# Sinclair Announces Initial Pricing for ‘Bally Sports+’ DTC Streaming App



## glrush

Sinclair Announces Initial Pricing for 'Bally Sports+' DTC Streaming App – The Streamable


----------



## NashGuy

So, at $20/mo or $190/yr, the pricing is coming in a bit lower than the $23/mo price point that had been originally rumored. If this is successful and Sinclair is able to get lots more NBA, NHL and (especially) MLB teams on board in the coming months, it's bad news for DirecTV Stream, whose main competitive appeal lies in the fact that they're the only streaming cable TV service to offer those Bally Sports RSNs via their $90/mo Choice package. But if you can optionally add that RSN content via a standalone $20/mo app, on top of the $65/mo you pay for YouTube TV or $70/mo you pay for the Disney bundle with Hulu + Live TV, then DTV Stream Choice isn't the only way to go for RSN-lovers. 

At $90/mo, it would still competitively priced but you have to imagine that some chunk of customers on DTV Stream Choice would decide to leave for one of the other options and just pick up the Bally app for those months out of the year it carries a local team they want to watch. Or if they want it year-round, then they can actually save money by paying $190/yr for it, which averages out to $15.83/mo. That's aside from those folks who really don't even care much about cable TV _except_ for their local RSN. They might save a ton by switching from DTV Stream Choice to just an OTA antenna plus the Bally app.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> So, at $20/mo or $190/yr, the pricing is coming in a bit lower than the $23/mo price point that had been originally rumored.


I suspect that the scope of the teams contracted with is considerably less than it was two years ago.


----------



## James Long

Better to float $23 and come in at $16 (annual) than float $16 and come in higher.

For the markets where they are available they should do fine until the first price increase.
Especially if the $16 / $20 includes all RSNs (sans out of market games) or all RSNs in one's area.
It is Bally Sports + ... the plus should mean more than just one's local RSN. If Sinclair wants the service to survive.


----------



## AngryManMLS

Sorry but this is going to fail and it's going to fail hard. People are already exhausted from multiple streaming services that are cheaper and offer far more content. And now Sinclair thinks they can offer this that likely will only give people access to their local RSN for $16-20 a month sorry but most people won't pay that just for a few sports games a month.


----------



## harsh

AngryManMLS said:


> And now Sinclair thinks they can offer this that likely will only give people access to their local RSN for $16-20 a month sorry but most people won't pay that just for a few sports games a month.


This may well be what it costs when you give the viewers the opportunity to opt out.


----------



## b4pjoe

I think it will appeal to people that only want to watch sports and people that are using a service that doesn't have RSN's like YTTV, Hulu Live TV etc...except those people are probably subscribed to those service to save money but that RSN will raise their price by $20 per month. And if MLB doesn't get on board it is probably DOA.


----------



## SamC

This is a huge mistake by MLB. And to a lesser extent the NHL and NBA. $16/month to watch your local team. Or $24/month to watch every other team. Pick one. 

This is the same mistake MLB made with the Braves and Cubs, back starting in the late 70s. It should NEVER be easier or cheaper to watch other people’s teams than your own.

They need to include local teams in mlb.tv and raise the price.


----------



## Mike Lang

Something tells me this will be on shaky ground until it dies or gets swallowed up into another service.


----------



## harsh

Mike Lang said:


> Something tells me this will be on shaky ground until it dies or gets swallowed up into another service.


This can be said of most of Sinclair's recent initiatives.


----------



## evotz

I think there's definitely a market for this. $65 for YouTube TV + $20 for local sports teams = $85/mo, which is still a lot cheaper than what I was paying DirecTV years ago (and I only got 1 of the 2 regional sports teams).

But with the OTT service only having streaming rights to 5 MLB teams, that's going to appeal a lot less to people that aren't within those teams regional market.

The biggest takeaway from all of this, and one that I've been saying for years, Sinclair and all sports entertainment companies are going to realize just how unpopular sports really are and how them dumping millions into broadcast rights was a huge mistake. When you pay $334M a year for broadcast rights (Charter/Dodgers deal) only to find out people aren't going to pay that amount to watch their local team... you bid too high.

Something tells me that the $190/year price won't be sustainable when Sinclair starts losing DirecTV and other television provider customers. In order to continue to pay the teams the absurd amount they paid for broadcast rights that $190/year will have to go up to $300 or $400 per year.


----------



## compnurd

evotz said:


> I think there's definitely a market for this. $65 for YouTube TV + $20 for local sports teams = $85/mo, which is still a lot cheaper than what I was paying DirecTV years ago (and I only got 1 of the 2 regional sports teams).
> 
> But with the OTT service only having streaming rights to 5 MLB teams, that's going to appeal a lot less to people that aren't within those teams regional market.
> 
> The biggest takeaway from all of this, and one that I've been saying for years, Sinclair and all sports entertainment companies are going to realize just how unpopular sports really are and how them dumping millions into broadcast rights was a huge mistake. When you pay $334M a year for broadcast rights (Charter/Dodgers deal) only to find out people aren't going to pay that amount to watch their local team... you bid too high.
> 
> Something tells me that the $190/year price won't be sustainable when Sinclair starts losing DirecTV and other television provider customers. In order to continue to pay the teams the absurd amount they paid for broadcast rights that $190/year will have to go up to $300 or $400 per year.


Or switch to Directv stream and pay 90 and get your channels and RSN


----------



## MCHuf

SamC said:


> This is the same mistake MLB made with the Braves and Cubs, back starting in the late 70s. It should NEVER be easier or cheaper to watch other people’s teams than your own.


I don't think MLB had much to say about this back then since the teams owners were also the station owners.


----------



## wmb

evotz said:


> Sinclair and all sports entertainment companies are going to realize just how unpopular sports really are and how them dumping millions into broadcast rights was a huge mistake.


In a number of markets, over 2% of the local population (70,000/3,000,000) make it to the NFL stadium on any given Sunday to root in person for the home team. Have you priced going to an NFL game lately? Other sports draw over 1% of the population on a regular basis. Over 10 times as many people watch the games on TV.

Put on a team’s shirt and random people will talk with you about how the team is doing. I know lots of people that follow how the local team is doing, even though they may not watch a game very often. But, it’s always been like that… pick up a newspaper, go to the sports page and check out yesterday’s box score.

The rights have value or companies wouldn’t buy them.



evotz said:


> Something tells me that the $190/year price won't be sustainable when Sinclair starts losing DirecTV and other television provider customers. In order to continue to pay the teams the absurd amount they paid for broadcast rights that $190/year will have to go up to $300 or $400 per year.


I don’t see this as a highly subscribed service. I don’t think people that would buy it have left cable in large numbers. I definitely wouldn’t see it’s failure as a lack of interest in sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG

Of course, the problem with Sinclair/Bally is the rsn's that are not part of the combine, particularly those part of the DirecTV slate (Seattle, Denver, Pittsburg, Houston, did I miss any?) and independents like Marque (?) that does the Cubs. I guess they all are out in the cold. Mlb really missed their chance to go after that 'in market' the last few years, trying to let folks like Sinclair pick up the pieces but even if they get it up and running, a fair chunk of the leagues and fans will be left out in the cold.


----------



## NashGuy

1948GG said:


> Of course, the problem with Sinclair/Bally is the rsn's that are not part of the combine, particularly those part of the DirecTV slate (Seattle, Denver, Pittsburg, Houston, did I miss any?) and independents like Marque (?) that does the Cubs. I guess they all are out in the cold. Mlb really missed their chance to go after that 'in market' the last few years, trying to let folks like Sinclair pick up the pieces but even if they get it up and running, a fair chunk of the leagues and fans will be left out in the cold.


Well, the reason why Sinclair has only gotten 5 MLB teams on board so far is because the MLB is so torn as to how to proceed with direct-to-consumer in-market streaming. The league itself is interested in doing it (why use an outside middle-man like Sinclair?) and already has everything _except_ the individual team streaming rights in place; their existing out-of-market MLB.tv streaming service works well, so they already have the technology and billing all in place. But at the same time, some individual teams (likely the biggest ones like the Yankees) are considering launching their own separate app for in-market streaming as opposed to selling streaming rights to the league to participate in a joint in-market version of MLB.tv. And then you have the Cubs who already have partnered with Sinclair for their own RSN, Marquee Sports Network, which shows nothing but games featuring the Cubs and their farm teams. It's expected that Sinclair will launch a separate Marquee DTC streaming app.


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> I don’t see this as a highly subscribed service. I don’t think people that would buy it have left cable in large numbers. I definitely wouldn’t see it’s failure as a lack of interest in sports.


Yeah, I don't think it'll get a ton of subs but it should get enough to be a meaningful incremental revenue source. As you say, most folks interested in their local RSN are probably interested enough in the other sports (and some non-sports) content available in the cable channel package to remain subscribed there.

Perhaps a useful comparison would be HBO. It had only ever been available as an add-on to the cable bundle until spring 2015, when it also became available as a DTC app, HBO Now, priced about the same ($15/mo). By the end of 2019, it looks like HBO had a total of about 33 million US subs, 5 million of which were via HBO Now. So the DTC streaming version of the service accounted for about 15% of total domestic subs. We might expect something similar to happen with RSNs within the first few years of their DTC launch.

The thing that differed about HBO, though, was that it was always an optional a la carte addition to the basic cable channel bundle. (Yes, some MVPDs also bundled it into upper-tier packages or included it for "free" as a limited-time bundle perk.) So that made it easier for HBO to begin distribution as a standalone DTC service. What I expect will happen after Sinclair launches their Bally DTCs is that the next time they have to negotiate and renew an MVPD carriage deal for their Bally RSN linear channels, the MVPD will insist on selling them as a la carte options that customers can add to any base channel package, so that at least the MVPD's most popular broad channel package does not automatically include those channels, thereby reducing its cost. (No more mandatory RSN fee on your Comcast or Charter cable TV bill!)


----------



## TheRatPatrol

1948GG said:


> Of course, the problem with Sinclair/Bally is the rsn's that are not part of the combine, particularly those part of the DirecTV slate (Seattle, Denver, Pittsburg, Houston, did I miss any?) and independents like Marque (?) that does the Cubs. I guess they all are out in the cold. Mlb really missed their chance to go after that 'in market' the last few years, trying to let folks like Sinclair pick up the pieces but even if they get it up and running, a fair chunk of the leagues and fans will be left out in the cold.


AT&T Sports Nets
MSG Sports Nets
NBC Sports Nets
Spectrum Sports Nets


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> What I expect will happen after Sinclair launches their Bally DTCs is that the next time they have to negotiate and renew an MVPD carriage deal for their Bally RSN linear channels, the MVPD will insist on selling them as a la carte options that customers can add to any base channel package, so that at least the MVPD's most popular broad channel package does not automatically include those channels, thereby reducing its cost. (No more mandatory RSN fee on your Comcast or Charter cable TV bill!)


As a follow-up to the above, Sinclair recently divulged that their current RSN carriage contracts with DirecTV (including Stream and Uverse TV) and Comcast both end in the latter half of 2023, i.e. perhaps around the time when the fall NBA and NHL seasons commence and the MLB season is winding down or has finished. Should have a decent idea of how well supported the Bally DTC product will be among teams of all three sports by then.









When Does the DIRECTV-Bally Sports Deal Expire? - The TV Answer Man!


TV Answer Man, I am thinking of getting DIRECTV for Bally Sports so I can watch the Padres, but I’m afraid that their contract with Bally will expire during the two-year contract you have to sign up for. Then I would be stuck with DIRECTV and would have no Padres games. Do you know how […]




tvanswerman.com


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> And then you have the Cubs who already have partnered with Sinclair for their own RSN, Marquee Sports Network, which shows nothing but games featuring the Cubs and their farm teams. It's expected that Sinclair will launch a separate Marquee DTC streaming app.


Marquee rarely shows any minor league games. They do have Cubs content that are feature stories and Cubs history and interviews with celebrity Cubs fans. But they also have a lot of non Cubs stuff like poker, WNBA, Interactive betting programs, golf, Mixed Martial Arts, etc...

When it launched they did say they were interested in making a direct to consumer streaming package but I haven't heard anything about it since the launch.


----------



## wmb

A couple of thoughts on this…

1. A couple of MLS teams (FC Cincinnati and DC United I know of) ca. 2019/20 used Flo Sports as their in-market streamer. They had a monthly price $20. Everyone was mad. FC Cincinnati in particular has an OTA broadcaster, so it was people in the 25-75 mile range whose only option was Flo. Did I mention nobody liked it, particularly the price. Both FC Cincinnati and DC United ended up canceling the deal because of fan outrage. Currently, FC Cincinnati streams the games through the team web site. I’m not sure what DC United does.

2. When does the local rights agreement between Ballys and the teams end? Someone mentioned the carriage agreements with cable cos. ending in 2023. Those rights are essential to Bally’s business model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SamC

wmb said:


> When does the local rights agreement between Ballys and the teams end?


Not for a long time. Be it Bally’s (Sinclair) or the others. Most run into the mid-30, some well into the 40. 

That is the issue. Until a few years ago, MLBEI was a supplement. The customer already bought a basic package, and thus paid for the local RSN. Now the cheap price of MLB.TV, without the local teams, threaten to damage the sport the same way the Braves and Cubs did two decades ago. Something must be worked out where it is not possible to access other people’s teams without first paying for your own.


----------



## wmb

SamC said:


> That is the issue. Until a few years ago, MLBEI was a supplement. The customer already bought a basic package, and thus paid for the local RSN. Now the cheap price of MLB.TV, without the local teams…


FC Cincinnati’s and DC United’s experience with Flo Sports leads me to believe that this will not go well for the teams or Sinclair. The whole episode brought outrage from the fan bases over pricing. I have a tough time seeing baseball fans acting differently.

The teams need to get real familiar with the termination clauses in these local agreements. I expect a few may be exercised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dstout

During baseball season, I mostly only watch baseball.I don't care about the NBA or NHL. I could really cut my bill down if I could get Braves' games for $20 per month.


----------



## harsh

dstout said:


> During baseball season, I mostly only watch baseball.I don't care about the NBA or NHL. I could really cut my bill down if I could get Braves' games for $20 per month.


What do you do with the other 12 waking hours of your day?


----------



## AngryManMLS

At least on the MLS side of things the league basically told teams not to sign their local TV rights past this current season. That has lead many to believe that the new forthcoming MLS TV deal will be some kind of all in package that includes the local regional broadcasts and likely each game will only have one broadcast on those instead of each team doing their own. But until the new TV deal is announce it's hard to say if this will happen or not.


----------



## dstout

harsh said:


> What do you do with the other 12 waking hours of your day?


I work, lots. I don't watch TV, for the most part. The TV is on, but it is primarily background noise.


----------



## Steveknj

The one issue I have with these streaming networks for sports is this. It's going to retard growth of these sports. When you have your RSN as part of a cable/sat/OTT (like DTV Stream) package, the casual fan, who might be flipping around channels, might stay to watch a game. Maybe they do this for more than one game. Maybe you might watch 20-30 games out of 140 or so televised baseball games. But to buy a network like Bally, or even a dedicated channel like Marquee (to the Cubs), more than likely to shell out the money, you are most likely more than a casual fan. So rather than have millions of potential viewers in a large metro area, you now are down to the core 200k or so. That's not a great way to promote your sport. And since I firmly believe that RSNs as we know them the ones that come with your cable / sat package will go the way of the dodo bird without 10 years, it's going to hurt interest in those sports they show. If I'm a causal fan, would I spend $20 a month to watch the games? Probably not. I'll just forget the sport and move on to something else.


