Dave23 No. 1 Share Posted February 6 ESPN, Warner Bros and Fox are launching a huge sports streaming service WWW.BUSINESSINSIDER.COM Sports are the main... I just stumbled upon this, if true we're all in for a surprise. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar No. 2 Share Posted February 7 This is a pretty big deal. It would be everything if CBS and NBC (peacock) were included. We'll see if this has enough of a monopoly of viewership for CBS and NBC to feel obligated to come along after a year or so, or maybe just drop sports programming entirely. It's a huge deal for determining what the market is willing to bear for streamed sports, and advertising content and related revenue. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave23 Author No. 3 Share Posted February 7 On 2/6/2024 at 6:29 PM, Solar said: This is a pretty big deal. It would be everything if CBS and NBC (peacock) were included. We'll see if this has enough of a monopoly of viewership for CBS and NBC to feel obligated to come along after a year or so, or maybe just drop sports programming entirely. It's a huge deal for determining what the market is willing to bear for streamed sports, and advertising content and related revenue. This could be the true start of the steaming bundle. I hope they get the interface right as that will make it or break it for me. If they get the other two networks on board and I can buy a sports only package I would never buy regular TV again. The true question is how much will it cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duxster No. 4 Share Posted February 7 Just for reference.... We cut the cable last year and went with Frontier fiber optic internet ($50/mo) and I watch all my sports on Hulu (about $85/mo) plus Peacock for the Tour de France (about $7/mo) (all costs are for the Houston area). That adds up to about $142/mo compared to the $235/mo we were paying Cox internet and traditional cable (in Kansas). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MicroBurst61 No. 5 Share Posted February 7 Well that didn't take long. Less than a year after all these "poor, financially strapped, struggling sports media options that the PAC12 was ready to embrace at a paltry 35-40 mil per team...NOW have the "revenue" to start a whole New "Profit Sharing" Streaming Service for the Sports fan in general. Now I understand that there is a complexity to sports programming and the attraction for the media partners in streamlining sports viewing options is logical. I also know that this WILL benefit the overall sports fan (for a Price) and maybe will start the final return to "cable packages" for other online media content, albeit in a streaming format Aaaand at twice the cost of comparable ole-timey cable of the 1990's (frog in boiling water approach). My issue is that this current path by sports media has been in the works for Years! Yet the sports fan is fed a narrative that the reality of the situation is not what is actually in the works. Just feels "insulting" to the average fan because it is so obvious when news like this comes down the pike. Maybe I'm still a lil "butt-hurt" at the demise of the PAC12 and in the larger view or scheme of things, this will probably benefit us sports fans more than not. But be aware, with the appetite for sports in the USofA, this one streaming service will probably end up becoming the "highest cost" streaming service. Thus the potential financial "goldmine" for the partners in combining sports viewing options into one. After all, when up and running with subscribers, and the Majority of sports from these TV partners NOW being streamed from this new "Sports Only" streaming service. Where else you going to go to immerse yourself into whatever sport you tend to follow? Hmmm??? Makes me think of it as a reinvention of ESPN, on Steroids, from when they first burst upon the cable scene in the 1980's.(yeah...showing my age again) Except this time they will have captured the majority of mainstream sports vs showing demolition and roller derbies to fill there 24hr. sports cycle. We will pay whatever the cost will be because..."short hairs"! Systems operating under larger systems. Go Sports! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Ducky No. 6 Share Posted February 7 (edited) This might be cost prohibitive. The price to watch 7 minutes of commercials, at every time out,might be too much to take. Could add a half hour to sporting events. Edited February 7 by Just Ducky 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDuck No. 7 Share Posted February 7 There is a column in The Athletic today that suggests this "bundle" will cost $50/month...and, of course, doesn't include some networks in the bundle. Therefore, subscribers would have to pay for additional streaming services to get those other sports carriers, or continue their cable. For example, CBS...this year's Super Bowl carrier...is not part of the proposed bundle. According to the column, each participant expects to receive the same $$ as they would on cable. So, for example, if ESPN gets $12/month from cable, they would expect to continue receiving the same from this "streaming bundle." And, that is just basic ESPN, not the other ESPN options. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave23 Author No. 8 Share Posted February 7 $50/a month seam like a lot more than I'd pay. I pay $70 a month for regular cable that includes all those options minus ESPN+. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JabbaNoBargain No. 9 Share Posted February 7 On 2/7/2024 at 1:22 PM, Dave23 said: $50/a month seam like a lot more than I'd pay. I pay $70 a month for regular cable that includes all those options minus ESPN+. I wouldn’t assume regular cable will retain those options for much longer 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 10 Share Posted February 7 Huge, not only have former arch enemies the B1g 10 and SEC 'allied' but ESPN and Fox are doing the same. Wow! Does this pass the anti-trust 'Market Power Test?' What media entity will be able to compete against the Fox/B1G and its inventory, the ESPN/SEC inventory, ESPN's and Fox's B12 inventory, and ESPN's ACC inventory? How will another entity be able to compete against this? The entire enterprise continues to devolve with fewer teams able to compete the the B1G/SEC Boys. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave23 Author No. 11 Share Posted February 7 On 2/7/2024 at 2:25 PM, JabbaNoBargain said: I wouldn’t assume regular cable will retain those options for much longer Your probably right, I'm sure at some point that steaming will be just as expensive or more expensive than cable. Currently I get NBC, CBS, Fox, and ABC for free over a digital antenna so for me those have very little value. The whole reason for people cutting the cord was to not pay $150 to $200 a month for TV. $50 a month for 2/3 of sports 1/3 of which I can watch for free. I'm not sure that is a sustainable model but then again I am cheap when it comes to TV subscriptions as most of it is junk. Will there be any backlash at $50 for basically ESPN and FS1? Most sports package add-ons for cable or satellite are 13 to $15 which gets you all of the extra channels. This does not include DVR but currently I get ESPN on demand thru the app, I guess there's some value to getting Fox on demand but I'm just not sure it's $35 a month worth for me. If the cable companies up their prices I'll just go back to watching the games on the networks for free. If they quit airing them on the networks then I'll listen to it on the radio. I'm sure I'm in the very small minority that thinks this way and most people will just pony up for it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JabbaNoBargain No. 12 Share Posted February 7 There’s a lot of TBD nuance. Pretty interesting to see things go full circle from massive bundles, to standalone, and back to bundles. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave23 Author No. 13 Share Posted February 8 This article has a pretty thorough explanation of all the ins and outs of the networks deals. Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery & Fox Combine To Offer Streaming Sports WWW.GOOGLE.COM Disney, Warner Bros... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie No. 14 Share Posted February 8 I watch football and March Madness, and some golf. That's it for sports. Otherwise, I like to watch news (local and national), movies, PBS, HGTV, reruns of The Big Bang Theory and such. So, to me, $50 a month for sports is a lot of $$$. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Ducky No. 15 Share Posted February 8 Didn’t pay for pack 12 network and I certainly won’t pay for what ever this is going to be. Season tickets went way up plus the extortion fee at Autzen. Year after the blazers won the championship season tickets doubled. So I don’t have those any more. Going to the big 10 will only cost us fans more to watch the games. Look what happened to Raider fans moving to LasVegas. Casinos drove the prices up to ridiculous amounts. The list goes on and on driving fans out of their seats with uncontrollable greed. Im loosing my mind. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
