YouTube Looking To Launch Online TV Service Next Year With ESPN, ABC, and CBS (theverge.com) 24
An anonymous reader writes: Bloomberg reported in May that YouTube is working on a paid subscription service called Unplugged that would offer customers a selection of TV channels streamed via the internet. Now, The Information (Warning: source may be paywalled) is reporting that deals are starting to come together, and ESPN, ABC, and CBS are "firmly expected" to be available through the service. Other major broadcasters are expected to try and get involved with the service, but the report notes that YouTube may purposely choose to pass on smaller networks, like HGTV, to try and market YouTube videos instead. The question remains to be answered as to how YouTube plans to make anyone interested in its service. ESPN, ABC, and CBS are already offered through other online TV services, like Sling TV. CBS has its own standalone subscription service, and ESPN will soon have its own as well. Also, The Information notes that YouTube Red -- YouTube's existing subscription service -- isn't doing so well. Although, it's worth noting that service is completely different than what Unplugged is rumored to feature.
Youtube (Score:2)
Streaming in 480p because you only have like 10Gbps down.
It's not really "unplugged" (Score:1)
It's not really unplugged when you are forced to buy your internet from the monopoly cable provider to get a line fast enough to stream online video.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would be interested... (Score:2)
The OP said "The question remains to be answered as to how YouTube plans to make anyone interested in its service. ESPN, ABC, and CBS are already offered through other online TV services, like Sling TV. CBS has its own standalone subscription service, and ESPN will soon have its own as well. "
I wouldn't pay for a single network streaming service (i.e. CBS) but I might be willing to pay for a multiple network service if it is big enough and has most/many of the networks I want to see.
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
maybe (Score:2)
*If* the price is in the sub $8 range *and* there are no commercials, I might do it.
But it is a non-starter otherwise. I can just watch these channels OTA right now for free and probably better quality that I could get streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
espn 1/2/3/u/etc costs about $8 an sub.
Network stations (Score:1)
Sling TV only offers ABC and CBS live streaming in only ~8 cities. Anywhere else and you just get day-after streaming a la Hulu. Which means no sports. If YouTube offered actual live streams of these, that would be big.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sling TV only offers ABC and CBS live streaming in only ~8 cities."
And NBC. And Fox 11 (in Los Angeles).
My Over The Air Antennae Has Better Resolution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But can you get ESPN OTA? :P
I'm surprised cable companies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't doing more to stop this. I just cut the cord because my kid's off to college and I don't care about sports. The nerd stuff (read: anime) I watch is all online. Yeah, I pay $75/mo for decent internet, but for a while they were getting $150 mo outta me. Yeah, most of the mid west has data caps, but how much longer will they tolerate that?
Probably a lot longer - why do you think there are data caps to begin with? Or they know that evening time will be standard TV watching hour, and throttle all video st
Because Sling TV not all there yet (Score:2)
I used Sling TV last fall to watch NFL games. The Roku version of their software was buggy, crashed occasionally, and wasn't optimized enough to run well on the Roku 2. Worst of all, they tried to fill the commercial breaks with ESPN's own frat-boy commercials for itself. They would repeat the very same commercial two or three times, or cut one off half way through to start playing another one, then return the the second half of the first commercial. I'd rather watch the REAL commercials than the incess