Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am a cord cutter but I am thinking about getting Youtube TV in August before football season starts.   I use to go to bars to watch the games but now I need to avoid bar food and drink due to health considerations.

 

So currently I have the cox starter package  which gives me 10 mbs.    I have a VOIP internet phone service basictalk  and 1 wifi connection to an OTA channelmaster DVR+ along with 1 desktop computer.  I am the only user in the house. 

 

The plan would be to buy a Roku device with WIFI  like the stick or ultra and plug it into the 3rd HDMI port on my 2006 sony bravio TV then subscribe to youtube TV.   This tv also has an over the air antenna attached to it as well as a channelmaster DVR+ with a wifi plugin for OTA tvguide info and an old DVD player.    I can do that right?  I don't need anything else?  I don't have to  cast anything from my desk computer? 

 

Also another big question I have ...does the cox starter package of 10mbs  give a consistent enough bandwidth to watch live Nebraska sports or will I have buffering issues during games?    Do I need to jump up to 20?    (I cannot hardwire)   

 

I am jobless right now so I am living on a budget and I hate cost creep/promotional shenanigans and the like due to experiences with DIRECT-TV.    The centurylink  1 gigabite for $60 lifetime sounds attractive but by the time you add the service fees and taxes I think that will be $70-$75.   I am at $45 total right now and would like to stay closer to that total.   Wouldn't mind feedback on centurylink speeds vs cox at 20  or 40 mbs and if they are consistent at the stated bandwidth. 

 

Also wouldn't mind any feedback on how  folks like Youtube TV.    

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak to all of it, but I can say that I have YouTube TV and Cox internet preferred.

 

I love YouTube TV. They recently increased the price to $50/month, but they added the Discovery network of channels which I was really happy about. The streaming quality is fantastic and I've never had problems. With all the networks, NBA TV, NBCSN, BTN and MLB Network, you get pretty much every major sporting event you could want. Plus I had access to every single Nebraska game last year regardless of channel (which was the main reason I got it).

 

I have a Smart TV with Chromecast so that's how I watch it, primarily.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta think about what to do this fall too. We don't have cable or satellite, and the past few years we have been able to "borrow" the cable provider login and password from in-laws and  grandparents to watch ESPN and the B1G network online. In-laws cut the cord as well, and grandpa got moved to a nursing home. What are my best options? Not opposed to paying a monthly fee for the season, but just haven't done the research yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ulty said:

I gotta think about what to do this fall too. We don't have cable or satellite, and the past few years we have been able to "borrow" the cable provider login and password from in-laws and  grandparents to watch ESPN and the B1G network online. In-laws cut the cord as well, and grandpa got moved to a nursing home. What are my best options? Not opposed to paying a monthly fee for the season, but just haven't done the research yet.

Can you still have him sign up and use his password?  I kid...sort of.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently dropped DirecTV and switched to YouTube TV. Much like @Enhance I also have high-speed internet (Allo's 300 mbps service). So far, I've been a HUGE fan of the service. Amazing streaming quality, great channel selection, the ability to seamlessly switch from one platform to the next (TV app, Android app, Website, etc.), plus unlimited DVR. The only downside was that because of Google's longstanding Feud with Amazon, I couldn't install the YouTube TV app on my Fire TV Stick and had to buy a new Roku Stick (I don't have a smart TV,).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@flatwaterfan You might also consider Hulu Live and PlayStation Vue. Both are around the same price as YouTube TV (Hulu Live is $5 less), and have all the channels you'd need to watch Husker games. Your connection should be OK, you're not gonna be streaming 4K onto that old TV. You might also consider a Fire TV or Chromecast, instead of the Roku.

 

@schriznoeder They actually just announced that they're ending that, Amazon apps will be on Chromecast and Google apps will be on Fire TV soon.

 

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/18/18412525/youtube-amazon-fire-tv-prime-video-chromecast-return-announcement

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 2:17 PM, OH HSKR FAN said:

I use Hulu Live with my Roku.

