# Sticky  Sunday Ticket 2023+ Announced! (YouTube)



## Sixto

It's official ...



https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-google-nfl-sunday-ticket-youtube-tv-youtube-primetime-channels



"Exclusively distribute NFL Sunday Ticket to consumers in the United States"

"Add-on package on YouTube TV and standalone a-la-carte on YouTube Primetime Channels"

"Updated NFL Sunday Ticket product features and functionality will be announced ahead of the 2023 NFL season."

"The NFL and YouTube will work together to determine additional ways to support distribution of NFL Sunday Ticket in commercial establishments such as bars and restaurants."

NFL Network/RedZone: "Under the expanded relationship, the carriage agreement has been extended."

"Additionally, as part of the agreement, YouTube and the NFL will facilitate exclusive access to official content and attendance opportunities for select YouTube Creators at key NFL tentpole events."


----------



## slickpete

looks like the annouced youtube premium today. now its all in the details,, same cost but how many streams can you see?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

*commercial TBA
Also USA only so still on cable and sat out side of the usa*


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slickpete said:


> we also have to wonder how a place that has 50+ tvs will handle streaming that many signals at once. most of them probably just have avg routers that may not send good signal to every part of their bldgs. every tv may not be smart ready they may not have outlets to plug in extra devices. lots of Issues


*commercial TBA
Also USA only*
youtube tv right now is for HOME USE ONLY
Primetime Channels. offering premium content from providers like Starz, Showtime, Epix and Paramount Plus directly on YouTube. IS HOME PRIVATE VIEW USE ONLY
Public view tv is different


----------



## slickpete

so now get rid if the extra directv box and then wait for them to say how this will all work..


----------



## slickpete

JoeTheDragon said:


> *commercial TBA
> Also USA only*
> youtube tv right now is for HOME USE ONLY
> Primetime Channels. offering premium content from providers like Starz, Showtime, Epix and Paramount Plus directly on YouTube. IS HOME PRIVATE VIEW USE ONLY
> Public view tv is different


So this would imply no watching on you cell or outside the home


----------



## harsh

JoeTheDragon said:


> Also USA only so still on cable and sat out side of the usa


You speak as this is something new. It isn't.


----------



## harsh

slickpete said:


> ooks like the annouced youtube premium today. now its all in the details,, same cost but how many streams can you see?


YouTube Premium Primetime was mentioned in the WSJ story that started this latest flurry of speculation. Speculators speculated otherwise and were wrong.

Where did you see a mention of the package pricing?


----------



## slickpete

in several other stories it was mentioned that the price could not go down because of the fox/cbs contracts to protect the local feeds? Its not like people could watch the local games on ST anyway but more because some people might have paid $100 to watch 10 games and perhaps not watched the local at all? It has always been over priced, I cant imagine how many would buy it if it was like $10-20 a month or something.


----------



## Sixto

slickpete said:


> looks like the annouced youtube premium today. now its all in the details,, same cost but how many streams can you see?


YouTube TV today is 3 streams with the base subscription, and unlimited in-home streams and 3 outside the home with the 4K Plus add-on.

YouTube Primetime Channels depends on the add-on channel.


----------



## Sixto

slickpete said:


> So this would imply no watching on you cell or outside the home


Assuming the home reference was referencing residential (vs commercial).

Mobile devices are fine, just as long as the steaming limits are adhered to. Referenced above.


----------



## slickpete

Sixto said:


> YouTube TV today is 3 streams with the base subscription, and unlimited in-home streams and 3 outside the home with the 4K Plus add-on.
> 
> YouTube Primetime Channels depends on the add-on channel.


So with 7-8 games at a time I wonder what they do.. Since its an add-on anyway it could have its own rules. 

Any I wonder when casting is so easy if they will have an issue with people using phones to watch games and let others watch them using a single acct?


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> YouTube Premium was mentioned in the WSJ story that started this latest flurry of speculation. Speculators speculated otherwise and were wrong.
> 
> Where did you see a mention of the package pricing?


It is NOT part of Youtube Premium. It is part of regular Youtube called Primetime Channels. You do not need to pay for a subscription to Youtube Premium.


----------



## Sixto

slickpete said:


> So with 7-8 games at a time I wonder what they do.. Since its an add-on anyway it could have its own rules.
> 
> Any I wonder when casting is so easy if they will have an issue with people using phones to watch games and let others watch them using a single acct?


A device is a device is a device. You bring up the YouTube or YouTube TV app on your device (TV or mobile) and you watch, with the streaming limits referenced above. They may also have mix channels, we'll see.


----------



## harsh

slickpete said:


> in several other stories it was mentioned that the price could not go down because of the fox/cbs contracts to protect the local feeds?


These "several other stories" were based on pre-award information and speculation. Now we wait to see what the pricing is rather than hanging our hats on all of the commotion leading up to the actual contract.


----------



## b4pjoe

What are YouTube Primetime Channels?


> For most Primetime Channels, you can use YouTube to watch on up to three devices at the same time.


Keywords: "For most Primetime Channels". I think that means it could be more. It could be less. Sounds like it is up to the particular channel. So maybe the NFL Sunday Ticket Channel will make it more. Or less.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

So you will not have to have a YouTube TV subscription in order to get it, correct?

And is there any way to combine the threads into one?


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> It is NOT part of Youtube Premium.


I got confused and mistyped. You are correct that I should have said YouTube Primetime which may be even more confounding if you think about what the words mean.

I'm still trying to get over the Peacock Premium stupidity where Premium isn't the premium package but Plus is (much like DIRECTV's ULTIMATE not being their ultimate package). 

IIRC, the only requirement for YouTube Primetime is that you have a Google Account and an established payment method.


----------



## b4pjoe

TheRatPatrol said:


> So you will not have to have a YouTube TV subscription in order to get it, correct?
> 
> And is there any way to combine the threads into one?


Yes that is correct. No need to have a YTTV subscription. You just have to buy the Primetime Channel from Youtube (Not Youtube Premium).


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> IIRC, the only requirement for YouTube Primetime is that you have a Google Account and an established payment method.


Yes that is correct.


----------



## gio12

Bender The Lab said:


> What do you guys have against YTTV?
> 
> I had it and it was great for the price you paid
> 1080P Picture
> Dolby Digital+ sound
> Great Guide that you could customize to your liking
> Unlimited DVR at no charge
> 3 Streams with no extra box charges
> 
> The only thing I keep seeing people complain about is channel numbers, but in the guide every channel is named, plus I was able to put my top channels on top.
> 
> And no RSN, but for me that was a bonus since I moved from Michigan to Florida 2 years ago, I have no interest in watching the Local Teams.
> 
> I have MLB for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings, care nothing about Basketball.


I am on D*steam only because of RSNs and left YTTV for this reason.


----------



## gio12

Well I was hoping for a price drop but no luck. I will stick with DStream for now because of RSN.
I can get NFL Network, NFLST and RedZone elsewhere.
For me and I think many others, NFLST should be in the $100-150 range. I feel at that price point and now anyone can get it, Google has a chance to quadruple or more viewers if they did a cheaper rate.

But no doubt about it, DIRECTV and DIRECTV Stream will die off and maybe pretty quickly.


----------



## b4pjoe

gio12 said:


> Well I was hoping for a price drop but no luck. I will stick with DStream for now because of RSN.
> I can get NFL Network, NFLST and RedZone elsewhere.
> For me and I think many others, NFLST should be in the $100-150 range. I feel at that price point and now anyone can get it, Google has a chance to quadruple or more viewers if they did a cheaper rate.
> 
> But no doubt about it, DIRECTV and DIRECTV Stream will die off and maybe pretty quickly.


It has already been stated it will still be around the same price due to contract restrictions with FOX and CBS.


----------



## slickpete

My kids have youtube tv.. Using it just shows how much better a Sat/box setup is. even the remotes for streaming are an awful experience. But are any of the streaming apps really any good to actually use? I havent found one yet


----------



## slickpete

b4pjoe said:


> It has already been stated it will still be around the same price due to contract restrictions with FOX and CBS.


I wonder if the price pt had been better if Directv would have ever given it up and at the 100-150 price how many people would have stayed with their service just for that reason.


----------



## compnurd

slickpete said:


> I wonder if the price pt had been better if Directv would have ever given it up and at the 100-150 price how many people would have stayed with their service just for that reason.


Not alot


----------



## tpayne105

glrush said:


> I have been a DirecTV (and NFL Sunday Ticket) subscriber since they first offered the product in 1994. It will be fascinating to see how many people bail on DirecTV once Sunday Ticket is gone, and to see what the impact will be on YTTV's numbers, if the speculation turns out to be true.


100% agree


----------



## Rob37

I won’t be bailing out from DIRECTV anytime soon. I still get MLB Extra Innings and many other programming throughout the year with them. They are still serving me well in the rural area I live in. I bet the number of people leaving won’t be as high as many are suspecting.


----------



## tpayne105

b4pjoe said:


> It is NOT part of Youtube Premium. It is part of regular Youtube called Primetime Channels. You do not need to pay for a subscription to Youtube Premium.


How much do YouTube Primetime Channels cost? YouTube Primetime Channels are currently exclusive to the US. It costs *$64.99 a month*, giving access to 30 different services....

looks you do (i could be wrong!)


----------



## b4pjoe

tpayne105 said:


> How much do YouTube Primetime Channels cost? YouTube Primetime Channels are currently exclusive to the US. It costs *$64.99 a month*, giving access to 30 different services....
> 
> looks you do (i could be wrong!)


That $64.99 a month is the cost of Youtube TV and has nothing to do with regular Youtube.

Youtube is free. The price is whatever that individual channel goes for. Under Youtube in the left hand column if you scroll down and click on "Movies and TV". Over on the right of that you will see Primetime Channels such as Showtime, Paramount+, Starz, etc...I have never bought a Primetime Channel but my guess for example on the Showtime one would be the same price to just subscribe directly to Showtime. They claim the advantage is to subscribe to all of your favorite channels and they are all accessed via Youttube instead of having separate apps for each streaming service.

The Primetime channel of Sunday Ticket is said to be approximately the same as what it has cost on DIRECTV for Sunday Ticket. But we won't know all of the details for quite some time.

YouTube’s new Primetime Channels


----------



## b4pjoe

Rob37 said:


> I won’t be bailing out from DIRECTV anytime soon. I still get MLB Extra Innings


Same for me.


----------



## the2130

gio12 said:


> Well I was hoping for a price drop but no luck. I will stick with DStream for now because of RSN.
> I can get NFL Network, NFLST and RedZone elsewhere.
> For me and I think many others, NFLST should be in the $100-150 range. I feel at that price point and now anyone can get it, Google has a chance to quadruple or more viewers if they did a cheaper rate.
> 
> But no doubt about it, DIRECTV and DIRECTV Stream will die off and maybe pretty quickly.


DirecTV Stream has never offered NFLST anyway. Under the new deal, it doesn't matter what pay TV service you subscribe to, because it isn't required to get NFLST. All you need is a Youtube account, which is free. If they are paying around $2 billion per year, they need more than 6 million subscribers to break even or make on the package. That's why the price will be about the same as it is now.


----------



## b4pjoe

the2130 said:


> DirecTV Stream has never offered NFLST anyway. Under the new deal, it doesn't matter what pay TV service you subscribe to, because it isn't required to get NFLST. All you need is a Youtube account, which is free. If they are paying around $2 billion per year, they need more than 6 million subscribers to break even or make on the package. That's why the price will be about the same as it is now.


The news release also stated the price Google pays can go up based on the number of subscribers so for example if they get 6 million subscribers they may have to pay more than $2 billion per year.


----------



## the2130

b4pjoe said:


> It has already been stated it will still be around the same price due to contract restrictions with FOX and CBS.


It's highly unlikely there is any minimum price they are required to charge. The price will be similar to what it is now because they don't want to lose money on the deal. Remember, the price wasn't always $293 for the season. A few years back, DirecTV lowered it to $199 to get more subscribers, then started gradually increasing it untilmit reached the current price. More than likely, they believed that they would lose subscribers at a price of $300 or above.


----------



## the2130

b4pjoe said:


> The news release also stated the price Google pays can go up based on the number of subscribers so for example if they get 6 million subscribers they may have to pay more than $2 billion per year.


Yes, they could end up paying more, but the base price of the deal is at the low end of what has been reported previously. That's probably why it has taken so long to finalize a deal. The NFL could get more than $2 billion, but only if Youtube sells enough subscriptions to make money on the deal.


----------



## b4pjoe

the2130 said:


> It's highly unlikely there is any minimum price they are required to charge. The price will be similar to what it is now because they don't want to lose money on the deal. Remember, the price wasn't always $293 for the season. A few years back, DirecTV lowered it to $199 to get more subscribers, then started gradually increasing it untilmit reached the current price. More than likely, they believed that they would lose subscribers at a price of $300 or above.


