Direct TV Last year for Sunday Ticket?

[slice1900]

Sure others won't pay $1.5 billion, but they won't get exclusivity so they wouldn't have to pay that much. No one else could even USE exclusivity, except for Dish. Cable companies can't, because none of them have near the reach satellite does, so it is worth less to them (and to the NFL, who would potentially lose some of its most hardcore fans who might disengage if they no longer had a way to follow their favorite team) Same reasons on both sides for streaming.

So selling to a streaming provider could ONLY be on a non-exclusive basis, and that would open up the bidding to others who could get it on a similar non-exclusive basis. Maybe Comcast would decide to get it, to offer to its customers as a way to steal the ones who currently get Directv only because they offer NFLST - these are valuable customers because sports fans are the least likely to cord cut. Maybe Dish would get it, hoping to steal some commercial customers from Directv, especially on the west coast where they have Pac 12 Network and Directv doesn't.

Regardless of who else got it, Directv would want it to try to keep their commercial customers - who wouldn't have a streaming option (none of the streamers license commercially, that isn't something they could set up overnight even if bandwidth wasn't a concern in many cases) and going with cable is a poor option because you have to rent a receiver for each TV. Plus keeping NFLST would mean likely keeping a decent chunk of their residential NFLST customers, some of whom might not have the option to stream/switch because of where they live, and others who would stay with Directv out of inertia.

 

[robjlevin]

The point I haven't seen here is the Fox and CBS affiliate reactions to widespread availability. They won't be happy and you can bet that will diminish the value to the Networks.

I don't care one way or the other. Things change. I had a 10-foot dish in my backyard back in the 90s. Now? A little one on the roof.

I suspect 5G will be the next big game changer in distribution, but we're probably 3-5 years away from enough infrastructure build out to make that happen.

 

[EarDemon]

Sure others won't pay $1.5 billion, but they won't get exclusivity so they wouldn't have to pay that much. No one else could even USE exclusivity, except for Dish. Cable companies can't, because none of them have near the reach satellite does, so it is worth less to them (and to the NFL, who would potentially lose some of its most hardcore fans who might disengage if they no longer had a way to follow their favorite team) Same reasons on both sides for streaming.

So selling to a streaming provider could ONLY be on a non-exclusive basis, and that would open up the bidding to others who could get it on a similar non-exclusive basis. Maybe Comcast would decide to get it, to offer to its customers as a way to steal the ones who currently get Directv only because they offer NFLST - these are valuable customers because sports fans are the least likely to cord cut. Maybe Dish would get it, hoping to steal some commercial customers from Directv, especially on the west coast where they have Pac 12 Network and Directv doesn't.

Regardless of who else got it, Directv would want it to try to keep their commercial customers - who wouldn't have a streaming option (none of the streamers license commercially, that isn't something they could set up overnight even if bandwidth wasn't a concern in many cases) and going with cable is a poor option because you have to rent a receiver for each TV. Plus keeping NFLST would mean likely keeping a decent chunk of their residential NFLST customers, some of whom might not have the option to stream/switch because of where they live, and others who would stay with Directv out of inertia.

Dish will never get NFL Sunday Ticket with their attitude on sports. And a single cable company probably would not make a bid either. If cable wants a chance at Sunday Ticket it mostly would go through iNDemand who distributes the NHL CI, NBA LP, MLB EI and MLS DK packages along with PPV UFC, ROH, WWE and boxing events to cable companies. iNDemand is jointly owned by Comcast, Charter and Cox, but just about every cable company plus Verizon gets their sports season packages, sports PPV and PPV movies from them.

 

[slice1900]

The point I haven't seen here is the Fox and CBS affiliate reactions to widespread availability. They won't be happy and you can bet that will diminish the value to the Networks.

Why would they care? The in market games will still be blacked out from NFLST and only available OTA, that's not going to change no matter who has it. Availability can't get much more widespread than Directv, which covers the whole US except for people in apartments, and everyone has a bar nearby that carries it. If you want to watch an out of market game in preference to the ones your local affiliates are showing, you are already able to do it.

