# DirecTV and Dish’s satellites are dying off slowly: analyst



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

A story today over at Fierce Video references a new report from industry analyst Craig Moffett talking about the limited lifespans of both DTV's and Dish's existing satellite fleet.

DirecTV and Dish's satellites are dying off slowly: analyst

The upshot: he states that, 5.5 years from now (i.e. early 2027), Dish will only have one satellite still within its expected 15-year operational lifespan. He says that DTV's fleet is in a similar situation and neither company is building any additional sats to launch. Additional, he notes that neither company's installed base of customer equipment can be used with the other service's sat fleet.

_"We are witnessing the long, slow goodbye of satellite TV. The terminal value of a satellite TV platform with neither satellites nor subscribers is, quite obviously&#8230;zero."
_​How plausible do you think it is that Dish and/or DTV will be down to only one working satellite come 2027? What would such a service look like? Perhaps carrying local broadcast stations only from NYC and LA, plus maybe Chicago and Denver? Carrying most or all cable nets in SD?


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The Market abhors a vacuum. As long as there are millions of people beyond the reach of cable and/or internet capable of delivering the type of service people want; and as long as the internet infrastructure is insufficient to provide that type of service to everyone all at once, even on Super Bowl Sunday, that vacuum will exist and the Market will fill it. 

Currently, the only way to serve that vacuum is DBS, thus DBS will continue. 

To quote Sheriff Andy Taylor, “There is a lot to the places between the big city you live in and the big city you are driving to.” 

There are. Millions of people. Millions of customers.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

He's clueless as analysts out of their technical depth usually are. First of all satellites with a "15 year" design life often last much longer. Fuel life is almost always what forces retirement, not a hardware fault. Second, Directv does not need all the satellites it currently has in orbit - they only need D11, D12, D14, T15 and T16. The older ones are superfluous (other than MPEG2 SD duplicate locals in those DMAs that still have them)

Directv should be fine for another decade. Even then if one of their satellites ages out they'd only lose locals in certain markets, all the national channels would be fine. I don't know Dish's situation, but just because they have satellites older than 15 years doesn't mean they will go dark. One of Directv's satellites was launched in 2005 and has fuel life until 2034!

I think his intent was to say that merging Directv and Dish would be pointless, which I agree with though not because the satellites will all die in 5.5 years like he thinks.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> He's clueless as analysts out of their technical depth usually are. First of all satellites with a "15 year" design life often last much longer. Fuel life is almost always what forces retirement, not a hardware fault. Second, Directv does not need all the satellites it currently has in orbit - they only need D11, D12, D14, T15 and T16. The older ones are superfluous (other than MPEG2 SD duplicate locals in those DMAs that still have them)
> 
> Directv should be fine for another decade. Even then if one of their satellites ages out they'd only lose locals in certain markets, all the national channels would be fine. I don't know Dish's situation, but just because they have satellites older than 15 years doesn't mean they will go dark. One of Directv's satellites was launched in 2005 and has fuel life until 2034!
> 
> I think his intent was to say that merging Directv and Dish would be pointless, which I agree with though not because the satellites will all die in 5.5 years like he thinks.


So I agree with you about him. But from a company perspective sure they could get 40 years out of it but operationally you need to plan based on expected life


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

As pointed out above - the REAL EOL of DBS satellite is 1) - run out fuel for station keeping or 2) - some catastrophy happens (something hits the satellite and causes damage that can't be worked around). #1 can be planned for. #2 cannot - all you can do is wait for it to happen and have contigency plans ready. This very well might mean some loss of service to some customers.

I don't remember if we have seen a #2 in the 20 some years I have been a Dish subscriber. I do remember some weather incidents at some of the uplink sites that temporarily disrupted service (at least for some Dish customers). And of course - there is always the local ones that you can see out the window or on local weather radar.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> So I agree with you about him. But from a company perspective sure they could get 40 years out of it but operationally you need to plan based on expected life


Directv knows exactly how long the fuel will last in each of their satellites. Back in 2013 when they used to do those yearly dealer shows they released a graph that showed how long the fuel life of their then-current fleet was, though there was just an arrow beyond 2020. The renewal of D8 they submitted to the FCC revealed its fuel life would last until 2034.

