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 #881 of 2097
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Good point. The Lakers have no ownership stake in these two RSN's.
     
  2. Oct 12, 2012 #882 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Oh yes they did. I was specifically told this on the telephone when I called the President's office...that I do not need the channel. Not only once, but TWICE.

    You now seem to think that you know what is talked about in my conversations with Directv? Dear Lord.

    Why do you defend Directv so much? Are you really Mike White in disguise? You seem to have an answer for everything, yet are not included in every conversation a customer has. You just somehow have to be right on everything don't you?

    There are also facts out there that are not part of press releases.
     
  3. Oct 12, 2012 #883 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Fine, call them sports networks.

    Pretty much every new sports network coming on line is owned by a league or team and they are taking content away from existing channels. In some cases filling a void and offering additional content that was not available, but mostly just taking away content from existing providers.
     
  4. Oct 12, 2012 #884 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Fine, call them sports networks. Never said majority ownership, I said ownership includes the teams and in other cases the league.

    My facts are sound. It's your interpretation that is flawed. We both know that I already have no respect for you and your opinions and we're going to spar on this if you and I battle back and forth, so best that we stop that here now.
     
  5. Oct 12, 2012 #885 of 2097
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Lets discuss the topic not each other. This thread is about the Lakers on Directv.
     
  6. Oct 12, 2012 #886 of 2097
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Adding some color
     
  7. Oct 13, 2012 #887 of 2097
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    I honestly get the sense that DirecTV will not carry this channel, at least not for the foreseeable future.

    The only thing that may change their stance is:

    1. Loss of subscribers
    2. TWC agreeing to either lower their cost to nothing or ala-carte.

    If DirecTV adds this channel at TWC's terms, then we can only guess that they felt the cancellation pressure.

    Dish's apparent openness to the PAC-12 network is, in my opinion, penance for doing what DirecTV is currently doing. Cyclical.

    Regardless, DirecTV, in my opinion, is damned no matter what they do, part of which is their own making.
     
  8. Oct 13, 2012 #888 of 2097
    lipcrkr

    lipcrkr Legend

    331
    6
    Apr 27, 2012
    I think DIRECTV will carry the Lakers come November. If not, i will stream the games online. I'm paying TWC $30 a month for Internet, so as long as i can watch the Lakers i'm fine. Will never go back to cable.
     
  9. Oct 13, 2012 #889 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,940
    1,010
    Nov 13, 2006
    They have said they would offer the channel if the pac 12 agree to a cost they felt was acceptable, or as an a la cart offering. PAC12 declined. I don't know how much more honest you can be.... And it is there place to decide what channels they carry for what prices, and its you place to decide if you agree or would be better off with a different carrier.
     
  10. Oct 13, 2012 #890 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,940
    1,010
    Nov 13, 2006
    You misunderstand what I am saying. They already add a $2 fee to some peoples packages specifically for rsns. They might start doing that with everyone on older packages if they create a new set of packages at higher prices. This would allow them to show the increase in costs of their packages as being related to the rsns. I am not going to explain the details of how/why, but I am thinking that concept.
     
  11. Oct 13, 2012 #891 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,134
    171
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    We're paying TWC ~$52.00 a month for internet, but I still can't get the stupid streaming site to work.

    It just keep's saying I'm outside the area, yet I'm right here in So. L.A.

    Go figure ...

    Lousy service.
     
  12. Oct 13, 2012 #892 of 2097
    James Long

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

    45,295
    912
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    OK ... forcing everyone in an area to pay $2 or $4 more for their RSNs might work (at least for DirecTV and the RSNs). Giving people the opportunity to "opt out" of an RSN won't keep the price low. An a la carte RSN is going to be more expensive (unless it is a channel people don't want). I believe we are on the same page with that.

    Higher prices in some markets than others breaks the "national pricing" DirecTV likes to use ... but if it takes higher prices to get the channels it is a choice.
     
