Changing Media Landscape

[HuskerFever]

It doesn't stop with conference realignment. Mega media outlets are finding ways to attempt to gain more power:

 

 

[Crush78]

They've dumped billions into streaming sp they can make an app where you can watch sports from different providers in 1 place?

 

I mean, cable boxes have been doing that since the 1980s, so it doesnt seem like it was worth it.

[hhcmatt]

12 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

Mega media outlets are finding ways to attempt to gain more power:

 

You're either getting bigger or you're getting smaller

[cornfed24-7]

Anyone have any idea how this will affect BTN since FOX has a 51% stake?

 

My other thought is we are going to see ever more mind blowing bids for sports rights when they come up. Because what happens to the 1/3 ownership agreement if one of the entities lose the rights to whatever sport they bring to the table? 

 

And as I typed that how does each entity avoid antitrust issues when the rights come up? They can't all collude with each other on bidding/not bidding for whatever rights are up for sale.

 

I'm skeptical

 

 

[Nighthawk]

10 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Anyone have any idea how this will affect BTN since FOX has a 51% stake?

 

My other thought is we are going to see ever more mind blowing bids for sports rights when they come up. Because what happens to the 1/3 ownership agreement if one of the entities lose the rights to whatever sport they bring to the table? 

 

And as I typed that how does each entity avoid antitrust issues when the rights come up? They can't all collude with each other on bidding/not bidding for whatever rights are up for sale.

 

I'm skeptical

 

 

 

"The product will be a skinnier bundle of linear networks than a standard cable offering, specifically tailored for sports fans. It will consist of all the broadcast and cable networks owned by Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery that carry sports, along with ESPN+.

 

From Disney, that includes ESPN and its sister networks, such as ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS, as well as the ABC broadcast network. Warner Bros. Discovery’s networks that showcase sports are TNT, TBS and TruTV. Fox will include the Fox broadcast station along with FS1, FS2 and BTN."

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/espn-fox-and-warner-bros-discovery-to-launch-joint-sports-streaming-platform-this-year.html?fbclid=IwAR14Y2ViLZBjMoCukbUzhfZA8eDzyEo-gpeRlGBWXJu3-MZ02ZTc5H84Xss

[Nighthawk]

Honesty I ditched cable years ago.  There are a number of apps (like the TCM app) that require either a cable or a streaming service (like hulu live or YouTube TV) to be able to access.  If this one doesn't require that and i can just subscribe to this to get my sports fix, I can dump Hulu live if this is cheaper. The only reason I get Hulu Live is for my sports. 

 

[hhcmatt]

13 hours ago, Crush78 said:

They've dumped billions into streaming sp they can make an app where you can watch sports from different providers in 1 place?

 

I mean, cable boxes have been doing that since the 1980s, so it doesnt seem like it was worth it.

 

In the past ESPN would name their price and cable companies would have to pay it because what else were they going to do.  These companies have recently figured out they're not in the business of providing internet and thus can drop ESPN and you can just get a streaming service...a very different approach.

 

12 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Honesty I ditched cable years ago.  There are a number of apps (like the TCM app) that require either a cable or a streaming service (like hulu live or YouTube TV) to be able to access.  If this one doesn't require that and i can just subscribe to this to get my sports fix, I can dump Hulu live if this is cheaper. The only reason I get Hulu Live is for my sports. 

 

 

I'd assume this is the response to the response above:  If given the choice between paying X dollars for Hulu live that offers sports plus a bunch of other channels would you pay $10-$20 less for just sports content as those sports channels end up making more because they don't have to split with the non-channels. 

[cornfed24-7]

14 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

Honesty I ditched cable years ago.  There are a number of apps (like the TCM app) that require either a cable or a streaming service (like hulu live or YouTube TV) to be able to access.  If this one doesn't require that and i can just subscribe to this to get my sports fix, I can dump Hulu live if this is cheaper. The only reason I get Hulu Live is for my sports. 

 

Same here. Switched to Hulu because of BTN the year it came out. I only watch sports. And then mostly just the Huskers. I would love to switch, but my wife is a TV junkie

 

 

[49r]

2 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

If given the choice between paying X dollars for Hulu live that offers sports plus a bunch of other channels would you pay $10-$20 less for just sports content as those sports channels end up making more because they don't have to split with the non-channels.

 

This question wasn't meant for me but if it were my answer would be hell yes because the amount of non-sports TV I watch is so vanishingly small it would be insane for me not to go with the cheaper option.  Now, I get basic cable TV and high speed internet at my apartment for $39 a month which is a real bargain so it's not a concern, but honestly besides sports the only things I watch are on AppleTV+, Amazon Prime Video, YouTube and the PBS app.  So the price per month for me for high speed internet and whatever streaming services I am watching at the time is well under $70 a month.  I know a lot of people that pay double or triple that for satellite TV alone.

[cornfed24-7]

2 minutes ago, 49r said:

I know a lot of people that pay double or triple that for satellite TV alone.

Been trying to get my Dad to drop Satellite for years now since he retired and is on a fixed income. Dude does nothing but complain about the service and price, but has he switched? Nope. Trying to get men of a certain age to to make changes in their lives, even if beneficial to them, is often an insurmountable task

 

[hhcmatt]

8 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Been trying to get my Dad to drop Satellite for years now since he retired and is on a fixed income. Dude does nothing but complain about the service and price, but has he switched? Nope. Trying to get men of a certain age to to make changes in their lives, even if beneficial to them, is often an insurmountable task

 

 

the devil you know is better than the devil you don't

[Nighthawk]

36 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

In the past ESPN would name their price and cable companies would have to pay it because what else were they going to do.  These companies have recently figured out they're not in the business of providing internet and thus can drop ESPN and you can just get a streaming service...a very different approach.

 

 

I'd assume this is the response to the response above:  If given the choice between paying X dollars for Hulu live that offers sports plus a bunch of other channels would you pay $10-$20 less for just sports content as those sports channels end up making more because they don't have to split with the non-channels. 

Yeah...I probably would.  I already subscribe to Max, and Paramount+ and Disney+ and the Peacock and Netflix...so there isn't much  I watch on Hulu live outside of Huskers/Bears/Chiefs.