So they ARE able to plan on expected life. And if the unlikely occurred and satellite held onto enough customers for long enough that satellite lifetimes mattered, they could always launch a new one if they wanted to keep things going. The cost per million customers of a satellite is that that much, it would only take a few million customers to make that a reasonable decision.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Around 2000 , the going rate for Dish for a satellite and launch was around $250 million. It's likely closer to $500 million now (if not more).


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Directv knows exactly how long the fuel will last in each of their satellites. Back in 2013 when they used to do those yearly dealer shows they released a graph that showed how long the fuel life of their then-current fleet was, though there was just an arrow beyond 2020. The renewal of D8 they submitted to the FCC revealed its fuel life would last until 2034.
> 
> So they ARE able to plan on expected life. And if the unlikely occurred and satellite held onto enough customers for long enough that satellite lifetimes mattered, they could always launch a new one if they wanted to keep things going. The cost per million customers of a satellite is that that much, it would only take a few million customers to make that a reasonable decision.


Eh. Things can change and that life can dwindle quick. But I am sure Directv appreciates your optimism


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sure, a 15 year satellite can blow up on launch or require amelioration in orbit to be used at all. Most don't. The experts have become very skilled at constructing something better than the spec.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Dish has leased entire satellites from other companies for years. I wonder what new sats those folks might have in the pipeline. Or if Echostar has any sats in service or in the pipeline that could be repurposed for DBS use. I haven't looked at the other E* sat specs in years.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

scooper said:


> Around 2000 , the going rate for Dish for a satellite and launch was around $250 million. It's likely closer to $500 million now (if not more).


Satellites have improved massively in that time. Directv's satellites launched in the mid 2000s could only handle 16 transponders, so they had a satellite for odd transponders and a separate one for even transponders. Their latest satellites can simultaneously do 32 Ku transponders, 18 reverse band transponders, and 27 Ka transponders.

So maybe they are a little more expensive (though based on what I've seen Directv's latest ones cost around $350-$400 million to build/launch) but one satellite does what would require 5 or 6 satellites in 2000.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

With a box swap and dish repointing there would be an advantage to merging the two systems. They could in theory do the SiriusXM thing and run their two separate systems for a decade and a half, but if they expect that it will be a reasonably long time at all for the satellite delivery system to remain viable, I think it's in their interest to get everyone on a single platform. That also gives them the opportunity to rip off the bandaid on SD duplicates

IMO a very high end satellite TV service with impeccable picture quality, every single channel in HD or 4K where available, and absolutely every possible linear program source available in the US would be viable for a long time. It would take cooperation from the content providers to keep it from becoming too expensive to sell, but there is a place in the market for that long term. They just need to understand that attention to detail and quality at every level (picture quality, equipment quality, and customer service) is paramount



scooper said:


> Around 2000 , the going rate for Dish for a satellite and launch was around $250 million. It's likely closer to $500 million now (if not more).


The cost of the satellite is likely higher today (especially today vs. 2 years ago given COVID and supply chain issues) but in 2000 launch providers like SpaceX didn't exist. I suspect the available launch costs have dropped considerably if either Dish or DirecTV were willing to go with SpaceX instead of Ariane or Sea Launch or Boeing or whoever is still stupid enough to be charging 2004 prices


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JosephB said:


> With a box swap and dish repointing there would be an advantage to merging the two systems. They could in theory do the SiriusXM thing and run their two separate systems for a decade and a half, but if they expect that it will be a reasonably long time at all for the satellite delivery system to remain viable, I think it's in their interest to get everyone on a single platform. That also gives them the opportunity to rip off the bandaid on SD duplicates


One of the most expensive elements of adding a satellite customer is the service call to install the dish. As long as both systems CAN be maintained it would be cheaper to keep both systems running. There are adjustments that could be made without changing dishes. DIRECTV's 110 and 119 could easily be used for DISH (retiring 129) and getting rid of the SD duplicates has happened for most channels on the Eastern Arc (many remaining SD duplicates are on 77 which is not a required part of that arc for most subscribers).

