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 24, 2012 #981 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,258
    179
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Also when and where did DIRECTV or COX ever claim TWC SportsNet and Deportes were the "highest priced regional sports outlet?" :confused:

    The COX SVP for instance just said they were "extremely expensive for basically a one-team channel," which they are.

    This is probably why carriers want to add them to an optional sports tier for the high asking price they want, at least for the time being.

    Now if TWC had both the Lakers and the Dodgers or something, that would be different.
     
  2. Oct 25, 2012 #982 of 2097
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,612
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    Cox and DirecTV know that there is no regional sports network anywhere in the country that is offered on an optional tier -- that would be unprecedented.

    and there is no regional sports network that comes with a Spanish channel that they want in a basic pack.

    Now are they ok with the Spanish channel being in a optional Spanish pack?
     
  3. Oct 25, 2012 #983 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,527
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    That may be one of the key elements, and how they are both spinning things. I'd bet that twc is saying they may pay as much for root as they are asking for one of their channels, and cox and DirecTV are probably looking at the total cost of both channels, in part because twc apparently is only selling them as a package deal. Twc can't have it both ways.

    Of course one thing that twc is forgetting, they are adding a third RSN to the area, meaning that suddenly the price for the exact same sports is increasing by the full amount of what they are asking, which will have to result in a direct hit to our bills.
     
  4. Oct 25, 2012 #984 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,527
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Yeah, I'd say unless its dirt cheap, DirecTV doesn't want to add any new networks unless its in its own package or a la cart.... They really don't need any new channels to keep or gain customers, except maybe new RSN channels as they come along.
     
  5. Oct 25, 2012 #985 of 2097
    ChicagoBlue

    ChicagoBlue Godfather

    303
    0
    Apr 29, 2011

    TWC is full of @#$@ in that article. A commenter correctly points that out. TWC wants $3.95 for their channel while Root Sports charges $2.36 and $3.26 respectively. So for TWC to claim they pay Directv more for Root Sports than what they are asking for of their Lakers channel is a blatant lie.

    Furthermore, Root Sports Pittsburgh (which charges $3.26) has the Pirate and Penguins, about 225 games in total. The Lakers channel will deliver 57 I believe.

    TWC is flat full of @#$% on this claim.
     
  6. Oct 25, 2012 #986 of 2097
    ChicagoBlue

    ChicagoBlue Godfather

    303
    0
    Apr 29, 2011
    You are thinking old school. Cox, DTV and others are trying to change the paradigm. What happened in the past is in the past, the world has changed. Directv leadership in their own statements are clear on this,

    "DIRECTV CFO Pat Doyle was recently quoted in a BusinessWeek report as saying that the "dialogue" around sports networks needs to change so that only "the people that want sports ... pay for sports."

    The same article cites DIRECTV CEO Mike White as saying that, if he had a magic wand, "the first thing I would peel off is regional sports networks." He added, "The cost is just too high."


    Their margins are shrinking drastically over the last few years with 10%+ programming cost increases that they cannot pass on to customers at the same rate. In the "old" days of 5 or 10 years ago, sports programming was high but not this high. So deals made then should not be compared to the landscape of today. Furthermore, deals today often involve only a few teams, thus further adding on to cost while they still have to pay for the former RSN and whatever scraps they keep on their network.

    I would not be surprised if DTV adds the Lakers, but I would equally not be shocked if they never add Pac 12, Houston, Philadelphia, Northwest or when new contracts come up that they no longer continue to carry them. Yes, their brand was build somewhat on sports, but even then sports customers only make up about 35% of their base. They are alinating far more customers that are not sports fans with huge price increases for sports content their non-sports customers don't care about. They cannot ignore those 65%.

    Most of you probably don't know why Dish abandoned New York years ago. Most of it was due to the regional sports network costs. When you add MSG, SNY, YES, MSG+ the cost to a Dish or Fios or DTV is about $18 to $20 a month per subscriber. Think about that for a moment. They are charging $60 for a basic package and $20 of it is coming from 4 channels that many people don't care about. Now add in the cost of ESPN, another $4+, and CNN, FOX, Bravo, etc, etc, etc and whe you add it all up, these guys are making next to nothing on those packages. No money to reinvest in their business.

    The distributors see this loud and clear and DTV is trying to change the conversation. They may fail, they will lose some subscribers, but their goal is to stay in business because the world has changed. It cannot go on like it has. The more and more that the DTV's and others push back, the chance of sports sanity in the cost structure might take hold. Might.
     
  7. Oct 25, 2012 #987 of 2097
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    We've all seen this movie before. Mudslinging, lies, "looking out for customer's best interest" (my favorite by the way :lol:), blah blah blah. Just get the deal done already. Raise my bill if need be. Go Lakers!
     