Apple wanted to give it away free to their Apple TV+ subscribers and they were not allowed to do that and why Apple exited the bidding. The wording that is thrown around is they must charge a premium fee for it. No idea how that much is but it is more than free.


----------



## slickpete

so youtube will need at least twice as many subscribers as directv had.. they had a 1.5 billion a yr deal and lost 500 million a yr on it..


----------



## the2130

b4pjoe said:


> Apple wanted to give it away free to their Apple TV+ subscribers and they were not allowed to do that and why Apple exited the bidding. The wording that is thrown around is they must charge a premium fee for it. No idea how that much is but it is more than free.


The various reports that NFLST would have to be sold at a "premium price" due to clauses in the NFL's contracts with the networks all stemmed from one online article, which was then quoted and parroted by countless other online articles. The writer who made that claim offered no proof and didn't even claim to have sources for it. He simply stated it as if it were a fact, which it probably isn't. Unfortunately, that's what most of the "reporting" has been - online writers/bloggers reporting on what others have reported.

As to the report that Apple wanted to offer NFLST as part of Apple TV+, that also seems highly unlikely. It's hard to see how it would make sense for Apple to pay $2 billion for the package and then offer it as part of a streaming service that cost $6.99 per month.


----------



## b4pjoe

the2130 said:


> The various reports that NFLST would have to be sold at a "premium price" due to clauses in the NFL's contracts with the networks all stemmed from one online article, which was then quoted and parroted by countless other online articles. The writer who made that claim offered no proof and didn't even claim to have sources for it. He simply stated it as if it were a fact, which it probably isn't. Unfortunately, that's what most of the "reporting" has been - online writers/bloggers reporting on what others have reported.
> 
> As to the report that Apple wanted to offer NFLST as part of Apple TV+, that also seems highly unlikely. It's hard to see how it would make sense for Apple to pay $2 billion for the package and then offer it as part of a streaming service that cost $6.99 per month.


Well I have not seen any proof there isn’t clauses in the contract that it has to be premium priced and there have been no reports refuting the claims Apple wanted to be able to include it in their streaming package. I’ve voiced before my skepticism of both. We can only use the info we are given.


----------



## GekkoDBS

Sixto said:


> A device is a device is a device. You bring up the YouTube or YouTube TV app on your device (TV or mobile) and you watch, with the streaming limits referenced above. They may also have mix channels, we'll see.


How many games can you record to Youtube's DVR at the same time? And does Youtube DVR have a 30 second skip button.


----------



## gwlbe

No pause during commercial, down button, resume with the dual tuner. Also, feeds in the bar will all be out of synch. Can’t beat the DVR. Also DIRECTV gave me the ST for free for many years of tolerating their high fees. Bad day for Sunday Ticket. Bow to the blue buffering circle.


----------



## AMike

I have the barebones package of D* Stream that gives me my RSNs and I also have YTTV. I prefer YTTV over D* Stream and if they had the RSNs and History, then I would fully switch.

I don't miss paying for 8 receivers for D* satellite. Even with both D* stream and YTTV, I'm still saving about $150 per month.

I am future proofed for streaming and look forward to ST being on YT.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> The news release also stated the price Google pays can go up based on the number of subscribers so for example if they get 6 million subscribers they may have to pay more than $2 billion per year.


The news release does not mention the contract price. That is from other reporting (back to sources familiar with the negotiation?).



the2130 said:


> It's highly unlikely there is any minimum price they are required to charge. The price will be similar to what it is now because they don't want to lose money on the deal. Remember, the price wasn't always $293 for the season. A few years back, DirecTV lowered it to $199 to get more subscribers, then started gradually increasing it untilmit reached the current price. More than likely, they believed that they would lose subscribers at a price of $300 or above.


DIRECTV's contract is the past. YouTube's contract is the future. All of the broadcast deals will also renew at the beginning of the 2023 season (deals already signed by all four networks).

DIRECTV gave away Sunday Ticket for free. Primarily to new customers, but they used it as a promotion / retention tool. DIRECTV's deal was a flat fee that worked out to $1.5 billion each year over the past eight years. I can't say that the NFL is demanding a certain minimum price point, but the reporting says the NFL wants Sunday Ticket to be a premium price package. New contract new rules.

DIRECTV didn't mind losing money on Sunday Ticket because they gained money through promotion / retention. DIRECTV posted profits of billions of dollars regardless of any line item loss on Sunday Ticket. YouTube will get some promotional benefit from having Sunday Ticket but as an a la carte no one will be paying YouTube for other content just to be eligible to buy Sunday Ticket.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> The news release does not mention the contract price. That is from other reporting (back to sources familiar with the negotiation?).


There were early reports it was going to run $2.5 billion per year and later reports stating $2 billion per year but could be higher based on number of subscribers. Could those all be from dubious sources? Of course but those are the only figures we have to go on at the moment. The original post in this thread was from the NFL so no surprise there was no mention in the price from them or Google. If you don't want people commenting on articles from "sources familiar with the negotiation" you might as well just remove 95% of the posts in these forums.


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> If you don't want people commenting on articles from "sources familiar with the negotiation" you might as well just remove 95% of the posts in these forums.


Just provide accurate references. Stating something came from the news release makes it appear like there was a solid source instead of the human centipede of news sites and blogs quoting each other's speculation.

If people don't give the source they become part of the centipede, but no source is better than stating the wrong source.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> Just provide accurate references. Stating something came from the news release makes it appear like there was a solid source instead of the human centipede of news sites and blogs quoting each other's speculation.
> 
> If people don't give the source they become part of the centipede, but no source is better than stating the wrong source.


The source stating what I had commented on had already been posted. My mistake. I should have posted it again.


----------



## icewiz

Why YouTube spent the money on NFL Sunday Ticket - The Verge

Lots of good details and questions answered from the source in the article


A key difference between buying Sunday Ticket on YouTube TV over the main YouTube app: only YouTube TV will offer DVR features
Working on multiscreen as well for sports fans.
As part of this, going to have creators have exclusive access to games, everything from the first game all the way through the Super Bowl, so that they can produce content on the NFL channel, but they can also produce their own content for YouTube shorts.
Do things like remixing highlights, clips, interviews, commentary, all of those types of things, whatever our creators can do in that shortform format.
Offer [Sunday Ticket] service in a la carte fashion on [YouTube] Primetime Channels.
We have NFL RedZone. That’s part of our arrangement here. That will continue to be available.
No single team subs for now
Commerical rights not part of the deal
EDIT: Took 1st person out of bullets to avoid confusion


----------



## B. Shoe

I'm through pontificating what might happen or might not, moving forward. I'm elated that YouTube ended up as the winning bidder. We have subscribed to YouTube TV since August 2019, and we are more than satisfied with it as a product. To have NFL Sunday Ticket integrated into that service is a win in our household. Don't care about Trick Play, or specific pieces of DVR functionality, or whatever points anyone is going to try and pick on to say this isn't a great solution. We've lived on an Apple TV remote for three years and have it down pat just like I did working through the 50 buttons on my DIRECTV remote.

I'm simply not concerned about how bars and commercial locations will accommodate this, or who gets commercial rights. For those that are enamored with that process, I hope it's a solution that appeases the masses.


----------



## the2130

For those of us who use DVRs to watch the games, this is bad news. Switching to YTTV for DVR functionality would mean no RSNs, which is a non-starter for those who follow baseball and other sports, especially those who follow in-market teams. Even those who follow out-of-market teams will face blackouts when their team is playing the local team.


----------



## Herdfan

icewiz said:


> Commerical rights not part of the deal


That's interesting. That is where a good chunk of the money comes from.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Herdfan said:


> That's interesting. That is where a good chunk of the money comes from.


Not as much as you think, this is what I googled-

_How many sports bars are there in the U.S.?_
_The Trade Association says that there are approximately 70,000 liquor establishments in the US
Industry - Nightlife Association_


> _Of the Top 100 survey participants, 42.8% identified their venues as nightclubs; 70.6% of them described their hotspots as dance clubs. Of those identifying their venue as bars, 31.7% are sports bars and 29.3% are traditional bar/taverns. DJs and live entertainment are featured by 88.3% and 73.6% of total respondents, respectively. Nearly 80% offer a dance floor, 70.1% provide VIP areas and 65% offer bottle service.
> _


_Of the 70,000, the survey concentrated on the Top 100. Of that Top 100 (which is hopefully representative of the industry) 43% are nightclubs and 57% are bars. Of the bars, 32% are sports bars. So some quick math gives us an “educated” guess: 70,000 * 57% *.32 = 12,800 sports bars. (caveat - this might be a SWAG - a scientific wild ass guess_

So if 20,000 out of the 70,000 had ST, then it depends on the size of the place, so if each one of the 20,000 paid $10,000 each, that would make $200 million.

But we all know not everyone pays that much ( smaller places) or that little ( Casinos) .


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> That is where a good chunk of the money comes from.


Given that the suggested price for commercial rights was perhaps only 10% of what YouTube is paying ($2 billion .vs. $200 million) that's not much of a chunk.


----------



## Herdfan

Bender The Lab said:


> Not as much as you think, this is what I googled-
> 
> _How many sports bars are there in the U.S.?_
> _The Trade Association says that there are approximately 70,000 liquor establishments in the US
> Industry - Nightlife Association
> 
> Of the 70,000, the survey concentrated on the Top 100. Of that Top 100 (which is hopefully representative of the industry) 43% are nightclubs and 57% are bars. Of the bars, 32% are sports bars. So some quick math gives us an “educated” guess: 70,000 * 57% *.32 = 12,800 sports bars. (caveat - this might be a SWAG - a scientific wild ass guess_
> 
> So if 20,000 out of the 70,000 had ST, then it depends on the size of the place, so if each one of the 20,000 paid $10,000 each, that would make $200 million.
> 
> But we all know not everyone pays that much ( smaller places) or that little ( Casinos) .


That seems very low. And does it count places like BW3 or other predominately restaurants that buy ST?


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> That seems very low.


I can't say that I wasn't surprised but the asking price for the commercial rights seems to support that it isn't as big a deal as has been advanced by some.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Herdfan said:


> That seems very low. And does it count places like BW3 or other predominately restaurants that buy ST?


I thought so also, but all the links seem to confirm.

I did add 7000 more to the Sports Bar total, but the problem is the size ( how many people), I have no idea, but my guess the average price is closer to the $2000-3000 range.


----------



## icewiz

With the rights to NFL Sunday Ticket shifting to Google and YouTube, DirecTV is moving toward *cancelling the channel in favor of NFL RedZone*, according to people familiar with the matter. The website Front Office Sports first reported the possibility of DirecTV ending the channel on Thursday.

*DirecTV may continue the channel if it is awarded the simulcast rights to NFL Sunday Ticket for business* customers like sports bars and restaurants who draw patrons in with the promise of offering access to NFL Sunday Ticket in a public setting, sources said. DirecTV currently offers a simulcast of Amazon Prime Video’s Thursday Night Football telecasts to business customers under a similar arrangement.

DirecTV looks to cancel Sunday Ticket RedZone - The Desk


----------



## Herdfan

Bender The Lab said:


> I thought so also, but all the links seem to confirm.
> 
> I did add 7000 more to the Sports Bar total, but the problem is the size ( how many people), I have no idea, but my guess the average price is closer to the $2000-3000 range.


According to this source, it is 300,000. Several "sources" have this number, but as noted, it could be one source that has been repeated many times.









DirecTV Could Retain 'Sunday Ticket' Commercial Business


DirecTV has lost residential portion of NFL's Sunday Ticket package to YouTube. But it's still in play for 'commercial' accounts, like bars.




frontofficesports.com





Cost is based on FCO. Here is what it cost in 2019. My local BW3 would pay the $10,400 because they have an FCO of 230. It is not cheap for sure.


----------



## James Long

icewiz said:


> With the rights to NFL Sunday Ticket shifting to Google and YouTube, DirecTV is moving toward *cancelling the channel in favor of NFL RedZone*, according to people familiar with the matter. The website Front Office Sports first reported the possibility of DirecTV ending the channel on Thursday.


The "Andrew Siciliano" RedZone was created as part of NFL ST as presented on DIRECTV to show all the scores from all the games. NFL Network launched their own version of Red Zone (the "Scott Hansen" version) which has been widely available on MVPDs except DIRECTV, which had the NFL ST RedZone. YouTube had a contract to carry NFL Network and the NFL Network Red Zone.

In the initial announcement direct from the NFL it was stated that YouTube would continue to carry the NFL Network channels (exact quote in next paragraph). I don't know why they would need a second channel ... the NFL Network produced version serves the purpose - every score from every game.

"In 2020, the NFL expanded its partnership with a carriage agreement to bring NFL Network and NFL RedZone to YouTube TV subscribers. Under the expanded relationship, the carriage agreement has been extended."

Also from the initial announcement:
"Updated NFL Sunday Ticket product features and functionality will be announced ahead of the 2023 NFL season."

(The initial announcement was linked in what became the first post of this thread.)