There would need to be a compelling need and a huge cost savings to spend money moving subscribers from one system to another. Such migrations are also trigger events that make the customer question whether or not they want to continue service. Status quo has its benefits. If DISH-DIRECTV decides to force people to use one system or the other those forced to move may choose a different provider. It is best to avoid such trigger events.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> One of the most expensive elements of adding a satellite customer is the service call to install the dish. As long as both systems CAN be maintained it would be cheaper to keep both systems running. There are adjustments that could be made without changing dishes. DIRECTV's 110 and 119 could easily be used for DISH (retiring 129) and getting rid of the SD duplicates has happened for most channels on the Eastern Arc (many remaining SD duplicates are on 77 which is not a required part of that arc for most subscribers).
> 
> There would need to be a compelling need and a huge cost savings to spend money moving subscribers from one system to another. Such migrations are also trigger events that make the customer question whether or not they want to continue service. Status quo has its benefits. If DISH-DIRECTV decides to force people to use one system or the other those forced to move may choose a different provider. It is best to avoid such trigger events.


If you want to keep the PQ in the basement, not carry every channel, and have poor customer support, sure. There are cost savings to merging the systems together including one single backend, eliminating one or more uplink/NOCs, simplifying equipment logistics, and several others. Yes, it would cost money, but it doesn't even have to happen all at once. They could just decide at day one of the merger we're only going to install DirecTV or Dish, and any time we have to make a truck roll the customer gets converted over and only when a threshold has been crossed push the others over. It gives them a roadmap to sustainability in terms of satellite fleet as well

Now, do I expect *any* of this? of course not, a hedge fund is now in charge and will just want to squeeze every short term dollar out that they can until they can dump the carcass off on Charlie, and we all know how he operates so I wouldn't expect this plan out of him, either


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From my perspective, the whole "linear" pay television service is dying, whether it be cable or satellite television. The future is streaming services. 

Slight problem. Streaming services require a good high-speed Internet connection. While I'm grateful (now) to be have gigabit service, where I used to live, the best you could get was 20 megabit down/1 megabit up. Some areas are still Internet deserts, thus the need for satellite services. Plus, the RVers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Dish has leased entire satellites from other companies for years. I wonder what new sats those folks might have in the pipeline.


The saving grace is that Ku birds are fairly abundant. Ka birds with the oversized transponder configuration that DIRECTV uses are almost nonexistent.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> From my perspective, the whole "linear" pay television service is dying, whether it be cable or satellite television. The future is streaming services.
> 
> Slight problem. Streaming services require a good high-speed Internet connection. While I'm grateful (now) to be have gigabit service, where I used to live, the best you could get was 20 megabit down/1 megabit up. Some areas are still Internet deserts, thus the need for satellite services. Plus, the RVers.


As 5G matures it will get better. I went camping last weekend where in years past neither Verizon nor ATT had any signal. This year I had 4 bars LTE on ATT and was pulling down 50 megs and 35 up


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> The saving grace is that Ku birds are fairly abundant. Ka birds with the oversized transponder configuration that DIRECTV uses are almost nonexistent.


They have to be set up for the US. You can't redeploy one set up for somewhere else in the world in the US, they won't have the right footprint and will miss parts of the US and/or overspill into places they shouldn't. Other than Directv and Dish, there are only a handful of Ku satellites set up for the US, so "fairly abundant" is absolutely not true.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Other than Directv and Dish, there are only a handful of Ku satellites set up for the US, so "fairly abundant" is absolutely not true.


How many satellites do you suppose would be needed to back up a handful of live birds?

I'm guessing that DIRECTV has at least one satellite DIRECTV 8 that still has a few years left. The satellite was launched 16 years ago. DIRECTV 15 is carrying much of what used to be at 119W. T16 was supposed to be a backup but it went straight into service at 101W.

DISH's oldest satellite, Echostar X (110W) is about 15.5 years old so it has reached its "minimum lifespan".

Speaking of 119W, it may be possible for Anik F3 to pick up the Ku activity there as it has a 32 transponder Ku payload (though how many can be used in combination with the C-band transponders is unclear).

DISH is significantly further along in upgrading their users to MPEG4 equipment supporting the latest modulation schemes, but both satcasters could benefit such that at least one satellite may not be needed if customer equipment is upgraded.

As for finding spares that are already aloft, I reason that just about anything should work as long as they can figure where to uplink to it. The US slot/transponder combinations aren't used anywhere else in the Americas.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Mark Holtz said:


> From my perspective, the whole "linear" pay television service is dying, whether it be cable or satellite television. The future is streaming services.
> 
> Slight problem. Streaming services require a good high-speed Internet connection. While I'm grateful (now) to be have gigabit service, where I used to live, the best you could get was 20 megabit down/1 megabit up. Some areas are still Internet deserts, thus the need for satellite services. Plus, the RVers.


i was in santa monica last weekend i was pulling down 1.5 GBPS on my phone in verizons 5G ultra wide band area. streaming should not be a problem once 5G is fully deployed


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Getting CONUS channels back online is "relatively" simple - it's all the spotbeams that cause issues with Dish (and potentially DirectTV). There is at least one spare bird at 61.5 for Dish, but I have no clue what else is around. I suppose a source like Lyngsat might know ? You kind of need an inventory of what is available, and how many transponders you need at each location, to really come up with some plans.

