year. No word yet on whether that would be an up-charge (maybe $5/mo extra) or just included in the base $15/mo package.


----------



## foghorn2

NashGuy said:


> Not interested in your political opinions.


Are you taking to Bigg? 

Fox has Donna Brazille, Geraldo, Juan Williams, I'd rather watch them then the hack jobs on the other 2.
R. Madcow lost integrity with the Russian McCarthyism she spewed every night, I was once a big fan of her.

You dont know my politics, nor my religion affiliation, or lack of it for the matter.


----------



## moyekj

Talk of politics in this forum is against forum rules. Please don't pollute this thread with political talk.


----------



## foghorn2

Bigg said:


> ....
> I said you'd need to pay people to watch Fake News on Fake News. CNN and MSNBC are actually journalistic enterprises unlike the clowns over at State TV...
> CNN is the closest you're getting to a "balanced" news channel. MSNBC is a real journalistic enterprise, but has a center-left slant, while Fox is just pure propaganda right-wingnut garbage. On top of that, they charge providers more than CNN and MSNBC. Unfortunately, the MVPDs can't just drop Fox News like they should because the brainwashed hordes would come out of the woodwork b*tching and moaning....


----------



## foghorn2

Sling wont raise prices for 1 YR:
Ill be paying $30 for another year for all the channels I want, incredible! No need for more DVR, 10 hrs is perfect for timeshifting and most everything is VOD, no need to record.

Sling TV Won't Raise Prices for Existing Customers, Guaranteed Through August 2021 | Cord Cutters News

YouTube on the other hand is forcing everyone to pay for the new channels weather they want them or not. 15x12 = $180 more a year, thats a total of $780 /yr


----------



## zalusky

foghorn2 said:


> Are you taking to Bigg?
> 
> Fox has Donna Brazille, Geraldo, Juan Williams, I'd rather watch them then the hack jobs on the other 2.
> R. Madcow lost integrity with the Russian McCarthyism she spewed every night, I was once a big fan of her.
> 
> You dont know my politics, nor my religion affiliation, or lack of it for the matter.


The minute you start throwing out trump like nicknames and not state specific facts you have lost all sort of credibility for any dialog. It's ok to dislike something but please discuss like an adult. You are better than this.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Talk of politics in this forum is against forum rules. Please don't pollute this thread with political talk.


Yes. For over 1100 posts this has been a constructive discussion of YTTV-related topics. Please don't devolve it into political squabbling - there are plenty of other places for that.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> As for HBO Max, there've been a few reports that they intend to eventually include some live news and sports, which I presume would come from CNN and, for sports, TBS, TNT and/or Bleacher Report Live. Maybe next year. No word yet on whether that would be an up-charge (maybe $5/mo extra) or just included in the base $15/mo package.


I'd be happy if they offered next day episodes of shows that air on TBS, like Conan, as they do for similar shows on HBO, and like many ABC shows do on Hulu.


----------



## ncted

foghorn2 said:


> Sling wont raise prices for 1 YR:
> Ill be paying $30 for another year for all the channels I want, incredible! No need for more DVR, 10 hrs is perfect for timeshifting and most everything is VOD, no need to record.
> 
> Sling TV Won't Raise Prices for Existing Customers, Guaranteed Through August 2021 | Cord Cutters News
> 
> YouTube on the other hand is forcing everyone to pay for the new channels weather they want them or not. 15x12 = $180 more a year, thats a total of $780 /yr


I'm with you. Sling isn't perfect, and it won't meet the needs of people who want the nearly cable experience without the cable company, but it does everything I need it to when coupled with an OTA DVR.


----------



## Bigg

zalusky said:


> At least Rachel asks every guest Expert, did I get it right or would you like to correct something I said.


Exactly. Because she's a serious journalist interested in serious facts. Of course she has a center-left neoliberal view of the world, but she's a journalist first and foremost. Chris Hayes flies a little bit under the radar, but wow is he sharp. His podcast is really good too.



NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I think some of the shows from MSNBC are maybe doing something extra for Peacock. And, who knows, they may also put in Peacock whatever free stuff they offer in the NBC News app (and YouTube). Why not? But I don't think Peacock Premium is going to include the actual live MSNBC channel.


They claim they will have live content, so we'll have to see. They didn't specifically say MSNBC, so they could just be misleading.



> As for HBO Max, there've been a few reports that they intend to eventually include some live news and sports, which I presume would come from CNN and, for sports, TBS, TNT and/or Bleacher Report Live. Maybe next year. No word yet on whether that would be an up-charge (maybe $5/mo extra) or just included in the base $15/mo package.


The live news channels certainly would add to the value proposition of these services, although I still wouldn't get them, other than maybe (probably not) HBO. John Oliver is really good, but I'm not sure he alone is worth $15/mo.



foghorn2 said:


> You dont know my politics, nor my religion affiliation, or lack of it for the matter.


They're pretty obvious given how you talk about State TV and their aLternatIvE factS.


----------



## dlfl

Here's an article that pretty much sums up the current situation for cordcutters:
YouTube TV and FuboTV both hike their prices: What's a cord-cutter to do?
For people who want everything (entertainment, news, regional sports, local stations) it's dismal. Cordcutting doesnt get you any relief from the bundling and high prices of cable TV. It does allow you to avoid CableCARD and Tuning Adapter hassles (for TiVo owners) and frequent haggling with agents every time they raise cable rates.


----------



## ncted

dlfl said:


> Here's an article that pretty much sums up the current situation for cordcutters:
> YouTube TV and FuboTV both hike their prices: What's a cord-cutter to do?
> For people who want everything (entertainment, news, regional sports, local stations) it's dismal. Cordcutting doesnt get you any relief from the bundling and high prices of cable TV. It does allow you to avoid CableCARD and Tuning Adapter hassles (for TiVo owners) and frequent haggling with agents every time they raise cable rates.


The price increases are just going to force more people away from traditional linear TV. Aside from live events, like sports and news, what is going to be the incentive to keep paying so much for channels of things that can be on-demand?


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> Here's an article that pretty much sums up the current situation for cordcutters:
> YouTube TV and FuboTV both hike their prices: What's a cord-cutter to do?
> For people who want everything (entertainment, news, regional sports, local stations) it's dismal. Cordcutting doesnt get you any relief from the bundling and high prices of cable TV. It does allow you to avoid CableCARD and Tuning Adapter hassles (for TiVo owners) and frequent haggling with agents every time they raise cable rates.


Actual cord cutting gets you significant price relief. Cord-replacing doesn't. Replacing the cord with a vMVPD is *NOT* cord cutting, and never had been.


----------



## Bigg

Sling seems to be the only major game left in skinny bundles, but $30/mo for what amounts to CNN and MSNBC isn't exactly a compelling offer. Time to switch to CBSN I guess. It's free. I think free streaming is the future of news given how things are going with streaming bundles.

EDIT: These vMVPDs and content providers are off their rockers if they think that now is the time to increase prices, during the middle of a recession of unparalleled magnitude and while sports are off the air. News alone can't hold up the bundle.


----------



## ncted

Bigg said:


> Sling seems to be the only major game left in skinny bundles, but $30/mo for what amounts to CNN and MSNBC isn't exactly a compelling offer. Time to switch to CBSN I guess. It's free. I think free streaming is the future of news given how things are going with streaming bundles.
> 
> EDIT: These vMVPDs and content providers are off their rockers if they think that now is the time to increase prices, during the middle of a recession of unparalleled magnitude and while sports are off the air. News alone can't hold up the bundle.


I tend to agree, although I am switching to OTA+Sling Blue. Mostly for F1, but also a couple of shows my wife watches that are still getting new episodes for the moment.


----------



## dlfl

Bigg said:


> Actual cord cutting gets you significant price relief. Cord-replacing doesn't. Replacing the cord with a vMVPD is *NOT* cord cutting, and never had been.


Yeah I know (from your posts in other threads) this is one of your favorite axes to grind. Just google "definition cord cutting" and notice that stopping cable TV or satellite TV is the predominately accepted definition. But go on tilting at windmills if you wish. The rest of us will continue with the accepted definition.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> Yeah I know (from your posts in other threads) this is one of your favorite axes to grind. Just google "definition cord cutting" and notice that stopping cable TV or satellite TV is the predominate accepted definition. But go on tilting at windmills if you wish. The rest of us will continue with the accepted definition.


It's his favorite because he's right about it. You're not cord cutting by getting ATT TV instead of Direct TV. You might save some money because the equipment is much cheaper but otherwise the economics are the same. Nevermind the cable and satellite companies own some of the content in the typical paytv package.

The whole cord cutting thing was also (dumb) in that OTA was always an option and very cheap "limited basic" cabletv packages were always options as well.

The name or movement was created to make people feel good about their decision to get less tv.


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> Yeah I know (from your posts in other threads) this is one of your favorite axes to grind. Just google "definition cord cutting" and notice that stopping cable TV or satellite TV is the predominately accepted definition. But go on tilting at windmills if you wish. The rest of us will continue with the accepted definition.


The accepted definition is getting rid of all MVPD or vMVPD packages, and only using OTA, OTT-SVOD, and PPV content. Lumping vMVPD packages in with cord-cutting makes the entire term completely meaningless and pointless, as vMVPD packages are just another form of the cord delivered over a different medium.

Up until recently, the line has been extremely clear for anyone using the term "cord-cutting" correctly. Once we have OTT-SVOD packages that have live content bundled in, however, things will get a bit murkier.



trip1eX said:


> The name or movement was created to make people feel good about their decision to get less tv.


It actually started with people getting rid of home phones, and then migrated over to the TV world. There's also cord cutting 3.0 with a move to 5G internet, but that's not really cutting anything, just switching to a different provider.

There's also cord-shaving, cord-stacking, cord-cheating, and cord-nevers, each of which have specific definitions, but are often confused or muddled in online discussions.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> I'd be happy if they offered next day episodes of shows that air on TBS, like Conan, as they do for similar shows on HBO, and like many ABC shows do on Hulu.


Agree. While I'm a fan of HBO Max and appreciate that I'm getting a lot more content for the same $15 I was paying before for HBO Now, I'm a little disappointed that WarnerMedia isn't putting more muscle behind HBO Max, the way that Disney is with Hulu. Disney is not afraid of letting Hulu cannibalize ABC, FX, FXX, and Freeform because they realize that the future is direct-to-consumer streaming and they need to make Hulu as compelling as possible to draw and retain subscribers. Other than for ABC sports, you can get pretty much all the fresh new content from ABC, FX, FXX, and Freeform hours later on Hulu. (Heck, they're basically merging the whole FX brand into Hulu at this point, with some FX Originals available exclusively on Hulu and not even airing on FX!)

We should see HBO Max do the same thing with at least some of the original series on TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, and CNN (docs and docu-series). Why aren't new eps of Conan and Full Frontal on HBO Max a few hours later? Same with Snowpiercer. I realize HBO has a big vault of quality originals that Hulu can't touch with their own Hulu Originals (which is why Hulu needed to incorporate FX). Still though, I think Warner is trying a little too much to protect their legacy linear outlets.

When rumors were leaking out about HBO Max last summer (e.g. a well-sourced WSJ article), they were saying that new original series for TBS and TNT may actually debut first on HBO Max before airing on linear. And they were also saying that Cinemax would get swallowed up in the new service (which would make sense given the name "HBO Max"). None of that is happening, though. Looks like they're just letting Cinemax's smallish library of originals languish there while they basically give up on the service, with the last of the original content they've bought for it airing this year. Looks like it'll become a sort of zombie cable channel, kind of like what happened with Showtime's sibling The Movie Channel. Good article about it here:

How the Launch of HBO Max Sidelined Cinemax


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Agree. While I'm a fan of HBO Max and appreciate that I'm getting a lot more content for the same $15 I was paying before for HBO Now, I'm a little disappointed that WarnerMedia isn't putting more muscle behind HBO Max, the way that Disney is with Hulu. Disney is not afraid of letting Hulu cannibalize ABC, FX, FXX, and Freeform because they realize that the future is direct-to-consumer streaming and they need to make Hulu as compelling as possible to draw and retain subscribers. Other than for ABC sports, you can get pretty much all the fresh new content from ABC, FX, FXX, and Freeform hours later on Hulu. (Heck, they're basically merging the whole FX brand into Hulu at this point, with some FX Originals available exclusively on Hulu and not even airing on FX!)
> 
> We should see HBO Max do the same thing with at least some of the original series on TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, and CNN (docs and docu-series). Why aren't new eps of Conan and Full Frontal on HBO Max a few hours later? Same with Snowpiercer. I realize HBO has a big vault of quality originals that Hulu can't touch with their own Hulu Originals (which is why Hulu needed to incorporate FX). Still though, I think Warner is trying a little too much to protect their legacy linear outlets.
> 
> When rumors were leaking out about HBO Max last summer (e.g. a well-sourced WSJ article), they were saying that new original series for TBS and TNT may actually debut first on HBO Max before airing on linear. And they were also saying that Cinemax would get swallowed up in the new service (which would make sense given the name "HBO Max"). None of that is happening, though. Looks like they're just letting Cinemax's smallish library of originals languish there while they basically give up on the service, with the last of the original content they've bought for it airing this year. Looks like it'll become a sort of zombie cable channel, kind of like what happened with Showtime's sibling The Movie Channel. Good article about it here:
> 
> How the Launch of HBO Max Sidelined Cinemax


IT's early days. And Corona times.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> IT's early days. And Corona times.


True. All of that could eventually come to pass in terms of enhancing the content line-up at HBO Max. But you only have one chance to make a first impression. And that impression I'm seeing in the media so far seems to be "Good quality stuff but a considerably smaller catalog than the other top-tier mega-streamers Netflix, Hulu and Prime Video."


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> True. All of that could eventually come to pass in terms of enhancing the content line-up at HBO Max. But you only have one chance to make a first impression. And that impression I'm seeing in the media so far seems to be "Good quality stuff but a considerably smaller catalog than the other top-tier mega-streamers Netflix, Hulu and Prime Video."


AT&T gets a FAIL for many aspects of the HBOMax launch. What is there works fine, on the minority of devices that support it natively.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> AT&T gets a FAIL for many aspects of the HBOMax launch. What is there works fine, on the minority of devices that support it natively.


Well, as I've stated elsewhere, I blame the lack of an HBO Max app for Fire TV and Roku mainly on Amazon and Roku, not AT&T. The deal they offered distributors was good enough for Apple, Google, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Hulu and everyone else.

Also notice that, with just under 2 weeks to go until the official launch of Peacock, neither Amazon nor Roku has yet struck a distribution deal for that app either.

Disney+ wasn't on Fire TV for a few days when it launched. Roku tried to play hardball with the Fox apps just before the Super Bowl.

Sensing a pattern?


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Well, as I've stated elsewhere, I blame the lack of an HBO Max app for Fire TV and Roku mainly on Amazon and Roku, not AT&T. The deal they offered distributors was good enough for Apple, Google, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Hulu and everyone else.
> 
> Also notice that, with just under 2 weeks to go until the official launch of Peacock, neither Amazon nor Roku has yet struck a distribution deal for that app either.
> 
> Disney+ wasn't on Fire TV for a few days when it launched. Roku tried to play hardball with the Fox apps just before the Super Bowl.
> 
> Sensing a pattern?


Yeah, it is the same kind of crap as with MVPDs and channel owners, although I put the blame on squarely on AT&T with HBOMax, just like I primarily blame the channel owners. Amazon (and later Roku) built a channel solution for HBO when they needed one to grow their direct-to-consumer product, and now there are 5 million HBO subs on Amazon Prime Channels that need to be accounted for. AT&T wants those to just get moved over to HBOMax wholesale. I can certainly understand Amazon not getting on board with that without some kind of compensation. AT&T had months to work things out, but they didn't. Unlike Disney, people aren't going to clamor for HBOMax, so the pressure isn't on Amazon/Roku to cave in the same way. AT&T still needs Amazon/Roku more than the opposite for HBOMax to be a success. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> True. All of that could eventually come to pass in terms of enhancing the content line-up at HBO Max. But you only have one chance to make a first impression. And that impression I'm seeing in the media so far seems to be "Good quality stuff but a considerably smaller catalog than the other top-tier mega-streamers Netflix, Hulu and Prime Video."


Eh first impression? Netflix was a DVD by mail company.  I don't think Hulu started with original shows. PRime was nothing either.

Everyone knows these services get new content all the time. People are used to coming and going. People already did the sign up and cancel thing with HBO once they watched what they wanted to watch.

I have Showtime right now. I watched the last season of Homefront. And now I'll watch the 2 seasons of Billions I haven't seen. Maybe I'll find something else after. But if not I'll cancel. That doesn't stop me from coming back. IT just stops me from continuously maintaining the subscription.


----------



## dlfl

trip1eX said:


> It's his favorite because he's right about it. You're not cord cutting by getting ATT TV instead of Direct TV. You might save some money because the equipment is much cheaper but otherwise the economics are the same. Nevermind the cable and satellite companies own some of the content in the typical paytv package.
> 
> The whole cord cutting thing was also (dumb) in that OTA was always an option and very cheap "limited basic" cabletv packages were always options as well.
> 
> The name or movement was created to make people feel good about their decision to get less tv.


Much as you and @Bigg wish otherwise, the popular, commonly accepted definition of cord cutting means dropping a cable or satellite TV service, not dropping a vMVPD service like YTTV. Again I invite you to Google "definition of cord cutting" and look at all the definitions that say that. And as other examples the many sites (e.g., cordcutters.com and techhive.com) that are full of stories about vMVPD services within the scope of cord cutting.

I agree that "cutting" oneself away from the evils of MVPD services (bundling, etc.) is a good topic but it is not what most people mean by cord cutting. Maybe someday it will become so.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> Yeah, it is the same kind of crap as with MVPDs and channel owners, although I put the blame on squarely on AT&T with HBOMax, just like I primarily blame the channel owners. Amazon (and later Roku) built a channel solution for HBO when they needed one to grow their direct-to-consumer product, and now there are 5 million HBO subs on Amazon Prime Channels that need to be accounted for. AT&T wants those to just get moved over to HBOMax wholesale. I can certainly understand Amazon not getting on board with that without some kind of compensation. AT&T had months to work things out, but they didn't. Unlike Disney, people aren't going to clamor for HBOMax, so the pressure isn't on Amazon/Roku to cave in the same way. AT&T still needs Amazon/Roku more than the opposite for HBOMax to be a success. Just my opinion of course.


Situation with HBO via Amazon Prime Channels (an add-on to Prime Video) is no different than with HBO as an add-on to Hulu. And Hulu had no problem with HBO Max. Hulu now distributes HBO Max, not HBO, as the add-on. The HBO content continues to be available, as before, inside the Hulu app. The other "Max" content is only available inside the HBO Max app.

Amazon is insisting that the entire HBO Max catalog be available inside their Prime Video app. But it doesn't work that way for Hulu. Or Comcast X1. Or Charter Spectrum. Or YouTube TV. Or *anyone*. But Amazon thinks they're special.

As for compensation, HBO Max offers a cut to all their distributors.

I don't think HBO Max is going anywhere. It may take awhile, but eventually, there will be a growing number of "must-see" Max Original hit shows that folks can't get if they stick with Fire TV or Roku (assuming those platforms continue to lack an HBO Max app). And those consumers will ask themselves why they're paying the same $15 for regular HBO when they could get HBO Max for the same price. And many of them will eventually buy an Android TV device from Google, Nvidia, TiVo, Xiaomi, etc. Or an Apple TV. Or a $30 Chromecast.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Eh first impression? Netflix was a DVD by mail company.  I don't think Hulu started with original shows. PRime was nothing either.


True, although we're much further along in the streaming era than we were back then, with more competition. And user bases are more established and entrenched. Sure, some folks juggle subscriptions every few months but a lot of folks pick a couple and tend to stick with them.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> True, although we're much further along in the streaming era than we were back then, with more competition. And user bases are more established and entrenched. Sure, some folks juggle subscriptions every few months but a lot of folks pick a couple and tend to stick with them.


HBO has 134 million subscribers worldwide already.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Situation with HBO via Amazon Prime Channels (an add-on to Prime Video) is no different than with HBO as an add-on to Hulu. And Hulu had no problem with HBO Max. Hulu now distributes HBO Max, not HBO, as the add-on. The HBO content continues to be available, as before, inside the Hulu app. The other "Max" content is only available inside the HBO Max app.
> 
> Amazon is insisting that the entire HBO Max catalog be available inside their Prime Video app. But it doesn't work that way for Hulu. Or Comcast X1. Or Charter Spectrum. Or YouTube TV. Or *anyone*. But Amazon thinks they're special.
> 
> As for compensation, HBO Max offers a cut to all their distributors.
> 
> I don't think HBO Max is going anywhere. It may take awhile, but eventually, there will be a growing number of "must-see" Max Original hit shows that folks can't get if they stick with Fire TV or Roku (assuming those platforms continue to lack an HBO Max app). And those consumers will ask themselves why they're paying the same $15 for regular HBO when they could get HBO Max for the same price. And many of them will eventually buy an Android TV device from Google, Nvidia, TiVo, Xiaomi, etc. Or an Apple TV. Or a $30 Chromecast.


There are a couple of differences between Hulu and Amazon/Roku. Firstly, Hulu didn't start offering HBO until they became a vMVPD, and they had an MVPD contract, which is different than what Amazon/Roku have. Secondly, Hulu is controlled by Disney, a media company that needs AT&T/Warner to provide distribution for their content on platforms like AT&T Now, AT&T TV, DirecTV, etc. Amazon and Roku have no such reciprocal content distribution needs. Amazon is a big content creator that doesn't want its content on any other platforms, and, if Roku creates any content, I haven't found any information about it. Amazon and Roku control the majority of the streaming device market, not to mention millions of smartTVs at this point. Amazon also had 20% of HBO's HBO Now customers as of the launch of HBOMax, and they have an existing contract. They are negotiating from a much stronger position than Hulu. Why should they just give that up because AT&T decided they wanted those customers back?

If it were just Amazon, I'd say the blame is equal, but that Roku is also missing tells me it is more likely that AT&T is being unreasonable. With the fiasco that is DirecTV these days, the unreasonable demands they made to Dish/Sling for minimum subscribers, and the pressure to deliver revenue gains for their Warner division, it is clear to me that AT&T is the one playing hardball.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> Amazon is insisting that the entire HBO Max catalog be available inside their Prime Video app. But it doesn't work that way for Hulu. Or Comcast X1. Or Charter Spectrum. Or YouTube TV. Or *anyone*. But Amazon thinks they're special.


Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you implying that Comcast X1 customers who subscribe to HBO Max through Comcast do not have access to the full HBO Max catalog through the X1 interface? Or do you mean that they just have to launch the separate HBO Max app to get the complete palette of content?


----------



## pdhenry

chiguy50 said:


> Are you implying that Comcast X1 customers who subscribe to HBO Max through Comcast do not have access to the full HBO Max catalog through the X1 interface?


I'll tell you how it works with YouTubeTV. In the native YTTV interface I see HBO content but not the added Max content. I have to use the HBO Max app on a different device (I run YTTV on Roku, Fire and the Chrome browser) to see the Max content.


----------



## chiguy50

pdhenry said:


> I'll tell you how it works with YouTubeTV. In the native YTTV interface I see HBO content but not the added Max content. I have to use the HBO Max app on a different device (I run YTTV on Roku, Fire and the Chrome browser) to see the Max content.


IOW, if it works the same way for Comcast customers, then they will need to log in to the HBO Max app on a separate non-X1 device using their Xfinity credentials. But doing so would give them full access just the same as if they had subscribed directly through WarnerMedia.


----------



## pdhenry

chiguy50 said:


> But doing so would give them full access just the same as if they had subscribed directly through WarnerMedia.


I believe so. But note that there isn't yet an HBO Max app for Roku, Fire, or AppleTV.


----------



## lparsons21

pdhenry said:


> I believe so. But note that there isn't yet an HBO Max app for Roku, Fire, or AppleTV.


Uh, there is an HBO Max app for AppleTV.


----------



## trip1eX

"At the center of the dispute between Amazon and WarnerMedia is that WarnerMedia wants Amazon to shuttle subscribers to the HBO Max platform as it does with Netflix and Disney+ customers. Amazon wants to house the HBO Max content on Prime Videos Channels as it currently does with HBO. 

Essentially, AT&T wants Amazon to serve as a toll road to HBO Max instead of providing housing for it. Such an arrangement would make it easier for AT&T to track consumption habits and other valuable data about its customers and establish a direct relationship."

"
The row with Roku, a connected-television platform that serves as a gateway to streaming services and powers many smart TVs, centers around more traditional issues—revenue sharing and advertising, people familiar with the matter said. 

Typically, Roku takes a cut of a service’s subscription fees and gets to sell ads in return for distribution. There are disputes on both those fronts with HBO Max, which next year will introduce an ad-supported version of the platform."


----------



## chiguy50

pdhenry said:


> I believe so. But note that there isn't yet an HBO Max app for Roku, Fire, or AppleTV.


That hasn't bothered me as I have been using my Nvidia Shield and/or my Android TV for the app. (Although I do have a Fire TV 4K and a Roku Ultra and would appreciate the redundancy if they were to accommodate HBO Max as well.)

I signed up for the $12 p.m. discounted rate through WarnerMedia but would be open to cancelling and switching to a sub via Comcast if only for the added convenience of having the feed from the linear channels for program tracking/scheduling/recording purposes. But if the content were in any way restricted (which I do not believe is likely), that would be a showstopper in my book.


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> Much as you and @Bigg wish otherwise, the popular, commonly accepted definition of cord cutting means dropping a cable or satellite TV service, not dropping a vMVPD service like YTTV. Again I invite you to Google "definition of cord cutting" and look at all the definitions that say that. And as other examples the many sites (e.g., cordcutters.com and techhive.com) that are full of stories about vMVPD services within the scope of cord cutting.


You're just wrong about that. There is a lot of misuse and abuse of the term, but you're still wrong. Cord replacing isn't cord cutting, it's pretty much the opposite of cord cutting.



NashGuy said:


> Amazon is insisting that the entire HBO Max catalog be available inside their Prime Video app. But it doesn't work that way for Hulu. Or Comcast X1. Or Charter Spectrum. Or YouTube TV. Or *anyone*. But Amazon thinks they're special.


That's how Amazon Channels works. The content is in the Amazon app. Apparently HBO/AT&T is having a hissy fit over that.



NashGuy said:


> I don't think HBO Max is going anywhere. It may take awhile, but eventually, there will be a growing number of "must-see" Max Original hit shows that folks can't get if they stick with Fire TV or Roku (assuming those platforms continue to lack an HBO Max app). And those consumers will ask themselves why they're paying the same $15 for regular HBO when they could get HBO Max for the same price. And many of them will eventually buy an Android TV device from Google, Nvidia, TiVo, Xiaomi, etc. Or an Apple TV. Or a $30 Chromecast.


So here's a much broader question. What does "must-see" even mean anymore when we are swimming in great quality content?



ncted said:


> If it were just Amazon, I'd say the blame is equal, but that Roku is also missing tells me it is more likely that AT&T is being unreasonable. With the fiasco that is DirecTV these days, the unreasonable demands they made to Dish/Sling for minimum subscribers, and the pressure to deliver revenue gains for their Warner division, it is clear to me that AT&T is the one playing hardball.


Yup. AT&T is clearly at fault here. Roku has basically everything else anyone imagined, so if a service is missing, I'd say it's the service's fault, not Roku's.


----------



## dlfl

Bigg said:


> Actual cord cutting gets you significant price relief. Cord-replacing doesn't. Replacing the cord with a vMVPD is *NOT* cord cutting, and never had been.


Of course this statement lead to a back-and-forth between us about the true meaning of cord cutting, about which we will continue to agree to disagree, I guess.

However, even accepting your definition, your statement isn't true for me, and I suspect for many others. To get the channels/content I want, I've found I can't do it any cheaper than via YTTV (which is not significantly cheaper than the cable TV package I would need). And it's not that I want 70 or a 100 channels, i.e., I'm not trying to replace cable TV - most of the stuff on YTTV is worthless to me. There are maybe 20 total channels (news, entertainment, sports, specialty) that I want.

There is a cool web site, *suppose.tv*, that allows you to find the streaming provider combos that will provide channels/programs you require and when I plug in my requirements nothing cheaper than YTTV shows up.


----------



## pl1

dlfl said:


> There is a cool web site, *suppose.tv*,


Nice!


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> Of course this statement lead to a back-and-forth between us about the true meaning of cord cutting, about which we will continue to agree to disagree, I guess.


You will continue to use the term incorrectly until you realize this and change- or not.



> However, even accepting your definition, your statement isn't true for me, and I suspect for many others. To get the channels/content I want, I've found I can't do it any cheaper than via YTTV (which is not significantly cheaper than the cable TV package I would need). And it's not that I want 70 or a 100 channels, i.e., I'm not trying to replace cable TV - most of the stuff on YTTV is worthless to me. There are maybe 20 total channels (news, entertainment, sports, specialty) that I want.


So incorrect use of the term "cord cutting" aside, getting rid of any MVPD or vMVPD package does create a significant cost savings. You are trying to replace cable TV in a sense if you want all the exact same content. Cord cutting isn't about replacing the 400 channels of crap with a different 400 channels of streaming packages worth of crap or whatever, it's about a whole mindset change, and looking at what the content is worth, and giving up some of that content, since it just doesn't make any sense to keep paying that much for it. The other old and tired argument that gets thrown around against cord cutting is that Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and whatever other streaming services all end up adding up to as much as cable, which doesn't make any sense, as it's not the same content, and people who keep the cord are cord stacking to get Netflix and other content. Plus, Amazon is basically free, and other services have various deals or bundles, like the one I have with Hulu and Spotify, for instance.

This is a post I made a few years ago about cord cutting, and it mostly is still true today, except that in the past couple of years, we have a 5th category, and that's free VOD, basically YouTube. YouTube is now the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and while it doesn't necessarily compete directly with other services, at the end of the day, it's all about the eyeball-hours.



> So after cutting the cord, I've put together my theory on the relative value of various types of TV content, and broken them down into four categories, and I think it makes cord cutting so much clearer for others who might not get it, and it shows how out of whack the industry is.
> 
> I would break the digital cable lineup into three categories:
> 
> 
> Local channels
> 
> The "in-between" channels
> 
> Premiums, mostly HBO and Showtime
> Now, with the advent of cord-stacking, we have OTT SVOD services, primarily Netflix and Amazon, as well as Hulu, and now some specialty services. So we can add a fourth category to the digital cable lineup (not a crazy idea considering a lot of cable boxes now have Netflix as an app):
> 
> 4. OTT SVOD
> 
> So, then we can break down by what they each cost, on a marginal basis. Of course there are a variety of pay TV packages, as well as internet bundles, but I'm considering a pretty fully features DirecTV package here for my comparison, including 4 HD DVR boxes:
> 
> 
> Free via OTA ($300 in capital invested for TiVo)
> 
> $120/mo
> 
> $15/mo (HBO)
> 
> $14/mo (Netflix, assume Prime is free after paying $99/yr for shipping)
> Now, look at what percentage each of those categories is for someone's viewership. This could vary quite a bit, especially for big sports fans. In my case, before cutting the cord, I would guesstimate:
> 
> 
> 30%
> 
> 15%
> 
> 20%
> 
> 35%
> Now, break down the relative costs of each, and you can see why cord cutting makes so much sense. Is 15% of my viewership worth more than quadruple the price of the other three combined? That's how I ended up cutting the cord. That was on top of the continued decline in good content over the past few years on those "in-between" channels. John Stewart. Stephen Colbert. Mythbusters.
> 
> This is totally preaching to the choir, but this exercise might be useful in persuading others to cut the cord, or if people are trying to decide whether to cut the cord and are reading this sub. I think the vast majority of people with pay would be shocked when you break their viewership down in this clear of a way, and look at the relative value of those "in-bewteen" channels.


EDIT: I noticed that the price of Netflix went up, and I now have Hulu as well, bundled with Spotify. But the basic principle of the whole thing is the same.

What I read your posts, you talk about what channels you "require". If that's the attitude you're going into the whole thing with, then you're never going to be willing to cut the cord, because you "require" those particular channels. The result would likely be totally different if you went in with the goal of assessing relative value derived from those various content sources, and then looked at what makes sense from there.


----------



## zalusky

Here is the disconnect!!!! In the old days the only thing that came over cable coax was TV and cord cutting meant dumping cable TV. Internet if it existed was over a phone line. The younger generation has moved off to OTT solutions and in some cases just youtube videos. The older generation if they move go to OTA in many cases. The tech folks who are less set in their ways move between a number of vehicles.

Not everybody and in fact most people don't know all these other acronyms. They just know cable TV and antenna. Actually I am curious what the percentage breakdown of antenna vs cable/fiber is.


----------



## NashGuy

chiguy50 said:


> Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you implying that Comcast X1 customers who subscribe to HBO Max through Comcast do not have access to the full HBO Max catalog through the X1 interface? Or do you mean that they just have to launch the separate HBO Max app to get the complete palette of content?


Comcast -- like just about every distributor other than Amazon and Roku -- no longer sells HBO. They sell HBO Max. If you get HBO via Comcast, you actually have HBO Max and can log into that app with your Comcast credentials (just as you used to do with the HBO Go app).

Just as before, you can get the HBO content -- live linear channels and VOD -- inside the native X1 user interface. Same holds true for YouTube TV, Hulu, Charter, etc. But if you want the additional non-HBO "Max" content, you must launch the actual HBO Max app. (And it was announced that an HBO Max app will be coming to X1.)


----------



## dlfl

Bigg said:


> You will continue to use the term incorrectly until you realize this and change- or not. ....


You remind me of me when I was about ten years old and would belabor a point beyond all practical significance with my dad. He would finally quit arguing and say (sarcastically) "you're right as you always are, sonny boy". 



Bigg said:


> .............
> What I read your posts, you talk about what channels you "require". If that's the attitude you're going into the whole thing with, then you're never going to be willing to cut the cord, because you "require" those particular channels. The result would likely be totally different if you went in with the goal of assessing relative value derived from those various content sources, and then looked at what makes sense from there.


You are incorrect to assume I have not already done that and thus arrived at the content that I "require".


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> If it were just Amazon, I'd say the blame is equal, but that Roku is also missing tells me it is more likely that AT&T is being unreasonable. With the fiasco that is DirecTV these days, the unreasonable demands they made to Dish/Sling for minimum subscribers, and the pressure to deliver revenue gains for their Warner division, it is clear to me that AT&T is the one playing hardball.


The fact that Apple, Google, Comcast, Charter, Hulu (Disney), Verizon, and every other HBO distributor came to an agreement to distribute HBO Max but Amazon and Roku did not tells me that it's Amazon and Roku who are being unreasonable.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> That's how Amazon Channels works. The content is in the Amazon app. Apparently HBO/AT&T is having a hissy fit over that.


Get back to me when Prime Video, Netflix or Hulu allows any third-party distributor to subsume their content into their own app/UI. It'll never happen. And I can't blame them. HBO is moving toward that same model with HBO Max as they look to directly compete with those major streaming services. And why shouldn't they?

Apple TV Channels worked similarly to Amazon Channels. When Apple agreed to distribute HBO Max, they just dropped HBO from Apple TV Channels. But you can sign up for HBO Max and get billed for it via Apple's App Store. And the Apple TV app still deep-links to content inside the HBO Max app. But you must view it all inside the HBO Max app. That's much more generous than Netflix, who won't allow new subscribers to be billed by Apple (or any other app store) and doesn't cooperate with the Apple TV app.



Bigg said:


> Yup. AT&T is clearly at fault here. Roku has basically everything else anyone imagined, so if a service is missing, I'd say it's the service's fault, not Roku's.


Roku had a standoff with Fox over the Super Bowl this year but it got resolved at the last minute. Roku has yet to announce carriage of Peacock, which launches 7/15. We'll see if that happens. Roku built up a lot of good will by being basically a neutral third party among media giants, a platform that was eager to house every app. But as they've grown, their attitude has changed somewhat. It's certainly their right to drive a harder bargain with the streaming services they carry. Same holds true for Amazon/Fire TV. But if consumers want a streaming platform that is less likely to get caught up in these kinds of standoffs, they'd be better served by Apple TV and Google/Android TV, IMO.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> "At the center of the dispute between Amazon and WarnerMedia is that WarnerMedia wants Amazon to shuttle subscribers to the HBO Max platform as it does with Netflix and Disney+ customers. Amazon wants to house the HBO Max content on Prime Videos Channels as it currently does with HBO.
> 
> Essentially, AT&T wants Amazon to serve as a toll road to HBO Max instead of providing housing for it. Such an arrangement would make it easier for AT&T to track consumption habits and other valuable data about its customers and establish a direct relationship."
> 
> "
> The row with Roku, a connected-television platform that serves as a gateway to streaming services and powers many smart TVs, centers around more traditional issues-revenue sharing and advertising, people familiar with the matter said.
> 
> Typically, Roku takes a cut of a service's subscription fees and gets to sell ads in return for distribution. There are disputes on both those fronts with HBO Max, which next year will introduce an ad-supported version of the platform."


My hunch is that Roku and AT&T will work out a deal eventually. It's in both of their interests to do so and as the standoff drags on, it's likely that both sides will give a little and meet somewhere in the middle. The standoff is basically about money.

But with Amazon, I don't know. It's a more fundamental difference over who controls the UI for the HBO Max content. I see every reason why HBO Max insists on retaining that, as Netflix, Prime Video and Hulu all do. And I can't see them making an exception for Amazon, who bills only about 1-2 million HBO subs in the US, out of about 35 million.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> The fact that Apple, Google, Comcast, Charter, Hulu (Disney), Verizon, and every other HBO distributor came to an agreement to distribute HBO Max but Amazon and Roku did not tells me that it's Amazon and Roku who are being unreasonable.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. I see a significant distinction between the streamers with the majority of the market share and MVPDs and also-rans in the streaming space, but no one can really know for sure what all the points of disagreement are between the parties involved in any case except for the people in the negotiations.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> if consumers want a streaming platform that is less likely to get caught up in these kinds of standoffs, they'd be better served by Apple TV and Google/Android TV, IMO.


I really wish that were true. The obviously missing AppleTV+ app (and a few others, such as Sundance Now) on AndroidTV, and the cost of the AppleTV device coupled with its terrible remote really don't make those options any better at the end of the day IMHO.


----------



## pdhenry

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, there is an HBO Max app for AppleTV.


Yeah I reached there without being sure.


----------



## Bigg

zalusky said:


> The tech folks who are less set in their ways move between a number of vehicles.
> 
> Not everybody and in fact most people don't know all these other acronyms. They just know cable TV and antenna. Actually I am curious what the percentage breakdown of antenna vs cable/fiber is.


I just back and forth. Most of my friends just stream. About 5 years ago, it was roughly 20% DBS, 60% cable, 20% OTA, based on the numbers DBS has shrunk a lot, cable has stayed about the same (replacing cord cutters with people who switched from DBS), and OTA or nothing has increased by a lot.



dlfl said:


> You remind me of me when I was about ten years old and would belabor a point beyond all practical significance with my dad. He would finally quit arguing and say (sarcastically) "you're right as you always are, sonny boy".






> You are incorrect to assume I have not already done that and thus arrived at the content that I "require".


You don't yet have the mentality or attitude of a cord cutter. The giveaway is the word "require". Maybe at some point in the future the absurd costs will hit your pain point and you will consider cutting the cord. Maybe they won't. But you do have to understand the way that cord cutters think about these things, and it's not looking down a list of 400 channels and picking a whole bunch of them that they "require". It's about the amount of content from various sources, and the value derived from that content. It's not about what you "require".

I have shifted my mentality, and I used to look at certain content that way, now I look at this vast ocean of content, far more than I can possibly watch, and I look at what is worthwhile to subscribe to, and what isn't. I realize that if I can't get one thing here or there, there are 5 more things that are just as good on another service.



NashGuy said:


> But with Amazon, I don't know. It's a more fundamental difference over who controls the UI for the HBO Max content. I see every reason why HBO Max insists on retaining that, as Netflix, Prime Video and Hulu all do. And I can't see them making an exception for Amazon, who bills only about 1-2 million HBO subs in the US, out of about 35 million.


I agree on Roku. We'll see how bone-headed AT&T is. I wouldn't bet on Amazon caving to AT&T's ridiculous demands, but I wouldn't be shocked either, depending on how HBO fits into Amazon's future plans for their service. Or they could make a big stink about AT&T not letting them have HBO Max, and see if AT&T cares.


----------



## lparsons21

ncted said:


> I really wish that were true. The obviously missing AppleTV+ app (and a few others, such as Sundance Now) on AndroidTV, and the cost of the AppleTV device coupled with its terrible remote really don't make those options any better at the end of the day IMHO.


Yeah, the streaming box of choice is a bit irritating.

AppleTV has nearly any app available for it, but as you note, the remote just sucks. And there are some UI issues with some apps.

Roku has nearly all too, and in reality is probably one of the best out there, and that's across the line. Simplistic but useful UI, good remote. But missing HBO Max which for me is an issue.

FireTV has nearly all too but the UI leaves lots to be desired. Missing HBO Max too, but at least you can sideload it.

ATT's little Osprey box is pretty good and excellent for operating with the ATT TV and Now subscriptions, but missing Hulu, Amazon and probably a few more.


----------



## dlfl

Bigg said:


> .........
> You don't yet have the mentality or attitude of a cord cutter. The giveaway is the word "require". Maybe at some point in the future the absurd costs will hit your pain point and you will consider cutting the cord. Maybe they won't. But you do have to understand the way that cord cutters think about these things, and it's not looking down a list of 400 channels and picking a whole bunch of them that they "require". It's about the amount of content from various sources, and the value derived from that content. It's not about what you "require".
> 
> I have shifted my mentality, and I used to look at certain content that way, now I look at this vast ocean of content, far more than I can possibly watch, and I look at what is worthwhile to subscribe to, and what isn't. I realize that if I can't get one thing here or there, there are 5 more things that are just as good on another service.
> .....


Oh my. What a load of BS! Please see my signature, oh great unappointed arbiter and judge of others.


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> Oh my. What a load of BS! Please see my signature, oh great unappointed arbiter and judge of others.


You think it's a load of BS because you don't have the mentality of a cord cutter, and that's why you don't want to cut the cord. Some people haven't hit that pain point yet. Most eventually will. But until then, you need to understand the mentality of a cord cutter in order to have an intelligent discussion about cord cutting.


----------



## dlfl

Bigg said:


> You think it's a load of BS because you don't have the mentality of a cord cutter, and that's why you don't want to cut the cord. Some people haven't hit that pain point yet. Most eventually will. But until then, you need to understand the mentality of a cord cutter in order to have an intelligent discussion about cord cutting.


My current "pain point" is your endless, insulting, pontificating about how others should think.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> Comcast -- like just about every distributor other than Amazon and Roku -- no longer sells HBO. They sell HBO Max. If you get HBO via Comcast, you actually have HBO Max and can log into that app with your Comcast credentials (just as you used to do with the HBO Go app).
> 
> Just as before, you can get the HBO content -- live linear channels and VOD -- inside the native X1 user interface. Same holds true for YouTube TV, Hulu, Charter, etc. But if you want the additional non-HBO "Max" content, you must launch the actual HBO Max app. (And it was announced that an HBO Max app will be coming to X1.)


IOW, if I understand you correctly, an X1 user who subscribes to the HBO premium channel (and, thereby, HBO Max) through Comcast would not be able to stream an HBO Max original, such as _Love Life_, via VOD on their X1 device as things currently stand?


----------



## pl1

My first reaction to SlingTV was that there was no way I was going to tolerate Sling's awful interface when compared with YTTV. But, I keep going back to the $30 price for Sling (+$5 for news) vs. the $65 for YTTV. If I am just watching a news station and I do not try any trick plays, it works fine. I have come to the conclusion that I can live with it since I am getting everything I can get while watching YTTV, less my RSN. (And less my local channels which I get OTA with my TiVo.)

The DVR is ridiculously small at 10 hours, so it has to be managed daily. Half of the live feeds do not allow any trick play at all, unless you DVR it. I have not seen ONE On Demand that was commercial free. Sling inserts it's own commercials (in the same way satellite radio does), but the implementation of it is horrible. In a few cases, I will have commercials that start for about 10 seconds, then restart over and over. I think any attempt to trick play causes havoc with Sling. Sling has a lot of commercials and I do hate commercials! But, that is why the price is so low. That, and Sling subs are added to the Dish subs which decreases the cost.

The channels in the guide are not in any particular order (I guess it's by genre) and you can not reorder them. You can slightly organize it by Filter; My Channels, Entertainment, Sports, Etc. Pressing DOWN on the rocker shows the guide on the top of the screen. Pressing UP on the rocker shows the guide on the bottom. No common sense with this User Interface. One decent option is when you press the CENTER of the rocker it allows you to recall your last station. The guide data is 7 days, which is a lot better than YTTV's 1 day in the app.

There is a whole section for On Demand which is nice. With YTTV, On Demand is kind of hidden in the station's menu, meaning there is a tendency to forget it is there. But, unlike YTTV, On Demand is not combined (at least in any way that I'm aware of) with DVR recordings. Sling also has another section for Rentals. You can even sign up for a free account allowing you to buy rentals and watch some free stuff. So a cancellation of paid programming will leave your account open.

Bottom line, YTTV is my preferred format overall. But, it is not worth $30 more per month. My only real "need" is my local RSN. So, that I have to decide on. I am a hockey fan. I am thinking of using FuboTV in season and Sling out of season. The reason I'm thinking of using Fubo is because I can get the NHL network included for the same price as YTTV. My other option, is to use a VPN with an NHL.tv sub and just stick with Sling. Decisions decisions!


----------



## moyekj

pl1 said:


> I am thinking of using FuboTV in season and Sling out of season. The reason I'm thinking of using Fubo is because I can get the NHL network included for the same price as YTTV. My other option, is to use a VPN with an NHL.tv sub and just stick with Sling. Decisions decisions!


 How is trick play for Fubo TV recordings? Does it support 15 or 30 sec skip forwards/back as well as thumbnails during FF/REW? YTTV skips and FF/REW are very usable. I heard at least in early days Fubo TV didn't have thumbnails at all for FF/REW and perhaps no skip functionality either.


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> How is trick play for Fubo TV recordings? Does it support 15 or 30 sec skip forwards/back as well as thumbnails during FF/REW?


I have not tried it yet. If I go there with a free trial, it will be when and if Hockey starts up again.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> My first reaction to SlingTV was that there was no way I was going to tolerate Sling's awful interface when compared with YTTV. But, I keep going back to the $30 price for Sling (+$5 for news) vs. the $65 for YTTV. If I am just watching a news station and I do not try any trick plays, it works fine. I have come to the conclusion that I can live with it since I am getting everything I can get while watching YTTV, less my RSN. (And less my local channels which I get OTA with my TiVo.)
> 
> The DVR is ridiculously small at 10 hours, so it has to be managed daily. Half of the live feeds do not allow any trick play at all, unless you DVR it. I have not seen ONE On Demand that was commercial free. Sling inserts it's own commercials (in the same way satellite radio does), but the implementation of it is horrible. In a few cases, I will have commercials that start for about 10 seconds, then restart over and over. I think any attempt to trick play causes havoc with Sling. Sling has a lot of commercials and I do hate commercials! But, that is why the price is so low. That, and Sling subs are added to the Dish subs which decreases the cost.
> 
> The channels in the guide are not in any particular order (I guess it's by genre) and you can not reorder them. You can slightly organize it by Filter; My Channels, Entertainment, Sports, Etc. Pressing DOWN on the rocker shows the guide on the top of the screen. Pressing UP on the rocker shows the guide on the bottom. No common sense with this User Interface. One decent option is when you press the CENTER of the rocker it allows you to recall your last station. The guide data is 7 days, which is a lot better than YTTV's 1 day in the app.
> 
> There is a whole section for On Demand which is nice. With YTTV, On Demand is kind of hidden in the station's menu, meaning there is a tendency to forget it is there. But, unlike YTTV, On Demand is not combined (at least in any way that I'm aware of) with DVR recordings. Sling also has another section for Rentals. You can even sign up for a free account allowing you to buy rentals and watch some free stuff. So a cancellation of paid programming will leave your account open.
> 
> Bottom line, YTTV is my preferred format overall. But, it is not worth $30 more per month. My only real "need" is my local RSN. So, that I have to decide on. I am a hockey fan. I am thinking of using FuboTV in season and Sling out of season. The reason I'm thinking of using Fubo is because I can get the NHL network included for the same price as YTTV. My other option, is to use a VPN with an NHL.tv sub and just stick with Sling. Decisions decisions!


Sling is cheap because it has fewer channels. Simple as that. Nothing to do with Dish.

IT's the cheapest way to get certain cable channels. Specifically news and sports.

OTherwise Philo is $20/mo with most of the basic non-sports and non-news cable channels.


----------



## ncted

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, the streaming box of choice is a bit irritating.
> 
> AppleTV has nearly any app available for it, but as you note, the remote just sucks. And there are some UI issues with some apps.
> 
> Roku has nearly all too, and in reality is probably one of the best out there, and that's across the line. Simplistic but useful UI, good remote. But missing HBO Max which for me is an issue.
> 
> FireTV has nearly all too but the UI leaves lots to be desired. Missing HBO Max too, but at least you can sideload it.
> 
> ATT's little Osprey box is pretty good and excellent for operating with the ATT TV and Now subscriptions, but missing Hulu, Amazon and probably a few more.


Kind of makes me want to design my own to sell. Probably not as hard as I'd think, especially if I didn't insist on monetizing the user data.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Sling is cheap because it has fewer channels. Simple as that. Nothing to do with Dish.


I read something somewhere that said they had more subscribers to offer advertisers by combining Dish with Sling. I can't find it now, but that is where I came up with the idea, since Dish has 9 million subs and Sling TV has 2.3 million. But regardless, your reason makes just as much sense as any.

I also read that they are doing targeting advertising to keep their costs down.

Sling TV Is Trying to Address the Most Annoying Part of Live TV&#8230; the Commercials&#8230; | Cord Cutters News



> Beyond the fact that you can watch ads you enjoy rather than sitting through ads you could care less about, addressable advertising helps keep Sling TV inexpensive.
> 
> By selling ads directly against events such as March Madness and directly targeting viewers, companies like Sling TV can bring in higher ad revenue and take the pressure off of raising rates on consumers.
> 
> Sling TV is not alone in this effort. Other services such as DIRECTV NOW and Hulu are also working on this ad model. Hopefully this new way of selling ads will help keep the cost of these services low.


----------



## Bierboy

moyekj said:


> ...Then as actual episodes start to record you have to push into each show individually to see if there are any non VOD episodes there _*which is very painful*_...


Seriously? Seems like a bit of an overreach...


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> When your first start YTTV and nothing has recorded, everything you add to your library has only VOD episodes, and it's annoying for all the VOD entries to show up in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section. I added about 30 shows to my LIBRARY, and pretty much all of them showed up in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section even though every single thing under them were all VOD episodes which I have no desire to watch. Then as actual episodes start to record you have to push into each show individually to see if there are any non VOD episodes there which is very painful.
> Marking them all as "already watched" got rid of them all from that section such that only new actual recordings will show up there.
> 
> So if nothing else it's useful when you first add new items to your LIBRARY to get rid of the VOD junk that populates there.
> 
> I think another issue is since YTTV records every episode, regardless if new or not, there are several times it re-records episodes you've already seen (even multiple airings of the same episode on same day), so I'm guessing I will probably have to go manually mark those as already seen as well to get them out of the "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" section. I don't know if it's smart enough to know an episode you have watched previously if it retains the already watched status for new recordings, but I suspect it does not.
> 
> Bottom line is when you have a lot of stuff in your library, how to quickly get to content you actually have not already watched without descending in to each and every show to get to episodes views of each, that's my struggle. I'm hoping there's a better way than using "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" which does seem to need a lot of manual management to keep it clean. If there was a way to get a flat list of all recent recordings (across all library elements) as I can do on TiVo that would be fine with me. Having to push into each library element individually, get to episodes list to review, then back all the way up and rinse and repeat for a whole bunch of shows is just a ridiculous way of doing things.


I do think they should add a recently recorded episodes option for a given show rather than just sorting based on season and episode or original air date. I have provided that feedback to some people I know who work at YT, but I am not going to hold my breath.


----------



## ncted

pl1 said:


> I read something somewhere that said they had more subscribers to offer advertisers by combining Dish with Sling. I can't find it now, but that is where I came up with the idea, since Dish has 9 million subs and Sling TV has 2.3 million. But regardless, your reason makes just as much sense as any.
> 
> I also read that they are doing targeting advertising to keep their costs down.
> 
> Sling TV Is Trying to Address the Most Annoying Part of Live TV&#8230; the Commercials&#8230; | Cord Cutters News
> 
> ​


Dish definitely negotiates contracts for Sling and Dish together. That is why things like HBO and RSNs have disappeared at the same time from both.


----------



## hahathatsfunny

fubo's CEO views Hulu Live and YTTV, AT&T, as its direct competitors, which are cable replacements.

Implied is that Sling, Philo, (and probably Vidgo and frndlyTV) are more or less cord-cutting alternatives. Smaller pack of channels, less full service and likely still less in channel count than a basic package of cable. Maybe it's once the streaming base package breaks a certain price point, it's cable replacement.

One of my friends got just the FIOS internet in his area, and then takes the $30 Sling Blue package. We live in a market where the NBC is owned and FOX is owned and are included in the Sling package, so he gets a couple of locals. It is still cheaper than FIOS internet plus TV, and likely cheaper than Comcast internet TV double play, especially once one adds in the fees on the TV side.

That being said, I'm not sure how long Sling will be able to offer Sling Blue and Sling Orange in their current forms. For example, will it be required to carry CBS on Sling now that ViacomCBS merged. And with Disney buying the FX/Nat Geo channels, will Disney permit the FX channels to be on Sling Blue while its ESPN on Sling Orange, and ABC not available at all. Maybe Sling is using its parent company's Dish Network leverage, to be able to do what it can do within Sling. And, I suspect it makes little profit margin on a base pack like Sling Blue, and makes most profit on those international channels and alacarte extras.


----------



## pl1

hahathatsfunny said:


> And, I suspect it makes little profit margin on a base pack like Sling Blue, and makes most profit on those international channels and alacarte extras.


I know that whenever I priced Sling in the past, and I added in the extras, I came close to $50/mo and I still had no RSN. This is why I stuck with YTTV, since it was $50 and included my RSN. Now that YTTV (and Fubo's direct competitors) are running at approximately $65, there is a much wider price variance in my eyes. Like many of the posters on https://twitter.com/YouTubeTV?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author , MOST people joined YTTV to get away from the high cost of cable TV only to find themselves brought right back to the pricing they tried to get away from. Including, high prices for tons of channels no one wants.


----------



## dlfl

pl1 said:


> I know that whenever I priced Sling in the past, and I added in the extras, I came close to $50/mo and I still had no RSN. This is why I stuck with YTTV, since it was $50 and included my RSN. Now that YTTV (and Fubo's direct competitors) are running at approximately $65, there is a much wider price variance in my eyes. Like many of the posters on https://twitter.com/YouTubeTV?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author , MOST people joined YTTV to get away from the high cost of cable TV only to find themselves brought right back to the pricing they tried to get away from. Including, high prices for tons of channels no one wants.


There's no getting away from the high cost of content. All you can do is limit the amount and types of it you demand. Try *suppose.tv* and see if there is a desirable combination of shows/channels that lets you stream at a substantially lower cost than traditional cable (or a cable replacement, like YTTV). For me the answer was 'no', but obviously YMMV.


----------



## hahathatsfunny

pl1 said:


> I know that whenever I priced Sling in the past, and I added in the extras, I came close to $50/mo and I still had no RSN. This is why I stuck with YTTV, since it was $50 and included my RSN. Now that YTTV (and Fubo's direct competitors) are running at approximately $65, there is a much wider price variance in my eyes. Like many of the posters on https://twitter.com/YouTubeTV?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author , MOST people joined YTTV to get away from the high cost of cable TV only to find themselves brought right back to the pricing they tried to get away from. Including, high prices for tons of channels no one wants.


In the end, YTTV wants to be a cable TV in the cloud and a one stop shop for streaming linear TV. I believe it could have dropped the CBS Viacom over a new contract, to keep its costs down, even if it meant then a viewer would have to sign up with CBS All Access for CBS or use an antenna. But it wants to be a one stop shop streaming app for the best of cable which means most pro sports, most popular cable networks, all major broadcast networks including PBS. It's following a different strategy than that of Dish/Sling, and even fuboTV.


----------



## CajunRuss

ncted said:


> I do think they should add a recently recorded episodes option for a given show rather than just sorting based on season and episode or original air date. I have provided that feedback to some people I know who work at YT, but I am not going to hold my breath.


You may already know this but you can "Mark the episodes as watched" on your phone or computer and they will not appear as new in the library.


----------



## ncted

CajunRuss said:


> You may already know this but you can "Mark the episodes as watched" on your phone or computer and they will not appear as new in the library.


Yeah. That is fine for first-run shows, or even shows with a few episodes, but non-serialized shows like 48-Hours or Dateline have hundreds of episodes, and generally there is no specific order to watch them. They re-run all the time, and there are lots of episodes we haven't seen. Scrolling through to find something to watch would be easier if they gave us the option to see the most recently recorded.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Yeah. That is fine for first-run shows, or even shows with a few episodes, but non-serialized shows like 48-Hours or Dateline have hundreds of episodes, and generally there is no specific order to watch them. They re-run all the time, and there are lots of episodes we haven't seen. Scrolling through to find something to watch would be easier if they gave us the option to see the most recently recorded.


Nah. You are going to be the doing "work" to find the episodes you haven't watched once you've seen most of them no matter if you can see recently recorded ones or not.

There's no really difference between checking 5 random episodes at a time that are recently recorded or waiting until a bunch of episodes pile up and then either going thru them in big go or going thru them a few at a time starting from season 1 or something. It's the same difference.

Nevermind good luck remembering what you watched from show descriptions nevermind that mind that the shows you mentioned often don't have any show description. You're probably going to have to actually start watching half of them to know if you know if you've seen it or not.

You're still looking for a needle in a haystack sorta speak in either case.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Nah. You are going to be the doing "work" to find the episodes you haven't watched once you've seen most of them no matter if you can see recently recorded ones or not.
> 
> There's no really difference between checking 5 random episodes at a time that are recently recorded or waiting until a bunch of episodes pile up and then either going thru them in big go or going thru them a few at a time starting from season 1 or something. It's the same difference.
> 
> Nevermind good luck remembering what you watched from show descriptions nevermind that mind that the shows you mentioned often don't have any show description. You're probably going to have to actually start watching half of them to know if you know if you've seen it or not.
> 
> You're still looking for a needle in a haystack sorta speak in either case.


My wife has an uncanny ability to tell right away if she's seen one, even though it seems like they all start the same to me. Anyway, it isn't a deal killer for YTTV.


----------



## NashGuy

chiguy50 said:


> IOW, if I understand you correctly, an X1 user who subscribes to the HBO premium channel (and, thereby, HBO Max) through Comcast would not be able to stream an HBO Max original, such as _Love Life_, via VOD on their X1 device as things currently stand?


Correct. That's what I understand based on everything I've read. (Can't test that myself as I don't have an X1 box.)


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> but no one can really know for sure what all the points of disagreement are between the parties involved in any case except for the people in the negotiations.


True. (We can look at what's reported by credible media sources, such as the WSJ, and we can make educated guesses beyond that. But we won't ever know all the details.)


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> I really wish that were true. The obviously missing AppleTV+ app (and a few others, such as Sundance Now) on AndroidTV, and the cost of the AppleTV device coupled with its terrible remote really don't make those options any better at the end of the day IMHO.


The Apple TV app is -- I _think_ -- about the only truly noteworthy missing OTT app on Android TV. (And I wonder how many folks are actually paying to subscribe to Apple TV+?) Sundance Now is, IMO, pretty niche. (And it can be added to a Prime Video subscription through their Channels platform.) I know Apple has said that they'll release the Apple TV app for Sony smart TVs -- which run Android TV -- soon. So then it's just a matter of whether Apple wants to put that APK file on the Google Play Store, or make additional direct deals with Android TV OEMs such as Nvidia Shield TV, etc. for direct distribution to their devices. Given the relationship that already exists between Apple and Google, it wouldn't surprise me to see an Apple TV app on Google's upcoming Android TV dongle, which I expect to be unveiled at Google's smart home event this Wed, July 8. We'll see.

At any rate, in recommending the Apple TV and Android TV devices, I was specifically referring to options that would help consumers avoid app distribution stand-offs (given that Apple and Google are apparently easier for services to negotiate with than Roku and Amazon). You may dislike other aspects about either device. On the whole, I like the Apple TV remote. Great for quickly flicking through menus and scrubbing through video timelines.


----------



## CommunityMember

hahathatsfunny said:


> In the end, YTTV wants to be a cable TV in the cloud and a one stop shop for streaming linear TV.


They also want to offer the OTA locals, which, for all the major markets (which is the majority of their potential customer base), means the O&O stations, and that means dealing with the corporations protecting their own. Disney, for example, requires one to take ESPN to get retransmission consent to their O&Os. Viacom is likely taking the same approach with their O&Os (if not today, tomorrow, for they see what Disney is doing, and they like it). And other major station group owners are likely making their RSNs part of the requirements for retransmission consent. If you drop the OTAs you may have different negotiating options, but you also lose a potential customer set.


----------



## NashGuy

hahathatsfunny said:


> That being said, I'm not sure how long Sling will be able to offer Sling Blue and Sling Orange in their current forms. For example, will it be required to carry CBS on Sling now that ViacomCBS merged. And with Disney buying the FX/Nat Geo channels, will Disney permit the FX channels to be on Sling Blue while its ESPN on Sling Orange, and ABC not available at all. Maybe Sling is using its parent company's Dish Network leverage, to be able to do what it can do within Sling. And, I suspect it makes little profit margin on a base pack like Sling Blue, and makes most profit on those international channels and alacarte extras.


I've wondered those same questions about the way that Sling's Blue and Orange packages are structured. I do think that Sling relies on its parent DISH's overall channel distribution contracts. (For instance, note how Fox's RSNs disappeared from both DISH and Sling at the same time.)

I'd say that once DISH has to renew their contracts with Disney and ViacomCBS, we'll see some significant changes to Blue and Orange. ViacomCBS will force the inclusion of CBS in order to keep any of the Viacom channels (and also probably force more of them into one or both base packages). If DISH/Sling says no, then they'll all disappear. Meanwhile, I would expect FX and NatGeo to switch from Blue over to Orange where the rest of their Disney brethren reside.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> My wife has an uncanny ability to tell right away if she's seen one, even though it seems like they all start the same to me. Anyway, it isn't a deal killer for YTTV.


Yeah i can usually tell right away if I've seen it. But that's my point. You gotta start watching it to know. You can't escape the work.

So whether I could filter the latest random recorded episodes or wait until a bunch pile up and go thru them, it doesn't strike me as any real difference in effort.

Just less practical on YTTV to go thru them on a more frequent basis compared to the way Tivo because of it. But on Tivo you usually limited the # of recorded episodes available and if you don't (go) through them frequently then they might get deleted/recorded over. So you had to go thru on a frequent basis. Whereas on YTTV, you just sit back and wait months to check the repeats. Reality is, if you've seen most of them, you still probably won't find one you haven't watched.


----------



## foghorn2

dlfl said:


> My current "pain point" is your endless, insulting, pontificating about how others should think.


He does that with politics too here and gets away with it here. Posting paragraphs and paragraphs - Bigg piles of #$%@


----------



## pdhenry

trip1eX said:


> Yeah i can usually tell right away if I've seen it. But that's my point. You gotta start watching it to know. You can't escape the work.


At least on YTTV you can see whether/how much of an episode you've seen (on YTTV) without starting to watch.


----------



## moyekj

I agree YTTV really needs a filter to show me all available DVR recordings in one easy place (without VOD). As it is now, unless a recording shows up in LIBRARY--NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY I have no idea what has recorded recently and searching for them is a pain having to go one by one in every LIBRARY entry.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> I've wondered those same questions about the way that Sling's Blue and Orange packages are structured. I do think that Sling relies on its parent DISH's overall channel distribution contracts. (For instance, note how Fox's RSNs disappeared from both DISH and Sling at the same time.)
> 
> I'd say that once DISH has to renew their contracts with Disney and ViacomCBS, we'll see some significant changes to Blue and Orange. ViacomCBS will force the inclusion of CBS in order to keep any of the Viacom channels (and also probably force more of them into one or both base packages). If DISH/Sling says no, then they'll all disappear. Meanwhile, I would expect FX and NatGeo to switch from Blue over to Orange where the rest of their Disney brethren reside.


Yeah, that will be very interesting. I'd bet on something similar to what NBC/Fox are doing on Sling, where some O&O channels are available in big markets, but not every CBS station in the nation showing up, or Viacom goes away. They are some of the most overpriced, underwatched channels out there, and Charlie knows what his customers watch. Besides, Dish seems to care more about their new cell network these days, and Sling isn't exactly raking in the dough.


----------



## chiguy50

NashGuy said:


> Correct. That's what I understand based on everything I've read. (Can't test that myself as I don't have an X1 box.)


I was able to verify this last night with an X1 user. Their XG1v4 DVR did not return a hit for VOD content exclusive to HBO Max, such as _Love Life_.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> I agree YTTV really needs a filter to show me all available DVR recordings in one easy place (without VOD). As it is now, unless a recording shows up in LIBRARY--NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY I have no idea what has recorded recently and searching for them is a pain having to go one by one in every LIBRARY entry.


But that is mostly just left over habit from Tivo and its limited storage. With YTTV there is no storage limit so you don't have to constantly check for random recently recorded repeats(RRRR) in fear of them being recorded over or deleted.

You gotta develop new habits. You wait until they pile up. The more you've seen of a show the more you wait for the repeats to pile up before going thru them.

And then the amount of work is the same difference.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> At least on YTTV you can see whether/how much of an episode you've seen (on YTTV) without starting to watch.


I wonder if it remembers how much you watched of an episode once it falls off the 9 month limit and is rerecorded at some point in time afterwards.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> But that is mostly just left over habit from Tivo and its limited storage. With YTTV there is no storage limit so you don't have to constantly check for random recently recorded repeats(RRRR) in fear of them being recorded over or deleted.
> 
> You gotta develop new habits. You wait until they pile up. The more you've seen of a show the more you wait for the repeats to pile up before going thru them.
> 
> And then the amount of work is the same difference.


It's nothing to do with fear of losing recordings, it's about knowing what is available to watch. Most often I want to watch stuff that recently recorded, and in some cases that's not first airing of something (so doesn't show up as new). As it is now I have no easy way of knowing what recorded recently. For example if I record some shows that first aired in UK a while back, when YTTV records them they are new to me but YTTV doesn't indicate them as new, so unless I know that the show happens to be airing episodes now I wouldn't know to go looking for them in YTTV library. i.e. For that scenario you have to go actively push into every show that falls in that category to figure out if there's something available to watch. It shouldn't be that hard.


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> It's nothing to do with fear of losing recordings, it's about knowing what is available to watch.


One of the groups of shows that I have a terrible time figuring out is Naked & Afraid on Discovery. YTTV will combine two hours each week. Discovery will say shows are new when they are really reruns. And then YTTV will put some shows in "Extras" as new. Often times, I can't even find the "new" show that is showing up in the "New in your Library". What I do then, is go to the website (which has a better User Interface than the Fire TV App) to see what episode is actually new!


----------



## moyekj

pl1 said:


> One of the groups of shows that I have a terrible time figuring out is Naked & Afraid on Discovery. YTTV will combine two hours each week. Discovery will say shows are new when they are really reruns. And then YTTV will put some shows in "Extras" as new. Often times, I can't even find the "new" show that is showing up in the "New in your Library". What I do then, is go to the website (which has a better User Interface than the Fire TV App) to see what episode is actually new!
> View attachment 50515


Agree 100%. I also record the Naked & Afraid shows (XL and some other variants too) and sometimes have a heck of a time figuring out if there is actually something to watch there or not. Like you I often end up bringing up YTTV on a web page to figure it out more easily as from the Fire TV interface it's way too much use of "back" button navigating around.
To be fair though for that particular series, a lot of times these Naked and Afraid shows are listed as first aired when they are actually just re-packaged re-runs, so even on TiVo it gets complicated figuring out if there's anything actually new to watch there or not.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> It's nothing to do with fear of losing recordings, it's about knowing what is available to watch. Most often I want to watch stuff that recently recorded, and in some cases that's not first airing of something (so doesn't show up as new). As it is now I have no easy way of knowing what recorded recently. For example if I record some shows that first aired in UK a while back, when YTTV records them they are new to me but YTTV doesn't indicate them as new, so unless I know that the show happens to be airing episodes now I wouldn't know to go looking for them in YTTV library. i.e. For that scenario you have to go actively push into every show that falls in that category to figure out if there's something available to watch. It shouldn't be that hard.


but that is a habit established from using dvrs with limited storage.

And it's easy to keep track of a few shows that may not show up as new on YTTV. You just click the show. Since you don't have to worry about storage space, you are in no hurry to click the morphine drip every day either.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> One of the groups of shows that I have a terrible time figuring out is Naked & Afraid on Discovery. YTTV will combine two hours each week. Discovery will say shows are new when they are really reruns. And then YTTV will put some shows in "Extras" as new. Often times, I can't even find the "new" show that is showing up in the "New in your Library". What I do then, is go to the website (which has a better User Interface than the Fire TV App) to see what episode is actually new!
> View attachment 50515


Sounds like a guide data issue with a particular show.


