# YouTube TV Inks Deal for 19 Fox Regional Sports Nets With Sinclair, Drops YES and Two Others



## glrush

Of course, they may yet reach an agreement.

YouTube TV is pulling the Fox Sports RSNs as of February 29th


----------



## James Long

Hmmm .. issues with Sinclair?


----------



## lparsons21

Yep, it is Sinclair yet again. This will make the 4th carrier to drop Sinclair’s RSNs. Fubo, Dish, Sling and now YTTV.

Tough times ahead for Sinclair I hope!


----------



## tsmacro

Lets see as an Indiana Pacers fan I ended up subscribing to fubo at the beginning of the season to watch the games because Sinclair pulled their channels from Dish, then they pulled it from fubo, so I try YTTV and guess what? As much as I enjoy watching my basketball team at what point is enough, enough? I don't even know how I'm watching any game after Feb 29th or hard I'm even going to try. I mean basically every month a half or so I have to find a new way to watch the games. Pretty much my experience seems to indicate that any service I subscribe to will be the next to lose the Fox Sports Channels. I've complained to Sinclair as well as informed the Pacers that they need to find a new broadcast partner as Fox Sports seems to failing at an epic level. It's hard to imagine how Sinclair is making any money this way, maybe it's better that they do fail and just go out of business. Either that or just start their own streaming service.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I see a lot of new VPN subscriptions coming soon.


----------



## garn9173

Looks like I'll be going back to HuluLive, too bad as it's great to be able to watch MLB Network, but my Royals take precedence.


----------



## gio12

Well guess I will be quitting YTTV now.
Might try Hulu again. Prefer YTTV. Worse case, Comcast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy

Sports are expensive. YTTV at $50 was not, I've repeatedly said, sustainable. Now, if they keep those RSNs out of the package, then maybe it is. Although given that YTTV was structured from the get-go to appeal to sports and news fans, it suddenly becomes less attractive without offering those RSNs.


----------



## evotz

I'm a sports fan (well... baseball and college basketball), but I've been saying it for years, they've been over valuing these sports TV contracts for years, and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

The majority of people do not want sports and so it doesn't make a lot of sense to constantly raise their price for content that they are never going to watch, just so a select few don't have to pay the brunt of the cost for those sports.

The bottom line really is... DirecTV, Youtube, and all of these other providers shouldn't be paying these RSNs these exuberant prices for the sports content. And those RSNs shouldn't be paying the team exuberant prices for access to their events. The amount of money changing hands in all of this is just incredibly too much.

A sports pack offering for Youtube TV, even if it's $20 or $30 (I'd really like to hope it's less than $20) is probably the way to go - if that means that the standard Youtube TV can stay at $50/mo.

Teams, leagues, RSNs, everyone involved is going to have to stop looking at raw subscribers numbers and instead look at numbers the indicate exactly how many people are watching their content.


----------



## NashGuy

evotz said:


> I'm a sports fan (well... baseball and college basketball), but I've been saying it for years, they've been over valuing these sports TV contracts for years, and now it's coming back to bite them in the ass.


Totally agree. And it looks like Sinclair may be the one caught holding the bomb when it explodes. They didn't get carriage on DISH, YTTV is balking, they've yet to get Comcast to carry their Cubs RSN (Marquee). Some are speculating that we could see Sinclair's RSN-owning subsidiary Diamond Sports declare bankruptcy this year if they don't get more deals lined up.

Lack of Rebrand Indication that Diamond Sports' RSNs are in Trouble?



evotz said:


> The majority of people do not want sports and so it doesn't make a lot of sense to constantly raise their price for content that they are never going to watch, just so a select few don't have to pay the brunt of the cost for those sports.


Which is why an increasing number of us just pay for Netflix + HBO + Hulu, etc. rather than the cable bundle.



evotz said:


> The bottom line really is... DirecTV, Youtube, and all of these other providers shouldn't be paying these RSNs these exuberant prices for the sports content. And those RSNs shouldn't be paying the team exuberant prices for access to their events. The amount of money changing hands in all of this is just incredibly too much.
> 
> A sports pack offering for Youtube TV, even if it's $20 or $30 (I'd really like to hope it's less than $20) is probably the way to go - if that means that the standard Youtube TV can stay at $50/mo.
> 
> Teams, leagues, RSNs, everyone involved is going to have to stop looking at raw subscribers numbers and instead look at numbers the indicate exactly how many people are watching their content.


