FSN/Sinclair/regional sports network streaming

[SeaBass]

I mostly blame Sinclair, they just rub me the wrong way, but I feel at this point Hulu and YTTV probably aren't very motivated to actually bring RSNs back to their services either. They've ripped off the band-aid and I just feel like they've moved on.

 

If they did bring it back it would likely have to be a creative way where pricing was absorbed by the specific subscribers that actually want that channel.

 

The other bummer was that if Sinclair is going to bring a direct to consumer product to sports fans it's not likely to happen before 2022.

[wallus]

If they did bring it back it would likely have to be a creative way where pricing was absorbed by the specific subscribers that actually want that channel.

 

 

How would that look though? If you are assuming it costs around $600 a year for that channel, that isn't cheap. Then you probably need to lock customers into the full year to make it work (unless you want to charge even more). That sounds a lot like cable.

[SeaBass]

If they did bring it back it would likely have to be a creative way where pricing was absorbed by the specific subscribers that actually want that channel.

 

 

How would that look though? If you are assuming it costs around $600 a year for that channel, that isn't cheap. Then you probably need to lock customers into the full year to make it work (unless you want to charge even more). That sounds a lot like cable.

Yeah it would be tough, I don't think it's likely. I guess I'm kind of thinking of Sinclair's own version of a League Pass type thing but only for the local teams in specific markets.

 

To expand on that, so that they wouldn't have to develop their own direct to consumer tech. But it sounds like they're doing that already so again, not likely for other streaming services.

[MoreTrife]

Just encourages piracy. I'm all for paying but when I have to go out of my way *shrug*

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Just encourages piracy. I'm all for paying but when I have to go out of my way *shrug*

 

Right. When you literally have no other options, it's easier to justify going that route.

[wallus]

Just encourages piracy. I'm all for paying but when I have to go out of my way *shrug*

 

Right. When you literally have no other options, it's easier to justify going that route.

 

Except you DO have options to pay for it, you CHOOSE not to.

 

Look, I'm not going to deny that I never illegally downloaded music in college years ago. However, if you are an adult out of school, you should be beyond that kind of stuff imo. This is sports, it's not feeding your family.

 

I feel weird defending cable companies (they mostly suck) and not doing illegal pirating but here we are.

[MrTPlush]

The article is everything I assumed and further confirms my assumption that even when there is a separate app that you can just pay for it won't even make financial sense for most. Why pay $30 or whatever just for the Brewers? Might as well get cable.

 

Only reason cable has it is because old people subsidize it for everyone else. Can you imagine how many people on watch like 10 basic channels and give charter 100+ a month? They can get a package from Charter that includes all that for like $25.

 

Oh well, feel bad for the Brewers.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Just encourages piracy. I'm all for paying but when I have to go out of my way *shrug*

 

Right. When you literally have no other options, it's easier to justify going that route.

 

Except you DO have options to pay for it, you CHOOSE not to.

 

Look, I'm not going to deny that I never illegally downloaded music in college years ago. However, if you are an adult out of school, you should be beyond that kind of stuff imo. This is sports, it's not feeding your family.

 

I feel weird defending cable companies (they mostly suck) and not doing illegal pirating but here we are.

 

I literally don't have other options. I live in a rural area with no cable options, and last time I checked, DirecTV cannot get a line of sight for their dish (which is odd, because I've had DISH Network in the past). I have tried AT&T TV, and my slow internet speed makes the service unwatchable. Also the terrible platform and interface makes navigating it quite difficult. Granted the last time I tried AT&T was roughly 1 1/2 years ago, so perhaps it has improved. Still, paying $85+ per month just to watch the Brewers seems steep, even if I could get the service to work.

 

So my options were already limited, and Sinclair's terrible business practices has made them even moreso.

[Axman59]

I literally don't have other options. I live in a rural area with no cable options, and last time I checked, DirecTV cannot get a line of sight for their dish (which is odd, because I've had DISH Network in the past). I have tried AT&T TV, and my slow internet speed makes the service unwatchable. Also the terrible platform and interface makes navigating it quite difficult. Granted the last time I tried AT&T was roughly 1 1/2 years ago, so perhaps it has improved. Still, paying $85+ per month just to watch the Brewers seems steep, even if I could get the service to work.