I appreciate the Verge article that actually did an interview with a named source to add a little more color commentary.


----------



## icewiz

James Long said:


> The "Andrew Siciliano" RedZone was created as part of NFL ST as presented on DIRECTV to show all the scores from all the games. NFL Network launched their own version of Red Zone (the "Scott Hansen" version) which has been widely available on MVPDs except DIRECTV, which had the NFL ST RedZone. YouTube had a contract to carry NFL Network and the NFL Network Red Zone.
> 
> ...


agree with everything you said except I see a big difference from the Hansen/Siciliano version to the NFL Network one. Talking vs play streams. NFL Redzone is more than just scores from every game ... it's the plays in the redzone, highlights, and every "big play". I don't think that NFL Network comes close to that scope (intentionally). They are very different purposes and therefore can/should co-exist in a standard cable / premium space.

Here's Hansen's take on Redzone from the debut. (jump to 40 sec) -

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569776617958051840
And from the DirectTV site - The best plays from games in action, all on one channel.

And finally, what NFL Network says about Gameday (emphasis mine) - With *exclusive interviews and All-Pro analysis from an NFL Network cast of Hall of Famers, previous All-Pro players, and top analysts*, _NFL GameDay_ is the must-see show for all things NFL on Sundays.


----------



## James Long

The NFL Network version now has years of experience. I watched it last weekend and it seemed to be game driven. The Sunday Ticket version does have a different audience - people who can flip away to whatever game is being highlighted. People watching the NFL Network version usually have two full game choices - whatever games are on their local CBS and local Fox stations.

Do not expect YouTube's presentation of NFL Sunday Ticket to be identical to DIRECTV's. As noted in the announcement, the details of what features will be included in Sunday Ticket are still being worked out. I expect there will be a fantasy channel and a betting friendly channel. I expect a unified UI where one will tune to a "Sunday Ticket" channel with options to select the games on the screen. But at this point I believe YouTube doesn't even know 100% what will be delivered.

The "on demand" aspect of Sunday Ticket fits perfect with YouTube. Full game replays, highlights, special features. With YouTube having rights to NFL content shared with their content creators YouTube will probably make a fair amount of money off of the content created for viewers outside of Sunday Ticket. It is an entirely different perspective than delivering a few hours of content live on Sunday afternoon.


----------



## TV_Guy

James Long said:


> The "Andrew Siciliano" RedZone was created as part of NFL ST as presented on DIRECTV to show all the scores from all the games. NFL Network launched their own version of Red Zone (the "Scott Hansen" version) which has been widely available on MVPDs except DIRECTV, which had the NFL ST RedZone. YouTube had a contract to carry NFL Network and the NFL Network Red Zone.
> 
> In the initial announcement direct from the NFL it was stated that YouTube would continue to carry the NFL Network channels (exact quote in next paragraph). I don't know why they would need a second channel ... the NFL Network produced version serves the purpose - every score from every game.
> 
> "In 2020, the NFL expanded its partnership with a carriage agreement to bring NFL Network and NFL RedZone to YouTube TV subscribers. Under the expanded relationship, the carriage agreement has been extended."
> 
> Also from the initial announcement:
> "Updated NFL Sunday Ticket product features and functionality will be announced ahead of the 2023 NFL season."
> 
> (The initial announcement was linked in what became the first post of this thread.)
> 
> I appreciate the Verge article that actually did an interview with a named source to add a little more color commentary.


Looks to be official. I thought YouTube TV might want to have their own version of Red Zone but looks like it's not happening.
*The Andrew **Sicilian**-hosted DirecTV Red Zone Channel is getting axed*








The Andrew Siciliano-hosted DirecTV Red Zone Channel is getting axed


It took about 24 hours for one of our “unanswered questions” from the NFL’s Sunday Ticket deal with Google to be answered. On Friday, Front Office Sports reported that the DirecTV’s Red Zone Channel, hosted by Andrew Siciliano, will be axed after this season. FOS initially reported on Thursday...



awfulannouncing.com


----------



## the2130

TV_Guy said:


> Looks to be official. I thought YouTube TV might want to have their own version of Red Zone but looks like it's not happening.
> *The Andrew **Sicilian**-hosted DirecTV Red Zone Channel is getting axed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Andrew Siciliano-hosted DirecTV Red Zone Channel is getting axed
> 
> 
> It took about 24 hours for one of our “unanswered questions” from the NFL’s Sunday Ticket deal with Google to be answered. On Friday, Front Office Sports reported that the DirecTV’s Red Zone Channel, hosted by Andrew Siciliano, will be axed after this season. FOS initially reported on Thursday...
> 
> 
> 
> awfulannouncing.com


Redzone Channel isn't Andrew Siciliano's only gig. He also hosts NFL Now weekday afternoons on NFL Network and is the play-by-play announcer for the Rams preseason games.


----------



## raott

TV_Guy said:


> Looks to be official. I thought YouTube TV might want to have their own version of Red Zone but looks like it's not happening.
> *The Andrew **Sicilian**-hosted DirecTV Red Zone Channel is getting axed*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Andrew Siciliano-hosted DirecTV Red Zone Channel is getting axed
> 
> 
> It took about 24 hours for one of our “unanswered questions” from the NFL’s Sunday Ticket deal with Google to be answered. On Friday, Front Office Sports reported that the DirecTV’s Red Zone Channel, hosted by Andrew Siciliano, will be axed after this season. FOS initially reported on Thursday...
> 
> 
> 
> awfulannouncing.com


That article is full of baseless conclusions. No **** the Directv Red Zone is done. My gut.....youtube picks it up.


----------



## icewiz

raott said:


> That article is full of baseless conclusions. No **** the Directv Red Zone is done. My gut.....youtube picks it up.


In addition to NFL Redzone? The articles are pretty clear that's staying and Youtube will carry it from my read.


----------



## raott

icewiz said:


> In addition to NFL Redzone? The articles are pretty clear that's staying and Youtube will carry it from my read.


My comment was directed to the OP who said that it looks like that it wasn't happening.


----------



## the2130

slickpete said:


> in several other stories it was mentioned that the price could not go down because of the fox/cbs contracts to protect the local feeds? Its not like people could watch the local games on ST anyway but more because some people might have paid $100 to watch 10 games and perhaps not watched the local at all? It has always been over priced, I cant imagine how many would buy it if it was like $10-20 a month or something.


The reason the price isn't going down is because Google wants to recoup the $2 billion cost of the package, not because of the network contracts. Those stories you mentioned were all derived from a single source - a writer/blogger for a previously obscure subscription website.


----------



## the2130

harsh said:


> Given that the suggested price for commercial rights was perhaps only 10% of what YouTube is paying ($2 billion .vs. $200 million) that's not much of a chunk.


Yes, the commercial rights are little more than an afterthought.


----------



## the2130

slickpete said:


> My kids have youtube tv.. Using it just shows how much better a Sat/box setup is. even the remotes for streaming are an awful experience. But are any of the streaming apps really any good to actually use? I havent found one yet


It seems to depend on the app - some are almost as easy to navigate as a DVR and some are not, especially when it comes to fast-forwarding, rewinding, and skip features. I would be interested to hear from those who have Youtube TV as to how well the DVR functional works. Now that we know Sunday Ticket will only have DVR functionality in YTTV, I might have to consider switching.


----------



## harsh

the2130 said:


> The reason the price isn't going down is because Google wants to recoup the $2 billion cost of the package, not because of the network contracts.


This is a false statement. We learned along the way that the NFL wanted NFLST to be a "premium" package that wasn't a no-brainer alternative to watching the locally broadcast network games.

With as many accounts as YouTube has, they could afford to charge much less but the contract makes it clear that's not an option.


----------



## the2130

harsh said:


> This is a false statement. We learned along the way that the NFL wanted NFLST to be a "premium" package that wasn't a no-brainer alternative to watching the locally broadcast network games.
> 
> With as many accounts as YouTube has, they could afford to charge much less but the contract makes it clear that's not an option.


The NFL' s contracts are not made public. What you "learned along the way" is what you've read in various unsubstantiated online articles/blogs, all of which are based on a single article from an obscure website that offered no proof and didn't even claim to have sources. It may be true that the NFL wanted Sunday Ticket to be considered a "premium" package, but there is not a shred of proof that there is any minimum price for NFLST specified in the NFL's contracts with either the networks or Google.


----------



## b4pjoe

the2130 said:


> The NFL' s contracts are not made public. What you "learned along the way" is what you've read in various unsubstantiated online articles/blogs, all of which are based on a single article from an obscure website that offered no proof and didn't even claim to have sources. It may be true that the NFL wanted Sunday Ticket to be considered a "premium" package, but there is not a shred of proof that there is any minimum price for NFLST specified in the NFL's contracts with either the networks or Google.


Link below is from NBC Sports website. The author is Mike Florio. The person that claims that it is in the CBS and FOX contracts is Alex Sherman of CNBC.com.

Article date from last June: CBS, Fox contracts with NFL will prevent “significant reduction” in price of Sunday Ticket


> Alex Sherman of CNBC.com reports that language in the contracts between the NFL and CBS and Fox preclude a significant reduction in the price point for Sunday Ticket, which currently has a full-season price point in the range of $300. Likewise, an existing streaming service such as ESPN+ can’t simply add Sunday Ticket at no extra charge in order to boost subscribers.


----------



## the2130

b4pjoe said:


> Link below is from NBC Sports website. The author is Mike Florio. The person that claims that it is in the CBS and FOX contracts is Alex Sherman of CNBC.com.
> 
> Article date from last June: CBS, Fox contracts with NFL will prevent “significant reduction” in price of Sunday Ticket


That Florio article is nothing but a report on what another writer is reporting, which is typical of Mike Florio's articles. The article he is quoting on CNBC.com came out shortly after the Ourand article I referenced previously and it is almost certainly based on that, as are all the other blogs/articles that appeared after that Ourand article appeared. In the CNBC article, Sherman cites "people familiar with the matter", then later in the article notes that "spokespeople for Amazon, Apple, Disney, and the NFL declined to comment". That doesn't sound like he has any sources that have first-hand knowledge of the NFL contracts. He is simply "reporting" on what others have reported.


----------



## Willymoe72

Sixto said:


> It's official ...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-google-nfl-sunday-ticket-youtube-tv-youtube-primetime-channels
> 
> 
> 
> "Exclusively distribute NFL Sunday Ticket to consumers in the United States"
> 
> "Add-on package on YouTube TV and standalone a-la-carte on YouTube Primetime Channels"
> 
> "Updated NFL Sunday Ticket product features and functionality will be announced ahead of the 2023 NFL season."
> 
> "The NFL and YouTube will work together to determine additional ways to support distribution of NFL Sunday Ticket in commercial establishments such as bars and restaurants."
> 
> NFL Network/RedZone: "Under the expanded relationship, the carriage agreement has been extended."
> 
> "Additionally, as part of the agreement, YouTube and the NFL will facilitate exclusive access to official content and attendance opportunities for select YouTube Creators at key NFL tentpole events."


I have had DIRECTV for 38 years with NO major problems! Excellent Customer Service! Have had NFL SUNDAY TICKET FOREVER! NEVER NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH ANY BROADCAST ON NFLST!! SURE HOPE “YOU TUBE” has the Technical Personnel to DELIVER PERFECT RESULTS OF ALL BROADCASTS!!!!


----------



## Willymoe72

Rob37 said:


> I won’t be bailing out from DIRECTV anytime soon. I still get MLB Extra Innings and many other programming throughout the year with them. They are still serving me well in the rural area I live in. I bet the number of people leaving won’t be as high as many are suspecting.


AMEN!!!!!!!


----------



## compnurd

Willymoe72 said:


> I have had DIRECTV for 38 years with NO major problems! Excellent Customer Service! Have had NFL SUNDAY TICKET FOREVER! NEVER NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH ANY BROADCAST ON NFLST!! SURE HOPE “YOU TUBE” has the Technical Personnel to DELIVER PERFECT RESULTS OF ALL BROADCASTS!!!!


The fact that you have had DIRECTV 10 years longer then they have existed is a true testament


----------



## b4pjoe

the2130 said:


> That Florio article is nothing but a report on what another writer is reporting, which is typical of Mike Florio's articles. The article he is quoting on CNBC.com came out shortly after the Ourand article I referenced previously and it is almost certainly based on that, as are all the other blogs/articles that appeared after that Ourand article appeared. In the CNBC article, Sherman cites "people familiar with the matter", then later in the article notes that "spokespeople for Amazon, Apple, Disney, and the NFL declined to comment". That doesn't sound like he has any sources that have first-hand knowledge of the NFL contracts. He is simply "reporting" on what others have reported.


So basically it doesn't matter the many sources that have been provided you are sure they all go back to one guy? OK then...


