Sports Media

phillychuck 2021-01-24 14:59:20 UTC #101

If you're in the local area you CAN cut the cable and still get the sports. Hulu live in its largest bundle has both NBC Sports local channels and all the broadcast networks. Cutting cable saved me more than $100/month in TV fees. There are irritations (paying extra to avoid commercials; less DVR flexibility; less complete guide, Thursday night football occasionally unavailable, etc) but the plusses and savings outweigh the irritations.

julio 2021-01-24 15:49:06 UTC #102

Confound it, PC! Now I have to look at this option, evaluate it. Stop interfering with my blessed obliviousness!

andyb 2021-01-24 16:40:00 UTC #103

That is what I have though DC has 2 different networks. NBC Sports Washington for hockey and basketball and MASN for baseball. I get the NBC channels but not MASN which is only on one more expensive streaming service (AT&T).

I am saving a bit of money. Big thing is no contracts so you can add and subtract streaming services monthly. But at a certain point all of these streaming services (Youtube TV for me) will test the cable bundle monopoly rules. All these networks and sports teams made money by having "must carry" rules to put their channels in the basic tier. It was fine at $40 a month but becomes a problem at $80-$100 month when customers are getting less (like the MASN story above).

This whole thing is a house of cards ready to collapse. It will also hit the cable networks harder than sports who will eventually just market their services directly, maybe for a bit less money but also they will probably get more sources of income (social media, international, etc.) that they may not notice it too much (maybe revenue increases for MLB will stall, but it is really doubtful revenue will drop).

zambonir 2021-01-24 17:56:49 UTC #104

I think "must carry" is basically dead, as I mentioned the local NBC channel disappeared from AT&T (both the regular cable and the cord-cutting) here recently, and numerous RSNs remain unavailable to fans if their providers don't cut a deal (including NBC Sports in both Philly and Portland - long after the PRISM loophole finally went away, Comcast was still not obligated to come to terms with the satellite companies).

Fox Sports has also disappeared from many of the cord-cutters. I didn't realize Hulu had NBC Sports Philly these days. I could get it for NBC Sports NW and the Blazers but then I would lose Root, which carries the Mariners and MLS games.

I feel like prices are rising all across the board though; 64.99 a month for Hulu is the same as a TV/Internet bundle from Comcast would be for me, though the latter may be a 1 or 2-year promotional rate. The reason I still have ATT (what used to be Directv Now and then ATT Now) is my rate is grandfathered at around the same price, but with channels that would now cost $95.

Anyway, none of this solves julio's issue - if you subscribe to Hulu you are still buying a bundle; it's also literally owned by Comcast and Disney. It looks like they don't have some of the more fringey right-wing news channels though.

andyb 2021-01-24 18:05:39 UTC #105

Must carry refers to carrying channels on a basic tier, not the former meaning of cable having to carry all ota channels.

julio 2021-01-24 18:45:48 UTC #106

It's been a while (ten years?) since I looked in any detail at broadcast v. cable rules, issues, etc., but my recollection is that "must carry" really only applies to broadcast "channels" that must be carried by cable systems that compete in the local broadcast markets. E.g., as long as a channel is broadcast, local cable systems were required to carry that channel. In an era where a sport's entire season is moved to cable-only (or cable + packet-switched streaming), I would thank that the "must carry" rules are obsoleted. I could be wrong, of course (as I said, it's been a decade or more - at which time my interest was mostly in the ability of a particular broadcast operation to essentially "sell" its must-carry rights to somebody else!).

If the rate you cited for Hulu ($65/month) is accurate) I wouldn't touch it anyway. Fortunately, we're not TV addicts; a high-speed internet connection and some library-based streaming services (Netflix, Prime, Britbox) more than meet our needs, at a manageable cost. Most of our internet usage is not video streaming (at least on a per-hour basis; haven't really looked at relative data downloads).

zambonir 2021-01-24 18:58:26 UTC #107

Yeah but I don't think there is any mandate for cable companies to do that with RSNs. The cheapest standalone XFinity package here ($20 though of course most people would bundle with Internet) is "10+" channels; you get CNBC and CSPAN but no sports. Gotta go to the $60 100+channel lineup to get NBC Sports NW. And they own the channel!

andyb 2021-01-24 18:58:35 UTC #108

Forget the phrase "must carry" as I said above. That is irrelevant. What this refers to is that many networks (including just about all the Regional Sports Network RSNs) will only let a service carry their channel if it is on a basic tier. This is how ESPN made money. Before the NFL they used to get $0.50 to $1.00 from cable services. When they got the NFL (first Sunday then Monday) they created a fee for that coverage. What ESPN is getting per subscriber is now in the $7-$10 range. Maybe even more because it is sold as a bundle of channels with ABC.

If a service wants to put ESPN in a more expensive tier ESPN will not offer the channel to that system. These streaming services probably all want to put the RSNs in a sports tier but they don't allow that because they would prefer to get $5 from everyone rather than $10-$15 from 10%-25% of customers (and fewer HHs means lower ratings and advertising dollars).

Forget the term must carry which referred to over the air channels. This must carry is more like a mob enforcer saying you must offer a product to everyone or you can't get that product. Streaming networks are resisting this mob pressure. Customers are the current losers. Eventually sports teams will be big losers if they don't solve this problem. As I said, their product is not worth a $30 a month surcharge. And for non-sports fans it is not worth the extra $10 a month they pay for a channel they never watch. The whole thing could collapse pretty quickly.

zambonir 2021-01-24 21:17:29 UTC #109

I think it's your use of "basic" that confused me. Most cable carriers now offer a minimalist basic package, no doubt in part because of pressure from both cord-cutting and OTA digital antennas. What you're talking about is the "normal" cable package where you find ESPN and FS1 and your RSN (and often, MLB) but not, generally, ESPNews or ESPNU or NHL or Big 10 Network.

