Peacock and Other Streaming Services Regarding Sports: What is the Agenda?
Peacock and Other Streaming Services Regarding Sports: What is the Agenda?
I made a comment in another thread about my frustration with getting access to SF Giants games last weekend, and being forced into subscribing or downloading streaming services in order to watch the games. It was suggested that I start a new thread on streaming services and their agreements.
We pay what many would consider an inordinate amount for cable and streaming services, about $250 a month. That's our choice, and not what this thread is entirely about. It's about broadcast companies boxing you into agreements and withholding programming until you do. I have the highest cost subscription at Direct TV, MLB extra innings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and HBO Max.
The Giants and NBC decided they wanted to have the weekend series with the Phillies exclusively on Peacock, so it wasn't available on MLB Extra Innings or NBCBA (NBC Bay Area) which is on my channel list but doesn't work unless you pay $20 a month for MLB EI. I downloaded Peacock, which showed the games for free, but because it's a streaming service you can't record live events. You can do on demand for certain shows or movies of course, but to watch live games on the east coast you would have to stay up until 2 am.
Peacock was supposed to have the capability of rewind, pause, and fast forward, which doesn't work on live TV, or didn't for me. They offer replay, or a rebroadcast of the games they "own", but that option disappears the next day, so it's worthless if you're busy and can't watch them immediately. Consequently we missed three great games, two of which the Giants won (best record in baseball right now). NBC is eliminating NBCBA in 2021 and is considering broadcasting all games exclusively on Peacock, which means as a fan on the east coast I'm out of luck. I guess I could become an Atlanta Braves fan, but my arm would probably cramp up from doing the incessant tomahawk chop, and we would be blacked out anyway because we live within 100 miles of the park.
The point is, where does this end? How many streaming services are we supposed to subscribe to and why are we so much at the mercy of network agreements that ignore the wishes of their subscribers in the pursuit of dollars? Do I need Apple TV and YouTube streaming services because they've decided to hoard content that isn't available elsewhere (not to pick on them). When will it be enough? Do I need a HELOC to pay for all my subscriptions? Oh, the humanity!
We pay what many would consider an inordinate amount for cable and streaming services, about $250 a month. That's our choice, and not what this thread is entirely about. It's about broadcast companies boxing you into agreements and withholding programming until you do. I have the highest cost subscription at Direct TV, MLB extra innings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and HBO Max.
The Giants and NBC decided they wanted to have the weekend series with the Phillies exclusively on Peacock, so it wasn't available on MLB Extra Innings or NBCBA (NBC Bay Area) which is on my channel list but doesn't work unless you pay $20 a month for MLB EI. I downloaded Peacock, which showed the games for free, but because it's a streaming service you can't record live events. You can do on demand for certain shows or movies of course, but to watch live games on the east coast you would have to stay up until 2 am.
Peacock was supposed to have the capability of rewind, pause, and fast forward, which doesn't work on live TV, or didn't for me. They offer replay, or a rebroadcast of the games they "own", but that option disappears the next day, so it's worthless if you're busy and can't watch them immediately. Consequently we missed three great games, two of which the Giants won (best record in baseball right now). NBC is eliminating NBCBA in 2021 and is considering broadcasting all games exclusively on Peacock, which means as a fan on the east coast I'm out of luck. I guess I could become an Atlanta Braves fan, but my arm would probably cramp up from doing the incessant tomahawk chop, and we would be blacked out anyway because we live within 100 miles of the park.
The point is, where does this end? How many streaming services are we supposed to subscribe to and why are we so much at the mercy of network agreements that ignore the wishes of their subscribers in the pursuit of dollars? Do I need Apple TV and YouTube streaming services because they've decided to hoard content that isn't available elsewhere (not to pick on them). When will it be enough? Do I need a HELOC to pay for all my subscriptions? Oh, the humanity!
Last edited by vested1 on Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I’m not clear what your real question is here.
