# Local NBC Stations Will Stream on Peacock



## b4pjoe

Local NBC Stations Are Streaming Now on Peacock


The move to streaming has huge benefits. You have access to a staggering variety of movies and tv shows that you can watch on your schedule. Even live sports are readily available, making it easier to find a big game or try out a new fandom. There’s just one thing that hasn’t yet fully joined...




www.peacocktv.com







> All stations are officially launching on Nov 30, so if you don’t see yours yet, keep checking back regularly.


----------



## b4pjoe

Just got around to checking Peacock and they already have my local NBC affiliate in the channels area.


----------



## Phil T

Well there is the future of local TV. Paramount Plus will get the CBS stations and Disney ABC. 
FCC will sell off OTA channels in a few years. Pay for everything!!!


----------



## b4pjoe

Paramount Plus already has the local CBS affiliate. They had it even when it was still CBS All Access.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Phil T said:


> Well there is the future of local TV. Paramount Plus will get the CBS stations and Disney ABC.
> FCC will sell off OTA channels in a few years. Pay for everything!!!


Not just OTA, my guess is the cable channels that survive will be on soon also, for example SyFy on Peacock, Nick on Paramount+, etc.

Then the apps can sell advertising time, for example that 2 minutes of Ad time that affiliates get to themselves.


----------



## Bender The Lab

b4pjoe said:


> Paramount Plus already has the local CBS affiliate. They had it even when it was still CBS All Access.


Back then it was just owned CBS Stations, now it is a lot more.

For example, CBS Orlando here is owned by Graham Media Group, it is on P+.


----------



## b4pjoe

Bender The Lab said:


> Back then it was just owned CBS Stations, now it is a lot more.
> 
> For example, CBS Orlando here is owned by Graham Media Group, it is on P+.


My local CBS affiliate, owned by Gray Television, was on CBS All Access so it wasn’t just owned CBS stations.


----------



## OneMarcilV

I do not see a place to search for local channels on the application.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

Left column click on channels. My local NBC feed is all the way at the bottom of the channel list.

Also you have to be a Premium Plus subscriber.


----------



## OneMarcilV

I am not a premium subscriber. Appreciate the reply.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## b4pjoe

The official launch of this is Nov. 30 so yours may not be on there yet. And if your NBC local is owned by someone that Peacock doesn't have permission to show that local it probably won't be on there. From your screen shot I see the NBC News NOW entry. That is not the local NBC affilialte. I have that one too but my local NBC affiliate is KSDK-TV which is owned by TEGNA..


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> My local CBS affiliate, owned by Gray Television, was on CBS All Access so it wasn’t just owned CBS stations.


My local Gray Television station is NBC and is in the press release list for Peacock.


----------



## SamC

Not a lot on a local station worth paying for. Local news is already streamed on multiple apps or online. That is really the only “local” material. The other non-network material are the garbage talk shows and fake courtroom shows, and a handful of game shows.


----------



## b4pjoe

SamC said:


> Not a lot on a local station worth paying for. Local news is already streamed on multiple apps or online. That is really the only “local” material. The other non-network material are the garbage talk shows and fake courtroom shows, and a handful of game shows.


They aren't charging extra for it. It gives cordcutters (people that are using steaming only) an opportunity to get their local NBC affiliate without have having to have a cable, live TV streaming or satellite package. Which includes the network prime time shows as well as local news, sports and junk programing you mentioned. Just because it is nothing that interests you doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way.


----------



## OneMarcilV

SamC said:


> Not a lot on a local station worth paying for. Local news is already streamed on multiple apps or online. That is really the only “local” material. The other non-network material are the garbage talk shows and fake courtroom shows, and a handful of game shows.


That is what I was thinking. Needs to have a service that lets peeps look at any market they want to not just their local ,ARKit.

But true not enough local channels in each marked for the value asked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> They aren't charging extra for it.


Everyone who is getting Peacock Premium Plus is paying extra for it. My guess is that ad-free and limited downloads wasn't getting the revenues that they hoped it would.


----------



## harsh

If the local content has ads in it (as I assume that it must), I'm not sure how well that will fly on an extra cost service that is ostensibly ad-free.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Everyone who is getting Peacock Premium Plus is paying extra for it. My guess is that ad-free and limited downloads wasn't getting the revenues that they hoped it would.


Peacock Premium Plus is the same price as it was before they added the local NBC network. So not paying anything extra for it. Will the price go up at some point. Of course ti will just like the price of eggs or ground beef and everything else will go up.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> If the local content has ads in it (as I assume that it must), I'm not sure how well that will fly on an extra cost service that is ostensibly ad-free.


Probably about the same as it does on the local CBS station on Paramount+ which yes...linear TV has ads even on the ad-free version.


----------



## SamC

Rest assured that your local station, which outside the largest cities belongs to some other company than NBC, is getting paid. Therefore you are paying for it.


----------



## harsh

SamC said:


> Rest assured that your local station, which outside the largest cities belongs to some other company than NBC, is getting paid. Therefore you are paying for it.


Given that Peacock is bundling this with the ad-free service and they're providing the cloud DVR facilities, I'm not sure what's left for the affiliate.


----------



## b4pjoe

SamC said:


> Rest assured that your local station, which outside the largest cities belongs to some other company than NBC, is getting paid. Therefore you are paying for it.


Again the price is the same as it was before it was added. Yes you are paying for it from within your subscription but it hasn't increased yet. Will it in the future? Of course, just like everything else. You also pay for the locals on DirecTV. Even if you don't want them.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> You also pay for the locals on DirecTV. Even if you don't want them.


Perhaps this could be fixed with an acquisition by Charlie.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Perhaps this could be fixed with an acquisition by Charlie.


Probably not. If you bought a goose that lays the golden egg would you kill it?


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Probably not. If you bought a goose that lays the golden egg would you kill it?


Sometimes you have to cut away the parts that leave a bad taste in your mouth.


----------



## SamC

b4pjoe said:


> Again the price is the same as it was before it was added. Yes you are paying for it from within your subscription but it hasn't increased yet. Will it in the future? Of course, just like everything else. You also pay for the locals on DirecTV. Even if you don't want them.


And that is also a part of the streaming bubble that is a big problem. I’m not out to save money. I want good TV. To me that includes a linear source and ALL the streaming services. But there is starting to be overlap. The same reruns are on multiple services. So I pay for the same thing multiple times. Now I have to pay for NBC both on linear and on Peacock. Just like I have to pay for the handful of ESPN linear shows they toss up on ESPN+ twice.


----------



## NYDutch

SamC said:


> Rest assured that your local station, which outside the largest cities belongs to some other company than NBC, is getting paid. Therefore you are paying for it.


Then they're getting paid from what I already pay for Peacock Premium Plus and NBC is making less profit. As long as it doesn't take any more money out of my pocket, I don't care who's getting paid.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

There was an article earlier this year. Peacock added zero paid subscribers in the second quarter of 2022:








Oh Peacock, You’re Way Too Young to Have Added Zero Subs in Q2


Peacock added no paid subscribers in Q2 and lost 1 million monthly active accounts on the free tier. There’s help — and options — on the horizon.




www.indiewire.com





NBC is getting desperate and it is trying different ways to boost subscriptions. Deal with Hallmark and now the NBC affiliate included. NBC likely has to compensate affiliates back for each Peacock subscriber, the same way Dish Network or Verizon might have to pay an affiliate for retransmission.

I also have a deal on my American Express for a credit if I get an annual Peacock membership and use the card. I will probably will get the annual ad-free subscription soon and get an Amex credit - $15 back.


----------



## James Long

I believe adding the NBC affiliate feeds has been a goal for a long time. I would not consider it a despiration move to save a dying service. But I would I would consider it a good way of keeping up with the competition (Paramount+) and a good way of making sure Peacock viewers CAN stream NBC network shows without the "streaming next day" delays.