 

I've grown to despise HULU, price gouging at it's finest

 

As for YouTube TV, I am going to switch over to that when I get the chance.  Currently using Hulu Live and Sling, TYTV will make both those unnecessary for less a month.  Problem is, I'm using Fire Sticks and it isn't available as an app on a Fire Stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Redux said:

 

I've grown to despise HULU, price gouging at it's finest

 

As for YouTube TV, I am going to switch over to that when I get the chance.  Currently using Hulu Live and Sling, TYTV will make both those unnecessary for less a month.  Problem is, I'm using Fire Sticks and it isn't available as an app on a Fire Stick.

I've had the Roku 3 for years now and it's been great (actually I have 3 of them). I haven't used the newer ones, but I'll buy Roku again based on the good experience I've had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went ahead and bought a roku streaming stick+ today.   I have not subscribed to a service yet and will wait until  August to do so.  I will evaluate some of the other options as suggested.

 

So far I am happy with it.  It is working well on my old TV and was easy to install for an old fart like  me.  I tried to get the regular streaming stick but it was sold out in the 2 stores that I checked so I just went ahead and got the +.   It gives me a little stronger wifi & if I ever get a 4k tv I can use it there.

 

The 10mbs is working fine for streaming.  I can see that it does load a little slow and moving through the menu can be slow at times but I haven't experienced any buffering issues.  I suppose time will tell.

 

Again thanks to everyone for the feedback

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently paying 38 for Sling Blue/DVR/Comedy Extra, and 49 for Hulu Live for a total of roughly $87 a month

 

Can anyone tell me what YouTubeTV costs per month after taxes, and if anyone is using Philo I would like to hear the price on that after taxes as well.  Looking at it, the combo of YTTv and Philo I would pay $70 +taxes a month so I think I'll be switching 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Redux said:

Can anyone tell me what YouTubeTV costs per month after taxes

My most recent charge (after taxes) was $42.20 off a core plan price of $39.99, but the core plan price is increasing to $49.99 before taxes on May 30, 2019. So, I imagine it'll be somewhere between $52-$55.

 

As I mentioned above though, they added several good channels with the price increase (up to approximately 50), so I'm cool with it. It is starting to get interesting in the streaming world, though. If you take into consideration my internet bill, YouTubeTV, Netflix account, and Amazon Prime, I'm basically spending $171/month on all that stuff. Probably still a better value price than internet + cable, but it's not exactly cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The downside to YouTubeTV is the lack of some Viacom channels like NickJr and Comedy Central for example.  The NickJr is especially important for a household like mine that requires Paw Patrol, Blaze and the god forsaken Peppa Pig.  Philo is $20 a month +taxes and has essentially everything YouTubeTV appears to lack.  But since I have to order Roku's to replace my FireSticks to support YouTubeTV I'll probably stick with my cruddy Sling for another month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Redux said:

The downside to YouTubeTV is the lack of some Viacom channels like NickJr and Comedy Central for example.  The NickJr is especially important for a household like mine that requires Paw Patrol, Blaze and the god forsaken Peppa Pig.  

 

Sounds like a golden opportunity to put an end to that $h!t

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ulty said:

 

Sounds like a golden opportunity to put an end to that $h!t

 

Yeah but it's the only time I get to distract them for 10 minutes if ya catch me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

Yeah but it's the only time I get to distract them for 10 minutes if ya catch me

There's a ton of kids programming on Netflix. Took me a while to finally ween the kids off Nick Jr. Amazon Prime has some free kids stuff from Nick, but the only one my kids watch now is Bubble Guppies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate Bubble Guppiee. But still better than Peppa Pigs mutated British head flapping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Nickelodeon, your options are Philo and DirectTV Now. Sling TV has options for the secondary Nick channels (Nick Jr, Nicktoons, and Teen Nick), but not the main Nickelodeon channel.

 

14 hours ago, Redux said:

But since I have to order Roku's to replace my FireSticks to support YouTubeTV I'll probably stick with my cruddy Sling for another month.