Don't trust me, look it up. https://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions-and-publications
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I think the streaming services agenda is a lot more clear-cut than the other issue you seemed to gloss right over - black-outs for your local teams! How on earth does this make sense? In our case one of the main local baseball teams is carried on a regional sports network that we are not offered - through any service. The games are also often on the MLB network, but we are blacked out. Great business model - limiting access to your own fan base.
-
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:38 pm
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
My solution to this problem has been to stop watching live sports entirely. It took a bit of getting used to, since watching with my father was a cherished part of my childhood. Now, I don't miss them at all. I think they are really shooting themselves in the foot with younger generations. Obviously not an ideal solution for many, so your mileage may vary.
Global Market Portfolio + modest tilt towards volatility (80/20->60/40 as approach FI) + modest tilt away from exchange rate risk (80% global+20% U.S. stocks; currency-hedge bonds) + tax optimization
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
First, there was network (over the air) television. Then, cable was introduced, and people complained about having to pay for 'free' television. Oh, but the benefit was no commercials and more channels. Then, cable started adding commercials, so 'premium' cable channels (e.g. HBO) came around. Next came streaming, with Netflix leading the charge. This was probably the golden age, because Netflix was able to get deals with many of the major content creators (movies and TV). It didn't take long for the content creators/studios to realize they were giving away the farm to Netflix, and that creating streaming platforms was easy, so they took back their content to create their own platforms. Netflix and other streaming services saw this coming, and they started to create their own content (e.g. House of Cards) to try to encourage people to stay with them, even though content was fanning out to other platforms.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:44 am The point is, where does this end? How many streaming services are we supposed to subscribe to and why are we so much at the mercy of network agreements that ignore the wishes of their subscribers in the pursuit of dollars? Do I need Apple TV and YouTube streaming services because they've decided to hoard content that isn't available elsewhere (not to pick on them). When will it be enough? Do I need a HELOC to pay for all my subscriptions? Oh, the humanity!
So, here we are. One could easily make the case that what we have is worse, but I think it's just as easy to make the case that what we now have is better. You can choose the platforms that provide what you want, and you can drop/renew subscriptions as new stuff comes out. Even a handful of platforms costs less than cable did back in the early 2000s, and they all have more content (that you can watch whenever) than you could possibly watch.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
You're asking multiple questions that don't have simple answers --- the streaming service battle which is driving media consolidation, live sports rights, and specifically MLB rights, which are a mess of national/local restrictions, local blackouts, etc.
Is Comcast in your area? Comcast subscribers get Peacock for free.
Another solution is to ditch MLB Extra Innings (honestly wasn't aware it still existed) in favor of mlb.tv. If you're a Giants fan in the Atlanta area you won't have to deal with blackouts and the Giants-Phillies series was still on mlb.tv even though it was "exclusive" to Peacock.
Is Comcast in your area? Comcast subscribers get Peacock for free.
Another solution is to ditch MLB Extra Innings (honestly wasn't aware it still existed) in favor of mlb.tv. If you're a Giants fan in the Atlanta area you won't have to deal with blackouts and the Giants-Phillies series was still on mlb.tv even though it was "exclusive" to Peacock.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I think the issue is more about the MLB distribution strategy rather than the streaming/cable services. Our "local" teams broadcast strictly via the regional sports network MASN. I assume they have a reason for limited distribution. Limited distribution is not confined to sports/video broadcasting. Industrial companies employ it all the time -- probably for different reasons.
Don't trust me, look it up. https://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions-and-publications
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I was just talking about this business policy (to a related topic but it transfers). There has been a trend over the last decade to un-bundle and repackage. It's similar to what cable companies did among their own plans where different tiers had different channel available. Now they seem to be doing the same thing, except across different business channels. I.e. kicking certain channels, features, etc into different platform experiences. All the while, these legacy media companies (NBC, Disney, and so forth) realized they need to try packaging their own streaming product to reduce the negotiation power Netflix, Amazon, Hulu were getting when trying to air their titles (Disney just decided to buy Hulu though).