----------



## harsh

I just can't imagine how the local stations are going to benefit from this. Is NBC going to replace the affiliates Nielsen ratings with their own ranking system? Ad-supported TV has some fairly important depedencies.


----------



## SamC

There already is a way to stream NBC the same day. It is called an “antenna”.

Among the nerdy guilty pleasures I have on YouTube are a couple of presenters who cover past technologies. Lots of devices and technologies I had totally forgotten about, all of which were nice and entertaining. RCA’s video record players, QUEBE, single use DVDs, scrambled OTA movies, teletext, lots more. Just never got to the threshold of profitability. 

While the market analysts have all agreed that individual streamers will go by the wayside, it now seems possible that this is a great technology that is highly entertaining. Which cannot make money.


----------



## harsh

SamC said:


> There already is a way to stream NBC the same day. It is called an “antenna”.


For reasons that are many, a lot of viewers don't have access to the OTA option.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I just can't imagine how the local stations are going to benefit from this. Is NBC going to replace the affiliates Nielsen ratings with their own ranking system? Ad-supported TV has some fairly important depedencies.


How is CBS doing it?


----------



## b4pjoe

SamC said:


> There already is a way to stream NBC the same day. It is called an “antenna”.


Not possible for me and a lot of other people.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

James Long said:


> I believe adding the NBC affiliate feeds has been a goal for a long time. I would not consider it a despiration move to save a dying service. But I would I would consider it a good way of keeping up with the competition (Paramount+) and a good way of making sure Peacock viewers CAN stream NBC network shows without the "streaming next day" delays.


Well, CBS All Access had it's CBS stations, then, when it became Paramount Plus, CBS live feed was not originally included in the conversion. Then, CBS live affiliate feed was instated back in when the Paramount programming alone wasn't enough to be attractive for the price point. There is a cost in offering live feeds of the affiliates, especially if not owned and operated, and the streaming services would prefer to keep their costs down if possible.

NBC launched Peacock without it. Their subscriptions at Peacock were absymal, so they will offer more now with live NBC service, following Paramount/CBS. I wonder if Telemundo and Cozi will be eventually included. LocalBTV in my area has the Cozi station so can see it added to Peacock as well.

I don't expect Hulu though to offer ABC with the $14.99 Hulu without Ads, as one has to purchase the Hulu with Live TV. The ABC News Live feed though is available. (Plus in ABC's case, Disney owns fewer stations than CBS/NBC of their affiliates)


----------



## rnbmusicfan

harsh said:


> Given that Peacock is bundling this with the ad-free service and they're providing the cloud DVR facilities, I'm not sure what's left for the affiliate.



I don't think cloud DVR is included as I don't see it listed in the original article.

For example, my mom likes watching the first 20 minutes of Today show, as it is focused on the news. If we tune in too late, like at 8:30am, we are out of luck. I don't think NBC on Peacock will help with this scenario, as one will just tune in live and not be able to tune to the beginning.

Even with ABC programs on Hulu, if we want to see ABC World News Tonight but miss it live from our local ABC, Hulu sometimes provides an episode from a day ago, and the ABC News Live runs alternate programming and then the program at 10:00pm or some odd time.

We tried Sling Blue recently. Even with Sling Blue with DVR and it's newer guide, we had a hard time setting a Season Pass of Today show. It's cloud DVR is garbage.


----------



## James Long

First of all .. don't miss the Black Friday/Cyber Monday deal offered in another thread: $12 a year for the top level.








The Best Black Friday Streaming Deals - Hulu, Peacock...


Streaming services are expected to offer some aggressive discounts this Black Friday. Lucky for you, our editors are actively keeping an eye out for every new Black Friday deal that gets announced. We will update this list daily, so check back in for more savings! Hulu Black Friday Deal: Get...




www.dbstalk.com





Digging a little deeper, Peacock has a website explaining the details of their offer.








Watch Your NBC Local Channel | Peacock


Stream NBC local news, weather, and other NBC shows with Peacock Premium Plus. Get your local NBC channel out of 200+ available channels, including NBC Chicago, NBC New York, NBC Los Angeles, and more.




www.peacocktv.com







> *Starting November 30, 2022,* you will be able to stream your 24/7 live local NBC channel with a Peacock Premium Plus plan. You can get Premium Plus here or, if you have Peacock already, visit your account settings to upgrade to Premium Plus.
> 
> Once you have Premium Plus, go to Channels (next to Browse) to watch. You will see your local NBC channel near the top of the channel lineup.
> 
> Please note: *Your local channel will appear based on the location shared by your streaming device and will change if your location changes.* For example, if you live in Los Angeles and bring your streaming device to Tampa, you will see the local NBC channel in Tampa, not Los Angeles.
> 
> Also, if you have Premium Plus prior to November 30, 2022, you may see your local NBC channel appear with intermittent coverage as part of a test.


My local is not appearing at the moment.

I am not seeing a DVR feature on Peacock. Where are you guys seeing one being available? The 50 linear channels do not have a rewind. (I'm not finding a pause feature on the linear channels and do not remember having one in the past.) As far as I can tell, Peacock is relying on their on demand library for the dvr function. If someone can find a dvr function I'll try it.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> First of all .. don't miss the Black Friday/Cyber Monday deal offered in another thread: $12 a year for the top level.


That is not for the top tier Peacock Premium Plus (Ad-Free). It is for Peacock Premium (Ad-supported).



James Long said:


> My local is not appearing at the moment.


It requires Peacock Premium Plus (Ad-Free) tier. Do you have that?


----------



## James Long

b4pjoe said:


> That is [not] for the top tier Peacock Premium Plus (Ad-Free). It is for Peacock Premium (Ad-supported).
> 
> It requires Peacock Premium Plus (Ad-Free) tier. Do you have that?


You're right. I misread the promo - although it looks like the "ad free" can be added for $5 more.

After adding "Plus" my local still doesn't appear ... I'll check next week when we're past the "soft launch".


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> How is CBS doing it?


My first guess would be that they are providing more compelling content.


----------



## harsh

rnbmusicfan said:


> I don't think cloud DVR is included as I don't see it listed in the original article.


There appears an implication that there will be time-shifting capability (though it may well be limited to CBS content).


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> b4pjoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just can't imagine how the local stations are going to benefit from this. Is NBC going to replace the affiliates Nielsen ratings with their own ranking system? Ad-supported TV has some fairly important depedencies.
> 
> 
> 
> How is CBS doing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My first guess would be that they are providing more compelling content.
Click to expand...

Are you saying CBS/Paramount+ is replacing Nielsen ratings by providing more compelling content? Why would NBC need to replace Nielsen with another ranking system while CBS does not?



harsh said:


> rnbmusicfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think cloud DVR is included as I don't see it listed in the original article.
> 
> 
> 
> There appears an implication that there will be time-shifting capability (though it may well be limited to CBS content).
Click to expand...

NBC content?


----------



## b4pjoe

Is it just me or is everything @harsh is posting about NBC and CBS streaming the locals not making a bit of sense?


----------



## James Long

Based on past discussions, Nielsen should be capturing viewing on the local affiliates whether those affiliates are delivered to the monitored homes via OTA, cable, satellite or any streaming service. I'm not sure why harsh was concerned that OTA stations would lose ratings simply because their channel was streamed by Peacock+ instead of received OTA or via one of the many retransmission companies. The same would apply to Paramount+ ... a stream of a local station feed is the same regardless of delivery method.

Where the local station could be hurt (equally on Peacock+ and Paramount+) would be when a viewer watches an on demand version of the content instead of a recorded feed of their local station. One would need to check with Nielsen to see if they credit such viewership to the local affiliate or if that delayed viewership is lost. The popularity of the content would not change how the viewership is measured.