Yeah, I just posted elsewhere that I could see YTTV moving to a 2-tier package structure similar to what AT&T TV has done with their new Plus and Max packages. They'd shift the RSNs plus whatever other less-popular sports channels they could (e.g. MLB Network, NBA TV, FS2, etc.) up to the upper tier. Meanwhile, they'll eventually be forced to accept some of those Viacom channels if they continue to carry CBS, now that Viacom and CBS have merged. They'll probably also need to add those few nets from Hallmark and A&E (including History and Lifetime) if they want to become a real substitute for traditional cable TV. So I can see some of those new channels going into the base package and others going into the upper package, with the two priced this year at maybe $50 and $65, respectively.


----------



## Tiny




----------



## evotz

I would also figure that Youtube TV (and Hulu Live TV, and any other streaming live tv, probably digital cable as well ... is analog cable still around?) has ways to know what channels people are watching and how much air time those channels are getting.

So if ESPN or a Sinclair operated RSN is getting 10% of the total Youtube TV Viewership... then why should Youtube TV be spending more than 10% of it's carriage fees on ESPN?

Like I said, I like sports and I'm also frugal. I'd love to be able to spend as little as possible to get the sports that I want to see. But I also know that there's a lot of others that care nothing at all about sports.

That's something that all of these sports channels need to think about - how much money are they going to lose between lowering their price for carriage vs. lowering their total subscribers if carriage requires a sports pack or second tier to what they can actually operate on. Then they need to quit bidding such extreme prices for access to these sporting events. Then athletes will stop getting paid so much. And Scott Boras will become very angry.


----------



## 1948GG

One can moan for Sinclair, having dropped a load for those fox rsn's, but another bunch on the chopping block are the at&t/directv rsn's, that they've been trying to unload for a couple of years, and have the same problem: Tied into over-priced mlb and other sports contracts that are hitched to (yet again) cable and sat carriers that are getting hammered by cord cutting. So it's a product that is too expensive that nobody wants to pay for any more. 

I just had the mlb AtBat subscription renewed today at $121.99 that (legally) doesn't show the local team live. But as they are semi-pitiful, I don't care, even if they were available, I've lived in many other markets and I follow those teams much closer. This is the future today. If those in market teams want to make anything at all, they need to get their heads out if the sand and sell direct.


----------



## wmb

1948GG said:


> I just had the mlb AtBat subscription renewed today at $121.99 that (legally) doesn't show the local team live.


I got an email yesterday from T-Mobile that they are giving all subscribers MLB AtBat for free again this year.

Does anyone know who actually produces the game broadcasts? Is it the team or the RSN?

The other thing that is interesting/odd about this is that Disney Streaming Services started life as MLB Advanced Media which was spun off as BAMTech in 2015.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evotz

The issue with teams selling direct (which I do agree, is something they should do) is money.

Teams are going to take quit a hit if they sell their games OTT.

If a certain area has 11 million TV (in some capacity) subscribers and they essentially get $3 per subscriber, that's $33 million in revenue.

If they sell direct, they might be lucky if they get even 1 million subscribers. That means they'd have to charge those 1 million subscribers $33 just to get the same amount of revenue. How many of those 1 million subscribers will balk at that price tag?

Of course... the real answer is... they shouldn't be expecting $33 million in revenue from TV. But these RSNs have already paid heaps of money (see the Dodgers situation), so the teams don't really care if their games are on TV or not, they're still getting their money.


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> I got an email yesterday from T-Mobile that they are giving all subscribers MLB AtBat for free again this year.
> 
> Does anyone know who actually produces the game broadcasts? Is it the team or the RSN?


There are typically two different RSNs covering a given game and MLB.tv gives you the option of which one to watch. Also have the option of listening to your team's AM/FM radio coverage if you prefer that.


----------



## glrush

Here is another article:

Yankees, Cubs Fans Are Latest Victims of TV Sports Blackouts


----------



## espaeth

wmb said:


> Does anyone know who actually produces the game broadcasts? Is it the team or the RSN?


Produced by the RSN, who is given exclusive broadcast rights in the market in which they operate. It's a little more quirky than that though -- the on-air talent is paid by the teams, so it is the teams who get to pick their own play-by-play and color analysts. The remaining video rights are property of the respective sports leagues, and the league can sell access to those video feeds outside of the exclusive broadcast markets -- which is how MLB:EI / MLB.tv has worked.

