AVS Forum banner

2161 - 2180 of 2255 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Have you guys found that OTA picture quality is better than YTTV? I remember on my older TVs, OTA looked pretty damned good. But that was back in my plasma days, when almost everything looked good.

Not that YTTV is bad, but I still think Netflix offers better PQ when it comes to streaming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,833 Posts
Have you guys found that OTA picture quality is better than YTTV? I remember on my older TVs, OTA looked pretty damned good. But that was back in my plasma days, when almost everything looked good.

Not that YTTV is bad, but I still think Netflix offers better PQ when it comes to streaming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slightly better. Most stations are now jamming in sub-channels that degrade the picture. I think in early 2000s the picture of ota was better than it is now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Slightly better. Most stations are now jamming in sub-channels that degrade the picture. I think in early 2000s the picture of ota was better than it is now.
Interesting. I remember in the late 00s and early 10s, I thought HD OTA looked great. But back then, everyone had TVs that were mostly 1080p. And now with most TVs being 4K, they don't always play nice with lower quality content. My Sony A9G OLED has top notch upscaling, but it's still obvious watching a movie on YTTV is not quite at the level of Amazon, Netflix, or a good ole' BD disc in 1080p. It's watchable, but not jaw-dropping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
Have you guys found that OTA picture quality is better than YTTV? I remember on my older TVs, OTA looked pretty damned good. But that was back in my plasma days, when almost everything looked good.

Not that YTTV is bad, but I still think Netflix offers better PQ when it comes to streaming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My OTA has always and still looks better than any streaming/cable service I have tried. Really noticeable during live football games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
I currently split my YTTV bill with a friend who takes advantage of the shared account feature. With three concurrent streams allowed we never conflict. But even considering the substantial savings by sharing the cost I find a $15 increase egregious and a bit of a slap in the face for those suffering in an economic downturn.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,041 Posts
To be honest I only watch locals and some things on History and AMC. $50 was a perfect price that I could live with. $15 is the biggest one time increase I have ever experienced in paying a provider. In my few days of having YoutubeTv it seems like a pretty decent service. I am not sure what I’ll do at this point but I will shop around. Maybe just go back to OTA and Netflix.
I had Google Fiber for TV before getting YTTV and for the first three years it didn't change. It was like $125 with tax for both TV and 1 GB of internet. When I dropped it was up $185 and about to go up to $200. I am saving but not as much as I was. If I didn't want the History Channel I could probably drop Philo and go back to Frndly and save about $15 more. I may do that although it is driving my wive nuts when I keep changing things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
I currently split my YTTV bill with a friend who takes advantage of the shared account feature. With three concurrent streams allowed we never conflict. But even considering the substantial savings by sharing the cost I find a $15 increase egregious and a bit of a slap in the face for those suffering in an economic downturn.
I agree. The timing and magnitude of the increase really rubs me the wrong way....much more so than it usually would have. For me it just a big increase with nothing in return. I am sure the magnitude of the increase takes into the account the % of cancellations they had to know they would get.

Its PSVue all over again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,243 Posts
I have no interest in watching any of the "new" channels. So, for me, this is just a straight-up money grab by YTTV. The market sorely needs more head-to-head competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
I have no interest in watching any of the "new" channels. So, for me, this is just a straight-up money grab by YTTV. The market sorely needs more head-to-head competition.
The market needs a drastic change in business model. The way channels are sold and packaged has not changed in decades....just the method of delivery. Everything else about the whole business is stuck in the past with overpriced/overbloated channel packages that force consumers to pay $$ for stuff they could care less about. They still think that somehow offering the most channels implies better and justifies $$$. The truth is most of us maybe care about 10 channels...if that.

Actual real ala-carte is what we need but they will never ever go for that.

My dream service is one that would let met pick 5 or 10 channels for a reasonable price....and that would focus their efforts on video and sound quality instead of trying to bloat their packages so they can pretend to justify absurd prices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,512 Posts
The market needs a drastic change in business model. The way channels are sold and packaged has not changed in decades....just the method of delivery. Everything else about the whole business is stuck in the past with overpriced/overbloated channel packages that force consumers to pay $$ for stuff they could care less about. They still think that somehow offering the most channels implies better and justifies $$$. The truth is most of us maybe care about 10 channels...if that.



