ESPN, Fox, and Warner launching joint streaming service this year

[mmc]

 

[mmc]

[Second Base]

Something else they'll expect you to pay for, in order to watch what should already be freely available without restrictions. 

[mmc]

1 minute ago, Second Base said:

Something else they'll expect you to pay for, in order to watch what should already be freely available without restrictions. 

You need cable to watch most of the channels included anyways, so you can either pay for this or pay for a cable subscription.  Either way, you're paying and already have been

[jsnpritchett]

27 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Something else they'll expect you to pay for, in order to watch what should already be freely available without restrictions. 

"Freely." Lol. 

[UndertheHalo]

3 hours ago, jsnpritchett said:

"Freely." Lol. 

He’s so cool, man.  lol 

[AngelsLakersFan]

Sounds like Mouse run state television to me.

[RallyMo]

This is SO SURPRISING.

[ScruffytheJanitor]

13 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Sounds like Mouse run state television to me.

[Taylor]

13 minutes ago, ScruffytheJanitor said:

Scotty wants free TV coverage, which sounds a little like socialism.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Locally, the Golden Knights are televising all of their games on a local independent station. All that I need is an HD antenna.

BTW - I am finally kicking DirecTV to the curb and going streaming at the end of this month. Their response when I called them was to offer a package for $80 per month that lacked three of the channels that I told them that we watch regularly. I haven't decided what service or services to go to yet.

Edited February 11 by Vegas Halo Fan

[EDinTUSTIN]

On 2/7/2024 at 10:47 AM, Taylor said:

Scotty wants free TV coverage, which sounds a little like socialism.

Taylor, I am thinking there is sarcasm there, but I do have to disagree with it sounding like socialism. Since TV is not government subsidized and just given to the people, socialism can't be applied as a label. TV garners a fortune via advertising. People buy the products that are advertised, and consequently the viewership ends up sponsoring television. It used to be that on, what was it -- Channel 9 or 13 -- that we could watch some games on local networks. Then FoxSports West came along via cable -- and was reasonable, so every game of Angels baseball -- and yes, the Dodgers -- was affordable and accessible.Of course, MLB couldn't have that; that wasn't freaking enough for them. The average Jane and Joe need to be chiseled even more so that baseball salaries could continue to bloom to insane proportions. So, let's go ahead and package it on cable and streaming services, so that we can squeeze more blood from the baseball-fanbase turnip.

[AngelsLakersFan]

54 minutes ago, EDinTUSTIN said:

Taylor, I am thinking there is sarcasm there, but I do have to disagree with it sounding like socialism. Since TV is not government subsidized and just given to the people, socialism can't be applied as a label. TV garners a fortune via advertising. People buy the products that are advertised, and consequently the viewership ends up sponsoring television. It used to be that on, what was it -- Channel 9 or 13 -- that we could watch some games on local networks. Then FoxSports West came along via cable -- and was reasonable, so every game of Angels baseball -- and yes, the Dodgers -- was affordable and accessible.Of course, MLB couldn't have that; that wasn't freaking enough for them. The average Jane and Joe need to be chiseled even more so that baseball salaries could continue to bloom to insane proportions. So, let's go ahead and package it on cable and streaming services, so that we can squeeze more blood from the baseball-fanbase turnip.

This isn't really a good break down of what actually happened.

All the changes in the business are related to further segmentation of the audience. When there were only 15 channels it was easy to show games on over the air television and supported by advertising, but rarely was there enough demand to show every game as competition for network time slots was fierce.

With cable, people supported additional channels with their own money, and with bundling it was very lucrative to own a channel on a basic tier even though only a small percentage of subscribers watched.

With the rapid demise of cable we have significant splintering of the audience. Being in only one place brings significantly less viewership now than in the past. 

[EDinTUSTIN]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

This isn't really a good break down of what actually happened.

All the changes in the business are related to further segmentation of the audience. When there were only 15 channels it was easy to show games on over the air television and supported by advertising, but rarely was there enough demand to show every game as competition for network time slots was fierce.

With cable, people supported additional channels with their own money, and with bundling it was very lucrative to own a channel on a basic tier even though only a small percentage of subscribers watched.

With the rapid demise of cable we have significant splintering of the audience. Being in only one place brings significantly less viewership now than in the past. 

