DIRECTV likely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

Joe The Dragon

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 19, 2008
541
42
Again, there is no evidence that whoever gets the rights to ST wants to split up Residential and Commercial.

All the news stories have not even brought that up and why cannot a streaming company sell business subscriptions, Amazon, for example, have been really building up Amazon Business, that can easily expand into Video Services for Businesses.

If anyone brings up not all businesses get fast enough Broadband, in 2 years, when the NFL contract starts, Star Link will be well out of Beta by then.
But bars and restaurants will not want to deal with things like password rules, 2FA, paying for each user (staff) (not tv at an location). Also if they need to buy new boxes? and maybe even an switcher that can pass HDCP?

Also with big Chain bars each location is still it's own account now days. Amazon may have a lot of work to make so each location has it's own billing for things like Franchisees and each place being billed based on capacity, each location has it's own blackout rules, locations can also have local channels (Rsn's) that bill differently all over the usa.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
27,775
6,459
Moscow Russia
But bars and restaurants will not want to deal with things like password rules, 2FA, paying for each user (staff) (not tv at an location). Also if they need to buy new boxes? and maybe even an switcher that can pass HDCP?

Also with big Chain bars each location is still it's own account now days. Amazon may have a lot of work to make so each location has it's own billing for things like Franchisees and each place being billed based on capacity, each location has it's own blackout rules, locations can also have local channels (Rsn's) that bill differently all over the usa.
All they need is one amazon fire stick per tv with a very fast internet connection...amazon will handle the rest
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
64,397
4,520
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
Not really. I am not that far from you and Gig internet is 100 or less a month and fairly common
Not here, 100 mg cost $100 a month from the options I have.
It all depends on whats available in your area.
Spectrum (for example) calls all the time, wanting to sign me up, then I give my address and they say, nope its not available there.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
27,775
6,459
Moscow Russia
Not here, 100 mg cost $100 a month from the options I have.
It all depends on whats available in your area.
Spectrum (for example) calls all the time, wanting to sign me up, then I give my address and they say, nope its not available there.
You must live in a att area
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jimbo

AZ.

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 26, 2011
1,008
331
crazy
You must live in a att area
But why does that matter?....We are trying to explain there are many places that dont have those speeds....So how will they make money if a bar, restaurant, cant achieve what the are paying through the nose for?....Now season ticket will partly be charged for number of games you can stream?

Here in Northern Arizona its slow, unreliable, and if your lucky, in a big city you may get some bandwidth.....
On any given Sunday best I could do is 2 streams, with a fair amount of freezing....
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
27,775
6,459
Moscow Russia
But why does that matter?....We are trying to explain there are many places that dont have those speeds....So how will they make money if a bar, restaurant, cant achieve what the are paying through the nose for?....Now season ticket will partly be charged for number of games you can stream?

Here in Northern Arizona its slow, unreliable, and if your lucky, in a big city you may get some bandwidth.....
On any given Sunday best I could do is 2 streams, with a fair amount of freezing....
It was a inside joke
Jimbo used to work for att
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
1,778
499
But why does that matter?....We are trying to explain there are many places that dont have those speeds....So how will they make money if a bar, restaurant, cant achieve what the are paying through the nose for?....Now season ticket will partly be charged for number of games you can stream?

Here in Northern Arizona its slow, unreliable, and if your lucky, in a big city you may get some bandwidth.....
On any given Sunday best I could do is 2 streams, with a fair amount of freezing....
Exactly. In any business plan, in a western country like the USA, you can just “assume” lots of things. The electric, the water, trash pick up, so on.

If you are building a whatever, you need put no more thought into having electric than looking up who owns the electric company in that place and telling them to hook it up.

It is a huge mistake to just assume high-speed internet, or even the existence of cable, is universal. Especially in strip malls and other retail spaces where a sports bar might be the only customer that wants it and where the nearest residential place might be quite far away.

Which is why DirecTV has become, more or less, the standard go to for sports bars.

Just saying “we’ll ASSUME high speed internet and then…” doesn’t get the job done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ. and Jimbo

comp9

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jan 24, 2017
756
262
PA
But why does that matter?....We are trying to explain there are many places that dont have those speeds....So how will they make money if a bar, restaurant, cant achieve what the are paying through the nose for?....Now season ticket will partly be charged for number of games you can stream?

Here in Northern Arizona its slow, unreliable, and if your lucky, in a big city you may get some bandwidth.....
On any given Sunday best I could do is 2 streams, with a fair amount of freezing....
They don’t make money now. I don’t think they will care if bars that don’t have high speed internet can use the service
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
27,775
6,459
Moscow Russia
Exactly. In any business plan, in a western country like the USA, you can just “assume” lots of things. The electric, the water, trash pick up, so on.

If you are building a whatever, you need put no more thought into having electric than looking up who owns the electric company in that place and telling them to hook it up.

It is a huge mistake to just assume high-speed internet, or even the existence of cable, is universal. Especially in strip malls and other retail spaces where a sports bar might be the only customer that wants it and where the nearest residential place might be quite far away.

Which is why DirecTV has become, more or less, the standard go to for sports bars.

Just saying “we’ll ASSUME high speed internet and then…” doesn’t get the job done.
Illegally of course

Very few actually pay the very expensive commercial license
 

Joe h

SatelliteGuys Family
Jun 16, 2018
113
83
Bismarck, nd
Won’t it be the same as the ufc. Residential customers have to go through espn+, and Directv commercial accounts will still have access through directv? There’s no way I can see the nfl telling bars and casinos across the country, many in nearly desolate areas, that barely have a rotting pots line on the pole, that the only way Sunday ticket continues for them is through a 1 gig fiber connection.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
27,775
6,459
Moscow Russia
Won’t it be the same as the ufc. Residential customers have to go through espn+, and Directv commercial accounts will still have access through directv? There’s no way I can see the nfl telling bars and casinos across the country, many in nearly desolate areas, that barely have a rotting pots line on the pole, that the only way Sunday ticket continues for them is through a 1 gig fiber connection.
Seat licenses for bars and restaraunts are not cheap...not like a doctors office or local tire place
The NFL is very greedy
 

NashGuy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 24, 2009
937
442
Nashville, TN USA
Won’t it be the same as the ufc. Residential customers have to go through espn+, and Directv commercial accounts will still have access through directv? There’s no way I can see the nfl telling bars and casinos across the country, many in nearly desolate areas, that barely have a rotting pots line on the pole, that the only way Sunday ticket continues for them is through a 1 gig fiber connection.
How many little bars out in these areas where reliable 200 Mbps+ wired broadband isn't available are actually paying for NFL ST via DTV?

Keep in mind, we're not talking about those small-town and rural bars and restaurants showing the NFL games airing on their nearest CBS and Fox stations, which would include their in-market NFL team, i.e. the one that locals would overwhelmingly be most likely to support. We're talking about these places shelling out big bucks so that they can show all those out-of-market NFL games on Sunday afternoon.

Are there enough fans of out-of-market teams in those places to make it worthwhile for local establishments to spend money on NFL ST? Seems unlikely to me. I would think that NFL ST is overwhelmingly something you see at sports bars in cities and their suburbs. That's where more people live and it's also where you have more folks who have relocated due to college and career but who still root for the team from the city where they used to live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop

Radioguy41

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 7, 2008
2,253
1,819
Lehighton, PA
There’s no way I can see the nfl telling bars and casinos across the country, many in nearly desolate areas, that barely have a rotting pots line on the pole, that the only way Sunday ticket continues for them is through a 1 gig fiber connection.
You're right. The service provider with the potential to reach the largest number of users is satellite, not cable and not streaming. The FCC estimates about 40% of the country has no access to high speed Internet while nearly 100% has access to satellite, with the exception of some inner city physical limitations and some location line-of-sight issues. The NFL's greatest potential for market growth is via satellite. However, that does not mean the satellite providers are willing to shell out what the NFL thinks the service is worth and there's the rub. How strongly the NFL feels about it's position could very well end up with them pricing themselves out of the market. Maybe they should read up on how well Sinclair is doing with a similar strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop

NashGuy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 24, 2009
937
442
Nashville, TN USA
The FCC estimates about 40% of the country has no access to high speed Internet
False. The FCC's 2020 broadband report says that, as of 2018, 94.4% of Americans live somewhere where fixed broadband (at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up) is available. (See Fig. 4, pg. 23 in PDF linked below.)

