DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Ronnie-]

* does not include $70 average monthly fee for required internet connnection

* also does not include required electric service to power the devices.

However, since personally I am paying for those regardless of what tv service I am using, I find it silly to include them in the price. Obviously not everyone that has sat has broadband to make the switch cost effective, but I would wager more do than dont.

 

[Juan]

* also does not include required electric service to power the devices.

However, since personally I am paying for those regardless of what tv service I am using, I find it silly to include them in the price. Obviously not everyone that has sat has broadband to make the switch cost effective, but I would wager more do than dont.

Its kinda like selling someone a hopper..quoting them a price..then the consumer finds out he needs an expensive internet connection to get all the features to work...if you are going to compare you tube tv to cable...brag how much cheaper it is..atleast to an apples to apples comparison..if you include internet( it wont work without it) a cable/ internet bundle is cheaper where I live considering youtube tv has no RSNs..you add sports with cable..youtube wins..youtube locals don't include the sub channels..you might get the main networks with you tube but cable carries metv, antennatv etc etc...so cable wins the local channel contest hands down...

 

[Juan]

My Dad had gotten a pretty good deal for $25 a month for Internet through Spectrum. I think one needs to be older to get the deal though. Not super fast, but can stream without any issues.

Including Internet costs with streaming is a bit silly as typically most people with access to Internet... have the Internet. I'd doubt many who have Sat/Cable don't have Internet because they get their channels via Cable/Sat.

Isn't that a teaser rate?

If you wanna compare apples to apples with a cable or satellite package..it needs to be included..otherwise its false advertising

 

[Yespage]

If you wanna compare apples to apples with a cable or satellite package..it needs to be included..otherwise its false advertising

If that is the case, you need a television to watch Cable on. And the average home goes for $278,000. You don't need a home or tv to get a 5G plan to stream, but you need one to get Cable. So that leads us to:

Cable:
Package $100
OLED: $1,500
Home $278,000
Taxes of House $4,800 per year

Streaming:
Package $70
5G Plan: $100
Phone: Free with 5G plan
Tablet: $500

So Cable/Sat costs about $1750 a month (assuming you put $132k down on the home and get a rate on the mortgage of about 6.75%) plus $1,500 in other expenses, and I'm not even including the costs of updating that old furnace, the frontage cost of the sewer line they just replaced, and the 6 mil school levy on the ballot this November. Streaming just about $170 a month plus the $500 expense.

Really, it isn't even close.

 

[NashGuy]

They wont pay $65 a month for streaming either

Clearly, some will. The average cable TV subscriber in the US pays close to $100/mo, plus however much they might spend on DTC streaming services like Netflix. Once all that cable TV content shifts to DTC streaming and there's no longer "cable TV" to spend money on (meaning that *all* pay TV is streaming), then sure, of course there will be lots of US households spending $65/mo on the combo of streaming services they take. Not everyone, of course. But plenty of big sports fans will.

 

[NashGuy]

Now will there some kind of at the very least bookies feed of all live sports that may be on any channel with out needing to buy say an full channel like TNT?
what about when we get to the mostly streaming only setup and you have bars that can't buy HBO / HBO MAX but there an NHL game on HBO MAX LIVE TV?
WIth the leages pushing betting will they setup an system to let the sports book get all games with no blackouts for one bill with no limtes on max streams?

Well, I don't really see live sports being embedded inside "channels," per se. When you watch Friday night MLB games on Apple TV+, what "channel" is that? When you watch early Sunday MLB games on Peacock, what "channel" is that? It's just live games carried inside those apps. So eventually, that's how all live sports will be.

The big shakeout coming in pro sports is the collapse of those regional sports networks. I think the individual leagues and their teams -- MLB, NBA, NHL -- are going to end up taking control of that business and sell in-market access to all those regular season games through their own direct-to-consumer apps. Of course, they'll still need to supply it in the form of cable channels to those millions of fans who will still be on cable TV for the rest of this decade. But I think there's a good chance that instead of having a single RSN that carries all three sports (NLB, NBA and NHL) we'll see them broken out for individual teams and sold to cable operators by the leagues/teams themselves. So here in Nashville, a cable TV package might include the "Nashville Predators Network," "Atlanta Braves Network," and "Memphis Grizzlies Network". During those teams' off-seasons, they'd just fill the schedule with re-run games plus lots of talk.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

MLB, NBA, NHL -- are going to end up taking control of that business

and the teams may sue to keep control of there own content

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Juan]

Clearly, some will. The average cable TV subscriber in the US pays close to $100/mo, plus however much they might spend on DTC streaming services like Netflix. Once all that cable TV content shifts to DTC streaming and there's no longer "cable TV" to spend money on (meaning that *all* pay TV is streaming), then sure, of course there will be lots of US households spending $65/mo on the combo of streaming services they take. Not everyone, of course. But plenty of big sports fans will.

Thats not going to happen as fast as you think

 

[Juan]

If that is the case, you need a television to watch Cable on. And the average home goes for $278,000. You don't need a home or tv to get a 5G plan to stream, but you need one to get Cable. So that leads us to:

Cable:
Package $100
OLED: $1,500
Home $278,000
Taxes of House $4,800 per year

Streaming:
Package $70
5G Plan: $100
Phone: Free with 5G plan
Tablet: $500

So Cable/Sat costs about $1750 a month (assuming you put $132k down on the home and get a rate on the mortgage of about 6.75%) plus $1,500 in other expenses, and I'm not even including the costs of updating that old furnace, the frontage cost of the sewer line they just replaced, and the 6 mil school levy on the ballot this November. Streaming just about $170 a month plus the $500 expense.

