FSN

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
5,945
Reaction score
2,876
Points
113
Wtf?
I thought I was getting it with HULU. Is buying a Concast package the only option now?
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,623
Reaction score
604
Points
113
Wtf?
I thought I was getting it with HULU. Is buying a Concast package the only option now?
It went away from Hulu maybe a couple months ago. It’s been covered elsewhere, but I don’t think any streaming service offers it anymore. If you have Hulu, you can use the Fox Sports Go app to get it. However, it won’t let you mirror content to a monitor. So I use my computer to login (with Hulu login) to the app and connect to TV via HDMI.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,459
Reaction score
4,697
Points
113
It went away from Hulu maybe a couple months ago. It’s been covered elsewhere, but I don’t think any streaming service offers it anymore. If you have Hulu, you can use the Fox Sports Go app to get it. However, it won’t let you mirror content to a monitor. So I use my computer to login (with Hulu login) to the app and connect to TV via HDMI.
That’s silly that they allow that. (Not you, that’s a clever workaround)

The obvious intent of an app is that yu should only be able to access content that you’re paying for in your channel bundle. Clearly, FSN is not included in the Hulu Live or YouTubeTV bundles.
 

GFBfan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
2,727
Reaction score
293
Points
83
It went away from Hulu maybe a couple months ago. It’s been covered elsewhere, but I don’t think any streaming service offers it anymore. If you have Hulu, you can use the Fox Sports Go app to get it. However, it won’t let you mirror content to a monitor. So I use my computer to login (with Hulu login) to the app and connect to TV via HDMI.
That worked for a little while, but I tried doing that with the Wild game the other night and it was no longer on Fox Sports Go
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,623
Reaction score
604
Points
113
That worked for a little while, but I tried doing that with the Wild game the other night and it was no longer on Fox Sports Go
Hmm...interesting. I did it last night for the Gopher hockey game and it worked just fine. I’m kind of assuming it’ll randomly stop working some time, but I’m enjoying it until then.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,459
Reaction score
4,697
Points
113
I wonder if a FSN+ online standalone option, similar-ish to BTN+, would be on the table any time soon?

Wild guess: probably not, and because Comcast, Charter, and DirecTV don't want to allow that. They want to force people sign-up on the old services.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,049
Reaction score
222
Points
63
I wonder if a FSN+ online standalone option, similar-ish to BTN+, would be on the table any time soon

Wild guess: probably not, and because Comcast, Charter, and DirecTV don't want to allow that. They want to force people sign-up on the old services.
"Sort of" but the driving force behind its not being available from those providers is AT&T and Sinclair. AT&T because they own DirectTv and Sinclair. The Bally/Sinclair partnership, Bally Sports, will be a direct-to-consumer operation.

Dish, many cable operators and, to their credit DirecTv , have fought for "skinny bundles" for years. Charlie Ergun of Dish has lobbied and appeared before Congress speaking out for it. However local governments who control cable operations don't want it. Sinclair and before them Fox Sports have point against it in a big time way. They certainly don't want it. They want to be paid for every subsrciber. Not just the ones who are willing to pay a higher price for a Sports Tier.

Here's an update from Sinclair on the status of direct-to-consumer plans was posted on Thursday:

Sinclair Gives Update on Direct-To-Consumer Plans and Carriage Dispute with Hulu & YouTube

Now, during the 23rd Annual Needham Growth Conference, Sinclair’s executive vice president and CFO, Lucy A. Rutishauser, revealed a few more details about their direct-to-consumer plans and their on-going disputes with Hulu and YouTube TV.

“We are in the process of developing a world-class sports app, to replace the Fox Sports Go App…we expect to launch our app this Spring. The viewing experience will be significantly better, it will enhanced, personalized, interactive, it will have new features, new capabilities, new content around sports, sports betting, the super fan…free to play (betting), rewards, community-based, gamification, stats.”

While the company is targeting to have these in there, Rutishauser says they will occur over time. “The best way to think about our direct-to-consumer piece, it’s a complementary and additive offering for the viewer.”

While Sinclair’s CEO Ripley has said in the past that the app will first support TV Everywhere, before expanding to an OTT option – Rutishauser didn’t expand on that.

She did give some insight into their carriage disputes with over the RSNs on streamers. Recently, YouTube TV, Hulu Live TV, and fuboTV opted not to carry the channels. In 2019, both Dish Network and Sling TVdropped the channels from their service. Currently, the channels are only available on the AT&T TV“Choice” Plan ($84.99).

When asked about why they just don’t allow the skinny bundles to tier the channels, Rutishauser said, “every MVPD discussion whether it’s traditional or virtual is its own negotiation. These are all highly highly negotiated contracts. And then…there could be MFNs (most favored nations) within, the other side may have MFNs to negotiate within.”..

Last year, Sinclair Broadcast Group surprised sports fans when they announced they signed a deal with Bally’s Corporation which will see Bally Sports become the new name of Fox Sports RSNs in the Spring. The 10-year deal, which is for a reported $85 million, will also see the companies partner on bringing sports betting to their telecasts.

Rutishauser also gave insight on how the partnership is beneficial to Sinclair, Bally as well as the RSNs involved.

“Bally brings a recognized brand. They bring sports betting technology and market access footprint. The partnership is really focused on creating unrivaled sports gamification content on a national scal
e.

