Peacock becomes home of first-ever exclusive live streamed NFL playoff game

[Don in CT]

You pay every where ... somewhere.

Peacock is a Provider of channels .
ESPN is a Channel.

What does the delivery method matter though?

 

[Jimbo]

What does the delivery method matter though?

Your missing the point ...

Ok, wait, lets go back to what you originally said :

You have to pay for both services ....

You are correct, you pay for both.

 

[Yespage]

I remember being able to MTV on my radio for a while. I'm sure science was the reason, but it was weird.

 

[SamCdbs]

ESPN is what it is, and not germane to the conversation.

- The NFL Playoffs should not be on pay-TV. They should be on NBC, CBS, Fox and ABC, which most people can get FOR FREE.

- The "sports tax" is back, and back with a vengeance.

- With the consumer unprotected by the bundle, the same sport is getting hacked up between different streaming services, so you have to pay for ALL of them. Just to follow the NFL, even the "local" team involves paying for ESPN (real ESPN) and NFL Network, AKA a linear TV subscription, plus Peacock and Amazon. Want other teams? Add in the all new higher priced YouTube ST (otherwise your home for crazy cat videos, girls putting on makeup, and sell-appointed experts on subjects most know little about). MLB? Linear TV (TBS, ESPN, FS1, local RSN (which is only available a la carte in, I believe 8 markets, otherwise you need linear TV) ) Peacock (Sunday morning games) Apple (Friday night games), plus access to the OTA channels, plus, if you live in the Yankees part of the world, Amazon Prime. Follow a different team and you can possibly remove the RSN and add in mlb.tv, but every time your team plays a "local" team, which in some places can be as many as 6 teams of which many have no real local status at all, it will be blacked out. NBA and NHL are similar. NHL you need linear TV for ESPN and TNT/TBS, plus there are exclusive to ESPN+ games and exclusive to NHLN games. Plus the local RSN, as above, although the number that sell it a la carte is greater. The NBA isn't my thing, but I'm sure its similar. Even lower tier sports requires multiple subscriptions. NASCAR is going behind an internet paywall in the next contract, IndyCar and the PGA already are.

 

[Juan]

I remember being able to MTV on my radio for a while. I'm sure science was the reason, but it was weird.

Leaky cable wires....if i remember right...some of the VHF bandwidth on cable channels is used at the lower end of the radio spectrum...im thinkin AM but mtv stereo was also broadcast by cable companies on a separate fm frequencies..you had to hook cable up to your stereo receiver..this was waaay back during analog cable..i am a bit foggy

 

[Don in CT]

ESPN is what it is, and not germane to the conversation.

- The NFL Playoffs should not be on pay-TV. They should be on NBC, CBS, Fox and ABC, which most people can get FOR FREE.

- The "sports tax" is back, and back with a vengeance.

- With the consumer unprotected by the bundle, the same sport is getting hacked up between different streaming services, so you have to pay for ALL of them. Just to follow the NFL, even the "local" team involves paying for ESPN (real ESPN) and NFL Network, AKA a linear TV subscription, plus Peacock and Amazon. Want other teams? Add in the all new higher priced YouTube ST (otherwise your home for crazy cat videos, girls putting on makeup, and sell-appointed experts on subjects most know little about). MLB? Linear TV (TBS, ESPN, FS1, local RSN (which is only available a la carte in, I believe 8 markets, otherwise you need linear TV) ) Peacock (Sunday morning games) Apple (Friday night games), plus access to the OTA channels, plus, if you live in the Yankees part of the world, Amazon Prime. Follow a different team and you can possibly remove the RSN and add in mlb.tv, but every time your team plays a "local" team, which in some places can be as many as 6 teams of which many have no real local status at all, it will be blacked out. NBA and NHL are similar. NHL you need linear TV for ESPN and TNT/TBS, plus there are exclusive to ESPN+ games and exclusive to NHLN games. Plus the local RSN, as above, although the number that sell it a la carte is greater. The NBA isn't my thing, but I'm sure its similar. Even lower tier sports requires multiple subscriptions. NASCAR is going behind an internet paywall in the next contract, IndyCar and the PGA already are.

What is the FCC requirement that sports has to be over the air?

 

[Bruce]

ESPN is what it is, and not germane to the conversation.

- The NFL Playoffs should not be on pay-TV. They should be on NBC, CBS, Fox and ABC, which most people can get FOR FREE.

- The "sports tax" is back, and back with a vengeance.

- With the consumer unprotected by the bundle

What does the bundle have to do with being able to watch free NFL Games, you have to pay for the overpriced bundle along with all those fees.

the same sport is getting hacked up between different streaming services, so you have to pay for ALL of them. Just to follow the NFL, even the "local" team involves paying for ESPN (real ESPN) and NFL Network, AKA a linear TV subscription, plus Peacock and Amazon.

If a game is on MNF or TNF, isn’t it still on the local channels, for example ESPN would be on the local ABC if the local team is playing.

I assume the same for exclusive games on Peacock and ESPN+.

Want other teams? Add in the all new higher priced YouTube ST

First, if you have YTTV , it is $50 less than if you had it with DirecTV last year, price is good until June 6, I already ordered and paid $249.

Second, did you complain about having to do the same thing if you want other teams when ST was with DirecTV?

NBA and NHL are similar. NHL you need linear TV for ESPN and TNT/TBS, plus there are exclusive to ESPN+ games and exclusive to NHLN games. Plus the local RSN, as above, although the number that sell it a la carte is greater. The NBA isn't my thing, but I'm sure it’s similar. Even lower tier sports requires multiple subscriptions. NASCAR is going behind an internet paywall in the next contract, IndyCar and the PGA already are.

