Octopus Overlords

Heads up that Youtube TV might be about to lose NBC channels (for at least a bit).

NBCUniversal recently asked YouTube TV to bundle Peacock, the NBC streaming service that has apparently failed to get many paying subscribers. The Comcast-owned NBC wants the Google-owned YouTube TV to pay for Peacock as a condition of continuing to have access to NBC channels after the companies' current contract expires.

Google objected to the demand, and NBC is apparently willing to drop it. But a dispute over how much Google must pay NBC is still pending, and both sides have warned that YouTube TV subscribers could lose access to NBC channels.

********
Google announced in a blog post on Tuesday that if the NBC deal expires without a new agreement being reached, it will decrease the YouTube TV monthly price from $65 to $55 until NBC channels are available again. Google pointed out that customers can sign up for Peacock separately "to continue watching NBCU content, such as Sunday Night Football."

********
Channels that could be dropped from YouTube TV if the dispute isn't settled include NBC, Bravo, CNBC, E!, Golf Channel, MSNBC, Oxygen, SYFY, Telemundo, The Olympic Channel, Universal Kids, Universo, and USA Network. Also at stake is access to NBC's regional sports networks in the Bay Area, Northern California, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, the Northwest US, and Washington, DC.

Wish I could opt out of the NBC bundle permanently and save $10. The only thing I'm remotely interested in is SYFY, and they don't really show sci-fi anymore, do they?

This kind of bullshit really sucks. NBC is my preferred news outlet and they have football, which is an essential part of life. I'm almost ready to try T-Mobile internet, which comes with a discount on YouTube TV...getting NBC is a major attraction in such a package.

I get the free to me Peacock, and could never imagine paying for the privilege. But I won't pay for CBS All Access either, and they even have shows I kind of want to see.

They extended negotiations. Somebody balked.

Xfinity Flex - does anyone use it? What about Peacock?

Apparently I am entitled to a free Flex and remote, plus Peacock with my current internet subscription. From what I can see, it's yet another set top box, which would be a pain in the ass since I'm out of inputs, meaning I'd have to fiddle with a hub (and teach the family how to fiddle with the hub.) Beyond that, it seems pretty redundant with my Roku, save for the free Peacock.

Am I interpreting the Flex marketing spiel correctly? And is Peacock worth the hassle?

I cut the cord back around 2014 and use an antenna for the network shows I want to watch. Mostly, though, I've stuck to Netflix. As a result, I missed a lot of NBC shows that are actually pretty good. That's what I'm using Peacock for. I find I'm watching more Hulu and Peacock than Netflix right now as a result. Not sure how long that will last (although I will have been a subscriber for a year in November, so it's not just a dalliance).

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:56 pm I cut the cord back around 2014 and use an antenna for the network shows I want to watch. Mostly, though, I've stuck to Netflix. As a result, I missed a lot of NBC shows that are actually pretty good. That's what I'm using Peacock for. I find I'm watching more Hulu and Peacock than Netflix right now as a result. Not sure how long that will last (although I will have been a subscriber for a year in November, so it's not just a dalliance).

I cut the cord a while back when I finally kicked DirecTV to the curb (Buffalo Bills fans can thank me as after 19 years of NFL Sunday Ticket, I finally ditched it, and the Bills immediately turned into a phenomenal team - when not playing the Chiefs). However it turns out that I don't really save any money, although I *could* be saving money I suppose. I am currently paying for:

Netflix
Hulu (with Live TV and no ads, even though I'm still watching ads half the time) + ShowTime and Starz
HBO Max
Paramount+ (or whatever they are calling it)
Peacock
AMC+ (I think?)

We watch Hulu all the time, and have been using Netflix more and more (Lucifer, Squid Games). I should probably do an evaluation soon. I don't really use Peacock, but I've found that if these places charge me about $5 per month, I don't care that I'm not using them. I was going to watch the Star Trek shows on Paramount, but that never really happened. I've had the service since it started though, and keep paying. I'm an idiot.

I will have to look into Hulu for live TV (this includes all of the traditional networks?) I'm really irritated that Fox isn't streaming the punch line for Hell's Kitchen but instead requiring a Hulu subscription to see it.

Blackhawk wrote:Xfinity Flex - does anyone use it? What about Peacock?

Apparently I am entitled to a free Flex and remote, plus Peacock with my current internet subscription. From what I can see, it's yet another set top box, which would be a pain in the ass since I'm out of inputs, meaning I'd have to fiddle with a hub (and teach the family how to fiddle with the hub.) Beyond that, it seems pretty redundant with my Roku, save for the free Peacock.

