FSN/Sinclair/regional sports network streaming

[SomewhereInTime]

Yea such absolute bs a ton of us cant watch our own team this year.

 

Yup, but actually, it's a choice you are making. I'll see all the games with Spectrum cable, no way I can go without, so I keep forking over the cash.

 

A summer without Brewers baseball just isn't in the cards.

 

I'm with you, back on cable now. Streaming services aren't really a big savings anymore either.

[adambr2]

Honestly, most streaming services worth a damn aren't really saving you anything anymore anyway.

 

I'm saving money with YTTV. I pay $68 per month all in. I think that's the middle tier. There are 5 channels I have to have and get them with YTTV. I pay nothing extra for unlimited recording. No rental fees, no boxes, no add on fees. Just $68.

 

I priced out AT&T Plus to get the channels I must have and the amount of recording I currently have. It would be an extra $232 assuming I switched just as the baseball season started and canceled just as the season ended. This would also come with additional pain of losing all the content I have already recorded on YTTV.

 

Spectrum? Please. I would rather be murdered and then set on fire while celebrating my birthday than to sign a 2 year contract with those turds.

 

I will also say I have no other subscription content other than MLB.tv. Thankfully I'm not a fan of popular culture so I don't need to subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Paramount, or the like.

 

I guess I should clarify that my statement probably fits most people but not all. I can't even guess what 5 extra channels you need that would cost $232 as I'm pretty sure that ATT Live has unlimited recording for an extra $10 a month but I can certainly agree that everyone's situation and preferences are different. For me, I don't need a lot of DVR. For others, I'm sure unlimited is a must.

[Raw Biz]

I've had U-verse (not the highest end package but one with Showtime/TMC, one wired box, 2 wireless boxes, middle of the road internet) for awhile now. First two years had the new customer package, was paying around $125/month initially. Promotions expired but I happened to be moving. They gave me two more years of a new customer promotion. Each year since then, I let the promotions expire, pay the regular price (usually around $225/month) for a month or two, then tell them it's too much and I'd like to cancel service. Then they give me a new promotion, back down to the promotional price (which has increased slightly to about $140/month).

 

I've been doing this since 2014 and although it's a bit of a pain every year, I think it's worth it because cutting the cord doesn't really save that much in the long run when you add up all the services you want, plus the higher tier internet you would probably need to stream everything. I know other companies sometimes do this when you threaten to cancel but I've heard that it's a bigger headache and some companies even call your bluff. Uverse has basically done it no questions asked.

[umphrey]

We do Netflix, Hulu, Discovery for about $50, I thought cable was about $85 with limited or no on demand content. We would get Netflix with cable so I think that means the Brewers thru cable would cost us about $50/month, maybe $5/game.

[Axman59]

I guess I should clarify that my statement probably fits most people but not all. I can't even guess what 5 extra channels you need that would cost $232 as I'm pretty sure that ATT Live has unlimited recording for an extra $10 a month but I can certainly agree that everyone's situation and preferences are different. For me, I don't need a lot of DVR. For others, I'm sure unlimited is a must.

 

I will need to clarify as well. The $232 is for 7 months of AT&T Plus or about $32 per month (that is above the cost of YTTV). The channels I need are not overly rare, but a couple of them are a bit niche so they get run on higher tiers.

 

While $232 for a season is not completely outrageous, I'm not keen on taking the trouble to change my package and lose all my recorded content. One of my must have channels is Turner Movie Classics and I have scores of movies recorded that I can watch anytime. It's my go to "when nothing else is on" option.

[RightFieldCoder]

I left Cable when I moved in 2013. I called the day of the move and said I can handle unplugging and re-plugging equipment. They told me it would still be a $100 move fee. After complaining for half an hour to several people on the phone I said I would just cancel. They told me I should just pay the $100 fee since that is cheaper than an installation fee. When I returned their box the manager at the store tried to argue that I should just take the cheaper option and pay the $100 fee. Three months later I get a phone call from them saying they value me as a customer and were willing to waive the installation fee if I came back to them.

 

Since that day I've used several different services between Satellite and Streaming and never had to pay an installation fee.

 

Last week I've moved back to cable with no installation fee. Hulu removed Fox Sports North and then notified me they were increasing the monthly price by $10. FSN is one of the three channels I watch (Fox and USA). I can live without any of the other channels. It also bothered me that I was paying for Hulu Live TV and the extra for "limited commercials" and DVR but was forced to watch 3 minute commercial breaks when trying to fast forward through sports. I'm already looking to move away from Cable because my box only reliably gets USA when I move it out of the entertainment center and onto the floor. It also categorizes WWE as one time sporting events so I can't set it to always record the weekly shows.

