6 ms·

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero contro

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
superjared 3y ago
YouTube TV injects ads on certain content. I know it's there for on-demand TV shows, and some live sports. It's literally overlaid on top of the channel's ads in the live example. I think years ago when I first subscribed one of the major benefits was the ability to skip through these ads just like DVR, but you can no longer do that.
- mucle6 3y ago
  I thought you could skip ads in dvr?
  - rchaud 3y ago
    You can, but not while watching live TV.
- charlesray 3y ago
  Cable TV broadcasts include both the network's ads and slots for the carrier to run their own ads. They're not inserting bonus ads on top of the actual content. Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.
  - superjared 3y ago
    > Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked. Arguably we don't _want_ the same as any cable provider has always worked.
    - hx8 3y ago
      You're not wrong. It's just that YouTube TV needs to be in time sync with Cable TV.
    - charlesray 3y ago
      We don't have a choice. That's how cable works, and YouTube TV exists for those of us who need it. They can't magically create an ad free broadcast of TNT or something. How would that even work? You don't have to like broccoli but it'd be weird to complain that it doesn't taste like chocolate.
hx8 3y ago
Over the last 15 years the expectation from online content has been "If I pay money ($10-20/mo), I shouldn't have to see ads." There's been a lot of pushback on this expectation, with sponsored content and tired services. This is the strongest pushback on that expectation. Of course we cannot get around the limitation of a streaming content provider displaying ads as part of their stream. It's just that $73 buys a lot of entertaining content on the internet that won't have that issue. It doubly feels like a bad deal because the content on cable TV is almost always not the highest quality content available. They are charging premium prices for standard content with long ad breaks. I wouldn't say "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads" but I would say "I can't believe that people see enough value to spend that kind of money for that content with those ads." In my adult life I have never paid for cable or satellite tv. My parents still do.
Podgajski 3y ago
I remember my father complaining about the ads when he started paying for cable in the 1980s. I still complain about it. You can get a decent amount of channels for free in most metropolitan areas with a digital antenna. You get commercials but a one time cost for a $100 antenna is worth it. And the more people that switch to OTA TV the better because that will mean more advertiser money, more eDTV antennas, and more channels coming on air. The market certainly is a growing: https://www.nexttv.com/news/nielsen-sees-uptick-in-over-the-air-households https://www.nexttv.com/news/nielsen-sees-uptick-in-over-the-...
I_Am_Nous 3y ago
For a lot of people I imagine they are only used to ads on free stuff, like Pandora, while paying for the service removes ads. It's just an old world vs new world disparity, where old-worlders (pre-internet or slow moving area residents) are used to things like ads on cable and broadcast radio, while new-worlders (people who mostly grew up on the modern internet) didn't experience the same world at all.
schnable 3y ago
The in-program ad revenue is a huge part of YTTV and Google's business model. The sub costs mostly go to purchase the content.
- mucle6 3y ago
  Even if they didn't profit from the ads, could they get rid of them?
  - charlesray 3y ago
    No.
RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
Does YouTubeTV carry public television stations? Aside from underwriting sponsor mentions at the beginning and end of a program, they're prohibited from mentioning sponsors [1]. [1] 47 CFR 73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621#p-73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621...
- charlesray 3y ago
  Yes, and YouTube TV does not insert ads into those broadcasts. There's no ads in YouTube TV beyond what you would see on any other cable carrier.
  - RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
    Yeah, it sounds like there's a considerable misunderstanding of the service YouTubeTV provides.
    - charlesray 3y ago
      I think the confusion arises because people view "cable" as something that requires coax and a set top box, and they view "streaming" as anything that goes over the internet, therefore they mistakenly view YouTube TV as streaming, when it's actually just cable. The US government uses the term "multichannel video programming distributor" for platforms like this, which is a mouthful, but at least defines the concept separately from the distribution method.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

superjared 3y ago

YouTube TV injects ads on certain content. I know it's there for on-demand TV shows, and some live sports. It's literally overlaid on top of the channel's ads in the live example. I think years ago when I first subscribed one of the major benefits was the ability to skip through these ads just like DVR, but you can no longer do that.

mucle6 3y ago
I thought you could skip ads in dvr?
- rchaud 3y ago
  You can, but not while watching live TV.
charlesray 3y ago
Cable TV broadcasts include both the network's ads and slots for the carrier to run their own ads. They're not inserting bonus ads on top of the actual content. Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.
- superjared 3y ago
  > Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked. Arguably we don't _want_ the same as any cable provider has always worked.
  - hx8 3y ago
    You're not wrong. It's just that YouTube TV needs to be in time sync with Cable TV.
  - charlesray 3y ago
    We don't have a choice. That's how cable works, and YouTube TV exists for those of us who need it. They can't magically create an ad free broadcast of TNT or something. How would that even work? You don't have to like broccoli but it'd be weird to complain that it doesn't taste like chocolate.

hx8 3y ago

Over the last 15 years the expectation from online content has been "If I pay money ($10-20/mo), I shouldn't have to see ads." There's been a lot of pushback on this expectation, with sponsored content and tired services. This is the strongest pushback on that expectation. Of course we cannot get around the limitation of a streaming content provider displaying ads as part of their stream. It's just that $73 buys a lot of entertaining content on the internet that won't have that issue. It doubly feels like a bad deal because the content on cable TV is almost always not the highest quality content available. They are charging premium prices for standard content with long ad breaks. I wouldn't say "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads" but I would say "I can't believe that people see enough value to spend that kind of money for that content with those ads." In my adult life I have never paid for cable or satellite tv. My parents still do.

Podgajski 3y ago

I remember my father complaining about the ads when he started paying for cable in the 1980s. I still complain about it. You can get a decent amount of channels for free in most metropolitan areas with a digital antenna. You get commercials but a one time cost for a $100 antenna is worth it. And the more people that switch to OTA TV the better because that will mean more advertiser money, more eDTV antennas, and more channels coming on air. The market certainly is a growing: https://www.nexttv.com/news/nielsen-sees-uptick-in-over-the-air-households https://www.nexttv.com/news/nielsen-sees-uptick-in-over-the-...

I_Am_Nous 3y ago

For a lot of people I imagine they are only used to ads on free stuff, like Pandora, while paying for the service removes ads. It's just an old world vs new world disparity, where old-worlders (pre-internet or slow moving area residents) are used to things like ads on cable and broadcast radio, while new-worlders (people who mostly grew up on the modern internet) didn't experience the same world at all.

schnable 3y ago

The in-program ad revenue is a huge part of YTTV and Google's business model. The sub costs mostly go to purchase the content.

mucle6 3y ago
Even if they didn't profit from the ads, could they get rid of them?
- charlesray 3y ago
  No.

RF_Enthusiast 3y ago

Does YouTubeTV carry public television stations? Aside from underwriting sponsor mentions at the beginning and end of a program, they're prohibited from mentioning sponsors [1]. [1] 47 CFR 73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621#p-73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621...

charlesray 3y ago
Yes, and YouTube TV does not insert ads into those broadcasts. There's no ads in YouTube TV beyond what you would see on any other cable carrier.
- RF_Enthusiast 3y ago
  Yeah, it sounds like there's a considerable misunderstanding of the service YouTubeTV provides.
  - charlesray 3y ago
    I think the confusion arises because people view "cable" as something that requires coax and a set top box, and they view "streaming" as anything that goes over the internet, therefore they mistakenly view YouTube TV as streaming, when it's actually just cable. The US government uses the term "multichannel video programming distributor" for platforms like this, which is a mouthful, but at least defines the concept separately from the distribution method.