NBC Sports could sell its RSNs or make them available on Peacock

[IU Hawks fan]

NBC Sports could sell its RSNs or make them available on Peacock (awfulannouncing.com)

The future of the NBC Sports RSNs is murky. Per the Wall Street Journal, the company has looked into two very different strategies regarding their seven regional sports networks.

The first strategy: streaming, of course. Specifically, streaming on Peacock.

Early this spring, NBCUniversal planned to start streaming NBC Sports Philadelphia, which broadcasts the city’s pro basketball, baseball and hockey games, the people said. The goal was to be up and running in time for the Major League Baseball season that began in April.

The plan was halted over concerns that it would conflict with the broader streaming strategy of NBCUniversal, a unit of Comcast Corp., the people said.

Several issues popped up, including the need for permission from all the leagues and a potential price increase for Peacock in each market (with Philadelphia being used as a test market).

If the plan had moved forward, fans in the Philadelphia market would be able to stream the local teams’ games. To offer the games to fans outside Philadelphia, NBCUniversal would need permission from leagues, which have their own apps offering such “out of market” viewing.
One issue for executives at the company was pricing, people familiar with the situation said. Peacock subscribers in Philadelphia would have to pay more for the service than Peacock subscribers in markets without a regional sports network, a situation the executives feared would confuse the service’s marketing, the people said.​

But putting the RSNs on Peacock could theoretically hurt NBC’s bottom line more than it helps. Yes, there are inevitably people who want to watch their local teams who have cut the cord, haven’t subscribed to Peacock, and would dish out the $5 or $10 per month in order to do that. But there are probably even more people who subscribe to a Comcast cable package just for local RSN access, and would cancel their subscriptions and replace them with the far cheaper Peacock sub. How many new Peacock subs would be needed to outweigh one cancelled cable sub?​

Potentially huge news for Hawks, Flyers, Caps, & Sharks fans.

Click to read more...

 

[Fenway]

NBC Sports could sell its RSNs or make them available on Peacock (awfulannouncing.com)



Potentially huge news for Hawks, Flyers, Caps, & Sharks fans.

NESN has installed the equipment to do exactly the same thing.

Classic case of nobody wants to be the first but everybody wants to be second.

Touching all the bases: NESN chooses The Switch for delivery of high demand live TV content and future 4K HDR telecasts - The Switch

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Streaming isn't a panacea if you're in a household with diversified tastes. $30 for a standalone Sinclair streaming package (at the end of the article) in combination with a YouTube TV or Hulu with Live TV and an Internet subscription could eclipse the cost of a basic Double Play package, depending on the market.

 

[gstommylee]

Streaming isn't a panacea if you're in a household with diversified tastes. $30 for a standalone Sinclair streaming package (at the end of the article) in combination with a YouTube TV or Hulu with Live TV and an Internet subscription could eclipse the cost of a basic Double Play package, depending on the market.

That's the thing if you want everything you got with a TV package but for streaming, its not going to come cheap and it could in the long run ended up costing you the same if not more than if you didn't cut the cord.

 

[End of Line]

I can see the RSN’s being sold off to AT&T

 

[oknazevad]

NESN has installed the equipment to do exactly the same thing.

Classic case of nobody wants to be the first but everybody wants to be second.

Touching all the bases: NESN chooses The Switch for delivery of high demand live TV content and future 4K HDR telecasts - The Switch

Makes sense that NESN would also installed the equipment considering they're also an NBC RSN even if they're not branded as such. (Same with the Mets' SNY; though Comcast is only a minority owner there, SNY does carry some of the same programs syndicated to the other NBC RSNs.)

 

[Fenway]

Makes sense that NESN would also installed the equipment considering they're also an NBC RSN even if they're not branded as such. (Same with the Mets' SNY; though Comcast is only a minority owner there, SNY does carry some of the same programs syndicated to the other NBC RSNs.)

NESN has NO connection to NBC - In fact NBC operates a competing RSN in New England (Celtics)

 

[oknazevad]

D'oh! I was confusing the two (and the Comcast-owned New England Cable News). My bad.

 

[royals119]

Streaming isn't a panacea if you're in a household with diversified tastes. $30 for a standalone Sinclair streaming package (at the end of the article) in combination with a YouTube TV or Hulu with Live TV and an Internet subscription could eclipse the cost of a basic Double Play package, depending on the market.

That's the thing if you want everything you got with a TV package but for streaming, its not going to come cheap and it could in the long run ended up costing you the same if not more than if you didn't cut the cord.

Yes, you could end up spending the same,or more, for streaming than a cable package. But if you work it correctly you can pay the the same or less, for something a lot better. I recently made the switch. I'm paying less, I have all the channels I want and a lot more, and there is always something "on", as I can binge watch shows without having to record them, or search for re-runs. I'm still getting internet from the cable company, and I kept their minimum package of ~20 channels for network TV and sports. With an over the air antenna I could probably drop those channels and save even more. The only thing I'm really missing is the Flyers on CSNBC-Philly. If they made those available on Peacock (which I get anyway) I'd sign up for the extra couple bucks.

I think comcast/NBC would be smart to put their future eggs in the Peacock basket, and become primarily an internet provider vs cable TV.

 

[gstommylee]

Yes, you could end up spending the same,or more, for streaming than a cable package. But if you work it correctly you can pay the the same or less, for something a lot better. I recently made the switch. I'm paying less, I have all the channels I want and a lot more, and there is always something "on", as I can binge watch shows without having to record them, or search for re-runs. I'm still getting internet from the cable company, and I kept their minimum package of ~20 channels for network TV and sports. With an over the air antenna I could probably drop those channels and save even more. The only thing I'm really missing is the Flyers on CSNBC-Philly. If they made those available on Peacock (which I get anyway) I'd sign up for the extra couple bucks.

I think comcast/NBC would be smart to put their future eggs in the Peacock basket, and become primarily an internet provider vs cable TV.

That'll never happen. Not with a data cap that they have on people and not everyone wants to do streaming or wants to deal with figuring out how to even access the streaming.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

If NBC decides to sell, they should sell to ViacomCBS, which had acquired Awesomeness TV from Comcast in 2018 (while known as Viacom). It would bring the current NBC Sports Washington back under CBS management, Viacom had acquired the network as part of its 2000 merger with CBS, but promptly sold it to Comcast.

And if Charter bought ViacomCBS, it would bolster what would be the CBS RSN group with Spectrum's RSNs, including the two in LA.

 

[JelloPuddyPops]

That'll never happen. Not with a data cap that they have on people and not everyone wants to do streaming or wants to deal with figuring out how to even access their streaming.

Tommy... to exceed the Comcast data cap you need to stream like 10+ hours of HD a day. Every day.
The data cap hit folks who were working from home all day with multiple kids Zooming school all day.
In a non-Covid world, the data caps aren’t going to even impact most people.

So, as usual, you’re “that’ll never happen” declaration is based on faulty assumptions.

 

[royals119]

That'll never happen. Not with a data cap that they have on people and not everyone wants to do streaming or wants to deal with figuring out how to even access the streaming.

I didn't want to figure it out either. When my cable bill hit $150/month and I got a smart TV (Roku) and realized how simple it is, I sat down and did the math. More people are going to do that in the future. I'm not saying it will be next week, or next month, or next year even. But the trend is moving that way. They can either get on board early and be a big part of the streaming future, or they can try to hold on to what they have and end up irrelevant in 10-20 years (or buy whoever wins the battle between Philo, Sling, Vidgo, Fubo, etc.)