If you're caught up in losing access to your RSN, but you still subscribe to MLB.tv -- you can always look _Yonder_ to see what _DNS_ options might work for you to leverage _MLB.tv_ to your advantage. Blackouts are done based on where the service thinks you are, and that logic can be exploited to take advantage of a service you're already paying for.

You might need to _Google_ a bit to find the solution.


----------



## 1948GG

Even though I operate a business class VPN (and have for years) my in-market team is and has been at it near the bottom for almost two decades. But their rsn has been the focus of legal wranglings for those decades, and is a good primer on how the courts rule for the large cablecos even against satellite owned rsn providers. And protect the cableco owned rsn against the satellite distributors; there is no way that will change when dealing with streaming unless and until the losses felt by the rsn become extremely untenable. 

But competition in transmission will rear its head, and will be the cablecos/satcos primary focus by the end of this year.


----------



## espaeth

I think the Dish proposal to Altitude is somewhat telling of the current state of the RSN market: Dish pitches a la carte option to Altitude TV | Light Reading

That's crazy to me that Dish is saying:

- We'll offer your channel ala carte on Dish and Sling
- You can set the price to whatever you want
- We'll cover all of the costs of distribution, and pass 100% of that money through to you

.. and Altitude is basically saying "Nah. No deal unless *everyone *pays."

One thing these streaming providers have absolutely dialed in is they know exactly what channels people are watching and for exactly how long. If you want to follow your local team(s), your local RSN can be absolutely vital to you - but across the entire subscriber base it's crazy how low some of the viewership numbers end up being.


----------



## lparsons21

I’ve read a few articles now and then that indicate that typically the RSNs are being watched by about 10% of the subscribers. That’s a pretty low number for such high priced channels IMO.


----------



## b4pjoe

I wonder how much of my DIRECTV RSN fee is for Marquee? A channel I don't even get.


----------



## garn9173

That deal Dish is propsing to Altitude seems pretty fair to me. Now to pass that on to other networks as their carriage agreements come due.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

garn9173 said:


> That deal Dish is propsing to Altitude seems pretty fair to me. Now to pass that on to other networks as their carriage agreements come due.


Speaking of Altitude, here's what their doing if you switch to AT&T.


----------



## garn9173

Shocking.

YouTube TV & Sinclair Agree to a Short Term Extension to Keep Fox Regional Sports Networks - Cord Cutters News


----------



## Phil T

TheRatPatrol said:


> Speaking of Altitude, here's what their doing if you switch to AT&T.


Shows how desperate they are. Comcast and Dish are doing the right thing. AT&T doesn't care about the high price. They will just pass it on to customers.


----------



## NashGuy

lparsons21 said:


> I've read a few articles now and then that indicate that typically the RSNs are being watched by about 10% of the subscribers. That's a pretty low number for such high priced channels IMO.


If cable TV subscribers pay, on average, $8 per month for RSNs (which seems about right based on what I've seen), but only 10% of them are actually watching those channels, then the RSNs would need to charge those viewers $80/mo each in order to maintain the same total amount of revenue if the RSNs became available a la carte, completely divorced from the rest of the cable bundle. Obviously, no one is going to pay anywhere close to that amount.

The problem is that the underlying broadcast rights for sports have gotten way too high, WAY outpacing the economy's overall rate of inflation. And the great majority of cable TV customers who don't watch RSNs have finally had enough of paying for them, so cable operators are finally pushing back and now the whole economically untenable system is unravelling.

It's very possible that we see Diamond Sports (Sinclair's subsidiary that owns the Fox Sports RSNs) declare bankruptcy and try to restructure the terms of their broadcast rights. If Comcast holds the line, as some industry analysts expect, and refuses to carry Marquee and then dumps the rest of Diamond's RSNs this September (when the existing contract expires), I don't see any other outcome for Diamond.


----------



## NashGuy

Phil T said:


> Shows how desperate they are. Comcast and Dish are doing the right thing. AT&T doesn't care about the high price. They will just pass it on to customers.


But at least AT&T offers mainstream channel packages that exclude the RSNs. The Entertainment (and Plus) package on DirecTV and AT&T TV covers locals plus the most popular national cable channels (including sports channels like ESPN, FS1, NBCSN) but doesn't have the RSNs, so you don't have to pay for them.