----------



## harsh

the2130 said:


> The NFL' s contracts are not made public. What you "learned along the way" is what you've read in various unsubstantiated online articles/blogs, all of which are based on a single article from an obscure website that offered no proof and didn't even claim to have sources. It may be true that the NFL wanted Sunday Ticket to be considered a "premium" package, but there is not a shred of proof that there is any minimum price for NFLST specified in the NFL's contracts with either the networks or Google.


No proof, but there must be some reason that the NFL left a purported $500,000,000 on the table in accepting the YouTube bid.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Given that the suggested price for commercial rights was perhaps only 10% of what YouTube is paying ($2 billion .vs. $200 million) that's not much of a chunk.


Do you recall who suggested such a price? Was it some speculator on a blog site or poster in a thread somewhere? If you have a reference to who is making the suggestion it would help.



b4pjoe said:


> So basically it doesn't matter the many sources that have been provided you are sure they all go back to one guy? OK then...


As long as the one guy is named and not misquoted. Too many stories will quote a named individual and then drift off in to "people familiar" or even "one of the people" references. I understand people have been speaking on the condition of anonymity since before I was reading but "unnamed sources" seem to be running rampant in the current age of bloggers blogging what they read on someone else's blog.

(The old joke is reporters at the White House speculating about what the president would do and then each going back and writing stories referencing "sources at the White House".)



the2130 said:


> The reason the price isn't going down is because Google wants to recoup the $2 billion cost of the package, not because of the network contracts. Those stories you mentioned were all derived from a single source - a writer/blogger for a previously obscure subscription website.


According to a named source:

The NFL has been discussing the commercial rights to the package with YouTube and other potential commercial partners, Dhruv Prasad, the NFL’s senior vice president of media strategy and strategic investments said on Thursday.

The pricing for Sunday Ticket will ultimately be set by YouTube, which will also determine various potential packages to offer customers, Prasad said Thursday. That leaves the door open for options like individual team subscriptions. “We hope it continues to be a very accessible price and great opportunity for our fans,” Prasad said.

Article - Caution, also includes "people familiar with the matter" and "one of the people" unnamed sources. But Prasad is named for the pricing information above.


----------



## the2130

b4pjoe said:


> So basically it doesn't matter the many sources that have been provided you are sure they all go back to one guy? OK then...


What sources are you referring to? Is it the "people familiar with the matter", or is it just one of those things that "many people are saying"?


----------



## the2130

harsh said:


> No proof, but there must be some reason that the NFL left a purported $500,000,000 on the table in accepting the YouTube bid.


There is no proof of that, either.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> No proof, but there must be some reason that the NFL left a purported $500,000,000 on the table in accepting the YouTube bid.


The initial claim was the NFL wanted $2-3 billion per year for NFL ST. They apparently got $2 billion. They are still in the same ballpark (or stadium, since it is football). Claiming they left half a billion on the table because they got $2 billion instead of $2.5 is crazy.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Do you recall who suggested such a price? Was it some speculator on a blog site or poster in a thread somewhere? If you have a reference to who is making the suggestion it would help.


I think the original idea came from a paywalled WSJ article on the closing of the YouTube deal.

I can't offer an authoritative citation but I think this is where I saw it first:








YouTube officially lands NFL Sunday Ticket for $2B annually


YouTube has landed NFL Sunday Ticket through a seven-year deal valued at $2B annually.




www.sportsbusinessjournal.com






SBJ said:


> A source also said that the NFL will “seek to license the commercial rights for bars and restaurants" for an additional $200M.


I can't imagine what the motivation would be for making up such a number but it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility that the figure was not reality based.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Claiming they left half a billion on the table because they got $2 billion instead of $2.5 is crazy.


$2.5B was the Apple bid amount that was circulating through the blogosphere. If true, that's a $500M difference.

This is little different that using estimates and projections to decide where DIRECTV's fortunes are headed.


----------



## gio12

the2130 said:


> DirecTV Stream has never offered NFLST anyway. Under the new deal, it doesn't matter what pay TV service you subscribe to, because it isn't required to get NFLST. All you need is a Youtube account, which is free. If they are paying around $2 billion per year, they need more than 6 million subscribers to break even or make on the package. That's why the price will be about the same as it is now.


Oh, I think Google can get 6 million plus at a lower price. Fantasy football players would love it.


----------



## the2130

gio12 said:


> Oh, I think Google can get 6 million plus at a lower price. Fantasy football players would love it.


Six million subscribers at a lower price would mean losing money on the package. Unlike DirecTV, which carried NFLST as a loss leader, Google is hoping to make money on it.


----------



## Bender The Lab

the2130 said:


> Six million subscribers at a lower price would mean losing money on the package. Unlike DirecTV, which carried NFLST as a loss leader, Google is hoping to make money on it.


If they sell it at $200, they would need 10 million just to break even.

But in today’s word, is $300 that big of a deal?

With people buying PS5, XBOX, Car Payments averaging $600 and a new phone just about every year, NFLST is a drop in the bucket in today’s world.


----------



## harsh

the2130 said:


> Six million subscribers at a lower price would mean losing money on the package.


Six probably isn't enough for a lower price but it may be a good starting point given the current pricing of the packages. NFLST is currently priced at $293.94/season and NFLST Max weighs in at $393.94/season. If more than a third of the subscribers chose Max, that would cover the NFL contract ($333.33).

Google has some advertising savings given that they own a goodly portion of how and why people see ads.

A lot will depend on any value added stuff that YouTube might offer and how well they're set up to handle the assembly of the content.

Since YouTube has access to hundreds of millions of US customers, they may well be able to attract more than six million NFLST subscribers since they don't also demand an average $1,740 annual pay TV subscription.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> $2.5B was the Apple bid amount that was circulating through the blogosphere. If true, that's a $500M difference.


Apple's alleged bid is irrelevant since Apple refused to accept a deal to pay $2.5 billion dollars. The NFL did not turn down a $2.5 billion deal. They refused to accept the additional terms apple reportedly wanted to add to the deal. (All - including your statement - according to "sources", of course.)

The NFL got the deal they could get and it is within the asking price range originally mentioned. It looks like they can add more income if/when when commercial is added.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Apple's alleged bid is irrelevant since Apple refused to accept a deal to pay $2.5 billion dollars. The NFL did not turn down a $2.5 billion deal. They refused to accept the additional terms apple reportedly wanted to add to the deal.


Where did you get your information from?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Where did you get your information from?


You first. Insinuating that the NFL gave up $500 million is your claim. Prove it with support beyond calculating the difference between two nameless sources.


----------



## the2130

Bender The Lab said:


> If they sell it at $200, they would need 10 million just to break even.
> 
> But in today’s word, is $300 that big of a deal?
> 
> With people buying PS5, XBOX, Car Payments averaging $600 and a new phone just about every year, NFLST is a drop in the bucket in today’s world.


When you consider how much people spend to go to the games, it isn't bad.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I can't offer an authoritative citation but I think this is where I saw it first:


Credited to "a person present during the discussion" ... the deal was presented to the NFL owners as reported by Forbes.

_In disclosing the league’s new seven-year Sunday Ticket deal with Alphabet’s YouTube, the NFL told owners it believes the league will eventually rake in an average of $2.5 billion annually, according to a person present during the discussion. That’s a higher take than what’s been widely reported in the media._​​_While the Sunday Ticket deal is being reported to be $2 billion, the league believes that once the non-residential portion of Sunday Ticket rights are sold—to bars and restaurants, for example—and certain subscriber targets are met, the YouTube deal will average at least $2.5 billion a year, 67% more than DirecTV is currently paying._​​_The annual rights fee YouTube will pay is $2 billion and the NFL believes it will get another $200 million for its DirecTV commercial rights, and another $300 million towards the latter part of the agreement for hitting subscriber targets._​








NFL Tells Owners The Sunday Ticket Deal Will Be Richer Than What’s Been Reported In The Media


The NFL told owners that the new seven-year Sunday Ticket deal with Alphabet’s YouTube will rake in an average of $3 billion annually. That's a higher number than what's been widely reported in the media.




www.forbes.com




(The $3 billion figure in the link preview includes what the league expects to get from RedZone and NFL+.)


----------



## Herdfan

Bender The Lab said:


> If they sell it at $200, they would need 10 million just to break even.


Will they get to sell the commercial slots reserved for the affiliates?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

I wonder if NBC Sports Philly will be carried on D* now that they don't have NFLST.


----------



## Bender The Lab

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I wonder if NBC Sports Philly will be carried on D* now that they don't have NFLST.


Is that the one Comcast owns and will not let Satellite Providers carry because of some loophole?

Yep, just looked it up, no sat, but it is on YTTV and Hulu Live, also soon to be on Peacock.


----------



## the2130

James Long said:


> Credited to "a person present during the discussion" ... the deal was presented to the NFL owners as reported by Forbes.
> 
> _In disclosing the league’s new seven-year Sunday Ticket deal with Alphabet’s YouTube, the NFL told owners it believes the league will eventually rake in an average of $2.5 billion annually, according to a person present during the discussion. That’s a higher take than what’s been widely reported in the media._​​_While the Sunday Ticket deal is being reported to be $2 billion, the league believes that once the non-residential portion of Sunday Ticket rights are sold—to bars and restaurants, for example—and certain subscriber targets are met, the YouTube deal will average at least $2.5 billion a year, 67% more than DirecTV is currently paying._​​_The annual rights fee YouTube will pay is $2 billion and the NFL believes it will get another $200 million for its DirecTV commercial rights, and another $300 million towards the latter part of the agreement for hitting subscriber targets._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NFL Tells Owners The Sunday Ticket Deal Will Be Richer Than What’s Been Reported In The Media
> 
> 
> The NFL told owners that the new seven-year Sunday Ticket deal with Alphabet’s YouTube will rake in an average of $3 billion annually. That's a higher number than what's been widely reported in the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The $3 billion figure in the link preview includes what the league expects to get from RedZone and NFL+.)


Seems pretty clear the deal came in at the low end of expectations, which is probably why it took so long to reach a deal. The NFL could make more if subscriber numbers exceed targets, but it's not the guaranteed $2.5 to $3 billion the NFL was hoping for. And they weren't able to sell a stake in NFL Media as part of the deal, which could have brought in another big chunk of money. At least it's settled now and we know where the package is going. Now we just need to see what Youtube can do to improve it.


----------



## gio12

Bender The Lab said:


> If they sell it at $200, they would need 10 million just to break even.
> 
> But in today’s word, is $300 that big of a deal?
> 
> With people buying PS5, XBOX, Car Payments averaging $600 and a new phone just about every year, NFLST is a drop in the bucket in today’s world.


Not for me and millions that can get for cheap or free using the internet.
Get ride of pirated games with more reasonable costs. Unless you watch it all day, every weekend, its priced high


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bender The Lab

gio12 said:


> Not for me and millions that can get for cheap or free using the internet.
> Get ride of pirated games with more reasonable costs. Unless you watch it all day, every weekend, its priced high
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I just love how some justify stealing content.


----------



## the2130

Sunday Ticket is actually a better fit with YouTube than Apple because of Youtube's live TV service. Subscribers to Youtube TV will be able to watch every Sunday afternoon game, either on a local channel or on NFLST. And if an early game telecast runs over, the NFLST feed can be unblocked until the early telecast ends. They could even improve on the way DirecTV handled it by automatically redirecting viewers to the appropriate feed for the game they want to watch. They could provide a menu of the entire slate of games for the day and just redirect users to whichever feed has the game they choose. That would comply with the broadcast restrictions protecting local stations while providing a more seamless experience for users. I'm not saying it will happen, but it's possible.


----------



## the2130

gio12 said:


> Not for me and millions that can get for cheap or free using the internet.
> Get ride of pirated games with more reasonable costs. Unless you watch it all day, every weekend, its priced high
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I imagine most NFLST subscribers do watch all day on Sundays.


----------



## the2130

I've had DirecTV for almost 20 years, but I'm planning to switch to Youtube TV. The lack of DVR functionality in the ala carte of NFLST offering is a deal-breaker for me. The only downside for me in the YouTube channel lineup is that there is no RSN. That would be a big deal if I followed an in-market MLB team, but my team is out-of-market and only 6 games on next season's schedule will be subject to blackout on MLB.TV. On the plus side, I will save approximately $100 per month by making the switch.


----------



## gio12

Bender The Lab said:


> I just love how some justify stealing content.


I am not. Fact is millions of people find ways to watch without paying proper sources. Wether movies, tv or NFLST. Thats my point. People wont pay $300+ to watch.

What's the avg age of people paying for NFLST? All the younger folks I know don't.

It is like Napster days. Apple came with iTunes and made it affordable and piracy went away.


----------



## Bender The Lab

gio12 said:


> I am not. Fact is millions of people find ways to watch without paying proper sources. Wether movies, tv or NFLST. Thats my point. People wont pay $300+ to watch.


You did justify it, your words-


gio12 said:


> Not for *me *and millions that can get for cheap or free using the internet.


So you are saying it is ok to steal content based on the high price?


