DIRECTV likely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket (3 Viewers)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Bruce

That is my dog Bender.
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
6,346
6,226
NFL superfans are going to get NFLST if they can - the only subscribers Directv is missing are those who can't get satellite because they live in an apartment building or something.
There are a lot more potential subscribers for NFLST then those who cannot get DirecTV, there are about 65 million more households that pay for TV from other Traditional Providers ( Comcast, Charter, Dish, etc), then another 50’ish million households ( out of 128.45 million households in the US) that do not pay for Traditional Service ( cord cutters and the like).

Also, we do not how much Amazon will charge for it, for both consumers and businesses ( Bars and the like), all of that will affect how many subs they can get.

By the way, I live in a house, can get DirecTV if I want, choose not to ( have 10 TVs and 1 Projector, would hate to pay all those box fees), but plan on subscribing to Sunday Ticket when Amazon gets it.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
52,454
17,453
Northern VA
I expect a large majority of folks willing to pay that kind of freight for ST are with DTV for it. Not a lot more to be gained. And not all of whom will move.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
27,550
6,330
Moscow Russia
I expect a large majority of folks willing to pay that kind of freight for ST are with DTV for it. Not a lot more to be gained. And not all of whom will move.
You could probably just buy the season ticket from amazon and keep directv...most people watch more than football
 

Bruce

That is my dog Bender.
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
6,346
6,226
I expect a large majority of folks willing to pay that kind of freight for ST are with DTV for it. Not a lot more to be gained. And not all of whom will move.
Again, I want it but not DirecTV, I would assume there are others like that.

Also, no one knows what Amazon will be charging, they could charge $99 in the hope they get a lot more subscribers ( they would need 30 million to make a little profit), they could make it a loss leader or over charge like DirecTV does ( it is not worth $300 a year).

Or they could charge by team, say that $99 for one team for the whole season, also in the hope of getting more subs that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop

Bruce

That is my dog Bender.
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
6,346
6,226
Q.
Will that Broadband be affordable ?
That is up to the households, I have read stories that rural folks pay like $75 dollars for 3 download via DSL, StarLink then might only be a few dollars more for a lot better service.

Also, if NFLST goes to Amazon ( and all the stories I have read says they are the front runner by a wide margin), you can drop DirecTV and go to another service and save money, that will help cover the increase in broadband.;)
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
64,259
4,437
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
That is up to the households, I have read stories that rural folks pay like $75 dollars for 3 download via DSL, StarLink then might only be a few dollars more for a lot better service.

Also, if NFLST goes to Amazon ( and all the stories I have read says they are the front runner by a wide margin), you can drop DirecTV and go to another service and save money, that will help cover the increase in broadband.;)
And theres also the potential for Amazon (or another) to get it and it still be available with D*.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtv757

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
64,259
4,437
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
That is up to the households, I have read stories that rural folks pay like $75 dollars for 3 download via DSL, StarLink then might only be a few dollars more for a lot better service.

Also, if NFLST goes to Amazon ( and all the stories I have read says they are the front runner by a wide margin), you can drop DirecTV and go to another service and save money, that will help cover the increase in broadband.;)
3 download would be a very poor experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtv757

slice1900

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 14, 2015
1,500
649
IA
There are a lot more potential subscribers for NFLST then those who cannot get DirecTV, there are about 65 million more households that pay for TV from other Traditional Providers ( Comcast, Charter, Dish, etc), then another 50’ish million households ( out of 128.45 million households in the US) that do not pay for Traditional Service ( cord cutters and the like).

Also, we do not how much Amazon will charge for it, for both consumers and businesses ( Bars and the like), all of that will affect how many subs they can get.

By the way, I live in a house, can get DirecTV if I want, choose not to ( have 10 TVs and 1 Projector, would hate to pay all those box fees), but plan on subscribing to Sunday Ticket when Amazon gets it.


Most of the people willing to pay $300 a year to get all the NFL games and are able to subscribe to Directv do.

Cord cutters will not subscribe to this - you can't be a sports fan and a cord cutter, at least not yet, because there is too much content that is only available from traditional cable/satellite providers. i.e. you can't watch everything on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU via ESPN+.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtv757

dtv757

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 19, 2019
370
149
757
... you can't be a sports fan and a cord cutter, at least not yet, because there is too much content that is only available from traditional cable/satellite providers. i.e. you can't watch everything on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU via ESPN+.

Agree most of those steaming things don't have RSNs




Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

Bruce

That is my dog Bender.
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
6,346
6,226
Most of the people willing to pay $300 a year to get all the NFL games and are able to subscribe to Directv do.
Again, I am willing which you are choosing to ignore.
Cord cutters will not subscribe to this - you can't be a sports fan and a cord cutter, at least not yet, because there is too much content that is only available from traditional cable/satellite providers. i.e. you can't watch everything on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU via ESPN+.
I am a Cord Cutter and there are tons of sports available to me, the only thing that is not, the local RSN.
Agree most of those steaming things don't have RSNs
And soon RSNs will be available to Cord Cutters, I am quite happy YTTV is not carrying a channel I will never watch, if people want it, they can pay get it, not fair subscribers who never watch it, have to pay for it.

I have the MLB Package so I can watch still watch the Tigers since we moved, but I have no interest in Hockey and Basketball.

All I need is Baseball, College and Pro Football, the first two are handled and soon I will be able to torture myself and watch the Lions again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meStevo

Bruce

That is my dog Bender.
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
6,346
6,226
And theres also the potential for Amazon (or another) to get it and it still be available with D*.
Potential yes, but it seems DirecTV no longer wants it, every story I have read is for a exclusive carry contract, not a split.

If the NFL wanted to start their own streaming channel, they could model it after HBOMAX, where you can pay the NFL directly or a provider to have access, but they seem to want the guaranteed contract instead.
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
64,259
4,437
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
Potential yes, but it seems DirecTV no longer wants it, every story I have read is for a exclusive carry contract, not a split.

If the NFL wanted to start their own streaming channel, they could model it after HBOMAX, where you can pay the NFL directly or a provider to have access, but they seem to want the guaranteed contract instead.
Of course the NFL could build thier own ST channel, however that would go against what they have been wanting to do, which is to expand the ST across multiple platforms.
Thier plan was to expand to to multiple platforms, I still believe that it will be D* for Sat service as well as a Streaming service .... well see which one(s) in the future, I don't know if Cable will be one, but it should be at least considered.
If they go to any of those 3 and not the others, they are not expanding, they are just changing platforms.

Sorry for you guys that believe Streaming is the only way to go ... Streaming would still be allowing only 1 set of people to have access to ...
Then again, at what price ?

Some of you are saying that the price will be cheap, I doubt it ... it may start a little cheaper for a few years, but they pretty much know from D* what people are willing to pay for it .
D* did that work already for them, so each platform knows that price point will work, so they start lower for a few years and then it will go up each year till it hits the $3-400 range, once again.

25 years ago it was available for $79 ....
My sub to D* when I started was $40, now its over $150 for the same 20 channels that I watched then and now.
 

Bruce

That is my dog Bender.
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
6,346
6,226
Of course the NFL could build thier own ST channel, however that would go against what they have been wanting to do, which is to expand the ST across multiple platforms.
Thier plan was to expand to to multiple platforms, I still believe that it will be D* for Sat service as well as a Streaming service .... well see which one(s) in the future, I don't know if Cable will be one, but it should be at least considered.
If they go to any of those 3 and not the others, they are not expanding, they are just changing platforms.

Sorry for you guys that believe Streaming is the only way to go ... Streaming would still be allowing only 1 set of people to have access to ...
Then again, at what price ?
from the CNBC article-

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told CNBC on Wednesday the out-of-market Sunday game package “maybe will be more attractive on a digital platform” as streaming platforms continue to add subscribers at the expense of traditional pay-television. Goodell also suggested to CNBC that the league is looking for one strategic partner to acquire not only “Sunday Ticket” rights but to also invest in NFL Network, which airs NFL content all year, and NFL RedZone, which shows live footage of game action when teams are close to scoring touchdowns. The NFL currently owns both NFL Network and NFL RedZone.
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
64,259
4,437
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
from the CNBC article-