  13. Oct 13, 2012 #893 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    You know that was a revised message played in what, week 4? That's not being honest and forthcoming, that's simply pandering and self-serving.

    Facts were all summer they first said "we have no plans," then they said, "we'd like to have it and we'll have an update closer to when school starts..." then when pointed out school had started at several Pac 12 schools were in session, they ignored it and continued to say the same, then on the eve of the opener they walked away completely, and then each week Pac 12 has been gunning for them in press releases and only finally, in week 4, they came up with this message.

    So while they are NOW saying that, that is not what they said all along. All along they strung us along. They could have been honest up front and simply said "we cannot afford it w/o increasing the package cost" and then let that ride. But they didn't and have allowed most of their competitors to zoom right by. How are they doing it? Directv is the more expensive option of the providers as well, so something is awry here. But companies can make business decisions all the time - they should just be honest.

    I can honestly tell you the coverage on Dish is great. I have most of the sports either on the 413 channel or on alternate channels. I am waiting for them to get the streaming option up for full-time access to Pac 12 Oregon and other regionals, they now say firmly by 10-19 they'll have that option for us.

    Then when I cancel they make it a longer process than usual, trying to continue to talk me out of it, when I tell them over and over again I want out and here is why. But then they come back with NFL Sunday Ticket for free, $25 off for a year, free multi sport, new equipment, etc. I had to decline these options repeatedly and just asked to cancel....but even then they made me sit on hold for a bit. I think it's part of a strategy to make it hard. Again, goes right to being forthcoming and honest....I told them in the first sentence I want to cancel and here is why - I wasn't going to change my mind -and I respected their decision not to want me as a customer. I told them I got it and just wanted to go. But they still made it longer than what it needed to be.

    So while NOW they say they'll add it as a PPV or to a sports tier, that is a week for massaged message because they are taking a beating.

    I would also encourage EACH one of you to call up and threaten to cancel and push it to the last minute (or pretend to). Assuming you are a good customer who unloads $100 or more a month with them and is in good standing for a number of years you will be able to extract substantial savings from them - at least $25 a month for a year (I feel you could talk them into 2, free new equipment, free multi-sport, free pay channels, and so forth. Take Mike White to the cleaners. If you don't want to switch and are pissed off make em pay.

    Regards.
     
  14. Oct 13, 2012 #894 of 2097
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Folks,

    This thread has required several clean ups due to inappropriate personal conversations. If this trend continues, all parties who participate will be banned from the thread without any distinction as to "who started it."

    This is a valid topic and I don't want to see this thread dragged to the level of other sports threads.
     
  15. Oct 13, 2012 #895 of 2097
    lipcrkr

    lipcrkr Legend

    331
    6
    Apr 27, 2012
    You need to stream the game on another website, not TWC. I'm watching it right now on my 52" TV. I don't know if i can give the link on here.
     
  16. Oct 13, 2012 #896 of 2097
    lipcrkr

    lipcrkr Legend

    331
    6
    Apr 27, 2012
    Stuart, am i allowed to give out the link to other subscribers so they can watch the Lakers?
     
  17. Oct 14, 2012 #897 of 2097
    hdthebest

    hdthebest Godfather

    331
    0
    Sep 10, 2007
    I can not see D* not adding this channel ASAP a lot of local bars in L.A have D* just on D* carrying NFL Sunday Ticket. D* would lose a lot of customers if this is not added
     
  18. Oct 14, 2012 #898 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,940
    1,010
    Nov 13, 2006
    Evidently, twc commercials got lots of loud boos last night when they appeared on the scoreboard during the exhibition game at staples last night!
     
  19. Oct 14, 2012 #899 of 2097
    Sea bass

    Sea bass Icon

    695
    4
    Jun 9, 2005
    :up:
     
  20. Oct 14, 2012 #900 of 2097
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,223
    179
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Do you guys think it would have helped negotiations if the Lakers had part or majority ownership of the channel?

    Of course they probably wouldn't have gotten the money they did.
     

Share This Page