Interesting. On one hand, I think all providers should abide by the same rules so if DISH has to negotiate directly with the local channels so should YouTube. However, it sounds like those local channels all agreed to let the large corporate entity providing them content negotiate for them. So they seem to have created their own problem.
I do not believe they thought Streaming Live TV was going to get that many subscribers, yet YouTube TV is almost at 6 Million, just a million less then Dish.
I do not believe they thought Streaming Live TV was going to get that many subscribers, yet YouTube TV is almost at 6 Million, just a million less then Dish.
Cord cutters are part of their success, but I think a lot of it can be attributed to a lot of smaller cable (and phone companies - ie: Frontier) that have abandoned offering tv service and have partnerships with YouTube TV and offer discounted rates to bundle YTTV with their internet service.
The streaming services are all losing money (according to them), yet the actors guild, the writers guild and the local networks all want a cut of the money that the streaming services are not making. Greed, makes the world go around and causes wars between countries.
A person who pays for a set of linear television channels is not a "cord cutter". They are not even a cord switcher. They just switched from one linear television provider to another. Still paying for linear television.
While I oppose retransmission consent as a matter of public policy and believe that the Supreme Court got it right in Fortnightly, YTTV. et al, most certainly is exactly the same thing as a cable company and the rules applied to it should be exactly the same as those applied to a cable company or to DBS.