Edit - I think either of them could potentially lose several / most local markets for awhile - it would be an expensive fix for total recovery if it could even be done.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Let’s just pretend for a moment DIRECTV needed to replace all their satelites in five years. 

That would require three new ones. Each cost 500 million let’s say. 

Let’s say DIRECTV is down to 5 million subscribers. Let’s say they decide to charge every customer $1 a month to pay for all three new satelites. They’d pay them off at that rate in less than 8 1/2 years. 

Satelites aren’t a high cost that will make these companies consider shutting down.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

DIsh might end up spending more - While they could lose 77w(mostly SD (MPEG4) Eastern CONUS) with little to no effect, they still would need 61.5w (lots of local spot beams, but also some CONUS beams), 72.7w (all Conus beams), 110w (mix of spots and CONUS, much in SD), 119w (mix of Spotbeams and CONIS, mostly (all ?) SD), and 129w (about half spotbeams and half CONUS all HD). 

Convert ALL remaining SD(MPEG2) receiver customers to HD equipment (they should start on that now - it's probably been going on for awhile), and much of 119 / 110 could be changed to HD / MPEG4 SD. Acquiring more of 119 and the few 110 transponders would help greatly - it might even be enough to drop 129 lease. Right now, Dish has licenses for 21 of 119W and 29 of 110 (both out of 32) transponders. 119 has some wierd spotbeams (AK, HI, and PR), so feeding them could become "interesting" with a replacement.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH's lease on QuetzSat-1 at 77 ends in November. It could be extended but it seems DISH has made an effort to clear off the satellite.
The lease for Ciel II at 129 ends in January and Anik F3 at 118.7 (most International channels) ends in April.

Not something for customers or especially non-customer pundits to worry about. This information is not a surprise to DISH.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

The Ciel II lease will likely be renewed - just under what terms.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

scooper said:


> The Ciel II lease will likely be renewed - just under what terms.


Probably the same terms as the last annual renewals. The original expiration was January 2019.

There are only two local markets left on 77 ... Springfield Missouri is also on 61.5 (no dish change), Casper Wyoming is also on 129.
The rest of the channels on 77 are SD duplicates.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> Probably the same terms as the last annual renewals. The original expiration was January 2019.
> 
> There are only two local markets left on 77 ... Springfield Missouri is also on 61.5 (no dish change), Casper Wyoming is also on 129.
> The rest of the channels on 77 are SD duplicates.


There's just a few places we go where I might miss the 77 sat due to tight LOS issues, but with the advances in streaming that's no longer an issue.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Mark Holtz said:


> From my perspective, the whole "linear" pay television service is dying, whether it be cable or satellite television. The future is streaming services.
> 
> Slight problem. Streaming services require a good high-speed Internet connection. While I'm grateful (now) to be have gigabit service, where I used to live, the best you could get was 20 megabit down/1 megabit up. Some areas are still Internet deserts, thus the need for satellite services. Plus, the RVers.


Even 20 Mbps down is sufficient for 2 to 4 simultaneous HD streams (depends on the provider/codec/bitrate). The number of US households who are both interested in linear channel pay TV and who don't have/can't get reasonably affordable internet service of at least that speed is already fairly small and will continue to rapidly dwindle in the next few years.

Perhaps capacity issues, due to lack of sats, will play a role in DBS's final demise. But it faces plenty of other challenges before that issue arises.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> The number of US households who are both interested in linear channel pay TV and who don't have/can't get reasonably affordable internet service of at least that speed is already fairly small and will continue to rapidly dwindle in the next few years.


Depending on the source one chooses to use, as many 163M people lack broadband access. Further, absent some government program, this is unlikely to change, let alone "rapidly dwindle" (BTW, "dwindle" means to "diminish gradually" so "rapidly dwindle" is an oxymoron).

As to "linear TV" it remains the primary way video is consumed, taking up 69% of all video consumption, but, more importantly, well over 90% of households consumed at least something on linear TV.

