1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

PAC-12 and DISH have deal

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by DC_SnDvl, Sep 8, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sep 8, 2012 #41 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I actually think not. At least not initially. Mike White didn't make his no 7 channels statement to hear himself talk.
     
  2. Sep 8, 2012 #42 of 682
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,582
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    I bet it's a lot different because of the advertising clause involved. That's likely playing a big monetary role.
     
  3. Sep 8, 2012 #43 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Good point.
     
  4. Sep 8, 2012 #44 of 682
    ChileDuck

    ChileDuck Cool Member

    28
    0
    Aug 26, 2008
    That page is full of half-truths and totally misses the point of having the Pac-12 network for fans of the individual schools who demand to see ALL games for their team. They are not going to convince us that the Pac-12 network doesn't carry games of national importance.

    That being said, it sounds like Larry Scott, the Pac-12 head, gave Dish a better deal.
     
  5. Sep 8, 2012 #45 of 682
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    From D*:. But, as it stands now, the price is much too high to accept their demand that we make it available to all customers, some of whom will have to take on this unnecessary cost for a channel they don’t want.

    That statement doesn't wash.
    How many of the hundreds of channels carried by D* that we all pay for but don't want and never watch?
     
  6. Sep 8, 2012 #46 of 682
    Mariah2014

    Mariah2014 Breaking the mold

    843
    5
    Apr 21, 2006
    Somewhere...
    Too many to count. To give an idea of some, how about those Viacom channels I don't need or want but have to pay for.
     
  7. Sep 8, 2012 #47 of 682
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,224
    180
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    I wonder who came up with that idea? I bet Dish went to the Pac 12 with it. I bet they did the same thing when the Versus dispute was going on with D*.
     
  8. Sep 8, 2012 #48 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Yeah. Compare channels that cost less than 10 cents to one that may want over an dollar.
     
  9. Sep 8, 2012 #49 of 682
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,238
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    No way. It won't register as even a blip on subscriptions, less than that on financials. -Not that anyone here will have a definitive way to judge what causes subs to rise or fall, i.a.e.
     
  10. Sep 8, 2012 #50 of 682
    Mariah2014

    Mariah2014 Breaking the mold

    843
    5
    Apr 21, 2006
    Somewhere...
    However, those viacom channels add up to more than a dollar when added up together.
     
  11. Sep 8, 2012 #51 of 682
    camo

    camo Godfather

    1,088
    87
    Apr 15, 2010
    I agree I don't watch any of the Viacom channels and i'm forced to pay for all of them.
     
  12. Sep 8, 2012 #52 of 682
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,582
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    More people tune to those Viacom channels.
     
  13. Sep 8, 2012 #53 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    And total they get way more viewership than the PAC 12 will. Don't be silly.
     
  14. Sep 8, 2012 #54 of 682
    superdeluxe

    superdeluxe Mentor

    31
    0
    Jul 31, 2012
    19 pac12 conference games that you can't watch anywhere else, as well As over 100+ basketball games


    And please what is this barely have p12 network business?

    That is the deal that dtv wanted. They only wanted one channel, so yes dish can boast it
     
  15. Sep 8, 2012 #55 of 682
    Mariah2014

    Mariah2014 Breaking the mold

    843
    5
    Apr 21, 2006
    Somewhere...
    That maybe, but the point was about the fact that we have to pay for stations that not everyone wants and that be the excuse they are using about the pac 12 network which is an network I do want.
     
  16. Sep 8, 2012 #56 of 682
    superdeluxe

    superdeluxe Mentor

    31
    0
    Jul 31, 2012
    Look at cable viewer ratings and price per subscriber. Way more viewers don't mean as much as live-non dvr ratings
     
  17. Sep 8, 2012 #57 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Read the whole quote. The price was part of it. And it is not about individuals. It is about numbers.
     
  18. Sep 8, 2012 #58 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Huh? More viewers doesn't mean better ratings? Huh?
     
  19. Sep 8, 2012 #59 of 682
    superdeluxe

    superdeluxe Mentor

    31
    0
    Jul 31, 2012
    For example USA networks has much more viewers than espn, but espn has 5 times the $$ per subscriber than USA network charges
     
  20. Sep 8, 2012 #60 of 682
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Oh. Pick an anomaly and use it as a standard. Yup. Works every time. Nope.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page