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. Aug 19, 2012 #101 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,543
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Well based on this, the guy earlier wondering about stu will be glad to know he will get every game except national only ones, and this will be the first year that will happen on lp....
     
  2. Aug 23, 2012 #102 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    Now if Directv came out and offered a dish like this:

    [​IMG]

    I'd get one in a heartbeat .

    :D
     
  3. Aug 28, 2012 #103 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    Well I did a search on google news and typed in "Lakers Time Warner Cable Sportsnet" and found this article:

    Link:

    http://sports.blogs.mydesert.com/20...r-cable-sportsnet-to-air-mountain-west-games/

    Just more proof that this new RSN won't be a part time channel like what's happened with Fox Sports San Diego.

    Directv & Time Warner seriously need to step up the negotiations and get a deal done before October 1st when the RSN is suppose to launch.
     
  4. Aug 28, 2012 #104 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    Found this also:

    Link:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/touchdown_nfl_A6219GdQode3eA476rlvXO

    $4 a month IMHO is not bad considering the content they will be providing on the RSN.They got the Lakers, LA Galaxy, high schools sports coverage, and now the Mountain West college football & basketball games.

    I really can't see how Mike White and Directv can hold out and try to form an allegiance with the other TV providers like (AT&T U-Verse, Cox, Verzion Fios, Charter) to get under $4 a month fee per household.

    Directv also has to realize they are going to suffer in the commercial zone where a lot of companies like sports bars & restaurants use them for sports programming.

    As a residential customer I'd HATE if it gets to a point where there is a hold out between D* & Time Warner which causes me to miss Laker games and I would go the route of suspending my D* account and have Time Warner Cable installed until D* came to an agreement to carry the RSN channels.

    Trust me when I say I HATE & Loathe Time Warner Cable.But at the same time I'd go that route instead of giving Directv more $$$ to pay for NBA League Pass.Which I suspect D* would go that route and even offer D* customers a discounted rate for NBA League Pass if they still hadn't come to an agreement with Time Warner Cable to carry the Lakers RSN channels.

    Also NBA League Pass really isn't a option for us customers in the Lakers DMA zone coverage.The Laker games would get blacked out due to NBA broadcast rules and the only Lakers games we would be able to watch would be the games shown on national TV.
     
  5. Aug 28, 2012 #105 of 2097
    Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008

    I can understand team devotion but $4 a month for this channel is ridiculous. Outside of the Lakers it has 0 national appeal and yet everyone would have to pay the price unless they put in an RSN fee just for the LA markets of $5 a month. There late to the Mountain West conference and high school teams get so little ratings it's not even a talking point. You have to remember the Lakers don't care if you watch their games or not. They get paid regardless it's TWC that has to pay the bill. If people don't agree to the ridiculous fees then TWC will get into a more reasonable range.

    Of course they want you to switch which is why they make it a ridiculous price to other companies. Hopefully a deal will get done but it has to make sense financially.
     
  6. Aug 28, 2012 #106 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    It's not even about team devotion.And like I've pointed out before in this thread that you have to consider the size of the Laker TV fan base for this RSN. It covers more than the "LA area" Socal is HUGE with the in between cities, central CA cities like Ventura, Oxnard, Santa Barbra, and as far north up to Fresno which all fall under the Lakers DMA zone.That's also not including Hawaii, Las Vegas, and Clarke County Nevada which also falls in the Lakers DMA zone.

    That alone seriously dwarfs YES network DMA coverage.Which is the main incentive and reason why Time Warner agreed to a 20 year or 25 year deal worth $3 billion or $5 billion with the Lakers where Time Warner will pay the Lakers on average $150 to $200 million per year in TV revenue.

    Directv's biggest customer base in the US is also in the LA area and they are headquartered in El Segundo CA which is LA County.

    I understand the gripe and how D* customers outside of the Laker DMA zone may view this monthly RSN fee being ridiculous because your guys argument is why should you guys pay for a channel that won't be available for you customers to view content.
     
  7. Aug 28, 2012 #107 of 2097
    Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    I was watching Sunday Night Baseball and they said that that network won't be ready for a year & a half.
     
  8. Aug 28, 2012 #108 of 2097
    Devo1237

    Devo1237 Legend

    418
    15
    Apr 22, 2008
    $4 a month is ridiculous. Doesn't CSN NW want like $2/mo or something? And DirecTV has repeatedly laughed them out of the room. That's ESPN's price, not a regional network. Sheesh. This whole system is gonna collapse on itself soon if these teams/networks keep this up.
     
  9. Aug 28, 2012 #109 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,543
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    $4 is beyond ridiculous, but I question if it's really $4. As we have all seen, everything is just a rumor and not fact. I would not be surprised if the $4, if it where true, where for both channels, and that would mean more like $2 for the regular packages and $2 if someone had a Spanish package, assuming that the Spanish channel would be only in Spanish packages.