[Madhawk23]

Anyone that has a Spectrum TV subscription willing to share their username and password with me - IF you can access the Fox Sports Go App on either a device or through ROKU? I would be happy to venmo/paypal you $10 a month for access on a monthly basis. If it doesn't work out, you could just change your login info at the end of the month, and I'll shut off the $10 monthly payments. But, I would be good for the monthly payments if it helps get me access to Brewers games this spring/summer.

[adambr2]

MLB: "Let's prevent fans from watching their favorite teams because of outdated blackout restrictions that are convoluted and no one understands."

 

Also MLB: "Why aren't younger fans interested in watching us?"

[MrTPlush]

It protects local broadcasting rights, what about that is outdated? Without blackouts Sinclair would probably be paying the Brewers peanuts to broadcast their games as everyone would just go buy MLB.TV bypassing them completely. Not sure that would really be that great for the Brewers bottom line.

[jerichoholicninja]

Do young people even watch live sports anymore? I thought it was just highlights on Twitter.

 

Even so, the ability to watch baseball on TV is far from one of the main reasons young people aren't interested in baseball.

[SeaBass]

I wonder if they could come up with a more premium charge for getting your team's games w/o blackout penalties. It would have to be expensive I'm sure but there's probably a decent number of people that would pay it. If the RSNs were compensated using the premium charge fee maybe it could work?

[pacopete4]

Maybe kids would watch baseball if Nickolodean put some slime on some guys!

[wildcat83]

Do young people even watch live sports anymore? I thought it was just highlights on Twitter.

 

Even so, the ability to watch baseball on TV is far from one of the main reasons young people aren't interested in baseball.

 

 

It absolutely will impact young people watching baseball. My son was 5 last summer and started to be a Yelich fan, although he called him Lelich. He wouldn't watch the whole games, but if Yelich was batting he would run in and watch the at bat. If I was watching a game and Yelich hit a home run I would rewind and yell for him to come in and watch, and he would think it was live. He just started to show interest in the Brewers.

 

I went from Dish Network, to our city cable, then to youtube tv just switching to follow available FSWI channels. I dropped youtube tv when football season was done. We don't have Spectrum available in our area, and I'm not sticking another dish on our house to pick up Direct TV.

 

It will directly impact how much my son is exposed to Brewers telecasts, and if he's not seeing it, it's going to drop off his radar. It is going to affect the overall fan base in the future if this persists.

[MVP2110]

JR Radcliffe had a great podcast on this other day with an expert on streaming services and basically the response was it isn't worth it for these streaming services to pay for RSNs because not a high enough % of people who stream watch sports. I'm not really sure what the solution is. It's easy to blame Sinclair but I'm not sure what else they are supposed to do if streaming services won't even come close to paying market value for RSNs

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

JR Radcliffe had a great podcast on this other day with an expert on streaming services and basically the response was it isn't worth it for these streaming services to pay for RSNs because not a high enough % of people who stream watch sports. I'm not really sure what the solution is. It's easy to blame Sinclair but I'm not sure what else they are supposed to do if streaming services won't even come close to paying market value for RSNs

 

The issue is, in this case at least, "market value" is 100% subjective. The streamers had no problem paying for them when they were owned by Fox. These issues didn't crop up en masse until Sinclair got involved.

[adambr2]

It protects local broadcasting rights, what about that is outdated? Without blackouts Sinclair would probably be paying the Brewers peanuts to broadcast their games as everyone would just go buy MLB.TV bypassing them completely. Not sure that would really be that great for the Brewers bottom line.

 

Because it's not *just* protecting local broadcast rights. Vast parts of the country are in numerous media markets. Depending on where you are you might be blacked out of a half dozen teams on a given night.

 

And there are times when no local broadcasting is available and the games are STILL unavailable. Do you think the four teams that people from Oklahoma can't watch are all available on local cable?

 

And now Sinclair has exasperated the problem by cutting off most if not all of those who have switched to streaming. MLB is alienating viewers, and it's a real problem. They've acknowledged it's a problem, but of course on something like this they're slow to act because they need to focus their efforts instead on overhauling the game to shave 2 minutes off game times.

[TheEndless7]

MLB: "Let's prevent fans from watching their favorite teams because of outdated blackout restrictions that are convoluted and no one understands."

