- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,402
- 18,509
That story is 4 years old, a almost lifetime in technology, things have changed so much in speeds, capability and availability in broadband, did not even have Star Link or 5G then.
That story is 4 years old, a almost lifetime in technology, things have changed so much in speeds, capability and availability in broadband, did not even have Star Link or 5G then.Since streaming is just not ready for prime time, in terms of providing video to the bars that need it, the best thing to do is to use the technology that is already there. DirecTV
B/R Live latest to struggle with streaming live sports
B/R Live struggled early in its biggest exclusive yet, and its issues with "The Match" prove once again just how hard streaming live sports really is.www.si.com
Except they aren't. The most major sports, including channels like ESPN and FS1, remain ONLY on linear TV. No amount of wishing oh wishing they would sell you these channels will change that. Linear TV remains the standard for people not trying to save a few pennies. For a few streaming is a way to do that (for most it is, like HBO and its ilk from which is sprang) is just a supplement. All it will ever be.For Peacock: Home
You could have actually answered the question. It was asked from a point of view…
You answered the question from the point of view of the subscriber, not the service provider. It seems you are coming form a ‘wishful thinking’ point of view.
Try this: If I pay a extra for an exclusive right, why would I want it to not be an exclusive to me? From the middle school math perspective, would you pay extra for exclusive to only make it non exclusive?
The short answer is ‘No!’. If they were planning to allow people to get it through other providers, they could make the offer under those terms for a lower cost.
What need is there for channels for sports? There is none. Sport events are short individual programs that can be packages as video data streams.
But that is changing, more and more sports are moving towards the streaming world.Except they aren't. The most major sports, including channels like ESPN and FS1, remain ONLY on linear TV. No amount of wishing oh wishing they would sell you these channels will change that. Linear TV remains the standard for people not trying to save a few pennies. For a few streaming is a way to do that (for most it is, like HBO and its ilk from which is sprang) is just a supplement. All it will ever be.
At the end of the day..The NFL wants more exposure and sales for Sunday ticket.But that is changing, more and more sports are moving towards the streaming world.
Use ESPN as a example, 30 million have left Live TV, do you think that ESPN is going well we have lost about $270 million a month or $3.24 Billion a year ( $9 in rights fees per sub) but we still have 66 million subscribers ( and that number is shrinking by about 1.5-2 million per quarter)
Or do you think they are trying to figure out how to recoup that money, it would be very bad business if they did not, they have to get more because rights fees are not getting any cheaper and will get a lot more expensive since streaming companies are jumping into sports.
I predict regular ESPN will be available as a streaming app in about 3-5 years at the most, at what cost I would have no idea, will not be cheap.
If the NFL cared about that, then they would let everyone carry it, Traditional and Streaming, they do not, they just want that big payday based on a exclusive guaranteed contract.At the end of the day..The NFL wants more exposure and sales for Sunday ticket.
To reach the maximum number of customers it would only make sense to continue to offer the service to existing satellite customers rather than risk losing them because they don't have high speed broadband..Many older folks don't want it and rural folks can't get it
So the NFL will offer a hybrid satellite/ip delivery for atleast another 5 years or so until satellite becomes irrelevant
Isnt that what they are doing with streaming? They are not discriminating against any broadband provider..It only makes financial sense to not screw over your existing fan base when moving to a platform that not everyone can useIf the NFL cared about that, then they would let everyone carry it, Traditional and Streaming, they do not, they just want that big payday based on a exclusive guaranteed contract.
I predict regular ESPN will be available as a streaming app in about 3-5 years at the most, at what cost I would have no idea, will not be cheap.
They seem to be consolidating channels...probably will be fewer of themMy crystal ball isn’t clear on the timeline…
About 8-10 years ago, authentication was the big issue for cable/satellite providers… being able to use your cable username and password to access streams from various network apps, channels, and on-demand content. Making that content available direct-to-consumer is an existential threat to cable/satellite. So, I assume that the carriage agreements limit the ability of selling channels directly to consumers.
