YouTube TV Inks Deal for 19 Fox Regional Sports Nets With Sinclair, Drops YES and Two Others

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by glrush, Feb 27, 2020.

  1. lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,170
    538
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    I’ve read a few articles now and then that indicate that typically the RSNs are being watched by about 10% of the subscribers. That’s a pretty low number for such high priced channels IMO.
     
  2. b4pjoe

    b4pjoe New Member

    1,170
    315
    Nov 19, 2010
    I wonder how much of my DIRECTV RSN fee is for Marquee? A channel I don't even get. :mad:
     
  3. garn9173

    garn9173 Icon

    562
    5
    Apr 4, 2005
    Ankeny, IA...
    That deal Dish is propsing to Altitude seems pretty fair to me. Now to pass that on to other networks as their carriage agreements come due.
     
  4. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,386
    636
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Speaking of Altitude, here’s what their doing if you switch to AT&T.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. garn9173

    garn9173 Icon

    562
    5
    Apr 4, 2005
    Ankeny, IA...
    tsmacro likes this.
  6. Phil T

    Phil T Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    2,461
    68
    Mar 25, 2002
    Littleton,...
    Shows how desperate they are. Comcast and Dish are doing the right thing. AT&T doesn't care about the high price. They will just pass it on to customers.
     
  7. NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    958
    202
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    If cable TV subscribers pay, on average, $8 per month for RSNs (which seems about right based on what I've seen), but only 10% of them are actually watching those channels, then the RSNs would need to charge those viewers $80/mo each in order to maintain the same total amount of revenue if the RSNs became available a la carte, completely divorced from the rest of the cable bundle. Obviously, no one is going to pay anywhere close to that amount.

    The problem is that the underlying broadcast rights for sports have gotten way too high, WAY outpacing the economy's overall rate of inflation. And the great majority of cable TV customers who don't watch RSNs have finally had enough of paying for them, so cable operators are finally pushing back and now the whole economically untenable system is unravelling.

    It's very possible that we see Diamond Sports (Sinclair's subsidiary that owns the Fox Sports RSNs) declare bankruptcy and try to restructure the terms of their broadcast rights. If Comcast holds the line, as some industry analysts expect, and refuses to carry Marquee and then dumps the rest of Diamond's RSNs this September (when the existing contract expires), I don't see any other outcome for Diamond.
     
  8. NashGuy

    NashGuy Active Member

    958
    202
    Jan 30, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    But at least AT&T offers mainstream channel packages that exclude the RSNs. The Entertainment (and Plus) package on DirecTV and AT&T TV covers locals plus the most popular national cable channels (including sports channels like ESPN, FS1, NBCSN) but doesn't have the RSNs, so you don't have to pay for them.

    Most cable operators don't have something similar. Comcast, for instance, has three main packages: Basic, Extra and Preferred. Basic is just your locals (plus C-SPAN, shopping channels, etc.) Then if you step up to Extra, in order to get *any* national cable channels, you also have the RSNs.
     
  9. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,331
    2,079
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    SNL Kagen's reports show the amount paid for RSNs to be fairly consistent (through 2019). $8 per month would be an aggregate for all of the RSNs delivered, with expensive areas such as NY and LA with multiple expensive RSNs raising the average over rural areas with only a couple of RSNs. (In other words, not every RSN is getting $8 per subscriber. $2 to $5 would be a better estimate per subscriber per RSN.)

    "Per subscriber" is an important part of the calculation for the RSNs. RSNs are not charging "per viewer". Their tier level charging means that when they are carried they are delivered to many more subscribers than viewers (as the 10% statistic has shown). Transitioning from "per subscriber" to "per viewer" is a non-starter for the RSNs. DISH made the offer to Altitude to carry their channel effectively at a no profit rate for DISH. DISH would receive and retransmit the channel to willing subscribers at whatever rate Altitude set and pass 100% of the revenue to Altitude. Altitude would prefer every DISH home in their coverage area pay to subscribe (whether or not they watch) so they are refusing the offer.

