FAST is both things. The reason Tubi is ahead of the other FAST services is their on demand content, especially their section called Canceled Too Soon which highlights a bunch of shows that mostly got 1-3 seasons before getting canned. Most of the shows they have are from 2000-now, but there's a few older ones like Spenser for Hire and Hearts Afire along with a few from the 70s. With that said, I love turning on Pluto TV and watching reruns of old Jeopardy episodes, sitcoms like Married With Children (now on Cozi TV OTA), and the occasional movie that's nowhere else but that I've seen a dozen times already.
Old TV shows from the 50s-80s seem like good material for background noise...could it be a coincidence that this stuff started to gain popularity when people were working from home?
Also this: MLS: "People are complaining about our TV deal. We'll put all our games under one roof for one fee. We'll also throw our fans a bone and make some random games free and put some on linear TV." The NBA recently re-configured their TV deal, but the games are still available regionally, on ESPN, ABC, NBC, Peacock, Amazon, etc. Guess which one is gonna piss off a higher percentage of fans. The NHL also has their deal where out-of-market games are on ESPN+ and others are exclusive nationally on ESPN+. It's not hard to figure out the difference, but it's rocket science for some people. Is MLS a trailblazer? Right now, it appears no....BUT...it's also great that 100% of games are available in the same spot. It's also true that other leagues could, and probably should, follow MLS's path. I'm largely spitballing here, but it might look something like this: NBA: Amazon would be the home for games. Select ones on ESPN, ABC or NBC. If teams want to sign deals for regional channels, let them.
It's the same time that the OTA sub-channels started picking up steam. Now that people are used to them those are expanding as well. More people want comfort food TV than silicone airheads doing "reality."
MLS was 5-10 years ahead of the curve. They made the right move and being able to sign Messi put that deal over the top in year 1. It's more than I'm willing to pay for a single league, but it's clearly working for them with over 2 million subscribers.
Agreed. It was definitely the right move, if not a few years too early. They're missing one important factor: Casual fans in that team's market who used to be able to watch occasional games by tuning in the same way they'd tune in to any other show. A single-team option should also include that team's MLS Next Pro games and MLS 360...BUT...it would almost certainly mean the end of the random free games each week. Similar packages run by the NHL, NBA and MLB have free weeks 1-2x per season. The fun part was when I had Time Warner. Due to technical limitations, I think it was MLS and NHL shared channel space (even though the channels were on different numbers) and the NBA and MLB shared. Behind-the-scenes, the channels were marked as TEAM1-14 and GAME1-14 or some such. The MLS channels were the higher numbers on one of those sets. As such, when they turned the one free preview (NBA/MLB or NHL/MLS) on, they'd automatically deliver bonus free previews of the other league that used those same channels. Anywhoo...casuals got hosed because they don't want to pay $100 or they don't want "another plus app" or they can't find it, whatever. Even if they just watch their team's games and nothing else, it's $3/game or so, but at times, everyone has an excuse. There was definitely some confusion out there when MLS Season Pass launched. "No. You don't need AppleTV+" and "No. You don't need an AppleTV" and whatnot.
The channels YouTube TV doesn't carry aren't big revenue generators for the Big 5 ESPN doesn't care if you get their channels from YouTube TV or Spectrum or DirecTV. They are getting paid either way Also 2 reasons for YouTube TV being cheaper than traditional cable/satellite 1. No equipment rental fees and extra fees/taxes that come with a cable/satellite package 2. Google subsidized YouTube TV. It hasn't been profitable https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024...ffettNathanson,operating income later in 2024.
They've got 5 distinct shows at the moment that qualify as dating shows. They've got a few that are doing the music show bit and going country by country, but it's a tiny portion of their programming.
It doesn't matter if those channels are revenue generators, they are loss leaders because they're still paying for the programming that nobody is watching. ESPN isn't the one selling the channels and the thing that YouTube TV has done better than traditional cable is getting the channels they want while not paying for all the extra that Disney tries to force on people. YouTube TV being profitable is just goalpost moving and had nothing to do with the original discussion. Apple TV+ isn't profitable but that's irrelevant to whether or not people are watching it versus cable/satellite.