  8. Oct 25, 2012 #988 of 2097
    dvdmth

    dvdmth Icon

    1,071
    5
    Jul 24, 2008
    Denver, CO
    Technically, TWC is right. Remember that the $3.95/mo price is for both TWC SportsNet and TWC Deportes combined, so each by itself would average only $1.98/mo (below ROOT's price).

    Again, that's technically speaking. For all intents and purposes, they are asking for more than DirecTV asks for basically the same type of programming.
     
  9. Oct 25, 2012 #989 of 2097
    TJNash

    TJNash AllStar

    198
    11
    Jun 5, 2012
    San Diego
    TWC is not even technically right, as they are not offering the channels on an individual basis to providers, as far as we know. Who cares if they pencil out to $1.98 each if you are forced to buy BOTH, or nothing at all?
     
  10. Oct 25, 2012 #990 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,527
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Especially if they are trying to force equal distribution of the two channels as well.
     
  11. Oct 25, 2012 #991 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,527
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    There will be a lot more than 57 games on the Lakers channel. You are forgetting the sparks, Galaxy and a bunch of college football and basketball games. With that said, I know the penguins are popular, although not even playing now, and possibly this year, but how popular are the pirates these days? I really don't know... The Lakers though, they are big. Comparison wise, the Lakers are Yankees big in the nba. I think that's got twc thinking they can get more than they should be asking. I wish DirecTV had tried to get the Lakers rights via a new roots channel...
     
  12. Oct 25, 2012 #992 of 2097
    lokar

    lokar Icon

    746
    12
    Oct 7, 2006
    I really hope D* sticks to this and other operators join them. If MSOs united and put sports channels a la carte, these ridiculous new networks would have to come down to a reasonable level justified by the marketplace. I say this as a huge sports fan, the fact that every team is now so greedy that they think they need their own channel is getting ridiculous.

    If I was D*, I would lower all packages by $10/month and put the ESPN channels and your local RSNs in a $10/month addon. ESPN and the RSNs would not allow it and if they don't, drop them. You would lose customers to be sure but I think if D* made it clear to the public with an offer like this how much non-sports fans are paying for these channels that they would be OK in the long run.
     
  13. Oct 25, 2012 #993 of 2097
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,568
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    And that is where the sticking point is. TWC wants Cox and DirecTV to raise everyone's bill. Cox and DirecTV only want to raise the bill for those who actually care about the Lakers. At most, that would be 35% of the entire DirecTV subscriber base, but it might be less than 10%.
     
  14. Oct 25, 2012 #994 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    But why needs MY bill be raised by that much? I don't watch Lakers.
    I do watch Galaxy, but they are worth $0.50 out of that $4.

    I think I am not alone on this, even among Lakers fans: Why should this year's Lakers games be $4 more expensive than last years Lakers games?
     
  15. Oct 25, 2012 #995 of 2097
    shuye

    shuye AllStar DBSTalk Club

    92
    0
    Oct 20, 2008
    I agree. I'm in Houston, so I am facing the same thing with CSN Houston for the Rockets and Astros. If my bill goes up $50/year for the addition of the Lakers channel, I will seriously consider leaving DirecTV.

    One question I have - since I am outside of the Lakers DMA, would I still see the Lakers Home games on the Lakers Channel? Would that take revenue away from the NBA league pass?
     
  16. Oct 25, 2012 #996 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    The way I understand it, if you are OUTSIDE the Lakers DMA, and in the case there is no agreement with TWC Sportsnet, NBA Leaguepass will use the opposing teams feed for the games with the lakers, so NO home feeds.
     
  17. Oct 25, 2012 #997 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,258
    179
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    No, you would need NBA League Pass to receive the Lakers games through a national feed TWC SN is providing DIRECTV and other carriers for that purpose.

    Even if DIRECTV comes to a deal to carry TWC SN you would still need LP to see the actual games, but if you subscribe to Sports Pack you can receive the non-game programming on TWC SN.
     
  18. Oct 25, 2012 #998 of 2097
    shuye

    shuye AllStar DBSTalk Club

    92
    0
    Oct 20, 2008
    If that's the case, then these team owned networks almost have to be on some type of a la carte system. Do you really think DirecTV will have different price packages for each DMA? Why would I want to pay $4 per month for TWC SN if I cannot watch the channels without also paying for League Pass? Same for CSN Houston - why would someone outside of the Rockets or Astros DMA want to pay for the channel if they could not watch the games on the channel?
     
  19. Oct 25, 2012 #999 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,527
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Again' that's the key. This is a new channel that is asking for all new money but we are getting the exact same thing we had last year.
     
  20. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,527
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Most markets only have one RSN for all their sports. There is only a few like Los Angeles that have multiple. And we now have three. That's the problem. Three is ridiculous when they want us to pay for all three one third more (or more) than what we where paying before for the exact same amount of sports.
     

Share This Page