NBC contemplating DTV regional sports on Peacock?

harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
17,659
3,447
Salem, OR
This is more likely Comcast's way of keeping Philly, SF and Boston away from the competition. They are bound and determined to not follow the court order to share their RSNs.
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
29,952
7,610
Moscow Russia
The revenues won't be seen by the carriers so the exclusivity is maintained.
No they wont be...it will be an app..roku or appletv or firetv might get a cut but the current cable/satellite provider network will be toast
 
harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
17,659
3,447
Salem, OR
No they wont be...it will be an app..roku or appletv or firetv might get a cut but the current cable/satellite provider network will be toast
Or perhaps left out until the idea of having standalone sports services proves fruitless.
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
29,952
7,610
Moscow Russia
Or perhaps left out until the idea of having standalone sports services proves fruitless.
The Yankees are already doing it..Traditional tv us fading and iptv is clearly the future. Much like landlines, many will still use traditional providers but the prices will sky rocket...oh wait..thats a fact not a prediction..sports will either adapt fir the internet or fade away
 
S

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
2,366
848
The issues relative to "adapting for the internet" are several.

- In the linear TV era, "everyone" had linear TV, and that linear TV package include the local RSNs, whether you cared about the local teams or not. It is no real trick to toss up local RSNs in market on the internet. It is just that the number of people willing to pay for them is not large, and is really not large when its not baseball season.

- In the linear TV era, the out-of-market package was an add-on to the standard line-up, which already included the home team(s). Now things like mlb.tv are available, sans your home team, for not much money (not much money because the games are being produced for the highly profitable in-market RSNs and whatever they get from out-of-market sales is gravy) meaning it is cheaper and easier to watch every other team besides your own, which is a disaster for the small market teams.
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
29,952
7,610
Moscow Russia
The issues relative to "adapting for the internet" are several.

- In the linear TV era, "everyone" had linear TV, and that linear TV package include the local RSNs, whether you cared about the local teams or not. It is no real trick to toss up local RSNs in market on the internet. It is just that the number of people willing to pay for them is not large, and is really not large when its not baseball season.

- In the linear TV era, the out-of-market package was an add-on to the standard line-up, which already included the home team(s). Now things like mlb.tv are available, sans your home team, for not much money (not much money because the games are being produced for the highly profitable in-market RSNs and whatever they get from out-of-market sales is gravy) meaning it is cheaper and easier to watch every other team besides your own, which is a disaster for the small market teams.
Well not really

Games were free OTA for decades
Then teams went to sports channel premium tv
When that failed..they made them part of basic cable

If they charge a reasonable price for a sports app..it would be no different than hulu, peacock or HBO

best would be a combination with someone else or maybe they could sell personalized commercials and give the games free again
 
Radioguy41

Radioguy41

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
Aug 7, 2008
2,571
2,313
Lehighton, PA
I understand all that but don't see the relevance to what they are contemplating. For example, Comcast owns all TV rights for Phillies games but the problem is only people with access to Comcast can see them. That limits their market since their area coverage is considerably less than what is considered the Phillies DMA. I have suspected for a while now that a regional (probably controlled by ZIP code) service would be coming down the pike and it seems the powers that be are now considering it. One issue is going to be; What will it cost? Another is cross-DMA's. If you enter my ZIP into MLB's lookup it will tell you I am in the Phillies, Yankees, Mets, and (unbelieveably) the Pirates markets. Would they allow multiple subs considering different entities own the rights? Hmmm.
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
29,952
7,610
Moscow Russia
I understand all that but don't see the relevance to what they are contemplating. For example, Comcast owns all TV rights for Phillies games but the problem is only people with access to Comcast can see them. That limits their market since their area coverage is considerably less than what is considered the Phillies DMA. I have suspected for a while now that a regional (probably controlled by ZIP code) service would be coming down the pike and it seems the powers that be are now considering it. One issue is going to be; What will it cost? Another is cross-DMA's. If you enter my ZIP into MLB's lookup it will tell you I am in the Phillies, Yankees, Mets, and (unbelieveably) the Pirates markets. Would they allow multiple subs considering different entities own the rights? Hmmm.
Just get a VPN
 
harshness

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
17,659
3,447
Salem, OR
I understand all that but don't see the relevance to what they are contemplating. For example, Comcast owns all TV rights for Phillies games but the problem is only people with access to Comcast can see them.
This is the issue as I see it. As part of the NBC-Comcast merger, they promised to make the RSNs available to their competition at a reasonable price. They continue on with their exclusives largely unabated and with streaming, it is on a nationwide scale that they ignore the condition of the merger.
 