----------



## mdavej

moyekj said:


> It's nothing to do with fear of losing recordings, it's about knowing what is available to watch. Most often I want to watch stuff that recently recorded, and in some cases that's not first airing of something (so doesn't show up as new). As it is now I have no easy way of knowing what recorded recently.


When I go to my Library on my Fire stick, I see "New In Your Library" which is usually a pretty small, manageable list. Then if I drill down into a particular show, I see "Recorded 1 week ago", "Recorded 2 days ago", etc.

What's your rationale for watching in recorded date order, which seems pretty arbitrary, instead of season/episode order? I think even if YTTV added the ability to sort by recorded date, very few people would use such a feature.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> Yeah, that will be very interesting. I'd bet on something similar to what NBC/Fox are doing on Sling, where some O&O channels are available in big markets, but not every CBS station in the nation showing up, or Viacom goes away. They are some of the most overpriced, underwatched channels out there, and Charlie knows what his customers watch. Besides, Dish seems to care more about their new cell network these days, and Sling isn't exactly raking in the dough.


Well, it looks like we'll have an answer to how those ViacomCBS channels (including CBS O&O affiliate stations in major markets) get treated on Sling pretty soon.

ViacomCBS And Dish Network Renew Carriage Deal - Deadline

As things stand now, CBS (or its basic cable siblings Pop! and CBS Sports Network) isn't carried on Sling at all. Showtime is available as an add-on. Among the Viacom channels, Comedy Central is available in both the Blue and Orange base packages while BET and Paramount Network are also available in Blue. Other Viacom nets can be added to either base package via the Comedy Extra and Lifestyle Extra packs, $5 each.


----------



## trip1eX

"Citing "sources familiar with the matter," the (STreamable) site said that while changes aren't expected on the Dish side, they are likely for Sling TV, including ViacomCBS channels currently available on the Sling Blue package now coming to the Sling Orange plan."


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Sounds like a guide data issue with a particular show.


Agreed, but in the case of TiVo, it shows up as two shows to watch. In YTTV, there are as many seasons as the show offers and all of the episodes. Since the guide data is incorrect, it sometimes shows up as an "extra". Point is, it is hard to find out what the new recording is with the Fire TV app. It is easy when you access via the website. And it is easy to see with TiVo.


----------



## foghorn2

trip1eX said:


> "Citing "sources familiar with the matter," the (STreamable) site said that while changes aren't expected on the Dish side, they are likely for Sling TV, including ViacomCBS channels currently available on the Sling Blue package now coming to the Sling Orange plan."


but move all the expensive crap channels to the orange side along with ESPN, if they raise prices, just raise orange, leave blue alone.


----------



## realityboy

mdavej said:


> When I go to my Library on my Fire stick, I see "New In Your Library" which is usually a pretty small, manageable list. Then if I drill down into a particular show, I see "Recorded 1 week ago", "Recorded 2 days ago", etc.
> 
> What's your rationale for watching in recorded date order, which seems pretty arbitrary, instead of season/episode order? I think even if YTTV added the ability to sort by recorded date, very few people would use such a feature.


For awhile now, our governor has been giving afternoon press conferences. These obviously aren't in the guide so I just record the shows scheduled at that time. If it's a new episode, I can easily find it in my recently recorded, but if it's an older episode of something, finding it can be a pain.


----------



## moyekj

mdavej said:


> When I go to my Library on my Fire stick, I see "New In Your Library" which is usually a pretty small, manageable list. Then if I drill down into a particular show, I see "Recorded 1 week ago", "Recorded 2 days ago", etc.
> 
> What's your rationale for watching in recorded date order, which seems pretty arbitrary, instead of season/episode order? I think even if YTTV added the ability to sort by recorded date, very few people would use such a feature.


I will watch anything that is "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" first because I know those are new, that's not an issue. The problem is when that is empty then looking for stuff to watch. For recorded shows not in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY" how to find them without drilling into each show in your library one by one? So if I have a total of say 100 LIBRARY shows you guys are suggesting it's perfectly reasonable to descend into one, scan for recorded stuff, return back and rinse and repeat for a whole bunch of shows? That's a LOT of clicks and scanning. It sounds like what you guys are suggesting is you may have some knowledge of what you want to watch as well as an idea about what is currently recording, so you just go to a particular show and find an episode to watch. What I'm saying is if you have many LIBRARY entries and don't necessarily know among all those what is currently recording, you have to do a lot of drilling down to figure out what recordings are available to watch in the first place.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> It's nothing to do with fear of losing recordings, it's about knowing what is available to watch.


What I do is open a particular show and scroll through the episode thumbnails looking for one that doesn't have the red line underneath it. If you're not looking at a megashow like CSI with hundreds of episodes it just takes a few seconds.
It's easiest when the show appears in the New Shows section so you at least know there's something recorded in there to watch.


----------



## moyekj

pdhenry said:


> What I do is open a particular show and scroll through the episode thumbnails looking for one that doesn't have the red line underneath it. If you're not looking at a megashow like CSI with hundreds of episodes it just takes a few seconds.
> It's easiest when the show appears in the New Shows section so you at least know there's something recorded in there to watch.


Right, but now let's say you have 50-100 LIBRARY shows where you have to do that one by one, that gets overwhelming.
I think the real issue is these so-called "modern GUIs" insist on having to have thumbnails for everything. If instead there was a view where I could just get a simple text flat list of things that have recorded recently sorted by recording date it would make things much easier for me.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> Right, but now let's say you have 50-100 LIBRARY shows where you have to do that one by one, that gets overwhelming.


You can sort the library by recently recorded (just not the episodes of a particular show), which would help.


----------



## moyekj

pdhenry said:


> You can sort the library by recently recorded (just not the episodes of a particular show), which would help.


 That sorting doesn't make much sense to me at all.
In LIBRARY--RECORDINGS section right now the sorting is set to "Recently Recorded". It has as the very first thumbnail "American Ninja Warriors". I descend into that and it shows about 20 VOD episodes (all of which I previously marked as "already watched" nonetheless). i.e. Nothing recently recorded (or any recording at all for that matter) there so why is that shows' thumbnail the first entry?


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> "Citing "sources familiar with the matter," the (STreamable) site said that while changes aren't expected on the Dish side, they are likely for Sling TV, including ViacomCBS channels currently available on the Sling Blue package now coming to the Sling Orange plan."


I'll be surprised if that's all it amounts to. That would simply mean that BET and Paramount Network, both already in Blue, get added to Orange. Comedy Central is already in both. So both packages would have only three ViacomCBS channels. And why those three? Nickelodeon, MTV, TV Land, and VH1 were all more viewed last year than those three. Although Bakish, now ViacomCBS CEO, did state a few years back (as head of Viacom) that their six core nets would be MTV, Nickeodeon, Nick Jr., and the three currently in Sling Blue: Comedy Central, Paramount, and BET. So it wouldn't surprise me to see all six of those appear in both Blue and Orange. (As a point of comparison, look at how WarnerMedia has all of their major basic cable nets -- CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network -- in both Blue and Orange, while Blue also includes TruTV and HLN.)

The big question to me is whether Sling will add the group's biggest network by far, CBS. If so, though, I expect it will only be those local affiliates in 14 mid-to-major markets around the country that are directly owned by CBS (just as Sling only carries Fox and NBC affliates directly owned by those networks).


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> That sorting doesn't make much sense to me at all.
> In LIBRARY--RECORDINGS section right now the sorting is set to "Recently Recorded". It has as the very first thumbnail "American Ninja Warriors". I descend into that and it shows about 20 VOD episodes (all of which I previously marked as "already watched" nonetheless). i.e. Nothing recently recorded (or any recording at all for that matter) there so why is that shows' thumbnail the first entry?


How many of them have you viewed?


----------



## moyekj

pdhenry said:


> How many of them have you viewed?


None. They are all VOD entries so of zero interest to me, plus I've seen those episodes back when they first aired. Apparently even marking them all as "already watched" does nothing to prevent sorting from listing them as "Recently Recorded" even though they are not recordings, but just VOD entries. Note that "Ninja Warriors" has been the first icon there ever since I can remember despite being many actual recordings since it took that spot. So I'm not sure what the logic is for the sorting or if it's just plain buggy/broken.


----------



## pl1

moyekj said:


> None. They are all VOD entries so of zero interest to me, plus I've seen those episodes back when they first aired. Apparently even marking them all as "already watched" does nothing to prevent sorting from listing them as "Recently Recorded" even though they are not recordings, but just VOD entries. Note that "Ninja Warriors" has been the first icon there ever since I can remember despite being many actual recordings since it took that spot. So I'm not sure what the logic is for the sorting or if it's just plain buggy/broken.


Just for a point of comparison, on Sling TV, I have entries for both Naked & Afraid and Naked & Afraid XL from Sunday night. It shows under "Recordings".

Under Naked & Afraid, there are "NEW - 2 SEASONS 2 EPISODES". I select and I get one episode called "Season 0 - Belize Breakdown 2019" and the other episode as "Season 11 - Watch Party:Christine & Steve 2020". At this point, I'm not sure if the first one is a repeat (since I don't remember seeing it), but it does say 2019 so it must be a repeat. AND, at least I KNOW what Sling considers to be new episodes and WHAT it recorded even if the guide is wrong. There are NOT 11 Seasons to sift through. The second one is one of those rehash repeats they call new.

Under Naked And Afraid XL, it shows S6 E8 2020 New at 8:00 PM July 5th. That one I know for sure is new.

I do find there is a lot more info on Sling TV's DVR recordings. Like a big description, the date of the recording and the year it first aired.

EDIT: And, Sling did not combine two episodes into one two hour show like YTTV does.


----------



## moyekj

moyekj said:


> That sorting doesn't make much sense to me at all.
> In LIBRARY--RECORDINGS section right now the sorting is set to "Recently Recorded". It has as the very first thumbnail "American Ninja Warriors". I descend into that and it shows about 20 VOD episodes (all of which I previously marked as "already watched" nonetheless). i.e. Nothing recently recorded (or any recording at all for that matter) there so why is that shows' thumbnail the first entry?


Looking beyond the "American Ninja Warriors" one that seems to be stuck in first spot, looks like some of the other shows that have had recent recordings are towards the start of the thumbnails, so there does appear to be some usefulness to that view despite some obvious bugs with it. So thanks to those that pointed it out.


----------



## moyekj

moyekj said:


> Looking beyond the "American Ninja Warriors" one that seems to be stuck in first spot, looks like some of the other shows that have had recent recordings are towards the start of the thumbnails, so there does appear to be some usefulness to that view despite some obvious bugs with it. So thanks to those that pointed it out.


OK, after some more checking the mystery behind "American Ninja Warriors" showing up first is now resolved. *When you push into a show it defaults to showing available episodes for the latest season by default.* So in this case it was showing Season 11 which are all VOD entries. However, changing to view other seasons I now see that there actually many recent recordings for older seasons. So looks like indeed the Sort by Recently Recorded does reflect order of recent recordings at the top level. It's just when you push into individual shows you may have to do some digging around different seasons to figure out where the recent recordings are. So still presents some difficulty locating recent recordings under individual shows, but understanding what YTTV is doing actually helps a lot.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> OK, after some more checking the mystery behind "American Ninja Warriors" showing up first is now resolved. *When you push into a show it defaults to showing available episodes for the latest season by default.* So in this case it was showing Season 11 which are all VOD entries. However, changing to view other seasons I now see that there actually many recent recordings for older seasons. So looks like indeed the Sort by Recently Recorded does reflect order of recent recordings at the top level. It's just when you push into individual shows you may have to do some digging around different seasons to figure out where the recent recordings are. So still presents some difficulty locating recent recordings under individual shows, but understanding what YTTV is doing actually helps a lot.


classic. using the recently recorded filter to find recently recorded.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> Agreed, but in the case of TiVo, it shows up as two shows to watch. In YTTV, there are as many seasons as the show offers and all of the episodes. Since the guide data is incorrect, it sometimes shows up as an "extra". Point is, it is hard to find out what the new recording is with the Fire TV app. It is easy when you access via the website. And it is easy to see with TiVo.


I am not sure what you're referring to there with regards to "there as many seasons as the show offers?"

I know how YTTV works, but not sure what the problem is with regards to your 1 show.

Also I judged YTTV on the overall experience. I didn't get hung up if one episode of one show had an issue. I had issues with specific episodes/events happen on Tivo frequently enough. STuff wouldn't get recorded because guide data was messed up or a new show marked as a repeat or a show that said it was x was actually y. That's par for the course. Those kinds of idiosyncrasies are typical. On Tivo you also had to deal with tuner priority. Which shows would get the tuners before other shows which affected what shows might be available for a person. And you had to do more managing because of that and because of limited storage. So some perspective is needed when complaining about an episode of a show. I don't think the grass is e greener anywhere else overall.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> classic. using the recently recorded filter to find recently recorded.


I presented the full context for the benefit of others. Yes at top level that filter works, but when drilling down you need to understand YTTV is not sorting by recently recorded but by season which makes finding recently recorded episodes harder but possible with some extra navigating around.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> I presented the full context for the benefit of others. Yes at top level that filter works, but when drilling down you need to understand YTTV is not sorting by recently recorded but by season which makes finding recently recorded episodes harder but possible with some extra navigating around.


You make it way more complicated than it is. 

It's much easier once you give being obsessed with what is the most recent recorded random repeat.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> You make it way more complicated than it is.
> 
> It's much easier once you give being obsessed with what is the most recent recorded random repeat.


Seems to me you are the one obsessed with repeating over and over that I'm obsessed and purport to understand how I think or think others should think like you.  I'll just keep posting what I think could benefit others, if you don't like it then please add me to your ignore list.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Seems to me you are the one obsessed with repeating over and over that I'm obsessed and purport to understand how I think or think others should think like you.  I'll just keep posting what I think could benefit others, if you don't like it then please add me to your ignore list.


It's not about thinking like me. IT's about thinking like YTTV thinks.

When you have a lemon make lemonade.


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> My current "pain point" is your endless, insulting, pontificating about how others should think.





foghorn2 said:


> He does that with politics too here and gets away with it here. Posting paragraphs and paragraphs - Bigg piles of #$%@


Very funny. 

Neither of you can have an intelligent conversation about cord cutting when you refuse to even understand the mentality of a cord cutter. It's clear that you have no interest in understanding cord cutting.



hahathatsfunny said:


> Implied is that Sling, Philo, (and probably Vidgo and frndlyTV) are more or less cord-cutting alternatives. Smaller pack of channels, less full service and likely still less in channel count than a basic package of cable. Maybe it's once the streaming base package breaks a certain price point, it's cable replacement.


Cord-shaving and skinny bundles also aren't cord-cutting, but the market does seem to have stratified out into full cord-replacement and skinny bundles.



> And, I suspect it makes little profit margin on a base pack like Sling Blue, and makes most profit on those international channels and alacarte extras.


I'd be interested to see actual numbers, but I get the sense that international is a big part of their business, and a lot of those customers are cord stackers, not cord shavers or cord replacers.



dlfl said:


> There's no getting away from the high cost of content.


And although you refuse to understand the mentality of cord cutting, the outrageous cost of the content is why the whole linear pay TV ecosystem is in a death spiral that it can not and will not recover from. It's a tragedy of the commons, and an industry that got fat, lazy, dumb, and happy off of the cable TV system until disruptive newcomers came in and called them out on it.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> It's not about thinking like me. IT's about thinking like YTTV thinks.
> 
> When you have a lemon make lemonade.


To an extent I agree. However, there are reasons they should offer to sort things differently. Hopefully, like Google Docs, it will get better with time. It ought to, given the price increases.


----------



## hahathatsfunny

NashGuy said:


> I've wondered those same questions about the way that Sling's Blue and Orange packages are structured. I do think that Sling relies on its parent DISH's overall channel distribution contracts. (For instance, note how Fox's RSNs disappeared from both DISH and Sling at the same time.)
> 
> I'd say that once DISH has to renew their contracts with Disney and ViacomCBS, we'll see some significant changes to Blue and Orange. ViacomCBS will force the inclusion of CBS in order to keep any of the Viacom channels (and also probably force more of them into one or both base packages). If DISH/Sling says no, then they'll all disappear. Meanwhile, I would expect FX and NatGeo to switch from Blue over to Orange where the rest of their Disney brethren reside.


Dish will rename Sling Blue and Orange to Sling Turquoise and Sling Maroon. Just kidding, but Dish finds a peculiar way to get things accomplished. Make two channels share into one. I remember when Dish from the early 2000s doing bizarre stuff and see it on the Sling side already. Carry Discovery but not Animal Planet.


----------



## mschnebly

moyekj said:


> Right, but now let's say you have 50-100 LIBRARY shows where you have to do that one by one, that gets overwhelming.
> I think the real issue is these so-called "modern GUIs" insist on having to have thumbnails for everything. If instead there was a view where I could just get a simple text flat list of things that have recorded recently sorted by recording date it would make things much easier for me.


I think the days of simple text flat list of things are done. Everything is moving to thumbnails.


----------



## hahathatsfunny

Bigg said:


> Cord-shaving and skinny bundles also aren't cord-cutting, but the market does seem to have stratified out into full cord-replacement and skinny bundles.


True cord cutting is dropping cable or satellite, and viewer stops watching TV through either means. Maybe the viewer then relies on gets an antenna, and atleast stops paying for subscription tv. But that's my definition. Sling, which is a skinny bundle, considers itself as cord-cutting.

A Cord-Cutting Guide | Slingucation



NashGuy said:


> Well, it looks like we'll have an answer to how those ViacomCBS channels (including CBS O&O affiliate stations in major markets) get treated on Sling pretty soon.
> 
> ViacomCBS And Dish Network Renew Carriage Deal - Deadline
> 
> As things stand now, CBS (or its basic cable siblings Pop! and CBS Sports Network) isn't carried on Sling at all. Showtime is available as an add-on. Among the Viacom channels, Comedy Central is available in both the Blue and Orange base packages while BET and Paramount Network are also available in Blue. Other Viacom nets can be added to either base package via the Comedy Extra and Lifestyle Extra packs, $5 each.


I got a sense that YTTV and Hulu Live, all pretty much want to carry the major four broadcast networks across all DMAs, with YTTV having PBS as well.

With Dish's Sling, even with NBC and Fox, it carries the NBC-owned stations and Fox-owned stations, but doesn't have a blanket deal with the networks to carry affiliated but non owned stations. With CBS, it's slightly different dynamic at hand as well, as CBS All Access already provides one's local CBS station, and it's an incentive for CBS to get subscribers to that platform. Maybe Sling made the point that it doesn't want to carry CBS and ViacomCBS didn't require for it since it's in ViacomCBS's benefit for viewer to sub to CBS All Access. But, I think that would be a good case scenario and precedent that it would mean no pressure for Philo to have CBS either. I think Pop will be added to Sling and Philo with greater certainty.

If CBS is added to Sling, which maybe inevitable, I'm more concerned of a bigger price increase than otherwise even if only covers the CBS owned stations with some owned CW stations as well.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> To an extent I agree. However, there are reasons they should offer to sort things differently. Hopefully, like Google Docs, it will get better with time. It ought to, given the price increases.


 YTTV is setup like the on-demand services like Netflix. Organized by season/episode. The unlimited storage makes that a reality for what is a linear tv service.

Once you accept that the world is your oyster.


----------



## NashGuy

hahathatsfunny said:


> With Dish's Sling, even with NBC and Fox, it carries the NBC-owned stations and Fox-owned stations, but doesn't have a blanket deal with the networks to carry affiliated but non owned stations. With CBS, it's slightly different dynamic at hand as well, as CBS All Access already provides one's local CBS station, and it's an incentive for CBS to get subscribers to that platform. Maybe Sling made the point that it doesn't want to carry CBS and ViacomCBS didn't require for it since it's in ViacomCBS's benefit for viewer to sub to CBS All Access. But, I think that would be a good case scenario and precedent that it would mean no pressure for Philo to have CBS either. I think Pop will be added to Sling and Philo with greater certainty.
> 
> If CBS is added to Sling, which maybe inevitable, I'm more concerned of a bigger price increase than otherwise even if only covers the CBS owned stations with some owned CW stations as well.


Yeah, maybe ViacomCBS didn't ultimately insist on their CBS or CW O&O stations being included in Sling. We'll see. But I would at least expect to see some additional ViacomCBS cable nets included in Orange and Blue. Doubt they will be Pop or Smithsonian though, as those are more niche stations and I don't see any reason why ViacomCBS would favor those nets from the CBS side over carriage of more popular nets from the Viacom side.

As a point of comparison, when Viacom (pre-CBS merger) channels got added to AT&T TV Now's new skinny Plus package in April 2019, they got the following 6 included: BET, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., VH1. (A few more -- Paramount, TV Land, CMT -- were added to the more expensive Max package.) Outside of Sling's Orange and Blue (as currently configured), I'm not aware of any OTT packages with fewer than 6 Viacom channels. (Well, Hulu Live has zero, although that will change when they have to eventually renew their carriage deal for CBS channels.) Vidgo's cheaper English-language Core package has 10 Viacom nets, although that carriage deal appears to have been negotiated prior to the ViacomCBS merger since they don't carry CBS. Only OTT carriage deal I'm aware of since the merger is with YTTV, which agreed to carry 14 Viacom nets, with 8 of them added right away.

So I'll be a bit surprised if Sling's Orange and Blue end up with fewer than six ViacomCBS channels in each package. And I also expect a price increase for new customers. Sling has already promised that existing subs won't see a price hike until at least Aug. 2021.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> YTTV is setup like the on-demand services like Netflix. Organized by season/episode. The unlimited storage makes that a reality for what is a linear tv service.Once you accept that the world is your oyster.


Personally, I prefer to see VOD separate from DVR recordings. YTTV is the only service I've seen with it merged/combined.


----------



## Bigg

hahathatsfunny said:


> True cord cutting is dropping cable or satellite, and viewer stops watching TV through either means. Maybe the viewer then relies on gets an antenna, and atleast stops paying for subscription tv. But that's my definition. Sling, which is a skinny bundle, considers itself as cord-cutting.


Sling is cord-replacement, not cord cutting. Just because they wanted to hijack a popular term for their own marketing purposes doesn't make it true. True cord cutting is, by definition, not subscribing to linear pay TV through an MVPD or vMVPD. True cord cutters only have OTT SVOD and PPV. The lines are getting murkier as services like CBS All Access, HBO NOW, Peacock, and Disney+ start to integrate live content.


----------



## trip1eX

live content from YTTV will be integrated into Amazon's Fire TV Live starting tomorrow. Hulu Live to follow. I guess rollout with Sling integration was already happening.


----------



## dlfl

Bigg said:


> Sling is cord-replacement, not cord cutting. Just because they wanted to hijack a popular term for their own marketing purposes doesn't make it true. True cord cutting is, by definition, not subscribing to linear pay TV through an MVPD or vMVPD. True cord cutters only have OTT SVOD and PPV. The lines are getting murkier as services like CBS All Access, HBO NOW, Peacock, and Disney+ start to integrate live content.


Here's a techcrunch article about YTTV live content being integrated in the Fire TV UI:
Amazon Fire TV now pulls in live TV content from Sling TV, YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV - TechCrunch
Interesting to see that TC (along with the rest of the world) considers cable-replacement services to be something that is used by *cord cutters*, per this quote from the article:


> ......the addition of Sling TV, YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV brings in the three largest and most popular apps among cord cutters who are paying for a live TV experience.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> YTTV is setup like the on-demand services like Netflix. Organized by season/episode. The unlimited storage makes that a reality for what is a linear tv service.
> 
> Once you accept that the world is your oyster.


I, for one, do not want to live in an oyster. 

I decided long ago not to stop railing against inefficient UI design. I might be pissing in the wind, but that is what I do.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> I, for one, do not want to live in an oyster.
> 
> I decided long ago not to stop railing against inefficient UI design. I might be pissing in the wind, but that is what I do.


Well first you have to find inefficient UI design. YOu still haven't found it.

You have to consider the whole picture. The efficiency that you gain from having unlimited storage. Compared to Tivo, you don't have to prioritize recordings, delete recordings, configure season passes, protect recordings, worry about family members deleting recordings. IT's a huge efficiency gain overall.


----------



## mdavej

dlfl said:


> Here's a techcrunch article about YTTV live content being integrated in the Fire TV UI:
> Amazon Fire TV now pulls in live TV content from Sling TV, YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV - TechCrunch
> Interesting to see that TC (along with the rest of the world) considers cable-replacement services to be something that is used by *cord cutters*, per this quote from the article:


I see the YTTV app on my Live tab, but there's nothing in my channel guide. Since I already had YTTV on the Home tab, this is a big can of nothing. But I agree that Bigg is the only person on the planet whose "cord cutter" definition is literal.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Well first you have to find inefficient UI design. YOu still haven't found it.
> 
> You have to consider the whole picture. The efficiency that you gain from having unlimited storage. Compared to Tivo, you don't have to prioritize recordings, delete recordings, configure season passes, protect recordings, worry about family members deleting recordings. IT's a huge efficiency gain overall.


I know that at least you are convinced of that. For me the way YTTV does DVR is both its best and worst feature.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> I know that at least you are convinced of that. For me the way YTTV does DVR is both its best and worst feature.


I'm just doing the math. I did far less busy work in YOUtube to the point where I started to feel like something was missing.

But I guess I just adapted to how it was setup. I didn't try to go in & out of 100 shows every day to find the most recent random recorded repeat. I think I easily adapted to not doing that because there is no real reason to see the most recent random recorded repeat. It doesn't have any significance.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Well first you have to find inefficient UI design. YOu still haven't found it.
> 
> You have to consider the whole picture. The efficiency that you gain from having unlimited storage. Compared to Tivo, you don't have to prioritize recordings, delete recordings, configure season passes, protect recordings, worry about family members deleting recordings. IT's a huge efficiency gain overall.


20 button clicks to get to something recorded yesterday, but originally aired in 2003 is inefficient.

If the UI didn't tell you when you finally find it that it was recorded 1 day ago, maybe I could understand not offering a sort by record date option, but clearly they have the information and surface it in the interface in other, less useful ways.


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> Interesting to see that TC (along with the rest of the world) considers cable-replacement services to be something that is used by *cord cutters*, per this quote from the article:


Well, they're wrong. Everyone has tried to pile on to the term "cord cutting" or "cord cutter" because it's popular and cool, including a lot of things that are literally the opposite of cutting the cord, like vMVPD services like YTTV, Hulu Live TV, Sling, AT&T TV, etc.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> 20 button clicks to get to something recorded yesterday, but originally aired in 2003 is inefficient.


 But it doesn't matter what the most recent random recorded repeat is.

It's only inefficient if you are using the tool incorrectly. And insist on feeding your engine carrots and giving it water like you used to do to your horse and buggy before heading out on the town.


----------



## mdavej

ncted said:


> 20 button clicks to get to something recorded yesterday, but originally aired in 2003 is inefficient.
> 
> If the UI didn't tell you when you finally find it that it was recorded 1 day ago, maybe I could understand not offering a sort by record date option, but clearly they have the information and surface it in the interface in other, less useful ways.


My UI on Fire TV shows both recent recordings and season/episode order. It's like 3 clicks to find yesterday's recording.


----------



## pl1

mdavej said:


> My UI on Fire TV shows both recent recordings and season/episode order. It's like 3 clicks to find yesterday's recording.


That's another issue. Some things depend on the platform you are using. For example, if you go to the website for YTTV, you can easily see exactly what just recorded and check it off as being watched. With the Fire TV App, sometimes you can not see it with out drilling down. And you can not check it off as being watched.

Furthermore, I don't think we should have to accommodate YTTV's wants and needs. They should have to accommodate their users wants and needs. And that being said, I still like them the best of what I've tried.


----------



## pdhenry

Bigg said:


> True cord cutters


I agree with your position, but that's close to "no true Scotsman."


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> But it doesn't matter what the most recent random recorded repeat is.
> 
> It's only inefficient if you are using the tool incorrectly. And insist on feeding your engine carrots and giving it water like you used to do to your horse and buggy before heading out on the town.


It may not matter to you. Look, I realize you are trying to be helpful, and, to you, my complaint may seem like an edge case, but it is a regular issue in my house. Is it enough to make us switch from YTTV? No, but it is something that is annoying, and I think they could pretty easily add it, especially given the sort options on YouTube proper. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions. I have considered them, and I have not found a way for them to resolve my particular issue. Perhaps that is a personal failing, but it is what it is.


----------



## ncted

mdavej said:


> My UI on Fire TV shows both recent recordings and season/episode order. It's like 3 clicks to find yesterday's recording.


Really? Would you mind documenting the steps you take? I am clearly missing something. We use FireSticks.


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> I agree with your position, but that's close to "no true Scotsman."


He has a point (ad nauseum), but the meaning of "cord cutter" has already been well established among the vast majority of people, and it's not his definition. Insisting that others accept his re-definition doesn't promote intelligent discussion. Maybe we need a new term for that subset of cord cutters whose primary motivation is to get away from MVPD (including vMVPD) services. How about "Bigg cord cutters"?


----------



## dlfl

mdavej said:


> I see the YTTV app on my Live tab, but there's nothing in my channel guide.. .........


Same here, maybe tomorrow .. as @trip1eX said. I'm having trouble imagining what the big plus of this integration would be anyway.


----------



## moyekj

dlfl said:


> Same here, maybe tomorrow .. as @trip1eX said. I'm having trouble imagining what the big plus of this integration would be anyway.


Would be nice if you could tell Alexa to direct play a recording, but somehow I doubt what this is about. I think the one they mentioned is you can tell Alexa to tune to channel "name" and it might work. But no interest in live TV for me...


----------



## ncted

Yeah, not seeing YTTV under the Live section yet. Sling showed up (I did a free month to try to get my wife to OK OTA+Sling), but no YTTV.


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> He has a point (ad nauseum), but the meaning of "cord cutter" has already been well established among the vast majority of people, and it's not his definition. Insisting that others accept his re-definition doesn't promote intelligent discussion. Maybe we need a new term for that subset of cord cutters whose primary motivation is to get away from MVPD (including vMVPD) services. How about "Bigg cord cutters"?


The meaning is well established to be someone who doesn't subscribe to an MVPD or vMVPD. Some want to abuse and misuse the term for various agendas, that doesn't make their literally opposite definition true. If someone can be a "cord cutter" and subscribe to YTTV or AT&T TV, then the term "cord cutter" has little meaning, based only on a technical differentiation between who owns what bits and what wires.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> It may not matter to you. Look, I realize you are trying to be helpful, and, to you, my complaint may seem like an edge case, but it is a regular issue in my house. Is it enough to make us switch from YTTV? No, but it is something that is annoying, and I think they could pretty easily add it, especially given the sort options on YouTube proper. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions. I have considered them, and I have not found a way for them to resolve my particular issue. Perhaps that is a personal failing, but it is what it is.


What's the issue (besides) just wanting to find the RRRR to find the RRRR?


----------



## Bierboy

pl1 said:


> ... MOST people joined YTTV to get away from the high cost of cable TV only to find themselves brought right back to the pricing they tried to get away from. Including, high prices for tons of channels no one wants.


I challenge ANYONE to find a cable package with the same number of channels as YTTV, use of multiple TVs and unlimited DVR storage, for $65/month. Not gonna happen. I'm far from a Google fanboy, but even at $65/month, it's lots cheaper than cable.


----------



## mdavej

ncted said:


> Really? Would you mind documenting the steps you take? I am clearly missing something. We use FireSticks.


You're right. I take it back. 2 clicks to get to recent recordings, but then you have to go on a very long hunting expedition to actually play them.


----------



## mdavej

dlfl said:


> Here's a techcrunch article about YTTV live content being integrated in the Fire TV UI:
> Amazon Fire TV now pulls in live TV content from Sling TV, YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV - TechCrunch
> Interesting to see that TC (along with the rest of the world) considers cable-replacement services to be something that is us





mdavej said:


> I see the YTTV app on my Live tab, but there's nothing in my channel guide. Since I already had YTTV on the Home tab, this is a big can of nothing...


I take it all back. YTTV listings are now showing in my guide, and it's actually pretty great. I'm now seeing all my OTA and streaming guides in one place.

Unexpected bonus is YTTV guide now goes out 2 weeks instead of just a day like it is inside the YTTV app. Like other sources you can also filter, hide and mark favorite channels. Since I have a Fire TV, not just a stick, my remote actually has a guide button that goes straight to the consolidated guide. But if you only have a stick, you can still say, "show guide" to jump directly to it.

I've also read that we got more Alexa integration. For example, I should be able to say, "watch CBS on Youtube TV", and it should tune to that. I can already say things like, "watch channel 29.3".

Like the other streaming services integration they already had, this is just for live tv, no record capability or recording management whatsoever except for Recast. You still have to go into the individual apps for all of that. But this is great for channel surfers who just want to see what's on and what's coming up the next couple of weeks.

This is the kind of thing TS4K needs to be doing if they want to become your main streaming device.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Bierboy said:


> I challenge ANYONE to find a cable package with the same number of channels as YTTV, use of multiple TVs and unlimited DVR storage, for $65/month. Not gonna happen. I'm far from a Google fanboy, but even at $65/month, it's lots cheaper than cable.


I don't need unlimited storage but I've posted my Comcast DP deal before. It's about the same money and gives everything you listed except the unnecessary DVR storage.

Comcast's DP bundles with Tivo are roughly equivalent in price to YTTV + HSI and offer just about everything you get with YTTV in other words. That may not have been true before the YTTV price increase but it certainly is now. Yes I know you may have to lock in that deal for a year or two but it doesn't bother me, and won't until Comcast starts moving off of QAM in a big way.


----------



## trip1eX

Yeah I have little to no interest in live tv.

Although I can see why Amazon has that tab. A lot of sports and even news plus assorted events are consumed live by the populace. And it fits in perfect with on-demand services covering the other types of content. 

And one of these years...someone will create a live sports and news package. OR just a live sports package for a lower price. And maybe, if it was only live with no dvr, then they could get the price down further. I might become a live sports fan again then.


----------



## pl1

Bierboy said:


> I challenge ANYONE to find a cable package with the same number of channels as YTTV, use of multiple TVs and unlimited DVR storage, for $65/month. Not gonna happen. I'm far from a Google fanboy, but even at $65/month, it's lots cheaper than cable.


For me, I can get everything I want with SlingTV Blue plus news for $35/mo. I do not need locals. The only thing missing from SlingTV (that YTTV has and that it is the main reason I even subscribe) is my RSN.

That said, I WANT my RSN, so I'm effectively paying $30/mo for my RSN. And my only two choices for my RSN are YTTV and Fubo. And both are similarly priced.

I left Cable TV because of the constantly increased costs. I was paying $140 at Comcast with the double play. I had to drop my cable speed from 200 Mbps to 25 Mbps (the minimum speed) for $50/mo. Plus $65/mo. = $115/mo. Yes, it is a savings, but with substantially slower speeds. What especially annoyed me was paying for locals when I did not need locals.

The challenge you pose assumes that everyone WANTS the whole package. I could care less about 90% of the channels. I do not need locals. I do not need the unlimited DVR. I can get multiple TV's on every streaming service I've tried.

Anyway, I'm still using YTTV and when the price jacks up I will probably move to Fubo. EDIT: And use SlingTV when there are no sports I watch.


----------



## powrcow

Bierboy said:


> I challenge ANYONE to find a cable package with the same number of channels as YTTV, use of multiple TVs and unlimited DVR storage, for $65/month. Not gonna happen. I'm far from a Google fanboy, but even at $65/month, it's lots cheaper than cable.


Ironically, $65/month is about what I spend for the TV portion of my cable bundle and the amortized cost of a TiVo with two Minis. It's not an unlimited DVR but it's more than enough for the amount of TV I can actually watch. Cable gets a few additional sports channels I watch that YouTubeTV does not. I was thinking of switching to YouTubeTV at $50/month but not at this time.

Now I'll switch when the TiVo dies.


----------



## Bierboy

pl1 said:


> For me, I can get *everything I want* with SlingTV Blue plus news for $35/mo. I do not need locals...


But what you want is not what somebody else wants. And I don't assume that everyone wants the whole package. That's just ludicrous. That's why I say "with the same number of channels as YTTV". Now the reality is, I have deselected at least two dozen of the channels they offer from my guide. But, for me, live TV (especially NBCSports Chicago) is a must have since I'm a Blackhawks fan. And, yes, the capability to cancel at the drop of a hat and not be locked in to any contract is attractive, too. You're certainly not going to find many, if any, cable packages less than $65/month that are not an "introductory offer".


----------



## trip1eX

Yeah the cable package is a buffet. No one expects one person to eat everything in the buffet. 

The buffet though has family pricing only. There is no discount for the single person. 

The single person is subsidizing the large families.


----------



## trip1eX

YTTV at $65/mo is about what I paid for cable at the regular rate including fees&taxes. That was a BYOT (Bring Your Own Tivo) rate though. 

The rough difference in channels was YTTV carried more extra sports channels not found in the typical standard cable package like NBATV, Tennis, SEC, MLB, ... but was missing the A&E channels (A&E, History, LIfetime...) plus Hallmark that are usually carried in a standard cable package.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> What's the issue (besides) just wanting to find the RRRR to find the RRRR?


Really just the effort required to find the thing we want to watch. It is what it is, and the other advantages of YTTV make it worth the hassle.


----------



## dlfl

mdavej said:


> I take it all back. YTTV listings are now showing in my guide, and it's actually pretty great. I'm now seeing all my OTA and streaming guides in one place.
> 
> Unexpected bonus is YTTV guide now goes out 2 weeks instead of just a day like it is inside the YTTV app. Like other sources you can also filter, hide and mark favorite channels. Since I have a Fire TV, not just a stick, my remote actually has a guide button that goes straight to the consolidated guide. But if you only have a stick, you can still say, "show guide" to jump directly to it.
> 
> I've also read that we got more Alexa integration. For example, I should be able to say, "watch CBS on Youtube TV", and it should tune to that. I can already say things like, "watch channel 29.3".
> 
> Like the other streaming services integration they already had, this is just for live tv, no record capability or recording management whatsoever except for Recast. You still have to go into the individual apps for all of that. But this is great for channel surfers who just want to see what's on and what's coming up the next couple of weeks.
> 
> This is the kind of thing TS4K needs to be doing if they want to become your main streaming device.


And it's nice that the FFWD and REW buttons move forward/back one day in the guide. I've set up Favorites to be just the few most watched channels, much fewer than the filtered view in the YTTV app shows. I'm seeing potential for this to be pretty useful.


----------



## trip1eX

I guess support for OTA in the ATV Sling app (in conjunction with the AirTV2) is a new thing as of the last few days. Also you can get an AirTV2 and HD antenna for free if you pre-pay 3 months of Sling.


----------



## chiguy50

slowbiscuit said:


> I don't need unlimited storage but *I've posted my Comcast DP deal before*. It's about the same money and gives everything you listed except the unnecessary DVR storage.


Would you mind refreshing my memory by reposting your DP deal? I don't recall that you had a bundle with a net MRC as low as $65.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> I guess support for OTA in the ATV Sling app (in conjunction with the AirTV2) is a new thing as of the last few days. Also you can get an AirTV2 and HD antenna for free if you pre-pay 3 months of Sling.


Yeah, for some reason it took Sling a long time to extend support for their AirTV OTA tuners to the Apple TV. There was a brief while that I looked into buying an AirTV last year (to be used alone, as I've never had any desire to subscribe to Sling) but ditched the idea when I found I couldn't do so with my Apple TV 4K.

That's a pretty good deal they're offering to get a free AirTV 2 (reg. $100) plus antenna if you pre-pay for 3 months of Sling. (Still need to supply your own USB hard drive to get free OTA DVR service, though.)

And anyone who is signed up by Aug. 1 will also ensure that their monthly price doesn't increase until at least Aug. 1, 2021. My guess is that some additional ViacomCBS channels get added to Sling next month and the rate will increase for new subscribers.


----------



## foghorn2

If you can get ota, and just a perfect collection of live streaming cable channels, most of who have VOD then

Sling Blue + AirTv Ota and AirTv mink4k ( the hardware free if you prepay) @ $30/mo is far better than YTTV @ $65/mo with is all bundled mostly crap channels just like traditional cable tv.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, for some reason it took Sling a long time to extend support for their AirTV OTA tuners to the Apple TV. There was a brief while that I looked into buying an AirTV last year (to be used alone, as I've never had any desire to subscribe to Sling) but ditched the idea when I found I couldn't do so with my Apple TV 4K.
> 
> That's a pretty good deal they're offering to get a free AirTV 2 (reg. $100) plus antenna if you pre-pay for 3 months of Sling. (Still need to supply your own USB hard drive to get free OTA DVR service, though.)
> 
> And anyone who is signed up by Aug. 1 will also ensure that their monthly price doesn't increase until at least Aug. 1, 2021. My guess is that some additional ViacomCBS channels get added to Sling next month and the rate will increase for new subscribers.


Good pt. It hadn't occurred to me that the 1 yr price guarantee doesn't mean they can't raise rates on new customers who sign up after august 1st


----------



## slowbiscuit

chiguy50 said:


> Would you mind refreshing my memory by reposting your DP deal? I don't recall that you had a bundle with a net MRC as low as $65.


$130/mo. (taxes and fees incl.) for 250mb HSI + Comcast Preferred cable, which has roughly the same channels as YTTV. You could argue that YTTV + HSI is cheaper if you can get HSI for $50/mo. on promo, sure.

I was just responding to the assertion that there's no better deal for channels/features than YTTV alone, which ignores the fact that Comcast et al can offer cable + HSI bundles that cost about the same as YTTV + HSI. Not to mention that Tivo + Minis is a better playback experience.


----------



## chiguy50

slowbiscuit said:


> $130/mo. (taxes and fees incl.) for 250mb HSI + Comcast Preferred cable, which has roughly the same channels as YTTV. You could argue that YTTV + HSI is cheaper if you can get HSI for $50/mo. on promo, sure.
> 
> I was just responding to the assertion that there's no better deal for channels/features than YTTV alone, which ignores the fact that Comcast et al can offer cable + HSI bundles that cost about the same as YTTV + HSI. Not to mention that Tivo + Minis is a better playback experience.


OK, that explains it.

I take it your HSI tier is Blast! (200Mbps nominal, 240Mbps typical)? In that case, the current discount pricing (with a 24-mo. agreement) for that same bundle in our Region is $100, or ca. $130 after all fees and taxes.

FWIW, you can upgrade right now to Extreme (300/360Mbps) for the same pricing with a new 24-mo. agreement or Extreme Pro (600/720) for $10 more. And with these deals, you can get another $10/mo. discount if you activate a new Xfinity Mobile cellular line within the first 30 days.

As I am sure you are aware, Comcast will waive any ETF with a new contract or as long as you retain at least one of their services.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> I do find there is a lot more info on Sling TV's DVR recordings. Like a big description, the date of the recording and the year it first aired.
> 
> EDIT: And, Sling did not combine two episodes into one two hour show like YTTV does.


I'm trialing Sling now. And have been for a week.

I don't see the date of recording displayed on any recording. Nor the first year a show aired either. This is on ATV though. And for all I know dates on recordings or showing the first year aired vary by show as well.


----------



## trip1eX

Here's my Sling trial observations. I have a few more days left on the 2 week free trial. My reference points are YTTV as well as Tivo. Streaming box is ATV. I trialed Sling before about a year ago.

Basically same verdict as before. The lack of unlimited storage, profiles, channels, having to fiddle with OTA and overall UX makes Sling inferior to YTTV. But you can pay much less for fewer cable channels with Sling. And if one of the base $30 packages has all of the cable channels you want then Sling becomes much more attractive given the much lower price. IN that sense really no different than the attraction of Philo where you can pay even less than Sling but get even fewer channels.


Sling is a bit slow in some respects. There is a lot of 1-5 second delay in various aspects of the UI. The guide data sometimes needs a few seconds to pop in. The thumbnail images shown when skipping ahead in a show will lag when you start to put together a lot of skips. Moving horizontally thru the icons in the menus is responsive but the show info will take a second or two pop in after you stop on a show. When you play a show or a live channel, you often get a ~5 second blank screen and you are left wondering if it's going to play or not. It plays nearly every time though. And sometimes a live channel will come up almost instantly. There is a big range there in my experience. The UI has some weird freezes. Just like now I go back into the menu from a show and I swipe on the touchpad and nothing happens. That happened a bunch of times. Hitting menu(back button) gets rid of it although it does bring you back to the top of the menus. The menus aren't too deep though. Also the app seem to load a few seconds slower than YTTV did on the ATV.

The dvr storage is still way too low for me and for a typical Tivo user I would think. Even with the $5 expanded storage, the amt of storage is still less than 1/3rd the amount of my Roamio Plus from 6 years ago. 3 show and 2 sports season passes and 2 movies and I filled that dvr storage up in a few days easy. The 2 movies disappeared after few days even. The weird thing is they are still shown under Continue Watching and I can still watch them from there even though they are gone from My Recordings. (and it's a recording not VoD)

The great lack of storage would force me to keep on top of it every day even twice a day or something might be overwritten. You can "protect" a recording from being deleted but you can't limit the number of episodes to be recorded like on Tivo at least not on the ATV that I saw. You can mass delete recordings which helps reduce the tedium of constantly pruning stuff. IN my case, with a wife and kids, the lack of storage is all the more ridiculous. I mean I think about my kid recording Impractical Jokers on the Tivo one day. And all the episodes of that can be aired in a day. IF my kid did that on Sling I would come home to find half of the dvr overwritten.  IF my wife decides to record 90 day Fiance one day same thing. But ok if you keep on top of it then you can make it work. I just happen to think the better product is the one that makes life easier. 

And if you want to "protect" a show (and they call it protect) it's a fairly tedious episode by episode effort. Go to the episode, hold down the button for 2 seconds, go over to protect, select protect. Go back out. Rinse and repeat.

I don't see date recorded on any recording on the Sling app on the ATV. I don't see original year shown date either.

Recordings are organized well with the seasons on the left once you click a folder and episodes on the right. It's all clear and easy to see. The knock would be it doesn't make a great use of the space. It only shows 3 shows at a time when you're in a tv show folder. 3 big icons. It feels like they could make better use of the space. On the other hand, there isn't much dvr storage so you're never going to have that much content so it works in that regard.

No profiles is a big miss too if you're sharing family or friends. Just nice to see only your own recordings. And in YTTV's case it works even better because of unlimited storage. I don't know how profiles work on HUlu Live and Fubo with their limited storage. Do they just assign a certain amt of storage per profile or ... But on YTTV you never have to worry about a family member using up too much storage under their profile. IT would also nice just for everyone to have their own favorite channel list. If this was an option to have multiple favorite channel lists then I missed it.

The last big knock on Sling is just the channels and price. I've been trialing the $70 everything package. I still don't get the networks. I still don't get regional sports. I don't get profiles nor lots of storage. I do otherwise get a few more cable channels than YTTV has like the A&E channels, Hallmark and BeinSports which is nice bonus for me at least. The $30 packages just don't cut it for me. Close but no cigar.

And yes you can get the networks on Sling but you gotta fiddle with OTA and a separate dvr storage device to get them. Sling's own device is incorporated into the UI. How well that works..., I have no first hand experience. IT's wifi only though and it's a dongle behind a tv using a USB stick for storage I believe, so I just have some doubts there on how joyful that experience would be.

But again, as is probably obvious to most at this point, if one of $30 channel packages with 10 hrs of DVR storage suffice well then you can save quite a bit of $$$$ relatively speaking compared to a YTTV.


Misc knocks: Live skip only (although its a cached live skip.) The cache part makes it practical for a streaming platform. It doesn't consummate your skips until you stop skipping for a second. But not as nice as the way YTTV handles it. On Sling the thumbnail images lag. IF you stop to wait for them to catch up the show will start playing thus you can't use thumbnail images as an indication of where you are in the show's timeline. On YTTV, not only do the thumbnail images not lag, but you can take your time skipping ahead and looking at the images because the show doesn't start to play back until you hit play again.

On Sling on the ATV you gotta click the touchpad for every skip. It's more tedious compared to tapping the touchpad to skip on the ATV with YTTV.

The guide shows only 4 1/2 channels at a time. And makes a poor use of space for show description and show graphic which take up over half the screen. It ruins the positives about the guide.

Trickplay controls don't work in what feels like over half the live channels.

I couldn't chase watch some sports and shows. i had to wait until the recording was finished. And in today's INdy Car race, it didn't let me resume chase watching from where I left off after I went back into the menu. It kept messing up. I gave up and had to wait until the recording was over. 



Nice touches:

DAys of guide data. I didn't check the length but it's a lot more than YTTV has.

FASt scrolling in the channels in the guide. Hard to activate/control though.

The live channel shortcut bar that you can bring up with a swipe while watching a show.

30 second skip. YTTV only has 15 second. 30 second skip works better for skipping commercials. Less button presses. Less tedious. I do wish YTTV had 30 second skip instead of 15 seconds. It doesn't really make sense to have only 15 seconds.

I think Sling's 10 second back is better than the 15 second back of YTTV as well. Maybe that's the long time Tivo user in me, but it just that 10 seconds is more ideal to replay the last play or line.

The Sling menus do seem to put more big icons of the shows that playing live front and center on the UI than YTTV did. Also more recommendations seem front and center. But the former is because they actually bury Recordings a bit. Recordings is the 2nd row below My Channels under My TV. So you have to go past 'what's playing live now' to get to your recordings.


small touches lacking in Sling:

If you go back into the menus or even the guide, whatever you are watching stops playing abruptly. ON YTTV it keeps going. So you can't, for example, prune recordings or record from the guide or just browse during a commercial or some downtime while the show it playing. And if you immediately go right back into your the same show it still takes 2 seconds. It's not instant.

Also in YTTV guide, you will see little thumbnails of the live feed of every channel as you scroll through the guide. You can actually the channel here. Good for seeing at a glance what channels are in commercial. I guess this is YTTV's way of showing you graphically what is playing now.

It doesn't seem like Sling has many filters in the recording library. But then again it doesn't have much storage space so they aren't really needed either.

No Siri voice support for skipping ahead or back. No Homepod voice or audio output support on ATV. I actually use HOMePod as my wireless soundbar. And used Siri on the ATV remote to skip comercials on YTTV half the time.



Pic quality: SEems fine although doesn't seem as consistent as YTTV and not as good overall. 

Questions: How does Sling handle rain delayed sporting events or events bumped or delayed or programs that run long? LIke F1 qualifying today was rain delayed. So Sling didn't actually record the qualifying. I wonder if YTTV would have picked that up or not.

Errors: I got an error one time and spent 20-30 seconds bouncing between the error message and the ATV menu before got out of the error message. Maybe I restarted the app even.

I've had some audio sync errors. And a couple of times I was skipping ahead and it just lost my place in the recording or something and stopped skipping ahead and then audio started playing but picture was just frozen.


----------



## mdavej

@trip1eX, Great report. Thanks.

Maybe I missed it, but do you know if your Sling TV credentials work the individual network apps (TV Everywhere)?


----------



## trip1eX

mdavej said:


> @trip1eX, Great report. Thanks.
> 
> Maybe I missed it, but do you know if your Sling TV credentials work the individual network apps (TV Everywhere)?


I haven't went thru that process with Sling, but I do recall seeing Sling in the lists of paytv providers for apps before. YOu don't need Sling to actually check this. I am assuming if it's listed then it works.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Questions: How does Sling handle rain delayed sporting events or events bumped or delayed or programs that run long? LIke F1 qualifying today was rain delayed. So Sling didn't actually record the qualifying. I wonder if YTTV would have picked that up or not.


YTTV extended the qualifying recording for me.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> I haven't went thru that process with Sling, but I do recall seeing Sling in the lists of paytv providers for apps before. YOu don't need Sling to actually check this. I am assuming if it's listed then it works.


It varies. For instance, the current promo includes Starz free for 1 month, but I could not login to the Starz app with my Sling credentials.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> YTTV extended the qualifying recording for me.


Thanks. Good to know. YTTV might be the only service/dvr that did extend the recording..


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> It varies. For instance, the current promo includes Starz free for 1 month, but I could not login to the Starz app with my Sling credentials.


ok I can see that. Promo and premium channel on top of it.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> ok I can see that. Promo and premium channel on top of it.


Sorry, just to be clear, logging in with a Sling account was not an option in the Starz app or on the Starz.com website. It wasn't that my authentication failed. Sling is not listed as a participating provider. Whenever I had Dish, I could login to Starz with my Dish account even when it was on free preview.


----------



## trip1eX

btw, on Sling, even if get both Orange and Blue, the Orange only channels still allow only 1 simultaneous stream according to the guide in the app. I thought that went away if you got both packages. I think that applies to Orange only recordings as well.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> btw, on Sling, even if get both Orange and Blue, the Orange only channels still allow only 1 simultaneous stream according to the guide in the app. I thought that went away if you got both packages. I think that applies to Orange only recordings as well.


Lots of gotchas with Sling. YTTV used to have those as well, primarily with DVR recordings. Kind of makes it worth the extra money to avoid the annoyances. I am still considering whether I want to try AT&T TV Now.


----------



## foghorn2

ncted said:


> Lots of gotchas with Sling. YTTV used to have those as well, primarily with DVR recordings. Kind of makes it worth the extra money to avoid the annoyances. I am still considering whether I want to try AT&T TV Now.


$420 a year is worth it? Thats insane !


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Lots of gotchas with Sling. YTTV used to have those as well, primarily with DVR recordings. Kind of makes it worth the extra money to avoid the annoyances. I am still considering whether I want to try AT&T TV Now.


Maybe I will try them next if there is a free trial lol.

I got another day left with Sling


----------



## ncted

foghorn2 said:


> $420 a year is worth it? Thats insane !


Well, it would only be $360/yr for me because I would need the extra DVR hours, so $30/month. Plus, I'd need another way to get locals, and OTA just hasn't been reliable. With all the time, money and effort I have put into trying to make that (unsuccessfully) work, there is a lot of value in getting locals through YTTV. Also, having to explain every so often that you can't pause live TV on this channel or that channel and there are a certain group of channels that only one of us can watch at a time would not be welcome in my home, nor would I want to have to go through the hassle myself. Not to mention the unlimited DVR, etc. So, not insane for us. That doesn't mean I think it is quite worth $65/month.

Perhaps it is insane for your situation though?


----------



## NashGuy

Interesting article about vMVPDs and YouTube TV specifically. The report cited here estimates that YTTV was losing $1 per sub when priced at $50 (i.e. wholesale cost of $51 per sub). And now, with the new ViacomCBS contract in place and the new $65 price, it estimates that they are making a $4 gross profit per sub (i.e. wholesale cost of $61 per sub). This jibes with what I've long thought, that even at $50, YTTV wasn't profitable (which is why it was such a bargain for consumers), and that the recent $15 price hike was big enough to get the service into the black.

Virtual MVPDs have lost their pricing and packaging edge - analyst | Light Reading


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Interesting article about vMVPDs and YouTube TV specifically. The report cited here estimates that YTTV was losing $1 per sub when priced at $50 (i.e. wholesale cost of $51 per sub). And now, with the new ViacomCBS contract in place and the new $65 price, it estimates that they are making a $4 gross profit per sub (i.e. wholesale cost of $61 per sub). This jibes with what I've long thought, that even at $50, YTTV wasn't profitable (which is why it was such a bargain for consumers), and that the recent $15 price hike was big enough to get the service into the black.
> 
> Virtual MVPDs have lost their pricing and packaging edge - analyst | Light Reading


It certainly seems like the majority of linear programming will continue its slow decline into obscurity. The media companies probably already realize this, and they are just trying to squeeze as much blood out of that old stone as they can before it runs completely dry.


----------



## moyekj

NashGuy said:


> Interesting article about vMVPDs and YouTube TV specifically. The report cited here estimates that YTTV was losing $1 per sub when priced at $50 (i.e. wholesale cost of $51 per sub). And now, with the new ViacomCBS contract in place and the new $65 price, it estimates that they are making a $4 gross profit per sub (i.e. wholesale cost of $61 per sub). This jibes with what I've long thought, that even at $50, YTTV wasn't profitable (which is why it was such a bargain for consumers), and that the recent $15 price hike was big enough to get the service into the black.
> 
> Virtual MVPDs have lost their pricing and packaging edge - analyst | Light Reading


Hopefully that means they don't need further big price hikes to keep the service going especially since I assume they want to build the number of subscriptions further presumably.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> It certainly seems like the majority of linear programming will continue its slow decline into obscurity. The media companies probably already realize this, and they are just trying to squeeze as much blood out of that old stone as they can before it runs completely dry.


I'm still a proponent of the theory that blocks of linear channels and content they carry will gradually morph into direct-to-consumer OTT services. Hulu replaces/subsumes ABC, FX and Freeform; All Access does do with CBS and the Viacom channels; Peacock does so with the NBCU channels; HBO Max does so with HBO and the WarnerMedia channels, etc. I think the media companies, to some extent, are already running this play book, as we see them increasingly willing to cannibalize their linear channels with their DTC services (e.g. Look at how FX is simply becoming a sub-brand of Hulu, with new FX content debuting on Hulu at the same time).

But, yeah, I do think that MVPDs are trying to squeeze as much blood out of the old stone of cable channel bundles as they can until the model exhausts itself. Hence you have Comcast and AT&T, the two largest MVPDs, saying that they're not interested in chasing after unprofitable or low-margin TV subs. Let those folks switch to YTTV, Netflix, Hulu, etc. Sure, they could cut their package prices to compete directly with YTTV. But if they did, that would do a lot of harm to their longstanding cable TV business and shareholders wouldn't have it. It's a shrinking cash cow but still a cash cow.

Meanwhile, Google and Disney/Hulu have no longstanding MVPD businesses to protect. So you can see how they might be willing to operate a barely profitable cable TV package if it somehow strategically serves their main business lines, or if they think it will in the future if it grows.



moyekj said:


> Hopefully that means they don't need further big price hikes to keep the service going especially since I assume they want to build the number of subscriptions further presumably.


Yeah. Assuming YTTV doesn't add any more channels in 2021 (e.g. the Hallmark and/or A+E groups), then they may be able to hold the price at $65 or bump up to no more than $70 to cover inflation (as I assume they will have to renew some additional carriage contracts this year or next, likely at higher wholesale rates).

The message that YTTV publicly posted announcing the recent price hike to $65 included the following:

_As the streaming industry continues to evolve, we are working to build new flexible models for YouTube TV users, so we can continue to provide a robust and innovative experience for everyone in your household without the commitments of traditional TV._​
Perhaps the "new flexible models" will simply be the standard cable bundle concept of an entry-level tier for a lower price and an upgrade tier, with additional channels, for more. Or, who knows, maybe they shift to something closer to Sling, which has more than one entry-level package with several small add-on channel packs.


----------



## wendlan

To add - a perspective I don't see often is that I subscribe to YTTV *NOT *to save money, but because it's the best service available today for my needs (at any cost). My logic is that:

Tivo + Rovi is no longer reliable for me either in software or hardware. Plus, my cable company makes it extremely painful to deal with cable cards. So after almost 20 years, I'm done fighting.
I want a DVR with the usual linear channels, but my local cable companies DVR is buggy and expensive. And the cable company themselves are not pleasant to work with, so this is done, too.
Satellite is a pain with tons of hardware at my house to maintain and isn't flexible. It is not the future.
In looking at the features and all of the other MVPDs, YTTV has the most features (at any price) for my use case. Search, channel selection, picture quality, and unlimited DVR are the biggest pluses. Also, not having to deal with any external vendor or physical equipment (cable or satellite) at my residence is another bonus. Example - I can finish setting up new YTTV install in less time than waiting on hold for the "next representative" at the cable company.


----------



## moyekj

wendlan said:


> To add - a perspective I don't see often is that I subscribe to YTTV *NOT *to save money, but because it's the best service available today for my needs (at any cost). My logic is that:
> 
> Tivo + Rovi is no longer reliable for me either in software or hardware. Plus, my cable company makes it extremely painful to deal with cable cards. So after almost 20 years, I'm done fighting.
> I want a DVR with the usual linear channels, but my local cable companies DVR is buggy and expensive. And the cable company themselves are not pleasant to work with, so this is done, too.
> Satellite is a pain with tons of hardware at my house to maintain and isn't flexible. It is not the future.
> In looking at the features and all of the other MVPDs, YTTV has the most features (at any price) for my use case. Search, channel selection, picture quality, and unlimited DVR are the biggest pluses. Also, not having to deal with any external vendor or physical equipment (cable or satellite) at my residence is another bonus. Example - I can finish setting up new YTTV install in less time than waiting on hold for the "next representative" at the cable company.


Excellent points, well said.


----------



## Bigg

ncted said:


> It certainly seems like the majority of linear programming will continue its slow decline into obscurity. The media companies probably already realize this, and they are just trying to squeeze as much blood out of that old stone as they can before it runs completely dry.


They seem to have given up on it because of long term contracts for various content and the tragedy of the commons. If they could get the full channel bundle under $30/mo, I think linear pay TV would have a much better shot, but no one can get all of the various parties to act in their own common best interest, so they'll milk it until the whole thing collapses and hopefully they've built up other distribution mechanisms to scatter to.



NashGuy said:


> I'm still a proponent of the theory that blocks of linear channels and content they carry will gradually morph into direct-to-consumer OTT services.


They will, in fact they already are, but most people won't subscribe to all of the major networks' packages, meaning that the revenue overall with be a lot less. This is a messy, bloody way of rationalizing the absurdly bloated pay TV industry.



> Yeah. Assuming YTTV doesn't add any more channels in 2021 (e.g. the Hallmark and/or A+E groups), then they may be able to hold the price at $65 or bump up to no more than $70 to cover inflation (as I assume they will have to renew some additional carriage contracts this year or next, likely at higher wholesale rates).


What's unfortunate is that Google created the best, most well-targeted lineup that included all of the stuff that live TV is good for, i.e. news and sports, and little of the garbage (a couple of Disney channels snuck in with the ESPNs), and now they've just bloated it back up to basically be a full-fledged cable package. The problem is that the economics of it push providers to the bloated packages of 400 channels of nothing, because the handful of channels that people actually want, primarily sports, are so outrageously overpriced that they have to add a bunch of junk in order to create "value" to customers, which really isn't value but the perception of value through channel tonnage, and then you end up with the same overpriced, bloated mess that cable is.

The result is that we have the tragedy of the commons where the entire industry has pushed itself into a death spiral. People will keep cutting the cord, and eventually that absurd cost bloat, especially in the sports carriage deals, will fall apart, and sports will either have to rationalize their costs, or they will have to find new sources of revenue.



> Perhaps the "new flexible models" will simply be the standard cable bundle concept of an entry-level tier for a lower price and an upgrade tier, with additional channels, for more. Or, who knows, maybe they shift to something closer to Sling, which has more than one entry-level package with several small add-on channel packs.


Sling offers the true "skinny bundle", the problem is that with the absurdly overpriced sports channels, you either get a couple of them, in an incomplete set to follow most teams, or else you get only news channels. When you look at the value of cable news channels compared to everything else out there, it's hard to justify $30/mo for CNN and MSNBC.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> What's unfortunate is that Google created the best, most well-targeted lineup that included all of the stuff that live TV is good for, i.e. news and sports, and little of the garbage (a couple of Disney channels snuck in with the ESPNs), and now they've just bloated it back up to basically be a full-fledged cable package. The problem is that the economics of it push providers to the bloated packages of 400 channels of nothing, because the handful of channels that people actually want, primarily sports, are so outrageously overpriced that they have to add a bunch of junk in order to create "value" to customers, which really isn't value but the perception of value through channel tonnage, and then you end up with the same overpriced, bloated mess that cable is.


No, Google was always losing money on YTTV until now (and it's only estimated to be barely profitable now). It's not like it ever could have just stayed with its original 40 channel line-up and $35 price, unless Google was willing to indefinitely lose a ton of money on it as it grew.

It's the sports channels, Fox News, and the major networks (which also carry live sports, as well as local news) that mainly drive up the cost of the bundle. I mean, sure, _if_ you could have a bundle that only included the six main broadcast nets, the 3 main cable news nets, and the various cable sports nets (plus TBS and TNT, as they air sports too), well, that would cost less than a broader bundle that also includes other channels from Disney, ViacomCBS, NBCU, WarnerMedia and Fox, such as Nickelodeon, MTV, USA, Bravo, Cartoon Network, FX and Disney. But not THAT much less. And you'd have a bundle that was less marketable because it wouldn't really appeal to families. It would mainly appeal to, I would guess, someone with your tastes. Basically single men who just want cable TV for sports and news and then will get any scripted entertainment from a la carte streaming services like Netflix, HBO Max, etc. Sure, if YTTV (or anyone) could offer "locals+sports+news" as an optional core package, I'm sure it would see _some_ takers. Hulu talked about trying to do it a couple years ago but nothing came of it. But at this point, I don't think any of the five major channel groups would allow it.

There's an argument to be made, I guess, that YTTV should never have included channels from Discovery or AMC Networks, even though they're popular. Keeping them out of the bundle would keep the cost down a bit, and with CuriosityStream as an optional add-on, that kinda-sorta takes the place of the Discovery channels. Perhaps once Discovery finally comes out with their own direct-to-consumer OTT service, YTTV will kick them out of the bundle. Or Discovery will allow YTTV to sell the Discovery group of channels as a separate add-on package which also scores you access to the new Discovery OTT app. Hey, at least YTTV hasn't included channels from A+E Networks or Crown Media (Hallmark). Yet, anyway.



Bigg said:


> Sling offers the true "skinny bundle", the problem is that with the absurdly overpriced sports channels, you either get a couple of them, in an incomplete set to follow most teams, or else you get only news channels. When you look at the value of cable news channels compared to everything else out there, it's hard to justify $30/mo for CNN and MSNBC.


Yeah. To their credit, Sling is trying to offer the market something different, truly skinny, no-frills, low-cost bundles. I just don't think there are that many folks out there who are interested. It's always going to have niche appeal.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, Sling is a bit of a niche product, but it should be noted that if you subscribe to them and make the channels as similar to YTTV and others the price gets right up there too!

Sling Blue + expanded DVR = $35/month.
Add in the all TV or whatever they call it @$20/month
Now you’re at $55 and no locals.

If you get Sling Blue+Gold+expanded DVR = $50/month. And the add in of all the others is $25 (I think) and still no locals and a 1 stream limit on those Gold channels.

The only way that Sling makes sense is for those that find a skinny bundle that has the channels they want and fill in with other streamers for missing content.

But what it all breaks down to is the same thing cable/sat does, pick the channels/content you just have to have and find the service or combo of service that fits, and of course, be ready to compromise or pay.


----------



## pl1

lparsons21 said:


> Sling Blue + expanded DVR = $35/month.
> Add in the all TV or whatever they call it @$20/month
> Now you're at $55 and no locals.


And no RSN


----------



## lparsons21

pl1 said:


> And no RSN


Yeah I should have said that. Missed because I don't give a whit about RSN's...


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Google was always losing money on YTTV until now


Yeah, they expected to be able to sell advertising on the service to make it profitable without charging too much, but that never happened, and it isn't going to any time soon.


----------



## Bierboy

foghorn2 said:


> $420 a year is worth it? Thats insane !


Not even two bucks a day; most folks spend more than that on coffee...


----------



## Bierboy

ncted said:


> Yeah, they expected to be able to sell advertising on the service to make it profitable without charging too much, but that never happened, and it isn't going to any time soon.


That's very evident with their "moments of zen" filling up unsold ad space


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Yeah, Sling is a bit of a niche product, but it should be noted that if you subscribe to them and make the channels as similar to YTTV and others the price gets right up there too!
> 
> Sling Blue + expanded DVR = $35/month.
> Add in the all TV or whatever they call it @$20/month
> Now you're at $55 and no locals.
> 
> If you get Sling Blue+Gold+expanded DVR = $50/month. And the add in of all the others is $25 (I think) and still no locals and a 1 stream limit on those Gold channels.
> 
> The only way that Sling makes sense is for those that find a skinny bundle that has the channels they want and fill in with other streamers for missing content.
> 
> But what it all breaks down to is the same thing cable/sat does, pick the channels/content you just have to have and find the service or combo of service that fits, and of course, be ready to compromise or pay.


Yep, all true.

Another thing to point out about Sling: I can't confirm if this is true, but I've read that DISH is able to structure their Sling packages as they do because they rely on the company's overall carriage contracts, which include all the DISH customers who are on more traditional, fuller bundles. I've read that the company can get away with only a certain percentage of their customers being on a package that doesn't include this or that channel (and that level may differ from one channel group to another).

As I say, I don't know if that's true, but it sounds plausible. And if it is true, it explains why Sling is basically the only service offering the kind of skinny bundles that they do -- no locals and only a few of a group's most popular channels. (Yes, there's Philo, but they're jointly owned by four of the channel groups. And their lone $20 tier includes pretty much every channel owned by those groups.)


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> Yep, all true.
> 
> Another thing to point out about Sling: I can't confirm if this is true, but I've read that DISH is able to structure their Sling packages as they do because they rely on the company's overall carriage contracts, which include all the DISH customers who are on more traditional, fuller bundles. I've read that the company can get away with only a certain percentage of their customers being on a package that doesn't include this or that channel (and that level may differ from one channel group to another).
> 
> As I say, I don't know if that's true, but it sounds plausible. And if it is true, it explains why Sling is basically the only service offering the kind of skinny bundles that they do -- no locals and only a few of a group's most popular channels. (Yes, there's Philo, but they're jointly owned by four of the channel groups. And their lone $20 tier includes pretty much every channel owned by those groups.)


But should I actually care about how they accomplish what they do? I think not!

I had Sling Blue with some add-ons for a fair bit of time. My thinking at the time was that Sling would do the cable channels, Hulu and CBS:All Access would do the broadcast. Or if it worked better, use OTA with my Tivo. It all worked out but it was a bit awkward what with switching apps and trying to remember what show was where.

I had hoped that AppleTV's AppleTV app would track things well enough, and it did for Hulu and CBS but didn't at all for Sling. Now it does for AT&T TV, YTTV and some other live streamers but I don't think it does for Sling. And as it turned out that tracking wasn't as handy as I thought it would be.

My thinking these days is that if AT&T TV doesn't dicker over 2nd year pricing I'll go back to YTTV because for all its warts it does work well though I'll miss the DD5.1 audio.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> But should I actually care about how they accomplish what they do? I think not!


OK! (My post wasn't intended to offer any practical consumer info but merely to point out how Sling's business is different from other vMVPDs like YouTube TV.)


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Yep, all true.
> 
> Another thing to point out about Sling: I can't confirm if this is true, but I've read that DISH is able to structure their Sling packages as they do because they rely on the company's overall carriage contracts, which include all the DISH customers who are on more traditional, fuller bundles. I've read that the company can get away with only a certain percentage of their customers being on a package that doesn't include this or that channel (and that level may differ from one channel group to another).
> 
> As I say, I don't know if that's true, but it sounds plausible. And if it is true, it explains why Sling is basically the only service offering the kind of skinny bundles that they do -- no locals and only a few of a group's most popular channels. (Yes, there's Philo, but they're jointly owned by four of the channel groups. And their lone $20 tier includes pretty much every channel owned by those groups.)


maybe. or maybe no one wanted to do the same thing Sling was doing.

the problem with the overall carriage contract theory is it assumes Sling stays small compared to Dish. Otherwise Sling would break so-called contract percentages eventually. I would assume the percentages aren't low. Sling is almost 25% the size of Dish now I think.

Also to me the networks are all on even ground because locals are all OTA.

And not including the media companies with no channels in a package, there aren't too many major missing channels in either Blue or Orange.

To me they were able to do it because it's split by major media company, they were first mover, and it was over the internet. and locals were OTA.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> maybe. or maybe no one wanted to do the same thing Sling was doing.


Right, maybe. As I say, to me it sounds plausible but I don't know if it's true.



trip1eX said:


> the problem with the overall carriage contract theory is it assumes Sling stays small compared to Dish. Otherwise Sling would break so-called contract percentages eventually. I would assume the percentages aren't low. Sling is almost 25% the size of Dish now I think.


True. There may at some point have to be a complete reorganization of Sling's channel packages. Frankly, I wonder about DISH's plans for the future of Sling (as well as the core DISH business) now that they're moving on to operating Boost Mobile and building their own 5G network. Seems very likely to me that DISH and DirecTV eventually somehow merge. And that that point, what might happen to Sling?



trip1eX said:


> Also to me the networks are all on even ground because locals are all OTA.


There's no other vMVPD that carries only the network O&O affiliates and then expects users to fill in the rest via OTA.



trip1eX said:


> And not including the media companies with no channels in a package, there aren't too many major missing channels in either Blue or Orange.


Depends on what you call major. Take Discovery Networks, for instance. They have six of their biggest nets -- Discovery, HGTV, ID, Food, TLC, Trvl -- in Blue but then Orange only has HGTV, ID, Food, Trvl and Motortrend. Neither has any of their less-popular nets like Animal Planet, OWN, Science, DIY, Great American Country, Discovery Family, etc.

Sling gets away with being even more selective with the Viacom nets (at least for now). Blue has BET, Comedy Central, Nick Jr., and Paramount. Orange has only Comedy Central. Neither has the two biggest Viacom nets MTV or Nickelodeon, nor do they include VH1, TV Land, CMT, etc.

My point is that I doubt any upstart vMVPD -- YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo TV, etc. -- would have had the leverage to negotiate such skinny base packages. If they were going to do business with a given channel group, they'd have been forced to carry more channels in any base package they offered. But I think Sling was able to do this because of their existing relationship with the channel groups as a major MVPD via DISH.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> Right, maybe. As I say, to me it sounds plausible but I don't know if it's true.
> 
> True. There may at some point have to be a complete reorganization of Sling's channel packages. Frankly, I wonder about DISH's plans for the future of Sling (as well as the core DISH business) now that they're moving on to operating Boost Mobile and building their own 5G network. Seems very likely to me that DISH and DirecTV eventually somehow merge. And that that point, what might happen to Sling?
> 
> There's no other vMVPD that carries only the network O&O affiliates and then expects users to fill in the rest via OTA.
> 
> Depends on what you call major. Take Discovery Networks, for instance. They have six of their biggest nets -- Discovery, HGTV, ID, Food, TLC, Trvl -- in Blue but then Orange only has HGTV, ID, Food, Trvl and Motortrend. Neither has any of their less-popular nets like Animal Planet, OWN, Science, DIY, Great American Country, Discovery Family, etc.
> 
> Sling gets away with being even more selective with the Viacom nets (at least for now). Blue has BET, Comedy Central, Nick Jr., and Paramount. Orange has only Comedy Central. Neither has the two biggest Viacom nets MTV or Nickelodeon, nor do they include VH1, TV Land, CMT, etc.
> 
> My point is that I doubt any upstart vMVPD -- YouTube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo TV, etc. -- would have had the leverage to negotiate such skinny base packages. If they were going to do business with a given channel group, they'd have been forced to carry more channels in any base package they offered. But I think Sling was able to do this because of their existing relationship with the channel groups as a major MVPD via DISH.


Yeah but what's the leverage? I can't get around the fact the Sling would have to stay small for this carriage contract percentage theory to work.

REgarding OTA, DISH used to ask customers to use OTA for locals not too long ago. Just because others don't do it doesn't mean it's only a deal Sling could manage.

Sling doesn't really have a base package either. They have 2 base packages. And stuff like no trick play on many live channels and the 1 simultaneous stream. These things can be used to do deals that others can't do due to the way they are set up.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Yeah but what's the leverage? I can't get around the fact the Sling would have to stay small for this carriage contract percentage theory to work.
> 
> REgarding OTA, DISH used to ask customers to use OTA for locals not too long ago. Just because others don't do it doesn't mean it's only a deal Sling could manage.
> 
> Sling doesn't really have a base package either. They have 2 base packages. And stuff like no trick play on many live channels and the 1 simultaneous stream. These things can be used to do deals that others can't do due to the way they are set up.


Dish still "incentivizes" OTA by offering cheap antenna installs, OTA adapters, and a separate local channel fee you can avoid if you don't want to get your locals from Dish. This and the other fine details are why Charlie Ergen is known as pretty much the most annoying guy to negotiate with in the industry. He will try anything to get a into a niche that some customers like enough to stick around and keep the money coming in. That said, he knows the writing is on the wall when it comes to linear video, so this is all just deckchair rearranging on the sinking ship while he figures out how to make the wireless data business work.


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> No, Google was always losing money on YTTV until now (and it's only estimated to be barely profitable now). It's not like it ever could have just stayed with its original 40 channel line-up and $35 price, unless Google was willing to indefinitely lose a ton of money on it as it grew.


True, they were losing money. I thought there was some sort of ad play, like targeted injection ads, but maybe that didn't get to the right scale to make the whole thing work.



> It's the sports channels, Fox News, and the major networks (which also carry live sports, as well as local news) that mainly drive up the cost of the bundle. I mean, sure, _if_ you could have a bundle that only included the six main broadcast nets, the 3 main cable news nets, and the various cable sports nets (plus TBS and TNT, as they air sports too), well, that would cost less than a broader bundle that also includes other channels from Disney, ViacomCBS, NBCU, WarnerMedia and Fox, such as Nickelodeon, MTV, USA, Bravo, Cartoon Network, FX and Disney. But not THAT much less. And you'd have a bundle that was less marketable because it wouldn't really appeal to families. It would mainly appeal to, I would guess, someone with your tastes. Basically single men who just want cable TV for sports and news and then will get any scripted entertainment from a la carte streaming services like Netflix, HBO Max, etc. Sure, if YTTV (or anyone) could offer "locals+sports+news" as an optional core package, I'm sure it would see _some_ takers. Hulu talked about trying to do it a couple years ago but nothing came of it. But at this point, I don't think any of the five major channel groups would allow it.


So that's basically what they had when it was $40/mo. And it's not about appealing to my tastes, it's about what linear pay TV is good at, and what it's not. It's good at sports and news, it's not good at anything else, especially since the quality of content tanked about 5-8 years ago on non-sports/news linear channels. The only reason that linear pay TV still exists in the US at any scale is sports and news. Sure, there are rabid fans of all sorts of niche channels outside sports and news, but those various combined fanbases alone aren't enough to keep the mega bloat bundle from sinking.



> Yeah. To their credit, Sling is trying to offer the market something different, truly skinny, no-frills, low-cost bundles. I just don't think there are that many folks out there who are interested. It's always going to have niche appeal.


The problem is, due to the ridiculously bloated cost of sports channels, they can't get sports and news in at a reasonable price, and so you get partial coverage of one or the other at $30/mo, which still doesn't make a compelling value.

The bottom line is that as long as linear TV channels are trying to milk the cow for all it's worth with sky-high carriage rates, the model of linear pay TV fundamentally doesn't work. I don't foresee the channels all getting together and agreeing to rationalize their pricing models so that a fairly complete targeted cable bundle could exist for $30/mo or less, so they will continue down the death spiral, and they will have to pivot to other business models.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Yeah but what's the leverage?


The leverage is that DISH, one of the nation's largest MVPDs, was already bringing the channel owners millions of subscribers. So when they said, "Hey, we want to launch an experimental low-cost skinny OTT cable TV service," the channel owners were willing to be more flexible than they would be with some company starting a vMVPD from scratch, who had zero subscribers.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> True, they were losing money. I thought there was some sort of ad play, like targeted injection ads, but maybe that didn't get to the right scale to make the whole thing work.


Yeah, that was my assumption too (and also the conclusion of a recent industry report about YTTV that I read). If anyone could marry targeted OTT ads with traditional TV, you'd think it would be Google. So maybe they can still scale it up and make it sufficiently profitable to keep going. I tend to think Google needs to strike lots more distribution deals with small-to-midsize broadband operators, basically positioning YTTV as a turnkey replacement for their aging cable TV systems.



Bigg said:


> So that's basically what they had when it was $40/mo. And it's not about appealing to my tastes, it's about what linear pay TV is good at, and what it's not. It's good at sports and news, it's not good at anything else, especially since the quality of content tanked about 5-8 years ago on non-sports/news linear channels.


This is the kind of statement you make constantly without seeming to understand that it's simply your personal opinion, not objective fact. "Quality" is inherently subjective. Did viewership of linear TV outside of news and sports tank 5-8 years ago? I don't think so. And if not, then your opinion simply doesn't comport with the realities of the TV business.

Granted, I would agree that live sports and news are the _main_ differentiating factors keeping the cable bundle afloat versus OTT apps. (And there's also simple consumer inertia/habit/familiarity/convenience, which is really important too.) But that said, there are plenty of non-sports/non-news cable nets, like those owned by Discovery, that get a ton of female viewership. So when an MVPD is constructing a bundle of channels, they have to consider which mix of channels will optimize subscription revenue vs. cost. I don't think keeping all those relatively cheap non-sports/non-news channels out of the bundle is the way to do that because you cut out way too many households with women in them. How many times on forums such as this do you see guys citing the "WAF" (wife acceptance factor) when talking about a decision to go with a certain service or device?



Bigg said:


> The bottom line is that as long as linear TV channels are trying to milk the cow for all it's worth with sky-high carriage rates, the model of linear pay TV fundamentally doesn't work. I don't foresee the channels all getting together and agreeing to rationalize their pricing models so that a fairly complete targeted cable bundle could exist for $30/mo or less, so they will continue down the death spiral, and they will have to pivot to other business models.


They're already pivoting to the next business model, which is direct-to-consumer OTT services, like NBCU's Peacock which launched today. But it'll take several years before they've completely shifted over to that model from the channel bundle.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> The leverage is that DISH, one of the nation's largest MVPDs, was already bringing the channel owners millions of subscribers. So when they said, "Hey, we want to launch an experimental low-cost skinny OTT cable TV service," the channel owners were willing to be more flexible than they would be with some company starting a vMVPD from scratch, who had zero subscribers.


Yep i can see that as far as getting the thing off the ground. They were the first mover I think. But after that? I don't think it means no one else can do the same thing.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that was my assumption too (and also the conclusion of a recent industry report about YTTV that I read). If anyone could marry targeted OTT ads with traditional TV, you'd think it would be Google. So maybe they can still scale it up and make it sufficiently profitable to keep going. I tend to think Google needs to strike lots more distribution deals with small-to-midsize broadband operators, basically positioning YTTV as a turnkey replacement for their aging cable TV systems.


You'd think that, wouldn't you. Google has been trying to grow their local advertising inventory for years. One problem is, they don't want to be in the production business, which is what the competition for those ads is already doing (TV stations, cable companies, etc.). They expect someone else to do the heavy lifting. Another problem is the advertisers have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Google. Google dictates a lot of what goes on in advertising these days, and people don't like it. Advertisers probably weren't too interested in supplying the high value ads that Google


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Yep i can see that as far as getting the thing off the ground. They were the first mover I think. But after that? I don't think it means no one else can do the same thing.


Certainly not, anyone could do it if they had to the resources and stomach to try to make it happen.


----------



## slowbiscuit

NashGuy said:


> But, yeah, I do think that MVPDs are trying to squeeze as much blood out of the old stone of cable channel bundles as they can until the model exhausts itself. Hence you have Comcast and AT&T, the two largest MVPDs, saying that they're not interested in chasing after unprofitable or low-margin TV subs.


They might SAY that, but Comcast is still bundling TV+HSI at very competitive rates with the new Simple and Easy plans. And even cheaper if you bundle their mobile with it.


----------



## NashGuy

slowbiscuit said:


> They might SAY that, but Comcast is still bundling TV+HSI at very competitive rates with the new Simple and Easy plans. And even cheaper if you bundle their mobile with it.


When you look at the TV content you're getting, along with the feature set (e.g. DVR, etc.), it's still more expensive (after including all the various fees) to add Comcast's TV service to their standalone broadband than it is to separately add YouTube TV to Comcast standalone broadband.

Now, as you say, you do get better rates on TV service if you bundle it with other Comcast services. But in that case, Comcast is willing to accept a lower margin on the TV service because they know that the more services you have from them, the more likely you'll stick with them as a long-term customer.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Yep i can see that as far as getting the thing off the ground. They were the first mover I think. But after that? I don't think it means no one else can do the same thing.


I've read more than one article in the trade press saying that channel owners charge higher carriage rates for these new vMVPDs than they do traditional MVPDs. They've been tougher with Google (YTTV), Hulu, Sony (PS Vue), etc. than they've been with Comcast, AT&T and DISH.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> I've read more than one article in the trade press saying that channel owners charge higher carriage rates for these new vMVPDs than they do traditional MVPDs. They've been tougher with Google (YTTV), Hulu, Sony (PS Vue), etc. than they've been with Comcast, AT&T and DISH.


Well, I think the reality is, the more subs you have the lower cost you pay per sub. With virtually no subs to start, and then relatively low subs after a few years, they just don't have the leverage to get the better pricing that a large MVPD does. They are more like a small cable company.


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> I've read more than one article in the trade press saying that channel owners charge higher carriage rates for these new vMVPDs than they do traditional MVPDs. They've been tougher with Google (YTTV), Hulu, Sony (PS Vue), etc. than they've been with Comcast, AT&T and DISH.


yep they might have lower per channel costs.

That doesn't seem to make them lower priced than the competition though. I mean if you get everything right now on Sling it's $70/mo. And still lacks regional sports and networks and the dvr storage is scrimpy. You do get a few more channels like A&E stuff, Hallmark and Bein Sports.


----------



## pdhenry

ncted said:


> You'd think that, wouldn't you. Google has been trying to grow their local advertising inventory for years. One problem is, they don't want to be in the production business, which is what the competition for those ads is already doing (TV stations, cable companies, etc.). They expect someone else to do the heavy lifting. Another problem is the advertisers have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Google. Google dictates a lot of what goes on in advertising these days, and people don't like it. Advertisers probably weren't too interested in supplying the high value ads that Google


I see a lot of local ads on YouTube and none at all on YTTV. Mostly those little YTTV interludes where the cable channel intends a local ad to be placed.


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that was my assumption too (and also the conclusion of a recent industry report about YTTV that I read). If anyone could marry targeted OTT ads with traditional TV, you'd think it would be Google. So maybe they can still scale it up and make it sufficiently profitable to keep going. I tend to think Google needs to strike lots more distribution deals with small-to-midsize broadband operators, basically positioning YTTV as a turnkey replacement for their aging cable TV systems.


Maybe that's the key as to why they bloated the packages back up, so that they have the channel tonnage to be a turnkey cable replacement for small MSOs that want out. With a highly targeted lineup, they couldn't really serve MSOs where a tiny minority of highly vocal PITA customers will groan and moan that their favorite trash TV shows isn't available if they don't have the channel tonnage.



> This is the kind of statement you make constantly without seeming to understand that it's simply your personal opinion, not objective fact. "Quality" is inherently subjective. Did viewership of linear TV outside of news and sports tank 5-8 years ago? I don't think so. And if not, then your opinion simply doesn't comport with the realities of the TV business.


Linear pay TV is good at some things, and not good at others. The only thing holding linear pay TV together is sports and news. The niche viewership of various other junk channels is why the pay TV model doesn't work. Most of those channels couldn't survive on their own in a market, they only survive because each of them has a tiny and vocal contingent of customers who "need" xyz channel. If everything were a la carte, most of them would disappear pretty quickly.

Viewership of linear TV has been tanking all over the board for quite a while now. It wasn't one day that all of the sudden a bunch of good shows disappeared, rather it's death by a thousand cuts as the good quality content ended or was removed from linear pay TV, and the shows that everyone is talking about started being produced or distributed by Netflix and other streaming players. Meanwhile, as the content went away, the prices went up. There is only so long that trend can continue before people wise up. Even people who still have pay TV aren't watching nearly as much of it, and are watching much more streaming. At some point, they get sick of paying for linear pay TV when it's a small portion of what they watch, but a massive portion of what they are paying.



> Granted, I would agree that live sports and news are the _main_ differentiating factors keeping the cable bundle afloat versus OTT apps. (And there's also simple consumer inertia/habit/familiarity/convenience, which is really important too.) But that said, there are plenty of non-sports/non-news cable nets, like those owned by Discovery, that get a ton of female viewership. So when an MVPD is constructing a bundle of channels, they have to consider which mix of channels will optimize subscription revenue vs. cost. I don't think keeping all those relatively cheap non-sports/non-news channels out of the bundle is the way to do that because you cut out way too many households with women in them. How many times on forums such as this do you see guys citing the "WAF" (wife acceptance factor) when talking about a decision to go with a certain service or device?


News and sports are the only thing left. Everything else is ancillary. They are creating the illusion of "value" by cramming the lineup full of crap, and going "look, 400 channels for only $80/mo"! Those non-news, non-sports channels have content that is easily replicated, and is being replicated by OTT SVOD streaming services, because it's not live, and it's a whole bunch of fractured niche viewerships that don't each warrant a channel on their own outside of the pay TV ecosystem.



> They're already pivoting to the next business model, which is direct-to-consumer OTT services, like NBCU's Peacock which launched today. But it'll take several years before they've completely shifted over to that model from the channel bundle.


True. They kind of gave up on the cable bundle. And maybe it was just fundamentally doomed and needed to disappear anyway. I think it's going to be a tough sell to get people to subscribe to a whole bunch of these streaming services, but we'll see.



slowbiscuit said:


> They might SAY that, but Comcast is still bundling TV+HSI at very competitive rates with the new Simple and Easy plans. And even cheaper if you bundle their mobile with it.


They're using it to sell internet. They're selling the TV packages basically at cost, they're making some money off of DVR and box rental fees, but then they're selling internet service that has a 95% profit margin on it as part of the bundle, which is what people really want anyway.


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> I see a lot of local ads on YouTube and none at all on YTTV. Mostly those little YTTV interludes where the cable channel intends a local ad to be placed.


Yeah, there is still a distinction between web video ads and local TV inserts (or whatever they are called in industry jargon -- I left media 4 years ago). Different standards apply. You can't just drop in web video ads into slots for other types of ads, which just seems stupid, but it is what it is.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> Well, I think the reality is, the more subs you have the lower cost you pay per sub. With virtually no subs to start, and then relatively low subs after a few years, they just don't have the leverage to get the better pricing that a large MVPD does. They are more like a small cable company.


Yes, that's true, but my understanding is that the higher rates being charged to vMVPDs went beyond simply size. Channel owners were positioning themselves so that, even if the OTT vMVPD thing took off, it would be to their benefit over the status quo.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> yep they might have lower per channel costs.
> 
> That doesn't seem to make them lower priced than the competition though. I mean if you get everything right now on Sling it's $70/mo. And still lacks regional sports and networks and the dvr storage is scrimpy. You do get a few more channels like A&E stuff, Hallmark and Bein Sports.


The distinctive advantage that Sling has is the optionality it offers consumers in the form of flexible skinny bundles, with two different core bundles that not only exclude various entire channel groups but also exclude some popular channels from the channel groups that are included. So yeah, if you go full-tilt-boogie and buy everything that Sling offers, it does add up (while still leaving some important holes, like locals). But you have the option of keeping your cost down by more narrowly picking and choosing what you want.

The only other MVPD I'm aware of doing something similar is Charter, although you must be a Charter broadband customer and even then, it's not clear to me who all qualifies for their various skinny packages.

My original point, though, is that Sling was probably only able to do the kind of skinny, flexible packaging it does because it's part of a large, traditional MVPD: DISH. Same holds true with Charter.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> News and sports are the only thing left. Everything else is ancillary. They are creating the illusion of "value" by cramming the lineup full of crap, and going "look, 400 channels for only $80/mo"! Those non-news, non-sports channels have content that is easily replicated, and is being replicated by OTT SVOD streaming services, because it's not live, and it's a whole bunch of fractured niche viewerships that don't each warrant a channel on their own outside of the pay TV ecosystem.


Again, you sound like someone who hasn't actually spoken to a diversity of real people about what they like to watch on TV and the reasons why their household still subscribes to cable TV. Sure, OTT SVODs can try to replicate some of that non-sports, non-news "crap" content but it doesn't mean that it's successfully connecting with viewers. Netflix, for instance, is trying to compete in the reality and lifestyle areas but they're not really breaking though (other than Marie Kondo). Discovery Networks -- which last year ranked as the most viewed media group among women, beating out NBCUniversal -- has no reason to be worried at this point. Now, if Netflix or others are able to hire away Chip & Joanna Gaines and some of the other personalities around which Discovery-owned shows are built, that's a different story. But that's not "replicating" the content, that's snatching it away.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Yes, that's true, but my understanding is that the higher rates being charged to vMVPDs went beyond simply size. Channel owners were positioning themselves so that, even if the OTT vMVPD thing took off, it would be to their benefit over the status quo.


Where the status quo is an ever shrinking subscriber base.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Again, you sound like someone who hasn't actually spoken to a diversity of real people about what they like to watch on TV and the reasons why their household still subscribes to cable TV. Sure, OTT SVODs can try to replicate some of that non-sports, non-news "crap" content but it doesn't mean that it's successfully connecting with viewers. Netflix, for instance, is trying to compete in the reality and lifestyle areas but they're not really breaking though (other than Marie Kondo). Discovery Networks -- which last year ranked as the most viewed media group among women, beating out NBCUniversal -- has no reason to be worried at this point. Now, if Netflix or others are able to hire away Chip & Joanna Gaines and some of the other personalities around which Discovery-owned shows are built, that's a different story. But that's not "replicating" the content, that's snatching it away.


I would not have guessed ION would be in the top 10 channels for over-all viewership:

Top-Rated Channels of 2019: TV Network Winners & Losers - Variety

I still see a lot more negative trends than positive ones. That should worry everyone who is resting on their laurels.


----------



## dlfl

ncted said:


> I would not have guessed ION would be in the top 10 channels for over-all viewership:
> 
> Top-Rated Channels of 2019: TV Network Winners & Losers - Variety
> 
> I still see a lot more negative trends than positive ones. That should worry everyone who is resting on their laurels.


ION is the top rated pure entertainment (no sports, no news) channel. Does it have any original programming? (I don't know - I never watch it.).

Where is PBS? Not even in the top 142 ??? And it's available free OTA in most of the country!

These ratings make it clear how different my viewing tastes are from the average. In a true a la carte system I probably would be paying thru the nose since many of my favorite channels have so few viewers to share the production costs.


----------



## foghorn2

dlfl said:


> ION is the top rated pure entertainment (no sports, no news) channel. Does it have any original programming? (I don't know - I never watch it.).
> 
> Where is PBS? Not even in the top 142 ??? And it's available free OTA in most of the country!
> 
> These ratings make it clear how different my viewing tastes are from the average. In a true a la carte system I probably would be paying thru the nose since many of my favorite channels have so few viewers to share the production costs.


Most cable channels are garbage. Sling blue for $30 with the air tv and antenna gets all of the channels I want.


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> Again, you sound like someone who hasn't actually spoken to a diversity of real people about what they like to watch on TV and the reasons why their household still subscribes to cable TV. Sure, OTT SVODs can try to replicate some of that non-sports, non-news "crap" content but it doesn't mean that it's successfully connecting with viewers. Netflix, for instance, is trying to compete in the reality and lifestyle areas but they're not really breaking though (other than Marie Kondo). Discovery Networks -- which last year ranked as the most viewed media group among women, beating out NBCUniversal -- has no reason to be worried at this point. Now, if Netflix or others are able to hire away Chip & Joanna Gaines and some of the other personalities around which Discovery-owned shows are built, that's a different story. But that's not "replicating" the content, that's snatching it away.


The traditional media companies should be scared ****less of Netflix. Netflix has exact metrics, in real time, of what people are actually watching, how they are consuming, etc. Although there is a ton of noise in small sample sizes, when you multiply it out over millions of subscribers, the aggregate data is going to tell you a LOT about what people like and don't like. Meanwhile, Nielsen ratings, and even whatever telemetry the cable companies are collecting from cable boxes is a guesstimation of an approximation of something.

The problem with cable goes back to the issue that a whole bunch of vocal subscriber bases that each want their little channel with their brand of crap doesn't make for a sustainable business model, and that's why cable is falling apart.

Meanwhile, there are only so many eyeball-hours in the day, and OTT SVOD is just one threat. YouTube is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It's not a direct replacement or competition for anything TV is doing, but it is direct competition for those eyeball-hours. Then add in niche streaming services for various interests, and the fact that any one of several services have more content than you can possibly watch even if you glued yourself to your couch, and you've got a media landscape that's wildly different than it was even a few years ago.

The future is clearly content overload from a veritable plethora of content. Netflix has had a few "must-see" shows, but otherwise, few channels will, so people might just subscribe to one, two, or three content platforms/silos, and get all their content from those sources.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> I would not have guessed ION would be in the top 10 channels for over-all viewership:
> 
> Top-Rated Channels of 2019: TV Network Winners & Losers - Variety
> 
> I still see a lot more negative trends than positive ones. That should worry everyone who is resting on their laurels.


Yes, viewership of traditional linear TV is taking a hit as OTT SVODs (and AVODs) increase. But I think many cord-cutters tend to exaggerate the trend. Nielsen's research showed that 19% of TV viewing time in OTT-enabled homes (which, mind you, aren't all homes) was devoted to streaming during 4Q19. Therefore 81% of viewing time was still on traditional TV (MVPD and/or OTA). But that represented an approximate doubling for streaming since 1Q18, when it was at only 10%.

A fifth of TV time in OTT-enabled homes is spent watching streaming services, report says

So yeah, traditional TV is fading away, but not overnight. And rather than thinking in terms of traditional vs. OTT, or linear vs. SVOD/AVOD, maybe it's more useful to think in terms of traditional media groups (Disney, NBCU, Warner, ViacomCBS, Discovery, Fox) vs. new media groups (Netflix, Amazon, Google, Apple). The content owned and offered by those traditional players is still king, at least for the foreseeable future.


----------



## NashGuy

Bigg said:


> The traditional media companies should be scared ****less of Netflix. Netflix has exact metrics, in real time, of what people are actually watching, how they are consuming, etc.


This is one reason why those traditional media companies are all launching their own DTC OTT apps and hoping to driving increasing amounts of their viewership into those apps (as opposed to third-party UIs, like cable boxes or the Prime Video app or the Roku Channel). It's one of the reasons why HBO Max is insistent that their new "Max" content stays exclusive to their own app rather than flowing into all the third-party UIs that they've always allowed HBO content to flow into. (And surely they hope at some point in the future to restrict HBO content to just the HBO Max app too.)

Of course, we'll never see Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, Apple TV+ or YouTube let their content be viewed outside their own apps/sites, where they can collect all the valuable viewership data in real time.

So Disney's already there with Hulu and Disney+. Warner and NBCU are trying to get there with HBO Max and Peacock, respectively. Next up will be Discovery and ViacomCBS. But their new OTT apps probably won't launch until 2021. (And yes, I expect more standoffs with Amazon and Roku to get their apps on those platforms.)


----------



## trip1eX

NashGuy said:


> The distinctive advantage that Sling has is the optionality it offers consumers in the form of flexible skinny bundles, with two different core bundles that not only exclude various entire channel groups but also exclude some popular channels from the channel groups that are included. So yeah, if you go full-tilt-boogie and buy everything that Sling offers, it does add up (while still leaving some important holes, like locals). But you have the option of keeping your cost down by more narrowly picking and choosing what you want.
> 
> The only other MVPD I'm aware of doing something similar is Charter, although you must be a Charter broadband customer and even then, it's not clear to me who all qualifies for their various skinny packages.
> 
> My original point, though, is that Sling was probably only able to do the kind of skinny, flexible packaging it does because it's part of a large, traditional MVPD: DISH. Same holds true with Charter.


You said Sling's leverage was lower channel costs. I just pointed out that if that was true then you would think Sling's full cable package would be cheaper than the competition. IT's not. Not without taking out networks and local sports and having a gimped dvr, having 1 simul stream for certain channels and having half the channels with no trick play controls. Thus it doesn't seem like Sling has a price advantage.

Thus it still doesn't seem like only Sling can do this.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> You said Sling's leverage was lower channel costs. I just pointed out that if that was true then you would think Sling's full cable package would be cheaper than the competition. IT's not. Not without taking out networks and local sports and having a gimped dvr, having 1 simul stream for certain channels and having half the channels with no trick play controls. Thus it doesn't seem like Sling has a price advantage.
> 
> Thus it still doesn't seem like only Sling can do this.


Sling probably has a price advantage, but that doesn't mean they will pass those savings along to customers. Dish still makes a lot of money, and there is a reason for that. All they have to do is cost less than the competition, whether what they offer is comparable feature for feature or channel for channel doesn't matter so much as long as they are less expensive and have more packages to choose from. That is their marketing win. For a lot of customers, the only thing that matters is price.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Sling probably has a price advantage, but that doesn't mean they will pass those savings along to customers. Dish still makes a lot of money, and there is a reason for that. All they have to do is cost less than the competition, whether what they offer is comparable feature for feature or channel for channel doesn't matter so much as long as they are less expensive and have more packages to choose from. That is their marketing win. For a lot of customers, the only thing that matters is price.


But the argument is where is the evidence that the other guys can't do what Sling is doing?

If low costs allowed Sling to do the Skinny bundle then it's odd that they aren't showing a very competitive Fat bundle.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> But the argument is where is the evidence that the other guys can't do what Sling is doing?
> 
> If low costs allowed Sling to do the Skinny bundle then it's odd that they aren't showing a very competitive Fat bundle.


Well, I think the difference is a fat bundle would compete against their satellite business which they very much want to keep profitable for a while longer, unlike AT&T which seems to be willing to abandon DirecTV for streaming over a much shorter term.

FWIW: I think the other guys could do skinny bundles like Sling. Channel owners are hungry enough for incremental revenue that they are willing to make deals, but I don't think the MVPDs, virtual or otherwise, think that people who want linear TV want anything other than something resembling a traditional cable channel package. They obviously don't think it is worth their effort.


----------



## lparsons21

These days with so little in the way of new shows or episodes it is hard to justify/rationalize any live streaming service. As more people start realizing this I suspect that the live streaming services will either have some skinny bundles or just die off.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> You said Sling's leverage was lower channel costs. I just pointed out that if that was true then you would think Sling's full cable package would be cheaper than the competition. IT's not. Not without taking out networks and local sports and having a gimped dvr, having 1 simul stream for certain channels and having half the channels with no trick play controls. Thus it doesn't seem like Sling has a price advantage.
> 
> Thus it still doesn't seem like only Sling can do this.


No, I didn't say that lower channel costs was Sling's leverage. (I suppose you're referencing my post #1327 but the broader point I was making there was that channel owners were giving less favorable treatment to start-up vMVPDs as opposed to the traditional MVPDs they already had relationships with. And I would count Sling as the latter, since they're really just part of DISH.)

The start of this whole back-and-forth was speculation that Sling can leverage the fact that they're part of the large, traditional DISH MVPD in order to structure and sell skinny bundles (because they're selling fuller, traditional bundles to even more customers via DISH).

Perhaps other vMVPDs like YouTube TV, Hulu with Live TV, Fubo, etc. _could_ do what Sling does in terms of skinny, flexible bundles. But yet, so far, none of them do.


----------



## Bigg

NashGuy said:


> But I think many cord-cutters tend to exaggerate the trend. Nielsen's research showed that 19% of TV viewing time in OTT-enabled homes (which, mind you, aren't all homes) was devoted to streaming during 4Q19. Therefore 81% of viewing time was still on traditional TV (MVPD and/or OTA). But that represented an approximate doubling for streaming since 1Q18, when it was at only 10%.


Those numbers sound way off. I wonder what they are measuring. Do they include YouTube? YouTube is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. There are also a lot of households that are OTT-only, and don't have cable or OTA, so for only 20% to be OTT, that just doesn't sound right. Further, it's almost impossible to measure engaged vs. passive vs. disengaged viewing, although there is plenty of background streaming too, so I don't know if that would benefit streaming's numbers or not.



NashGuy said:


> This is one reason why those traditional media companies are all launching their own DTC OTT apps and hoping to driving increasing amounts of their viewership into those apps (as opposed to third-party UIs, like cable boxes or the Prime Video app or the Roku Channel). It's one of the reasons why HBO Max is insistent that their new "Max" content stays exclusive to their own app rather than flowing into all the third-party UIs that they've always allowed HBO content to flow into. (And surely they hope at some point in the future to restrict HBO content to just the HBO Max app too.)


True, they all want the data to know exactly what people are watching. At the same time, it creates silos, and makes people less likely to watch the content, as it's in a different silo from the one that they frequent. Netflix is the only service that's clearly doing something with the data. I'm sure other platforms have data, and they probably use it to an extent behind the scenes, but Netflix clearly has an algorithm to recommend content specifically to you. HBO appears to do nothing with it, but we'll have to see how that changes under HBO Max. And of course there's YouTube, which is almost entirely algorithm-driven.


----------



## dlfl

Bigg said:


> Those numbers sound way off. I wonder what they are measuring. Do they include YouTube? YouTube is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. There are also a lot of households that are OTT-only, and don't have cable or OTA, so for only 20% to be OTT, that just doesn't sound right. Further, it's almost impossible to measure engaged vs. passive vs. disengaged viewing, although there is plenty of background streaming too, so I don't know if that would benefit streaming's numbers or not. ..........


How does Neilson define "viewing time"? Is it the time actually spent with video on your TV or is it some definition like the number of hours of prime time during a day? Our household engages in "background viewing". We grew up during the 1950's where it was common for people to leave their TV running all (or major parts of the) day although we were frequently not even in the room. We do that with YTTV now (no caps on our internet), and did it when we had cable TV too.


----------



## ncted

dlfl said:


> How does Neilson define "viewing time"? Is it the time actually spent with video on your TV or is it some definition like the number of hours of prime time during a day? Our household engages in "background viewing". We grew up during the 1950's where it was common for people to leave their TV running all (or major parts of the) day although we were frequently not even in the room. We do that with YTTV now (no caps on our internet), and did it when we had cable TV too.


When we were a Nielsen family, the monitoring technology could not tell if someone was in the room, only if the TV was on and the sound was coming out. They told us we could not mute commercials because it used sound cues embedded in the closed captioning to determine what was being watched. They have probably improved it since then.


----------



## Bigg

dlfl said:


> How does Neilson define "viewing time"? Is it the time actually spent with video on your TV or is it some definition like the number of hours of prime time during a day? Our household engages in "background viewing". We grew up during the 1950's where it was common for people to leave their TV running all (or major parts of the) day although we were frequently not even in the room. We do that with YTTV now (no caps on our internet), and did it when we had cable TV too.


That's what I'm trying to figure out too. I'm not sure how that shakes out for linear viewing vs. streaming, as there is a LOT of YouTube content that might be secondary/background viewing, more like a podcast than anything you'd actually sit down and watch. I know I have a LOT of YouTube content that could be background viewing only.


----------



## pdhenry

dlfl said:


> How does Neilson define "viewing time"? Is it the time actually spent with video on your TV or is it some definition like the number of hours of prime time during a day? Our household engages in "background viewing". We grew up during the 1950's where it was common for people to leave their TV running all (or major parts of the) day although we were frequently not even in the room. We do that with YTTV now (no caps on our internet), and did it when we had cable TV too.


When I've done the video diaries for Nielson they've wanted it to be what was actually watched as opposed to just "on", and to indicate which household members were watching. I haven't done a Nielson TV survey in a while but I'd expect that the detailed ones are similar.


----------



## wmcbrine

dlfl said:


> Where is PBS? Not even in the top 142 ??? And it's available free OTA in most of the country!


PBS is definitely more viewed than that. Perhaps they had issues counting it because it's not a channel, or even a traditional network. But, based on data I found elsewhere, PBS would be about #9 on that chart. (Still kind of disappointing.)


----------



## NotVeryWitty

dlfl said:


> Where is PBS? Not even in the top 142 ??? And it's available free OTA in most of the country!


It's unclear why PBS wasn't included in that list, but they're definitely higher than 142.

From Overview | About PBS | PBS About: 

PBS closed the 2018-19 season as the 7th most-watched television network in primetime. PBS's primetime viewership is significantly larger than most commercial networks, including Discovery Channel (the PBS audience is +70% larger), History (+54%), USA (+44%), and HGTV (+38%). _(Nielsen NPOWER, 9/24/2018-9/22/2019, P2+ AA (000), M-Su 8p-11p time period data, All PBS Stations)_


----------



## moyekj

FYI, yesterday a "recording" of "Whose Line is it Anyway" refused to play back properly via YTTV. Constant freezes, circles and re-buffering. For that recording it happened on both a Fire TV client and a computer running via web browser. Other recordings played back fine with YTTV so not a local network/ISP issue. So obviously something wrong with that encoding. I eventually switched to my Roamio to watch it and got a reminder of how much better the picture quality is (at least for the CW channel) as well as ability to auto skip commercials. I have been purposefully avoiding watching recordings via TiVo to see if I could live with YTTV exclusively, but closely watching what was being recorded for both to make sure YTTV is not missing recordings. It was all going pretty well for YTTV until this incident. Don't know how frequently this happens, but for me was the first and only one so far.


----------



## ncted

I've only seen issues with recordings a couple of times in the 9 months or so that we've had YTTV. In one case, the issue was resolved by waiting a while and trying again. I noticed no guide data this morning when I got up and turned on the local news. That was the first time I've seen that.


----------



## trip1eX

Yeah only can recall 1 issue with a recording where it temporary didn't work. That is in 4-5 months. 

I had recordings missed on Tivo at least a handful times a year due to erroneous or change in guide data. And then tuner priority occasionally meant some stuff didn't get recorded or stuff got deleted that I wanted to keep. 


PIc quality was better for me than Tivo and cable.


----------



## Bierboy

wmcbrine said:


> PBS is definitely more viewed than that. Perhaps they had issues counting it because it's not a channel, or even a traditional network. But, based on data I found elsewhere, PBS would be about #9 on that chart. (Still kind of disappointing.)


Meh...PBS is such a niche offering, I'm not surprised its viewership is abysmal.


----------



## Bierboy

ncted said:


> I've only seen issues with recordings a couple of times in the 9 months or so that we've had YTTV. In one case, the issue was resolved by waiting a while and trying again. I noticed no guide data this morning when I got up and turned on the local news. That was the first time I've seen that.


We've had ZERO problems with "DVR" recordings on YTTV over the past 18 months. Always been smooth playback.


----------



## mdavej

Bierboy said:


> Meh...PBS is such a niche offering, I'm not surprised its viewership is abysmal.


I wouldn't call #6 abysmal. Aren't most networks niche these days?
Facts About PBS | SGPTV


----------



## moyekj

Another YTTV issue last night. Recording of season 35, episode 17 of "The Challenge" never showed up in YTTV under LIBRARY--NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY. I checked my TiVo (set to record first run only) and it recorded fine. So then I had to go looking for the episode under LIBRARY--RECORDINGS and eventually uncovered it buried deep under EPISODES--Extra category. So while it did record, with just YTTV alone I probably would never have known about it, and since it was first airing there's no excuse for it not to be in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY".
So looks like with YTTV you have to be aware for each show what should be recording instead of letting YTTV do the work for you and making it easy to find. Things would be much easier if there was a way to view flat list of recent recordings.


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> Another YTTV issue last night. Recording of season 35, episode 17 of "The Challenge" never showed up in YTTV under LIBRARY--NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY. I checked my TiVo (set to record first run only) and it recorded fine. So then I had to go looking for the episode under LIBRARY--RECORDINGS and eventually uncovered it buried deep under EPISODES--Extra category. So while it did record, with just YTTV alone I probably would never have known about it, and since it was first airing there's no excuse for it not to be in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY".
> So looks like with YTTV you have to be aware for each show what should be recording instead of letting YTTV do the work for you and making it easy to find. Things would be much easier if there was a way to view flat list of recent recordings.


Yeah, this is very similar to the issue I've complained about with Dateline NBC and 48 Hours. I recommend complaining to YTTV support. Maybe if enough people complain they will add feature that lets you sort by date recorded.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> So looks like with YTTV you have to be aware for each show what should be recording instead of letting YTTV do the work for you and making it easy to find.


I don't agree with the conclusion at all. But if you feel that way then maybe it isn't for you. I let YTTV do all the work for me. I found nothing but joy overall.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Another YTTV issue last night. Recording of season 35, episode 17 of "The Challenge" never showed up in YTTV under LIBRARY--NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY. I checked my TiVo (set to record first run only) and it recorded fine. So then I had to go looking for the episode under LIBRARY--RECORDINGS and eventually uncovered it buried deep under EPISODES--Extra category. So while it did record, with just YTTV alone I probably would never have known about it, and since it was first airing there's no excuse for it not to be in "NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY".
> So looks like with YTTV you have to be aware for each show what should be recording instead of letting YTTV do the work for you and making it easy to find. Things would be much easier if there was a way to view flat list of recent recordings.


I frequently have to dig into SHOWS for things that seem like they should be in NEW IN YOUR LIBRARY. I also would like to have a list or section of recent recordings BUT not have it include re-recordings of old epiisodes from previous seasons (which YTTV is always doing). I'm puzzled that it appears YTTV doesn't put enough programming effort into providing a better UI. It has been claimed they have not been making a profit, at least not until the $15 increase. Have they actually been so strapped that they have to skimp on programmers? Or maybe the programming is more complex than one would imagine?


----------



## moyekj

Another issue tonight. I have "LA Lakers" in my library and YTTV appeared to have recorded 2:45 long recording from NBA TV. Well I just went to watch it and all it says throughout the whole almost 3 hour recording is "This program's blocked in your area". OK, you say, but that's just the stupid blackout restrictions. However, I go to Live TV in YTTV and tune to NBA TV channel and the Lakers vs Mavericks is playing right now with no blackout. But when I select to view from HOME all I get is the blackout version.

So then I go to LIBRARY--RECORDINGS--LA Lakers and choose the recording, and there I get a "CHOOSE A VERSION" box where I can then pick the non-blackout version. So LIBRARY gives me a choice of what to play but HOME does not. This GUI is just pretty awful and inconsistent and hard to use quite frankly. Finding a recording to play in particular is much harder than it should be in some cases.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Another issue tonight. I have "LA Lakers" in my library and YTTV appeared to have recorded 2:45 long recording from NBA TV. Well I just went to watch it and all it says throughout the whole almost 3 hour recording is "This program's blocked in your area". OK, you say, but that's just the stupid blackout restrictions. However, I go to Live TV in YTTV and tune to NBA TV channel and the Lakers vs Mavericks is playing right now with no blackout. But when I select to view from HOME all I get is the blackout version.
> 
> So then I go to LIBRARY--RECORDINGS--LA Lakers and choose the recording, and there I get a "CHOOSE A VERSION" box where I can then pick the non-blackout version. So LIBRARY gives me a choice of what to play but HOME does not. This GUI is just pretty awful and inconsistent and hard to use quite frankly. Finding a recording to play in particular is much harder than it should be in some cases.


Meh. Let us know when you come across a real issue.

The UI is good overall. Very simple and to the point.

WE know it's not perfect. WE know it has some random issues - some of it guide data related, some of it glitches, some of it maybe blackout related in your case. But the real judgement lies in the quality of the forest not in a few individual trees.


----------



## tenthplanet

I don't have YTTV I use AT&T TV Now and a Tivo running in OTA mode. It should be pointed out that most problems/complaints about YTTV could be leveled against most Vmpds and Tivo units themselves. Most cloud based services/dvrs are closer to where Tivo was say 2004. Also most people on this forum tend to be more results orientated, we it want to work a certain way and look good. The outside world (AKA a good chunk of the public is very price driven "cheap") most Vpmds are not making a profit. We're all pioneers at this point, the leading (but not bleeding edge). We're also outsiders to an extent, ask any Tivo owner if someone has ever asked them: "Why would your own a DVR ?". 
But to quote trip1eX.."But the real judgement lies in the quality of the forest not in a few individual trees". Overall I think we're in the right part of the forest.


----------



## pdhenry

I sure would like the option to record just a particular upcoming episode of a show. I recognize there's no such thing as "clutter" in an unlimited DVR but recording the two or three episodes that are on before the one I want just seems wasteful or inefficient or something.
Being able to discreetly delete a recording might be nice as well. It would save having to explain some of my TCM movie choices.


----------



## Bierboy

mdavej said:


> I wouldn't call #6 abysmal. Aren't most networks niche these days?
> Facts About PBS | SGPTV


Yeah, well look at the source of that info. Of course they want to paint a rosy picture.


----------



## Bierboy

trip1eX said:


> I don't agree with the conclusion at all. But if you feel that way then maybe it isn't for you. I let YTTV do all the work for me. I found nothing but joy overall.


For sure. As I've mentioned...I've had no issues "recording" shows I'd like to watch. After all, isn't that the bottom line?


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> I sure would like the option to record just a particular upcoming episode of a show. I recognize there's no such thing as "clutter" in an unlimited DVR but recording the two or three episodes that are on before the one I want just seems wasteful or inefficient or something.
> Being able to discreetly delete a recording might be nice as well. It would save having to explain some of my TCM movie choices.


gotta discretely delete those sophia loren and bridget bardo movies.

I wouldn't worry about the recording being wasteful. I don't think it's actually recording each show individually for everyone. IT's more of a record once and then share the location of the recording amongst everyone who recorded it. And it probably duplicates the original recording as needed based on how many are requesting to play it back at any one time. We talked about it before.


----------



## ncted

Bierboy said:


> Yeah, well look at the source of that info. Of course they want to paint a rosy picture.


Yeah, Nielsen can't be trusted.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Meh. Let us know when you come across a real issue.
> 
> The UI is good overall. Very simple and to the point.
> 
> WE know it's not perfect. WE know it has some random issues - some of it guide data related, some of it glitches, some of it maybe blackout related in your case. But the real judgement lies in the quality of the forest not in a few individual trees.


If we don't nitpick the minor issues, what else are we going to do with our time? I mean, it isn't like there is anything on TV these days.


----------



## moyekj

I think overall YTTV is a good option for cable/linear TV replacement despite some of the problems I ran into. If I eventually have to drop cable TV then it will be a worthy replacement. But at least for me my 6 tuner TiVo Roamio is still a much superior option that I would prefer to stay with until Cox raises prices to ridiculous levels again. When YTTV was at $50/month it was a no brainer for me. At the $65/month price it's getting close enough to what I'm currently paying to Cox that it's not worth losing TiVo experience. But it's nice to have been able to do a comprehensive evaluation and comparison and noting all the pluses and minuses. Thanks to everyone in this thread who helped me through the process. It's very likely I will be forced into YTTV at some point in not too distant future, and from what I've seen it's certainly a tolerable/respectable replacement for TiVo DVR, but has some obvious deficiencies that hopefully will improve over time.


----------



## trip1eX

Please report every time you have to re-prioritize a recording, delete a recording, look for which recordings to delete, change how a show/episode is deleted, miss a recording due to erroneous guide data, miss a recording due to no tuners available, can't watch live tv due to no tuners available, change # of episode to be recorded, change channel to be recorded, change from new to rerun or to all episodes recorded, etc on Tivo. 

Also let us know every time you have to switch inputs to watch streaming and have to switch inputs to watch recordings or have to scroll by other family members recordings or when you sports didn't record because it was rain delayed... 

And don't forget let us know every time your Tivo reboots and you miss 5 minutes of up to 6 shows. 

WE need an apples to apples comparison of busy work!


----------



## Bierboy

ncted said:


> Yeah, Nielsen can't be trusted.


No, it can't. But obviously you believe them. That statement is so broad and there's no demo breakdown in those figures that it could mean anything. I worked in media for decades, and I know how those figures can be twisted to mean whatever they (PBS or any other network) want it to.


----------



## ncted

Bierboy said:


> No, it can't. But obviously you believe them. That statement is so broad and there's no demo breakdown in those figures that it could mean anything. I worked in media for decades, and I know how those figures can be twisted to mean whatever they (PBS or any other network) want it to.


Actually, I don't trust Nielsen after working in media for over a dozen years myself. Their methodology was horrible, and I doubt it has gotten any better. My comment was genuine. That said, PBS is probably up there when it comes to total viewership. Not sure about #6 though.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> I think overall YTTV is a good option for cable/linear TV replacement despite some of the problems I ran into.


What do three TiVos (or CableCo DVRs) cost per month if not on Lifetime? Might as well throw that into the comparison hopper.


----------



## moyekj

pdhenry said:


> What do three TiVos (or CableCo DVRs) cost per month if not on Lifetime? Might as well throw that into the comparison hopper.


It's not relevant to me - my units are Lifetime, so the only TiVo DVR related cost to me is the $2.50/month for CableCards (I have 2). (And the extra electricity costs of the unit + TA if you are getting picky).


----------



## slowbiscuit

trip1eX said:


> Please report every time you have to re-prioritize a recording, delete a recording, look for which recordings to delete, change how a show/episode is deleted, miss a recording due to erroneous guide data, miss a recording due to no tuners available, can't watch live tv due to no tuners available, change # of episode to be recorded, change channel to be recorded, change from new to rerun or to all episodes recorded, etc on Tivo.
> 
> Also let us know every time you have to switch inputs to watch streaming and have to switch inputs to watch recordings or have to scroll by other family members recordings or when you sports didn't record because it was rain delayed...
> 
> And don't forget let us know every time your Tivo reboots and you miss 5 minutes of up to 6 shows.
> 
> WE need an apples to apples comparison of busy work!


Lots of exaggerations here. Kind of amazing that you're willing to admit that both options have issues.

What you're not willing to admit is that both of them work fine, so it's more a financial choice than anything else.


----------



## pdhenry

Interesting feature: I tuned into the Red Sox - Yankees game a couple of minutes ago, and was given the option to join the game live or "catch up to live through key plays." I selected that and a sequence of key plays was queued up to show how the game arrived at the current score.

Possibly not a new feature but the first time I had seen it.


----------



## Bierboy

I've used the "watch key plays" feature but hadn't noticed the "catch up to live...". I'll have to see if it's there tonight when I watch the Blackhawks beat the Oilers.


----------



## pdhenry

In my case I tuned in at about the fifth inning, so give it some time to develop some key plays.


----------



## windracer

This is the first time I've had YTTV when there are sports on  so I used the "catch up with key plays" feature recently as well. Pretty cool.


----------



## mdavej

Only just stumbled across this, but this is the last day to sign up for a 2-week free trial. Lately they've been much shorter.


----------



## pdhenry

Something I've noticed on the devices I'm watching YTTV over -
Does anyone else see Comedy Central and the other new Viacom channels in the Live listing? It never showed up for me. I can search for "Comedy" and bring up what's airing live and I can also add any CC programs to my Library so they record. It's just that when I'm scrolling the Live list that it doesn't appear.
I suspect that there are other newly added channels that I'm just not aware of...


----------



## mdavej

pdhenry said:


> Something I've noticed on the devices I'm watching YTTV over -
> Does anyone else see Comedy Central and the other new Viacom channels in the Live listing? It never showed up for me. I can search for "Comedy" and bring up what's airing live and I can also add any CC programs to my Library so they record. It's just that when I'm scrolling the Live list that it doesn't appear.
> I suspect that there are other newly added channels that I'm just not aware of...


You're only showing your Custom list which doesn't automatically add new channels. Just edit your list online or in the app. Then you'll see them all, or at least the ones you add.


----------



## pdhenry

You're correct. I had assumed that that was only a custom sort order, and didn't know that new channels wouldn't automatically populate.

All fixed. Thanks. :up:


----------



## wendlan

Another cool feature of YTTV - the ease of recording complex, multi-day sporting events.

Two examples:
1. The "Tour de France" was annoying because there would be between 1 and 4 different showings of a stage per day, times 21 days. And they weren't always the same - as some were the full stage, and some were a 2 hour summary. If you just set a season pass on Tivo, you would get all of them, which would fill up the hard drive. So, I would have to manually go through each day, and figure out which showing I wanted and cancel the rest. With YTTV, it's just one click and done:









2. US Open was a challenge too, as it was on multiple networks, and also with repeats. And, if one ran long (common) and you didn't pad it enough - then you'd miss the result. Also one click with YTTV, no worry about duplicates, and it will automatically extend if it runs long:









To clarify - for both, it will "record" the duplicates, but it's no problem as the storage is unlimited, and it collapses them down to each day, where you can pick the showing you want.


----------



## trip1eX

Yep unlimited storage is a defining feature because it eliminates lots of busy work.


----------



## moyekj

YTTV doesn't have the re-scheduled NBA games in guide yet. How is one supposed to record something not yet in the guide? TiVo doesn't have updated listings either, but at least one can schedule a manual recording.

EDIT: This morning YTTV guide listings now have the games. But the question is still pertinent.


----------



## wendlan

New sports channels announced for YTTV today:

The _NFL Network_ is now added to the base package: Twitter
There is a new "Sports Plus" add-on package of seven channels for $10.99: Twitter
Includes: _NFL RedZone, Fox College Sports, GolTV, Fox Soccer Plus, MAVTV Motorsports Network, TVG, and Stadium_

Full announcement: Major updates to sports on YouTube TV


----------



## trip1eX

wendlan said:


> New sports channels announced for YTTV today:
> 
> The _NFL Network_ is now added to the base package: Twitter
> There is a new "Sports Plus" add-on package of seven channels for $10.99: Twitter
> Includes: _NFL RedZone, Fox College Sports, GolTV, Fox Soccer Plus, MAVTV Motorsports Network, TVG, and Stadium_
> 
> Full annoucement: Major updates to sports on YouTube TV


Nice. A little pricey on the Sports Plus package or it seems to me. BUt hey if you want any of those at least it's an option.


----------



## fburgerod

My walkabout: Two months ago, because of the expiration of my Xfinity contract, I decided to leave TiVo after many years and try YTTV instead. Although the navigation and trick play are slower and more involved due to the lack of dedicated remote buttons, I enjoyed the $50 monthly YTTV fee and the minimal internet cost with Xfinity. Not having to be concerned with DVR function or storage space was nice. Being able to acutally watch YTTV anywhere from any device without any buffering TiVo app issues was terrific! Unfortunately, YTTV raised the fees shortly thereafter to $65, narrowing the gap of my savings to almost nothing. Then, I discovered that the streaming at 1080P was sucking up my monthly data use so much that I exceeded the 1.2TB allotment for my busy family of four. Every 50GB over the threshold is another $10 surcharge. Because of this limitation and cost increase, I find myself back in the TiVo/Xfinity fold for another year. I must admit that TiVo is way faster and way easier to navigate, even with TE4. Now if only the guide data would be accurate...


----------



## moyekj

fburgerod said:


> My walkabout: Two months ago, because of the expiration of my Xfinity contract, I decided to leave TiVo after many years and try YTTV instead. Although the navigation and trick play are slower and more involved due to the lack of dedicated remote buttons, I enjoyed the $50 monthly YTTV fee and the minimal internet cost with Xfinity. Not having to be concerned with DVR function or storage space was nice. Being able to acutally watch YTTV anywhere from any device without any buffering TiVo app issues was terrific! Unfortunately, YTTV raised the fees shortly thereafter to $65, narrowing the gap of my savings to almost nothing. Then, I discovered that the streaming at 1080P was sucking up my monthly data use so much that I exceeded the 1.2TB allotment for my busy family of four. Every 50GB over the threshold is another $10 surcharge. Because of this limitation and cost increase, I find myself back in the TiVo/Xfinity fold for another year. I must admit that TiVo is way faster and way easier to navigate, even with TE4. Now if only the guide data would be accurate...


Yes I also went back to TiVo after using YTTV for 3 months. I found YTTV to be mostly acceptable replacement to TiVo with a few annoyances I voiced in this thread but also found going back to using TiVo a big relief and improved picture quality for some channels. I agree that at $50/month YTTV was well worth it and I probably would have stuck with it despite the (minor) annoyances, but at $65/month it's too close to traditional cable pricing to be worth it. I'm sure I'll end up using YTTV sooner than later though the next time Cox raises prices to again absurd levels, or TiVo goes belly up. I still was getting nowhere near the 1TB/month quota for Cox internet though even with heavy use of YTTV, so don't think that would be an issue for me.


----------



## pdhenry

I'm just afraid that we're seeing the same channel creep on YTTV that eventually drove me away from Comcast. Add some channels, raise the rate, add some more channels, bump the rate up again...


----------



## nrnoble

ah30k said:


> I hated having to use my phone as a remote and the worst of all was that they quickly replace your recording with VoD versions that are not ad-skippable.


That's a deal breaker for me. I currently pay for streaming services that don't have ads in the content (ie Roku, HBO, CBS All access), and it was the #1 reason I bought my first Tivo in 1999.


----------



## pdhenry

Feature request: I should have the option to start the programs on the Home Screen that are presented as "Top Picks for You" at the beginning, not just join in progress.


----------



## ncted

nrnoble said:


> That's a deal breaker for me. I currently pay for streaming services that don't have ads in the content (ie Roku, HBO, CBS All access), and it was the #1 reason I bought my first Tivo in 1999.


The comment you are responding to is very outdated information. YTTV hasn't done that for a very long time. Even then, it was only on a few channels.

I never see a VOD version unless:

1. I go looking for something that has not aired since I added it to my library.
2. I specifically choose to watch the VOD version, which I would only do if there was a problem with the recording, just like any other DVR service.

I do hope NFL Network does not result in yet another price hike though. $65/month is about my limit.


----------



## richsadams

fburgerod said:


> My walkabout: Two months ago, because of the expiration of my Xfinity contract, I decided to leave TiVo after many years and try YTTV instead. Although the navigation and trick play are slower and more involved due to the lack of dedicated remote buttons, I enjoyed the $50 monthly YTTV fee and the minimal internet cost with Xfinity. Not having to be concerned with DVR function or storage space was nice. Being able to acutally watch YTTV anywhere from any device without any buffering TiVo app issues was terrific! Unfortunately, YTTV raised the fees shortly thereafter to $65, narrowing the gap of my savings to almost nothing. Then, I discovered that the streaming at 1080P was sucking up my monthly data use so much that I exceeded the 1.2TB allotment for my busy family of four. Every 50GB over the threshold is another $10 surcharge. Because of this limitation and cost increase, I find myself back in the TiVo/Xfinity fold for another year. I must admit that TiVo is way faster and way easier to navigate, even with TE4. Now if only the guide data would be accurate...


Thanks for the walkabout. Much appreciated and timely. :up: I'm sad to say it, but after almost two decades we're also about to break up with TiVo. I've read back through a number of pages and spent what seems like days researching and it looks like YTTV will meet our needs.

It's not TiVo, it's actually Spectrum Cable. Our bill went up again. It's over $200/mo. now. I'm done calling and begging for a price break. If/when we switch we'll keep their $60/mo. unlimited (100Mbps down) broadband and lose their TV and a landline that we never use. Even though YTTV had an eye-popping 30% rate increase recently, it'll still save us about $800 annually.

We won't jump until around the end of the month so I'll keep at the due diligence, but in the meantime, are there any additional YTTV caveats or advice from folks here before we dive in?

TIA!


----------



## wendlan

richsadams said:


> Thanks for the walkabout. Much appreciated and timely. :up: I'm sad to say it, but after almost two decades we're also about to break up with TiVo. I've read back through a number of pages and spent what seems like days researching and it looks like YTTV will meet our needs.
> 
> It's not TiVo, it's actually Spectrum Cable. Our bill went up again. It's over $200/mo. now. I'm done calling and begging for a price break. If/when we switch we'll keep their $60/mo. unlimited (100Mbps down) broadband and lose their TV and a landline that we never use. Even though YTTV had an eye-popping 30% rate increase recently, it'll still save us about $800 annually.
> 
> We won't jump until around the end of the month so I'll keep at the due diligence, but in the meantime, are there any additional YTTV caveats or advice from folks here before we dive in?
> 
> TIA!


Hi Rich - I've been using Tivo since 2001 and moved to YTTV in February. It was a surprisingly easy transition for my wife and I. Yes, Tivo does some things better (trick play: i.e. the actually playing/viewing controls), and YTTV does other things better (infinite DVR, great search/guide data/superior season pass, automatically extending recordings for sports, no local hardware, phone app/"streaming" is excellent, no cable card/TA, 5 user profiles). For us, the YTTV pros far outweigh the cons.

But specifically, looking back over six months, the most noteworthy differences are:

Trick play is good for a streaming app, but inferior to Tivo. It's not bad though, and you'll get used to it.
In the library (your DVR), not being able to delete watched episodes is initially annoying. But, you'll learn to appreciate the unlimited storage and unlimited tuners, and sorting by most recently recorded.
The guide grid only goes out ~12 hours, but the search will find what you're looking for, and the ease of tagging programs to record is Google-powerful. We don't use the grid much.
That it's available on all devices seamlessly, like Facebook or YouTube itself, is amazingly refreshing. VOD of episodes being seamless along-side recorded programs is nice, too.
In summary - Tivo is like comparing a 1990s car to a 2020 model - they both get you there, it might have some unique features, and though your muscle-memory is tuned to the 90's one - the 2020 model is superior in almost all ways.
My suggestion - if you think it's a possible fit, just pony up the $65 for a month and treat it like this is your only solution BEFORE doing anything with your existing service. If it works for you and everyone is happy, then cancel cable. Tivo won't know that you are cheating on it, and they co-exist fine .


----------



## slowbiscuit

wendlan said:


> Trick play is good for a streaming app, but inferior to Tivo. It's not bad though, and you'll get used to it.


But that is arguably the most important feature for vid watching and Tivo is head and shoulders above everything else, especially with comskip.


----------



## richsadams

wendlan said:


> Hi Rich - I've been using Tivo since 2001 and moved to YTTV in February. It was a surprisingly easy transition for my wife and I. Yes, Tivo does some things better (trick play: i.e. the actually playing/viewing controls), and YTTV does other things better (infinite DVR, great search/guide data/superior season pass, automatically extending recordings for sports, no local hardware, phone app/"streaming" is excellent, no cable card/TA, 5 user profiles). For us, the YTTV pros far outweigh the cons.
> 
> But specifically, looking back over six months, the most noteworthy differences are:
> 
> Trick play is good for a streaming app, but inferior to Tivo. It's not bad though, and you'll get used to it.
> In the library (your DVR), not being able to delete watched episodes is initially annoying. But, you'll learn to appreciate the unlimited storage and unlimited tuners, and sorting by most recently recorded.
> The guide grid only goes out ~12 hours, but the search will find what you're looking for, and the ease of tagging programs to record is Google-powerful. We don't use the grid much.
> That it's available on all devices seamlessly, like Facebook or YouTube itself, is amazingly refreshing. VOD of episodes being seamless along-side recorded programs is nice, too.
> In summary - Tivo is like comparing a 1990s car to a 2020 model - they both get you there, it might have some unique features, and though your muscle-memory is tuned to the 90's one - the 2020 model is superior in almost all ways.
> My suggestion - if you think it's a possible fit, just pony up the $65 for a month and treat it like this is your only solution BEFORE doing anything with your existing service. If it works for you and everyone is happy, then cancel cable. Tivo won't know that you are cheating on it, and they co-exist fine .


Excellent info... thanks VERY much! Think we'll try it for a week and see how it goes, then jump in the deep end.

Thanks again, much appreciated!

Cheers,

Rich


----------



## solutionsetc

I finally cut the ComCast/Tivo cord last month (been with them since the demise of ReplayTV). The first reason was TiVo starting to serve me pre-roll ads on way too many shows, and frequently crashing (requiring a reboot) when I went to skip them. Last straw was that the first golf major of the year was not recording due to cable card issues. After hours on the phone with Comcast my only option was to drive 90 miles to the closest Comcast retail outlet to exchange it for another.

For me The Pro's of YTTV are:
Unlimited recording, and no having to extend the recording of live sports.

Playback anywhere on anything that works (unlike TiVo software).

The "Key Play" mode makes watching a game you're not a diehard fan of painless.

I'm saving about $30/month versus Comcast/TiVo.


And the cons:
No slo-mo, or frame by frame.

Can't download shows to computer (or any other device).

I have occasionally had a show that would not play back, but reporting it seem to address the issue pretty quickly.

No internet, no TV (recorded or otherwise).

Hard to believe Google couldn't design an interface better than TiVo, but for some reason they didn't.


----------



## pdhenry

slowbiscuit said:


> But that is arguably the most important feature for vid watching and Tivo is head and shoulders above everything else, especially with comskip.


Is it worth $100/month? I cut my internet/TV bill by that when I dropped cable for YTTV.


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> But that is arguably the most important feature for vid watching and Tivo is head and shoulders above everything else, especially with comskip.


Tivo trick play isn't good enough to make up for all other deficiencies. And YTTV trick play is no slouch either. Plus in some aspects of trickplay it is better at least on ATV.


----------



## richsadams

solutionsetc said:


> I finally cut the ComCast/Tivo cord last month (been with them since the demise of ReplayTV). The first reason was TiVo starting to serve me pre-roll ads on way too many shows, and frequently crashing (requiring a reboot) when I went to skip them. Last straw was that the first golf major of the year was not recording due to cable card issues. After hours on the phone with Comcast my only option was to drive 90 miles to the closest Comcast retail outlet to exchange it for another.
> 
> For me The Pro's of YTTV are:
> Unlimited recording, and no having to extend the recording of live sports.
> 
> Playback anywhere on anything that works (unlike TiVo software).
> 
> The "Key Play" mode makes watching a game you're not a diehard fan of painless.
> 
> I'm saving about $30/month versus Comcast/TiVo.
> 
> And the cons:
> No slo-mo, or frame by frame.
> 
> Can't download shows to computer (or any other device).
> 
> I have occasionally had a show that would not play back, but reporting it seem to address the issue pretty quickly.
> 
> No internet, no TV (recorded or otherwise).
> 
> Hard to believe Google couldn't design an interface better than TiVo, but for some reason they didn't.


Even more great info! :up:

Like the song says, "Breaking up is hard to do". However everyone's feedback is more than encouraging. Many thanks!

Our 3TB Bolt Vox is barely a year old and I recently upgraded the HDD in our Premiere XL to 4TB. Our TiVo Mini is pretty new too. All have lifetime service. Not sure what they'd get on eBay, but as suggested, I'm going to hold off doing anything rash until we're comfy with YTTV... or not.

My wife's favorite saying is "Change is bad". But there are times when change can be good. It's looking more and more like this is one of those times.


----------



## slowbiscuit

trip1eX said:


> Tivo trick play isn't good enough to make up for all other deficiencies.


It is for me.


----------



## mlsnyc

I've started my free YTTV trial. Between the higher frequency of guide data outages and the recent FCC cable card ruling, I figured I need to see what my post-TiVo options are. If these issues weren't so prominent these days I'd stick with FiOS TV, but I see the writing on the wall.

The UX is definitely a change that will need adjustment. But I should be able to figure it out or learn to live without things I've gotten used to with TiVo.

What I'm more concerned about is the reliability of the feed. I have 200/200 speed which is plenty for the pre-canned (or whatever you call it) content through services like Netflix and Disney+. But when I live streamed events like the US Open through ESPN, TNF on Prime, and the Super Bowl on Fox Sports, they all at some point froze. I needed to restart the apps to get the stream going again. I noticed similar but not as severe freezing with YTTV. At least with YTTV it would clear itself in a matter of seconds. I guess because you can't distribute live streaming to CDNs it's more susceptible to these kinds of hiccups.

