1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lakers New Regional TV Network - NOW ON THE AIR

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by kb24sd, Jul 1, 2012.

  1. Oct 12, 2012 #861 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,263
    179
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    +1

    Not only is there no definitive proof that DIRECTV has adopted such an allegedly obstinate and/or dishonest stand in their approach to negotiations over TWC SN outside of peoples' personal opinions drawn from DIRECTV's assumed attitude toward the Pac-12 network. But I continue to fail to see why DIRECTV is being singled out this way regarding carriage of these channels like the stubbornly lone holdout, when NO OTHER carriers have signed on with TWC to carry them yet either. :nono:

    And no I'm not counting Bright House, since they are affiliated with TWC anyhow.
     
  2. Oct 12, 2012 #862 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Your assuming that these new contracts don't say they can make changes to the packages they are in at some point as long as they are in a group of a certain size....

    And channels like ion, that probably cost less than pennies a day, no those will stay in place. CBS sports, I'd bet that's one of the cheapest sports channels there is right now, after the pursuit channels and such... I would not expect them to start rearranging tiers and such till they have enough contracts in place to move a lot of channel around, that's why I say in the future. I don't expect this kind of whole sale change for a few more years... for new channels coming on board now, DirecTV is showing that those are probably going to get relegated to higher tiers if the costs aren't real low, case in point the pac12 channel. Frankly, I wouldn't care if they made the twc channel a la cart and charged an extra $5 for it, but I don't see that happening. But if all the RSNs aren't careful, someday RSNs will cost us all an extra $4 a month as a separate line item.
     
  3. Oct 12, 2012 #863 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    I've contended all along that the Lakers channel is far more implant than the pac12 channel is. Far more. Bt the combination of the two missing will be the most difficult to overcome for a large portion of the subscriber base.

    I have also been wondering if they aren't expecting some customers that would pay for the channel a la cart to simply pick up a second service to get the other channels and not lose some customers that want these channels because of that.
     
  4. Oct 12, 2012 #864 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Uh, no. There is no logic in that. If anything, people should be happy when/if they get the channels because it will be apparent that they waited till they got a deal they felt was lower in cost for them to carry than what they channels wanted, so they kept costs down...
     
  5. Oct 12, 2012 #865 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Why don't you dump all providers and get over the air and netflix? Then you'd only be paying for what you want. Otherwise you will always be paying for many channels you don't watch or care about.
     
  6. Oct 12, 2012 #866 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Dish still has the big 10 channel, they didn't drop it. They came to an agreement on the last day I believe it was.

    And the pac12 let dish go with just one conus and part time channels for overflow games, so I am sure they'd let DirecTV do the same, which means that argument does not hold water anymore either.
     
  7. Oct 12, 2012 #867 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    DirecTV has never made an argument for not carrying sports channels, especially these channels. They have said they want the channels. There is no hole and they sure didn't back into it.
     
  8. Oct 12, 2012 #868 of 2097
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    Thanks. I'll be sure to heed your advice.
     
  9. Oct 12, 2012 #869 of 2097
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    Well, the proverbial hole that directv dug themselves into is the second part of the "statement" you're referring to.
     
  10. Oct 12, 2012 #870 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    First, yes I guess I am assuming that since the press by either side didn't state a change in package. That would be something you'd publicly state in a press release though. Simply put there is no change. And simply put it is not reasonable to put one channel (out of quite a few) into a sports tier and leave the others alone.

    RSNs as we know them are done anyway. They are becoming all substantially owned by the sports teams or leagues rather than providers. I think Fox is recognizing this by changing Speed into a national channel for all sports - there will come a day when fox RSNs will be no more.
     
  11. Oct 12, 2012 #871 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    They never release any details of contracts unless they have an immediate impact. So we don't know squat about what may be in the latest contracts.

    And who says one channel. That's my point in the long run I expect we will see more than three packages For basic channels, as some providers are testing that now. In not saying they be all sports either. Just more groups than we have now.