So I think the purpose is that companies are now vying for relevancy in a streaming world, so they are trying to entice users to their streaming platform to compete. Peacock is free (or was last I checked) so the live sports is likely a test to see how many people are willing to pay for a feature on their platform. notice they did this to you/users for a series with large market audiences.
So I think the purpose is that companies are now vying for relevancy in a streaming world, so they are trying to entice users to their streaming platform to compete. Peacock is free (or was last I checked) so the live sports is likely a test to see how many people are willing to pay for a feature on their platform. notice they did this to you/users for a series with large market audiences.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Also don't forget that most of the streaming services are monthly charges but are easy to turn on and off right in the app. I would never have been able to do that with my cable or satellite provider because it would have taken hours. We have a couple services we keep going for frequent use but most of them we only subscribe to perhaps one or two months during the year and the rest of the time it's cancelled and uninstalled.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
FWIW, I don't currently pay anything for any media.
Between Tubitv.com , Pluto.tv , Youtube , and a few other Internet sites I haven't had a need to pay money for any of it. I sometimes will pay to go out to a movie theater (been awhile). Local library also has a very large selection of various media available for free.
I've also got an antenna on the TV that picks up quite a few stations with very high digital quality, and in many major metro areas you can use
https://www.locast.org/
to stream your local broadcast stations over the internet for free.
Between Tubitv.com , Pluto.tv , Youtube , and a few other Internet sites I haven't had a need to pay money for any of it. I sometimes will pay to go out to a movie theater (been awhile). Local library also has a very large selection of various media available for free.
I've also got an antenna on the TV that picks up quite a few stations with very high digital quality, and in many major metro areas you can use
https://www.locast.org/
to stream your local broadcast stations over the internet for free.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I'm not aware of any MLB teams that broadcast over the air.JoMoney wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:12 am
https://www.locast.org/
to stream your local broadcast stations over the internet for free.
Don't trust me, look it up. https://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions-and-publications
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Sportsball isn't my 'thing', so I wasn't aware that was currently the case. They used to when long agojebmke wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:14 amI'm not aware of any MLB teams that broadcast over the air.JoMoney wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:12 am
https://www.locast.org/
to stream your local broadcast stations over the internet for free.
They do apparently still broadcast some games audio over the radio, but I suppose that loses something.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
It doesn't help that Bally Sports (formerly Fox Sports Regional) is very limited.
I did read that they might offer a stand along subscription for $23.99/month. Gulp.
As we have no standard cable package with Bally Sports North, I "watch" the Minnesota Twins on the radio (AM) or on my phone app via MLB Gameday Audio.
I pay attention, but it takes too much time to watch full baseball games. Especially when not live.
I have the MLB app give me game start, scoring change, video highlights and final scores. I can tune in and out as needed.
Streaming is complicated, but you can cancel and re-join as needed. I might cancel HBO Max for 3 months and then re-join if a movie or show pops up.
No more 1 year or 2 year contracts is nice.
I did read that they might offer a stand along subscription for $23.99/month. Gulp.
As we have no standard cable package with Bally Sports North, I "watch" the Minnesota Twins on the radio (AM) or on my phone app via MLB Gameday Audio.
I pay attention, but it takes too much time to watch full baseball games. Especially when not live.
I have the MLB app give me game start, scoring change, video highlights and final scores. I can tune in and out as needed.
Streaming is complicated, but you can cancel and re-join as needed. I might cancel HBO Max for 3 months and then re-join if a movie or show pops up.
No more 1 year or 2 year contracts is nice.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:44 am
Peacock was supposed to have the capability of rewind, pause, and fast forward, which doesn't work on live TV, or didn't for me. They offer replay, or a rebroadcast of the games they "own", but that option disappears the next day, so it's worthless if you're busy and can't watch them immediately. Consequently we missed three great games, two of which the Giants won (best record in baseball right now). NBC is eliminating NBCBA in 2021 and is considering broadcasting all games exclusively on Peacock, which means as a fan on the east coast I'm out of luck. I guess I could become an Atlanta Braves fan, but my arm would probably cramp up from doing the incessant tomahawk chop, and we would be blacked out anyway because we live within 100 miles of the park.