----------



## evotz

Steveknj said:


> The one issue I have with these streaming networks for sports is this. It's going to retard growth of these sports. When you have your RSN as part of a cable/sat/OTT (like DTV Stream) package, the casual fan, who might be flipping around channels, might stay to watch a game. Maybe they do this for more than one game. Maybe you might watch 20-30 games out of 140 or so televised baseball games. But to buy a network like Bally, or even a dedicated channel like Marquee (to the Cubs), more than likely to shell out the money, you are most likely more than a casual fan. So rather than have millions of potential viewers in a large metro area, you now are down to the core 200k or so. That's not a great way to promote your sport. And since I firmly believe that RSNs as we know them the ones that come with your cable / sat package will go the way of the dodo bird without 10 years, it's going to hurt interest in those sports they show. If I'm a causal fan, would I spend $20 a month to watch the games? Probably not. I'll just forget the sport and move on to something else.


This is the problem that ESPN and RSNs and the likes all face.

Instead of looking at actual viewership, they looked at subscriber numbers. They saw that they had millions and millions of subscribers so they bought out broadcast rights to various teams and leagues for millions and millions of dollars.

Now they're finding out that people subscribed to these services - basically because they had to, but they didn't actually watch them. As consumer prices sky rocketed and skinny bundles became more and more popular, those subscriber numbers dwindled... fast.

Now these sports broadcast companies are bleeding money because they paid money for broadcast rights and they no longer have the capital to back them up.

The ESPN and RSN model has basically always been dependent on the "casual fan" paying for the service so the total cost can be distributed out among several customers at a lower price per customer fee. And now those "casual fans" are deciding that they don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Steveknj

evotz said:


> This is the problem that ESPN and RSNs and the likes all face.
> 
> Instead of looking at actual viewership, they looked at subscriber numbers. They saw that they had millions and millions of subscribers so they bought out broadcast rights to various teams and leagues for millions and millions of dollars.
> 
> Now they're finding out that people subscribed to these services - basically because they had to, but they didn't actually watch them. As consumer prices sky rocketed and skinny bundles became more and more popular, those subscriber numbers dwindled... fast.
> 
> Now these sports broadcast companies are bleeding money because they paid money for broadcast rights and they no longer have the capital to back them up.
> 
> The ESPN and RSN model has basically always been dependent on the "casual fan" paying for the service so the total cost can be distributed out among several customers at a lower price per customer fee. And now those "casual fans" are deciding that they don't want to pay for it.


I think it's a little different with RSNs and ESPN (and other sports channels) than with dedicated streaming RSNs. SO with channels, people like the idea of watching sports, even if they don't watch all the time. I don't watch ESPN that often, but as a sports fan, I'd pay to have it so I can watch when I want to or need to, like any other channel I might not watch all the time. RSNs, which show the local team I root for, I would definitely pay for. But, here's the thing. I live in NY Metro area. We have THREE major RSNs. We have YES Network which broadcasts the Yankees and the Nets. We have SNY which broadcasts the Mets and MSG (and it's subnetworks) that broadcasts all the NHL teams in the area and the Knicks). And while I watch the Yankees and NY Rangers avidly, I do watch the other teams on occasion and like having the option to watch them. But, if I had to pay for them separately (i.e. as a streaming service), I'd DEFINITELY not want to pay for SNY. And if I'm just a casual fan of any of them, I'd definitely want them as a channel that I might watch on occasion and I am glad that I don't have to pay for each separately, but if I had to, same thing, I wouldn't pay for what I only occasionally watch (and it would be MUCH more expensive. I'd pay to have ESPN, I'd pay to have YES Network, I'd probably pay for MLB, NHL and NFL Networks. But I would not pay for some of the smaller network and definitely not for SNY. But it's casual fans that sometimes turn into avid fans or at very least, might go to a game or two during the season. But of those games are no longer available, what would even give someone the notion to go to a game? So by killing off easy access to game and making you have to pay extra to watch, you are killing off the casual fan. You'll have die hards who will pay to watch and you'll have the uninterested who will never watch and it will take the sport out of their consciousness. That's NOT good for the sport at all.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> The one issue I have with these streaming networks for sports is this. It's going to retard growth of these sports. When you have your RSN as part of a cable/sat/OTT (like DTV Stream) package, the casual fan, who might be flipping around channels, might stay to watch a game. Maybe they do this for more than one game. Maybe you might watch 20-30 games out of 140 or so televised baseball games. But to buy a network like Bally, or even a dedicated channel like Marquee (to the Cubs), more than likely to shell out the money, you are most likely more than a casual fan. So rather than have millions of potential viewers in a large metro area, you now are down to the core 200k or so. That's not a great way to promote your sport. And since I firmly believe that RSNs as we know them the ones that come with your cable / sat package will go the way of the dodo bird without 10 years, it's going to hurt interest in those sports they show. If I'm a causal fan, would I spend $20 a month to watch the games? Probably not. I'll just forget the sport and move on to something else.


Yeah, the RSNs clearly _aren't_ for casual fans. And that's a big reason why casual sports fans (and total non-sports fans) have been leaving cable TV in droves for a decade now. They don't want to pay for those RSNs. (And in the case of non-sports fans, they don't want to pay for the ESPN channels either.)

Casual sports viewers like me are fine with just being able to watch the playoff/championship games, plus a smattering of nationally-featured regular season games, on major general-interest broadcast and cable channels (e.g. CBS, ESPN, TBS) and/or major SVODs (e.g. Apple TV+, Paramount+, Peacock). Of course, the NFL is the exception to that; given how few regular season games they play, combined with the popularity of the sport, all of their games air/stream on those same major general-interest outlets too. Even casual NFL fans will tune into some of those regular season games (at least if their local team is half-decent that season).

But for the other 95% of your local MLB, NBA and NHL teams' regular season games (i.e. the ones that aren't featured on a national broadcast from Fox, Apple TV+, etc.), you need your RSN. And if you're watching lots of those games, well, you're not a casual fan, you're a serious fan. So you're gonna have to pay up for that. Everyone needs a hobby, I guess, and hobbies cost money.


----------



## NashGuy

evotz said:


> The ESPN and RSN model has basically always been dependent on the "casual fan" paying for the service so the total cost can be distributed out among several customers at a lower price per customer fee. And now those "casual fans" are deciding that they don't want to pay for it.


Yep. And the more I've thought about it lately, the more I think that ESPN as we've known it will never really work as a standalone DTC streaming service. It's kind of caught in the middle between the general entertainment outlets that will get big popular games (e.g. popular sports' playoffs/championships + any NFL game) versus the RSNs, which cater to serious fans with the vast majority of popular sports' regular season games. I don't know why those won't eventually go DTC too, with the league/conference or individual team selling the service directly to fans as opposed to using a middle-man like Bally Sports. (In fact, this is what the MLB is trying to figure out right now.)

Furthermore, I don't know why major NCAA Div. I conferences won't also do DTC streaming too. There's already a precedent there with the Pac-12 doing their own dedicated cable channel. Why shouldn't the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12 and Big 12 all join together to do the same thing for streaming? And if those guys all do it, I don't know why it wouldn't just end up being an entire NCAA app. Maybe you pay different prices for individual conferences or a higher price to get all the conferences. Anyhow, as I say, I don't know why they wouldn't do this rather than go through a middle-man, like ESPN, for a streaming service. (Currently, ESPN owns the SEC Network and ACC Network on cable while Fox owns the Big Ten Network. As I said, the Pac-12 owns their own Pac-12 Network.)

So where would this leave a streaming DTC ESPN service? Seems like it would just be a grab-bag of less popular sports, plus out-of-market games, plus maybe a mix of a few national games from major sports, e.g. Tues. night NBA, Monday Night NFL, U.S. Open tennis, etc. Along, of course, with a whole bunch of SportsCenter. So in other words, a lot like what ESPN+ currently is.


----------



## James Long

Both ESPN and the RSNs currently have the economy of scale. Get 100 million (or your market's share of subscribers) and be happy with $8 per subscriber per month for the ESPNs or $3 per subscriber per month for an RSN. The income is there to pay the expenses and since subscribers don't have a choice which specific channels they pay for their only choice if they don't want to pay for ESPN or an RSN is to find a package that does not have the unwanted channel(s) - and usually is missing many other channels - or find a provider that doesn't have the unwanted channels.

The difference between ESPN and the RSNs is that ESPN is popular enough and can tie required subscription of ESPN with the the availability of all the other ABC/Disney channels. If a provider does not require their subscribers to subscribe to ESPN then that provider is unlikely to be able to offer any other ABC/Disney channels to their subscribers. Most RSNs don't have that leverage and even when Sinclair tried to use their popular local broadcast channels as leverage to force delivery of RSNs they failed.

I look at the current situation as a cold war between ESPN and the MVPDs they partner with. A hostile relationship to a certain extent. The MVPD is willing to bow to the pressure of putting ESPN in the base tiers knowing that they only have to compete with other MVPDs who are under the same restriction. The RSNs are currently offered the same way.

Sinclair wants to break that and give people the option of paying $20 per month or less to get their RSN content while not paying for the rest of the MVPD's content. If I were an MVPD my response would be "if you are going to let people pay for your channels without the rest of ours then you are going to let us sell our other channels without yours". The RSNs will be dropped at the earliest possible moment if the RSN launches a competitive service.

So now back to the math. When the RSN loses subscribers they still have to pay their multi-decade agreed rates to the teams. With less subscribers they need to charge more per subscriber. The thought of paying an RSN $3 or $6 goes away quickly as they start asking for $10 or $20 to break even.

Sinclair is taking a risk by offering their channels for $20 separate of a MVPD. DISH has already successfully walked away from Sinclair. Other MVPDs have also passed on the RSNs. They could find themselves with closer to zero subscribers.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Both ESPN and the RSNs currently have the economy of scale. Get 100 million (or your market's share of subscribers) and be happy with $8 per subscriber per month for the ESPNs or $3 per subscriber per month for an RSN. The income is there to pay the expenses and since subscribers don't have a choice which specific channels they pay for their only choice if they don't want to pay for ESPN or an RSN is to find a package that does not have the unwanted channel(s) - and usually is missing many other channels - or find a provider that doesn't have the unwanted channels.
> 
> The difference between ESPN and the RSNs is that ESPN is popular enough and can tie required subscription of ESPN with the the availability of all the other ABC/Disney channels. If a provider does not require their subscribers to subscribe to ESPN then that provider is unlikely to be able to offer any other ABC/Disney channels to their subscribers. Most RSNs don't have that leverage and even when Sinclair tried to use their popular local broadcast channels as leverage to force delivery of RSNs they failed.
> 
> I look at the current situation as a cold war between ESPN and the MVPDs they partner with. A hostile relationship to a certain extent. The MVPD is willing to bow to the pressure of putting ESPN in the base tiers knowing that they only have to compete with other MVPDs who are under the same restriction. The RSNs are currently offered the same way.
> 
> Sinclair wants to break that and give people the option of paying $20 per month or less to get their RSN content while not paying for the rest of the MVPD's content. If I were an MVPD my response would be "if you are going to let people pay for your channels without the rest of ours then you are going to let us sell our other channels without yours". The RSNs will be dropped at the earliest possible moment if the RSN launches a competitive service.
> 
> So now back to the math. When the RSN loses subscribers they still have to pay their multi-decade agreed rates to the teams. With less subscribers they need to charge more per subscriber. The thought of paying an RSN $3 or $6 goes away quickly as they start asking for $10 or $20 to break even.
> 
> Sinclair is taking a risk by offering their channels for $20 separate of a MVPD. DISH has already successfully walked away from Sinclair. Other MVPDs have also passed on the RSNs. They could find themselves with closer to zero subscribers.


Yep, pretty much agree with all of what you're saying. Which is why I can't see ESPN ever making sense as a standalone DTC service. The RSNs, yes. They're catering to a certain kind of consumer: big fans of specific major-league teams. Those folks may well be fine with paying $20/mo (or less if they buy it by the year). But if ESPN didn't have the benefit of all those basic cable subs subsidizing it, then obviously they have to hike the price as a standalone service. And who are they catering to? People who are really into a grab-bag of a little of this sport, a little of that sport, a lot of niche sports, plus SportsCenter (which, let's face it, talk is cheap -- CBS Sports HQ offers that kind of content for free).

And, yes, the exact thing I've been saying will happen the next time MVPDs have to renew their distribution contract with Bally Sports is that they will insist on just selling it a la carte, as an optional add-on to any base package, the same way they already sell HBO/HBO Max. It'll probably work the same way, where you pay the same price either way you get it; if you buy it through the MVPD, you get the live RSN(s) in your channel guide plus you get access to the separate Bally Sports app. If you buy it DTC (not through an MVPD), you just get the app. Once that happens, then yeah, the total number of RSN subs can only decrease because there are still a good number of folks on Comcast and Charter who pay for their RSN even though they don't watch it. Neither MVPD has a mainstream channel package like DTV's Entertainment that excludes the RSNs. So once the overall sub number goes down, we might well see the price for Bally Sports jump from $20 to $25 or even $30. Pro sports seems like a bubble ripe for bursting. We'll see...


----------



## wmb

evotz said:


> The ESPN and RSN model has basically always been dependent on the "casual fan" paying for the service so the total cost can be distributed out among several customers at a lower price per customer fee. And now those "casual fans" are deciding that they don't want to pay for it.


So much for being at a wine tasting (Blackbird Vineyards)…

How is this any different than the model for most other cable networks? Maybe 1/2 of the networks in my guide are hidden. Another block is moved down to the bottom of the guide and I rarely scroll down that far. Frankly, I could live with only a handful of channels from maybe two or three companies. I’d definitely drop MVPDs for the right business model in a heartbeat.

I’m something of what you’d consider a casual fan… I may watch 3 or 4 soccer games a week. I have been watching the NHL playoffs because of one team. I know of people that watch just about every soccer game across multiple leagues (those are super fans, I guess). I can’t imagine a casual fan that doesn’t watch a few games a week.

If you are a casual MLS or NHL fan, ESPN+ is worth its weight in gold for out-of-market. For EPL casual fans, $5 per month for Peacock is a bargain.

I mentioned above, $20/market for in-market MLS teams and the rancor it raised. I don’t expect Sinclair to be successful, but that isn’t because fans won’t support thier team. It’s because the business model sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> I look at the current situation as a cold war between ESPN and the MVPDs they partner with. A hostile relationship to a certain extent.


I think MVPDs lose this war. Not because I think ESPN is going to win… I think the MVPD business model is outdated and is losing to a bigger trend of streaming. ESPN (well Disney) will emerge successful in the end, because they have money to ride out the storm. But, we are in for a decade of flux as this market figures itself out.

Yet, I can’t help think the the future will look like a lot like the present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> So now back to the math. When the RSN loses subscribers they still have to pay their multi-decade agreed rates to the teams. …
> 
> Sinclair is taking a risk by offering their channels for $20 separate of a MVPD. DISH has already successfully walked away from Sinclair.


I think this ends in bankruptcy. I’m just not sure whose, or whether it won’t be both…

The one thing I expect is that someone will be playing baseball at the end of the day. Hopefully, it isn’t just Benjamin Sisko.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> How is this any different than the model for most other cable networks?


