YouTube Now Charging Up to $10 a Month to View Select Channels

YouTube is reportedly going to start charging money for access to select video channels, although the exact details have yet to be announced. In this brief but lively discussion, our experts ponder the eternal question: What would it take to get you to pay for a YouTube channel?

UPDATE: Rumor no more! YouTube has officially announced pay-to-watch channels. Channel pricing will start at a lower-than-expected 99 cents per month, but most fall into the $4.99 range, while some swing as high as $9.99 per month. Other than National Geographic and UFC offerings, no "big name" content providers signed up; however, there is word that a Sesame Street channel is in the works.

So, what do you think of this plan, now? Does the reality of the service change the way you felt when it was just a rumor? Tell us in the comment section below!

Follow @dealnews for the latest roundups, price trend info, and stories. You can also sign up for an email alert for all dealnews features.
DealNews may be compensated by companies mentioned in this article. Please note that, although prices sometimes fluctuate or expire unexpectedly, all products and deals mentioned in this feature were available at the lowest total price we could find at the time of publication (unless otherwise specified).


Leave a comment!

or Register
There's no way I would pay for the service! The whole idea is free access on the internet. Prices are going up everywhere something needs to remain accessible to the people lets be reasonable!
This doesn't really impact anything. All you have to do is look for the songs we want and not pay for the channels that you have to pay for. Sooner or later they'll have to take it off if they see we aren't using those channels. It's just like gas prices. It's low, everyone uses it, then it goes up, no one uses it, then it goes back down.
I guess we need to come up with a new 'YouTube' to get the old YouTube back. It is ridiculous that we have to pay for parts of YouTube now, when they make their money by advertisers. Goes to show you how greed takes over.
I think it stinks but i knew sooner or later someone would start charging for the videos on their service. So what now i have to pay to see video of grumpy cat? I did try and watch and old episodes of the avengers that was on about a year or so and now they want to charge me money to see reruns
It depends on the offerings & the intrusiveness of the ads, but based on what I've seen thus far, I'm not very tempted. Add something like BBC iPlayer for $4.99 (or less, preferably) & I'll consider it.
All pretty much useless channels to me. So I couldn't care less (I guess, for now that is)....
I certainly would never pay-but truth is: If someone is stupid enough to
pay then free enterprise dictates that You Tube would charge. It's supply and
demand...if their subscribers dry up then they simply quit charging.
The only thing they will get from me is my $.02 cents.
I don't have cable, so if YouTube or someone had come up with a good replacement at a low price like this it would have been worth considering. If they had devised blockbuster original content - something on par with LOST or Game of Thrones - many would have subscribed, although many like myself would just stay with free content.
However the offerings shown are laughable and bilboBagit just pointed out subscribing doesn't even remove the ads. Netflix offers more, is cheaper, and in my book still isn't worth paying for compared to free hulu.
I just have to wonder if something else is coming. Google just seems too smart to fail this badly.
I just clicked on one of the subscriptions.
14-day free trial • May include ads"

Does the content provider make the $4.99 and Youtube gets the ad money? Wondering how the monies are split, if at all.
I've seen some similar channels available free through streaming devices
How stupid do you have to be LOL? This is a big fail!
kim yee
NO I DON'T SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Ahem ... ...
I hope I was not unclear.
With numerous other alternatives that show much, much, much better content (almost always at a lower cost than that described in the article), you'll never see me paying to watch pulp fiction, homemade, and third rate productions. You'll have to pry my HTPC remote from my cold dead fingers first.
Again, I hope I was not unclear.
No way. I did without before and I can do it again.
I will rent my movies to though. Remember Netflix's dilemma? Has their stock ever recovered?
YouTube just want to double-dip, get money from advertisers AND viewers!! Enough with the constant breaking down of products/services into smaller parts and charging for each. Before we know it we'll be paying for the milk we add to our coffee at Starbucks, or maybe even have to pay rent to have a chair to sit on!
Lets see will take subscription and collect revenue from advertisers
Don't fall for this crap guys!!!! RIP YOUTUBE! time for something new! if this happens!
No. I'm a dealnewser; if I can find content cheaper (free), then I won't pay for it.
perhapse $2.99 a year for the current content w/o comercials. Perhapse a few dollars a month if they added some real content w/o comercials. Otherwise, I would not pay to watch the current content.
keep it together google!
keep it together google!!!
Oops I meant
"Is this why Youtube blocked itself off ROKU for the last few years? They want their own Hoogleu?"
There is already a Google Play for movies and Youtube/movies.
Is this why Youtube blocked itself off Hulu for the last few years? They want their own Hoogleu?
College tech is on YouTube now, so probably why!
I don't want to pay for anything that has commercials.
i don't want to pay for a service that has only part of a TV series.
I don't want to pay for a dozen different services to get the content I want.
That brings me to pay-per-view and I don't want to pay more than $.25 per hour for that.

You say that's not enough income to produce the shows. I say the moguls of TV and Hollywood will need to adjust to a new reality.
I wouldn't.
Of course not! All this will do is to provide a platform for a new entrant into the on-line video world, or boost one that already exists. Just look at the way JCPenny is back-tracking after the former Apple CEO totally ruined their business model!
I am against paying for any internet based content. I am old enough to remember that the internet was invented expressly for the sharing of information, not for profit. "Subscription" services are not new, we have had them in the form of newspapers and magazines for over 100 years. However, it has come to my attention that there is a concerted effort to get people hooked on certain things that are computer based, like Microsoft Office for example, then after we have tied our life to it, it becomes a "subscription" service where by you will in the future no longer be able to buy a product, but will have to be satisfied with renting a license to "subscribe" to it. I wonder how long it will be before private citizens can no longer buy their own house and property, but will only instead be allowed to purchase 1 year "subscriptions" (leases) of property that is only allowed to be owned and profited from by large companies? Think about it, kids.
There are already enough subscription video services. Why isn't the amount of money they already make from advertising enough? Mo Money Mo Money Mo Money!
Correction on below: WASN'T available elsewise.
If the content is worth it, then sure. Kind of a silly question. Even the users below would break down and pay if there was something that exclusive to one of their their niche interests, compelling enough, that doesn't make it on cable, was of high enough quality, and was unavailable elsewise, then of course they would shell out 99 cents or whatever.

I think most people misunderstand this new product model. It's not as though YouTube plans on asking you pay for Keybord Cat or Soruce Fed or Tobuscus videos. This would be another tier of more polished content.

Paying for this would be no different than paying for cable, Netflix, or Hulu Plus.
It's funny that the last commentor decided to quote "extra", I would submit that we needed to quote the word "their."
I would never pay them "extra" to watch videos. They already get paid, it's called advertisements that they stick into their videos.