DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Juan]

This seems to imagine that Charlie's Dish would be buying DTV. I don't think that will happen. Can't really see why either business would want to buy the other. Only deal that makes good sense is the two coming together as a merger of (near) equals, with a joint venture holding company formed in which Dish has X% and AT&T has Y% (i.e. very much like the current structure for DTV in which TPG has 30% ownership and AT&T has 70%). That would eliminate each other's direct satellite TV competitor, reduce costs and increase economies of scale.

In three years' time, both Dish and DTV will be ghosts of what they are now as more and more consumers dump cable TV, especially cable TV delivered via rooftop dishes that come with a 2-yr up-front contract. DTV at least has a viable streaming replacement with DTV Stream into which some of their sat customers are migrating. Meanwhile Dish only has a low-margin streaming alternative in Sling, which isn't something that can replace Dish and which now appears to be losing subs too. By mid-2025, I fully expect both satellite services to have only half the number of customers they have now, maybe fewer.

I keep thinking of the metaphor of two guys in a knife fight, with both of them cut and bleeding. Only thing that putting off the eventual merger will do is ensure that both of them spill a lot more blood on the ground. Both would be better off calling a truce sooner rather than later.

It could be a spinoff like att did with directv

 

[AZ.]

I keep thinking of the metaphor of two guys in a knife fight, with both of them cut and bleeding. Only thing that putting off the eventual merger will do is ensure that both of them spill a lot more blood on the ground. Both would be better off calling a truce sooner rather than later.

Merging would be a truce, as neither would be in completion with each other!

You belive that streaming is the key, to the future. So be it, but if you think streaming prices arnt going to go through the roof you have another thing coming!


It will end up you will need 4 or 5 separate services to see what you want or you will miss out.....Id bet on it!

 

[Bruce]

If only it were a trend, and not just every single person who wanted the third option taking it as soon as it was made available.

Your correct, not just a trend, it will happen because Traditional Providers are on their way to unprofitabliy and Broadcasters/Channels will have to switch to streaming to make up some of the per sub fees they are losing.

Have proven it many times. Once again you confuse the national ratings for the handful of baseball games that are shown nationally, and for which the ratings are well publicized, and which are down, and what we were actually talking about, which are the local ratings for local games, which are tremendous. Baseball is far more regional than other sports. The ratings for the local games in the local markets are just awesome.

Prove it, which I asked you to do before and you could not do it.

But I did prove it, the New York Yankees are only averaging 400,000 on Yes, out of a Metro Area ( viewing) of almost 20 Million.(only 2% of the population).

And the network, in nine games this season, averaged over 400,000 total viewers through 50 games. It took the Yankees the entire 2021 season to record nine such 400,000 total-viewers-games on YES.

Bob Raissman: Too much winning can hurt ratings, but not with this Yankees team

Even in the best of times the Yankees, as a TV product, have been taken for granted. The organization’s mission statement was “World Series or bust.” The high expectations often d…

www.nydailynews.com

Yes, linear TV is awesome, but, again you miss the point. If you live in the Tigers area, the cost of following the Tigers is $20/month for streaming or getting cable or DirecTV. The cost of picking any other team to follow is pretty much free, since mlb.tv is free with T-Mobile or 10 other promotions.

Just because you pay a extremely low price because it is part of your rent, does not mean everyone does.

DirecTV average monthly cost is over $120 a month, Cable is not much better, then that RSN fee of at least $10 a month.

So, based on $120 a year for MLB, YTTV for $65, ESPN+ for the Red Wings at basically $7 a month ( have the Hulu bundle for $20, so I divided by 3 to be fair), that is a average of $82 a month, so still at least $38 less then DirecTV.

And it is not free with T-Mobile, they call it free but you are paying for it in your high monthly bill.

Well, seems its a little easier to watch the Tigers in Florida, than in Michigan. Like I said.

For Cord Cutters, yes it is.

And this is a new problem. MLB.TV is the internet version of MLBEI, which getting that was predicated upon first having cable or DirecTV, which included the local RSN. Now, people can bypass the local team, in this the most regional of sports, and follow all the others for pretty much nothing.

Yep, is that not great, for once the customer has the power, a lot better then the bend over and take it model that Cable TV used to be.

That is a problem, even MLB execs admit that, and it has to be solved. Raising the price of mlb.tv substantially and including the local teams seems the only solution.

If they raise the price too high, I (and others I assume) will have to reevaluate keeping it, that is one of the reasons DirecTV has lost 10 Million Subscribers, raise the price too much.

No one should have access to far-away teams without first paying for the local teams.

Why, again what is wrong with giving the customer the power to not pay for something they will never watch, specially that over $10 extra RSN fee.

Most people can eat bread, I cannot because I have Celiac, should I be forced to pay for that also?

Amazed that you are so anti-consumer.

The dark secret of all of this is, well, none of these things really make money. That is the trend worth understanding.

Yet media companies are still showing profit and the potential for more as things change.

 

[SamCdbs]

DISH and DirecTV aim at totally different levels of the TV consumer market. They will not merge. To use a quote from a recent airline merger, it would be like Nordstorm’s buying Dollar General store.

DirecTV is luxury TV. DISH is good enough TV. The increasing competition for cheap streamers, free streamers, and OTA netlets is destroying DISH’s reason to exist outside rural places without access, while DirecTV remains the best option for many people.

 

[Bruce]

DISH and DirecTV aim at totally different levels of the TV consumer market. They will not merge. To use a quote from a recent airline merger, it would be like Nordstorm’s buying Dollar General store.

You also said that ESPN+ would never have the same programming as regular ESPN, yet here we are with Monday Night Football next week.

DirecTV is luxury TV.

Luxury TV?

Their boxes are at least 5 years old and working slower everyday and losing exclusive content ( bye NFLST).

Plus all those extra packages they were know for, now can be acquired online, some less expensive, HBO and NBA are the first two I can think of.

DISH is good enough TV. The increasing competition for cheap streamers, free streamers, and OTA netlets is destroying DISH’s reason to exist outside rural places without access, while DirecTV remains the best option for many people.

And yet, DirecTV has lost a higher percentage of subscribers then Dish.

Except for the RSN, what does DirecTV have extra then Dish.

 

[Juan]

DISH and DirecTV aim at totally different levels of the TV consumer market. They will not merge. To use a quote from a recent airline merger, it would be like Nordstorm’s buying Dollar General store.

DirecTV is luxury TV. DISH is good enough TV. The increasing competition for cheap streamers, free streamers, and OTA netlets is destroying DISH’s reason to exist outside rural places without access, while DirecTV remains the best option for many people.

Without sunday ticket..directv is just another dollar store...dish carries all the other premium sports packages

 

[SamCdbs]

You also said that ESPN+ would never have the same programming as regular ESPN, yet here we are with Monday Night Football next week.

Enjoy the Mannings. So MNF is the only programming on ESPN

Funny, I get 24 hours of programming across 6 channels. Darn.

Only on linear ESPN. Which, write this down, will NEVER be made available in an a la carte package of any kind. NEVER.

But I’m not saving four cents. You show em.

Luxury TV?

Their boxes are at least 5 years old and working slower everyday and losing exclusive content ( bye NFLST).

Yep. Luxury TV. For those that want every channel worth having (except for the weird Pac 12 deal, which should be resolved) with very limited crapola like carriage disputes, missing RSNs (the most important channel to many people), etc. Aimed at those who want luxury TV.

Meanwhile Dish aims at the bottom. And, if you can get the netlets, they look about the same. Good enough. Kids have some cartoons to watch. Nature shows. Reruns.

And we shall about ST. 99% certain to be there for commercial. I would put it at 50-50 for in home right now. Know a lot more if Amazon can get its act together for TNF. Maybe even have the sound and picture in sync next week.

Just not ready for prime time.

Or you can save four cents. You show em.

And yet, DirecTV has lost a higher percentage of subscribers then Dish.

Exactly. Aimed at different markets.

The cheap, or the poor, look to get good enough TV. For most rural people, that is DISH, now and for a very long time in the future (unless you really buy the sci fi internet for all stuff). For others it can be a combo of streaming, thrift store VHS tapes and Bonanza reruns on ME TV.

And then there is luxury TV.

Except for the RSN, what does DirecTV have extra then Dish.

Except for steak what does Ruth Chris have that Taco Bell doesn’t?

Good TV, Better TV, DirecTV.

 

[Juan]

Enjoy the Mannings. So MNF is the only programming on ESPN

Funny, I get 24 hours of programming across 6 channels. Darn.

Only on linear ESPN. Which, write this down, will NEVER be made available in an a la carte package of any kind. NEVER.

But I’m not saving four cents. You show em.

Yep. Luxury TV. For those that want every channel worth having (except for the weird Pac 12 deal, which should be resolved) with very limited crapola like carriage disputes, missing RSNs (the most important channel to many people), etc. Aimed at those who want luxury TV.

Meanwhile Dish aims at the bottom. And, if you can get the netlets, they look about the same. Good enough. Kids have some cartoons to watch. Nature shows. Reruns.

And we shall about ST. 99% certain to be there for commercial. I would put it at 50-50 for in home right now. Know a lot more if Amazon can get its act together for TNF. Maybe even have the sound and picture in sync next week.

Just not ready for prime time.

Or you can save four cents. You show em.

Exactly. Aimed at different markets.

The cheap, or the poor, look to get good enough TV. For most rural people, that is DISH, now and for a very long time in the future (unless you really buy the sci fi internet for all stuff). For others it can be a combo of streaming, thrift store VHS tapes and Bonanza reruns on ME TV.

And then there is luxury TV.

Except for steak what does Ruth Chris have that Taco Bell doesn’t?

Good TV, Better TV, DirecTV.

But dish has much better equipment

 

[Jimbo]

If only it were a trend, and not just every single person who wanted the third option taking it as soon as it was made available.

Have proven it many times. Once again you confuse the national ratings for the handful of baseball games that are shown nationally, and for which the ratings are well publicized, and which are down, and what we were actually talking about, which are the local ratings for local games, which are tremendous. Baseball is far more regional than other sports. The ratings for the local games in the local markets are just awesome.

Which brings us to:

Yes, linear TV is awesome, but, again you miss the point. If you live in the Tigers area, the cost of following the Tigers is $20/month for streaming or getting cable or DirecTV. The cost of picking any other team to follow is pretty much free, since mlb.tv is free with T-Mobile or 10 other promotions.

Well, seems its a little easier to watch the Tigers in Florida, than in Michigan. Like I said.

And this is a new problem. MLB.TV is the internet version of MLBEI, which getting that was predicated upon first having cable or DirecTV, which included the local RSN. Now, people can bypass the local team, in this the most regional of sports, and follow all the others for pretty much nothing.

That is a problem, even MLB execs admit that, and it has to be solved. Raising the price of mlb.tv substantially and including the local teams seems the only solution. No one should have access to far-away teams without first paying for the local teams.

The dark secret of all of this is, well, none of these things really make money. That is the trend worth understanding.

I disagree .... why should I pay for the Local team when I don't watch the Local team ?
Thats why I pay for the EI package.

 

[Bruce]

Enjoy the Mannings. So MNF is the only programming on ESPN

Both feeds are listed on ESPN+, one feed is listed for ESPN 3.

Funny, I get 24 hours of programming across 6 channels. Darn.

Glad you have so much free time.

Only on linear ESPN. Which, write this down, will NEVER be made available in an a la carte package of any kind. NEVER.

You said MNF would never be on ESPN+, yet here we are.

I give it 3 years at the most, ESPN+ will become ESPN to hopefully make up the per sub fees lost, which are increasing by 8 million a year after already 30 million gone.

No idea what they will charge, I am guessing $15 a month.

Yep. Luxury TV. For those that want every channel worth having (except for the weird Pac 12 deal, which should be resolved) with very limited crapola like carriage disputes, missing RSNs (the most important channel to many people), etc. Aimed at those who want luxury TV.

There is nothing on the majority of those channels except reruns.

All the content producers are putting on their new/better shows have been moved to streaming.

Even some of the channels that had original programming have quit offering it.

For example, TNT and TBS, any shows that that were on or going to be on there have been canceled or moved to HBOMAX.

Meanwhile Dish aims at the bottom. And, if you can get the netlets, they look about the same. Good enough. Kids have some cartoons to watch. Nature shows. Reruns.

They have the same channels as DirecTV except for the RSNs.

And we shall about ST. 99% certain to be there for commercial. I would put it at 50-50 for in home right now.

What evidence do you have for that, let’s see, do you mean the deal for TNF, did not see homes that cannot get fast enough internet in that deal, just Businesses.

Know a lot more if Amazon can get its act together for TNF. Maybe even have the sound and picture in sync next week.

I had no issues.

Just not ready for prime time.

it is, also looked better then the fake 4K games on Traditional Providers and it was just in 1080P.

Exactly. Aimed at different markets.

Lost subscribers is lost subscribers.

The cheap, or the poor, look to get good enough TV. For most rural people, that is DISH, now and for a very long time in the future (unless you really buy the sci fi internet for all stuff). For others it can be a combo of streaming, thrift store VHS tapes and Bonanza reruns on ME TV.

Why are you going after the rural market for, DirecTV ( and Dish) need them to survive.

Are you saying people that live in rural areas are poor and that is why they have Dish?

A lot of them own houses with lots of land in those areas.

I live in a rural area, own a 4500 sq foot house on 2.5 acres and I rather have Dish then DirecTV, at least they are putting out new equipment.

And then there is luxury TV.

Does it have 1080P on the majority of channels, Dolby Digital+ sound, how about a unlimited DVR?

4Except for steak what does Ruth Chris have that Taco Bell doesn’t?

Never ate at either, Taco Bell because of Celiac, Ruth Chris because it is a waste, money that would of been spent on that, went into our investment account instead.

Publix here had Ribeyes on sale for $6.99lbs for Labor Day, much better value.

Good TV, Better TV, DirecTV.

for some, not worth the extra expense for others.

 

[Jimbo]

Wow ....
You guys just keep going at one another ... one says one thing and the other says no Its not ....
Been going on for weeks ....

Glad I dropped out, you really don't need any one else to listen too, your going fine all by your selves.

 

[Juan]

Wow ....
You guys just keep going at one another ... one says one thing and the other says no Its not ....
Been going on for weeks ....

Glad I dropped out, you really don't need any one else to listen too, your going fine all by your selves.

Tomorrow is apple announcement day

 

[NashGuy]

Merging would be a truce, as neither would be in completion with each other!

Exactly. That's my point.

You belive that streaming is the key, to the future. So be it, but if you think streaming prices arnt going to go through the roof you have another thing coming!


It will end up you will need 4 or 5 separate services to see what you want or you will miss out.....Id bet on it!

Prices will go up to some extent with general inflation. But I think the bigger change you'll see is that these streaming services will reduce costs by gradually reducing the total amount of new content they produce/acquire and by thinning out their library of older content. (We're already seeing WBD doing this with HBO Max.) The glut of new TV we've been seeing for the past few years seems like an unsustainable bubble to me.

As for needing 4 or 5 separate services to get everything (or nearly everything) yes, definitely. The industry consensus seems to be that there will be 4 or 5 big global general entertainment streaming services left standing when the dust settles. Seems clear that Netflix, Prime Video, Apple TV+, and Disney+ will be 4 of them. (Disney+ will eventually gobble up its sibling Hulu, by the way.) Question is whether enough of the "leftovers" -- HBO Max/Discovery, Paramount+, Peacock, Showtime, Starz, AMC+ -- will merge in order to form something formidable enough to survive and thrive in that fifth spot. If not, then the studios behind those services will just end up making content for the big 4 (like Sony is already doing) and not have their own consumer-facing service. (I do think it's possible that some of the longstanding adult-focused "premium" services, such as Showtime, Starz, and AMC+, could end up merging to form a US-only ad-free streaming service that could do well enough, with their new original content simultaneously showing up on other services, such as Netflix or Prime Video, outside the US.)

 

[Bruce]

Tomorrow is apple announcement day

As much as I prefer Amazon to get it, I do want the nightmare to be over.

I am also hearing more about Google really trying to be a spoiler and offering more money.

Also read Disney is totally out, too much $$$$.

Also, the NFL wants Apple to get it, they really want to get into bed with Apple.

This is from Reddit, someone posting there claims to be a insider, so who knows if true or not, but has not been wrong yet.

 

[Bruce]

Prices will go up to some extent with general inflation. But I think the bigger change you'll see is that these streaming services will reduce costs by gradually reducing the total amount of new content they produce/acquire and by thinning out their library of older content. (We're already seeing WBD doing this with HBO Max.) The glut of new TV we've been seeing for the past few years seems like an unsustainable bubble to me.

Paramount has put the majority of their older content on Pluto, that is where, they believe, their library will maximize revenue for the company.

Peacock is the most surprising, they have so much Content from Universal TV, yet are not using it ( and still selling the rights to other services), but they are spending money for content for Peacock from other studios, for example, spent a lot for the rights to That 70’s Show, which was produced/owned by Fox/Disney.