During the next round of carriage agreement negotiations, content providers may be willing to accept lower carriage fees for the ability to stream channels direct-to-consumers. I assume that content providers have opposite objectives… they may be willing to pay to lock the content to a requirement for a cable subscription, or they may accept deals at much lower cost to allow direct to consumer access.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Time for more math-Isnt that what they are doing with streaming? They are not discriminating against any broadband provider..It only makes financial sense to not screw over your existing fan base when moving to a platform that not everyone can use
Remember, 120 million Households ( and growing) subscribe to Broadband, only 11 million get DirecTV ( and shrinking), that is a lot more potential subscribers then DirecTV can ever offer.Broadband will never be universally available
Who caresTime for more math-
It is said about 15% of the population cannot get fast enough broadband, so if we apply that 15% to the 2 million ( out of roughly 11 million that get DirecTV) that subscribe to NFLST, that is 300,000 that might not be able to get it.
Now, do the NFL stick with DirecTV to make those 300,000 happy ( and remember, DirecTV is not even bidding on ST), or do they go to streaming where there so many more potential subscribers.
Remember, 120 million Households ( and growing) subscribe to Broadband, only 11 million get DirecTV ( and shrinking), that is a lot more potential subscribers then DirecTV can ever offer.
U.S. households with broadband internet 2021 | Statista
The number of households in the United States with permanent internet access via broadband continues to rise, reaching over 125 million households in 2021.www.statista.com
Maybe you should be mad at DirecTV, not the NFL, they are the ones who choose not to bid on it.Who cares
The NFL will be abandoning existing customers if they chose to completely cut off directv..Normal businesses don't do such things..I suspect the NFL wont either..
Again..nothing has happened yet...and mostlikely the nfl sunday ticket will return in some formMaybe you should be mad at DirecTV, not the NFL, they are the ones who choose not to bid on it.
And this is Business 101, a small loss but a big potential gain and yes, Businesses do this all the time to gain more customers.
Yes, as a streaming service.Again..nothing has happened yet...and mostlikely the nfl sunday ticket will return in some form
And on directvYes, as a streaming service.
Who cares
The NFL will be abandoning existing customers if they chose to completely cut off directv..Normal businesses don't do such things..I suspect the NFL wont either..
If you have customers with no access to broadband or older customers who dont want or use broadband..you would be abandoning them...pretty simple concept...much better than the voodoo math showing a gain of 16 million customers by switching to streaming...if it aint broke..don't fix it..it will be no big surprise when directv works out some kind of deal to continue the sunday ticket in a different form than they do today..they might actually charge customers for itI’m confused by this notion they are abandoning customers. They are doing no such thing. They are still planning to offer the service, just through a different provider.
This is more like (for instance) Martha Stewart deciding to sell her brands through Target instead of Walmart. You’ll still be able to get it, you just need to park your car in a different place. Sure, there may not be a Target nearby, but that doesn’t mean she abandoned customers.
And on directv
Neither do the additional 16 million customers or even 4 million additional customersNo indication that this hope has any basis in reality at this time.
But that is changing,
Yeah. These are called "people that don't like sports". Yes, the ESPN paradigm is in trouble. "Everybody" had cable, and thus "everybody" paid for ESPN (et al) even if they did not watch. Now streaming has given those who do not wish to pay for ESPN, a way not to pay for ESPN.Use ESPN as a example, 30 million have left Live TV, do you think that ESPN is going well we have lost about $270 million a month or $3.24 Billion a year ( $9 in rights fees per sub) but we still have 66 million subscribers ( and that number is shrinking by about 1.5-2 million per quarter)
They can't. The people that want ESPN, have ESPN. Just like the people who want ST, have ST.Or do you think they are trying to figure out how to recoup that money,
You sound like the guy who moved to some small town in South Dakota because its really cheap. But wished oh wished it had more nightlife. If want nightlife, move to town.I predict regular ESPN will be available as a streaming app in about 3-5 years at the most, at what cost I would have no idea, will not be cheap.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?