YTTV to offer new packages

I've been checking YouTube TV (https:// tv.youtube.com/switchplans) daily but it just takes me to the home page of Youtube TV.
Now says this on the site-

I can't find the new YouTube TV genre plans. When are they going to be available?

We're slowly rolling them out to all users. We hope to have this completed in the next several weeks. In the meantime, feel free to reference our Help Center for more details.
 
Just read, that next Saturday, Feb.28, YTTV will be in service 9 years.

In those 9 years, DirecTV has lost over 13 Million subscribers, Comcast, about the same, Dish, over 8 Million.

While YTTV went from 0 to 12 Million and became the #2 Provider in those 9 years, without having 200 Channels and the RSNs, that many believe is necessary to carry, so to attract and keep subscribers.
 
Just read, that next Saturday, Feb.28, YTTV will be in service 9 years.

In those 9 years, DirecTV has lost over 13 Million subscribers, Comcast, about the same, Dish, over 8 Million.

While YTTV went from 0 to 12 Million and became the #2 Provider in those 9 years, without having 200 Channels and the RSNs, that many believe is necessary to carry, so to attract and keep subscribers.
Proved that all those extra channels weren't needed in the first place. People only watch about 10 channels most of the time anyway. The rest is filler. Just imagine if we could pick just those 10 channels and pay for them like we used to be able with DISH years ago.
 
Proved that all those extra channels weren't needed in the first place. People only watch about 10 channels most of the time anyway. The rest is filler. Just imagine if we could pick just those 10 channels and pay for them like we used to be able with DISH years ago.
You would be right back where you are now if you did that ...
No 2 people watch the same 10 channels ...
So, you'd get Your 10 channels, I'd pick my 10 channels and so on and so on and so on, so we now have 50 different channels and it's now a package again .... hmmm what do we call that again ? Cable Over Internet (COI ?) lol

You can't pay for just Your 10 channels or it would cost a mint ... the more people signing up for the channel the less it cost, so some channels cost less, those that a lot don't watch cost More ... your right back where we are now.

The real issues are the fact that these packages all had Fees for every and anything they can think of added on ... making everything $10 to $50+ more a Month ...

I'd still have Directv Sat if they would have gotten rid of all the Fees and Taxes ...
Directv chaerged Extra for the Right to watch HD (and still does last I looked), You pay extra for Whole Home (as well as extra boxes to different rooms) and also pay for DVR's ... (advance Recvr Fee is what those covered) in a fancy name so people wouldn't believe they are still paying for HD. I wouldn't doubt that we paid for Local channels as well.

I think I had about $40 in fees ... When I started with D*, it WAS $40, and had all the same channels I watch now.

Like you said Mike, we only watch about 10 channels, but you have to pay for every thing because of the cost of the channels being bought from a Company that supplies them ... they want thier money.

Remember, back in the day ... ESPN cost about $10 of that month this was back when I had C-Band ... back then you Could go Ala Carte and get just what you wanted .... Or you could get THIER Package at the prices they were offering.

When you added it all up, you got your 10 channels (I counted at one time when I had Cable, I watch 15 channels, that includes ones that I may only watch once in a while) the prices were only a few $ difference between the Ala Carte I asked for and the Package they offered.

Thats why I don't want Ala Carte.

PLEASE LOG IN TO GET RID OF THESE ADS!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
I have a package with Spectrum where I chose 15 channels from a list of about 40. Locals, public interest and music choice are thrown in as well and don't count against the 15.

Haven't seen a streaming package that's a better fit for me, and I still get to use my TIVO. Just call me a luddite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05 and Bobby
50-60 channels need to go away. Wouldn't need more than a dozen channels if they actually programmed them with a variety of programming instead of all day marathons of a single show.
As I have pointed out before, the majority of content that is on cable channels are reruns, those same reruns are available for free via services like Pluto TV.

Broadcast Channels are not much better.

So the question remains, when you can get all the new content that is on Broadcast/Cable Channels, along with all the exclusive shows and movies, on the streaming services, in much better quality and pricing, why are you paying for a Traditional Live TV Service?

You also have the advantage of not paying for content you would never watch, like the Discovery suite of channels, I have no interest in watching HGTV or Food Network, so I do not subscribe to Discovery+, for example.

Same for AMC+, no interest, or the new Fox service and Peacock ( which I wish I did not have, but my fiancée demands it).
 
Last edited:
50-60 channels need to go away. Wouldn't need more than a dozen channels if they actually programmed them with a variety of programming instead of all day marathons of a single show.

Exactly. I hate to sound like an old codger, but when I was a kid we had 36 channels (technically 35 since there wasn't a channel one) and there was a lot more quality content to watch. We didn't have 4 ESPNs, 3 FXs, 4 MTVs (that don't play music).

I remember when this forum was always talking about new channels being added to the satellite services, so I can't blame it all on the providers....the consumers were asking for it.

If the cable networks and cable/satellite providers want to survive, they need to get back to a core service.

PLEASE LOG IN TO GET RID OF THESE ADS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
True but if you could pick those 10 channels and only pay for them that was DISH's way back then. Although it didn't last.
It didn't last because it cost them too much.

Also remember, a lot of these channels belong to a more Major company, so they decide that if you want a particular channel, you need to take thier associated channel with it.
 
Just hoping the espn unlimited access for youtube tv users comes sooner rather than later

Sent from my SM-S926U1 using Tapatalk
 
It didn't last because it cost them too much.

Also remember, a lot of these channels belong to a more Major company, so they decide that if you want a particular channel, you need to take thier associated channel with it.
It didn't last because the providers could make a lot more money with a different model. And because of what you said, the major companies decided they would require you to take certain associated channels along with the desired-- which again, was about making a lot more money than under the prior model. Let's not kid ourselves, it's all about profit.
 
They are available-

 
I have not come across them yet. And honestly, I am a little dissapointed in the prices of the packages - I thought that there was going to be a couple of dirt cheap packages thrown in (in the $30-$40 range), not the lowest being $55.
 
I have not come across them yet. And honestly, I am a little dissapointed in the prices of the packages - I thought that there was going to be a couple of dirt cheap packages thrown in (in the $30-$40 range), not the lowest being $55.
My impression was Not bad, but if I want the Sports and say Entertainment or Family (I haven't see whats in what packages yet) it's $72 plus Tax I presume, maybe that includes tax, don't remember ... anyways, I may do it, it saves $10 a month, not alot, but some.

TNT (and TBS ?) is in the Sports package (still can't believe you go to them for Sports).
I would also need ME TV, USA, ION, WE and a few others ... provided those are not in different packages, if they are I may as well keep the Basic package.

PLEASE LOG IN TO GET RID OF THESE ADS!
 

Paramount+ and HBO Max to merge

Looks like Netflix/Warner Bros. is happening. (or maybe not.)