In before the lock, but here is a helpful comment. It sounds like you are a Giants fan who doesn't live in the Bay Area. Wouldn't an MLB tv package be your most cost-effective option? Since you don't live in the Bay Area, you wouldn't be blacked out.
https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/subscribe
P.S. As a little gentle ribbing, don't expect the Giants to stay on top for long, Dodgers gonna reclaim their rightful throne on top of the division.
"Don't trust everything you read on the Internet"- Abraham Lincoln
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
This seems more like a rant than actionable? The agenda of both content providers and streaming services, like all companies, is to make as much money as they can. People rebelled against all inclusive cable packages, so we got a la carte streaming services. Those work well for me, but I'm not much of a sports fan these days. Seems like there isn't a great solution for the OP.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Yeah, my main complaint was the inability to record streaming sports, so maybe the title of the thread is misleading. I can take or leave most of the other offerings of streaming services but do watch streamed content on the recommendation of others. I never appreciated how the 3 hour time difference makes watching live sports harder for those on the east coast until I moved here.
We live in a rural area in a geographical depression that makes cell service sketchy and over the air television impossible. We solved the cell service problem by getting a booster from verizon for $250, and our internet is through Spectrum at 200 mg, so streaming service is high quality. We're retired and the maintenance here at our new house keeps me busy during the day, so I like to sit down with my wife at night to watch TV, and that includes baseball when it's in season. She's an avid fan.
I don't think I'm asking too much for the price we pay to AT+T with MLB Extra Innings on Direct TV to be able to watch every game of my favorite baseball team. I don't get a discount for games they don't air. It seems the rules are always changing. Last year I complained to AT+T that the channel that carries the Giants games (NBCBA) is part of our package, but that every game was blacked out, even though I'm about 2,500 miles from the stadium in SF. They told me their hands were tied because of their MLB network contract, and that if I wanted to see all of the games I would have to subscribe to MLB Extra Innings. They didn't mention that MLB has separate contracts with Fox, YouTube, Peacock etc that are exclusive to those networks. When those networks are streaming only I don't have the ability to record them. Recording allows me to fast forward through commercials and boring blowouts, and more importantly to watch the game when I'm awake.
I'm willing to pay a premium price to watch every game, but it's not always possible, regardless of how much I'm willing to pay. Comcast doesn't service this area. Our options are satellite or Spectrum, that's it.
We live in a rural area in a geographical depression that makes cell service sketchy and over the air television impossible. We solved the cell service problem by getting a booster from verizon for $250, and our internet is through Spectrum at 200 mg, so streaming service is high quality. We're retired and the maintenance here at our new house keeps me busy during the day, so I like to sit down with my wife at night to watch TV, and that includes baseball when it's in season. She's an avid fan.
I don't think I'm asking too much for the price we pay to AT+T with MLB Extra Innings on Direct TV to be able to watch every game of my favorite baseball team. I don't get a discount for games they don't air. It seems the rules are always changing. Last year I complained to AT+T that the channel that carries the Giants games (NBCBA) is part of our package, but that every game was blacked out, even though I'm about 2,500 miles from the stadium in SF. They told me their hands were tied because of their MLB network contract, and that if I wanted to see all of the games I would have to subscribe to MLB Extra Innings. They didn't mention that MLB has separate contracts with Fox, YouTube, Peacock etc that are exclusive to those networks. When those networks are streaming only I don't have the ability to record them. Recording allows me to fast forward through commercials and boring blowouts, and more importantly to watch the game when I'm awake.
I'm willing to pay a premium price to watch every game, but it's not always possible, regardless of how much I'm willing to pay. Comcast doesn't service this area. Our options are satellite or Spectrum, that's it.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I was hoping someone had a suggestion on how to either bypass streaming or a way to record live streamed content that I wasn't aware of. I guess I'm a dinosaur when it comes to sports and streaming. Of course every company has a right to make a profit, but there comes a point when the ever increasing level of ala carte service does a disservice to the consumer.Da5id wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:25 am This seems more like a rant than actionable? The agenda of both content providers and streaming services, like all companies, is to make as much money as they can. People rebelled against all inclusive cable packages, so we got a la carte streaming services. Those work well for me, but I'm not much of a sports fan these days. Seems like there isn't a great solution for the OP.
