1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Lakers New Regional TV Network - NOW ON THE AIR

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

  1. Nov 4, 2012 #1261 of 2097
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    I respectfully disagree. When you have MFNs and such with these contracts and negotiations, D* will pay for programming from Root the same as any other provider. That way my point earlier. Fox would charge D* every bit the amount they charged Dish, Cox or anyone else even when Newscorp owned D* and Fox. Contracts are contracts.
     
  2. Nov 4, 2012 #1262 of 2097
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    I'm sure some of those Bright House folks wish they would add the missing 20 or so RSN's in HD that D* has that they don't down there. Etc, etc. ;) No one has it all.
     
  3. Nov 4, 2012 #1263 of 2097
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,177
    167
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Sixto was with out power last week due to hurricane Sandy, not sure if he got it back yet.
     
  4. Nov 4, 2012 #1264 of 2097
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Plus, SR has yet to dispute ChicagoBlue's statement about getting TWSN within a week. :D

    Soon :lol:
     
  5. Nov 4, 2012 #1265 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,532
    958
    Nov 13, 2006

    No one here thinks root is charging $4 a month, not anyone with a brain anyway. Twc was just trying to spin that, as they are trying to say they charge less per channel for their two channels, it since they are almost the same thing and are only sold as a package, its a total crock.

    And of course they are going to call that into question. Wouldn't you spin anything you could to get a deal and look like the good guy?

    And they failed to mention they tried to get several RSNs onto specialty sports tiers last year and failed...

    Please don't resort to using spin statements from either company's publicity department on how stations that are owned by providers are handled and their contracts between them.
     
  6. Nov 4, 2012 #1266 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,532
    958
    Nov 13, 2006
    Well, even if they don't add the linear channels, they are starting to offer Hi Definition programing on demand for channels they only have in sd.
     
  7. Nov 4, 2012 #1267 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Oh please. Fact remains as a 100% owned and controlled subsidiary it follows what is of the best interest of the parent corporation.

    This new Laker channel is also a 100% owned and controlled subsidiary of Time Warner. It follows what is good for Time Warner.

    Comcast Sportsnet Philadadelpha and Northwest are 100% owned and controlled by Comcast and follow the party line.

    You are pretty naive to believe that any of these sports channels operates at arm's length from it's parent company. They may have day to day managers of the people, but the overall goal of the company is to maximizing the parent's profit and other customer reach benchmarks.

    Can you honestly believe that Directv is not pulling the strings at Root Sports....seriously?
     
  8. Nov 4, 2012 #1268 of 2097
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    Sixto likely without power. He lives in the northeast.
     
  9. Nov 4, 2012 #1269 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    DirecTV and SatelliteRacer however HAVE power, and there IS a game on tonight that isn't on national TV. They could confirm or deny it will be carried.

    As a matter of fact.... NONE of the games for the rest of this MONTH will be on any other channel besides TWC's SportsNet.

    Also: Testing does not mean a deal has been reached. We have seen this with ION.
     
  10. Nov 4, 2012 #1270 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    I have said exactly this. The whole market and playing field for RSNs is changing.

    What I did say is that for all the stuff Directv has tried and said it has not placed a single sports channel on an ala carte tier and yet singles out the Pac 12 for this. It just renegoitiated contracts with CBS and is still carrying CBS sports in the same tiers. It carries fuel, speed, sportsman, pursuit, etc. in regular tiers, but it singles out the Pac 12 for the fight and lets these others all go untouched? I say put them all on ala carte or a sports pack as well. I also say have a kids pack, and a pack for all the crap from Viacom. Those that want to pay for six MTV/VH-1 channels with absolutely stupid content can do so.

    Sports draws fans. I've also said that somehow, someway Dish has found a way to carry the Pac 12 on it's 120+ tier and, at the same time, charge a substantially lower price for it's packages.....how does it do this? That I am curious about. Maybe Directv's profit is so watered down because it pays up the nose for NFL Sunday Ticket at the expense of everything else?


    Never said otherwise, so I am not sure what you are talking about. Costs are out of control and RSNs are fighting for their lives. Their revenue stream is threatened with every single new channel that pops up (i.e. Pac 12, SEC if it comes about, etc.) This is all content that will come from RSNs.

    RSNs are also being increasingly controlled by teams as well, taking away additional profit activities.

    But Directv (or whomever) has a self interest in preserving the status quo (i.e. keep Pac 12 off it's systems, keep CSN-NW off its systems, etc.) because it's direct competitor is Pac 12 Network, etc.
     
  11. Nov 4, 2012 #1271 of 2097
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,177
    167
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Looks like he was responding to this:

     
  12. Nov 4, 2012 #1272 of 2097
    inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,532
    958
    Nov 13, 2006
    No, I think you are naive if you think that a parent company would run a small subsidiary at a loss on its books, when it can charge the larger company a fee that would make the small one profitable, allowing the big company to take the hit because it can easily absorb it because it has so many other sources of income, plus that might lend itself to more tax breaks, and allow them to say to other providers, hey, we charge ourselves this much, why would I charge you less. That's logical. I don't know why you think the big company would force the small fry in the company to take a hit when there are so many more reasons to have the big company take a hit.
     