    As for rsns I get what your saying but I'd say they are are going to head towards more rsns as teams want more time for just their stuff but the yes network will never be the norm. I think the Los Angeles market along with New York and a few others will always have more channels because of the number of teams.

    FOX wants a sports channel like NBC and ABC have so they can bid on national rights for during the week for sports without having to screw up their network shows on FOX. There is a place for them alongside espn and NBC sports. Long run I see major games on regular networks next tier of games and secondary sports biggest games on national cable sports channels like espn FOX NBC and league channels and all the rest on a local RSN. They won't ever want to get rid of rsns because then that'd hurt their league pass sales.
     
  12. Oct 12, 2012 #872 of 2097
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    A handful...that's it.
     
  13. Oct 12, 2012 #873 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    More than a handfiul:

    Pac 12 is owned by the Pac 12.
    Altitude is owned by the same group that owns several of the Denver teams
    NESN is 80% owned by Red Sox
    MASN owned by Orioles and Nationals
    YES by the Yankees
    CSN Chicago by several of the Chicago teams
    CSN Houston by Astros, Rockets
    Sportstime Ohio by the Indians
    Big 10 by Big 10
    NFL by NFL
    NBA by NBA
    NHL by NHL

    That's off the top of my head.
     
  14. Oct 12, 2012 #874 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    If this was going ala carte as an option Directv would be out saying that in conjunction w/Pac 12. It's not.

    Directv has made a business decision to not to carry the channel...just wish they'd be forthcoming with customers. It's not their place for them to tell me that I do not need the channel, which is what they did.
     
  15. Oct 12, 2012 #875 of 2097
    Spoonman27

    Spoonman27 Cool Member

    40
    2
    Jul 12, 2009
    Just to add to that list the SF Giants own 30% of Comcast Bay Area.

    When the SportsChannel networks joined the Fox Sports Net family, the channel was rebranded as Fox Sports Bay Area in January 1998, and to FSN Bay Area in 2004. With the network being 45% owned by NBCUniversal, 30% owned by the San Francisco Giants and 25% owned by Fox, the network was rebranded as a part of the Comcast SportsNet family on March 31, 2008.[1]
     
  16. Oct 12, 2012 #876 of 2097
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That is optimistic. The only way RSNs can be offered for "$4" is by allowing them to be cut off of the lowest tier and added back on for "$4" (the way DISH does it for $5). It can only be done because the majority of customers pay for the local RSNs via their higher than lowest tier packages.

    If the RSNs were not in any tier and were always an add on they wouldn't be $4 per month. They would need to be $10-$15 per month or much higher for the RSNs to break even on the prices they are getting today.
     
  17. Oct 12, 2012 #877 of 2097
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    RSN = Regional Sports Network

    Your comment:

    NBA TV, NFL Network, and NHL Network are not (nor have they every been) RSN's.

    You listed nine others. DirecTV carries more than 60 RSN feeds in some capacity (full-time/part-time/alternate). How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that RSN's are "done", as you said?
     
  18. Oct 12, 2012 #878 of 2097
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    No they didn't. I'd like to see the press release that included your name. You are only one of more than 20 million customers. They have multiple ways of gauging customer wants, needs, and desires.
     
  19. Oct 12, 2012 #879 of 2097
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Odd you say that in a discussion of a new RSN fully owned by a cable company.

    Most RSNs are either owned by cable companies or are a joint venture. Very few are team wholly team owned. MASN and YES come to mind.
     
  20. Oct 12, 2012 #880 of 2097
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    You are lumping national channels like NFL and nba into RSNs. And are lumping joint ventures including ones co owned by multiple teams as if it proves your point. CSN Chicago is still Comcast. The individual teams all have an ownership stake but that is just the way they are paid out. Even BTN is majority owned by Fox.

    Your facts are a jumbled mess that do not prove your point at all.
     

Share This Page