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. Nov 7, 2012 #1381 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,135
    171
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    I thought they already were in full time test, just not in the conventional way.

    Though I was hoping, "against hope" obviously, it might per chance go live this morning with a formal announcement of an agreement later on today. :(

    But nah ... outside the test feeds, still a whole lot'a noth'in go'in on with DIRECTV on the all news fronts I can see except their beyond sickening "in negotiations." canned responses. :icon_lame

    Looks like the Jazz game tonight is headed down the tubes now.

    Very disappointed with DIRECTV at this point I have to admit.

    However, still under some 18 months to go on my commitment and a lot of free or heavily discounted equipment here (5 HD-DVRs, with one an HR34) shared by three family members, so what's there to really do but wait? :shrug:
     
  2. Nov 7, 2012 #1382 of 2097
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    +1
     
  3. Nov 7, 2012 #1383 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Both of those now have enough coverage among providers to survive. Pac-12 has Dish, TWC Sportsnet has U-verse, Cox, FIOS, Charter, Brighthouse.... and with that it has 95% of the Lakers market covered, and in MANY cases a potential Dish or DirecTV customer can CHOOSE between a cable based TV service, or a IPTV/telco based TV service....

    These channels have passed the "point of no return", they will continue to exist regardless of DirecTV coverage is there or not.

    Also, the survivability of TWC Sportsnet shouldn't even be in question, given that TWC owns BOTH the channel, AND the largest carrier in the Los Angeles area. And they have a 20 year deal.
     
  4. Nov 7, 2012 #1384 of 2097
    skoolpsyk

    skoolpsyk Mentor

    89
    5
    May 24, 2007
    Indeed. Some of us live in rural areas so there is no cable to switch to, no broadband to stream, no radio to listen to. Even if Dish got the channel, I would lose all my programming on my 2Tb external drive if I switched, so I'm basically at DirecTv's mercy...
     
  5. Nov 7, 2012 #1385 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Well.... it depends. TWC Sportsnet is going to want (and is on all other systems) to be in the cheapest package available (or the next-up cheapest).

    For Dish, that would be America's 120, which as a new customer you can get for $24.95. With fees, taxes, and 1 receiver your monthly bill will probably be $35.

    Those who CAN get cable or U-verse/FIOS, can probably get a similar package with 1 receiver. If DirecTV and TWC both stay as stubborn as they are, one could ask themselves the question:

    Is being able to watch the Lakers worth an additional $35 a month?

    If the answer is NO, you are indeed screwed. If you can afford and are willing to pay.... you may be able to keep DirecTV, and get a second provider installed. If you ARE able to get cable, you can most likely go month-to-month, and you don't have to get a Dish Network dish installed on your roof. Both U-verse and TWC have really good deals out right now.
     
  6. Nov 7, 2012 #1386 of 2097
    kenkraly2004

    kenkraly2004 AllStar

    80
    0
    Mar 14, 2010
    Directv needs to just get it's act together and add TWC Sportsnet. It's a shame they can't make a deal with those networks and it's not right for customers in LA to be without those channels. Stop being cheap and add the channel.
     
  7. Nov 7, 2012 #1387 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,135
    171
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    And the answer has to be "NO" unfortunately.

    I'm in a TWC area, and in fact have their internet service costing $53.00 a month. There's a mortgage to pay and utilities and the DIRECTV bill is already ~$150.00 a month even with a grandfathered Premiere package and within a 24 month free HD access period.

    So we can't afford a second provider, plus the three DIRECTV users in the family are actually all adults sharing the bills here with the TVs in their bedrooms. Therefore the ethical rule here is if all three cannot enjoy the Lakers on TV right now, none of us do. So it would have to be a three box setup minimum from TWC.
     
  8. Nov 7, 2012 #1388 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,135
    171
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    More Confirmation of bad news I suppose ...

    DirecTV still not carrying Lakers; CEO blasts sports channels

    By Joe Flint LA Times, 10:15 AM PST, 10/7/12.

     
  9. Nov 7, 2012 #1389 of 2097
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yep.... from what I read, this is going the way of PAC12. They probably did the calculations, and if the LOWEST number that TWC is willing to accept will cost them MORE per year then the number of customers they expect to lose, there is absolutely no reason to get the channel.