-
- Posts: 1516
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:52 am
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
This is the next evolution of the cordcutters timeline. We cut the cord a couple years back. Our current streaming costs are approaching are pre-cordcutter expenses. This will probably continue until the system jumps the shark and these smaller streaming services start failing. A major will then step in and consolidate services into a single platform. Another major will simultaneously do the same. Until then I'll muddle along with our clunky streaming services that seem to get worse each day.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I used to be a subscriber to MLB.tv, but the blackout policy was ridiculous. I was working at the time and was on the road for a majority of the time, traveling mostly in California but also to other states as a cell site design engineer. I cancelled their service after I tried to watch a game in Bakersfield but was told I was too close to the park at 282 miles away and a driving time of 4 hours and 20 minutes. In my current location in SC, at 2,632 miles from Oracle Park in SF, the game would still be blacked out if the Giants were playing Atlanta, with the Brave's stadium at Truist Park 121 miles from my house. Maybe things have changed and the blackout areas I experienced before have been shrunk.as9 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:44 am You're asking multiple questions that don't have simple answers --- the streaming service battle which is driving media consolidation, live sports rights, and specifically MLB rights, which are a mess of national/local restrictions, local blackouts, etc.
Is Comcast in your area? Comcast subscribers get Peacock for free.
Another solution is to ditch MLB Extra Innings (honestly wasn't aware it still existed) in favor of mlb.tv. If you're a Giants fan in the Atlanta area you won't have to deal with blackouts and the Giants-Phillies series was still on mlb.tv even though it was "exclusive" to Peacock.
I'm not a contract lawyer, I'm just a fan. It shouldn't be this hard.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Peacock for Tour De France and other bike races. that is it for us.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:44 am I made a comment in another thread about my frustration with getting access to SF Giants games last weekend, and being forced into subscribing or downloading streaming services in order to watch the games. It was suggested that I start a new thread on streaming services and their agreements.
We pay what many would consider an inordinate amount for cable and streaming services, about $250 a month. That's our choice, and not what this thread is entirely about. It's about broadcast companies boxing you into agreements and withholding programming until you do. I have the highest cost subscription at Direct TV, MLB extra innings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and HBO Max.
The Giants and NBC decided they wanted to have the weekend series with the Phillies exclusively on Peacock, so it wasn't available on MLB Extra Innings or NBCBA (NBC Bay Area) which is on my channel list but doesn't work unless you pay $20 a month for MLB EI. I downloaded Peacock, which showed the games for free, but because it's a streaming service you can't record live events. You can do on demand for certain shows or movies of course, but to watch live games on the east coast you would have to stay up until 2 am.
Peacock was supposed to have the capability of rewind, pause, and fast forward, which doesn't work on live TV, or didn't for me. They offer replay, or a rebroadcast of the games they "own", but that option disappears the next day, so it's worthless if you're busy and can't watch them immediately. Consequently we missed three great games, two of which the Giants won (best record in baseball right now). NBC is eliminating NBCBA in 2021 and is considering broadcasting all games exclusively on Peacock, which means as a fan on the east coast I'm out of luck. I guess I could become an Atlanta Braves fan, but my arm would probably cramp up from doing the incessant tomahawk chop, and we would be blacked out anyway because we live within 100 miles of the park.
The point is, where does this end? How many streaming services are we supposed to subscribe to and why are we so much at the mercy of network agreements that ignore the wishes of their subscribers in the pursuit of dollars? Do I need Apple TV and YouTube streaming services because they've decided to hoard content that isn't available elsewhere (not to pick on them). When will it be enough? Do I need a HELOC to pay for all my subscriptions? Oh, the humanity!
