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. Aug 16, 2013 #541 of 2911
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,987
    1,017
    Nov 13, 2006
    Every provider that has the Pac-12 network has the same deal: everyone in-market, sport's tier elsewhere.

    What would make you believe it would be different with other providers? So yes, I believe him.


    I'd say its all about perspective.

    It seems.....

    Scott wants the same deal with DIRECTV as big ten. They have the same package placement as big ten on dish. (That dtv has with big ten) DIRECTV wants the same deal as dish. ( In sports pack out of market, same as dishes deal with pac12). You can't have them both.

    Scott looks at the deal being the same because he wants the same Concept as what he agreed to with dish. Not the exact same type of package placement.

    Massive (and by massive i mean millions of dollars) difference between those two things.
     
  2. Aug 16, 2013 #542 of 2911
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    And you know this as fact, even though he publicly stated the contrary? Notwithstanding the deals already in place?
     
  3. Aug 16, 2013 #543 of 2911
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,090
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Where do you get the idea that Pac 12 is demanding the national channel be shown to every Directv customer? Every other provider has the channels on in market and in a sports tier out of market. Pac 12 has said in the past that the deal is substantially the same deal as offered to Dish. Directv just wants a discount or is taking the hard line to prove a point.

    Note Jon Wilner's blog discusses this very point and references the most recent Pac 12 press release on the very same subject:

    "Despite being offered the same deal that all of the other providers have agreed to, DirecTV remains unwilling to reach an agreement...." http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/08/12/pac-12-networks-turning-up-the-heat-on-directv/

    It's way beyond the term substantially the same. It's now the "SAME." Directv has NEVER disputed this claim either.
     
  4. Aug 16, 2013 #544 of 2911
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Every provider that has the Pac-12 network has the same deal: everyone in-market, sport's tier elsewhere.

    What would make you believe it would be different with other providers? So yes, I believe him.


    Because as far as we can tell NO deal is exactly the same. And it doesn't match the leaks for what the PAC 12 wanted up front, that's why. They were pushing seven full channels up front. It was obvious they did not understand satellite distribution in the beginning. The PAC 12 has changed its story several times. That's why. Now a year later, we are supposed to take him at face value. Nope. Doesn't jive with what was said a year and more ago.


    Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
     
  5. Aug 16, 2013 #545 of 2911
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,328
    915
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Not my theory ... I just tried to put it in to words as clear as possible. I've done that before but too many people with an opposing viewpoint are so set on their theory that they refuse to pay attention to ALL of the bread crumbs.

    What was the deal offered DISH? Treat us like you do Big Ten Network. Why can't it be the same basic offer to DirecTV? Treat us like you do Big Ten Network.

    A year of arguing over this channel ... perhaps DirecTV's statements are being forgotten.
     
  6. Aug 16, 2013 #546 of 2911
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    "Same can be said of DirecTV, that's why."

    In any case, I agree, this relationship isn't happening and we're arguing over the dumbest things, but I'm grateful for your thoughts and commentary.
     
  7. Aug 16, 2013 #547 of 2911
    APB101

    APB101 Icon

    1,318
    73
    Sep 1, 2010
    Michigan
    With what seems to be precious little space for high definition additions, I now would like DirecTV to wait until at least D14 gets launched in 2014 before striking a deal to carry Pac-12 Network. That programmer is the one more in need for carriage.
     
  8. Aug 16, 2013 #548 of 2911
    acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    Maybe this is telling me that Pac-12 needs Directv, why am I saying this?
    Because they wouldn't need to go through all these ads, if they are so confident about their revenue, Just let it be and move on, Dont have to put more heat into the fire. Greed at it's best.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using DBSTalk mobile app
     
  9. Aug 16, 2013 #549 of 2911
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    "Same can be said of DirecTV, that's why."

    In any case, I agree, this relationship isn't happening and we're arguing over the dumbest things, but I'm grateful for your thoughts and commentary.


    I'm not claiming they are perfect. I'm reading between the two. It was obvious early on that PAC 12 didn't understand the satellite model. From their own words and arguments. Then things went sour on both sides. And they both have their points but I see that the PAC 12 went nasty publicly. The stunt with Comcast and the video were an example. Generally, I don't trust the side that goes nasty in these things.

    Directv's message has been pretty much the same. It costs too much. PAC 12 keeps changing what they say. Including all the deals are the same. None of them are. None.

    I'd love for them to find common ground but they are both entrenched now.

    But as for the convo, I agree. Good discussion.




    Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
     
  10. Aug 16, 2013 #550 of 2911
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    Never mind
     
  11. Aug 16, 2013 #551 of 2911
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,579
    29
    Jul 21, 2008
    Some RSN don't full get the satellite model like CSN Huston with them wanting full cover and price for The big area for Astros and I think dish / direct wants to put outer bands into sports pack.
     
  12. Aug 17, 2013 #552 of 2911
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,987
    1,017
    Nov 13, 2006
    And you know this as fact, even though he publicly stated the contrary? Notwithstanding the deals already in place?


