Around 10 million individuals subscribe to YouTube TV, which costs them $83 a month. Currently, access to ABC, ESPN, and the Disney Channel is unavailable.
YouTube TV is essentially just cable rebranded as streaming. For the steep price of $83 for the basic package, you get around 100 channels—many of which you probably won’t even watch. It’s worth considering that you’re potentially funding controversial news outlets like Disney, CNN, and MSNBC each month.
Why would anyone choose to pay so much?
Honestly, it’s perplexing. I think perhaps some older folks might feel a bit overwhelmed by streaming options, and I get that. But I’m not so sure that those who choose YouTube TV are mainly older adults. It seems more like a younger crowd willing to spend a hefty sum on television, when, truthfully, there’s plenty of free content out there.
Why fork over the full price for channels that, if you really think about it, you could find for free? It’s baffling.
In any case, YouTube TV resembles traditional cable services by incurring airtime fees imposed by large entertainment companies like Disney. Therefore, those charges are passed down to subscribers. Disney insists on charging YouTube TV substantial fees for carrying its channels. YouTube TV has argued that these fees are excessive.
Both sides have their stakes. Disney is eager for access to those 10 million subscribers, while YouTube TV risks losing viewers if it doesn’t provide ABC and ESPN.
Ultimately, it seems those 10 million subscribers might just end up on the losing side, but perhaps that’s just part of what they signed up for.
There’s another issue at play:
According to several industry insiders involved in the negotiations, YouTube TV aims to leverage its growth and position as a pay-TV provider in its discussions. The platform has expressed a desire to integrate programming from media companies’ streaming services into its main interface. For media companies aiming to expand direct-to-consumer options while grappling with declines in traditional viewing, this poses a significant challenge.
Owned by Google—a tech giant worth $3 trillion—YouTube seeks to gather all online advertising, and now it broadens its aim to incorporate content from various platforms.
This suggests that if you’re subscribed to Disney+, for instance, rather than accessing your favorite shows through the Disney app, YouTube might want you to do it via their interface instead.
While Disney+ would still receive your subscription fees, the content would be contained within the YouTube framework, negatively impacting brand loyalty to Disney.
To truly escape the clutches of Hollywood, which seems less concerned about viewers and more focused on profits, it might be wise to consider not paying for television at all. There are numerous free options out there, like PlutoTV, Roku Channel, and Tubi. Plus, many channels can still be accessed using a digital antenna.
Honestly, it feels a bit foolish to keep paying for TV.