Youtube TV is the same product as cable/satellite Apple TV+ is not Youtube TV has the full suite of Disney channels They are cheaper because they have less equipment and taxes and they can run at a loss Spectrum/Comcast cable cannot
WNBA on Ion has averaged 579 k viewers so far this season. https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/20...f-season-viewership-milestones-caitlin-clark/
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/comcast/tony-kornheiser-fed-up-bill.html They *all* go up over time...but $70/mo in under a year is definitely a Comcast thing. Some of you may remember the terrestrial loophole. If a channel wasn't delivered via satellite, it didn't have to be available on DirecTV or Dish Network. As a result, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia was only available on Comcast. Anyhoo, yeah, I'm locked into all sorts of "long time customer" promos and they probably like me more as an early adopter, but I'm paying $0 for two additional U-Verse receivers and getting all sorts of discounts. With or without the discounts, my monthly price only goes up ~$10 or so. The price increase hits me once per year. (Promotional discounts guarantee money off, but do not guarantee a specific price.) It also helps if you can get a call from the Office of the President or "Corporate Relations" or whatever the office is called for that company. I talked to a regular retention person since getting that discount and they were amazed I did so good. Comcast sucks. I suspect what Tony did was get one of those "we can save you money if you sign up for more" and didn't think to cancel the service when the promo ended... which is what the companies are counting on. You gotta write those dates down on a calendar. "Free HBO ends" or "$25 off internet ends" or such.
Venu Sports has been temporarily barred from launching because Fubo thinks they'll go belly-up when everyone bails from there to Venu. https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/judge-bars-disney-warner-fox-venu-launch-fubotv-1236109394/
Here's the issue I have with the term "cable." There was just a mention on TV news of the death of Phil Donahue. The reporter used the phrase "Phil Donahue moved to cable, but his ratings were never the same." When the phrase "moved to cable" is used, it strongly implies one needed cable TV in order to access that show. At the time of the move, that was probably the case. Was satellite an option back then? In the modern era, we have countless articles about "How to watch show/channel without cable" which are all mentions for YouTube TV's free trial or Hulu or whatever else. See what I mean? The word "cable" really is outdated when talking about channels like ESPN, TLC, USA Network, etc. In the mid-to-late 00s, there were channels which were cable-exclusive like InDemand's "InHD" and probably other ones. There were also channels like Setanta Sports Xtra and Setanta Pub Channel which were exclusive to satellite. Nobody would have said "oh, Setanta Sports Xtra is on cable" when it was only on DirecTV, but somehow "ESPN is a cable channel" is appropriate to say when someone may never have had cable, but pays for linear ESPN. Make it make sense.
I would agree with you that "cable" may be an outdated term but if you're as old as dirt (me) the term makes perfect sense in that anything that wasn't available via rabbit ears was "cable" as that was literally the method of delivery. HBO launched in 1975, ESPN in 1979. By 1980, there were 28 cable channels. Two channels that launched in 1980 & 1981 changed everything - CNN & MTV. But the REAL game changer was the 1984 'Cable Communication Act' passed by Congress (for you kids out there - back in the last century, politicians from the 2 major parties actually talked to each other and they actually passed laws that helped people and not just increased government power and took away our freedoms. Yes. Really. I'm not kidding!) Anywho, the Act gave telecom companies the power to update infrastructure to deliver faster data. BTW, DirecTV/Dish didn't launch until the mid 90's so "cable" TV had 2 decades in which to thrive on it's own. Once those "cable channels" were available on small dishes on our roofs, the term "cable" started to get fuzzy. Today, with iptv/streaming it just gets even fuzzier. But I really don't have a problem when ESPN, TBS, CNN, MTV, USA Network, etc. get labelled as "cable channels" as the only way to get them was literally via "cable". So while I can understand your dismay, from a historical perspective, ESPN is a true "cable channel" as are any channels that were born from 1975 to about 1992 due to their delivery method into our homes. SA
He went to MSNBC in 2002. Yes, satellite was an option. The phrase "hang up" is outdated when talking about ending a phone call. You touch a red spot on your screen and don't hang your phone on anything. That doesn't mean people are going to stop saying it.
I agree, but here's another. ESPN and DirecTV dispute updates: Latest news and other options to watch NFL, college football & more without cable Excuse me while I laugh at that headline. At this point, I'm just waiting for someone to insist they get their cable via Dish satellite.
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com...ll-tv-boston-college-acc-network/75247260007/ Who wants to tell him? And yes, this is a current article.
And you're still missing the Mets too In Utah its $20/month for the Jazz and $15/month for their Hockey Club The only way to get a combo rate of $15/month for both is to pay $175 up front for an annual subscription BUT they will have an OTA component that I'm sure most will utilize
I'd hate to think what Costco's "Hot dog and a drink" plan costs in NYC. There's a very good rea$on why lots of people live in New Jersey or Connecticut, but work in NYC.
www.yahoo.com/tech/7-reasons-consider-cable-tv-073415340.html Lolwut? Of course, this article is talking about "not live apps" streaming stuff like Netflix, Paramount+, Peacock, Hulu library, etc...but is DirecTV also cable?