DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[AZ.]

Get back to me when they all required me to sub to each other to sub to any of them and I'll care. Otherwise it's an ever-evolving landscape of content that I've enjoyed consuming on my own terms rather than the firehose of content and fees that DirecTV was and I continue to save thousands a year.

I will book mark this post....Im sure you only watch 2 or 3 networks max? Does anyone wonder why we didnt allow such consolidation and now its the wild wild west.

My old neighborhood, I had a choice of 2 cable companies, dish, and direct. Well the big guy gobbled the cable company, and satellite going away....You lose competition. So just a matter of time you lose choice...Then if you want one channel you will be back paying for things you dont watch....Nothing will change, just will cost more. You think YTTV will exist when those providers decide not to sell their product to them? Or sell it so high that the price skyrockets?
Im amazed no one cares....But hey when outsourcing started, no one worried about it, and here we are again saying Buy USA?!

 

[Bruce]

No, no it doesn’t. Read up on it. I have both, and CI, or PP as it is now called if bought through ESPN, is larger.

Have not missed a Red Wing Game yet on ESPN+.

All I know is, I get the vast majority of Tigers and Red Wings ( except when they play a Florida team) every Season and my costs is less then the RSN fee that DirecTV charges.

Plus a lot of extra.

You do understand that you just contradicted yourself, right?

If you want anything on Peacock, you have to pay for EVERYTHING on Peacock. Just like cable, except, because many will walk away as the cost rise and many will “hop” services, the cost will be spread across far less people.

But I do not have to pay for the things I do not want, like Food Network, HGTV, etc like I would have to do with with a Traditional Provider, no one is making me sub to Discovery+.

Pro-Consumer.

More bills, higher costs, less content.

Again, only pay $75 a month, how much would a DirecTV bill be with HBO, Showtime, Netflix be.

Again, except for a few sporting events, the majority of content from Live TV plus all the exclusive Streaming shows, then HBO, Showtime, Netflix.

If if one does not have what I wish to watch, I would drop them without having to go thru the hell of calling a CSR.

Pro-Consumer.

Which button do I push to get Peacock without Hallmark, Euro soccer, women’s soccer, and melodramas?

If you do not like it, don’t watch it, plenty of other content on Peacock, like the Big Ten next year, remember, leaving ESPN.

But not at the same rate. Real TV continues to be ultra-profitable. Streaming continues to not make any money at all, mostly. Yes, real TV will go up, probably at or near the inflation rate. Streaming’s bubble will eventually pop and the rates will skyrocket. It is how customer acquisition bubbles work.

DirecTV was not profitable at first either, neither was Amazon or Netflix, they are now.

And DirecTV’s profit is a lot less then it used to be, remember 10-11 million subscribers gone.

If they keep losing subs at that 1.5-2 million a year rate they were before they quit reporting, they have 5 years before all subs are gone.

Every quarter they get less and less, while streaming continues to grow and one day become profitable themselves .

And, of course, currently a “traditional provider” ‘s package gives you everything you want. Now to get just all of the minority of sports that are on streaming only, you are looking at 6 different bills. Anti-consumer

No it does not give me everything I want, does it give me the Marvel Shows, Star Wars, Star Trek, the other exclusive shows from Hulu, Paramount+, Peacock, etc.

Yet I get those plus the shows on Traditional Providers, plus the majority of sports I wish to watch for $75 and again that includes Hulu, Paramount, Disney, Peacock, AMC,ESPN+, MLB, HBO, Showtime, Netflix and of course OTA.

If I had just DirecTV with HBO and Showtime, RSN, DVR and Box fees-at least over $180 a month.

Pro-Consumer.

 

[meStevo]

I will book mark this post....Im sure you only watch 2 or 3 networks max? Does anyone wonder why we didnt allow such consolidation and now its the wild wild west.

My old neighborhood, I had a choice of 2 cable companies, dish, and direct. Well the big guy gobbled the cable company, and satellite going away....You lose competition. So just a matter of time you lose choice...Then if you want one channel you will be back paying for things you dont watch....Nothing will change, just will cost more. You think YTTV will exist when those providers decide not to sell their product to them? Or sell it so high that the price skyrockets?
Im amazed no one cares....But hey when outsourcing started, no one worried about it, and here we are again saying Buy USA?!

