Fox Sports RSNs

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by slice1900, Jun 30, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. schmave1

    schmave1 Active Member

    221
    32
    May 20, 2016
    Reynoldsburg...
    I like Zippy's idea and I'd be fine with it if that happened. I live out of market and I will see the games on Extra Innings anyway, but I really like the way NBC Sports Chicago covers the Cubs and all other Chicago teams. Plus I'd rather not see my family and friends in the Chicagoland area have to miss out on games if the carriage drama we've all come to expect happens.
    If this does happen and DirecTV turns 665-1 on full-time as the Cubs Network in whatever name it has, I'd be ecstatic (knowing all the while that blackouts would be plenty, but still having the actual channel in my lineup would be enough).
    As for that overflow programming, NBC Sports Chicago doesn't have to have a full-time Plus channel like they do now. In the SportsChannel days, Plus was turned on just for pre-game, the overflow game and post-game and that was that.
     
  2. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,023
    72
    Jul 21, 2008
    NBC Sports Chicago full-time Plus is still working the that way just with filler (easier on the carpy Comcast cable system) and not shearing the slot with CLTV.
     
  3. zippyfrog

    zippyfrog Mentor

    226
    12
    Jul 14, 2010
    Yeah, that is what I was getting at if the Cubs Network was just the NBC Sports Chicago plus channel. If that were the exclusive Cubs Network, there are only 3 weeks during the year when the Bulls/Hawks/White Sox are all playing at the same time where there could be an issue. And if the Bulls/Hawks/White Sox re-up with either WGN or another OTA channel, the OTA portion would have more games at the end of Mar/beginning of April; or you would turn on the plus channel whenever there was the need for it like it used to be.
     
  4. SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,289
    110
    Jan 20, 2003
    Amazon would be interesting. Both the consumer, and the teams, have an interest in not becoming an exclusive situation. The regulators, and the teams, must force long term promises to make the channels available to cable, dish, and alternative cord cutter providers, at a fair price. You do not what a situation where you have to have Amazon Prime, and have to live where there is internet to support video (not everyone does) to get the baseball game.
     
  5. oriolesmagic

    oriolesmagic Member

    123
    16
    Aug 6, 2013
    MD
    I think that could very much be an issue with Amazon if they acquire these rights. Also interesting is that some of the broadcast conglomerates (specifically, Sinclair and Tegna) have submitted bids for these RSNs.

    I do think we're at a crossroads for the RSN, and for the current system in general. And if someone non-traditional acquires them, it's going to be the beginning of the end for cable and satellite as we know it. While I appreciate the preservation of the traditional model that you advocated here for those in rural areas or without internet access, I'm not sure that's going to be the consensus of the investors.
     
  6. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,023
    72
    Jul 21, 2008
    commercial use is also an issue and the leagues also have the rights to source feeds for replays and out of market rights.
     
  7. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,022
    471
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
  8. zippyfrog

    zippyfrog Mentor

    226
    12
    Jul 14, 2010
    I think Sinclair - especially if they are truly the ones that are going to be the Cubs RSN, I can see them building their sports portfolio. I can't see Comcast getting government approval for it.
     
  9. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,240
    1,357
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Sinclair (or any local station ownership group) getting them would be really bad - this would give them even more leverage when it came time to renegotiate contracts for locals. I could see them forcing negotiation on the RSN for the region at the same time - i.e. if a cable/satellite/streaming company wants to carry Sinclair locals in a given market they have to also pay for the RSN in that market as well.

    As far as my original post I now think the chances of AT&T getting them are about zero. There is growing concern in the market about the amount of debt they are carrying, their stock price would tank if they borrowed another $10 or $20 billion to buy these RSNs.
     
    TheRatPatrol likes this.
  10. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,022
    471
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Slice, do you think the big local cable companies would try to get them individually in each cable company’s area, such as Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, etc, or do they have to be sold as a package deal?
     
  11. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,240
    1,357
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I'm not sure what that means. Local station ownership groups like Sinclair already do a package deal. When they talk to Directv or Comcast or whoever, they sell ALL their stations in dozens of markets across the US as a package deal. Directv can't say "OK we'll take your deal in Chicago and Nashville, but not in Omaha and Denver". It is all or nothing in all areas where that provider operates and wants to provide locals owned by Sinclair.

    If they bought the Fox RSNs and it had a "Fox Sports Oklahoma", and they owned a TV station in Oklahoma City, they could tell providers "if you want to renew the deal for that TV station you also have to take FS Oklahoma". They could make ALL their customers pay for that Fox RSN - meaning the end of packages that don't include RSNs or don't include sports at all. That would be a great way for Sinclair to maximize the revenue from ownership of these RSNs, because any service that wants to include locals - including streaming stuff like Sling or Directv Now - would be forced to add those RSNs eventually. And they'd need to recover those costs, so they'd charge their customers more, with the biggest increases for those who currently are in sports free packages.
     
  12. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,022
    471
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    I’m asking if the local cable company’s could buy the local FSN’s. For here instance, could Cox cable buy Fox Sports Arizona? Could Comcast buy Fox Sports Detroit? Or does all 22 FSN’s have to be sold together in one package to one buyer?
     
