# Why Sports Fans Won’t Be Cheering the Rise of Internet TV



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

The $6 a month ESPN charges cable companies for the best of pro sports like football and basketball is starting to look like a bargain.

Full article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-17/why-sports-fans-won-t-be-cheering-the-rise-of-internet-tv.html


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

It is a bargain to the sports fanatic.

For the non-sports fan, it's a transfer of wealth, a subsidy, to the sports fan.

Annual inflation is at 1.8%. 

Median wages have increase about 1.7% during the last twelve months.

How much will DTV and Dish increase rates in January?


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

One nice thing about streaming is we can pick what services we want. No longer will I have to pay for tons of sports I will never watch. If it wasn't for all of the sports, our bills would be a lot less. I wish all of the sports would be put into a package.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

You know, if the companies charge too much, people do not need to buy the services. The pricing for sports anymore is way out of line. It has been for a number of years. My brother in law is a real sports fan. More the merrier in his World. He doesn't care what it costs. He has to have his sports. He could care less about movie channels, news, or anything else. When Dish adds a new interesting channel other than sports, he is not interested and makes comments, I would never watch that.

Patrick


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mwdxer said:


> One nice thing about streaming is we can pick what services we want. No longer will I have to pay for tons of sports I will never watch. If it wasn't for all of the sports, our bills would be a lot less. I wish all of the sports would be put into a package.


Unfortunately that's really not true anymore unless you watch shopping channels or the one or two channels that aren't owned by a giant conglomerate that have a channel That carries sports. We will end up paying even more for them than we do now.

Now a packaged of sports would be great as the vast majority would get that package still.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

inkahauts said:


> Unfortunately that's really not true anymore unless you watch shopping channels or the one or two channels that aren't owned by a giant conglomerate that have a channel That carries sports. We will end up paying even more for them than we do now.


I guess I'm confused by this. I turned off my pay television this summer to save money. I hooked up my old DTVPal DVR to my antenna and started recording programs from the broadcasters in my area. I hooked up my Roku to Amazon Prime and streamed some older television shows and movies. And I went to the library to check out new releases that I wanted to see. Somehow, I wasn't relegated to only watching home shopping channels, and I had more than enough programming to watch without resorting to infomercials and home shopping.

I know several people who have cut the cord and they aren't really suffering for it. I hooked mine back up when my finances improved because of sports. But without football and tennis, I could get all my entertainment needs met with alternatives, which includes streaming.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The business model has been built on "everybody" paying $5 for the ESPN and then more for the rest. ALC destroys that model, but it doesn't mean that sports fans are going to pay $40. It means that only sports fans will pay $5, and Lebron will have to make it on $10M/year. Poor guy.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

SamC said:


> The business model has been built on "everybody" paying $5 for the ESPN and then more for the rest. ALC destroys that model, but it doesn't mean that sports fans are going to pay $40. It means that only sports fans will pay $5, and Lebron will have to make it on $10M/year. Poor guy.


I gotta agree. I've seen the 'if alc came around ESPN would cost $40' a number of times. But realistically if ALC came around and ESPN tried to get that much I suspect that almost no one would subscribe and the price would tumble or ESPN would disappear. As much as I like ESPN I sure as hell wouldn't pay some vastly inflated price!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SamC said:


> The business model has been built on "everybody" paying $5 for the ESPN and then more for the rest. ALC destroys that model, but it doesn't mean that sports fans are going to pay $40. It means that only sports fans will pay $5, and Lebron will have to make it on $10M/year. Poor guy.


That's not really the point... ESPN probably would go up... but I doubt it would hit $40 either.

However... that channel you get right now for <$1 in a package likely would go up to $5 on its own without being carried along by the others in the tier.

So... ESPN would still survive at maybe $10-$20 on its own... but the rest of the channels would have a hard time getting $5 each. Look at the outcry over CBS wanting $6 for their streaming package or HBO wanting possibly $15 for their streaming package.

Every channel that wants to survive by having its own streaming direct-to-customer sale will be looking for $5 or more per subscriber... so very soon you would be paying as much for 10 channels as you pay for 100 today... and that doesn't even count the cost and availability (or lack thereof) of sufficient internet bandwidth to watch the stuff.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

sregener said:


> I guess I'm confused by this. I turned off my pay television this summer to save money. I hooked up my old DTVPal DVR to my antenna and started recording programs from the broadcasters in my area. I hooked up my Roku to Amazon Prime and streamed some older television shows and movies. And I went to the library to check out new releases that I wanted to see. Somehow, I wasn't relegated to only watching home shopping channels, and I had more than enough programming to watch without resorting to infomercials and home shopping.
> 
> I know several people who have cut the cord and they aren't really suffering for it. I hooked mine back up when my finances improved because of sports. But without football and tennis, I could get all my entertainment needs met with alternatives, which includes streaming.