    Sportsbars outside of a cable zone, AT&T U-verse zone, or Verizon FIOS zone.... will have a problem though.

    They probably also compare the "Give me lakers or else I switch" tweets/facebook posts to the actual number of people that call to cancel.... and keep working the numbers.

    I suspect most people will wait it out longer. They go watch it at friends/family with cable, they go to a sportsbar and get a pint of beer, but won't cancel.

    When I do a twitter search I see a lot of "I will cancel" threats but not a lot of "I have cancelled" tweets. People aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is.... and quite frankly, understandably so. And as such, DirecTV wins. The wife who thinks it is ridiculous to switch over sports wins. TWC Sportsnet loses.

    It will get REALLY interesting if Dish cuts a deal.
     
  10. Nov 7, 2012 #1390 of 2097
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Say it loud.

    I can understand if no other carrier had TWSN. Clearly DIRECTV is the issue.


    TWC:goodjob:Verizon FIOS

    TWC:goodjob:AT&T U-Verse

    TWC:goodjob:Charter Cable

    TWC:goodjob:Cox Cable

    TWC:goodjob:Bright House Networks



    TWC:kickbutt:DIRECTV

    Quite obvious DIRECTV is at fault.
     
  11. Nov 7, 2012 #1391 of 2097
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008

    Oh no, don't say that. You'll anger the D* fanboys!
     
  12. Nov 7, 2012 #1392 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    It's looking horrible right now and D* looks like they are willing to miss the entire season.
     
  13. Nov 7, 2012 #1393 of 2097
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    7,135
    171
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Regrettably, I guess ChicagoBlue's authoritative sounding prediction of an agreement within the week isn't looking so good right now. :nono:
     
  14. Nov 7, 2012 #1394 of 2097
    MikeW

    MikeW Hall Of Fame

    2,565
    4
    May 16, 2002
    At some point, a line in the sand must be drawn. It is regrettable that this is the situation, but this can't continue unchecked.
     
  15. Nov 7, 2012 #1395 of 2097
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    "taxing most of our customers who wouldn't be willing to pay for that content," says Mike White. He really needs to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth. There are so many channels we all pay for that we never watch. We mostly don't complain because we know there's a market for them, and paying for channels we don't watch, helps keep the price down for the channels we do watch.
    This attitude will eventually drive subs away from D* and when they leave, our fees will go up because there will be less subs to share the costs.
     
  16. Nov 7, 2012 #1396 of 2097
    skoolpsyk

    skoolpsyk Mentor

    89
    5
    May 24, 2007
    I wonder how the other deals effect this--I'm sure they would balk if DirecTv signed at a lower rate than they did. So both sides may just end up in a stalemate, refusing to budge...
     
  17. Nov 7, 2012 #1397 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    D* FANBOYS who have been trolling this thread will claim & say "TWC SportsNet gave AT&T, Verizon, Charter, and Cox a so called sweetheart deal"

    I really believe otherwise and really think those above mentioned TV providers caved into TWC SportsNet rumored asking price.

    No way in hell would they have gotten this channel for under $3.00.Simply not happening in this day & age.
     
  18. Nov 7, 2012 #1398 of 2097
    woj027

    woj027 Icon

    926
    8
    Sep 3, 2007
    Portland, OR
    Problem is the cable companies that signed on to TWC - lakers are in the lakers market or very near. So it makes sense to have the channel. A majority of the subs prob want to see the lakers

    DirecTV is nationwide and the ratio of laker fans to subscribers is much lower. So there are fewer subs who want to watch the lakers. Why should I have to pay (lower level package requirement for TWS) ?
     
  19. Nov 7, 2012 #1399 of 2097
    kb24sd

    kb24sd The Specialist

    191
    0
    Jun 21, 2012
    Don't agree with that part at all.

    Directv's customer base in LA alone is approximately 1.7 million.Throw in the rest of SoCal, OC, San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, and the central parts of Cali.

    That's easily close to 4 million subs in the Lakers DMA zone.

    There have been a lot of reports saying that the D* customers in the not direct LA market would get charged a lower rate to carry the channel.
     
  20. Nov 7, 2012 #1400 of 2097
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    We're all paying for channels we don't watch. Just the nature of the business.
     

Share This Page