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told CNBC on Wednesday the out-of-market Sunday game package “maybe will be more attractive on a digital platform” as streaming platforms continue to add subscribers at the expense of traditional pay-television. Goodell also suggested to CNBC that the league is looking for one strategic partner to acquire not only “Sunday Ticket” rights but to also invest in NFL Network, which airs NFL content all year, and NFL RedZone, which shows live footage of game action when teams are close to scoring touchdowns. The NFL currently owns both NFL Network and NFL RedZone.
Good Lord ....
If Goodell is the one that makes the call, we are all DOOMED ... we'll never see the NFL again the way it should be.
 

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
1,754
479
Leaving out a few people who have, IMHO, issues, the people who WANT ST have ST. Really that simple. Extrapolating how many subscribers Amazon or whatever has against the ST sales is pointless, as, as I have shown, you end up with more people paying for the NFL than today watch it for FREE.

And that is rather the point. For all the ho-ha, most people get, in a regular week, 6 (Thursday, 2 at 1:00 Sunday, 1 at 4:25 Sunday, Sunday night, Monday night) games out of a possible 16 maximum games, sometimes as few as 11 with byes. INCLUDING, for most people their local team (yes, there are places like, say, Columbus where stations are put in a quandary) and at least two game (4:35 Sunday and Sunday night) where the games are selected, more often than not, to be of seasonal importance and/or feature national (AKA geographically illogical) fan bases.

For most people, that is enough. For those that it isn’t they ALREADY have DirecTV (or they go to a bar). Adding it to Amazon or Netflix or whatever isn’t going to change those numbers at all.
 

ejb1980

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 26, 2010
3,367
565
Vermont
Can we talk about how streaming is technically in-home only? It is technically illegal to stream in public. It has been hinted at in this thread but not directly addressed. Bars can not legally stream Amazon, unless that law is changed. Or ESPN+ or any of those apps/streamers.
 

Bruce

That is my dog Bender.
Supporting Founder
Nov 29, 2003
6,346
6,226
Can we talk about how streaming is technically in-home only? It is technically illegal to stream in public. It has been hinted at in this thread but not directly addressed. Bars can not legally stream Amazon, unless that law is changed. Or ESPN+ or any of those apps/streamers.
All Amazon has to do is offer a Commercial Account, just like DirecTV does.


 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
1,754
479
Can we talk about how streaming is technically in-home only? It is technically illegal to stream in public. It has been hinted at in this thread but not directly addressed. Bars can not legally stream Amazon, unless that law is changed. Or ESPN+ or any of those apps/streamers.
That is true.

Good luck enforcing it.

A DirecTV box is a physical thing. It must be in a place. DirecTV, in most cases, owns it and knows where it is. It can easily distinguish between commercial and residential accounts.

A smart TV, or some customer streaming something from his cell phone, is not. Short of placing ASCAP like spies in millions of bars and other hang outs, there is no way to keep somebody from watching what they want on a residential account.

Will big national chains and the casinos pay up? Sure. They have something to lose. Will Joe’s Bar on the corner, with a local customer base? No.

And then there is the issue of the internet itself. Lots of retail zoned places have a great view of the southern sky from the roof. But no internet service. And really no need to pay someone for internet service. Its a bar, not a library.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
27,550
6,330
Moscow Russia
That is true.

Good luck enforcing it.

A DirecTV box is a physical thing. It must be in a place. DirecTV, in most cases, owns it and knows where it is. It can easily distinguish between commercial and residential accounts.

A smart TV, or some customer streaming something from his cell phone, is not. Short of placing ASCAP like spies in millions of bars and other hang outs, there is no way to keep somebody from watching what they want on a residential account.

Will big national chains and the casinos pay up? Sure. They have something to lose. Will Joe’s Bar on the corner, with a local customer base? No.

And then there is the issue of the internet itself. Lots of retail zoned places have a great view of the southern sky from the roof. But no internet service. And really no need to pay someone for internet service. Its a bar, not a library.
If they get cable..they can get internet
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Top