(02-23-2023 06:29 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  The PAC 12 hated PAC 12 network because no one can see them unless you had what, Dish? So they want to basically have all of their content on Apple's version of the PAC 12 network. Okay you get 25M but no one will see you except diehards. I wonder if this will change the CA kids minds on signing w/ the PAC. If they never watched much anyway, probably not, but if they're also fans of the sport they're extremely talented in, I think it will....a lot. X10 if it's out of PAC 12 states recruits.

Being on Apple is infinitely better than the Pac12 Network on dish. It isn't even close to comparable. If that was the only change in the Pac12's TV coverage then that would have been a massive success for Kliavkoff.

Where it starts to become a problem is if you replace ESPN/ABC/FOX games and also put it on Apple and don't up the media $$$ enough to make up for that loss.

(02-23-2023 06:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 06:23 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 12:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I like cable and streaming, for me they aren't an either/or thing. I pay about $130 for a full cable lineup but also subscribe to the Disney Bundle, Netflix and Britbox. Maybe something else too, LOL.

And I'm not a millionaire, so I suspect I am not alone.

One thing about cable is that it has become much more flexible - if you subscribe many channels, like HBO or Showtime, you can use their apps to stream the programming on your phone or tablet or when you are on the go, and many cable companies now have their own apps that allow you to see the whole lineup on phones, tablets, etc. in your home, and many channels can be viewed that way on the go too.

I’m in a semi rural part of Placer country. We pay $200 a month to get cable on which we can stream. I don’t many people can afford that kind of bill plus another 100 or so for Direct TV.

I'm sure this is a stupid question but, why would you need cable AND DirecTV? NFL Sunday Ticket maybe?

Idk why you'd have cable and sun ticket. Directv did both, so why pay for cable+directv, which gets you cable and sun ticket.
Now you wouldn't. I'm either gonna get out of my directv contract and do youtube tv w/ sun. ticket or if I can't then buy youtube sun ticket separate and keep directv, 1 more yr. I have free channels w my xfinity flexbox but I've never even set it up.

(02-23-2023 05:23 PM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:56 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:42 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Agree, and the problem is exasperated by to many platforms. We went with Hulu and Netflix, which met our needs. Hulu gave us tons of over the air a day after airing, and netflix had tons of Movies. Now Hulu is loosing much of over air programming as networks set up their own streaming. Am thinking of dropping at least one and maybe both, and I won't pay for CBS, NBC, ESPN, Disney and more for replacements. As I age I find I watch less and TV, The golden goose is cooking itself.

Yep, and if Hulu is ever worth your while again, you will add it back with a couple of clicks as oppossed to calling local CableCo and setting an appointment for 2 weeks out between the hours of 8am and 5pm

This is the main benefit of streaming right there. Extremely easy to add and remove vs. cable or dish or anything else like that.

Someone someday will come up with an aggregator service that gets all the sports streaming on a single subscription that sub-licenses it all for a single price (and puts them all in a single menu to scroll through). You could just do only the ones you want for a lesser price, but that aggregator service will likely have a discounted rate vs. signing up for them all individually. Until that day, we have to pick and choose. (also this is basically a cable sports package except through streaming lol).

If that happens, it's gonna be called ESPN+

If all sports did go to being fully on streaming then the biggest proprieties would probably eventually just set up their own services and sell directly to fans. If being on streaming was proven as more profitable than being on cable or even Network TV then proprieties as big as the NFL wouldn't need ESPN+.

The barrier to entry to setting up a new OTA network channel is very high so the NFL would never make their own network. But the barrier to setting up their own streaming service is lower. MLB already showed that the biggest leagues can handle the technical side of building their own platforms.

Well, if that's what the NFL wanted, They could just buy the CW from Nexstar (or heck, just buy Nexstar outright).

And once it became known that they were in the market, I would not be surprised if Fox offered the Fox network instead, or Disney, abc. especially if abc kept the content creation side - abc studios/abc news, etc., since the nfl wouldn't need those.

I mean really, for that matter, if they were going to go that route, they could simply just buy espn.

Imagine if someone bought nextstar and espn. They could turn the CW into the espn network. (rename the espn cable channel to espn1.)