For those who have been on YTTV a while, have you noticed freezing or lagging when you're watching live TV? Is it often enough to be an annoyance or an outright issue?


----------



## wendlan

mlsnyc said:


> I've started my free YTTV trial. Between the higher frequency of guide data outages and the recent FCC cable card ruling, I figured I need to see what my post-TiVo options are. If these issues weren't so prominent these days I'd stick with FiOS TV, but I see the writing on the wall.
> 
> The UX is definitely a change that will need adjustment. But I should be able to figure it out or learn to live without things I've gotten used to with TiVo.
> 
> What I'm more concerned about is the reliability of the feed. I have 200/200 speed which is plenty for the pre-canned (or whatever you call it) content through services like Netflix and Disney+. But when I live streamed events like the US Open through ESPN, TNF on Prime, and the Super Bowl on Fox Sports, they all at some point froze. I needed to restart the apps to get the stream going again. I noticed similar but not as severe freezing with YTTV. At least with YTTV it would clear itself in a matter of seconds. I guess because you can't distribute live streaming to CDNs it's more susceptible to these kinds of hiccups.
> 
> For those who have been on YTTV a while, have you noticed freezing or lagging when you're watching live TV? Is it often enough to be an annoyance or an outright issue?


I've been using it the past 6 months and cannot recall a time that happened while watching a program. I am somewhat impressed, as there has to be a huge amount of streaming right now. The only thing, perhaps Roku specific, is that if I have a show paused, let it stay there for ~20 minutes until the Roku screen saver kicks in, then trying to resume pause will occasionally require you to restart YTTV. However, Netflix also does not handle that case well, either.


----------



## mdavej

mlsnyc said:


> For those who have been on YTTV a while, have you noticed freezing or lagging when you're watching live TV? Is it often enough to be an annoyance or an outright issue?


Never. Not with any of the other apps you mentioned either. Sounds like your network is flaky.


----------



## mlsnyc

mdavej said:


> Never. Not with any of the other apps you mentioned either. Sounds like your network is flaky.


Maybe, but if it is, it's only flaky with live TV. As I had mentioned, my network is plenty for the other streaming content. Also, while the PQ with YTTV is fine most of the time, it goes low res every now and then. Similar to what I saw with Netflix eons ago in the early days of broadband. That one, I didn't see with the other live events I mentioned. And again, no issues with the other streaming apps.


----------



## mdavej

mlsnyc said:


> Maybe, but if it is, it's only flaky with live TV. As I had mentioned, my network is plenty for the other streaming content. Also, while the PQ with YTTV is fine most of the time, it goes low res every now and then. Similar to what I saw with Netflix eons ago in the early days of broadband. That one, I didn't see with the other live events I mentioned. And again, no issues with the other streaming apps.


My internet service is much slower than yours. My wifi is ancient, making it even slower. I've had YTTV for at least a year. It has never gone low res, ever.


----------



## trip1eX

Never saw any freezing either.


----------



## pdhenry

mlsnyc said:


> For those who have been on YTTV a while, have you noticed freezing or lagging when you're watching live TV? Is it often enough to be an annoyance or an outright issue?


Device dependent. I was using an Echo stick for another app I had sideloaded but on YTTV audio fell out of sync with video repeatedly. No issues on Roku.

Upstream bandwidth is barely touched, unlike trying to stream TiVo programs out if the house.


----------



## solutionsetc

mlsnyc said:


> For those who have been on YTTV a while, have you noticed freezing or lagging when you're watching live TV? Is it often enough to be an annoyance or an outright issue?


While I have only been using it for a month, I have not noticed any issues other than the occasional issue I previously described where a recorded show won't playback at all. I predominantly use it on a pair of Nexus Players (not particularly fast or up to date hardware) and have never seen buffering issues.

My wifi is capable of delivering 290 Mbps to the Nexus Players, but realtime streaming of ESPN (which is 720p) is between 2-5Mbps, with an occasional peak of about 8Mbps.


----------



## mlsnyc

pdhenry said:


> Device dependent. I was using an Echo stick for another app I had sideloaded but on YTTV audio fell out of sync with video repeatedly. No issues on Roku.
> 
> Upstream bandwidth is barely touched, unlike trying to stream TiVo programs out if the house.


Good point. I should've mentioned I'm using it on an Apple TV. Sounds like it runs smoothly on Roku.


----------



## trip1eX

mlsnyc said:


> Good point. I should've mentioned I'm using it on an Apple TV. Sounds like it runs smoothly on Roku.


ATV for me and never saw any freezing.


----------



## mlsnyc

trip1eX said:


> ATV for me and never saw any freezing.


Thanks, good to know. I'd think ATV should be as rock solid a platform as they come.

To be clear, I haven't seen a lot of freezing, lagging, or downgraded PQ. In most of my viewing so far, all of that has been fine. But I have seen them in blips. For the trial I'm trying to watch TV with it as much as possible. I'll see how it goes for the duration.


----------



## ncted

mlsnyc said:


> For those who have been on YTTV a while, have you noticed freezing or lagging when you're watching live TV? Is it often enough to be an annoyance or an outright issue?


No. The only thing I really notice is the scroll on local news and F1 races on ESPN will be a little jumpy sometimes, but I saw that on DirecTV too.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> No. The only thing I really notice is the scroll on local news and F1 races on ESPN will be a little jumpy sometimes, but I saw that on DirecTV too.


Yeah I think CNBC had that a little bit too


----------



## JoeKustra

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I think CNBC had that a little bit too


The ticker on CNBC has been getting jumpy for a while. It sometimes acts like it's coming from someone's PC using the internet, like many news people these days. I'm on normal cable.


----------



## moyekj

I avoid watching live as much as possible. But for sports recordings I tend to like to watch delayed enough to skip commercials. On YTTV watching something that is still recording can be wonky. The trick play doesn't work well because generally the thumbnail previews don't work while still "recording" so you can't tell how far you need to skip to avoid commercials. Plus I found sometimes I would just end up at the live point by accident making it a huge spoiler, but that may have been pilot error and think that mostly happen when playing via a PC browser. Also, I tend to use skip forwards a lot while watching sports recording, and TiVo 30 sec skip (with quick clear SPS) is perfect for that. On YTTV it's too many button presses needed for a single skip forwards plus clear the screen with back button for my liking.
In any case, I don't recall watching delayed something that is still recording a very good experience with YTTV, it works much better once recording completes if you use trick play a lot.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> I avoid watching live as much as possible. But for sports recordings I tend to like to watch delayed enough to skip commercials. On YTTV watching something that is still recording can be wonky. The trick play doesn't work well because generally the thumbnail previews don't work while still "recording" so you can't tell how far you need to skip to avoid commercials. Plus I found sometimes I would just end up at the live point by accident making it a huge spoiler, but that may have been pilot error and think that mostly happen when playing via a PC browser. Also, I tend to use skip forwards a lot while watching sports recording, and TiVo 30 sec skip (with quick clear SPS) is perfect for that. On YTTV it's too many button presses needed for a single skip forwards plus clear the screen with back button for my liking.
> In any case, I don't recall watching delayed something that is still recording a very good experience with YTTV, it works much better once recording completes if you use trick play a lot.


YTTV does only have a 15 sec skip FWD. But the rest regarding chase watch being wonky and thumbnail preview not working while recording is inaccurate/misinformation.


----------



## moyekj

Tried it right now on a still recording show (American Ninja Warriors). On Fire Stick there are no thumbnails about 5 minutes before live point, but at least plays the right recording when I start it. When I pick same recording via a PC browser it plays a completely different and wrong program (says it's All Access), which is a 31 min recording on same channel instead of the ongoing 2 hours Ninja Warrior recording! So I stand by my comments that still-recording shows behave wonky, apparently more so via a PC browser.
And it takes 4 presses to do 30 sec skip with Fire Stick (clearing screen with back button as last press).


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Tried it right now on a still recording show (American Ninja Warriors). On Fire Stick there are no thumbnails about 5 minutes before live point. When I pick same recording via a PC browser it plays the completely different and wrong program (says it's All Access), which is a 31 min recording on same channel! So I stand by my comments that still-recording shows behave wonky, apparently more so via a PC browser.


Nah. I used it for 5 months. Never saw thumbnails not showing up 5 minutes before live. I might have had a program not initially play correctly 2 or 3 times in 5 months and simply restarting the app cured it and/or playing another show for a second and then replaying the first show again. There definitely are some idiosyncracies to be encountered. They've been detailed much earlier in this thread.

But overall, your comment is highly inaccurate/misinformation. Although I never used it on pc more than once and don't have a Fire Stick either. Still we woulda seen more people popping off about this if was an accurate overall picture.


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> Tried it right now on a still recording show (American Ninja Warriors). On Fire Stick there are no thumbnails about 5 minutes before live point, but at least plays the right recording when I start it. When I pick same recording via a PC browser it plays a completely different and wrong program (says it's All Access), which is a 31 min recording on same channel instead of the ongoing 2 hours Ninja Warrior recording! So I stand by my comments that still-recording shows behave wonky, apparently more so via a PC browser.
> And it takes 4 presses to do 30 sec skip with Fire Stick (clearing screen with back button as last press).


I've seen that on Firestick too. Not on AppleTV though.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> On Fire Stick there are no thumbnails about 5 minutes before live point, but at least plays the right recording when I start it.


I think that's a function of your internet bandwidth. AFAIK when you start skipping ahead/back it grabs 15 second thumbnails to display and if you outpace your connection it runs out. This is especially evident if you hold the button down rather than pushing it repeatedly. If you pause for a couple of seconds the thumbnails have time to fully populate and you can skip further without running out.

I'm skipping back and forth with a program I'm watching live and that best describes what I'm seeing.


----------



## trip1eX

Platform is a factor too. The ATV in my office is a more responsive experience all around than the Roku TV in my basement. I can switch between apps quickly with no loading as they are often cached and the skips on YTTV are more responsive and stuff loads quicker too. ATV can hold multiple apps in memory/storage cache so I can pause a show in one, switch to another app, watch that show and then near instantly resume playback of the 1st show I had paused. 

And then some apps surely have better versions on one platform or another irregardless of the underlying platform's hardware.

Also the specific show could be a factor. Especially for a live feed. 

And on top of it there is a difference between the occasional glitch/hiccup and something that is the norm. I mean I could write a post that says programs don't load correctly on YTTV and give an example. But what is the impression if I don't specify/address the frequency of the issue. And I just say stuff doesn't load. It would be an inaccurate description or misinformation or disingenuous.


----------



## richsadams

Based on various posts it appears that Apple TV may be a little more reliable for YTTV than other options? We have three TVs, two with TiVos and ATVs attached and one with a TiVo Mini. If/when we switch to YTTV I was planning on getting an inexpensive option for the third (TiVo Mini) TV. But if it's going to be a better experience I'll plan on picking up another ATV. Nothing we dislike more than buffering, hiccups, restarting, etc. Thoughts?

TIA!


----------



## solutionsetc

My Nexus Players work great with YTTV. They can be had on eBay for under 50 bucks.


----------



## solutionsetc

Oh... and one other "Pro" to my list above, especially if you live in a PG&E service area:

When they can't keep the power on, and Comcast also goes down cause they don't have sufficient backup power, at least your shows still get recorded.

"F" these people!


----------



## richsadams

solutionsetc said:


> My Nexus Players work great with YTTV. They can be had on eBay for under 50 bucks.


Great to know. Thanks! 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mdavej

richsadams said:


> Based on various posts it appears that Apple TV may be a little more reliable for YTTV than other options? We have three TVs, two with TiVos and ATVs attached and one with a TiVo Mini. If/when we switch to YTTV I was planning on getting an inexpensive option for the third (TiVo Mini) TV. But if it's going to be a better experience I'll plan on picking up another ATV. Nothing we dislike more than buffering, hiccups, restarting, etc. Thoughts?
> 
> TIA!


I dunno, I don't think you can really go wrong with any of the latest devices, whether it's Roku, Fire Stick, Apple TV or some Android device. The thing with smart TV's is the paltry memory and anemic processor. If you prefer ATV, then go ahead and get another one, and it will work great. I personally can't justify spending $200 on an ATV when my $30 Fire stick works just fine. Plus with the new Google Sabrina coming out, with really tight YTTV integration for just $50, I'd pull the trigger one of those before dropping 2 bills on Apple.
Google 'Sabrina' Android TV dongle could arrive soon - and at a tempting price | What Hi-Fi?


----------



## richsadams

mdavej said:


> I dunno, I don't think you can really go wrong with any of the latest devices, whether it's Roku, Fire Stick, Apple TV or some Android device. The thing with smart TV's is the paltry memory and anemic processor. If you prefer ATV, then go ahead and get another one, and it will work great. I personally can't justify spending $200 on an ATV when my $30 Fire stick works just fine. Plus with the new Google Sabrina coming out, with really tight YTTV integration for just $50, I'd pull the trigger one of those before dropping 2 bills on Apple.
> Google 'Sabrina' Android TV dongle could arrive soon - and at a tempting price | What Hi-Fi?


Sabrina looks like a good option too. Cheers for that. 

If you're happy with your Firestick through, that might be the way to go for now. Just a bedroom TV that doesn't get a lot of use.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## solutionsetc

richsadams said:


> Great to know. Thanks!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They also support VLC, so you can stream video or music from a plain old SMB or FTP share.


----------



## wendlan

I did discover another cool YTTV feature: If a show is already in progress, and you add it to your library, when complete, you'll have the entire show! For example, the 2.5 hour ACM awards were in progress, and I added to the library (aka hit record) at about the 1 hour mark. The next day, the full 2.5 hours were there! I'm not sure if this always works, but this is the first time I tried it.


----------



## pdhenry

VOD?
I haven't had that happen other than with VOD. Not reliably, anyway.


----------



## wendlan

No, it was on a recording:










While the show was in progress, I could not go past the start point. But sometimes over the previous days did the entire show appear.


----------



## mlsnyc

wendlan said:


> No, it was on a recording:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the show was in progress, I could not go past the start point. But sometimes over the previous days did the entire show appear.


Just a SWAG on my part, but I wonder if Google is doing some optimization of storage so that at some point all users or groups of users are pointing to the same copy of a recording in their respective libraries. So while the show was in the middle of airing, the recording you started was specific to you and that's why it only goes as far back as when you started it. But once the program completed, at some point you got repointed to another copy shared by multiple users, with the beneficial side effect of you now having the complete recording. I don't see a reason why they couldn't do this, other than some sort of legal or privacy concerns.


----------



## pdhenry

In some cases, adding a show to my library while it was airing hasn't resulted in it being recorded at all, so perhaps that's an explanation.


----------



## trip1eX

wendlan said:


> I did discover another cool YTTV feature: If a show is already in progress, and you add it to your library, when complete, you'll have the entire show! For example, the 2.5 hour ACM awards were in progress, and I added to the library (aka hit record) at about the 1 hour mark. The next day, the full 2.5 hours were there! I'm not sure if this always works, but this is the first time I tried it.


Yeah not sure about that. For one, it could be just be a recording of a re-airing. Some live events (etc) are repeated early next am and in the coming days as well.

Second there is some channel specific behavior I've seen and this may be one of those cases.


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> In some cases, adding a show to my library while it was airing hasn't resulted in it being recorded at all, so perhaps that's an explanation.


That's always been the behavior on my Fire TV app.


----------



## richsadams

Quick follow-up to my initial post on this thread where I wondered aloud about the pros and cons of switching from TiVo to YTTV after getting our latest Spectrum bill. 

After trying YTTV for about 12 days of a two-week free trial we've decided to stick with TiVo, at least for now. We did our best to match our One Pass list and tried to watch YTTV almost exclusively with our normal side trips to Netflix or Amazon Prime now and then but it just didn't suit us.

Overall YTTV does a good job IMHO. Our main home theater uses MOCA (100Mbps down) and YTTV was very responsive. We tried it using our LG OLED TV's YTTV App as well as through our Apple TV 4K. Both worked fine. There were no glitches and very minimal buffering. The 1080p images were great as well. We didn't try any 4K content, but I'd guess it would be good too. I connected an Amazon Firestick via WiFi to our bedroom TV. Reaction time as a little slower and most recordings began playing at low res but 1080p kicked in within the first 10 seconds or so. Live YTTV was fine too.

The main "deal breaker" for us was the YTTV UI. We _really_ tried to get used to it, but it's just not as convenient as TiVo's "Now Playing" list. We have the same complaint about other streaming services and it's mostly based on having to scroll through dozens and dozens of graphics, then go to more graphics to try and find what we're looking for before even getting the recording started. Even with a 65" screen, the image tiles just take up too much real estate for us. We tried sorting it different ways, but none measured up to TiVo's ability show more recordings on one screen and to quickly jump up or down full screens of info. I didn't mind it as much as the wife. She grew exasperated after so much scrolling, entering and scrolling some more then having to look for the recording she wanted to watch. Not being able to delete recorded/watched content didn't improve the experience.

Secondly I really missed TiVo's full-screen FF capability. Although YTTV can FF much, well, faster, the small, somewhat blurred images are not as helpful as we'd hoped. 15 second skip requires way too many button presses. It's just too difficult to see exactly where you are and stop where you'd like. We ended up either going too far or not far enough. Some programs, particularly automobile auctions like Mecum, really lend themselves to FF. I can skim through two or three hours worth of programming, stopping on vehicles of interest now and then and be done in 30 minutes sometimes. Some other programming lend themselves to full-screen, variable FF speeds too. Rewinding presented similar issues.

We've also gotten very used to TiVo's "skip" feature. Wishlists are another thing we missed.

So overall, YTTV is a solid offering. However, for us it's just not user-friendly enough quite yet. We could certainly save some money by switching, but we feel like paying extra for the convenience of TiVo is worth it for now. I may explore DirecTV to take advantage of the 12 month introductory offer which would save us quite a bit, although I don't think we can get a Spectrum introductory offer until we've been away for at least 24 months, so once amortized over two years it wouldn't be quite as much. Then there's the switching back and forth between providers to get their best pricing every couple of years or so.

Ultimately cable is still a nightmare both cost-wise and for having to buy content we'll never use. Ala-carte isn't in their future I'd guess so if they continue down the road they're on it seem inevitable that they will fail at some point. Since the FCC saw fit to stop requiring providers to carry cable cards, TiVo's days may be numbered as well, who knows?

In any case, we're not going to cut the cord just yet. We'll carry on for the time being and see how things go, but that day is coming and it's closer than ever before, for us at least.

Thanks very much for all of the excellent advice everyone's given us, it's truly appreciated. As they say, We'll "stay tuned".


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> VOD?
> I haven't had that happen other than with VOD. Not reliably, anyway.


I have had success with this at least a couple of times.


----------



## lman

I'll stick with my Bolt OTA with no monthly fees and autoskip of ads. The price is right. I only have slower dsl as an option so I occasionally have streaming issues with Netflix. I also tried YTTV, but I swore when I got rid of DirectTV that I wouldn't get in that rut of never ending price increases again.


----------



## ncted

lman said:


> I'll stick with my Bolt OTA with no monthly fees and autoskip of ads. The price is right. I only have slower dsl as an option so I occasionally have streaming issues with Netflix. I also tried YTTV, but I swore when I got rid of DirectTV that I wouldn't get in that rut of never ending price increases again.


The repack has removed this option for me. Otherwise, I agree.


----------



## pdhenry

lman said:


> I only have slower dsl as an option so I occasionally have streaming issues with Netflix.


IME if your internet is below about 15 Mbps your YTTV performance will suffer. Above 20 or so the performance is pretty good. At that speed though I'd hesitate to be doing much more in terms of bandwidth consumption at the same time.


----------



## trip1eX

richsadams said:


> The main "deal breaker" for us was the YTTV UI. We _really_ tried to get used to it, but it's just not as convenient as TiVo's "Now Playing" list. We have the same complaint about other streaming services and it's mostly based on having to scroll through dozens and dozens of graphics, then go to more graphics to try and find what we're looking for before even getting the recording started. Even with a 65" screen, the image tiles just take up too much real estate for us. We tried sorting it different ways, but none measured up to TiVo's ability show more recordings on one screen and to quickly jump up or down full screens of info. I didn't mind it as much as the wife. She grew exasperated after so much scrolling, entering and scrolling some more then having to look for the recording she wanted to watch. Not being able to delete recorded/watched content didn't improve the experience.


Sounds like day one complaints. YTTV actually shows about the same number of shows in My Shows as Tivo iirc. The YTTV UI is organized quite similar actually to Tivo's.

And the YTTV Accounts feature allows the user to see more of what interests the user instead of having to jump over the shows of others users who share the same system.



richsadams said:


> Secondly I really missed TiVo's full-screen FF capability. Although YTTV can FF much, well, faster, the small, somewhat blurred images are not as helpful as we'd hoped. 15 second skip requires way too many button presses. It's just too difficult to see exactly where you are and stop where you'd like. We ended up either going too far or not far enough. Some programs, particularly automobile auctions like Mecum, really lend themselves to FF. I can skim through two or three hours worth of programming, stopping on vehicles of interest now and then and be done in 30 minutes sometimes. Some other programming lend themselves to full-screen, variable FF speeds too. Rewinding presented similar issues.


 30 second skip would be better than 15 seconds. And YTTV doesn't do real time fast forwarding or real time scrubbing thru videos.

However, the image thumbnails allow the user to quickly see where the user is in a program. And are a much quicker way of rapidly going thru a recording to find certain segments especially using the ATV remote. And the advantage of thumbnails is you don't have to time your playback like you do if you real time scrub through something. Plus compared to the 30 second skip, you can see where you are before initiating playback.

YTTV on the the ATV remote lets the user say "skip 4 minutes" to skip 4 minutes of commercials in a flash. And edge tapping (not clicking) on the ATV touchpad with the thumbnail system to skip commercials made the 15 second skip good enough.

YTTVs overall win over Tivo and cable is due to its major advantages trumping the parts where it's good enough but maybe quite as good as Tivo.

The major advantages are unlimited storage which eliminates the need to do a ton of maintenance. No tuner worries. No seaon pass priority stuff. No padding recordings. No selecting channel and HD and # of episodes. No having to delete stuff to make room or worrying about something being recorded over the same day or day after. No worrying about a show that repeats a lot during the day soaking up your hard drive or trying up a tuner. etc. Accounts is a big advantage as well. The lightweight equipment footprint - no more $1000 Tivo systems. The same service and performance on mobile or tv. One low price, cancel or pause anytime. ONe input on the tv. The pic quality is great and for most beats cable + Tivo. But we've covered this all before including what it doesn't do as well as Tivo. There's a list many pages back.


----------



## richsadams

trip1eX said:


> Sounds like day one complaints. YTTV actually shows about the same number of shows in My Shows as Tivo iirc. The YTTV UI is organized quite similar actually to Tivo's.
> 
> And the YTTV Accounts feature allows the user to see more of what interests the user instead of having to jump over the shows of others users who share the same system.
> 
> 30 second skip would be better than 15 seconds. And YTTV doesn't do real time fast forwarding or real time scrubbing thru videos.
> 
> However, the image thumbnails allow the user to quickly see where the user is in a program. And are a much quicker way of rapidly going thru a recording to find certain segments especially using the ATV remote. And the advantage of thumbnails is you don't have to time your playback like you do if you real time scrub through something. Plus compared to the 30 second skip, you can see where you are before initiating playback.
> 
> YTTV on the the ATV remote lets the user say "skip 4 minutes" to skip 4 minutes of commercials in a flash. And edge tapping (not clicking) on the ATV touchpad with the thumbnail system to skip commercials made the 15 second skip good enough.
> 
> YTTVs overall win over Tivo and cable is due to its major advantages trumping the parts where it's good enough but maybe quite as good as Tivo.
> 
> The major advantages are unlimited storage which eliminates the need to do a ton of maintenance. No tuner worries. No seaon pass priority stuff. No padding recordings. No selecting channel and HD and # of episodes. No having to delete stuff to make room or worrying about something being recorded over the same day or day after. No worrying about a show that repeats a lot during the day soaking up your hard drive or trying up a tuner. etc. Accounts is a big advantage as well. The lightweight equipment footprint - no more $1000 Tivo systems. The same service and performance on mobile or tv. One low price, cancel or pause anytime. ONe input on the tv. The pic quality is great and for most beats cable + Tivo. But we've covered this all before including what it doesn't do as well as Tivo. There's a list many pages back.


Thanks for taking the time to highlight some of the details. Understood most or all of it going in. Our "day one complaints" were the same on day twelve. 

Still pretty much stand by the experience with respect to the UI. We can still access and start a recording on TiVo considerably faster than YTTV. (We're on TE3 BTW, TE4 may be a bit different - but we didn't like it so we rolled it back to TE3) Overall the YTTV UI wasn't a deal breaker for me, but if momma ain't happy...

If FF and RW were full-screen, I'd be more inclined to keep working with YTTV, but the small/blurry images just don't work for us and YTTV has no scrubbing ability as you mentioned. If we were certain about how many minutes of commercials were coming up, using ATV voice command to skip them would be fine, however my crystal ball just doesn't work that way. Probably need to upgrade. 

Forgot to mention that I use PyTiVo and cTiVo to transfer recordings to and from our computers, manage One Passes and such. So although unlimited DVR space is nice, we have recordings that are several years old that we like to watch now and then so the nine month limit wouldn't allow for that and YTTV doesn't allow downloading of any content. We have a total of 7TB of TiVo storage so that's really not an issue either. I can't recall deleting anything to make room for something else in the last 10 or 15 years. We also have a total of ten tuners so we've yet to have a recording conflict. If a show repeats we just set it to record/save 1x. We're the only "users" in the house, so no need for additional YTTV accounts, although I can see that being a plus in a big household. All of our TiVo equipment has lifetime subs so the only cost increases are from the cableco. YTTV's recent 30% price hike had to be hard to swallow for some folks too. Neither will likely stop raising prices. We can cancel our cableco anytime as well. Everything runs through our HT receiver, so there's only one TV input, but we do need to switch to ATV for a couple of things. Spectrum's 1080p is quite good (especially compared to my brother-in-law's Comcast service) and 4K from the ATV is very nice as well.

I do like the idea of not having to have dedicated equipment, that's for sure. We'll keep watching to see how things go on all fronts. One day it may make sense for us to jump ship, but just not quite yet.

Cheers!


----------



## pdhenry

Just curious, were you paying monthly for TiVo service or on an all-in plan? Cost doesn't seem to be a factor for you but the startup and ongoing cost for YTTV is much less than TiVo.


----------



## richsadams

pdhenry said:


> Just curious, were you paying monthly for TiVo service or on an all-in plan? Cost doesn't seem to be a factor for you but the startup and ongoing cost for YTTV is much less than TiVo.


All of our TiVo equipment has a lifetime sub. Guess they call it "All-in" now. So they're sunk costs over the last three or four years.

Agreed, though, the initial cost would certainly be less with YTTV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ncted

Press and hold FF/RW to scrub on YTTV.


----------



## trip1eX

richsadams said:


> Thanks for taking the time to highlight some of the details. Understood most or all of it going in. Our "day one complaints" were the same on day twelve.
> 
> Still pretty much stand by the experience with respect to the UI. We can still access and start a recording on TiVo considerably faster than YTTV. (We're on TE3 BTW, TE4 may be a bit different - but we didn't like it so we rolled it back to TE3) Overall the YTTV UI wasn't a deal breaker for me, but if momma ain't happy...
> 
> If FF and RW were full-screen, I'd be more inclined to keep working with YTTV, but the small/blurry images just don't work for us and YTTV has no scrubbing ability as you mentioned. If we were certain about how many minutes of commercials were coming up, using ATV voice command to skip them would be fine, however my crystal ball just doesn't work that way. Probably need to upgrade.
> 
> Forgot to mention that I use PyTiVo and cTiVo to transfer recordings to and from our computers, manage One Passes and such. So although unlimited DVR space is nice, we have recordings that are several years old that we like to watch now and then so the nine month limit wouldn't allow for that and YTTV doesn't allow downloading of any content. We have a total of 7TB of TiVo storage so that's really not an issue either. I can't recall deleting anything to make room for something else in the last 10 or 15 years. We also have a total of ten tuners so we've yet to have a recording conflict. If a show repeats we just set it to record/save 1x. We're the only "users" in the house, so no need for additional YTTV accounts, although I can see that being a plus in a big household. All of our TiVo equipment has lifetime subs so the only cost increases are from the cableco. YTTV's recent 30% price hike had to be hard to swallow for some folks too. Neither will likely stop raising prices. We can cancel our cableco anytime as well. Everything runs through our HT receiver, so there's only one TV input, but we do need to switch to ATV for a couple of things. Spectrum's 1080p is quite good (especially compared to my brother-in-law's Comcast service) and 4K from the ATV is very nice as well.
> 
> I do like the idea of not having to have dedicated equipment, that's for sure. We'll keep watching to see how things go on all fronts. One day it may make sense for us to jump ship, but just not quite yet.
> 
> Cheers!


Yep I don't care at all what you do just to be clear. 

But some of the complaints weren't accurate, or struck as day one type complaints from someone that used system x for 15-20 years and then suddenly is asked to use system y.

The Accounts feature mitigates one of your complaints even with 2 people. It doesn't sound like you used it.

I didn't think the thumbnails were blurry or too small either.

Last I chimed in because I didn't think you posted an accurate overall picture of the service. You didn't list one specific advantage for example for YTTV and thus I thought that the post was a poor representation of the service.

Also I come from a point of view of judging the service overall as a blanket recommendation. Like if someone asked me if they should get a TiVo or yttv. I would say YTTV. I am not recommending based on my personal usage so much.


----------



## richsadams

ncted said:


> Press and hold FF/RW to scrub on YTTV.


Doing that does FF/RW, but not full-screen, just with the small blury little boxes in the lower third.


----------



## richsadams

trip1eX said:


> Yep I don't care at all what you do just to be clear.
> 
> But some of the complaints weren't accurate, or struck as day one type complaints from someone that used system x for 15-20 years and then suddenly is asked to use system y.
> 
> The Accounts feature mitigates one of your complaints even with 2 people. It doesn't sound like you used it.
> 
> I didn't think the thumbnails were blurry or too small either.
> 
> Last I chimed in because I didn't think you posted an accurate overall picture of the service. You didn't list one specific advantage for example for YTTV and thus I thought that the post was a poor representation of the service.
> 
> Also I come from a point of view of judging the service overall as a blanket recommendation. Like if someone asked me if they should get a TiVo or yttv. I would say YTTV. I am not recommending based on my personal usage so much.


We'll have to agree to disagree. 'Nuff said.


----------



## ncted

richsadams said:


> Doing that does FF/RW, but not full-screen, just with the small blury little boxes in the lower third.


Yes, but it does it. I do have to say, the small preview boxes could be a tad larger, but they are very usable for us most of the time.


----------



## windracer

This again. Grrr. They're trying really hard to force me back to Spectrum.


----------



## mrizzo80

Looks like the Fox regional sports networks are getting removed again.


----------



## humbb

So subs in those markets should expect a price reduction for the RSN fees? Oh wait, YTTV doesn't charge RSN fees. Nice windfall Googs!


----------



## pdhenry

My regional sports networks are all NBC (NBC Sports Philadelphia, Philadelphia Plus, and Washington). 

They're not talking about FS1 and FS2, right?


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> My regional sports networks are all NBC (NBC Sports Philadelphia, Philadelphia Plus, and Washington).
> 
> They're not talking about FS1 and FS2, right?


I don't think so, those are national. I for one am glad to see this. RSNs have outlived their usefulness, especially at the prices Sinclair is charging.


----------



## moyekj

Can they cut the price back to $50/month then now ? If so, I'm in. Of course it's not going to happen.


----------



## trip1eX

My DAd's interest in ditching Comcast for YTTV went to zero with the loss of FSN. 

I haven't had YTTV in 6 months since corona hit but FSN was a channel I watched some which I can't say for most channels.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> My DAd's interest in ditching Comcast for YTTV went to zero with the loss of FSN.
> 
> I haven't had YTTV in 6 months since corona hit but FSN was a channel I watched some which I can't say for most channels.


Yeah, my parents went back to Spectrum when they left DirecTV due to price because YTTV, etc. didn't offer enough of what they watch, and Dish LOS was problematic for them.


----------



## jlb

moyekj said:


> Can they cut the price back to $50/month then now ? If so, I'm in. Of course it's not going to happen.


I wouldn't mind a happy medium where they would offer a discounted monthly (for a year or even 6 months) to new subscribers....


----------



## dlfl

windracer said:


> This again. Grrr. They're trying really hard to force me back to Spectrum.


*Never* back to Spectrum! If not YTTV, then other streaming service(s) for me. Never back to unsupported Tuning Adapters and excruciating phone conversations trying to negotiate down their ridiculous rate increases.


humbb said:


> So subs in those markets should expect a price reduction for the RSN fees? Oh wait, YTTV doesn't charge RSN fees. Nice windfall Googs!


Dream on. 


ncted said:


> I don't think so, those are national. I for one am glad to see this. RSNs have outlived their usefulness, especially at the prices Sinclair is charging.


What! Gotta see my Cincy Reds! On their way to the pennant!


moyekj said:


> Can they cut the price back to $50/month then now ? If so, I'm in. Of course it's not going to happen.


Unfortunately, correct.


----------



## ncted

dlfl said:


> What! Gotta see my Cincy Reds! On their way to the pennant!


I wish them the best of luck!


----------



## slowbiscuit

Luck ran out rather quickly for the Reds.


----------



## humbb

Well, Comcast is doing the right thing for their RSN subscribers. Just got this email:

*Good news! You'll see an
adjustment on your bill this month *

*We're happy to announce that you'll receive an adjustment of $31.75 on your account.*

As you know, many sports were not played or broadcast this year from April through June. We have been working hard to recover the fees regional sports networks charged us during the hiatus to pass back to our customers. This adjustment reflects what has been committed to us by the regional sports networks in your area to date. We will continue to work to recover additional funds where possible. *We're committed to giving customers 100% of what we receive, now and in the future.*


----------



## zalusky

I am more interested to see if Comcast responds to ATTs Fiber announcement that by default it will be unlimited data across the country. As I debate the cut cord process once my contract ends.

AT&T Fiber debuts new pricing across three tiers, offers unlimited data for fiber customers


----------



## dlfl

slowbiscuit said:


> ]Luck ran out rather quickly for the Reds.


[OFF_TOPIC]Yep but considering the poor start they had this "season", just getting into the playoff, and having a winning season (by one game) was amazing. They should be well positioned for a great 2021 (_hopefully full length_) season.

Ironic that one of the death blows was delivered by Adam Duvall who was a popular Reds player just a year or two ago.[/OFF_TOPIC]


----------



## NashGuy

Right now, Google is giving away their new Chromecast with Google TV streaming device with voice remote to new YTTV subscribers. It's a $50 value, free when you pay your first $65 monthly fee for the service. It has a dedicated Live tab in the home screen UI that features a grid guide for YTTV. It runs Android TV apps. 4K/HDR10/HDR10+/Dolby Vision/Dolby Atmos.


----------



## dlfl

NashGuy said:


> Right now, Google is giving away their new Chromecast with Google TV streaming device with voice remote to new YTTV subscribers. It's a $50 value, free when you pay your first $65 monthly fee for the service. It has a dedicated Live tab in the home screen UI that features a grid guide for YTTV. It runs Android TV apps. 4K/HDR10/HDR10+/Dolby Vision/Dolby Atmos.


An insult to existing subscribers still smarting from a $15/mo price increase and losing RSN's. But a common marketing technique. I guess Google is just as common as all the rest, sadly.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi

humbb said:


> Well, Comcast is doing the right thing for their RSN subscribers. Just got this email:
> 
> *Good news! You'll see an*
> *adjustment on your bill this month *
> 
> *We're happy to announce that you'll receive an adjustment of $31.75 on your account.*
> 
> As you know, many sports were not played or broadcast this year from April through June. We have been working hard to recover the fees regional sports networks charged us during the hiatus to pass back to our customers. This adjustment reflects what has been committed to us by the regional sports networks in your area to date. We will continue to work to recover additional funds where possible. *We're committed to giving customers 100% of what we receive, now and in the future.*


I only got 18 bucks what a ripoff!  I'm in the Philly suburbs area.


----------



## ncted

zalusky said:


> I am more interested to see if Comcast responds to ATTs Fiber announcement that by default it will be unlimited data across the country. As I debate the cut cord process once my contract ends.
> 
> AT&T Fiber debuts new pricing across three tiers, offers unlimited data for fiber customers





> In order to further support its subscribers during the year of Covid-19, AT&T also said it had extended its data overage waiver for all consumer AT&T Fiber and AT&T Internet subscribers *through the end of the year.*


----------



## humbb

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I only got 18 bucks what a ripoff!  I'm in the Philly suburbs area.


My monthly RSN fee is $8 so if the rebate is based on 4 months of missed live baseball that makes sense. They may also have recognized somehow the fact that we missed games for TWO baseball teams (and a few Sharks and Warriors games) in the Bay Area, although they should really pay us to watch the Giants these days.


----------



## NashGuy

dlfl said:


> An insult to existing subscribers still smarting from a $15/mo price increase and losing RSN's. But a common marketing technique. I guess Google is just as common as all the rest, sadly.


Not happy with the service you're getting at the price you're paying, then cancel. Same holds true for all businesses.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> I am more interested to see if Comcast responds to ATTs Fiber announcement that by default it will be unlimited data across the country. As I debate the cut cord process once my contract ends.
> 
> AT&T Fiber debuts new pricing across three tiers, offers unlimited data for fiber customers


Hmm, unclear from the article what exactly is going on with the unlimited data offer at AT&T Fiber. In the past, those on the gig speed tier always had unlimited data while those on slower tiers did not. They had to pay an extra $30/mo if they wanted unlimited data. They're now saying that all Fiber (and non-fiber Internet) customers will have unlimited data through the end of the year and those who were paying the $30 will see that fee waived.

In addition, starting 10/4, AT&T Fiber will begin selling sub-gig speed tiers again. (They had switched earlier this year to only offering new customers the 1 gig tier.) It's not clear if these new 100/100 and 300/300 tiers will include unlimited data forever, as the 1 gig tier always has, or if that's only through the end of 2020, as is the case for existing customers on sub-gig tiers.


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> Hmm, unclear from the article what exactly is going on with the unlimited data offer at AT&T Fiber. In the past, those on the gig speed tier always had unlimited data while those on slower tiers did not. They had to pay an extra $30/mo if they wanted unlimited data. They're now saying that all Fiber (and non-fiber Internet) customers will have unlimited data through the end of the year and those who were paying the $30 will see that fee waived.
> 
> In addition, starting 10/4, AT&T Fiber will begin selling sub-gig speed tiers again. (They had switched earlier this year to only offering new customers the 1 gig tier.) It's not clear if these new 100/100 and 300/300 tiers will include unlimited data forever, as the 1 gig tier always has, or if that's only through the end of 2020, as is the case for existing customers on sub-gig tiers.


Yeah, I read the unlimited data for sub-Gig tiers to be temporary.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> Yeah, I read the unlimited data for sub-Gig tiers to be temporary.


Which is a fair assumption. But based on what AT&T is showing on their website today, it would appear that unlimited data is a permanent feature of these new 100/100 and 300/300 tiers. "Unlimited internet data included" is one of the major bullet points they show and none of the footnotes/fine print mentions anything about that being a temporary feature or it applying any differently to the 1 gig tier versus the lower tiers (as used to be the case). (Aside from being popular with consumers, including unlimited data on these plans means that AT&T can sidestep the whole issue of zero-rating data for AT&T TV while not doing the same for competing OTT cable TV services.)

Around here, AT&T Fiber has Comcast beat on price and performance, unless Comcast's cheapest 25 Mbps plan is all you need.


----------



## dlfl

YTTV is up to 3 million subscribers. 

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubetv/comments/jkzvzt


----------



## trip1eX

That is a good increase considering sports went away for awhile. They only hit 2 million early this year.


----------



## pdhenry

You'd think they'd be able to sell all their ad spots. I still see a lot of "commercial break" cards on "cable" channels.


----------



## pl1

pdhenry said:


> You'd think they'd be able to sell all their ad spots. I still see a lot of "commercial break" cards on "cable" channels.


Is it possible you have the option to target your advertising turned off? I think if you do, it blacks out the commercials. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember something like that happening to me.


----------



## trip1eX

i'm playing around with Hulu Live. And man it kind of sucks save for 1 great feature. IT's got 1 click commercial skip on everything, even sports, at least so far. Skip during a commercial block or just before and it skips the whole block of commercials. I wish YTTV had that.

The only other standout thing that I can say about it so far is the guide has 14 days of guide data. Oh also so far, every show/sporting event/news program I click on in the guide I am given the option to watch from the start. Limited sample size tho.

The rest of Hulu Live, however, is confusing/annoying/tedious. Probably the most confusing UI of all the streaming services. IT just isn't organized that well and I read they "improved" it. If that's the case then I hate to see it in its previous state.

What bugs? For example, it has favorite channels. But for the life of me I can't figure out how to add them. The only reason I have 2 fav channels is because I added them during setup when it asked me. 

Or the guide defaults to recent channels used. So if you want to see All channels or Fav channels you have to go down a few categories every time you bring up the guide. Recent isn't a bad idea tho. 

Next the DVR is buried under My Stuff. You have to select the My Stuff tab at the top and then go across 4 sub categories to get to Manage DVR in order to see recordings. TEdious. Then to confuse you, you click "record" to record stuff. But you click '+" to add shows to My Stuff. I don't think the latter means you record it but you keep track of it. I think it's a way to keep track of VoD stuff whether it's part of Hulu or content from a cable channel or maybe even to track if it goes live. Not sure why the act of recording is completely another thing. Also you can only record shows from the guide afaik. 

And then when I clicked a recording to watch it and then swiped up I got a different menu than I get when I was watching a live show. During a live show I get the guide when I swipe up. When I was watching a recording and swipe up, it shows me a bunch of other shows to watch on it seems the same channel (VoD I believe.)

That's where I see the ability to add the content to My Stuff by clicking the + icon. I don't see the ability to record from this screen. And when I clicked on a show to add to My Stuff and I went to My Stuff, it wasn't there. Does it take awhile? I don't know. Also it gave me the option to add the recording I was watching to My Stuff even though recordings are under Manage DVR under My Stuff.

I was thoroughly confused. So much so I'm going to have to go to google and read a guide on how it works.

Also and I'm not sure how I got to it, but there's a separate screen for recording a series, ie season pass. I got there once, but today I couldn't get to it when I monkeyed around with it for a bit. I didn't spend a ton of time but I took to YTTV and the others pretty easily for basic functionality. This is just organized very strangely to me. 

All in all the dvr part really is terribly integrated/organized. And + My STuff seems like it shouldn't be separate from recordings. 

OTher downsides are it is missing 4 major channels like AMC which seems like one of the more popular cable channels. But obviously most services are missing a few channels that others carry so it depends on whether you would want them or not.

And to get the commercial skip or any ff/rw thru commercials you gotta pay extra for it. $10/mo I think. And if you want more than 2 simul screens you gotta pay extra for that as well. Although you get unlimited screens on your home network if you pay extra.

PIc quality seems fine. I can't comment on how sports and other shows record over the long run, ie does it get every part of the show and not miss shows? YTTV was top notch at this. I can't judge this after a few days.

But man the commercial skip on this is sweet particularly for sports. Tivo didn't even have one touch commercial skip on sports iirc did it?

Still I couldn't do Hulu I don't think. I have a few more days left with it. But between it and YTTV and Sling and Fubo, it has the most confusing UI hands down.


----------



## moyekj

Well after 20+ years of Cox cable (and TiVo for most of that time) I finally cancelled TV and phone service with Cox today keeping internet service only with them. Will be using YTTV with my newish Chromecast for now to ease the transition away from cable TV.

I'm almost immediately reminded of loss of quality for some channels in YTTV (notably Fox broadcast channel quality as an example seems inferior to what I was getting via Cox). For some other YTTV channels the quality seems just fine. Also will need to learn to get more adept at commercial skipping with YTTV DVR recordings after being spoiled with autoskip with TiVo. But hopefully will learn to live with the downgrade in DVR experience and enjoy the pretty substantial monthly savings.


----------



## CajunRuss

moyekj said:


> Well after 20+ years of Cox cable (and TiVo for most of that time) I finally cancelled TV and phone service with Cox today keeping internet service only with them. Will be using YTTV with my newish Chromecast for now to ease the transition away from cable TV.
> 
> I'm almost immediately reminded of loss of quality for some channels in YTTV (notably Fox broadcast channel quality as an example seems inferior to what I was getting via Cox). For some other YTTV channels the quality seems just fine. Also will need to learn to get more adept at commercial skipping with YTTV DVR recordings after being spoiled with autoskip with TiVo. But hopefully will learn to live with the downgrade in DVR experience and enjoy the pretty substantial monthly savings.


Autoskip is one thing I miss, however with CCWGTV you can say skip x minutes. I use 3 minutes and I get very close to the next segment of the show.


----------



## tenthplanet

pdhenry said:


> You'd think they'd be able to sell all their ad spots. I still see a lot of "commercial break" cards on "cable" channels.


That's where the local advertising would go, compared to cable systems Vpmds (YouTube Live TV, Sling, ATT TV Now..) it's hit and miss sometimes and an uphill battle. Some organizations have it figured out Comcast (NBC and other channels) and CBS have streamlined the process. If you watch ESPN (an Disney/ABC channel) you can still see the some places where ads haven't been sold. Eventually this will all sort out especially after Covid-19. Ad budgets have been hit during the pandemic.


----------



## pdhenry

tenthplanet said:


> That's where the local advertising would go


Sure. But this is Google and YT manages to sell ads (a different sales process, sure) including those based on my location, yet YTTV has unsold space even during election season. With millions of subscribers they could insert national ads into those spots

Question: What is "YouTube Live TV" as distinct from YTTV?


----------



## tenthplanet

pdhenry said:


> Sure. But this is Google and YT manages to sell ads (a different sales process, sure) including those based on my location, yet YTTV has unsold space even during election season. With millions of subscribers they could insert national ads into those spots
> 
> Question: What is "YouTube Live TV" as distinct from YTTV?


Same thing, YouTube Live is it's official name so people don't (and they still do) confuse it with regular YouTube.


----------



## trip1eX

tenthplanet said:


> Same thing, YouTube Live is it's official name so people don't (and they still do) confuse it with regular YouTube.


I don't think that is the official name either. It is just YTTV.


----------



## ncted

YouTube Live is not YTTV:

https://www.youtube.com/live


----------



## moyekj

Piece of junk YTTV can't play any title right now. I tried on Firestick, Chromecast and PC and they all just give some error code trying to initiate playback, even for videos that played fine just yesterday. Other applications such as Netflix and HBO Max are working fine, just YTTV titles won't play. Anyone else having trouble today? This is totally ridiculous! Makes me regret dropping Cable TV just recently.


----------



## wendlan

moyekj said:


> Piece of junk YTTV can't play any title right now. I tried on Firestick, Chromecast and PC and they all just give some error code trying to initiate playback, even for videos that played fine just yesterday. Other applications such as Netflix and HBO Max are working fine, just YTTV titles won't play. Anyone else having trouble today? This is totally ridiculous! Makes me regret dropping Cable TV just recently.


This is not typical, and Google is having a *world-wide* service outage, not only YTTV, but all of YouTube itself, Google Play Android store, and others.

Want to watch a video on YouTube? Too bad.


----------



## moyekj

wendlan said:


> This is not typical, and Google is having a *world-wide* service outage, not only YTTV, but all of YouTube itself, Google Play Android store, and others.
> 
> Want to watch a video on YouTube? Too bad.


OK thanks. I guess this is a good example of downside of reliance on the cloud.


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV is back up, by the way.


----------



## ncted

Yeah, had the same problem last night for about 30 mins. Still happens about as frequently as any issues I ever had with cable or satellite, so meh.


----------



## the_Skywise

Can you access YTTV from the tivo app? Thinking of cutting the cable with xfinity to internet only and turning my bolt's OTA on for locals and then using the YTTV for the "cable" channels. I've got an AppleTV but it'd be nice to keep all the "TV" on the TiVo.


----------



## pdhenry

No.

And if you don't need locals there are other options that may be cheaper (the probably won't run on your TiVo either).

I decided it was easier to keep all the"TV" on the Roku (or in your case the Apple+).


----------



## the_Skywise

pdhenry said:


> No.
> 
> And if you don't need locals there are other options that may be cheaper (the probably won't run on your TiVo either).
> 
> I decided it was easier to keep all the"TV" on the Roku (or in your case the Apple+).


Thanks - well that sux. I just upgraded to the bolt from my Roamio just under 2 years ago and was hoping to keep it going for another year or 2 to get my money out of it (transferred lifetime) Comcast has been shifting what few channels I watched to IPTV or dropped them altogether so I'm regularly watching only about 2 or 3 channels on cable and about 2 locals. I can get everything on YTTV including most of my locals EXCEPT for MeTV which is on a digital subchannel here.
Hulu Live probably doesn't work on the hulu app either I presume?


----------



## windracer

I'm still having issues where YTTV won't remember where I left off watching a show (mobile app).

Last night I was watching the Bucs on MNF live. During halftime, I started watching a show from my library. Then at some point I switched back to live TV to watch more of the game. Later when I went to watch the rest of the show from my library, it started at the beginning and I to scrub through to find where I left off. Definitely miss that feature of TiVo ...


----------



## ncted

windracer said:


> I'm still having issues where YTTV won't remember where I left off watching a show (mobile app).
> 
> Last night I was watching the Bucs on MNF live. During halftime, I started watching a show from my library. Then at some point I switched back to live TV to watch more of the game. Later when I went to watch the rest of the show from my library, it started at the beginning and I to scrub through to find where I left off. Definitely miss that feature of TiVo ...


Were you watching MNF as a recording or as a Live channel? I rarely have this issue, and I go back an forth between various platforms (mobile, browser, and streaming device). It does seem that if I watch a show as a recording, it is a lot more likely to remember where I stopped watching. That said, it isn't perfect. Of course, no DVR I ever used, including Tivo, was perfect at this either.


----------



## mdavej

windracer said:


> I'm still having issues where YTTV won't remember where I left off watching a show (mobile app).
> 
> Last night I was watching the Bucs on MNF live. During halftime, I started watching a show from my library. Then at some point I switched back to live TV to watch more of the game. Later when I went to watch the rest of the show from my library, it started at the beginning and I to scrub through to find where I left off. Definitely miss that feature of TiVo ...


YTTV usually records multiple versions. Make sure you resume the same version you were watching before. Mine has never failed.


----------



## trip1eX

it remembers where you left off. There might be an occasional glitch. I wasn’t a mobile app YTTV user though.


----------



## windracer

ncted said:


> Were you watching MNF as a recording or as a Live channel?


Live.



mdavej said:


> YTTV usually records multiple versions. Make sure you resume the same version you were watching before. Mine has never failed.


I was definitely going back to the same version of the recording I had been watching (DVR vs VOD).


----------



## pl1

windracer said:


> I'm still having issues where YTTV won't remember where I left off watching a show (mobile app).
> 
> Last night I was watching the Bucs on MNF live. During halftime, I started watching a show from my library. Then at some point I switched back to live TV to watch more of the game. Later when I went to watch the rest of the show from my library, it started at the beginning and I to scrub through to find where I left off. Definitely miss that feature of TiVo ...


I had this problem and it had to do with my privacy settings in Google. I think it was the history setting.


----------



## ncted

FYI: Got an email that the Tennis Channel is no longer on YTTV.


----------



## pl1

I wonder if YTTV is just letting agreements expire with no intention of renewing. In this article from boston.com regarding the local RSN NESN, a spokesperson from NESN says


> Given we received no offer in return, we assume this is purely an economic decision to maximize profitability for their business at the expense of viewers.


 It is very frustrating because I think YTTV is the best overall streaming service in all respects. The only two places I'm aware of that still carry NESN are Fubo for $60 and ATT TV for $80 (they force HBO and cimemax on you).

EDIT: That should have been ATT NOW, not ATT TV


----------



## pdhenry

pl1 said:


> ATT TV for $80 (they force HBO and cimemax on you)


That's not a bad price if you _want_ HBO (I haven't done a head-to-head comparison of lineups).


----------



## trip1eX

ATT TV is a 2 yr contract. It is a total copycat of DTV terms/conditions/promotions.

never sampled it because of this. 

Fubo was ok. But no YTTV.


----------



## osu1991

It's becoming common for almost all the providers. I imagine most of the RSN's will be removed in the next few years as contracts expire, unless the RSN agrees to ala-carte or sports tier only pricing. It seems some of the big cable companies are the only ones renewing them and passing along the large increases. I think its nearly $25 alone for locals and RSN's in below the line fees from Cox in various regions.

I would love to see more providers follow Dish and make locals optional too.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> ATT TV is a 2 yr contract. It is a total copycat of DTV terms/conditions/promotions.
> 
> never sampled it because of this.
> 
> Fubo was ok. But no YTTV.


It's confusing. This is ATT NOW. There are no contracts, no promos. Two prices $55 and $80 with RSN and HBO. Then there are the AT&T TV Packages.

Edit: There is a 7 day trial with AT&T Now
Edit: I guess there are a bunch of higher priced options as well under Other.
Edit: The 7 day trial is only on the $55 and $80 plans.
Edit: My apologies for listing ATT TV in my original post, I have corrected it.


----------



## osu1991

WGN America, YouTube TV Set Carriage Deal

Nexstar Media Group announced today that its wholly-owned cable network, WGN America, has reached a new multi-year agreement with YouTube TV to be carried by the cloud-based streaming service beginning Jan. 19, 2021.


----------



## pdhenry

Looking at the two lineups (from here) ("top 100" comparison)

ATT Now (MAX lineup): No PBS, Newsy, NFL Network

YTTV: No A&E, Boomerang, Cooking Channel, Destination America, DIY, FYI, Hallmark (now an add-on, I think), History, Lifetime, LMN, MTV2, NHL Network, Nick Jr, Science, Viceland, Weather Channel

There are other differences, such as unlimited DVR on YTTV. I also noticed that not all channels are compared (e.g., Olympic Channel on YTTV)


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> It's confusing. This is ATT NOW. There are no contracts, no promos. Two prices $55 and $80 with RSN and HBO. Then there are the AT&T TV Packages.
> 
> Edit: There is a 7 day trial with AT&T Now
> Edit: I guess there are a bunch of higher priced options as well under Other.
> Edit: The 7 day trial is only on the $55 and $80 plans.
> Edit: My apologies for listing ATT TV in my original post, I have corrected it.


I thought ATT Now was on its way out. or that ATT TV was its replacement.

Oh and from what I see, to get RSNs, you have to subscribe to the PRemiere package for $183/mo. If you click OTher Packages, you see 6 other packages.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> I thought ATT Now was on its way out. or that ATT TV was its replacement.
> 
> Oh and from what I see, to get RSNs, you have to subscribe to the PRemiere package for $183/mo. If you click OTher Packages, you see 6 other packages.


No, Max for $80 gives you RSNs. ATT Now is the new one I believe.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> No, Max for $80 gives you RSNs. ATT Now is the new one I believe.
> View attachment 55273


 OK. I didn't/don't see that info on the ATTTVNow website. Specifically, the part about which package actually carries the RSNs.

When I look again, I do notice the Max package carries YES and MSG and LA Spectrum with an asterisk next to them which, putting 2+2 together, knowing those are NY/LA RSNs and knowing RSNs are unique to your zip code, means Max is the package that carries RSNs.  But I don't see that nice little summary that says this package has RSNs and this doesn't.

Also interesting when you click the Locals and REgional Sports Network link you are taken to a page that says ATT TV at the top of it.  And it looks like ATT Now is actually called ATT TV Now. Also if you click Other Packages on the ATT TV Now package, it looks like a list of the regularly priced ATT TV packages. I'm not sure one can be more confusing if one tried.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> OK. I didn't/don't see that info on the ATTTVNow website. Specifically, the part about which package actually carries the RSNs.
> 
> When I look again, I do notice the Max package carries YES and MSG and LA Spectrum with an asterisk next to them which, putting 2+2 together, knowing those are NY/LA RSNs and knowing RSNs are unique to your zip code, means Max is the package that carries RSNs.  But I don't see that nice little summary that says this package has RSNs and this doesn't.
> 
> Also interesting when you click the Locals and REgional Sports Network link you are taken to a page that says ATT TV at the top of it.  And it looks like ATT Now is actually called ATT TV Now. Also if you click Other Packages on the ATT TV Now package, it looks like a list of the regularly priced ATT TV packages. I'm not sure one can be more confusing if one tried.


What you are seeing is the confusion of AT&T in general They are so confusing. Select START STREAMING and SEE ALL CHANNELS.


----------



## trip1eX

pl1 said:


> What you are seeing is the confusion of AT&T in general They are so confusing. Select START STREAMING and SEE ALL CHANNELS.
> View attachment 55275


 Yeah silly me I clicked SEE ALL CHANNELS. LIttle did I know I should have clicked START STREAMING and then SEE ALL CHANNELS. 

I'm being entertained by this monstrosity called ATT.

I'm still lost as to why they even differentiated (and continue to differentiate) between ATT TV Now and ATT TV.


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Yeah silly me I clicked SEE ALL CHANNELS. LIttle did I know I should have clicked START STREAMING and then SEE ALL CHANNELS.


I guess AT&T thinks everyone can understand their logic. I never could. Do you know why I hate AT&T? I was on their Go-Phone prepaid years ago when you purchased data upfront. I had money in my account. One day, they told everyone they were eliminating that program and we had 30 days to USE it or LOSE it. I was GONE instantly never to return. (Unless I'm forced to I guess.)


----------



## pl1

trip1eX said:


> Yeah silly me I clicked SEE ALL CHANNELS. LIttle did I know I should have clicked START STREAMING and then SEE ALL CHANNELS.
> 
> I'm being entertained by this monstrosity called ATT.
> 
> I'm still lost as to why they even differentiate (and continue to differentiate) between ATT TV Now and ATT TV.


The ATT TV is from Direct TV I believe, It has equipment and contracts.

Back to ATT NOW, when you select START STREAMING and pick MAX, you will see PAY ZERO NOW and $80/MO going forward.
If you select any HIGHER payment package, there is no free trial, I selected each one to see.


----------



## pdhenry

Hey, a downside to YouTube TV -

If you try to watch Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer on CBS right now you get a still image (in my case it's Pat Sajak & Vanna White for some reason) with the statement "This program's unavailable for streaming on the Internet."










That's the first network broadcast where I've seen that. I have seen it before for the odd TCM movie.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE

Youtubetv caught The Voice, my tivo OTA still tried to record the football game.
Shows phoned home at 8:45 this morning 

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## windracer

pl1 said:


> I had this problem and it had to do with my privacy settings in Google. I think it was the history setting.


Yeah, all my history is on. When I review it for the day in question, it only shows me watching MNF and doesn't show me watching the recording at all. Oh well.


----------



## windracer

pdhenry said:


> If you try to watch Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer on CBS right now you get a still image (in my case it's Pat Sajak & Vanna White for some reason) with the statement "This program's unavailable for streaming on the Internet."


Yeah, WTF??










Odd grammar there too.


----------



## pdhenry

Apparently Freeform will be streaming it as part of their "25 Days of Christmas" as well as airing it on Saturday night. Perhaps there is an exclusivity agreement for streaming the program.


----------



## zubinh

I'm preparing for Tivo's demise. Has anyone found a good way of making the YTTV startup experience and control similar to that of Tivo? I have an Apple TV and Harmony Remote and would love to press just one button to turn on and get live YTTV.


----------



## mlsnyc

zubinh said:


> I'm preparing for Tivo's demise. Has anyone found a good way of making the YTTV startup experience and control similar to that of Tivo? I have an Apple TV and Harmony Remote and would love to press just one button to turn on and get live YTTV.


If your TV supports HDMI-CEC you can enable the Apple TV to use it. When it's enabled, waking up the Apple TV will turn the TV on if it's off and set it to the right input: Control your TV or receiver with your Siri Remote or Apple TV Remote

Re: the Harmony remote, I don't know if you mean to ask how it can be set up or if you've already set it up the way you like for an Apple TV. If it's the former, I programmed my Harmony 650 so that the the Apple TV activity turns the TV on if it's off, sets it to the right input, and activates the Menu on the Apple TV to wake it up if it's asleep. Not sure what model remote you have, but I'm sure you can do the same thing.


----------



## mrizzo80

zubinh said:


> I'm preparing for Tivo's demise. Has anyone found a good way of making the YTTV startup experience and control similar to that of Tivo? I have an Apple TV and Harmony Remote and would love to press just one button to turn on and get live YTTV.


Would "Hey Siri, watch ESPN work"?


----------



## mdavej

zubinh said:


> I'm preparing for Tivo's demise. Has anyone found a good way of making the YTTV startup experience and control similar to that of Tivo? I have an Apple TV and Harmony Remote and would love to press just one button to turn on and get live YTTV.


If you don't want to do the voice thing, which is also dead simple, just add some additional commands to your "watch TV" activity to navigate to YTTV and launch it. Keep adding commands until you get to whatever you consider live tv (a random channel or the last one you were watching when you turned off the TV?).

People tend to forget that Harmony is actually programmable. You can make it do just about anything you can imagine with a single button press. You don't have to limit yourself to the canned programming it does when you step through the activity setup.


----------



## trip1eX

mrizzo80 said:


> Would "Hey Siri, watch ESPN work"?


No.

You can skip fwd and backward with voice. You can pause. Use voice in the search box. Not much more with voice in YTTV on ATV. At least that was the status in March.


----------



## Tony1965

moyekj said:


> Well after 20+ years of Cox cable (and TiVo for most of that time) I finally cancelled TV and phone service with Cox today keeping internet service only with them. Will be using YTTV with my newish Chromecast for now to ease the transition away from cable TV.
> 
> I'm almost immediately reminded of loss of quality for some channels in YTTV (notably Fox broadcast channel quality as an example seems inferior to what I was getting via Cox). For some other YTTV channels the quality seems just fine. Also will need to learn to get more adept at commercial skipping with YTTV DVR recordings after being spoiled with autoskip with TiVo. But hopefully will learn to live with the downgrade in DVR experience and enjoy the pretty substantial monthly savings.


I did it as well and couldn't be happier.


----------



## tommiet

I currently have almost every channel (including premiums) that Spectrum cable TV offers today. The total cost is $86.00 a month and this is with no teaser discount. I've been with Spectrum/Charter for about 4 years for TV and 19 years for internet. YouTube would hit me for about $103.00 for basic service and 3 premium channels. The so-called cost saving is not there. The streamer services all also had teaser prices for the first year or two and the prices jumped. In many cases, more than the cost of cable TV.

And with data caps probably all coming our way, this may limit the use of steaming services. 


Be Safe!


----------



## trip1eX

tommiet said:


> I currently have almost every channel (including premiums) that Spectrum cable TV offers today. The total cost is $86.00 a month and this is with no teaser discount. I've been with Spectrum/Charter for about 4 years for TV and 19 years for internet. YouTube would hit me for about $103.00 for basic service and 3 premium channels.


Your numbers sound fishy.

Some of us didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Your numbers sound fishy.
> 
> Some of us didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.


Yeah, to get a channel package from Spectrum similar to what YTTV offers would cost me $73.99+tax, and that doesn't even include any equipment fees or DVR functionality, let alone the watch anywhere flexibility that YTTV offers.

https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard


----------



## dlfl

tommiet said:


> I currently have almost every channel (including premiums) that Spectrum cable TV offers today. The total cost is $86.00 a month and this is with no teaser discount. I've been with Spectrum/Charter for about 4 years for TV and 19 years for internet. YouTube would hit me for about $103.00 for basic service and 3 premium channels. The so-called cost saving is not there. The streamer services all also had teaser prices for the first year or two and the prices jumped. In many cases, more than the cost of cable TV.
> 
> And with data caps probably all coming our way, this may limit the use of steaming services.
> 
> Be Safe!


Personally I am willing to pay significantly more than Spectrum Cable TV to get the shows I want, just to not have to deal with Spectrum regarding either rate increase haggling or poor TiVo support.


----------



## NashGuy

trip1eX said:


> Also interesting when you click the Locals and REgional Sports Network link you are taken to a page that says ATT TV at the top of it.  And it looks like ATT Now is actually called ATT TV Now. Also if you click Other Packages on the ATT TV Now package, it looks like a list of the regularly priced ATT TV packages. I'm not sure one can be more confusing if one tried.


Yeah, AT&T's branding/marketing strategy with regard to their streaming cable TV services has been pretty confusing and evolving over the past few years. But basically they have two different sets of channel packages and both sets are available on either AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now.

With AT&T TV, the featured set is the one that closely matches the traditional DirecTV packages: Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate, etc. These packages include channels from all the major media groups.

With AT&T TV Now, the featured set is just Plus and Max. These two sets lack channels from the Discovery, AMC and A+E network groups.

Both sets offer the same locals and (if included in the package) the same RSNs in a given area. Neither service yet includes PBS locals. In many markets, locals for CW and/or My Network TV are missing but coverage of the big 4 nets is pretty solid.

In each set, only the lowest-priced base package (Entertainment and Plus) excludes RSNs. Under AT&T TV, if your package includes RSNs, you'll be charged an additional fee for them which varies based on your location (typically around $8/mo). Under AT&T TV Now, there's no additional RSN fee tacked on, regardless of whether your package includes them.

AT&T TV requires a 2-yr contract while AT&T TV Now does not. But because the former offers a significant discount on the monthly rate during the first year, plus offers various freebies including up-front Visa gift cards (currently $225), a year of free HBO Max (at least with some packages), and one free custom Android TV streamer (which you can choose to use or not), it makes more sense to go with AT&T TV if you plan to keep the service for at least a year. Because the penalty for early cancellation is only $15/mo for each month left on your 2-yr contract, i.e. $180 penalty if you have 12 months left, which is less than the value of the current Visa gift card you get after sign-up. And there's always the possibility that if you call up at 12 months and threaten to cancel, AT&T TV will offer some sort of lesser discount on the monthly rate in year two instead up going up to the full regular rate.

IMO, AT&T TV Now only makes sense for folks who like to pick up and drop cable TV for a few months here and there, e.g. those who only subscribe during particular sports seasons.

They don't seem to actively market or care much about AT&T TV Now any more. As the name implies, it plays second-fiddle to their new flagship service, AT&T TV. Based on past comments from AT&T leaders, it seems likely that AT&T TV Now will cease to exist or take new customers when HBO Max begins offering contract-free add-on bundles of live cable channels next year (as Hulu does now).


----------



## tommiet

dlfl said:


> Personally I am willing to pay significantly more than Spectrum Cable TV to get the shows I want, just to not have to deal with Spectrum regarding either rate increase haggling or poor TiVo support.


YouTube has most of the channels I like, minus a few. I'm unaware of any channels that YT has that cable does not. YT has 70 channels listed and Spectrum in my area has 200. Yup... 100 of them are trash. Still more channels for less money than YouTube.
*
YouTube also raised prices 30% this year. Not sure any cable company has raised rates that high. *

I'm just providing info on the differences in my cable bill and that of YouTube streaming. Bottom line is at this time, many streaming service cost more than cable tv. And CAPS... may just kill streaming services.

Be safe!


----------



## pdhenry

tommiet said:


> I'm unaware of any channels that YT has that cable does not.


Is Cheddar a "real" cable channel?
Local Now seems like Weather Channel without the good parts.


----------



## Jeeters

pdhenry said:


> Is Cheddar a "real" cable channel?


Yep.

Where to Watch


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> Is Cheddar a "real" cable channel?


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.


----------



## pl1

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, AT&T's branding/marketing strategy with regard to their streaming cable TV services has been pretty confusing and evolving over the past few years. But basically they have two different sets of channel packages and both sets are available on either AT&T TV or AT&T TV Now.
> 
> With AT&T TV, the featured set is the one that closely matches the traditional DirecTV packages: Entertainment, Choice, Xtra, Ultimate, etc. These packages include channels from all the major media groups.
> 
> With AT&T TV Now, the featured set is just Plus and Max. These two sets lack channels from the Discovery, AMC and A+E network groups.
> 
> Both sets offer the same locals and (if included in the package) the same RSNs in a given area. Neither service yet includes PBS locals. In many markets, locals for CW and/or My Network TV are missing but coverage of the big 4 nets is pretty solid.
> 
> In each set, only the lowest-priced base package (Entertainment and Plus) excludes RSNs. Under AT&T TV, if your package includes RSNs, you'll be charged an additional fee for them which varies based on your location (typically around $8/mo). Under AT&T TV Now, there's no additional RSN fee tacked on, regardless of whether your package includes them.
> 
> AT&T TV requires a 2-yr contract while AT&T TV Now does not. But because the former offers a significant discount on the monthly rate during the first year, plus offers various freebies including up-front Visa gift cards (currently $225), a year of free HBO Max (at least with some packages), and one free custom Android TV streamer (which you can choose to use or not), it makes more sense to go with AT&T TV if you plan to keep the service for at least a year. Because the penalty for early cancellation is only $15/mo for each month left on your 2-yr contract, i.e. $180 penalty if you have 12 months left, which is less than the value of the current Visa gift card you get after sign-up. And there's always the possibility that if you call up at 12 months and threaten to cancel, AT&T TV will offer some sort of lesser discount on the monthly rate in year two instead up going up to the full regular rate.
> 
> IMO, AT&T TV Now only makes sense for folks who like to pick up and drop cable TV for a few months here and there, e.g. those who only subscribe during particular sports seasons.
> 
> They don't seem to actively market or care much about AT&T TV Now any more. As the name implies, it plays second-fiddle to their new flagship service, AT&T TV. Based on past comments from AT&T leaders, it seems likely that AT&T TV Now will cease to exist or take new customers when HBO Max begins offering contract-free add-on bundles of live cable channels next year (as Hulu does now).


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.)


> AT&T TV Now also lowered the Plus package from $65 a month to *$55 a month* last April when subscriptions declined after raising it to $65 a year ago. So the company probably would prefer the higher price now although it could again hurt subscription efforts.


So, AT&T has been focusing all of their efforts on AT&T TV and HBO MAX.


> In 2020, AT&T has refocused its video strategy on HBO Max and AT&T TV and left DirecTV, U-verse and AT&T TV Now largely out of the picture. During the most recent quarter, AT&T lost 37,000 AT&T TV Now subscribers and 590,000 premium TV subscribers. The company gave credit to AT&T TV for helping to offset continued rapid subscriber declines at its struggling satellite service.


----------



## pl1

NashGuy said:


> With AT&T TV Now, the featured set is just Plus and Max.


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.


----------



## ncted

tommiet said:


> YouTube has most of the channels I like, minus a few. I'm unaware of any channels that YT has that cable does not. YT has 70 channels listed and Spectrum in my area has 200. Yup... 100 of them are trash. Still more channels for less money than YouTube.
> *
> YouTube also raised prices 30% this year. Not sure any cable company has raised rates that high. *
> 
> I'm just providing info on the differences in my cable bill and that of YouTube streaming. Bottom line is at this time, many streaming service cost more than cable tv. And CAPS... may just kill streaming services.
> 
> Be safe!


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.


----------



## dlfl

ncted said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## dlfl

tommiet said:


> YouTube has most of the channels I like, minus a few. I'm unaware of any channels that YT has that cable does not. YT has 70 channels listed and Spectrum in my area has 200. Yup... 100 of them are trash. Still more channels for less money than YouTube.
> *
> YouTube also raised prices 30% this year. Not sure any cable company has raised rates that high. *
> 
> I'm just providing info on the differences in my cable bill and that of YouTube streaming. Bottom line is at this time, many streaming service cost more than cable tv. And CAPS... may just kill streaming services.
> 
> Be safe!


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!


----------



## ncted

dlfl said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## dlfl

ncted said:


> 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.


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?


ncted said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## NashGuy

pl1 said:


> 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.
> 
> View attachment 55473


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.


----------



## pl1

NashGuy said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## tommiet

ncted said:


> Yeah, to get a channel package from Spectrum similar to what YTTV offers would cost me $73.99+tax, and that doesn't even include any equipment fees or DVR functionality, let alone the watch anywhere flexibility that YTTV offers.
> 
> https://www.spectrum.com/browse/content/ratecard


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.


dlfl said:


> 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. None of this kind of hassle with YTTV!


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.....


----------



## tommiet

ncted said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## pdhenry

tommiet said:


> VOD and cloud DVR's will kill TiVo.


As will the move from CableCards generally.


----------



## trip1eX

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.


----------



## dlfl

tommiet said:


> 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.


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.


tommiet said:


> 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.


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


----------



## pdhenry

If you have a vacation home or a close friend, the economics of YTTV is overwhelming.


----------



## ncted

dlfl said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## moyekj

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.


----------



## ncted

tommiet said:


> 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.


I looked at that. The cloud DVR is pretty anemic IIRC.


----------



## ncted

One thing that I don't thinks gets much attention is YTTV support is really pretty good. I've contacted them about a few issues in the past year. They respond fairly quickly, are usually able to help me with my problem, and seem genuinely interested in resolving my issue.


----------



## moyekj

ncted said:


> One thing that I don't thinks gets much attention is YTTV support is really pretty good. I've contacted them about a few issues in the past year. They respond fairly quickly, are usually able to help me with my problem, and seem genuinely interested in resolving my issue.


What method do you use to contact support? I've had a few issues where attempting to play a DVR recording just doesn't work (on multiple different clients), so should probably report those in the hopes it may actually prevent that from happening in the future.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> 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.


But it does cost them more overall. More data more means more network infrastructure which means more money. As you say they don't give everyone a dedicated pipe and thus their pricing isn't reflecting that. The pipe is shared and they plan on people not using it all the time. But if one neighborhood is going to go crazy then the cable co is going to spend more money on network equipment and light some more fiber compared to a miserly neighborhood that barely uses it. Let's assume the neighborhood has the same number of customers and broadband customer penetration is 80%+.

Over time, yes the cost to deliver a gigabyte goes down. But over time you also see the cable co offer more bandwidth for the same price. And the data caps have gone up too. IN 2015, Comcast's data cap was 300gb/mo I think.

AT the same time, it isn't so much how much data one uses overall that costs them, it is how much data is being used at peak times. Because in the off hours like at 4am, no one is using the pipe and it is wide open and they aren't close to capacity. They really only build out to support peak times.

The data caps I think are in place to just make money off heavy data users and/or to prevent people from sharing the connection with others to prevent their business model from getting out of whack.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> But it does cost them more overall. More data more means more network infrastructure which means more money. As you say they don't give everyone a dedicated pipe and thus their pricing isn't reflecting that. The pipe is shared and they plan on people not using it all the time. But if one neighborhood is going to go crazy then the cable co is going to spend more money on network equipment and light some more fiber compared to a miserly neighborhood that barely uses it. Let's assume the neighborhood has the same number of customers and broadband customer penetration is 80%+.
> 
> Over time, yes the cost to deliver a gigabyte goes down. But over time you also see the cable co offer more bandwidth for the same price. And the data caps have gone up too. IN 2015, Comcast's data cap was 300gb/mo I think.
> 
> AT the same time, it isn't so much how much data one uses overall that costs them, it is how much data is being used at peak times. Because in the off hours like at 4am, no one is using the pipe and it is wide open and they aren't close to capacity. They really only build out to support peak times.
> 
> The data caps I think are in place to just make money off heavy data users and/or to prevent people from sharing the connection with others to prevent their business model from getting out of whack.


Costs do go up incrementally in the scenario you describe, but it is also already baked into the price. This is why, aside from a very few, sporadic problems, the majority of the US professional workforce was able to start working from home all at once in early 2020, including video meetings all the time, and gobs of YouTube, Netflix, etc watching, gaming and whatever else at home. The ISPs had planned for it. Well, maybe not for a pandemic in particular, but for growth to the point that within a few weeks all major ISPs had handled more traffic than they expected in the next 3-5 years without breaking a sweat. There wasn't some huge capital outlay all at once that made that possible. The capacity was already there. So, we're all already paying for that capacity, even when we aren't using it.


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> What method do you use to contact support? I've had a few issues where attempting to play a DVR recording just doesn't work (on multiple different clients), so should probably report those in the hopes it may actually prevent that from happening in the future.


Email usually. Missed recordings and DVR playback issues have both been resolved in a few hours at most.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Costs do go up incrementally in the scenario you describe, but it is also already baked into the price. This is why, aside from a very few, sporadic problems, the majority of the US professional workforce was able to start working from home all at once in early 2020, including video meetings all the time, and gobs of YouTube, Netflix, etc watching, gaming and whatever else at home. The ISPs had planned for it. Well, maybe not for a pandemic in particular, but for growth to the point that within a few weeks all major ISPs had handled more traffic than they expected in the next 3-5 years without breaking a sweat. There wasn't some huge capital outlay all at once that made that possible. The capacity was already there. So, we're all already paying for that capacity, even when we aren't using it.


But daytime was never the peak time for HOme internet. I think that's the reason they can handle the pandemic pretty well.

As I said, it is really the data used during peak hours that matters as that is what they build out for. Peak is evenings. The rest of the 24 hr period was always under utilized.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> But daytime was never the peak time for HOme internet. I think that's the reason they can handle the pandemic pretty well.
> 
> As I said, it is really the data used during peak hours that matters as that is what they build out for. Peak is evenings. The rest of the 24 hr period was always under utilized.


Kind of. Evening peak utilization was up almost 50% according to a Charter Spectrum report we got at work shared with us via NCREN. People staying home, not going out to eat, not going to kids sporting events, etc. drove traffic up during all hours. Overnight was up by a huge amount with all the kids playing video games all night and sleeping while their parents worked during the day this summer. A lot more people are using more than 1TB of data per month now.


----------



## dlfl

All the arguments about metered service not being appropriate for the internet because it’s different from other utilities have not convinced me that it’s fair for people who use a lot less (bandwidth, GB’s, ingress and egress, some appropriate combination) to pay the same as those who use a lot more. Maybe it’s another example of the problem of the commons — or maybe not.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> Kind of. Evening peak utilization was up almost 50% according to a Charter Spectrum report we got at work shared with us via NCREN. People staying home, not going out to eat, not going to kids sporting events, etc. drove traffic up during all hours. Overnight was up by a huge amount with all the kids playing video games all night and sleeping while their parents worked during the day this summer. A lot more people are using more than 1TB of data per month now.


Yep I'm sure peak traffic is up too. And more people are using more data. None of that means it doesn't cost money to support more traffic.

IT does. It just doesn't go up in a nice linear fashion.

What I mean or should say is at some point there are capital costs associated with supporting more traffic (and really more traffic is more traffic per sec at peak hours.)


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> Yep I'm sure peak traffic is up too. And more people are using more data. None of that means it doesn't cost money to support more traffic.
> 
> IT does. It just doesn't go up in a nice linear fashion.
> 
> What I mean or should say is at some point there are capital costs associated with supporting more traffic (and really more traffic is more traffic per sec at peak hours.)


As with most service-based businesses, payroll is the largest single expense, and ISPs have done a great job of reducing their staffing levels, especially in places with unions. Capital investment is significant too. For instance: Charter spent $2 billion on capital in Q3 of this year, although a good bit of that was investments in their mobile network. Their total expenses were $10 billion, and profit was $2 billion. That $2 billion infrastructure expense is largely depreciation on investments they already made months and years ago based on what they thought they needed to handle the traffic. This is a long-term thing for them, and the monthly fees their customers pay already pays for those investments.

Charter Q3 capital expense:
2020: $2 billion 
2019: $1.7 billion
2018: $2.1 billion
2017: $2.4 billion

Simply put, we are all already paying for those upgrades. The question people seem to be struggling with is, "why should I pay for my neighbors' data hogging ways? They should have to pay more since they use more." The answer is: making them pay more doesn't lower your bill for precisely the reason you pointed out: networks are built for peak capacity. All it does is make more money for the ISP.


----------



## ncted

I should point out that, with the advent of DOCSIS 3, Fiber, and Software Defined Networking, "data hogs" don't really ruin the experience for everyone else the way they used to with earlier technologies. It is essentially a solved problem, so implementing data caps does nothing to address them.


----------



## trip1eX

ncted said:


> As with most service-based businesses, payroll is the largest single expense, and ISPs have done a great job of reducing their staffing levels, especially in places with unions. Capital investment is significant too. For instance: Charter spent $2 billion on capital in Q3 of this year, although a good bit of that was investments in their mobile network. Their total expenses were $10 billion, and profit was $2 billion. That $2 billion infrastructure expense is largely depreciation on investments they already made months and years ago based on what they thought they needed to handle the traffic. This is a long-term thing for them, and the monthly fees their customers pay already pays for those investments.
> 
> Charter Q3 capital expense:
> 2020: $2 billion
> 2019: $1.7 billion
> 2018: $2.1 billion
> 2017: $2.4 billion
> 
> Simply put, we are all already paying for those upgrades. The question people seem to be struggling with is, "why should I pay for my neighbors' data hogging ways? They should have to pay more since they use more." The answer is: making them pay more doesn't lower your bill for precisely the reason you pointed out: networks are built for peak capacity. All it does is make more money for the ISP.


but you're acting like there is zero relationship between data used and the cost to the cable company.

Those capital expenses would be much lower if we were all still using 10 mb/s. They wouldn't have had to upgrade their network over the last 20 years. They would still be milking the year 2000's infrastructure as much as possible.

So there is a relationship between data used and cost to the cable company.

and they want a return on their investment of x and so they can either charge everyone the same to get that or they can charge those who use more data more money and those who use less less money. So in that sense charging those who use more does help lower the bill of those who use less data.


----------



## ncted

trip1eX said:


> but you're acting like there is zero relationship between data used and the cost to the cable company.
> 
> Those capital expenses would be much lower if we were all still using 10 mb/s. They wouldn't have had to upgrade their network over the last 20 years. They would still be milking the year 2000's infrastructure as much as possible.
> 
> So there is a relationship between data used and cost to the cable company.
> 
> and they want a return on their investment of x and so they can either charge everyone the same to get that or they can charge those who use more data more money and those who use less less money. So in that sense charging those who use more does help lower the bill of those who use less data.


There is a relationship, but it doesn't matter. That is not why cable companies upgrade their service offerings.

So, why do cable companies upgrade their speeds? Simple. If they don't then there is incentive for competition to move into their markets with higher speeds and lower costs, which technological advancement provides. Upgrades are a hedge against competition in market monopolies (most of US) and a requirement to stay in business in the few places where there is competition. This is the same reason they lobby to keep competition out of their markets with burdensome pole attachment regulations. Google Fiber scared the heck out of the Comcasts and Charters.


----------



## dlfl

ncted said:


> ............. The question people seem to be struggling with is, "why should I pay for my neighbors' data hogging ways? They should have to pay more since they use more." The answer is: making them pay more doesn't lower your bill for precisely the reason you pointed out: networks are built for peak capacity. All it does is make more money for the ISP.


You've used your own straw man interpretation of what we who are "struggling" want. Adjust the rates so heavy users pay more and light users pay less and the total revenue stays the same! That doesn't "make more money for the ISP".


----------



## tommiet

ncted said:


> I looked at that. The cloud DVR is pretty anemic IIRC.


Thanks! With VOD, I use my DVR less and less. My TV has all the toys build into it. The wife likes to use our TiVo as it does make scheduling recordings easier. Trying to get the wife to use my Recast in prep for a hard turn off of my TiVo coming in the early summer. My Recast and VOD should take care of most of our current DVR needs. Then use the cable cloud DVR for the balance if needed.


----------



## dlfl

ncted said:


> There is a relationship, but it doesn't matter. That is not why cable companies upgrade their service offerings.
> 
> So, why do cable companies upgrade their speeds? Simple. If they don't then there is incentive for competition to move into their markets with higher speeds and lower costs, which technological advancement provides. Upgrades are a hedge against competition in market monopolies (most of US) and a requirement to stay in business in the few places where there is competition. This is the same reason they lobby to keep competition out of their markets with burdensome pole attachment regulations. Google Fiber scared the heck out of the Comcasts and Charters.


You're ignoring price as a factor in competition. Speed isn't the only thing that matters to many consumers. For example in my market area, Spectrum (formerly TWC) has been the local monopoly until now. Metronet is building out here. I pay Spectrum $75/mo for 100/10 service. Metronet will provide 200/200 (their minimum) for $14/mo less. I've already signed up just waiting to be installed. For me 100/10 is perfectly adequate so I'm going with whoever can provide at least that much for less than what Spectrum wants. Admittedly the Metronet price is a promotional rate and I don't know what the post-promotion rate will be. But Metronet also has 500/500 and 1Gbps/1Gbps service and their rates for those compete with Spectrum's 400 Mbps service. Spectrum's response to this competition? They just increased my internet package $5/mo!

I also think too many consumers are speed junkies. It's like sleek lines, horsepower and 0-60 times in cars. And of course, our marketeers will feed them the hype that they respond to.


----------



## ncted

dlfl said:


> You've used your own straw man interpretation of what we who are "struggling" want. Adjust the rates so heavy users pay more and light users pay less and the total revenue stays the same! That doesn't "make more money for the ISP".


As I stated previously, I'd be fine with metered if I got the fastest speed and they structured the metered rates like they do for businesses. I was just describing how things are currently. The fact remains that our neighbors using more data than us isn't costing us or the ISP more than if there were no data hogs, which represent less than 1% of all customers according to the industry's own data.


----------



## ncted

dlfl said:


> You're ignoring price as a factor in competition. Speed isn't the only thing that matters to many consumers. For example in my market area, Spectrum (formerly TWC) has been the local monopoly until now. Metronet is building out here. I pay Spectrum $75/mo for 100/10 service. Metronet will provide 200/200 (their minimum) for $14/mo less. I've already signed up just waiting to be installed. For me 100/10 is perfectly adequate so I'm going with whoever can provide at least that much for less than what Spectrum wants. Admittedly the Metronet price is a promotional rate and I don't know what the post-promotion rate will be. But Metronet also has 500/500 and 1Gbps/1Gbps service and their rates for those compete with Spectrum's 400 Mbps service. Spectrum's response to this competition? They just increased my internet package $5/mo!
> 
> I also think too many consumers are speed junkies. It's like sleek lines, horsepower and 0-60 times in cars. And of course, our marketeers will feed them the hype that they respond to.


Spectrum does seem to be a special kind of stupid when it comes to competition. They seem to be convinced inertia is enough to keep customers around. When AT&T Fiber came to my neighborhood, Spectrum lost 90% of the customers who had access to AT&T. We still get the same promotional offers that they give anyone else, and no deals on their faster speed tiers. Meanwhile I am paying $50/month for Gigabit to AT&T.

Spectrum's prices have little to with having to upgrade to serve data hogs and everything to do with maintaining ARPU, keeping churn rates low, etc.


----------



## slowbiscuit

Data caps exist because there's not enough ISP competition. Period, full stop. Everything else is just noise and the capless spring we went through proved it.


----------



## dlfl

And now let's talk about pharma pricing . No, let's not!


----------



## dlfl

ncted said:


> Spectrum does seem to be a special kind of stupid when it comes to competition. They seem to be convinced inertia is enough to keep customers around. When AT&T Fiber came to my neighborhood, Spectrum lost 90% of the customers who had access to AT&T. We still get the same promotional offers that they give anyone else, and no deals on their faster speed tiers. Meanwhile I am paying $50/month for Gigabit to AT&T.
> 
> Spectrum's prices have little to with having to upgrade to serve data hogs and everything to do with maintaining ARPU, keeping churn rates low, etc.


Spectrum's customer interface in my area is everything you would expect from decades of being a local monopoly. Even the experience of their employees, as evidenced in r/spectrum subreddit is dismal.

Welcome to the bash Spectrum thread!


----------



## ncted

Yeah, we should probably get back to talking about YTTV. The new startup tone is really annoying. Anyone figure out a way to turn it off?


----------



## moyekj

ncted said:


> Yeah, we should probably get back to talking about YTTV. The new startup tone is really annoying. Anyone figure out a way to turn it off?


I was about to ask the same question! There's actually 2 startup sounds for me. One when YouTube TV logo shows up, another when "HOME" is first displayed.


----------



## moyekj

Actually have another YTTV related question as well. I have "Settings--Autoplay on start" option turned off, but whenever I start YTTV on Fire TV 4K it insists on playing whatever I was last playing which is very annoying. What the heck does the "Autoplay on start" option toggle even do if it doesn't control that? The description for the option is "Automatically play one of your top recommendations" which I definitely would not want, but also would like an option to not play anything on startup no matter what I was doing last time I exited.


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> Actually have another YTTV related question as well. I have "Settings--Autoplay on start" option turned off, but whenever I start YTTV on Fire TV 4K it insists on playing whatever I was last playing which is very annoying. What the heck does the "Autoplay on start" option toggle even do if it doesn't control that? The description for the option is "Automatically play one of your top recommendations" which I definitely would not want, but also would like an option to not play anything on startup no matter what I was doing last time I exited.


Yes, that can be annoying. I have not found a setting to control Auto-resume on start. On the AppleTV it will do the same thing, except playback is paused. On Roku, it seems to load the app fresh every time, so it isn't an issue.


----------



## moyekj

Does anyone know if YTTV entitles one to the ad-supported version of CBS All Access? I was able to get access to CBS via YTTV subscription, but looks like CBS All Access is not available using YTTV account?


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Does anyone know if YTTV entitles one to the ad-supported version of CBS All Access? I was able to get access to CBS via YTTV subscription, but looks like CBS All Access is not available using YTTV account?


Yeah afaik they don't give away CBS AA with any cable/satellite/cable OTT subscription.


----------



## moyekj

trip1eX said:


> Yeah afaik they don't give away CBS AA with any cable/satellite/cable OTT subscription.


OK thanks.


----------



## gkottner

I may just be on a long string of luck, but I have had CBS AA on and off for the last year or so and have never had to pay for it. It started with a 30 day free trial (which you can get for the commercial free access) last December and when I cancelled, I got another email offer for another free month which I took in January. After that, I cancelled. Then in April, they had a "COVID" offer that basically gave me 2 more free months. When I cancelled after the 2 months, I got 2 more emails for 2 more free months. Cancelled again. Nothing more until last month when I got a "come back " 30 day free trial. I'll know in a week or so if I get lucky again.

Honestly, I wouldn't pay to subscribe because the only show I really liked was Picard. I do have to admit it was nice watching the CBS shows I record on a delayed basis without commercials and no need to touch the remote once the episode started. I also am curious to see what "The Stand" is like.


----------



## NashGuy

moyekj said:


> Does anyone know if YTTV entitles one to the ad-supported version of CBS All Access? I was able to get access to CBS via YTTV subscription, but looks like CBS All Access is not available using YTTV account?


I read somewhere not long ago that they will soon roll out a new CBS app, probably at the time when they rebrand CBS All Access to Paramount+. Right now, I think the only app associated with CBS is the one for CBS All Access. So that app will change its name to Paramount+ and a completely new CBS app will launch, which they said would be their cable authenticated app for those who pay for CBS via a cable provider. So when that comes along, you'll probably be able to use it with your YTTV credentials. But it will likely only give you access to the shows that air on CBS itself, not all the additional stuff that's part of CBS All Access.


----------



## moyekj

NashGuy said:


> I read somewhere not long ago that they will soon roll out a new CBS app, probably at the time when they rebrand CBS All Access to Paramount+. Right now, I think the only app associated with CBS is the one for CBS All Access. So that app will change its name to Paramount+ and a completely new CBS app will launch, which they said would be their cable authenticated app for those who pay for CBS via a cable provider. So when that comes along, you'll probably be able to use it with your YTTV credentials. But it will likely only give you access to the shows that air on CBS itself, not all the additional stuff that's part of CBS All Access.


Makes sense. I was mildly interested in checking out CBS AA "The Stand" based on Stephen King novel, which is what motivated me to try it. I did sign up for CBS AA a while back via Amazon Channels just to watch "Picard", and once I was done with that I wasn't interested in any other CBS AA exclusive content so cancelled it. I will wait to hear some feedback about "The Stand" and perhaps subscribe long enough to get through that if it's any good.


----------



## trip1eX

I did the $25 for 15 months deal for CBS AA through Sportsline.


----------



## NashGuy

moyekj said:


> Makes sense. I was mildly interested in checking out CBS AA "The Stand" based on Stephen King novel, which is what motivated me to try it. I did sign up for CBS AA a while back via Amazon Channels just to watch "Picard", and once I was done with that I wasn't interested in any other CBS AA exclusive content so cancelled it. I will wait to hear some feedback about "The Stand" and perhaps subscribe long enough to get through that if it's any good.


I've never subbed to CBS AA but was considering it for The Stand. But the reviews aren't very good, so I probably won't. Too much other stuff to watch.


----------



## lparsons21

NashGuy said:


> I've never subbed to CBS AA but was considering it for The Stand. But the reviews aren't very good, so I probably won't. Too much other stuff to watch.


Over the years I've found that the 'reviews' are off target and I end up liking whatever those 'experts' didn't.

The Stand so far is good, not 'must see TV' but good.


----------



## chiguy50

lparsons21 said:


> Over the years I've found that the 'reviews' are off target and I end up liking whatever those 'experts' didn't.
> 
> The Stand so far is good, not 'must see TV' but good.


The key is to find a reviewer(s) whose opinion you trust and/or whose tastes mirror your own.

In evaluating information, ALWAYS vet the source.


----------



## lparsons21

chiguy50 said:


> The key is to find a reviewer(s) whose opinion you trust and/or whose tastes mirror your own.
> 
> In evaluating information, ALWAYS vet the source.


Or I could do what I've been doing for many years and just ignore the critics and other experts. I've been mostly pleasantly surprised with how much I've enjoyed shows/movies that had relatively low ratings and reviews. Of course, there were quite a few real stinkers in the mix too!


----------



## chiguy50

lparsons21 said:


> Or I could do what I've been doing for many years and just ignore the critics and other experts. I've been mostly pleasantly surprised with how much I've enjoyed shows/movies that had relatively low ratings and reviews. Of course, there were quite a few real stinkers in the mix too!


I mostly ignore the "ratings" since they don't convey much useful information. But as a cinephile who despises bad movie-making, I rely heavily (although not exclusively) on the descriptive reviews of my favored critics. Two of the best IMHO are A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis of the New York Times. They are both not only insightful and passionate on the subject but are also very talented writers, which makes their reviews absorbing reading.


----------



## moyekj

Another YTTV outage. It's ridiculous. More outages than Cox ever had... All other streaming services working. YTTV allows me to browse but hangs on any video play.


----------



## pdhenry

I've been watching YTTV all night.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> I've been watching YTTV all night.


me too. My free trial is ending tonight tho.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> Another YTTV outage. It's ridiculous. More outages than Cox ever had... All other streaming services working. YTTV allows me to browse but hangs on any video play.


I see from your previous posts you are using a Fire device. I use a Fire Cube and this sounds exactly like what I've experienced on two occasions recently. Any video (new channel or starting playing a recording) would play audio only for about a half second then stall with spinning circle. In both cases, I found the device was trying to complete a software update. I let it complete the update (in settings) then even after that I had to restart the device, upon which normal YTTV operation was obtained. During these incidents Stats for Nerds would show excellent Connection Speed but no internet activity. What is yours showing? AFAIK this behavior started just within the last several weeks.

It makes you wonder if Amazon and YTTV engineers actually ever use the stuff they design.


----------



## ncted

Yes, we've had the same issue on our FireTV devices. Of course, we've had issues where apps crash Roku devices completely, causing them to reboot. Once the reboot is complete, a software update must complete before we can watch anything. Haven't had similar issues on AppleTV or Shield, but they have their own bugs.


----------



## pdhenry

But not a "YTTV outage," nor "ridiculous" (at least not on the part of YTTV).


----------



## moyekj

dlfl said:


> I see from your previous posts you are using a Fire device. I use a Fire Cube and this sounds exactly like what I've experienced on two occasions recently. Any video (new channel or starting playing a recording) would play audio only for about a half second then stall with spinning circle. In both cases, I found the device was trying to complete a software update. I let it complete the update (in settings) then even after that I had to restart the device, upon which normal YTTV operation was obtained. During these incidents Stats for Nerds would show excellent Connection Speed but no internet activity. What is yours showing? AFAIK this behavior started just within the last several weeks.
> 
> It makes you wonder if Amazon and YTTV engineers actually ever use the stuff they design.


The issue was happening on Fire TV, TS4K and a PC browser, so I presume it was some kind of localized outage. As I mentioned other streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime were working fine at the time so issue was YTTV specific. I tried again about an hour after I posted and it was working again. FWIW I did also report outage issue to YTTV via email before posting here.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> The issue was happening on Fire TV, TS4K and a PC browser, so I presume it was some kind of localized outage. As I mentioned other streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime were working fine at the time so issue was YTTV specific. I tried again about an hour after I posted and it was working again. FWIW I did also report outage issue to YTTV via email before posting here.


Yes, sounds like your issue was YTTV specific. My issue also did not affect other streaming services but it also did not occur on the YTTV iOS app on an iPad. So apparently different issues. Other fire device users have reported the issue I had on reddit so you may run into it at some point.


----------



## moyekj

Any YTTV user have any experience with trying to use YTTV with a VPN to workaround blackout restrictions? There are often NBA Lakers games on NBA TV (a YTTV channel), but due to blackout restrictions at best I can only watch a re-run of the game the next day. And then since it's not a "new" episode, I have to go hunting for it since it doesn't show up under "New in your Library". Looking to see if temporarily enabling a VPN is a possible solution to that issue. Even if it works seems like it may be painful to have to change the zip code code associated with YTTV after enabling VPN which I presume would also have to be done. Not exactly sure how YTTV is identifying how one is in a blackout zone and if it's tied to active zip code you put in or a billing address zip code. To further complicate things I would prefer this on a Fire TV device rather than a PC, but 1 step at a time.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> Any YTTV user have any experience with trying to use YTTV with a VPN to workaround blackout restrictions? There are often NBA Lakers games on NBA TV (a YTTV channel), but due to blackout restrictions at best I can only watch a re-run of the game the next day. And then since it's not a "new" episode, I have to go hunting for it since it doesn't show up under "New in your Library". Looking to see if temporarily enabling a VPN is a possible solution to that issue. Even if it works seems like it may be painful to have to change the zip code code associated with YTTV after enabling VPN which I presume would also have to be done. Not exactly sure how YTTV is identifying how one is in a blackout zone and if it's tied to active zip code you put in or a billing address zip code. To further complicate things I would prefer this on a Fire TV device rather than a PC, but 1 step at a time.


I've noticed that viewing on a Fire Stick (perhaps on a Roku as well) seems to bypass location checks and for example I can watch my local PA stations on a Fire Stick in MD. If I watch on my phone in MD I'm presented with Baltimore market channels. If I go too long without logging in on the phone in my local market (ISTR you have to connect from home every 3 months) I get a message on that device saying that my use (on the phone) might be limited until I log in from my home market. There hasn't been any such timeout on the Fire Stick. No VPN, etc. in use at the MD location.

Use on my Chromebook seems to be inconclusive. Right now in MD I'm seeing PA channels but on other occasions I've seen Baltimore channels.

You're permitted to change your "Home" location twice per year on YTTV. Do you travel out of market often enough that you'd periodically be able to check in in that out-of-market location? Would you be happy watching the locals from that market rather than your own local channels? I'm guessing that establishing a "Home" location somewhere that Lakers games are viewable live would solve your problem, but not without a little rigamarole.


----------



## pdhenry

After seeing PA locals on the Chromebook I closed the YTTV tab in the browser and opened a Google Maps tab to see my MD location. I reopened YTTV in the browser and now I see Baltimore channels. So apparently it's based on whatever location services are active on the device.


----------



## moyekj

On Fire Stick you can explicitly set the location by going to account--Location and changing "Current playback area". Doing that asks you to use a mobile device and go to Settings--Area. So yes, looks like it relies on a mobile device for determining area you are currently in, so you would need to fool that device into thinking you are in a different area to have a chance at working around a blackout. But not sure if a VPN could do that on a mobile phone since it probably uses GPS to locate where you are physically.


----------



## pdhenry

IME, once your Home area is established you can install the app on a Fire Stick anywhere else without the Fire Stick app asking you to confirm your location. 

So you could travel somewhere, change your home area to that location in the smartphone app, then return home and use that location on the Fire Stick (possibly needing to uninstall/reinstall the app). This is how I'm viewing PA channels in MD - I installed the app on the Fire Stick in MD and when it gave me my Home channels by default.


----------



## moyekj

Understood. But I was looking for a workaround to pretend I'm somewhere else even when I'm not.


----------



## pdhenry

My method requires traveling out of the home area once and you can't switch at will, but otherwise I think it accomplishes your objective.


----------



## moyekj

Sigh, inability to play certain YTTV recordings happened yet again today... Same story as before, on multiple clients (Fire TV, TS4K, browser). 2 of the most recent recordings won't play, an older recording from a few hours ago does. Bet if I wait a few hours it will self-correct. Seems very unreliable for me for whatever reason...


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> Sigh, inability to play certain YTTV recordings happened yet again today... Same story as before, on multiple clients (Fire TV, TS4K, browser). 2 of the most recent recordings won't play, an older recording from a few hours ago does. Bet if I wait a few hours it will self-correct. Seems very unreliable for me for whatever reason...


Have you reported the issue to YTTV? I have found their support to be very responsive if you give them a detailed explanation of the problem.


----------



## windracer

moyekj said:


> Any YTTV user have any experience with trying to use YTTV with a VPN to workaround blackout restrictions?





moyekj said:


> But not sure if a VPN could do that on a mobile phone since it probably uses GPS to locate where you are physically.


I tried this a while back so I could watch Browns games here in FL and couldn't get it to work. I use ExpressVPN and tried the client on the Fire TV stick and on my phone and just could not get YTTV to think I was in a different area.

I _was_ able to watch the Browns game on my phone this weekend, streaming from the website, using the ExpressVPN client for iOS to connect through Chicago, however. So yeah it's that geo-location using GPS/WiFi/cell tower instead of IP address that makes it complicated.


----------



## moyekj

windracer said:


> I tried this a while back so I could watch Browns games here in FL and couldn't get it to work. I use ExpressVPN and tried the client on the Fire TV stick and on my phone and just could not get YTTV to think I was in a different area.
> 
> I _was_ able to watch the Browns game on my phone this weekend, streaming from the website, using the ExpressVPN client for iOS to connect through Chicago, however. So yeah it's that geo-location using GPS/WiFi/cell tower instead of IP address that makes it complicated.


Yes after more researching the issue I found mixed responses about effectiveness of VPN with YTTV exactly as you mentioned because of geo-location use. I wouldn't want to watch on my phone even if that can be made to work, though perhaps if using chromecast and casting to big TV that might be viable.


----------



## windracer

That was my next problem ... AirPlay to the Fire TV stick. I went a little down that rabbit hole on Sunday too trying to get the game on the TV from my phone. There are paid apps but I wasn't willing to spend the money for this one game, at least this time. My sister at Amazon says that's a big customer complaint and maybe the hardware team will address it someday.


----------



## dlfl

dlfl said:


> ....... I use a Fire Cube Gen 2 and this sounds exactly like what I've experienced on two occasions recently. Any video (new channel or starting playing a recording) would play audio only for about a half second then stall with spinning circle. In both cases, I found the device was trying to complete a software update. I let it complete the update (in settings) then even after that I had to restart the device, upon which normal YTTV operation was obtained. During these incidents Stats for Nerds would show excellent Connection Speed but no internet activity. What is yours showing? AFAIK this behavior started just within the last several weeks.
> 
> It makes you wonder if Amazon and YTTV engineers actually ever use the stuff they design.


This has now happened 4 times in the last 3 weeks, and the last 2 times had no connection to any pending software update. A restart fixes it. I'm beginning to think it is triggered by something done with another app just prior to launching the YTTV app. I used YTTV for a year prior to this without seeing this, and nothing has changed in my setup.


----------



## windracer

Ugh, so the loss of the Fox Regionals is going to hurt now with hockey starting next week. At least the Lightning will have a lot of national games this season, but I might need to investigate alternatives to YTTV.


----------



## moyekj

windracer said:


> Ugh, so the loss of the Fox Regionals is going to hurt now with hockey starting next week. At least the Lightning will have a lot of national games this season, but I might need to investigate alternatives to YTTV.


I have same issue with Lakers games since regional sports network not on YTTV, and even though NBA TV carries a lot of games I suffer from blackouts. Same thing will go for Ducks games now too. Maybe it's a good thing to be weaned off following these sports teams anyway...


----------



## slowbiscuit

Really don't understand why YTTV and other TV-replacement streamers don't offer a sports tier so that folks who want them pay for them. I can't imagine that the RSN owners would object to this given all the streamer options out there.

fubo is one example that's essentially doing this.


----------



## trip1eX

slowbiscuit said:


> Really don't understand why YTTV and other TV-replacement streamers don't offer a sports tier so that folks who want them pay for them. I can't imagine that the RSN owners would object to this given all the streamer options out there.
> 
> fubo is one example that's essentially doing this.


Fubo is no different than YTTV in that regard.

the reason you don't see this is the same reason you don't see it on cable. The people who own the content don't want it.


----------



## lparsons21

slowbiscuit said:


> Really don't understand why YTTV and other TV-replacement streamers don't offer a sports tier so that folks who want them pay for them. I can't imagine that the RSN owners would object to this given all the streamer options out there.
> 
> fubo is one example that's essentially doing this.


Some do have a sports tier, but even with those only AT&T offers the Fox/Sinclair RSNs. The reason you don't see those with other services is all about pricing. Fox/Sinclair overvalued their channels and their business model was predicated on hiding that fact by insisting they not be in a sports tier but included in other subscription levels thereby making most subscribers pay for it.

Fox/Sinclair has said they will have a standalone app later this year at an unknown but expected high price.


----------



## ncted

I remember when RSNs were an extra on DirecTV in the early 2000s. I honestly cannot say when that changed to be included by default on most packages. The way things are now, it reflects a market paradigm that really doesn't exist any more. They need to update their offerings to match what people actually watch, and sell it as a premium sports offering. Otherwise, more and more MVPDs will drop them altogether like Dish and YTTV have. Sooner or later, they will reach a breaking point, and Sinclair will have to declare bankruptcy in order to renegotiate their contracts with sports leagues.


----------



## zalusky

ncted said:


> I remember when RSNs were an extra on DirecTV in the early 2000s. I honestly cannot say when that changed to be included by default on most packages. The way things are now, it reflects a market paradigm that really doesn't exist any more. They need to update their offerings to match what people actually watch, and sell it as a premium sports offering. Otherwise, more and more MVPDs will drop them altogether like Dish and YTTV have. Sooner or later, they will reach a breaking point, and Sinclair will have to declare bankruptcy in order to renegotiate their contracts with sports leagues.


At least Comcast was nice enough to refund some Sports fees on our last bill because well there is not much sports these days.


----------



## slowbiscuit

lparsons21 said:


> Some do have a sports tier, but even with those only AT&T offers the Fox/Sinclair RSNs.


Ah, thanks. I thought fubo offered them in the higher tier but see that they don't.

The reckoning is coming for these folks.


----------



## Fiber Paladin

Sinclair made a dumb decision to buy these RSN’s, and is now compounding it by making stupid carriage decisions to further irritate cable, satellite, and streaming customers who are already paying ridiculous rates. Let them hold the bag. It is telling the only streaming provider they can come to a deal with right now is AT&T that doesn’t mind burning money.


----------



## windracer

So last night I signed up for AT&T TV, the Choice package ($85+/mo) to get the Sinclair regionals so I could watch the Lightning game and see if maybe I should switch from YTTV to AT&T TV.

Nope.

The Fox Sports Florida/Fox Sports Sun channels freeze about every 30 seconds (even today). Changing channels will unstick it, then it just freezes again. So it was pretty much impossible to watch the game on with the AT&T TV app on my Amazon Fire Stick. No other channels seemed to have this problem (in my limited testing). The app on my iPhone seemed fine though.

You can't pause Live TV ... even if you're recording (you have to explicitly play the recording)! No trickplay on Live TV either (i.e., no channel buffer). The UI of their app is even more confusing than YTTV (although I'll admit this could be because we've adjust to YTTV, but even then my wife still comments she misses the TiVo UI). Only 20 hours of DVR (unless you want to pay $10/mo for 500 hours) and there doesn't seem to be a "record all Lightning games" SportsPass-like feature.

My next YTTV renewal is 1/26, and I have 14 days to cancel AT&T TV for a full refund, so I'll continue to try it out for the next few days, but it's not looking promising.

Going back to Spectrum isn't an option as they only support Roku, no Fire Stick.


----------



## lparsons21

windracer said:


> So last night I signed up for AT&T TV, the Choice package ($85+/mo) to get the Sinclair regionals so I could watch the Lightning game and see if maybe I should switch from YTTV to AT&T TV.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> The Fox Sports Florida/Fox Sports Sun channels freeze about every 30 seconds (even today). Changing channels will unstick it, then it just freezes again. So it was pretty much impossible to watch the game on with the AT&T TV app on my Amazon Fire Stick. No other channels seemed to have this problem (in my limited testing). The app on my iPhone seemed fine though.


I don't have a FireStick or FS Florida so I can't duplicate what you are seeing. But FS Midwest is fine for me on both my ATT TV box and AppleTV using ATT TV. But one thing comes to mind. ATT TV has a higher bitrate than other live streaming services and that may be taxing your WiFi a bit too much. I would try rebooting your router and the FireStick and see if that clears it up.


----------



## mdavej

windracer said:


> So last night I signed up for AT&T TV, the Choice package ($85+/mo) to get the Sinclair regionals so I could watch the Lightning game and see if maybe I should switch from YTTV to AT&T TV.
> 
> Nope.


I agree with everything you said about AT&T. It has many, many issues that have been around since it was in beta. From what I see, development froze years ago. Before you cancel AT&T entirely, just try to cancel a series recording. I'll nominate you for a Nobel prize if you can figure it out on your own.

But wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a couple of Rokus? Spectrum also supports Apple TV, but that's pretty expensive.


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> I agree with everything you said about AT&T. It has many, many issues that have been around since it was in beta. From what I see, development froze years ago. Before you cancel AT&T entirely, just try to cancel a series recording. I'll nominate you for a Nobel prize if you can figure it out on your own.


LOL! I never actually figured it out just accidentally stumbled on it!


----------



## mdavej

lparsons21 said:


> LOL! I never actually figured it out just accidentally stumbled on it!


I guess I should nominate you too since penicillin was also discovered accidentally.


----------



## windracer

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV has a higher bitrate than other live streaming services and that may be taxing your WiFi a bit too much. I would try rebooting your router and the FireStick and see if that clears it up.


I did some more testing and the freezing (again, only on the Fox Sports channels so far) happens on 2 out of my 4 Fire Sticks. I have 4 APs across the house (Unifi) and a pretty robust WiFi network (Nest cameras, mobile devices, etc. right now there are 32 devices connected to the wireless) but it's possible. Signal strength to the two Fire Sticks that have the freezing issue are in line with the other two. Is there a way to see/set/limit the bitrate? Maybe the RSNs are coming in at 4K or something?


----------



## lparsons21

windracer said:


> I did some more testing and the freezing (again, only on the Fox Sports channels so far) happens on 2 out of my 4 Fire Sticks. I have 4 APs across the house (Unifi) and a pretty robust WiFi network (Nest cameras, mobile devices, etc. right now there are 32 devices connected to the wireless) but it's possible. Signal strength to the two Fire Sticks that have the freezing issue are in line with the other two. Is there a way to see/set/limit the bitrate? Maybe the RSNs are coming in at 4K or something?


No way to limit bitrate that I'm aware of. The reason I suggested a reboot of your main router is sometimes their routing tables/caches get a little too full, or at least that was how it was explained to me when I was having a somewhat similar problem as you. The good is that pulling the power on the main router and waiting about 30 seconds has no real downside and might possibly fix your issue.


----------



## trip1eX

There's a reason ATT TV (formerly ATT TV Now and Directv Now) has been losing subscribers every quarter.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> There's a reason ATT TV (formerly ATT TV Now and Directv Now) has been losing subscribers every quarter.


Uh a bit of a correction first. ATT TV until a couple of days ago was not ATT TV Now. The Now product was started with DirecTV and they inherited it.

ATT TV Now lost subscribers because they made a mess of marketing with it. They made big changes to lineups and prices way too often. IMO, they also wanted it to be profitable from the start which placed it at odds with the goal from the consumer at the time being to cut costs. In this same timeframe the other live streamers were taking losses.

ATT TV hasn't been broken out so subscriber losses that may be claimed are mostly guesses. Considering that ATT TV didn't become available nationwide until March of last year those subs are still in their first year with the really good deals that were offered. Now in March this year we'll see whether or not they will lose a ton of subs as the cost more than doubles.

Before they made this latest switch I had figured as the 1st year ended the losses would be huge. Now with the non-contract version that is competitive with others is there, I think that the fallback position will be to allow those people to switch to the new non-contract version with no penalty. We'll know soon.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Uh a bit of a correction first. ATT TV until a couple of days ago was not ATT TV Now. The Now product was started with DirecTV and they inherited it.


Um that's why I said *ATT TV (formerly ATT TV Now and Directv Now) *has been losing subscribers every quarter. 

IN other words I'm talking about the product formerly known as ATT TV Now. There is nothing to be corrected.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Um that's why I said *ATT TV (formerly ATT TV Now and Directv Now) *has been losing subscribers every quarter.


Which is almost right! 

What actually occurred was that ATT TV just changed to contract and non-contract offerings. ATT TV Now is a grandfathered service with only those already subscribed being able to keep it.

I think that the way they did it will end up giving them a reasonable way to just shut it down altogether sometime this year. I really hope they don't though. My Max subscription @$80/month w/HBO and Cinemax and all the channels I actually watch is a good deal. My actual total cost is $89/month as I've added AMC+ to fill the AMC networks hole in the lineup.

That puts it within $9 of what YTTV+HBO would cost me and is less than what YTTV+HBO+Cinemax would cost me.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> ATT TV Now lost subscribers because they made a mess of marketing with it. They made big changes to lineups and prices way too often. IMO, they also wanted it to be profitable from the start which placed it at odds with the goal from the consumer at the time being to cut costs. In this same timeframe the other live streamers were taking losses.
> 
> ATT TV hasn't been broken out so subscriber losses that may be claimed are mostly guesses. Considering that ATT TV didn't become available nationwide until March of last year those subs are still in their first year with the really good deals that were offered. Now in March this year we'll see whether or not they will lose a ton of subs as the cost more than doubles.
> 
> Before they made this latest switch I had figured as the 1st year ended the losses would be huge. Now with the non-contract version that is competitive with others is there, I think that the fallback position will be to allow those people to switch to the new non-contract version with no penalty. We'll know soon.


Well YTTV raised their prices, changed their lineup and their subscribers now are at 3 million or so. And only climbed this year.

ATT TV (formerly known as ATT TV Now) is down to 680kish subscribers and the numbers have only been decreasing.

There is a reason for this beyond marketing.


----------



## Jeeters

Ars Technica has been posting occasional articles on AT&T's streaming services debacle, including this most recent one from a few days ago.

AT&T kills off the failed TV service formerly known as DirecTV Now


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Well YTTV raised their prices, changed their lineup and their subscribers now are at 3 million or so. And only climbed this year.
> 
> ATT TV (formerly known as ATT TV Now) is down to 680kish subscribers and the numbers have only been decreasing.
> 
> There is a reason for this beyond marketing.


You are reading the number wrong, which is easy enough to do.

ATT TV Now lost subs, that's a fact and has been reported.

ATT TV is included with DirecTV and U-Verse in a lump called 'Premium TV'. That lump lost subs, but there is no breakout deeper than that. Some assumptions have been made because DirecTV alone was shedding subs so quickly, but they are just assumptions based on no actual facts.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Which is almost right!
> 
> What actually occurred was that ATT TV just changed to contract and non-contract offerings. ATT TV Now is a grandfathered service with only those already subscribed being able to keep it.
> 
> I think that the way they did it will end up giving them a reasonable way to just shut it down altogether sometime this year. I really hope they don't though. My Max subscription @$80/month w/HBO and Cinemax and all the channels I actually watch is a good deal. My actual total cost is $89/month as I've added AMC+ to fill the AMC networks hole in the lineup.
> 
> That puts it within $9 of what YTTV+HBO would cost me and is less than what YTTV+HBO+Cinemax would cost me.


Well ok I don't know what differences the name change brings. Maybe they have a whole new back end. Maybe a whole new app. They seemed to have slightly adjusted the package/price. I don't think you know either btw regarding the first two items.

But I'm not seeing this move advertised as "newer and better" so I think it is just a name change. I don't even think the ATT TV service was much more than ATT TV Now wrapped up in a 2 yr contract.

So you're mucking up the waters here with irrelevant points.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> You are reading the number wrong, which is easy enough to do.
> 
> ATT TV Now lost subs, that's a fact and has been reported.
> 
> ATT TV is included with DirecTV and U-Verse in a lump called 'Premium TV'. That lump lost subs, but there is no breakout deeper than that. Some assumptions have been made because DirecTV alone was shedding subs so quickly, but they are just assumptions based on no actual facts.


I'm not reading the numbers wrong. YOu are reading my post wrong. IT's clear I am talking about the service formerly known as ATT TV Now because I said as much.

That was the competitor to all these other cable OTT services.

It's now called ATT TV. Is it more than just a name change? Well I'm not sure about that one despite what you say. I haven't seen anything in articles that explains why this new service is so much better than ATT TV Now. So it smells like a name change to me.

And even if it meets some definition of a new service. The pt remains. The no contract service ATT offered previously has been losing subscribers. And there is nothing about the new one or the one with the new name that I can see that will change that. Starting over from zero isn't a good argument for future success either.

also from what I can see the 2 yr contract ATT TV service has gone nowhere. Companies tend to not break out numbers when they aren't favorable.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Well YTTV raised their prices, changed their lineup and their subscribers now are at 3 million or so. And only climbed this year.
> 
> ATT TV (formerly known as ATT TV Now) is down to 680kish subscribers and the numbers have only been decreasing.
> 
> There is a reason for this beyond marketing.


I wanted to address that last sentence separately. Actually marketing is the biggest reason that they have lost customers across the board. While we don't know how well or poorly the ATT TV part of it has done, U-Verse and DirecTV have lost substantial numbers before ATT TV was a product.

Beyond marketing, the other driving factor in slowing growth is the fact that they had so many offerings. Confusion is the best way to describe it. It confuses the consumer and when you talk to AT&T CSR's and sales reps you find out they are just as confused.

Start with 3 streaming products at one point. AT&T Watch TV, TV Now and TV. Each had their own subscription levels and other features as well as a price difference.

Add in that they really didn't market DirecTV much at all, Watch TV came and went and then came back again and ATT TV had the contract. What a mish-mash of products all starting with AT&T!

I was an early negative poster about AT&T's streaming offerings. It was and still is a bit of a mess, their pricing was screwy and that contract just made no sense. The contract still doesn't make sense if you do some numbers. Even the current ATT TV non-contract is a bit higher in cost though it does bring some features that others don't have while also missing some things others do have. And that means that the live streaming market is still in flux, going to be interesting going forward.

A bit off topic, but if I could make myself no care about sports at all I could save significant money. The live streaming services make streaming overall more expensive. I noticed in my DVR I only have OTA recordings and some sports. Nothing else.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> And even if it meets some definition of a new service. The pt remains. The no contract service ATT offered previously has been losing subscribers. And there is nothing about the new one that I can see that will change that.


While I don't have any numbers to back me up, I am seeing lots of posts about Fox/Sinclair RSNs since more sports are lighting up these days. And every one of those posts point to AT&T TV Choice subscription level since it is the least costly way to get them these days.

Going to be interesting to see how much this impacts the market.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> I wanted to address that last sentence separately. Actually marketing is the biggest reason that they have lost customers across the board. While we don't know how well or poorly the ATT TV part of it has done, U-Verse and DirecTV have lost substantial numbers before ATT TV was a product.
> 
> Beyond marketing, the other driving factor in slowing growth is the fact that they had so many offerings. Confusion is the best way to describe it. It confuses the consumer and when you talk to AT&T CSR's and sales reps you find out they are just as confused.
> 
> Start with 3 streaming products at one point. AT&T Watch TV, TV Now and TV. Each had their own subscription levels and other features as well as a price difference.
> 
> Add in that they really didn't market DirecTV much at all, Watch TV came and went and then came back again and ATT TV had the contract. What a mish-mash of products all starting with AT&T!
> 
> I was an early negative poster about AT&T's streaming offerings. It was and still is a bit of a mess, their pricing was screwy and that contract just made no sense. The contract still doesn't make sense if you do some numbers. Even the current ATT TV non-contract is a bit higher in cost though it does bring some features that others don't have while also missing some things others do have. And that means that the live streaming market is still in flux, going to be interesting going forward.
> 
> A bit off topic, but if I could make myself no care about sports at all I could save significant money. The live streaming services make streaming overall more expensive. I noticed in my DVR I only have OTA recordings and some sports. Nothing else.


Well we pretty much know ATT TV has done poorly. OTherwise they would be touting numbers to the rooftops. We can also guess that it has done poorly just by looking at the appeal of the offering. Just that alone was going to doom it.

And again I see nothing to turn it around.

I don't even think the OTT cable service market has a big future. I think it is a stop gap. Every major old media company is now on the streaming bandwagon. Seems like that is where things are moving.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Well we pretty much know ATT TV has done poorly. OTherwise they would be touting it to the rooftops. We can also guess that it has done poorly just by looking at the appeal of the price/channels and 2 yr contract. Just that alone was going to doom it.
> 
> And again I see nothing to turn it around. I don't even think the OTT cable service market has a big future. I think it is a stop gap. Every major old media company is now on the streaming bandwagon.


Actually I think what will disappear or at least get greatly reduced is live streaming services. And that's because the younger folks just don't watch TV the way we do.

We've got two boxes right now that do some level in aggregating the various services. Apple's "up next" strip and Google's new Chromecast. While not good enough yet they are both a step in the direction things will probably take.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> While I don't have any numbers to back me up, I am seeing lots of posts about Fox/Sinclair RSNs since more sports are lighting up these days. And every one of those posts point to AT&T TV Choice subscription level since it is the least costly way to get them these days.
> 
> Going to be interesting to see how much this impacts the market.


Yep but that's natural. IT's not going to amount to anything. For one, the cost is very high. Two, might as we get DTV or stay on DTV or cable because of the cost. Three, the service leaves something to be desired compared to other services. Four, if there is ever a mass exodus to ATT TV because of RSNs then deals will be made elsewhere.

I mean Sling has its niche too but it's also been losing customers. A big reason is the service kind of sucks. IT's clunky to use. And i even have a $10/mo sub to Sling for La Liga (Bein Sports) right now. But it's clunky as all can be.

There is a reason YTTV has gained a lot of customers and might pass Hulu Live soon. IT's a joy to use overall in comparison to the other guys.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> There is a reason YTTV has gained a lot of customers and might pass Hulu Live soon. IT's a joy to use overall in comparison to the other guys.


Boy we don't agree on that at all! 

I've used YTTV, in fact it was what I had before I switched to ATT TV. But the UI is an abomination IMO. The worst possible grid guide, even Hulu's old grid guide was better but not by much. And the intermix of DVR/VOD was something I never liked. I could use it fine, just didn't like it.

ATT TV's UI is much better in most respects but their DVR management is awkward though.

I've got Sling Free and I also use an AirTV OTA DVR which works with Sling. Not the best UI but I think it is better than YTTV's.

But we all have things we like better than others. It is patently obvious you love YTTV. For me it would be fine if ATT TV disappears though I would probably go with Sling since it has all the channels I would care about for less and it works OK for me.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Boy we don't agree on that at all!
> 
> I've used YTTV, in fact it was what I had before I switched to ATT TV. But the UI is an abomination IMO. The worst possible grid guide, even Hulu's old grid guide was better but not by much. And the intermix of DVR/VOD was something I never liked. I could use it fine, just didn't like it.
> 
> ATT TV's UI is much better in most respects but their DVR management is awkward though.
> 
> I've got Sling Free and I also use an AirTV OTA DVR which works with Sling. Not the best UI but I think it is better than YTTV's.
> 
> But we all have things we like better than others. It is patently obvious you love YTTV. For me it would be fine if ATT TV disappears though I would probably go with Sling since it has all the channels I would care about for less and it works OK for me.


But your definition of horrible UI is that there is VoD in recordings. So I can't take you seriously there.

I mean show me a review that says YTTV's UI is the worst. I just googled now and 5 of first the 6 reviews on page one say , under Pros, "intutive interface" ,"Excellent on-screen interface and handy search bar", "Simple and smart menus and organization", "easy to use." and "Excellent interface and navigation." That's CNET, PCMAG, Tomsguide.com, cordcutting.com and reviews.com. REviews.org said nothing in pros or cons about the UI.

I'd be surprised if even one review said the YTTV UI was horrible. OR an abomination.

Just because you didn't like 1 or 2 aspects of YTTV doesn't make its UI horrible. IT is laid out very straight forward and is very intuitive and easy to use and responsive on top of it.

I agree the guide is a weak pt and I've said it a few times in this thread. IT lacks guide data (only has about 6 hrs worth on the tv,) it is a little big (the font is a little big) for a tv screen, there should be fewer clicks needed to record from the guide and, on the AppleTV, it should make proper use of the touchpad to scroll which would make navigating it faster. IT's odd too because the touchpad is used correctly to scroll through the timeline in recordings. Not sure why they don't do that in the guide yet. But i digress.

The guide also has some strong pts. IT has a live thumbnail video of whatever program is playing on each channel. And while the font is perhaps too big, it also means it is easy to see. And the ease of use to add shows to your library through Search becomes what you do instead of using the guide to record so much. PLus you can reorder your channels how you want and hide ones you don't even want to see. At least some of the other don't do that. Maybe all. I forget.

And the guide is fine to use overall. I mean it is responsive enough. EAsy to see. Laid out fine. CAn get info on shows. I guess it is lacking a bit on show info compared to some guides.

SLING is clunky to use. For reasons mentioned many times before as well. Try to fast forward a bunch and it's not good. Sometimes I swear it doesn't work. on the ATV, scrolling forward is messy. IT's either too slow or if you go faster then it sudddenly jumps forward. Slow to load. REcordings mess up too often. They usually work. But when see things mess up a few times each time you have a service for a month or during a free trial it's not a good sign. You can't pause live tv on some channels last I checked. Managing dvr is tedious. Looking at your recordings is tedious. SEason pass stuff is tedious in some respects. I mean I couldn't record just Barcelona FC games. IT was either all La Liga games or manually record each Barcelona game. The problem with recording all is I have 10 hrs of DVR space. I can pay for more but even that amt is pretty low like 50 hrs. It all adds up to clunky.

It does the job tho. I mean all these services are ok. AT the end of the day you can watch your show at least the vast majority of the time. And you can skip commercials on them. They will record stuff. YOu can adapt to clunky methods and get used to them.

But YTTV just the nicest one to use overall.


----------



## lparsons21

You must have missed where i said that was my opinion. So just like all my opinions, they are solely mine and not influenced by opinionators, influencers, tech review clickbait article writers or others.

The guide is way beyond ‘a little big’, it is grotesque! As to the DVR/VOD intermix, yes it sucks IMO, but also yes I figured out to get along with it.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> You must have missed where i said that was my opinion. So just like all my opinions, they are solely mine and not influenced by opinionators, influencers, tech review clickbait article writers or others.
> 
> The guide is way beyond 'a little big', it is grotesque! As to the DVR/VOD intermix, yes it sucks IMO, but also yes I figured out to get along with it.


No but I missed the part where you showed how the YTTV UI is an abomination. Still waiting for that.


----------



## moyekj

The last 2 weeks I only got VOD version of Pen & Teller and Whose Line is It Anyway from CW even though they have been in my Library for a long time and previously I got DVR recordings. They seem like new episodes as well as I've never seen them before. Anyone know why only the VOD versions are available and not DVR on YTTV? The VOD versions are so annoying with the ads it almost makes me not want to watch.


----------



## dlfl

moyekj said:


> The last 2 weeks I only got VOD version of Pen & Teller and Whose Line is It Anyway from CW even though they have been in my Library for a long time and previously I got DVR recordings. They seem like new episodes as well as I've never seen them before. Anyone know why only the VOD versions are available and not DVR on YTTV? The VOD versions are so annoying with the ads it almost makes me not want to watch.


Your situation interested me so I did some poking around. Found that although the web site that shows YTTV channels my zip code should get shows CW, I do not get that local station, only VOD. I then chatted with YTTV support.

TL;DR is that some channels shown in the web site results are VOD only. (!!). I expressed my disappointment with that and the agent sympathized and said she would submit feedback on that. I suggested they at least note the VOD-only status in the web page results.

Now why this just started two weeks ago for you, I don't know. I haven't had any CW programs in my Library so I wouldn't have noticed such behavior. Your post reminded me I like Penn & Teller so I may put that in my Library, in spite of the commercials.

Actually I'm still running a lifetime 4-tuner Roamio on antenna and can record that channel so I could watch it with ability to skip thru commercials. Since I've had YTTV we go for weeks without even watching anything on the TiVo. The only other channel we like and can only get on it is the ME channel and that's not high priority.


----------



## dlfl

trip1eX said:


> No but I missed the part where you showed how the YTTV UI is an abomination. Still waiting for that.


@lparsons21 has given some specifics, for example he doesn't like the live guide grid. As far as it applies to the Fire TV YTTV app, I would have to agree. It only goes out about 7 hours. There is a grid available on Fire devices by exiting the YTTV app. It goes out 12 days or so but is poorly integrated with the YTTV app.

However in making such criticisms it's important to realize the the UI varies depending on what viewing device/app is being used. Apparently the YTTV UI via a browser is better, and goes out 12 days or so. (I haven't used it.) Another feature that varies is the ability to mark episodes as watched. It doesn't exist in the Fire TV YTTV app although it does in some other viewing clients.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> @lparsons21 has given some specifics, for example he doesn't like the live guide grid. As far as it applies to the Fire TV YTTV app, I would have to agree. It only goes out about 7 hours. There is a grid available on Fire devices by exiting the YTTV app. It goes out 12 days or so but is poorly integrated with the YTTV app.
> 
> However in making such criticisms it's important to realize the the UI varies depending on what viewing device/app is being used. Apparently the YTTV UI via a browser is better, and goes out 12 days or so. (I haven't used it.) Another feature that varies is the ability to mark episodes as watched. It doesn't exist in the Fire TV YTTV app although it does in some other viewing clients.


But that doesn't make the YTTV UI an abomination. I don't disagree that the lack of data in the guide sucks. First said so much in this thread over a year ago.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> No but I missed the part where you showed how the YTTV UI is an abomination. Still waiting for that.


That's the thing about opinions, they are more often than not, subjective.

The guide certainly isn't good at all. Fonts way too big, guide width on streaming boxes way too narrow. And yeah, search makes up for some of that and is excellent.

My biggest complaint is the DVR/VOD intermix. I find it awkward and cluttered. You like it apparently. Many others don't and it is usually the first complaint a new user makes when signing up for the service.


----------



## lparsons21

dlfl said:


> @lparsons21 has given some specifics, for example he doesn't like the live guide grid. As far as it applies to the Fire TV YTTV app, I would have to agree. It only goes out about 7 hours. There is a grid available on Fire devices by exiting the YTTV app. It goes out 12 days or so but is poorly integrated with the YTTV app.
> 
> However in making such criticisms it's important to realize the the UI varies depending on what viewing device/app is being used. Apparently the YTTV UI via a browser is better, and goes out 12 days or so. (I haven't used it.) Another feature that varies is the ability to mark episodes as watched. It doesn't exist in the Fire TV YTTV app although it does in some other viewing clients.


I had forgotten about that integrated guide on the FireTV's. I don't use it much because it gets so cluttered with what they integrate even though you can massage the presentation a little.

And yeah, a pet peeve of mine is how the various apps work differently on different boxes. I'm on a seemingly never ending search for the 'one box' to do it all. AppleTV, FireTV and Roku all could be, and for some, actually are.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> That's the thing about opinions, they are more often than not, subjective.
> 
> The guide certainly isn't good at all. Fonts way too big, guide width on streaming boxes way too narrow. And yeah, search makes up for some of that and is excellent.
> 
> My biggest complaint is the DVR/VOD intermix. I find it awkward and cluttered. You like it apparently. Many others don't and it is usually the first complaint a new user makes when signing up for the service.


Another complaint, and it is just behind the DVR/VOD intermix, is that you can't get an episode description until you are actually watching the episode. Kind of defeats the purpose of even having an episode description.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> Another complaint, and it is just behind the DVR/VOD intermix, is that you can't get an episode description until you are actually watching the episode. Kind of defeats the purpose of even having an episode description.


Yeah you're preaching to the choir. Someone compiled everyone's pros and cons of YTTV over a year ago. Nothing new being said.

The UI is still the better the competition overall.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Yeah you're preaching to the choir. Someone compiled everyone's pros and cons of YTTV over a year ago. Nothing new being said.
> 
> The UI is still the better the competition overall.


And of course, that is your subjective opinion. I respect that even if I don't agree with it.

I was with ATT TV's contract service for a few months and wanted to up the sub level to get the Golf channel. But the cost, even in the 1st year discount window, was $40/month more than I was paying and the only channel that it would give me that I wanted was the Golf channel though there was a slew more. So I decided to just eat the ETF and move on. YTTV was at the top of the list to switch to as it represented a fair compromise and did offer the most bang for the buck. But when I called in to cancel and in the discussion they asked what I was going to switch to and I mentioned ATT TV Now Max but that the ETF that I was going to pay just made that not make sense. So they waived the ETF fees and I finished cancelling and moved to ATT TV Now Max. All the channels I wanted, other than the AMC networks stuff, included HBO and Cinemax which I do always sub to and I got the best picture and audio.

YTTV + HBO + Cinemax would cost me the same and while it had way more channels it didn't have any more that I cared about. Since I have the ATT Osprey box and its wonderful remote it is almost like working with a cable/sat box. And on other devices the App works just fine.

This all just goes to say that I could and have used nearly all the live streamers out there at one point in time or another. And exactly none of them are great though some are better than others. Mostly it is that they all have their faults which varies not only between services but between devices you use them on. So it is pick you poison and move on!


----------



## pdhenry

dlfl said:


> As far as it applies to the Fire TV YTTV app, I would have to agree. It only goes out about 7 hours.


Scroll left to the channel icon and select it; you'll be able to access a program listing for that channel which goes out about 24 hours.


----------



## lparsons21

pdhenry said:


> Scroll left to the channel icon and select it; you'll be able to access a program listing for that channel which goes out about 24 hours.


Which is still not anywhere good enough IMO.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> And of course, that is your subjective opinion. I respect that even if I don't agree with it.
> 
> I was with ATT TV's contract service for a few months and wanted to up the sub level to get the Golf channel. But the cost, even in the 1st year discount window, was $40/month more than I was paying and the only channel that it would give me that I wanted was the Golf channel though there was a slew more. So I decided to just eat the ETF and move on. YTTV was at the top of the list to switch to as it represented a fair compromise and did offer the most bang for the buck. But when I called in to cancel and in the discussion they asked what I was going to switch to and I mentioned ATT TV Now Max but that the ETF that I was going to pay just made that not make sense. So they waived the ETF fees and I finished cancelling and moved to ATT TV Now Max. All the channels I wanted, other than the AMC networks stuff, included HBO and Cinemax which I do always sub to and I got the best picture and audio.
> 
> YTTV + HBO + Cinemax would cost me the same and while it had way more channels it didn't have any more that I cared about. Since I have the ATT Osprey box and its wonderful remote it is almost like working with a cable/sat box. And on other devices the App works just fine.
> 
> This all just goes to say that I could and have used nearly all the live streamers out there at one point in time or another. And exactly none of them are great though some are better than others. Mostly it is that they all have their faults which varies not only between services but between devices you use them on. So it is pick you poison and move on!


Just because YTTV is better the competition overall doesn't mean it will meet your needs.

I got Sling. I didn't get it because it was the best. I got it because it has La Liga for cheap.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Just because YTTV is better the competition overall doesn't mean it will meet your needs.
> 
> I got Sling. I didn't get it because it was the best. I got it because it has La Liga for cheap.


YTTV could meet my needs it just didn't save me any money and the overall service isn't quite as good as ATT's IMO.

Sling is the oddity out there. Yeah, it can be cheaper but it isn't always. It only is if you are willing to accept less channels which does make sense for some people. But if you want what is in both Blue and Gold and the Extras then the cost is $70/month vice YTTV's $65 for a similar though not exactly the same channels.


----------



## windracer

Well AT&T TV is going to lose one more subscriber in a few days when I cancel.  Seriously, the inability to pause Live TV is baffling to me. I also ran into problems trying to schedule recordings for the football games today, kept getting a "you cannot record this local channel" when trying to record from search results. Instead I had to scroll through the guide to Fox and CBS and then scroll all the way to find the future games and record them from there. I don't love YTTV like I used to love TiVo, but so far I am disappointed enough with AT&T TV that it's definitely not worth the extra $$$ just to get my two local sports networks.


----------



## lparsons21

windracer said:


> Well AT&T TV is going to lose one more subscriber in a few days when I cancel.  Seriously, the inability to pause Live TV is baffling to me. I also ran into problems trying to schedule recordings for the football games today, kept getting a "you cannot record this local channel" when trying to record from search results. Instead I had to scroll through the guide to Fox and CBS and then scroll all the way to find the future games and record them from there. I don't love YTTV like I used to love TiVo, but so far I am disappointed enough with AT&T TV that it's definitely not worth the extra $$$ just to get my two local sports networks.


I had never tried to record a football game from search before. Just tried and got the same thing you did. Going to the channel and picking the game set recording just fine. Weird and I wonder why.

As to pausing live TV, I think it is because AT&T for whatever reason just doesn't cache much at all on most devices and even on the AppleTV where they do, it isn't much making the pause on live TV worthless.


----------



## mdavej

lparsons21 said:


> As to pausing live TV, I think it is because AT&T for whatever reason just doesn't cache much at all on most devices and even on the AppleTV where they do, it isn't much making the pause on live TV worthless.


YTTV doesn't cache either, yet manages to make it work on the server side. AT&T is simply inept.


----------



## pdhenry

lparsons21 said:


> Which is still not anywhere good enough IMO.


I had meant to add that..


----------



## ncted

I haven't tried AT&T TV, but I will say my wife and I have gotten used to YTTV's UI to the point that visiting someone else's house who still has cable or satellite feels pretty foreign. For us, the guide is only for what is on now on the rare occasions we don't already have something queued up to watch in our Library or some streaming app. To find things to watch in the future, we generally use search. We don't really discover things to watch on live TV based on what is on or forthcoming on live channels, but rather other sources such as blogs, entertainment news websites and magazines, and of course word of mouth. Our complaints about YTTV have become limited to the inability to sort based on recording date/time. VOD has not ever been anything we've had to deal with to this point.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> YTTV could meet my needs it just didn't save me any money and the overall service isn't quite as good as ATT's IMO.
> 
> Sling is the oddity out there. Yeah, it can be cheaper but it isn't always. It only is if you are willing to accept less channels which does make sense for some people. But if you want what is in both Blue and Gold and the Extras then the cost is $70/month vice YTTV's $65 for a similar though not exactly the same channels.


overall YTTV is superior but you just want the exact same cable experience as cable. Including the 2 yr contracts. That's all easier for you to wrap your head around. That's why you went with ATT TV. That's my guess.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> overall YTTV is superior but you just want the exact same cable experience as cable. Including the 2 yr contracts. That's all easier for you to wrap your head around. That's why you went with ATT TV. That's my guess.


You like making lots of assumptions, don't you? 

ATT TV had the right mix of channels, best HD PQ, best audio and the total cost is very slightly cheaper than those same channels via YTTV. And that's the reason I'm with ATT TV. Total cost is $89. Get the same on YTTV $90.

Of course I'm on a now grandfathered subscription level which will end at some future date. When that happens I'll be changing to a different service because the new non-contract subscription lineups would make my cost jump way too much. I would need Ultimate @95, expanded DVR @10, Cinemax @$10, HBO is free for a year. So total on that would be $115.

EDIT: BTW, I'm not on a 2 year contract. New signups can either be no contract or the 2 year deal at different pricing. The contract version also gets the 500 hour DVR included as well as one of the ATT boxes. Non-contract gets 20 hours of DVR and no box, but they can buy one.

My deal was non-contract, no box. But that was with the now defunct ATT TV Now product line.


----------



## lparsons21

ncted said:


> I haven't tried AT&T TV, but I will say my wife and I have gotten used to YTTV's UI to the point that visiting someone else's house who still has cable or satellite feels pretty foreign. For us, the guide is only for what is on now on the rare occasions we don't already have something queued up to watch in our Library or some streaming app. To find things to watch in the future, we generally use search. We don't really discover things to watch on live TV based on what is on or forthcoming on live channels, but rather other sources such as blogs, entertainment news websites and magazines, and of course word of mouth. Our complaints about YTTV have become limited to the inability to sort based on recording date/time. VOD has not ever been anything we've had to deal with to this point.


I don't have an argument with that. I can and have used YTTV, it isn't brain surgery after all! . That said, I still do not like the way their UI works or looks.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> You like making lots of assumptions, don't you?
> 
> ATT TV had the right mix of channels, best HD PQ, best audio and the total cost is very slightly cheaper than those same channels via YTTV. And that's the reason I'm with ATT TV. Total cost is $89. Get the same on YTTV $90.
> 
> Of course I'm on a now grandfathered subscription level which will end at some future date. When that happens I'll be changing to a different service because the new non-contract subscription lineups would make my cost jump way too much. I would need Ultimate @95, expanded DVR @10, Cinemax @$10, HBO is free for a year. So total on that would be $115.


well the strength of att tv is that it is most cable-like cable experience. Also I remember you had some trouble adjusting to how YTTV worked. Issues with some of its different ways on how to do things. I do read between the lines.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> overall YTTV is superior but you just want the exact same cable experience as cable. Including the 2 yr contracts. That's all easier for you to wrap your head around. That's why you went with ATT TV. That's my guess.


BTW, have you actually ever tried ATT TV? If so, your opinions have some weight. If not, it is just hot air based on reading articles/forums on the internet...


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> well the strength of att tv is that it is most cable-like cable experience. Also I remember you had some trouble adjusting to how YTTV worked. Issues with some of its different ways on how to do things. I do read between the lines.


And do read way too much between the lines. ATT TV with their box is very much cable/sat like. Using their app on other boxes, not so much. Fortunately it is consumer's choice. They can get and use the box or not.

EDIT : Yeah, I had some problems when I first got it. Figured it out and it wasn't a problem to get humped up about but it didn't make the UI any better. It is still one of the worst of the bad bunch of streaming TV UI's.


----------



## mdavej

I had AT&T for a couple of years starting at the very beginning of the service. I've had YTTV about a year. As I've posted before, YTTV trumps AT&T overall for me, but it's entirely dependent on what aspects you value most. Here's who I think is best in each category (A = AT&T, Y = Youtube TV):

Sound Quality: A
Picture Quality: A
Sports content: A
Lowest cost per channel: Y
DVR capacity: Y
Recording management: Y
DVR functionality: Y
Trick play: Y
Pause/rewind live TV: Y
Guide: A
Integration with other apps: Y
Voice control: A
User profiles: Y
Favorites list: Y
Most platforms: Y

I personally like the aspects of the UI that lparsons21 hates. I like the VOD/DVR integration because it puts all my shows in one place whether they've actually been recorded or not. I don't like the lack of detail in the guide, but I do like that I can read it from across the room, a sentiment often echoed in the AT&T forums. There are tons of posts over there about AT&T's guide being too small to read. I personally don't share that opinion, but it goes to show that there's a large group who wants a grotesquely gigantic guide.

The ease of use comparison is complicated. If you use the AT&T box, it is hands down the most cable-like streaming experience. It's got channel numbers, a guide button, one-touch record, instant on, the whole nine yards. If you love the cable box paradigm, get AT&T and their box. If you use AT&T's app on some other platform, it loses most of that ease of use edge, mainly due to the limited number of buttons on a streaming remote.

I happen to be very price sensitive. Even as a grandfathered customer, AT&T became too expensive when it went from $35 to $65, surpassing YTTV's $50 price at the time. YTTV since raised their rates to be on par with that grandfathered plan which new customers would now have to pay over $100 for. So AT&T still loses the value proposition by a long shot. It also loses overall in my comparison above in terms of features and functionality.

I completely understand grandfathered customers hanging on to their AT&T plan for dear life. But when that goes away, AT&T is vastly overpriced for what you get.

Lastly, if AT&T happens to be the only provider that carries that one channel you must have, then obviously you have no choice but to open your wallet and go with AT&T. Luckily for me, YTTV has most of my must-have channels.


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV would be better with channel numbers and/or a way to jump to a particular channel in the guide. The best alternative I've found is searching for the particular channel name. You can browse live and upcoming content for that channel but it would be nice to also see related channels (whatever a related channels might be).


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> The ease of use comparison is complicated. If you use the AT&T box, it is hands down the most cable-like streaming experience. It's got channel numbers, a guide button, one-touch record, instant on, the whole nine yards. If you love the cable box paradigm, get AT&T and their box. If you use AT&T's app on some other platform, it loses most of that ease of use edge, mainly due to the limited number of buttons on a streaming remote.
> 
> I completely understand grandfathered customers hanging on to their AT&T plan for dear life. But when that goes away, AT&T is vastly overpriced for what you get.


Like your list, seems about right too.

The box makes a world of difference, that's for sure. ATT TV's app on other devices is good though doing trickplay on the AppleTV using the ATV's remote is a bit of a PITA. But the box is good enough that I switch from the box to AppleTV. I use the AppleTV right now for everything except ATT TV.

And you bet those of us with any grandfathered plans hold on for dear life. Those of us with brains know that at some point in time they will go away. I think ATT is losing money on those subscription versions but also ATT finally realized their streaming offerings were a nightmare to figure out. Streamlining the subscription levels between non-contract and contract just makes sense though I question the real value proposition of having the contract version at all, both because of the cost differential and the sales pitch that needs to be made. There is a reason that no other streaming service has a contract deal.

Going forward who the heck knows what adjustments all these live streamers will have to make as their cost to subscribe keeps rising.

The new subscription levels are much higher than any of the grandfathered versions but they also include channels that those didn't have in many cases. For me the Entertainment level would fit the bill nicely if there was just some way to get the Golf channel either as an app or ala carte`. As they are constructed now I'd have to have Ultimate which is way more than I'm willing to pay now.


----------



## lparsons21

pdhenry said:


> YTTV would be better with channel numbers and/or a way to jump to a particular channel in the guide. The best alternative I've found is searching for the particular channel name. You can browse live and upcoming content for that channel but it would be nice to also see related channels (whatever a related channels might be).


To be fair channel numbers for ATT TV only work with the ATT TV box, they aren't there for their app on other devices. And of course, since nearly no streaming device's remotes have number keys it doesn't really matter if it did have them.


----------



## windracer

lparsons21 said:


> I had never tried to record a football game from search before. Just tried and got the same thing you did. Going to the channel and picking the game set recording just fine. Weird and I wonder why.


Glad it wasn't just me then!


----------



## lparsons21

windracer said:


> Glad it wasn't just me then!


Yeah at least it is a consistent issue.

But search with ATT on the box is strange anyway. Do a voice search for something you know is there, if it doesn't find it do a typed in search and it will. The only thing I can figure out that causes it is that voice search is done via Google and typed in isn't.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> Streamlining the subscription levels between non-contract and contract just makes sense though I question the real value proposition of having the contract version at all, both because of the cost differential and the sales pitch that needs to be made. There is a reason that no other streaming service has a contract deal.


Because AT&T TV isn't just competing against (or even primarily competing against) streaming cable TV services like YTTV and Hulu with Live TV. It's competing against Comcast Xfinity TV and Charter Spectrum TV because AT&T TV is the default, flagship cable TV service that the company sells/bundles with AT&T Fiber home broadband service. (And Comcast, BTW, does offer optional 1- and 2-yr contracts for TV and broadband that lock in discounts that aren't offered if you decide to forego the contract.)

I do think AT&T TV is making a step in the right direction by including a contract-free option as part of the AT&T TV brand as opposed to having a separate brand (AT&T TV Now) for that. IMO, they should go even further and offer a single set of everyday regular prices for each channel package, with RSN fees included for those packages which include those channels. And then offer an optional 1-yr contract that scores you one free AT&T streaming box, 1 or 2 free years of the $10/mo expanded cloud DVR service (500 hours vs. the free 20 hours), and a 1-yr price lock for the duration of the contract period. And if you bundle AT&T TV with AT&T home internet and take the 1-yr contact too, you get an ongoing bundle discount (which in the past has been $10/mo at AT&T but is $20/mo at Comcast).


----------



## lparsons21

We’ve been cussing and discussing the various live streaming services for quite a long time now. I know that AT&T wants their product to be seen as the competitor to cable/sat and not to other streamers. The problem is that from a consumer point of view that isn’t how they view it.

What most of us have figured out a long time ago is that if the live streamers offer packages quite similar to what cable/sat offer then the price differential will most likely be caused by not having the devices to rent. And that means that some of the live streaming prices will probably rise some more to accomplish that. AT&T TV’s current live streaming sub levels are about there now.

Going forward, as the younger folks become the dominant consumers of streaming services, and they do not watch TV the way many of us do now, the live streamers will start to fall by the wayside. We’re already seeing that being addressed somewhat now. HBO Max, Peacock, CBS:All Access and others are changing the market.

And even though I’m certainly not in the ‘younger crowd’ I could drop live streamers altogether if I could get past the sports issue.


----------



## pdhenry

lparsons21 said:


> To be fair channel numbers for ATT TV only work with the ATT TV box, they aren't there for their app on other devices. And of course, since nearly no streaming device's remotes have number keys it doesn't really matter if it did have them.


I recall that the Xfinity app has channel numbers but I don't remember how they make much use of them. I think you can pull up an onscreen menu to enter a channel number, or search by name as you can elsewhere.


----------



## dlfl

This thread has rivaled, maybe even excelled, over the r/Youtubetv subreddit as a place for detailed and intelligent discussion of YTTV! I’m not aware of any other forum that competes with those two.

This quality of discussion explains why some of us who no longer use TiVo (or in my case, hardly ever use it) keep reading and participating here.


----------



## zalusky

dlfl said:


> This thread has rivaled, maybe even excelled, over the r/Youtubetv subreddit as a place for detailed and intelligent discussion of YTTV! I'm not aware of any other forum that competes with those two.
> 
> This quality of discussion explains why some of us who no longer use TiVo (or in my case, hardly ever use it) keep reading and participating here.


Yep I am appreciative of the pro/con conversation. Right now the Comcast world still works for me but if I lose the lifetime Roamio setup I have now I will definitely have to rethink things. One approach may be to use streaming access to Xfinity services. I am reticent to introduce a dozen different access methods to the WAF game: OTA/Locast/YTTV/Sling/individual streaming apps.

Right now everything the wife does is in the Comcast channel world and the nighttime entertainment is managed by me in the streaming app world.

I created a rough spreadsheet for my area (we dont have simple and easy). Anybody have corrections?


----------



## windracer

I watched/am watching both football games today on AT&T TV. Video quality was excellent but again, no pausing Live TV and then catching up to live after halftime. I've recorded both as well to the cloud DVR so I'll check those out as well. Never had a freeze during either game. Switched to Fox Sports Florida, and it froze within 30 seconds. Definitely _not _my internet.


----------



## lparsons21

windracer said:


> I watched/am watching both football games today on AT&T TV. Video quality was excellent but again, no pausing Live TV and then catching up to live after halftime. I've recorded both as well to the cloud DVR so I'll check those out as well. Never had a freeze during either game. Switched to Fox Sports Florida, and it froze within 30 seconds. Definitely _not _my internet.


Something odd was going on with ATT TV today. I noticed that the audio on the Golf channel was lower than it has been and just different, not quite garbled but close to that.

And I also got a message from a friend that one of the other RSN's was having issues. I checked my FS Midwest and it was fine. Since the football games came in as they should have it seems it must have either been something odd at ATT TV or from the feed they get from Sinclair.


----------



## mdavej

lparsons21 said:


> To be fair channel numbers for ATT TV only work with the ATT TV box, they aren't there for their app on other devices. And of course, since nearly no streaming device's remotes have number keys it doesn't really matter if it did have them.


I don't remember if I posted this before. But there was about a 2 week period during one of the betas where AT&T's Fire version of the app had channel numbers. This was a month or so before the first Osprey beta. So I assume it's still in the code somewhere but simply hidden for all hardware except the Osprey. There was even a setting to order the guide by name or by number.

Since the Fire remote has no channel numbers, the only way I could enter the numbers was to connect a bluetooth qwerty keyboard with numbers. The numbers didn't do anything unless you were in the guide. And even then, they would only jump to that channel in the guide. You still had to press OK to actually tune the channel.


----------



## lparsons21

Just some tidbits about the AT&T TV Osprey box.

1. The remote is very similar to cable/sat remotes and certainly makes using AT&T TV’s service much more enjoyable.
2. The box does support 4K but only for a couple of apps. Netflix is one of them.
3. The box also supports Atmos though they don’t list it as a feature. Unfortunately so far the only thing that was done with Atmos on it was the WW84 movie on HBO Max. Nothing else. No rhyme or reason as to why that is so.
4. Amazon Prime app is now available in the Play Store for installation. That just happened a few days ago. Prior to that sideloading it worked fine.
5. Hulu is not there and the current versions of Hulu will not work on the box if you sideload it. Version 2.1.3 is the last known version to work. This was the last version that doesn’t have profiles. Hulu+Live won’t work nor will any added ‘channels’.

As with all other streaming boxes, trickplay with voice is hit or miss depending on which app you are using at the time.

Apple’s TV app is not yet available though it has been announced it is coming to ‘some’ AndroidTV based boxes though exactly which ones has not been announced.


----------



## trip1eX

Yeah I got a few free Apple TVs from att a few years back when the DTV NOW ATV promo was running. Service just wasn’t good. Never looked back. 

I didn’t even have YTTV then. I had TiVo.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I got a few free Apple TVs from att a few years back when the DTV NOW ATV promo was running. Service just wasn't good. Never looked back.
> 
> I didn't even have YTTV then. I had TiVo.


I did that too and at the time didn't care for it either. Don't remember exactly why though.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> but it would be nice to also see related channels (whatever a related channels might be).


Swipe down (or press down on the dpad.) Maybe you have to do it twice. But you see related channels and/or your most recent channels. and then you as you scroll over them you see the live feed thumbnail image.


----------



## trip1eX

YTTV just has a freedom to it like Netflix or other direct to consumer streaming service. That's what sets it apart from the other services. The lack of maintenance plus responsiveness. The rest overall is as good or better than the competition. 

If I knew someone that wanted the cable tv experience just like cable tv then I would recommend cable tv. 

btw, shouldn't the acronym be ATTV? TAke a cue from Directv. Maybe steal some unaware consumers from YTTV.

Also the Osprey box is a dead end box. I don't see it sticking around. Competition is too strong and more universal.


----------



## lparsons21

trip1eX said:


> YTTV just has a freedom to it like Netflix or other direct to consumer streaming service.
> 
> If I knew someone that wanted the cable tv experience just like cable tv then I would recommend cable tv.
> 
> btw, shouldn't it be called ATTV? TAke a cue from Directv. Maybe steal some unaware consumers from YTTV.
> 
> Also the Osprey box is a dead end box. I don't see it sticking around.


YTTV is exactly like every other live streaming service. It has a channel lineup, a price and a UI. It also has advantages and disadvantages.

If I knew someone that wanted a cable tv experience I would look at the choices. Which is cheaper, streaming or cable, which has the channels I want and so forth. But you like to key in on that because AT&T has a service that can be more directly compared to that if you use their box. But it isn't even the biggest selling point.

Take my situation. I have the channels I want and the other services, like HBO and so forth, that I want with the best picture and sound for the same price as I would have to pay for the same setup with YTTV. Yeah, YTTV has more channels, but if I don't care about those more channels then they have no value to me. Unlimited DVR? Great selling point but I've never had a service where I actually needed more than they offer, so not such a big value to me.

As to what it should be called? Who cares? Call it a ham sandwich if it makes you feel better!! 

The Osprey box isn't a dead end box though it is due for an upgrade in power. It is a good streaming box even if you don't use AT&T's TV service though it is a bit overpriced for that. The remote itself makes it stand apart from other streaming boxes.


----------



## ncted

lparsons21 said:


> Call it a ham sandwich if it makes you feel better!!


I propose we all start calling AT&T TV "Ham Sandwich" from now on. It is both more appetizing and easier to say than "t and t t." Maybe AT&T will recognize the benefits as well and switch to our way of doing things. It would probably result in more visible marketing than they have achieved for the vMVPD thus far.


----------



## lparsons21

ncted said:


> I propose we all start calling AT&T TV "Ham Sandwich" from now on. It is both more appetizing and easier to say than "t and t t." Maybe AT&T will recognize the benefits as well and switch to our way of doing things. It would probably result in more visible marketing than they have achieved for the vMVPD thus far.


Absolutely no doubt that AT&T made a marketing mess out of their offerings. But then making a marketing mess out of things isn't new to AT&T, is it? 

Oh yeah, here's another reason tell someone to sign up with AT&T TV. Want Fox/Sinclair RSNs? Only Ham Sandwich, formerly ATT TV, has them.


----------



## trip1eX

lparsons21 said:


> YTTV is exactly like every other live streaming service. It has a channel lineup, a price and a UI. It also has advantages and disadvantages.


God help me. lol.


----------



## dlfl

lparsons21 said:


> YTTV is exactly like every other live streaming service. It has a channel lineup, a price and a UI. It also has advantages and disadvantages.
> ..............





trip1eX said:


> God help me. lol.


I share your LOL. Must be a good name for that... oxymoron? Non sequiter? A new category: Those things that are exactly alike but have advantages and disadvantages. 

Let's try an example: Trump and Biden are exactly alike; they both were elected President. They also have advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## lparsons21

dlfl said:


> I share your LOL. Must be a good name for that... oxymoron? Non sequiter? A new category: Those things that are exactly alike but have advantages and disadvantages.


Or just a brain fart! 

So not exactly alike, but a lot alike. They all have live channels of varying numbers and content, they all have a UI that we like to argue about, and they all suffer from being overpriced in some ways since the rerun material is mostly available for free or much lower cost somewhere else.

The strengths of the live streamers is live events, sports, news and convenience. The weakness they all share is that we are paying for mostly rerun material except during prime time. Notably the broadcast channels seem to have more original scripted stuff during the day than do the cable channels. If it wasn't for the sports I want to watch I could go to on demand services for most everything. I've got a perfectly good antenna and OTA DVR and get all my local stations.


----------



## dlfl

lparsons21 said:


> Or just a brain fart!


No problem. To fart is to be human!


lparsons21 said:


> So not exactly alike, but a lot alike. They all have live channels of varying numbers and content, they all have a UI that we like to argue about, and they all suffer from being overpriced in some ways since the rerun material is mostly available for free or much lower cost somewhere else.
> 
> The strengths of the live streamers is live events, sports, news and convenience. The weakness they all share is that we are paying for mostly rerun material except during prime time. Notably the broadcast channels seem to have more original scripted stuff during the day than do the cable channels. If it wasn't for the sports I want to watch I could go to on demand services for most everything. I've got a perfectly good antenna and OTA DVR and get all my local stations.


But there are live streamers that provide the broadcast channels, e.g., YTTV. And not everyone has good OTA access to them. And the weakness of paying for mostly rerun materials applies equally to most cable TV packages. YTTV is not just a live streamer. It provides a lot of VOD. Cable TV provides different packages - YTTV has various add-on packages. Regardless of the delivery medium, most people are paying for content they don't want in order to get what they do want - that's the nature of the content marketplace. And everyone thinks they're paying too much! With the dropping of RSN's by most streaming services, cable TV has the edge on sports content - but that's temporary. It's all a function of pricing and marketing, and it will change.


----------



## lparsons21

dlfl said:


> But there are live streamers that provide the broadcast channels, e.g., YTTV. And not everyone has good OTA access to them. And the weakness of paying for mostly rerun materials applies equally to most cable TV packages. YTTV is not just a live streamer. It provides a lot of VOD. Cable TV provides different packages - YTTV has various add-on packages. Regardless of the delivery medium, most people are paying for content they don't want in order to get what they do want - that's the nature of the content marketplace. And everyone thinks they're paying too much! With the dropping of RSN's by most streaming services, cable TV has the edge on sports content - but that's temporary. It's all a function of pricing and marketing, and it will change.


Yes, we have been paying for lots of things we either don't care about and don't watch, that's the carryover that live streamers have from cable/sat. Having broadcast channels in the mix with a streamer brings about a minimum of $12 cost to the mix. And since there is no legal requirement for streamers to carry them at all you'd think that someone could come up with a local tier. Locast is step in that direction but isn't in a whole lot of places yet.

The Fox/Sinclair RSNs are the big problem these days, only AT&T has decided to keep them in their streaming products. Supposedly Sinclair/Ballys will be bringing a direct to consumer app to market but with Sinclair's history of overvaluing their RSNs I suspect the price will be scary.

At some point we'll see the live streamers either fade away or some other change. As I've said before, if it wasn't for live sports and events you can get virtually everything else in other ways. And example would be the broadcast series. Hulu has next day of most of them from NBC/Fox/ABC/FX now, CBS:All Access does the same with CBS series, and both Hulu & CBS:All Access have some originals and archives to sweeten the deal. And there are other services filling almost all the holes. What's missing with that solution is convenience.


----------



## lparsons21

Oh yeah, VOD. YTTV does have a really good selection of VOD, but so does AT&T. On both it seems they have VOD for all the channels they have. Of course the issue for some with VOD is that they have non-skippable ads.


----------



## ncted

Honestly, if I could get YTTV functionality (or similar) with only locals, I'd be happy. Virtually everything else we watch is on Netflix, Prime, Hulu, HBOmax, YouTube, CBS AA, and Disney+. The only exception to that is F1 races, but there is a streaming service just for those.


----------



## Steve

ncted said:


> Honestly, if I could get YTTV functionality (or similar) with only locals, I'd be happy. Virtually everything else we watch is on Netflix, Prime, Hulu, HBOmax, YouTube, CBS AA, and Disney+.


Can you get decent OTA access where you live?


----------



## moyekj

Sometimes it feels like I'm the only one that has problems with YTTV. Latest issue was last night's recording of Lakers versus Warriors on TNT. Playing it back this morning the stream during play would randomly just spin circles for a little bit and either stop playing or weirdly just start playing another unrelated NBA game! And for a lot of the time I watched the title of the recording was the wrong game. At some points it would also just randomly jump to the end of the recording showing post-game highlights. I usually use the phone to report such screwed up recordings since it has an easy "..." function for reporting a problem with pre-canned problem selections. However I have yet to ever receive any feedback from Google on any of the reported shows. Most often the issue is I can't start playing a recording at all until a day later and I've been trying to report all of those, again without any feedback ever.

I'm also still very annoyed by the GUI at times with so many button presses required to play recordings. When starting playback of a show from LIBRARY view it takes many "back" presses to get back to the top of LIBRARY from where to select another show to play. Surely there should be an easier way. I wish there was a 1 button press to take me to top of LIBRARY.


----------



## trip1eX

moyekj said:


> Sometimes it feels like I'm the only one that has problems with YTTV. Latest issue was last night's recording of Lakers versus Warriors on TNT. Playing it back this morning the stream during play would randomly just spin circles for a little bit and either stop playing or weirdly just start playing another unrelated NBA game! And for a lot of the time I watched the title of the recording was the wrong game. At some points it would also just randomly jump to the end of the recording showing post-game highlights. I usually use the phone to report such screwed up recordings since it has an easy "..." function for reporting a problem with pre-canned problem selections. However I have yet to ever receive any feedback from Google on any of the reported shows. Most often the issue is I can't start playing a recording at all until a day later and I've been trying to report all of those, again without any feedback ever.
> 
> I'm also still very annoyed by the GUI at times with so many button presses required to play recordings. When starting playback of a show from LIBRARY view it takes many "back" presses to get back to the top of LIBRARY from where to select another show to play. Surely there should be an easier way. I wish there was a 1 button press to take me to top of LIBRARY.


I actually chase-watched the lakers-warriors last night on YTTV. ZEro problems. (i'm on another free trial lol. )

You do have to press the menu button quite a few times to go all the way back up to the 3 tabs. Could be done better. But it is at least consistent and straightforward.

The UI was made for mobile first. On Mobile the 3 tabs at the top (Libary, Home and Live) can be accessed anytime with a touch. On MObile the Live tab only shows what is live and only about 5 channels at a time.

They moved that code to the tv and only made minor adjustments. I can only guess that their thinking was people would cast it to the tv when they wanted it on the tv. And of course lots of money saved by using the same design with minor adjustments. But that means you have to hit the back button quite a few times to go back to those 3 tabs if you are watching a show.

So it's got some idiosyncrasies because of that. But it is a simple, straight forward and responsive design because of it as well.


----------



## Goldenboy59

I did a test drive of YTTV a few months back and found it to be adequate - not nearly as functional as TIVO of course. I’m planning to leave Spectrum in a couple of weeks as I am at the end of my promo contract. I am fatigued by all the TIVO equipment (HD failures; cable cards, tuning adapters, etc.) so have been studying my live streaming options. Because YTTV dropped NESN I can’t consider them. It is alarming how suddenly these companies drop channels without notice. I am looking at FUBO. They are purportedly a sports oriented service yet they dumped Turner when they picked up ESPN. Turner carries March Madness, NBA, and MLB. I would need to add Sling Blue just to fill that void. Has anyone tried FUBO in recent weeks?


----------



## ncted

Steve said:


> Can you get decent OTA access where you live?


Sadly, no. Otherwise, I'd get a Tablo. I used to have a Recast, but the repack ruined my reception, which was just good enough prior to the repack.


----------



## trip1eX

Goldenboy59 said:


> I did a test drive of YTTV a few months back and found it to be adequate - not nearly as functional as TIVO of course. I'm planning to leave Spectrum in a couple of weeks as I am at the end of my promo contract. I am fatigued by all the TIVO equipment (HD failures; cable cards, tuning adapters, etc.) so have been studying my live streaming options. Because YTTV dropped NESN I can't consider them. It is alarming how suddenly these companies drop channels without notice. I am looking at FUBO. They are purportedly a sports oriented service yet they dumped Turner when they picked up ESPN. Turner carries March Madness, NBA, and MLB. I would need to add Sling Blue just to fill that void. Has anyone tried FUBO in recent weeks?


Yeah I've used it recently IT's alright. There is a Fubo thread.

I think the major downside was unreliability with recordings tho. The UI had a few things better than YTTV, but overall YTTV still had the least amt of friction between the user and what the user wants to do.

and check your local channel lineup. Fubo has more holes in that compared to YTTV. I think it might be missing CBS or something.


----------



## Goldenboy59

trip1eX said:


> Yeah I've used it recently IT's alright. There is a Fubo thread.
> 
> I think the major downside was unreliability with recordings tho. The UI had a few things better than YTTV, but overall YTTV still had the least amt of friction between the user and what the user wants to do.
> 
> and check your local channel lineup. Fubo has more holes in that compared to YTTV. I think it might be missing CBS or something.


It has all my locals though ABC appears to be a National feed. What are you referring to regarding unreliability in recordings?


----------



## lparsons21

Goldenboy59 said:


> It has all my locals though ABC appears to be a National feed. What are you referring to regarding unreliability in recordings?


I don't think it is anything to get worried about as I've seen complaints about recordings getting missed or recording the wrong thing for nearly every live streamer. IMO, it seems to be relatively rare.

One thing that YTTV does is do some auto-padding of sports I've been told. Unfortunately I've not read many posts about that and it seems that well it works is hit or miss.


----------



## pl1

Goldenboy59 said:


> NESN I can't consider them. It is alarming how suddenly these companies drop channels without notice. I am looking at FUBO. They are purportedly a sports oriented service yet they dumped Turner when they picked up ESPN. Turner carries March Madness, NBA, and MLB. I would need to add Sling Blue just to fill that void. Has anyone tried FUBO in recent weeks?


I'm on my second month using Fubo. Currently, I'm on the STANDARD PLAN for $60/mo with only 30 hrs DVR plus the ̶S̶P̶O̶R̶T̶S̶ fubo Extra addon to get the NHL channel for $8/mo. Now that I have been on the service long enough to figure out what is going on, I find the service acceptable. I too need NESN, and only Fubo for $65/mo and AT&T TV for $85/mo offer NESN. (I no longer see the $60/mo plan being offered on Fubo.)

The DVR is as finicky as it can be, but I've learned that if I follow some rules, it is acceptable.

If I'm chasing a recording, it normally requires that the game is still actually playing live. It does not matter if Fubo "says" it is "live" under RECORDINGS, the game must still actually be in progress. If an error comes up at anytime while FF/Skipping, you must EXIT to save your place (instead of RETRY). If you come back and it still will not play, you have to wait until the program says "NEWLY RECORDED". Then you have access to the whole game with no problems. I've learned to chase games as close to live as possible and that seems to work best.

Following these procedures, I have not missed a single game. I say this, because in the first Month of use, I was consistently deleting games that I thought were lost because I would try to play them while Fubo listed them as "Live" in the RECORDINGS area, I would try to start them or retry them, and I would get an error. So, I thought the recording was junk. For some reason, Fubo needs like an hour or two to finalize a DVR recording after the game is done.

The interface is radically different from device to device. The only device I'm aware of that has thumbnails is the Roku (maybe Apple too?) But, the thumbnails never actually showed up on the Roku for me, and the skip forward and back is 10 seconds, which is too small. The best device for me using Fubo is the TS4K. It skips 15 sec forward and back, and a long hold on the same D-Pad key gives you FF/RW. The app on the Samsung TV is terrible. The Fire TV app is OK, but it requires different keys for skip than for FF/RW.

That said, if you can get by with out NESN, I think Sling TV Blue $30/mo with the sports addon for $10/mo is a good cheaper alternative for Hockey. You get NBC, NBCSN and the NHL Channel. If Fubo loses NESN, that is where I will be going. And when Hockey season is over, I will move to Sling TV, even though I'm not crazy about their service.

Edit: Where I wrote SPORTS s/b fubo Extra which includes the NHL channel as well.


----------



## pl1

lparsons21 said:


> One thing that YTTV does is do some auto-padding of sports I've been told. Unfortunately I've not read many posts about that and it seems that well it works is hit or miss.


Fubo does do auto-padding of sports too.


----------



## trip1eX

Goldenboy59 said:


> It has all my locals though ABC appears to be a National feed. What are you referring to regarding unreliability in recordings?


It missed a few recordings (large chunks of recordings) in a short period of time. As someone said above, maybe some of it was an idiosyncrasy of Fubo. Something that you can avoid once you learn how to step around it.

Also reading above, yeah I think the thumbnails for fast forwarding weren't always present on the ATV. It made fast forwarding not that great.

It wasn't as easy/slick as YTTV overall. I think maybe it only had 10 sec skip forward too?

But it works overall. And you don't have to get married to it. You can do a free trial even.


----------



## Goldenboy59

pl1 said:


> I'm on my second month using Fubo. Currently, I'm on the STANDARD PLAN for $60/mo with only 30 hrs DVR plus the SPORTS addon to get the NHL channel for $8/mo. Now that I have been on the service long enough to figure out what is going on, I find the service acceptable. I too need NESN, and only Fubo for $65/mo and AT&T TV for $85/mo offer NESN. (I no longer see the $60/mo plan being offered on Fubo.)
> 
> The DVR is as finicky as it can be, but I've learned that if I follow some rules, it is acceptable.
> 
> If I'm chasing a recording, it normally requires that the game is still actually playing live. It does not matter if Fubo "says" it is "live" under RECORDINGS, the game must still actually be in progress. If an error comes up at anytime while FF/Skipping, you must EXIT to save your place (instead of RETRY). If you come back and it still will not play, you have to wait until the program says "NEWLY RECORDED". Then you have access to the whole game with no problems. I've learned to chase games as close to live as possible and that seems to work best.
> 
> Following these procedures, I have not missed a single game. I say this, because in the first Month of use, I was consistently deleting games that I thought were lost because I would try to play them while Fubo listed them as "Live" in the RECORDINGS area, I would try to start them or retry them, and I would get an error. So, I thought the recording was junk. For some reason, Fubo needs like an hour or two to finalize a DVR recording after the game is done.
> 
> The interface is radically different from device to device. The only device I'm aware of that has thumbnails is the Roku (maybe Apple too?) But, the thumbnails never actually showed up on the Roku for me, and the skip forward and back is 10 seconds, which is too small. The best device for me using Fubo is the TS4K. It skips 15 sec forward and back, and a long hold on the same D-Pad key gives you FF/RW. The app on the Samsung TV is terrible. The Fire TV app is OK, but it requires different keys for skip than for FF/RW.
> 
> That said, if you can get by with out NESN, I think Sling TV Blue $30/mo with the sports addon for $10/mo is a good cheaper alternative for Hockey. You get NBC, NBCSN and the NHL Channel. If Fubo loses NESN, that is where I will be going. And when Hockey season is over, I will move to Sling TV, even though I'm not crazy about their service.


NESN is non-negotiable. It is a must have. YTTV dumped NESN or else I'd go with them. Why FUBO dropped Turner is a complete mystery to me. Turner is also a must have for me and I'll need to add Sling Blue for that. I'm going to give FUBO a test drive and just hope I can live without the thumbnails while chasing recordings - which I do all the time with TIVO.


----------



## trip1eX

Goldenboy59 said:


> NESN is non-negotiable. It is a must have. YTTV dumped NESN or else I'd go with them. Why FUBO dropped Turner is a complete mystery to me. Turner is also a must have for me and I'll need to add Sling Blue for that. I'm going to give FUBO a test drive and just hope I can live without the thumbnails while chasing recordings - which I do all the time with TIVO.


They dumped Turner when they brought ESPN on board. ESPN wasn't on Fubo until last summer.

I guess it was more odd for them to be about sports and not have ESPN than to not have Turner. And I guess they felt they didn't want to keep Turner and raise the price even more. Maybe the cost of Turner wasn't a good bang for the buck for them.


----------



## pl1

Goldenboy59 said:


> NESN is non-negotiable. It is a must have. YTTV dumped NESN or else I'd go with them. Why FUBO dropped Turner is a complete mystery to me. Turner is also a must have for me and I'll need to add Sling Blue for that. I'm going to give FUBO a test drive and just hope I can live without the thumbnails while chasing recordings - which I do all the time with TIVO.


One other thing about Fubo that I find superior to any other streaming service I've tried is how they handle sports when looking for upcoming events. (Since there is not a way to follow a team or a league currently, this is a good substitute, although it does require a little more hands on work.) You can select a sport or all sports to see what is upcoming. If you select a sport (i.e. Hockey) you can select all leagues, or a specific league (i.e. NHL, College, etc.). From there, you select what you want to record for the next week. While I like having my team followed for its ease of use, I also like this method just as much.


----------



## pl1

Goldenboy59 said:


> NESN is non-negotiable. It is a must have. YTTV dumped NESN or else I'd go with them. Why FUBO dropped Turner is a complete mystery to me. Turner is also a must have for me and I'll need to add Sling Blue for that. I'm going to give FUBO a test drive and just hope I can live without the thumbnails while chasing recordings - which I do all the time with TIVO.


One other thing with NHL Hockey, the commercials are exactly 90 seconds apart, so 6 X 15 sec skip. (College hockey is 1 min. apart). The periods are exactly 20 minutes apart, so you can watch the progress bar for that. This works out fine for me.


----------



## mdavej

windracer said:


> I watched/am watching both football games today on AT&T TV ... no pausing Live TV and then catching up to live after halftime.


This was my experience as well. But when I repeated it on another forum, another poster claimed he could pause live tv for at least 2 minutes. He confirm it was still impossible to ffwd/rew. Would you mind testing 5, 10, 30 minutes to see how big the buffer actually is? Back when I had AT&T after pausing a minute or two, the buffer got full and it would jump to live when you resumed.

@lparsons21, if you know the answer, it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## lparsons21

mdavej said:


> This was my experience as well. But when I repeated it on another forum, another poster claimed he could pause live tv for at least 2 minutes. He confirm it was still impossible to ffwd/rew. Would you mind testing 5, 10, 30 minutes to see how big the buffer actually is? Back when I had AT&T after pausing a minute or two, the buffer got full and it would jump to live when you resumed.
> 
> @lparsons21, if you know the answer, it would be greatly appreciated.


Using the Osprey box you can pause/rewind/ff but it is only for a couple minutes. When I did a little rewind and then tried to pause again, it said it couldn't because the buffer was full.

So the short answer is that there is no effective pause/ff/REW for a live show.

For a recording on the Osprey box you can pause/REW/ff just fine. Don't know on other devices.


----------



## pdhenry

moyekj said:


> Sometimes it feels like I'm the only one that has problems with YTTV.


Did you previously mention that you're using a Fire Stick?

My friend had a lot of issues with her Fire Stick (several apps, not just YTTV) connected via a FIOS modem/router. When she switched to a new router that she had bought her problems went away.


----------



## moyekj

pdhenry said:


> Did you previously mention that you're using a Fire Stick?
> 
> My friend had a lot of issues with her Fire Stick (several apps, not just YTTV) connected via a FIOS modem/router. When she switched to a new router that she had bought her problems went away.


I do use a Fire Stick 4K. Guess we'll see. I purchased Nvidia Shield 4K today which is a "premium" streamer (with a premium price of $150), so we'll see if YTTV and other Apps fare any better. However it's very doubtful the playback related issues are Fire Stick related, especially the example I gave above with the NBA game randomly switching between games and jumping to end of stream. Also for cases where I couldn't start playback of a recording, my TS4K and CCGTV units as well as a PC browser also had exact same problems, so issues weren't specific to one device. At the same time other Apps such as HBO Max and Netflix and internet access in general worked fine, so doubtful the network is to blame. Also I have everything hard-wired, avoiding wireless.


----------



## moyekj

BTW, I just checked out the NBA recording again today and fast forwarded to where I recall the trouble spots were, and all issues seem to have been fixed now. Don't know if the trouble reporting I did was a factor in getting it fixed since as usual I received no feedback from YTTV.


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> BTW, I just checked out the NBA recording again today and fast forwarded to where I recall the trouble spots were, and all issues seem to have been fixed now. Don't know if the trouble reporting I did was a factor in getting it fixed since as usual I received no feedback from YTTV.


Whenever I've had problems with a recording on YTTV, I find that they are fixed at a later time. I always report the problem. Not sure if it is some automated system that fixes the recordings or what. Either way, better than what happened with a messed up recording on cable or satellite. It isn't perfect, but it is an improvement in some ways.


----------



## trip1eX

yeah I have experienced the occasional hiccup on YTTV that was later not there. Also might help to restart the app or watch another recording for a second and then go back your first one.


----------



## trip1eX

pdhenry said:


> YTTV would be better with channel numbers and/or a way to jump to a particular channel in the guide. The best alternative I've found is searching for the particular channel name. You can browse live and upcoming content for that channel but it would be nice to also see related channels (whatever a related channels might be).


Oh to get related channels while you're watching something, swipe down (or press down) and then select "More to Watch." That will give you related channels, recordings, & on-demand. News gets other news. Sports gets other sports. Movies will get you other movies. ...

The default selection when you swipe down while watching a show is "TV Networks" which shows other tv networks to watch without leaving your program. SEems to be a mix of recently watched, related, random or just straight from the guide. Hard to tell.

As you swipe over every live channel you get a live thumbnail preview without leaving the show you are watching.


----------



## windracer

mdavej said:


> This was my experience as well. But when I repeated it on another forum, another poster claimed he could pause live tv for at least 2 minutes. He confirm it was still impossible to ffwd/rew. Would you mind testing 5, 10, 30 minutes to see how big the buffer actually is? Back when I had AT&T after pausing a minute or two, the buffer got full and it would jump to live when you resumed.


I'm not seeing _any _evidence of a buffer with Live TV, no trickplay at all. From what I can tell on the AT&T forums, this might be a feature limited to AT&T's streaming hardware and not any of the apps.

I'm still having the stream freezing issue all the time too. YTTV is rock solid with good PQ, ATTTV freezes all the time, mostly right on changes like between commercials or going from commercial back to show, which makes me think it's some sort of encoding issue.


----------



## lparsons21

windracer said:


> I'm not seeing _any _evidence of a buffer with Live TV, no trickplay at all. From what I can tell on the AT&T forums, this might be a feature limited to AT&T's streaming hardware and not any of the apps.
> 
> I'm still having the stream freezing issue all the time too. YTTV is rock solid with good PQ, ATTTV freezes all the time, mostly right on changes like between commercials or going from commercial back to show, which makes me think it's some sort of encoding issue.


I think it also allows for a short pause on the AppleTV too. But the 2 minutes is just crappy IMO.

I've got YTTV, ATT TV and had Sling going for a bit this month. Sling does what you say you are seeing with ATT TV. For me, ATT TV and YTTV are both rock solid with some very rare glitches.

I'm primarily using the ATT TV Osprey box these days. Got a couple from EBay a couple days ago for $55/each. For the hell of it I loaded YTTV and Sling on it. Sling did OK but was a tad slower than I've seen. YTTV loads up really fast and operates just as fast.


----------



## lparsons21

In the interest of fairness, while I’m pretty much impressed with ATT’s quality of service and really like having DD5.1 audio, I’ve switched to YouTubeTV. Not because of anything the service wasn’t providing, but because my son, who shares service with me, wanted to shift to YTTV and was willing to finally pay 1/2 the bill! I’m never against saving money! 

I’m still not fond of the YTTV UI but as I’ve said in the past, I can deal with it. As it turns out, after adding in HBO/Cinemax to YTTV and my other services, the bill is actually a very few dollars cheaper. And since the other services lend themselves to binge watching, I can kick them on and off when I want to. I can also go back to using my AppleTV more since YTTV works with it a whole lot better than ATT’s app did.


----------



## wendlan

lparsons21 said:


> As it turns out, after adding in HBO/Cinemax to YTTV and my other services, the bill is actually a very few dollars cheaper. And since the other services lend themselves to binge watching, I can kick them on and off when I want to.


I think this aspect of "cord cutting" is underreported. Now that streaming is mainstream, its prices are rising to match the actual cost of the content, and not underpriced just to get eyeballs (as it was in the beginning). Here's my point: some people are cutting cable not to save money, but because the alternatives are now better. My cable company will not support Tivo without extreme measures, and their own DVR is clunky and too expensive. OTT providers (like YTTV) have significant advantages over cable, such as: better search for shows, not reliant on any hardware to record, can seamlessly watch anywhere, unlimited tuners/DVR capacity, user profiles, seamless integration of VOD, etc. So personally, I would pay MORE for YTTV over cable as, in grand total (but not in all areas), it's better than cable.


----------



## ncted

wendlan said:


> I think this aspect of "cord cutting" is underreported. Now that streaming is mainstream, its prices are rising to match the actual cost of the content, and not underpriced just to get eyeballs (as it was in the beginning). Here's my point: some people are cutting cable not to save money, but because the alternatives are now better. My cable company will not support Tivo without extreme measures, and their own DVR is clunky and too expensive. OTT providers (like YTTV) have significant advantages over cable, such as: better search for shows, not reliant on any hardware to record, can seamlessly watch anywhere, unlimited tuners/capacity, user profiles, seamless integration of VOD, etc. So personally, I would pay MORE for YTTV over cable as, in grand total (but not in all areas), it's better than cable.


Yes! I save at least $10/month's worth of my wife not complaining about having to switch inputs on the TV or AVR like she did with cable and satellite.


----------



## lparsons21

ncted said:


> Yes! I save at least $10/month's worth of my wife not complaining about having to switch inputs on the TV or AVR like she did with cable and satellite.


I'm not married, but I used to be so I fully understand that! 

Initially for me cord cutting was a lot about saving money and at that time there were plenty of providers willing to take losses to help in that. But I knew that at some point in time the live streamers would get very close to cable/sat.

ATT was a bit unique when they brought out ATT TV, they wanted to actually make a profit right out of the gate and seemingly a bit more profit than other providers. Based on some guessing by analysts that hasn't worked out so well for them,.


----------



## ncted

lparsons21 said:


> I'm not married, but I used to be so I fully understand that!
> 
> Initially for me cord cutting was a lot about saving money and at that time there were plenty of providers willing to take losses to help in that. But I knew that at some point in time the live streamers would get very close to cable/sat.
> 
> ATT was a bit unique when they brought out ATT TV, they wanted to actually make a profit right out of the gate and seemingly a bit more profit than other providers. Based on some guessing by analysts that hasn't worked out so well for them,.


From the outside, it seems like they wanted to have a cool product that appeals to cord-cutting trend-setters while also having a product that replaced Uverse TV (and potentially DirecTV). The lack of focus shows in the execution.

FWIW: I used to pay ~$65/month for Dish's Welcome Pack with a Hopper3 and 2 Joeys, plus Netflix, Prime, Hulu, etc. Now I pay $65/month for YTTV, plus what Netflix, Prime, Hulu, etc cost. My overall spend has gone up as I have added Disney+, which is going to over time no matter what, but I am getting way more content, flexibility, and integration (one device for all apps*) and way fewer ads. Totally worth it.

*once AppleTV+ comes to AndroidTV.


----------



## lparsons21

One device for all apps is possible today with AppleTV, Roku and FireTV. And as usual in the streaming world, each has some feature you might like that is missing.

Like lack of DD5.1 with Hulu on AppleTV
Or no ‘up next’ of any real value on either FireTV or Roku.

I’m not as hung up on cost other than wanting good value because I’ll sub to whichever service that I want somewhat regardless of that.


----------



## ncted

lparsons21 said:


> One device for all apps is possible today with AppleTV, Roku and FireTV. And as usual in the streaming world, each has some feature you might like that is missing.
> 
> Like lack of DD5.1 with Hulu on AppleTV
> Or no 'up next' of any real value on either FireTV or Roku.
> 
> I'm not as hung up on cost other than wanting good value because I'll sub to whichever service that I want somewhat regardless of that.


Roku and FireTV having disputes is a big turn off, along with the ads. AppleTV would be the platform of choice in our house but for the remote (and I've tried all the remotes). Don't care about Up Next in particular.


----------



## lparsons21

ncted said:


> Roku and FireTV having disputes is a big turn off, along with the ads. AppleTV would be the platform of choice in our house but for the remote (and I've tried all the remotes). Don't care about Up Next in particular.


To be fair though it has been awhile, Apple has had those contentions too. These days it seems like Apple is the friendliest to the streaming app providers.

And that remote is my biggest complaint with the AppleTV. I've been using my phone or tablet as the remote and that actually seems to work better. My Harmony Elite does a fairly good job with it too.

I was playing with a spreadsheet yesterday to do some cost comparisons. For streaming it is putting together the live streamer with whichever VOD service is needed to fill in holes. In my preferred setups it turns out that all the configurations that I would need to do what I want to do end up costing about $100/month regardless of which live streamer is involved. That's using YTTV, Sling or the now grandfathered ATT TV Now Max. ATT TV's current non-contract pricing ends up costing about $20 more per month for a channel lineup most similar to YTTV.

As I was doing this it brought to the fore that I'm paying more for a live streaming service that I don't use nearly as much as I do the VOD services and that is driven as much by some sports as anything else. If I could make myself walk away from sports and go to just VOD services my streaming bill would drop about $30/month.


----------



## trip1eX

I think the Appletv remote is the best streaming remote.

The biggest downside is a lot of apps don’t use it as well as they could or should. 

but I understand the dislike. Most of it in my experience is related to the learning curve associated with the use of the touchpad and then with the size/orientation. 

But I wouldn’t use any other streaming remote over it. I also understand those who want 39 buttons. I am not one of those. I like having quick easy access to the basic functionality at my thumb tip.


----------



## lparsons21

I know of others that love the ATV remote, I’m not in that camp! For me, it is too small which makes using it awkward at best and horrible at worst.

But I’ve found that using the Remote on my iPhone, which is nearly exactly the same thing, works better for me. Bigger and it seems the trackpad isn’t as twitchy as it is on the physical remote.

The apps I’ve found that are the worst to use with it are all the live streaming apps and that is mostly centered around ff/REW/skip for DVR’d stuff. In VOD apps like Netflix and others, that isn’t usually a big issue as I seldom find a need to use trickplay.

While I prefer the AppleTV to most other devices, I really like the Roku voice remote better. Heftier in the hand, it just works better for me. But then I really miss the ‘up next’ strip that AppleTV has.

The other remote for a streaming box that I really like is the one for ATT TV. Heftier and just all around handier. While the box is great for using the ATT TV service, it isn’t as great at loading and running apps. Sluggish and twitchy are the two words that best describe it with apps.


----------



## MrDell

ncted said:


> Roku and FireTV having disputes is a big turn off, along with the ads. AppleTV would be the platform of choice in our house but for the remote (and I've tried all the remotes). Don't care about Up Next in particular.


 I have tried Roku and Fire TV and I think Apple TV is the best of the bunch! I agree that the remote can be tedious to use at times but I alike the way you can organize apps in folders, the speed at which apps load, and it may be my imagination but 4K picture quality seems better than the others. I have heard that a new Apple TV is on the horizon... hopefully it will bring with it a new and improved remote!


----------



## moyekj

FWIW I submitted following to YTTV via email since the navigation issue of playing shows from LIBRARY view is really bothering me.

"Would really like a voice command to take me to LIBRARY view. When using YTTV on Android TV based Apps it's very painful when playing a show from LIBRARY view to have to hit "Back" button many times just to return to LIBRARY view from which to find another program to play. Would be much better to have a quick way to get to LIBRARY view from anywhere using a shortcut of some sort or at least a voice command."

Doubt it will go anywhere, but certainly nothing will happen if I don't at least try...


----------



## moyekj

moyekj said:


> FWIW I submitted following to YTTV via email since the navigation issue of playing shows from LIBRARY view is really bothering me.
> 
> "Would really like a voice command to take me to LIBRARY view. When using YTTV on Android TV based Apps it's very painful when playing a show from LIBRARY view to have to hit "Back" button many times just to return to LIBRARY view from which to find another program to play. Would be much better to have a quick way to get to LIBRARY view from anywhere using a shortcut of some sort or at least a voice command."
> 
> Doubt it will go anywhere, but certainly nothing will happen if I don't at least try...


I did get a response that only Chromecast devices support voice control to which I responded I do have a CCGTV device but don't know of any command to return to home page to which I got another response:
"Unfortunately navigation voice commands are not yet available. But rest assured that I'll pass this along to our product team, hopefully this can get implemented on future updates."

The CCGTV is the worst of the streamers I've tried so far so wouldn't want to use it even if it did work for that feature.


----------



## lparsons21

lparsons21 said:


> In the interest of fairness, while I'm pretty much impressed with ATT's quality of service and really like having DD5.1 audio, I've switched to YouTubeTV. Not because of anything the service wasn't providing, but because my son, who shares service with me, wanted to shift to YTTV and was willing to finally pay 1/2 the bill! I'm never against saving money!
> 
> I'm still not fond of the YTTV UI but as I've said in the past, I can deal with it. As it turns out, after adding in HBO/Cinemax to YTTV and my other services, the bill is actually a very few dollars cheaper. And since the other services lend themselves to binge watching, I can kick them on and off when I want to. I can also go back to using my AppleTV more since YTTV works with it a whole lot better than ATT's app did.


Well after a few days of diddling between ATT TV Now Max and YTTV I've decided I just like ATT TV better. The HD PQ and DD5.1 were the major deciding factors as well as having a UI I like a bit better. And the channel mix fits me best only missing AMC/BBCA stuff, but I've been subscribed to AMC+ since it came out so that isn't an issue either.

This isn't a slam on YTTV, I just prefer ATT TV over it. YTTV is certainly quicker at most things and it does work better on the AppleTV than does ATT TV for trickplay. I figure I'll use the Osprey box primarily for live streaming and just switch to the AppleTV for the rest.


----------



## Fiber Paladin

Between AT&T TV and YouTube TV, which service has the longer delay on sports channels?


----------



## lparsons21

Fiber Paladin said:


> Between AT&T TV and YouTube TV, which service has the longer delay on sports channels?


I've read it is about 15 seconds for both but I've never actually bothered to check.


----------



## pdhenry

On YTTV if you pull up Stats For Nerds while watching live programming it shows the live latency. Just checking some random channels now, I'm getting 30-38 seconds. Some of that is necessary to maintain a buffer for good streaming quality - the buffer is running about 21 seconds on this connection.


----------



## ncted

Seeing a solid 37.16 seconds on all channels I try on YTTV.


----------



## dlfl

Don’t know if I would trust the latency numbers from Stats for Nerds. I’ve seen it say zero when I knew that couldn’t be correct. Even if you wanted to test this, what source can you assume has zero latency, given the re-encoding and buffering that can so easily be done along the chain from the live event to the final display?

There are some live programs (usually cable news channels) that display the time. I guess you could time the delay between that display changing minutes versus your local actual time. But that doesn’t tell you anything about sports events, which of course is what everyone is obsessing about here. Oh the mortification of hearing your neighbors cheering a touchdown before you see it on your TV.


----------



## trip1eX

dlfl said:


> But that doesn't tell you anything about sports events, which of course is what everyone is obsessing about here. Oh the mortification of hearing your neighbors cheering a touchdown before you see it on your TV.


it ruins the social aspect of texting friends about the game for some people.


----------



## samsauce29

dlfl said:


> Don't know if I would trust the latency numbers from Stats for Nerds. I've seen it say zero when I knew that couldn't be correct. Even if you wanted to test this, what source can you assume has zero latency, given the re-encoding and buffering that can so easily be done along the chain from the live event to the final display?
> 
> There are some live programs (usually cable news channels) that display the time. I guess you could time the delay between that display changing minutes versus your local actual time. But that doesn't tell you anything about sports events, which of course is what everyone is obsessing about here. Oh the mortification of hearing your neighbors cheering a touchdown before you see it on your TV.


I have a TiVo on Spectrum cable in the living room and a Roku stick on YTTV in the kitchen. The YTTV is at least a minute behind on live sports. Maybe more.


----------



## pdhenry

Good idea. I'll compare the delta between OTA and live YTTV via my phone tonight.


----------



## moyekj

YTTV screwed up another Lakers game for me. I started watching an ongoing DVR recording and towards the end of the game with about 5 minutes of game left the remainder of the recording was not available to watch on my Shield. After messing around a little bit I ended up going to YTTV App on my phone from which it properly had the remainder of the DVR recording available, so I had to play it on phone and cast to the Shield to see on big screen.


----------



## minimeh

moyekj said:


> I started watching an ongoing DVR recording and towards the end of the game with about 5 minutes of game left the remainder of the recording was not available to watch on my Shield. After messing around a little bit I ended up going to YTTV App on my phone from which it properly had the remainder of the DVR recording available, so I had to play it on phone and cast to the Shield to see on big screen.


I have seen that: The recording position marker is at the end but the game is not over. Turned out that the recording had only caught up to real time. The position marker is misleading in that it is at the end of the bar rather than indicating that there will be more recorded. By the time you messed around a little bit, the remainder of the game happened and was recorded.


----------



## moyekj

Problem is the marked recording end time was the end time when I started watching. The game had finished about 1 hour before I was trying to watch the end of it. On the Shield the end position marker never changed since I started watching. Only when I went to a different device (phone in this case) did the length of the recording show the full recording time. I've seen weird glitches before when starting to watch recordings before they finish recording with YTTV, but I do that quite frequently and most of the time it works as expected.


----------



## pdhenry

pdhenry said:


> Good idea. I'll compare the delta between OTA and live YTTV via my phone tonight.


Took me an extra night.

Setup: OTA TV vs tv.youtube.com on Win10 PC running Chrome browser.
Live latency on Stats for Nerds screen: 33.29 sec
Latency of YTTV from live OTA: 32.04 sec

I tested several times and "Live latency" was consistently a slightly longer period than I measured.


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> Took me an extra night.
> 
> Setup: OTA TV vs tv.youtube.com on Win10 PC running Chrome browser.
> Live latency on Stats for Nerds screen: 33.29 sec
> Latency of YTTV from live OTA: 32.04 sec
> 
> I tested several times and "Live latency" was consistently a slightly longer period than I measured.


Did you measure several different channels, including live sports events? Was it the same across all channels?

The small difference in latencies is consistent with a small delay on your OTA signals, probably due to processing and retransmission of the OTA signal.


----------



## pdhenry

Should YTTV's delay from broadcast vary with live sports? I understand why that's of interest, but if it's picking up my local station's signal any latency in getting to the local station will be part of either approach.
I looked at a couple of local channels during normal evening broadcast programming. I used an antenna connected directly to the TV. I have a better antenna connected to a TiVo on that set but I didn't want any latency due to the TiVo to get a factor.
The Live Latency numbers seemed to be very responsive to any glitches in the displayed signal - running YTTV in a window made the latency creep up on that particular PC but it was more stable running fullscreen.


----------



## ncted

Isn't variable latency kind of at cross-purposes to the kind of real-time encoders they use to convert TV broadcast signals to streamed content?


----------



## windracer

This regional sports channel thing is getting ridiculous. So now I can't watch the Lightning even though their on MSNBC because it's also on the local Fox Sports Florida channel that _I can't get_ on YTTV? Grrrr.


----------



## ncted

windracer said:


> This regional sports channel thing is getting ridiculous. So now I can't watch the Lightning even though their on MSNBC because it's also on the local Fox Sports Florida channel that _I can't get_ on YTTV? Grrrr.
> View attachment 57204


Not sure this is part of the same thing, but Blackout rules should be lifted during the pandemic. Almost no one is going to the games anyway.


----------



## windracer

ncted said:


> Not sure this is part of the same thing, but Blackout rules should be lifted during the pandemic. Almost no one is going to the games anyway.


That's what I thought! How can you black out a local game when I can't actually go to the game in the first place? Really frustrating ...


----------



## Rose4uKY

I've been Tivo customer for years and now we're thinking of You Tube TV. Mainly because we've been having problems with spectrum and error messages with no signal on certain channels error 53. Cable's been out three times telling us our signals good and no one can figure out our problem. They finally let us exchange our TiVo bolt and still happening. Today cable came out with new cable card and couldn't even get them paired and couldn't even get the TiVo up and running it was a mess and we're just tired of spectrum we have problems every time they come try to put in a cable card. Remember I try to hook the tuning it after up a different way than it says on tivo's website and they always messed up. But I don't think I'll like You Tube TV after reading some stuff about it I don't know.

I know this is an old thread and I read all these old ones about error 53 no signal on this channel and our screen goes black and you have to chain the up and down to get it back in. The getting a new cable card was our last resort because they clean our signals good. Today after 3 hours I'm still not fixed my cable cards not paired the tuning adapter wasn't coming back up when I left for work. So I'm not going to get any of my today recordings. I just wondered if I should try YouTube TV because have to channels we get now we don't watch.


----------



## zalusky

Rose4uKY said:


> I've been Tivo customer for years and now we're thinking of You Tube TV. Mainly because we've been having problems with spectrum and error messages with no signal on certain channels error 53. Cable's been out three times telling us our signals good and no one can figure out our problem. They finally let us exchange our TiVo bolt and still happening. Today cable came out with new cable card and couldn't even get them paired and couldn't even get the TiVo up and running it was a mess and we're just tired of spectrum we have problems every time they come try to put in a cable card. Remember I try to hook the tuning it after up a different way than it says on tivo's website and they always messed up. But I don't think I'll like You Tube TV after reading some stuff about it I don't know.


It is certainly a different UI. I use it in a hyrbrid world with Channels DVR. YouTubeTV is good at some things like keeping all recording traffic in the cloud and only using net traffic for playing purposes.
It has unlimited storage.

The GUI to navigate channels and recordings is a bit more of a pain however.

Channels which can work with YouTubeTV behind the scenes brings back more of the Tivo experience. You can make a more friendly guide. It will skip commercials on recordings. You can mix match content sources including your current cable TV subscription. In essence its a replacement for your Tivo. It does require a dedicated computer, a streamer, and more than likely an unlimited internet data connection.


----------



## mdavej

Rose4uKY said:


> I just wondered if I should try YouTube TV ...


I can tell you that with Youtube TV, I've never gotten an error 53 or had a cable card or tuning adapter problem.


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV doesn't seem to handle the Sunday sports overruns any better than a TiVo, though. It correctly extends the recording time of the event that goes long but it has no concept that succeeding shows will be delayed. It even delays the start of the program after the sporting event but cuts the recording off at its default ending time.


----------



## moyekj

The YTTV Android phone App has download functionality now, but clicking on it prompts you to upgrade to YTTV+ service to get the functionality of 4K quality downloads to the phone. Download functionality (for DVR recordings) has been missing from YTTV and I wondered if/when they would add it, but of course they want to monetize that addition now...

Of course by adding the above they kind of borked the simplicity to "mark as watched": it takes more clunky navigation to mark a show as watched now on the phone at least from the "Library" view.


----------



## Aaron Malloy

Rose4uKY said:


> I've been Tivo customer for years and now we're thinking of You Tube TV. Mainly because we've been having problems with spectrum and error messages with no signal on certain channels error 53. Cable's been out three times telling us our signals good and no one can figure out our problem. They finally let us exchange our TiVo bolt and still happening. Today cable came out with new cable card and couldn't even get them paired and couldn't even get the TiVo up and running it was a mess and we're just tired of spectrum we have problems every time they come try to put in a cable card. Remember I try to hook the tuning it after up a different way than it says on tivo's website and they always messed up. But I don't think I'll like You Tube TV after reading some stuff about it I don't know.
> 
> I know this is an old thread and I read all these old ones about error 53 no signal on this channel and our screen goes black and you have to chain the up and down to get it back in. The getting a new cable card was our last resort because they clean our signals good. Today after 3 hours I'm still not fixed my cable cards not paired the tuning adapter wasn't coming back up when I left for work. So I'm not going to get any of my today recordings. I just wondered if I should try YouTube TV because have to channels we get now we don't watch.


I believe you get a free trial 7-day period to scope it out. Give it a try and see how you like it.


----------



## dlfl

I switched to YTTV from TiVo+Spectrum Cable 1.5 years ago and will never go back to (clueless, overpriced) Spectrum. However YTTV has its quirks and learning curve so get a free trial deal to start with, for sure.

This hasn’t been mentioned yet, so in case you don’t know, YTTV requires either (1) a smart TV with a YTTV app or (2) a streaming device, such as a Roku, Apple TV, or Fire TV Stick, connected to your TV. Choice (1) is not recommended because frequently the smart TV apps have problems and are not upgradable. Suitable streaming devices are available for less than $50.

YTTV also requires good solid internet. It is more finicky about that than other streaming apps. The details about this are more that I want to discuss right now but, again, do the free trial to see where you stand. Or if you want to describe your internet and network details here, someone will give you an opinion on its sufficiency.


----------



## Rose4uKY

Thanks Everyone! We may try the trial. We have good unlimited internet through Spectrum and I still have a landline phone for a specific reason but just to keep the 2 it will still be $90 I pay about 200 now for all 3. We don't have any extra movie channels and have lots of channels we don't watch and probably most all sports packages I am not sure about that. Spectrum finally got us back up and running last night with this new cable card so we will see if the error 53 no signal on this channel comes back. It's on AXS TV channel the most with a black screen and then the show won't record and chanelling up and down gets it back. It's Crazy! We did a Tivo Bolt exchange and we are sending it back and last time we got a new tuning adapter. They keep saying we have great signal. But I have had Tivo for so long since the very 1st single tuner one and I am not a 100% sure I want to switch and get used to something else but we may try it. We do have a Roku device and a Tivo Stream but our Sony TV is an Android Smart TV and our Vizio is smart but not 4K and doesn't cast which I think is why he bought the Tivo Stream and Roku is only because their is one show he watches on Roku Only.

But Ok thanks for your input I appreciate it. I will decide what to do next and at least try the trial and see how much it's going to cost for the channels we want. But their is a guide to go through to see what's on? And I read if you have several of one series you can only delete the whole group not just the one you watched? I'll read up on it more on their website too. Thanks!


----------



## pdhenry

You never delete any recording (it's not even possible) aside from it aging out nine months after being recorded. I've accumulated the entire series run of the Andy Griffith Show...

The guide's not the greatest, but it's easy to see what will be recorded or to see what's comibg on any particular channel. The "grid guide" I'd there but scrolling forward in time is slow.

It's not possible to see info on a program currently airing without tuning to that program first. If the program hasn't started yet you can see info in the program without switching to that channel.


----------



## zalusky

pdhenry said:


> You never delete any recording (it's not even possible) aside from it aging out nine months after being recorded. I've accumulated the entire series run of the Andy Griffith Show...
> 
> The guide's not the greatest, but it's easy to see what will be recorded or to see what's comibg on any particular channel. The "grid guide" I'd there but scrolling forward in time is slow.
> 
> It's not possible to see info on a program currently airing without tuning to that program first. If the program hasn't started yet you can see info in the program without switching to that channel.


Yea I think YouTube's idea is to ignore the guide and just search for shows and add them to libraries. IE never watch in real time.
Although it is cute that as you click through the guide you can see real time what is happening on that channel.

One advantage of YouTube TV is the on demand stuff. All though the problem with that is you can't skip commercials. 
I am guessing there must be some legal stuff about saying if you record it you have the power to manipulate it but they can't do it for you in an on demand library.


----------



## mdavej

On Firestick, the Live Guide that integrates several streaming services includes a 2-week Youtube TV guide with more info.


----------



## ncted

Just make sure you choose to watch the version of the show you recorded that has the DVR label on it, so you can skip commercials. I don't think the app is currently available on Roku, but you can access YTTV via the Roku YouTube app as well. Just keep an open mind as it is very different from Tivo & Cable while essentially delivering the same thing at the end of the day. We liked it better than Hulu or Sling. 

Death Star...er, AT&T TV is another option which some people like which works best with the AT&T Osprey boxes that run Android.

Best of luck!


----------



## pdhenry

ncted said:


> Just make sure you choose to watch the version of the show you recorded that has the DVR label on it, so you can skip commercials.


IME the DVR'd version plays by default and appears at the top of the list of options.

Where I have issues is when Andy Griffith episodes are recorded both on TV Land and SundanceTV. The TVLand episodes are edited for more commercials so I have to scroll down to the Sundance recordings. That's not typically an issue, I suppose...


----------



## slowbiscuit

Saw that YTTV is finally adding DD 5.1 support, way overdue and the most requested feature. Anyone know if it will work with Channels, or is Channels limited to stereo?


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> IME the DVR'd version plays by default and appears at the top of the list of options.
> 
> Where I have issues is when Andy Griffith episodes are recorded both on TV Land and SundanceTV. The TVLand episodes are edited for more commercials so I have to scroll down to the Sundance recordings. That's not typically an issue, I suppose...


That is my experience as well, but many many people have posted complaining about getting the VOD version by default instead, so I assume it isn't obvious to them what they are doing wrong.


----------



## moyekj

In some cases VOD is the *ONLY* option which is very annoying, for example here anything recorded from CW. Makes watching Penn & Teller and Whose Line is it Anyway extremely annoying with unskippable commercials. (I realize it varies market to market for that channel).


----------



## zalusky

moyekj said:


> In some cases VOD is the *ONLY* option which is very annoying, for example here anything recorded from CW. Makes watching Penn & Teller and Whose Line is it Anyway extremely annoying with unskippable commercials. (I realize it varies market to market for that channel).


If you added Channels DVR option on top of YTTV as a source wouldn't Channels be able to nuke the commercials?


----------



## pdhenry

Sounds like if you had to rely on a traditional cable company you wouldn't have the CW in your lineup?


----------



## ncted

moyekj said:


> In some cases VOD is the *ONLY* option which is very annoying, for example here anything recorded from CW. Makes watching Penn & Teller and Whose Line is it Anyway extremely annoying with unskippable commercials. (I realize it varies market to market for that channel).