 

So my options were already limited, and Sinclair's terrible business practices has made them even moreso.

 

How were you watching Brewer games before this year?

[Axman59]

I should know the answer to this because I've had MLB.tv for years, but can we in Wisconsin watch Brewer games in the archive after 24 hours or are they still blacked out? It's never been an issue before as I've always had FSW to watch the games live.

[KeithStone53151]

The answer to dealing with Sinclair frankly comes from consumers. If a bunch of people cave and sign up for AT&T or Spectrum so they can watch the Brewers, Sinclair will keep the price high. If a significant number of people just don't watch, AT&T and Spectrum may scoff at the price to carry the channel and then Sinclair is getting no money.

 

At the end of the day, I would think it makes more financial sense for them to charge a more fair price for the product. These numbers are completely made up, but let's say they 1 million people subscribe to AT&T and Spectrum in the state and they get $10/sub/month...they'd make a lot more money if hulu/youtube/sling/etc carried the Brewers as well. If another 500 thousand people are on those services paying $8/sub/month, they bring in more money that way. I would be curious the stats on people in the state with spectrum/AT&T vs hulu/youtube/sling/etc. The problem with my formula is probably the numbers for the streaming services isn't large enough to justify reducing the price. If more people go to the streaming services, it will be tough to jack up the price for cable and rely on them to support the high rate sinclair is charging. I firmly believe this will inevitably happen, this or the Brewers simply come up with their own offering...probably on a streaming platform.

[adambr2]

Problem with that is AT&T is a two-year contract, and the price rises significantly after the 12-month introductory price. So ... just like cable

 

You can do ATT TV on a monthly basis. The price is higher the first year, but then cheaper after that versus a contract as the second year of a contract is much higher. It is only a $8 or so increase to be on a monthly basis and it doesn't have an automatic increase after a year. Not sure why anyone would go with the contract to be honest.

 

That being said it really isn't any cheaper than cable. It is just the cable equivalent for ATT internet users because they can bundle it for slightly cheaper prices.

 

This is correct. Just looked at the options this morning, and it appears that to get FS Wisconsin, you need to choose AT&T TV's Choice package, which is $84.99/month. Which is very much less than ideal.

 

Is it practical for a family living in um...numerous households...to, perhaps *cough* split that 3 ways or so?

[Outlander]

I should know the answer to this because I've had MLB.tv for years, but can we in Wisconsin watch Brewer games in the archive after 24 hours or are they still blacked out? It's never been an issue before as I've always had FSW to watch the games live.

Yes, I would have the game in the background the next morning while I worked from home.

[Axman59]

I should know the answer to this because I've had MLB.tv for years, but can we in Wisconsin watch Brewer games in the archive after 24 hours or are they still blacked out? It's never been an issue before as I've always had FSW to watch the games live.

Yes, I would have the game in the background the next morning while I worked from home.

 

 

Good. That's a solution. Not an ideal one but it will work. I'll watch the Facebook highlights the night of the game and follow up with the full game (or parts of it) the next day.

[pacopete4]

Not watching live baseball is not a solution to me but to each their own.

[Axman59]

Not watching live baseball is not a solution to me but to each their own.

 

Actually I'll watch a lot of live baseball (through MLB.tv). It just won't be live Brewers.

 

I can live with that because I love baseball first and foremost and won't feel too deprived not watching the Brewers live. I've been following the Brewers since 1978 when I was 8. If all I had to satisfy me was the Brewers I'd probably have given up on the sport years ago, which is what I did with the NBA around 1990.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I literally don't have other options. I live in a rural area with no cable options, and last time I checked, DirecTV cannot get a line of sight for their dish (which is odd, because I've had DISH Network in the past). I have tried AT&T TV, and my slow internet speed makes the service unwatchable. Also the terrible platform and interface makes navigating it quite difficult. Granted the last time I tried AT&T was roughly 1 1/2 years ago, so perhaps it has improved. Still, paying $85+ per month just to watch the Brewers seems steep, even if I could get the service to work.

 

So my options were already limited, and Sinclair's terrible business practices has made them even moreso.