    The math works out better for the RSNs and most other channels to charge per subscriber and not per viewer. Some less popular cable channels would kill for a 10% viewership rate. But they survive based on reaching a larger percentage of subscribers. 20% of a system's subscribers in a top tier is better than the 1% actually watching - and the math can be adjusted to charge less per subscriber and be placed in a more widely subscribed tier. 11c per subscriber reaching 80% of subscribers is better than 80c per subscriber reaching 10% - especially factoring in advertising revenue based on per subscriber as well as per viewer numbers.

    I'd like to see the balance sheet for one of the RSNs. How much are they paying for rights and production vs how much they are collecting from subscribers. I expect that the margins are getting slim.
     
  10. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,430
    428
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    This has always been my pet peeve with cable packages. Why must I subsidize sports (or cooking or the Disney Channel)? This has created artificial inflation resulting in excess profits by team owners and wildly high pay for players.

    My hope with the advent of streamers is that people could buy what they wanted, not what greedy special interests force them to buy.

    Right at the moment we can avoid some of the costs. But I fear that the future will not be so oriented to selling "bargains."
     
  11. zippyfrog

    zippyfrog Mentor

    251
    18
    Jul 14, 2010
    What I think is ironic is that Comcast, who owns NBC Sports Chicago, is requiring a minimum subscriber amount to be on Dish, and my guess is that Dish is offering Comcast the same a-la-carte option. Then Comcast is turning around and the exact thing they are doing to Dish they is what Altitude wants and they don't want to agree to it.
     
  12. techguy88

    techguy88 Well-Known Member

    833
    378
    Mar 19, 2015
    Dish has no ownership stakes in RSNs so their tougher stance on RSNs in general I would consider doing the right thing. AT&T and Comcast have ownership stakes in their respective RSN groups and have benefits if an independent RSN like Altitude fails.

    AT&T actually had more to gain if they seriously wanted Altitude to fail since they operate AT&T SportsNet Rocky Mountain in the same region. However AT&T is the first major distributor to accept a deal they found reasonable. To me that says a lot about AT&T since they would never offer or allow their RSNs to be distributed solely on a sports tier or on an a la carte basis they are not forcing independent RSNs to do things they wouldn't accept for their own RSNs.

    Comcast wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want their NBC Sports Regional Networks to be widely distributed at the price they want with a guaranteed minimal number of subscribers. At the same time they want to play the victim card and say "regional sports are the biggest cost of your bill, we are fighting for you!"

    If Comcast was truly on the side of the consumer as the #1 individual MVPD they would lead by example and put their own RSNs on a sports tier or make them a la carte and allow other distributors to do the same. Then tell all other RSN owners (Sinclair, AT&T, independents like Altitude) "Hey we make our RSNs available on an a la carte basis to our subscribers and distributors. If you want carriage on our system you must agree to similar terms as our RSNs."

    However they want to make an example out of Altitude and wants Altitude/Kroenke to accept terms and subscriber fees they would never in a million years accept for any of their NBC RSNs. Never mistake Comcrap for "doing the right thing" when it comes to places they already have an interest in.
     
  13. gio12

    gio12 Icon

    1,144
    69
    Jul 31, 2006
    Miami, Fl
    Well I have all my Fox RSN still. Was an agreement reached?
    I assume


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     
  14. lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,170
    538
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    No, temp extension.
     
  15. techguy88

    techguy88 Well-Known Member

    833
    378
    Mar 19, 2015
    Right now YTTV is going through what AT&T did last year where the extensions are of an unknown duration.
     
    B. Shoe and gio12 like this.
  16. mjwagner

    mjwagner Icon

    1,393
    351
    Oct 8, 2005
  17. MVL999

    MVL999 Cool Member

    34
    0
    May 14, 2004
    What about the other rsn's ?
     
  18. lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    5,170
    538
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Only 3, including Yes are going away on YTTV
     
  19. MVL999

    MVL999 Cool Member

    34
    0
    May 14, 2004
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2020

Share This Page

spam firewall