    Who said what to the contrary? This is all I have heard either side say. They just have a different perspective on what they feel is the same about the deal.
     
  13. Aug 17, 2013 #553 of 2911
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    And Fox Sports 1 was shooting for 80 cents per sub, but DirecTV, Dish and TWC held out and are only pay 23 cents. BTW, 23 cents per channel is the average cost per channel according to SNL Kagan for 2011, which is the latest data they have put out on average channel costs.
     
  14. Aug 17, 2013 #554 of 2911
    SomeRandomIdiot

    SomeRandomIdiot Godfather

    1,348
    37
    Jan 6, 2009
    Remember Mark Cuban's HDNET fight with Cox, Comcast etc. PAC-12 should have gotten help negotiating and looked at that mistake before taking it public.

    DirecTV has a major disproportion of its customers in Southern California. Its easy to speculate that Dish and others were hoping to carve into that disproportionate percentage by jumping on with the Network as they probably hoped not to let DirecTV totally blitz them on Sports in that area. Look at the $3B deal TWC did with the Lakers to try and gain some control (while charging DirecTV, Dish, Verizon et al just under $4 per sub for carriage on those systems).

    DirecTV releases numbers every quarter on subs. Is DirecTV down in over the last 12 months? Yes - but so are TWC, Comcast and Dish - and nothing stands out that DirecTV is bleeding more than others. Given the high concentration of customers in Southern California (mid teens) it does not look like people are leaving in droves because of the lack of coverage.

    Considering that only 16.6% of the population live in the Pacific Time Zone (18.6% if you include Arizona) and that according to ESPN statements, only 12% of MVPD subscribers ever tune to ESPN (and considering ratings, that seem high) - not hard to figure out that at best only 2.3% of the USA AT MOST would be interested viewing PAC 12 Network at any time over a year. Considering DirecTV has roughly 20% of the US TV Households, that means that somewhere between 0.46% to a little less than 1% of DirecTV's audience (given their disproportion of audience in Southern California) would care to watch. That would translate to somewhere between 100,000 - 200,000 DirecTV Households at most.

    Bottom line. DirecTV is not the same as it was when Murdoch controlled. NFL ST is not as valuable as it once was with DirecTV taking a loss essentially giving it away to new subs now.

    It might easily be the same mistake that CBS made in the NFL in the early 90s - and NBC made a few years later.

    But this is not Murdoch/Carey DirecTV's model any longer. And Liberty Media/Malone have a much different business model.

    Murdoch was a big believer in Sports Programming and paying for it. Malone, not so much.
     
  15. Aug 17, 2013 #555 of 2911
    camo

    camo Godfather

    1,089
    87
    Apr 15, 2010
    My temporary fix was a no contract, buy your own equipment from Dish. Not for the guy that can't locate satellites on a Dish. And I will say Dish is much harder than directv's slimeline locating all three satellites. 140 bucks for dish and Hd receiver, no contract and I have pac12 network and Hustler HD. Eat your heart out...Plus the sub per month of course. What I have learned Dish is behind in HD picture quality and technology. Really seems like going back into the ice age with VP211K. They charge for a hard drive connection 40$ and extra 10$ month for HD if you don't do the 24 month commitment. Plus side is, it's a no hassle getting locals on vacation if all you have is the one receiver. Plus I have all the Arizona and Sun Devil games.
     
  16. Aug 17, 2013 #556 of 2911
    Bambler

    Bambler Legend

    412
    16
    May 30, 2006
    I agree, DirecTV would be wise to avoid the Pac-12 Network and it is obvious DirecTV has lessened their sport's programming focus as you mentioned.
     
  17. Aug 17, 2013 #557 of 2911
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,328
    915
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Actually: No. DirecTV was down over the last reported three months (2Q lost 84k subs) but they are up roughly 107k over the last 12 months. In 2012 DirecTV lost 52k in the 2nd Quarter but ended the year up 199k. Yes, it was their worst year so far for net adds but they still managed to add subscribers.
     
  18. Aug 17, 2013 #558 of 2911
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,244
    553
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Interesting to note that DIRECTV® has made a point of dropping troublesome subscribers, and not signing or re-signing those whose credit is crap. Short term this will make subs shrink some, but long term a stronger base.
     
  19. Aug 17, 2013 #559 of 2911
    carlsbad_bolt_fan

    carlsbad_bolt_fan Icon

    798
    16
    May 18, 2004
    Carlsbad, CA
    And like them, you are free to switch providers any time you wish.
     
  20. Aug 17, 2013 #560 of 2911
    carlsbad_bolt_fan

    carlsbad_bolt_fan Icon

    798
    16
    May 18, 2004
    Carlsbad, CA
    Sure they can. The Pac 12 just chooses not to. Seems that the folks at Fox know how to negotiate a deal that works out for both parties. The Pac 12 clearly doesn't know how to do that.
     

Share This Page