If this service is really as good as the hype - big if - then it would eventually be a big change in the economies of pro and college sports. If Disney and other content providers are only getting a slice of $35/month, then the bidding for NFL, NBA, MLB, and college TV rights will be much more modest at some point in the future.

YouTube may have just completely changed the college football economy

Quote:The Internet’s official home for cat videos announced the creation of YouTubeTV, a streaming service includes nearly every channel on which college football is played — ABC, CBS, FOX, CBS, the ESPN family of networks, Fox Sports 1 and BTN. The best part for consumers? YouTube TV will cost only $35 a month, with personalization options for up to six members on each account.

Quote:But one doesn’t have to squint too hard to see how the best part for consumers could be the worst news for conferences. ESPN’s business model is funded by a $7 per month per subscriber fee charged to each cable and satellite provider, a cost which providers then pass along to consumers. But, as we know, cable subscriptions are dropping — 40 percent of millennials do not have cable — and, as a result, ESPN subscriptions are dropping by about 300,000 per month (other networks are also losing subscribers; they just don’t have as many subscribers to lose). We haven’t seen how much of that $35 monthly subscription will make its way to Bristol, but if ESPN doesn’t get 20 percent of the overall take, the entire college football ecosystem becomes an expensive game of If You Give a Mouse a Cookie:

Obviously this article focused on college football because it's from a college football website, but the same principle applies on an even larger dollar scale for major pro sports. If TV networks stop paying a king's ransom to the NFL and the NBA, franchise revenues will be lower, salary caps will go down, etc. Maybe the pro leagues and college conferences will put more games on their own subscription video services (ESPN has a way to cash in there, too, but that's another story) instead of selling all of their rights to the networks for a lot less money than what they're now getting.

..... this is just another DirecTV Now. And there will be several more of these popping up, too. DISH (Sling), AT&T (DirecTV Now), and Sony (Playstation VUE) are in the game now, but will be joined by several others.


All pay TV is going to this model, and quickly. No hardware, no network ... everything goes over the internet, however consumers choose to bring that into their homes. The network and the hardware is the business of the ISP.

I assume you'll get WatchESPN.

Might have to drop Sling...

(02-28-2017 05:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If this service is really as good as the hype - big if - then it would eventually be a big change in the economies of pro and college sports. If Disney and other content providers are only getting a slice of $35/month, then the bidding for NFL, NBA, MLB, and college TV rights will be much more modest at some point in the future.

YouTube may have just completely changed the college football economy

Quote:The Internet’s official home for cat videos announced the creation of YouTubeTV, a streaming service includes nearly every channel on which college football is played — ABC, CBS, FOX, CBS, the ESPN family of networks, Fox Sports 1 and BTN. The best part for consumers? YouTube TV will cost only $35 a month, with personalization options for up to six members on each account.

Quote:But one doesn’t have to squint too hard to see how the best part for consumers could be the worst news for conferences. ESPN’s business model is funded by a $7 per month per subscriber fee charged to each cable and satellite provider, a cost which providers then pass along to consumers. But, as we know, cable subscriptions are dropping — 40 percent of millennials do not have cable — and, as a result, ESPN subscriptions are dropping by about 300,000 per month (other networks are also losing subscribers; they just don’t have as many subscribers to lose). We haven’t seen how much of that $35 monthly subscription will make its way to Bristol, but if ESPN doesn’t get 20 percent of the overall take, the entire college football ecosystem becomes an expensive game of If You Give a Mouse a Cookie:

Obviously this article focused on college football because it's from a college football website, but the same principle applies on an even larger dollar scale for major pro sports. If TV networks stop paying a king's ransom to the NFL and the NBA, franchise revenues will be lower, salary caps will go down, etc. Maybe the pro leagues and college conferences will put more games on their own subscription video services (ESPN has a way to cash in there, too, but that's another story) instead of selling all of their rights to the networks for a lot less money than what they're now getting.

This is why I've said there is a floor to the low balling that the networks can do. In the old days, the TV networks owned the primary access paths to a mass home audience. The only way to get that kind of audience was to start your own OTA or cable network---which was a HUGE barrier to entry. Today, starting a You Tube channel or a streaming network is easily within the reach of any conference (hell, even individual schools). That big barrier to entry is gone. Schools and conferences have options.

For ESPN, low balling has become a very dangerous game. ESPN is a massive brand in sports---but it doesn't "own" any of the things that make ESPN an important brand. Its brand comes from owning a near monopoly on sports. ESPN is a "brand" because its the first place you look for sports. As long ESPN maintains that huge catalog of sports rights---ESPN will always be in demand and can command a premium.

On the other hand---every time ESPN loses a sports rights package---it chips away at the monopoly that generates the ESPN "brand". Lose too many rights packages----and ESPN becomes just another CBS-Sports Network.

Doesn't Raycom still hold those rights for the ACC?

The issue that I have with the blog post is that it implies that ESPN is getting less than $7 per subscriber through YouTube. You can be assured that ESPN isn't selling for a single cent less than what it's getting from all of the cable carriers because it has most favored nation pricing with all of them (meaning a drop in price for one provider triggers a drop in price for ALL of the providers that they work with).

