YouTube TV urged to drop ‘$600 less than cable’ ad claim::undefined
I had YouTube TV from the beginning. $14/mo. Great deal. It had everything we needed, mainly local broadcast stations plus the major basic cable channels, to supplement our streaming services. Then they kept adding and adding, raising the price each time. I finally looked at what I was paying last month, $80. My son had one show he watched on ABC and I would record football in the NFL season. Not worth $80/mo. Too bad. I would really like that $14/mo service again. It was all I needed.
I have moved to a partial subscription. I have it for football season then it gets paused until the next football season. I like that YouTube lets you have unlimited recordings so i can watch as much or as little football as i like.
I do the same, haven’t found a better service for just watching football, but I’m all ears.
Depending on whether it’s college or NFL, and how local your team is, you could try an over the air television antenna.
I get every NFL game I need with mine.
NFL, but I want more than just local games.
IPTV
Roku TV + a good antenna and DVR fills those needs pretty well for me. I get NFL network on it and all the big cable channels that NFL game are on. It’s not quiet as seamless and easy, but it’s free.
Not one price for either YouTube or any cable service in the “article.” Feels like some reporting is devolving down to, “That thing you probably heard of has a guy you all know and he said a thing on that social media about another thing you all heard of. CLICK ME!!!1”
Cable is probably cheaper on average now compared to streaming, especially since ISPs are just handing them out for free when you upgrade your internet.
Something something hail torrents something something
Cable should be vastly cheaper than streaming since it is double dipping on payment models. Paying for access and then also paying through watching ads means cable should be half or less what the current rate is.
Streaming platforms double-dip too. They collect and sell your useage metrics while also either charging you for access or showing you ads.
Absolutely not. My 65+ year old parents just cut the cord recently because they were paying over $250 for cable. They now pay around $90 for Hulu+Live and get almost everything they had before, with a couple of small exceptions.
YoutubeTV is trash for what they offer. They boast about all these sports channels, but it boils down to a bunch of college stations playing old games and no local sports or NHL or MLB. They’re holding on to football so tight, that they’re making completely different channel entries to advertise the NFL.
I’m not watching TV at all
Oh the unfulfilled promises of Tech….
NAD noted that the price calculation underlying the challenged claim includes the cost of two set-top boxes per household for “standalone cable” services," but argued that such a comparison isn’t a good fit because operators such as Charter offer pay-TV streaming options that may not require a set-top box
"In the context of the ‘cable’ comparison, NAD found the claim reasonably conveys the cost of YouTube TV is compared to all cable services
NAD added that the dynamics of today’s pay-TV market also make it difficult to identify “comparable” offerings, noting that cable operators offer services such as regional sports networks in some markets and YouTube TV does not.
Google told NAD that it “unequivocally disagrees” with the decision and that it will appeal it. Google argued that "consumers broadly understand the difference between traditional cable and streaming