  13. dtv757

    dtv757 Icon

    1,818
    199
    Jun 3, 2006
    757
    I hate when the cable company owns an RSN , they make it restricted to only there company like

    Comcast philly
    Sandiego Padres channel

    Etc

    Update just read SD4 no longer an issue :)

    Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk
     
  14. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,059
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    The ONLY reason why CSN Philly got away with that was the landlock loophole where they only distributed it via fiber and microwave using the former PRISM network. That loophole has since been closed (not to mention the channel is now uplinked to C-Band so they couldn't even use the loophole anymore if it still existed). Now the main reasons why it's not on Dish and DirecTV is the costs and the 20+ history of it not being carried, meaning the majority of the remaining Philly subscribers clearly didn't see the lack of the channel as a dealbreaker since 1997 when DirecTV last had some Philly sports with the Cablevision owned SportsChannel Philadelphia. For newer upstarts that never had a decades history of not carrying the channel, it is available. Like FiOS, PS Vue, Fubo and YouTube TV have it as a local RSN.

    Spectrum owns Sportsnet, the Lakers channel is carried by DirecTV. The Dodgers channel isn't for completely different reasons. It's not a matter of witholding it, it's that Time Warner Cable dangled a guaranteed money offer for the Dodgers rights, and now they're stuck with a rediculously high priced channel that no other provider wants to carry. Even the Cox and Comcast systems in Dodgers territory don't carry it, while the Charter systems didn't pick it up until they purchased Time Warner Cable.

    Also there's TONS of cable owned or previously owned by cable company RSNs that had no problem with satellite carriage i.e. Cablevision previously owned MSG and a bunch of the former SportsChannel RSNs before they were sold or spunoff into their own companies. AT&T owns a bunch of RSNs that DirecTV inhereted from the Liberty Media spinoff, and Comcast owns a bunch of the other NBCSN RSNs that DirecTV and Dish does carry. Heck the majority of these RSNs wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for a cable company starting them in the 70s and 80s on a local cablecast channel. (i.e. MSG+, the former FSNY, has its origins as Cablevision Sports 3, while MSG Network began as a local TCI Cable channel)
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
    dishrich, TheRatPatrol and dtv757 like this.
  15. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,240
    1,357
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    I would guess that Disney would prefer to sell them all to one buyer - the more buyers the more complex everything is and they're going to be on the clock for divesting them. Unless they are pieced out there's no way Comcast could get them - they already own the majority of RSNs and would be extremely unlikely to get FCC/FTC approval for buying the majority of the rest.

    The potential for a lengthy approval time for any MVPD to buy them probably keeps the major cable/satellite players out of the picture for these. It will be one of the players previously talked about (except "new" Fox, since they have said they are not interested) or some darkhorse totally out of left field with deep pockets and an interest in acquiring content, like Apple.

    To be honest though, I can't see anyone who can monetize these better than Sinclair or one of the other local station ownership groups, because of the leverage they can bring to bear to maintain or expand the current widespread coverage. Streaming players like Amazon would still be selling to MVPDs but they wouldn't have any way to force them to make all their subscribers pay for it the way Sinclair could. So Sinclair should be able to offer a LOT more money than anyone else, assuming it doesn't get shot down by regulators - which IMHO it won't, it is one of those things where we can see the train approaching, but the FCC/FTC will be like the three monkeys who can't see or hear anything and later say "who could have predicted how they would abuse their new market position?"
     
    TheRatPatrol likes this.
  16. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,023
    72
    Jul 21, 2008
    Sinclair can also make some of them air on PAY OTA atsc 3.0 channels.
     
  17. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,240
    1,357
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Yep, the ability for ATSC 3.0 to support pay channels is another in the list of reasons why I think we will never see 4K OTA broadcasts.
     
  18. oriolesmagic

    oriolesmagic Member

    123
    16
    Aug 6, 2013
    MD
    Generally, the cable companies only want RSNs where they have a dominant sphere of influence. All of Comcast's, for example, are in areas where they are the dominant cable company (Philadelphia, Chicago, DC/Baltimore, Bay Area/California, Northwest).

    I think they are hamstrung a little from their NBCU purchase, and the fact that they would be subject to more oversight than many of the potential buyers. The AT&T RSNs are the ones that actually fit their profile the best. Comcast is the dominant cable company in Seattle, Pittsburgh, Denver and Houston, to the point where there are even few far-flung suburban areas with someone different. The largest of their areas that is someone else would be Fairfax County in the DC area, who is Cox. Otherwise, we're talking some small, far flung Charter areas in Oregon and in the Bay Area. Some suit their needs like Fox Sports North (Comcast is dominant in the Twin Cities).

    Cox is getting out of owning any content, they're in the process of unloading their local television stations (which include some well-rated stations in big markets, like WSB in Atlanta, WFXT in Boston, WFTV in Orlando, WPXI in Pittsburgh, etc.). They're not a possibility.

    Spectrum I think is a little skeptical about purchasing additional content. LA has been a mess for them. Some areas that might be of interest to them would include Wisconsin, Southwest (The vast majority of TX was Time Warner Cable), Carolinas (TWC owned much of NC and SC), and Ohio. However, if they were able to acquire Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket, they could fill the content gaps with the Lakers and Dodgers rights they have, and make the channels more readily carried.

    All these challenges are why we might see Sinclair win all 22 of them.
     
  19. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,023
    72
    Jul 21, 2008
    Sinclair is also backing the cubs network. Now if they would gotten to own WGN they they could of used CLTV to be come a mixed cubs / new channel and say in the cubs zone you must take this to get OTA stuff.

    What about ATT picking up a few more??

    Or maybe an some swaps??

    Spectrum for Fox Sports Florida / sun sports?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall