1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

$5.00 for the new Dodgers channel.

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by lipcrkr, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. Jan 29, 2013 #21 of 897
    fireponcoal

    fireponcoal Icon

    755
    13
    Sep 26, 2009
    People will always find ways to get the content they desire with or without paying providers an outrageous sum. People are increasingly not content with the current state of affairs... Either things will change or providers themselves will find their models outmoded. Not sure how this will happen but I'm sure a paradigm shift of epic proportions may occur. People want something different and it's becoming more and more obvious all the time.

    Poopoo Ala Carte all you want but people are already creating their own version of that regardless of whether it's good for business or not... A younger generation is indeed finding other alternatives to paying content providers and many of them will continue to do so when it comes time for them to purchase homes. No way around it other then an alternative that entices their habits..
     
  2. Jan 29, 2013 #22 of 897
    iluvtv

    iluvtv Legend

    209
    1
    Sep 29, 2005
    I'm a Giants fan so I say good riddance. :D
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Jan 29, 2013 #23 of 897
    oakwcj

    oakwcj Lower Echelon

    632
    0
    Sep 28, 2006
    Yes, but Vin Scully transcends the team he broadcasts for.
     
  4. Jan 29, 2013 #24 of 897
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    Short of forming an alliance, they're only damned if they don't if someone can't take the pressure and buckles to the team demands.
     
  5. Jan 29, 2013 #25 of 897
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Very disappointed with this. It's not because I'm a Red Sox fan living in California (which I am) and therefore have no use for the Dodgers, but because these humongous sums of money take the fun out of a simple game that brings joy to millions. I'm not naive enough to think there will be this massive fan revolt, but sooner or later people will either lose interest or begin to pirate the games (and other channels with them.) Rational pricing begets rational customers.

    This is the kind of content provider greed that quite honestly threatens to dismantle the pay-TV model. First, people abandon pay TV for streaming alternatives, then without the cash-cow pay TV deals, streaming costs to the customer shoot through the roof. Next thing you know there is massive piracy and everyone loses.

    And let me tell you, if you don't live in Southern California, don't sit back and chuckle because you think this is a CA problem. This is your problem too, any of you who live in markets where there are teams with nationwide appeal. Hey Chicagoans, how would you like to pay for a channels for the Bears, another for the Cubs, another for the White Sox, another for the Bulls, another for the Blackhawks...

    And if you live in, I don't know, central Iowa or whatever (no offense intended to Buckeyes, just making an example) you'll pay more to import those team feeds, too.

    Major miscalculation on the Dodgers' part, and major miscalculation on TWC's part in not bundling the Dodgers into TWC SportsNet.
     
  6. Jan 29, 2013 #26 of 897
    Tubaman-Z

    Tubaman-Z Godfather

    534
    6
    Jul 30, 2007
    I am in Twins territory (just north of central IA :) ). If they charge me $2/month during the season to see the Twins, not a problem. If they charge me $200/year - so long. I'm kind of nostalgic and don't mind listening to baseball on AM radio.

    P.S. Did you mean Hawkeyes? Last I checked the Buckeyes were somewhat NE of central IA. :)
     
  7. Jan 29, 2013 #27 of 897
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    4,009
    511
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Likely one of the reasons why DirecTV no longer wants to pay for the outer ring coverage for some RSNs if the channel insists on having it in the base packages for the outer ring viewers. On the otherhand here in NEPA, we're considered part of the outer ring for Root Pittsburgh and we can get the games if we subscribe to the Sports Pack.
     
  8. Jan 29, 2013 #28 of 897
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    pay for a channels for the Bears I don't the NFL rules will let teams have there own channels and if we get to that NFL ST will need like 32 HD channels in less the games show up ON RSN channels (then just need remapping and if cables wants NFT ST some day indemand may need to shutdown or cut NBA LP, MLB EI, NHL CI down to 1 feed per game and limited HD on Sundays to fit it all games in HD and SD with just 1 feed a game also have to plan for overlap.

    Also the NFL may not want games to end up stuff like CSN phlly or CSN NW that are on very systems in the local area that being a VERY BIG Change for all local games on OTA TV.

    In the past the Cubs have talked about about having there own channel like YES.

    But right now the teams do fine with 80% of CSN Chicago and a high number of games on WGN / WCIU. AS well all of the WGN America games.

