Glimpse of the Future: Fox Sports, ESPN coming for cord-cutters?

Submitted by Rasmus on

This broke yesterday in the WSJ and was confirmed today. Surprised it hasn't made the Board, but now it has:

http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/04/hulu-ceo-confirms-plans-for-a-live-tv-streaming-service-in-2017/

Basically, details are that it will encompass ESPN (etc.) and FS1 (etc.). Price is thought to be about $40, but I wouldn't put much stock in that, especially if NBC signs on, which is still possible, even likely.

Also note that BTN is a partnership with Fox, so it isn't hard to see how it could be bundled in as well, or as an add-on. Given the Big Ten's recent deal with Fox Sports and the likelihood that the rest of the non-BTN games will go to ABC/ESPN, the bottom line is the whole Michigan Football schedule could be available in one package, beyond local cable/fiber, sort of.

Ars Technica had a short summary yesterday (some of the reader comments are interesting), the last paragraph of which gets to the inner dynamic here:

What makes this Hulu service so interesting is that traditional cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are customers of Disney, Fox, and other TV networks. By licensing live content out to a digital service, Disney and Fox would essentially be competing with its biggest customers. This move only underlines how the cable industry is struggling to offer options for everyone that combine the best content with the best prices and meet the needs of those consumers who are watching more video online than ever before.

I don't think it is surprising that bundling will survive. This is a direct consequence of virtually all programming being owned by just a few companies.

Same old, same old.

His Dudeness

May 4th, 2016 at 4:03 PM ^

All arenas have to do is pop a 360 VR camera on a pole, hit record and stream it to periscope and charge by the event.

Fuck bundling. Fuck cords. Fuck going to shit. Fuck paying for shit you don't want (lookin at you, Skip).

Boom

/Future'd

autodrip4-1968

May 4th, 2016 at 5:07 PM ^

is the way to watch for me. I just don't listen to the people calling the game. The play by play I enjoy listening to for the most part. It's the second and third person that I would like to see gone. To bad the network's could just pipe in the respective team's radio guy. Of course they are going to figure out a choice between which radio guy you would like to listen to. Saying that the wolverines need to upgrade the radio guy in the booth. Seems to be a money saved for the network's not having to pay big money for all those people.

Bando Calrissian

May 4th, 2016 at 4:04 PM ^

Seems like every few months we get something like this, and I get even more confused about what the hell it all means.

Call me when I can cut my cable and watch sports and not have to string together a bunch of different devices and dodgy subscription services I often don't have. Until then, unfortunately, Comcast is getting my money for ease of (sometimes crappy) service alone.

PopeLando

May 4th, 2016 at 4:13 PM ^

My rule of thumb is that I try to watch something (sports included) through my cable provider. If it's not included in the package I have, I try my Amazon Prime (they have Star Trek TNG!).

If those two options fail, I figure I have done my due diligence and it's time to stream it for free.

The Mad Hatter

May 4th, 2016 at 4:22 PM ^

Cable is worth it to me just for its simplicity.  One device, one remote, one user interface. Fire TV for Netflix and Prime (when The Man in the High Castle is back on) is pretty much all I'm willing to add on.

But I'm a bit of a luddite, especially for my age.  Don't even have a blu-ray player.  Dvd's are fine.  I don't need to see every disgusting pore in someone's face.

Gameboy

May 4th, 2016 at 5:38 PM ^

I am with you. 

I have a setup with 20 TB of storage, 3 tuners for recording, and all are accessible from any TV/laptop in the house. I can shift the recorded program to my phone, tablet, PC for offline viewing if necessary. There is no way some streaming service is going to match the power and flexibility that I have right now.

And worst of all, I cannot watch ANY TV program without 15/30 second skip. That is the worst thing about trying to watch a sports or broadcast program via stream. No skip (sliding bars suck), no dice for me.

Streaming option would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper for me to even consider signing up.

Rasmus

May 4th, 2016 at 4:42 PM ^

I think in general it is moving toward each company offering its programming, live or otherwise, in a bundle. Or, in this case, two or three of them banding together to offer it all together.

So to get CBS, you'll still need to get their bundle, since they aren't a part of this deal. Not to mention HBO and the like.

Probably their underlying goal is to end the byzantine, localized negotiations that go on for content -- this is a way to bring the cable/fiber companies into line. Once these bundles exist, you'll still be able to get them through your cable/fiber provider, but basically you'll be getting the same thing that someone licensing the bundle directly gets.

Tater

May 4th, 2016 at 7:31 PM ^

Sling TV has a $20 package.  You can choose between two ESPN channels or FS1 and regional Fox.  

Sony Playstation Vue has a great set of options for $30, $35 and $45 but you need a PS, Chromecast, an Amazon Fire Stick or Fire TV.   the $35 option gives you BTN.  

Is it bundling?  Yes, but it's a lot cheaper than the cable companies and there are a lot less irrelevant channels.

Most of all, the competition is going to make it better for all of us.  

I Like Burgers

May 4th, 2016 at 9:53 PM ^

I'm not so sure it will. Look at the current TV landscape - especially in sports. Everyone is dropping quality programming in favor of cheaper "hot take" content. FS1 is making that their whole strategy going forward because they can't make money with good programming or features.

All networks will wind up with less money to produce content and that's going to lead to shittier reality-TV style or talking head content. More expensive/quality programming is too risky.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Gallagher

May 4th, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^

PlayStation vue has all the sports channels you need, however you need strong internet to make the picture reasonable. Also they only have a DVR for 28 days.

I want to pull the trigger on the Vue, but I'm not sure on it yet. Any experiences from people who do?




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

lilpenny1316

May 4th, 2016 at 4:30 PM ^

I have Comcast for my Internet provider and watched via a wireless connection to my PS3.  