----------



## James Long

the2130 said:


> I've had DirecTV for almost 20 years, but I'm planning to switch to Youtube TV. The lack of DVR functionality in the ala carte of NFLST offering is a deal-breaker for me.


I am looking forward to seeing what the actual offering will be. It was noted in one of the interviews that YouTube TV subscribers would be able to DVR the games ... but the full limitations of the YouTube Primetime version is not known. Will full game replays be available via either version? A full game replay via Primetime would be practically the same as a DVRd version (although a replay may not be available until after the end of the game).

So much to find out after YouTube has determined exactly what they are offering and at what price.


----------



## glrush

My wife and I have started the exercise of listing all the channels we must have and all the advantages and disadvantages of swapping to another service after all these years. I just got my bill here this past week and with no discounts it is about $230.00/month. We have 3 DVR's, plus a standalone receiver so the equipment fees alone ain't cheap. 
DirecTV has been a really good service for us for 25+ years, but the reason we have stayed with them has been NFLST. With that now gone. it's time to look around, at least for us. 
I look forward to seeing what the pricing details will be and if they will throw a bone to new subscribers.


----------



## the2130

glrush said:


> My wife and I have started the exercise of listing all the channels we must have and all the advantages and disadvantages of swapping to another service after all these years. I just got my bill here this past week and with no discounts it is about $230.00/month. We have 3 DVR's, plus a standalone receiver so the equipment fees alone ain't cheap.
> DirecTV has been a really good service for us for 25+ years, but the reason we have stayed with them has been NFLST. With that now gone. it's time to look around, at least for us.
> I look forward to seeing what the pricing details will be and if they will throw a bone to new subscribers.


Same here, the equipment fees alone cost almost $40 a month for us with DirecTV. I think we've paid for the hardware several times over. We'll be paying $171 a month for the Choice package with the price increase next month, compared to $65 a month for Youtube TV. I'm planning to make the switch before baseball starts and sign up for MLB.TV either directly or as a YTTV add-on. That way I won't be blocked from streaming the MLB preseason games as I have been most years with DirecTV. From what I've read so far, the MLB.TV telecasts can be DVR'd if you sign up as a YTTV add-on.


----------



## the2130

James Long said:


> I am looking forward to seeing what the actual offering will be. It was noted in one of the interviews that YouTube TV subscribers would be able to DVR the games ... but the full limitations of the YouTube Primetime version is not known. Will full game replays be available via either version? A full game replay via Primetime would be practically the same as a DVRd version (although a replay may not be available until after the end of the game).
> 
> So much to find out after YouTube has determined exactly what they are offering and at what price.


Now that we know where the package is going, I'm actually looking forward to seeing what Youtube does with it. DirecTV hasn't done anything to improve it in years.


----------



## gio12

Bender The Lab said:


> You did justify it, your words-
> 
> 
> So you are saying it is ok to steal content based on the high price?


No what I am saying s that I won't pay $300. Yes, people will still content based or price, availability or just fr the hell of it.
Not that hard to understand.


----------



## Joe M

I have had Sunday Ticket from beginning I am a bettor and fantasy player I watch early and late afternoon games on the mix channel so that I can follow all of the action I do not believe You Tube will be able to supply this option as you will not be able to record any games, good luck with the streaming I understand NFL wanting to branch out but DirectTV should also be a part of it


----------



## Bender The Lab

Joe M said:


> I have had Sunday Ticket from beginning I am a bettor and fantasy player I watch early and late afternoon games on the mix channel so that I can follow all of the action I do not believe You Tube will be able to supply this option as you will not be able to record any games, good luck with the streaming I *understand NFL wanting to branch out but DirectTV should also be a part of it*


Once again, DirecTV choose not to bid on NFLST, if they wanted to keep it, then they should of bidded on it.


----------



## harsh

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I wonder if NBC Sports Philly will be carried on D* now that they don't have NFLST.


Reasonably priced availability of the Comcast RSNs to other MVPDs was a gubmint imposed condition of the NBCU-Comcast merger _nine years ago_ that Comcast never seemed to be in any great hurry to satisfy. Since RSNs don't bring many NFL games, I don't think there's much of a relationship there.

It is possible that DIRECTV is trying to stick it to Comcast but I doubt it.


----------



## the2130

Joe M said:


> I have had Sunday Ticket from beginning I am a bettor and fantasy player I watch early and late afternoon games on the mix channel so that I can follow all of the action I do not believe You Tube will be able to supply this option as you will not be able to record any games, good luck with the streaming I understand NFL wanting to branch out but DirectTV should also be a part of it


Youtube TV subscribers WILL be able to record the games. That has been confirmed by Youtube.


----------



## Rickt1962

So I guess the NFL is shutting out everyone with NO INTERNET in rural areas using DirectV and people who don't have SMART TV's etc etc etc ! Hope it comes around and bites them in the Advertising DOLLARS $$$ !!!


----------



## harsh

the2130 said:


> DVR functionality means you can record the games.


Recording games becomes much less important when you can watch the games "on demand". The bigger attraction of DVRs is that you can do "trick play" like rewinding and maybe slow motion.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Rickt1962 said:


> So I guess the NFL is shutting out everyone with NO INTERNET in rural areas using DirectV and people who don't have SMART TV's etc etc etc ! Hope it comes around and bites them in the Advertising DOLLARS $$$ !!!


All the NFL did was give the rights to someone bidding for them.

DirecTV decided not to bid, they no longer wanted NFLST.

What is the NFL supposed to do, just give away the rights to DirecTV?


----------



## harsh

Rickt1962 said:


> So I guess the NFL is shutting out everyone with NO INTERNET in rural areas using DirectV and people who don't have SMART TV's etc etc etc !


If you want to blame someone, blame DIRECTV for not participating in the bidding. The NFL went with the best deal for the NFL and in doing so, made the product available to many millions more than DIRECTV could ever hope to reach.

For the vast majority of would-be NFLST subscribers, sufficient broadband speed is much cheaper than a DIRECTV subscription.

Not having a streaming device isn't an excuse in today's TV viewing environment.


----------



## Rickt1962

harsh said:


> If you want to blame someone, blame DIRECTV for not participating in the bidding. The NFL went with the best deal for the NFL and in doing so, made the product available to many millions more than DIRECTV could ever hope to reach.
> 
> For the vast majority of would-be NFLST subscribers, sufficient broadband speed is much cheaper than a DIRECTV subscription.
> 
> Not having a streaming device isn't an excuse in today's TV viewing environment.


You really must be a CITY Dweller I have traveled from coast to coast you HAVE no idea !


----------



## b4pjoe

As far as we know not only did DIRECTV not bid on it neither did any other satellite or cable provider. Only streaming services attempted to get it. (Amazon, Apple, Disney, and Google) And yet people are still shocked it went to streaming.


----------



## the2130

harsh said:


> Recording games becomes much less important when you can watch the games "on demand". The bigger attraction of DVRs is that you can do "trick play" like rewinding and maybe slow motion.


Not really. DVR'ing means you can start the game late and catch up, watch multiple games in the same time slot, and switch back and forth without missing any of the action. That has been an issue of concern cited by countless NFLST subscribers in these forums and elsewhere. "On demand" viewing is great for regular TV viewing; not so great for viewing Sunday afternoon football games.


----------



## the2130

Rickt1962 said:


> So I guess the NFL is shutting out everyone with NO INTERNET in rural areas using DirectV and people who don't have SMART TV's etc etc etc ! Hope it comes around and bites them in the Advertising DOLLARS $$$ !!!


Yes, it's a bummer for those who don't have high-speed Internet service. You might consider Starlink as someone suggested in another thread.


----------



## harsh

Rickt1962 said:


> You really must be a CITY Dweller


Most of the time I live five miles from a state capitol building where I have one broadband option sufficient for 4K streaming. At my other place in a coastal town that has a population of less than 10,000, I have several options and most of them are less expensive.


> I have traveled from coast to coast you HAVE no idea !


I've traveled coast-to-coast as well (but not much in the middle). That certainly doesn't change the fact that DIRECTV chose not to bid and that that's where your bile should be directed.

What did you tell all those who didn't have access to DIRECTV for all those years?


----------



## Rickt1962

harsh said:


> Most of the time I live five miles from a state capitol building where I have one broadband option sufficient for 4K streaming. At my other place in a coastal town that has a population of less than 10,000, I have several options and most of them are less expensive.I've traveled coast-to-coast as well (but not much in the middle). That certainly doesn't change the fact that DIRECTV chose not to bid and that that's where your bile should be directed.
> 
> What did you tell all those who didn't have access to DIRECTV for all those years?


This says it all https://whyy.org/articles/penn-state-study-says-most-of-pa-lacks-access-to-high-speed-broadband/


----------



## Bender The Lab

Rickt1962 said:


> You really must be a CITY Dweller I have traveled from coast to coast you HAVE no idea !


I live in a rural area yet have 1G speed.

And for someone complaining about lack of fast broadband, why do you have King Cable Cutter in your signature?


----------



## Bender The Lab

Rickt1962 said:


> This says it all Penn State study says most of Pa. lacks access to high-speed broadband


That story is 4 years old, things have changed since then.

Where I live in Florida, there was no broadband until 2018.


----------



## glrush

Do you honestly think that Jerry Jones thought for a nanosecond when Google offered 2 billion+ dollars per year for 7 years about somebody in rural Iowa (or wherever) who does not have broadband? 
Does Netflix care? Or Amazon? Or anybody with a streaming service? 
I'm sorry for people who don't have broadband. But how is that an NFL problem? In fact, the NFL can rightly claim DirecTV didn't want it, and streaming will be a net INCREASE in availability to consumers.
They got the bag. That's all they care about.


----------



## harsh

the2130 said:


> DVR'ing means you can start the game late and catch up, watch multiple games in the same time slot, and switch back and forth without missing any of the action.


DVR'ing (or TiVoing) means different things to different people. For those not familiar with DIRECTV, that often doesn't mean jumping between games (probably why the NFL Redzone channel exists I suppose). I don't see that there would need to be any special provisions made to make game-hopping possible as keeping your place in a viewing session is often an option (though it may be problematic with TNF).

Starting late is certainly a feature of streaming as well as access to every game throughout the season.

I don't think it is reasonable to assume that most of the deficiencies (other than slow-motion) can't be worked out.


----------



## Rickt1962

Bender The Lab said:


> I live in a rural area yet have 1G speed.
> 
> And for someone complaining about lack of fast broadband, why do you have King Cable Cutter in your signature?


LOL DUH some of us have more than one home. 167 acres in the mountains with 8' Big Dish and Small dish or my house in middle of the LAKE Need I go on ?


----------



## Ms. J

Bender The Lab said:


> If they sell it at $200, they would need 10 million just to break even.
> 
> But in today’s word, is $300 that big of a deal?
> 
> With people buying PS5, XBOX, Car Payments averaging $600 and a new phone just about every year, NFLST is a drop in the bucket in today’s world.


It is a drop in the bucket but you have to see value in it. Directv showed that a lot of people didn't see a value in paying $300 for it. I love the games & fact I bet on them means I want to watch multiple games. That being said I don't want to & won't pay $300 for it. $150-$200 yes. And that could be cause it feels like another expense.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Rickt1962 said:


> LOL DUH some of us have more than one home. 167 acres in the mountains with 8' Big Dish and Small dish or my house in middle of the LAKE Need I go on ?
> View attachment 32764


Well, with all that you can afford Star Link at the location that does not have broadband.

Problem Solved.


----------



## harsh

Bender The Lab said:


> Well, with all that you can afford Star Link at the location that does not have broadband.
> 
> Problem Solved.


Starlink probably isn't the answer that many have been seeking given recent changes to their service. Like everything else new, the honeymoon eventually ends and a new reality settles in.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Ms. J said:


> It is a drop in the bucket but you have to see value in it. Directv showed that a lot of people didn't see a value in paying $300 for it. I love the games & fact I bet on them means I want to watch multiple games. That being said I don't want to & won't pay $300 for it. $150-$200 yes. And that could be cause it feels like another expense.


It is worth it to me, it is the only way I can watch the Lions weekly here in Florida ( also have the streaming MLB package for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings).

Also, another reason $300 might not seem so bad, you no longer have to pay DirecTV high prices

With the upcoming Price Increase, the average monthly bill for DirecTV will be over $140.

Switch to D Stream if you cannot give up the RSN, $100 a month, so save $40 x 12=$480 a year minus $300 for ST, still up $180 for the year.

Save more with YTTV if you can give up the RSN.


----------



## harsh

Rickt1962 said:


> 167 acres in the mountains with 8' Big Dish and Small dish or my house in middle of the LAKE Need I go on ?


Only if that acreage isn't a retreat from regular weekday life. It is surely a vanishingly rare exception to most people's experiences.