Really, it isn't even close.

Go ahead..watch yahootv without an internet package

 

[Bruce]

Go ahead..watch yahootv without an internet package

Try to watch TV without electricity.

That is a extra cost, much like broadband.

 

[Yespage]

Go ahead..watch yahootv without an internet package

I did include the 5G package for streaming. It costs about 10x to subscribe to Cable/Sat than Streaming. Numbers don't lie...

 

[slice1900]

Please, please let there be a deal announcement soon….

Might hear something next Wednesday - if Apple won the rights this may be something they will announce during their yearly event for the new iPhone.

They always announce a few other things aside from the new iPhone lineup, and a big announcement for Apple TV+ carrying NFLST starting next fall might fit the bill.

 

[SamCdbs]

I think you are correct. Either Apple announces this deal at the Apple event, or the lack of an announcement means Amazon has "won".

The cell phone industry is changing. Much like cars, 60 years ago, when you traded phones a few years ago, it was actually better. Today it is actually blue. People have figured that out and are not in line for the latest model every year, at least not in the way they were before. Leaving Apple with little to announce each year.

 

[Bruce]

I think you are correct. Either Apple announces this deal at the Apple event, or the lack of an announcement means Amazon has "won".

While I prefer Amazon to get it, Apple can easily just have another event, they usually have, at least, a couple a year.

There are rumors that a new Apple TV box is in the works ( last one was released 15 months ago), if so, they can have a event for that and also announce ST with it.

Or a streaming event, talking about their new content and ST with it.

 

[slice1900]

While I prefer Amazon to get it, Apple can easily just have another event, they usually have, at least, a couple a year.

There are rumors that a new Apple TV box is in the works ( last one was released 15 months ago), if so, they can have a event for that and also announce ST with it.

Or a streaming event, talking about their new content and ST with it.

Yes, while it isn't scheduled many expect to see another event in October to announce some new Macs.

The reason I expect it next week is more because that's Apple's highest profile event of the year, and will garner the most press attention as far as articles written that day and the next about what happened. The NFLST thing wouldn't be the headline, but it would be mentioned. If they won the deal they would have asked the NFL to make their own announcement at that event, and if it is close they'd probably try to wrap it up in time for that.

The Mac events are lower profile as far as the mainstream press is concerned, since Macs are a niche market while the iPhone is a different matter. In fact I just saw an article today saying that iPhone has now surpassed 50% of the active phones in the US, up from 35% four years ago. You bet Apple will mention THAT in their event next week, they consider installed base as more important than market share of new phones sold.

 

[NashGuy]

and the teams may sue to keep control of there own content

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, I think the individual teams will have to willingly opt into what their league does. As I say, there will probably be a few of the biggest, richest teams (at least in MLB) that choose to go their own way.

Now, in the newer MLS league, it was designed from the start to avoid those issues. The league controls all the TV deals, which is how they were able to make that one deal with Apple for all streaming rights, both in- and out-of-market.

 

[NashGuy]

Thats not going to happen as fast as you think

Maybe, maybe not. The transition from linear channel cable bundles to direct-to-consumer streaming apps may take longer than I currently think. But it'll happen. It's already begun and things keep moving further in that direction.

 

[Juan]

Maybe, maybe not. The transition from linear channel cable bundles to direct-to-consumer streaming apps may take longer than I currently think. But it'll happen. It's already begun and things keep moving further in that direction.

People need a reason to change...those who left cable for price are long gone

 

[Bilbo1]

Now, in the newer MLS league, it was designed from the start to avoid those issues. The league controls all the TV deals, which is how they were able to make that one deal with Apple for all streaming rights, both in- and out-of-market.

In MLS, it's a single entity… the league owns all of the teams. Investor/operators own the league and run a team.

But, to the point… the MLS/Apple deal is likely to be a model for other leagues assuming the RSN model devolves. One stop for all of the league's games. The biggest obstacle for other leagues is likely current deals between teams and RSNs, some of which are reportedly pretty long.

 

[NashGuy]

In MLS, it's a single entity… the league owns all of the teams. Investor/operators own the league and run a team.

But, to the point… the MLS/Apple deal is likely to be a model for other leagues assuming the RSN model devolves. One stop for all of the league's games. The biggest obstacle for other leagues is likely current deals between teams and RSNs, some of which are reportedly pretty long.

Yes, the way the MLS deal looks is what we'll see with most sports ultimately (although most will just distribute the service themselves rather than partnering with an outside company like MLS did with Apple).

Most of the nation's RSNs are owned by Sinclair under the Bally Sports brand, so what happens there is the big question in terms of MLB, NBA and NHL shifting from the current RSN paradigm to whatever follows. And there are a few RSNs owned by Comcast, AT&T and maybe some others that are ripe for sale.

But yeah, there may be a few teams that will be tied up with their current RSNs for considerably longer. But even in those cases, the RSNs will be forced to sell themselves as a standalone streaming service in addition to as a cable network, as NESN (Boston Red Sox) did this year.