DBSTalk Forum banner
121 - 132 of 132 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,333 Posts
Live Feeds of Comcast’s NBCUniversal’s RSNs will be on Peacock also-

I'm a bit surprised by the aggressive pace at which Comcast is absorbing their linear channel content into Peacock. Didn't see this move coming with their RSNs. But this is in line with my long-term prediction that companies with both DTC services and linear networks will ultimately combine the two so that you can't get one without also buying the other.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
I'm a bit surprised by the aggressive pace at which Comcast is absorbing their linear channel content into Peacock. Didn't see this move coming with their RSNs. But this is in line with my long-term prediction that companies with both DTC services and linear networks will ultimately combine the two so that you can't get one without also buying the other.
I did and posted it at the other site, a certain person dismissed it and said RSNs and ESPN were never going online and staying part of Traditional Live TV, he called it Luxury TV.

Now the dam has broken, the speed of the Channels/content to appear on streaming services will really pick up.

I also predicted all of ESPN’s content to be online in 2-3 years, I believe more like 1 year now, change over ESPN+ to ESPN, increase the price to $15 which is more then they get from Traditional Providers per sub fees.

That way they will continue to get per sub fees from Live TV and Subscription fees from the streaming service, so to make up some of the per sub fees lost from those who left Pay Live TV ( over 30 Million).
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
I live in the Chicago Suburbs. The local that Peacock is showing me is Detroit 4.
It looks like Peacock is using IP geolocation to determine which local you get. My AT&T IP is out of the NY City area, and that's the station I get. My Verizon IP is currently coming from Riley, KS, and I get the Topeka, KS outlet, but my Spectrum IP is out of Albany, NY, and I get the Albany local which is correct for my actual location.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #124 ·
It looks like Peacock is using IP geolocation to determine which local you get. My AT&T IP is out of the NY City area, and that's the station I get. My Verizon IP is currently coming from Riley, KS, and I get the Topeka, KS outlet, but my Spectrum IP is out of Albany, NY, and I get the Albany local which is correct for my actual location.
Do you have 3 different ISP’s…AT&T, Verizon, and Spectrum?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #125 ·
On my iPhone the Peacock app uses my location services and gives me the correct locals, St. Louis, even though my AT&T cellular providers IP is in Indianapolis, IN. Other device apps may be different.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
On my iPhone the Peacock app uses my location services and gives me the correct locals, St. Louis, even though my AT&T cellular providers IP is in Indianapolis, IN. Other device apps may be different.
Apparently that's not available on the Firesticks we use. I'll give Peacock a try on my Verizon Android phone to see where that one comes from.

Ok, just gave it a try. Connecting the phone WiFi to the Verizon hotspot, Peacock still uses the Topeka station as expected, but using the phone directly to Verizon uses the correct locals after the app asked for permission to use the location service. I'll keep that in mind so I can cast from the phone if needed. Thanks for mentioning it...
 

· Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
26,462 Posts
I live in the Chicago Suburbs. The local that Peacock is showing me is Detroit 4.
You can probably blame your Internet provider for that. It is likely that they've assigned you an IP address that geolocates to Detroit with the location tool that Peacock uses.

See what this site tells you:


My current public IP address locates to three different towns spread across 50 linear miles. The majority of the services place me 30 miles to the south. Comcast went through a network shuffle in my area a couple of months ago and the services haven't caught up. Before the shuffle, I was shown as being in a small berg 30 miles to the north.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,333 Posts
I did and posted it at the other site, a certain person dismissed it and said RSNs and ESPN were never going online and staying part of Traditional Live TV, he called it Luxury TV.

Now the dam has broken, the speed of the Channels/content to appear on streaming services will really pick up.

I also predicted all of ESPN’s content to be online in 2-3 years, I believe more like 1 year now, change over ESPN+ to ESPN, increase the price to $15 which is more then they get from Traditional Providers per sub fees.

That way they will continue to get per sub fees from Live TV and Subscription fees from the streaming service, so to make up some of the per sub fees lost from those who left Pay Live TV ( over 30 Million).
We'll see whether Comcast's RSNs being part of their main DTC, Peacock, is a permanent arrangement. I kinda doubt it, given how much flux the entire RSN model is in right now. I think Comcast, like AT&T, has been looking to offload their few RSNs over the past couple years. For now, though, I think Comcast's strategy with Peacock is just to throw everything into it that they can to try and get its sub numbers up: exclusive next-day NBC (and Bravo, MSNBC, and some SyFy) shows, recent Universal theatrical films (no longer going to HBO), live NBC sports, live local NBC stations on Premium Plus plan, Hallmark library with live Hallmark nets, and now their live RSNs. Appears to be working too, as they've more than doubled their paying sub base so far this year. (And of course there are millions more who use the Premium plan free as customers of Comcast, Charter or Cox, along with yet more who use only the entry-level FAST tier.)

