Fox to Stream Super Bowl Free to U.S. Viewers, NFC Playoff Games Streaming Behind Pay-TV Wall

This will be good for people with Apple TV

Seems silly NOT to allow streaming of playoff games. Simply show the ads.

Only thing I can figure is the NFC playoffs have more local ad spots that wouldn't be nationally covered whereas the Superbowl would have very little local ads.

Stupid for those who pay for cable but can't get access through the pay tv wall since our cable service isn't on the list.

The writing used in this article has given me a headache. Someone rushed this to the presses.

Pay TV wall for playoff games? But aren't all of the playoff games on over the air antenna channels? What am I missing?

Okay, can we have this for the World Cup games now? I missed the game where Italy almost lost to Armenia because it wasn't shown anywhere on ESPN for some reason.

kycophpd said:

The writing used in this article has given me a headache. Someone rushed this to the presses.

Click to expand...

This article doesn't make any sense. Plus It's repetitive. Plus it makes it seem like the Super Bowl is on CBS. Plus we don't need to be told the NFL is popular.

Plus what about the Eagles-Saints game today? Plus, is that not streaming?

poppasketti said:

Plus what about the Eagles-Saints game today? Plus, is that not streaming?

Click to expand...

It is on NBC so obviously Fox will not be streaming it. However, NBC will be streaming it on nbcsports.com and their Live Extra apps for free to all.

Probably because this is not new to NBC, they did the same last year, they have not sent out the press releases to get coverage on non-media or sport sites like MacRumors, and so why they were not included in the story.

But in summary, in the US the FOX NFC playoff games will only be viewable online and mobile for subscribers to partner cable companies, all other playoff games including NBC's NFC playoff and the Super Bowl on Fox will be available for free.

Incidentally, in the UK the NFL playoffs are exclusive to Sky Sports which is a subscription channel, so games are only available online to subscribers via either Virgin Anywhere, Sky Go, Now TV, or Sky Sports Mobile TV. But Channel 4 will also be covering the Super Bowl, for the first time since 1998, and will be streaming it for free.

The BBC who previously held the OTA rights had streamed the past five Super Bowls for free. So welcome to 1999, Fox.

Basically for clarity.

CBS - streaming all playoff games they show for free on web and apps.

NBC - streaming wild card and divisional games for free and website and apps

Fox - streaming Super Bowl on app for free (and web?). Playoff games on apps but on if you sign in with your cable TV information and your provider is paying for access.


Anyone without cable TV should be able to watch all NBC games, CBS games, and the Super Bowl without needing an antenna.

darkslide29 said:

Pay TV wall for playoff games? But aren't all of the playoff games on over the air antenna channels? What am I missing?

Click to expand...

"Fox is making the NFC playoff games available only in a “TV Everywhere” model as part of its broader strategy to ensure it can continue to collect retrans fees from cable and satellite distributors — who have bridled at broadcasters making their content freely available online."


That's why. Money.

Affiliates should be furious

Everyone's who posting is thinking about this from a viewer standpoint which I would expect. But as I read the original story, as someone who used to work at a non-FOX owned FOX affiliate, the first thing I thought of is the big "**** you" letter I would send my network if I was still there.

Of the approximately 210 FOX affiliates in the country, only about 10 are actually owned by the network. The other 200 are owned by other parent companies. (BTW...the same is roughly true for CBS, NBC, and ABC). Those stations make their revenue via locally placed ads. They don't share in any Superbowl ad revenue sold by the network. In fact, those stations pay the network an annual fee to the network for the rights to air that network's shows, including the Superbowl when it's available.

As you can imagine, the Superbowl is a revenue Christmas for the local station except that that comes only every 3 years. If the network decides to bypass the affiliate altogether and allow the content for free on the Internet, well, that should prompt that **** you letter I mentioned earlier from the stations.

----------

The BBC who previously held the OTA rights had streamed the past five Super Bowls for free. So welcome to 1999, Fox.

Click to expand...

The UK charges people a TV tax. People in the US do not pay one. Apples and oranges.

JYork23 said:

Everyone's who posting is thinking about this from a viewer standpoint which I would expect. But as I read the original story, as someone who used to work at a non-FOX owned FOX affiliate, the first thing I thought of is the big "**** you" letter I would send my network if I was still there.

Of the approximately 210 FOX affiliates in the country, only about 10 are actually owned by the network. The other 200 are owned by other parent companies. (BTW...the same is roughly true for CBS, NBC, and ABC). Those stations make their revenue via locally placed ads. They don't share in any Superbowl ad revenue sold by the network. In fact, those stations pay the network an annual fee to the network for the rights to air that network's shows, including the Superbowl when it's available.

As you can imagine, the Superbowl is a revenue Christmas for the local station except that that comes only every 3 years. If the network decides to bypass the affiliate altogether and allow the content for free on the Internet, well, that should prompt that **** you letter I mentioned earlier from the stations.

Click to expand...