I don't see that on my CW recordings. I don't see that on any recordings.


----------



## osu1991

ncted said:


> I don't see that on my CW recordings. I don't see that on any recordings.


It varies by DMA. YTTV supplies the VOD only versions where they don't have or carry a CW affiliate.


----------



## CajunRuss

zalusky said:


> It is certainly a different UI. I use it in a hyrbrid world with Channels DVR. YouTubeTV is good at some things like keeping all recording traffic in the cloud and only using net traffic for playing purposes.
> It has unlimited storage.
> 
> The GUI to navigate channels and recordings is a bit more of a pain however.
> 
> Channels which can work with YouTubeTV behind the scenes brings back more of the Tivo experience. You can make a more friendly guide. It will skip commercials on recordings. You can mix match content sources including your current cable TV subscription. In essence its a replacement for your Tivo. It does require a dedicated computer, a streamer, and more than likely an unlimited internet data connection.


Could you provide more channels dvr info? Can you access and record all yttv channels? What are you using for storage computer or nas etc.? Are you using TV everywhere? Are you using channels plus? I would appreciate any additional info you can provide. Thanks


----------



## zalusky

CajunRuss said:


> Could you provide more channels dvr info? Can you access and record all yttv channels? What are you using for storage computer or nas etc.? Are you using TV everywhere? Are you using channels plus? I would appreciate any additional info you can provide. Thanks


I installed Channels DVR on a Mac mini. It has two external drives. One for time machine and one for video recordings.
The video drive is a Western Digital purple drive. Channels DVR software uses TV everywhere capability to record.
I have configured 3 sources: YTTV, Locast, and PlayOn. Currently I cannot get CNN and friends from YTTV TVE but I hear rumors that might be coming.
We use it in a hybrid sort of manner. My wife has most of her season passes in it as well as YTTV but in some cases I will have recordings only in YTTV. One example is I record all the late night shows which are all on at the same time and I don't want all those simultaneous streams going into the house.

Performance wise it's very zippy and I love the commercial skip. The guide seems to go out a full two weeks. The channel groups are nice as well. They allow you to create multiple favorite lists of channels and order them however you want.

I would also add my purpose is not to create a permanent library. We watch stuff and then we get rid of it in most cases. If we wanted something more permanent I would probably examine the drive situation more carefully and look at Raid stuff.

Any other questions?


----------



## pdhenry

zalusky said:


> Currently I cannot CNN and friends from YTTV TVE but I hear rumors that might be coming.


Huh?


----------



## NashGuy

Rose4uKY said:


> Thanks Everyone! We may try the trial.


Rose, if you end up deciding to drop Spectrum cable TV with TiVo, and you want to replace it with a streaming cable TV service, you might be happier going with AT&T TV (which is essentially the streaming version of DirecTV) and buying the optional streaming box and remote that's specifically designed for their service. The user interface and feature set of AT&T TV is closer to TiVo/traditional cable TV than YouTube TV is.

YouTube TV is a good service, and costs a bit less than AT&T TV, but as I'm sure you've found reading through this thread, it's somewhat different (in both good and bad ways) from traditional cable TV. Like YouTube TV, AT&T TV is contract-free. But it only comes with 20 hours of cloud DVR storage unless you pay an extra $10/mo for unlimited DVR. Your recordings automatically delete after 90 days, while it's 9 months on YouTube TV. You can stream AT&T TV on apps for your own devices, but you get the most traditional cable-like experience (including the ability to pause and rewind live TV for an hour or more) if you buy their optional custom box. They're $120 each, a cost that they'll spread out at $5/mo for 24 months. (If you cancel before the 24 months are up, though, you'll just be charged the balance due on however many boxes you took. They're always yours to own, not rent.) AT&T TV has various tiers of channel packages (like Spectrum and other traditional cable providers) and they offer all major channels except PBS (which YouTube TV does have). In some areas, both AT&T TV and YouTube TV are missing the local CW station. YouTube TV doesn't have the Hallmark Channels, History, A&E, Lifetime, or regional sports channels like Bally Sports South, while AT&T TV has all of those.

Anyhow, just wanted to make you aware of another option! (And if you don't mind their initial 2-yr contracts, I guess you might consider satellite TV from DISH or DirecTV.)


----------



## slowbiscuit

pdhenry said:


> Huh?


Exactly what he said - not all channels are available with TV Everywhere via YTTV, apparently, and the CNN family is not. So you can't get them by frontending YTTV with Channels, you'd have to use YTTV's DVR service for them instead.

Use YouTube TV to sign in to network sites - YouTube TV Help
Channels streams directly from those providers using your YTTV creds.


----------



## zalusky

Another thing I like about Channels is the recording options. You can do the usual pre-pad and post-pad for your recordings but you can also say how many recordings to keep.
For example if I had a regular recording of a favorite news program let's say Brian Williams shopw I may only be interested in the latest show. You can say only keep the latest.
For Stephen Colbert I might want to keep a full week and I could keep the last 5 episodes. Anything more then that would be deleted.


----------



## JoeKustra

zalusky said:


> Another thing I like about Channels is the recording options. You can do the usual pre-pad and post-pad for your recordings but you can also say how many recordings to keep.
> For example if I had a regular recording of a favorite news program let's say Brian Williams shopw I may only be interested in the latest show. You can say only keep the latest.
> For Stephen Colbert I might want to keep a full week and I could keep the last 5 episodes. Anything more then that would be deleted.


TiVo has that. It's Keep At Most in the 1P manager. They are moved to the Deleted Recordings Folder and not killed off until the drive becomes physically full.


----------



## pdhenry

After awhile with YTTV the notion of "Keep" vs discard seems dated.


----------



## zalusky

pdhenry said:


> After awhile with YTTV the notion of "Keep" vs discard seems dated.


Yea that cloud. It would be kind of neat if Channels could see your cloud recordings as an option.


----------



## bareyb

I giving YTTV a try. The only thing my wife and I wanted for sure was a version of the "Now Playing" list of recently recorded shows and it doesn't seem to have that. All I'm seeing in the Library is a thumbnail of all my "Season Passes" and you have to dig through them to find the most recent one recorded. 

Surely there's a list of the shows that recorded today in some type of list format, no?


----------



## osu1991

bareyb said:


> I giving YTTV a try. The only thing my wife and I wanted for sure was a version of the "Now Playing" list of recently recorded shows and it doesn't seem to have that. All I'm seeing in the Library is a thumbnail of all my "Season Passes" and you have to dig through them to find the most recent one recorded.
> 
> Surely there's a list of the shows that recorded today in some type of list format, no?


Library, then New in Library list should be first row. Each show Icon that is new will show how many new episodes underneath the icon. Click the show icon and it will go to the most recent episode, then the previous episode etc&#8230;


----------



## pdhenry

bareyb said:


> All I'm seeing in the Library is a thumbnail of all my "Season Passes" and you have to dig through them to find the most recent one recorded.


If you're not watching first-run shows, sure. They're ordered by season/episode. The most recent episode of a first-run show (i.e., the most recent one _aired) _will always be leftmost in the list for that show, and the show that recorded most recently will appear first in the "New in Your Library" list.
For reruns or "classic TV" you're probably right, since the shows will still be arranged in series order. To locate the episode side of Jeopardy that aired Saturday evening I need to make an assumption that it aired more than a year ago and use the month/year categories to skip back (Saturday's game originally aired on 10/28/19; it took me 3 or 4 seconds to find it). The show (vs episode) that recorded most recently is still first in the "New" list but it may or may not be worth hunting down the most recently aired (old) episode.
For "Classic" TV I think this still works out. I happen to have the entire series run of The Andy Griffith Show in my account. The best way to watch that is in series order and that (or actually, the reverse of that) is how it's presented.
But if I'm interested in finding the rerun episode of SNL that _aired_ most recently, it's troublesome.


----------



## bareyb

osu1991 said:


> Library, then New in Library list should be first row. Each show Icon that is new will show how many new episodes underneath the icon. Click the show icon and it will go to the most recent episode, then the previous episode etc&#8230;





pdhenry said:


> If you're not watching first-run shows, sure. They're ordered by season/episode. The most recent episode of a first-run show (i.e., the most recent one _aired) _will always be leftmost in the list for that show, and the show that recorded most recently will appear first in the "New in Your Library" list.
> For reruns or "classic TV" you're probably right, since the shows will still be arranged in series order. To locate the episode side of Jeopardy that aired Saturday evening I need to make an assumption that it aired more than a year ago and use the month/year categories to skip back (Saturday's game originally aired on 10/28/19; it took me 3 or 4 seconds to find it). The show (vs episode) that recorded most recently is still first in the "New" list but it may or may not be worth hunting down the most recently aired (old) episode.
> For "Classic" TV I think this still works out. I happen to have the entire series run of The Andy Griffith Show in my account. The best way to watch that is in series order and that (or actually, the reverse of that) is how it's presented.
> But if I'm interested in finding the rerun episode of SNL that _aired_ most recently, it's troublesome.


The way YouTube does things is a lot more different from TiVo than I thought it would be. I can see I'm going to have to be very, very, open to change if I go this route.


----------



## wendlan

I encourage you to give two or three weeks, and it will start feeling a bit more natural  I was with TiVo for 15 years, and made it the leap OK...


----------



## bareyb

Is there a faster way to look ahead in the Live Guide than scrolling one hour at a time?


----------



## zalusky

We do a do a combination of Channels and YTTV. Channels is the equivalent but better TiVo and you can tell it what ever source you have be it YTTV or Comcast. Or Hulu, …

YTTV has the infinite DVR space and we record all the late nights and some channels like CNN that don’t translate into Channels on YTTV.

Channels has a todo list and has a recording list. It has recording pads options and pretty much everything TiVo has including commercial skip.
Channels GUI is the closest to TiVo.

Channels does have a subscription requirement buts it’s nominal and you only pay one amount and not per device.
Channels does require a local computer and there can be concern because all the recording data usage hits your network versus The google servers.


----------



## pdhenry

bareyb said:


> Is there a faster way to look ahead in the Live Guide than scrolling one hour at a time?


Yes, but IME only if you look at one channel at a time. In the live guide scroll left so the channel ID & icon is highlighted then press Select. Choose Live on the next screen. The program listings only go out 24 hours but you can rapidly scroll through them.


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. The most recent episode of a first-run show (i.e., the most recent one _aired) _will always be leftmost in the list for that show, and the show that recorded most recently will appear first in the "New in Your Library" list.
> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;


One of my biggest irritations with YTTV is that this is NOT true for many of the shows I record. First airings of many PBS series episodes NEVER show up in the new part of the library. I think this is related to them debuting months later in the US than in the UK. Smithsonian series frequently have the same issue.

Regarding episode reruns, It would be much more useful if a rerun episode was shown in New in your Library if it's the first time I have recorded it. Same for movies.

YTTV is analogous to Democracy - it's far from perfect but it's better than any comparable competitor.


----------



## pdhenry

I contribute to PBS and get Passport access, so I just stream via the PBS app.


----------



## pdhenry

YouTube TV may drop 14 NBC Universal channels over a contract dispute | Engadget

A mitigating factor is that it appears that YTTV rates will drop $10 during the duration of the programming outage.


----------



## powrcow

pdhenry said:


> YouTube TV may drop 14 NBC Universal channels over a contract dispute | Engadget
> 
> A mitigating factor is that it appears that YTTV rates will drop $10 during the duration of the programming outage.


No service is immune from these contract disputes, but I'll give YTTV credit for lowering rates for the change in offerings.


----------



## pdhenry

There's also the mention that Peacock is $4.99 (free for me since I have Xfinity internet) and would restore much of the missing NBCU content during an outage, although via a separate app.


----------



## zalusky

pdhenry said:


> There's also the mention that Peacock is $4.99 (free for me since I have Xfinity internet) and would restore much of the missing NBCU content during an outage, although via a separate app.


Yea except people say the content is not same day or even next day available after initial NBC broadcast. In many cases you have to wait for the live season to finish. Is that true? I know it is for Discovery+ and HGTV/FoodTV which pretty much nuked that service for me.


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> YouTube TV may drop 14 NBC Universal channels over a contract dispute | Engadget
> 
> A mitigating factor is that it appears that YTTV rates will drop $10 during the duration of the programming outage.


Let me think about that. Maybe I would prefer YTTV without those channels and at $10 less!  I'm having a hard time thinking of what I watch on those channels.


----------



## slowbiscuit

powrcow said:


> No service is immune from these contract disputes, but I'll give YTTV credit for lowering rates for the change in offerings.


The ridiculous part about this negotiation is NBCU wanting YTTV to bundle Peacock to renew. Just stupid - unbundling is exactly what folks want, not to be forced to have streaming go down the same path cable did.


----------



## ManeJon

Greed is greed no matter what the service. I read that NBC is willing to drop the Peacock requirement but want more money


----------



## lambertman

zalusky said:


> Yea except people say the content is not same day or even next day available after initial NBC broadcast. In many cases you have to wait for the live season to finish. Is that true? I know it is for Discovery+ and HGTV/FoodTV which pretty much nuked that service for me.


I have Peacock and can't think of any current NBC shows that are delayed to season-end. Have any specific shows in mind?


----------



## zalusky

lambertman said:


> I have Peacock and can't think of any current NBC shows that are delayed to season-end. Have any specific shows in mind?


You got me for the moment. I haven't found a good example for now. I know with Discovery+ they are way behind which is why I chose not to go beyond a trial subscription. One thing though is Peacock does not have live MSNBC or CNBC streaming or even full shows. They do have clips but news tends to be real time especially these days. I have an antenna for my local NBC station so that is not an issue the rest of the "Cable" stuff besides MSNBC is not something I watch.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> Yea except people say the content is not same day or even next day available after initial NBC broadcast. In many cases you have to wait for the live season to finish. Is that true? I know it is for Discovery+ and HGTV/FoodTV which pretty much nuked that service for me.


Just about all current NBC primetime shows (I think The Blacklist may be the lone exception) are available next-day on Peacock. And Peacock also carries NBC's NFL Sunday Night Football and Notre Dame football games live.

But generally, Peacock does not carry current seasons of series from the NBCU cable channels like USA, Bravo, E!, SyFy, etc. The only exception I'm sure of is Bravo's Below Deck Mediterranean on Peacock. For the current season, new eps drop a week early on Peacock before airing on Bravo. For the upcoming season of Below Deck, new eps will stream on Peacock next-day after premiering on Bravo. Aside from that, though, viewers must wait until the full season of an NBCU cable series has aired on cable before they're available for streaming on Peacock and/or some other service. (I don't think those shows all automatically end up on Peacock.)

Also note that Peacock does not carry live shows/news from MSNBC or live sports from NBCSN, although you can watch clips from various MSNBC shows a few hours later or next-day.


----------



## zalusky

NashGuy said:


> Just about all current NBC primetime shows (I think The Blacklist may be the lone exception) are available next-day on Peacock. And Peacock also carries NBC's NFL Sunday Night Football and Notre Dame football games live.
> 
> But generally, Peacock does not carry current seasons of series from the NBCU cable channels like USA, Bravo, E!, SyFy, etc. The only exception I'm sure of is Bravo's Below Deck Mediterranean on Peacock. For the current season, new eps drop a week early on Peacock before airing on Bravo. For the upcoming season of Below Deck, new eps will stream on Peacock next-day after premiering on Bravo. Aside from that, though, viewers must wait until the full season of an NBCU cable series has aired on cable before they're available for streaming on Peacock and/or some other service. (I don't think those shows all automatically end up on Peacock.)
> 
> Also note that Peacock does not carry live shows/news from MSNBC or live sports from NBCSN, although you can watch clips from various MSNBC shows a few hours later or next-day.


Thanks those are good examples. They really should give TVE livestream access to their NBC products if you subscribe to Peacock Premium.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> Thanks those are good examples. They really should give TVE livestream access to their NBC products if you subscribe to Peacock Premium.


That would be nice but I can't see them doing that without charging more, at least an extra $5 per month to make up for the revenue that they would lose from folks dumping cable TV and just getting those live cable channels via Peacock. Comcast isn't too eager to encourage cord-cutting.

I kinda thought Discovery might do that when they launched Discovery+, just include all their live cable channels in the app, along with additional new content exclusive to the app. But they're afraid of encouraging cord-cutting too, so they didn't.

At some point, after cable TV loses millions more subs, I expect that most or all cable TV content will also be available same-day or next-day in that company's direct-to-consumer streaming app. It's just taking a long while to get there as cable TV slowly dies.


----------



## osu1991

Just got email that deal was reached with NBCU and no price increase.


----------



## pdhenry

osu1991 said:


> Just got email that deal was reached with NBCU and no price increase.


And no channel lineup changes.


----------



## ncted

FWIW: We are planning to drop YTTV on a trial basis. We like it far better at this point than any cable or satellite service we ever had, but we just don't watch it enough anymore. We are planning to add Peacock Premium Plus and (maybe) F1 TV, which result in approximately $576 in savings (minimum), and we will essentially get all the content we still watch, plus a lot more content to choose from. Anyway, just thought I would share.


----------



## pdhenry

So you mostly only watch NBCU programming plus Formula One?


----------



## ncted

pdhenry said:


> So you mostly only watch NBCU programming plus Formula One?


We already have Hulu, Disney+, and HBOmax, Paramount+, Netflix, Showtime, AppleTV+, and Prime Video. Peacock is the only thing we're really missing at this point. Between Hulu and YTTV, we didn't really need it, but, if we get rid of YTTV, we would need it for a number of NBCU-specific things that aren't on Hulu, like Resident Alien, Dateline, and Yellowstone, just to name a few.


----------



## oscarfish

I have a question for people that were already Gmail users when they signed up for YTTV. Did you just use your primary Gmail account for YTTV or did you try and get "fancy" and use a secondary Gmail account specifically for use with YTTV? I may be overthinking this. I'm not sure I want to use my primary Gmail account, but I can't really articulate why. Thanks.


----------



## zalusky

oscarfish said:


> I have a question for people that were already Gmail users when they signed up for YTTV. Did you just use your primary Gmail account for YTTV or did you try and get "fancy" and use a secondary Gmail account specifically for use with YTTV? I may be overthinking this. I'm not sure I want to use my primary Gmail account, but I can't really articulate why. Thanks.


Secondary family non-2fa account.


----------



## wendlan

oscarfish said:


> I have a question for people that were already Gmail users when they signed up for YTTV. Did you just use your primary Gmail account for YTTV or did you try and get "fancy" and use a secondary Gmail account specifically for use with YTTV? I may be overthinking this. I'm not sure I want to use my primary Gmail account, but I can't really articulate why. Thanks.


If your Gmail account is a G Suite (Google Business) account, then it cannot be used for YTTV. That was my issue, so I used a secondary Gmail account because of it. If that wasn't an issue, I personally would have no reservations using it. Because of the same limitations, I also use that secondary Gmail account for YouTube Music as well.


----------



## pdhenry

oscarfish said:


> I have a question for people that were already Gmail users when they signed up for YTTV. Did you just use your primary Gmail account for YTTV or did you try and get "fancy" and use a secondary Gmail account specifically for use with YTTV? I may be overthinking this. I'm not sure I want to use my primary Gmail account, but I can't really articulate why. Thanks.


I used my primary Gmail address (which is not my primary email address, for what that's worth). 
Other elements of tying ones online presence to essentially a single sign-on bother me more than YTTV


----------



## samsauce29

zalusky said:


> Secondary family non-2fa account.


We actually created a family account when we got YTTV. Just seemed easier to keep our individual logins separate.

Interested to know why you don't want the 2FA turned on?


----------



## ncted

I used my one an only GMail account for YTTV. It is not my primary email account. I have 2FA enabled, just like every other service that offers it.


----------



## zalusky

samsauce29 said:


> We actually created a family account when we got YTTV. Just seemed easier to keep our individual logins separate.
> 
> Interested to know why you don't want the 2FA turned on?


Because there have been problems getting Channels working and connected to YTTV.


----------



## saeba

Just an update for those who rejected YTTV because it lacked 5.1 audio..... This is now rolling out. I have it with my Samsung TV YTTV app and also via casting to my Nvidia Shield (note: I had to first remove the YTTV app on the Nvidia Shield in order to be able to cast with 5.1 audio from an android tablet). Support is supposedly coming for other devices.


----------



## rcandsc

I am in the process of trying YouTube TV and getting ready to get rid of 2 Roamios and an Edge along with 4 mini units. After 20 years of TIVO ownership, I'm ready to move on. It's taken the pandemic and retirement to see that we are wasting many, many $$$ with cable TV.

We've been utilizing the free trial period to evaluate the App and service. Aside from just getting used to a different interface, the experience has been very pleasant so far. As far as the "DVR" component, I like the fact that storage isn't really an issue, and the controls work basically the same as most streaming services. Since most now have a Fire Stick or some other similar technology, so the interface is not as big an issue (not like TE3 to TE4 anyway..)

The sad part is that I would stay with my TIVO's and Spectrum if they would just give me the same deal they give to new customers. Literally half of what I'm currently paying. Going to try to get to someone in retention tomorrow. All things equal, YTTV is a good alternative.


----------



## JeanGirard

We use YTTV and Google Live Channels for all our locals and it all works very well.


----------



## wendlan

JeanGirard said:


> We use YTTV and Google Live Channels for all our locals and it all works very well.


Curious - does YTTV not already have your locals? I haven't seen many locations that it does not? (Side note - 20 year TiVo veteran convert to YTTV here as well)


----------



## JeanGirard

YTTV only offers main locals. We have almost 50 sub channels and thats where Google Live Channels grabs all of them, plus Pluto TV channels so it works out perfectly for my needs.


----------



## NYHeel

I'm thinking of getting my mother set up on YTTV. She's paying a lot for DVRs and boxes and she'd save about $50 a month by switching from Fios (and I think she'd get more channels). However, considering that my mom is in her 70s and my step father in his 80s, this needs to be super simple. My step-father was absolutely awful using any technology 30 years ago, so you can imagine he's a complete disaster now. 

My mom wants to give it a try with the free trial but she needs a streaming device to try it on as I believe her TVs are too old for the YTTV app. They have some Samsung Smart TVs but I believe they're pre-2016 and thus won't support the YTTV app. My first thought was Roku as they're super simple to use and are very cheap (there's a model for $20). However, it looks like Roku doesn't support YTTV anymore so that's out. Fire sticks won't work because the user interface is absolutely awful and way too complicated for my parents.

Apple TV would work nicely but it's much too expensive. How is the Tivo Stream? I'm envisioning something that you can just power on and easily select an app from a list or grid of apps. Fire sticks are awful as they have so much junk all over the place it's hard to just get to the apps and select. A nice easy to use remote is also a help as my parents aren't going to use their phone as a remote. That's just not going to work.

Lastly, how simple is YTTV to use for someone who is used to using cable (Verizon Fios in this case) and cable company DVRs? I typically spend a while helping my mom with all her technology but she lives about a hour away from me with obscene tolls and and I don't get over there all that often. I have two brothers that live right next to her but they're not great with this type of stuff. So I'm going to need to help her learn the system over Facetime and I've never used any of these streaming "cable" services.


----------



## lparsons21

IMO the Chromecast w/GoogleTV is very good for YTTV users.
But the most cable/sat like in operation and looks is DirecTV Stream coupled with their Osprey box. The service is excellent and the UI on the Osprey box with its dedicated remote is too. The major downside is cost. Cheapest level is $70/month with a small DVR space allowance.


----------



## MrDell

NYHeel said:


> Apple TV would work nicely but it's much too expensive. How is the Tivo Stream?


Best Buy has the previous generation Apple TV 4K on sale now. Still a little more money than the others but a great streaming device! Personally, I would stay clear from the Tivo Stream.... Not a bad streamer but not as easy to use in my opinion.


----------



## pdhenry

NYHeel said:


> My mom wants to give it a try with the free trial but she needs a streaming device to try it on as I believe her TVs are too old for the YTTV app. They have some Samsung Smart TVs but I believe they're pre-2016 and thus won't support the YTTV app. My first thought was Roku as they're super simple to use and are very cheap (there's a model for $20). However, it looks like Roku doesn't support YTTV anymore so that's out. Fire sticks won't work because the user interface is absolutely awful and way too complicated for my parents.


Is the YouTube app still available on Roku for subscribers who haven't already downloaded it? It's another option (you can access YTTV via the YT app) but it's an additional step or two to get there. The current state (at least) is that accounts with either app can still use the app (and AFAIK download it to new hardware).

I was sort of assuming this would work its way out by the end of January or so (after the December brinksmanship) but that's just an assumption about how these things usually sort out.


NYHeel said:


> Lastly, how simple is YTTV to use for someone who is used to using cable (Verizon Fios in this case) and cable company DVRs? I


I'm 10-15 (I guess) years younger than your mom and going from TiVo to YTTV was a snap - but I'm the type that still does his own IT.


----------



## osu1991

NYHeel said:


> I'm thinking of getting my mother set up on YTTV. She's paying a lot for DVRs and boxes and she'd save about $50 a month by switching from Fios (and I think she'd get more channels). However, considering that my mom is in her 70s and my step father in his 80s, this needs to be super simple. My step-father was absolutely awful using any technology 30 years ago, so you can imagine he's a complete disaster now.
> 
> My mom wants to give it a try with the free trial but she needs a streaming device to try it on as I believe her TVs are too old for the YTTV app. They have some Samsung Smart TVs but I believe they're pre-2016 and thus won't support the YTTV app. My first thought was Roku as they're super simple to use and are very cheap (there's a model for $20). However, it looks like Roku doesn't support YTTV anymore so that's out. Fire sticks won't work because the user interface is absolutely awful and way too complicated for my parents.
> 
> Apple TV would work nicely but it's much too expensive. How is the Tivo Stream? I'm envisioning something that you can just power on and easily select an app from a list or grid of apps. Fire sticks are awful as they have so much junk all over the place it's hard to just get to the apps and select. A nice easy to use remote is also a help as my parents aren't going to use their phone as a remote. That's just not going to work.
> 
> Lastly, how simple is YTTV to use for someone who is used to using cable (Verizon Fios in this case) and cable company DVRs? I typically spend a while helping my mom with all her technology but she lives about a hour away from me with obscene tolls and and I don't get over there all that often. I have two brothers that live right next to her but they're not great with this type of stuff. So I'm going to need to help her learn the system over Facetime and I've never used any of these streaming "cable" services.


New Chromecast w/Google Tv. Add the app then put it in apps only mode. There will just be the one big ad then a row of apps, all the other suggestion rows are hidden.

I would set the account up for YTTV then put it on a phone, tablet or computer and edit the guide to move all their favorite channels to the top. Go back to the streaming device and change the guide to custom and it will match the changes you made on the mobile app.

Then it's just a matter of click Live for the guide or Library for the dvr.

I've recently switched back to Tivo Stream 4K. It's been detivo'd per the instructions in one of the threads here. It now works great with YTTV. Similar to the chromecast in apps only mode, you can make it to where you only have the main add then a row of apps.

My parents are in their mid to late 70s. My dad and step mom have been using YTTV for 2-3 yrs now on 4K Fire sticks. My mom occasionally watch's a show off my sisters YTTV or my Philo account and she isn't very tech savvy.

It's something that is going to be different for everyone, but probably becomes simple if they have some help for questions the first few times.


----------



## moyekj

YTTV interface is very non-intuitive especially for those coming from traditional cable boxes IMO. The way recordings are organized makes it lots of clicks to find things that recorded. If they are using it mostly for live TV then it's pretty easy, but I still don't like organization and finding recordings. Requires way too many clicks of back buttons and then going through Library to switch from one recording to another. I really miss TiVo (TE3) way for that. I just wish there was at least a "Home" button on remote where you can get back to main menu in one shot instead of multiple back button presses. Inevitably you go one back press too much and end up exiting the app which gets frustrating.


----------



## NYHeel

moyekj said:


> YTTV interface is very non-intuitive especially for those coming from traditional cable boxes IMO. The way recordings are organized makes it lots of clicks to find things that recorded. If they are using it mostly for live TV then it's pretty easy, but I still don't like organization and finding recordings. Requires way too many clicks of back buttons and then going through Library to switch from one recording to another. I really miss TiVo (TE3) way for that. I just wish there was at least a "Home" button on remote where you can get back to main menu in one shot instead of multiple back button presses. Inevitably you go one back press too much and end up exiting the app which gets frustrating.


Probably a mix of recordings and live TV but more on the recordings. Is there another service (fuboTV or Hulu or something similar) that might work better for recordings? And I fully realize that the answer might be to just stick with Fios.


pdhenry said:


> Is the YouTube app still available on Roku for subscribers who haven't already downloaded it? It's another option (you can access YTTV via the YT app) but it's an additional step or two to get there. The current state (at least) is that accounts with either app can still use the app (and AFAIK download it to new hardware).
> 
> I was sort of assuming this would work its way out by the end of January or so (after the December brinksmanship) but that's just an assumption about how these things usually sort out.
> I'm 10-15 (I guess) years younger than your mom and going from TiVo to YTTV was a snap - but I'm the type that still does his own IT.


Yeah, I saw that and it might work. With my mother, she can figure out the interface after a lot of repetition. She eventually learned the Fios remote and DVR. She's not great and it will likely lead to lots of questions for me but she'll probably figure it out at some point. I might have to sign up for my own trial so that I can play around with it. My step-father is really bad with this stuff. It's not just his age (he is almost 82 though), he's never been good with this sort of stuff for as long as I've known him. Working from home (he still works full time as an accountant) has definitely been a challenge as he normally would have people help him with the computer stuff. He ends up doing a lot of printing and faxing. 


osu1991 said:


> New Chromecast w/Google Tv. Add the app then put it in apps only mode. There will just be the one big ad then a row of apps, all the other suggestion rows are hidden.
> 
> I would set the account up for YTTV then put it on a phone, tablet or computer and edit the guide to move all their favorite channels to the top. Go back to the streaming device and change the guide to custom and it will match the changes you made on the mobile app.
> 
> Then it's just a matter of click Live for the guide or Library for the dvr.
> 
> I've recently switched back to Tivo Stream 4K. It's been detivo'd per the instructions in one of the threads here. It now works great with YTTV. Similar to the chromecast in apps only mode, you can make it to where you only have the main add then a row of apps.
> 
> My parents are in their mid to late 70s. My dad and step mom have been using YTTV for 2-3 yrs now on 4K Fire sticks. My mom occasionally watch's a show off my sisters YTTV or my Philo account and she isn't very tech savvy.
> 
> It's something that is going to be different for everyone, but probably becomes simple if they have some help for questions the first few times.


Yeah, I might try Chromecast or Tivo Stream. If TiVo Stream, I'll have to look at the instructions for deTivoing it if I go that route. It's just cheaper right now which would be the main reason for getting it.


----------



## twalsh22

I don't have YTTV but I really like the $20 onn android tv UHD Streaming device Walmart sells. The remote doesn't have too many buttons or too few. The interface is easy to use to.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk


----------



## pdhenry

I've noticed that on my Roku with voice remote I can no longer fire up YTTV using voice. That's probably why it doesn't work via Amazon Echo either. Seems a little spiteful, IDK.


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts

pdhenry said:


> I've noticed that on my Roku with voice remote I can no longer fire up YTTV using voice. That's probably why it doesn't work via Amazon Echo either. Seems a little spiteful, IDK.


I have read that Roku stands to lose YouTube, YouTube TV, and Amazon Prime next month.


----------



## pdhenry

AFAIK they won't remove the YouTube apps from current subscribers, just prevent people from adding it to their Roku account. YTTV has been that way but I don't think it's happened to YouTube yet.

Or I could be wrong...


----------



## NashGuy

NYHeel said:


> Probably a mix of recordings and live TV but more on the recordings. Is there another service (fuboTV or Hulu or something similar) that might work better for recordings? And I fully realize that the answer might be to just stick with Fios.


I'd say they should stay away from Hulu with Live TV as it has a UI/UX that is the most modern/least like traditional cable TV.

IDK, maybe FuboTV would be a bit more familiar-looking and easier to use for your parents than YTTV? But before researching it, be aware that FuboTV does not have channels from Warner (CNN, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon, etc.) or from A+E (A&E, History, Lifetime, Vice, etc.). And in some markets, it's missing the local affiliate for one of the big 4 networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox). Also doesn't have PBS, which YTTV has.

But really, as noted above, the easiest, most traditional-cable-like option for them would be DirecTV Stream paired with their own custom box and remote, which costs $120 new but can be found on eBay for about half that. It's optional, you can use their apps for Roku, etc. instead, but my hunch is that they would be happier with the box, which starts up right inside DTV Stream and has a remote with channel number buttons and all the standard buttons you expect on a cable remote. It also has an Apps button that takes you to a screen where you can launch popular apps including YouTube, Netflix, Prime Video, HBO Max, etc. About the only apps unavailable for the box are Hulu and Apple TV, although there's a workaround way to add the Hulu app if they need it. But no way to get the Apple TV app on the box yet.

While the DTV Stream cloud DVR acts a lot like a traditional DVR (it doesn't mix together recordings with on-demand stuff), keep in mind that recordings automatically delete after 90 days, which may be an issue for them. Also, the base service only comes with 20 hours of storage. To upgrade that to unlimited storage is an extra $10/mo. You can begin watching recordings while they're still recording. In the case of sports that run long, the system will automatically extend the recording time (as YTTV also does), but maybe 5-10% of the time it doesn't extend long enough and the end of the game is cut off. There's no way to manually extend recording times either.

While it has great picture and sound quality, the main drawback with DTV Stream is the price. The starter tier, Entertainment, costs $70/mo. You'd have to check if it has all the channels they want. Note that it does include the Hallmark channels, as well as A&E, History and Lifetime; YTTV lacks all of those. On the other hand, YTTV has PBS while DTV Stream doesn't quite yet, although they've announced that they have a contract in place with PBS to add their local stations around the country in the coming months.

Add another $10 for the expanded DVR and you're up to $80/mo, which is $15 more than YTTV costs. And then there's the cost of the box(es) if you buy them. If you get them new from DTV Stream, they'll finance them interest-free at $5/mo for 24 months. If you cancel before the 24 months are up, they'll just bill you the balance due on the boxes. Or, as I say, you can buy (and sell) those boxes for much less on eBay.


----------



## ncted

NYHeel said:


> Probably a mix of recordings and live TV but more on the recordings. Is there another service (fuboTV or Hulu or something similar) that might work better for recordings? And I fully realize that the answer might be to just stick with Fios.


It took my wife, who is above average intelligence, about a year to really get comfortable with YTTV, and she never really liked the DVR organization paradigm. My parents, who are 82 and 79, have enough trouble with their Spectrum DVR. I would never try to get them to use YTTV. They would just never get the paradigm. If they wanted to go with a Live streaming service, I'd recommend they try DirecTV Stream with either AppleTV or the AT&T Android box, with the latter being the most like a traditional cable experience. The only question is whether it would save enough money to be worth it.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> It took my wife, who is above average intelligence, about a year to really get comfortable with YTTV, and she never really liked the DVR organization paradigm. My parents, who are 82 and 79, have enough trouble with their Spectrum DVR. I would never try to get them to use YTTV. They would just never get the paradigm. If they wanted to go with a Live streaming service, I'd recommend they try DirecTV Stream with either AppleTV or the AT&T Android box, with the latter being the most like a traditional cable experience. The only question is whether it would save enough money to be worth it.


This is where I am with my parents, who are similarly aged. They've been with Dish for years and would like to reduce their bill a bit if possible, but probably not if it means significant compromises. Dish has all the channels they care about, while no other single service does. It looks like there's a new Hopper 4 on the way powered by Android TV, so they may re-up with Dish and get that new hardware, which would hopefully eliminate the need to switch to Roku for streaming apps.

The only other option that makes sense for them would be DTV Stream with their own Android TV box, but I'm hoping the new 2nd-gen version of the box rolls out before they would sign up. Also, DTV Stream is missing a few channels they care about, so they'd probably need to add a separate subscription to Frndly TV, which would mean having to deal with two separate UIs and cloud DVR systems depending on which channel they're watching. I don't really know if they could get the swing of that or if it would be worth the hassle.

Their Dish bill (for AT120 + Heartland Pack, with 2 HD DVRs) is about to jump to $118/mo. If they went with DTV Stream's Entertainment package with unlimited cloud DVR plus 2 boxes, that would be $90/mo. Frndly TV would cost another $9, bringing the total to $99/mo. That would be a savings of $19/mo, or 14%, which is decent. But, as I say, whether it would be enough savings to justify juggling two apps, I don't know.


----------



## osu1991

YoutubeTV added the 3 Hallmark channels this week. Just need to go edit your custom channel list if you use one instead of the default. They are at the bottom of the channel list.


----------



## NashGuy

osu1991 said:


> YoutubeTV added the 3 Hallmark channels this week. Just need to go edit your custom channel list if you use one instead of the default. They are at the bottom of the channel list.


Yup. Among the major channel groups, all YTTV now lacks are the A+E nets (A&E, History, Lifetime, LMN, Vice) and of course the Bally Sports RSNs. Meanwhile, for those on YTTV who want the A+E nets, they're getting added to Frndly TV next week.


----------



## dlfl

If they add the RSN’s I hope they do it as a separate add on. I would like to see my Cincy reds games but it’s not worth what it would cost (to me). Producing sports events the way it’s done now is just too expensive, and I don’t know if there’s really any solution to that. Everyone wants the multiple camera angles and multiple announcers and commentators, and that stuff costs.


----------



## pdhenry

I agree about the added costs being passed on but RSNs are typically part of a basic cable package.

My area has had the Comcast RSNs for as long as I've had YTTV, going on two years.


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> I agree about the added costs being passed on but RSNs are typically part of a basic cable package.
> 
> My area has had the Comcast RSNs for as long as I've had YTTV, going on two years.


Don't see any reason that tradition needs to be carried on. I expect the RSN's to cost at least $10, or likely $15 or more. If YTTV increases their base rate that much I will be going elsewhare. I'm just not that much of a sports fan, I guess.


----------



## pdhenry

They're already baked into the price. I've had them all along. Even if you don't have them in your local lineup, the $65 subscription rate factors in the cost of providing them in markets that have them.


----------



## ncted

When I first got DirecTV in the early 2000s, no RSN was included. It was a $5 add-on, IIRC. Those were the days.


----------



## mdavej

YTTV just added 3 Hallmark channels, just in time for the holidays.


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> I agree about the added costs being passed on but RSNs are typically part of a basic cable package.
> 
> My area has had the Comcast RSNs for as long as I've had YTTV, going on two years.


Yes. Comcast only has a few RSNs and given their negotiating power (given that they own NBC and various popular cable nets), there was probably no way for YTTV to avoid paying to carry those RSNs. But Comcast has reportedly been considering selling them off (just as AT&T has been exploring selling their 3 or 4 RSNs). The whole RSN business is in flux right now and it's increasingly doubtful that it survives in its current form. Will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years. Seems very likely that those games will become available in some kind of direct-to-consumer streaming package and at the same time become an a la carte add-on to cable bundles.


----------



## Johncv

Joey Bagadonuts said:


> I have read that Roku stands to lose YouTube, YouTube TV, and Amazon Prime next month.


Where did you read about Roku losing Amazon Prime?


----------



## oscarfish

Roku might lose Amazon Prime Video next


----------



## Johncv

oscarfish said:


> Roku might lose Amazon Prime Video next


I found it, look like at some point I will have to replace my crappy Sony amp, so I can use the apps on the TV.


----------



## ncted

Johncv said:


> I found it, look like at some point I will have to replace my crappy Sony amp, so I can use the apps on the TV.


What makes you think your TV will never lose access to apps? I personally have two devices connected to every TV: Apple TV 4K and Amazon Firestick 4K. The AppleTV is our preferred device, but, if it loses an App, it will likely still be available from Amazon or side-loadable from Google. In my experience, the TV apps are often more problematic than the ones on the discrete devices as well. Even my 2020 Sony X950H has been a real pain when trying to use the Android TV apps, so I am not basing this on older TVs.


----------



## chiguy50

ncted said:


> What makes you think your TV will never lose access to apps? I personally have two devices connected to every TV: Apple TV 4K and Amazon Firestick 4K. The AppleTV is our preferred device, but, if it loses an App, it will likely still be available from Amazon or side-loadable from Google. In my experience, the TV apps are often more problematic than the ones on the discrete devices as well. * Even my 2020 Sony X950H has been a real pain when trying to use the Android TV apps, so I am not basing this on older TVs.*


Hmmm, I have the similar but one-model-year older X950G, and the apps I use all work just fine (although I typically use one of three dedicated media streaming devices--Roku Ultra, AFTVS4K, & CCGTV--on my AVR instead of eARC from the TV). What issues have you been having?


----------



## Mr Tony

youtube tv right now 14.99 for 1st month ($50 off) if you want to try it out

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


----------



## dlfl

Mr Tony said:


> youtube tv right now 14.99 for 1st month ($50 off) if you want to try it out
> 
> YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News


A great deal! But a reminder (which shouldn't be necessary): Be sure to cancel before the month is up if you don't want to be automatically charged $64.99 + tax for the next month.


----------



## ncted

chiguy50 said:


> Hmmm, I have the similar but one-model-year older X950G, and the apps I use all work just fine (although I typically use one of three dedicated media streaming devices--Roku Ultra, AFTVS4K, & CCGTV--on my AVR instead of eARC from the TV). What issues have you been having?


Apps won't load, sluggish response to remote inputs, crashing apps, buffering, etc. This is the same thing I've seen on every smart TV I've owned. Nothing is perfect, but a Firestick 4K is far better than what I've seen from any of the built-in apps on WebOS, Android TV, and Tizen over the years. FWIW: I am probably a bit of a perfectionist. I have am Apple TV 4k as well as a Firestick 4K on all 4 of the TVs in my house. The firesticks are a backup for those rare instances when the AppleTV screws up.


----------



## chiguy50

ncted said:


> Apps won't load, sluggish response to remote inputs, crashing apps, buffering, etc. This is the same thing I've seen on every smart TV I've owned. Nothing is perfect, but a Firestick 4K is far better than what I've seen from any of the built-in apps on WebOS, Android TV, and Tizen over the years. FWIW: I am probably a bit of a perfectionist. I have am Apple TV 4k as well as a Firestick 4K on all 4 of the TVs in my house. The firesticks are a backup for those rare instances when the AppleTV screws up.


Strange. I have not a whit of those issues on my Sony; everything loads and operates as smoothly and rapidly as I could hope for. Again, I don't use the TV's apps very often except for troubleshooting (even though my setup allows for eARC playback) since I have at least three dedicated media streaming devices at each of my two systems, not counting TiVo Roamio or Mini. I find the new Roku Ultra 4800 the best of the lot with CCGTV next and AFTVS4K last. The deciding factor for me is that the Roku delivers the best available audio and video codecs for every app that I use, whereas both CCGTV and AFTVS4K currently limit some apps from either Dolby Vision or Dolby Atmos playback or, in some cases, downgrade DD+ 5.1 to a lesser format.

If you have not already done so, you could try rebooting of the TV or even a factory reset. Also check whether you have disabled Samba TV.


----------



## ncted

chiguy50 said:


> Strange. I have not a whit of those issues on my Sony; everything loads and operates as smoothly and rapidly as I could hope for. Again, I don't use the TV's apps very often except for troubleshooting (even though my setup allows for eARC playback) since I have at least three dedicated media streaming devices at each of my two systems, not counting TiVo Roamio or Mini. I find the new Roku Ultra 4800 the best of the lot with CCGTV next and AFTVS4K last. The deciding factor for me is that the Roku delivers the best available audio and video codecs for every app that I use, whereas both CCGTV and AFTVS4K currently limit some apps from either Dolby Vision or Dolby Atmos playback or, in some cases, downgrade DD+ 5.1 to a lesser format.
> 
> If you have not already done so, you could try rebooting of the TV or even a factory reset. Also check whether you have disabled Samba TV.


It seems like Atmos and DV/HDR support comes and goes no matter which platform I use. I am done buying Rokus though. Too many app disputes and too many surprise reboots. I still have an Ultra from 2019, but it is unplugged.


----------



## chiguy50

ncted said:


> It seems like Atmos and DV/HDR support comes and goes no matter which platform I use. I am done buying Rokus though. Too many app disputes and too many surprise reboots. I still have an Ultra from 2019, but it is unplugged.


I had the previous generation Ultra (4660) and, besides lack of DV support, it generally worked well with one major exception: After a full year of flawless operation it started returning false HDCP error messages that could only be rectified by a device reboot. I went through months of back-and-forth emails with Roku support until they finally pushed out a FW update that fixed it about this time last year. (N.B.: Roku has a long history of HDCP problems.)

The 4800, on the other hand, has been a great performer here to such an extent that I rarely bother to use any of my other multiple streaming options. In fact, if not for my desire to maintain redundancy I would probably sell one or both of my CCGTVs (and since I got both of them with the Netflix bundle they each only set me back a net $13 including sales tax). The two Ultra 4800s have yet to hiccup on the apps I use, mainly Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Apple TV+, ShowtimeAnytime, Peacock, and Kanopy. I bought two of them on eBay for around $50 each (used/open box).


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> They're already baked into the price. I've had them all along. Even if you don't have them in your local lineup, the $65 subscription rate factors in the cost of providing them in markets that have them.


And then there's this headline in yesterday's theStreamable.com

*Comcast's Broadcast TV & Regional Sports Fees to Increase 20% in 2022, Surpass $37 a Month*

(For some reason this forum wouldn't let me paste a link to the article)
RSN's cost a bunch &#8230;. period. If you're saying you get these RSN's baked into your YTTV $65 subscription, I'm kinda doubting it.


----------



## pdhenry

dlfl said:


> If you're saying you get these RSN's baked into your YTTV $65 subscription, I'm kinda doubting it.


I'm getting the following channels in my YTTV lineup, which I believe qualify as RSNs 

NBC Sports Philadelphia 
Another "NBC Sports Philadelphia" with different programming
NBC Sports Washington
They appear to have local team pro sports (NHL, NBA, etc) as well as some non-local college sports with a lot of filler such as infomercials. I don't watch any of them very often or at all so if you don't consider them "real" Regional Sports Networks I don't feel bad. They are baked into my YTTV lineup without any stupid fees, as are the local channels (another stupid CableCo fee that irks me).


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> I'm getting the following channels in my YTTV lineup, which I believe qualify as RSNs
> 
> NBC Sports Philadelphia
> Another "NBC Sports Philadelphia" with different programming
> NBC Sports Washington
> They appear to have local team pro sports (NHL, NBA, etc) as well as some non-local college sports with a lot of filler such as infomercials. I don't watch any of them very often or at all so if you don't consider them "real" Regional Sports Networks I don't feel bad. They are baked into my YTTV lineup without any stupid fees, as are the local channels (another stupid CableCo fee that irks me).


Yep, what I consider a "real" RSN is (for example) Fox Sports Ohio which carried (among other things) every Reds game this last season.


----------



## moyekj

WTH? All recent NBC recordings are all VOD only for me (LA region). Anyone else? I didn't see any announcement of changes. It was bad enough CW recordings are VOD only, now NBC too? Is this related to recent deal YTTV made with NBC?


----------



## osu1991

No problems with nbc for me. Both Christmas specials from last night have both dvr and vod versions and defaults to the dvr recording.


----------



## the928guy

No problem for me, either. For good or ill, La Brea recorded just fine.


----------



## moyekj

Bunch of stuff screwed up today. Several shows that should have recorded today didn't. Something is really messed up. Same kind of problems on 3 different clients.


----------



## ncted

Have you contacted YTTV support? Anytime this happened for me, I sent them an email, and they always fixed it quickly.



moyekj said:


> Bunch of stuff screwed up today. Several shows that should have recorded today didn't. Something is really messed up. Same kind of problems on 3 different clients.


----------



## moyekj

ncted said:


> Have you contacted YTTV support? Anytime this happened for me, I sent them an email, and they always fixed it quickly.


This morning magically recordings from yesterday that were missing are all there now. Very strange. Also NBC recordings that were only available in VOD form are now available as DVR recordings. So I guess for some reason DVR was completely broken for my account yesterday and now is working again.


----------



## pdhenry

For those who travel, it appears that turning off your phone's location services and using a VPN will allow you to watch your recordings when outside of the US. 
I'm still unable to watch live programming, though. I get a notice that I need to enable location when I try to do that.
Earlier without a VPN I got a message saying that YTTV was not available in the country I'm in.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE

Closed caption has been hit or miss prime time CBS last week or so

Option to turn off / on is missing

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## windracer

Grrr ... first the regional sports networks now this ... could be the straw that finally makes me cancel.



> Which channels and related VOD content will I lose if the deal with Disney expires?
> 
> Your local ABC channel
> ABC News Live
> Disney Channel
> Disney Junior
> Disney XD
> Freeform
> FX
> FXX
> FXM
> National Geographic
> National Geographic Wild
> ESPN
> ESPN2
> ESPN3 (by authentication to the ESPN app)
> ESPNU
> ESPNEWS
> SEC Network
> ACC Network


----------



## mdavej

windracer said:


> Grrr ... first the regional sports networks now this ... could be the straw that finally makes me cancel.


This sucks for a lot of subs. But it's great for me personally to get $15 back for channels I never watched in the first place (no kids, don't watch sports). Probably won't lose local ABC since those are typically owned by some other conglomerate.

In any case, this sort of stuff is inevitable when all these networks have their own competing streaming services and zero FCC oversight to keep a level playing field.


----------



## ncted

mdavej said:


> This sucks for a lot of subs. But it's great for me personally to get $15 back for channels I never watched in the first place (no kids, don't watch sports). Probably won't lose local ABC since those are typically owned by some other conglomerate.
> 
> In any case, this sort of stuff is inevitable when all these networks have their own competing streaming services and zero FCC oversight to keep a level playing field.


It seems like YTTV's contracts with the networks included non-O&O stations as well from what everyone is reporting.


----------



## hefe

windracer said:


> Grrr ... first the regional sports networks now this ... could be the straw that finally makes me cancel.


Hmm. I'm not sure I care about those. Seems like it might be nice to save a few bucks.


----------



## zalusky

hefe said:


> Hmm. I'm not sure I care about those. Seems like it might be nice to save a few bucks.


I have an antenna for locals that I augment to YTTV in Channels so none of this bothers me.


----------



## hefe

zalusky said:


> I have an antenna for locals that I augment to YTTV in Channels so none of this bothers me.


Yeah, I've had an antenna and tuner tied to Plex for a while, as well as an OTA TiVo Roamio. I find that I never switch to the Roamio with all the streaming, but if I need to for a couple ABC shows, no biggie.


----------



## pdhenry

I'd miss ESPN somewhat but most ABC primetime programming ends up on Hulu soon afterward anyway. I don't think I ever watch my local ABC channel's own programming.


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> This sucks for a lot of subs. But it's great for me personally to get $15 back for channels I never watched in the first place (no kids, don't watch sports). Probably won't lose local ABC since those are typically owned by some other conglomerate.
> 
> In any case, this sort of stuff is inevitable when all these networks have their own competing streaming services and zero FCC oversight to keep a level playing field.


Honestly, these kind of carriage negotiation stand-offs are fairly par for the course between major channel groups and MVPDs with more than 1 million subs. And the more the MVPD attempts to keep costs down, the more it happens -- DISH is notorious for it. Given what they offer for $65/mo, YTTV can't have very big margins, I would bet. So I'm not surprised that their negotiations with NBCU a few months back, and now Disney, are coming down to the wire. Google knows that a big part of YTTV's appeal is the price and if they're going to keep that as low as possible, they have to control content costs.


----------



## mdavej

The more I think about this, it's actually heading in a direction I've been hoping for all along. Put sports in a premium add-on tier so I don't have to subsidize it anymore. I'm very pleased that my $55 YTTV bill (with T-mo bundle discount) may go down to $40 for a little while. Better yet, if Disney does come back, put it in its own premium tier where it belongs.


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> The more I think about this, it's actually heading in a direction I've been hoping for all along. Put sports in a premium add-on tier so I don't have to subsidize it anymore. I'm very pleased that my $55 YTTV bill (with T-mo bundle discount) may go down to $40 for a little while. Better yet, if Disney does come back, put it in its own premium tier where it belongs.


The problem for YTTV (and a lot of their viewers) is that they want their live local ABC station as part of their cable bundle. Between ABC, ESPN for sports fans, Disney and Freeform for kids and teens, and the FX nets for adult/prestige TV lovers, Disney has a pretty broad-spectrum group of channels. But losing ABC will cause the biggest outcry, I imagine. OTOH, it does seem like lots of online commenters are cool with the idea of giving up those channels in exchange for an extra $15 in their pocket.

But you can be sure that Disney would never allow their main channels, especially ESPN, to reside on an optional/upper tier on any service. Either every subscriber gets it (and pays for it) or they take their ball and go home.


----------



## zalusky

NashGuy said:


> The problem for YTTV (and a lot of their viewers) is that they want their live local ABC station as part of their cable bundle. Between ABC, ESPN for sports fans, Disney and Freeform for kids and teens, and the FX nets for adult/prestige TV lovers, Disney has a pretty broad-spectrum group of channels. But losing ABC will cause the biggest outcry, I imagine. OTOH, it does seem like lots of online commenters are cool with the idea of giving up those channels in exchange for an extra $15 in their pocket.
> 
> But you can be sure that Disney would never allow their main channels, especially ESPN, to reside on an optional/upper tier on any service. Either every subscriber gets it (and pays for it) or they take their ball and go home.


Let them take their ball Hulu is cheaper and gives you a nice back catalog. You can also pay more and skip the commercials.


----------



## hefe

pdhenry said:


> I'd miss ESPN somewhat but most ABC primetime programming ends up on Hulu soon afterward anyway. I don't think I ever watch my local ABC channel's own programming.


You can just get ESPN a la carte anyway.


----------



## ncted

hefe said:


> You can just get ESPN a la carte anyway.


Are you talking about ESPN+ or something else? Last time I looked ESPN+ ≠ ESPN.


----------



## tenthplanet

zalusky said:


> Let them take their ball Hulu is cheaper and gives you a nice back catalog. You can also pay more and skip the commercials.


Disney owns 70 percent of Hulu.


----------



## tenthplanet

hefe said:


> You can just get ESPN a la carte anyway.


If you mean ESPN + it doesn't duplicate regular ESPN.


----------



## hefe

tenthplanet said:


> If you mean ESPN + it doesn't duplicate regular ESPN.


I thought it did. I can't imagine what they could provide that you'd want to subscribe to if not their regular programming.


----------



## zalusky

tenthplanet said:


> Disney owns 70 percent of Hulu.


I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am saying if YTTV got reduced by $15 thats easily enough to pay for a Hulu no ads subscription to get your ABC fix.
Better yet put up an antenna and add it to Channels DVR.


----------



## mlsnyc

hefe said:


> I thought it did. I can't imagine what they could provide that you'd want to subscribe to if not their regular programming.


ESPN+ has a lot of live and exclusive content. For example during US Open tennis it showed courts that weren't shown in the broadcasts. However, it does not show what's broadcasting on their channels.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> Let them take their ball Hulu is cheaper and gives you a nice back catalog. You can also pay more and skip the commercials.


Yes, but Hulu isn't a direct replacement for live local ABC stations. Many YTTV/cable TV subs still want to watch ABC's live news (including local news/weather) and live sports.


----------



## pdhenry

I honestly can't remember when I last tuned into a local program on my ABC affiliate.


----------



## NashGuy

pdhenry said:


> I honestly can't remember when I last tuned into a local program on my ABC affiliate.


I was planning to set my parents up with a trial run of YTTV while I'm visiting them over Christmas. But if their local ABC station is missing from the line-up, I probably won't bother. They record the local and national news from that station and watch it every evening. They also record Jimmy Kimmel every night.


----------



## zalusky

NashGuy said:


> Yes, but Hulu isn't a direct replacement for live local ABC stations. Many YTTV/cable TV subs still want to watch ABC's live news (including local news/weather) and live sports.


Get a small antenna for locals and use Channels DVR.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> Get a small antenna for locals and use Channels DVR.


That's a fine suggestion for those who know about such a solution and are technologically inclined enough to implement it (e.g. those of us who hang out on forums like this). But if a cable TV service -- whether it's YouTube TV or any other -- loses a major local channel, my guess is that 0.01% of affected customers (if that) would implement antenna + Channels DVR.


----------



## zalusky

NashGuy said:


> That's a fine suggestion for those who know about such a solution and are technologically inclined enough to implement it (e.g. those of us who hang out on forums like this). But if a cable TV service -- whether it's YouTube TV or any other -- loses a major local channel, my guess is that 0.01% of affected customers (if that) would implement antenna + Channels DVR.


It's actually one of the simplest solutions to implement. Home Automation is much worse. Adding the antenna is even easier. Channels automatically detects it and adds it.
I do think there is a market for a hardware bundle solution. Paying $10/month for every TV when you can pay $6/month for all the TVs you want with the everything Tivo offers.

Trying to understand the YTTV GUI is probably more work than implementing Channels.


----------



## mdavej

zalusky said:


> Trying to understand the YTTV GUI is probably more work than implementing Channels.


As someone who did the home grown DVR thing for years, I have to disagree. For me, understanding YTTV is far easier than buying and setting up an antenna, network tuner, NAS and setting up Channels. I can just imagine my 85 year old mother setting up such a system versus using YTTV.


----------



## zalusky

mdavej said:


> As someone who did the home grown DVR thing for years, I have to disagree. For me, understanding YTTV is far easier than buying and setting up an antenna, network tuner, NAS and setting up Channels. I can just imagine my 85 year old mother setting up such a system versus using YTTV.


First this would be a great opportunity for Best Buy's geek squad. Second the market is a little bigger than 85 year old grandmas. Third after I got my antenna installed I simply plugged it into my HdHomeRun box and Channels immediately saw it and provisioned all the channels available on the antenna. I did not have to do anything.

Lastly the geeks are the ones going down the NAS route and saving every show as if they want to compete with Netflix. Install a MacMini, install Channels server are both pretty much simple next/next/next operations.
Adding a source may take a few extra steps and setting up prioritization's may be a little much for the 85 year old grandma but I suspect the younger generation will have no problem. Lastly there are some pretty smart 85 year old grandmas out there.

Lastly once you have Channels installed you have no headache if you decide to change providers. You can hop around between Xfinity, YTTV, Sling, DirectTv Stream, ... and not have to redo you season passes or get a new box. Tell me who else can do that?


----------



## dlfl

Overwhelming us with so many “lastly”s.


----------



## pdhenry

You've conveniently omitted the startup cost of an HDHomeRun.


----------



## zalusky

pdhenry said:


> You've conveniently omitted the startup cost of an HDHomeRun.


One and done! Which can be mitigated by the ability to switch streaming providers to get their latest deals.


----------



## tenthplanet

mdavej said:


> As someone who did the home grown DVR thing for years, I have to disagree. For me, understanding YTTV is far easier than buying and setting up an antenna, network tuner, NAS and setting up Channels. I can just imagine my 85 year old mother setting up such a system versus using YTTV.


Not to mention millions of people can't get OTA signals, OTA is line of sight which rules out people with indoor antennas on the wrong side of a building (mostly renters). Outdoor antennas are not a option for many people.


----------



## zalusky

tenthplanet said:


> Not to mention millions of people can't get OTA signals, OTA is line of sight which rules out people with indoor antennas on the wrong side of a building (mostly renters). Outdoor antennas are not a option for many people.


Its not always about antennas. The point is antennas are one solution and if it works go for it. You can get locals through lots of places: Xfinity, YTTV, Hulu, DTV Stream, Fumo, Sling, &#8230;

if 0ne of them goes (not a carriage dispute. You can sign up/switch for another for a month or permanently and not have to change your interface or season passes. Can TiVo do that? Can Xfinitys X1? It's one interface for all that allows you to pick and choose and does not charge more for additional TVs.

The one downside is that not every channel is available as a TVE channels but most are. In that case you can resort back to the original source if need be.


----------



## mdavej

zalusky said:


> First this would be a great opportunity for Best Buy's geek squad. Second the market is a little bigger than 85 year old grandmas. Third after I got my antenna installed I simply plugged it into my HdHomeRun box and Channels immediately saw it and provisioned all the channels available on the antenna. I did not have to do anything.
> 
> Lastly the geeks are the ones going down the NAS route and saving every show as if they want to compete with Netflix. Install a MacMini, install Channels server are both pretty much simple next/next/next operations.
> Adding a source may take a few extra steps and setting up prioritization's may be a little much for the 85 year old grandma but I suspect the younger generation will have no problem. Lastly there are some pretty smart 85 year old grandmas out there.
> 
> Lastly once you have Channels installed you have no headache if you decide to change providers. You can hop around between Xfinity, YTTV, Sling, DirectTv Stream, ... and not have to redo you season passes or get a new box. Tell me who else can do that?


I'm glad to hear how easy it is. But it's still nowhere near as easy as launching the YTTV app. Also, if I already have a cloud DVR service like YTTV, why would I need a redundant DVR? (That's a rhetorical question we've beaten to death in other threads).

I'm glad you like Channels, but I will never want or need it; nor do I have any desire for more complexity or fees. Sorry. I'll stick with YTTV, and so will grandma since she shares my account and her antenna only picks up 2 channels, neither of which is ABC.


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> I'm glad to hear how easy it is. But it's still nowhere near as easy as launching the YTTV app. Also, if I already have a cloud DVR service like YTTV, why would I need a redundant DVR? (That's a rhetorical question we've beaten to death in other threads).
> 
> I'm glad you like Channels, but I will never want or need it; nor do I have any desire for more complexity or fees. Sorry. I'll stick with YTTV, and so will grandma since she shares my account and her antenna only picks up 2 channels, neither of which is ABC.


Yeah, I honestly can't imagine trying to do long-distance-phone IT support for my elderly parents if and when something inevitably went wrong with Channels DVR if I were to set that up for them.

Don't get me wrong, I think Channels DVR looks very slick and it's great for folks who are at least somewhat technically inclined. But it ain't for grandma.


----------



## NashGuy

Hmm, less than six hours to midnight ET when Disney-owned channels will go dark on YTTV unless a deal is struck (or negotiations are extended). I figured they would've come to a new agreement by now, and they may still before the day is done. If the article below is correct, the last time Disney was involved in a blackout was in 2010 when some Disney-owned ABC stations disappeared from Cablevision (now Altice) for 21 hours.

YouTube TV vs. Disney: 5 things to know about the possible blackout | TechHive


----------



## tenthplanet

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, I honestly can't imagine trying to do long-distance-phone IT support for my elderly parents if and when something inevitably went wrong with Channels DVR if I were to set that up for them.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think Channels DVR looks very slick and it's great for folks who are at least somewhat technically inclined. But it ain't for grandma.


If tech isn't turnkey..people will not use it. For the most part Tivo's using OTA with a strong signal have been turnkey. Hook up the cables including the one straight into the TV, no mandatory streaming (headless units are NOT turnkey). The descendant of the old VCRs (time display flashing all zeros.. not included ). I see recently Tablo has come around to a direct connection unit. 
There are younger people too (some of hyper class 'A' s) will have zero patience for tech that needs to fiddled with.
Of course that's not us..


----------



## pdhenry

Yep, it's gone.


----------



## NashGuy

tenthplanet said:


> If tech isn't turnkey..people will not use it. For the most part Tivo's using OTA with a strong signal have been turnkey. Hook up the cables including the one straight into the TV, no mandatory streaming (headless units are NOT turnkey). The descendant of the old VCRs (time display flashing all zeros.. not included ). I see recently Tablo has come around to a direct connection unit.


Yep. What mystifies me about that Tablo HDMI-connected model DVR is why they didn't build it atop Android TV so that it could be a full-on streamer, with access to the Google Play app store, in addition to being an OTA DVR. Could've been a do-it-all-in-one box.


----------



## DouglasPHill

I have some streaming I use, not Youtube, but none of the streaming I use or have tried can compare to having your own DVR. 
The biggest difference is the ability to slow down playback, particularly with sports. Another DVR betterment is skipping commercials;
the jump forward 30 seconds or backward 10 seconds is much more precise and easier to do with a DVR. The list of recorded content
is in one place and easy to navigate on a DVR. On streaming I have to look around thru all kinds of icons and banners of stuff
they want me to watch or buy, eventually getting to my recorded content.


----------



## oscarfish

I don't have YTTV, but I have a question. Are programs previously recorded from the removed channels still available?


----------



## pdhenry

oscarfish said:


> I don't have YTTV, but I have a question. Are programs previously recorded from the removed channels still available?


Is The Goldbergs still on? My library only has reruns from The CW currently.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE

oscarfish said:


> I don't have YTTV, but I have a question. Are programs previously recorded from the removed channels still available?


No

But will return if/when channels return

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## tommiet

YouTube just moved up a notch (in my book.) Lost ESPN and the price went down $15.00 a month. $49.95 now.


----------



## zalusky

tommiet said:


> YouTube just moved up a notch (in my book.) Lost ESPN and the price went down $15.00 a month. $49.95 now.


And if you subscribe to T-Mobile you get another $10 off so $39.95


----------



## pdhenry

https://www.tivocommunity.com/commu...ved-december-18th.586511/page-2#post-12464685

Looks like they've made up.


----------



## zalusky

pdhenry said:


> https://www.tivocommunity.com/commu...ved-december-18th.586511/page-2#post-12464685
> 
> Looks like they've made up.


So the question is what changed. Is it status quo? Was something added or did Disney blink?


----------



## tenthplanet

NashGuy said:


> Yep. What mystifies me about that Tablo HDMI-connected model DVR is why they didn't build it atop Android TV so that it could be a full-on streamer, with access to the Google Play app store, in addition to being an OTA DVR. Could've been a do-it-all-in-one box.


I don't think it's the market, most people who are going to stream have been and have devices already. Streaming has become a mature market and devices are cheap.


----------



## NashGuy

tenthplanet said:


> I don't think it's the market, most people who are going to stream have been and have devices already. Streaming has become a mature market and devices are cheap.


Sure, but if you can combine everything in one device/remote/input, it's always better. I watch live and recorded OTA TV, along with all the various streaming apps, on my Apple TV 4K. Way better situation overall than when I used a TiVo Roamio OTA and an Apple TV separately.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> So the question is what changed. Is it status quo? Was something added or did Disney blink?


I'd say Google probably blinked and Disney got pretty much what they wanted.


----------



## zalusky

NashGuy said:


> I'd say Google probably blinked and Disney got pretty much what they wanted.


Why do you say that? Peacock lost out in their negotiation.


----------



## pdhenry

For me anyway, all of the ABC channels show up at the bottom of both my custom channel list so people might have to do some re-sorting.

They also might not show up in your custom channel list unless you add them back.

I did some poking around last night that might have affected what I'm seeing. My experiences above.


----------



## tommiet

pdhenry said:


> https://www.tivocommunity.com/commu...ved-december-18th.586511/page-2#post-12464685
> 
> Looks like they've made up.


ok... So You Tube is now off my list again. No need to pay $15.00 a month for ESPN that I don't watch. That also puts the price about the same as my cable tv package. So no cost savings changing to a streaming package.


----------



## wendlan

Just to clarify - the price didn't go up. $15 is about what Disney charges every carrier...


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV has just gone back to the same price it was a week ago.


----------



## slowbiscuit

DouglasPHill said:


> I have some streaming I use, not Youtube, but none of the streaming I use or have tried can compare to having your own DVR.
> The biggest difference is the ability to slow down playback, particularly with sports. Another DVR betterment is skipping commercials;
> the jump forward 30 seconds or backward 10 seconds is much more precise and easier to do with a DVR. The list of recorded content
> is in one place and easy to navigate on a DVR. On streaming I have to look around thru all kinds of icons and banners of stuff
> they want me to watch or buy, eventually getting to my recorded content.


The Tivo playback experience will always be heads and shoulders above streaming, and is the main reason why I stay with cable. Easy comskip and quick play are invaluable.


----------



## NashGuy

zalusky said:


> Why do you say that? Peacock lost out in their negotiation.


Well, Disney has a stronger hand to play than NBCU, given the popularity of ESPN. And while NBCU didn't succeed in getting Peacock bundled in with YTTV, they almost certainly they got higher carriage rates for their existing channels.

I suspect YTTV was seeing lots of folks hit that cancel button during those 36 hours after they dropped the Disney nets. Folks wanting to see all those college football bowl games on those channels, plus everyone losing their local ABC station. What Google really wanted, based on the language in their press release, was "most favored nation" status, i.e. an agreement that their carriage rates for the Disney nets wouldn't be any higher than the lowest rates negotiated by other similar-sized MVPDs (which would include Hulu with Live TV). I don't think they got that.


----------



## osu1991

and yet YTTV has added the Crown Media Hallmark channels, restored the Disney networks and rates haven't gone up. I would call that a win for YoutubeTV


----------



## pdhenry

osu1991 said:


> and rates haven't gone up


Give it a couple of months.


----------



## NashGuy

osu1991 said:


> and yet YTTV has added the Crown Media Hallmark channels, restored the Disney networks and rates haven't gone up. I would call that a win for YoutubeTV


The rates currently being charged to customers hasn't gone up (yet). I guarantee you that the rates YTTV pays to Disney are going up.

They've added a lot of channels at various times and have seen their rate go from $35 to $40 to $50 to $65 (while also losing nearly all RSNs after the jump to $65). I suspect that that last price increase, combined with dropping those RSNs, made YTTV actually profitable and bought them a little breathing room, which allowed for the addition of the Hallmark and Sony (GSN, GetTV) nets here recently.