Marty....don't go to the year 2020....Dr. Emmett Brown
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Sports are intentionally fragmented because that makes the most money for the teams. They don't care about the viewer. The NFL found out a long time ago that splitting up the tv rights brought in more money than giving exclusive rights to one network.
Whether it is Peacock, or Amazon streaming or whatever, teams/leagues will continue to do this since it brings in additional revenue.
As to the individual streaming services, many of them are still losing money (e.g. YouTubeTV) and they are simply trying to gain more and more subscribers and then will slowly increase rates and consolidate so the consumer has to pay more and they will become profitable.
On a different but related topic, baseball has horrible, misguided rules about blacking out games. That one should be challenged in court. You can be many hundreds of miles away in a seemingly different market but be tied to a certain team.
Thankfully my sports obsession days are long gone. I use the mlb audio app ($20) to listen to any game I want and right now I can watch almost any game I want from my ipad/computer using mlb.com without paying a fee (seems strange to me but true) except possibly the local team. Of course I grew up in the days when the Orioles (during their winning days) were on tv (free) only 54 times a year.
Bottom line, the agenda is to maximize money and/or grow subscribers.
Whether it is Peacock, or Amazon streaming or whatever, teams/leagues will continue to do this since it brings in additional revenue.
As to the individual streaming services, many of them are still losing money (e.g. YouTubeTV) and they are simply trying to gain more and more subscribers and then will slowly increase rates and consolidate so the consumer has to pay more and they will become profitable.
On a different but related topic, baseball has horrible, misguided rules about blacking out games. That one should be challenged in court. You can be many hundreds of miles away in a seemingly different market but be tied to a certain team.
Thankfully my sports obsession days are long gone. I use the mlb audio app ($20) to listen to any game I want and right now I can watch almost any game I want from my ipad/computer using mlb.com without paying a fee (seems strange to me but true) except possibly the local team. Of course I grew up in the days when the Orioles (during their winning days) were on tv (free) only 54 times a year.
Bottom line, the agenda is to maximize money and/or grow subscribers.
----------------------------- |
If you think something is important and it doesn't involve the health of someone, think again. Life goes too fast, enjoy it and be nice.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
For some reason the NFL isn't nearly as bad as the other sports in terms of broadcasting their games on free/OTA channels. Some are on ESPN or NFL network, but even then they seem to broadcast OTA in the local market.rich126 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:05 am Sports are intentionally fragmented because that makes the most money for the teams. They don't care about the viewer. The NFL found out a long time ago that splitting up the tv rights brought in more money than giving exclusive rights to one network.
Whether it is Peacock, or Amazon streaming or whatever, teams/leagues will continue to do this since it brings in additional revenue.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Yeah that is true. Must be some rule for that. Also baseball is the only sports league that has an antitrust exemption which I think (not a lawyer) allows them to get away with more stuff.Da5id wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:13 amFor some reason the NFL isn't nearly as bad as the other sports in terms of broadcasting their games on free/OTA channels. Some are on ESPN or NFL network, but even then they seem to broadcast OTA in the local market.rich126 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:05 am Sports are intentionally fragmented because that makes the most money for the teams. They don't care about the viewer. The NFL found out a long time ago that splitting up the tv rights brought in more money than giving exclusive rights to one network.
Whether it is Peacock, or Amazon streaming or whatever, teams/leagues will continue to do this since it brings in additional revenue.
----------------------------- |
If you think something is important and it doesn't involve the health of someone, think again. Life goes too fast, enjoy it and be nice.
-
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:44 am
- Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
You are a year or two behind me in all this frustration, except I am an Indians fan. I became absolutely blown away at how hard it was to watch their games.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:53 amI used to be a subscriber to MLB.tv, but the blackout policy was ridiculous. I was working at the time and was on the road for a majority of the time, traveling mostly in California but also to other states as a cell site design engineer. I cancelled their service after I tried to watch a game in Bakersfield but was told I was too close to the park at 282 miles away and a driving time of 4 hours and 20 minutes. In my current location in SC, at 2,632 miles from Oracle Park in SF, the game would still be blacked out if the Giants were playing Atlanta, with the Brave's stadium at Truist Park 121 miles from my house. Maybe things have changed and the blackout areas I experienced before have been shrunk.as9 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:44 am You're asking multiple questions that don't have simple answers --- the streaming service battle which is driving media consolidation, live sports rights, and specifically MLB rights, which are a mess of national/local restrictions, local blackouts, etc.
