DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Juan]

1gig, it’s plenty fast enough.

Yup

Google will soon be able to offer it to about 100 Million People that have fast enough Broadband.

If you need help with the math, that is 10 times the subscribers of DirecTV.

Thats nice but how many simutanious streams will be availavble per subscription? Thats the real question..can you have multiple tvs watching multiple games...or can you only watch 1 game at a time

 

[Bruce]

Yup
Thats nice but how many simutanious streams will be availavble per subscription? Thats the real question..can you have multiple tvs watching multiple games...or can you only watch 1 game at a time

Ok, now you are shifting from not fast enough internet to multiple TVs.

YTTV provides 3 streams without a extra box charge unlike DirecTV, I assume they will do something similar for ST, but no one knows yet.

But since the start of next season is roughly 9 months away, information is forthcoming, probably quickly.

They have also stated they are working on multi-view.

Anything else you wish to bring up as a negative?

 

[televisionarchivesorlando]

I really doubt they still enforce those rules that were put into place over 30 years ago IIRC.

Realistically there aren't any places that only have OTA. If you have cable or satellite you are paying for OTA, and no one is going to care if you choose to get your signals you're legally entitled to show without those restrictions via OTA rather than via cable/satellite.

There isn't even a point to pulling in signals via OTA, with all the subchannels you no longer get the better picture you used to get when the full or almost full bandwidth was devoted to the HD channel, versus the more compressed satellite picture. Cable TV usually packs two OTA per QAM (or at least my cable TV provider does) so no additional compression is required, so the PQ is identical between cable and OTA.

Not from what I've seen. My Local OTA is noticeably better compared to Cable. Also, two of our channels are now broadcast using HDR (ATSC 3.0). And I really notice the difference with ATSC 3.0

 

[televisionarchivesorlando]

YouTube TV could provide a "single-team option" for fans, providing an opportunity to see only one team's out-of-market games while paying a cheaper cost." Really? They can do this? If true they will get a ton more subs but I thought someone said they can't do this.

 

[Juan]

Ok, now you are shifting from not fast enough internet to multiple TVs.

YTTV provides 3 streams without a extra box charge unlike DirecTV, I assume they will do something similar for ST, but no one knows yet.

But since the start of next season is roughly 9 months away, information is forthcoming, probably quickly.

They have also stated they are working on multi-view.

Anything else you wish to bring up as a negative?

Internet varies from town to town...some people are stuck with DSL..others uverse...of course no one knows yet...one can only assume they will use the same model they currently use..

 

[Bruce]

Not from what I've seen. My Local OTA is noticeably better compared to Cable. Also, two of our channels are now broadcast using HDR (ATSC 3.0). And I really notice the difference with ATSC 3.0

What stations, I am in Kissimmee and wish to check it out and my Sony Z9K has a 3.0 tuner.

 

[slice1900]

Sure hope your internet speed is fast enough to support it

Depending on how they implement it, it might not require any additional bandwidth. If they send you four full HD streams and your set top app combines them that will require 4x bandwidth.

They could send four lower quality streams to reduce the bandwidth per stream so it is only a little more than one, or they could do the combination on their end and use the same bandwidth as one.

 

[Juan]

Depending on how they implement it, it might not require any additional bandwidth. If they send you four full HD streams and your set top app combines them that will require 4x bandwidth.

They could send four lower quality streams to reduce the bandwidth per stream so it is only a little more than one, or they could do the combination on their end and use the same bandwidth as one.

But with the last option..can you pick one game from the mix and make it full screen?

 

[televisionarchivesorlando]

What stations, I am in Kissimmee and wish to check it out and my Sony Z9K has a 3.0 tuner.

WUCF PBS Station 24 and also Channel 18 WKCF both use HDR if that's your question

 

[Bruce]

YouTube needs 2.3M subscribers to break even on NFL Sunday Ticket (GOOG)

Google's (GOOG) (GOOGL) YouTube TV streaming service needs to have at least 2.25M subscribers sign-up for its NFL Sunday Ticket service to break even.

seekingalpha.com

 

[Juan]

YouTube needs 2.3M subscribers to break even on NFL Sunday Ticket (GOOG)

Google's (GOOG) (GOOGL) YouTube TV streaming service needs to have at least 2.25M subscribers sign-up for its NFL Sunday Ticket service to break even.

seekingalpha.com

Run the numbers

 

[slice1900]

But with the last option..can you pick one game from the mix and make it full screen?

Sure, it would work just like changing the channel to that game.

 

[robjlevin]

YouTube needs 2.3M subscribers to break even on NFL Sunday Ticket (GOOG)

Google's (GOOG) (GOOGL) YouTube TV streaming service needs to have at least 2.25M subscribers sign-up for its NFL Sunday Ticket service to break even.

seekingalpha.com

Way too much speculation in there. We don't even know the pricing.

That said, I don't think they'll have any problem making money on this. The pool of potential subscribers is limited only by broadband availability...and contrary to certain doomsayers in this discussion, those with insufficient bandwidth are a very small percentage of the population.

 

[TheRatPatrol]

But with the last option..can you pick one game from the mix and make it full screen?

The ESPN and FuboTV apps have been doing this for a while now on the Apple TV, and it works like that. 4 screens at once, click on one to make it full screen, click the back button to go back to 4 screens, swipe left/right/up/down to select a screen for the audio. It’s pretty nice. I wish all apps did this.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Way too much speculation in there. We don't even know the pricing.