Furthermore, it states that "The vast majority of Americans—surpassing 85%—now have access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25 Mbps, a 47% increase since 2017." (See para. 2 on pg. 2.)


Now there are certainly groups who believe the FCC's data is flawed and overestimates broadband availability by some degree. But they're not saying that 40% of the US doesn't have access. That's a gross exaggeration, unless *maybe* you're talking about access to gigabit internet (which is irrelevant to this discussion given that live 1080p video can be streamed with good picture quality at about 8 Mbps per stream).
 
  • Like
Reactions: meStevo

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,515
657
IA
False. The FCC's 2020 broadband report says that, as of 2018, 94.4% of Americans live somewhere where fixed broadband (at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up) is available. (See Fig. 4, pg. 23 in PDF linked below.)

Furthermore, it states that "The vast majority of Americans—surpassing 85%—now have access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25 Mbps, a 47% increase since 2017." (See para. 2 on pg. 2.)


Now there are certainly groups who believe the FCC's data is flawed and overestimates broadband availability by some degree. But they're not saying that 40% of the US doesn't have access. That's a gross exaggeration, unless *maybe* you're talking about access to gigabit internet (which is irrelevant to this discussion given that live 1080p video can be streamed with good picture quality at about 8 Mbps per stream).

Those numbers are bogus but keep parroting them. If ONE address inside a census block qualifies for high speed internet then the FCC data assumes they all they do. Census blocks can be rather large in less populous areas, but even inside cities you see places where one side of the street can get high speed DSL and another can't, or it ends when the street hits the city limit or something like that.

There is also ZERO verified of the data, the FCC just trusts the providers. One company no one has ever heard of claimed they served 62 million addresses and until a reporter uncovered it the FCC was ready to publish data including that.

Microsoft did their own study and estimated 162 million Americans lack access to broadband (i.e. 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up per the current FCC definition) which is basically half the country!

Experts are furious over the FCC’s rosy picture of broadband access
 

NashGuy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 24, 2009
937
442
Nashville, TN USA
Those numbers are bogus but keep parroting them. If ONE address inside a census block qualifies for high speed internet then the FCC data assumes they all they do. Census blocks can be rather large in less populous areas, but even inside cities you see places where one side of the street can get high speed DSL and another can't, or it ends when the street hits the city limit or something like that.

There is also ZERO verified of the data, the FCC just trusts the providers. One company no one has ever heard of claimed they served 62 million addresses and until a reporter uncovered it the FCC was ready to publish data including that.

Microsoft did their own study and estimated 162 million Americans lack access to broadband (i.e. 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up per the current FCC definition) which is basically half the country!

Experts are furious over the FCC’s rosy picture of broadband access
First, it wasn't me who brought up what the FCC estimates, it was Radioguy41. I was simply pointing out that he was making a false statement and corrected it with the figures reported by the FCC.

How accurate the FCC's figures are is another matter. But that Microsoft study claiming nearly half of the US can't access broadband is laughable.

Let's start with this: the 2020 US census says that there are about 127 million US households. Next, simply add up the reported number of broadband subscribers from the nation's largest cable and telco providers, as this report from Leichtman Research Group did.


They found a 2019 total of about 100.6 million. They believe that total represents 96% of the overall market. They do note that some of the reported sub counts may include businesses and not be strictly residential. But OTOH, this is only counting *actual* subscribers, not homes where service is available. There's a decent chunk of US households that choose not to purchase broadband service (or simply can't afford it). So those factors cancel each other out, to some extent.

That 100.6 million total is equal to 79% of the total number of households in the country. So again, the idea that nearly half the country does not have access to broadband, as Microsoft's flawed study claims, is laughable.

Even an activist group like Broadband Now, who criticizes the FCC data, comes up with an estimated total of 42 million *people* in the US without access to broadband, i.e. about double what the FCC claims.


That comes to 12.7% of the 331.4 million people living in the US (per the 2020 census) without broadband access. I can believe that figure. But any figure well in excess of 20%? Nah, simply not credible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meStevo
Top