Disney takes over Hulu.

[NashGuy]

This behavior is the kind of thing that totally blows the WAF. With Dish, if we are watching an in-progress recording on CBS, we can FF through commercials (assuming we don't run out of buffer). Then, if one of us wants to rewatch the same show on the weekend (because it is very nuanced and detailed, so it is hard to keep up without repeated viewings), we can FF through commercials then. It sounds like we may not be able to do one or the other, depending on which service we chose.

I think those sort of subtle changes to the rules of DVR behavior, which encourage more ad viewing, will become the norm as more and more TV providers (including Comcast, AT&T, etc.) turn to cloud DVR. One way or another, the basic deal is this: you're going to pay more to avoid ads than if you agree to watch them.

I think this is also part of the media giants' plans to shift an increasing amount of the content we view away from linear channels -- which can be recorded (with the expectation that the ads can be FF'ed through) -- and toward on-demand consumption, in apps such as Disney's Hulu where you pay one price to watch content with forced targeted ads or a higher price to have the ads removed (and not even have to FF through them). This will also be the game plan for Comcast/NBCU's upcoming streaming service. The expanded HBO service from WarnerMedia will include targeted ads in some way on some content (thought apparently not on the core HBO premium stuff). Some analysts believe that even Netflix will at some point in the future succumb to financial realities compelling them to offer a two-tier pricing strategy with forced ads on the cheaper tier.

 

[allargon]

Getting the premium a la carte services (HBO, Showtime, Starz, Epix, Cinemax) as Apple TV Channels or Prime Video Channels gives you better picture quality than you're going to get in the standalone apps (HBO Now, Showtime, Starz, Epix Now, and, well, there is no Cinemax standalone app). And they have WAY better PQ for their on-demand streams than you're going to get watching the linear channels from cable or satellite. That's generally true of all streaming subscription on-demand sources versus cable/satellite.

A few things. The linear channels from satellite have better PQ than streaming. I can't speak for cable. But, I can definitely say that the HBO linear feed from Dish looked better than HBO Go at the time and better than what HBO Now streams currently. For 1080i/p content, it's still Blu-Ray>OTA/FIOS/Google>Direct>Dish>Streaming?>Most Cable (though some might be better than Dish/Direct>U-verse for PQ.

Cinemax? I wonder how much longer that group of channels is going to be around.

 

[SpaethCo]

The linear channels from satellite have better PQ than streaming.

I'm inclined to disagree with this statement. HBO from Amazon Prime Channels has a peak bitrate of 15mbps, average bitrate of 10mbps. That's nearly double Dish or DirecTV's satellite broadcast bitrate -- plus with streaming the content is already mastered and sourced as 1080p24 (its natural film frame rate) instead of broadcast into 1080i60.

I still have DirecTV, but I've downgraded to the Family Pack since we're only using it for NHL Network and Center Ice now. We started off keeping DirecTV with a higher package in combination with YoutubeTV, and over the course of the playoffs the picture quality of the YoutubeTV streaming feed has been substantially better than the DirecTV satellite feed at times. I've posted these examples before, but here is a bad night for DirecTV compared to YoutubeTV:

DirecTV: https://live.staticflickr.com/7874/33712441738_d30851f0f3_o.jpg
YoutubeTV: https://live.staticflickr.com/7818/40623425183_2f4ae976a5_o.jpg

It's an iPhone picture of a TV, so the picture is a little bit of a mess to start with -- but just look at the compression artifacts around the clock on the DirecTV feed. At times the players are nothing more than MPEG compression artifact blobs moving across the screen on the center ice shots.

On any of the modern 4k streaming devices (AppleTV 4k, FireTV 4k, Roku Ultra, etc), the video quality on streaming is better than satellite 99+% of the time.

 

[ncted]

I agree with SpaethCo. Most of the time streaming looks better to me than the equivalent on cable or satellite. Depending on where you live, cable might look better, but I found the picture to be crisper and smoother than either of the DBS services. The one complaint I have is streaming needs to do something about banding in dark scenes. Prime and Netflix both suffer from this as well as the live OTT services. About the only streaming that I have seen that doesn't suffer from this excessively is Vudu's UHD movies.

 

[harshness]

We know that some of the services (especially DBS and cable) apply their own secret sauce to the content so bandwidth isn't everything.