As for needing 4 or 5 separate services to get everything (or nearly everything) yes, definitely. The industry consensus seems to be that there will be 4 or 5 big global general entertainment streaming services left standing when the dust settles. Seems clear that Netflix, Prime Video, Apple TV+, and Disney+ will be 4 of them. (Disney+ will eventually gobble up its sibling Hulu, by the way.)

and will continue to offer a bundle with ESPN.

Question is whether enough of the "leftovers" -- HBO Max/Discovery,

Will become Warner/Discovery, only name that makes sense.

Paramount+,

The most likely to last based on their subscriber’s numbers.

Peacock,

They really need to do something, with only 13 million paying subs and Paramount way over 40 million, I just do not see how they can make it up.

Showtime,

already kind of merging with Paramount+ ( a year Commercial free P+ with Showtime is only $129 a year), I remember when Showtime was $15 a month a few years ago, that was $180 a year.

Starz,

Deadmeat all on it’s own, Lionsgate has been trying to sell it for a couple of years now, no takers, they also paid way too much for the channel in 2016, over $4 billion.

AMC+

Also deadmeat, like ESPN, most of it’s income comes from per sub fees on Traditional Service, also 30 million gone, 8 million more per sub fees gone each year, I cannot see how they can make it up when everything goes streaming only.

They have to merge or sell their content to others.

 

[Mr Tony]

Here's a nice clear page about ESPN's broadcast arrangements for the NFL this year.

NFL: How to Watch Monday Night Football Games Live Without Cable

ESPN's Monday Night Football will feature a slate of 23 games during the 2022 NFL season and cord cutters can stream live games without cable by subscribing to a streaming service

www.tvguide.com

tl;dr re: ESPN+: All 21 of their NFL games will be on ESPN+, with the London game exclusively on the service.

incorrect. The article says "SOME" games will be on ESPN+
Looking at the schedule for the next few weeks (can go until Oct 6th)
Week 1..yes
Week 2...Vikes/Eagles yes, Bills/Titans no (Vikes on ABC, Bills on ESPN)
Week 3...yes
week 4...no

 

[Mr Tony]

Wow ....
You guys just keep going at one another ... one says one thing and the other says no Its not ....
Been going on for weeks ....

Glad I dropped out, you really don't need any one else to listen too, your going fine all by your selves.

Kind of reminds me of the old "my girlfriend is fatter than your girlfriend" argument

 

[Bruce]

incorrect. The article says "SOME" games will be on ESPN+
Looking at the schedule for the next few weeks (can go until Oct 6th)
Week 1..yes
Week 2...Vikes/Eagles yes, Bills/Titans no (Vikes on ABC, Bills on ESPN)
Week 3...yes
week 4...no

October schedule on ESPN+ has not been populated yet, the games listed for the next few weeks were not on the schedule till 3 weeks ago.

 

[Mr Tony]

I'm just going by what the article said as of 5 days ago. If it changes thats great as I sub to ESPN+
If it doesn't no worries. Although I am happy that ESPN+ is carrying the Vikes game as I do not have an OTA ABC in my market

 

[SamCdbs]

As only two streamers have ever made a cent in profit, and both of those, particularly Netflix, are now losing the rights to that content, the jury is still out as to how many survive. As a consumer, the less the better, particularly if everyone of the them tries to jazz up their melodrama offerings with sports. No desire to pay five or six bills for worthless content just to get the sports I want.

As to ESPN, this is really getting to voodoo economics area. ESPN (linear) remains mega-profitable. ESPN+ has never made a cent. ESPN is profitable because it is bundled in every cable/DBS/internet linear TV package in the entire country. Not having it is a death sentence for any and all that crazy. Even though, it costs a lot and most people don’t watch it at all.

And Disney is on the hook for, literally, billions of $$ for future sports rights to fuel the goodness that is ESPN. Disney may very well be looking a lot like Diamond Sports in a few years. Don’t care, awful company.

So they are going to, somehow, for $15/month (which is way less than they get now from bundled linear ESPN plus ESPN+) sell it a la carte? To people who left traditional linear TV mainly to save money by doing without the sports they do not wish to watch?

Right. Every cable company in the world would drop ESPN, and its high fees, the next afternoon. Disney is not that stupid. Neither is Fox. Which is why ESPN, and its imitators with NEVER be sold a la carte. NEVER.

It is simple math.