DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[SamCdbs]

- “Rural” can, of course, mean lots of different things, depending on the context. Anything from “not in the city limits” to “30 miles from the nearest neighbor” and 1000 things in between. The fact is that, in this context, there are MILLIONS of people who cannot get good internet and NEVER will, short of huge government subsidy. These people are also the people who, before the BUD, were often at the mercy of the cable bandits. And upon whom all the financial math of DBS was first predicated. Which is one reason why DBS will continue for many decades to come.

- The idea that streaming only is going to be universal in “eight years” or EVER is voodoo economics. Everyone who wants streaming only (cheap people, non-sports fans, etc) have moved over. They are not “early adopter”, they are THE adopters. No one is sitting around looking at their TV and saying “well, in 3.5 years, I’m going to go streaming only”. Those that want that, have it.

- And, of course, the elephant in the room. Streaming really cannot make any MONEY. Why? Leaving out ESPN+, because they are all the same. A handful of melodramas upon which they spend way too much to produce and which, when you look at the ratings, such as they are, really don’t capture a mainstream audience. And page after page after page of reruns. Reruns, reruns, reruns. A huge consolidation is coming, but before that comes they will continue to spend and spend and spend. Including tossing sports into the mix. Don’t like MLS (and the ratings show 99% don’t), too bad you get to pay for it if you have Apple next year. Random Friday night baseball games? You pay. TNF? You pay. Euro soccer? You pay. On and on. Just like the old days of the cable bundle. The only difference being that because no one streaming service is close to the near universal status that was linear TV in the past, you pay a lot more, as the costs are spread out among a lot less people. This of course goes right against the natural customer base of streaming only. The cheap and those wishing to avoid the high cost of sports they don’t watch.

- Apparently Amazon is just adding a million or million and a half to the universally accepted Nielsen numbers. No science based explanation given and, since Amazon is the one that paid Nielsen to include TNF as if it were on a real channel, very questionable. If they didn’t want the ratings to be known, they could have just released their numbers and be done with it in the first place. The crash and burn of TNF is getting really interesting. The one thing you don’t do in this industry is question Nielsen.

 

[Bruce]

- “Rural” can, of course, mean lots of different things, depending on the context. Anything from “not in the city limits” to “30 miles from the nearest neighbor” and 1000 things in between. The fact is that, in this context, there are MILLIONS of people who cannot get good internet and NEVER will, short of huge government subsidy. These people are also the people who, before the BUD, were often at the mercy of the cable bandits. And upon whom all the financial math of DBS was first predicated. Which is one reason why DBS will continue for many decades to come.

The majority of even rural homes do not subscribe to Satellite TV.

As of now, there are only 18 million Households that subscribe to DirecTV and Dish.

Based on the Census, there are, roughly, 24 Million Rural Homes, so at a 70% Urban/30% Rural split, that means 7.2 million subscribe to it, so roughly 16.8 million do not.

Without the true numbers of Urban/Rural Sat. Sub numbers, this is all a guess, but even if it was 50/50, that is still 9 million, which means 15 million are going without

 

[Juan]

The majority of even rural homes do not subscribe to Satellite TV.

As of now, there are only 18 million Households that subscribe to DirecTV and Dish.

Based on the Census, there are, roughly, 24 Million Rural Homes, so at a 70% Urban/30% Rural split, that means 7.2 million subscribe to it, so roughly 16.8 million do not.

Without the true numbers of Urban/Rural Sat. Sub numbers, this is all a guess, but even if it was 50/50, that is still 9 million, which means 15 million are going without

WHAT¡!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SamCdbs]

And still, DirecTV is profitable.

Unlike streaming.

And, yes the Census has ONE decimation of what “rural” means. If you bother to read it, it is pretty worthless, actually a negative definition, “rural” being “that which is not urban”, which is vastly over inclusive, including lots of developed areas that simply lack an urban core, but which are in no way truly “rural”. There are, of course, 1000 other definitions.

 

[NashGuy]

The biggest traditional players are already direct-to-consumer streamers too: Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Fox. Well before 2030, those companies will have ceased trying to divide up their content into two different packages, cable vs. streaming. They'll collapse the two together in order to reduce overall content spending and sell one product that has *everything* they offer in order to better compete with Netflix and others. (Disney may be the exception to this by selling two DTC services, Disney+ and ESPN, as the cost to put all that together in one bundle would be too high for lots of consumers who aren't huge sports fans.) Buy their DTC app, get their linear channels right inside the app. Buy their linear channels, get their DTC app. Think how it works now with the HBO cable channels and the HBO Max app. Now apply that model across all the channel groups.

I've posted numerous times here and elsewhere about how I believe that direct-to-consumer streaming apps will continue to gradually cannibalize the content on traditional linear channel TV until a few years from now when what we think of as "cable TV" will be completely subsumed within those apps.

Today comes an important announcement as we move along that path. Beginning this Wed., Nov. 2, Peacock will include a new Hallmark Hub that will feature live streams of that company's three linear cable nets: Hallmark Channel, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, and Hallmark Drama.