    I think they will all have a better time getting a good deal now than if they wait till this channel grabs the Dodgers... Wo knows if this includes treating fits and other things as well, which we know DIRECTV always wants, and would be awesome to have for a RSN.
     
  10. Aug 28, 2012 #110 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    There are some different dynamics in play here that could force DirecTV to pay a much heftier price than it wants for these networks....

    A few things for starters:

    - DirecTV has always carried the Lakers.
    - DirecTV is the most popular carrier in the Los Angeles region.
    - The Lakers are the most popular NBA team, and one of the most important Major League teams overall.

    Not carrying the Lakers, will have MORE impact on customers (and the losing of customers) than PAC12, CSN Northwest, CSN Philly, and CSN Houston combined. They will almost NEED to carry these two networks, somehow....

    On the other hand though, TWC has gambled big. They NEED not only the money that DirecTV would provide, they also NEED the money that advertising would bring (and with DirecTV on board, advertising prices would go up as there are more potential viewers).

    I think from a financial point of view, DirecTV can go without the channels mentioned above a lot longer than it can with a channel carrying the Lakers. They will really start losing customers over this one, so they will have to come to terms at some point.

    I am expecting a huge battle till the very last minute, possibly with DirecTV not carrying the first game or two.
     
  11. Aug 28, 2012 #111 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,543
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    I agree, this is a bigger Chanel than the pac12 ones and so on combined. Losing 65 to 70 games is a no go, I hope...
     
  12. Aug 28, 2012 #112 of 2097
    Devo1237

    Devo1237 Legend

    418
    15
    Apr 22, 2008
    Agree it's a bigger deal from a local fan base perspective, but everything has a price. And if it's really $4/mo and they want it in the same tiers as FSW and PT, then they are simply asking too much. Maybe they could get the $2/mo they won't pay for the Blazers, but twice that? And with the Dodgers new mega-deal coming up, you know FSW's gonna be asking for whatever the Lakers get. DirecTV is gonna have to draw a line in the sand, and this might be it. Hell, I'm sure TWC is hoping they priced DTV out of the running, so they can pull the B.S. Comcast move to pull in subscribers. This cableco-owned channel thing makes me sick, and I'm someone who happily pays for the sportspack and multiple sports packages.
     
  13. Aug 28, 2012 #113 of 2097
    TravelFan1

    TravelFan1 Legend

    233
    9
    Apr 1, 2009
    The whole $4/month per subscriber, I have to assume that it's per La Lakers market subscriber, not the 20mi+ Directv subscribers. Heck, it can't even count on the Sports Package subscribers, since live pro sports are always blacked out.

    Now, $4 per LA Lakers DMAs subscribers, it's still a bit too much - YES charges closer to $3, according to the link below:
    http://www.adweek.com/news/television/msg-time-warner-cable-end-blackout-138386

    And I can't see the Lakers TV costing more than the Yankees TV on a per subscriber basis.
     
  14. Aug 28, 2012 #114 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Don't know. YES Network has the Yankees, and some AAA Baseball rights, but not much other sports.

    TWC Sportsnet has NBA Lakers and WNBA Sparks, as well as the Los Angeles Galaxy Soccer MLS team.

    The Lakers (and Galaxy, for that matter) DMA is also quite a bit larger in size, almost 30 million people in California south of Fresno to the Mexican border, the entire states of Hawaii and Nevada, and a small portion (Yuma) of Arizona.

    So if you look at it that way.... the $4 for TWC vs $3 for YES, might be right on the money.

    But don't forget, this will be the ASKING price, it will never be known what they eventually come to terms to.
     
  15. Aug 28, 2012 #115 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,543
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Again I'd bet that it's $2 for each channel and you won't see the Spanish one in a regular programming package only a Spanish one on DirecTV, at least that's my guess.

    And it's a twc channel not a lakers channel even though we all call it that. Lakers getting paid no matter what.

    And twc can't be thinking price high and keep drv out. They'd lose to much money doing that. They need all the other carriers to pickup this channel. They can't make money on it if they don't.

    And your assuming fox will get the dodgers. I'd bet they won't. twc will I think.

    My hope is that happens then they turn one of the fox rsns into a Spanish channel and cut it back to two rsns instead of three, in a round about way.
     
  16. Aug 28, 2012 #116 of 2097
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Stop.

    To try to compare any market and any team to the Yankees and New York shows a lack of understanding of the American sports market place.

    The lakers have nowhere near the fan base that the Yankees have. And I'm a lakers fan saying that.