Most other cable networks are cheap. 50c per month would be considered expensive for a non-sports channel. While the dimes add up to dollars, $3.60 per year for a channel you "never watch" slips under the radar a lot easier than $36.00 per year. If you look at vMVPD services offering the linear channels one can get on cable/satellite they are carrying the same groupings of less expensive non-sports channels.



wmb said:


> I think MVPDs lose this war. Not because I think ESPN is going to win… I think the MVPD business model is outdated and is losing to a bigger trend of streaming. ESPN (well Disney) will emerge successful in the end, because they have money to ride out the storm. But, we are in for a decade of flux as this market figures itself out.
> 
> Yet, I can’t help think the the future will look like a lot like the present.


The subscribers will lose. If you look at the 200+ channel subscription packages MVPDs provide it is easy to list 100 channels that you never watch. Drop them all and theoretically you could reduce bills by up to $50. But the "never watch" channels vary by subscriber. There is a good chance that when the MVPD model dies it will take several channels you do watch with it.

The present still has solid support for the MVPD model. We are starting to see expensive streaming packages that provide access to a second tier of popular programming but most channels are relying on the MVPD model to provide them with 80 or 100 million subscribers paying a few dollars a year instead of super fans willing to pay a few dollars per month.

On the current path the future will certainly be different with less channels and more libraries. Subscribe and watch 20 years of old content along with a few popular shows. Add a second service to watch their 20 years of old content and their handful of popular shows. $5 per month for each service works today because the content owners are underwritten by their MVPD source of income. Take away the MVPDs and the content owners will need to rely only on their super fans willing to pay for their content. So expect to be paying $10 or $15 per month for each service and subscribe to multiple services to get all the popular content. Spend $100 per month and end up with less available new content than you have through the MVPD model (but you'll get the 20 year library of stuff you will never watch).



wmb said:


> I think this ends in bankruptcy. I’m just not sure whose, or whether it won’t be both…


Sinclair has their broadcast stations to fall back on. if the RSN investment doesn't work out they will get it off of their books somehow. DISH is still doing well without RSNs ... and if RSNs leave the MVPD model then there is no longer any stigma to being an MVPD without RSNs.

I have two expectations of Sinclair's offering. The first is that Sinclair will lose required tier MVPD distribution if they don't provide a deep discount to MVPDs that put their channels in a required tier. The second expectation (more of a hope) is that Sinclair will partner with the MVPDs to bundle their new OTT service with the MVPD service.

Add Bally Sports to your DISH subscription for $16 per month - the same price you would pay if buying direct but no streaming needed to watch linear content (and no streaming delays). DIRECTV could drop Bally Sports from their required subscription tiers. This would match the HBO model NashGuy mentioned above. DISH publicly made this offer to Altitude Sports (offering to carry the channel with no markup to any subscriber willing to pay the price the channel wanted - Altitude sets the price and only willing subscribers pay).


----------



## Steveknj

I think we are in the biggest broadcast upheaval since the early 1980s and the advent of the cable channel and everyone is trying to figure out how to best monetize everything right now. First, up until 10 years ago or so, the leverage was all with the cable/sat companies. For your network to be seen, you needed them to carry you. Sure, some REALLY popular networks, ESPN, HBO, some very popular RSNs would fight them because people had the option to leave if they cannot see those channels, but mostly the held most of the cards. Streaming changed all of that. Streaming originally had a couple of major players, but in reality they were just another content provider, like a Sat or cable company. To me CBS (Viacom) changed the whole landscape when they decided to go there own way and create their own streaming service. Now they ALL have their own. That killed the leverage these cable companies had, because these networks could now say, screw it, you don't want to carry our channel, we'll just stream the content. And that's what has started to happen. Peacock, Disney/Hulu/ESPN, HBO and others have since followed suit and people have realized, we don't even NEED cable/Sat anymore, we can skip it and watch what we want when we want. And not these streamers have realized, that advertisers will pay too. AND we are now seeing new players who are entering the same purvue that the cable companies have had a stranglehold on, YouTube TV, Fubo and Hulu Live are prime examples (DirecTV was smart to see this early on, but have had issues with pricing the service correctly). So, now we see Comcast getting into the game, and others will follow. In ten years, streaming will look a lot like cable, and I imagine, like any mature business there will be a LOT of consolidation. 

But with all of this, the cable/sat model that we've had since the 1980s is dying, and soon to be dead. I know a lot of folks here are die hards, and want to hold on to what they got. Heck, I still use DirecTV as my primary service, but I'm also not naive enough to realize that it's likely not a long term solution (and my hope is that when my contract ends, the streamers will give more or what I want). Yes, I know about internet issues and outlying areas where streaming is not feasible, but that's today. There was a time when electricity wasn't pervasive either. Times change.

Getting back to the topic, the natural progressinon will be, for sports and RSNs especially to sell DTC for a fee, and that will be the end of RSNs on cable/sat eventually. It might not be in the next 2-3 years, but I think in 10, that will be it. We already are seeing lots of forays into streaming by the major sports leagues. They are testing the waters, and once they find that people are watching that way, it will be all over. I remember people getting really angry when MNF moved to ESPN...to CABLE!! Now? Nobody cares. And nobody will care that it moved to streaming either, eventually, especially as old codgers like myself die off (or more accurately are no longer in the core demo advertisers want to sell to).


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> On the current path the future will certainly be different with less channels and more libraries. Subscribe and watch 20 years of old content along with a few popular shows. Add a second service to watch their 20 years of old content and their handful of popular shows. $5 per month for each service works today because the content owners are underwritten by their MVPD source of income. Take away the MVPDs and the content owners will need to rely only on their super fans willing to pay for their content. So expect to be paying $10 or $15 per month for each service and subscribe to multiple services to get all the popular content. Spend $100 per month and end up with less available new content than you have through the MVPD model (but you'll get the 20 year library of stuff you will never watch).


Uh, have you watched cable TV in the past few years? Because pretty much all those channels do is endlessly air reruns (i.e. library content + repeats of recent premiers) with very little of their schedules devoted to fresh premier content. Among the new never-before-seen stuff they do air, the vast majority of those hours fall into one of two categories: news/talk or live sports. So all that to say, I'm not sure we see any less new content on a weekly basis once the entire system (including news/talk and sports) has fully migrated from MVPD to DTC. Maybe a little less, but not drastically so.

Once this migration has finally played out, each DTC SVOD will basically be like buying just that media group's set of cable channels. Disney+ will contain all the content from ABC, Disney Channel, Disney XD, FX, FXX, Freeform, Nat Geo, etc. (For reasons I've expounded above, I don't see all the ESPN content making its way into the DTC model; maybe a sprinkling of the most popular, or most affordable, goes into Disney+ and the rest gets absorbed into team/league/conference-specific DTC services?) 

Likewise, HBO Max will contain all the content (including sports and news) from those Warner Bros. Discovery nets: HBO, TBS, TNT, CNN, Discovery, HGTV, Food, TLC, Cartoon, TCM, etc. Same for Paramount+ and Peacock (should they survive). The little AMC group of cable nets is already making all their content available through their ad-free DTC SVOD called AMC+. That one is definitely not big enough to survive long-term, which is why everyone knows AMC is aiming to get acquired by a bigger group. Same fate awaits other little channel groups like Hallmark/Crown Media and A+E Networks. (Well, it's also possible that, after the MVPD system dies in the 30s, those small media groups like Hallmark -- or even mid-sizers like Paramount -- continue to exist solo and simply make and license their content out to multiple third-party SVODs, with a couple series on Netflix, another series on Disney+, holiday movies on HBO Max, etc.)

Of course, there's a good amount of new original content that each media group reserves just for their DTC SVOD and isn't putting on any of their linear channels. For WBD, it's their Max Originals on HBO Max. (Note WBD just announced that TBS and TNT will see no new scripted series going forward. Makes sense, as those resources are going into Max Originals.) For Disney, it's their Disney+ Originals and Hulu Originals.

In his recent quarterly earnings call, Ergen had to admit and explain some surprisingly poor numbers for Dish and Sling. And he chalked those up, at least in part, to broader problems that exist with the current MVPD content model. "We think we can make our product better with the help of our content providers," he said. Not really sure what he has in mind there but I do know that Dish has been a leader in the past in terms of trying to offer more flexible, cheaper channel bundles, e.g. Flex Pack (a move later emulated by the likes of Charter Spectrum TV, Comcast Xfinity TV, and Verizon FiOS TV). 

Perhaps we'll see him ask the content providers to allow Dish to just sell bundles of their own cable channels (which would unavoidably also include any broadcast network O&Os the provider owns in select major markets). For Disney, that would definitely include the ESPN channels, making their channel pack the most expensive -- in my mind, they might be the most resistant to this idea. But what if each channel pack also included the relevant DTC? Buy the package of Disney-owned channels and also get the Disney Bundle with ads (normally $14/mo for Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+). Buy the package of Paramount-owned channels and also get Paramount+ with ads (normally $5/mo). Buy the WBD bundle of channels -- which would unavoidably include HBO -- and get HBO Max with ads (normally $10/mo). Any of those apps could be upgraded to ad-free for an up-charge. And as Dish already offers, you could buy a package of just your locals separately for (IIRC) $12/mo. (or instead integrate them via OTA antenna for free). Let each content owner set their own price with Dish adding a standard % on top for distribution and support costs plus profit. Of course the total price, if you purchased all those channel packs, would cost more than the current system. But the consumer would also be getting more total content (all that stuff exclusive to the DTC apps, e.g. Disney+ Originals, the ESPN+ content, etc.). And, critically, there would be greater choice.

Doesn't it seem like that scenario is the logical next step as the MVPD system evolves into the DTC system? The lines between linear and SVOD will increasingly blur, I think, as the latter swallows the former.


----------



## B. Shoe

James Long said:


> The subscribers will lose. If you look at the 200+ channel subscription packages MVPDs provide it is easy to list 100 channels that you never watch. Drop them all and theoretically you could reduce bills by up to $50. But the "never watch" channels vary by subscriber. There is a good chance that when the MVPD model dies it will take several channels you do watch with it.


This will come across coarse, because viewing habits vary greatly from one person to the next; but I could care less if a lot of channels disappear as the broadcast/TV landscape evolves.

Similar to the rise of regional sports networks, college conference-specific channels, etc., we've seen a huge rise in the number of genre-specific channels; the plethora of Discovery channels, MTV 2/Classic/etc., Nat Geo Wild, Hallmark's movie-specific channels, all-horror movie channels and more. And just as we heard for years that "some people didn't want to pay for sports", I didn't want to pay for channels that I never touched. Even as I subscribe to YouTube TV now, the wife and I regularly touch maybe 20 channels a month. And her viewing habits definitely do not mirror my "80% sports, 20% everything else" viewership.

For decades, we have all paid for content we never utilized, wanted/needed, or maybe even knew was there. And that bubble kept growing and growing, until maybe it's met its bursting point. Are we really losing if we lose things we paid for and never used, anyway?


----------



## NashGuy

B. Shoe said:


> Similar to the rise of regional sports networks, college conference-specific channels, etc., we've seen a huge rise in the number of genre-specific channels; the plethora of Discovery channels, MTV 2/Classic/etc., Nat Geo Wild, Hallmark's movie-specific channels, all-horror movie channels and more. And just as we heard for years that "some people didn't want to pay for sports", I didn't want to pay for channels that I never touched. Even as I subscribe to YouTube TV now, the wife and I regularly touch maybe 20 channels a month. And her viewing habits definitely do not mirror my "80% sports, 20% everything else" viewership.


An innovative feature that YTTV has -- which I imagine channel owners aren't thrilled about -- is to let the user sort linear channels in the live guide by "most watched". A lot of folks would probably be surprised how few channels they watch much. Get a few rows down into the guide and think "Gee, I don't care about this channel that much and yet it's still my 8th-most-watched channel?"


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Uh, have you watched cable TV in the past few years? Because pretty much all those channels do is endlessly air reruns (i.e. library content + repeats of recent premiers) with very little of their schedules devoted to fresh premier content. Among the new never-before-seen stuff they do air, the vast majority of those hours fall into one of two categories: news/talk or live sports. So all that to say, I'm not sure we see any less new content on a weekly basis once the entire system (including news/talk and sports) has fully migrated from MVPD to DTC. Maybe a little less, but not drastically so.
> 
> Once this migration has finally played out, each DTC SVOD will basically be like buying just that media group's set of cable channels. Disney+ will contain all the content from ABC, Disney Channel, Disney XD, FX, FXX, Freeform, Nat Geo, etc. (For reasons I've expounded above, I don't see all the ESPN content making its way into the DTC model; maybe a sprinkling of the most popular, or most affordable, goes into Disney+ and the rest gets absorbed into team/league/conference-specific DTC services?)
> 
> Likewise, HBO Max will contain all the content (including sports and news) from those Warner Bros. Discovery nets: HBO, TBS, TNT, CNN, Discovery, HGTV, Food, TLC, Cartoon, TCM, etc. Same for Paramount+ and Peacock (should they survive). The little AMC group of cable nets is already making all their content available through their ad-free DTC SVOD called AMC+. That one is definitely not big enough to survive long-term, which is why everyone knows AMC is aiming to get acquired by a bigger group. Same fate awaits other little channel groups like Hallmark/Crown Media and A+E Networks. (Well, it's also possible that, after the MVPD system dies in the 30s, those small media groups like Hallmark -- or even mid-sizers like Paramount -- continue to exist solo and simply make and license their content out to multiple third-party SVODs, with a couple series on Netflix, another series on Disney+, holiday movies on HBO Max, etc.)
> 
> Of course, there's a good amount of new original content that each media group reserves just for their DTC SVOD and isn't putting on any of their linear channels. For WBD, it's their Max Originals on HBO Max. (Note WBD just announced that TBS and TNT will see no new scripted series going forward. Makes sense, as those resources are going into Max Originals.) For Disney, it's their Disney+ Originals and Hulu Originals.
> 
> In his recent quarterly earnings call, Ergen had to admit and explain some surprisingly poor numbers for Dish and Sling. And he chalked those up, at least in part, to broader problems that exist with the current MVPD content model. "We think we can make our product better with the help of our content providers," he said. Not really sure what he has in mind there but I do know that Dish has been a leader in the past in terms of trying to offer more flexible, cheaper channel bundles, e.g. Flex Pack (a move later emulated by the likes of Charter Spectrum TV, Comcast Xfinity TV, and Verizon FiOS TV).
> 
> Perhaps we'll see him ask the content providers to allow Dish to just sell bundles of their own cable channels (which would unavoidably also include any broadcast network O&Os the provider owns in select major markets). For Disney, that would definitely include the ESPN channels, making their channel pack the most expensive -- in my mind, they might be the most resistant to this idea. But what if each channel pack also included the relevant DTC? Buy the package of Disney-owned channels and also get the Disney Bundle with ads (normally $14/mo for Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+). Buy the package of Paramount-owned channels and also get Paramount+ with ads (normally $5/mo). Buy the WBD bundle of channels -- which would unavoidably include HBO -- and get HBO Max with ads (normally $10/mo). Any of those apps could be upgraded to ad-free for an up-charge. And as Dish already offers, you could buy a package of just your locals separately for (IIRC) $12/mo. (or instead integrate them via OTA antenna for free). Let each content owner set their own price with Dish adding a standard % on top for distribution and support costs plus profit. Of course the total price, if you purchased all those channel packs, would cost more than the current system. But the consumer would also be getting more total content (all that stuff exclusive to the DTC apps, e.g. Disney+ Originals, the ESPN+ content, etc.). And, critically, there would be greater c
> choice.
> 
> Doesn't it seem like that scenario is the logical next step as the MVPD system evolves into the DTC system? The lines between linear and SVOD will increasingly blur, I think, as the latter swallows the former.