Actual real ala-carte is what we need but they will never ever go for that.



My dream service is one that would let met pick 5 or 10 channels for a reasonable price....and that would focus their efforts on video and sound quality instead of trying to bloat their packages so they can pretend to justify absurd prices.
Now that I agree with. The entire model makes no sense to me.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,194 Posts
Google better add 5.1 audio and 4k for it to be worth the price increase.



I doubt they will though :(
Exactly! Give us something to justify this 30% price increase. Using these garbage channels as an excuse to raise the fee $15 is ridiculous and insulting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beerhunt

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,961 Posts
The market needs a drastic change in business model. The way channels are sold and packaged has not changed in decades....just the method of delivery. Everything else about the whole business is stuck in the past with overpriced/overbloated channel packages that force consumers to pay $$ for stuff they could care less about. They still think that somehow offering the most channels implies better and justifies $$$. The truth is most of us maybe care about 10 channels...if that.

Actual real ala-carte is what we need but they will never ever go for that.

My dream service is one that would let met pick 5 or 10 channels for a reasonable price....and that would focus their efforts on video and sound quality instead of trying to bloat their packages so they can pretend to justify absurd prices.
I too agree with this post 100%.

Spectrum "sort of" has something like your suggesting. But the biggest problem with it, as with all of the packages, id the FEES they charge which just "bloat the hell out of" the FINAL COST per month. And the biggest, which could be easily removed if locals were made "optional", is the BROADCAST TV SURCHARGE.

For me in NW Pennsylvania with Spectrum, that was $12/month if memory serves(I cut the cord a while ago). That is INSANE for local channels! And by far the BIGGEST FEE on my cable bill. Whether that was SPORTS FEE, Sales tax, Franchise Fee, FCC Regulatory FEE(WTF?!), and even cable box rentals($7.50 each per month).

The FEE you too death, that is the problem. If they simply made the locals optional(I am going to assume the OTT providers that have all your locals are simply passing on the fee to the consumer as well), this would drastically lower costs for an overall service by a mile.

I know some people NEED to sign up for locals because they have no other way to access them with an OTA Antenna. But give us the choice(they never will), and the total cost per month would probably drop about 15%/month for all OTT services for a lot of people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,512 Posts
Here is what I don't get about the whole TV sub model.
ESPN or any channel has programming which generates commercial money. The service whether it be cable, DirecTV, YTTV, AT&T TV Now or whatever offers these channels to gain subscriptions that people pay monthly for.
So TV channel creates or has programming that generates commercial money that should be the driving force for profit.
The service offers these channels to gain subscriptions that people pay monthly for and that should be there driving force for profit for that side of the business.
Where and why did services "paying" for channels come into the picture? That seems to me to be where this thing goes off the rails and bills skyrocket. Every time the "carrier contract" is up the channel renegotiates more money. That is why drives up the cost.
What am I missing?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I have no interest in watching any of the "new" channels. So, for me, this is just a straight-up money grab by YTTV. The market sorely needs more head-to-head competition.

I am also in the same boat. Kind of $15 hike for those crap channels that I never going to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,301 Posts
Here is what I don't get about the whole TV sub model.
ESPN or any channel has programming which generates commercial money. The service whether it be cable, DirecTV, YTTV, AT&T TV Now or whatever offers these channels to gain subscriptions that people pay monthly for.
So TV channel creates or has programming that generates commercial money that should be the driving force for profit.
The service offers these channels to gain subscriptions that people pay monthly for and that should be there driving force for profit for that side of the business.
Where and why did services "paying" for channels come into the picture? That seems to me to be where this thing goes off the rails and bills skyrocket. Every time the "carrier contract" is up the channel renegotiates more money. That is why drives up the cost.
What am I missing?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
Its been that way since the dawn of "cable" TV. I never understood it either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,512 Posts
It would be smart of YTTV and all these services to put everything on the table. List exactly what it pays each month for each and every channel that way people know if the bill they are paying is reasonable or not.
If YTTV was 49.99 a month and was paying 49.99 for the channel lineup that tells you something. If they added 5 bucks a month with the new channels and it's not costing them 54.99 a month but bill each month was 65.00 that tell you something as well. What is reasonable is up to each person but at least you'll know.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
 
2161 - 2180 of 2255 Posts
Top