Americans Will Lose If Streamers Monopolize Live Sports

[SixPlusOne]

Courtesy: The Hill

Americans Will Lose If Streamers Monopolize Live Sports

"Yesterday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on the future of sports media in the streaming era. This conversation could hardly be more urgent, coming just a few weeks after Comcast/NBC took the unprecedented step of putting an NFL playoff game behind a paywall on Peacock, its streaming platform.

At the time, Peacock urged viewers to “be part of history,” but it wasn’t the kind of history-making event in which anyone involved should be proud. On the contrary, it was a shameful moment that merits congressional attention and action before we find ourselves facing a Super Bowl accessible only to those willing and able to pay to watch it."

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ ... ve-sports/

[RedfordRob]

Peacock will become "history" if they keep doing that.

[radiofann]

If this continues to happen then the taxpayers will need to lobby for a refund of their tax breaks that politicians hand out to billionaire team owners every time said billionaire owners cry poverty and threaten to leave for another town unless taxpayers don’t subsidize a new stadium or arena.


So simply stop watching the products, like NFL. It’s watered down anyway. The league keeps expanding such that they are digging up bottom of the barrel XFL and USFL low-skilled types to fill out rosters.

There are many other reasons to stop watching and stop further enriching the team owners and overpaid players. It’s not required for you to watch. Make a value-worth decision for you and your household budget which continues to be under assault from inflation. I have stopped watching nearly all sports due to these and many reasons. There are other things to value in life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvujypVVBAY

For example, you might wish to Support your local little league and high school sports instead, or develop other hobbies affirming self worth and value.

Question: was the streamed playoff game broadcast commercial free?

Anyone notice how Netflix and Amazon prime are squeezing subscribers to pay more or be inundated with ads? What an insult. Simply draw a line in the sand and say “no more”.

[MWmetalhead]

Oh, gee. Look who wrote this op-ed:

Emily Barr was previously president and CEO of Graham Media Group. She is a former chairman of the NBC Affiliate Board and a former chair of the ABC Board of Governors and of the National Association of Broadcasters TV Board.

No conflict of interest there! LMAO.

Also, The Hill is owned by Nexstar, an owner of many dozen OTA broadcast stations.

By the way, broadcast affiliates are handsomely compensated by cable and satellite companies based on subscription numbers. Funny how Emily fails to mention sky high cable bills when discussing "affordability." Notice that she only seems concerned about streaming-exclusive content, not cable/sat network exclusive content.

The monthly price to subscribe to Peacock is much cheaper than the broadcast retransmission fees that appear on millions of cable & satellite bills at the behest of the OTA television ownership conglomerates.

Finally, if she is concerned about OTA availability of top-shelf programming, where is her column expressing concern about the unreliable reception of OTA digital signals?

I suppose I'm not buying her persona as being someone who is looking out for the consumer. Rather, she is a mouthpiece for the broadcast conglomerates who feel threatened by streaming platforms.

[MWmetalhead]

Peacock will become "history" if they keep doing that.

Highly unlikely. Their subscription count is strong.

[Graham Wellington]

Oh, gee. Look who wrote this op-ed:

Emily Barr was previously president and CEO of Graham Media Group. She is a former chairman of the NBC Affiliate Board and a former chair of the ABC Board of Governors and of the National Association of Broadcasters TV Board.

No conflict of interest there! LMAO.

Also, The Hill is owned by Nexstar, an owner of many dozen OTA broadcast stations.

By the way, broadcast affiliates are handsomely compensated by cable and satellite companies based on subscription numbers. Funny how Emily fails to mention sky high cable bills when discussing "affordability." Notice that she only seems concerned about streaming-exclusive content, not cable/sat network exclusive content.

The monthly price to subscribe to Peacock is much cheaper than the broadcast retransmission fees that appear on millions of cable & satellite bills at the behest of the OTA television ownership conglomerates.

Finally, if she is concerned about OTA availability of top-shelf programming, where is her column expressing concern about the unreliable reception of OTA digital signals?

I suppose I'm not buying her persona as being someone who is looking out for the consumer. Rather, she is a mouthpiece for the broadcast conglomerates who feel threatened by streaming platforms.

Agreed, what a crock of crap. Broadcasters know that the time is rapidly approaching where networks bypass them and go direct to consumers. Trying their damndest to play the "mom and pop operation" card.

It was Peacock that came to the rescue of Lions fans in Grand Rapids a few weeks ago. I've watched many sporting events on Peacock with no issue and excellent picture quality. All for 5.99/month that can easily be canceled and resubscribed to as needed.

[radiofann]

What happened to lions viewers a few weeks ago? Which game and was it blacked out?



Thanks

[Round Six]

What's your thoughts on sports teams shooting themselves in the foot by mandating that viewers pay to watch?
Will having to fork out some pennies to see the game cause a loss of interest for some fans?

[Graham Wellington]

What's your thoughts on sports teams shooting themselves in the foot by mandating that viewers pay to watch?
Will having to fork out some pennies to see the game cause a loss of interest for some fans?

Baseball, Hockey, Basketball are almost exclusively available by pay tv only. Maybe an occasional network game on OTA, but at a minimum one needs a pay TV subscription of some sort to watch the bulk of the games. NFL is the exception, but is also pretty much the only thing propping the network TV model up.

[edj]

How many markets air more than one or two games OTA anymore? Maybe New York and Chicago?

[dial-it-in]

I just told my wife who was complaining about having to get Peacock for that one playoff game "Get used to it. In about 10 years none of these games will be "free"."

[Gertner]

I'm so glad I have IPTV and don't have to pay out the ass for this stuff

[sinklair]

If you think Peacock and streamers will remain at these “low” prices, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell ya.

Once you see these leagues jump on the streaming bandwagon, start reaching for your pocketbook. They are no different than cable. They will continue to raise rates every year. There is no free lunch.

The only option is for you to pay… which also means much smaller audiences. The Super Bowl sized audiences won’t be there once the games are put behind a pay wall. I’m sure the money the leagues generate from Peacock, Amazon Prime, etc. are nice… but they are losing a large part of the potential audience.

I’m just not going to pay for a streaming/cable/satellite subscription now or in the future to see a team like the Pistons who are hard to watch.

[radiofann]

When Amazon prime cost climbed to $139 per year, I took a look over the last dozen or so years, noted the increase, and the fact that I was not watching its sports, and was not finding much on prime, I decided I could wait an extra day for my shipments/orders.

I cut the Amazon prime from my budget.

Have not regretted it.

[Round Six]

.... I cut the Amazon prime from my budget ...

Same here. Not so much for the cost increase. But it seemed more and more the things I was interested in had an additional charge to view. I couldn't quit thinking if I'm paying this much, why isn't everything included.