I think something like this is the logical next step, but, it also begs the question, why even bother with those bundles when you can buy the streaming services without them, and for cheaper (most likely). This is especially true if they follow WBD lead and stop all scripted content on their linear channels. I guess there's sports and that could be a driver, but otherwise? Why bother? Convenience for us old schoolers?


----------



## James Long

The bundle will be how the content is sold. You would probably see each bundle as a service. The Peacock bundle, the Paramount bundle, the Discovery bundle, the Apple bundle. You will still be buying access to large libraries even though your interest may only be on one shelf.

And yes, it would be more convenient to have one interface instead of a collection of various apps. MVPDs will be selling the presentation of the channels and possibly be able to offer a discount since the individual streamers won't be handling billing.


----------



## B. Shoe

NashGuy said:


> An innovative feature that YTTV has -- which I imagine channel owners aren't thrilled about -- is to let the user sort linear channels in the live guide by "most watched". A lot of folks would probably be surprised how few channels they watch much. Get a few rows down into the guide and think "Gee, I don't care about this channel that much and yet it's still my 8th-most-watched channel?"


I've said this a couple of times in other threads; I consider YouTube TV my monthly sports subscription service that just happens to come with some broadcast networks and a handful of channels to appease the better half. That's what it also was when I was paying for satellite. Didn't matter if there were 50 channels, 150 channels, 2,000 channels. I was still watching the same stuff. Regardless if your thing is movies, news, sports, we only have a finite capacity to consume content, regardless of the medium, and humans are creatures of habit. We find what we like and get in a rhythm with it. And the "nice to haves" are usually because of a slim amount of programs. If the main distributor really values those items, they'll get moved to another channel. (ex: NBC Sports Network dissolving and moving some content to USA Network.)


----------



## James Long

And that is the thing. If your top 10 channels all come from the same channel provider you will probably win when those channels move from the MVPD model to the DTC model. If your top 10 channels come from ten different channel providers then you may be buying 10 packages to get those channels. And still get hundreds of channels you never watch.

The channels may not be numbered. They may be mostly VOD channels (few live streams) but they will be there. All part of your multiple subscriptions.

Hopefully most people won't be paying more for the 10 packages (or however many they need) than they did for a full MVPD.


----------



## B. Shoe

James Long said:


> And that is the thing. If your top 10 channels all come from the same channel provider you will probably win when those channels move from the MVPD model to the DTC model. If your top 10 channels come from ten different channel providers then you may be buying 10 packages to get those channels. And still get hundreds of channels you never watch.
> 
> The channels may not be numbered. They may be mostly VOD channels (few live streams) but they will be there. All part of your multiple subscriptions.
> 
> Hopefully most people won't be paying more for the 10 packages (or however many they need) than they did for a full MVPD.


And on the heels of the cost announcement of Bally's DTC streaming service and this thread conversation, we get to the million dollar question that a lot of us will inevitably have to answer; How much is watching everything absolutely want on television worth to you?


----------



## evotz

NashGuy said:


> Furthermore, I don't know why major NCAA Div. I conferences won't also do DTC streaming too.


I think the biggest answer to this is that several of the conferences (SEC and ACC, I know) all joined in with ESPN. I don't know how long that contract is - but I seriously doubt you'll see a Direct to Consumer platform for these conferences as long as that ESPN contract is on the books, because it would lead to a mass exodus of ESPN's per subscriber revenue when all of those customers cut cable. Unless the Direct to Consumer price is $40 or $50 per month (or more)

Other conferences that had a direct to consumer option, the OVC had this, they had an OVC Digital app on Roku and on their website. It was free. And it broadcast, I think all OVC sports games, I know they did all basketball games and I'm sure they did football games.

But instead of charging for it, the decided to get in bed with ESPN+. Maybe there just wasn't enough of a market for a paid OVC Digital platform and by joining with ESPN+ they were able to get a piece of the more distributed pie.

I think a lot of this Direct to Consumer options will depend on just how far reaching Internet "dumb pipes" goes. Direct to Consumer almost exclusively requires that consumers have an Internet connection and probably some type of streaming device. But believe it or not there are actually areas that exist that just can't get a reliable Internet connection - at least one capable of consistently streaming.


----------



## Steveknj

evotz said:


> I think a lot of this Direct to Consumer options will depend on just how far reaching Internet "dumb pipes" goes. Direct to Consumer almost exclusively requires that consumers have an Internet connection and probably some type of streaming device. But believe it or not there are actually areas that exist that just can't get a reliable Internet connection - at least one capable of consistently streaming.


For how long? In the 1930s there were areas in the country without electricity too. The internet (or better term is Broadband access) has become as important to Americans as electricity, oil, heck TV reception. There are initiatives in the country to bring broadband to everyone. It will happen over the next 10 years, just as the TVA and other projects brought electricity to rural areas during the first half of the last century. We kinda have to stop thinking about those places that don't have broadband as if they will NEVER get it. Eventually they will, and it will be sooner rather than later. Companies have already begun planning for that inevitability, but there are lots of folks who still think it's important to consider something that will be going away eventually. Maybe it's just that we hate change and are looking for excuses to "keep things as they are" or maybe it's just to be contrarian. I don't know. I've said in this and other threads, the media landscape is making a major shift and we are in the middle of it. I fully expect things to look vastly different in 5-10 years. I didn't believe it myself a few years ago, but it's inevitable. Just look sports and streaming and the forays that we are seeing with MLB and the NFL especially. They are putting their toe in the water so to speak. And once they realize it can work, they will go in all the way.


----------



## SamC

Leaving out the politics, I don’t see anything like the TVA, or the better example is the REA, today. I grew up in a really poor area, where there was no TV to speak of until the BUD was invented and destroyed the local cable bandit and his 4 ghost filled channels. 

There are still people there, and the situation is the same, and, of course, there is no internet and no cell service. And the one thing my childhood taught me is that nobody really gives a flying F*** about rural Americans and if you want better, GTFO, which is what I did, the day I got out of HS.


----------



## evotz

Steveknj said:


> There are initiatives in the country to bring broadband to everyone.


I would encourage you to go live in one of these parts of the country. You'll see that those areas are high on promises but low on action.

You can easily see this. There are swaths of the country with no cell phone coverage. Yet all of the cell phone companies are jumping all over themselves trying to be the first company in cities that can offer 5gb/s speeds that nobody needs. You see cable companies advertising their services on TV, but they never expand beyond the footprint that they cover now.


----------



## Steveknj

evotz said:


> I would encourage you to go live in one of these parts of the country. You'll see that those areas are high on promises but low on action.
> 
> You can easily see this. There are swaths of the country with no cell phone coverage. Yet all of the cell phone companies are jumping all over themselves trying to be the first company in cities that can offer 5gb/s speeds that nobody needs. You see cable companies advertising their services on TV, but they never expand beyond the footprint that they cover now.


Next you'll tell me they don't have electricity and indoor plumbing too? What made that change? Eventually the government will subsidize them so they will do it. I can get into politics and potentially why it's not happening now, but I won't.


----------



## evotz

I'm just saying these companies will tell you that they're going to expand their broadband coverage. But as soon as they get money, they spend it offering faster and faster speeds (that people don't need) in the places that they already cover. How many times has AT&T taken government money to expand broadband and how much have they actually expanded broadband?

If by now (2022) you don't have a coax cable hanging from the utility poles around your house or fiber buried along your right of way... you ain't getting that type of broadband ever. I'll believe it when I see it.

I live in one of these areas. I know the pain. People that have had cable TV/Internet or fiber optic Internet all their life do not understand the perils of not having access to this. They'll certainly preach that it'll eventually come to all individuals... when that same claim was made 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago and things are exactly the same today as they were 40 years ago.

Sure, it's a cost of the rural living. I understand that. I get that. I even agree with that. But don't go around saying that it'll eventually come to everyone when we the people that live in these areas have first hand experience that it is in fact NOT going to happen.

I also understand that it's expensive to run cable or fiber down stretches of roads where 3 or 4 houses exist. I get that. But broadband is not going to reach everyone if it's not reaching those people. I'm saying that the goal shouldn't be getting the 85% of the country faster speeds than they'll ever need while the remaining 15% suffers with dialup. Why does a household of 4 need access to 1gbps/2gbps/10gbps Internet speeds?


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I think something like this is the logical next step, but, it also begs the question, why even bother with those bundles when you can buy the streaming services without them, and for cheaper (most likely). This is especially true if they follow WBD lead and stop all scripted content on their linear channels. I guess there's sports and that could be a driver, but otherwise? Why bother? Convenience for us old schoolers?


Yes, because for some amount of time over the next few years, there will remain some content -- mainly certain live sports, cable news/talk -- that will remain exclusive to cable channels and not available within the DTC service. And also, I think it will still be a few years before we see the current arrangement where broadcast/cable shows aren't available on the related DTC until the following calendar day. Eventually, that will go away -- ABC shows will be available on Disney+ immediately, just as HBO shows are available immediately on HBO Max.

And then, beyond that, yes, there's the comfort factor for (mainly older) Americans who like having content served to them via linear channels all next to each other in a live grid guide.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> Yes, because for some amount of time over the next few years, there will remain some content -- mainly certain live sports, cable news/talk -- that will remain exclusive to cable channels and not available within the DTC service. *And also, I think it will still be a few years before we see the current arrangement where broadcast/cable shows aren't available on the related DTC until the following calendar day. Eventually, that will go away -- ABC shows will be available on Disney+ immediately*, just as HBO shows are available immediately on HBO Max.
> 
> And then, beyond that, yes, there's the comfort factor for (mainly older) Americans who like having content served to them via linear channels all next to each other in a live grid guide.


The bolded part is happening in September as the longtime ABC show Dancing with the Stars will move to Disney+ and away from ABC.


----------



## NashGuy

evotz said:


> I think the biggest answer to this is that several of the conferences (SEC and ACC, I know) all joined in with ESPN. I don't know how long that contract is - but I seriously doubt you'll see a Direct to Consumer platform for these conferences as long as that ESPN contract is on the books, because it would lead to a mass exodus of ESPN's per subscriber revenue when all of those customers cut cable. Unless the Direct to Consumer price is $40 or $50 per month (or more)


First, AFAIK, the arrangement that the SEC and ACC have in place with ESPN for their branded conference channels only covers traditional TV rights, not DTC OTT streaming. Now, perhaps their contract with ESPN does include DTC OTT rights (and ESPN simply isn't exercising those rights by putting those games in ESPN+) or, alternatively, perhaps ESPN doesn't hold those rights but there's something in the TV contract that precludes those two conferences from shopping their DTC OTT rights elsewhere or launching it themselves (i.e. maybe the contract gives ESPN the right of first refusal for DTC OTT rights). OTOH, maybe their TV contract with ESPN doesn't touch DTC OTT rights at all, meaning that the SEC and ACC are biding their time and mulling over what to do there. "Do we launch our own individual conference DTC services? Do we band together? Do we sell to a middle-man distributor like ESPN+?" I honestly don't know which of these scenarios is the case in terms of their current contract with ESPN. (Same holds true for the Big Ten's existing TV contract with Fox Sports.)



evotz said:


> Other conferences that had a direct to consumer option, the OVC had this, they had an OVC Digital app on Roku and on their website. It was free. And it broadcast, I think all OVC sports games, I know they did all basketball games and I'm sure they did football games.
> 
> But instead of charging for it, the decided to get in bed with ESPN+. Maybe there just wasn't enough of a market for a paid OVC Digital platform and by joining with ESPN+ they were able to get a piece of the more distributed pie.


Yes, I suspect that's the case. OVC just isn't in the same league as the big "Power Five" conferences: SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12.



evotz said:


> I think a lot of this Direct to Consumer options will depend on just how far reaching Internet "dumb pipes" goes. Direct to Consumer almost exclusively requires that consumers have an Internet connection and probably some type of streaming device. But believe it or not there are actually areas that exist that just can't get a reliable Internet connection - at least one capable of consistently streaming.


That's true but based on everything I read, I tend to think that only _maybe_ about 12% of the US population can't get decent-priced reliable fast-enough home broadband to do multiple concurrent HD video streams (i.e. at least 25 Mbps down). The advent of T-Mobile and Verizon fixed wireless home internet is driving that figure down and so will the RDOF and other infrastructure money from the federal government intended to extend broadband, particularly fiber, out into the hinterlands. Yes, there's a small but shrinking portion of the American public for whom satellite TV is the only form of pay TV they can access. Those rural dwellers are Dish's and DirecTV's last stand. But that slice of the public will melt away to near-nothing by the end of this decade.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> The bolded part is happening in September as the longtime ABC show Dancing with the Stars will move to Disney+ and away from ABC.


OK, but what you're describing is something different than what I meant. You're referencing an entire series shifting from linear to become an exclusive DTC show. It's not that you'll be able to watch Dancing with the Stars live on both ABC and Disney+ at the same time; you won't be able to watch it on ABC at all! So this is an example of the hollowing-out of linear TV in favor of that company's DTC service.

What I'm talking about is, how long until you can watch an ABC or FX show that same night on Disney+/Hulu as you can watch it on the linear channel, rather than waiting until past midnight Pacific time to stream it? How long until you can watch a primetime MSNBC news/opinion show that same night on Peacock instead of waiting until the next day, as is the case now? How long until the live stream of CNN shows up in HBO Max? 

Right now, the contracts that those channels have in place with MVPDs preclude them from doing that. Their contracts say that those channels' content must remain exclusive to the channel until the next day. This is obviously something the MVPDs want, to keep the channel owners from doing any end-run around their channel bundles and taking their channels directly to consumers via streaming. But at some point, that dam will likely break. The AMC channel group has apparently already amended their carriage deals with MVPDs to allow it, as their own AMC+ DTC service shows new episodes at the same time, or in many cases even _before_, they premier on their linear cable channels.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> What I'm talking about is, how long until you can watch an ABC or FX show that same night on Disney+/Hulu as you can watch it on the linear channel, rather than waiting until past midnight Pacific time to stream it? How long until you can watch a primetime MSNBC news/opinion show that same night on Peacock instead of waiting until the next day, as is the case now? How long until the live stream of CNN shows up in HBO Max?


I don't think you will ever see that with the big 4 networks. I think the network will keep the ones they want exclusive. The ones they don't they will offer to Disney+/Hulu the same way CBS did with Seal Team and Paramount+.


----------



## James Long

The network affiliation contracts offer their affiliates the right to first distribution in their market. That window has tightened up considerably with the "streaming the next day" offerings. If the networks went to same day streaming they would be worth less to their affiliates. I believe NBC / Peacock has done that on a limited basis. Saturday Night Live is live on NBC and Peacock. (I thought Fallon was also to be available same day but that apparently did not come to pass.)

There is ZERO obligation that any programmer or distributor makes their content or service available to every household in the United States. Broadcast channels apply for licenses and are required to transmit a signal within the limits of their license but that license does NOT require the station to cover an entire DMA nor does it require the station to contract with others to cover any portion of their DMA. Streaming services could easily (and legally) limit their offering to one provider only or select providers.