That's largely FUD though. Like I said, I'm 5+ years into enjoying paying largely for only what I want to watch. Throwing in Sunday Ticket annually almost amounts to a rounding error versus the money I have saved / continue to save. At any point I'll be watching several 'networks' but also am empowered to spin them up / stop subscriptions to those services on demand, based on time available and need. That's a major benefit for both sides in customer acquisition cost savings and the convenience of the services.

I'm not going to go sign up for more expensive and fee-laden services now just because one day there may be too many bundles in the streaming space.

 

[NashGuy]

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.

Yes, but the same holds true TO AN EVEN GREATER DEGREE with the traditional cable TV bundle because it's aggregating even MORE content together for a HIGHER entry price than is the case with Peacock or HBO Max or Netflix or any other direct-to-consumer streaming service.

 

[NashGuy]

Don't need a Gbps to stream HD content. My parents got a deal for about $20 or $25 a month, and the streaming is just fine. $20 to $25 is << Directv (or Dish or Cable).

Yeah, I'm currently on Comcast's cheapest internet plan ($30/mo with a one-year contract, then up to the regular price which is currently $49/mo). It's advertised as 75 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up but Comcast typically over-provisions by about 20%, so I typically get speed test results of about 90 down and 12 up. Never have any problem streaming in 4K HDR. No long buffering waits, no pauses, no dips in picture quality. I can't tell any difference in performance versus the fiber plan I was previously on which clocked in at about 62 Mbps both down and up.

I don't know why folks think they need gigabit internet but I guess I'm glad they pay for it as it probably helps keeps the price of the entry-level tier down. The operators have a certain average revenue per user they want to hit, so I guess someone paying $100 or more per month for gigabit balances out the $30 I'm paying.

Anyhow, the takeaway is that for a typical 1-person or 2-person household, the cheapest plan from your cable or fiber provider is almost certainly fast enough to support the most strenuous activity that you might regularly be doing on your broadband connection, streaming 4K HDR video. There are exceptions, of course. Some small households would notice an appreciable day-to-day difference in having much faster speeds because they do a lot of large file uploads and downloads. But for most, nah.

 

[Bruce]

I don't know why folks think they need gigabit internet but I guess I'm glad they pay for it as it probably helps keeps the price of the entry-level tier down. The operators have a certain average revenue per user they want to hit, so I guess someone paying $100 or more per month for gigabit balances out the $30 I'm paying.

I know I do not need Gigabit, but I just want it.

Also, from Charter, their least expensive plan here is 200 down for $69, so Gigabit is only $30 more, so why not.

I do wish the upload was better then 45, communicating with family sometimes becomes a choppy mess, usually their upload speeds are no better.

 

[robjulo]

Not if you are a genx or baby boomer

I am Gen X. Every friend I have is Gen X. My parents are boomers. All of their friends are boomers. Every single person I know has high speed internet and it is unrelated to whether they have streaming.

 

[Juan]

I am Gen X. Every friend I have is Gen X. My parents are boomers. All of their friends are boomers. Every single person I know has high speed internet and it is unrelated to whether they have streaming.

So what do they use it for?

 

[SamCdbs]

Yes, but the same holds true TO AN EVEN GREATER DEGREE with the traditional cable TV bundle because it's aggregating even MORE content together for a HIGHER entry price than is the case with Peacock or HBO Max or Netflix or any other direct-to-consumer streaming service.

Of course.

Which is why all the “look at all the money I’m saving” crap is just so much ho-ha. Streaming is just another form of bundle.

Two problems for the consumer.

More or less, with cable (DBS, etc) “everybody” had the main channels and thus the cost was spread across a huge number of people, and this small for each one. Streaming is not one bundle, but a dozen or more of them, with far fewer subscribers for each one. Meaning the costs will be higher.

Second is sports. If you are not a sports fan, too bad. Until the customer acquisition bubble bursts, every service is going to go after customers with second and third tier sports. Don’t like sports? Too bad, you have to pay. And you are not paying for the major sports on real ESPN, et al, but much lower things. Like sports? Too bad. Now you need access to the OTA networks (not a given in much of the rural parts of the country), plus real linear ESPNs, FS1&2, TBS, TNT, USA, and other linear networks, PLUS EPNN+, PLUS multiple streamers (Apple, Amazon, Paramount, Peacock) to get the sports you used to get from just one cable bill. And, you have to pay for all the other stuff on all those channels, none of which appeals to the same demographic as sports. 10 bills. Maybe 12. And, again, the costs get spread over a far smaller population, meaning it must cost more when the streaming bubble bursts.