 

[SpaethCo]

I still argue that bitrate is the single most important factor, if we're talking equivalent video compression codecs (ie, H264 for Cable/Sat and streaming in most cases). The cable and DBS companies are in an even worse position with 1080i source content because interlaced content is inherently more inefficient for video compression codecs.

No matter how you look at it, within a given video compression algorithm, lowering bitrate is removing visual information. These are lossy algorithms; this is not penalty free.

 

[NashGuy]

A few things. The linear channels from satellite have better PQ than streaming. I can't speak for cable. But, I can definitely say that the HBO linear feed from Dish looked better than HBO Go at the time and better than what HBO Now streams currently. For 1080i/p content, it's still Blu-Ray>OTA/FIOS/Google>Direct>Dish>Streaming?>Most Cable (though some might be better than Dish/Direct>U-verse for PQ.

Cinemax? I wonder how much longer that group of channels is going to be around.

Yeah, I wasn't comparing linear streaming channels vs. linear satellite channels. I was comparing on-demand streaming (which is how the vast majority of streaming content is accessed) vs. linear satellite channels. The only source with better PQ than on-demand streaming (average across the major apps) is Blu-ray.

 

[harshness]

No matter how you look at it, within a given video compression algorithm, lowering bitrate is removing visual information. These are lossy algorithms; this is not penalty free.

Re-compressing already compressed content is giving up something in terms of quality and is lossy (unless you go hog wild with how much bandwidth you use). Much of what the DBS operators do to the video content is with an eye on making the video more compressible. This shouldn't increase artifacting, but it may impact gamma and may do some damage to the chroma fidelity. DIRECTV clearly errs on the side of overly bold colors and insane levels of gamma. Most streaming services probably don't tinker with boosting or cutting aspects of the video.

Even if the general compression scheme used is the same, the amount of damage done can vary widely and with the modern schemes, the more the content is touched, the harder it is to compress. This is especially evident with JPEG and HEVC that do wonders on pristine content (smooth luma and chroma) but get huge when the content is "noisy".

 

[enjoywatchingTV]

I tihnk there will be channel lineup changes to the Hulu Live TV.

From this list, there are still several channels that might be operating that are owned by Disney and not in Hulu Live TV
List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company - Wikipedia

For example, Disney owns 50% of A&E Networks, so it might try to get all the A&E channels or at least four more on Hulu Live TV. Missing from Hulu Live TV but owned by A&E are Crime & Investigation, FYI, History en Espanol, Military History, Lifetime Movies, and Lifetime Real Women.

It also owns LiveWell which is a subchannel on many ABC O&O stations, although Disney isn't adding any new content to that network and isn't even adding new affiliates. My local ABC owned station also airs Laff but the Laff network is not owned by Disney. I think the Hallmark channels (although not owned by Disney), would be complementary as well. I have doubts if Disney would pursue the Viacom group of channels. It already has so many channels without them.

If YTTV is $49.99, I could see Disney easily bumping up Hulu Live TV from $44.99 to $49.99, while adding some channels. Disney is a company that has no qualms of bumping the price up - just see the ticket prices for DIsney theme parks.

 

[Zookster]

.

If YTTV is $49.99, I could see Disney easily bumping up Hulu Live TV from $44.99 to $49.99, while adding some channels. Disney is a company that has no qualms of bumping the price up - just see the ticket prices for DIsney theme parks.

Don't forget that at that price YouTube TV also includes three simultaneous streams, unlimited DVR storage space, and the ability to fast-forward all DVR recordings. Not to mention the AMC channels.

 

[harshness]

Don't forget that at that price YouTube TV also includes three simultaneous streams, unlimited DVR storage space, and the ability to fast-forward all DVR recordings. Not to mention the AMC channels.

Do you have evidence that the Disney offering won't offer much the same?

AMC is arguably not a suite to base your pay TV choice on if it means getting shorted on some other important suites.

I also doubt that $50 is the top of the price ladder.

 

[Zookster]

Do you have evidence that the Disney offering won't offer much the same?

I was referring to what Hulu Live TV is currently offering for its price compared to what YouTube TV offers (with Hulu Live TV, you have to pay extra for certain DVR functions that are included in YTTV's $50/mo. price). But if "Disney has no qualms about bumping the price up," it would surprise me if they started including all DVR add-ons in the base price without raising said base price. Purely speculation based on current data. So sorry, no evidence. There are obviously no guarantees of what any service will or won't offer or charge extra for in the coming months and years.