But I'll be pretty surprised if we don't see them follow Hulu Live's lead and bump the price up from $65 to $70 at some point in 2022. And as they've done with all earlier price hikes (and as Hulu Live just did with their $5 increase), I expect we'll see YTTV add some additional content to coincide with the rate increase. Most likely candidates to be added are Magnolia (new Discovery net launching in early Jan.) and/or the A+E nets (History, Lifetime, etc.). May also see them add a few more of those little fledgling channels that are available free via OTA and streaming, e.g. Newsy, Circle, Buzzr.


----------



## dlfl

NashGuy said:


> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> But I'll be pretty surprised if we don't see them follow Hulu Live's lead and bump the price up from $65 to $70 at some point in 2022. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..


After all that's only a 7.7% increase, probably about what inflation will be by the time they do it.


----------



## bob1000

I'm in the process of cord cutting.

I purchased 2 lifetime 4 tuner Premiers from eBay (both with 2Gb) and 5 minis in 2014. One Premiere was a spare but later became a 'mini server' while the other one did all the recording. Now they're all boxed and I'm expecting to pass them along someday.

The plan is to change my Comcast service to Internet and all locals (basic TV) only, upon the next contract renewal, saving me about $70 / month. I watch all Comcast now using Roku or Fire TV using the Xfinity Stream app. It's a little clumsy but I only watch a few channels on it now and not very often.

The $70/month savings should make a big dent, or maybe even pay for, all the no commercial streaming apps I use. Much of what I watched on Comcast now come from Discovery+, Peacock Premium, or another app. These are channels I already buy, so in actuality, the $70 / month is pure savings. Since in most cases every episode is always available on demand without commercials, I have little need to DVR anymore.

The plan is to pay $25 / month to Philo if I decide normal TV is needed again. It offers what I could ever want to watch and has no wretched cable news channels.

The hardest part of the switch was the mental adjustment needed to watch TV in a new way .... no DVR or TV Guide. I also figure I'm saving about $4 / month in electricity - not a deal breaker but interesting. Cell phones only in the household, too.


----------



## dlfl

bob1000 said:


> I'm in the process of cord cutting.
> 
> I purchased 2 lifetime 4 tuner Premiers from eBay (both with 2Gb) and 5 minis in 2014. One Premiere was a spare but later became a 'mini server' while the other one did all the recording. Now they're all boxed and I'm expecting to pass them along someday.
> 
> The plan is to change my Comcast service to Internet and all locals (basic TV) only, upon the next contract renewal, saving me about $70 / month. I watch all Comcast now using Roku or Fire TV using the Xfinity Stream app. It's a little clumsy but I only watch a few channels on it now and not very often.
> 
> The $70/month savings should make a big dent, or maybe even pay for, all the no commercial streaming apps I use. Much of what I watched on Comcast now come from Discovery+, Peacock Premium, or another app. These are channels I already buy, so in actuality, the $70 / month is pure savings. Since in most cases every episode is always available on demand without commercials, I have little need to DVR anymore.
> 
> The plan is to pay $25 / month to Philo if I decide normal TV is needed again. It offers what I could ever want to watch and has no wretched cable news channels.
> 
> The hardest part of the switch was the mental adjustment needed to watch TV in a new way .... no DVR or TV Guide. I also figure I'm saving about $4 / month in electricity - not a deal breaker but interesting. Cell phones only in the household, too.


Understood, but for many people "no DVR or TV Guide" is a very hard pill to swallow! Another irritant is the lack of a single UI providing access to multiple streaming services. There have been some attempts at this but none very successful AFAIK. I cut the cable two years ago and don't plan to go back, so don't think I'm arguing against that. I just hope it eventually gets more simple to implement.


----------



## bob1000

dlfl said:


> Understood, but for many people "no DVR or TV Guide" is a very hard pill to swallow! Another irritant is the lack of a single UI providing access to multiple streaming services. There have been some attempts at this but none very successful AFAIK. I cut the cable two years ago and don't plan to go back, so don't think I'm arguing against that. I just hope it eventually gets more simple to implement.


I like the clean Roku interface. Fire TV and Android are more powerful, but also more cluttered. I found out it's pretty easy to keep on top of what show is in which place. Agree the Guide was hard to leave. That thing regulates people's lives. Philo provides a guide and for much less per month, but without locals.


----------



## NashGuy

bob1000 said:


> The hardest part of the switch was the mental adjustment needed to watch TV in a new way .... no DVR or TV Guide. I also figure I'm saving about $4 / month in electricity - not a deal breaker but interesting. Cell phones only in the household, too.





dlfl said:


> Understood, but for many people "no DVR or TV Guide" is a very hard pill to swallow! Another irritant is the lack of a single UI providing access to multiple streaming services. There have been some attempts at this but none very successful AFAIK.


The Apple TV app on the Apple TV box (not other devices) is excellent. It integrates content from all the major streaming services (with the notable exception of Netflix) and gives you a single watchlist called Up Next that keeps up with where you're at in each series you're watching and also lets you save movies there for watching later. The app also includes lists of recommended content from across various apps, especially the ones you use. It's very slick.

Apple TV app

The next-best thing is probably the Google TV homescreen (found on the new Chromecast and a few recent model smart TVs), which has a Continue Watching row that tracks the series and movies you've begun watching but haven't finished, and a separate Watchlist row that you can add individual titles to to start on later. It has a lot of individualized recommendations of content from the major apps (although not from Netflix, who generally refuses to participate in universal cross-app UIs).

Google TV


----------



## bareyb

NashGuy said:


> The Apple TV app on the Apple TV box (not other devices) is excellent. It integrates content from all the major streaming services (with the notable exception of Netflix) and gives you a single watchlist called Up Next that keeps up with where you're at in each series you're watching and also lets you save movies there for watching later. The app also includes lists of recommended content from across various apps, especially the ones you use. It's very slick.
> 
> Apple TV app


I wouldn't say it's _excellent_, but it's better than anyone else has done so far. I'd love it if Apple would take it a step farther and give us a Grid or List version of Up Next which only includes shows we are tracking and the App they are on and not include every single thing we've clicked on recently, (yes I know you can delete them). Something similar to TiVo's Now Playing list _would_ be excellent.

ETA: The Reelgood App is okay too but it requires too much user interaction in order to be accurate.


----------



## DouglasPHill

My daughter added ESPN to her hulu package because she knows I love college football. Unfortunately not having cable ESPN means the ESPN stream doesn't have any games that are on the ESPN cable channels. So basically no value there.

Looked at Peacock but they wanted $10 per month to get rid of commercials. Not worth it to me, $3 and I would have signed up.


----------



## bob1000

DouglasPHill said:


> My daughter added ESPN to her hulu package because she knows I love college football. Unfortunately not having cable ESPN means the ESPN stream doesn't have any games that are on the ESPN cable channels. So basically no value there.
> 
> Looked at Peacock but they wanted $10 per month to get rid of commercials. Not worth it to me, $3 and I would have signed up.


If you are a customer of Comcast, you already have Peacock Premium and it's another $5 / month to upgrade it to commercial free.


----------



## samsauce29

bob1000 said:


> If you are a customer of Comcast, you already have Peacock Premium and it's another $5 / month to upgrade it to commercial free.


Same with Spectrum... At least for 12 months. Just canceled and restarted yesterday... $5 a month now with no commercials.


----------



## pdhenry

YouTube TV is Dropping 5 Channels Today | Cord Cutters News


----------



## dlfl

pdhenry said:


> YouTube TV is Dropping 5 Channels Today | Cord Cutters News


If this allowed them to avoid a price increase, I'm happy. Nothing there I will miss.


----------



## zalusky

dlfl said:


> If this allowed them to avoid a price increase, I'm happy. Nothing there I will miss.


Well one of these channels just no longer exists NBCSN.


----------



## JoeKustra

zalusky said:


> Well one of these channels just no longer exists NBCSN.


Gone.
With NBCSN Set to Shutdown on Dec. 31, USA Network Will Expand Sports Programming in 2022 (sportsvideo.org)


----------



## pdhenry

Roku adds 'Live TV Zone' on homescreen w/ YouTube TV integration

Seemingly sweeping the past year of feuding with Google under the rug, Roku is today adding a new "Live TV Zone" feature on the homescreen that includes integration with YouTube TV.

Rolling out now, the Roku homescreen is adding a "Live TV Zone" section which shows a channel guide that pulls in live channels from various services, as well as showing some content from those services. The new feature appears under the "Live TV" tab on the left-hand navigation menu.​


----------



## dougtv

pdhenry said:


> Roku adds 'Live TV Zone' on homescreen w/ YouTube TV integration
> 
> Seemingly sweeping the past year of feuding with Google under the rug, Roku is today adding a new "Live TV Zone" feature on the homescreen that includes integration with YouTube TV.​​Rolling out now, the Roku homescreen is adding a "Live TV Zone" section which shows a channel guide that pulls in live channels from various services, as well as showing some content from those services. The new feature appears under the "Live TV" tab on the left-hand navigation menu.​


I would switch completely to TiVo Stream 4K and YouTube TV if they fully integrated their guides together. One guide with OTA + Pluto + TIVO+ + YouTubeTV = winning

I love the Apple TV 4K, but TiVo Stream 4K also supports 4K/HDR and is no where near the cost. The Apple TV "what's next" stuff is great...but that feature, along with Apple's centralized siri/search doesn't integrate with Netflix of all things.

TiVo Stream 4K on the other hand, has all that integration (except I think appletv+) AND a live guide...if that live guide plugged into other streaming services like YoutubeTV and not just Sling..it would be such a win. Or at the very least letting us assign custom buttons so "Live TV" opens YouTube TV or something. And if they didn't integrate the TiVo live TV guide, then Guide button while in YouTube TV launched the YouTube TV listings instead. I just wish there was a little more customization especially since it's based on android. 

And of the course another big want with TiVo Stream 4K would be able to properly use the TiVo android app to play recorded shows or live programming from a connected streamable TiVo DVR.


----------



## NashGuy

dougtv said:


> I would switch completely to TiVo Stream 4K and YouTube TV if they fully integrated their guides together. One guide with OTA + Pluto + TIVO+ + YouTubeTV = winning
> 
> I love the Apple TV 4K, but TiVo Stream 4K also supports 4K/HDR and is no where near the cost. The Apple TV "what's next" stuff is great...but that feature, along with Apple's centralized siri/search doesn't integrate with Netflix of all things.
> 
> TiVo Stream 4K on the other hand, has all that integration (except I think appletv+) AND a live guide...if that live guide plugged into other streaming services like YoutubeTV and not just Sling..it would be such a win. Or at the very least letting us assign custom buttons so "Live TV" opens YouTube TV or something. And if they didn't integrate the TiVo live TV guide, then Guide button while in YouTube TV launched the YouTube TV listings instead. I just wish there was a little more customization especially since it's based on android.
> 
> And of the course another big want with TiVo Stream 4K would be able to properly use the TiVo android app to play recorded shows or live programming from a connected streamable TiVo DVR.


Google TV (available on the latest Chromecast as well as various new smart TVs) has a Live tab in the homescreen that integrates channels from YouTube TV as well as Pluto TV. It also has a cross-app watchlist and Continue Watching list that function sort of like Apple TV's Up Next unified queue (which is actually superior). But those features on Google TV don't support Netflix either -- they just don't like to cooperate with universal cross-app UIs.


----------



## mdavej

dougtv said:


> I would switch completely to TiVo Stream 4K and YouTube TV if they fully integrated their guides together. One guide with OTA + Pluto + TIVO+ + YouTubeTV = winning


Replace TIVO with Amazon Recast, and have it all in one guide. You win!


----------



## JayMan747

mdavej said:


> Replace TIVO with Amazon Recast, and have it all in one guide. You win!


I would consider this if it would allow 1080i/p. Really surprised they haven't upgraded this hardware yet.


----------



## NashGuy

JayMan747 said:


> I would consider this if it would allow 1080i/p. Really surprised they haven't upgraded this hardware yet.


Amazon released the Fire TV Recast over three years ago, in Sept. 2018, and hasn't put out an updated model since. It seems to be a more or less forgotten product (although a useful one for a certain niche). Perhaps they'll eventually roll out an ATSC 3.0-capable version of the Recast. But OTOH it wouldn't surprise me if they just quietly discontinued the product completely after selling through existing stock.


----------



## bareyb

Has anyone found a 4k DVR solution yet? I'm getting tired of trying to track all my shows manually or with my TiVo To-Do list (which doesn't track streaming only shows). I wonder why nobody has done this yet? Seems like it would be very popular. There must not be any money in it.


----------



## mdavej

bareyb said:


> Has anyone found a 4k DVR solution yet? I'm getting tired of trying to track all my shows manually or with my TiVo To-Do list (which doesn't track streaming only shows). I wonder why nobody has done this yet? Seems like it would be very popular. There must not be any money in it.


I could have sworn Youtube TV had a 4k DVR. Am I mistaken?


----------



## bareyb

mdavej said:


> I could have sworn Youtube TV had a 4k DVR. Am I mistaken?


Yes. Unless I am.... 
I'd be all over it if they did, but as of a few months ago they barely had 1080. Mostly 720.


----------



## bareyb

bob1000 said:


> If you are a customer of Comcast, you already have Peacock Premium and it's another $5 / month to upgrade it to commercial free.


How does one go about signing up for that? I'm not seeing it as part of our pkg. I'm already paying full pop for CF Peacock so it may be too late for me anyway /shrug.


----------



## mdavej

bareyb said:


> Yes. Unless I am....
> I'd be all over it if they did, but as of a few months ago they barely had 1080. Mostly 720.


Hmm... maybe I'm imagining watching hours and hours of 4k recordings of the last Olympics as well as the 4k add-on package. Also, nearly everything I see on my YTTV is 1080. I'll have to look again as a sanity check.


----------



## bareyb

mdavej said:


> Hmm... maybe I'm imagining watching hours and hours of 4k recordings of the last Olympics as well as the 4k add-on package. Also, nearly everything I see on my YTTV is 1080. I'll have to look again as a sanity check.


I do recall they had some 4k streams available at the time, but it was very few and only the Olys. I'm not aware of a 4k add-on pkg. so I will await your research with great anticipation. I see no reason they can't offer it since all the Apps do 4k. I imagine it's probably because they want you to subscribe to the Apps so they can make more $$$.


----------



## mdavej

bareyb said:


> I do recall they had some 4k streams available at the time, but it was very few and only the Olys. I'm not aware of a 4k add-on pkg. so I will await your research with great anticipation. I see no reason they can't offer it since all the Apps do 4k. I imagine it's probably because they want you to subscribe to the Apps so they can make more $$$.


I already know all about the 4k add-on pkg since I had it for a couple of months. No need for any more research on my end. Research to your heart's content, and enlighten the rest of us.

You do realize that all the ABC nets (Disney, ESPN, etc.), all the FOX nets and a few others are all 720p from the source, right? Nothing any provider, including YTTV, can do to change that beside upscale and give us fake 1080. I personally wouldn't want that.

You can bet they're making plenty of $$$ on 4k without charging per App.


----------



## bareyb

Hulu has NBC and FOX in 4k. Paramount has CBS in 4k. But only on the Apps. So far as I know that’s the only way to get major Nets in 4k.


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV has 4K Plus. The first year is $10 additional/month and then it goes to $20 additional. 


> When you purchase 4K Plus, you get these features added to the channels in your Base Plan:
> 
> 4K viewing on available content
> Unlimited concurrent streams at home
> Ability to view DVR recordings offline for available content (mobile devices only)
> 4K playback is available on select live and on-demand content from these networks:
> 
> Discovery
> ESPN
> FOX Sports
> FX
> Nat Geo
> NBC Sports
> Tastemade
> 
> 4K playback is only available on compatible devices:
> *4K Smart TVs*
> 
> 4K Android TV models like Sony Bravia, and others
> Samsung, LG and HiSense 4K Smart TVs (2016 or later)
> *4K Streaming Devices connected to a 4K TV*
> 
> Chromecast with Google TV
> 4K Roku Streaming Devices
> Apple TV 4K (2021)
> PS4 Pro
> Amazon Fire 4k Stick (1st Gen - 2018)
> Nvidia Shield
> *Note*: 4K is only available on select content for Apple TV and PS4 Pro. Some programs may have lower resolution.


----------



## bareyb

pdhenry said:


> YTTV has 4K Plus. The first year is $10 additional/month and then it goes to $20 additional.


Unfortunately, those channels aren’t the ones I’m interested in. I’m more looking for the major networks and streaming apps. Not sure if it will ever happen but if it does I’ll be the first in line to get it.


----------



## NashGuy

bareyb said:


> I do recall they had some 4k streams available at the time, but it was very few and only the Olys. I'm not aware of a 4k add-on pkg. so I will await your research with great anticipation. I see no reason they can't offer it since all the Apps do 4k. I imagine it's probably because they want you to subscribe to the Apps so they can make more $$$.


You're wanting the broadcast and cable TV networks to begin offering lots of content in 4K. Unfortunately they don't. So it doesn't matter whether you get your service from YouTube TV, DirecTV, Comcast, or whoever, there's just not that much stuff they have to offer in 4K.

Meanwhile, on-demand streaming services like Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max, etc. have a lot of original content available in 4K.


----------



## bareyb

NashGuy said:


> You're wanting the broadcast and cable TV networks to begin offering lots of content in 4K. Unfortunately they don't. So it doesn't matter whether you get your service from YouTube TV, DirecTV, Comcast, or whoever, there's just not that much stuff they have to offer in 4K.
> 
> Meanwhile, on-demand streaming services like Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max, etc. have a lot of original content available in 4K.


You can get the Major TV Networks in 4k but you have to go through a streaming App like Hulu (ABC and FOX), Peacock (NBC), and Paramount Plus (CBS). All of the online DVR services that I've seen seem to still be using the broadcast stream that Comcast etc. use which is still in 720 and 1080.


----------



## mdavej

bareyb said:


> You can get the Major TV Networks in 4k but you have to go through a streaming App like Hulu (ABC and FOX), Peacock (NBC), and Paramount Plus (CBS). All of the online DVR services that I've seen seem to still be using the broadcast stream that Comcast etc. use which is still in 720 and 1080.


I just checked the two apps I had, Hulu and Paramont+, and found no live 4k streams of the ABC, FOX or CBS networks.


----------



## bareyb

mdavej said:


> I just checked the two apps I had, Hulu and Paramont+, and found no live 4k streams of the ABC, FOX or CBS networks.


All of ours are in 2160P. Looks amazing compared to TiVo.


----------



## mdavej

bareyb said:


> All of ours are in 2160P. Looks amazing compared to TiVo.
> View attachment 67902


So you apparently have "Hulu Live TV", not Hulu then. Where exactly is the CBS live feed on Paramount+?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you have to have Paramount+ "Premium".


----------



## bareyb

mdavej said:


> So you apparently have "Hulu Live TV", not Hulu then. Where exactly is the CBS live feed on Paramount+?


Do you have an AppleTV "4k" set up for 4k? If it's only an AppleTV "HD" or you've got a 4k set to 1080p (Settings>Audio/Video) you won't get 2160p.


----------



## mdavej

bareyb said:


> Do you have an AppleTV "4k" set up for 4k? If it's only an AppleTV "HD" or you've got a 4k set to 1080p (Settings>Audio/Video) you won't get 2160p.


I don't have an AppleTV at all. Don't have Hulu Live TV or Parmount+ premium either.

But I'm not convinced you're not simply watching upscaled content.


----------



## bareyb

mdavej said:


> I don't have an AppleTV at all. Don't have Hulu Live TV or Parmount+ premium either.
> 
> But I'm not convinced you're not simply watching upscaled content.


I had no idea we were having a theoretical discussion. Lol. Either way, I'd be pretty impressed if they've been able to upscale 720p to 2160p and not leave some trace of it. I guess you'll never know unless you try it for yourself. Whatever they've done it looks amazing and much better than my TiVo. It's also got the added bonus of no commercials so I'm happy for now. My only complaint is there's no "DVR" type service available yet that can keep track of all my shows and when new ones drop etc. like TiVo does.


----------



## dlfl

I think a lot of people are fooling themselves with the resolution numbers game. It reminds me of the horsepower mine-is-bigger-than-yours games played in the context of car engines. You have to have the right combination of screen size, rendering performance, viewing distance and visual acuity to see significant differences between true 4K resolution and (properly) upscaled 1080, I think the percentage of people who can perceive those differences in their actual viewing situations is pretty small. Just going by the resolution number doesn’t determine your experience.


----------



## chiguy50

bareyb said:


> How does one go about signing up for that? I'm not seeing it as part of our pkg. I'm already paying full pop for CF Peacock so it may be too late for me anyway /shrug.


Peacock Premium is included for no additional cost for all Xfinity Flex customers and Xfinity X1 and video customers who have a subscription to Xfinity Internet or Digital Starter TV, or equivalent, or above. 

It may not be listed as one of the features of your subscription package, but it should be called out on your bill as shown below.










If you are currently paying $10 for Peacock Premium Plus (the top, commercial-free tier), then I assume that you have established an account at PeacockTV.com and signed up there. But your Peacock account should reflect your status as a Comcast customer if you linked to your Comcast credentials. Premium Plus is still a $5.00 p.m. upgrade as shown below.











If you believe you qualify for the free Peacock Premium service and you are not getting it, you should contact Comcast customer service.


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> I don't have an AppleTV at all. Don't have Hulu Live TV or Parmount+ premium either.
> 
> But I'm not convinced you're not simply watching upscaled content.


He's definitely looking at upscaled content. There's no way to get a live stream of Fox (or even an on-demand stream of that show in his screenshot, Call Me Kat) in 2160p. His TV is showing that its receiving a 2160p stream via HDMI from his Apple TV 4K because, by default, it outputs everything at that resolution when connected to a 4K TV.


----------



## pldoolittle

bareyb said:


> How does one go about signing up for that? I'm not seeing it as part of our pkg. I'm already paying full pop for CF Peacock so it may be too late for me anyway /shrug.


I believe you have to order the comcast streaming box (free) to activate that promo. I did.

Once you have it, sign into peacock with a free account and it will prompt you for your cable provider. Select comcast and login with your Xfinity credentials. Done.

Anytime a channel asks for your cable provider, try connecting accounts. There have been a few cases (ESPN, iirc) where this worked. You'll know immediately if it doesn't.

Also, if you have youtube tv, that is also a cable provider. Try it too.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chiguy50

pldoolittle said:


> I believe you have to order the comcast streaming box (free) to activate that promo. I did.


No, that is not the case unless you are talking about something other than the service discount. (N.B.: There have been some special promotional deals available. I used one for a free two-month upgrade to Peacock Premium Plus, but I do not have any Comcast devices other than a CableCARD.)

You don't need to have ANY equipment from Comcast in order to qualify for the free upgrade to Peacock Premium (note that the basic Peacock service tier is free to the general public, including anyone who is not a Comcast customer). Even Flex customers using their own streaming media device qualify and, of course, TiVo users with only a Comcast CableCARD also qualify. However, the third tier, Peacock Premium Plus (ad-free), is a $5/mo. upgrade.

Here is an illustration of the plans without the customer discount:


----------



## Johncv

allan said:


> The Hulu package I have is commercial free with Live TV. Of course, if I'm actually watching Live, I can't FF, anymore than I could with a DVR in realtime. The on demand stuff includes the major networks and a bunch of cable channels (not all, but most of the ones I watch), Hulu original content, and a bunch of older shows (I'm currently rewatching Stargate SG1 for example). For most of the network shows, I avoid commercials entirely if I watch a day late (I've occasionally gotten bit by trying to watch a show too early and gotten ads), and a few shows have some ads at the beginning of the show (Gray's Anatomy is the only one I've encountered).
> 
> The big thing I think I'd miss by switching are the older shows, especially during the summer, or the various hiatus periods that come up.


The Hulu allow you to record the CW Network (and skip ads) ? I am not finding CW in the lineup of channels.


----------



## wendlan

Johncv said:


> The Hulu allow you to record the CW Network (and skip ads) ? I am not finding CW in the lineup of channels.


CW is a strange exception on YTTV. In some markets, the CW local is carried by YTTV, but in other (many?) markets, it's available only as VOD? I can't think of any other channel that works that way?


----------



## pdhenry

Are there markets that lack a different broadcast network (ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox/PBS)?


----------



## DocNo

pdhenry said:


> Are there markets that lack a different broadcast network (ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox/PBS)?


My parents need Las Vegas but they don't have it. I've been going crazy trying to find something that will meld streaming as well as local OTA but finally stumbled on other threads here in the forums that lead me to Channels DVR. They have zero documentation on OTA other than recording OTA from the SiliconDust HDHomeRun Flex 4K ATSC 3.0 networkable tuner. At this point I may just say screw it and get the HDHomeRun Flex and the demo software to see how it really works - but the more I read tonight, Channels seems to be the ONLY solution that can tie the streaming services as well as local OTA channels together.

Which is maddening - the Tivo Edge handles OTA flawlessly - but they are just to lazy? Can't get Google to cooperate? to get integration with YouTube TV on the Edge. Integration with YouTube TV seems to be decent on the Tivo Stream - but switching back and forth between devices depending on what you want to watch is a bit nuts. 

So it may be time to get an HDHomeRun Flex and give Channels a try.


----------



## ncted

DocNo said:


> My parents need Las Vegas but they don't have it. I've been going crazy trying to find something that will meld streaming as well as local OTA but finally stumbled on other threads here in the forums that lead me to Channels DVR. They have zero documentation on OTA other than recording OTA from the SiliconDust HDHomeRun Flex 4K ATSC 3.0 networkable tuner. At this point I may just say screw it and get the HDHomeRun Flex and the demo software to see how it really works - but the more I read tonight, Channels seems to be the ONLY solution that can tie the streaming services as well as local OTA channels together.
> 
> Which is maddening - the Tivo Edge handles OTA flawlessly - but they are just to lazy? Can't get Google to cooperate? to get integration with YouTube TV on the Edge. Integration with YouTube TV seems to be decent on the Tivo Stream - but switching back and forth between devices depending on what you want to watch is a bit nuts.
> 
> So it may be time to get an HDHomeRun Flex and give Channels a try.


Not sure exactly what you mean by "Channels seems to be the ONLY solution that can tie the streaming services as well as local OTA channels together." You may have something specific in mind, but in general terms, there are at least a couple options that do what you describe. If you are willing to live in the Amazon walled garden to get decent integration, there is the Recast OTA DVR coupled with the Firestick/Cube/TV. If you want more freedom to mix and match technologies, there is Tablo which can be coupled with a variety of streaming devices. However, neither of those are the linear TV first kind of solutions that Tivo provides, so the paradigm is different for the user than you or your parents might be used to.

I used to have a Recast, and now I have a Tablo which I use with AppleTV. The Recast definitely did a better job at the integrating the Live TV/DVR content into the UI along with other content, but I personally had issues with it recording what it should, most likely due to bad guide data. Also, we hated the new FireTV UI. 

The Tablo app is a separate thing from the streaming services we use, but we honestly watch so little broadcast TV these days, it just isn't a big deal to switch to another app to watch linear TV, especially on the AppleTV.


----------



## osu1991

DocNo said:


> My parents need Las Vegas but they don't have it. I've been going crazy trying to find something that will meld streaming as well as local OTA but finally stumbled on other threads here in the forums that lead me to Channels DVR. They have zero documentation on OTA other than recording OTA from the SiliconDust HDHomeRun Flex 4K ATSC 3.0 networkable tuner. At this point I may just say screw it and get the HDHomeRun Flex and the demo software to see how it really works - but the more I read tonight, Channels seems to be the ONLY solution that can tie the streaming services as well as local OTA channels together.
> 
> Which is maddening - the Tivo Edge handles OTA flawlessly - but they are just to lazy? Can't get Google to cooperate? to get integration with YouTube TV on the Edge. Integration with YouTube TV seems to be decent on the Tivo Stream - but switching back and forth between devices depending on what you want to watch is a bit nuts.
> 
> So it may be time to get an HDHomeRun Flex and give Channels a try.


Are you wanting the local subchannels, because YouTubeTV has the main over the air broadcast locals in Las Vegas?


----------



## mdavej

Also consider Amazon Recast. It integrates OTA and streaming and, unlike Channels, has no monthly fee or additional equipment besides the Recast itself and a Firestick. The hard drive is inside the Recast.

I find it hard to believe your locals are missing from YTTV. Could it be that your IP location is different from your actual location?


----------



## NashGuy

DocNo said:


> My parents need Las Vegas but they don't have it. I've been going crazy trying to find something that will meld streaming as well as local OTA but finally stumbled on other threads here in the forums that lead me to Channels DVR.


When you say you want "something that will meld streaming as well as local OTA," what _exactly_ do you mean by "streaming"? Are you talking about having a unified live channel grid guide with both OTA and streaming channels? And, if so, are you talking about free streaming channels (from the likes of Pluto or Xumo) or streaming channels from a pay TV service like your local cable company (e.g. Comcast, Charter, etc.) or from the likes of YouTube TV or Sling or Philo? And are you hoping for the ability to record those streaming channels to the same local DVR where you record OTA channels?

Or, on the other hand, by "streaming," do you just mean content from on-demand streaming services like Netflix, Prime Video, HBO Max, etc? Are you simply looking for a streaming device featuring those apps plus an app for live and DVR recorded OTA TV?


----------



## NashGuy

osu1991 said:


> Are you wanting the local subchannels, because YouTubeTV has the main over the air broadcast locals in Las Vegas?


Right. In the Las Vegas viewing area, YouTube TV has the local stations affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, The CW, My Network TV, Telemundo, Univision and UniMas. 









And while neither YouTube TV or any other streaming cable TV service (e.g. DirecTV Stream) includes local subchannels, YouTube TV does have the national feeds for a few of the networks that often appear on subchannels, including Get TV, Cozi TV, Comet, Start TV, Newsy, Dabl, Court TV, NBCLX, and QVC.


----------



## Mr Tony

So with the new promo they are running (14 days free and $50 off 1st month for new subs...runs til the 18th in the fine print) might try it out. One thing that is interesting. My market does not have an ABC affiliate. My market only has KEYC CBS, KEYC FOX, KMNF NBC and KMNF CW. Cable and satellite import KSTP from Minneapolis for ABC. ON YTTV they give us a hybrid national feed. Looking at the weekday schedule its interesting
6-8 Good Morning America (normally its on from 7-9 Central)
8-10 ABC News Live
10-11 View
11-12 GMA3
12-1 GMA3
1-2 General Hospital
2-3 General Hospital
3-4 GMA3
4-5 View
5-5:30 GMA3 (half hour?)
5:30-6 ABC Nat'l News
6-6:30 ABC Nat'l News
6:30-7 simulcast from ABC News Live channel
7-10 Prime Time
10-10:35 simulcast from ABC News Live channel
10:35-12:07 Kimmel and Nightline
overnight its national ABC programming (ABC news)

Noticed on the weekend its alot of simulcast from ABC News Live as I see "What would you do?" and "Covid: 24 months that changed the world" on Saturday. I did not go past that in the guide.

So if you don't have an ABC licensed in your DMA you get a national ABC with some weird "off time" programming. Interesting that PBS they do give me the Minneapolis PBS (KTCA) and PBS Kids (labelled as TPT Kids)

Wonder how it is in markets that dont have a specific network like CBS or FOX in their DMA? (NBC is in all 210 DMA's)


----------



## pdhenry

So you can watch it live? People in this thread without a CW affiliate in their market report being able to watch on-demand only.
Can you skip ads on recorded ABC shows, or are they the unskippable VOD ads?


----------



## Mr Tony

pdhenry said:


> So you can watch it live?


I haven't signed up yet but probably will just to see how well it works



> People in this thread without a CW affiliate in their market report being able to watch on-demand only.


The CW we have OTA is the CW+ which is a 24/7 programmed station (with a few spots for local news or syndicated inserts) for DMA markets 100+ (we're market 198 out of 210). It says VOD only when you put in the zip. 



> Can you skip ads on recorded ABC shows, or are they the unskippable VOD ads?


See first response


----------



## mdavej

Mr Tony said:


> I haven't signed up yet but probably will just to see how well it works


If you haven't signed up yet, how do you know you only get the national ABC feed? Just because the lookup page says ABC, doesn't necessarily mean national.


----------



## Mr Tony

mdavej said:


> If you haven't signed up yet, how do you know you only get the national ABC feed? Just because the lookup page says ABC, doesn't necessarily mean national.


because from a computer it gives you the option to browse the guide before signing up
Here is what it shows for my locals as of 15 minutes ago









and tomorrow here is what YTTV shows around late morning (oh and Bandwagon is a polka show that has been on since 1960) 









whereas Minneapolis ABC shows E/I


----------



## Mr Tony

pdhenry said:


> So you can watch it live?


If you are referring to ABC yes I can watch it live.
I signed up and watched ABC and could use DVR while watching it live



> Can you skip ads on recorded ABC shows, or are they the unskippable VOD ads?


Yes. I recorded some ABC shows like the national news and could skip/ff through commercials with no issues.

oh and when they switch from ABC programming to ABC News Live this shows up right before (when they switch to ABC it shows the ABC logo instead of what is shown below. I saw that right before the national news)









oh and above when I put "5-5:30 GMA3 (half hour?)" they cut away around 5:27 at the end of the particular segment and showed some commercials then "flipped" to ABC for national news. So basically ABC News Live is used as filler when ABC has no national programming


----------



## Mr Tony

Mr Tony said:


> Wonder how it is in markets that dont have a specific network like CBS or FOX in their DMA? (NBC is in all 210 DMA's)


Looks like only ABC is the hybrid like I have. I used a zip for zanesville, OH which only has NBC in its market. They get Columbus CBS, FOX and PBS along with whiz NBC.


----------



## sroberts225

I am being forced to relinquish my beloved TiVo because my cable provider (local outfit - EATEL, now REV) is switching to some system that makes my cable card obsolete. So as of August 31, 2022 I will probably be switching to YouTube TV... My son has it and likes it quite a bit.


----------



## 3 Cushion John

chiguy50 said:


> Before you pull the plug on Xfinity, talk to a customer retention CSR (call up and select "cancel services"). Tell them that you enjoy their service but that you are on a tight budget and your current bill is too high, forcing you to reluctantly close your account with them unless they can reduce your bill. See what reductions or discounts they offer you. If the response is inadequate, call back again later and see if you have better luck. Since the start of this year Comcast has eliminated some of the "customer courtesy" codes that CSR's could apply, but there are still interesting promotions to be had--particularly if there is competition from other MVPD's in your area. There's no need to wait until the end of your current subscription (unless you are on a contract with early termination penalties)--call now!


If you can't get a deal and decide to cancel, you can usually try back in 2 months after closing an account. Then they can give you a new customer discount. I trimmed down my cable TV to just local channels. I use AppleTV for other channels etc. I chose AppleTV over roku because we already have apple accounts on iphones and everything flows both ways. I also think AppleTV is technically superior (and way more expensive) although I don't use their APTV plus.


----------



## pdhenry

3 Cushion John said:


> you can usually try back in 2 months after closing an account.


I thought the new customer offer terms say 90 days, but this worked for me in the past.


----------



## pdhenry

For some reason YTTV on two of the three Rokus in my house have suddenly decided they're in Richmond, VA. It's working as though I'm traveling - I can watch but not record local Richmond shows and my home-area recordings are watchable after the recording has ended.
On the set that still thinks I'm at home I also have a Fire Stick; on that device I'm apparently in Richmond as well.
The upside is that I can watch Jeopardy at mid-day (but they're just reruns this month), but I have no use for southern Virginia traffic and weather.
I suspect it's related to my Verizon Wireless home internet service. I'm guessing that my IP address is being geolocated to Richmond and that the one Roku that thinks I'm home will eventually join the others in Virginia.
If only that meant I could escape the MLB TV regional blackout for Orioles games, but sadly all of VA and most of NC is blacked out (but only a small part of PA for some reason).


----------



## pdhenry

On the other hand, several IP-based geolocation services are saying I'm in NYC. I wonder where YTTV is getting that I'm in Richmond.


----------



## pdhenry

Update: looks like I've managed to fix it by going to tv.youtube.com/verify on a mobile device connected to the same network.


----------



## wco81

sroberts225 said:


> I am being forced to relinquish my beloved TiVo because my cable provider (local outfit - EATEL, now REV) is switching to some system that makes my cable card obsolete. So as of August 31, 2022 I will probably be switching to YouTube TV... My son has it and likes it quite a bit.


I'm wondering how long Comcast/Xfinity will support CableCard.

My contract ends at the end of the year.

I now have AT&T Fiber and Verizon Home 5G available. First time ever I've had broadband options. Well there was AT&T UVerse and even worse, DSL, but they weren't real options.

So I may switch to Fiber and sign up for YouTube TV.

For one thing, I've been watching more and more streaming content the last couple of years. PQ is usually better to a lot better (in the case of 4K HDR) than cable TV will ever be.

In fact if you want 4K HDR content, streaming is going to be the only choice probably.

So hoping that YouTube TV gets enough 4K content. They're already streaming some sports events in 4K but need to see NBA and NFL games regularly in 4K.


----------



## chiguy50

wco81 said:


> I'm wondering how long Comcast/Xfinity will support CableCard.
> 
> My contract ends at the end of the year.


I suspect their CableCARD support will continue for quite some time (my guess would be something in the neighborhood of three to five years, minimum). In the interim the main issue for most users will be whether or how many of the channels you care about will have migrated from QAM to IP delivery. And even then, you could still view those channels via the Xfinity Stream app (N.B.: the XS app is now officially out of beta status, for whatever that signifies). And since most Comcast CATV subs now include at least 20 hours of cloud storage, you can even "record" a few favorite programs. 

I watch most of my programs via the provider's streaming app and use my TiVo mainly as an organizational aid to track programs I will want to watch (Guide and To Do List) or have yet to get around to watching (My Shows).


----------



## humbb

chiguy50 said:


> .....
> And even then, you could still view those channels via the Xfinity Stream app (N.B.: the XS app is now officially out of beta status, for whatever that signifies). And since most Comcast CATV subs now include at least 20 hours of cloud storage, you can even "record" a few favorite programs.


Very true. And also helpful is using the XStream app doesn't (generally - doesn't apply to TV Go channels, so be careful with those) count against the 1.2Tb internet cap. So I can use Stream to, for example, watch available On Demand HBO content rather than using the HBO Max app and not have it impact my cap limit.

I too expect that Xfinity will continue CC support for quite a few years. The last two times I renewed my 2 year contract I asked if CC's will continue working through my deal and received an emphatic YES (and "don't worry") answer both times. Take that for what it's worth, but I believe them. Also, many on this forum were skeptical a few years ago when there was a rumor that TiVo and Comcast included a CC support (through this decade) agreement as part of their patent settlement. At this point, that rumor is looking better and better each year. Keeping my fingers crossed.


----------



## wco81

I use the XS app on my mobile devices. I don't know if they have an app for Apple TV 4K or other streaming devices.

They have a beta for my LG OLED but the UI is such a PITA to use.

I have to wonder YouTube TV DVR has to be better.


----------



## mdavej

Unless it's improved a lot in the past year or so, the last time I used Xfinity Stream it was really terrible. Bad picture quality, bad UI.


----------



## chiguy50

mdavej said:


> Unless it's improved a lot in the past year or so, the last time I used Xfinity Stream it was really terrible. Bad picture quality, bad UI.


It is my app of last resort and therefore seldom used here. Sadly, AFAIK the audio is also limited to PCM 2.0.

OTOH, Comcast's Peacock streaming app is very decent in both AQ/VQ and UX. As far as content is concerned, it has featured a couple of good exclusive movies (notably, _The Outfit_ and _The Northman_) and series (notably, _The Office Superfan Episodes_).


----------



## wco81

mdavej said:


> Unless it's improved a lot in the past year or so, the last time I used Xfinity Stream it was really terrible. Bad picture quality, bad UI.


I use it and I appreciate having it as an option. For instance, when I travel overseas, I VPN back to my home and can stream and download everything to my mobile devices.

However it's not reliable, not as sold as a Tivo.

I'd still like to be able to continue using Tivo but I may switch to AT&T Fiber soon and that would mean subscribing to YouTube TV.

I would think YouTube can do a much better job with a cloud DVR than Comcast Xfinity but you never know. And even if its better, not sure it will be as solid as a Tivo, especially for skipping through commercials

May have to do a trial subscription to see how it holds up, because my Comcast contract is ending and I know I can save money with AT&T Fiber and Youtube TV with HBO Max and Showtime subscriptions than what I currently pay.

My Roamio and Tivo Mini have served me well for about a decade and they clearly have advantages over Xfinity Stream, though XF Stream is MUCH better at accessing for remote downloads when away from home than the Tivo.


----------



## pdhenry

wco81 said:


> And even if its better, not sure it will be as solid as a Tivo, especially for skipping through commercials


YTTV's skip mode skips 15 seconds at a time. Not as instant as commercial skip but maybe about as fast as triple-FF if you can push the button really fast.


----------



## NashGuy

wco81 said:


> I'd still like to be able to continue using Tivo but I may switch to AT&T Fiber soon and that would mean subscribing to YouTube TV.


Special deal, today (Fri., Sept. 9) only: get your first 7 weeks of YouTube TV for only $14.99!









YouTube TV Has a Hot Damn 1-Day Deal - But Is YouTube TV Good For Sports Fans? - The TV Answer Man!


TV Answer Man, I see that YouTube TV is charging just $15. I’m thinking about signing up but does it have the best sports channels like ESPN and the regional sports nets that have our teams? — Julie, Chesapeake Beach, Maryland. Julie, for those not familiar with YouTube TV, it’s a live...




tvanswerman.com


----------



## wco81

Thanks I booked the YouTube TV deal.

We will see how the cloud DVR works.


----------



## wco81

Thanks I signed up for the deal as well as add the 4K.

Will it record 4K sporting events and play them back later in 4K?


----------



## wco81

pdhenry said:


> YTTV's skip mode skips 15 seconds at a time. Not as instant as commercial skip but maybe about as fast as triple-FF if you can push the button really fast.


I set up a bunch of recordings but I also tried watching some VOD shows and you can't skip commercials, just during the shows themselves.

Hopefully if you record them in your DVR, you will have no problems skipping?

Also anyone know if you record 4K sports events or such that it will record in 4K and you can play back in 4K, including downloaded recordings?


----------



## pdhenry

wco81 said:


> I set up a bunch of recordings but I also tried watching some VOD shows and you can't skip commercials, just during the shows themselves.
> 
> Hopefully if you record them in your DVR, you will have no problems skipping?


Correct, VOD will have unskippable ads but the ads on DVR'd shows are skippable.

I don't have 4K service. Assuming you can schedule a 4K recording (as opposed to all 4K being VOD) it should have skippable ads, IMO.


----------



## mdavej

wco81 said:


> Also anyone know if you record 4K sports events or such that it will record in 4K and you can play back in 4K, including downloaded recordings?


How do you download recordings? I didn’t know that was possible.


----------



## pl1

mdavej said:


> How do you download recordings? I didn’t know that was possible.


The 4K Upgrade on YTTV allows offline viewing for mobile devices only. Get extra features with 4K Plus - YouTube TV Help
When you purchase 4K Plus, you get these features added to the channels in your Base Plan:

4K viewing on available content
Unlimited concurrent streams at home
*Ability to view DVR recordings offline for available content (mobile devices only)*


----------



## pdhenry

You can download DVR recordings in the YTTV tier that includes 4K.






Get extra features with 4K Plus - YouTube TV Help


Our 4K Plus add-on lets you add extra viewing options to your YouTube TV Base Plan. With 4K Plus, you can unlock 4K Ultra High Definition playback for certain live and on-demand programs on YouTube TV



support.google.com


----------



## mschnebly

I usually bump to up about 85% of my data limit every month. I'm afraid if I went with 4k I'd go over.


----------



## wco81

I recorded some shows just to try out the cloud DVR.

First lame thing, it records EVERY episode, you don't get to choose between new and repeats. So you have to sort through and figure out which recording you haven't watched yet.

Second lame thing, after a recording, you can't download for HOURS. I waited like over 12 hours before I was able to download. A 31-minute recording downloaded at 1080p60 is about 800 MB. Xfinity Stream lets you download AS SOON AS the recording is complete.

Third lame thing, you record by adding whole shows. That means it will put all the VOD versions in your Library view and you have to look for the DVR recordings amongst all the VODs. And as noted, it will record repeats too.

So I chose BBC World News to record because it was airing at the time. Well it turns out this thing airs several times a day around the hour. So in my Library view, it shows dozens or hundreds of recordings and to be recorded entries for the next two weeks. I have to scroll down forever to get to the most current, because it sorts by reverse date and puts the "to be recorded" episodes 2 weeks out at the top.

OK, people say the Xfinity Stream has inferior PQ because Comcast compresses the hell out of it. I didn't see any great PQ on BBC World News, they are probably upscaling a 720p source. As I noted, the usability of Xfinity Stream is inferior to Tivo. But it's still way better than this YouTube TV app.

The real interesting thing will be 4K sporting events recorded. Will see if I can download but you can only download to mobile devices, not to the browser (though I haven't tried it in Chrome).

I would like to download for offline viewing on my MacBook Pro with the mini LED screen, which makes Apple TV + shows look spectacular, especially the highlights. But that isn't going to be an option.


So if they get more 4K content, that might be the only saving grace of YouTube TV.


----------



## mdavej

In the web interface you can mark entire seasons as watched if you want. Then it will track what you watch if you have history tracking enabled on your account.

It will also automatically play back the DVR version first rather than the VOD version, if it exists. So you don't actually have to worry about that.

All the micro management you had to do on a traditional DVR is gone. So let it go. It's not so bad once you get used to it.


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> All the micro management you had to do on a traditional DVR is gone. So let it go. It's not so bad once you get used to it.


Yep. The typical poster on this forum is a TiVo enthuasiast/power user who loves fiddling with all the settings -- and control -- that TiVo gives him. But YTTV wasn't designed for that sort of person. 

In some ways, that's good. Don't worry about storage space or tuners, just click once and let it all record. Don't worry about sports running long because they'll automatically extend the recording.

OTOH, it does seem like the Library was designed to mimic the on-demand libraries in Netflix, Prime Video, etc., with episodes organized in numerical order, by season, not ordered by recording date. And if you're trying to, say, build your own personal "box set" of The Office, that's what you'd want. But if that's what you're after, well, just subscribe to Peacock. Given the things that people actually tend to use cable TV for -- sports, news, and the latest weekly episodes of current primetime series (not so much building on-demand libraries of entire shows) -- I think YTTV's Library UI could have been better designed.


----------



## pdhenry

Case in point - I managed to work through the Andy Griffith Show in series order thanks to YTTV's method of organizing shows, but it's pretty difficult to figure out which rerun of SNL aired last night.


----------



## osu1991

YTTV needs to make an update like Philo where you can select all episodes or just recordings in the library for each show.


----------



## cwteevee

wco81 said:


> I use the XS app on my mobile devices. I don't know if they have an app for Apple TV 4K or other streaming devices.
> 
> They have a beta for my LG OLED but the UI is such a PITA to use.
> 
> I have to wonder YouTube TV DVR has to be better.


They now have an app for Apple TV and it looks the Roku app is out of beta. I’ve played around with the Apple TV app and haven’t found any issues with it. Luckily we don’t have any data caps so I‘m not as concerned about how we access streaming content.


----------



## wco81

cwteevee said:


> They now have an app for Apple TV and it looks the Roku app is out of beta. I’ve played around with the Apple TV app and haven’t found any issues with it. Luckily we don’t have any data caps so I‘m not as concerned about how we access streaming content.


Yeah I have it on my Apple TV 4K.

As limited as it is compared to Tivo, it's still a lot better than the mess that is YouTube TV.

I don't ever want to watch any VOD content because you can't skip commercials. So why have a DVR at all if they're going to shove all the VOD garbage?


----------



## mdavej

wco81 said:


> Yeah I have it on my Apple TV 4K.
> 
> As limited as it is compared to Tivo, it's still a lot better than the mess that is YouTube TV.
> 
> I don't ever want to watch any VOD content because you can't skip commercials. So why have a DVR at all if they're going to shove all the VOD garbage?


Then don't watch VOD. Youtube defaults to the DVR version, so what's the problem. On any other system, without a recording, you'd have NOTHING to watch at all. At least YTTV gives you content before you've even recorded it. That's a plus in my book, not garbage being shoved in my face.


----------



## wco81

mdavej said:


> Then don't watch VOD. Youtube defaults to the DVR version, so what's the problem. On any other system, without a recording, you'd have NOTHING to watch at all. At least YTTV gives you content before you've even recorded it. That's a plus in my book, not garbage being shoved in my face.


Only way I record something to a DVR is to add it to my Library right?

I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

But when I add a show to my Library, it puts ALL the episode of that show which has ever been made into my Library view. So when I go to the show in my Library, all I see are dozens of VOD entries and maybe one or two DVR entries.

It's a PITA to sort through all that, unless I'm missing something about how to navigate the UI or if there's some way to filter it so I don't see VODs of episodes from years ago that I'm not interested in.

Surely people used to Tivo UI would understand that, only wanting to find recordings of new episodes so I don't have to sort through older episodes I'm no longer interested in viewing?


----------



## mdavej

In the web interface you can mark episodes and entire seasons as watched if you want. There’s also a recent recordings list if I recall correctly. Are yours not sorted by episode?


----------



## zalusky

wco81 said:


> Only way I record something to a DVR is to add it to my Library right?
> 
> I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
> 
> But when I add a show to my Library, it puts ALL the episode of that show which has ever been made into my Library view. So when I go to the show in my Library, all I see are dozens of VOD entries and maybe one or two DVR entries.
> 
> It's a PITA to sort through all that, unless I'm missing something about how to navigate the UI or if there's some way to filter it so I don't see VODs of episodes from years ago that I'm not interested in.
> 
> Surely people used to Tivo UI would understand that, only wanting to find recordings of new episodes so I don't have to sort through older episodes I'm no longer interested in viewing?


Shows recorded from that point on are added to you library and you can fast forward the commercials on those. Older shows that exist in the VOD are also available in the library. Of course you can't skip ahead on commercials on those.
Not every show has an associated VOD library. Your recorded shows are first in the pick list when there are multiples of the same episode if you choose to play them.


----------



## pdhenry

It takes a close eye to see which shows have DVR'd content and which only have VOD content from the Library view before you choose a given show (you can tell by the "Released X Days/Months/Years Ago"... vs "Recorded X Days Ago" between the thumbnail and the episode title). Obviously when you first add a show to your library anything you see with be VOD, but eventually (especially for shows that are airing reruns) you have to look at each episode and it can be difficult to find the episode that aired most recently in old shows that may air out of order.


----------



## pl1

wco81 said:


> Only way I record something to a DVR is to add it to my Library right?
> 
> I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
> 
> But when I add a show to my Library, it puts ALL the episode of that show which has ever been made into my Library view. So when I go to the show in my Library, all I see are dozens of VOD entries and maybe one or two DVR entries.
> 
> It's a PITA to sort through all that, unless I'm missing something about how to navigate the UI or if there's some way to filter it so I don't see VODs of episodes from years ago that I'm not interested in.
> 
> Surely people used to Tivo UI would understand that, only wanting to find recordings of new episodes so I don't have to sort through older episodes I'm no longer interested in viewing?


Part of the blame goes to the networks as well. I really had a hard time figuring out "Naked & Afraid" on Discovery when I had YTTV. YTTV would tell me I had a new episode. I had already marked everything as watched. I would have thought that a new unwatched episode would be at the top of the list. But, no, it was mixed in with about 2 years worth of episodes. I just wanted to mark it as read since I new knew it was NOT new. It was a real PITA. But, blame should go to Discovery. What they do is take old episodes and add fancy facts to it, and call it a NEW episode. TiVo is MUCH MUCH easier to sort this kind of thing out if you are not storing anything. It's the only episode in your NPL so you can see instantly that it is really a re-run. But, it is the station that is trying to sucker you into re-watching it.

Edit: I new knew


----------



## bareyb

wco81 said:


> I use the XS app on my mobile devices. I don't know if they have an app for Apple TV 4K or other streaming devices.
> 
> They have a beta for my LG OLED but the UI is such a PITA to use.
> 
> I have to wonder YouTube TV DVR has to be better.





cwteevee said:


> They now have an app for Apple TV and it looks the Roku app is out of beta. I’ve played around with the Apple TV app and haven’t found any issues with it. Luckily we don’t have any data caps so I‘m not as concerned about how we access streaming content.


Thank you!!! This is certainly a step in the right direction. We almost NEVER use our TiVo any more, except to use it as a ToDo list and for Local News. Had no idea there was an Xfinity app for ATV.

It's got all of our TiVo recordings, our ToDo list, and even remembered our Favorite Channels! I think this may have eliminated any need for us to have to change inputs on the TV now. I love it!


----------



## wco81

I recorded some 4k college football games and an NFL game, which was in Hd.

downloaded both to iPad.

4k game recoding was about 12.3 GB and tHe NFL game was about 7.4 GB.

4k game was almost 4 hours and 5 minutes and the NFL game was just under 3 hours and 28 minutes.

You do see a slight improvement in PQ in the 4k over the HD version on the iPad screen (latest iPad Air) but not as dramatic as on a big 4K TV.


----------



## pdhenry

YTTV is giving me the NYC locals this evening (probably Verizon changed my public IP address overnight). I know how to fix it (go to a certain YouTube web page on my phone so they can see my location and reset my channels) but I feel like seeing what advantages there might be in this status quo.

Looks like Jeopardy would be on a half hour earlier if I just let it sit...


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts

wco81 said:


> Surely people used to Tivo UI would understand that, only wanting to find recordings of new episodes so I don't have to sort through older episodes I'm no longer interested in viewing?


Any idea why, for some live shows that are run again a few hours later, the TiVo guide shows a "New" stamp on the rerun? I'll use "Dan Abrams Live" as an example. His live show airs weeknights at 9pm Eastern and a rerun of that same show runs again at midnight. Even though I have One Pass set to record "New" versions only, both the 9pm and the midnight shows are recorded. Either I have to go through my "To Do" list and delete the later show or I have to go into "My Shows" and delete the redos in order to free up HD space.


----------



## JackF

omelet1978 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Long time Tivo owner that currently has a Tivo Bolt 4K 1Tb with lifetime service. I'm going to be done with my subscription with Xfinity in a few months and have been looking at YouTube Tv. Specifically the unlimited DVR storage for 9 months (now with fast forwarding), and their updated channel lineup which now has all the channels I usually watch.
> 
> My Tivo Bolt is not updated to Hydra and I'm not going to because the Live Guide is gone. That being said everything works fine as is, and my goal was to use it for years (it's 2 years old now). That being said, I'm periodically tempted to cut cable even though I really like Tivo, so just wondering if anyone had any thoughts or recommendations (for or against) YouTube Tv? It'd be cheaper than Xfinity, but then again I've always been a fan of the TiVo interface.
> 
> YouTube TV - Watch & DVR Live Sports, Shows & News
> 
> Thanks


A former Spectrum owner fed up with their lack of support for my cable card in my Edge, so I cut the cord and chose a subscription with YouTube TV as they had most but not all of my preferred channels. YouTube TV's interface is so janky I cannot believe that a company with such a high profile in the IT world designed it. Service is variable and mostly depends on your ISP provider service..., mostly. Moving from the TiVo is a huge step-down in terms of performance and feature set. But when you're dealing with a s-hole company like Spectrum one has little choice. If there is a specific reason for dropping X-finity? For Spectrum's substandard service, they charged me north of $200/month; Now I pay $59/month for a much reduced channel offering to YouTube TV and $55/month for T-Mobile's 5G Internet service, which in my neighborhood provides gobs of bandwidth. Other streaming providers charge more for what in my eyes is a minimal desired channel offering.


----------



## Mister B

pdhenry said:


> It takes a close eye to see which shows have DVR'd content and which only have VOD content from the Library view before you choose a given show (you can tell by the "Released X Days/Months/Years Ago"... vs "Recorded X Days Ago" between the thumbnail and the episode title). Obviously when you first add a show to your library anything you see with be VOD, but eventually (especially for shows that are airing reruns) you have to look at each episode and it can be difficult to find the episode that aired most recently in old shows that may air out of order.


I am glad I am not the only person who finds "recording" on these steaming/cloud services cumbersome. I just dropped Sling because they dropped the ability to record just one episode of a show. Just because I see one favorite episode of Star Trek TNG I don't want to record every one that comes on forever. Yes, I am sure there are work arounds that involve a lot of button pushing. I believe FRNDLY TV is the only live channel streaming service that still offers recording just one episode.


----------



## pdhenry

If there isn't a limit on the number of shows that can be recorded the bycatch really doesn't concern me. Worst case is I can turn on recording before the episode airs that I want to see and turn it off after it airs. Worrying about the number of recordings is a bit like having a persistent small-HD TiVo mindset.


----------



## Mr Tony

Mister B said:


> I am glad I am not the only person who finds "recording" on these steaming/cloud services cumbersome. I just dropped Sling because they dropped the ability to record just one episode of a show. Just because I see one favorite episode of Star Trek TNG I don't want to record every one that comes on forever. Yes, I am sure there are work arounds that involve a lot of button pushing. I believe FRNDLY TV is the only live channel streaming service that still offers recording just one episode.


huh?
Sling you can record one episode of a show. I have Sling and do it every night for "Quick Pitch" on MLB Network. They replay it repeating overnight every hour. I scroll to the 6am version, press the * button and it says "record" and it will record just that episode
If there is a show that has multiple episodes you have the option for that episode, new only or all.


----------



## bakerfall

After 9 months on YTTV and 1 on DirecTV Stream, I can tell you the most Tivo/Cable STB like experience is DirecTV Stream with their box. It is a far better experience using their native box than YTTV was with Apple TV, Roku, etc. The D* PQ is the best I've seen and most of the kinks I experienced in earlier trials are gone. There are things I don't like as much as Tivo, but I think this is the best compromise. I also used Channels for a while with an HD Home Run and a Windows PC. That Windows PC died and the experience with D* is good enough that I haven't even bothered in replacing that solution.


----------



## mdavej

bakerfall said:


> After 9 months on YTTV and 1 on DirecTV Stream, I can tell you the most Tivo/Cable STB like experience is DirecTV Stream with their box. It is a far better experience using their native box than YTTV was with Apple TV, Roku, etc. The D* PQ is the best I've seen and most of the kinks I experienced in earlier trials are gone. There are things I don't like as much as Tivo, but I think this is the best compromise. I also used Channels for a while with an HD Home Run and a Windows PC. That Windows PC died and the experience with D* is good enough that I haven't even bothered in replacing that solution.


No doubt. I had DirecTV Stream for a couple of years, and it was pretty obvious that it was hands down the most cable like experience, in every possible way, including the astronomical price. I concluded that if I'm going to be paying the same for streaming as for cable/satellite, I may as well just stick with the real deal - cable/satellite.


----------



## bakerfall

mdavej said:


> No doubt. I had DirecTV Stream for a couple of years, and it was pretty obvious that it was hands down the most cable like experience, in every possible way, including the astronomical price. I concluded that if I'm going to be paying the same for streaming as for cable/satellite, I may as well just stick with the real deal - cable/satellite.


I'm paying $89 with no box fees or other random taxes/fees. In my best negotiated Cable rate, I could get near that when using Tivo/minis (and still had the Tivo cost). With YTTV, I was paying $55 ($10 T-Mo discount) + $19.99 4K package for additional streams. D* Stream now has unlimited DVR and 20 streams. PQ is significantly better than Xfinity which had reduced everything to 720P a few years ago.

Bottom line, if you really want to save money you can't use any of these packages and need to go antenna + VOD streaming providers.


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> No doubt. I had DirecTV Stream for a couple of years, and it was pretty obvious that it was hands down the most cable like experience, in every possible way, including the astronomical price. I concluded that if I'm going to be paying the same for streaming as for cable/satellite, I may as well just stick with the real deal - cable/satellite.


Depending on your provider, and whether or not you want RSNs, you may or may not pay a little less for DTV Stream versus the incremental cost of adding your provider's cable TV package with DVR and box rentals to their broadband service. But to say that cable TV from the likes of Comcast, Charter, Verizon, DISH, etc. is "the real deal" while DTV Stream isn't? Nah. You're going to have better HD PQ on DTV Stream and, for most folks, a better user experience too: your cable TV and all the streaming apps you use on one device, unlimited cloud DVR storage, unlimited simultaneous recordings, automatic extension of sports recordings that run long, no long-term contracts. So even if the cost is the same, I'd rather have DTV Stream than, say, Xfinity TV on X1 or TiVo.


----------



## wco81

Does DTV Stream have 4K channels like YTTV?

Downloads for offline viewing?


----------



## Joey Bagadonuts

Providers that boast super-dooper PQ reminds me of Google Fiber that boasts 2GB internet speeds. Regardless of the speed Google offers, it's only as good as the equipment it's feeding. The same applies to PQ. It's only as good as the eyes doing the watching. I am perfectly happy with Xfinity for delivery, a 77" LG OLED TV for viewing, 1TB and 3TB TiVo devices for recording and storage, and Roku for streaming. It will be a sad day when TiVo goes away but I'll cross that bridge when the time comes.


----------



## NashGuy

wco81 said:


> Does DTV Stream have 4K channels like YTTV?
> 
> Downloads for offline viewing?


No, for whatever reason, DTV has kept 4K content as an exclusive feature of their Satellite service and not put it (yet) on Stream. As for downloads from the Stream cloud DVR, I'm not sure but I don't think so. I think that may also be a feature exclusive to the Genie DVRs on the Sat service.


----------



## mdavej

NashGuy said:


> Depending on your provider, and whether or not you want RSNs, you may or may not pay a little less for DTV Stream versus the incremental cost of adding your provider's cable TV package with DVR and box rentals to their broadband service. But to say that cable TV from the likes of Comcast, Charter, Verizon, DISH, etc. is "the real deal" while DTV Stream isn't? Nah. You're going to have better HD PQ on DTV Stream and, for most folks, a better user experience too: your cable TV and all the streaming apps you use on one device, unlimited cloud DVR storage, unlimited simultaneous recordings, automatic extension of sports recordings that run long, no long-term contracts. So even if the cost is the same, I'd rather have DTV Stream than, say, Xfinity TV on X1 or TiVo.


Better user experience? Where's the slo-mo, frame-by-frame, quick mode, commercial skip, wish lists, the all important "live guide" view, etc., etc.? How does DTV Stream work when your internet goes out? Where are the dual live buffers?

Yes, cable/sat. is still the real deal, and streaming services are the poor copies. If I had unlimited money, I'd go with the real deal. Of course, I don't have unlimited money, so I settle for streaming, the affordable kind (not DTV Stream).


----------



## NashGuy

mdavej said:


> Better user experience? Where's the slo-mo, frame-by-frame, quick mode, commercial skip, wish lists, the all important "live guide" view, etc., etc.? How does DTV Stream work when your internet goes out? Where are the dual live buffers?


These are features that TiVo users -- a very tiny minority of American consumers -- care about. Most of them have never been available on mainstream cable/sat DVRs, so they're not features that non-TiVo owners even know about.

Note that I said DTV Stream is a better user experience "for most folks" than cable or satellite TV service. TiVo fans are so few that they simply don't matter in terms of evaluating what most consumers would or wouldn't like in about a particular TV service.



mdavej said:


> Yes, cable/sat. is still the real deal, and streaming services are the poor copies. If I had unlimited money, I'd go with the real deal. Of course, I don't have unlimited money, so I settle for streaming, the affordable kind (not DTV Stream).


Rooftop dishes and clunky set-top boxes 4eva!!!


----------



## ncted

NashGuy said:


> TiVo fans are so few that they simply don't matter in terms of evaluating what most consumers would or wouldn't like in about a particular TV service.


That will be a popular opinion around here.


----------



## NashGuy

ncted said:


> That will be a popular opinion around here.


What can I say, I guess I enjoy sharing heterodox views.


----------



## bakerfall

NashGuy said:


> These are features that TiVo users -- a very tiny minority of American consumers -- care about. Most of them have never been available on mainstream cable/sat DVRs, so they're not features that non-TiVo owners even know about.
> 
> Note that I said DTV Stream is a better user experience "for most folks" than cable or satellite TV service. TiVo fans are so few that they simply don't matter in terms of evaluating what most consumers would or wouldn't like in about a particular TV service.
> 
> 
> 
> Rooftop dishes and clunky set-top boxes 4eva!!!


As someone who has had DirecTV (with and without Tivo) ('02-'15), Comcast (with Tivo) ('15-'21), YouTube TV ('21-'22) and DirecTV Stream ('22-now) (with Osprey boxes and Apple TVs) over the past 20 years, I can honestly say that the DirecTV Stream experience is the most balanced experience of all of them. I loved Tivo in its heyday, but it self sabotaged over and over again with guide missteps, forced ads, expensive HW, etc. I finally gave up on Tivo primarily because of Comcast's costs and quality, but Tivo wasn't doing itself any favors any more. YTTV was ok for a while, PQ was a step back but doable until they started having major issues with PQ and audio sync. I switched to DTV Stream about 5 weeks ago, and It is really excellent. PQ and AQ is on par with DTV satellite (which was the best of any service I had used), the Osprey boxes bring the experience on par with cable/satellite, but you get the benefits of being able to use on any device, any location, etc. It's been excellent.


----------



## pdhenry

bakerfall said:


> they started having major issues with PQ and audio sync.


IME it's platform dependent and not just a recent problem. FWIW, I have no issues with either on Roku with >25 Mbps or so bandwidth while Fire stick would go out of sync from time to time.


----------



## bakerfall

pdhenry said:


> IME it's platform dependent and not just a recent problem. FWIW, I have no issues with either on Roku with >25 Mbps or so bandwidth while Fire stick would go out of sync from time to time.


This is a different issue. I experienced the slow drift of delay with my fire stick when I would travel. Their implementation of DD 5.1 has broken audio sync across all platforms pretty routinely.


----------



## chiguy50

bakerfall said:


> As someone who has had DirecTV (with and without Tivo) ('02-'15), Comcast (with Tivo) ('15-'21), YouTube TV ('21-'22) and DirecTV Stream ('22-now) (with Osprey boxes and Apple TVs) over the past 20 years, I can honestly say that the DirecTV Stream experience is the most balanced experience of all of them. I loved Tivo in its heyday, but it self sabotaged over and over again with guide missteps, forced ads, expensive HW, etc. I finally gave up on Tivo primarily because of Comcast's costs and quality, but Tivo wasn't doing itself any favors any more. YTTV was ok for a while, PQ was a step back but doable until they started having major issues with PQ and audio sync. I switched to DTV Stream about 5 weeks ago, and It is really excellent. PQ and AQ is on par with DTV satellite (which was the best of any service I had used), the Osprey boxes bring the experience on par with cable/satellite, but you get the benefits of being able to use on any device, any location, etc. It's been excellent.


Could you give some particulars regarding PQ and AQ between YTTV and DTV Stream in your experience? (For example, is there support for DD+ 5.1?)


----------



## bakerfall

chiguy50 said:


> Could you give some particulars regarding PQ and AQ between YTTV and DTV Stream in your experience? (For example, is there support for DD+ 5.1?)


DTV Stream has 5.1 on all channels that support it. YTTV added it recently to some channels, and has had continuing audio sync issues since. They also created a new jittery video issue that started manifesting for me during NFL games (one of the only times I care to watch live TV). DTV broadcasts at a higher bitrate and it is noticeably clearer and with less pixelation than YTTV. Try them both, it's significant enough that you should notice right away.


----------



## wco81

bakerfall said:


> DTV Stream has 5.1 on all channels that support it. YTTV added it recently to some channels, and has had continuing audio sync issues since. They also created a new jittery video issue that started manifesting for me during NFL games (one of the only times I care to watch live TV). DTV broadcasts at a higher bitrate and it is noticeably clearer and with less pixelation than YTTV. Try them both, it's significant enough that you should notice right away.


YTTV has a 4K option for extra $$.

DTV Stream does not, if I'm not mistaken?

PQ and AQ are important but those of us who were attracted to this forum because of the convenience features of Tivo might be more inclined towards something like DTV Stream if it most closely matches the experience of Tivo.

Because a lot of the cloud DVRs, the features seem to be pretty lacking. For instance, YTTV will record every episode of a series, not just new ones. That blows.


----------



## bareyb

wco81 said:


> YTTV has a 4K option for extra $$.


The 4k they have is not much. Especially if you aren't into sports. YTTV is getting better but it's still not there yet. At least not for me.


----------



## bakerfall

wco81 said:


> YTTV has a 4K option for extra $$.
> 
> DTV Stream does not, if I'm not mistaken?
> 
> PQ and AQ are important but those of us who were attracted to this forum because of the convenience features of Tivo might be more inclined towards something like DTV Stream if it most closely matches the experience of Tivo.
> 
> Because a lot of the cloud DVRs, the features seem to be pretty lacking. For instance, YTTV will record every episode of a series, not just new ones. That blows.


YTTV's 4K is severely lacking and not worth the $20. Most of it comes from Fox Sports, which you can view in the Fox Sports app with your DTV login. 

The DVR feels much more like a HW DVR than the YTTV one. YTTV DVR records everything and can't be deleted. DTV can be selected to record new only or everything, and you can delete after viewing. It is an unlimited DVR. Has 30 sec skip. Trickplay is smooth, although can't compete with TiVo. No slow mo if that matters to you, never did to me. 

Really the Osprey box makes a huge difference in how it feels as a DVR compared to a streaming box remote. These are $49 refurb through DTV and run Google OS with the full Play App Store. I prefer Apple TV for much streaming, but I have used the apps on the DTV box and they are absolutely usable (unlike on Tivo).


----------

