Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Mike Bertelson, Jun 29, 2012.
Directv used to carry the Philadelphia sports channel way back.
The reason CSN Philadelphia is not carried is not because Directv doesn't want to. They have requested it be made available to them. Thanks to Arlen Specter (Comcast is his highest campaign contributor) there is a terrestrial loophole which CSN Philadelphia takes advantage of.
I disagree. D* knows darn well they're losing Philly sports fans and money to Comcast, they're just too dumb to solve the problem. Pure laziness on D*'s fault, and pure greed on Comcast's.
The loophole was closed by the FCC 2.5 years ago too btw, it's illegal to "take advantage" of it now.
Nevermind, I had forgotten about that. I was looking at old information. Although Comcast is still not negotiating in "good faith", I assure you.
CSN-Detroit? You never know. Happened in Portland and Houston, and in LA, but a different cable company. Maybe D* needs to step up and own some more sports networks.
Only the Phillies get HD feeds, though. The 76ers are usually a horrible arena feed or even someone filming the jumbotron...always SD. The Flyers get like 2-3 games in HD from CSN on CI.
I highly doubt it. Everyone in MI has FSD, which has all 3 major teams (no Lions), and pretty much everyone watches most if not all of their games in at least 1 sport. Every sports bar in MI has FSD on 24/7 on at least 1 TV, most if not all during local pro games.
On the other hand, Comcast's Michigan only wannabe sports channel has nothing but Division II football and high school sports for 3 hours on Saturdays in the fall, and infomercials/classified ads the rest of the time.
And everyone in the NW and Texas had FSN but that didn't stop Comcast from coming in and taking over (same with TWC in LA). In these cases the all mighty dollar spoke and new channels were created. So you never know, same could happen in Detroit with the Pistons, Tigers or Wings.
Yeah cuz the Phillies are "good/popular/in high demand" just like the Lakers.
No, it's because who runs EI. If popularity were the case, the HD feed for the Lakers away games on KCAL would be available on LP.
Yeah cuz the Sonics moved to Oklahoma City, doubling the Blazers' home market by letting them have all of the basketball fans in the entire state of Washington.
The Astros and Rockets wanted a better TV deal for years and years. Same with the Lakers, Galaxy, and Shock who also wanted to clench the Hispanic market as well.
Also, let me add that even though they are Comcast sports networks, Comcast doesn't own 100% of all of them. Case in point, CSN Chicago is divided into 20% each for Comcast, Bulls, Cubs, Blackhawks, and White Sox.
Point being, those teams would have a say in carriage agreements.
The other problem is that Comcast owns two of the three Philly teams. Talk about a monopoly.
But they aren't LOSING fans to Comcast, they are not GAINING them. Since they never carried any Philly sports, they never LOST anyone to Comcast, as sports fans simply would not have signed up for DirecTV in the first place.
Gaining more customers is quite different from losing existing customers from a business point of view. Losing customers that already pay you has a more drastic effect on economics than not gaining potential customers.
The problem DirecTV has in Philadelphia is saturation. All sports fans + all sports bars are equipped with Comcast cable. If DirecTV were to start carrying CSN Philly, how many would really jump ship to something else that offers about the same that they already have for about the same price? (Plus, now they have to clean that dish in winter). It's not like Comcast would be *losing* CSN Philly, so why switch and take the chance that DirecTV might get another carriage dispute in 3-5 years? At that point, it is simply a numbers game. If you need to spend more then you can potentially gain in a market where every sports fan ALREADY has Comcast, it might turn out to be not worth it. I'm sure DirecTV has done the numbers, and might come to a similar conclusion. It's like trying to sell Coca Cola door to door while everyone already has a tray of Pepsi.
Yeah but Pepsi (like Comcast) is pure watered down corn syrup, can't decide on a decent logo and has been run by idiots like Mike White. Coke actually tastes good and has a great, memorable logo which has never changed, and is way more widely available (like D* which is coincidentally currently ran by idiots like Mike White). :lol:
Ahh back in the days with rooftop antennas...here in manhattan 10 floors up...fyi same apt & rooftop i currently have the D* dish on...My rooftop antenna was a fountain of sports in manhattan, that means a fountain of Philly sports & channels.. had 2 uhf stations that came in snowy but clear on certain occasions..least it was a better choice than dealing with the Atlanta Braves and Hawks.....anytime the flyers or sixers were on the road ch 17 or 29 had their games..ahh the good ol days!! way before money rules sports packages and television coverage!! sigh!!
ch17 had the philles, but I was a die hard Yankees fan so I didn't care..
Mike White used to work for Pepsi.
Yeah that's what I said.
Sure, there are always brand loyalists on all sides. But quite frankly, 90% of Americans will, when they order a Coke at a restaurant and get the reply question of "Is Pepsi OK?", simply take the Pepsi.
And you can dissect the analogy all the way down to the ingredients, but the basics are correct: Every sports fan has Comcast, and although some would switch to DirecTV, does market analyses really show it is going to be enough?
I haven't looked at the lineups, but I am sure that Philly has a nice XFinity HD lineup and good triple play deals with voice and internet and whatnot... And right now there is a good chance a customer switching to DirecTV might actually LOSE (basic) HD channels. So why bother switching?
My point wasn't about "brand loyalists" it was that Coke (D*) is simply a better product than Pepsi (Comcast).