----------



## the2130

harsh said:


> DVR'ing (or TiVoing) means different things to different people. For those not familiar with DIRECTV, that often doesn't mean jumping between games (probably why the NFL Redzone channel exists I suppose). I don't see that there would need to be any special provisions made to make game-hopping possible as keeping your place in a viewing session is often an option (though it may be problematic with TNF).
> 
> Starting late is certainly a feature of streaming as well as access to every game throughout the season.
> 
> I don't think it is reasonable to assume that most of the deficiencies (other than slow-motion) can't be worked out.


I am guessing (based on your comments) that you have never been a Sunday Ticket subscriber. Take my word for it, full DVR functionality is a big issue for many NFLST subscribers. Or don't take my word for it to and read the posts from others in these forums. Also note that it was one of the first questions asked of Youtube's chief product officer in the Verge article referenced in this thread.


----------



## Bender The Lab

harsh said:


> Starlink probably isn't the answer that many have been seeking given recent changes to their service. Like everything else new, the honeymoon eventually ends and a new reality settles in.


Have any better option for out of the way places, post it.

Hughes definitely is not it, more expensive for a ton less.


----------



## Ms. J

Joe M said:


> I have had Sunday Ticket from beginning I am a bettor and fantasy player I watch early and late afternoon games on the mix channel so that I can follow all of the action I do not believe You Tube will be able to supply this option as you will not be able to record any games, good luck with the streaming I understand NFL wanting to branch out but DirectTV should also be a part of it


Same here except the fantasy portion. Sometimes I have recorded portions of a game but not usually. That being said I won't pay that much for it cause I do bounce back & forth between channels. I am not sure they can support the things I have done with Directv & the streaming aspect is a concern for me if they can handle that.


----------



## harsh

the2130 said:


> Or don't take my word for it to and read the posts from others in these forums.


I see many posts from deeply concerned DIRECTV subscribers but I don't see much whining from outside that community where access to at least two simultaneous games has always been possible.


----------



## glrush

the2130 said:


> I am guessing (based on your comments) that you have never been a Sunday Ticket subscriber. Take my word for it, full DVR functionality is a big issue for many NFLST subscribers. Or don't take my word for it to and read the posts from others in these forums. Also note that it was one of the first questions asked of Youtube's chief product officer in the Verge article referenced in this thread.


For me at least, the fact that it appears DVR functionality will not be available to the ala carte is the reason I am considering YTTV to be my main service. If I could get DVR functionality as part of the standalone package, I would likely keep DirecTV and just pay extra for Sunday Ticket, And who knows that might well be part of Google's pitch to get people to migrate to their service. 
Still lots of unknows that I hope will be answered quickly.


----------



## Ms. J

the2130 said:


> Not really. DVR'ing means you can start the game late and catch up, watch multiple games in the same time slot, and switch back and forth without missing any of the action. That has been an issue of concern cited by countless NFLST subscribers in these forums and elsewhere. "On demand" viewing is great for regular TV viewing; not so great for viewing Sunday afternoon football games.


This. We don't have the ability to change channels & not miss the action unless already recording the program. I'm confused though. People haven't been able to record a game & watch it later? I recorded the 2nd half of a Bucs game & watched it later. I have done that in the past too but never tried to record a full game.


----------



## the2130

Bender The Lab said:


> It is worth it to me, it is the only way I can watch the Lions weekly here in Florida ( also have the streaming MLB package for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings).
> 
> Also, another reason $300 might not seem so bad, you no longer have to pay DirecTV high prices
> 
> With the upcoming Price Increase, the average monthly bill for DirecTV will be over $140.
> 
> Switch to D Stream if you cannot give up the RSN, $100 a month, so save $40 x 12=$480 a year minus $300 for ST, still up $180 for the year.
> 
> Save more with YTTV if you can give up the RSN.


Same here, I haven't missed a Rams game in 20 years thanks to Sunday Ticket. And the $100 a month I'll save by switching to Youtube TV pays for the NFLST subscription 4 times over.

Regarding the RSNs, it is very likely that we'll see most of them offered directly as streaming services in the near future. The RSN model is collapsing as people continue to dump cable and satellite subscriptions, and it's the only realistic solution to the problem. It's already starting to happen as Sinclair has negotiated the rights for some of the Bally RSNs. MLB is also reported to be working on a solution where they could offer in-market games as part of their MLB.TV package.


----------



## Ms. J

Bender The Lab said:


> It is worth it to me, it is the only way I can watch the Lions weekly here in Florida ( also have the streaming MLB package for the Tigers and ESPN+ for the Red Wings).
> 
> Also, another reason $300 might not seem so bad, you no longer have to pay DirecTV high prices
> 
> With the upcoming Price Increase, the average monthly bill for DirecTV will be over $140.
> 
> Switch to D Stream if you cannot give up the RSN, $100 a month, so save $40 x 12=$480 a year minus $300 for ST, still up $180 for the year.
> 
> Save more with YTTV if you can give up the RSN.


Good points! May be worth it for me as well. Haven't sat down yet to figure out all the costs & channels yet. Plus got a hubby here who is very slow getting on the streaming wagon.


----------



## the2130

Ms. J said:


> Good points! May be worth it for me as well. Haven't sat down yet to figure out all the costs & channels yet. Plus got a hubby here who is very slow getting on the streaming wagon.


Similar situation here - my wife is comfortable with the DVR and has been slow to adopt streaming. When I pitched the idea of switching to Youtube TV, she was concerned about the hassle of getting a new TV service installed. Once I explained that no installation was needed and that it was just a matter of using her other remote, she warmed up to the idea.


----------



## Ms. J

the2130 said:


> Similar situation here - my wife is comfortable with the DVR and has been slow to adopt streaming. When I pitched the idea of switching to Youtube TV, she was concerned about the hassle of getting a new TV service installed. Once I explained that no installation was needed and that it was just a matter of using her other remote, she warmed up to the idea.


Yeah he is slowly streaming movies. We have the other streaming services & 1 of our kids doesn't even watch tv, the other only streaming. I know he likes MLB Network so whatever I switch to has to have that. But earlier this year was looking at YouTube & thinking of adding Discovery+ to make up some stuff. For me though I have to have a DVR.


----------



## the2130

Ms. J said:


> Yeah he is slowly streaming movies. We have the other streaming services & 1 of our kids doesn't even watch tv, the other only streaming. I know he likes MLB Network so whatever I switch to has to have that. But earlier this year was looking at YouTube & thinking of adding Discovery+ to make up some stuff. For me though I have to have a DVR.


Youtube TV does have MLB Network and also NFL Network. They also sell MLB.TV as an add-on. I think the add-on gives you DVR capabilities, although that's not as big a deal as it is with Sunday Ticket, since the MLB apps give you the option to hide scores and start at the beginning if a game is already underway.


----------



## Ms. J

the2130 said:


> Youtube TV does have MLB Network and also NFL Network. They also sell MLB.TV as an add-on. I think the add-on gives you DVR capabilities, although that's not as big a deal as it is with Sunday Ticket, since the MLB apps give you the option to hide scores and start at the beginning if a game is already underway.


Thanks. He will probably like that option a lot.


----------



## bscabl

gio12 said:


> I am not. Fact is millions of people find ways to watch without paying proper sources. Wether movies, tv or NFLST. Thats my point. People wont pay $300+ to watch.
> 
> What's the avg age of people paying for NFLST? All the younger folks I know don't.
> 
> It is like Napster days. Apple came with iTunes and made it affordable and piracy went away.


Do you really think piracy "went away"? 🤣 - sure streaming made things easier and affordable for the consumer, but I assure you.. Piracy hasn't gone anywhere.


----------



## the2130

Ms. J said:


> Thanks. He will probably like that option a lot.


Just keep in mind that there is no RSN with YouTube TV. That's a big deal for anyone who follows an in-market MLB team.


----------



## mjwagner

Rickt1962 said:


> You really must be a CITY Dweller I have traveled from coast to coast you HAVE no idea !


It’s not a city country thing. It is the area you are in and it is definitely unfortunate for those that don’t have access to decent internet. Hopefully things like StarLink and the expansion of cell based wireless internet will help. I live in the middle of the PA woods and thankfully I have good high speed broadband.


----------



## gio12

bscabl said:


> Do you really think piracy "went away"? 🤣 - sure streaming made things easier and affordable for the consumer, but I assure you.. Piracy hasn't gone anywhere.


No but generally for music. It will always be around


----------



## James Long

People have been stealing since the beginning of time. Only what they steal has been expanded over time. In this case, the pirates are stealing income.

Getting back to topic, there are over 10 times more broadband homes in the US than DIRECTV satellite homes. The move to YouTube, especially with no base package requirements, makes NFL ST accessible to more people. 

Yes, it hurts if you are one of the ones losing access instead of one of the ten gaining access. But that is a individual problem.


----------



## the2130

It makes a lot of sense for the NFL, because it allows them to reach younger viewers who don't subscribe to traditional cable and satellite services and never will.


----------



## AZ.

the2130 said:


> It makes a lot of sense for the NFL, because it allows them to reach younger viewers who don't subscribe to traditional cable and satellite services and never will.


Thats what they are hoping for.....I have many young friends, no way they would pay $300. They are usually just happy with a Netflix subscription! Most dont even own TVs, just computer or phone.


----------



## Bender The Lab

AZ. said:


> Thats what they are hoping for.....I have many young friends, no way they would pay $300. They are usually just happy with a Netflix subscription! Most dont even own TVs, just computer or phone.


My son is 32, daughter is 27, Son has a 85” Sony X95J, Daughter has a 85” TCL Roku 7 Series.

What they both do not have, a Live TV Service, not even YTTV in their homes.

They are just happy with Netflix, Paramount and the likes.

I do believe that is the majority of the under 40 part of the population, which is why Live TV Providers have lost over 30 Million, older subscribers are dying off or leaving ( like myself), younger people are not picking them up.

By the way, my Son has already told me he plans on getting NFLST.


----------



## the2130

AZ. said:


> Thats what they are hoping for.....I have many young friends, no way they would pay $300. They are usually just happy with a Netflix subscription! Most dont even own TVs, just computer or phone.


Yeah, I've heard that a lot of younger people today don't actually watch the games - they just watch the highlights instead. But some will sign up, especially since no live TV subscription is required.


----------



## glrush

YouTube needs 2.3M subscribers to break even on NFL Sunday Ticket (GOOG) | Seeking Alpha


----------



## Herdfan

the2130 said:


> Not really. DVR'ing means you can start the game late and catch up, watch multiple games in the same time slot, and switch back and forth without missing any of the action.


And the 30 sec skip is almost perfect to skip to the next play when the game is in a buffer.


----------



## Herdfan

While we know DirecTV didn't bid on it, do we know for sure they didn't want to.

Given there are several links to Godell saying something akin to streaming is the future, is it possible there was a back channel message to DirecTV execs basically saying don't bother bidding, we are going to streaming?


----------



## the2130

Herdfan said:


> And the 30 sec skip is almost perfect to skip to the next play when the game is in a buffer.


Really glad to hear that. The 30-second skip is almost essential for watching DVR'd football games.


----------



## the2130

Herdfan said:


> While we know DirecTV didn't bid on it, do we know for sure they didn't want to.
> 
> Given there are several links to Godell saying something akin to streaming is the future, is it possible there was a back channel message to DirecTV execs basically saying don't bother bidding, we are going to streaming?


Seems unlikely, since DirecTV also has a streaming service. On the other hand, the NFL may have preferred one of the big tech companies.


----------



## drdively

Been a Sunday Ticket subscriber since 1990's when I climbed on roof to install my dish to see my hometown Steelers in Kentucky [Bungle territory].
A couple questions.
1. Has anyone seen, or hows the best way to find out, when it would be best to sign up for YouTube? I do not have a paying subscription just the free access.
2. Has anyone heard anything about the NHL Hockey package with DirecTV.

Dave in Louisville


----------



## Bender The Lab

Herdfan said:


> While we know DirecTV didn't bid on it, do we know for sure they didn't want to.
> 
> Given there are several links to Godell saying something akin to streaming is the future, is it possible there was a back channel message to DirecTV execs basically saying don't bother bidding, we are going to streaming?


DirecTV announced well before Roger Godell said that, like 1.5 years before that.

DirecTV knows that are dying a slow death, specially since the Satellite Side has lost 11-12 Million subs, do not forget they also announced no more new Satellites to be built or launched.

And yes, they could of bid on ST for their Stream service, I am not sure they have much faith in it since it only has about 1 million subs while YTTV has over 5 million and Hulu Live has over 4 Million.


----------



## b4pjoe

the2130 said:


> Really glad to hear that. The 30-second skip is almost essential for watching DVR'd football games.


I think it is a 15 second skip on Youtube TV. Or it was on my Apple TV when I trialed it. But on the Apple TV you can use Siri and tell it to fast forward 30 seconds or any amount of time.


----------



## Glenee

Wait till they see the data increase in their data plan. Better have unlimited data plan if you subscribe to NFLST on Youtube Tv.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> And the 30 sec skip is almost perfect to skip to the next play when the game is in a buffer.