 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
21,459
Reaction score
4,697
Points
113
Dish, many cable operators and, to their credit DirecTv , have fought for "skinny bundles" for years. Charlie Ergun of Dish has lobbied and appeared before Congress speaking out for it. However local governments who control cable operations don't want it. Sinclair and before them Fox Sports have point against it in a big time way. They certainly don't want it. They want to be paid for every subsrciber. Not just the ones who are willing to pay a higher price for a Sports Tier.
It obviously makes sense that content providers (companies that produce and provide the live channels) won't allow skinny bundles, because they all want all of their channels to be carried on the basic tier that every subscriber gets and thus be paid for every of those subscribers.

That's the model that's always been done for live TV. It's not like someone just dreamed it up to piss people off. It's what works.

But consumers, fueled by cord-cutter advocates, have more and more fervently demanded that ala carte is superior, both in practice and in principle.


The only thing in your paragraph here that doesn't make sense to me, is the bolded sentence. The only part municipalities play here is that they have the legal ability to enforce exclusivity for cable TV and telephone providers. Hence why you can only get Comcast if you live in Mpls. And so on.

But those contracts don't have anything to do with what is offered. And I don't see why they would care if the cable provider offers skinny bundles or not. I don't think their contracts can specify the types of bundles or products/services offered, in that sense, anyway.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,049
Reaction score
222
Points
63
But those contracts don't have anything to do with what is offered. And I don't see why they would care if the cable provider offers skinny bundles or not. I don't think their contracts can specify the types of bundles or products/services offered, in that sense, anyway.
Yeah, they kinda do, and that's been a bone of contention ever since the satellite companies became real players. It may be as simple as them worried about people dumping cable and going to satellite if they can get it cheaper. Which is what al a carte is all about. You'd have to see the contracts themselves. Here's an excerpt from a Wired article on it. It mainly focuses on Google fiber and competition

"Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned "rights of way" so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need "pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.

The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction...

This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service – such as AT&T’s U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.

It’s a vicious circle. And it’s essentially a system of forced kickbacks. Other kickbacks arguably include municipal requirements for ISPs such as building out service where it isn't demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings."


How does it effect bundling? Some (many) of those contracts demand a certain number of channels that are to be available on the basic level. Even bigger, they all demand a certain number of "free" public access channels. That's were it hits the fan for the satellite companies, probably the cable companies too. That's why local governments lobby. To keep what the have.

The local governments want free channels for themselves and more "basic" channels for their citizens. Many don't like the satellites in the first place. They see things like Hulu, Sling,YouTube as competitors to them. That's probably why we've seen many municipalities now offer more than 1 cable company in their area. Not to be benevolent, but to keep that cable money coming in. Not see that TV money go elsewhere.

Content Providers want to get paid for everything they own, even the stuff the Service Providers don't want. Local governments don't want the cable gravy train to end. Service Providers don't want to pay for "bundled content" from Content providers if it contains channels their subscribers don't want.

The public? They want everything for free. Or grudgingly for as cheap as possible.

 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,215
Reaction score
8,632
Points
113
I wonder if a FSN+ online standalone option, similar-ish to BTN+, would be on the table any time soon?

Wild guess: probably not, and because Comcast, Charter, and DirecTV don't want to allow that. They want to force people sign-up on the old services.
Sinclaire supposedly wants to do this. But as I said in the other thread, at that point, the Twins/Wolves etc. might as well do their own app. The Twins tried to launch Victory Sports in 2003. It failed because they couldn't get agreements with any major carriers. If we're cutting out the middle man of the cable/satellite company, there's no reason not to also cut out the Regional Sports Network. You can pay the Twins $10.95/month just as easily as Sinclaire Broadcasting.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,049
Reaction score
222
Points
63
Sinclaire supposedly wants to do this. But as I said in the other thread, at that point, the Twins/Wolves etc. might as well do their own app. The Twins tried to launch Victory Sports in 2003. It failed because they couldn't get agreements with any major carriers. If we're cutting out the middle man of the cable/satellite company, there's no reason not to also cut out the Regional Sports Network. You can pay the Twins $10.95/month just as easily as Sinclaire Broadcasting.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,215
Reaction score
8,632
Points
113
As long as you are required to log in through your cable provider that's one thing. Once they start directly selling access to the app, there's not much reason for the Twins to re-up unless they're going to pay a significant premium over what the Twins could charge themselves.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
21,049
Reaction score
222
Points
63
As long as you are required to log in through your cable provider that's one thing. Once they start directly selling access to the app, there's not much reason for the Twins to re-up unless they're going to pay a significant premium over what the Twins could charge themselves.
Could be true. Do you know of any teams that have been successful developing and selling that kind of service themselves? I have no idea if anybody has myself.

With the disruptions for sports all over the country last & this year and Sinclair taking away the abilities of millions to follow their teams, think that Sinclair will be very surprised at how many people just don't care anymore.

Would think that same feeling would make it more daunting for teams themselves too.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
51,215
Reaction score
8,632
Points
113
Could be true. Do you know of any teams that have been successful developing and selling that kind of service themselves? I have no idea if anybody has myself.

With the disruptions for sports all over the country last & this year and Sinclair taking away the abilities of millions to follow their teams, think that Sinclair will be very surprised at how many people just don't care anymore.

Would think that same feeling would make it more daunting for teams themselves too.
No one has gone exclusively to an app. The Yankees own their cable network. The Twins were one of the few other ones to try it.

I don't think we're at point yet where it's viable. Still too many older people who you would lose and too many without high speed internet. But I could see it within 10 years
 
Top Bottom