I think that an ota espn channel could suddenly be an interesting ratings getting machine.

Anyway, everything has a price...

(02-23-2023 10:34 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 05:23 PM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:56 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Yep, and if Hulu is ever worth your while again, you will add it back with a couple of clicks as oppossed to calling local CableCo and setting an appointment for 2 weeks out between the hours of 8am and 5pm

This is the main benefit of streaming right there. Extremely easy to add and remove vs. cable or dish or anything else like that.

Someone someday will come up with an aggregator service that gets all the sports streaming on a single subscription that sub-licenses it all for a single price (and puts them all in a single menu to scroll through). You could just do only the ones you want for a lesser price, but that aggregator service will likely have a discounted rate vs. signing up for them all individually. Until that day, we have to pick and choose. (also this is basically a cable sports package except through streaming lol).

If that happens, it's gonna be called ESPN+

If all sports did go to being fully on streaming then the biggest proprieties would probably eventually just set up their own services and sell directly to fans. If being on streaming was proven as more profitable than being on cable or even Network TV then proprieties as big as the NFL wouldn't need ESPN+.

The barrier to entry to setting up a new OTA network channel is very high so the NFL would never make their own network. But the barrier to setting up their own streaming service is lower. MLB already showed that the biggest leagues can handle the technical side of building their own platforms.

Well, if that's what the NFL wanted, They could just buy the CW from Nexstar (or heck, just buy Nexstar outright).

And once it became known that they were in the market, I would not be surprised if Fox offered the Fox network instead, or Disney, abc. especially if abc kept the content creation side - abc studios/abc news, etc., since the nfl wouldn't need those.

I mean really, for that matter, if they were going to go that route, they could simply just buy espn.

Imagine if someone bought nextstar and espn. They could turn the CW into the espn network. (rename the espn cable channel to espn1.)

I think that an ota espn channel could suddenly be an interesting ratings getting machine.

Anyway, everything has a price...

Buying a network means buying and maintaining antennas all over the country broadcasting their frequency in every market 24 hours a day. The cost to maintain that is something the NFL is happy to have others do. The cost of running that every year is apparently high enough that Nexstar got controlling stake of the CW for free in exchange for take over most of those costs.

Building out the technical capacity to stream something to the internet isn't free but it's cheaper to run once you do which is why MLB did it but never approached a network to buy it. Also on streaming there's no expectation by viewers to have something specific broadcasted 24 hours a day. Because streaming customers don't have that something should be live on air 24/7/365 exception it means a league could sell its games and just its games without worrying about getting away from their core product producing shows like sportscenter that cover all sports during the day, or having to put something on their air in their offseason.



And for reference at an estimate of ESPN's value based on their EBITDA:

Quote:ESPN was one of the most-watched networks last year, giving it plenty of appeal. The “SportsCenter” and “30 for 30” producer generates more than $4 billion in EBITDA, per Morgan Stanley estimates. Valued at 10 times that measure of profit – less than Netflix, but more than Fox – ESPN would be worth roughly $40 billion.

Meanwhile MLB sold 75% of BAMtech to Disney for $2.58 billion, and that was to a Disney that decided it wanted in on streaming quickly.

(02-24-2023 01:23 PM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:34 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 05:23 PM)ABAB_Up_down Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-23-2023 10:56 AM)e-parade Wrote:  This is the main benefit of streaming right there. Extremely easy to add and remove vs. cable or dish or anything else like that.

Someone someday will come up with an aggregator service that gets all the sports streaming on a single subscription that sub-licenses it all for a single price (and puts them all in a single menu to scroll through). You could just do only the ones you want for a lesser price, but that aggregator service will likely have a discounted rate vs. signing up for them all individually. Until that day, we have to pick and choose. (also this is basically a cable sports package except through streaming lol).

If that happens, it's gonna be called ESPN+

If all sports did go to being fully on streaming then the biggest proprieties would probably eventually just set up their own services and sell directly to fans. If being on streaming was proven as more profitable than being on cable or even Network TV then proprieties as big as the NFL wouldn't need ESPN+.