 

Also MLB: "Why aren't younger fans interested in watching us?"

 

This is what's driving me nuts. Just wait till they're all confused as to why their ratings drop 25-30% this year. That, coupled with the fact that I believe I read that as part of the NFL deal, every game will be streamed on someones streaming service is just hilarious. I'm sure prices of CBS all access and Peacock and the like will go up. But MLB will continue to look like an utter dinosaur with the blackout restrictions and seeming lack of interest in getting their product on more televisions.

 

Of course the common opinion seems to be that I'm 'too cheap' to get cable when ATT actually gave me a price of less than what I pay for YTTV. But YTTV is such a better product that I can get far more use out of.

 

I don't care so much about the cost. I have a hard time justifying switching to an inferior product that I'll get less use out of for a nominal savings. Maybe that makes me not a real fan.

 

It doesn't matter. We're 2-3 years away from them dropping Spectrum and ATT anyway and going to the Bally Sports App for all your games. Which I'd probably buy in a heartbeat. I'm not even sure what my point is anymore.

[Madhawk23]

Here's what I don't understand about the MLB blackout policy: couldn't they just play all of the same commercials when you are watching it on MLB.TV, and somehow still count the # of eyeballs watching these games on MLB.TV (for ratings numbers). That way, the local RSN's are still getting their "numbers" and still getting their advertising out in front of potential local consumers. Why does it need to be blacked out in that scenario? Am I missing something here that's obvious?

[Madhawk23]

Here's what I don't understand about the MLB blackout policy: couldn't they just play all of the same commercials when you are watching it on MLB.TV, and somehow still count the # of eyeballs watching these games on MLB.TV (for ratings numbers). That way, the local RSN's are still getting their "numbers" and still getting their advertising out in front of potential local consumers. Why does it need to be blacked out in that scenario? Am I missing something here that's obvious?

[MrTPlush]

It protects local broadcasting rights, what about that is outdated? Without blackouts Sinclair would probably be paying the Brewers peanuts to broadcast their games as everyone would just go buy MLB.TV bypassing them completely. Not sure that would really be that great for the Brewers bottom line.

 

And there are times when no local broadcasting is available and the games are STILL unavailable. Do you think the four teams that people from Oklahoma can't watch are all available on local cable?

 

And now Sinclair has exasperated the problem by cutting off most if not all of those who have switched to streaming. MLB is alienating viewers, and it's a real problem. They've acknowledged it's a problem, but of course on something like this they're slow to act because they need to focus their efforts instead on overhauling the game to shave 2 minutes off game times.

 

I mean, idk? I don't live in Oklahoma. I have lived in areas where two markets were blacked out and both were on cable, Milwaukee/Chicago and Milwaukee/Minneapolis.

 

I don't disagree with your last paragraph. I am not sure what MLB really can do though. All the TV deals are pretty independent of each other and up to individual teams. The teams don't have a ton of leverage and seems most just kick stones around until the TV deal expires and it is impossible to do anything in a few months other than to crawl back to Sinclair. You have every team in different 10/20/30 year TV deals. Is MLB just going to buy out all the TV deals and figure something else out?

[MrTPlush]

It doesn't matter. We're 2-3 years away from them dropping Spectrum and ATT anyway and going to the Bally Sports App for all your games. Which I'd probably buy in a heartbeat. I'm not even sure what my point is anymore.

 

Be careful what you wish for. I doubt their stream is going to be cheap. Just my gut feeling, but I am thinking cable is better than YTTV + Bally price wise.

[TheEndless7]

It doesn't matter. We're 2-3 years away from them dropping Spectrum and ATT anyway and going to the Bally Sports App for all your games. Which I'd probably buy in a heartbeat. I'm not even sure what my point is anymore.

 

Be careful what you wish for. I doubt their stream is going to be cheap. Just my gut feeling, but I am thinking cable is better than YTTV + Bally price wise.

 

I'm not really wishing for it. I'd rather they just came to a deal with YTTV/Hulu Live. I just see what they're doing with all of the 'over the internet' cable providers and think anyone that doesn't think they won't do the same thing with other providers is dreaming. Hell, they might even be able to take a huge chunk of mlb.tv's business with it. I'd assume their app would be somewhere in the 15-20$/Mo range, if not more. And I think they'll subsidize that to some extent with gambling in the states that allow it. And hey, in app/live gambling in the states that allow it?

 

I'm not entirely sure it's a 'bad' idea for Sinclair, really, albeit one I'm not a huge fan of.

