Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Network Youtube Google Movies Television The Internet Wireless Networking Entertainment Technology

YouTube To Launch 'Unplugged' Online TV Service In 2017 (bloomberg.com) 67

Posted by BeauHD from the everybody's-doing-it dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: YouTube is working on a paid subscription service called Unplugged that would offer customers a bundle of cable TV channels streamed over the Internet, people familiar with the plan said. The project, for which YouTube has already overhauled its technical architecture, is one of the online video giant's biggest priorities and is slated to debut as soon as 2017, one of the people said. YouTube executives have discussed these plans with most major media companies, including Comcast Corp.'s NBCUniversal, Viacom Inc., Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. and CBS Corp., but have yet to secure any rights, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. There are reportedly several different ways YouTube could package TV channels in the service. "In one scenario, it would build a bundle of channels with the four U.S. broadcast networks and a smattering of popular cable channels, a concept known in the industry as a skinny bundle," reports Bloomberg. "YouTube has also discussed offering a collection of less-watched TV channels and creating smaller groups of channels around themes. A YouTube Unplugged comedy bundle might include three or four TV channels such as Comedy Central, while a lifestyle bundle might include the Style Network." Apparently, sources familiar with the matter said YouTube would charge one subscription for the main bundle, and extra, smaller monthly fees for said theme-based groups.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube To Launch 'Unplugged' Online TV Service In 2017 More

YouTube To Launch 'Unplugged' Online TV Service In 2017

Comments Filter:

  • Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @06:01PM (#52049063)

    "but have yet to secure any rights" - In other words, it's just a bunch of hot air. On to the next story...

    • Google Hot Air is the new service from Alphabet, inc that....

    • My guess is the threat being that if they don't secure the rights, they'll start making their own content like Netflix, Amazon, and others. This might be an olive branch to give these channels a fighting change and collaborating rather than competing.

      • Netflix/Amazon don't make their own content, they pay for shows that were offered directly to them instead of going through cable networks. Shows like "Fuller House" were offered to the mainstream providers, but nobody accepted.

    • Meh - the rights are for sale. There's already two companies doing exactly this - Sling and Playstation Vue. I've subscribed to both in the past and currently subscribe to Vue.

      Overall I like the concept, but Sling lost my business due to technical issues (I watch Youtube, Hulu, and Netflix all the time - no buffering. Sling would drop out frequently during live shows). Vue is BETTER but still not quite up to the technical quality level of Youtube or Netflix.

      If Youtube offered the service at a similar pr

      • Sure, if YouTube manages to strike a deal with the networks and offer some cool content then it's worth a try. But it's just that I've seen some false starts on this thing over the years so I remain skeptical. That's the first hurdle. The second hurdle is to have the content available in hi-def. Anything less than 1080 is a non starter for me. Third hurdle - deliver it reliably with minimal buffering and that's easier said than done. Netflix does a pretty good job of it but I still get momentary buffering e

  • Oh did you want to watch that program in hi-def? We'll just default to 480p every time you visit the unplugged site, just in case...

    • have to buy espn 4 times to get netflix, youtube gold, twitch platinum, etc.

      • Yep, the "have everything" packages that cable and DBS offer everywhere are built so you don't need a Comcast wire to watch NBC and a DirecTV dish to watch Fox.

  • Sounds great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kuzb ( 724081 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @06:11PM (#52049113)

    ...but if it's full of ads like regular network television the answer will be no. I don't understand why it's acceptable to pump something full of ads when I'm already paying for it.

  • Will the channels be commercial free?

    Or will it be the same old same old with 1/3 of each channel's airtime being advertising?

  • This makes no sense. You can't stream ESPN to everybody, it belongs on broadcast bandwidth on your cable system. Turning some Google Fiber bandwidth into a cable system is a better idea.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by genfail ( 777943 )
      It's not evil to fight the devil.
    • Don't be too sure. IPv6 multi-cast streaming is pretty efficient and would knock down a good chunk of bandwidth versus current schemes. Game of Thrones streamed to about 10 million households at once with HBO's network. Monday Night Football is about 13 million viewers, if everyone streamed. The SuperBowl is more like 100 million, but the idea here is that it's within the realm of possibility, and having it be IP-based means you don't have to add extra hardware to both ends, like you would with a dedicat

      • Multicast works only when everybody's on the same network and watching at the same time. To do this on a residential network you end up duplicating a cable system with 100 different streams overloading the trunk.

        • I do hope that you aren't trying to suggest that multicast is somehow less efficient than the current random unicast noise that is Netflix and YouTube and Prime.

          • Multicast is like setting up a cable channel for multiple viewers. If everybody's watching a different movie, or they didn't start at the same time or pause differently, then multicast doesn't work and it goes back to unicast.