If al La cart comes around as a big source then you will see all products go up in price so that they can all help pay for one another in the family.

Example. ABC family would be artificially higher than what it would truly be needed to help keep the price of ESPN lower than it needs to be.

They will pull all the strings necessary to keep the overall income and profit the same.

You will still be paying for sports some you just won't get the channels anymore.

Hence why I said the independent are the only ones you wouldn't have this issue with.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The math is really simple. 

Currently, households pay by the package. Every package is a mix of different types of channels, mostly. And the money gets passed down, at the end of the day after all the suits make a profit and the techies get a living, to the "talent". Be that a ball player, an actor, a faux-reality star, or whatever. Channels cost from $5 for the ESPN group to a few cents for obscure niche stuff. But everybody pays. That is the ticket.

But the world is made up of all kinds of people. Put in ALC, and what happens? Well if you don't like sports, you don't pay for sports. So your bill just went down. But how do they make the money back? And it goes on. Don't have kids? Lots of channels you don't need. Single, male? Lots of stuff you can cut out. Single, female? Even more. Old? White? Non "Hispanic" ? Could not care less about the news? Live in Phoenix and don't need the weather? Have sense to know that faux-reality is faux? And so on.

But here is the rub. Almost none of these channels would pay for themselves ALC. Let us take the mythical Sewing Channel. Say it gets 3 cents a month per household. Fine. But how many people really like sewing? So ALC, the threshold for it to exist is not reached. So in non-sports, you end up paying the same $$ for a few channels, most of which are going to be more broad offerings with a little of this and a little of that.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

SamC said:


> The math is really simple.
> 
> Let us take the mythical Sewing Channel. Say it gets 3 cents a month per household. Fine. But how many people really like sewing?


Not that simple. There are are a lot of channels on Roku that serve niche interests now. No cable/satellite needed. Many of these channels are not found in the Roku store, but they are available. And then there are a huge number of video podcasts covering a wide range topics.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Perhaps the better Model -Would be to make all Sports PPV? That model could apply to all channels doing away with must carry rules with shared revenue from PPV paid to the carrier.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> Not that simple. There are are a lot of channels on Roku that serve niche interests now. No cable/satellite needed. Many of these channels are not found in the Roku store, but they are available. And then there are a huge number of video podcasts covering a wide range topics.


These "channels" on Roku... where does there content come from? Is it content that was produced and aired on a cable/satellite/OTA channel previously? If so, then that's why it is available cheaper on Roku... because they have already made money previously on that content. Take that previous money away and Roku would not be able to get that content as cheaply.

And don't compare podcast content to professionally produced network content. I'm not against podcasts, some are good... but you're not going to get what you get on network TV in a podcast... you're just not... so if you like that content, someone has to pay for it somehow.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

I was referring to the "mythical Sewing Channel" in SamC's post, not network content, although some might argue about network content being all that desirable. As to the quality of Podcasts, I am sure there are a lot of cable-never's that are perfectly happy with the quality. There is obviously a generational gap here in what is worth watching.


----------



## pfueri (Jan 22, 2007)

mwdxer said:


> One nice thing about streaming is we can pick what services we want. No longer will I have to pay for tons of sports I will never watch. If it wasn't for all of the sports, our bills would be a lot less. I wish all of the sports would be put into a package.


I wish there was a package for all the kiddy channels . I'm tired of paying for all of that crap . Or a package for all of the shopping channels . Also tired of paying for those too . And so on and so on . We need to be able to pick what you want and pay for what you get .


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

pfueri said:


> Or a package for all of the shopping channels . Also tired of paying for those too


You're not paying for them. The shopping channels are all paying the providers to be on the lineup, either directly or via commission on purchases made by their subscribers.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

I'm sure the removal of Sprout would bring that bill down significantly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Wilf said:


> As to the quality of Podcasts, I am sure there are a lot of cable-never's that are perfectly happy with the quality. There is obviously a generational gap here in what is worth watching.


That might be true now, while those podcasts are free... but what happens if you had to pay for the content?