The barrier to entry to setting up a new OTA network channel is very high so the NFL would never make their own network. But the barrier to setting up their own streaming service is lower. MLB already showed that the biggest leagues can handle the technical side of building their own platforms.

Well, if that's what the NFL wanted, They could just buy the CW from Nexstar (or heck, just buy Nexstar outright).

And once it became known that they were in the market, I would not be surprised if Fox offered the Fox network instead, or Disney, abc. especially if abc kept the content creation side - abc studios/abc news, etc., since the nfl wouldn't need those.

I mean really, for that matter, if they were going to go that route, they could simply just buy espn.

Imagine if someone bought nextstar and espn. They could turn the CW into the espn network. (rename the espn cable channel to espn1.)

I think that an ota espn channel could suddenly be an interesting ratings getting machine.

Anyway, everything has a price...

Buying a network means buying and maintaining antennas all over the country broadcasting their frequency in every market 24 hours a day. The cost to maintain that is something the NFL is happy to have others do. The cost of running that every year is apparently high enough that Nexstar got controlling stake of the CW for free in exchange for take over most of those costs.

Building out the technical capacity to stream something to the internet isn't free but it's cheaper to run once you do which is why MLB did it but never approached a network to buy it. Also on streaming there's no expectation by viewers to have something specific broadcasted 24 hours a day. Because streaming customers don't have that something should be live on air 24/7/365 exception it means a league could sell its games and just its games without worrying about getting away from their core product producing shows like sportscenter that cover all sports during the day, or having to put something on their air in their offseason.



And for reference at an estimate of ESPN's value based on their EBITDA:

Quote:ESPN was one of the most-watched networks last year, giving it plenty of appeal. The “SportsCenter” and “30 for 30” producer generates more than $4 billion in EBITDA, per Morgan Stanley estimates. Valued at 10 times that measure of profit – less than Netflix, but more than Fox – ESPN would be worth roughly $40 billion.

Meanwhile MLB sold 75% of BAMtech to Disney for $2.58 billion, and that was to a Disney that decided it wanted in on streaming quickly.

"Buying a network means buying and maintaining antennas all over the country broadcasting their frequency in every market 24 hours a day."

Not really, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_network

Quote:NBC set up the first permanent coast-to-coast radio network in the United States by 1928, using dedicated telephone line technology. The network physically linked individual radio stations, nearly all of which were independently owned and operated, in a vast chain, NBC's audio signal thus transmitted from station to station to listeners across the United States.
...
However, the signal from an electronic television system, containing much more information than a radio signal, required a broadband transmission medium. Transmission by a nationwide series of radio relay towers would be possible but extremely expensive.
...
Researchers at AT&T subsidiary Bell Telephone Laboratories patented coaxial cable in 1929, primarily as a telephone improvement device. Its high capacity (transmitting 240 telephone calls simultaneously) also made it ideal for long-distance television transmission, where it could handle a frequency band of 1 MHz
...
AT&T laid the first L-carrier coaxial cable between New York City and Philadelphia, with automatic signal booster stations every 10 miles (16 km), and in 1937 it experimented with transmitting televised motion pictures over the line.
...
By 1951, the four networks stretched from coast to coast, carried on the new microwave radio relay network of AT&T Long Lines.
...
Late in the 20th century, cross-country microwave radio relays were replaced by fixed-service satellites.

A network is just a content distributor. Saying that it needs to own stations, is like saying a film company needs to own theaters. They can, but it's not necessary.

"ESPN would be worth roughly $40 billion."

And looking at the BTN, as a comparative example, the NFL doesn't have to own the whole thing. The B10 currently owns 39% of the BTN.

Disney owns 80 and Hearst 20. (20% then would be $8B)

So even if the NFL bought 40% of espn. That would be $16B, and then disney could keep running it for them. (I think 30% to start, is more likely - 12B - NFL 30/Hearst 20/Disney 50.)

Nexstar has a market cap of around 7-ish billion.

So these things are do-able.

Heck, if Disney wanted to, they could just buy Nexstar (CW) themselves, and make this happen. Rename the CW to espn. Wanna bet the CW/espn does better in the ratings?

These things aren't rocket science. It just takes a bit of creativity and a willingness to make them happen.