 

Or just wait until the official app comes out for FireTV, probably a few months from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toe said:

For Nickelodeon, your options are Philo and DirectTV Now. Sling TV has options for the secondary Nick channels (Nick Jr, Nicktoons, and Teen Nick), but not the main Nickelodeon channel.

 

 

Or just wait until the official app comes out for FireTV, probably a few months from now.

 

 

I've got Sling Blue, but the channels you get for the price seems high compared to Philo.  I would have switched  already but I want the equipment in place before I do otherwise what's the point?  Has YouTube made any agreements to get on Fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our household currently does YTTV + Philo. It's $54.13 for YTTV a month ($50 + 8.25% sales tax in Texass), and $21.65 for Philo ($20 + Texass sales tax). So that's $75.78/mo, but we get a better package than what anyone else can offer, including DirecTV. 

 

Some other tidbits of info I didn't see discussed re: streaming services:

  • YouTube TV and Viacom have been in discussions to bring their channels to YTTV. Their discussions started well after the Discovery channel discussions, and since YTTV just updated a month ago to add many (but not all of) the Discovery channels, the thought is we may see movement this summer on this front. 

 

  • There's a group of local CW channels owned by one media conglomerate that aren't on YTTV yet, though you can still stream CW shows via YTTV because they're free on the CW app and YTTV just goes out and automatically gets the available shows from the CW app and integrates them into YTTV. This, too, was supposedly going to change this Spring or Summer, with the actual local CW channel being available (read: you can DVR shows and skip commercials). 

 

  • Philo just changed their pricing right after YTTV changed theirs--Philo only has one bundle now at $20+tax (unless you're grandfathered in), so the $16 bundle is no longer available to new subscribers. 

 

  • DirecTV is going to announce this summer or fall they're moving off satellite dishes and using broadband internet (when available). They even said in their last stockholder meeting they're not launching any more satellites. Instead, DirecTV has special versions of the Genie that stream television over the internet, use a local DVR, and an interface similar to the current DirecTV interface for DVR and Channel surfing. Pricing tiers are supposedly going to be slightly lower cost than what's available now--just the way the channels will be delivered to you will change (and be cheaper for AT&T). And when this happens, DirecTV Now subscriptions will likely be rolled up into DirecTV proper or the service will just be shuttered (it is AT&T, after all).

 

  • Local PBS stations should be coming to all streaming services (that provide local television channels) this summer or fall. PBS had held off because of funding concerns and fees, but I think their concerns have been resolved since they're now actively working with various streaming providers to get local PBS access. 

 

  • NFL Network isn't on YTTV currently. Supposedly a deal is in place and it will appear this fall, just in time for the football season to start. No word if NFL Redzone or similar MLB/NHL channels will eventually show up.

 

I highly suggest whichever service you sign up for, that you go to Reddit and sign up for that services' subreddit, as they're very informative and often have the engineers or product owners in the forums themselves discussing upcoming features, issues/outages, and more. YTTV has a few engineers that are very helpful and responsive (especially when YTTV was having issues with Apple TV players due to an unannounced Apple API change). 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DirecTV would be willing to actually work with customers, especially loyal ones, and eliminate contracts they wouldn't be losing so many people.

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 1:46 PM, Toe said:

The Chromecast announcement is great for me since that's how I primarily view movies/shows. I always found it frustrating that I could Chromecast from my Mac's Chrome web browser for Amazon Prime, but not the app.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link to best free streaming stations TOE.   I did not have Hoopla.

 

A couple of things I have found out about my ROKU.  

 

I wasn't having any buffering issues until I hit prime time and then for about an hour my movie kept dropping out and reloading.   I found advice on the internet to reposition the router to be 4-6 feet off the floor.   I think that helped quite a bit.   I also switched my router channel from auto  to a specific channel.    I am hoping my neighbors won't be using this particular broadband channel.   So far so good. 

 

When using the voice option be  careful not to give it too many instructions otherwise you can lock up the unit!   It took me awhile to get it unlocked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 2:34 PM, Redux said:

If DirecTV would be willing to actually work with customers, especially loyal ones, and eliminate contracts they wouldn't be losing so many people. 

 

Capitalism at work, baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 2:34 PM, Redux said:

If DirecTV would be willing to actually work with customers, especially loyal ones, and eliminate contracts they wouldn't be losing so many people.

 

AT&T only wants the carrier agreements--they don't want the infrastructure or satellites or long-term customers that are happy. 

 

Their long-term play is to bring full DirecTV to TV over IP (read: not DirecTV NOW), and use the internet more as a utility and their infrastructure instead of building their own. Higher profits that way, though they'll be disenfranchising a lot of folks along the way, especially the elderly, the internet adverse, and rural customers (among others). Though in theory, AT&T's customer base isn't limited by physical restrictions to the horizon or by carrier agreements within an apartment/multi-family complex--if you have internet, you can have DirecTV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it should be.  I'm stocked it took them this long to make the play towards an internet based service.  Satellite is all but dead, the only reason to have it currently is for perks like NFL Sunday ticket and better Guide/DVR functionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Redux said:

As it should be.  I'm stocked it took them this long to make the play towards an internet based service.  Satellite is all but dead, the only reason to have it currently is for perks like NFL Sunday ticket and better Guide/DVR functionality.

I really wish the NFL would start an nfl.tv as MLB did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MLB 51 said:

I really wish the NFL would start an nfl.tv as MLB did.

 

That would be pretty cool.  Although a much higher percentage of NFL games are nationally televised compared to baseball so that would affect subscribers.

 

But even though I'm not a huge baseball fan I bought the Mets season subscription on MLB.tv and have been pretty impressed.  With the service.  Not necessarily the Mets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Redux said:

As it should be.  I'm stocked it took them this long to make the play towards an internet based service.  Satellite is all but dead, the only reason to have it currently is for perks like NFL Sunday ticket and better Guide/DVR functionality.

 

Problem is going to be ISPs holding bandwidth and access for ransom (See Netflix, Hulu) if it really does take off. Really need a net neutrality agreement so TV over IP can really take off and internet service can be regulated as a utility (which it's quickly becoming, if not already). 

 

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

That would be pretty cool.  Although a much higher percentage of NFL games are nationally televised compared to baseball so that would affect subscribers.

 

But even though I'm not a huge baseball fan I bought the Mets season subscription on MLB.tv and have been pretty impressed.  With the service.  Not necessarily the Mets.

I bought it for the Yankee games and renew every year for the past 6 years.

I think the NFL could probably make more money off of it than do with Sunday Ticket. I would subscribe just for the Raider games. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually love MLB.TV as well. It's awesome that they allow you to switch audio sources because we like to watch the Mets game with the radio guys doing the calls.

 

It's usually good for a litany of annoying technical problems per year but other than that the service itself is amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

 

Problem is going to be ISPs holding bandwidth and access for ransom (See Netflix, Hulu) if it really does take off. Really need a net neutrality agreement so TV over IP can really take off and internet service can be regulated as a utility (which it's quickly becoming, if not already). 

 

Actually  'net neutrality' is enforced today but it is done  in retro-active way.    When the net came about they classified it as a type 1 service (data service).    As such it falls under the umbrella of the FTC (federal Trade Commission)  The federal trade commission is not a regulatory agency.  Their mandate is light regulations, consumer protection, open platform with fair business  practices.   This encourages an open platform and growth.  Problem is they are a watchdog organization with reactive enforcement which  means they cant do anything until there is a victim/abuse of fair practice. When the FTC started seeing what you are describing on a reoccurring basis, they put out a set of guidelines that  became the net neutrality rules.  They then tried to enforce those proactively and got sued for it.   Courts said your mandate is light regulations you can only enforce 1 of the rules.  SO that's what they did.  Basically back to doing business the old  way.   Obama administration didn't like that and got the  internet reclassified as a type  2 service which is telecommunications.   This falls under the  FCC  (federal communications commission).   This  is a heavily  regulated platform.   FCC is a regulatory body that is more proactive.   They can proactively enforce the net rules.   The problem with this is  the cost of doing business goes up because of all the regulations that exist.    Internet businesses became heavily regulated as they inherited other regulations besides the net rules.    Growth declined because it was harder to do business in this  type of environment.  I know my rates went up.   The other thing  that started  was a lobbyist industry for the  internet as that's what happens in a gov't regulated industry.  Then along came Trump who is pro business.  The administration appointed a new board and they  reversed  the classification back to a type 1 service and business went back  to  the  way it  was  for 20+ years.  Things are moving again.