Am I interpreting the Flex marketing spiel correctly? And is Peacock worth the hassle?

Xfinity offered me this deal...free Flex box and Peacock Premium with internet, so I thought I might as well give it a try. We primarily use Roku devices in our house, but I hooked the Flex up to our master bedroom TV as a second device thinking that my wife or I would be more interested in using it than the kids (they're pretty much Netflix/Disney+ exclusive). The Flex isn't a bad device, and the free Peacock subscription is a nice perk, but it's annoying to switch between devices. Then I discovered something...

I tried logging into my Peacock account on a different device, and I can still get the paid service without having to actually go through the Flex. As long as you create a Peacock account linked to Xfinity and have a Flex box somewhere in your house, you can get paid Peacock anywhere. The kind of funny part is that I can watch Peacock through any other device in our house, but Xfinity can see that I'm not actually using the Flex for anything, so they ask me every once in a while if I would like to return the box. I just ignore them because returning the hardware would probably mean losing the Peacock subscription. In my opinion, they offered me the box for free as lol as I have Xfinity internet, so I can use it as much (or as little) as I choose.

So... I could plug it in, connect it to my network, and then stick it in a dark corner... Free is just another word for nothing to lose (sorry, Janis.) Might as well give it a whirl.

It wouldn't be the first Xfinity device stuck in some dark corner. They sent me a free xFi pod (their wifi extenders) a while back. I tried it for a solid half a day before yanking it, as it slowed my connection way down instead of speeding it up (it would, 100% of the time, connect to a slower 2.4GHz band with five bars over the faster 5GHz band with four bars, for a net reduction in actual speed.)

Blackhawk wrote:So... I could plug it in, connect it to my network, and then stick it in a dark corner... Free is just another word for nothing to lose (sorry, Janis.) Might as well give it a whirl.

Pretty much. I think I created my Peacock account through the app on the Flex, but that's almost the only time I've used the box. It's still connected to a tv, but I never switch to that input.

I signed up for the free "paid" version of Peacock that came with my Xfinity account, but I don't have their Flex box. I don't think the two are connected, although I suppose it depends on whatever promotion they have in your state.

I mostly just use the Peacock app when I'm in the mood to re-watch some old episodes of House.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 12:39 pm Xfinity Flex - does anyone use it? What about Peacock?

Apparently I am entitled to a free Flex and remote, plus Peacock with my current internet subscription. From what I can see, it's yet another set top box, which would be a pain in the ass since I'm out of inputs, meaning I'd have to fiddle with a hub (and teach the family how to fiddle with the hub.) Beyond that, it seems pretty redundant with my Roku, save for the free Peacock.

Am I interpreting the Flex marketing spiel correctly? And is Peacock worth the hassle?

fwiw the Flex box (and remote) does feel like a quality bit of electronics, production-wise. makes me miss the days when these things were actually made well - it actually is pretty nice all around. i did get one since Xfinity was offering it for free, but i used it once while setting it up and as i don’t really watch TV, never touched it again until i boxed it up and brought it back after i cancelled my Xfinity service.

Just download the peacock app. If you’re using xfinity internet, it will log you in. You may need to get the device, but you don’t need to use it.

Update on my multiple failed attempts at cord-cutting:

The switch back to a hardwired, coax-based cable signal has fixed pretty much all the problems we have been having with both TV and internet for the past year.

The two downsides are
1. Absurdly expensive IMO (see below) though not a lot more than an equivalent streaming option.
2. For whatever reason, the PQ coming from the AppleTV (streaming) is better than the same content coming from the cable box. Not a massive difference, and most ppl probably wouldn’t notice, but it’s definitely there. I suspect it’s due to upconversion somewhere along the line, either in the AppleTV itself or in my A/V receiver.

This ties into my second biggest complaint with cable/sat companies in general - they seem to always be a few steps behind the curve wrt technology. Their current set top box is still limited to 1080i resolution (not even 1080p?!) which is very lame in a world where even the cheapest TV on the market is 4K (and has been for a long time). To be fair, the broadcasters are probably mostly to blame for that. Does CBS for instance broadcast a 4K signal? Don’t think so (but weren't the Olympics broadcast in 4K?).

And as I suspected, removing the internet streaming burden from our main, living room TV has made a huge and noticeable difference in the quality of the internet speed for all the other devices (though hard to tell HOW much since they upgraded my router and modem also).