NBCU's Peacock To Stream Programming From Hallmark

Branded hub will offer simulcasts of Hallmark Channel, Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, Hallmark Drama channels

www.nexttv.com

It will also feature next-day on-demand access to new episodes and movies from those channels, plus lots of their older content too. Keep in mind that Hallmark Channel ranked no. 10 among the most-watched TV channels in the US last year, while Hallmark M&M ranked 27th. So this is pretty significant (even if, like me, you'd rather watch paint dry than sit through a sappy Hallmark holiday movie).

As one of the smaller cable network groups, Hallmark (Crown Media) is at a disadvantage. It would be difficult for them to launch their own standalone DTC app -- competing with Netflix, HBO Max, Paramount+, Peacock, etc. -- and have it be successful. I predicted in the past that we'd eventually see one of the big media companies -- I specifically said NBCUniversal -- acquire them and fold the Hallmark content into Peacock. Doesn't look like that's quite happening, yet anyway. But the two companies are striking a partnership deal that will mean that Peacock's premium subscribers will have no need for a traditional cable TV subscription to watch all that Hallmark stuff.

(Next up for Peacock? I believe the rumors are true that Comcast will buy Warner in a couple years when it's eligible for sale again and merge it into their NBCUniversal. Imagine a Universal DTC app that includes the content from across HBO Max, Peacock, Hallmark and Discovery.)

 

[AZ.]

(Next up for Peacock? I believe the rumors are true that Comcast will buy Warner in a couple years when it's eligible for sale again and merge it into their NBCUniversal. Imagine a Universal DTC app that includes the content from across HBO Max, Peacock, Hallmark and Discovery.)

Just another Corporation that is to big and will get larger. We use to not allow this as we know the outcome already. We get screwed!

 

[Bruce]

Just another Corporation that is to big and will get larger. We use to not allow this as we know the outcome already. We get screwed!

How are you screwed, if you do not want Peacock, do not get it, that is the benefit of going streaming only, I did not like paying the per sub fees on a lot of channels I would never watch when I had a Traditional Provider.

Going streaming only lets me avoid that and save money.

 

[AZ.]

How are you screwed, if you do not want Peacock, do not get it, that is the benefit of going streaming only, I did not like paying the per sub fees on a lot of channels I would never watch when I had a Traditional Provider.

Going streaming only lets me avoid that and save money.

Please look at the big picture and not be so naive! Dont remember when the broke up ATT? To big, and now they are even larger....Everything will be down to 5 or 6 providers then the jack the living daylights out of prices! Its a reason we used to enforce these laws!
When a handful of companies control all content yes we are all screwed. Why do you think all of these media conglomerates have formed their own streaming companies?
It sure isnt so you save money. Its about holding your wife or kids hostage to pay their ransom...Please go look at the way we used to help control this. Looks like you have no clue?

 

[meStevo]

Wife is very much enjoying AMC+'s gimmick of allowing subscribers to remain 1 week ahead of episodes of Interview with the Vampire vs the content being provided on it's linear channel (which is also part of the AMC+ channel on Prime where we prefer to aggregate those services).

Time permitting they've got a lot of content we both want to get into, and it comes w/ a number of linear channels.

 

[Don in CT]

Please look at the big picture and not be so naive! Dont remember when the broke up ATT? To big, and now they are even larger....Everything will be down to 5 or 6 providers then the jack the living daylights out of prices! Its a reason we used to enforce these laws!
When a handful of companies control all content yes we are all screwed. Why do you think all of these media conglomerates have formed their own streaming companies?
It sure isnt so you save money. Its about holding your wife or kids hostage to pay their ransom...Please go look at the way we used to help control this. Looks like you have no clue?

AT&T doesn't exist anymore.The company was bought out in 2005.

 

[Bruce]

Please look at the big picture and not be so naive! Dont remember when the broke up ATT? To big, and now they are even larger...

AT&T is a disaster right now, they had to get rid of Warner at a fire sale price and DirecTV has lost about 11 million subs since they took over and is slowly dying as a service.

.Everything will be down to 5 or 6 providers then the jack the living daylights out of prices! Its a reason we used to enforce these laws!

What Providers are you talking about, they are all on their way out, Traditional Providers has lost about over 40 Million customers ( and only 12 million switched to Live OTT Service).

They are now losing 2 million a quarter, 3rd quarter numbers are starting to come out, just from 3 Providers already over 900,000 lost.

When a handful of companies control all content yes we are all screwed. Why do you think all of these media conglomerates have formed their own streaming companies?

To make more money.

This is there dream, putting Live Channels on Streaming Services is genius, means more ad revenue for them along with more subscribers, plus they are getting per sub fees from Traditional Providers.

Nash and I both have predicated and posted before about Streaming Services doing this and people said it would never happen because the broadcasters make too much money in per sub fees from Traditional Providers.

When you lose 30 million and 2 million more every quarter in per sub fees, Broadcasters are going to look are how to make more $$$$.

It sure isn’t sure so you save money.

It is not about saving money with me, if a streaming service appeals to me, I will subscribe to it, it is about wasting money on stuff I would never watch or spending twice for the same material.