As long as there are tens of millions of people w/o good internet sat. TV will continue to exist and thrive.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

SamC said:


> Depending on the source one chooses to use, as many 163M people lack broadband access. Further, absent some government program, this is unlikely to change, let alone "rapidly dwindle" (BTW, "dwindle" means to "diminish gradually" so "rapidly dwindle" is an oxymoron).
> 
> As to "linear TV" it remains the primary way video is consumed, taking up 69% of all video consumption, but, more importantly, well over 90% of households consumed at least something on linear TV.
> 
> As long as there are tens of millions of people w/o good internet sat. TV will continue to exist and thrive.


163M? LOL. What crackpot source are you using to come up with that figure? The FCC's official report puts it at "approximately 19 million Americans."

Eighth Broadband Progress Report

Sure, it could be off some but not enough to get anywhere close to 163M. (You realize the entire population of the US is about 333M, right? 163M would be 49% of the entire country.)

As far as a government program, the bipartisan infrastructure bill that just passed in the Senate includes $65 bn to expand broadband access.

$1 trillion infrastructure bill provides the biggest investment in broadband in decades

And yes, linear TV is still in the lead vs. on-demand streaming but its dominance is in rapid decline. Wait until Disney decides to make all of their live sports content available via their direct-to-consumer ESPN app. That will really be the death knell for cable TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Sure, it could be off some but not enough to get anywhere close to 163M. (You realize the entire population of the US is about 333M, right? 163M would be 49% of the entire country.)


Statistics about broadband penetration are usually spoken of in terms of households rather than per capita.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Eighth Broadband Progress Report


"Notwithstanding this progress, the Report finds that approximately 19 million Americans-6 percent of the population-still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population -14.5 million people-lack access to this service. In tribal areas, nearly one-third of the population lacks access. Even in areas where broadband is available, approximately 100 million Americans still do not subscribe. The report concludes that until the Commission's Connect America reforms are fully implemented, these gaps are unlikely to close. Because millions still lack access to or have not adopted broadband, the Report concludes broadband is not yet being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion."


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

It is amazing that the “cord cutter” minority thinks their choice is right for everyone. 

Nope. Most people still consume linear TV, because it is what they want. And this will remain so for decades to come. And, because so many millions cannot get internet, or ever good cable, sat. TV will remain a major part of that.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SamC said:


> It is amazing that the "cord cutter" minority thinks their choice is right for everyone.
> 
> Nope. Most people still consume linear TV, because it is what they want. And this will remain so for decades to come. And, because so many millions cannot get internet, or ever good cable, sat. TV will remain a major part of that.


I don't believe linear TV will remain the option for "most people" by even the end of the decade. Sports and news are about the things people want to watch live, where linear TV is superior to streaming. For any sort of on demand or time shifted viewing, streaming has the advantage.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> There are only two local markets left on 77 ... Springfield Missouri is also on 61.5 (no dish change), Casper Wyoming is also on 129.
> The rest of the channels on 77 are SD duplicates.


Poof! Casper and Springfield are gone from 77.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> "Notwithstanding this progress, the Report finds that approximately 19 million Americans-6 percent of the population-still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population -14.5 million people-lack access to this service. In tribal areas, nearly one-third of the population lacks access. Even in areas where broadband is available, approximately 100 million Americans still do not subscribe. The report concludes that until the Commission's Connect America reforms are fully implemented, these gaps are unlikely to close. Because millions still lack access to or have not adopted broadband, the Report concludes broadband is not yet being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion."


Yep. As I said, "19 million Americans" without access to fixed broadband, i.e. only 6% of the total population. That's an estimate, of course, and I can believe the actual number is somewhat higher. But the figures that some bandy about, like 20% or more not having access, are pretty hard to believe.

And yes, there are millions more who choose not to pay for broadband for whatever reason. In some cases, I imagine, because they have sufficient access on their mobile device.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

The Future is uncertain and the END is always near


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> I don't believe linear TV will remain the option for "most people" by even the end of the decade. Sports and news are about the things people want to watch live, where linear TV is superior to streaming. For any sort of on demand or time shifted viewing, streaming has the advantage.


