Jump to content

NBC Sports Chicago à la carte ?


HOFHurt35
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said:

I'm guessing blackout rules would still apply, so in theory you could buy the channel but only watch the non-game programming.

 

I think with RSNs starting to pull out of cable service exclusivity, blackout rules might start going away soon.   At the very least, RSNs would allow their content being distributed on the MLB.TV platforms to everyone.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

Is this a legit In-Market streaming option for cord cutters?  Or are they still going to require a cable package to access?

No, that’s kind of the point. You would pay like $20 a month for access to NBCSports Chicago via their app on your connected devices. You would sign up with a new log in/password.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Tony said:

 

When cord coding exploded 7-8 years ago, there were affordable options to replace cable/dish.   Slowly that's been going by the waste, as RSNs were being dropped by carriers and those that held them like YouTube, HULU Live TV, etc, are making customers pay a premium.

I recall YouTube TV being $35 per month when I cut the cord and  now it's up to $65-$70.  While that still beats Comcast and Direct TV, I began starting to question having to pay this much just to watch my local teams.  Especially having season tickets to the Sox and being at the park for 30+ games per year.  I watch close to ZERO "other" TV outside of local sports.   I get my local channels with a good antenna, and that covers my TV needs to go with Netflix, Hulu (non Live).

In other words, I'd be more than willing to pay $20 per month for this. 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, HOFHurt35 said:

When cord coding exploded 7-8 years ago, there were affordable options to replace cable/dish.   Slowly that's been going by the waste, as RSNs were being dropped by carriers and those that held them like YouTube, HULU Live TV, etc, are making customers pay a premium.

I recall YouTube TV being $35 per month when I cut the cord and  now it's up to $65-$70.  While that still beats Comcast and Direct TV, I began starting to question having to pay this much just to watch my local teams.  Especially having season tickets to the Sox and being at the park for 30+ games per year.  I watch close to ZERO "other" TV outside of local sports.   I get my local channels with a good antenna, and that covers my TV needs to go with Netflix, Hulu (non Live).

In other words, I'd be more than willing to pay $20 per month for this. 

 

  

Totally get it, and I think a lot of people will feel the same way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The failure of Sinclair to reach an agreement with YouTube TV on carriage fees illustrates that time is running out for RSNs under the current model. Unless, of course, consumers are willing to shell out $26+ a month for an RSN direct-to-consumer service.

Operators are dropping Sinclair RSNs

“YouTube TV’s decision to drop Sinclair’s RSNs is just the latest in a string of fights between sports rights owners and service providers. Last August, Altitude Sports was dropped by DirecTV, Comcast, and Dish, and only DirecTV restored the channels. fuboTV dropped Sinclair’s RSNs at the beginning of the year, and Comcast says it likely won’t renew them when the license expires in September.

Sinclair’s Fox Regional Sports Networks and the YES Network all vanished from YouTube TV on February 29th. The loss of fuboTV and possibly Comcast customers deals a severe blow to Sinclair. The company paid Disney $9.6 billion for the Fox RSN’s last August, and with operators dropping the channels left and right, the investment is looking ever riskier.

Rich Greenfield, a Lightshed analyst, thinks the way forward for the RSNs is in an a la carte model, where customers pay individually for only the RSNs they want. So, if the future of RSNs is a direct subscription – either through pay TV operators or direct-to-consumer online – how much will Sinclair and other RSN owners need to charge to keep the same amount of revenue?”

 

https://nscreenmedia.com/rsn-direct-to-consumer-service/
Basically amounts to $26/month, on average.

29% would definitely or probably change, 34% undecided and 37% definitely or probably not.   Guess that would be almost dead even as your favorite team’s season was starting and those against in polls tend to waver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinclair, by the way, has 21 of these RSN’s/RUNs now…

FBally Sports Arizona; Bally Sports Detroit; Bally Sports Florida; Bally Sports Great Lakes; Bally Sports Kansas City; Bally Sports Indiana; Bally Sports Midwest; Bally Sports New Orleans; Bally Sports North; Bally Sports Ohio; Bally Sports Oklahoma; Bally Sports San Diego; Bally Sports SoCal; Bally Sports South; Bally Sports Southeast; Bally Sports Southwest; Bally Sports Sun; Bally Sports West; and, Bally Sports Wisconsin; Marquee and YES. The Bally RSNs serve as the TV home to more than half of all MLB, NHL and NBA teams based in the United States. The Bally RSNs also produce over 4,600 live local professional telecasts each year in addition to a wide variety of locally produced sports events and programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering when this is going to become the norm for all channels. The technology exists with apps on smart TVs/phones. Hopefully, soon we'll be able to pay Disney directly for ABC/ESPN/ACCN/etc. Pay Universal directly for NBC/USA/CNBC/MSNBC/etc. Pay Viacom directly for CBS/CBSSN/etc. Pay FOX directly for FOX/FS1/etc. Pay Turner directly for CNN/TBS/TNT/etc. Cut out the providers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

If they are really shattering the blackout rules, this is wonderful news, and it should be a boatload of money for teams to hit markets they never could sell to.  HELLO IOWA!

The rich will get richer and the poor even poorer and the White Sox will wallow somewhere in the middle.

Marquee Network, NESN, and YES all win

Cleveland, KC, Tampa RSN's all lose

Currently MLB controls the product.

Also be careful if you tank because people will turn off the stream.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 2:05 AM, Harry Chappas said:

The rich will get richer and the poor even poorer and the White Sox will wallow somewhere in the middle.

Marquee Network, NESN, and YES all win

Cleveland, KC, Tampa RSN's all lose

Currently MLB controls the product.

Also be careful if you tank because people will turn off the stream.

 

The White Sox right now are in the Top 6-8 for broadcast revenue per game...despite the tepid ratings over most of the last deca

 

de.   Plus they can renegotiate again after 2023 or 24 (current/newest deal is just five years), which should be only helped by another two years in the postseason.

And that just goes to show how dominant the NFL is with their t.v. revenues, with the Chiefs and Browns doing very well for themselves, and the Vikings as well.  Detroit is the only metro area that's struggling relatively, and the Lions have been about the equivalent of the Bengals the last thirty years.

 

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...