Sports fans are being sidelined as RSNs fight the decay of pay TV

[ZLoth]

From CNBC:

Sports fans are being sidelined as local hoops and hockey networks fight the decay of pay TV

Jackson Wieger has been a Denver sports fanatic for 20 years. He loves the Nuggets, who are led by reigning NBA most valuable player Nikola Jokic, and grew up watching the NHL's Colorado Avalanche.

"Both the Nuggets and the Avalanche play 82 games, and I'd say I used to watch 65 games a year,"  said Wieger, 27, who lives in Lakewood, Colorado, just outside of Denver.

Two years ago, his fandom was crushed. Comcast stopped carrying Altitude Sports, the regional network that owns broadcast rights for both teams, because the two sides couldn't reach a carriage agreement. Comcast said at the time that more than 95% of its customers watched the equivalent of less than one game per week.

Wieger was in the 5%, along with many people he knows. Sports for them are different now.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm patiently waiting for the day that enough households have high speed internet that cable networks can start distributing their channels directly to consumers and no longer need cable/satellite companies to package and provide channels.

[Life in Paradise]

I'm patiently waiting for the day that enough households have high speed internet that cable networks can start distributing their channels directly to consumers and no longer need cable/satellite companies to package and provide channels.

That's coming closer and closer.  Unfortunately you are getting a lot of those networks that are bundling together their channels in a streaming service (ie-Paramount Plus, Disney Bundle, Discovery Plus, Peacock).  We subscribe to several at the base amount, and I'm trying to decide which ones to keep and which ones to ditch.  We have Sling, and even though I do like the service, I find that I rarely watch anything on it, and I could probably save most of my $40/month. 

Besides Altitude Sports, the Bally Networks (formely regional Fox Sports networks) owned by Sinclair have never been able to come to an agreement with networks like Sling, Hulu, You Tube, and Fubo so they are off just about every streaming system, although they are on most local cable systems.  Bally/Sinclair is supposedly going to roll out a subscription service so you can get it next spring before baseball season (I'm hearing numbers like $23/month).  A lot of pro basketball fans are really PO'd at the situation and are taking out on the teams, whereas the access contract was signed a few years ago and they can't do anything about it until the network fixes the problem.

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm patiently waiting for the day that enough households have high speed internet that cable networks can start distributing their channels directly to consumers and no longer need cable/satellite companies to package and provide channels.

That's coming closer and closer.  Unfortunately you are getting a lot of those networks that are bundling together their channels in a streaming service (ie-Paramount Plus, Disney Bundle, Discovery Plus, Peacock).  We subscribe to several at the base amount, and I'm trying to decide which ones to keep and which ones to ditch.  We have Sling, and even though I do like the service, I find that I rarely watch anything on it, and I could probably save most of my $40/month. 

Besides Altitude Sports, the Bally Networks (formely regional Fox Sports networks) owned by Sinclair have never been able to come to an agreement with networks like Sling, Hulu, You Tube, and Fubo so they are off just about every streaming system, although they are on most local cable systems.  Bally/Sinclair is supposedly going to roll out a subscription service so you can get it next spring before baseball season (I'm hearing numbers like $23/month).  A lot of pro basketball fans are really PO'd at the situation and are taking out on the teams, whereas the access contract was signed a few years ago and they can't do anything about it until the network fixes the problem.

Those premium streaming services don't get you everything on all of that compamy's standard channels though. For example, If you subscribe to ESPN+, that only gets you some of the content airing live on ESPN/ESPN2, not all of it. You still have to get ESPN through a provider.