I doubt very many people are going to stream playoff games and the super bowl. Not enough to hurt any affiliates. You're making too many assumptions. You can't assume someone who streams a game would have otherwise watched a local broadcast.

BJMRamage said:

Seems silly NOT to allow streaming of playoff games. Simply show the ads.

Only thing I can figure is the NFC playoffs have more local ad spots that wouldn't be nationally covered whereas the Superbowl would have very little local ads.

Click to expand...

FOX only makes a small percentage of their profit from ads. The rest comes from retransmission fees, which are fees that cable companies pay FOX in order to have the rights to provide it to you via your cable subscription. FOX then gets paid per subscriber, so it's in their best interest for as many people to have cable as possible.

This is true of all major broadcast networks in the US, and it's single handedly why live streaming of these networks online is (mostly) not available. This is also why the major nets are suing Aereo... they're saying if Comcast has to pay FOX to distribute the channel, why doesn't Aereo?

This kind of stuff fascinates me. I actually work for one of the major networks (not FOX), but I'm entry-level, not high enough to do anything about it yet. Someday!

JYork23 said:

The UK charges people a TV tax. People in the US do not pay one. Apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

ITV have been offering live streaming since 2007, a few years before the BBC did, and they not only receive no tax funding, they have to pay the government to hold broadcasting franchises. Their business model is also based on a combination of selling local advertising in England and Wales, which they cannot offer online, and affiliate stations in Scotland and Northern Ireland who pay to be able to broadcast network shows, who therefore face competition from the online streams.

All the major OTA commercial networks in the UK offer streaming and have done so for several years, so the BBC's funding model is irrelevant. At worst it is apples and pears.

I would use the analogy of the music industry where for many years companies tried to ignore technological changes to defend increasingly outdated business models. Which is the current situation with the US television industry who are trying to hold on to the network affiliation and cable fee models and fit online and streaming into that rather than seeing them as new models to try to exploit.

Even Sky, whose business model is based around pushing their platform where you have to buy whole channel packages, have been offering iOS apps since 2009 through which you can subscribe to their sport channels from just £5 per month. No doubt done because those who just want to stream are not going to take out full packages if that is all being offered but will instead turn to illegal streams.

Tangerines to clementines.

For what it is worth, I was watching the start of the Chiefs vs Colts on my MacBook as I was still watching the end of today's play in the ping pong World Championships on the TV. The idea of not being able to legally stream any sport being broadcast, whether free or paid, is just difficult to imagine now.

I just downloaded the app to my iPad Air, and it doesn't even let you inside the app without signing in to one of the cable services. So I don't know how I'm supposed to watch the Super Bowl on it.

Thanks Deannnn. Good info to think about and makes some sense as to how and why.

N64 said:

Okay, can we have this for the World Cup games now? I missed the game where Italy almost lost to Armenia because it wasn't shown anywhere on ESPN for some reason.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, nobody cares about the World Cup in the US.

What I do is get a good one-month VPN subscription and watch on BBC's site.

JYork23 said:

Everyone's who posting is thinking about this from a viewer standpoint which I would expect. But as I read the original story, as someone who used to work at a non-FOX owned FOX affiliate, the first thing I thought of is the big "**** you" letter I would send my network if I was still there.

Of the approximately 210 FOX affiliates in the country, only about 10 are actually owned by the network. The other 200 are owned by other parent companies. (BTW...the same is roughly true for CBS, NBC, and ABC). Those stations make their revenue via locally placed ads. They don't share in any Superbowl ad revenue sold by the network. In fact, those stations pay the network an annual fee to the network for the rights to air that network's shows, including the Superbowl when it's available.

As you can imagine, the Superbowl is a revenue Christmas for the local station except that that comes only every 3 years. If the network decides to bypass the affiliate altogether and allow the content for free on the Internet, well, that should prompt that **** you letter I mentioned earlier from the stations.

----------



The UK charges people a TV tax. People in the US do not pay one. Apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

But Americans watch the Super Bowl in 60+" TVs that 1/2 get returned to electronics stores after the game and there is a mass flood of toilet water in sewer in halftime break, so much that it can overtake the capacity of some systems. Lol. See how assumptions work.

Carlanga said:

But Americans watch the Super Bowl in 60+" TVs that 1/2 get returned to electronics stores after the game and there is a mass flood of toilet water in sewer in halftime break, so much that it can overtake the capacity of some systems. Lol. See how assumptions work.

Click to expand...

I'm going to blame it on the caffeine not doing its job this morning, but I fail to see how your reply has anything to do with my post. What's the connection between people returning TVs and the economics of the broadcast network itself?

JYork23 said:

I'm going to blame it on the caffeine not doing its job this morning, but I fail to see how your reply has anything to do with my post. What's the connection between people returning TVs and the economics of the broadcast network itself?

Click to expand...

Your post was full of assumptions is the connection.

Carlanga said:

Your post was full of assumptions is the connection.

Click to expand...

I made no assumptions in my post.