Most cable operators don't have something similar. Comcast, for instance, has three main packages: Basic, Extra and Preferred. Basic is just your locals (plus C-SPAN, shopping channels, etc.) Then if you step up to Extra, in order to get *any* national cable channels, you also have the RSNs.


----------



## James Long

SNL Kagen's reports show the amount paid for RSNs to be fairly consistent (through 2019). $8 per month would be an aggregate for all of the RSNs delivered, with expensive areas such as NY and LA with multiple expensive RSNs raising the average over rural areas with only a couple of RSNs. (In other words, not every RSN is getting $8 per subscriber. $2 to $5 would be a better estimate per subscriber per RSN.)

"Per subscriber" is an important part of the calculation for the RSNs. RSNs are not charging "per viewer". Their tier level charging means that when they are carried they are delivered to many more subscribers than viewers (as the 10% statistic has shown). Transitioning from "per subscriber" to "per viewer" is a non-starter for the RSNs. DISH made the offer to Altitude to carry their channel effectively at a no profit rate for DISH. DISH would receive and retransmit the channel to willing subscribers at whatever rate Altitude set and pass 100% of the revenue to Altitude. Altitude would prefer every DISH home in their coverage area pay to subscribe (whether or not they watch) so they are refusing the offer.

The math works out better for the RSNs and most other channels to charge per subscriber and not per viewer. Some less popular cable channels would kill for a 10% viewership rate. But they survive based on reaching a larger percentage of subscribers. 20% of a system's subscribers in a top tier is better than the 1% actually watching - and the math can be adjusted to charge less per subscriber and be placed in a more widely subscribed tier. 11c per subscriber reaching 80% of subscribers is better than 80c per subscriber reaching 10% - especially factoring in advertising revenue based on per subscriber as well as per viewer numbers.

I'd like to see the balance sheet for one of the RSNs. How much are they paying for rights and production vs how much they are collecting from subscribers. I expect that the margins are getting slim.


----------



## phrelin

NashGuy said:


> If cable TV subscribers pay, on average, $8 per month for RSNs (which seems about right based on what I've seen), but only 10% of them are actually watching those channels, then the RSNs would need to charge those viewers $80/mo each in order to maintain the same total amount of revenue if the RSNs became available a la carte, completely divorced from the rest of the cable bundle. Obviously, no one is going to pay anywhere close to that amount.





James Long said:


> "Per subscriber" is an important part of the calculation for the RSNs. RSNs are not charging "per viewer". Their tier level charging means that when they are carried they are delivered to many more subscribers than viewers (as the 10% statistic has shown). Transitioning from "per subscriber" to "per viewer" is a non-starter for the RSNs.


This has always been my pet peeve with cable packages. Why must I subsidize sports (or cooking or the Disney Channel)? This has created artificial inflation resulting in excess profits by team owners and wildly high pay for players.

My hope with the advent of streamers is that people could buy what they wanted, not what greedy special interests force them to buy.

Right at the moment we can avoid some of the costs. But I fear that the future will not be so oriented to selling "bargains."


----------



## zippyfrog

Phil T said:


> Shows how desperate they are. Comcast and Dish are doing the right thing. AT&T doesn't care about the high price. They will just pass it on to customers.


What I think is ironic is that Comcast, who owns NBC Sports Chicago, is requiring a minimum subscriber amount to be on Dish, and my guess is that Dish is offering Comcast the same a-la-carte option. Then Comcast is turning around and the exact thing they are doing to Dish they is what Altitude wants and they don't want to agree to it.


----------



## techguy88

Phil T said:


> Shows how desperate they are. Comcast and Dish are doing the right thing. AT&T doesn't care about the high price. They will just pass it on to customers.


Dish has no ownership stakes in RSNs so their tougher stance on RSNs in general I would consider doing the right thing. AT&T and Comcast have ownership stakes in their respective RSN groups and have benefits if an independent RSN like Altitude fails.

AT&T actually had more to gain if they seriously wanted Altitude to fail since they operate AT&T SportsNet Rocky Mountain in the same region. However AT&T is the first major distributor to accept a deal they found reasonable. To me that says a lot about AT&T since they would never offer or allow their RSNs to be distributed solely on a sports tier or on an a la carte basis they are not forcing independent RSNs to do things they wouldn't accept for their own RSNs.