So you have the cost for internet then the $35 for youtubeTV and on and on until next thing you know your spending even more than now

(02-28-2017 07:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The issue that I have with the blog post is that it implies that ESPN is getting less than $7 per subscriber through YouTube. You can be assured that ESPN isn't selling for a single cent less than what it's getting from all of the cable carriers because it has most favored nation pricing with all of them (meaning a drop in price for one provider triggers a drop in price for ALL of the providers that they work with).

If YouTubeTV is $35/month, then all of the content providers won't be getting the same $ per subscriber that they get from Comcast or Spectrum, and vice versa. They can't both be true.

(02-28-2017 08:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If YouTubeTV is $35/month, then all of the content providers won't be getting the same $ per subscriber that they get from Comcast or Spectrum

False. Add the per subscriber fees up. They will sum to an amount less than $35.

It works that way on Sling, too, at $20/mo. Works that way on DirecTV Now, at $35/mo.

http://fortune.com/2016/12/08/cord-cutti...broadband/

It started with people dropping landline phones for mobile phones and then moved to people dropping cable TV for Internet video. Now the phenomenon of cord cutting is increasingly hitting broadband services, as people cut their wired Internet connections and just rely on mobile phones to get online.

Cord cutting is not just for cable these days, many are cutting broadband too just like they dropped their landline phones and just used their cell phones. T-Mobile and others are offering unlimited data at a cheaper and cheaper rate and with 5G speeds rolling out which can be faster than cable broadband. The argument on here is that Comcast would just raise the rate of broadband to make consumers still pay the same as before for "TV", but that plan is back-firing too.

About 35% of the highly-valued Millennial demographic has never subscribed to traditional cable, according to a new report (hat tip, Media Life Magazine).... their entertainment choices are driven by cost effectiveness
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/138784

I just don't see this ending well. The P5 will end up having to renegotiate their contracts and will make less.
.

(02-28-2017 06:01 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  I assume you'll get WatchESPN.

Might have to drop Sling...

My thinking as well.

My issue is locals. I get ABC and NBC OTA but that's it.

I dont' get any live locals on sling or even a logging in for fox sports go even though I have FS1 and FS2.

If they get locals like FOX then I'm done with sling.

All broadcast networks will be on YouTubeTV, according to Tuesday's announcement.

(02-28-2017 11:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  All broadcast networks will be on YouTubeTV, according to Tuesday's announcement.

The others say that as well but in the fine print it's only available in some markets it seems and all I get is on demand. Hopefully this one is different.

(02-28-2017 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Doesn't Raycom still hold those rights for the ACC?

Raycom continues to hold rights for ACC games through the 2018-19 season. Their sublicensing agreement with ESPN has been bought out, although terms have never been announced. The channel lineup listed includes ESPN3, which suggests that this package will included telecast of Raycom games on WatchESPN outside of Raycom's blackout areas (where I live, for instance, I get the Raycom package since no local channel carries it, but not the RSN package because that package is available on cable from NESN.)

(03-01-2017 08:37 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 06:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Doesn't Raycom still hold those rights for the ACC?

Raycom continues to hold rights for ACC games through the 2018-19 season. Their sublicensing agreement with ESPN has been bought out, although terms have never been announced. The channel lineup listed includes ESPN3, which suggests that this package will included telecast of Raycom games on WatchESPN outside of Raycom's blackout areas (where I live, for instance, I get the Raycom package since no local channel carries it, but not the RSN package because that package is available on cable from NESN.)

That's the part that doesn't' make sense about the ACCN. This same content that Raycom owns for pennies is supposedly going to bring in hundreds of millions per year to ESPN and the AAC schools.

(02-28-2017 10:43 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Cord cutting is not just for cable these days, many are cutting broadband too just like they dropped their landline phones and just used their cell phones. T-Mobile and others are offering unlimited data at a cheaper and cheaper rate and with 5G speeds rolling out which can be faster than cable broadband.

Sigh.

This has already been debunked on here. *MAYBE*, *ONE DAY*, all ISP will be wireless. But that won't be in our lifetimes.

The idea of converting all internet traffic that currently flows through land-lines to 5G wireless ... is not even really laughable. It's just plain impossible.

(02-28-2017 10:43 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The argument on here is that Comcast would just raise the rate of broadband to make consumers still pay the same as before for "TV", but that plan is back-firing too.

No, that wouldn't work. People are far too price sensitive.

What they're going to do is two-fold:

- data caps, which will easily be exceeded by streaming video (particularly 4K streams)
- separate "plans" or separate "rates" for streaming video, as opposed to other types of data transfers. This is no different than when you had to pay separate for texting, or currently where you have to pay separate for a data plan to go with your device(s), that mobile companies do.

There are plenty of rural places who get internet over cell towers these days becasue they are not connected to other choices and likely won't be. Cell internet is much better than the satellite internet choices for those folks.

He is right. More people are using the phone for internet than ever before and that will continue to grow as speeds increase.

Sure, end user internet traffic over mobile networks might go from 3% to 5% over the next 10 years.

(03-01-2017 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sure, end user internet traffic over mobile networks might go from 3% to 5% over the next 10 years.

I can pull numbers out my arse too.

End user traffic over the mobile networks will increase between 300% to 500% in the next 10 years.

In reality none of us know what will happen in 10 years.

I didn't say increase by. Going from 3% to 5% of total traffic is an increase of 66%.

300% to 500% increase will take a considerable investment in new towers, which won't be supported by the revenue increase in the same time scale.