Higher costs, more bills, less content.

BTW, Amazon gets another new low, 4.95. With baseball featuring the same two cities, the lowest rated NFL game in 30 years is probably this Thursday.

 

[Bilbo1]

I don't know why folks think they need gigabit internet

I get it and limited basic cable TV through my teleco because the bundled price is cheaper than the slowest stand-alone internet product.

 

[Ronnie-]

Which is why all the “look at all the money I’m saving” crap is just so much ho-ha. Streaming is just another form of bundle.

Personally, I would not say the savings are crap or unsubstantial. Ive saved enough since I dropped sat and went streaming (with periods of linear streaming included) to pay for two Christmas cruises so far, and part of a third, while missing nothing we watched, and gaining new things we never would have seen otherwise.

I dont expect those savings to be that dramatic forever, but like I did with sat, once it gets to the point where it isnt worth it for me, I will reevaluate.

 

[robjulo]

So what do they use it for?

Do you not understand the base packages from virtually any internet provider, unless you are in the sticks, is far and away enough to support streaming. Do you not get it is not 1998 anymore?

EDIT: The BASIC plan...the LOWEST you can get at my house is $40 for 500 down with no caps. So WTF are you implying that there is some sort of extra expense for streaming? It's either internet speeds well in excess of the need for streaming, or no internet at all. There is no in between to justify the internets cost as some kind of adder.

As others have pointed out, you make up stuff for some weird narrative.

 

[Bruce]

Personally, I would not say the savings are crap or unsubstantial. Ive saved enough since I dropped sat and went streaming (with periods of linear streaming included) to pay for two Christmas cruises so far, and part of a third, while missing nothing we watched, and gaining new things we never would have seen otherwise.

I dont expect those savings to be that dramatic forever, but like I did with sat, once it gets to the point where it isnt worth it for me, I will reevaluate.

Don’t use logic in this thread, not allowed.

 

[Bruce]

10 bills. Maybe 12.

I get one bill, direct charges to my credit card, which I look over, do not know why this is now a issue.

Just something else for certain people to complain about with regards to streaming that hardly anyone else cares about.

First you have to pay for internet, now you have to pay for the services you get and get bills, what is next to bring up, that you have to have a Television to watch streaming content?

 

[Juan]

Do you not understand the base packages from virtually any internet provider, unless you are in the sticks, is far and away enough to support streaming. Do you not get it is not 1998 anymore?

EDIT: The BASIC plan...the LOWEST you can get at my house is $40 for 500 down with no caps. So WTF are you implying that there is some sort of extra expense for streaming? It's either internet speeds well in excess of the need for streaming, or no internet at all. There is no in between to justify the internets cost as some kind of adder.

As others have pointed out, you make up stuff for some weird narrative.

I am implying that not everyone has the same access to internet that you do...in otherwords streaming is not ready for prime time

 

[robjulo]

I am implying that not everyone has the same access to internet that you do...in otherwords streaming is not ready for prime time

Nope, that is 100% NOT what you implied and you are doing the usual spin and moving the goal post, something you get called out on all the time.

You IMPLIED high speed internet was not necessary. I just gave you the two largest internet providers in the country. Their base packages are more than enough to stream. My parents live in the middle of nowhere, they have access to high speed internet. If people choose to live in the mountains....great....but don't expect a full breadth of options.

 

[Juan]

Nope, that is 100% NOT what you implied and you are doing the usual spin and moving the goal post, something you get called out on all the time.

You IMPLIED high speed internet was not necessary. I just gave you the two largest internet providers in the country. Their base packages are more than enough to stream. My parents live in the middle of nowhere, they have access to high speed internet. If people choose to live in the mountains....great....but don't expect a full breadth of options.

What are you talking about?

 

[robjulo]

What are you talking about?

Just move along instead of doing the same schtick you do with everyone.

 

[Juan]

Just move along instead of doing the same schtick you do with everyone.

Just move along instead of doing the same schtick you do with everyone.

Just enough of the personal attacks..no reason for this

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Just move along instead of doing the same schtick you do with everyone.

Don’t go down the rabbit hole.