Is Comcast in your area? Comcast subscribers get Peacock for free.
Another solution is to ditch MLB Extra Innings (honestly wasn't aware it still existed) in favor of mlb.tv. If you're a Giants fan in the Atlanta area you won't have to deal with blackouts and the Giants-Phillies series was still on mlb.tv even though it was "exclusive" to Peacock.
I'm not a contract lawyer, I'm just a fan. It shouldn't be this hard.
The current blackout restrictions remind me of MLB teams not wanting games to be broadcast on the radio, as they thought it would hurt ticket sales. Of course the opposite was true -- broadcasting games made baseball more popular and increased interest.
I basically cannot watch the Indians unless I subscribe to AT&T Now. I absolutely refuse to do this. I am probably a 90th percentile baseball fan, but I will not let this type of monopoly dictate my cable provider.
So, I don't watch the Indians on TV anymore. In fact, I go seven months of the year without cable. I get YouTubeTV in the fall for football and cancel as soon as the college football playoff is over.
As for baseball, I just gave up and I do MLB Gameday Audio for $3/month. I listen to a game or two a week and if the game was super interesting, I watch the extended highlights on the MLB app.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Yes, the blackout rules are annoying. If you're still traveling often to CA I get it. If the only issue is when they are playing the Braves (which is only 6-7 games a year) then I assume you'd be covered by your cable/satellite subscription?vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:53 amI used to be a subscriber to MLB.tv, but the blackout policy was ridiculous. I was working at the time and was on the road for a majority of the time, traveling mostly in California but also to other states as a cell site design engineer. I cancelled their service after I tried to watch a game in Bakersfield but was told I was too close to the park at 282 miles away and a driving time of 4 hours and 20 minutes. In my current location in SC, at 2,632 miles from Oracle Park in SF, the game would still be blacked out if the Giants were playing Atlanta, with the Brave's stadium at Truist Park 121 miles from my house. Maybe things have changed and the blackout areas I experienced before have been shrunk.as9 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:44 am You're asking multiple questions that don't have simple answers --- the streaming service battle which is driving media consolidation, live sports rights, and specifically MLB rights, which are a mess of national/local restrictions, local blackouts, etc.
Is Comcast in your area? Comcast subscribers get Peacock for free.
Another solution is to ditch MLB Extra Innings (honestly wasn't aware it still existed) in favor of mlb.tv. If you're a Giants fan in the Atlanta area you won't have to deal with blackouts and the Giants-Phillies series was still on mlb.tv even though it was "exclusive" to Peacock.
I'm not a contract lawyer, I'm just a fan. It shouldn't be this hard.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
I think that the issue is that it appears easy to be an out of market fan, but in reality there are a lot of compromises. I remember growing up my best friend’s Dad was a Detroit Tigers fan, but lived in CA. He followed his team in newspaper box scores and a very very occasional national TV broadcast.
We got DirectTV decades ago to get access to NBA games, but found ourselves blacked out of a game being played 921 miles away. It turned out that the DirectTV had our city and state wrong. By the time it was fixed the game was over.