 

How were you watching Brewer games before this year?

 

I had DISH Network for several years, which was good. But they no longer carry FS Wisconsin. After I got rid of DISH, I went to Sling TV, which was great until they dropped FS Wisconsin midway through the 2019 season. Then I switched to YouTube TV, which was great for the remainder of the 2019 season, and for last season.

[patrickgpe]

The answer to dealing with Sinclair frankly comes from consumers. If a bunch of people cave and sign up for AT&T or Spectrum so they can watch the Brewers, Sinclair will keep the price high. If a significant number of people just don't watch, AT&T and Spectrum may scoff at the price to carry the channel and then Sinclair is getting no money.

 

I would agree with you, except for as the article states the number of watchers is not that large. I don’t think it would make much difference

[superfly]

Not watching live baseball is not a solution to me but to each their own.

 

Didn’t think it was an option for me until last year. Pretty very indifferent now and can find something else to do if they don’t want me watching them play. Can always watch the Yankees since they’re on 90x a month

[TURBO]

Not watching live baseball is not a solution to me but to each their own.

 

yup, same here...

[JimH5]

To me, the biggest takeaway was that they only have 60,000 viewers. I would have expected more.

 

And the Brewers are among the teams with the greatest saturation in their market. That shows how hard it is to operate in a small market.

 

I'm a Directv user, and while we've been adding streaming services over the past couple of years with the thought of dropping the satellite, it looks like I'll be subscribing for at least another year.

[adambr2]

There is really no point for me personally to have live TV if I don't have regional sports, so it's worth it to me to pay a bit more. I was a Hulu Live subscriber and dumped them for AT&T Live simply for regional sports. Thoughts so far:

 

- I did not think $85 a month is overly cost-prohibitive if you're already paying for Hulu Live or a similar company. Hulu with unlimited screens was pretty close to the 85 already without regional sports.

 

- No complaints so far. I can watch the Bucks and Brewers again. The layout is slightly different as it would be with any change.

 

- The free HBO max for a year is a big perk. If you're already subscribing to HBO Max, this basically knocks your effective price down to $70/month.

[RobDeer 45]

Not watching live baseball is not a solution to me but to each their own.

 

Actually I'll watch a lot of live baseball (through MLB.tv). It just won't be live Brewers.

 

I can live with that because I love baseball first and foremost and won't feel too deprived not watching the Brewers live. I've been following the Brewers since 1978 when I was 8. If all I had to satisfy me was the Brewers I'd probably have given up on the sport years ago, which is what I did with the NBA around 1990.

 

I'm an MLB.tv subscriber for many years too. I've been out of market so I get to watch them live. If you're in market, when does the game become available to watch?

[StearnsFTW]

There is really no point for me personally to have live TV if I don't have regional sports, so it's worth it to me to pay a bit more. I was a Hulu Live subscriber and dumped them for AT&T Live simply for regional sports. Thoughts so far:

 

- I did not think $85 a month is overly cost-prohibitive if you're already paying for Hulu Live or a similar company. Hulu with unlimited screens was pretty close to the 85 already without regional sports.

 

- No complaints so far. I can watch the Bucks and Brewers again. The layout is slightly different as it would be with any change.

 

- The free HBO max for a year is a big perk. If you're already subscribing to HBO Max, this basically knocks your effective price down to $70/month.

 

I assume you get your local channels?

 

If so, this seems like a great way to go.

[adambr2]

There is really no point for me personally to have live TV if I don't have regional sports, so it's worth it to me to pay a bit more. I was a Hulu Live subscriber and dumped them for AT&T Live simply for regional sports. Thoughts so far:

 

- I did not think $85 a month is overly cost-prohibitive if you're already paying for Hulu Live or a similar company. Hulu with unlimited screens was pretty close to the 85 already without regional sports.

 

- No complaints so far. I can watch the Bucks and Brewers again. The layout is slightly different as it would be with any change.

 

- The free HBO max for a year is a big perk. If you're already subscribing to HBO Max, this basically knocks your effective price down to $70/month.

 

I assume you get your local channels?

 

If so, this seems like a great way to go.

 

Yep, I do.

 

Well it says I do on their lineup, I haven't checked in on those yet.