N

NashGuy

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 24, 2009
1,352
696
Nashville, TN USA
Interesting idea but seems like they would be leaving too much money on the table to stream those games on Peacock for no extra charge (not to mention seriously undercutting Comcast's own cable TV service). Maybe Peacock's premium tier would offer a sports add-on in those few markets where the NBC Sports RSNs exist in order to stream their games inside Peacock.
 
S

SamCdbs

SatelliteGuys Pro
Lifetime Supporter
May 7, 2008
2,366
848
Well not really

Games were free OTA for decades
Then teams went to sports channel premium tv
When that failed..they made them part of basic cable

If they charge a reasonable price for a sports app..it would be no different than hulu, peacock or HBO

best would be a combination with someone else or maybe they could sell personalized commercials and give the games free again
Well, not really.

A FEW games were on OTA TV. Only a handful of teams showed every game, and then only in the actual city, not on stations in other markets.

And, the "reasonable price" is known. RSN fees make up 50% of team revenue, and the price Sinclair thinks it needs to charge (and I'm sure Comcast and AT&T and the other would agree) to yield the same money it does today via the linear system is $39/month. Just for your local RSN.

And the games will never be "free" ever again. Billionaire players mean high costs.
 
Juan

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
29,952
7,610
Moscow Russia
Well, not really.

A FEW games were on OTA TV. Only a handful of teams showed every game, and then only in the actual city, not on stations in other markets.

And, the "reasonable price" is known. RSN fees make up 50% of team revenue, and the price Sinclair thinks it needs to charge (and I'm sure Comcast and AT&T and the other would agree) to yield the same money it does today via the linear system is $39/month. Just for your local RSN.

And the games will never be "free" ever again. Billionaire players mean high costs.
Not sure what you are talking about

Ever hear of the super stations?

Wpix,wsbk,wwor,wgn...the list goes on..they all had every baseball, hockey and basketball game...but you needed to live near the city the team played in until satellite and cabletv
 
Radioguy41

Radioguy41

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
Original poster
Aug 7, 2008
2,571
2,313
Lehighton, PA
RSN fees make up 50% of team revenue, and the price Sinclair thinks it needs to charge (and I'm sure Comcast and AT&T and the other would agree) to yield the same money it does today via the linear system is $39/month. Just for your local RSN.
Where did you come up with that? 50% of team revenue? Not hardly. Team revenue comes from the gate, promotional sales, and National TV rights monies distribution minus revenue sharing from local TV rights. All teams are required to share a percentage of local TV monies in order to level the field.

For instance, the LA Dodgers (top revenue dog): After revenue sharing local TV = $131M, plus National TV share = $91M for a total of $222M.
Game ticket sales = $131M. If you calculate it out it comes to roughly 37% and that's without including promotional sales of jerseys, caps, souvenirs, food & drink sales, parking, etc which is going to bring the overall percentage down even more, likely close to 30%. So here's the problem, cable and satellite are in a dive so don't expect to continue to see those huge dollar TV rights agreements for too much longer and that means MLB needs to start looking at alternative methods to make up for the impending shortfall. Believe me, if MLB needs it they'll find a way to make it work.

By the way, Sinclairs proposed fee was $23, not $39.

Major League Baseball Finances: What the Numbers Tell Us | Elliott Morss
 

Similar threads

Radioguy41
Replies
24
Views
399
Juan
Juan
WolfJT
Replies
21
Views
10K
mushroomer
mushroomer
J
Replies
1
Views
547
SamCdbs
S
Jim S.
Replies
4
Views
774
Mr Tony
M
Radioguy41
Replies
17
Views
1K
Howard Simmons
Howard Simmons

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 2)

  • Radioguy41
  • Juan

Latest posts

Top