AMC is arguably not a suite to base your pay TV choice on if it means getting shorted on some other important suites.

It is for me. It is for others. But, you are correct, it isn't for everyone. Everyone who subscribes to these services must first consider their "must-have" versus their "can live without" channels and find the service that best meets their needs. (We've probably had this discussion before ).

I also doubt that $50 is the top of the price ladder.

As with the price of margarine, gasoline, and Snickers bars, I will be totally shocked if the price of YouTube TV doesn't go up again.

 

[harshness]

There's also the possibility that channels will be added or removed from any of the services and that must not be ignored. Having an exit plan is great, but the contract cycle on OTT seems relatively short.

Removing most any of the Disney properties from YTTV would do a lot more damage to YTTV than Hulu might gain by adding the entire AMC suite. How much they save is a complex equation that may well turn out to be a negative number.

 

[Zookster]

There's also the possibility that channels will be added or removed from any of the services and that must not be ignored. Having an exit plan is great, but the contract cycle on OTT seems relatively short.

Removing most any of the Disney properties from YTTV would do a lot more damage to YTTV than Hulu might gain by adding the entire AMC suite. How much they save is a complex equation that may well turn out to be a negative number.

I doubt Disney would pull all its channels from other OTT live TV services to force people to switch to Hulu Live TV any more than Comcast denied OTT live TV services the ability to carry the suite of popular NBC/Universal channels to force customers to stay with cable. Sure, Disney may jack up prices at contract renewal time, possibly forcing other services to raise prices. In the OTT live TV space, Disney/ABC/ESPN has been one of the more accessible properties (compared to Viacom, for example). Everyone except FuboTV has those channels. And I would assume it was Fubo's decision not to carry ESPN et al. for pricing reasons. Not because Disney refused to allow Fubo to carry them for any price.

 

[harshness]

When the prices for OTT are well into the basic cable package price level, something will have to give. Some argue that without a full slate of OTA channels, that time may have already arrived (in markets where the carriers don't charge an arm and a leg for local channels).

It is also folly to assume that a suite will necessarily hold its value over time. AMC isn't nearly what it was three years ago in terms of ratings.

 

[enjoywatchingTV]

Another distinction is YTTV has NBA TV while Hulu Live doesn't. I could see it being added with a focus on courting sports fans, complementary to ESPN viewership strategy. The A&E, AMC networks and the Hallmark networks would be complementary as fill - somewhat popular enough, and Disney owns half of A&E as mentioned.

I just feel the last group of channels in consideration would be the ones from Viacom. They are apparently pricey (and really not that great) and there was pushback at least from DirecTV in costs.. If one wants Viacom, those channels are loaded on Philo (which is $20/month). Interestingly, Philo is part owned by Viacom and Viacom also has full ownership in PlutoTV, which is completely free OTT provider. I kind of wonder if Viacom would offer it's cable channels for a $10/month price there. Philo is $20/month with half of the channels seeming to be Viacom ones.

 

[Jhon69]

I tihnk there will be channel lineup changes to the Hulu Live TV.

From this list, there are still several channels that might be operating that are owned by Disney and not in Hulu Live TV
List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company - Wikipedia

For example, Disney owns 50% of A&E Networks, so it might try to get all the A&E channels or at least four more on Hulu Live TV. Missing from Hulu Live TV but owned by A&E are Crime & Investigation, FYI, History en Espanol, Military History, Lifetime Movies, and Lifetime Real Women.

It also owns LiveWell which is a subchannel on many ABC O&O stations, although Disney isn't adding any new content to that network and isn't even adding new affiliates. My local ABC owned station also airs Laff but the Laff network is not owned by Disney. I think the Hallmark channels (although not owned by Disney), would be complementary as well. I have doubts if Disney would pursue the Viacom group of channels. It already has so many channels without them.

If YTTV is $49.99, I could see Disney easily bumping up Hulu Live TV from $44.99 to $49.99, while adding some channels. Disney is a company that has no qualms of bumping the price up - just see the ticket prices for DIsney theme parks.

Hulu Live does have more channels under the add ons on the website.