I think we'll eventually end up here, using Disney/ESPN as an example:

You can subscribe to any of a variety of packages directly from Disney through an app on your smart TV:

Free package - your local ABC station plus limited on demand content from other Disney networks

Basic package - free package plus Disney Channel, FX, A&E, ESPN, ESPN 2, plus limited on demand content from other Disney networks and a limited movie library

Sports Tier I - Basic package plus ESPN News, ESPNU, and one of ACCN, SECN, LonghornNet (depending on location)

Sports Tier II - Sports Tier I plus the other two of ACCN, SECN, LonghornNet and ESPN+

Entertainment Tier I - Basic package plus FXX, DisneyXD, NatGeo, LifeTime and History

Entertainment Tier II - Entertainment Tier I plus FX Movies, DisneyXD, NatGeoWild, C&I, LMN, Military History, and Disney+

Ultimate Tier - Sports Tier II plus Entertainment Tier II

[SP Cook]

The point has little to do with internet speeds, and everything to do with the way the "bundle"  system provided content to the consumer. 

(I'm going to use words here like "everybody" , yes I know that there always was that one weird guy, I don't care.)

In the past everybody had cable (or dish). And thus everybody paid for lots of content.  This included national sports channels like ESPN, FS1, etc; and at least one local RSN (Bally's Sports Ohio, YES, NESN, etc).  Everybody had these and everybody paid for them.  Whether they watched or not. 

Now people have options. 

Geographically illogical sports fans can find services that have the national sports channels, but not the RSNs.  For less $$.  To this they can add the "out of market"  packages, like MLB.TV, which brings all the games EXCEPT the local ones. 

Non-sports fans can find services that have no sports channels at all.  Or they can be true cord cutters and only watch non-linear services like Netflix or Apple. 

The problem, especially for MLB (the NBA and NHL less so) is that RSN $$ are 50% of team revenue.  There is also the issue that it is really dumb that a person can get all the ball games, EXCEPT the local team.  This situation is similar to the WTBS, WGN situation of the past, which damaged baseball greatly. 

The issue is not one of internet speeds.  To make up for the revenue it gets now, selling only to those willing to pay, the estimate is $39/month for your local baseball team. 

[NWI_Irish96]

Internet speeds are what's stopping RSNs from marketing their channels directly to consumers rather than going through providers. In some areas, internet speeds aren't high enough for people to be true cord-cutters. As much as we might take it for granted, there are still significant areas where people can only get streaming channels via their phones using cellular data, and even some places not at all. Satellite and cable providers will still be players in the game as long as that's the case, and these providers are the ones balking at the cost of RSNs that only a small portion of their subscribers want.

[SP Cook]

Actually, not.  The leagues already market out-of-market games directly to the consumer, and a valid subscription to a cable/dish RSN gives you cell phone and internet access to the same.

The reason they haven't sold these directly to consumers are two.

- Nobody really knows who owns the streaming rights in an in-market direct to consumer environment.  The contracts were written before such a thing was thought of.

- The price.  Absent the protection of the bundle, it nearly 40 bucks, just for baseball.

As to "not very many"  wanting it, well, its about 20% of households.  That is way below "everybody" , but it is hardly "not many" .

[NWI_Irish96]

Actually, not.  The leagues already market out-of-market games directly to the consumer, and a valid subscription to a cable/dish RSN gives you cell phone and internet access to the same.

The reason they haven't sold these directly to consumers are two.

- Nobody really knows who owns the streaming rights in an in-market direct to consumer environment.  The contracts were written before such a thing was thought of.

- The price.  Absent the protection of the bundle, it nearly 40 bucks, just for baseball.

As to "not very many"  wanting it, well, its about 20% of households.  That is way below "everybody" , but it is hardly "not many" .

You've essentially said that they don't provide directly to consumers because they're currently doing it other ways. That misses the entire point.

If a critical mass of US households have access to high speed internet, the need to have third party providers to get channels to households would disappear. Nobody is going to simply choose to keep third party providers and the higher costs that consumers have to pay to fund them if they don't have to.

Will individual channels direct charge consumers more than they are charging the 3rd party providers? Yes, because not 100% of your 3rd party customers are going to want any specific channel, but the idea that people will pay $40/month is out there. I think that's just a scare tactic used for negotiations.

As for 20% being "not very many" - as a raw number of over 100 million households of course that's a large number, but as a percentage, 20% is not very many.