----------



## Mogrub

harsh said:


> For reasons that are many, a lot of viewers don't have access to the OTA option.


Many reasons for sure. But the single biggest reason why many of us can't retrieve a good OTA signal for free, no matter how eager or antenna savvy we may be, is that the local network broadcasters have zero reason to invest and get us that signal. In the current marketplace, they'd be shooting themselves in the financial foot to do so. Local affiliates make way more money via the retransmission fee system. They're hooked on that now, and those fees would take a huge hit if high quality OTA signals were available to everyone for free. That is the single biggest reason why many of us don't receive them. The challenge to getting OTA signals to more of us isn't technical. It's financial.

But the commitment to delivering those OTA signals to everyone for free was the beating heart of the original broadcast license deals. Those are all public frequencies. We own them. The local OTA broadcasters were granted licenses to use them. As part of that deal, local broadcasters committed to do their best to get OTA signals to everyone in the local markets they "serve." (That language from the original regulatory framework sounds so quaint now.) But I have zero shot at OTA at my house. Local topography and placement of the existing antenna farm are the problem. The only thing I do have a fair shot at is a bloated monthly payment to a third party service provider (lots of choices there though, and we all know why), all of whom who kick back a portion of their monthly revenues to the local network affiliates, all of whom have grown dependent like addicts on that found money. Those retransmission revenues have grown over time to become a multiple of their OTA advertising revenues. In that kind of marketplace, why would a rational actor invest a bunch of money to get to everyone free OTA? Costs would go up and revenues would go down. That's why it doesn't happen. They'd be shooting themselves in the financial foot.

That's a rational decision. But that wasn't the original deal. We own those frequencies. They still use them. The promise to use best efforts to deliver those OTA signals to everyone in town is how each broadcaster won the right to use them in the first place. No doubt, there are other OTA challenges, geography and topography chief among them. But let's be real: if local broadcasters wanted to get their OTA signal to 99% of us, if that put more money in their pockets, it would already be done. But since that would actually put less money in their pockets, it doesn't happen. So we all pay a bunch of cash each month for something that was supposed to be free, could be free, should be free. But isn't. I can afford it. Not everybody can. So they do without local news, emergency broadcasts, weather updates. That's just plain wrong. Stepping off soapbox.


----------



## James Long

Mogrub said:


> Those retransmission revenues have grown over time to become a multiple of their OTA advertising revenues. In that kind of marketplace, why would a rational actor invest a bunch of money to get to everyone free OTA?


An interesting theory. Retransmission fees have risen but do you have any source for the claim of the fees being multiples of their advertising revenue? Especially since fee increases in recent years have been driven by their networks who are getting a cut of the retransmission fee paid to each local station?

I do not agree with retransmission fees but they were introduced as a copyright payment. Paying that fee pays for the right to copy a station's local fee and deliver it to the satellite or cable company's customers. For "distant" channels the fees are set to a statutory rate and paid into a fund where the copyright owners claim payment for the content they own. For local-into-local that payment goes to the local station - so it makes sense that they have to pass on the fee to the network that owns the content the local station retransmit.

The second part of that claim is that stations are intentionally not covering their entire coverage area in an attempt to increase payments via retransmission fees. First of all I hope you have an understanding of the coverage area for each TV station. Your local OTA affiliate is licensed to cover a specific area defined by the area that can be reached by a broadcast antenna at a specific height in a specific location transmitting at a specific power. There is no obligation to provide a signal to every household within their Nielsen DMA - and there never has been. OTA transmission is RF based, not DMA based. So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.

It is in the station's best interest to cover the area they are licensed to carry and I doubt you will find stations that do not provided their licensed coverage. But it is important to understand that an OTA license has different geographic limits than retransmission on cable and satellite.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> The second part of that claim is that stations are intentionally not covering their entire coverage area in an attempt to increase payments via retransmission fees. First of all I hope you have an understanding of the coverage area for each TV station. Your local OTA affiliate is licensed to cover a specific area defined by the area that can be reached by a broadcast antenna at a specific height in a specific location transmitting at a specific power. There is no obligation to provide a signal to every household within their Nielson DMA - and there never has been. OTA transmission is RF based, not DMA based. So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.


I can attest to this as growing up in the late 50's early 60's we got our first TV probably around 1961 or 1962. We had an antenna that as a small kid looked to me like it was 500 feet in the air. It was more like 25'. It had a rotor motor on top of it and we could rotate via a box in the house. Nearest stattions were Terra Haute and Vincinnes, IN and Harrisburg, IL and all were in the 70 - 80 mile range. Reception was not great though anywhere from a snowy picture to none at all. If it was a day or evening where you got a watchable picture great. If not you did something else. There was certainly no regulations back then the signal had to be good no matter the distance. You were either close enough to get a decent picture or you weren't. Today I am about 75 - 80 miles from locals in St. Louis and I don't think I could get a picture at all OTA as the topology is not conducive to it as it was in the other direction as a kid. My brother lives in St. Louis and and has just a small indoor antenna and the local network stations are crystal clear so it seems it is about the same today as when I was a kid. You either live close enough to get a good OTA picture or you don't. Or you buy cable/satellite/streaming service that delivers a clear picture. In my case I know if I want a decent picture one of those 3 is a must. OTA is not possible for me.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Are you saying CBS/Paramount+ is replacing Nielson ratings by providing more compelling content?


I'm saying that CBS is succeeding where NBC isn't because CBS generally has more compelling content. To interpret it any other way seems silly.

The ratings issue is how they plan to get market share readings on their affiliate if the content is played on Peacock rather than through some medium that is currently measured by a known agency. The ad-supported model has typically been based on the eyeballs measured watching the station. They can't just claim that "everybody is still watching the station, they're just watching on Peacock now".


----------



## Mogrub

James Long said:


> So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.


I live in downtown Boston and face east. Great Italian food. But no OTA for me.

Conspiracy is your word, not mine. I don't see it that way at all. But what I do see is that, in the current marketplace, _none_ of the actors on the signal delivery side have any incentive to ensure most citizens in their local markets enjoy ready access to high quality OTA signals. I further believe that such access underpins the entire federal licensure of the citizen-owned frequencies in question. FWIW. YMMV.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I'm saying that CBS is succeeding where NBC isn't because CBS generally has more compelling content. To interpret it any other way seems silly.
> 
> The ratings issue is how they plan to get market share readings on their affiliate if the content is played on Peacock rather than through some medium that is currently measured by a known agency. The ad-supported model has typically been based on the eyeballs measured watching the station. They can't just claim that "everybody is still watching the station, they're just watching on Peacock now".


So you are saying the the eyeballs watching on Peacock, Paramount+, Youtube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo, DirecTV Stream, etc...are not being counted?









Streaming Platform Ratings | Nielsen


Gain insights into the time viewers spend watching streaming video content, and on which platforms, using Nielsen’s panel for linear TV measurement.




www.nielsen.com







> Nielsen Streaming Platform Ratings uses people-powered panels and proprietary metering technology to measure what content is streamed, the device used to stream (smart TVs, connected devices, video game consoles) and the streaming source application.


----------



## Mogrub

This is a start: Adam Jacobson, Retransmission Consent Revenue: An 11% Growth Engine, Radio and Television Business Report, July 30, 2019. 

We're way off topic so I'll leave it there.


----------



## b4pjoe

b4pjoe said:


> Just got around to checking Peacock and they already have my local NBC affiliate in the channels area.


Just checked again and my NBC local is no longer there.


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> Just checked again and my NBC local is no longer there.


Mine disappeared too, so I suspect they were doing some testing in preparation for the official start on the 30th.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> So you are saying the the eyeballs watching on Peacock, Paramount+, Youtube TV, Hulu Live, Fubo, DirecTV Stream, etc...are not being counted?