As for ESPN, I've long been saying that the entirety of it will go DTC but not until 2024 or '25 (at which point Disney will also own all of Hulu and will have absorbed it into Disney+). And I doubt they'll sell all of ESPN standalone for just $15 either. Price will be higher than that. Although, as I've also hypothesized, maybe we'll see them break it up into two services, e.g. ESPN College and ESPN Pro, with each one priced at or below $15 by itself (and with a discount, of course, for combining the two).
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
I did and posted it at the other site, a certain person dismissed it and said RSNs and ESPN were never going online and staying part of Traditional Live TV, he called it Luxury TV.

Now the dam has broken, the speed of the Channels/content to appear on streaming services will really pick up.

I also predicted all of ESPN’s content to be online in 2-3 years, I believe more like 1 year now, change over ESPN+ to ESPN, increase the price to $15 which is more then they get from Traditional Providers per sub fees.

That way they will continue to get per sub fees from Live TV and Subscription fees from the streaming service, so to make up some of the per sub fees lost from those who left Pay Live TV ( over 30 Million).
Voodoo economics. $15 per willing sub does not cover the costs of ESPN programming. And, if ESPN were available a la carte, why would ANYONE keep paying for a full linear package?

The math has been done. If you take every single household in the USA that has a sports fan in it, the cost of a la carte ESPN would need to be about 50 to 60 $$ a month. Add in the Fox imitators and the channels with some major sports like TBS/TNT and USA, and you are nearing $100. Just for sports.

Which is why the profitable ESPN channels will NEVER be sold by the, it lost a billion and a half last quarter, Disney streaming side.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Voodoo economics. $15 per willing sub does not cover the costs of ESPN programming. And, if ESPN were available a la carte, why would ANYONE keep paying for a full linear package?
Never said it was a replacement for those with a Traditional Provider, just for those who have left and for those that will leave in the future, need to make up some of that per sub fees they have lost ( over 30 million subscribers have left).

The math has been done. If you take every single household in the USA that has a sports fan in it, the cost of a la carte ESPN would need to be about 50 to 60 $$ a month. Add in the Fox imitators and the channels with some major sports like TBS/TNT and USA, and you are nearing $100. Just for sports.
The channels are done for, as time goes on the Sports Leagues will try to get their overpriced rights fees from Streaming Services, or a mixture like the Big Ten and NFL are getting from Traditional and Streaming.

If I remember correctly, the NBA Contract is coming up, curious how that is going to go, doubt Warner is going to overbid on it based on their own money issues, rumour is Apple wants it.

Which is why the profitable ESPN channels will NEVER be sold by the, it lost a billion and a half last quarter, Disney streaming side.
And Warner lost 2.3 Billion in the same quarter, over 3 Billion in the Quarter before that, profits are getting less and less for Traditional Providers/Broadcastors.

And while Streaming for some Services has not made profits yet, it will happen, both Netflix and Amazon used to lose tons of money, now look at them.

And Disney does not seem like they are giving up on streaming, they just paid $900 Million on the rest of BamTech.

 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
Never said it was a replacement for those with a Traditional Provider, just for those who have left and for those that will leave in the future, need to make up some of that per sub fees they have lost ( over 30 million subscribers have left).
Right. You are correct that linear TV has a very long and bright future. What you miss is how sports TV works. If they sold it a la carte, who would be stupid enough to pay for all those Hallmark and faux reality and rerun channels?


The channels are done for,
That is an opinion. The fact that ESPN, et al, NEEDS $50/month to cover the costs doesn’t change. They are not going to sell it to you at some discount because you don’t want to pay for linear TV. That simple.

as time goes on the Sports Leagues will try to get their overpriced rights fees from Streaming Services, or a mixture like the Big Ten and NFL are getting from Traditional and Streaming.
Welcome to the bundle. If sports get passed out among all the streaming services, a sports fan would need maybe a dozen services, plus a linear provider. Much more expensive than now. And, again, they are not going to sell cord switchers the material at a discount.

If I remember correctly, the NBA Contract is coming up, curious how that is going to go, doubt Warner is going to overbid on it based on their own money issues, rumour is Apple wants it.
The NBA, which is in a ratings decline and never really was a regular season big deal anyway, will be an interesting deal for those of us who watch sports media business.


And while Streaming for some Services has not made profits yet, it will happen, both Netflix and Amazon used to lose tons of money, now look at them.
Why? Why is it inevitable that streaming be profitable? Or, put another way, what are they not doing now that the eventually will do that will make the difference? Until you can answer that, it is a rathole down which billions are being poured.

The entertainment electronics museum is full of great technologies, which never made a dime.
 
121 - 132 of 132 Posts
Top