quote:

Originally posted by italia:

quote:

Originally posted by SigSauerP226:

quote:

Originally posted by italia:
For my viewing, Hulu+Live is the best option to YouTube TV, which I've had for a couple of years now. My prediction is that a ton of people will defect YouTube TV to go to Hulu+Live, and then in less than 6 months Hulu+Live will go to $63.99, just a hair below YouTube TV.

Actually looking at Hulu right now. I have YTTV, had it for maybe 2 years and have seen 2 price jumps. Has Hulu been pretty good? I already have a hulu without commercials for $12 so if I can just add the live TV and take the price up to $55 or whatever and drop YTTV that saves about $20/mo for me.

Sorry, my grammar wasn't very good. I've had YouTube TV for a couple of years now. I am also looking at switching to Hulu+Live.

The reason I went with Youtube versus Hulu was there was a channel or two that Hulu didn't have that I really like.....it was either Discovery channel, Bravo, or Natgeo.

I want to see a true a la carte service. A list of every channel offered and the cost per channel. You then chose just the channels you want. I've read that $8 per month of a subscribers bill is just for ESPN. Channels like TBS, TNT, and Hallmark would be like $2, maybe $1 for Comedy Central or MTV, and all the crappy channels nobody wants would be like 25 cents. You could create a package of just the channels you actually watch for like $20. But that won't happen because the business model seems to be based on using the highly viewed channels to force cable operators to also carry all the other channels no one wants.

This what I've hoped to see for a long time, I just don't think itll ever happen. I hardly watch any live TV, pretty much only Kings games. The wife watches some shows, but probably on 2 or 3 channels. We could probably get by with 5 channels or less, since we have Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon.

quote:

Originally posted by Fundman:
I want to see a true a la carte service. A list of every channel offered and the cost per channel. You then chose just the channels you want. I've read that $8 per month of a subscribers bill is just for ESPN. Channels like TBS, TNT, and Hallmark would be like $2, maybe $1 for Comedy Central or MTV, and all the crappy channels nobody wants would be like 25 cents. You could create a package of just the channels you actually watch for like $20. But that won't happen because the business model seems to be based on using the highly viewed channels to force cable operators to also carry all the other channels no one wants.

^^^^^
I'm with you two. I was HOPING Comcast, et.al, would venture into the a la carte market after Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime arrived on the scene and were successful. Guess not. Hence why I dumped Comcast YEARS ago. With Netflix and Prime, I have more viewing material than I could ever watch. Add in hockey season from October thru June (when the bullshit of CV-19 isn't f**king things up for no real reason at all) and my TV viewing in the off season is easy!

What I didn't like about Hulu was the amount of commercials. Oh, you could buy the commercial free option, but then you'd only get the commercials that come from the broadcasting company.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
^^^^^
I'm with you two. I was HOPING Comcast, et.al, would venture into the a la carte market after Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime arrived on the scene and were successful. Guess not.

Well, part of the problem is existing contracts. But even were those not an impediment, I think you still wouldn't see it.

Look at the difference in content. The former group offers "premium" channels with sports and current movies from the big studios, and local channel line-ups. The latter group does not. That is why you'll never see à la carte from the former group. That "premium" content--particularly the sports, and those local channels cost a bundle. The only way they can offer them affordably is to bundle them in with cheaper offerings so the cheaper offerings subsidize the more expensive ones.

If they offered à la carte the cheaper offerings that relatively few watch would go under due to insufficient subscribers. The premium offerings would go under because few would want to pay for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
What I didn't like about Hulu was the amount of commercials. Oh, you could buy the commercial free option, but then you'd only get the commercials that come from the broadcasting company.

Wait... what? Hulu throws commercials atop the commercials? Hahahahahaha! No. Just... no.