    And soccer? That is still a blip on the American sports scene. YES has the Nets, which counters any soccer team. But both are throw ins compared to the Yankees.

    The Yankees are far and away the #1 American sports franchise in money, fans and media attention.

    I am sitting here shaking my head watching a delusional LA sports market (I include the PAC 12 in that as without LA, the PAC 12 is pretty much a blip on the TV scene) thinking it is much more important than it is.

    They may learn a hard lesson.
     
  17. Aug 28, 2012 #117 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    On this, I would have to think so yes. But I think at this moment, most RSN's are added up and divided by all subscribers, or in essence everyone pays for every RSN.

    Exceptions are zipcodes that have a "Regional Sports Fee", which is an added fee to help cover the costs of expensive RSN's that are part of the Choice packages. Los Angeles currently does NOT have a "Regional Sports Fee", or at least.... not on my last bill. There is a pretty fair chance that once the deal is concluded, Los Angeles WILL get this "Regional Sports Fee", so we will see our bills increase. From what i hear, the RSF is about $2, so they cover some cost from within the Choice package, but not everything.

    Interestingly, you can't opt-out of the RSF if you are not a sports fan.
     
  18. Aug 28, 2012 #118 of 2097
    Devo1237

    Devo1237 Legend

    418
    15
    Apr 22, 2008
    I think you're wrong on this one. The $4/mo (or whatever it is) from the LA-region DTV subscribers that they'd be getting is at best break-even to the amount of money they'd make from new cable subscribers that would ditch DTV to get their beloved Lakers. That's what they're really hoping for, just like Comcast does. They want to be the only option for the die hards and pick up a ton of new subscribers who will then buy PPV, internet, telephone, etc. Honestly, if the feds didn't require them to offer their product to DTV, I bet they wouldn't even bother talking to at all.
     
  19. Aug 28, 2012 #119 of 2097
    Devo1237

    Devo1237 Legend

    418
    15
    Apr 22, 2008
    I've had the $2 Regional Sports fee in the LA area for 2 months now. My guess is that'll go up if the Lakers, Dodgers, and Pac-12 nets require it.
     
  20. Aug 28, 2012 #120 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    I realize that. On a national level, there are way more Yankees fans than lakers fans. Hell, worldwide the Yankees probably have more fans than any sports team in the U.S.

    But I am not talking about fan base here. I am talking about market size. I am talking the amount of eyeballs that YES would have (within the non-blackout DMA) vs the amount of eyeballs that the new TWC would have. Because THAT is where the price is decide. Not by the Yankee fans in Chicago or Atlanta, not by the Lakers fans in Cleveland or Dallas..... but by the number of millions of viewers that lie within the authorized zipcodes for both DMA's.

    I know that the Lakers DMA comes to about 30-32 million, or 10% of the country. About 20 Million in the Greater Los Angeles region + Palm Springs + the Desert counties, about 4 Million in San Diego + Desert, the entire state of Nevada, entire state of Hawaii, and Central California and a piece of Arizona.

    The Yankees DMA comes to about 24-25 Million, which includes parts of New Jersey, Connecticut, and of course New York State.

    Money: Yes.
    Fans: Yes.
    Media Attention: Yes.
    Market SIZE: No.

    Part of the issue here is of course that the east is a lot more condensed. The Yankee DMA can't "expand" a lot on the map before it hits the Boston or Philly market, where the Lakers DMA is more than half of the State + 2 other full states + a bite from a 4th state. Of course, the Lakers are just "lucky" that Nevada and Hawaii have no NBA team, and the two other closest teams are both 7 hour drives away.

    It gives the Lakers market, however, a larger RSN viewer market than the Yankees. And more eyes mean more commercials, etc, etc.

    I don't think PAC12 is as important as the Lakers. You forget there is no NFL team here, and Lakers are huge.

    As a matter of fact, a 2011 listing of most popular sports franchises in the WORLD listed the top 3 as such:

    1. Manchester United.
    2. New York Yankees.
    3. Los Angeles Lakers.

    Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/979699-the-50-most-popular-teams-in-sports/page/49

    Now, whether the $4 price is justified.... that is another question. I personally think it is a bit excessive. I know they are trying to pay for 2 networks, and they have paid $150 million a year for the Lakers TV rights (+ $5.5 Million a year for the Galaxy, you are right in the sense that it is much much smaller), whereas YES is owned by the Yankee organization.

    So from a financial point of view this deal is looking different, as YES doesn't have to buy the rights from the Yankees, they ARE the Yankees, and are raking in commercials money. TWC is the "in between" here, who has PAID dearly for rights, and has to recoup this money somehow.

    I know you think that we west coasters think we are more important or something like that.....Not the case. The whole dynamics of this deal is very different than that of the Yankees relation to the YES Network.
     

Share This Page