Market forces will lead content owners as to how their content is distributed. They do not have to wait for broadband to reach another home before changing from MVPD to DTH distribution. They just have to make the decision of how to distribute based on how much it pays them. If they can make more money by steaming DTH there is no requirement to work with MVPD providers ... regardless of how many millions of homes cannot view the content.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> I don't think you will ever see that with the big 4 networks. I think the network will keep the ones they want exclusive. The ones they don't they will offer to Disney+/Hulu the same way CBS did with Seal Team and Paramount+.


Just to be clear (and you may not disagree with this), ABC and Fox _already_ make all their shows available next-day on Hulu; NBC _already_ does this on Peacock Premium; and CBS _already_ does this on Paramount+ (and even include a live stream of the local CBS station on their premium tier). In addition, NBC _already_ includes live streams of most of their sports on Peacock Premium (including this year's Winter Olympics, Super Bowl, Sunday Night Football, etc.) and CBS already does this with their live Sunday NFL games and some other live sports content on their base Paramount+ tier.

So what I'm talking about is just the next incremental step of making network primetime series available at the same time (or at least same night) on the DTC streamer instead of waiting a few hours until the next calendar day.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> The network affiliation contracts offer their affiliates the right to first distribution in their market. That window has tightened up considerably with the "streaming the next day" offerings. If the networks went to same day streaming they would be worth less to their affiliates. I believe NBC / Peacock has done that on a limited basis. Saturday Night Live is live on NBC and Peacock. (I thought Fallon was also to be available same day but that apparently did not come to pass.)


Did they put SNL live on Peacock? I didn't even realize that, if so. And yeah, before it launched, the premium tier of Peacock was going to include _early_ access to the weekday late shows from Fallon and Myers -- which are actually taped late afternoon. The idea was to place them on Peacock for streaming at maybe 8 PM for folks who don't like to stay up so late. But they scrapped that idea because they got such push back from their local NBC affiliates. Those stations valued the fact that NBC late show viewers would turn their TVs off each night set to their local NBC channel number, meaning that their same channel would be the first one they'd see when they turned their TVs back on in the morning when ready to watch the morning news (or in the evening after work when ready to watch the evening news).


----------



## b4pjoe

I was mainly talking about prime time shows on the major networks and I was only talking about them airing them on streaming at the same time they are airing on linear. Late Night and Sports yeah I can see them doing that. Yes CBS does it on their prime time shows because they have the local linear feed on Paramount+. You don't get the ad free version until around midnight. But hey I hope you are right. My dream is to get the 4 major networks linear feeds via streaming instead of through a Cable/Sat package.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> I think MVPDs lose this war. Not because I think ESPN is going to win… I think the MVPD business model is outdated and is losing to a bigger trend of streaming. ESPN (well Disney) will emerge successful in the end, because they have money to ride out the storm.


I think you're wrong. ESPN isn't swimming in revenues -- where's the much ballyhooed 4K? Even Netflix is starting to panic investors with their estimated 100 million non-paying households (as compared with 222 million paying accounts).

Unless you're willing to pay MVPD prices, it is hard to find a service that covers what the conventional MVPD's carry.

I'm waiting for both HBO and Disney+ to release enough new content to warrant a month's subscription and that could take six months or more.

As the OTT providers get more and more amalgamated and exclusive, the attraction isn't likely to improve.


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> Unless you're willing to pay MVPD prices, it is hard to find a service that covers what the conventional MVPD's carry.


The assumption here is that people want what the conventional MVPDs provide.

Each of the OTA networks (ABS, CBS, Fox, NBC) have OTT services. These services can stream the local affiliates and send subscribers the correct station using geolocation. That’s what YouTube TV does, and the opposite of what out-of-market sports packages do.

I’ve proffered elsewhere that I could see cable cos. and telecos being happy to get out of the TV business with the revenue they can get for just selling bandwidth. There is almost on content cost. No need for an army of lawyers to negotiate carriage agreements.

All that prevent this are some legacy agreements that will eventually expire. Heck, given the right model, some of these contracts may be renegotiated.

Silly question… does Sinclair have stations where they have local sports rights (RSNs)? They could work with the network those stations are affiliated with to get the games streamed, assuming they have those rights, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> The assumption here is that people want what the conventional MVPDs provide.


My assumption is that if you have to subscribe to six or more OTT services, it may actually be costing you more in terms of money. On top of that is suffering a variety of UIs. Some of the UIs are pretty stinky and it isn't just a poorly implemented app.


----------



## NashGuy

harsh said:


> My assumption is that if you have to subscribe to six or more OTT services, it may actually be costing you more in terms of money. On top of that is suffering a variety of UIs. Some of the UIs are pretty stinky and it isn't just a poorly implemented app.


I see this argument all the time but I don't really buy it.

Netflix (most popular tier -- HD, 2 screens): $15.50
Disney Bundle (all ad-free Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+): $20
HBO Max (ad-free): $15
Apple TV+: $5
total for 6 ad-free services: $55.50

That's a lot of content, all ad-free (except for sports), all with better HD or 4K HDR picture quality than cable, all on-demand, with even some live sports and news included. For $55.50. How much do Americans spend for the average mid-range cable channel bundle? The cheapest you're going to get that is $65, what YouTube TV charges. But all cable operators cost more than that, especially if you include box rentals and ample DVR service, plus broadcast TV fees, franchise fees, etc.


----------



## NashGuy

b4pjoe said:


> My dream is to get the 4 major networks linear feeds via streaming instead of through a Cable/Sat package.


As a normal Gen X American, I used to think of the big 4 broadcast networks as an absolutely necessary source for TV shows. All the shows I grew up watching were on those networks! (Well, maybe not so much Fox, which didn't exist when I was a little kid.) I'm old enough to remember the Cable ACE Awards, which existed to honor the mostly crappy shows no one watched on cable TV. (OK, some of those early HBO and Showtime original series from the 80s to early 90s were probably good, e.g. It's Gary Shandling's Show.) But the major broadcast networks were the real deal. That's what everyone was watching and it's also where the critically acclaimed culture-defining shows existed too, like MASH, All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Cosby Show, In the Heat of the Night, etc.

But these days, is there anything much worth watching in primetime on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox? There are still one or two scripted shows I find decent enough to watch but, generally speaking, scripted shows -- good ones -- have all shifted to streaming. The broadcast nets are for live sports, news, and non-scripted shows, e.g. true crime stuff like 48 Hours, competition shows like The Voice, game shows like To Tell the Truth, etc.

Anyhow, as for live linear feeds of local broadcast channels via DTC apps, as you know, CBS already does this in Paramount+ and I expect that Hulu/Disney+ will eventually do this with ABC locals and Peacock (if it exists long-term) will eventually do this with NBC locals. In fact, wouldn't surprise me to see Hulu include local ABC live feeds in its base package as early as this fall, to offset the blow of losing next-day access to NBC shows. Hulu already includes the ABC News Live linear channel and they obviously have the tech systems in place to carry local ABC stations around the country due to their separate Live TV add-on package. It's just a matter of Disney negotiating a mutually acceptable amount to pay all those ABC affiliates to bring their live stream to all Hulu subs, not just the ones on the $70/mo Hulu with Live TV package.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> total for 6 ad-free services: $55.50


You forgot Star Trek fans (Paramount+) and EPL fans (Peacock), so, another $11.

But the other thing is that these services don’t have contracts, and people can subscribe/unsubscribe at will, often with deals to sign back up.

So, if you are budget conscious, streaming can save quite a bit of money, particularly if you do t have to watch something on release day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> But these days, is there anything much worth watching in primetime on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox?


That seems to be the root of the problem when discussing streaming. As long as the services you subscribe to can deliver the content each individual wants it is easy to dismiss all of the other content in the world. Cognitive dissonance sets in and the content that you can't get via your chosen services (or via any non MVPD) gets discounted. If the grapes are on one of your chosen services they are the best grapes ever if they are not on one of your chosen services they are sour and you didn't want them anyways.

I could make the same statement about the exclusive content on Netflix or Apple TV or Amazon or any other service. Do I really need Star Trek TV shows like Discovery, Below Decks and Picard? I have managed to live without seeing Better Call Saul, Bridgerton and Stranger Things. The Morning Show and Ted Lasso are reported to be good ... they also have never been on any of my screens. I'm not going to buy six services that do not include what I currently watch to add a few new shows I might like. "Not worth watching" is a matter of personal taste.

Sinclair as a DTC will not see a dime of my money, let alone $16-$20 per month. I am glad the services I subscribe to do not include their RSNs. If other people want Bally Sports then DTC seems like a good option.


----------



## b4pjoe

NashGuy said:


> As a normal Gen X American, I used to think of the big 4 broadcast networks as an absolutely necessary source for TV shows. All the shows I grew up watching were on those networks! (Well, maybe not so much Fox, which didn't exist when I was a little kid.) I'm old enough to remember the Cable ACE Awards, which existed to honor the mostly crappy shows no one watched on cable TV. (OK, some of those early HBO and Showtime original series from the 80s to early 90s were probably good, e.g. It's Gary Shandling's Show.) But the major broadcast networks were the real deal. That's what everyone was watching and it's also where the critically acclaimed culture-defining shows existed too, like MASH, All in the Family, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Cosby Show, In the Heat of the Night, etc.
> 
> But these days, is there anything much worth watching in primetime on ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox? There are still one or two scripted shows I find decent enough to watch but, generally speaking, scripted shows -- good ones -- have all shifted to streaming. The broadcast nets are for live sports, news, and non-scripted shows, e.g. true crime stuff like 48 Hours, competition shows like The Voice, game shows like To Tell the Truth, etc.
> 
> Anyhow, as for live linear feeds of local broadcast channels via DTC apps, as you know, CBS already does this in Paramount+ and I expect that Hulu/Disney+ will eventually do this with ABC locals and Peacock (if it exists long-term) will eventually do this with NBC locals. In fact, wouldn't surprise me to see Hulu include local ABC live feeds in its base package as early as this fall, to offset the blow of losing next-day access to NBC shows. Hulu already includes the ABC News Live linear channel and they obviously have the tech systems in place to carry local ABC stations around the country due to their separate Live TV add-on package. It's just a matter of Disney negotiating a mutually acceptable amount to pay all those ABC affiliates to bring their live stream to all Hulu subs, not just the ones on the $70/mo Hulu with Live TV package.


Yeah if it was just me I'd probably just have the apps you mentioned above and no sat/cable package at all. You could change Netflix to the most expensive plan and ad free Paramount+ and Peacock and still only be at $80 per month. But I have other family members that are kind of stuck in their old fashion ways.


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> You forgot Star Trek fans (Paramount+) and EPL fans (Peacock), so, another $11.
> 
> But the other thing is that these services don’t have contracts, and people can subscribe/unsubscribe at will, often with deals to sign back up.
> 
> So, if you are budget conscious, streaming can save quite a bit of money, particularly if you do t have to watch something on release day.


I didn't forget anything. He said six OTT services. Maybe you want Paramount+ or Peacock in place of Apple TV+. Maybe you want both of them instead of HBO Max. Whatever. Let's not pretend that the standard cable bundle includes all content. When I priced the bundle -- starting at $65 and going up from there -- I wasn't including HBO ($15), Showtime ($11), Starz ($9) or Epix ($6). And then, of course, there's all the quality content that's exclusive to OTT SVODs and not on cable at all (just as, conversely, there's still content -- mainly sports and news/talk -- exclusive to cable and not on OTT SVODs).

And as you say, yes, for now at least, it's still very easy to drop and add these SVODs on a monthly basis. Churn is a real problem for them, though. Most likely scenario is that their monthly prices increase at a significantly steeper slope than their discounted annual prices, thereby making it that much better a value to pre-pay for an entire year at a time. But, who knows, maybe we even see some service switch from monthly to quarterly subscriptions.


----------



## harsh

NashGuy said:


> Netflix (most popular tier -- HD, 2 screens): $15.50
> Disney Bundle (all ad-free Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+): $20
> HBO Max (ad-free): $15
> Apple TV+: $5
> total for 6 ad-free services: $55.50
> 
> That's a lot of content, all ad-free (except for sports), all with better HD or 4K HDR picture quality than cable, all on-demand, with even some live sports and news included.


I used to marvel at the number of titles and the tentpoles that this services promised but I burned through Netflix in about four months, Disney in three months and I've had a couple of stabs at HBO. In the end, I think I spent more time watching sports (usually other than ESPN) and YouTube. I've not tried AppleTV+ as it doesn't seem to offer much of what I'm looking for even at the price. I'd say it is the only name brand that I haven't really felt compelled to bother with but I acknowledge that I may be missing something.


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> Doesn't it seem like that scenario is the logical next step as the MVPD system evolves into the DTC system? The lines between linear and SVOD will increasingly blur, I think, as the latter swallows the former.


Just to further expound on the above, I'll re-post the following from a different thread. I think maybe what will happen is that traditional live pay TV ("cable TV") simply restructures and morphs into the SVOD system.

For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Fox, and AMC Networks all remain as-is in terms of the channels and SVODs they own. (They won't, there will be consolidations and deaths, but for simplicity's sake, let's just use the chess board as it currently exists.)

In time, I could see MVPDs restructuring their channel packages so that instead of choosing between small, medium and large bundles that commingle channels from multiple media groups, they'll just sell each media group's own bundle of channels plus their related SVOD. Consumers could buy any of these Packs alone or combined with others. Each Pack would have a different price. So the menu would look like:

*Disney Pack*:
linear channels -- ABC (local), ESPN, ESPN 2, SEC Network, ACC Network, FX, FXX, FXM, Disney Channel, Disney XD, Disney Jr., Freeform, Nat Geo, Nat Geo Wild, etc.
SVODs -- Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ (i.e. the full Disney Bundle)

*Paramount Pack:*
linear channels -- CBS (local), Paramount Network, CBS News, CBS Sports Network, Nickelodeon, Nick Jr., TeenNick, MTV, VH1, CMT, BET, Comedy Central, TV Land, Smithsonian Channel, Logo, Flix
SVOD -- Paramount+

*NBCUniversal Pack:*
linear channels -- NBC (local), MSNBC, CNBC, USA, Bravo, SyFy, E!, Oxygen, Universal Kids, Golf Channel, Olympic Channel, Cozi TV, NBC News Now, Circle
SVOD -- Peacock

*Warner Bros. Discovery Pack:*
linear channels -- HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Cartoon Network, OWN, Discovery, HGTV, Food, TLC, Magnolia, Trvl, ID, Animal Planet, Science, Motor Trend, etc.
SVOD -- HBO Max

*AMC Pack:*
linear channels -- AMC, IFC, BBC America, Sundance TV, WeTV
SVOD -- AMC+

*Sports Pack:*
linear channels -- local RSN(s), NFL Network, NBA Network, MLB Network, NHL Network, Tennis Channel, Stadium, Stadium College Sports, Pac-12 Network (maybe, and only in that region)
SVOD -- RSN DTC app

*Variety Pack (i.e. the leftovers):*
linear channels -- Fox (local), Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Weather, FS1, FS2, Big Ten Network, CW, NewsNation, Hallmark Channel, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, Hallmark Drama, A&E, History, Lifetime, LMN, Vice, Game Show Network, Get TV, Sony Movie Channel, INSP, GAC Family, GAC Living, MeTV, H&I, Story Television, Start TV, Decades, MeTV+, ION, ION Mystery, Bounce, Court TV, Grit, Defy, Newsy, Laff, TrueReal, Brown Sugar, ION Plus, Charge!, Comet, TBD
SVOD -- none

The SVODs above would continue to be available direct-to-consumer on a standalone basis. But they would be non-optionally included when buying the linear-channel cable TV bundles above from an MVPD distributor (e.g. Comcast, Charter, YouTube TV, etc.)

