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

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. Jul 31, 2013 #321 of 2940
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,568
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    That is not correct. The Dish and DirecTV deals must be different because Dish was given exclusive marketing deals within the PAC 12 venues as part of their deal. DirecTV cannot also get that, so therefore, DirecTV should get a different distribution deal.

    I am hoping for a la carte, but realistically I do not think that is going to happen. I do not expect anything to happen for the 2013-2014 school year, but in the fall of 2014, I expect the PAC-12 will agree to the same terms that the SEC gets on DirecTV.
     
  2. Jul 31, 2013 #322 of 2940
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Of course deals can be different. BTN has different deals with different systems and I'm pretty sure PAC 12 wanted BTN deals. Other examples abound. Epix is different from system to system. You are making an assumption. You may be right but it is an assumption.
     
  3. Jul 31, 2013 #323 of 2940
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
     
     


    I just don't buy this argument. It's not like DirecTV is any cheaper than cable or Dish, despite refusing to add the P12N. You guys are acting like DirecTV is drawing a line in the sand and somehow saving you a ton of money. Is DirecTV really cheaper than anyone else at this point? Everyone has their new customer promos, and some people scam the retention lines, but when you look at the actual prices...I don't see it.


    People can pick the providers they want based on the channels that are offered, equipment, picture quality and whatever else, but I don't see how having or not having the P12N is going to make that big of a difference on anyone's bill. This is not a $6 channel.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Jul 31, 2013 #324 of 2940
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,337
    576
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    That's one reason you're not part of management at DIRECTV. :)

    It's not about the immediate or even long term effect of the cost of this one channel.
     
  5. Jul 31, 2013 #325 of 2940
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,568
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    Where I live, the only choices are TWC, Dish, and DirecTV. DirecTV is a whole lot cheaper than TWC, and while there is not much difference in price between Dish and DirecTV, the PAC12 channel not withstanding, DirecTV has more channels than Dish does.
     
  6. Jul 31, 2013 #326 of 2940
    Mike Bertelson

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

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    I don't think anyone is saying that DIRECTV is going to any cheaper because they don't carry this network. It's more a matter of increasing sports channel costs.

    These costs are closing in on being (or actually are, not sure) the largest cost DIRECTV has. If I understand what I’ve read correctly, Pac12 wants national carriage and DIRECTV wants it to be a regional and part of the Sports Package…neither can agree on this.

    Personally, I don’t want it part of my package. Why should I have to pay for it when I don’t care about a west coast college sports conference?

    Add in that Fox wants a bump in carriage fees for FS1 when it starts up we're rapidly get to a point where sports channel cost will become unsustainable...and DIRECTV isn’t the only carrier balking at that.

    While not carrying Pac12 isn’t going to lower my bill, if DIRECTV agrees to Pac12’s terms it could increase my bill. I understand that doesn’t matter to you but it does to me. Now who’s wants are more important…can’t say for sure but it seems DIRECTV thinks the much larger customer base who don’t necessarily want this as part their programming package take precedence. So in the end it seems like a good business decision. Time will be the judge.

    Mike
     
  7. Jul 31, 2013 #327 of 2940
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
    Everything that I've read says that Pac 12 wants choice in market and sports pack out of market and that DirecTV wants to offer it as a la carte, even in the local markets. Nobody really knows.

    As for paying for a channel you don't care about, there are 100s of channels that I don't care about that I have to pay for, that's just how it goes.


    Wake me up when DirecTV drops the ESPN family of networks and the RSN's because of insane sports costs. P12N is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to those.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Jul 31, 2013 #328 of 2940
    woj027

    woj027 Icon

    930
    8
    Sep 3, 2007
    Portland, OR
    Can you share some links? I have yet to see anything other than "we are offering directv the same thing we offered dish" Which I still don't understand because that deal is basically the primary channel on a low tier and subfeeds. not all 7 channels on the lowest tier .
     
  9. Jul 31, 2013 #329 of 2940
    sum_random_dork

    sum_random_dork Icon

    911
    18
    Aug 21, 2008
    That was all the info I saw too, DirecTV wanted it for a month for free to see if they could work out a deal (no win deal if your the Pac12) or would take it and charge like a premium channel for the network(s).
     
  10. Jul 31, 2013 #330 of 2940
    majikmarker

    majikmarker AllStar

    91
    5
    Feb 27, 2005
    Arlington, WA
    Never said or claimed DTV was cheaper than "anybody else". Honestly, I have no idea what other providers charge because I am, for the most part, very happy with DTV so I haven't shopped around recently.

