Why Sports Fans Won’t Be Cheering the Rise of Internet TV

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by tsmacro, Oct 17, 2014.

  1. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yeah I understand where you are coming from. I miss watching the NHL Ducks....

    But here in the Los Angeles market, it is getting completely ridiculous with the prices we have to pay for sports. There are 7 major league teams (was: 8, but Chivas USA folded, to make place for a new MLS team that comes back in 2017), 2 MLB, 2 NBA, 2 NHL, and 1 MLS. Time Warner Cable has 2 sports stations for respectively the Lakers and the Dodgers, and both come with a price tag of around $4. The Angeles signed a broadcast deal for $3 per subscriber with many cable outlets. The Ducks, Kings, and Clippers deals have lower, but still significant numbers on their broadcast deals, and if it wasn't all enough, we are also paying for PAC12 sports from USC and UCLA, and to cover costs of ever changing broadcast rights, DirecTV is also charging another $2 "Local Sports Fee" on top of all that.

    It would be better if you can actually choose your teams. Many Angels fans don't care about the Dodgers, many Ducks fans don't care about Kings games etc.... but if you want to watch 1 team, you have to pay for all of them. And if you are adding the costs of ESPN, the national NBC Sports and Fox Sports networks, as well some of the more niche sports networks that aren't in a separate sports package.... and you are basically shelling out $30-$35 as part of your regular cable/satellite bill JUST for sports.

    And its not getting any better. DirecTV and Dish both have NOT YET signed deals for the TWC Sportsnet Dodgers channel, and when they do it is going to be around $4 per subscriber, up from around $2 which it was when the Dodgers aired on Fox Sports. DirecTV has been adding $5 to my bill pretty much every year, and I expect them to do so again in February even though they haven't signed that deal yet.

    What level of price does sports needs to reach before people consider cutting the cord I wonder? It has reached that level for me, and I was willing to kick the NHL Ducks to the curb along with my DirecTV, in lieu of around $1,000 in savings. It's just not worth that kind of money any more just to keep the sports teams I like. I now spend $25 on several streaming services instead of $115 to DirecTV, and I have not regretted the decision.

    For me, the price of sports on television has reached the "NO" level. I don't know what other peoples pricepoint is for sports, but with all the sports broadcast rights coming up for re-negotiation, it seems we're adding about 10% per year in price increases. Where will it end, and does it remain worth it? I rather take my money and visit a sports bar every so often to watch a game..... at least then I get a cute busty waitress as well to serve me beer.
     
  2. lokar

    lokar Icon

    748
    13
    Oct 7, 2006
    My last bill with D*: $94/month with the Xtra package, needed for NBCSN which has soccer and hockey that I like.

    Suspended D* in July and my current service bill is

    $4.50/month for Amazon Prime with my wife's student status
    $0/month for my mythtv DVR for OTA viewing
    $40/season for NFL Game Rewind streaming package so I can still watch my Chargers

    I can wait for newer programming to come out on Amazon Prime or even buy an occasional blu-ray set for something really good. I love hockey and soccer but they are not worth $90/month + NHL CI package fee and I can't wait for ALC streaming to take over. I would get NHL Gamecenter but the PQ is not where it needs to be yet IMO.
     
  3. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,490
    675
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    And thats one problem with the league packages (NHLGC) you are blacked out from your local teams. You would think the local teams would want their games available to everyone on any device. Hopefully it'll change in the future.
     
  4. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I still make the comparison myself with the "what else would I do" argument.

    I like TV... so what else would I do with that money for fun?

    If I have to choose between eating and TV, then I'll eat... but if I'm purely dealing with"extra" money that is to be spent on entertainment... I can't get a better return on a few dollars a day to my Dish subscription. I just can't. Most other forms of entertainment to get me what I get via Dish cost more.

    Theaters (movies) or concerts or attending a live sporting event all cost significantly more for the enjoyment time I get in return.
     