 

[NashGuy]

Sure others won't pay $1.5 billion, but they won't get exclusivity so they wouldn't have to pay that much. No one else could even USE exclusivity, except for Dish. Cable companies can't, because none of them have near the reach satellite does, so it is worth less to them (and to the NFL, who would potentially lose some of its most hardcore fans who might disengage if they no longer had a way to follow their favorite team) Same reasons on both sides for streaming.

So selling to a streaming provider could ONLY be on a non-exclusive basis, and that would open up the bidding to others who could get it on a similar non-exclusive basis. Maybe Comcast would decide to get it, to offer to its customers as a way to steal the ones who currently get Directv only because they offer NFLST - these are valuable customers because sports fans are the least likely to cord cut. Maybe Dish would get it, hoping to steal some commercial customers from Directv, especially on the west coast where they have Pac 12 Network and Directv doesn't.

Regardless of who else got it, Directv would want it to try to keep their commercial customers - who wouldn't have a streaming option (none of the streamers license commercially, that isn't something they could set up overnight even if bandwidth wasn't a concern in many cases) and going with cable is a poor option because you have to rent a receiver for each TV. Plus keeping NFLST would mean likely keeping a decent chunk of their residential NFLST customers, some of whom might not have the option to stream/switch because of where they live, and others who would stay with Directv out of inertia.

I could imagine Amazon buying exclusive rights to NFLST for nationwide OTT distribution to residential viewers while DTV buys exclusive rights to beam to commercial establishments. Having NFLST available to consumers only as an add-on to a Prime subscription would be quite a feather in their cap. And they're obviously interested in live sports, including the NFL. Amazon has deep, deep pockets and I can see them willing to lose money on NFLST subscriptions in order to make Prime seem that much more indispensable.

But if NFLST were to be distributed on a non-exclusive basis, that could play out different ways, I suppose. Could be as simple as allowing all the major app stores and MVPDs to sell it for the same price, bill for it, and keep X% of the revenue. Games could be carried on MVPDs' own distribution systems, for viewing on their own cable boxes and apps, as well as in an NFLST OTT app for all the main streaming platforms.

 

[slice1900]

I could imagine Amazon buying exclusive rights to NFLST for nationwide OTT distribution to residential viewers while DTV buys exclusive rights to beam to commercial establishments. Having NFLST available to consumers only as an add-on to a Prime subscription would be quite a feather in their cap. And they're obviously interested in live sports, including the NFL. Amazon has deep, deep pockets and I can see them willing to lose money on NFLST subscriptions in order to make Prime seem that much more indispensable.

But if NFLST were to be distributed on a non-exclusive basis, that could play out different ways, I suppose. Could be as simple as allowing all the major app stores and MVPDs to sell it for the same price, bill for it, and keep X% of the revenue. Games could be carried on MVPDs' own distribution systems, for viewing on their own cable boxes and apps, as well as in an NFLST OTT app for all the main streaming platforms.

I HIGHLY doubt the NFL would sell exclusive rights to Amazon for residential customers right off the bat. That's a huge risk to take for a very conservative league. There are too many people who don't have good enough internet access - don't believe the FCC's broken metrics about broadband penetration and speeds, basically if one person in a unit of measurement (not sure if they are zip codes or census blocks) has service available at speed X from provider Y then everyone who lives in that unit is considered to have the same service available to them. We all know how wrong that is, not just in rural areas but even in urban areas.

Not only that, you have a lot of older customers with NFLST today who aren't going to be comfortable figuring out how to get where they can stream, i.e. buying a set top box, hooking it up etc. It hurts tailgating because data plans that let you stream that much data every weekend are not cheap, and service can be pretty bad around stadiums on gameday.

 

[NashGuy]

I HIGHLY doubt the NFL would sell exclusive rights to Amazon for residential customers right off the bat. That's a huge risk to take for a very conservative league. There are too many people who don't have good enough internet access - don't believe the FCC's broken metrics about broadband penetration and speeds, basically if one person in a unit of measurement (not sure if they are zip codes or census blocks) has service available at speed X from provider Y then everyone who lives in that unit is considered to have the same service available to them. We all know how wrong that is, not just in rural areas but even in urban areas.

Not only that, you have a lot of older customers with NFLST today who aren't going to be comfortable figuring out how to get where they can stream, i.e. buying a set top box, hooking it up etc. It hurts tailgating because data plans that let you stream that much data every weekend are not cheap, and service can be pretty bad around stadiums on gameday.

Shrug. There are WAY more folks in the US with both broadband and an Amazon Prime subscription than there are folks with an active DTV dish on their roof.

Amazon Prime membership in the US as of June '18: 95 million*
DirecTV satellite subscribers in the US as of year-end '18: 19.2 million

If we assume that only 80% of those Prime members have broadband (it's likely higher), that means 76 million potential NFLST subscribers, about 4 times as many as on DTV.

I really don't think the NFL would care if Grandpa can't get NFLST through his dish, so long as Amazon forks over the winning bid.

 

[navychop]

CHARLIE, pay for NFLST? I gagged over THAT one.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[navychop]

I’d hate to see how much my Amazon Prime subscription would go up, so that OTHERS could watch the ST.

I’d have to seriously consider dropping it.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[NashGuy]

I’d hate to see how much my Amazon Prime subscription would go up, so that OTHERS could watch the ST.

I’d have to seriously consider dropping it.

Hopefully most of the cost would be passed on by Amazon to their customers who chose to subscribe to NFLST as an add-on to Prime Video. But I do look at Amazon's desire to get increasingly involved in sports broadcasting -- they just bought a piece of the YES RSN that carries NY Yankees baseball -- with a wary eye. A big reason that so many folks cut the cord is to get away from expensive TV packages with prices inflated by sports. Hopefully Amazon doesn't make the mistake of re-creating that situation.

 

[Jimbo]

Hopefully most of the cost would be passed on by Amazon to their customers who chose to subscribe to NFLST as an add-on to Prime Video. But I do look at Amazon's desire to get increasingly involved in sports broadcasting -- they just bought a piece of the YES RSN that carries NY Yankees baseball -- with a wary eye. A big reason that so many folks cut the cord is to get away from expensive TV packages with prices inflated by sports. Hopefully Amazon doesn't make the mistake of re-creating that situation.

That is the way Streaming is leaning ....

 

[NashGuy]

That is the way Streaming is leaning ....

Hmm...I don't see Netflix or Hulu (on-demand) or Disney+ or Apple's upcoming streaming platform getting into the sports scene. We'll see where things go but, for now, the cost of sports is still pretty much segregated away from mainstream streaming subscriptions.

 

[Jimbo]

Hmm...I don't see Netflix or Hulu (on-demand) or Disney+ or Apple's upcoming streaming platform getting into the sports scene. We'll see where things go but, for now, the cost of sports is still pretty much segregated away from mainstream streaming subscriptions.

Most of what you mentioned don't do Sports and the prices are going up regardless ..
Sports only makes it go up faster ..

 

[robjlevin]

Why would they care? The in market games will still be blacked out from NFLST and only available OTA, that's not going to change no matter who has it. Availability can't get much more widespread than Directv, which covers the whole US except for people in apartments, and everyone has a bar nearby that carries it. If you want to watch an out of market game in preference to the ones your local affiliates are showing, you are already able to do it.

Why would they care? Because if there's a better game to watch from out of market, the in market ratings go down and hence the advertisers won't pay as much.

 

[Don in CT]

Hopefully most of the cost would be passed on by Amazon to their customers who chose to subscribe to NFLST as an add-on to Prime Video. But I do look at Amazon's desire to get increasingly involved in sports broadcasting -- they just bought a piece of the YES RSN that carries NY Yankees baseball -- with a wary eye. A big reason that so many folks cut the cord is to get away from expensive TV packages with prices inflated by sports. Hopefully Amazon doesn't make the mistake of re-creating that situation.