That may be true of the NFL where plays can take quite a while to happen but it isn't in many other sports. Not every sport is 60%+ non-action (although it seems to be edging that way in MLB sometimes).


Herdfan said:


> While we know DirecTV didn't bid on it, do we know for sure they didn't want to.


DIRECTV and AT&T both publicly announced their disinterest in continuing their NFLST relationship beyond the end of the current contract.


----------



## jkseger

I’m pretty sure I’ve read all the posts but probably missed this… how will YTTV handle watching multiple games at the same time on different TVs, like we can do today?


----------



## AZ.

Bender The Lab said:


> My son is 32, daughter is 27, Son has a 85” Sony X95J, Daughter has a 85” TCL Roku 7 Series.
> 
> What they both do not have, a Live TV Service, not even YTTV in their homes.
> 
> They are just happy with Netflix, Paramount and the likes.
> 
> I do believe that is the majority of the under 40 part of the population, which is why Live TV Providers have lost over 30 Million, older subscribers are dying off or leaving ( like myself), younger people are not picking them up.
> 
> By the way, my Son has already told me he plans on getting NFLST.


I find this hilarious, because you have two kids? I know at least 40 people between 20 to 40. Most dont own a tv. Most dont have the money or even a home. Either rent a room or apartment. This is the norm. Wonder why we have a homeless crises? ...Ill say it again. Most young people dont even own a tv. they watch on their computers or phones. Not a one of those young people would ever pop for a $300 NFL package. They live week to week, god help them if a car breaks down! My two kids are doing fine, each own a TV, and stream. Both collage educated and one with a master working on her second.


----------



## icewiz

AZ. said:


> I find this hilarious, because you have two kids? I know at least 40 people between 20 to 40. Most dont own a tv. Most dont have the money or even a home. Either rent a room or apartment. This is the norm. Wonder why we have a homeless crises? ...Ill say it again. Most young people dont even own a tv. they watch on their computers or phones. Not a one of those young people would ever pop for a $300 NFL package. They live week to week, god help them if a car breaks down! My two kids are doing fine, each own a TV, and stream. Both collage educated and one with a master working on her second.


According to this, it's not just the youth that don't have connected TVs, but pretty just a majority (~60%) across the board.

U.S.: connected or smart TV ownership by age 2021 | Statista

While not owning significantly (to me) fewer TVs, youth do watch fewer hours of TV

The State of Traditional TV: Updated With Q3 2020 Data - Marketing Charts

At $300 they are going for the top earning / wealthiest part of the population and hoping to get 10% of them. 

Your age argument smells like "young people are screwed" and while that may or may not be true, it's not really applicable to the question of ST streaming (to me) especially when you add in the likelihood that they will have some sort of college package.

Congrats for the successful family!


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> That may be true of the NFL where plays can take quite a while to happen but it isn't in many other sports. Not every sport is 60%+ non-action (although it seems to be edging that way in MLB sometimes).


The 30 second skip works for the NFL because there is a 25 second clock between plays so by the time the tackle is made and a few seconds go by before they start the 25 second clock the 30 second skip is perfect. Of course if you have a team in a hurry up offense it doesn't work that well. And of course injuries happen too which throws the time off but for the most part the 30 second skip is perfect for most of the game. And it works well for normal commercial breaks. 6 clicks and you are through 3 minutes. 8 clicks and 4 minutes etc...


----------



## Sixto

jkseger said:


> I’m pretty sure I’ve read all the posts but probably missed this… how will YTTV handle watching multiple games at the same time on different TVs, like we can do today?


YTTV is developing "mosaic mode" for multi channel watching at the same time per device, they referenced it should be available by NFL Sunday Ticket, it's not clear if Primetime Channels will have the same. Today's Mix can not be customized, it will be nice to be able to select the channels. For multiple TVs, each can stream, per the device streaming restrictions ... YTTV: 3 or YTTV 4K Plus (unlimited home + 3).


----------



## Herdfan

b4pjoe said:


> The 30 second skip works for the NFL because there is a 25 second clock between plays so by the time the tackle is made and a few seconds go by before they start the 25 second clock the 30 second skip is perfect.


The NFL actually has two play clocks. The 25 second is used when there is a stoppage of play like a timeout (official or team called), change of possession etc. But between plays, it is a 40 second clock starting when the whistle blows the play dead.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Of course if you have a team in a hurry up offense it doesn't work that well.


That is precisely my point. NCAA football rarely runs out the play clock unless the goal is to play keep-away whereas the NFL often seems to use the clock as a scheduled rest break between plays.

NFL isn't the only sport (or content) in which one might want to use skip.


----------



## de_runner

Streaming for many people is not a practical option. There are many areas of our country that just do not have adequate streaming service available. There may be some internet service but not enough bandwidth to stream. Starlink may be an option but a very expensive one.


----------



## harsh

de_runner said:


> Streaming for many people is not a practical option.


Nonetheless, streaming is a practical option for most. In fact, streaming is the preferred option for many as evidenced by the decline of most traditional pay TV offerings.


----------



## b4pjoe

Herdfan said:


> The NFL actually has two play clocks. The 25 second is used when there is a stoppage of play like a timeout (official or team called), change of possession etc. But between plays, it is a 40 second clock starting when the whistle blows the play dead.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## gio12

Glenee said:


> Wait till they see the data increase in their data plan. Better have unlimited data plan if you subscribe to NFLST on Youtube Tv.


Why? Directv Stream uses more data than YTTV. Why now I had to get unlimited data with comcast.
Depending someone's viewing habits, they might not need it. But D* Stream is a data hog, YTTV is not. Same viewing and habits, I used 600-700gb a data a month. D* Steam 1.2-1.4 est on both.


----------



## RACJ2

Glad that NFLST is going to YTTV. It's been my go-to in the NFL offseason, after putting DTV on vacation hold for 6 months.
One thing I'll miss, if they don't have it on YTTV, is the Mix Channels for the game. I know you can do a version of this on NFLST on a PC or laptop. But its not the same as watching it on my second TV. So I hope either YTTV or Roku adds that feature.
Also, I won't like the delay of the feed. Since I text back and forth with my brother about the game. And he will be watching OTA & can see a play & text me before I see the play.


----------



## gio12

Agree. My kids 18 and 15 have not watched "TV" in a while. Its the computer or phone. Both kids have a 4K TV in their rooms. Son's uses his for his Nintendo switch. Daughter, rarely and usually a DVD.
Both do not watch traditional TV anymore and have not for years (4-7). They do with me and usually sports or a special on TV.
I can say I know at least 60 kids and none watch or use a TV for TV or movies. Video games or sports.


----------



## Ms. J

the2130 said:


> Just keep in mind that there is no RSN with YouTube TV. That's a big deal for anyone who follows an in-market MLB team.


May have to do a trial to see 1st. We live in Los Angeles area but he's not an Angel's fan, sometimes a Dodgers. He loves the A's but never gets to see them so he settles for whatever he can watch, which isn't much on Directv.


----------



## Bender The Lab

AZ. said:


> I find this hilarious, because you have two kids? I know at least 40 people between 20 to 40. Most dont own a tv. Most dont have the money or even a home. Either rent a room or apartment. This is the norm. Wonder why we have a homeless crises? ...Ill say it again. Most young people dont even own a tv. they watch on their computers or phones. Not a one of those young people would ever pop for a $300 NFL package. They live week to week, god help them if a car breaks down! My two kids are doing fine, each own a TV, and stream. Both collage educated and one with a master working on her second.


Kind of a broad brush you are using to paint adults 20-40.

You say you know a few as do I, a lot of my kids friends, some have houses, some also have kids, the majority are successful 

Even when I was that age, at 23 bought my first house, at 33 I bought my second house ( now in my third).


----------



## Ms. J

de_runner said:


> Streaming for many people is not a practical option. There are many areas of our country that just do not have adequate streaming service available. There may be some internet service but not enough bandwidth to stream. Starlink may be an option but a very expensive one.


Or reliable service as in my case with Spectrum. I lose service intermittently, but that's my problem. I don't have other options where I live & for a lot these days if you have kids I think Internet is a requirement for everything. My kids & hubby are on it for their phones because mobile data sucks for 3 of the 4 phones in our house for some reason. 1 of my kids games online & never watches tv, the other only streams the rare instances he watches tv. But I have been streaming Netflix last 2 days with no complaints so there is hope for me. Not sure if I go to straight streaming. 

Personally I think YouTube made a miscalculation with getting the service based on what needs to recoup their money. I think they could have forced the NFL to take less or figure it out on their own. I just don't think the interest is there & it's been shown for years.


----------



## Ms. J

gio12 said:


> Agree. My kids 18 and 15 have not watched "TV" in a while. Its the computer or phone. Both kids have a 4K TV in their rooms. Son's uses his for his Nintendo switch. Daughter, rarely and usually a DVD.
> Both do not watch traditional TV anymore and have not for years (4-7). They do with me and usually sports or a special on TV.
> I can say I know at least 60 kids and none watch or use a TV for TV or movies. Video games or sports.


This is my kids. Last year when thinking of switching I realized one doesn't watch tv & the other streams sometimes. He told me that the shows he watched on tv are on Disney+ so I can delete the shows off the dvr. So for the most part it's games or phone for them. I know my sister & brother-in-laws households don't have tv service either and just stream stuff. Lots of people I know aren't even into sports anymore other than going to an actual game.

Think may try this Directv vacation hold while I test out YouTube TV to see how it works out with my internet & the functionality of it.


----------



## BBiles

Between regional blackouts, NBC Sunday Night games, ESPN Monday Night games, Amazon Thursday Night games, overseas games, bye weeks...Not much "Sunday" left to pay for Sunday Ticket.


----------



## the2130

Glenee said:


> Wait till they see the data increase in their data plan. Better have unlimited data plan if you subscribe to NFLST on Youtube Tv.


Real men have unlimited data plans (just kidding, but we have unlimited data with our AT&T Gb fiber service).


----------



## the2130

BBiles said:


> Between regional blackouts, NBC Sunday Night games, ESPN Monday Night games, Amazon Thursday Night games, overseas games, bye weeks...Not much "Sunday" left to pay for Sunday Ticket.


There are still a lot of games on Sunday afternoon. An if you want to see all of your team's games, Sunday Ticket is what allows you to do that.


----------



## Bender The Lab

the2130 said:


> There are still a lot of games on Sunday afternoon. An if you want to see all of your team's games, Sunday Ticket is what allows you to do that.


Yep, moved to Florida from Michigan 2 years ago, this year the Lions have only been on 3 times here, including Thanksgiving, next year will not have to miss a game with ST


----------



## AZ.

Bender The Lab said:


> Kind of a broad brush you are using to paint adults 20-40.
> 
> You say you know a few as do I, a lot of my kids friends, some have houses, some also have kids, the majority are successful
> 
> Even when I was that age, at 23 bought my first house, at 33 I bought my second house ( now in my third).


From a lot of replies it isnt a broad brush or an opinion! Thats what it is now...All the young people I know dont live with mommy and daddy. They are living and working in the real world.


----------



## Bender The Lab

AZ. said:


> From a lot of replies it isnt a broad brush or an opinion! Thats what it is now...*All the young people I know dont live with mommy and daddy.* They are living and working in the real world.


Where did I say that, both of my kids own their own homes, most of their friends/co-workers the same, what none of them have is a Live TV Service from what my kids tell me.


----------



## AZ.

Bender The Lab said:


> Where did I say that, both of my kids own their own homes, most of their friends/co-workers the same, what none of them have is a Live TV Service from what my kids tell me.


If you paid attention to the thread you would see young people dont use their tvs. The ones that have tvs live with mommy and daddy and still dont use them. Its not all roses out there for way to many young people. with collage education or without! And its probably cheaper for them to go to a bar and watch a game when they arnt working. Guess you have never heard how young people are drowning in collage debt? JFC!


----------



## James Long

Herdfan said:


> While we know DirecTV didn't bid on it, do we know for sure they didn't want to.
> 
> Given there are several links to Godell saying something akin to streaming is the future, is it possible there was a back channel message to DirecTV execs basically saying don't bother bidding, we are going to streaming?


 The message to DIRECTV was "Nine years ago you paid $1 billion per year. For the past eight years you paid $1.5 billion per year. We want more."

DIRECTV has streaming ... Streaming has been part of the DIRECTV version of Sunday Ticket. DIRECTV was not able to offer Sunday Ticket to their "stream" subscribers. If the NFL wanted a streamer they had one. The NFL also wanted more money.

We want $2-3 billion was the big message to DIRECTV and all others who wanted to make an offer.


----------



## harsh

Ms. J said:


> Think may try this Directv vacation hold while I test out YouTube TV to see how it works out with my internet & the functionality of it.


You may want to have some overlap so you can compare and contrast the two. Some things are likely to be tradeoffs.


----------



## Herdfan

harsh said:


> You may want to have some overlap so you can compare and contrast the two. Some things are likely to be tradeoffs.


