Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

many wireless options for neighborhoods

5G has limitations and issues like all the rest

one antenna can only support so many devices, obviously each site with one or multiple antennas needs to have a fiber backhaul.  This is not as expensive as a fiber to each house, but it still requires an expensive build.

I've heard 6G is being worked on at this time!

I wonder how they'd price it. I have to think it's so valuable that it would be hard to just "include" it in your Prime subscription by default. And I'm not sure how much the NFL controls how it is priced to end users, or whether they just sell the rights. I'm pretty sure DirecTV never allowed individual games to be sold or Sunday Ticket to be only single-weekend availability, though. I wonder if Amazon could bring something like that to the table, as you suggest.

FYI this Forbes article suggests it's more than just rumors... https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonogus/2019/04/23/the-nfl-is-reportedly-in-discussions-with-amazon-and-disney-for-the-sunday-ticket-streaming-rights/#2f5176f3609b

That is the interesting part. I could see them being more like Direct TV/Cable with a base pack then have the add-ons. Right now I pay $13.90 per month for Prime but that does not include all movies and shows. They are more of a pay-per-view type. I can see them doing the same with the NFL. Right now, my guess anyway, they are using the Thursday night games to test viewership. 

The Disney connection is also interesting with their ownership of ESPN and their Disney+ service (which the wife already told me we will have....boss rules I guess). I could see them doing the same with a Disney+ and an ESPN add-on or even strictly the Sunday ticket add-on. 

Trend is saying most Networks will follow the same model. NBC has already pulled a lot of programing from Hulu and if I'm not mistaken, ABC was always that way. AMC has their own app but it still requires a cable network to buy it (baffling if you ask me) but they will probably move towards their own stand alone. If this continues, I can see the next step will be these networks will ONLY offer a streaming service and pull away from cable in general or it will cost cable/satellites too much to carry them.

people are cutting the chord and these companies would be fools not to take advantage of it. Sadly, what will eventually happen is all of us who cut the chord will be required to purchase so many apps that the cost will mimic cable except less channels but also more focused. Still, the best part of that is since we will have more options, even tho they are stand alone, programming should become more competitive and I can see me getting NBC for XXX season, then cancel to get CBS for whatever and cancel. Nice option to have. 

Come n get it.  Hang out at the brewery with me and you'll drink free all day.

There are two hurdles:

• Local networks
• ESPN

The local networks basically charge cable/satellite/streaming retransmission fees for the content that they broadcast free themselves. And a LOT of sports, particularly the NFL [which is the crown jewel], are shown on local networks. So while the optimal solution [to reduce subscriber cost] would be to ask the subscriber to put up an antenna for their locals and use the streaming service only for non-broadcast sports, that becomes a highly unwieldy answer for the folks who want one clean solution.

The bigger problem is ESPN. ESPN has as their ENTIRE business model the idea that their content is indispensable and must be offered by any cable/satellite/live-streaming service on the basic tier. This way they get their carriage fee for the entire subscriber base regardless of whether those folks ever watch the channel. Same thing the BTN did with "in-region" providers. The instant they start allowing someone to put it on a "sports-only" tier it starts enabling beleaguered cable companies, who would gladly sell a service WITHOUT ESPN/sports to the cost-conscious folks trying to cut the cord. If they allow this, ESPN's subscriber numbers plummet, and their business model needs to change. It's also the reason ESPN hasn't offered their own stand-alone package--they worry they'll lose leverage over the cable companies--the risk is higher than the reward.

I do agree it will happen someday. But I think ESPN's current business model has to be fractured by other forces before they'll step up to this table, and without ESPN you're toast trying to offer this service.

CD's statement about a sports-only model.....that's more or less what FUBO is right now.  It's a total no-go for college football fans like me, and lacking the ESPN family is a glaring absence for a sports-focused cord-cutting option, but they haven't gone out of business yet.  I imagine it's feasible for them to pick up ESPN at some point.  I'm interested to see how they do.  I know people who have it and watch a metric crap-ton of sports.  

bwarbiany,

Also meant to add....you asked me about the YTTV experience.  One annoying thing is if a long program is still recording, I have no luck starting at the beginning if it's 3 hours past the start point.  Big problem when the wife is trying to start Wimbledon late, or even long football games.  If a game (or anything, could be the long-ass The Godfather II) has been going for 3 hours and is still going, I pretty much have to wait until it's finished recording to start at the beginning.  Otherwise, even if you tell it to start at the beginning, it goes to live anyway and can only be rewound 3 hours from there. 

I had this same issue with Hulu Live TV, so it could just be a ubiquitous hindrance at the moment.  That's not too big a deal to me, it only comes up once in a blue moon, but it's one of those tradeoffs I mentioned, that for me, are worth it to pay so much less.  

Hopefully it doesn't bite me on the butt in a couple of weeks.  CBS already slated LSU @ Bama for 2:30 and I have a commitment at my church that afternoon.  Meaning if I can't get home and start that game by 5:30, I'm just going to have to wait until it's over to watch it, or else jump in a game already in progress.  

CD's statement about a sports-only model.....that's more or less what FUBO is right now.  It's a total no-go for college football fans like me, and lacking the ESPN family is a glaring absence for a sports-focused cord-cutting option, but they haven't gone out of business yet.  I imagine it's feasible for them to pick up ESPN at some point.  I'm interested to see how they do.  I know people who have it and watch a metric crap-ton of sports. 

Oddly I was going to bring up Fubo as an example. But I went to their web site, and realized that not only have they added a TON of non-sports content, they also increased their rate to $54.99/mo.

I'm guessing being a sports-only tier isn't worth squat if you don't get ESPN.

it would be nice if games involving Big Ten teams were only shown on Fox, FS1, FS2, and BTN

perhaps someday