Do you not see the positive in being able to choose from the above?

For example, gave up on MLB, everytime I watched a baseball game, it affected me better then taking melatonin NBA, PGA, Nascar, nope.

The only thing on what you just listed is the NHL, which barely costs anything since I get the bundle of Hulu, Disney and ESPN+ for $20 a month.

And I like that there are multiple streaming services instead of the all mighty bundle, also not forced to subsidize any of the Discovery channels, AMC or the local RSN as you would have to with the bundle ( per sub fees).

A la carter is the perfect example of the free market working, forcing others to pay for content that they would never watch in the bundle, is another example of socialism .

If a channel cannot get enough viewers/subscribers, like the RSNs, let it die.

 

[SamCdbs]

What does the bundle have to do with being able to watch free NFL Games, you have to pay for the overpriced bundle along with all those fees.

When the consumer was protected by the bundle, ONE BILL, one low cost for EVERYTHING. Now, six or eight or ten bills.

If a game is on MNF or TNF, isn’t it still on the local channels, for example ESPN would be on the local ABC if the local team is playing.

And there are 212 TV markets, 28 of which have NFL teams. Most teams have plenty of local fans in other TV markets. Dayton or Lexington for the Bengals, for example. You are a Lions fan, right? Aren't people in Flint, Lancing, Grand Rapids, etc. local fans of the Lions?

I assume the same for exclusive games on Peacock and ESPN+.

First, if you have YTTV , it is $50 less than if you had it with DirecTV last year, price is good until June 6, I already ordered and paid $249.

Yeah, lots of sports fans want YTTV. Not.

Second, did you complain about having to do the same thing if you want other teams when ST was with DirecTV?

I'm not complaining, just pointing out how Big Media and the NFL have, once again, outsmarted the consumer.

Do you not see the positive in being able to choose from the above?

No. I want everything. Like most sports fans.

For example, gave up on MLB, everytime I watched a baseball game, it affected me better then taking melatonin NBA, PGA, Nascar, nope.

So, if you don't like the NBA, you are paying for it anyway, via Disney. NASCAR, soon on, most probably Amazon. PGA, paying for it via Disney, and Peacock. Whether you want it or not.

Tell me about all this "choice" and "not paying for what you don't like" again.

The only thing on what you just listed is the NHL, which barely costs anything since I get the bundle of Hulu, Disney and ESPN+ for $20 a month.

Really? What time is tomorrow's game, and the rest of that series, and all of the finals, streaming and on what channel?

A la carter is the perfect example of the free market working, forcing others to pay for content that they would never watch in the bundle, is another example of socialism .

You mean like NASCAR, PGA and NBA?

If a channel cannot get enough viewers/subscribers, like the RSNs, let it die.

Oh, they will. Problem is EVERYTHING not named NFL is dying. These are the tail end of the "good old days". TV in 10 years will be mostly just wads of reruns.

But you saved darn near $20, back in 23.

 

[SamCdbs]

What is the FCC requirement that sports has to be over the air?

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right, ethical, or just.

 

[Mr Tony]

And there are 212 TV markets,

210 TV markets

 

[Bobby]

Couple corrections....

210 TV markets


32 NFL teams

You can have more than one NFL team in a single market. Think LA Rams and LA Chargers, New York Giants and New York Jets, etc....

 

[Mr Tony]

You can have more than one NFL team in a single market. Think LA Rams and LA Chargers, New York Giants and New York Jets, etc....

yeah I nuked that part but that would make 30 markets, not 28.

 

[Bobby]

yeah I nuked that part but that would make 30 markets, not 28.

True that. And there was another that has changed more recently, The SF 49ers and the Oakland Raiders (Now Las Vegas)...

 

[meStevo]

But you saved darn near $20, back in 23.

I've saved about $11,000 since 2017.

Probably thousands more, but it's a conservative estimate and can't recall any programming I wanted to watch that I couldn't.

 

[SamCdbs]

Basic cable is maybe $50/month. Do the math. It would take decades to "save" $11,000.

 

[Bruce]

Basic cable is maybe $50/month. Do the math. It would take decades to "save" $11,000.

Basic cable adds a broadcast channel fee, then a RSN fee, then box fees, then another $10 of extra fees, FCC, Franchise, etc.

 

[Ronnie-]

I've saved about $11,000 since 2017.

I have not saved THAT much, but I have saved several thousand (between $4,500-5,500) personally since I did the same.

 

[meStevo]

Basic cable is maybe $50/month. Do the math. It would take decades to "save" $11,000.

I did the math, did you? You're the one who tossed out the flippant $20 number.

My DirecTV bill with multiple TiVos and service in 3-5 rooms averaged easily over $200 and I've only been paying $65 a month for Youtube TV - and it's accessed regularly in more rooms.

Mom's right now is $175 with lesser service and fewer rooms.

You can quibble with the exact numbers, but at that point all you're debating is if it's 5-figures or not. The savings has been substantial, but you continue to downplay that as if we are missing everything and saving nothing - when as usual neither are true.

 

[Yespage]

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is right, ethical, or just.

I got bad news for ya... the NFL is now selling rights to be able to post about it on web boards. It ain't gonna be cheap.

 

[Yespage]

I did the math, did you? You're the one who tossed out the flippant $20 number.

My DirecTV bill with multiple TiVos and service in 3-5 rooms averaged easily over $200 and I've only been paying $65 a month for Youtube TV - and it's accessed regularly in more rooms.

AYE!!!! My bill has never been north of $100. And of course, that isn't programming fees driving it up that much. You people and your fancy multi-room setups.

Your bill went up high because the receiver became a lot more complicated with HD and a DVR, ethernet, etc...