            • If everybody's watching a different movie, or they didn't start at the same time or pause differently, then multicast doesn't work

              That's not entirely true. You can have people join-in late on a multicast transmission, and they will only have to unicast the bits they missed, assuming enough buffer space. Or you can do a nice rotation where the same movie gets transmitted via multicast every half hour (if there are any interested receivers), and you can join the one that is nearest to the starting when you d

  • May I be the first to say YES its about time... its gotten to the point where there is little reason for me to own a conventional TV anymore. This would fit the bill nicely, if they could adhere to the original promise of cable TV (no ads in exchange for subscription fees)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slew ( 2918 )

      ...original promise of cable TV (no ads in exchange for subscription fees)

      The "original" promise of cable back 1948 was simply that for a fee, you could get TV if you couldn't receive it over the air with a community antenna (called CATV). Later, in 1972, a small upstart company called HBO made a new promise. That wasn't the original promise of CATV, but of HBO.

  • I say again, yay! About friggin time.

  • Why the sudden interest? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mattyj ( 18900 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @06:27PM (#52049229)

    What with this announcement and a similar announcement from Hulu, I'm wondering if Apple is actually about to announce something and these also-rans (ha ha) are trying to preemptively FUD them ...? One can only hope.

    I'm already on the Hulu bandwagon, paying the extra for no ads. If they can put something together with the live TV I want to watch, at a decent price, and retain the ability to cut the commercials on non-live stuff... that would be pretty compelling for a lot of people.

  • for whatever reason time warner won't stream their live channel if you're not on your home wifi and that means i can't watch the rare afternoon baseball game at work.
  • I hope they can do it. The only reason I'm still "plugged in" to cable is because of sports, specifically baseball and American football. Otherwise I'd cancel my cable in a heartbeat. Even now I'm considering it because it does cost quite a bit.

    • Similar here. No sports tho, the only reason I haven't cut it yet is because I don't have an antenna/converter box. I only watch chans 2. 3. and 4 anyhow, and that is only on Saturdayafternoons usually. The only reason I pay TimeWarner is for the internet basically.

  • If Google really wanted to "not be evil" they could come up with a bundle structure that allows you to not pay for any sports channels whatsoever unless you actually want them (but with a single sports tier that contains ALL the good sports and channels for one monthly price so you dont have to buy 6 different packages to get the sports stuff)

  • We don't want channels anymore; maybe playlists (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2016 @06:40PM (#52049303)

    What is the point of channels in this day and age? Better if you just have a library of content and let customers pull from it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Macfox ( 50100 )
      Exactly. Channels in the Youtube era are a Dinosaur concept. How hard is it to understand today's consumers only want to subsidize content they watch. Ads have no place in this model.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      I'm sure they'd be working on that in parallel, but the right to air a TV channel live + x hours of replay streaming might be easier to deal with from the business side than a ton of different content that have very different long term value. News, live sports and other current events have very short shelf life, series and movies a much longer shelf life. An "airing" is a known quantity for the TV networks, it's what they do themselves and know how to price.

    • Exactly. "Bundles" make me feel the same way. Yuck. Exactly what I don't want. I will only pay for something that I know I will watch, thanks.

  • From the summary, it sounds like we're talking about boring old TV delivered via IP. Hardly a media revolution. Preferably, they'd let us choose shows we wish to subscribe to, and allow us to put 100% of our subscription money into those shows, rather than the old method of subsidizing all the stuff we don't care about with a huge monthly fee.
    This is really not that exciting.

  • My experience with streaming:

    1) Must have fast enough internet
    2) Must have reliable enough internet
    3) Must have internet at the moment you are watching
    4) Must have enough data allocation to deal with it all
    5) Clunky interfaces
    6) Usually doesn't work with all devices
    7) Forced commercials possible and likely on many services
    8) Slow to react to controls
    9) Jerky and inefficient fast forwarding and rewinding
    10) Sometimes doesn't remember place across sessions

    This isn't the future I want for TV watching. I want

  • I actually recently cut the cord so I only have internet, no TV, and the only channels I feel like I am really missing out on is the live sports channels, like ESPN. Anything else I can just pick and choose from Netflix or Hulu or even iTunes for the most part and I can often find a way to watch the day after an episode airs. Bundles are content providers' way of getting you to pay too much for what you actually want. I don't forsee Youtube bundles being any better.

  • The viewer has total control. Push networks are dead.

  • What are these "bundles" of which you speak? And why would have any interest in them at all?

  • You do suspect there'll be unskippable ads in this (even 6 second-long ones would be abhorrent on a subscription service). but even worse I suspect it'll be US-only, which would be a huge missed revenue opportunity. Many US people will already have access to the channels on cable, so the real demand for this would surely be non-US viewers?

  • Here is an idea, why not use one of those newfangled computer things to record the exact amount a person watches of any channel and just bill them for that (because they are logged in via their google account), with a real-time account balance indicator etc.? Why bundle at all? Why even charge for the first part of any given show, let people watch for free and get hooked or not, but at least there will be zero barriers to them finding what they like and then consuming it on a regular basis which will maximi

  • It's funny that they're calling it Unplugged even though technically you still have to be physically plugged in to a ISP somewhere to receive the content.

    Yeah, I know there are mobile wireless plans out there. But realistically you won't be able to use them because of data caps. And yes, there are WISP's out there too, but those still require wiring at the premise. So my point still stands.

  • I hope you can access it from anywhere on the world. I'm approaching 50 and won't stay in Germany any longer.

  • I don't care about channels. Channels are not content.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close