MVPD's own VOD platforms would cease to exist, except to provide on-demand access to all shows from channels in the Variety Pack. Otherwise, MVPD customers would just use the related SVOD for on-demand access to shows featured on the related channels. And, of course, those SVODs would offer a lot of additional content still not available on those channels, e.g. Max Originals, Disney+ Originals, etc.

MVPDs' home screens (on their own STBs and apps) would still feature an aggregated live channel grid guide containing all the linear channels to which you subscribe. But it would also feature suggested on-demand content from across the various SVODs you buy through the MVPD. Click on the tile for the latest episode of SNL and it launches you into the Peacock app to watch there.

Cloud DVR becomes a thing of the past. The linear channels are only for watching live (with the ability to pause and rewind for a limited amount of time, e.g. 30 minutes). If you want to avoid unskippable ads when watching content on-demand in a given SVOD, you'll need to pay more for the Pack it's part of. Since channels in the Variety Pack and Sports Pack (except RSNs) have no associated SVODs, everything they've aired within the last X days is available on-demand in the MVPDs' native VOD platform with unskippable ads (which, in some cases, may be removed via a small upgrade fee).

Instead of a DVR list of recorded shows, you simply have a collection of saved titles to watch on-demand from across all the Packs you subscribe to. You could add a show or movie from within the linear channel grid guide to your on-demand queue or add it from elsewhere in the MVPD home screen. Also, when adding a title inside an SVOD app to that app's internal queue, it would flow through and also get added to your universal queue maintained in the MVPD home screen UI.

Of course, MVPDs (at least those with their own broadband service, such as Comcast and Charter) will also attempt to be resellers of other SVODs too, i.e. those not associated with traditional TV studios, such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Apple TV+. If they do, then those services' on-demand content would also be featured in the MVPD home screen UI and available to add to its universal on-demand queue. I suspect that this is the end-game for the Flex streaming platform that is now a part of the new Comcast/Charter joint venture.

If the above should come to pass, it would probably exist at major MVPDs as an alternate "Flex Pack" system alongside the current (traditional/commingled) type of cable channel packages they offer now. But after awhile, that older system of packages would be dropped, leaving them only for existing subs grandfathered in on them, while new subs would only be able to select the new-type Packs outlined above. And then, eventually, even grandfathered subs would see their old packages taken away, with just the new-type Packs available. But when that happens -- maybe around 2030? -- no one would even think of any of this as "cable TV" any more. The middle-men won't be thought of as MVPDs or "cable companies" any more, just aggregation platforms offering unified billing and a unified UI/home screen for third-party streaming TV services. And of course, Apple, Google, Amazon and Roku (and maybe Samsung, LG, Vizio and Microsoft) will be in the business of doing that as much as Comcast+Charter. Frankly, I'm not sure if there will be any other players left in that video middle-man/distributor game by then.


----------



## James Long

For the most part I will agree with a couple of exceptions:


> The SVODs above would continue to be available direct-to-consumer on a standalone basis. But they would be non-optionally included when buying the linear-channel cable TV bundles above from an MVPD distributor (e.g. Comcast, Charter, YouTube TV, etc.)


Major MVPDs would include the SVODs ... smaller systems would not. The SVODs would not want to deal with authorization from every tiny podunk cable system - especially those serving people who would receive no benefit from SVOD availability. (Think: Whatever saves the SVOD company money.)



> MVPD's own VOD platforms would cease to exist, except to provide on-demand access to all shows from channels in the Variety Pack.


I expect major MVPDs to keep their platforms with integrated libraries. It is a major benefit of MVPDs to have a unified platform and until _ALL_ of the MVPDs deployed receivers are capable of running standard apps. Forcing people outside of their MVPD receiver to view content is a bad thing. (Example: DISH receivers currently give access to a large portion of the HBO Max library via the standard DISH interface. DISH customers can use the full HBO Max app on another device or on the soon to be released Hopper Plus / Joey 4 receivers but for most content the unified experience is available.)



> Cloud DVR becomes a thing of the past.


Yes ... but home DVR survives. If content can be received via a system's normal linear channels (non-streaming) it can be recorded. I expect content will be able to be downloaded and stored similar to Netflix's offering (storage on up to four devices per account).

Cloud DVR exists today for systems that do not have DVRs in home or do not have VOD agreements with all of the linear channels they carry. A personal DVR (per subscriber) is protected by federal copyright laws. Home DVR systems seem to be fading out of existence and may only survive long term as a third party offering.

Timeline: 10 years from now. I don't expect a major upheaval in the next five years that would lead to all of the above to pass.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> For the most part I will agree with a couple of exceptions:
> Major MVPDs would include the SVODs ... smaller systems would not. The SVODs would not want to deal with authorization from every tiny podunk cable system - especially those serving people who would receive no benefit from SVOD availability. (Think: Whatever saves the SVOD company money.)


Except a major player, HBO Max, already does this with every tiny podunk cable system that distributes HBO (which is all of them). They tend to do contractual stuff with all those little players through a national collective that represents them, the NCTC. I see no reason the others wouldn't do the same. (Also, there's the more fundamental issue that pretty much all those little MVPDs will cease to exist in the next several years.)



James Long said:


> I expect major MVPDs to keep their platforms with integrated libraries. It is a major benefit of MVPDs to have a unified platform and until _ALL_ of the MVPDs deployed receivers are capable of running standard apps. Forcing people outside of their MVPD receiver to view content is a bad thing. (Example: DISH receivers currently give access to a large portion of the HBO Max library via the standard DISH interface. DISH customers can use the full HBO Max app on another device or on the soon to be released Hopper Plus / Joey 4 receivers but for most content the unified experience is available.)


This new system of Packs (linear+SVOD) that I describe would only be available through MVPDs who offer their own STBs and/or apps for retail devices (e.g. Roku, iOS) that can accommodate/work with third-party SVOD apps. So Dish's new Android TV-based system could do it. The X1/Flex platform used by Comcast, Charter and Cox could do it. And obviously retail devices running Google/Android TV, Fire TV, Roku, Apple tvOS, and smart TV OSes by Samsung, LG, etc. could do it. Those are your next-gen gatekeepers. Verizon will try to make a go of it with their new +Play platform (which will be an app and probably a home screen for their Android TV Operator Tier box) but I'm skeptical that they've got the juice to pull it off.



James Long said:


> Yes ... but home DVR survives.


Local DVR survives on those devices/MVPDs that are unable to do what I outlined above. Obviously, non-internet-connected satellite TV receivers will ALWAYS have to rely on local DVR. And they might be stuck with the current commingled-type channel packages (sans SVODs), except for their customers on next-gen internet-connected STBs/apps, like Dish's new Hopper Plus or the DirecTV Stream app (which could see its cloud DVR and on-demand platform just become deep links to those shows in the various SVOD apps).



James Long said:


> Cloud DVR exists today for systems that do not have DVRs in home or do not have VOD agreements with all of the linear channels they carry. A personal DVR (per subscriber) is protected by federal copyright laws. Home DVR systems seem to be fading out of existence and may only survive long term as a third party offering.


Local DVR, cloud DVR and VOD would NOT be licensed by the media companies (e.g. Disney, WBD, etc.) in conjunction with the next-gen Packs (linear+SVOD) that I envision. All of that stuff would be a vestige of the current channel package system that would be gradually phased out over the latter half of this decade.



James Long said:


> Timeline: 10 years from now. I don't expect a major upheaval in the next five years that would lead to all of the above to pass.


I think we'll see some significant changes to the way "cable TV" is packaged and sold within the next 5 years (i.e. by spring 2027). Its penetration and viewership among US households will have fallen too low to avoid some real changes. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I see ESPN as both the glue that keeps the current channel bundle paradigm in place and the barrier that prevents the future of video from getting here sooner. What I sketch out above will give Disney/ESPN time to transition to a profitable product that will be sustainable in the a la carte DTC video world that will be fully in effect by 2030.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

NashGuy said:


> If the above should come to pass, it would probably exist at major MVPDs as an alternate "Flex Pack" system alongside the current (traditional/commingled) type of cable channel packages they offer now. But after awhile, that older system of packages would be dropped, leaving them only for existing subs grandfathered in on them, while new subs would only be able to select the new-type Packs outlined above. And then, eventually, even grandfathered subs would see their old packages taken away, with just the new-type Packs available. But when that happens -- maybe around 2030? -- no one would even think of any of this as "cable TV" any more. The middle-men won't be thought of as MVPDs or "cable companies" any more, just aggregation platforms offering unified billing and a unified UI/home screen for third-party streaming TV services. And of course, Apple, Google, Amazon and Roku (and maybe Samsung, LG, Vizio and Microsoft) will be in the business of doing that as much as Comcast+Charter. Frankly, I'm not sure if there will be any other players left in that video middle-man/distributor game by then.


if one thing they should push for unified multi stream rules with that unified billing.
Say $/5-$10/mo each added box (with base of say 2-3) one time fee for X streams across all of them.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

NashGuy said:


> I think we'll see some significant changes to the way "cable TV" is packaged and sold within the next 5 years (i.e. by spring 2027). Its penetration and viewership among US households will have fallen too low to avoid some real changes. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I see ESPN as both the glue that keeps the current channel bundle paradigm in place and the barrier that prevents the future of video from getting here sooner. What I sketch out above will give Disney/ESPN time to transition to a profitable product that will be sustainable in the a la carte DTC video world that will be fully in effect by 2030.


now what if the laws change so that any OTA channel that that cable cable co's have to pay for can not be forced into an package with any other non OTA channel?
say Disney/ESPN can not take away an O&O abc channel on a system with out ESPN in basic?

What about with with ATSC 3.0 that O&O abc has ESPN as an PAY ATSC 3.0 channel?


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> I think maybe what will happen is that traditional live pay TV ("cable TV") simply restructures and morphs into the SVOD system.


Aside from the MVPD acting as a sales agent, and taking a cut of the fee, what does the SVOD get out of this arrangement?



James Long said:


> Timeline: 10 years from now. I don't expect a major upheaval in the next five years that would lead to all of the above to pass.


The industry has been in ‘major upheaval’ mode for the last 10 years, starting with authentication. Yet, I don’t expect the demise of MVPDs in the immediate future. Let’s just say their demise is imminent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

JoeTheDragon said:


> now what if the laws change so that any OTA channel that that cable cable co's have to pay for can not be forced into an package with any other non OTA channel?


That would be an interesting development! I'm not holding my breath, though. But yeah, if the laws surrounding the paid distribution of OTA channels change, that could have a big impact on what the future looks like.



JoeTheDragon said:


> What about with with ATSC 3.0 that O&O abc has ESPN as an PAY ATSC 3.0 channel?


Yeah, I just don't really see the rationale for using ATSC 3.0 (OTA TV) to distribute paid subscription channels. Why wouldn't you just do it via internet streaming? Because increasingly, every screen is connected to the internet but relatively few are connected to an OTA antenna, and so far, only a sliver of those have a 3.0 tuner in them. I just don't see how selling, for example, ESPN via both pay OTA and streaming ends up netting them any more subscribers than if they just sell it via streaming alone. Anyone who owns an ATSC 3.0-capable TV and who is willing to pay for ESPN will almost certainly have internet service.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> .Yeah, I just don't really see the rationale for using ATSC 3.0 (OTA TV) to distribute paid subscription channels.


So, ATSC 3.0 is a technological solution to a problem that was solved in other ways while the technology was developed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> Aside from the MVPD acting as a sales agent, and taking a cut of the fee, what does the SVOD get out of this arrangement?


The SVODs get more subscriptions than they would without those MVPDs acting as a sales agent/distributor/content integrator. I mean, ultimately, what I'm describing as MVPDs' future is what Apple is already doing today on their Apple TV. You have all the apps there. Click to sign up for a subscription in any of those apps and Apple will handle the billing using your existing Apple account with credit card on file. They get an X% ongoing cut of the subscription fee. Apple maintains their Apple TV app that features curated recommendations from across lots of leading services and the universal watchlist in it is backed by 2-way communication with the apps to track what you watch, giving the user the convenience of one place to go for a unified streaming TV UI. So far, at least, there's no live linear channel grid guide in the Apple TV app. But there could be in the future. Google already has such a live guide in the home screen of their Google TV operating system -- your live linear channels from YouTube TV appear there if you're a subscriber -- along with a unified watchlist, cross-app recommendations, etc. (The Google TV UI seems heavily inspired by the Apple TV app I describe above). And Amazon has a similar situation with their Fire TV UI. Roku is a bit of a straggler but they're getting there.

And, as I say, the new Comcast/Charter streaming platform joint venture is simply their attempt to make sure that they're a next-gen video distributor and gatekeeper too. They'll use Comcast's Flex streaming platform (or some successor to it) in all the TV/streaming boxes they hand out to their customers. They're also building it into smart TVs for sale at retail. I expect we'll see them also sell a small box/stick running it at retail too to compete with Roku, Fire TV, etc.

As I say, Dish is aiming to be a player in this game too (but having to split their commissions with Google) through their new customized Android TV Operator Tier hardware, the Hopper Plus and Joey 4. Meanwhile, DirecTV Stream has their own customized Android TV Operator Tier box they offer customers. Verizon has one too, the Stream TV, which is on its second generation and sells for $70 (although they have at times given them away for free to new Verizon Home 5G customers, I believe).


----------



## NashGuy

wmb said:


> So, ATSC 3.0 is a technological solution to a problem that was solved in other ways while the technology was developed.


Yep. Well, it's even worse than you may think. On the one hand, most folks will use home wifi as the pipe to supply the video they watch across all their screens while at home. And, as you point out, that largely renders ATSC 3.0 superfluous.

But there still is an argument to be made for free (no internet or cellular provided required) wireless one-to-many video broadcasting, which is what ATSC 3.0 is designed to do. The problem, of course, is that screened devices (e.g. TVs, phones, tablets, computers) will either need a special new ATSC 3.0 chip in them to receive those signals OR they'll need to be on the same wi-fi network as a device that does. That obviously leaves out smartphones that are being used away from home. Sinclair (a major broadcast station owner and the biggest historical backer of 3.0) has long had a pipe dream about getting smartphone manufacturers to include 3.0 tuner chips in their devices. As you might expect, Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. are not interested.

So while the US TV industry has slowly developed ATSC 3.0 and finally begun rolling it out, what else has been happening? Well, the global standards body for cellular communication, the 3GPP, has developed multicast (one-to-many) video broadcasting capabilities as a subset of the broader global 5G standard. It's called Broadcast 5G and it will be finalized and released to the world next month for governments and the private sector to begin deploying as they wish.

Ah, but don't you need to pay for 5G service from the likes of AT&T, T-Mobile or your other local carrier to get Broadcast 5G signals on your phone or other device? Nope. It offers a completely free SIM-less operation mode that free OTA broadcasters can opt to use. And the standard has been designed to work on the UHF frequencies that TV stations around the world already broadcast on. It would be simple and cheap for 5G radio manufacturers to tweak their existing chips to support 5G Broadcast in upcoming iPhones and Android phones. And, of course, the 3GPP points out that such 5G chips could be built into TVs too. Given the sort of reception that little smartphones can get with their internal antennas, I'd think large-screen TVs could pull in 5G signals even better! The 5G Broadcast standard is also designed to work with broadcasters using a single high-power tower, or multiple lower-powered towers/cells (as is typical for cellular carriers), or a combination where the two work in tandem.