I am actually thinking of doing this at the new house.

There is a DirecTV dish there and I took a receiver out the last time I went but forgot a PS for the LNB . I now have one packed for the next trip, but may give YTTV a try for a couple of months.

I still don't think I will like the interface as well as I do with standard channel numbers, but we will see.


----------



## the2130

Now that we know where NFLST is going, I'm really looking forward to getting rid of the old DirecTV hardware, not to mention all the fees that go with it. Also, no more rain fade. We will have a much simpler setup with just the TVs and Rokus. Our AT&T fiber Internet service is pretty good and it even includes HBO Max.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Herdfan said:


> I am actually thinking of doing this at the new house.
> 
> There is a DirecTV dish there and I took a receiver out the last time I went but forgot a PS for the LNB . I now have one packed for the next trip, but may give YTTV a try for a couple of months.
> 
> *I still don't think I will like the interface as well as I do with standard channel numbers, but we will see.*


It takes some getting use to, but in the guide it shows what channel by name instead of number.

It also lets you customize the guide , for example, you can do it by favorites, if ESPN is your fav channel, you can put it in the top slot, if CBS, make that top and ESPN in the 2nd slot for example.

I wrote this before at the other site, my wife before she passed, had early onset Dementia due to her Parkinson’s like illness, when we switch to YTTV about 4 years ago, she figured it out quite easily, actually preferred it because of the simplicity of the Roku remote.


----------



## the2130

Bender The Lab said:


> It takes some getting use to, but in the guide it shows what channel by name instead of number.
> 
> It also lets you customize the guide , for example, you can do it by favorites, if ESPN is your fav channel, you can put it in the top slot, if CBS, make that top and ESPN in the 2nd slot for example.
> 
> I wrote this before at the other site, my wife before she passed, had early onset Dementia due to her Parkinson’s like illness, when we switch to YTTV about 4 years ago, she figured it out quite easily, actually preferred it because of the simplicity of the Roku remote.


Does YTTV have profiles for different users?


----------



## Bender The Lab

the2130 said:


> Does YTTV have profiles for different users?


I believe so, but it is only me in the House now and my Labs ( I do not believe they care), so I never set it up.


----------



## billsharpe

slickpete said:


> My kids have youtube tv.. Using it just shows how much better a Sat/box setup is. even the remotes for streaming are an awful experience. But are any of the streaming apps really any good to actually use? I havent found one yet


 I have had YouTubeTV for six months now, replacing FiOS TV. I am saving a lot of money and am very happy with the cloud DVR. Yes, it's a little more complicated changing channels than FiOS was, but I quickly got used to the extra clicks required. I haven't had any problems with picture freezing or tearing. We also have Netflix, Prime Video, Acorn, Paramount+ and HBO Max available on our Roku TV set as separate subscriptions. I use the Roku TV remote, which is basic, for all these services. I can also speak to Alexa to turn on my TV and tune to the various subscriptions.


----------



## Herdfan

billsharpe said:


> Yes, it's a little more complicated changing channels than FiOS was, but I quickly got used to the extra clicks required.


Can you expand on this a bit? How do you pull up the guide with the Roku remote.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> How do you pull up the guide with the Roku remote.


The back button is your friend.


----------



## RACJ2

billsharpe said:


> I have had YouTubeTV for six months now, replacing FiOS TV. I am saving a lot of money and am very happy with the cloud DVR. Yes, it's a little more complicated changing channels than FiOS was, but I quickly got used to the extra clicks required. I haven't had any problems with picture freezing or tearing. We also have Netflix, Prime Video, Acorn, Paramount+ and HBO Max available on our Roku TV set as separate subscriptions. I use the Roku TV remote, which is basic, for all these services. I can also speak to Alexa to turn on my TV and tune to the various subscriptions.


I've been switching to YTTV during the NFL offseason and suspending DTV for 6 months for the past few years. I also have Roku, but mainly use another option, my TV's YTTV app.
One thing you might consider to make changing channels on YTTV, if you have plans to purchase a new TV. On my LG OLED TV, the YTTV app allows you to change channels using the channel up and down. Great for channel surfing.
Also, since you can re-sequence the order of programs on YTTV. You can put channels close together that you frequently change back and forth to. Like flipping from one live game to another, by using channel up & down.


----------



## RACJ2

Herdfan said:


> Can you expand on this a bit? How do you pull up the guide with the Roku remote.


You can watch the attached video to see how to maneuver around the YTTV guide on Roku. You can skip the into and watch the Live Guide Basics. You will see that the arrow keys and select button is used a lot.
youtube tv navigating - Google Search


----------



## Herdfan

RACJ2 said:


> You can watch the attached video to see how to maneuver around the YTTV guide on Roku. You can skip the into and watch the Live Guide Basics. You will see that the arrow keys and select button is used a lot.
> youtube tv navigating - Google Search


Sweet. Thanks.


----------



## spidey

The NFL a is proving they don’t care if anyone watches they just want the money that YTTV CBS FOX NBC an and ESPN/ABC are paying them. It will be interesting to see the cost I know it won’t be free as it has been for the last 10 years I have had DTV. I hate the idea I now need to rely on spectrum to watch the games


----------



## Bender The Lab

Bender The Lab said:


> Not as much as you think, this is what I googled-
> 
> _How many sports bars are there in the U.S.?_
> _The Trade Association says that there are approximately 70,000 liquor establishments in the US
> Industry - Nightlife Association
> 
> Of the 70,000, the survey concentrated on the Top 100. Of that Top 100 (which is hopefully representative of the industry) 43% are nightclubs and 57% are bars. Of the bars, 32% are sports bars. So some quick math gives us an “educated” guess: 70,000 * 57% *.32 = 12,800 sports bars. (caveat - this might be a SWAG - a scientific wild ass guess _





Herdfan said:


> According to this source, it is 300,000. Several "sources" have this number, but as noted, it could be one source that has been repeated many times.


Figured out the difference, while there are about 300,000 restaurants, the main difference is a little thing called a Liquor License, that is why my number is a lot less, it was only places that have the License.

So out of the 300,000 there are a lot in there that would not have one, places like Denny’s, Waffle House, etc.

Only places that have one would be interested in having ST.


----------



## raott

Joe M said:


> I have had Sunday Ticket from beginning I am a bettor and fantasy player I watch early and late afternoon games on the mix channel so that I can follow all of the action I do not believe You Tube will be able to supply this option as you will not be able to record any games, good luck with the streaming I understand NFL wanting to branch out but DirectTV should also be a part of it


Why would youtube not be able to provide a mix channel?


----------



## Ms. J

harsh said:


> You may want to have some overlap so you can compare and contrast the two. Some things are likely to be tradeoffs.


Good point. Especially for hubby who has some cognitive delays after Covid. Might be easier for him to navigate slowly if there is a back up.


----------



## Ms. J

RACJ2 said:


> I've been switching to YTTV during the NFL offseason and suspending DTV for 6 months for the past few years. I also have Roku, but mainly use another option, my TV's YTTV app.
> One thing you might consider to make changing channels on YTTV, if you have plans to purchase a new TV. On my LG OLED TV, the YTTV app allows you to change channels using the channel up and down. Great for channel surfing.
> Also, since you can re-sequence the order of programs on YTTV. You can put channels close together that you frequently change back and forth to. Like flipping from one live game to another, by using channel up & down.


Good to know since I have 2 LG OLEDs.


----------



## spacegolfer

James Long said:


> The message to DIRECTV was "Nine years ago you paid $1 billion per year. For the past eight years you paid $1.5 billion per year. We want more."
> 
> DIRECTV has streaming ... Streaming has been part of the DIRECTV version of Sunday Ticket. DIRECTV was not able to offer Sunday Ticket to their "stream" subscribers. If the NFL wanted a streamer they had one. The NFL also wanted more money.
> 
> We want $2-3 billion was the big message to DIRECTV and all others who wanted to make an offer.


DIRECTV actually gave up a lot of revenue by not allowing people to subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket streaming. They refused to let you do it without getting their other programming on terms. I've sold DIRECTV since day one. I've always had Sunday Ticket until the costs of programming got too high in comparison to other providers. I refused to play their game anymore. Streaming NFL Sunday Ticket was very much available to them.


----------



## Herdfan

Bender The Lab said:


> Figured out the difference, while there are about 300,000 restaurants, the main difference is a little thing called a Liquor License, that is why my number is a lot less, it was only places that have the License.
> 
> So out of the 300,000 there are a lot in there that would not have one, places like Denny’s, Waffle House, etc.
> 
> Only places that have one would be interested in having ST.


Well, according this site, there are 660,000 restaurants in the USA:






45+ Must-Know US Restaurant Industry Statistics [2022]: How Many Restaurants Are In The US – Zippia







www.zippia.com


----------



## Herdfan

Since we are moving to AZ in a couple of months and will be making a trip out at the end of the month, I was planning on taking a receiver with me (actually already took it, but forgot a PS for LNB). But since YT is getting ST, I thought may be this would be a good bridge to be able to watch TV out there until I get everything moved.

So I got a code from a friend and signed up. The first thing I started watching was the UT/Clemson game. I though the picture looked brighter so I jumped back to DirecTV and then back to YTTV.

I didn't realize how bad DirecTV HD had gotten.


----------



## the2130

spidey said:


> The NFL a is proving they don’t care if anyone watches they just want the money that YTTV CBS FOX NBC an and ESPN/ABC are paying them. It will be interesting to see the cost I know it won’t be free as it has been for the last 10 years I have had DTV. I hate the idea I now need to rely on spectrum to watch the games


Yes, it's a bummer for those who have been getting Sunday Ticket for free. They will have to either pay up like the rest of us or give up the package. As to the NFL not caring if anyone watches, the deal with YouTube allows the NFL to collect more than the base amount depending on how many people subscribe to the package. They definitely have reason to care if anyone is watching.


----------



## Drivingrain

James Long said:


> Credited to "a person present during the discussion" ... the deal was presented to the NFL owners as reported by Forbes.
> 
> _In disclosing the league’s new seven-year Sunday Ticket deal with Alphabet’s YouTube, the NFL told owners it believes the league will eventually rake in an average of $2.5 billion annually, according to a person present during the discussion. That’s a higher take than what’s been widely reported in the media._​​_While the Sunday Ticket deal is being reported to be $2 billion, the league believes that once the non-residential portion of Sunday Ticket rights are sold—to bars and restaurants, for example—and certain subscriber targets are met, the YouTube deal will average at least $2.5 billion a year, 67% more than DirecTV is currently paying._​​_The annual rights fee YouTube will pay is $2 billion and the NFL believes it will get another $200 million for its DirecTV commercial rights, and another $300 million towards the latter part of the agreement for hitting subscriber targets._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NFL Tells Owners The Sunday Ticket Deal Will Be Richer Than What’s Been Reported In The Media
> 
> 
> The NFL told owners that the new seven-year Sunday Ticket deal with Alphabet’s YouTube will rake in an average of $3 billion annually. That's a higher number than what's been widely reported in the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (The $3 billion figure in the link preview includes what the league expects to get from RedZone and NFL+.)


*What has the pricing for NFLST been for bars in recent years?*


----------



## B. Shoe

Drivingrain said:


> *What has the pricing for NFLST been for bars in recent years?*


Per the DIRECTV website, this is their pricing structure: NFL SUNDAY TICKET FOR BUSINESS – NFL Season 2022 – DIRECTV FOR BUSINESS.. This is a mid-season pricing, so this link from TV Answer Man might be more helpful: NFL Sunday Ticket: How Much Do Bars & Restaurants Pay? - The TV Answer Man!. It's from 2021, so probably somewhere in the ballpark of current pricing.


----------



## Drivingrain

B. Shoe said:


> Per the DIRECTV website, this is their pricing structure: NFL SUNDAY TICKET FOR BUSINESS – NFL Season 2022 – DIRECTV FOR BUSINESS.. This is a mid-season pricing, so this link from TV Answer Man might be more helpful: NFL Sunday Ticket: How Much Do Bars & Restaurants Pay? - The TV Answer Man!. It's from 2021, so probably somewhere in the ballpark of current pricing.


Thanks, sorry to make you do the leg work. $6k is pretty steep. I have a liquor license and all that, so I was plotting on how to just keep my setup at home. I've always said I will take blank-check-approach to ensure I can keep my current 10-screen setup-- but I could probably find a better use for $6k/year.


----------



## James Long

You could attend a couple of games for $6k per year.


----------



## B. Shoe

Drivingrain said:


> Thanks, sorry to make you do the leg work. $6k is pretty steep. I have a liquor license and all that, so I was plotting on how to just keep my setup at home. I've always said I will take blank-check-approach to ensure I can keep my current 10-screen setup-- but I could probably find a better use for $6k/year.


In your particular case, I hope there is a solution that doesn't require reworking the entire wheel. I'm 9 screens short of that type of viewing arrangement, but I'm sure it's a lot of wiring and infrastructure to make it work.


----------