Yes. But just about everyone in the TV industry, as they're renewing their carriage rights for sports, are also making sure that they have the streaming rights too. Which is why CBS can stream Sunday afternoon NFL on Paramount+, and this season we'll see NBC do the same on Peacock with Sunday Night Football. Bally Sports is seeking to nail down in-market streaming rights for the teams they carry for a standalone streaming service to launch next year. And of course Prime Video will exclusively own Thursday Night Football come next year.

ESPN has been getting streaming rights included for awhile now on most/all their contracts, so that, as Disney has put it, when the time comes to stomp the gas pedal on streaming, they'll be able to offer all of ESPN's live sports inside the ESPN app as a standalone direct-to-consumer offering. Maybe that happens in 2023, maybe in 2025, but it's eventually going to happen. And _après ça, le déluge_.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

NashGuy said:


> Yes. But just about everyone in the TV industry, as they're renewing their carriage rights for sports, are also making sure that they have the streaming rights too. Which is why CBS can stream Sunday afternoon NFL on Paramount+, and this season we'll see NBC do the same on Peacock with Sunday Night Football. Bally Sports is seeking to nail down in-market streaming rights for the teams they carry for a standalone streaming service to launch next year. And of course Prime Video will exclusively own Thursday Night Football come next year.
> 
> ESPN has been getting streaming rights included for awhile now on most/all their contracts, so that, as Disney has put it, when the time comes to stomp the gas pedal on streaming, they'll be able to offer all of ESPN's live sports inside the ESPN app as a standalone direct-to-consumer offering. Maybe that happens in 2023, maybe in 2025, but it's eventually going to happen. And _après ça, le déluge_.


Of course they are, they want to give people options. They don't want to force sports viewers to subscribe to cable or satellite. But wake me when the NFL or NBA goes streaming exclusive and cable/satellite are locked out (of the full product, not some little niche like the always unpopular Thursday night NFL games) That's when we'll know linear TV is dead. I don't expect that for at least 15 years, maybe longer.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> Of course they are, they want to give people options. They don't want to force sports viewers to subscribe to cable or satellite. But wake me when the NFL or NBA goes streaming exclusive and cable/satellite are locked out (of the full product, not some little niche like the always unpopular Thursday night NFL games) That's when we'll know linear TV is dead. I don't expect that for at least 15 years, maybe longer.


No, I don't expect that either. It'll take a long time for linear TV to completely go away, if it ever does. The most popular sports will be available via both linear broadcast/cable channels and direct-to-consumer streaming for at least the remainder of this decade, probably into the next. Although I expect that an increasing number of games here and there, plus the entire schedule of less popular and foreign sports, will be streaming exclusives. (We're already seeing that, in fact.) We may see out-of-market games in some or all of the major leagues go streaming exclusive as well.

But I wrote that post in response to you saying "Sports and news are about the things people want to watch live, where linear TV is superior to streaming. For any sort of on demand or time shifted viewing, streaming has the advantage." And I agree that sports and news are the main things keeping linear TV from collapsing even further than it has so far, not so much because they're live but rather that they've been largely exclusive to linear TV. But in the next few years, we'll see those last exclusive bastions of linear TV getting shared with various streaming apps like ESPN+, Peacock, Paramount+, HBO Max, etc. At some point, the live feed of CNN becomes available in the upcoming CNN+ app (and all that may just get absorbed into HBO Max), the Fox News live feed lands in Fox Nation, etc.

At that point, there will be little-to-no content airing on linear TV that isn't available at about the same time in one direct-to-consumer streaming app or another. Meanwhile, there will continue to be lots of popular, high-quality "originals" exclusive to those apps that are completely unavailable on linear TV. Streaming started out as the tail to linear TV's dog. At that point, it will be the other way around.

It's unpredictable to what extent the cable TV industry will unwind at that point. There will certainly still be folks who stick with it because it's what they know and they're comfortable with it (and maybe some sports fans who just can't stand watching the game on a ~60 second delay). But there will be a whole lot of sports and news fans who find that they no longer need to keep that cable TV subscription going, so they won't.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

There will also be people who will stick with linear TV because they can't deal with trying to stream. Anybody have a relative with dementia ? It's a joke to give them a SmartTv.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

scooper said:


> There will also be people who will stick with linear TV because they can't deal with trying to stream. Anybody have a relative with dementia ? It's a joke to give them a SmartTv.