 

Either way you do it there are  pros and cons.    The best solution is to make it it's own classification and an new oversight  agency.   Problem is they are fighting over the details  as there is a lot of money/control/power involved.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 11:03 AM, flatwaterfan said:

Actually  'net neutrality' is enforced today but it is done  in retro-active way.    When the net came about they classified it as a type 1 service (data service).    As such it falls under the umbrella of the FTC (federal Trade Commission)  The federal trade commission is not a regulatory agency.  Their mandate is light regulations, consumer protection, open platform with fair business  practices.   This encourages an open platform and growth.  Problem is they are a watchdog organization with reactive enforcement which  means they cant do anything until there is a victim/abuse of fair practice. When the FTC started seeing what you are describing on a reoccurring basis, they put out a set of guidelines that  became the net neutrality rules.  They then tried to enforce those proactively and got sued for it.   Courts said your mandate is light regulations you can only enforce 1 of the rules.  SO that's what they did.  Basically back to doing business the old  way.   Obama administration didn't like that and got the  internet reclassified as a type  2 service which is telecommunications.   This falls under the  FCC  (federal communications commission).   This  is a heavily  regulated platform.   FCC is a regulatory body that is more proactive.   They can proactively enforce the net rules.   The problem with this is  the cost of doing business goes up because of all the regulations that exist.    Internet businesses became heavily regulated as they inherited other regulations besides the net rules.    Growth declined because it was harder to do business in this  type of environment.  I know my rates went up.   The other thing  that started  was a lobbyist industry for the  internet as that's what happens in a gov't regulated industry.  Then along came Trump who is pro business.  The administration appointed a new board and they  reversed  the classification back to a type 1 service and business went back  to  the  way it  was  for 20+ years.  Things are moving again.

 

Either way you do it there are  pros and cons.    The best solution is to make it it's own classification and an new oversight  agency.   Problem is they are fighting over the details  as there is a lot of money/control/power involved.

 

 

This has already been covered ad nauseaum in the Net Neutrality thread in the Politics board, so I'll leave it there for discussion, other than to say the bolded is factually incorrect on multiple fronts (that have already been covered in the thread). 

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 2:34 PM, Redux said:

If DirecTV would be willing to actually work with customers, especially loyal ones, and eliminate contracts they wouldn't be losing so many people.

 

I'll try to find the article, but at the most recent shareholder meeting, AT&T confirmed their strategy is to get rid of the customers paying for service with deals and to only keep the customers staying on without the benefit of bundle deals. Also, they're going to scuttle their lowest-priced plans, as they don't want to chase those customers as well. 

 

Long story short, even if DirecTV goes TV-over-IP route, it likely won't be a cheaper option, and the incentives will be light to non-existent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 10:06 AM, VectorVictor said:

 

 

This has already been covered ad nauseaum in the Net Neutrality thread in the Politics board, so I'll leave it there for discussion, other than to say the bolded is factually incorrect on multiple fronts (that have already been covered in the thread). 

 

 

I don't go to the politics board as the only piece of advice my Dad gave me was not to argue religion or politics.   I don't want to argue with you and I don't want to take the time to  post the article that I was regurgitating. 

 

 I will say thank you for the previous post on May 10 about streaming and I understand your angst with some of these large corporations.  

I am a cord cutter because of  DirectTV and their unethical behavior (in my opinion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×