Speed testing is now getting about 350 down, 25 up, and before (paying same price, and for same internet service/speed) I was getting much less than half that. But they did some ‘pole work’ while they were here, rebalancing the load, replacing some older cables, so again, hard to know exactly how much an effect each thing had since several things upgraded/fixed at same time.

But honestly I don’t care, it’s finally all just ‘working’ again. My house was pre-wired for audio and cable when we bought it, and that whole system is working again as well. I even went through the agony (at least an hour if not more) of setting up my now obsolete Logi Harmony One remote and hub. It was a necessity. Without that, I would have had the following active remotes:

Cable box
AppleTV
AV receiver
TV

That’s about 2 more than the ‘too many remotes!’ threshold of my family.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:40 am2. For whatever reason, the PQ coming from the AppleTV (streaming) is better than the same content coming from the cable box. Not a massive difference, and most ppl probably wouldn’t notice, but it’s definitely there. I suspect it’s due to upconversion somewhere along the line, either in the AppleTV itself or in my A/V receiver.

It's because they tend to carry many channels. They are compressing the signal much more than if you used dedicated bandwidth for it.

This ties into my second biggest complaint with cable/sat companies in general - they seem to always be a few steps behind the curve wrt technology.

This is true - they could switch to native IPTV and solve many of these problems but it requires a system-wide overhaul which is challenging.

Their current set top box is still limited to 1080i resolution (not even 1080p?!) which is very lame in a world where even the cheapest TV on the market is 4K (and has been for a long time).

That's...very far behind.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:48 pm I will have to look into Hulu for live TV (this includes all of the traditional networks?) I'm really irritated that Fox isn't streaming the punch line for Hell's Kitchen but instead requiring a Hulu subscription to see it.

Yeah, Hulu Live TV includes all of the traditional networks, with the local channels for your area.

malchior wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:57 am

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:40 am2. For whatever reason, the PQ coming from the AppleTV (streaming) is better than the same content coming from the cable box. Not a massive difference, and most ppl probably wouldn’t notice, but it’s definitely there. I suspect it’s due to upconversion somewhere along the line, either in the AppleTV itself or in my A/V receiver.

It's because they tend to carry many channels. They are compressing the signal much more than if you used dedicated bandwidth for it.

That's always been a complaint of mine, but up until now, cable was the least compressed of the options (other than OTA HD of course, which is very limited in terms of channels). There is definite and obvious compression artifacting going on with my signal.

Ive been without tv/cable going on 2 years now. I watch the news online is all. Sister gave me an antennae that pics up 3 stations on the tv but all I do is watch Wipeout reruns. Not as cool as the old Japanese show.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:47 am Yeah, Hulu Live TV includes all of the traditional networks, with the local channels for your area.

How does it compare with YouTube TV? That's the other service I'm considering, especially if I switch to T-Mobile Internet, which includes a discount on it.

naednek wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:57 am They extended negotiations. Somebody balked.

They reached an agreement and NBC stays on YoutubeTV.

Jeff V wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:47 am Yeah, Hulu Live TV includes all of the traditional networks, with the local channels for your area.

How does it compare with YouTube TV? That's the other service I'm considering, especially if I switch to T-Mobile Internet, which includes a discount on it.

I only have Hulu Live TV, so I don’t really know. The only thing that I would have wanted that YouTube TV had was NFL Network, but Hulu added that back in August.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 11:26 pm

Jeff V wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 10:47 am Yeah, Hulu Live TV includes all of the traditional networks, with the local channels for your area.

How does it compare with YouTube TV? That's the other service I'm considering, especially if I switch to T-Mobile Internet, which includes a discount on it.

I only have Hulu Live TV, so I don’t really know. The only thing that I would have wanted that YouTube TV had was NFL Network, but Hulu added that back in August.

TCM was the clincher for me. YTTV has it, Hulu didn't. I loves me some old b&w movies.

Woke up to some surprising news - Disney and Google fail to reach terms with Disney properties cut off from YouTube TV. Google gave customers a $15 price cut (immediate credit) until the issue is resolved.

Disney’s suite of networks — including ABC and ESPN — have gone dark on YouTube TV after the media conglomerate and Google failed to forge a new deal before the midnight ET deadline Friday.

It’s the first major blackout for YouTube TV over a carriage-fee dispute in its nearly five-year history (although YouTube TV dropped 19 Fox regional sports networks owned by Sinclair last year). Google said it will reduce YouTube TV’s monthly price by $15 — from $64.99 to $49.99 — now that the Disney nets have gone dark.