Public broadcasters and private industry have already been testing out 5G Broadcast using its draft specs in the past couple years in Europe and China. In India, a ton of the public don't own TVs and so stream live TV over their phones, which puts a real strain on existing cellular networks (since all those viewing sessions are unicast, i.e. one-to-one, not multicast, i.e. one-to-many, like Broadcast 5G is). My guess is that all those places and more will end up hitching their next-gen OTA TV wagon to Broadcast 5G (which will eventually improve to Broadcast 6G) as a true global standard in the late 2020s. Meanwhile, the USA and South Korea may be stuck with the stillborn baby known as ATSC 3.0.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> The SVODs get more subscriptions than they would without those MVPDs acting as a sales agent/distributor/content integrator. I mean, ultimately, what I'm describing as MVPDs' future is what Apple is already doing today on their Apple TV.


Apple is able to do things others haven’t. I wouldn’t assume others can duplicate Apple’s success. 



NashGuy said:


> So far, at least, there's no live linear channel grid guide in the Apple TV app. But there could be in the future. Google already has such a live guide in the home screen of their Google TV operating system -- your live linear channels from YouTube TV appear there if you're a subscriber -- along with a unified watchlist, cross-app recommendations, etc. (The Google TV UI seems heavily inspired by the Apple TV app I describe above). And Amazon has a similar situation with their Fire TV UI. Roku is a bit of a straggler but they're getting there.


Does Apple TV+ actual have linear channels to need a linear channel guide? It links out to stream apps, again no linear channels, and live games from ESPN+. I guess I could use it to access live TV from YouTube TV, but why?



NashGuy said:


> And, as I say, the new Comcast/Charter streaming platform joint venture is simply their attempt to make sure that they're a next-gen video distributor and gatekeeper too.


This sounds like a reason for net neutrality. I mean, the gate keeping works best if you can block streamers not purchased through you from your system, or have the streamers pay you for high speed transmission to your customers.



NashGuy said:


> in all the TV/streaming boxes they hand out to their customers. They're also building it into smart TVs for sale at retail. I expect we'll see them also sell a small box/stick running it at retail too to compete with Roku, Fire TV, etc.


IIRC, Roku is more or less winning the Smart TV built in operating system battle for TVs that aren’t Samsung or Lucky Goldstar. Samsung and LG were doing their own thing, because since they each have 1/3 of the new TV market, they can. Aren’t hey all Linux/Android based?

Anyhow, I really don’t want a box attached to my TV anymore. I guess I’ll have to figure out what OS is better when the time comes. I’m betting it will be das machts nicht.



NashGuy said:


> As I say, Dish is aiming to be a player in this game too…
> 
> Meanwhile, DirecTV Stream ...
> 
> Verizon has one too,


Meh. 

Dish, DirecTV, and the other MVPDs are searching for relevance. At the end of the day, I expect Dish and DirecTV to just wind down as customers flee and satellites EOL. They are too expensive.

Verizon, and other terrestrial based MVPDs that are also ISPs will likewise see their TV customers dwindle. Their only hope is a TV/data bundle allows them to retain TV customers. Anyhow, how many more carriage agreement renegotiations do you think it will take before they just say F it? My over/under is one more cycle.

Right now, I have a TV/fiber internet bundle that was cheaper than stand alone internet. I also pay for YouTube TV because the telecos TV box sucks. It’s time to check deals again. I think the teleco finally has an Apple TV app.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

JoeTheDragon said:


> What about with with ATSC 3.0 that O&O abc has ESPN as an PAY ATSC 3.0 channel?


Given that this isn't a practical option until DTV is sunset, it is probably not going to help for a few years yet.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> So, ATSC 3.0 is a technological solution to a problem that was solved in other ways while the technology was developed.


The fact that it is taking so long to deploy NextGen TV (and deliver economical tuners) coupled with the FCC requirement to lighthouse the NextGen TV channels (the "proponents" wanted DTV to be lighthoused), the "proponents" allowed the FCC to force them to back into ATSC 3.0 which runs a significant risk of backfiring. Since NextGen TV broadcasts are filled with free content, there's no room for pay content.


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> Apple is able to do things others haven’t. I wouldn’t assume others can duplicate Apple’s success.


Perhaps you could illustrate where Apple has had such successes that nobody else has (or could).

I suspect that Apple's sole advantage is in its deep pockets allowing them to operate the service at a loss. Apple recently hinted that they had about 25 million fully paying subscribers (versus 50 million "promotional" subscribers) yet they are investing "billions" in programming. That doesn't sound all that successful.

I submit that any relative gains that AppleTV+ has had are more due to people dropping the other services for lack of new compelling content (especially Disney+ that has also failed to deliver some of their promised archive content). Netflix was also caught resting on their laurels.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> Anyone who owns an ATSC 3.0-capable TV and who is willing to pay for ESPN will almost certainly have internet service.


You seem to be assuming that broadband Internet coverage will be equal to or greater than ATSC 3.0 TV coverage _and_ a more desirable signal path. There is no guarantee that everyone who will be able to receive ATSC 3.0 TV will also have affordable broadband that they want to use for streaming TV services.

That being said I don't expect paid services via ATSC 3.0 to be any more successful than the many attempts at paid services over ATSC 1.0 that were attempted over the past couple of decades. But thousand word essays for and against subscription ATSC 3.0 are not the topic of this thread.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

wmb said:


> Apple is able to do things others haven’t. I wouldn’t assume others can duplicate Apple’s success.
> 
> 
> 
> Does Apple TV+ actual have linear channels to need a linear channel guide? It links out to stream apps, again no linear channels, and live games from ESPN+. I guess I could use it to access live TV from YouTube TV, but why?
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like a reason for net neutrality. I mean, the gate keeping works best if you can block streamers not purchased through you from your system, or have the streamers pay you for high speed transmission to your customers.
> 
> 
> 
> IIRC, Roku is more or less winning the Smart TV built in operating system battle for TVs that aren’t Samsung or Lucky Goldstar. Samsung and LG were doing their own thing, because since they each have 1/3 of the new TV market, they can. Aren’t hey all Linux/Android based?
> 
> Anyhow, I really don’t want a box attached to my TV anymore. I guess I’ll have to figure out what OS is better when the time comes. I’m betting it will be das machts nicht.
> 
> 
> 
> Meh.
> 
> Dish, DirecTV, and the other MVPDs are searching for relevance. At the end of the day, I expect Dish and DirecTV to just wind down as customers flee and satellites EOL. They are too expensive.
> 
> Verizon, and other terrestrial based MVPDs that are also ISPs will likewise see their TV customers dwindle. Their only hope is a TV/data bundle allows them to retain TV customers. Anyhow, how many more carriage agreement renegotiations do you think it will take before they just say F it? My over/under is one more cycle.
> 
> Right now, I have a TV/fiber internet bundle that was cheaper than stand alone internet. I also pay for YouTube TV because the telecos TV box sucks. It’s time to check deals again. I think the teleco finally has an Apple TV app.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


and what will an internet cap crack down do? or if they are forced to have an power like meter for there capped internet? (that may even say no cap free content) (that may just lead to no caps)
an crack down on ISP from owning continent say comcast is forced to sell off NBC.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> You seem to be assuming that broadband Internet coverage will be equal to or greater than ATSC 3.0 TV coverage _and_ a more desirable signal path. There is no guarantee that everyone who will be able to receive ATSC 3.0 TV will also have affordable broadband that they want to use for streaming TV services.
> 
> That being said I don't expect paid services via ATSC 3.0 to be any more successful than the many attempts at paid services over ATSC 1.0 that were attempted over the past couple of decades. But thousand word essays for and against subscription ATSC 3.0 are not the topic of this thread.


No need to get salty because I know way more about these topics than you do, James. As per usual, this thread has meandered onto multiple peripheral topics after the first couple pages. So what?

And yes, I am 100% predicting that broadband internet coverage will be available to substantially more of the US population in their homes than ATSC 3.0 (or, for that matter, reliable ATSC 1.0 reception) EVER will be. As to a guarantee that everyone will be able to afford it, no, although to some extent that will depend on politics. (There are a lot of Americans getting free broadband right now, or at least $30 off per month, through federal subsidies.) But then not everyone will necessarily be able to afford subscription video services either. Not really a useful argument, IMO.


----------



## James Long

Some thread drift is expected but when a thread is dominated by manifestos it is time to reign it in and get back to the actual topic of the thread. Thank you for your opinion.


----------



## wmb

NashGuy said:


> As per usual, this thread has meandered onto multiple peripheral topics after the first couple pages. So what?


Every good thread on every forum does just that. Eventually, people are comparing burger chains or sharing wine suggestions while waiting for something new in topic.

Unfortunately, most topics don’t have the staying power to support such things. It needs high relevance with regular important new information. They just die a slow death as interest wanes.

For such things, nothing will match the “save the Crew” thread on Big Soccer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## B. Shoe

So, like, now that we've got it all out on the table...are you guys gonna subscribe to Bally Sports+ or what?


----------



## b4pjoe

Nope. I already get Bally Sports with DirecTV.


----------



## NashGuy

B. Shoe said:


> So, like, now that we've got it all out on the table...are you guys gonna subscribe to Bally Sports+ or what?


Nah. I'm a casual sports fan at best. I wouldn't watch most of those regular season Nashville Preds, Atlanta Braves, Atlanta Hawks or Memphis Grizzlies games even if I could get them for free. Now, if the Preds were to make the NHL playoffs, I might tune in (probably with friends, drinks and food).


----------



## dstout

B. Shoe said:


> So, like, now that we've got it all out on the table...are you guys gonna subscribe to Bally Sports+ or what?


I probably will during baseball season.


----------



## wmb

B. Shoe said:


> So, like, now that we've got it all out on the table...are you guys gonna subscribe to Bally Sports+ or what?


For the teams I follow, I’m either a season ticket holder or out-of-market. Away games are available OTA or streamed on the team web site.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## karrank%

Subscribe to BS?
-Nah.
BS+ ?
-Hmmmm


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> Perhaps you could illustrate where Apple has had such successes that nobody else has (or could).


The iPod. No one else had a music device that could compete. Many had better devices.



harsh said:


> Apple recently hinted that they had about 25 million fully paying subscribers (versus 50 million "promotional" subscribers) yet they are investing "billions" in programming. That doesn't sound all that successful.


Keep in mind that the requirement for the promotional subscription is mostly a recent purchase of an expense, high margin device.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> The iPod. No one else had a music device that could compete. Many had better devices.


To be honest, I was thinking more along the lines of services but I'd guess you haven't been keeping up on the state-of-the-art of Digital Audio Players. The other downer with the iPod was that it was pretty tightly lashed to the iTunes ecosystem. The iPod didn't support FLAC and until a few years ago. I'm thinking they still don't directly support Ogg Vorbis.


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> The other downer with the iPod was that it was pretty tightly lashed to the iTunes ecosystem.


Some peoples bug is another person’s features. Tight integration to ensure the product works as advertised was a selling point for Apple.

The initial iTunes model of selling individual songs was right for the time, but wouldn’t fly today. That service was just there to sell a product, and everyone bought.



harsh said:


> The iPod didn't support FLAC and until a few years ago. I'm thinking they still don't directly support Ogg Vorbis.


I’m not sure that really matters. You are talking about technical details at a level that most users don’t care about. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MCHuf

B. Shoe said:


> So, like, now that we've got it all out on the table...are you guys gonna subscribe to Bally Sports+ or what?


I get Bally Sports through my internet provider. Even though we dropped the tv portion of cable, my login credentials still work for Bally Sports, TNT, ESPN, etc. When you add in the free MLB.TV I get through T-Mobile, I have no need to pay for sports!


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> Some peoples bug is another person’s features.


Not supporting one or more universal audio formats can't be classified as a bug or a feature. It is a shortcoming with Apple itself as the sole beneficiary.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Not supporting one or more universal audio formats can't be classified as a bug or a feature. It is a shortcoming with Apple itself as the sole beneficiary.


It is irrelevant as long as the device is locked down to iTunes music.

Might as well complain that Android apps don't run on iOS. Apple has their own content streams.


----------



## B. Shoe

MCHuf said:


> I get Bally Sports through my internet provider. Even though we dropped the tv portion of cable, my login credentials still work for Bally Sports, TNT, ESPN, etc. When you add in the free MLB.TV I get through T-Mobile, I have no need to pay for sports!


That's great stuff. Enjoy the free sports!


----------



## MCHuf

B. Shoe said:


> That's great stuff. Enjoy the free sports!


When I quit the tv portion of cable nearly 4 years ago, I was still receiving clear qam signals. I sometimes record this on my Tivos. I didn't even think about trying my credentials on a channels website. I was experimenting with Channels DVR a couple of weeks ago and found out my cable credentials work! Quite a surprise. It probably won't last forever, but I'll take whatever freebies I can.


----------



## glrush

Sinclair CEO Says Pay-TV Services Won’t Take Risk Dropping Bally Sports After DTC Launch – The Streamable


----------



## James Long

That is optimism. The best their CEO can hope for is the failure of DTC if they want to stay on MVPDs. The more successful DTC is at pulling people away from MVPD subscriptions the less value Sinclair's product has for the MVPDs.

Sinclair can tout the recent renewals but contracts expiring in 2023 are a huge risk for Sinclair. Ignoring the MVPDs that have already dropped Bally Sports and are thriving is foolish. DISH did the math ... they found that only 10% of their subscribers ever watched Sinclair's expensive content. They saved the money and loss less than 10% of their subscribers. (DISH lost about 6% of their subscribers overall over the next year - which is less that 10% even if one is arrogant enough to claim every subscriber lost was due to dropping RSNs. DIRECTV lost 16% of their subscribers over the same time period.)

Sinclair is taking the risk. Unless their price to MVPDs is dirt cheap and their DTC service fails to pull people away from the MVPDs I would not be as optimistic as their CEO.


----------



## wmb

James Long said:


> That is optimism.


Of course it is, but would you expect from a CEO.



James Long said:


> The best their CEO can hope for is the failure of DTC if they want to stay on MVPDs. The more successful DTC is at pulling people away from MVPD subscriptions the less value Sinclair's product has for the MVPDs.


I doubt that the MVPDs see it that way. Sports channels are something their customers want. No one is dropping ESPN, Disney, NBC, Paramount, or Discovery (yet) because they have DTC offering. Dropping these networks would gut the MVPDs programming tiers.

I’d also offer that this is the flip side of the a la carte issue… MVPDs have to offer diverse programming in their tiers. There are enough customers that want local sports that the MVPD is obligated to carry them.



James Long said:


> Sinclair is taking the risk. Unless their price to MVPDs is dirt cheap and their DTC service fails to pull people away from the MVPDs I would not be as optimistic as their CEO.


Definitely this. Their $20 per month price point is going to be a sticking point. Customers are going to balk at this price and I don’t see a large uptake because of it. They would have been better off introducing it at $9.99. Sinclair needs to play the long game and create an environment that encourages sports fans to add their service as they cut the cord. The first year (or more) sales are likely to be dismal. That doesn’t mean there won’t be sufficient demand in 5 years to support the service as MVPDs lose customers.

But, I don’t expect this to alone to pull people away from MVPD offerings. What will work is the ability of customers to build a stable of streamers that provide enough content at a lower price than the MVPD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

wmb said:


> I doubt that the MVPDs see it that way. Sports channels are something their customers want.