I get all the CBS (Viacom) content, Fox ( FX, etc), NBC (Universal), ABC, Disney owned, NHL, MLB, HBO, Showtime, AMC, Netflix plus all the exclusive stuff and it only costs me $75 a month.

So I spend plenty.

Its about holding your wife or kids hostage to pay their ransom...Please go look at the way we used to help control this. Looks like you have no clue?

I would feel like more of a hostage with a Traditional Provider, where I would be forced to pay a RSN fee for a channel I would never watch, or a Broadcast Fee for channels I get with a Antenna and no option to get rid of those channels, or where I am paying for a bunch of reruns because that is what the majority of content is.

 

[NashGuy]

Please look at the big picture and not be so naive! Dont remember when the broke up ATT? To big, and now they are even larger....Everything will be down to 5 or 6 providers then the jack the living daylights out of prices! Its a reason we used to enforce these laws!
When a handful of companies control all content yes we are all screwed. Why do you think all of these media conglomerates have formed their own streaming companies?

Not sure I see how it's worse for consumers to have the entirety of television divided between 5-6 major a la carte services (priced at $10-20/mo each) versus the old way, where you had to subscribe to a single basic cable bundle (priced at $70) to get stuff from all the different companies. (And then have the option to also take a la carte premium add-ons from HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc.)

Having 5 or 6 different major studios with their own standalone services will allow for a lot of choice and direct competition. Seems like a more pro-consumer model to me than the "co-optition" model of the take-it-or-leave-it basic cable model that it's gradually replacing.

 

[SamCdbs]

The “but look at how much money I save” argument relative to streaming reminds me of lots of VERY SHORT eras in broadcasting, particularly the early days of BUD when people thought they had it all figured out and it would last forever.

It didn’t.

It never does.

Streaming just adds to the costs, in the long run, for both the sports fan and the non sports fan.

The Hallmark rerun deal is a perfect example. Obviously I have zero interest in this mind numbed garbage. But, since there are other things I want, I have to pay for it. And the same goes for every single service.

If you want quality TV, you have to pay for every service, and the stuff in it you don’t want. Rather than on, reasonable, bill, you get 10 or 12. And, since not every one will take each, there is less to go around for new material, so more and more reruns. A la carte, in any form, has always been anti consumer.

More bills, more costs, less material.

 

[Juan]

The only thing streaming does today is make their potential audience smaller..maybe after high speed internet is more available

 

[Bruce]

Streaming just adds to the costs, in the long run, for both the sports fan and the non sports fan.

The only I miss out on is some Michigan Football games ( big games always seem to be on Fox or ABC) some Monday NFL games and of course NFLST.

But that will change next year, also get MLB and the NHL, so all that is left is College/Pro Basketball which I don’t care, but some of it is streaming and March Madness is on Paramount+.

The Hallmark rerun deal is a perfect example.

You did not read what he posted, Live Channels, also On Demand, the same Live Channels that are on Traditional Providers.

Again, this is another start, more streaming services will soon this this, Broadcasters can get the per sub fee from Live TV providers, then get more subscribers and Advertising Revenue for/from their streaming service and yet be competitors of Traditional Providers.

Genius.

Obviously I have zero interest in this mind numbed garbage. But, since there are other things I want, I have to pay for it. And the same goes for every single service.

You must not have a Wife/Girlfriend, they love the Hallmark stuff, especially at XMAS.

If you want quality TV, you have to pay for every service, and the stuff in it you don’t want. Rather than on, reasonable, bill, you get 10 or 12. And, since not every one will take each, there is less to go around for new material, so more and more reruns. A la carte, in any form, has always been anti consumer.

More bills, more costs, less material.

Again, except for certain Sporting Events as noted above, I get the vast majority of new content on Live TV, plus the exclusives, tons more content all for $75 a month, that includes HBO, Showtime and Netflix, all of which you would have to pay extra for if you had a Live TV package.

 

[meStevo]

I'm more than 5 years into saving money on my TV, and it's getting more convenient and affordable, not less. A decade of Sunday Ticket at current rates but streaming would cost me less than a single year of DirecTV, there's no sign of the services I subscribe to ever coming close to what a traditional provider will cost me.

That's a bit of a Juan-style prediction to state otherwise.

 

[Bilbo1]

Streaming just adds to the costs, in the long run, for both the sports fan and the non sports fan.

I don’t get this. Streaming removes a middle man, the MVPD, from the value chain. That’s one less set of operating costs and profits that aren’t added to the cost of content.

That should allow consumers to get more for less.

 

[Juan]

I don’t get this. Streaming removes a middle man, the MVPD, from the value chain. That’s one less set of operating costs and profits that aren’t added to the cost of content.

That should allow consumers to get more for less.

Sorry
When you add in the cost of high speed internet..you get less..way less

 

[meStevo]

Sorry
When you add in the cost of high speed internet..you get less..way less

My mom's fees from DirecTV are more than the cost of her internet.

 

[Bruce]

My mom's fees from DirecTV are more than the cost of her internet.

If I had DirecTV, it would be more then what I pay for all the streaming services I have and broadband combined, based on the fact on would need so many boxes.