Comcast wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want their NBC Sports Regional Networks to be widely distributed at the price they want with a guaranteed minimal number of subscribers. At the same time they want to play the victim card and say "regional sports are the biggest cost of your bill, we are fighting for you!"

If Comcast was truly on the side of the consumer as the #1 individual MVPD they would lead by example and put their own RSNs on a sports tier or make them a la carte and allow other distributors to do the same. Then tell all other RSN owners (Sinclair, AT&T, independents like Altitude) "Hey we make our RSNs available on an a la carte basis to our subscribers and distributors. If you want carriage on our system you must agree to similar terms as our RSNs."

However they want to make an example out of Altitude and wants Altitude/Kroenke to accept terms and subscriber fees they would never in a million years accept for any of their NBC RSNs. Never mistake Comcrap for "doing the right thing" when it comes to places they already have an interest in.


----------



## gio12

Well I have all my Fox RSN still. Was an agreement reached? 
I assume


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## lparsons21

gio12 said:


> Well I have all my Fox RSN still. Was an agreement reached?
> I assume
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


No, temp extension.


----------



## techguy88

gio12 said:


> Well I have all my Fox RSN still. Was an agreement reached?
> I assume
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro





lparsons21 said:


> No, temp extension.


Right now YTTV is going through what AT&T did last year where the extensions are of an unknown duration.


----------



## garn9173

YES Network is gone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...s-network-blacked-out-to-youtube-tv-customers


----------



## mjwagner

garn9173 said:


> YES Network is gone.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...s-network-blacked-out-to-youtube-tv-customers


Translation - YTTV wouldn't agree to pay the new extortionate rate that we were able to force the other providers to accept...


----------



## MVL999

mjwagner said:


> Translation - YTTV wouldn't agree to pay the new extortionate rate that we were able to force the other providers to accept...


What about the other rsn's ?


----------



## lparsons21

MVL999 said:


> What about the other rsn's ?


Only 3, including Yes are going away on YTTV


----------



## MVL999

lparsons21 said:


> Only 3, including Yes are going away on YTTV


Do you know which rsn's are being dropped?
HERE IS THE OFFICIAL RELEASE:
YouTube TV Inks Deal for 19 Fox Regional Sports Nets With Sinclair, Drops YES and Two Others


----------



## lparsons21

Yes, Prime Ticket and Sports West.
BTW, if you get any kind of news feed, the stories are all over the place.


----------



## techguy88

mjwagner said:


> Translation - YTTV wouldn't agree to pay the new extortionate rate that we were able to force the other providers to accept...


ROFL pretty much that's the truth also no inclusion of Marquee in all of this from what I saw. Will update table again. TBH at this point AT&T doesn't need to market AT&T TV Now just let all the other services lose the RSNs will market it enough lol.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

It’s interesting Sinclair didn’t say all or none.


----------



## espaeth

Instead of saying "we were unable to agree on terms of a new contract" or something to that effect, YES network decided to go the "emo teen girl" route on their press release.









Source:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1235452211880222720


----------



## lparsons21

techguy88 said:


> ROFL pretty much that's the truth also no inclusion of Marquee in all of this from what I saw. Will update table again. TBH at this point AT&T doesn't need to market AT&T TV Now just let all the other services lose the RSNs will market it enough lol.


Since only about 10% of viewers watch the RSNs it isn't as big a deal as one would like to make it. Of course that is a very vociferous 10%!


----------



## wmb

espaeth said:


> Instead of saying "we were unable to agree on terms of a new contract" or something to that effect, YES network decided to go the "emo teen girl" route on their press release.
> 
> Source:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1235452211880222720


So, what does this mean to someone like me, outside the Yankees regional rights area? I would have to get an MLB out-of-market package to watch the Yankees anyhow.

As near as I can tell, nothing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## evotz

Didn't somebody say or did I read that YES was going to be carried on Amazon Prime?

I would think, if you live in the Yankees market and subscribe to Amazon Prime, you could get the Yankees games with that.

But that's just a guess on my part.


----------



## espaeth

Amazon is a minority owner of YES, and they'll be airing 21 games (out of a 162 game season?).