    I'm a Pac12 alum, and a sports fan, so I'm directly affected by DTV's decision to take a stand regarding the Pac12 network. I got fed up with Larry Scott running around encouraging everyone to drop DTV, couldn't find his email online, so I said my piece here. The Pac12 network is one channel out of hundreds, and even though I would like it (and would pay a reasonable ala carte fee for it) I would never consider going through the hassle and upheaval of ripping out my current equipment, installing new equipment, learning a new system and channel line-up for the sake of a few football games that I would, admittedly, like to see. Some people change providers every contract...good for them, for me, its not worth the stress and hassle.

    I think DTV is staring down the barrel of a future where every major and sub-major college conference wants carriage of their own network, and it looks like maybe they are trying to lay the foundation for keeping costs somewhat in check by changing to ala carte offerings for sports networks. The cracks are already showing in the current model: regional fees for some large market RSN areas, non-sports fan subscribers are starting to "rail" against being forced to subsidize high cost sports networks, etc. Personally, as a sports fan, I'm getting sick of the high cost of sports programming and one day (probably not in my lifetime) the breaking point will be reached, and people will stop watching/attending our current major sports leagues because fewer and fewer people could afford to go to games or pay to see them on TV. "If a game was played and nobody saw it, was the game really played?"

    Some of us that would like the channel understand and support what (I think) DTV is trying to accomplish by not accepting the Pac12 terms.
     
  11. Jul 31, 2013 #331 of 2940
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
     
     

    http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/20/carlisle-pac-12-networks-directtv-cant-reach-a/

    DirecTV said Thursday it had proposed offering the Pac-12 Network as a stand-alone channel before this weekend's games for anyone who wanted to subscribe to it, and also proposed allowing customers to buy future games on an on-demand basis until the situation was worked out, but that the Pac-12 had rejected both offers.


    IMO, If DirecTV doesn't add the Dodgers RSN and the P12N, then within the next few years, Time Warner in LA is basically going to be the equivalent of Comcast in Philly. If you want to watch local sports, you'll need cable.
     
  12. Jul 31, 2013 #332 of 2940
    woj027

    woj027 Icon

    930
    8
    Sep 3, 2007
    Portland, OR
    Oh I read your original post incorrectly, I read only that Pac-12 wanted Choice in market and sports pack out of market. Is that what Dish has?
     
  13. Jul 31, 2013 #333 of 2940
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
    .

    Yes, that is what Dish has, and Time Warner carries the national feed in their sports pack as well.
     
  14. Jul 31, 2013 #334 of 2940
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,337
    576
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    That article is from last Fall.( And a rather local source, Ventura County Star!).
    Please note the date somewhere prominent when posting old material. (yes, I do see the info is in the link if one is looking for it.)
     
  15. Jul 31, 2013 #335 of 2940
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
    Is there any reason to think anything's changed in the last year?
     
  16. Jul 31, 2013 #336 of 2940
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,525
    1,085
    Nov 13, 2006
    Oh I read your original post incorrectly, I read only that Pac-12 wanted Choice in market and sports pack out of market. Is that what Dish has?


    Nah, I wouldn't switch, I'd still get the Lakers my main team, and the Angels for baseball, as well as all my hockey and Clippers. And I'm sure many others feel the same way. Dodgers went without TV for a long time when fsn started fsnw2 and many carriers didn't pick it up for a while.
     
  17. Jul 31, 2013 #337 of 2940
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Would you like to be forced to pay even $3 a month for channel that you would never watch? It would not be fair to just force it on everyone.
     
  18. Jul 31, 2013 #338 of 2940
    Mike Bertelson

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

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    According to the article linked below DIRECTV is saying...

    Pac-12, DirecTV standoff endures, hurts ASU athletics

    Now I'll buy he really means in Pac-12's region but that means nobody has a choice and will have to pay extra (one of the top 10 carriage fees) for a channel whether or not they want it.

    Additionally, if you believe what's online, the amount Pac-12 Networks want would put it in the top 10 for carriage fees for cable channels...the many lists you can find on the web seem to put it 6th or 7th. That's hardly a drop in the bucket. I'm not trying to be contrary but the current sports channel model is leading to every higher costs for the subscriber.

    Mike
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Jul 31, 2013 #339 of 2940
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,337
    576
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    How clever! Make it about the "poor little athletes"!

    And, uh, how many will "miss out" on those games?? Some very small percentage- if as much as one percent- will "miss out".

     
  20. Jul 31, 2013 #340 of 2940
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
    I already pay a lot more than that for a lot of channels that I never watch. Bundling isn't going anywhere, why should this one sports channel be a la carte when everything else gets bundled?

    I don't disagree with this, but I don't see why blocking one channel like the P12N and carrying everything else while jacking up rates solves the problem. It just pisses off a certain segment. Of course, maybe the segment that is pissed off is quite small compared to other channels, I don't know.
     

Share This Page