Getting a portion of YES is a smart move on their part. They will grab customers who didn't have Prime just to be able to watch the Yankees. For most people one of the perks of Prime is the video they get included with free shipping. I wonder what the breakdown is on the video side from the store side. What are customers using more.

 

[slice1900]

Shrug. There are WAY more folks in the US with both broadband and an Amazon Prime subscription than there are folks with an active DTV dish on their roof.

Amazon Prime membership in the US as of June '18: 95 million*
DirecTV satellite subscribers in the US as of year-end '18: 19.2 million

If we assume that only 80% of those Prime members have broadband (it's likely higher), that means 76 million potential NFLST subscribers, about 4 times as many as on DTV.

I really don't think the NFL would care if Grandpa can't get NFLST through his dish, so long as Amazon forks over the winning bid.

I don't get why you count only Directv subscribers as potential NFLST subscribers. If you have cable and you really want NFLST, you drop cable and subscribe to Directv. As many have done. The only people who can't get it are those in apartments. Many of the current Directv subscribers can't stream hours of video every week. And this all ignores commercial for which Amazon is simply not an option for most (or any, if they don't license it commercially)

Since Amazon can't use it to increase subscriber count like Directv does (with 95 million subscribers, there isn't much room for growth left in the US) and couldn't get the add-on commercial revenue Directv does, how could they possibly hope to beat Directv's bid to get it on an exclusive basis? If they get it at all, it would be on a non-exclusive basis, paying a fraction of the $1.5 billion Directv does.

 

[Claude Greiner]

First of all the subscriber losses would be in the millions.

There are many many customers who keep Directv only because of the NFL. Those customers are considered gone to whatever provider picks up the NFL.

The problem is that the Sunday ticket is not worth 8 billion or whatever Directv/AT&T paid for it, and I don’t think any other provider would be dumb enough to be suckered into paying that price.

Exclusive on the NFL made sense in 1994, today it’s seen nothing more than an extortion payment so Directv does not loose all the customers they acquired because of it over the years.

The best bet for Directv would be to see what it would cost to give up the exclusive rights, get a way cheaper price and allow other providers to carry it.

If that happened they would loose some customers who absolutely hated Directv, but most people would just continue.

Dish is absolutely not an option because Charlie is too cheap to pay.

Going to a streaming only option is not realistic, especially for commercial customers.

I bet you what we see is Directv retain the commercial rights, and let the residential be open to other providers.

 

[Don in CT]

First of all the subscriber losses would be in the millions.

There are many many customers who keep Directv only because of the NFL. Those customers are considered gone to whatever provider picks up the NFL.

The problem is that the Sunday ticket is not worth 8 billion or whatever Directv/AT&T paid for it, and I don’t think any other provider would be dumb enough to be suckered into paying that price.

Exclusive on the NFL made sense in 1994, today it’s seen nothing more than an extortion payment so Directv does not loose all the customers they acquired because of it over the years.

The best bet for Directv would be to see what it would cost to give up the exclusive rights, get a way cheaper price and allow other providers to carry it.

If that happened they would loose some customers who absolutely hated Directv, but most people would just continue.

Dish is absolutely not an option because Charlie is too cheap to pay.

Going to a streaming only option is not realistic, especially for commercial customers.

I bet you what we see is Directv retain the commercial rights, and let the residential be open to other providers.

How do sports bars handle the other sports packages. Can Comcast not be able to do the same thing with Sunday Ticket?

 

[slice1900]

How do sports bars handle the other sports packages. Can Comcast not be able to do the same thing with Sunday Ticket?

Comcast doesn't cover the whole country like Directv does. Not even half of it. So their potential revenue from NFLST is a lot less as a result.

 

[Don in CT]

Comcast doesn't cover the whole country like Directv does. Not even half of it. So their potential revenue from NFLST is a lot less as a result.

Leauge pass and Extra Innings are given to the cable companies, why not do the same for Sunday Ticket.