    In the past the bulls, sox, and blackhawks had there games on the pre cable PAY UHF channels and when sports vision moved to cable I think it was like a few bucks a mo add on to basic cable.

    But in Winnipeg they have the season TSN JETS channel for $10 /mo. Maybe some thing like that can work for Team channels.

    And maybe for multi team channels say $7* mo or a flat yearly cost with a price brake for paying up front.

    * for that to work the basic pack with have to be priced for not having the RSN channel part of it.

    But haveing team channel wanting say $10 year round even in the off season does not really work to well even more so with it foreced into the base pack.

    Also the Blackhawks tried ppv and that did not last for long + bars where stealing it or paying the home rates for it also it got in way on some systems with other ppv events needing the same bandwidth.

    Any ways back then I was very into the bulls on tv and that was on the main sports channel / the CLTV sports channel over flow slot and wgn.

    It was hard to get bulls tickets then and very few people went to blackhawks games.

    Now the blackhawks are doing very well and there tv ratings are very good.
     
  9. Jan 29, 2013 #29 of 897
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    4,009
    511
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    The NFL is good about having cable games available OTA in the home market, provided the game sells out. Word is Versus lost the bid for Thursday Night Football because they insisted on having it be a cable exclusive.
     
  10. Jan 29, 2013 #30 of 897
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Funny thing is that the NFL floated the idea a long time ago that the Super Bowl be on cable or (shudder) pay per view. They at least got that part right.
     
  11. Jan 29, 2013 #31 of 897
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,564
    28
    Jul 21, 2008
    and then they will lose all the Ad's. also I think that FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS can out bid cable channels for the super bowl and make it up in ad spots.
     
  12. Jan 29, 2013 #32 of 897
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    And they can't form an alliance as that is anti-competitive price collusion from what I understand. Not my area of expertise, but I believe that to be the case.
     
  13. Jan 29, 2013 #33 of 897
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I guess. Cable is slowly taking over everything else. The BCS Championship is probably the largest single crowning event on cable. But the earlier rounds of everything else are going cable but by bit.

    The NFL is talking about expanding their playoffs. I would not be surprised if the new games are on espn with local only ota.
     
  14. Jan 29, 2013 #34 of 897
    RML81

    RML81 Legend

    111
    0
    Jul 3, 2011
    At some point, somebody is going to outprice themselves. A provider is going to have to tell ESPN or another network "no" someday.
     
  15. Jan 29, 2013 #35 of 897
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I think the war will be over RSNs more than espn. Espn still delivers for the providers and even though the main channel is pricey, the rest of the group really isn't.

    The inventory espn has keeps them in the game. But single team channels like the dodgers channel are much more vunerable. This could get painful for time Warner. They locked themselves into a 25 year contract.
     
  16. Jan 29, 2013 #36 of 897
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    429
    0
    Aug 9, 2010
    I think where it becomes an issue is where DIRECTV doesn't allow you to get the content at any price, IE if you were a Tigers fan in Iowa and DIRECTV decided, even if you had Sports Pack, they would be blacking out the White Sox, Royals, and Twins. You'd miss around 45 games a season even if you had Extra Innings in that situation.
     
  17. Jan 29, 2013 #37 of 897
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Agreed. Battles are far more likely to be waged over standalone channels than networks like ESPN than come bundled with other varied channels.

    (A hatchet copy and paste job)

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney#section_3
     
  18. Jan 29, 2013 #38 of 897
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    4,009
    511
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Blame MLB for that. Even if a provider doesn't carry an RSN the blackouts cover their entire territory. If DirecTV could they would give them the games via Extra Innings as they would make more money from that than they would paying the RSN extra for outer ring rights.
     
  19. Jan 29, 2013 #39 of 897
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    429
    0
    Aug 9, 2010
    Oh, I do blame MLB. I've mentioned this before but MLB should create a limit of 2 teams that can claim media exclusivity (ie blacking out the opponents feed) in any particular location. Teams should be able to keep their huge swaths of land as their territory sure if they can reach deals with providers, but they shouldn't have exclusivity.
     
  20. Jan 30, 2013 #40 of 897
    wilbur_the_goose

    wilbur_the_goose Hall Of Fame

    4,476
    49
    Aug 16, 2006
    Welcome to the pain we've been "suffering" in Philly for 10+ years with CSN-Philly.
     

Share This Page