Amazon Prime, YES Network In Deal To Stream 21 Yankees Games - Deadline


----------



## B. Shoe

I just got an email from YTTV. It appears they got resolution with some markets, and not others? My email states that I'll still be receiving my FOX Sports RSN (Midwest). I'm frustrated for those that are not receiving their RSN's. Hopefully they can find an agreement before Opening Day.

Can a mod update the title of this thread? I was going to create a new thread, but I think we could easily continue here with a title update.


----------



## espaeth

They're keeping 19 of the 21 FOX Sports networks. So they're dropping Prime Ticket and FOX Sports West along with YES. So big markets with high costs got cut this time.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, YouTube TV Renew Licenses On 19 Regional Sports Networks, Ensuring Continued Access For Millions Of Fans -

One caveat: They're not keeping access for all territories where these RSNs operate. So for FOX Sports Southeast, you'll still get it in Atlanta, but you probably won't get it in South Carolina anymore.

Looks like YTTV made a calculated move based on subscriber numbers and viewership data they already have.


----------



## B. Shoe

espaeth said:


> They're keeping 19 of the 21 FOX Sports networks. So they're dropping Prime Ticket and FOX Sports West along with YES. So big markets with high costs got cut this time.
> 
> Sinclair Broadcast Group, YouTube TV Renew Licenses On 19 Regional Sports Networks, Ensuring Continued Access For Millions Of Fans -
> 
> One caveat: They're not keeping access for all territories where these RSNs operate. So for FOX Sports Southeast, you'll still get it in Atlanta, but you probably won't get it in South Carolina anymore.
> 
> Looks like YTTV made a calculated move based on subscriber numbers and viewership data they already have.


The biggest note to all of this is that the deal did NOT include the Marquee Network. I do family sharing for our YTTV account with my daughter's mom, who is a Cubs fan. We'll likely end up swapping to Hulu TV, which includes Marquee and our market's local channels. Maybe they'll get an agreement before Opening Day, but it doesn't seem likely with this announcement.


----------



## grover517

I agree that even though most of the RSN's were renewed, the RSN's offerings for each region were pared back to what appears to be the removal of any secondary RSN coverage and you are now limited to just your primary RSN and that's it. At our seasonal home in SW Florida, we had FS Florida and FS Sun. As of yesterday, FS Florida is gone and only FS Sun remains.

Additionally, I saw an article that states the current renewal is only until the end of the 2020 MLB season. Since I haven't seen that anywhere else, it makes me wonder if it is actually true.

YouTube TV Inks Deal for 19 Fox Regional Sports Nets With Sinclair, Drops YES and Two Others

I have to wonder if something else is going on here if the extension is only for the summer. Could they be working on a newer structure where certain, primary RSN's are packaged as they have been while the major market RSN's such as YES, Marquee and the West Coast RSNs along with secondary market RSN's that are now removed, be part of a premium RSN add on package?

I am sure Sinclair would have to do some dancing around current contracts with other providers but why bother with this limited extension if something else bigger wasn't in the works during the summer?


----------



## evotz

Did Youtube update their website to give an accurate channel list after this deal?

My zip is now showing no Fox sports RSNs. Previously it was showing Fox Sports Ohio and Fox Sports South. I was hoping this deal might add Fox Sports Midwest and dropping Fox Sports South, which would then allow me to get all of the MLB games with an mlb.tv subscription.

Or perhaps the channel listing hasn't been updated to reflect this deal and instead shows all of the Sinclair based RSNs (although Big 10 and the Tennis channel are listed).

I wonder if Youtube TV is planning a Sports Pack like addon that can be added to the service, much like DirecTV's?


----------



## garn9173

evotz said:


> Did Youtube update their website to give an accurate channel list after this deal?
> 
> My zip is now showing no Fox sports RSNs. Previously it was showing Fox Sports Ohio and Fox Sports South.


The website is accurate. FS Midwest/Midwest+ and FS North is gone for me and FS Kansas City is gone in Omaha.


----------



## espaeth

I suspect Sinclair dictated where networks had to stay based on ads rates to target those DMAs, and Youtube got to pick which networks it retained based on minimum subscriber counts. 

So if Minneapolis/St Paul had a subscriber minimum of 40k, and YTTV had 60k subscribers it stayed. If Des Moines, Iowa had the same 40k minimum with 20k subscribers (and it had the lower advertising dollar threshold described below, making it optional on Sinclair's side), it was dropped.