That said, I don't think they'll have any problem making money on this. The pool of potential subscribers is limited only by broadband availability...and contrary to certain doomsayers in this discussion, those with insufficient bandwidth are a very small percentage of the population.

doesn't the NFL have an MAX SUBS rule for NFL ticket as part of the deal with FOX and CBS?

 

[slice1900]

Way too much speculation in there. We don't even know the pricing.

That said, I don't think they'll have any problem making money on this. The pool of potential subscribers is limited only by broadband availability...and contrary to certain doomsayers in this discussion, those with insufficient bandwidth are a very small percentage of the population.

What's more it appears to be incredibly terrible math.

The seekingalpha article says the assumptions are 1.7 million "new" subscribers to Youtube TV (plus NFLST) and a half million NFLST only subscribers.

If you do the math 1.7 million subscribers to Youtube TV at $65/month is $1.326 billion, and 2.25 million subscribers to NFLST at $300/year is $675 million.

OK, that adds up to $2.001 billion so $1 million a year in profit after paying the NFL $2 billion, right? Only if you assume Google has zero cost not only for delivering NFLST, but for delivering Youtube TV! And they obviously don't for the latter after paying $10 for ESPN and $25 for local channels, not to mention the rest. They probably don't even make a profit at $65/month but even if they do it is only a few dollars a month not $65 a month!

Now obviously Youtube is banking on individually targeted advertising to create revenue, using the 2 to 4 minutes per hour reserved for local affiliates (for NFLST and other network broadcasts) or commercial insertion slots for "cable TV" channels like ESPN or HGTV. How much they make from that is the unknown, but that's obviously where they hope to monetize NFLST (especially if they can get people to "cord cut" from cable/satellite and sign up for their virtual cord)

 

[Juan]

What's more it appears to be incredibly terrible math.

The seekingalpha article says the assumptions are 1.7 million "new" subscribers to Youtube TV (plus NFLST) and a half million NFLST only subscribers.

If you do the math 1.7 million subscribers to Youtube TV at $65/month is $1.326 billion, and 2.25 million subscribers to NFLST at $300/year is $675 million.

OK, that adds up to $2.001 billion so $1 million a year in profit after paying the NFL $2 billion, right? Only if you assume Google has zero cost not only for delivering NFLST, but for delivering Youtube TV! And they obviously don't for the latter after paying $10 for ESPN and $25 for local channels, not to mention the rest. They probably don't even make a profit at $65/month but even if they do it is only a few dollars a month not $65 a month!

Now obviously Youtube is banking on individually targeted advertising to create revenue, using the 2 to 4 minutes per hour reserved for local affiliates (for NFLST and other network broadcasts) or commercial insertion slots for "cable TV" channels like ESPN or HGTV. How much they make from that is the unknown, but that's obviously where they hope to monetize NFLST (especially if they can get people to "cord cut" from cable/satellite and sign up for their virtual cord)

Well they might not be new Google users..meaning google already is selling their personal data

 

[slice1900]

Well they might not be new Google users..meaning google already is selling their personal data

What TV shows you watch and what NFL teams you watch are new data to Google even for people who are already "supplying" them lots of personal data.

If I signed up for NFLST they'd get that data from me, but they wouldn't get much of anything else on me since I don't use Android, Chrome, GMail or Google Search.

 

[Juan]

What TV shows you watch and what NFL teams you watch are new data to Google even for people who are already "supplying" them lots of personal data.

If I signed up for NFLST they'd get that data from me, but they wouldn't get much of anything else on me since I don't use Android, Chrome, GMail or Google Search.

So you let apple track you....lol


.

 

[meStevo]

What's more it appears to be incredibly terrible math.

The seekingalpha article says the assumptions are 1.7 million "new" subscribers to Youtube TV (plus NFLST) and a half million NFLST only subscribers.

If you do the math 1.7 million subscribers to Youtube TV at $65/month is $1.326 billion, and 2.25 million subscribers to NFLST at $300/year is $675 million.

OK, that adds up to $2.001 billion so $1 million a year in profit after paying the NFL $2 billion, right? Only if you assume Google has zero cost not only for delivering NFLST, but for delivering Youtube TV! And they obviously don't for the latter after paying $10 for ESPN and $25 for local channels, not to mention the rest. They probably don't even make a profit at $65/month but even if they do it is only a few dollars a month not $65 a month!

Now obviously Youtube is banking on individually targeted advertising to create revenue, using the 2 to 4 minutes per hour reserved for local affiliates (for NFLST and other network broadcasts) or commercial insertion slots for "cable TV" channels like ESPN or HGTV. How much they make from that is the unknown, but that's obviously where they hope to monetize NFLST (especially if they can get people to "cord cut" from cable/satellite and sign up for their virtual cord)

This is a bit too simplistic. Those 1.7m YTTVs are seeing more than '2-4 minutes of affiliate ads', and even those who don't sub to YTTV will see more than that served by Google as they interact with and navigate the service outside of the broadcasts. There are numerous opportunities there (watch now via the Pepsi MAX View, 4 games at once!) for advertising and other product placement - and then there's the bit about this not all being just the rights to the broadcasts. This is also a sponsorship deal for kickoff weekend and other events, driving more advertising, more brand value / awareness, etc. If they got these numbers within the first year or two this will be the beginning of a very long and very lucrative relationship with the NFL.