We got DirectTV decades ago to get access to NBA games, but found ourselves blacked out of a game being played 921 miles away. It turned out that the DirectTV had our city and state wrong. By the time it was fixed the game was over.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
The blackout policy was especially annoying for a Giants fan who subscribed to MLB.tv because every game is sold out except for scattered nosebleed seats. So what, I'm supposed to drive 300 miles one way to buy a ticket behind a pillar so I can watch the game by leaning over the adjoining seat?CoastLawyer2030 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 10:33 amYou are a year or two behind me in all this frustration, except I am an Indians fan. I became absolutely blown away at how hard it was to watch their games.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 9:53 amI used to be a subscriber to MLB.tv, but the blackout policy was ridiculous. I was working at the time and was on the road for a majority of the time, traveling mostly in California but also to other states as a cell site design engineer. I cancelled their service after I tried to watch a game in Bakersfield but was told I was too close to the park at 282 miles away and a driving time of 4 hours and 20 minutes. In my current location in SC, at 2,632 miles from Oracle Park in SF, the game would still be blacked out if the Giants were playing Atlanta, with the Brave's stadium at Truist Park 121 miles from my house. Maybe things have changed and the blackout areas I experienced before have been shrunk.as9 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:44 am You're asking multiple questions that don't have simple answers --- the streaming service battle which is driving media consolidation, live sports rights, and specifically MLB rights, which are a mess of national/local restrictions, local blackouts, etc.
Is Comcast in your area? Comcast subscribers get Peacock for free.
Another solution is to ditch MLB Extra Innings (honestly wasn't aware it still existed) in favor of mlb.tv. If you're a Giants fan in the Atlanta area you won't have to deal with blackouts and the Giants-Phillies series was still on mlb.tv even though it was "exclusive" to Peacock.
I'm not a contract lawyer, I'm just a fan. It shouldn't be this hard.
The current blackout restrictions remind me of MLB teams not wanting games to be broadcast on the radio, as they thought it would hurt ticket sales. Of course the opposite was true -- broadcasting games made baseball more popular and increased interest.
I basically cannot watch the Indians unless I subscribe to AT&T Now. I absolutely refuse to do this. I am probably a 90th percentile baseball fan, but I will not let this type of monopoly dictate my cable provider.
So, I don't watch the Indians on TV anymore. In fact, I go seven months of the year without cable. I get YouTubeTV in the fall for football and cancel as soon as the college football playoff is over.
As for baseball, I just gave up and I do MLB Gameday Audio for $3/month. I listen to a game or two a week and if the game was super interesting, I watch the extended highlights on the MLB app.
Sorry that this thread has wandered into my real frustration, but streaming is just the latest in a long succession of policies that make it harder to be a fan. Don't get me started on player strikes, or pitchers who can't throw a strike with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in a one run game. At least that's human. Wringing the last drop of revenue out of the America's Pastime should be banned in the Constitution. Abner Doubleday would be shocked.
-
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:44 am
- Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services: What is the Agenda?
Totally agree with this. Like I said, I am a pretty diehard baseball fan. Back when it was easy to watch I would watch 100+ games a year. I have been to hundreds of games. I have been to almost every playoff series the Tribe has been in since 2007.vested1 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:33 pm The blackout policy was especially annoying for a Giants fan who subscribed to MLB.tv because every game is sold out except for scattered nosebleed seats. So what, I'm supposed to drive 300 miles one way to buy a ticket behind a pillar so I can watch the game by leaning over the adjoining seat?
Sorry that this thread has wandered into my real frustration, but streaming is just the latest in a long succession of policies that make it harder to be a fan. Don't get me started on player strikes, or pitchers who can't throw a strike with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th in a one run game. At least that's human. Wringing the last drop of revenue out of the America's Pastime should be banned in the Constitution. Abner Doubleday would be shocked.
This thread has caused me to think that, as of right now, my two-year-old won't grow up watching the Indians (or whatever they come to be called) because they are just too freaking hard to watch. It sucks and it is so unbelievably short-sighted.
Re: Peacock and Other Streaming Services Regarding Sports: What is the Agenda?
This thread has run its course and is locked (rant, not an actionable discussion). See: Personal Consumer Issues
This has nothing to do with my Phillies being on the losing side of that weekend Giants series.Note that topics must be directly connected to your (or your friend's or family's) life as a consumer. General comments or complaints about these topics will be locked or removed.
Note that this subforum has a much lower threshold for locking or removing posts than the financial and investing subforums. In general, controversial, offensive, pointless, divisive or mean-spirited posts or topics may be locked, edited or deleted (with or without notice) at the discretion of the moderating staff even if they do not otherwise violate forum policies.