Like I said, I watch and listen to podcasts... and there is a wide variety of quality... and only a handful that I would even consider paying for the content... and of those, the quality is still below my favorite network-produced shows so I wouldn't pay what I pay for a network show.

I'll buy Doctor Who on Blu-ray when it comes out, for instance... but I'm not buying any podcasts on Blu-ray any time soon.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Sports is the main reason I haven't cut the cord yet. My daughter has. She gets to see all the local channels with a rooftop antenna and streams many other programs through her new smart HDTV set.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

billsharpe said:


> Sports is the main reason I haven't cut the cord yet. My daughter has. She gets to see all the local channels with a rooftop antenna and streams many other programs through her new smart HDTV set.


Yeah I understand where you are coming from. I miss watching the NHL Ducks....

But here in the Los Angeles market, it is getting completely ridiculous with the prices we have to pay for sports. There are 7 major league teams (was: 8, but Chivas USA folded, to make place for a new MLS team that comes back in 2017), 2 MLB, 2 NBA, 2 NHL, and 1 MLS. Time Warner Cable has 2 sports stations for respectively the Lakers and the Dodgers, and both come with a price tag of around $4. The Angeles signed a broadcast deal for $3 per subscriber with many cable outlets. The Ducks, Kings, and Clippers deals have lower, but still significant numbers on their broadcast deals, and if it wasn't all enough, we are also paying for PAC12 sports from USC and UCLA, and to cover costs of ever changing broadcast rights, DirecTV is also charging another $2 "Local Sports Fee" on top of all that.

It would be better if you can actually choose your teams. Many Angels fans don't care about the Dodgers, many Ducks fans don't care about Kings games etc.... but if you want to watch 1 team, you have to pay for all of them. And if you are adding the costs of ESPN, the national NBC Sports and Fox Sports networks, as well some of the more niche sports networks that aren't in a separate sports package.... and you are basically shelling out $30-$35 as part of your regular cable/satellite bill JUST for sports.

And its not getting any better. DirecTV and Dish both have NOT YET signed deals for the TWC Sportsnet Dodgers channel, and when they do it is going to be around $4 per subscriber, up from around $2 which it was when the Dodgers aired on Fox Sports. DirecTV has been adding $5 to my bill pretty much every year, and I expect them to do so again in February even though they haven't signed that deal yet.

What level of price does sports needs to reach before people consider cutting the cord I wonder? It has reached that level for me, and I was willing to kick the NHL Ducks to the curb along with my DirecTV, in lieu of around $1,000 in savings. It's just not worth that kind of money any more just to keep the sports teams I like. I now spend $25 on several streaming services instead of $115 to DirecTV, and I have not regretted the decision.

For me, the price of sports on television has reached the "NO" level. I don't know what other peoples pricepoint is for sports, but with all the sports broadcast rights coming up for re-negotiation, it seems we're adding about 10% per year in price increases. Where will it end, and does it remain worth it? I rather take my money and visit a sports bar every so often to watch a game..... at least then I get a cute busty waitress as well to serve me beer.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

My last bill with D*: $94/month with the Xtra package, needed for NBCSN which has soccer and hockey that I like.

Suspended D* in July and my current service bill is

$4.50/month for Amazon Prime with my wife's student status
$0/month for my mythtv DVR for OTA viewing
$40/season for NFL Game Rewind streaming package so I can still watch my Chargers

I can wait for newer programming to come out on Amazon Prime or even buy an occasional blu-ray set for something really good. I love hockey and soccer but they are not worth $90/month + NHL CI package fee and I can't wait for ALC streaming to take over. I would get NHL Gamecenter but the PQ is not where it needs to be yet IMO.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

maartena said:


> Yeah I understand where you are coming from. I miss watching the NHL Ducks....


And thats one problem with the league packages (NHLGC) you are blacked out from your local teams. You would think the local teams would want their games available to everyone on any device. Hopefully it'll change in the future.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I still make the comparison myself with the "what else would I do" argument.

I like TV... so what else would I do with that money for fun?

If I have to choose between eating and TV, then I'll eat... but if I'm purely dealing with"extra" money that is to be spent on entertainment... I can't get a better return on a few dollars a day to my Dish subscription. I just can't. Most other forms of entertainment to get me what I get via Dish cost more.

Theaters (movies) or concerts or attending a live sporting event all cost significantly more for the enjoyment time I get in return.


----------



## maartena (Nov 1, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I still make the comparison myself with the "what else would I do" argument.
> 
> I like TV... so what else would I do with that money for fun?
> 
> ...