Disney’s previous pact with Google’s YouTube TV for ABC-owned TV stations, ESPN networks, Disney channels, Freeform, the FX networks and the National Geographic channels expired Friday (Dec. 17) at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Hmmm, I hope they sort that out before What We Do in the Shadows comes back. The FX channels are the only thing in that list that I'll miss.

I only really sub to YTTV for CFB. I guess if they don't resolve this by around 12/28 I will have to cut them loose. I have only used YTTV for quite a few years now. Did the others finally get their act(s) together in providing local channels like YTTV did/does?

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:32 am Woke up to some surprising news - Disney and Google fail to reach terms with Disney properties cut off from YouTube TV. Google gave customers a $15 price cut (immediate credit) until the issue is resolved.

Disney’s suite of networks — including ABC and ESPN — have gone dark on YouTube TV after the media conglomerate and Google failed to forge a new deal before the midnight ET deadline Friday.

It’s the first major blackout for YouTube TV over a carriage-fee dispute in its nearly five-year history (although YouTube TV dropped 19 Fox regional sports networks owned by Sinclair last year). Google said it will reduce YouTube TV’s monthly price by $15 — from $64.99 to $49.99 — now that the Disney nets have gone dark.

Disney’s previous pact with Google’s YouTube TV for ABC-owned TV stations, ESPN networks, Disney channels, Freeform, the FX networks and the National Geographic channels expired Friday (Dec. 17) at 11:59 p.m. ET.

I was trying to find the thread to share this news but couldn't remember where the discussion was so I gave up.

My brother shared his hulu account so we can continue watching some of our shows. So painful with the commercials.

Kick in the extra to him to get the (mostly) ad-free version.

Dang it, FX also has Archer and Fargo, in addition to WWDITS. I can't tell for sure if Hulu's $13 no-ads deal includes FX? If so, I'll use the $15 YTTV price cut to buy Hulu just to get FX, and still come out $2 ahead. Or is Google likely to restore the lost channels to YTTV at some point?

I think all three of my shows are between seasons, so I can wait.

So many letters I got lost.

TV is ridiculously complicated. I wish Google or Microsoft or the government or somebody would just own everything. Take all of my money and give me all of the entertainment in one place.

Hulu has FX. Well, to be more precise, they air FX shows. Archer, What We Do in the Shadows and Fargo are there. They usually have the latest episodes 12 to 24 hours after they air.

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:48 pm TV is ridiculously complicated. I wish Google or Microsoft or the government or somebody would just own everything. Take all of my money and give me all of the entertainment in one place.

More likely it will be Zuckerberg. But he will make you have brain implants, stay logged in 24/7 and dance around in a virtual furry costume.

I like it the way it is now. I hated having to pay a cable company an ever increasing cost for effectively a handful of channels I wanted. Now I just subscribe to Hulu and about 4 other streaming services for everything I watch. And I can just cancel and resub with a click of a button if I want to suspend service when the shows I like aren’t airing. I suspect I’ve saved a few thousand dollars over the last 5 years because of that.

One of my greatest pleasures these days is taking Spectrum advertisements and throwing them directly in the trash.

JCC wrote:I only really sub to YTTV for CFB. I guess if they don't resolve this by around 12/28 I will have to cut them loose. I have only used YTTV for quite a few years now. Did the others finally get their act(s) together in providing local channels like YTTV did/does?

Hulu Live has had local channels for years now.

Since I cut their cord they wont leave me alone. Save more get more...no its give you more money for something I dont use now...go away..shoo..go on. I have to empty my shredder once a month now and its mostly Spectrum with a little credit free car trash and medicare plans now shit.

A deal was struck. Price remains unchanged and we keep a one-time $15 credit.

malchior wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:44 pm A deal was struck. Price remains unchanged and we keep a one-time $15 credit.

I'd like to be able to watch loose video files from my PC on the bedroom TV. Unlike the main TV, I don't have a computer that's ready at hand to do so. I could rig something up, but it would involve lots of hassle every time I wanted to watch something, which would kind of defeat the purpose. I do have a Roku Streaming Stick+ on that TV. Digging around, I keep hearing suggestions to use Plex on my PC to act as a server. Looking at it, though, what I'm seeing is yet another obnoxious streaming service that's bending over backwards to convince me to subscribe and live the Plex lifestyle.

Is this really the right option?