For sure. You don't even need to have dementia. If you have decades of TV viewing habits built around live and recorded linear channels, it makes sense that that's what you're comfortable with and don't want to switch to a completely new system. So even after all live sports and news also becomes available on streaming apps, there will continue to be a slice of households who still prefer cable TV. But that slice will dwindle over time. It'll be a long fade for linear TV and I'm not convinced it will ever die completely (at least in part due to local broadcast TV stations). I don't know that FM radio will ever die either but we can already see that it's certainly not as popular or culturally powerful as it once was.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Bally Sports is seeking to nail down in-market streaming rights for the teams they carry for a standalone streaming service to launch next year.


The problem with Sinclair is that they have amassed a monumental debt and those rights don't go for cheap.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> The problem with Sinclair is that they have amassed a monumental debt and those rights don't go for cheap.


Well, they already have the traditional TV rights. And since Bally Sports channels stream via DTV Stream, apparently they have some kind of streaming rights too. But apparently some of their team contracts have to be amended/renewed to allow those streams to be sold to consumer via a standalone DTC service, outside a cable bundle. Here's Sinclair's CEO on a recent call:

_"We continue to push forward on our business plan and have made many key hires as we march toward our initial product launch date," he said. He reiterated that the company has "the right to do that from the distributors. We do have to&#8230;complete our renewals for the NHL and NBA, and there are several teams that on the MLB side, which we have to secure the DTC rights for."
_​Full story here:
Sinclair CEO Says Bally Sports DTC Product Still On Track for First Half 2022


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, they already have the traditional TV rights. And since Bally Sports channels stream via DTV Stream, apparently they have some kind of streaming rights too.


I believe DirecTV stream (and AT&T TV before it) are being treated like MVPDs where the RSN maintains rights within each team's markets. The leagues reserving their rights for all out of market distribution.

Sinclair's DTC could be a strange product, including any "local" RSNs and only non-game content outside of each team's markets. In my area I am in market for Tigers, Cubs, White Sox and Cincinnatti whatevers. Sinclair is the RSN of record for three of those teams ... which means I either get their feeds via a MVPD/vMVPD or don't watch most games. MLB EI does not provide any of the four to my home or any of the opposing team feeds when playing the four. A DTC offering would replace the "sports pack" that one would normally have on DIRECTV satellite ... I would not expect any feed that would infringe on MLB EI's rights. Give me Bally Midwest but watch it black out when St Louis is playing.

Sinclair is fortunate to have (limited) streaming rights so they can sell in market to Directv Stream and YTTV and any other OTT provider. I would not expect those rights to extend to delivering games out of market ... but any content they create is all theirs. A separate DTC Bally Betting Channel (the BBC!) could describe games and give updates within the limits of their contracts ... so they could still hustle up bets on games in out of market situations.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> I believe DirecTV stream (and AT&T TV before it) are being treated like MVPDs where the RSN maintains rights within each team's markets. The leagues reserving their rights for all out of market distribution.
> 
> Sinclair's DTC could be a strange product, including any "local" RSNs and only non-game content outside of each team's markets. In my area I am in market for Tigers, Cubs, White Sox and Cincinnatti whatevers. Sinclair is the RSN of record for three of those teams ... which means I either get their feeds via a MVPD/vMVPD or don't watch most games. MLB EI does not provide any of the four to my home or any of the opposing team feeds when playing the four. A DTC offering would replace the "sports pack" that one would normally have on DIRECTV satellite ... I would not expect any feed that would infringe on MLB EI's rights. Give me Bally Midwest but watch it black out when St Louis is playing.
> 
> Sinclair is fortunate to have (limited) streaming rights so they can sell in market to Directv Stream and YTTV and any other OTT provider. I would not expect those rights to extend to delivering games out of market ... but any content they create is all theirs. A separate DTC Bally Betting Channel (the BBC!) could describe games and give updates within the limits of their contracts ... so they could still hustle up bets on games in out of market situations.


Oh yeah, totally agree. AFAIK, neither Sinclair nor any of the media covering this story have suggested that the Bally DTC service will offer out-of-market games. Those streaming rights are locked up by MLB.tv, NBA League Pass, and for the NHL, ESPN+. I expect that the Bally app will feature live streams (plus on-demand replays) of whichever of their RSNs are cleared for the customer's zip code, e.g. Bally Sports South and Bally Sports Southeast in my case. And, yeah, I don't see why they wouldn't also offer the non-sports (e.g. talk/highlights) content from their out-of-market RSNs to everyone nationwide, as DTV does on their Sports Pack add-on.


----------