Yeah, if you are a TV person, it's hard to argue that a monthly Dish/DirecTV isn't worth it. We, (as in me and my wife) enjoy television as well, but we simply no longer were entertained by what was offered on US cable stations. Every show that WAS worth watching in the beginning (good example: American Restoration on History Channel) has turned into cheesy, rehearsed crap. Good shows are cancelled after 1 or 2 seasons, and crap shows like Honey Boo Boo keep running until a scandal finally shut it down.

For me it was a combination of things. First, I was born and raised in Europe and was raised with BBC television for English language programs so I always found ways to be able to play programs from BBC iPlayer, which through a nifty little thing called SmartDNS is now possible. Second, I was getting sick and tired of the massive amounts of commercials, and having to pick up the remote what seems every 5 minutes to fast forward again. I don't mind waiting till next year till Walking Dead comes to Netflix, so I will wait and just watch it completely without commercials. And third, but really not last, sports programming costs is getting out of control, and I can really do without it.

I still watch television 1 to 2 hours a day, but instead of letting cable determine what is on for me, I will have to search myself to see what is currently on some of the online sources I use (such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, but also some international ones such as BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, and catchup services from Canada, Australia and New Zealand.). It does take a little bit of a different mindset, so its not for everyone.

I still have free OTA and can record from that, and I have a BETTER HD picture on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, MyNetworkTV, CW, PBS, ION and several locals (KCAL, KDOC, etc that also show good network/cable shows) then you can ever get on ANY carrier, because OTA is truly uncompressed, and what you get is pretty much exactly the quality that the broadcaster sends out from their station.

I record shows from OTA on my media server, and it seems to take roughly 5 GB per 1 hour of television, which is probably more then your DVR would store it, but it is also uncompressed or barely compressed, and the quality of recorded shows is better, MUCH better then I have ever seen on DirecTV. But I get to control the hard drive space I can assign to it, and it is completely unencrypted so it plays easily on my televisions and my computers alike.

For me, it is not really about reducing my hours spent watching television, it is about changing the quality of it, AND what I pay for it. I am currently spending $25 a month for media, which are Netflix, Amazon Prime, and a SmartDNS, and it seems to me I have MORE television available to me, and of a BETTER quality then all the crap cable networks seems to offer right now. I also find a lot of independent stuff online, such as Seinfeld's "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee", which is really quite good.

Sports, is the only thing I miss. But it isn't worth the $1,000 a year I am saving.


----------



## lee635 (Apr 17, 2002)

Really there is going to be some heavy expansion into online streaming followed by a shakeout. One thing is for sure, Amazon prime and Netflix are such a good deal and so low cost becuase there is no "sports tax" built into those services. I think this is a great development. I am paying less now and getting access to more movies and shows by having a small package through Dish network that does not include ESPN and using the savings for a netflix and amazon subcription. Heck, eventually we'll drop the dish subscription altogether. Thanks, All


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

lee635 said:


> Really there is going to be some heavy expansion into online streaming followed by a shakeout. One thing is for sure, Amazon prime and Netflix are such a good deal and so low cost becuase there is no "sports tax" built into those services. I think this is a great development. I am paying less now and getting access to more movies and shows by having a small package through Dish network that does not include ESPN and using the savings for a netflix and amazon subcription. Heck, eventually we'll drop the dish subscription altogether. Thanks, All


Uh I don't by that at all. It's not the lack of sports.

It's the lack of new content in the first place. Very little new stuff is streaming on either those services by comparison to what's on regular linear channels. And half the stuff is never available on streaming anyway only DVD or bluray for years.

Add in that Amazon can easily subsidize that part of their business to get it going and grow it. And Netflix, don't get me started on their p&l. They will either go up big in price for the same thing or go under soon enough. I suspect the first just as dish and DIRECTV took forever to start making real money.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> And Netflix, don't get me started on their p&l. They will either go up big in price for the same thing or go under soon enough.


Netflix profit doubles on U.S., foreign subscriber growth


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Wilf said:


> Netflix profit doubles on U.S., foreign subscriber growth


Actually another reason right there to expect the cost of their service to go up. Trust me if their profits keep going up like that, the content providers will notice and ask for more money, especially if they aren't getting as much as they used to from their "usual sources" such as cable/satellite.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

They have a lot of agreements that are huge that I don't think have really started hitting their p&l yet....


----------