For the Florida situation, if advertisers are paying $x for ad slots in Orlando/Ft Lauderdale/Miami, but only paying 20% of $x to advertise in Pensicola, Sinclair could allow YTTV to opt out of carrying that DMA because their ad revenue loss would be lower anyway.


----------



## garn9173

What's crazy is the Drake/Northern Iowa game on FS Midwest, a game of two Iowa teams isn't available on FS Midwest on YTTV.


----------



## evotz

espaeth said:


> I suspect Sinclair dictated where networks had to stay based on ads rates to target those DMAs, and Youtube got to pick which networks it retained based on minimum subscriber counts.


So you think Sinclair got to dictate what zip codes got what RSNs?

And if you live in a zip code that a certain team claims as their "territory" then you're just SOL?

This is what I ultimately believe is wrong with the RSN model. You can't have up to 3 different entities (Sinclair, Youtube/DirecTV, MLB/MLB Teams/Any sport team) dictating what areas are home "territories" for a zip code if this is being allowed. The league's overall package should be able to cover these people that are missing out if that's the case.


----------



## lparsons21

Sinclair is in financial difficulties, so I’m not surprised that they would jigger things a bit to keep as many subs as possible.


----------



## evotz

Yea. I just wish there was a way to (legally) get around all of these blockades.

Specifically MLB really needs to take a look at this. I'm not exactly sure of what they can do immediately, because there are so many contracts in play. DirecTV and Youtube certainly wouldn't be happy if Sinclair were able to offer something direct to customers.

But something like, maybe you log into a Sinclair portal with a valid TV provider information - say a Youtube TV account - Sinclair gets zip code information from your IP - sees that your in a zip code for this, this, and this team (according to the team's "in-market" territory) - sees that Sinclair and Youtube did not reach a deal to offer the RSNs for those teams in that zip - you get an option to pay Sinclair directly to stream those games.

A bit complex, but would seem to keep everyone happy.

You would have to have a TV login for a provider that has an agreement with Sinclair - this would eliminate people bypassing the TV provider completely.

Youtube's happy because you're basically forced to keep a Youtube TV account.

Sinclair's happy because they get more money.

MLB (or whatever sport) is happy because viewership increases.


----------



## B. Shoe

garn9173 said:


> What's crazy is the Drake/Northern Iowa game on FS Midwest, a game of two Iowa teams isn't available on FS Midwest on YTTV.


Are you able to view the Bradley-SIU game from the Valley tournament?


----------



## glrush

The YouTube TV-Sinclair deal for the Fox RSNs has tightened who gets what networks


----------



## TheRatPatrol

glrush said:


> The YouTube TV-Sinclair deal for the Fox RSNs has tightened who gets what networks


So does this mean that those that lost their RSN's will now be able to watch games via the league package subscriptions?


----------



## James Long

TheRatPatrol said:


> So does this mean that those that lost their RSN's will now be able to watch games via the league package subscriptions?


The team's market is what controls the out of market viewing, not the footprint of the RSN. RSNs can have different footprints based on the provider.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

James Long said:


> The team's market is what controls the out of market viewing, not the footprint of the RSN. *RSNs can have different footprints based on the provider.*


Why would that be? Someone with D* could get the RSN but someone else with YouTube TV in the same area couldn't?


----------



## evotz

I just know there are a lot of "fringe" areas where a team holds an "in-market" tag, but it can be next to impossible to get those games on TV for people that live in those areas. At least with baseball, but I suspect with other sports as well.

Maybe that isn't hurting MLB (and other sports) viewership... but it certainly ain't helping.

I don't know what the solution is. But I'm not sure if MLB (and other sports) realize how much of an issue this is. Sweeping it under the rug isn't a solution. I get the impression that MLB seems to think that EVERYONE, so long as they have a TV provider, and have an mlb.tv subscription, can watch every MLB game being played. And that is simply not the case.

The ONLY way... that I know of... for individuals that live in these fringe areas to get every game, is to subscribe to DirecTV + Sports Pack. Although, the big discussion about the Marquee Network in that other thread may create some doubt in even this being a viable solution (I would hold out until the season actually starts before really passing judgement on this).


----------



## dstout

TheRatPatrol said:


> Why would that be? Someone with D* could get the RSN but someone else with YouTube TV in the same area couldn't?


I am confident it is about money. Much of the Southeast lost Fox Sports Southeast on YouTube TV.


----------