Yeah, I get that, and you are right. However, while being in just one place or on-screen venue does limit viewership, it becomes that much more important for where these games are accessible as much as it is as how many places they are accessible. For many people, it has been that those channels and platforms were not available due to factors such as location or socio-economic concerns. Cable -- and especially the streaming services -- are, for the most part, monopolizing the access to games, and in so doing, driving the prices significantly higher.

[Taylor]

3 hours ago, EDinTUSTIN said:

Taylor, I am thinking there is sarcasm there, but I do have to disagree with it sounding like socialism. Since TV is not government subsidized and just given to the people, socialism can't be applied as a label. TV garners a fortune via advertising. People buy the products that are advertised, and consequently the viewership ends up sponsoring television. It used to be that on, what was it -- Channel 9 or 13 -- that we could watch some games on local networks. Then FoxSports West came along via cable -- and was reasonable, so every game of Angels baseball -- and yes, the Dodgers -- was affordable and accessible.Of course, MLB couldn't have that; that wasn't freaking enough for them. The average Jane and Joe need to be chiseled even more so that baseball salaries could continue to bloom to insane proportions. So, let's go ahead and package it on cable and streaming services, so that we can squeeze more blood from the baseball-fanbase turnip.

What you're describing is textbook capitalism. Companies and organizations using every means necessary to make more money. They provide a service for "free" temporarily until people can't live without it. Then they start introducing charges and hoops you have to jump through to get what you used to get easily and for free.

[EDinTUSTIN]

25 minutes ago, Taylor said:

What you're describing is textbook capitalism. Companies and organizations using every means necessary to make more money. They provide a service for "free" temporarily until people can't live without it. Then they start introducing charges and hoops you have to jump through to get what you used to get easily and for free.

It is hard to argue to the contrary when these types of stunts are pulled, that's for sure. However, true capitalism, in theory, is based upon both consumers and producers engaging in a mutually-beneficial exchange. If a producer creates a great product and provides good service, consumers are willing to give them fair and equitable compensation. I think fair capitalism has been replaced by something more like mercantilism.

[AngelsLakersFan]

59 minutes ago, Taylor said:

What you're describing is textbook capitalism. Companies and organizations using every means necessary to make more money. They provide a service for "free" temporarily until people can't live without it. Then they start introducing charges and hoops you have to jump through to get what you used to get easily and for free.

This has nothing to do with what's going on. MLB teams are just now starting to make a lot less money than they did previously. The reason is strictly a shift in consumer demand. People are no longer willing to pay for baseball that they aren't watching, or to sign up for cable just to watch baseball. The games on new streaming platforms are all attempts to recapture those customers at a lower price.

[Taylor]

20 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

This has nothing to do with what's going on. MLB teams are just now starting to make a lot less money than they did previously. The reason is strictly a shift in consumer demand. People are no longer willing to pay for baseball that they aren't watching, or to sign up for cable just to watch baseball. The games on new streaming platforms are all attempts to recapture those customers at a lower price.

no u

[Slegnaac]

There never were any "Free" games.

The cost to transmit the game via television or radio was traditionally paid by the sponsors.   The sponsors then passed the cost to their consumers in the form of higher prices.

 

[Jay]

I remember when the Angels games were on channel 9, they would go right to I Love Lucy after the postgame show.

 

[greginpsca]

I remember when games were on Autry's channel 5. In 1961 they televised about 10 games.

[EDinTUSTIN]

11 hours ago, Jay said:

I remember when the Angels games were on channel 9, they would go right to I Love Lucy after the postgame show.

 

LOL I remember that, too.

[Blarg]

12 hours ago, Jay said:

I remember when the Angels games were on channel 9, they would go right to I Love Lucy after the postgame show.

 

The best was the pregame they aired The Three Stooges. 

[RallyMo]

On 2/10/2024 at 11:31 PM, AngelsLakersFan said:

This has nothing to do with what's going on. MLB teams are just now starting to make a lot less money than they did previously. The reason is strictly a shift in consumer demand. People are no longer willing to pay for baseball that they aren't watching, or to sign up for cable just to watch baseball. The games on new streaming platforms are all attempts to recapture those customers at a lower price.

Bingo.

[Tank]

On 2/11/2024 at 2:42 PM, greginpsca said:

I remember when games were on Autry's channel 5. In 1961 they televised about 10 games.

up until sometime in the late 70s they were still only broadcasting road games - every sunday and usually friday, while sprinkling in a handful of other games. it finally expanded to every road game, and then maybe in the 90s they started broadcasting every home game.