3 ms·

No - live sports coverage will show up on whatever platform has the deepest pockets to buy the rights to show it. Youtube's already done some large scale live

No - live sports coverage will show up on whatever platform has the deepest pockets to buy the rights to show it. Youtube's already done some large scale live events. They might find it amusing to come in and drop a huge stinking pile of cash to have your favorite sporting event be available only on Youtube Live/Google TV.

AdrenGarage 16y ago
I agree. I think this is the only way we'll see live pro sports on the internet in the near future. The networks know that live sports is the goose that laid the golden egg. NFL US TV contracts are worth $3 Billion each year, NBC paid $800MM for the Olympics, and don't forget the Super Bowl commands the most expensive ad rates of any programming of the year, followed by the NBA Championships, World Series and NCAA Basketball Tournament. That's certainly an investment the Networks will protect until their last breath. Until online advertising markets mature, they won't want to do anything that could possibly undercut their revenue. That's exactly why NBC, CBS and ABC blocked access to Google TV, but this is only more true in live sports. My experience as a TV Producer is that the networks still look at the internet as a worse version of TV: less profitable, less quality and more unworthy competition cluttering the space. They occupy a shrine-like position in almost every household in the world. Why should they share it? They want to use the internet to supplement to their current offerings rather than use it to replace their business model. They certainly aren't going to aid anyone else to do otherwise. Google TV, IMO, is doomed to "hobby" status unless it gets quality content either better or altogether not available on TV. I would argue that Apple succeeded with the iPod because they created a content ecosystem (iTunes) around the device that no other device had. Content was the ultimate deciding factor in a number of technological innovations: Beta v. VHS, HDVD v. Blu-ray, etc. You Tube alone is not enough. If Google really wants their TV to succeed, they may have to get into the content business in a serious way. Live sports, as the most valuable programming on TV, is the most obvious target.
techsupporter 16y ago
Exactly. By way of example, the Texas Rangers recently signed a 20-year, $1.6b deal with Fox Sports Southwest[1]. That renewal happened four years prior to the expiration of the current contract. Why? To keep Comcast--who is trying to make a run for the Astros' TV rights--or Mark Cuban's HDNet from taking over. Fox Sports can afford the huge payment because it collects money from cable MSOs, satellite providers, and telcos (FiOS and U-Verse both carry FSSW) in addition to advertising rates. Over-the-air broadcasts are funded solely by ad rates unless the station has negotiated a retransmission agreement that pays, which most have, but at a lower rate than "cable-only" channels. 1 - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7220803.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7220803.html

AdrenGarage 16y ago

I agree. I think this is the only way we'll see live pro sports on the internet in the near future. The networks know that live sports is the goose that laid the golden egg. NFL US TV contracts are worth $3 Billion each year, NBC paid $800MM for the Olympics, and don't forget the Super Bowl commands the most expensive ad rates of any programming of the year, followed by the NBA Championships, World Series and NCAA Basketball Tournament. That's certainly an investment the Networks will protect until their last breath. Until online advertising markets mature, they won't want to do anything that could possibly undercut their revenue. That's exactly why NBC, CBS and ABC blocked access to Google TV, but this is only more true in live sports. My experience as a TV Producer is that the networks still look at the internet as a worse version of TV: less profitable, less quality and more unworthy competition cluttering the space. They occupy a shrine-like position in almost every household in the world. Why should they share it? They want to use the internet to supplement to their current offerings rather than use it to replace their business model. They certainly aren't going to aid anyone else to do otherwise. Google TV, IMO, is doomed to "hobby" status unless it gets quality content either better or altogether not available on TV. I would argue that Apple succeeded with the iPod because they created a content ecosystem (iTunes) around the device that no other device had. Content was the ultimate deciding factor in a number of technological innovations: Beta v. VHS, HDVD v. Blu-ray, etc. You Tube alone is not enough. If Google really wants their TV to succeed, they may have to get into the content business in a serious way. Live sports, as the most valuable programming on TV, is the most obvious target.

techsupporter 16y ago

Exactly. By way of example, the Texas Rangers recently signed a 20-year, $1.6b deal with Fox Sports Southwest[1]. That renewal happened four years prior to the expiration of the current contract. Why? To keep Comcast--who is trying to make a run for the Astros' TV rights--or Mark Cuban's HDNet from taking over. Fox Sports can afford the huge payment because it collects money from cable MSOs, satellite providers, and telcos (FiOS and U-Verse both carry FSSW) in addition to advertising rates. Over-the-air broadcasts are funded solely by ad rates unless the station has negotiated a retransmission agreement that pays, which most have, but at a lower rate than "cable-only" channels. 1 - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7220803.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7220803.html