Clearly ESPN is thinking hard about all this stuff, even if the teams and leagues aren't to the same extent. They are still buying up the rights, and have all kinds of places to put the broadcasts (including ESPN+ and Hulu).

But I think most people, either because they actually do watch a lot of TV or because each family member is interested in different things, are happy to just have lots of channels, and a la carte would add up fast for a lot of people. And it's also a two-way street - as a sports viewer I'm subsidizing someone's ability to watch AMC or a kids channel or Fox News. I would need a lot of stuff for sure - one reason I keep my grandfathered ATT package is because I don't have to pay the sports upcharge (for SEC, Big 10, ESPNU and several others).

Is the Sinclair/former Fox Sports dispute about the charge, or the tier? Most of the people complaining they can't see their team anymore wouldn't necessarily want to upgrade to the higher sports tier, though they'd probably pay a fee that was sold them as just being for the games if it wasn't part of a network.

(Never mind that I don't want to give money to Sinclair, even more so than Fox. Stuck with them as the owner of my local ABC station anyway.)

andyb 2021-01-25 00:23:45 UTC #110

Those minimalistic packages are vestiges of the laws that required cable providers to show all the over the air channels at a minimum cost. Can't imagine many people buy them. Most of what is called basic cable are the packages by default start at over 50 channels because they are required to accept channels like ESPN for all subscribers beyond that package nobody actually gets.

The Sinclair fight is in part about that tier but also about cost. The RSN owner (Sinclair) will probably not allow a package with their channel on a sports tier. They probably also want $5 to $7 per subscriber. Now sometimes they negotiate to some intermediate tier (think the $85 packages not the $65 ones), but Sinclair is probably holding out to be included in the lowest price package that goes to everyone.

These fights end up annoying everyone. Non-sports people pay for channels they don't want (because they are not put in sports only tiers). And sports people don't get their channels because the RSNs don't make as much money on a sports tier.

zambonir 2021-01-25 04:47:47 UTC #111

Interesting coincidental sidenote.

andyb 2021-01-25 22:36:12 UTC #112

Nationals not super happy about what MASN is doing:

The Nationals said they raised concerns with MASN and Major League Baseball about “the negative impact these decisions could have on our fans, especially now when content shared via broadcast and digital channels is vital for them to stay connected with our team.”

Looks like they just released their first streaming app (for cable subscribers only) today also. Not that it matters. I am guessing MLB will make them walk some of these cuts back with the threat of intervening more forcefully in the Nats lawsuit settlement. The Nats already are owed $100 million from MASN.

zambonir 2021-01-26 18:31:51 UTC #113

Well, this simplifies things for me, I'll likely be staying with ATT's streaming service which has (and is part-owner of) Root Sports. I don't watch Mariners games very often, but it's nice to have the option. Not sure any service offers both Root and NBC NW, not even Fubo..

Not unlike MASN, apparently Hurricanes seriously cheaped out on their broadcast last year and that's why Forslund is now with Seattle.

andyb 2021-01-26 18:45:01 UTC #114

That seems a pretty good hire. I'd probably pick the AT&T service today if I had your choice. I get my hockey and basketball local teams and then skip getting MASN because the Phillies are the more important baseball team to root for.

zambonir 2021-01-26 19:16:48 UTC #115

It's kind of a mediocre interface/DVR, but between the cheap rate, included HBO and the ability to stream w/o using data on my ATT phone I guess they've got me for at least another year.

I just can't believe these Hurricanes details:

His tenure with the Hurricanes ended last July when both his and Tracy’s one-year contracts expired. The Canes presented Forslund and Tracy with an offer to be independent contractors with a base stipend and a bonus directly married to attendance, which Forslund did not agree to.

andyb 2021-01-26 19:20:13 UTC #116

I assume basing salary on attendance in a year with below average expected attendance is a non-starter.

We all get that the teams are having cash flow issues. Diminishing your product on the one medium that does not have pandemic issues does not seem to be a fair solution however.

schillingfan 2021-01-26 22:16:18 UTC #117

Not directly related to sports media but I choose Hulu becauseI get Comcast/MSNBC PhL just for the Philadelphia teams and Eagles post game. However my Internet provide is ComcSt and they are now putting limits on Internet usage. Apparently with my usage, I’ll have to get the new mod expensive Unlimited plan as the overage costs are stiff. They see the end of cable TV packages, so they have to make up their losses. At some point the government is going to need to regulate ISPs as public utilities and have someone regulate the prices, as there isn’t really competition. They have made inter agreements to slice and dice the markets, and Comcast is mine.

andyb 2021-01-26 22:24:20 UTC #118

Comcast is my only option though I am not coming close to the usage limits. No 4K TVs is likely the reason.

Maybe you'll have a 5G option to compete with Comcast this year. Youtube TV should also have NBCSP but the price is similar to Hulu (bonus you get regular Hulu for free, minus is the DVR to skip commercials is extra in Hulu).

zambonir 2021-01-26 22:33:42 UTC #119

I've been able to get by with just the cheapest Comcast package despite having two TVs and a lot of constant streaming (sports or news in the background). I've gotten a couple of warnings about approaching the limit but always very late in the cycle, never hit it. This is all during the pandemic too, with two people at home nearly 24/7.

I did just get my first 4K TV though finally, so may have to upgrade.

zambonir 2021-01-27 19:13:05 UTC #120

Certainly a new era