  5. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yeah, if you are a TV person, it's hard to argue that a monthly Dish/DirecTV isn't worth it. We, (as in me and my wife) enjoy television as well, but we simply no longer were entertained by what was offered on US cable stations. Every show that WAS worth watching in the beginning (good example: American Restoration on History Channel) has turned into cheesy, rehearsed crap. Good shows are cancelled after 1 or 2 seasons, and crap shows like Honey Boo Boo keep running until a scandal finally shut it down.

    For me it was a combination of things. First, I was born and raised in Europe and was raised with BBC television for English language programs so I always found ways to be able to play programs from BBC iPlayer, which through a nifty little thing called SmartDNS is now possible. Second, I was getting sick and tired of the massive amounts of commercials, and having to pick up the remote what seems every 5 minutes to fast forward again. I don't mind waiting till next year till Walking Dead comes to Netflix, so I will wait and just watch it completely without commercials. And third, but really not last, sports programming costs is getting out of control, and I can really do without it.

    I still watch television 1 to 2 hours a day, but instead of letting cable determine what is on for me, I will have to search myself to see what is currently on some of the online sources I use (such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, but also some international ones such as BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, and catchup services from Canada, Australia and New Zealand.). It does take a little bit of a different mindset, so its not for everyone.

    I still have free OTA and can record from that, and I have a BETTER HD picture on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, MyNetworkTV, CW, PBS, ION and several locals (KCAL, KDOC, etc that also show good network/cable shows) then you can ever get on ANY carrier, because OTA is truly uncompressed, and what you get is pretty much exactly the quality that the broadcaster sends out from their station.

    I record shows from OTA on my media server, and it seems to take roughly 5 GB per 1 hour of television, which is probably more then your DVR would store it, but it is also uncompressed or barely compressed, and the quality of recorded shows is better, MUCH better then I have ever seen on DirecTV. But I get to control the hard drive space I can assign to it, and it is completely unencrypted so it plays easily on my televisions and my computers alike.

    For me, it is not really about reducing my hours spent watching television, it is about changing the quality of it, AND what I pay for it. I am currently spending $25 a month for media, which are Netflix, Amazon Prime, and a SmartDNS, and it seems to me I have MORE television available to me, and of a BETTER quality then all the crap cable networks seems to offer right now. I also find a lot of independent stuff online, such as Seinfeld's "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee", which is really quite good.

    Sports, is the only thing I miss. But it isn't worth the $1,000 a year I am saving.
     
  6. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,025
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    Really there is going to be some heavy expansion into online streaming followed by a shakeout. One thing is for sure, Amazon prime and Netflix are such a good deal and so low cost becuase there is no "sports tax" built into those services. I think this is a great development. I am paying less now and getting access to more movies and shows by having a small package through Dish network that does not include ESPN and using the savings for a netflix and amazon subcription. Heck, eventually we'll drop the dish subscription altogether. Thanks, All
     
  7. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,086
    1,583
    Nov 13, 2006
    Uh I don't by that at all. It's not the lack of sports.

    It's the lack of new content in the first place. Very little new stuff is streaming on either those services by comparison to what's on regular linear channels. And half the stuff is never available on streaming anyway only DVD or bluray for years.

    Add in that Amazon can easily subsidize that part of their business to get it going and grow it. And Netflix, don't get me started on their p&l. They will either go up big in price for the same thing or go under soon enough. I suspect the first just as dish and DIRECTV took forever to start making real money.
     
  8. Wilf

    Wilf Legend

    447
    22
    Oct 15, 2008
  9. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,419
    71
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    Actually another reason right there to expect the cost of their service to go up. Trust me if their profits keep going up like that, the content providers will notice and ask for more money, especially if they aren't getting as much as they used to from their "usual sources" such as cable/satellite.
     
  10. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,086
    1,583
    Nov 13, 2006
    They have a lot of agreements that are huge that I don't think have really started hitting their p&l yet....
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements