dslreports logo
site
   
spc
Related:
story category
Paid YouTube Channels Launching Soon
Channels Would Cost as Little as $1.99 Per Month
by Karl Bode 08:31AM Monday May 06 2013
Anonymous sources insist that YouTube is getting close to launching their rumored subscription TV channels. Pricing for individual channels will run as for as little as $1.99 a month, giving channel creators some added money to improve what is traditionally low-grade fare.Google's move comes as traditional pay TV operators like Verizon and Time Warner Cable are dropping poorer performing channels in order to reduce programming costs -- the lion's share of which are driven by sports. Under Google's model, those channels could find new life under YouTube subscriptions. Though the idea will likely raise eyebrows now given the sheer volume of painful crap on YouTube, it could evolve in a compelling concept.

view:
topics flat nest 

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

DOA

With Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, plus all of the free video streaming all over the net what is Youtube going to offer that is going to be worth even $1.99?

Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1

Re: DOA

Nothing, since it won't be YouTube creating and providing the content.

Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
I'd pay $1.99/mo for the Game of Thrones channel.

...

...

Bwaahaahaa.
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it.

Youtubethief

@charter.com
Now someone can start another youtube-like website and steal paid content from Youtube and put it up for free.
floydb1982

join:2004-08-25
Kent, WA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Clearwire Wireless
Netflix offers a 1 month trial period for folks to give a try to see if they want to keep there account and pay into it or not month after month after the end of the trial period. Another thing about Netflix is you can cancel before the trial period ends and you pay nothing. I like that about Netflix.

I wonder of Google YouTube will offer the same trial period as well to see what paid content they will be offering. With out a trial period how can you know what you'd be paying into.
westdc

join:2009-01-25
Amissville, VA
kudos:1

Another service

NOT to Buy!

Anon Troll

@bellsouth.net

Cut the net and read a book

Time to cut the net and read a book.
Angrychair

join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast

channels?

I suspect by channels they actually mean content collections, which is fine, but if it's not the actual broadcast channel I can't see paying much.

If I could get for $20 all the channels I'd actually want from cable I'd gladly give the money to Google instead, but I somehow doubt this is going to be the case.

buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

Buffering

Are they going to fix that problem.

Countless people can't get steady streams no matter the connection they have.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: Buffering

said by buzz_4_20:

Are they going to fix that problem.

Countless people can't get steady streams no matter the connection they have.

Technically, the problem is not buffering, and there is little evidence to suggest that it is Google's problem, although their predictable silence on the matter should be telling for anyone who thinks we should worship at their broadband altar. Customer support that consists of a "suggestion box" does not inspire confidence.

Other threads have suggested that the problem resides in some nitwit's caching-optimization-gone-wrong on the delivery side of things, which can be fixed by blocking your ISP's caching servers at your router.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Re: Buffering

said by elray:

Technically, the problem is not buffering, and there is little evidence to suggest that it is Google's problem, although their predictable silence on the matter should be telling for anyone who thinks we should worship at their broadband altar. Customer support that consists of a "suggestion box" does not inspire confidence.

Other threads have suggested that the problem resides in some nitwit's caching-optimization-gone-wrong on the delivery side of things, which can be fixed by blocking your ISP's caching servers at your router.

From what I can see, the problem appears to be that the YouTube servers are permanently set on SSSLLLOOOWWW. A typical 10 minute video will take 4-6 minutes to fully download. Provided you're playing it, videos no longer download while paused. However, if I use the "PWN YouTube" bookmarklet to download the video, my download manager uses multiple connections and finishes in about 30 seconds.
elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

Re: Buffering

It doesn't make sense to even use the cache servers, because of the adaptive bitrate algorithms and all the different streams for one video you can use. Ok maybe there is some synergy but not much. Youtube is still flash and it sucks. I've been using the HTML5 version for a few weeks and it seems to be much better, so I think I'm going to stay in the beta for now.

The methods to block cache servers is a hammer, and it impacts all services, not just Youtube and that will just piss off your ISP because if they have to pull all bits without caching they are not going to be happy. You would have to spend time writing triggers to actually do it right, and that's a lot of effort for a bandaid.

If they start charging however, that means a certain expectation of QoS is required. They will probably go the way of Netflix and place content boxes of popular fare in network or in ISP CDN.

At that point the ISP is going to want a tax tho.....
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5

Re: Buffering

Youtube hasn't been flash for ages now...the much older videos may not have been converted yet to HTML5 but most good ones have and recent ones are already in HTML5. You don't need to join that old beta test of HTML5. If a video is available in HTML5 then your browser will automatically play it using HTML5 and usually at 720p or 1080i HD. That is, if you disable Flash in your browsers. This is true both on XP and Win 8 on Fx, SeaMonkey (on XP and Win 8) and IE 10 (on Win 8). Opera is a complete mess though when it comes to HTML5 so stick with Fx, SeaMonkey and IE and keep Flash disabled. That is the key to getting HTML5 to be used without any need to join that old beta test. Flash takes precedence so keeping it disabled allows HTML5 to take over.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

spewak
R.I.P Dadkins
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1

Word Association

I associate youtube with random, albeit sometimes interesting vids. Worth $1.99? Not likely!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Uhmmm

wasn't this annouced like 2 years ago?
--
Despises any post with strings.
mrexcelion

join:2008-08-06

Re: Uhmmm

Gaming streamers are able to get a lot of subscribers on their channels on Twitch. The streams are still free to watch, but paying 4 dollars to subscribe cuts out the ads for that channel, and you get to show off your subscriber avatar to the live chat/participate in subscriber events with the streamer. Youtube wouldn't do this but they should try to mimic the streaming model. Have it be free to watch, broadcast it at certain times of the day "live" (save to an archive maybe?), have a chatroom for each channel dedicated to live broadcasts (spoilers might be a problem though), and subs can skip pop-up ads and get some other minor perks to show off.

Then again, those chats require constant moderation, and that's gotta be the biggest drawback. But making money from streaming is a thing, and if you can draw live people in to talk about what's on the screen, they'll more than likely stick around even if the content isn't that great, just to talk to people about it.

Defiance82
Computer Elite
Premium
join:2002-09-11
Burlington, WI

Pfft

I bet all you will see is "Buffering......."

michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..

Im for it.

Considering some channels I watch are always asking for donations. If they did set some channels as pay to view I wouldn't mind giving them $2.00 a month so they can keep providing videos.

It also makes the donation process much easier since it could be tied with Google wallet.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

And so the death of YouTube begins

Watch as everyone seeks to charge for their channels.... and all that made YouTube great withers and dies.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

free vs fee$?

then there's all the incentive to make the free stuff crappier and more censored, isn't it?!?

all this does is push traffic elsewhere and google kills off that cash cow/golden goose which advertisers pay for currently with ads.

once you become like cable-tv (a-la-carte or not), you'll see the massive churn away from that model.