[SP Cook]

Actually, its not a scare tactic at all.  It is the price that the owners of the RSN have stated to the SEC they would need to be able to pay their current payments to the teams. 

It is just a function of the so called "a la carte"  system over the old bundle system.

Higher prices and less content.

[NJRoadfan]

In related news, Comcast just dropped the MSG networks from their NYC metro area systems. Bills dropped $3/mo just from those channels being eliminated from the lineup.

[mgk920]

I stll get most of my local and regional sports via 'free' OTA radio.

:-)

Nike

[jp the roadgeek]

I ditched cable in 2019 for streaming (and I've since ditched the same company for internet once a faster, cheaper option came along), and I must say the RSN thing has become a game of musical chairs, as I'm on my third service.  I started out with Vue, which was fine and gave me NESN (80% owned by the Red Sox, 20 % by the Bruins), YES (mostly owned by the Yankees and Nets), and SNY (mostly owned by the Mets), but switched to YouTube TV when I saw I could also get NBC Sports Boston.  A few months later, YTTV dropped YES (okay, fine, I'm not a Yankee fan).  Then they dropped NESN, which became a potential dealbreaker.  I hung in there for a while hoping it would come back (and used a couple of logins for the Roku apps as a temporary solution), but when it wasn't back for baseball season, I made the jump to Fubo.  I got NESN back, along with SNY and NBC Sports Boston, plus I also have MSG now (still no YES, as DirecTV Stream is the only one that offers it).  The only thing: Fubo charges a $5 a month RSN fee. The biggest problem is that in-market games for MLB, NHL, and NBA are not available through their packages, and some of the blackout areas for teams are somewhat ridiculous.  For example, parts of North Carolina are considered in-market for the Cincinnati Reds (I know both have an I-74, but that's crazy), and Pike County, PA, which is part of the NYC DMA (and actually closer to Boston and Baltimore), is considered in-market for the Pirates.  The only way around these nuances with the subscriptions (at least NHL is now part of ESPN+) is a VPN or getting cable, DirecTV, or a streaming service.   

[zachary_amaryllis]

I'm patiently waiting for the day that enough households have high speed internet that cable networks can start distributing their channels directly to consumers and no longer need cable/satellite companies to package and provide channels.

That's coming closer and closer. 

not anyhwere near where i live, it isn't. only option here is satellite,and it just doesn't have the pipes. i've tried it, watching any sort of live stream it either hiccups or goes low-res to keep it going.

[jeffandnicole]

In many areas of the country, the cable networks are also the internet providers.  So the more that drop cable and switch to internet, the cable companies just raise the price of internet.

And consumers, thinking they're winning over the cable companies, buy subscriptions to Hulu, Disney+, Sports programming, etc, sometimes paying nearly as much as they were previously, but receiving fewer channels.

[ilpt4u]

There are not too technically challenging ways to "disguise"  your location for home streaming, so "Out of Market"  Exclusive content, like MLB.tv games, can be streamed In-Market

VPN and DNS services can quite easily "disguise"  your location, since most streaming devices use IP Geolocation to determine what content you should or should not receive, anyway

For example, I am presently getting the "wrong"  set of Local channels on Hulu+Live, because Disney is locating me in a neighboring TV DMA (St Louis) and not the one I reside in (Cape Girardeau-Paducah-Carbondale)

IP Addresses were never designed to be used for Location purposes, fwiw. The fact that so many paid streaming services depend on them for location is, frankly shocking.

The VPN and DNS tricks usually do not work for streaming on a Phone or Tablet, because those devices usually have "other"  methods to verify your physical location, in addition to IP Geolocation - including physical GPS location and also WiFi mapping, as Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc take notes of what WiFi networks are Where and map them, for location purposes

Using a streaming device via Ethernet/not via WiFi, or watching a streaming service via a PC/Mac, almost always defaults to IP Geolocation, as it does not have other Location "permissions"  granted from the App or your streaming device, and as mentioned before, deceiving IP Geolocation isn't THAT hard