 

I've just seen a lot of takes of people saying 'Just pay for cable!' that are sort of missing the point of what Sinclair is doing.

[owbc]

Here's what I don't understand about the MLB blackout policy: couldn't they just play all of the same commercials when you are watching it on MLB.TV, and somehow still count the # of eyeballs watching these games on MLB.TV (for ratings numbers). That way, the local RSN's are still getting their "numbers" and still getting their advertising out in front of potential local consumers. Why does it need to be blacked out in that scenario? Am I missing something here that's obvious?

 

The underlying problem with everything is that the value of sports channels to cable providers is packaging them with the rest of the channels. So non-sports fans are subsidizing the price of sports channels. Sinclair is paying a few dollars/month per cable subscriber for an RSN, but the actual cost per RSN viewer is quite high.

 

If you do a back-of-the envelope calculation...a $20/million per year TV deal for a RSN that averages 50,000 viewers works out to $400 per viewer. $66/month for the 6 months of baseball season. I have no idea how much they are pulling in from advertising, but even if you are generous with that number, and subtract other expenses, you're talking $40-50 per month that the Brewers would have to collect from 50,000 fans for a streaming package. And that's for a $20 million/year TV deal which is about as low of a number as I can make up.

 

So the whole system is set up to use sports as an incentive to sell bundled cable/satellite packages. The second you offer an a la carte option like MLB.tv within the RSN market the whole system falls apart.

 

Of course the remaining question is whether this business model is sustainable or not. Given the dollar figures involved (the Cardinals signed a $1 billion TV deal that pays $50-85 million per year), it's too valuable to do anything else right now and the loss of some fans/viewers is inconsequential. Like every sport, success is measured solely in terms of short-term revenue, so the pathway to "success" is obvious, do whatever makes the most money. Everyone involved including the players subscribes to this model.

 

What's interesting to me is what's happened in the post-Bud Selig era. In the Selig years the positive revenue numbers were coupled with positive increases in attendance and viewership. In 2018 they started to move in opposite directions, with revenue continuing to go up but attendance noticeably dropping. The debate about why that is could go on forever--yes, it's not just MLB that is seeing this trend--and now you throw in the pandemic which is likely to attendance/revenue that is decoupled from pre-pandemic numbers. Additionally, MLB has started squeeze money out of every possible source that they can -- the minor leagues, service time manipulation, and certainly the new CBA is the biggest target of them all. Fun times for sure...

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

Of course the remaining question is whether this business model is sustainable or not. Given the dollar figures involved (the Cardinals signed a $1 billion TV deal that pays $50-85 million per year), it's too valuable to do anything else right now and the loss of some fans/viewers is inconsequential. Like every sport, success is measured solely in terms of short-term revenue, so the pathway to "success" is obvious, do whatever makes the most money. Everyone involved including the players subscribes to this model.

 

I think this is exactly right. And, of course, the TV contract is probably the single largest source of revenue for a team, or at least the most stable. Without a revenue-sharing model (which I don't think we'll see any time soon), the incentive is to protect that stream. It's better for individual teams to have an exclusive product than an accessible one.

 

Granted, I think it's better for MLB as a whole to have more viewers and a more accessible product (more people watching globally=more cash in the end, not to mention all the other brand benefits), so we're in a situation where self-interest doesn't really serve the whole. I'd love to see a radical, innovative approach as the CBA gets discussed over the next year (players give on salary cap, owners allow some form of modified revenue sharing and promise players, including minor-leaguers, a greater share of incoming $$), but I think a work stoppage and then a patchwork fix is far more likely. All this stuff seems to be the offshoot of an economic model that's heavily tilted toward billionaire owners. Until they decide to operate under a radically different paradigm, fans might be stuck.

[pitchleague]

The thing about the blackout rules that really grinds my gears is something that a lot of Wisconsinite (which is, likely a bunch of people on this site) don't have to deal with.

 

I completely understand the reasoning behind blacking out a LIVE televised sporting event. COMPLETELY.

 

But, here in Arizona, I have Directv and we get the sports pack (we used to have the Extra Innings package, too, but dropped it last year to go full-time to the MLB.tv that was free as a season ticket holder.) Every so often (actually more often than not!) I will try to tune in to something on FS-Wisconsin that I'd like to see. Maybe it's a Classic Brewer Game. Or one of those Brewers tv-specials that they sometimes air. Or maybe it's just the re-air of the day's game, when it's on late night. It absolutely sucks that THOSE types of programs get blacked out, too! I don't get that!!!