Not what I said.

What I'm saying is that in order to get the ratings _applied to the affiliates_, NBC must contract with Nielsen (which they may have done or are in the process of doing) to insure that the affiliates get their due. Cable networks already do this but this is a larger undertaking with so many affiliates.


----------



## b4pjoe

Read the link I posted. Nielsen already includes steaming in their results.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> What I'm saying is that in order to get the ratings _applied to the affiliates_, NBC must contract with Nielsen (which they may have done or are in the process of doing) to insure that the affiliates get their due. Cable networks already do this but this is a larger undertaking with so many affiliates.


So all this is some sort of fear that NBC won't make the same arrangements as CBS to get their content counted for their affiliates? You don't know whether or not Nielsen will be counting NBC locals via Peacock but you can sure post some fear, uncertainty and doubt!

Do you have any skin in the game or are you worrying about NBC affiliates out of the kindness of your heart?



harsh said:


> Is NBC going to replace the affiliates Nielsen ratings with their own ranking system?


I'd say "no" ... and apparently you would say "no" too considering you have now pivoted to "NBC must contract with Nielsen" instead of "NBC must replace Nielsen".


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> I'd say "no" ... and apparently you would say "no" too considering you have now pivoted to "NBC must contract with Nielsen" instead of "NBC must replace Nielsen".


I haven't changed my position despite the active efforts to willfully misinterpret it.

Somehow the affiliates have to prove that they haven't lost eyeballs and that's going to require some very careful tracking of a lot of new data. If they want that data from Nielsen, they're going to have to pay for it. If they're not going to do that they need to find an alternative that convincingly demonstrates that the affiliates have retained the eyeballs that have turned toward Peacock.

As to why this is important, I see local ads on Peacock Premium when I'm watching NBC network programming but they are different than the ones that are broadcast (and decidedly absent teasers of other affiliate programming). DMAs are established in large part on local advertisers targeting local shoppers.

If viewers find that binging the NBC content on Peacock is more attractive than watching it on the affiliate, who get's the credit?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Somehow the affiliates have to prove that they haven't lost eyeballs and that's going to require some very careful tracking of a lot of new data. If they want that data from Nielsen, they're going to have to pay for it. If they're not going to do that they need to find an alternative that convincingly demonstrates that the affiliates have retained the eyeballs that have turned toward Peacock.


So ... can you answer the question of how CBS/Peacock+ solves that problem? "Providing more compelling content" is not the answer.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> So ... can you answer the question of how CBS/Peacock+ solves that problem? "Providing more compelling content" is not the answer.


They attract many more paying subscribers to their platform making it a viable source of income to support not only the offices at 51 West 52nd Street but also the network of affiliates.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I haven't changed my position despite the active efforts to willfully misinterpret it.
> 
> Somehow the affiliates have to prove that they haven't lost eyeballs and that's going to require some very careful tracking of a lot of new data. If they want that data from Nielsen, they're going to have to pay for it. If they're not going to do that they need to find an alternative that convincingly demonstrates that the affiliates have retained the eyeballs that have turned toward Peacock.
> 
> As to why this is important, I see local ads on Peacock Premium when I'm watching NBC network programming but they are different than the ones that are broadcast (and decidedly absent teasers of other affiliate programming). DMAs are established in large part on local advertisers targeting local shoppers.
> 
> If viewers find that binging the NBC content on Peacock is more attractive than watching it on the affiliate, who get's the credit?


Good Lord what is wrong with you? The NBC local affiliate that Peacock is going to be broadcasting will be the exact same broadcast the affiliate shows OTA and cable and sat including the exact same ads....just like the Paramount+ local affiliate is the same broadcast as that local on all services. What you are talking about is the OnDemand version you see in the ad supported tier that has different commercials than you see on your local affiliate. And Nielsen has OnDemand, DVR, cable, sat, and streaming all covered as the quote stated I posted earlier and I will show it to you here again.









Streaming Platform Ratings | Nielsen


Gain insights into the time viewers spend watching streaming video content, and on which platforms, using Nielsen’s panel for linear TV measurement.




www.nielsen.com







> Nielsen Streaming Platform Ratings uses people-powered panels and proprietary metering technology to measure what content is streamed, the device used to stream (smart TVs, connected devices, video game consoles) and the streaming source application.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> The NBC local affiliate that Peacock is going to be broadcasting will be the exact same broadcast the affiliate shows OTA and cable and sat including the exact same ads....just like the Paramount+ local affiliate is the same broadcast as that local on all services.


The ads are only the same if the viewer is watching the affiliate feed. If I watch the Peacock feed of the NBC show, the ads are different. In the case of NBC, the national programming is a pretty big piece of the programming day. With the exception of a couple of local shows at 20:30 and 21:00 today (in case SNF goes long), the next new truly local programming is going to be at 23:00 (local news).

The weekday programming is typically split between NBC and local news and news magazines and syndicated news magazines along with the Primetime programming. There's 90 minutes of NBC news starting at 03:00 followed by 2.5 hours of local news followed by four hours of _Today_. 11:00 sees a "local information" show. _Daily Blast Live_ (syndicated) starts at 11:30 and is followed by the local noon news. At 13:00 is _NBC News Daily_ followed by a repeat of _Daily Blast Live_ and its subsequent episode. 15:00 brings _Dateline_ and then the evening local news blitz starts at 16:00 until 17:30 when the NBC national news comes on. 18:00 brings another 60 minutes of local news followed by _The Good Stuff_ and _Inside Edition_. 20:00 - 23:00 (and perhaps soon to be 20:00 - 22:00) is Primetime followed by more local news until Fallon. They replay the 23:00 news after Fallon and reruns of Dateline until the new day starts again at 03:00.

Remember what happened with the major news and weather channels?


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> The ads are only the same if the viewer is watching the affiliate feed.


Which is exactly what this thread is about. Peacock will be showing your local affiliate feed and it will be the exact same, ads included, that you see your cable or sat package. And it will only be on the Peacock Premium Plus package (ad-free) so if you have a lesser plan this thread won't even apply to you. Forget everything else.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> And it will only be on the Peacock Premium Plus package (ad-free) so if you have a lesser plan this thread won't even apply to you.


If you subscribe to Plus, why would you watch the NBC programming on the affiliate feed where it is broken up by ads? Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> If you subscribe to Plus, why would you watch the NBC programming on the affiliate feed where it is broken up by ads? Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?


Well if I were a cord cutter that would mean I would at least have an option to watch the local affiliate for NBC and CBS without having to subscribe to a full blown cable, sat, or streaming package.

And are you not aware that millions of people watch live TV with commercials and when a commercial comes on they may get up and go to the bathroom or make a sandwich or make a phone call or many other things. And, gasp, some may actually sit and watch the commercial.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> If you subscribe to Plus, why would you watch the NBC programming on the affiliate feed where it is broken up by ads? Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?


The affiliate feed is for live linear viewing. The on demand feed is for delayed viewing (with local ads inserted). The local ads being different on the on demand feed is a good thing since it allows ads to be placed that have not expired when the viewer watches the show.

For example, this past week there was a lot of local advertising for Thursday only and Friday only sales where the ads were useless when viewed after the sale was over. With on demand those ads can be replaced by ads that are not expired.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Is that $5/month going to pay both NBCs and the affiliate's bills with respect to lost advertising revenues?