  13. Nov 4, 2012 #1273 of 2097
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    Point being the guy that tells us stuff is being tested hasnt bewn heard from sixe Sandy. Its possible its being tested. Its possible that its not. The fact that there is a game tonight is largely irrelevant.

    Sure they could confirm but that is not consistent with what they tell us. SR tells us that a channel is coming not that it's being tested. CB tells us that he thinks it will be done (and tends to be right). Neither tells us anything about testing because as you point out - testing doesn't mean a deal is done.
     
  14. Nov 4, 2012 #1274 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    All contracts are not equal. A contract with a third party is a true gauge on the true value. A contract with myself is nothing more than the paper it is written on. Funny how Time Warner is not having a problem getting it's 100% owned sub on it's own systems. But look elsewhere and it is struggling. Funny how CSN-Philadelphia has disputes with many providers over cost, but finds its way - without issue - to a system in the same controlled group. WHY? Because the parent company has made a calculated risk on price. By setting the price to third parties high enough it discourages competition for cable/satellite from carrying the same channel.

    If I charge company A $1 my revenue is $1 and my expense is $1. I net to zero in the controlled group. True market may be 50 cents and since I set it at $1 no one else carries the channel. At the opposite end, because I am cable company A I keep subs I might otherwise lose. Overall company A and it's controlled subsidiaries come out way ahead. It's a basic premise. I charge myself whatever I want knowing that consolidated-wise I am the same. I keep competitors out.

    If I control both sides of the transaction then it is NOT at arm's length. It's the same arm.
     
  15. Nov 4, 2012 #1275 of 2097
    iceturkee

    iceturkee DINFOS Trained Killer DBSTalk Club

    1,217
    16
    Apr 1, 2007
    daytona...
    and some of us dtv customers would like to have the number of basic national hd that my cable company has. i'm lucky right now, i can afford both. but come january somebody is going to get the boot.
     
  16. Nov 4, 2012 #1276 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,085
    165
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    "Practically" the rest of the month, yes;

    Until Nov. 30th anyhow with Denver at the Lakers to be nationally broadcast by ESPN along with TWC SN.

    The previous 12 games beginning tonight though are exclusively on TWC SN.
     
  17. Nov 4, 2012 #1277 of 2097
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Well, Wall Street, SEC, bankers, IRS, regulators GAAP, IFRS, will all say otherwise for very good reason because a controlled subsidiary is no different from the parent at all. Related companies all file tax returns and prepare financial statements for consolidated groups. Even if a subsidiary elects not to be taxed as part of the consolidated group it nevertheless absorbs it's corporate parent (and all other subs) tax attributes so whether it is on one form or multiple the net tax will be the same.

    Stock market price is set by the market (that is, willing buyers and sellers). In the end they could largely care less about how the pots are filled inside the company. Now there could be motivation (if a parent wants to sell a sub instead) to make one sub look good and shift profits over there by changing it's intercompany revenue structure. But true buyers will see through that because they research their purchase. This is exactly what a business appraiser, economist, or valuation engineer will do - determine the true arm's length value w/o any compulsion of insider dealing.

    Because in the end it is a complete WASH to the parent company. Whether it costs $4 or not is irrelevant. I charge myself $4 and I take in revenue of $4 and I just allocated costs all over the place with NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER in consolidated Net Income. At the same time Time Warner (or whomever, change the names to someone else!) will get and retain existing customers ensuring additional revenue streams from customers that might otherwise leave if they had a choice! So overall the company makes MORE money!
     
  18. Nov 4, 2012 #1278 of 2097
    iceturkee

    iceturkee DINFOS Trained Killer DBSTalk Club

    1,217
    16
    Apr 1, 2007
    daytona...
    knowing swanni, the testing he is probably referring too was an incident mentioned here a few weeks ago. somone saw a twc sportsnet certain program on another channel.

    i would be surprised if this is really in test or we would have seen it by now.
     
  19. Nov 4, 2012 #1279 of 2097
    trainman

    trainman Hall Of Fame

    1,601
    29
    Jan 9, 2008
    Sherman...
    Just wanted to note that Time Warner Cable is a completely separate company from Time Warner -- they're only using the Time Warner name as part of a licensing agreement.

    Hence the network under discussion in this thread having the specific name "Time Warner Cable SportsNet" -- they're owned by Time Warner Cable, not Time Warner; therefore, they're not affiliated with Time Warner-owned channels such as HBO and CNN.
     
  20. Nov 4, 2012 #1280 of 2097
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,031
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    It's time to drop the finer points of channel lineups and return to the topic of the Lakers Network.

    :backtotop

    Mike
     

Share This Page