[charlesray]

Baffled by the number of people itt saying "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads." It can't not have ads. It's cable TV, YouTube has zero control over whether or not it has ads. They can't broadcast the USA network without ads. Cable has had ads for like 40 years, and traditional cable providers are much more expensive than this. Are y'all 14 years old? idgi

[superjared]

YouTube TV injects ads on certain content. I know it's there for on-demand TV shows, and some live sports. It's literally overlaid on top of the channel's ads in the live example.

I think years ago when I first subscribed one of the major benefits was the ability to skip through these ads just like DVR, but you can no longer do that.

[charlesray]

Cable TV broadcasts include both the network's ads and slots for the carrier to run their own ads. They're not inserting bonus ads on top of the actual content. Again, this is exactly the same as any cable provider has always worked.

[mucle6]

I thought you could skip ads in dvr?

[hx8]

Over the last 15 years the expectation from online content has been "If I pay money ($10-20/mo), I shouldn't have to see ads." There's been a lot of pushback on this expectation, with sponsored content and tired services. This is the strongest pushback on that expectation.

Of course we cannot get around the limitation of a streaming content provider displaying ads as part of their stream. It's just that $73 buys a lot of entertaining content on the internet that won't have that issue. It doubly feels like a bad deal because the content on cable TV is almost always not the highest quality content available. They are charging premium prices for standard content with long ad breaks.

I wouldn't say "I can't believe it costs that much and still has ads" but I would say "I can't believe that people see enough value to spend that kind of money for that content with those ads." In my adult life I have never paid for cable or satellite tv. My parents still do.

[Podgajski]

I remember my father complaining about the ads when he started paying for cable in the 1980s. I still complain about it.

You can get a decent amount of channels for free in most metropolitan areas with a digital antenna. You get commercials but a one time cost for a $100 antenna is worth it.

And the more people that switch to OTA TV the better because that will mean more advertiser money, more eDTV antennas, and more channels coming on air. The market certainly is a growing: https://www.nexttv.com/news/nielsen-sees-uptick-in-over-the-...

[RF_Enthusiast]

Does YouTubeTV carry public television stations? Aside from underwriting sponsor mentions at the beginning and end of a program, they're prohibited from mentioning sponsors [1].

[1] 47 CFR 73.621(e) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.621...

[charlesray]

Yes, and YouTube TV does not insert ads into those broadcasts. There's no ads in YouTube TV beyond what you would see on any other cable carrier.

[I_Am_Nous]

For a lot of people I imagine they are only used to ads on free stuff, like Pandora, while paying for the service removes ads. It's just an old world vs new world disparity, where old-worlders (pre-internet or slow moving area residents) are used to things like ads on cable and broadcast radio, while new-worlders (people who mostly grew up on the modern internet) didn't experience the same world at all.

[schnable]

The in-program ad revenue is a huge part of YTTV and Google's business model. The sub costs mostly go to purchase the content.

[mucle6]

Even if they didn't profit from the ads, could they get rid of them?