If Sinclair bundles local channels with the Bally's product, that makes for some very uncomfortable negotiations.

At a modest level, bundling is probably a good thing but it simply can't involve lifeline TV. Its bad enough that Sinclair is operating so many of it's "competition's" stations.


----------



## wmb

harsh said:


> If Sinclair bundles local channels with the Bally's product, that makes for some very uncomfortable negotiations.
> 
> At a modest level, bundling is probably a good thing but it simply can't involve lifeline TV. Its bad enough that Sinclair is operating so many of it's "competition's" stations.


This is kind of the rub… none of the DTCs have the associated linear channels that are sold to cable systems. My assumption is that the contracts with the MVPDs prohibit the DTCs from offering the channels sold to MVPDs in the DTC product, without authorization in the least.

But, it does look like the streamers are recognizing the value of live channels. Most of them are offering channels that aren’t available through cable. 

I could see the cable system taking umbrage with Sinclair offering the local RSN in the product. However, cable cos are also interested in offering tiers that do not include the RSN. Like I said, the cable companies have a significant number of customers who watch the local team’s games on the RSN. They can’t afford to lose that content.

Anyway, in the least, what happens here is going to be a bellwether for what happens to the entertainment networks as people continue to cut the cord. RSN pricing is likely to be a driver for this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

Eventually, the Bally's contracts will need to be renewed.


----------



## James Long

wmb said:


> Sports channels are something their customers want. No one is dropping ESPN, Disney, NBC, Paramount, or Discovery (yet) because they have DTC offering.


Have you looked at their DTC offerings? ESPN+ does not include the major sports that air on ESPN networks. To get access to those sports one needs an MVPD subscription - which is not "DTC". Peacock is increasing the amount of sports available on their service, but it is hardly interfering with the agreements that they made with MVPDs.



wmb said:


> There are enough customers that want local sports that the MVPD is obligated to carry them.


There is no obligation to carry RSNs - even if they were reasonably priced. Any provider can look at their subscribers, figure out who is watching what and decide if forcing nearly all of their subscribers to pay higher fees is worth appeasing a small section of their subscriber base. There is a value to the MVPD with not needing to pay the RSNs.

National channels like ESPN are not leaving the MVPD model. If they decide to do so they face the same risk that Sinclair is taking that their MVPD partners will step away from renewing contracts. ESPN is smarter than Sinclair.


----------



## Steveknj

harsh said:


> Not supporting one or more universal audio formats can't be classified as a bug or a feature. It is a shortcoming with Apple itself as the sole beneficiary.


But it's a shortcoming that relatively few people cared about (or even today, care about). What the iPod did, was bring digital music to the masses in a way that no other company could at the time. They did it by making it easy to both use a device and sell you content in a method that was easy for the average person to use. Sure, those of us who know how to burn mp3s and more advanced codecs could do better (and I STILL have a large collection of personally ripped digital music and hardly bought anything from iTunes) but most people either didn't have the knowledge how or cared to learn when for a few dollars they can just buy it. That was the beauty of the iPod and the iTunes ecosystem (not to mention another major driver was podcasts and VLOGs, which became popular soon after). People want convenience. Hobbyists want perfection in their hobby (like more advanced better sounding music). It's the same now. I'm an audio enthusiast so I have an AVR, 7 speakers and 2 subwoofers and enjoy having Dolby Atmos and other more advanced sound fields. The majority of video viewers are content with the speakers on their TVs, or, even a soundbar. I'd bet that's less than 10% of the market who cares about such things. Even if it was 30%, it's a small amount comparatively. Folks who come here and post frequently are NOT your average TV viewer. So we have a bit of a skewed view, because we care about this stuff. Most people don't.


----------



## RichardS

Unless someone is a hard core fan of a team and they don't have cable or DirecTV Stream, I don't see many people paying 20.00/month for Bally Sports+. But this is greedy Sinclair, the same company that charges 100.00/year for Tennis Channel+.


----------



## inkahauts

The problem is it doesn’t include things like espn and tnt and such. So it’s not like you can get just this and Netflix and HBO max and be happy. You’d still need a service that provides the National televised games. That’s the big problem with streaming. 

It’s a non starter for me, Lakers and Dodgers aren’t on Bally.


----------



## NashGuy

inkahauts said:


> The problem is it doesn’t include things like espn and tnt and such. So it’s not like you can get just this and Netflix and HBO max and be happy. You’d still need a service that provides the National televised games. That’s the big problem with streaming.
> 
> It’s a non starter for me, Lakers and Dodgers aren’t on Bally.


As I've written before, we're looking at a two-track system for live sports in direct-to-consumer streaming apps. On the one hand, you'll have the playoffs/championships of the most popular sports, as well as a sprinkling of their regular season national games, finding homes in major general entertainment apps, e.g. Prime Video, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Paramount+, heck, maybe even Netflix (which seems to be rethinking their business model a lot these days). Those games are popular enough to attract large numbers of casual viewers (plus, of course, the hard-core fans), so the carriage costs of those games can be spread out over the large number of subscribers that those general entertainment services attract. For instance, enough Apple TV+ subs probably enjoy their Friday Night Baseball double-headers that Apple can justify spending the money for it. And if Apple TV+ adds some more select sports content, their subscribers would probably be OK with the cost going from $5/mo to $6/mo in order to pay for those popular sports.

On the other hand, you'll have the vast majority of regular season local games for popular sports available in a DTC app operated by the individual team (e.g. Chicago Cubs) or the league (e.g. MLB). In other words, a streaming version of cable's regional sports networks. (I suspect that Sinclair's RSN arm, Diamond Sports/Bally's, will eventually fail and this business will be done directly by the leagues and/or teams.) Likewise, those league apps will also handle out-of-market regular season games. (In fact, for the most part, they already do.) The exception to this second group is the NFL, whose relatively few local regular season games are all popular enough to end up in group 1 above. Having only 17 regular season NFL games vs. 82 for NBA and NHL, and 162 (!) for MLB makes a big difference in average game viewership and overall economics. (Out-of-market regular season NFL games will continue to be in their own special package, e.g. NFL Sunday Ticket.)

If this kinda sounds like, in the end, we're just replacing the traditional cable bundle with multiple smaller services, well, yep, that's exactly what it is. But in this latter system, the majority of the viewing public who aren't hard-core fans of a particular MLB, NBA or NHL team won't be forced to pay for those games. And, furthermore, we'll be able to only pay for (and rotate) individual chunks of the overall bundle. I personally have little interest in the type of content Disney+ offers, so I can avoid paying for it. But it's impossible to avoid paying for Disney content in the traditional cable bundle.

The big question is what ends up happening with ESPN. Because it doesn't fit either group 1 or group 2 above. It's a weird grab bag of national games, quite a lot of college sports (which I imagine is it's core appeal now?), plus some less popular/niche sports. Maybe it ultimately becomes the DTC source for NCAA Div. I football, basketball and other sports? But then I'm not sure why the SEC, ACC, etc. will continue to need ESPN to play middle-man. Why wouldn't they just do it themselves, as the Pac-12 has already done in the cable TV era with their own channel?


----------



## inkahauts

Turner networks are becoming like espn as well. They have hockey, baseball and basketball and ncaa basketball. Wait till they get their hands on college football playoffs…. And I wouldn’t count them out in a few years when nfl goes to bid again. Everyone thinks it’s all streaming…. (Don’t forget turner is in the HBO family so they have stand alone streaming platforms too)

Yeah people will avoid paying for some
Channels in this an a la cart streaming world, but then the channels they do want will cost so much more that they won’t really save money over the current system but you will have less channels. I have been saying that from the beginning.

In todays age they may not necessarily mean less things to watch though, except for sports…


----------



## NashGuy

inkahauts said:


> Turner networks are becoming like espn as well. They have hockey, baseball and basketball and ncaa basketball. Wait till they get their hands on college football playoffs…. And I wouldn’t count them out in a few years when nfl goes to bid again. Everyone thinks it’s all streaming…. (Don’t forget turner is in the HBO family so they have stand alone streaming platforms too)


Leadership at Warner has at least hinted, if not explicitly stated, that HBO Max will eventually be the home for the sports they currently reserve for their Turner cable nets. And they've announced soccer is coming before long to HBO Max and will probably be exclusive to it.









Could WarnerMedia Stream NBA and NHL Games on HBO Max?


Could HBO Max follow in the steps of peers like Paramount+, Peacock, and Hulu in bringing live sports to its streaming platform? One exec certainly thinks so. In an interview with SportTechie, WarnerMedia exec Peter …




thestreamable.com





The pattern that we're already seeing across all kinds of content on cable and broadcast channels versus their direct-to-consumer sibling service is that the DTC has exclusive new content that's not available on its sibling linear nets, but in addition, it also offers a growing portion of the linear nets' content too, either next-day or, in the case of some sports, live.

NBCUniversal is very instructive here. Note that NBC's Sunday Night Football live streams on Peacock. Same with other select sports. So does NBC's Saturday Night Live. And then the entirety of NBC primetime shows stream next-day on Peacock. And they've gradually extended that so that now most Bravo, Oxygen, SyFy, and MSNBC shows stream next-day on Peacock. At the same time, there's a fair amount of live sports plus new original series and movies that are exclusive to Peacock; can't see them on any NBCU linear net. They're still holding back from Peacock _some_ live sports and maybe a few series across their linear nets, in order to still prop up demand for cable TV. But it's easy to see which way the wind is blowing here.

And, to a greater or lesser extent, the same trends are happening at Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney, and Paramount.


----------



## NashGuy

Looks like NESN has beaten Bally to the DTC punch. NESN 360 was just announced today, carrying Boston Red Sox MLB games and Boston Bruins NHL games with no cable subscription necessary. (Although if you get NESN as part of your paid cable package, you can use that to log into the NESN 360 app at no additional cost.) To purchase NESN 360 as a standalone service, it costs $1 for the first month, then $30/mo thereafter. You can pre-purchase an entire year of service for $330, which doesn't really save you any money but does score you 8 tickets to a 2022 Red Sox game of your choice.

The app supports Roku and Apple TV at launch, plus mobile. They have plans to support Fire TV and Google TV in the weeks to come, and also add features like 4K HDR and cloud DVR (which seems odd, why not just make all games available on-demand after they air live?).









NESN Launches Digital Subscription Service With Red Sox, Bruins


NESN, the regional sports network, unveiled NESN 360, a digital service that allows fans to purchase a direct subscription to the outlet’s live programming and video on demand content. The of…




variety.com


----------



## NashGuy

NashGuy said:


> Looks like NESN has beaten Bally to the DTC punch. NESN 360 was just announced today, carrying Boston Red Sox MLB games and Boston Bruins NHL games with no cable subscription necessary. (Although if you get NESN as part of your paid cable package, you can use that to log into the NESN 360 app at no additional cost.) To purchase NESN 360 as a standalone service, it costs $1 for the first month, then $30/mo thereafter. You can pre-purchase an entire year of service for $330, which doesn't really save you any money but does score you 8 tickets to a 2022 Red Sox game of your choice.
> 
> The app supports Roku and Apple TV at launch, plus mobile. They have plans to support Fire TV and Google TV in the weeks to come, and also add features like 4K HDR and cloud DVR (which seems odd, why not just make all games available on-demand after they air live?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NESN Launches Digital Subscription Service With Red Sox, Bruins
> 
> 
> NESN, the regional sports network, unveiled NESN 360, a digital service that allows fans to purchase a direct subscription to the outlet’s live programming and video on demand content. The of…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> variety.com


As a follow-up, seems like the smart money move here would be to sign up monthly and take the first month for $1. And then if you know you'd want to have it for a full year, cancel and sign back up for the annual subscription, where you're paying for 11 months of service (11 x $30 = $330) and getting one month free, plus the 8 Red Sox tix. So you end up essentially getting 13 months total for the price of 11. (And who'd want to prepay for a full year without knowing how well the app works for you first?)


----------



## B. Shoe

NashGuy said:


> As a follow-up, seems like the smart money move here would be to sign up monthly and take the first month for $1. And then if you know you'd want to have it for a full year, cancel and sign back up for the annual subscription, where you're paying for 11 months of service (11 x $30 = $330) and getting one month free, plus the 8 Red Sox tix. So you end up essentially getting 13 months total for the price of 11. (And who'd want to prepay for a full year without knowing how well the app works for you first?)


Someone will prepay for a full year without taking the trial month. And then they'll be on here creating threads for months complaining how poor the UX is, or how it doesn't mesh well with a remote, or (glances at laundry list of common complaints.) 

I kid, I kid. But yeah, definitely give the trial a run.


----------



## b4pjoe

REPORT: Bulls, Blackhawks, and White Sox Thinking About Starting Their Own Network


----------



## JoeTheDragon

b4pjoe said:


> REPORT: Bulls, Blackhawks, and White Sox Thinking About Starting Their Own Network


the blackhawks should joint the cubs channel and let the bulls / sox (same owner) do there own thing.


----------



## AZ.

JoeTheDragon said:


> the blackhawks should joint the cubs channel and let the bulls / sox (same owner) do there own thing.


That dosent sound profitable to me at all....Cubbies have their whole lovable loser fan base...Thats how they could start their own channel....3 major teams covering year round sounds like a good balance for a Chicago fan base


----------



## NashGuy

As the current RSN model evolves and makes itself available to consumers as standalone DTC streaming services, I'm not sure it makes sense for multiple different sports to be sold together under a single service. On the one hand, if someone signs up for basketball, they might end up watching some baseball in the spring when those two seasons overlap and then end up keeping the service on through Sept to finish out baseball season.

But on the other hand, the economics of any two different leagues/teams are going to be somewhat different in terms of their popularity and what fans are willing to pay for it. And any of those months when there's overlap between 2 or 3 sports (and if you include NHL hockey too, then there's a TON of overlap), then the consumer is forced to pay for access to more than one sport, even if he/she only cares about one. So in that case, the more popular sport/team is helping out the less popular one(s).

I keep thinking that the business model that makes the most sense is for each individual sport (MLB, NBA, NHL) and/or each individual team to have their own DTC app and cable channel. Maybe when you purchase a subscription, it would cover the remainder of the current season, all the way through the off-season and through the next pre-season. Obviously, the cost of the subscription would gradually drop as the season progresses and there are fewer games left to watch. If you purchase after the season ends, then your subscription would extend all the way through the next season and its following off-season/pre-season. On the first day of the new season, though, a new long-term subscription would be required. To attract consumers who want to pay less, maybe they could be sold something like a "Pick 5" and/or "Pick 10" pass that lets them watch a certain number of games of their choice any time in the season. They'd of course pay well more on a per-game basis than those fans who purchased the full season (or remainder thereof) but it would bring in incremental revenue from folks who aren't huge fans and don't want to spend as much.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

NashGuy said:


> subscription would extend all the way through the next season and its following off-season/pre-season. On the first day of the new season, though, a new long-term subscription would be required. To attract consumers who want to pay less, maybe they could be sold something like a "Pick 5" and/or "Pick 10" pass that lets them watch a certain number of games of their choice any time in the season. They'd of course pay well more on a per-game basis than those fans who purchased the full season (or remainder thereof) but it would bring in incremental revenue from folks who aren't huge fans and don't want to spend as much.


ppv say $120+$150 an season or $5.99 / game up to $12-$15 / game for round one of playoffs (NHL / NBA). MLB has more games so pricing may be differnt.

But the cubs may want year long subs at $15-$30 /mo


----------