There will not be any loss of advertising revenue as you have been told multiple times. Ad revenue might actually go up since they may have more people watching since it will be available on another service where people that don’t have a full blown cable, sat, or streaming service will now be able to watch it.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> The second part of that claim is that stations are intentionally not covering their entire coverage area in an attempt to increase payments via retransmission fees. First of all I hope you have an understanding of the coverage area for each TV station. Your local OTA affiliate is licensed to cover a specific area defined by the area that can be reached by a broadcast antenna at a specific height in a specific location transmitting at a specific power. There is no obligation to provide a signal to every household within their Nielsen DMA - and there never has been. OTA transmission is RF based, not DMA based. So if you are in a market that is larger than the OTA coverage of the stations blame it on RF - not some conspiracy.
> 
> It is in the station's best interest to cover the area they are licensed to carry and I doubt you will find stations that do not provided their licensed coverage. But it is important to understand that an OTA license has different geographic limits than retransmission on cable and satellite.


I can tell you for a fact there are some. Remember the last what 12 markets that DirecTV is not providing locals to? I watched all of those hearings and the stations were in triopolies and basically expected DirecTV to foot the bill to get their own stations signal to its own customers for them. How is that fair? They didnt seem to have any responsibility to get it done themselves or cut DirecTV a break in doing so. Just my opinion but if they claim exclusivity for a DMA they should be held to some kind of a standard of covering at least X percentage of the DMA. 

Does that seem right to you? A channel can exist, not cover its own market and then make someone else build out for them while sharing none of those costs and then still charge them an arm and a leg? The buildout alone is not cost efficient in those markets as the return on investment would not be that great.

The missing 12 markets are Alpena, Mich.; Bowling Green, Ky.; Caspar-Riverton, Wyo.; Cheyenne, Wyoming/Scottsbluff, Neb.; Grand Junction, Colo.; Helena, Mont.; North Platte, Neb.; Ottumwa, Iowa; Preque Isle, Me.; San Angelo, Tex.;Victoria, Tex.; and Glendive, Mont.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Well if I were a cord cutter that would mean I would at least have an option to watch the local affiliate for NBC and CBS without having to subscribe to a full blown cable, sat, or streaming package.


If you have to pay $9.99 for each channel, that's going to add up quickly.


> And are you not aware that millions of people watch live TV with commercials and when a commercial comes on they may get up and go to the bathroom or make a sandwich or make a phone call or many other things. And, gasp, some may actually sit and watch the commercial.


I am aware but that's not the issue. The issue is funding the local affiliates and what happens when the ad-supported model breaks down.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> There will not be any loss of advertising revenue as you have been told multiple times. Ad revenue might actually go up since they may have more people watching since it will be available on another service where people that don’t have a full blown cable, sat, or streaming service will now be able to watch it.


Where is your evidence? Are you reasoning that the affiliates must obviously be happy with the situation?


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> Just my opinion but if they claim exclusivity for a DMA they should be held to some kind of a standard of covering at least X percentage of the DMA.
> 
> Does that seem right to you? A channel can exist, not cover its own market and then make someone else build out for them while sharing none of those costs and then still charge them an arm and a leg? The buildout alone is not cost efficient in those markets as the return on investment would not be that great.


The stations are meeting the obligation they made when they received their license. They put up the specified transmit antenna and are transmitting a signal at the specified power level. They do not have a legal requirement to cover their entire DMA.

As for forcing DIRECTV to provide coverage, such coverage is the price of being able to deliver distant stations. DIRECTV made the business decision not to pay that price. DIRECTV remains in business and operating regardless of their refusal to provide locals in every market.

You can try to change the laws but I would not expect such an attempt to he successful.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> If you have to pay $9.99 for each channel, that's going to add up quickly.


No one is going to pay $9.99 just to get the local channel. They are paying $9.99 for all of Peacock which now will include the NBC local feed if your local feed is one of those listed in the article posted about this.


harsh said:


> I am aware but that's not the issue. The issue is funding the local affiliates and what happens when the ad-supported model breaks down.


Where are you getting there is some loss of funding and some nonsense about the ad-supported model breaks down? You aren't making a bit of sense. The feed of the local affiliate will still have ads. The same ones you see on sat, cable, and streaming that carries that same local affiliate. CBS All Access/Paramount+ has been doing it for years and the sun still comes up every day.


harsh said:


> Where is your evidence? Are you reasoning that the affiliates must obviously be happy with the situation?


You can't have evidence for something that hasn't happened yet. It is a reasonable expectation that people aren't going to stop watching their shows on NBC just because the local is also shown on Peacock. Plus there is a chance they will get more views since more people will have the option to watch it on Peacock. Obviously you have no idea what this thread is even about.


----------



## JiminToga

Just curious if a VPN will work if one wants to watch a different affiliate (outside of your market). I live in the Albany NY market and would rather watch WNBC out of NYC. I have a VPN that can route to a New York City server...but I have heard that Hulu and Youtube TV have technology that can detect VPN's and wont allow me to watch markets outside of the one I am in. The VPN works great w PBS and ESPN on the Firestick btw... I can watch NYC PBS and hockey in the New York area (normally it's blacked out..).


----------



## b4pjoe

NYDutch said:


> Mine disappeared too, so I suspect they were doing some testing in preparation for the official start on the 30th.


My NBC local is back in Peacock as of yesterday.


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> My NBC local is back in Peacock as of yesterday.


Strange, I'm getting a local now, but it's channel 12, the NBC outlet in Richmond, VA instead of the correct local, channel 13 in the Albany, NY DMA. Paramount gets it right for the CBS local here.


----------



## b4pjoe

Any chance your ISP shows an IP address in VA instead of where you are actually at? Also what device are you watching Peacock from?


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> The stations are meeting the obligation they made when they received their license. They put up the specified transmit antenna and are transmitting a signal at the specified power level. They do not have a legal requirement to cover their entire DMA.
> 
> As for forcing DIRECTV to provide coverage, such coverage is the price of being able to deliver distant stations. DIRECTV made the business decision not to pay that price. DIRECTV remains in business and operating regardless of their refusal to provide locals in every market.
> 
> You can try to change the laws but I would not expect such an attempt to he successful.


I am not advocating to change the laws. Law does not have to be changed to do what is right. I can tell you what is not right is a station not providing their signal very well in their own market and trying to strong arm a company like DirecTV to do it for them. 

Are you or I able to open a business and expect someone else to spend their money to make our business prosper because we refuse to spend that money ourselves to make it happen? The answer is now and neither should they. Shame on them for trying. If they were going to try that, it should of come with a reason for DirecTV to do it like getting their signal free for X amount of time or splitting that cost or something. Not just we are going to public shame you and be at congressional hearings to try and force you to do what we are not willing to do. That is not fair at all.


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> Any chance your ISP shows an IP address in VA instead of where you are actually at? Also what device are you watching Peacock from?


I checked that right after seeing the local was incorrect, and the Verizon cell service I was using at the time came back with a Hutchinson, KS IP address. I'll play around with my different service choices later today when I have time.


----------



## SamC

If you want to watch other people’s local news, which is almost the only actually local programming there is, there are several apps that will let you do that for 90% of the markets in the country. 

My ISP gets confused on the streaming of local stations all the time on all of the apps that do that. Often has me in the Virginia suburbs of DC of all places. That is about 200 miles off. It doesn’t really matter, other than football, its the same programming.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> You can't have evidence for something that hasn't happened yet.


Your statement appears to imply that this has long been a foregone conclusion.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Your statement appears to imply that this has long been a foregone conclusion.


No what I said is that it is a possibility since more people will now have the ability to watch the local network feed than before when it wasn't on Peackock. The same way more people will have the ability to watch NFL Sunday Ticket in the future when a new provider has it that opens it up to the entire population of the country rather than a small subset of just DirecTV subscribers. It may or may not happen but the possibility exists.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> There will not be any loss of advertising revenue as you have been told multiple times.





b4pjoe said:


> No what I said is that it is a possibility since more people will now have the ability to watch the local network feed than before when it wasn't on Peackock.


A reminder of what you actually said.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> A reminder of what you actually said.


Well I don't see how there will be any loss of advertising revenue when more people will have the option to watch their content. Maybe you could explain how there will be a loss of ad revenue due to Peacock carrying local affiliate feeds which you claimed there would be.

Do you not know the definition of "possibility"?


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Maybe you could explain how there will be a loss of ad revenue due to Peacock carrying local affiliate feeds which you claimed there would be.


If you have to subscribe to the ad-free version of the service to get the local version of the program, why wouldn't you watch the ad-free version of the program where available?


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> If you have to subscribe to the ad-free version of the service to get the local version of the program, why wouldn't you watch the ad-free version of the program where available?


The local affiliate feed is not ad-free as you have been told numerous times. It is the exact same feed that people on cable, satellite, and Live TV streaming gets. Just like the local affiliate on Paramount+.


----------



## b4pjoe

JiminToga said:


> Just curious if a VPN will work if one wants to watch a different affiliate (outside of your market). I live in the Albany NY market and would rather watch WNBC out of NYC. I have a VPN that can route to a New York City server...but I have heard that Hulu and Youtube TV have technology that can detect VPN's and wont allow me to watch markets outside of the one I am in. The VPN works great w PBS and ESPN on the Firestick btw... I can watch NYC PBS and hockey in the New York area (normally it's blacked out..).


Your question made me curious so I just tried it with my VPN and got this.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> The local affiliate feed is not ad-free as you have been told numerous times.


I didn't say that it was.

The issue is that most of the non-local programming is available ad-free on Peacock Premium Plus. Why would one who has the service level required to get the linear programming suffer the linear version when an ad-free version is available? Just so they don't miss the local ads?

Pro tip: "been told numerous times" rarely impresses anyone as it is too often associated with false information.


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Your question made me curious so I just tried it with my VPN and got this.


Anecdotal reports like these are most useful when accompanied by the name of the VPN in question. Not all VPNs (or all POPs of those VPNS) may be similarly blocked.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Why would one who has the service level required to get the linear programming suffer the linear version when an ad-free version is available?


The linear version is available before any ad free version is available. For example, if I wanted to watch the eliminations on The Voice tonight I could have watched it on my local NBC affiliate. That episode won't be "on demand" until sometime tomorrow.

Bottom line - if you don't think it is a good deal don't pay for it. NBC sees the value in having the linear feed available even if you do not.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> The linear version is available before any ad free version is available. For example, if I wanted to watch the eliminations on The Voice tonight I could have watched it on my local NBC affiliate. That episode won't be "on demand" until sometime tomorrow.
> 
> Bottom line - if you don't think it is a good deal don't pay for it. NBC sees the value in having the linear feed available even if you do not.


Plus not all NBC shows are on Peacock even the next day. Example: The Blacklist. Takes a week before episodes are available to watch on Peacock.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I didn't say that it was.
> 
> The issue is that most of the non-local programming is available ad-free on Peacock Premium Plus. Why would one who has the service level required to get the linear programming suffer the linear version when an ad-free version is available? Just so they don't miss the local ads?


As was noted the OnDemand version is not available until next day or longer and sometime not until the next season.

And people that do watch the ad-free version of the show are paying extra to do so. That extra money replaces any ad revenue you may think is being lost unless you have evidence that extra fee is going somewhere else. So what has happend for years when people recorded shows to VCR's, DVD recorders, and DVR's that FF through the commercials? Why have you NOT started a lost ad revenue crusade about that over the years?


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> The linear version is available before any ad free version is available. For example, if I wanted to watch the eliminations on The Voice tonight I could have watched it on my local NBC affiliate. That episode won't be "on demand" until sometime tomorrow.


Are you sure about that? _Pitch Perfect: Bumper in Berlin_ started just this week on linear but the first ten episodes became available on Peacock on November 23rd.

While what you're saying has long been the case, I wonder if that isn't changing.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Are you sure about that? _Pitch Perfect: Bumper in Berlin_ started just this week on linear but the first ten episodes became available on Peacock on November 23rd.
> 
> While what you're saying has long been the case, I wonder if that isn't changing.


Where are you seeing that show as being on linear TV? It was made for Peacock.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

My local NBC (WCAU-Philadelphia NBC owned) is available today! I like Peacock's EPG, Channels section of the app. I hope Cozi eventually gets to the app. (It's on Philly BTV/Local BTV, so should be possible).

Suggestion as their naming is backwards:
Peacock Premium should mean Peacock without Ads. Having the word Premium should imply the best or highest version of the service, without adding a Plus at the end of the name to get that.

I have both Paramount Plus without ads and Peacock Premium Plus. The one show that has thrown me off is Yellowstone. I always see it promoted on Paramount Network and went looking for it on Paramount Plus on streaming. It took me awhile to realize it's on Peacock, not Paramount Plus.


----------



## b4pjoe

rnbmusicfan said:


> Suggestion as their naming is backwards:
> Peacock Premium should mean Peacock without Ads. Having the word Premium should imply the best or highest version of the service, without adding a Plus at the end of the name to get that.


That is because they have a free tier.

Peacock is free.

Peacock Premium is ad supported

Peacock Premium Plus is ad-free.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

b4pjoe said:


> That is because they have a free tier.
> 
> Peacock is free.
> 
> Peacock Premium is ad supported
> 
> Peacock Premium Plus is ad-free.


Then, they could rename the ad supported version. 

Example:

Peacock - free
Peacock Extra - ad supported but low cost
Peacock Premium - all the works, no ads

Premium should mean Premium, in my opinion.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

harsh said:


> There appears an implication that there will be time-shifting capability (though it may well be limited to CBS content).


There is no cloud DVR service of the local NBC station, or Hallmark channels or other channels, in Peacock Premium Plus, or any indication that this is upcoming. It would add significant complexity (for Peacock) to offer that with limited benefit on their end.

Interesting, I got my local NBC on Peacock Plus but Peacock sent no email out, and it is a very silent launch. Most will likely be unaware of it. Maybe Peacock plans to will advertise it next month.


----------



## b4pjoe

rnbmusicfan said:


> Then, they could rename the ad supported version.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Peacock - free
> Peacock Extra - ad supported but low cost
> Peacock Premium - all the works, no ads
> 
> Premium should mean Premium, in my opinion.


I don't disagree that is confusing the way it is. They actually bill Peacock Premium Plus as two separate things on the annual plan:

Premium Annual - $49.99/year

Plus Option Annual - $50.00/year


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Where are you seeing that show as being on linear TV? It was made for Peacock.


The first episode of _Bumper in Berlin_ ran on my local NBC affiliate (KGW) Monday November 28th at 10pm.

In hindsight may have been a one-time thing as the end of the first half of the TV season is upon us. ABC broadcast the first two episodes of _Andor_ last week as well so there may be some crossover being employed.


----------



## harsh

rnbmusicfan said:


> Then, they could rename the ad supported version.


There is no question in my mind that they boned the names.

This is similar to DIRECTV's two top packages that are named ULTIMATE and PREMIUM. ULTIMATE is a subset of PREMIUM while the word ultimate literally means that there are none above.


----------



## James Long

rnbmusicfan said:


> Premium should mean Premium, in my opinion.


Premium means it costs more. See DIRECTV Premium TV.

Peacock Premium includes content not available in the free tier.
Peacock Premium Plus includes additional content and "no ads".


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Peacock Premium Plus includes additional content and no ads.


Peacock Premium Plus offers even more content than Peacock Premium and _very few_ ads for the Peacock Premium content but the additional LIL content is fully loaded with ads.

That sounds like a top flight example of internal contradiction.


----------



## James Long

Remind us, do you subscribe to Peacock Premium Plus or is this yet another service you are an expert at without subscribing?


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> Peacock Premium Plus offers even more content than Peacock Premium and _very few_ ads for the Peacock Premium content but the additional LIL content is fully loaded with ads.
> 
> That sounds like a top flight example of internal contradiction.


It is the same on Paramount+ with their linear feed . How would you propose they make the linear feed ad-free.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Remind us, do you subscribe to Peacock Premium Plus or is this yet another service you are an expert at without subscribing?


Do you?

I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm just following along with the available documentation and anecdotal evidence (because the documentation is often pretty lacey).


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> It is the same on Paramount+ with their linear feed . How would you propose they make the linear feed ad-free.


I don't propose that they do. I only want to reiterate that the Peacock Premium Plus package is not entirely ad-free as its current description suggests.

The disclaimer says that "ad free" means "Due to streaming rights, a small amount of programming will still contain ads (Peacock channels, events, and a few shows and movies)." which clearly isn't the case if the LIL feeds are fully laden.

I hope to get at least to the reality if not the truth.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> I don't propose that they do. I only want to reiterate that the Peacock Premium Plus package is not entirely ad-free as its current description suggests.
> 
> The disclaimer says that "ad free" means "Due to streaming rights, a small amount of programming will still contain ads (Peacock channels, events, and a few shows and movies)." which clearly isn't the case if the LIL feeds are fully laden.
> 
> I hope to get at least to the reality if not the truth.


Like I said Paramount+ Premium ad-free is the same with their CBS linear feed. So since it bothers you so much you must have a solution in mind.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Do you?


Yes. And I'd be glad to share the truth about the service but you would rather shout your own views rather than listen to what is actually being offered. Based on other threads I expect anything I post will just generate more "I read this somewhere" replies.


----------



## b4pjoe

harsh said:


> The disclaimer says that "ad free" means "Due to streaming rights, a small amount of programming will still contain ads


Hulu ad-free also has the same kind of disclaimer. Why aren’t you whining about them?


----------



## harsh

b4pjoe said:


> Why aren’t you whining about them?


This thread is specifically about Peacock.


----------



## joshjr

harsh said:


> Do you?
> 
> I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm just following along with the available documentation and anecdotal evidence (because the documentation is often pretty lacey).


I am a Peacock Premium Plus sub and harsh is correct.


----------



## Bender The Lab

I have never expected the Live Feeds on Paramount, Peacock, ESPN+ to not have Commercials, the only one I watch Live is ESPN, everything else I watch after they air anyways, just like I used to when I had a DVR.

Another advantage for Streaming Services Commercial Free over a DVR, no more having to FF thru Commercials.

I also expect within the next 2 years that all Broadcast/Cable Live TV Channels will be on their respective Streaming Services, all Viacom on Paramount+, all Comcast/Universal on Peacock, Warner/Discovery on the new HBO, etc.

That way, it will help justify the coming Price Increases for Streaming Services ( say they are providing more content) and get another revenue source for the advertising on the services.


----------



## Mike Lang

I've grown too accustomed to the DVR features to take a step backwards to streaming live with limited functions & playback remote buttons.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Mike Lang said:


> I've grown too accustomed to the DVR features to take a step backwards to streaming live with limited functions & playback remote buttons.


What would watching things live have to do with a DVR?

Most that use a DVR watch it later, the same concept as watching things on a streaming service the next day.


----------



## Mike Lang

Bender The Lab said:


> What would watching things live have to do with a DVR?


My own slo-mo instant replays for one.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> I am a Peacock Premium Plus sub and harsh is correct.


About what? You're not even right about everything you said in this thread. Opinions are opinions, not fact.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> About what? You're not even right about everything you said in this thread. Opinions are opinions, not fact.


So its your opinion I wasn't right about something I posted? What exactly was that? You and I have a history of not agreeing on things.


----------



## Bender The Lab

Live Feeds of Comcast’s NBCUniversal’s RSNs will be on Peacock also-









NBC to stream local sports channels on Peacock service this year


The move opens the door for Phillies, 76ers and Flyers fans to be able to watch games via online streaming without needing to pay for cable or satellite TV.




www.inquirer.com


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> You and I have a history of not agreeing on things.


Exactly. Hopefully the difference between fact and opinion is not something you disagree about. I'm not going to attack you with a dictionary (as some are prone to do) but there is a difference.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> Exactly. Hopefully the difference between fact and opinion is not something you disagree about. I'm not going to attack you with a dictionary (as some are prone to do) but there is a difference.


I think you mean well, I just think you don’t know what you’re talking about sometimes. It’s all good though. That’s why we are all here is to help each other out. 
I will say I have not been as active on here in recent years but it is nice to see you clearly still remember exactly who I am. Have a good one James.


----------



## rahchgo

I live in the Chicago Suburbs. The local that Peacock is showing me is Detroit 4.


----------



## NashGuy

Bender The Lab said:


> Live Feeds of Comcast’s NBCUniversal’s RSNs will be on Peacock also-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NBC to stream local sports channels on Peacock service this year
> 
> 
> The move opens the door for Phillies, 76ers and Flyers fans to be able to watch games via online streaming without needing to pay for cable or satellite TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.inquirer.com


I'm a bit surprised by the aggressive pace at which Comcast is absorbing their linear channel content into Peacock. Didn't see this move coming with their RSNs. But this is in line with my long-term prediction that companies with both DTC services and linear networks will ultimately combine the two so that you can't get one without also buying the other.


----------



## Bender The Lab

NashGuy said:


> I'm a bit surprised by the aggressive pace at which Comcast is absorbing their linear channel content into Peacock. Didn't see this move coming with their RSNs. But this is in line with my long-term prediction that companies with both DTC services and linear networks will ultimately combine the two so that you can't get one without also buying the other.


I did and posted it at the other site, a certain person dismissed it and said RSNs and ESPN were never going online and staying part of Traditional Live TV, he called it Luxury TV.

Now the dam has broken, the speed of the Channels/content to appear on streaming services will really pick up.

I also predicted all of ESPN’s content to be online in 2-3 years, I believe more like 1 year now, change over ESPN+ to ESPN, increase the price to $15 which is more then they get from Traditional Providers per sub fees.

That way they will continue to get per sub fees from Live TV and Subscription fees from the streaming service, so to make up some of the per sub fees lost from those who left Pay Live TV ( over 30 Million).


----------



## NYDutch

rahchgo said:


> I live in the Chicago Suburbs. The local that Peacock is showing me is Detroit 4.


It looks like Peacock is using IP geolocation to determine which local you get. My AT&T IP is out of the NY City area, and that's the station I get. My Verizon IP is currently coming from Riley, KS, and I get the Topeka, KS outlet, but my Spectrum IP is out of Albany, NY, and I get the Albany local which is correct for my actual location.


----------



## b4pjoe

NYDutch said:


> It looks like Peacock is using IP geolocation to determine which local you get. My AT&T IP is out of the NY City area, and that's the station I get. My Verizon IP is currently coming from Riley, KS, and I get the Topeka, KS outlet, but my Spectrum IP is out of Albany, NY, and I get the Albany local which is correct for my actual location.


Do you have 3 different ISP’s…AT&T, Verizon, and Spectrum?


----------



## b4pjoe

On my iPhone the Peacock app uses my location services and gives me the correct locals, St. Louis, even though my AT&T cellular providers IP is in Indianapolis, IN. Other device apps may be different.


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> Do you have 3 different ISP’s…AT&T, Verizon, and Spectrum?


We have AT&T and Verizon cell Internet services in our fulltime motorhome, and we're currently on our private upstate NY site where we have Spectrum Internet available from our family cottage next door.


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> On my iPhone the Peacock app uses my location services and gives me the correct locals, St. Louis, even though my AT&T cellular providers IP is in Indianapolis, IN. Other device apps may be different.


Apparently that's not available on the Firesticks we use. I'll give Peacock a try on my Verizon Android phone to see where that one comes from.

Ok, just gave it a try. Connecting the phone WiFi to the Verizon hotspot, Peacock still uses the Topeka station as expected, but using the phone directly to Verizon uses the correct locals after the app asked for permission to use the location service. I'll keep that in mind so I can cast from the phone if needed. Thanks for mentioning it...


----------



## harsh

rahchgo said:


> I live in the Chicago Suburbs. The local that Peacock is showing me is Detroit 4.


You can probably blame your Internet provider for that. It is likely that they've assigned you an IP address that geolocates to Detroit with the location tool that Peacock uses.

See what this site tells you:





__





IP Address Lookup - Check Location of Your Public IP


IPLocation.io provides free lookup tool to check location of your IP Address. Data is gathered through several GEO IP data providers. Just enter an IP and check location.




iplocation.io





My current public IP address locates to three different towns spread across 50 linear miles. The majority of the services place me 30 miles to the south. Comcast went through a network shuffle in my area a couple of months ago and the services haven't caught up. Before the shuffle, I was shown as being in a small berg 30 miles to the north.


----------



## NashGuy

Bender The Lab said:


> I did and posted it at the other site, a certain person dismissed it and said RSNs and ESPN were never going online and staying part of Traditional Live TV, he called it Luxury TV.
> 
> Now the dam has broken, the speed of the Channels/content to appear on streaming services will really pick up.
> 
> I also predicted all of ESPN’s content to be online in 2-3 years, I believe more like 1 year now, change over ESPN+ to ESPN, increase the price to $15 which is more then they get from Traditional Providers per sub fees.
> 
> That way they will continue to get per sub fees from Live TV and Subscription fees from the streaming service, so to make up some of the per sub fees lost from those who left Pay Live TV ( over 30 Million).


We'll see whether Comcast's RSNs being part of their main DTC, Peacock, is a permanent arrangement. I kinda doubt it, given how much flux the entire RSN model is in right now. I think Comcast, like AT&T, has been looking to offload their few RSNs over the past couple years. For now, though, I think Comcast's strategy with Peacock is just to throw everything into it that they can to try and get its sub numbers up: exclusive next-day NBC (and Bravo, MSNBC, and some SyFy) shows, recent Universal theatrical films (no longer going to HBO), live NBC sports, live local NBC stations on Premium Plus plan, Hallmark library with live Hallmark nets, and now their live RSNs. Appears to be working too, as they've more than doubled their paying sub base so far this year. (And of course there are millions more who use the Premium plan free as customers of Comcast, Charter or Cox, along with yet more who use only the entry-level FAST tier.)

As for ESPN, I've long been saying that the entirety of it will go DTC but not until 2024 or '25 (at which point Disney will also own all of Hulu and will have absorbed it into Disney+). And I doubt they'll sell all of ESPN standalone for just $15 either. Price will be higher than that. Although, as I've also hypothesized, maybe we'll see them break it up into two services, e.g. ESPN College and ESPN Pro, with each one priced at or below $15 by itself (and with a discount, of course, for combining the two).


----------



## SamC

Bender The Lab said:


> I did and posted it at the other site, a certain person dismissed it and said RSNs and ESPN were never going online and staying part of Traditional Live TV, he called it Luxury TV.
> 
> Now the dam has broken, the speed of the Channels/content to appear on streaming services will really pick up.
> 
> I also predicted all of ESPN’s content to be online in 2-3 years, I believe more like 1 year now, change over ESPN+ to ESPN, increase the price to $15 which is more then they get from Traditional Providers per sub fees.
> 
> That way they will continue to get per sub fees from Live TV and Subscription fees from the streaming service, so to make up some of the per sub fees lost from those who left Pay Live TV ( over 30 Million).


Voodoo economics. $15 per willing sub does not cover the costs of ESPN programming. And, if ESPN were available a la carte, why would ANYONE keep paying for a full linear package? 

The math has been done. If you take every single household in the USA that has a sports fan in it, the cost of a la carte ESPN would need to be about 50 to 60 $$ a month. Add in the Fox imitators and the channels with some major sports like TBS/TNT and USA, and you are nearing $100. Just for sports.

Which is why the profitable ESPN channels will NEVER be sold by the, it lost a billion and a half last quarter, Disney streaming side.


----------



## Bender The Lab

SamC said:


> Voodoo economics. $15 per willing sub does not cover the costs of ESPN programming. And, if ESPN were available a la carte, why would ANYONE keep paying for a full linear package?


Never said it was a replacement for those with a Traditional Provider, just for those who have left and for those that will leave in the future, need to make up some of that per sub fees they have lost ( over 30 million subscribers have left).



> The math has been done. If you take every single household in the USA that has a sports fan in it, the cost of a la carte ESPN would need to be about 50 to 60 $$ a month. Add in the Fox imitators and the channels with some major sports like TBS/TNT and USA, and you are nearing $100. Just for sports.


The channels are done for, as time goes on the Sports Leagues will try to get their overpriced rights fees from Streaming Services, or a mixture like the Big Ten and NFL are getting from Traditional and Streaming.

If I remember correctly, the NBA Contract is coming up, curious how that is going to go, doubt Warner is going to overbid on it based on their own money issues, rumour is Apple wants it.



> Which is why the profitable ESPN channels will NEVER be sold by the, it lost a billion and a half last quarter, Disney streaming side.


And Warner lost 2.3 Billion in the same quarter, over 3 Billion in the Quarter before that, profits are getting less and less for Traditional Providers/Broadcastors.

And while Streaming for some Services has not made profits yet, it will happen, both Netflix and Amazon used to lose tons of money, now look at them.

And Disney does not seem like they are giving up on streaming, they just paid $900 Million on the rest of BamTech.









Disney buys MLB's stake in streaming firm BAMTech for $900 mln


Walt Disney Co disclosed on Tuesday that it has taken full control of BAMTech, a video-streaming firm spun off from Major League Baseball's digital media company MLB Advanced Media.




www.reuters.com


----------



## SamC

Bender The Lab said:


> Never said it was a replacement for those with a Traditional Provider, just for those who have left and for those that will leave in the future, need to make up some of that per sub fees they have lost ( over 30 million subscribers have left).


Right. You are correct that linear TV has a very long and bright future. What you miss is how sports TV works. If they sold it a la carte, who would be stupid enough to pay for all those Hallmark and faux reality and rerun channels? 




> The channels are done for,


That is an opinion. The fact that ESPN, et al, NEEDS $50/month to cover the costs doesn’t change. They are not going to sell it to you at some discount because you don’t want to pay for linear TV. That simple. 



> as time goes on the Sports Leagues will try to get their overpriced rights fees from Streaming Services, or a mixture like the Big Ten and NFL are getting from Traditional and Streaming.


Welcome to the bundle. If sports get passed out among all the streaming services, a sports fan would need maybe a dozen services, plus a linear provider. Much more expensive than now. And, again, they are not going to sell cord switchers the material at a discount. 



> If I remember correctly, the NBA Contract is coming up, curious how that is going to go, doubt Warner is going to overbid on it based on their own money issues, rumour is Apple wants it.


The NBA, which is in a ratings decline and never really was a regular season big deal anyway, will be an interesting deal for those of us who watch sports media business. 




> And while Streaming for some Services has not made profits yet, it will happen, both Netflix and Amazon used to lose tons of money, now look at them.


Why? Why is it inevitable that streaming be profitable? Or, put another way, what are they not doing now that the eventually will do that will make the difference? Until you can answer that, it is a rathole down which billions are being poured. 

The entertainment electronics museum is full of great technologies, which never made a dime.


----------