It's superior to SlingTV even with a wireless connection.  I watched a Pistons game, Red Wings game and the entire first two rounds of the NCAA tournament on the Vue.  I had no issues watching the games.  

On the flip side, their program guide could use some tweaking.  One night, the program guide wasn't working for some reason, and I had to jump through a lot of hoops to get to live programming.  And without channels numbers, I couldn't just punch in a couple numbers to get to my station.  Unless I had channels set up as favorites, I had to cycle between the stations to find the programming I want.  I only had about two weeks with Vue, so it's possible that I didn't find the true power of the program guide. 

Overall, picture quality was great but the ease of use needs improvement.  That plus a leaf antenna would work well for cord cutters.

Blue Mike

May 4th, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^

Isn't this just SlingTV under a different name? Sony has one, too.  Basically they're playing a shell game and trying to replace Comcast, Dish, DirecTV, etc with their own Sling, Hulu, and Vue.  

It's still going to be cheaper to cut the cord, and they are still going to resist as much as they can.

Michigan Eaglet

May 4th, 2016 at 4:18 PM ^

I'm glad to see larger enterprises giving the option of selective streaming, but there are still two issues I have with it. One, Hulu is just terrible with ads and even it's "ad free" version you pay more for has some shows that are excluded from that and still have some ads. Two, as long as there is limited competition in the the internet provider space, there will still be a large swath of people that can't even get internet fast enough for an HD stream, or the cost for that would be prohibitively high, especially if you're using a company that has data caps.

GoBlueinEugene

May 4th, 2016 at 4:41 PM ^

Glad to see the cord-cutting revolution pick up steam. All about having more choices for the consumer at competitive prices. Recently got Sling TV with a hard wired Ethernet connection and it works almost flawlessly. When it buffers occasionally, I remind myself that I'm saving almost $70 per month from my Comcast Triple Play and I still get to watch ESPN/ESPN2. 

Though with Comcast recently announcing a 1 TB data cap for all of its customers, the hard core multi-stream cord-cutting families may face overage charges sooner or later, especially as 4K TV becomes more widespread. 

NRK

May 4th, 2016 at 7:31 PM ^

I was curious as to what the reaction was going to be, Pay for Hulu to get some channels seems like more choice in picking your cord, not cutting it. And isn't Hulu just bundling a "cord-cutting" option?

Outside of each network going into a fragmented microsubscription mode (some of the sports such as mlb and NFL already allow this) or a service that manages to convince all networks to allow completely free choice (which seems highly unlikely) it seems like there might have to be bundling as a business model because that's what the businesses that broadcast this stuff do.

I would love the second option it just doesn't seem like any of the channels are interested in it. Likely because it would be less profitable.

vablue

May 4th, 2016 at 8:20 PM ^

I get both sports bundles from Verizon, which includes all ESPN, FS1, BTN, and the local sports networks for $20. It also gives me AMC and the four networks.

cbuswolverine

May 4th, 2016 at 8:33 PM ^

I don't understand what's new about this.  I already have something like this that includes all of those channels.  I guess they came for me already, months ago.  

Gr1mlock

May 4th, 2016 at 8:42 PM ^

The solution for the cable companies is to let us pick our channels a la carte.  I don't want to sign up for NascarTV just to get BTN, and I don't want to have access to OWN so I can watch BBCAmerica.  Basically, make every channel a premium channel.  Make a baseline broadcast TV plan that's like 10 bucks, and then let us pick and choose what channels we want.  Give us legitimate choice at a reasonable price, and all of the cord cutting would stop.  It's the game of forcing channels we don't want to get ones we do (same for grandma who wants Lifetime but pays for ESPN).  I wouldn't even necessarily care if it was substantially cheaper, as long as it felt like I wasn't being forced to pay for 100s of channels I didn't want to get the 20 or so I do.  

 

I feel like cable will always be  the simpler choice (you don't have to turn on TV, turn on a device, scroll through an app page, open an app, and find the channel you want, you just turn on the TV and go to the channel, not to mention the ability to just "watch what's on" which is nice for background noise), so as long as it didn't feel like we were getting ripped off, people would pick it. Just, you know, stop making us feel ripped off.  

Naked Bootlegger

May 5th, 2016 at 7:49 AM ^

If I could buy the NCAA Football (and Basketball) Saturday Ticket - a similar option to the NFL Sunday Ticket - without having to pay a monthly fee for other crap channels, I'm all in.   Until then, I'm choosing the simple DirecTV option with my sacred DVR.    I still don't trust streaming only options.   I've had too many instances of crappy resolution viewing and pixelated sluggishness during prime times.  

Rasmus

May 5th, 2016 at 9:16 AM ^

Okay, after having mused on this with the fire of an OP, here's what I think are the takeaways:

  • This is a power play from the content providers. No matter how you get your live/current television content, be it through traditional cable/fiber or though the Internet, you are going to be paying for the same bundles -- directly or indirectly -- the days of your cable company, big or small, negotiating for content on your behalf will be over soon. The prices will be set by the content providers and there will be little wiggle room -- Apple, Sling, Sony, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and local/regional cable will all be in the same boat, negotiating for their cut.
  • It looks like the Michigan football schedule will be largely contained in one bundle, thanks to this marriage (affair?) between Fox and Disney. The only game I can think of that might not make it is 2019 at Arkansas (an SEC home game, so likely on CBS).
  • True à la carte programming that allows you to pick and choose live sports is still a long, long way off. This is all controlled by four or five conglomerates, and my wife is going to keep on contributing to Tom Brady's salary in order to get her HGTV. [Just kidding -- she's actually a rabid OSU-hating fan born and raised in Ann Arbor. But you get my point.]