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. Sep 24, 2013 #941 of 2911
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,583
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Then, why were late afternoon games in the west like ASU/Stanford still so poorly rated?

    As for the bars, why don't they fully convert to ATT/Comcast/Dish? Oh, I know why... because they'd be complaining about no Sunday Ticket, virtually every baseball game in HD, etc.
     
  2. Sep 24, 2013 #942 of 2911
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,566
    144
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    Two more examples of why the PAC 12 is a regional network and not a national network. PAC 12 game times do not work for the East Coast, and when a PAC 12 game is up against Auburn, LSU, Johnny Football (Texas A&M), or Alabama (all SEC teams, by the way), the PAC 12 game cannot compete for an audience.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Sep 24, 2013 #943 of 2911
    Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    294
    23
    Apr 16, 2012
    Nope. We already established that a game involving a Pac-12 team at 10:30 PM got a good rating because on the west coast it was in their prime time, and on the east coast had no competition up against it and fans obviously found it.

    No conference is the SEC regarding ratings, but that doesn't mean the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, etc., doesn't draw viewers and should close up shop.


    Sandra
     
  4. Sep 24, 2013 #944 of 2911
    BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    514
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    And that is PAC-12's choice. They have decided to bundle their streaming with their linear channel(s) sold only through participating cable/satellite providers.



    It isn't the content that DirecTV was sold. The RSNs went to DirecTV with a list of content that they agreed to provide. "Look at what you get for only $x per subscriber per month." And then they lost that content. The RSNs no longer have to pay PAC-12 for the games they lost yet they still collect the fees from DirecTV and (in most cases) have not replaced the lost programming with content of equal value.

    Most subscribers are not turning on their TV looking for just any content ... they are looking for their desired content. "200 channels and nothing on" isn't the situation most subscribers want to be in.

    The promise of multi-channel video distribution is that the content one seeks will be there. Perhaps we need to get to the level of 2000 channels and nothing on. On demand is helping with content that can be stored.

    I watched the 1966 movie "The Bubble" a couple of weeks ago via on demand. I read about the movie on the Internet (it was basically a 3D demonstration film with a thin plot and a lot of things coming close to the camera so they would stick out into the audience). I wanted to see it. I used the search feature on my receiver, found the movie and watched it with a slight delay to allow for downloading. That's the way it should be.

    The reality of multi-channel video distribution is the people who own the rights to content control how that content is distributed. If they say "content offered only through participating cable/satellite providers who carry the linear channel(s) to a negotiated group of customers" that's how it is delivered - or it isn't delivered at all. It is their content.


    Wait, so directv has 3D on demand content now? 3D pay per view movies or just junk?
     
  5. Sep 24, 2013 #945 of 2911
    James Long

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

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I do not know if you can watch that movie via DirecTV's on demand. I have another provider (and it did not appear to be a 3D transmission).

    The point was not that specific movie, but the concept that providers strive to become one stop content shops providing access to whatever content their customer want to see. That is the promise of a multi-channel video distribution system ... but the reality is somewhat less than the promise.

    There will always be something that isn't available.
     
  6. Sep 24, 2013 #946 of 2911
    jerrylove56

    jerrylove56 Godfather

    466
    14
    Jun 14, 2008
    North Alabama
    1. The PAC12 should have allowed the "god" of college football, ESPN to underwrite their network, aka (SEC net., ACC net) and this programming controversy would have never existed.

    2. That being said, I would love more college football, without the added expense of the Sports pack. The PAC12 conference is getting better and probably will have 2 or more teams that will vie for BCS bowls.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Sep 24, 2013 #947 of 2911
    Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    2,172
    157
    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island
    We established no such thing. The ASU/Wisconsin ratings were crappy as well (1.6), despite having no competition. They just weren't as crappy as ASU/Stanford (1.3), which was the worst ratings that FOX has ever had for a primetime college football game.
     
  8. Sep 24, 2013 #948 of 2911
    BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    514
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    We established no such thing. The ASU/Wisconsin ratings were crappy as well (1.6), despite having no competition. They just weren't as crappy as ASU/Stanford (1.3), which was the worst ratings that FOX has ever had for a primetime college football game.

    What would be considered "good" ratings?
     
  9. Sep 24, 2013 #949 of 2911
    James Long

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

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Yep. It worked perfectly for the Longhorn Network. Their partnership with ESPN has ensured they got carriage.

    Oh, wait ...
     
  10. Sep 24, 2013 #950 of 2911
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,242
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Oh, dear!

    Also, by partnering with ESPN, the PAC-12 would have to fork over some dough (perhaps a lot), and a lot of control. Not that they have that much control over the broadcasts of major fixtures....
     
  11. Sep 24, 2013 #951 of 2911
    Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    2,172
    157
    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island
    Well, Tennessee/Florida got a 3.0 on the same day that ASU/Stanford pulled a 1.3. The "good ratings" (1.6) that Sandra was referring to was only 53% of the Tennessee/Florida game. So, I don't know how 1.6 can be considered "good".
     
  12. Sep 24, 2013 #952 of 2911
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,973
    1,016
    Nov 13, 2006
    1. The PAC12 should have allowed the "god" of college football, ESPN to underwrite their network, aka (SEC net., ACC net) and this programming controversy would have never existed.

    2. That being said, I would love more college football, without the added expense of the Sports pack. The PAC12 conference is getting better and probably will have 2 or more teams that will vie for BCS bowls.


    Ha and DIRECTV thinks the price is high now. There's no way espn would have made it cheaper!

    And as others have said how's that going for long horn channel?


    Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk
     
  13. Sep 25, 2013 #953 of 2911
    jerrylove56

    jerrylove56 Godfather

    466
    14
    Jun 14, 2008
    North Alabama
    A few posters have quipped that the PAC-12 was a "regional" network setup, that was incorrect. The Longhorn network is a regional sports network with limited appeal to one area/state. While the LHN only carries one school's programming the PAC-12's obviously has that of 12 different schools.
    The Longhorn channel is a basic RSN, while I would put the PAC-12 on the level of the BTN. The PAC-12 network failed to realize that most of the movers and shakers of the programming world have a East Coast bias that fails to value West Coast contributions.
     
  14. Sep 25, 2013 #954 of 2911
    jerrylove56

    jerrylove56 Godfather

    466
    14
    Jun 14, 2008
    North Alabama
    Quick. Name 10 top universities in the USA and see how many are East Coast based?
     
  15. Sep 25, 2013 #955 of 2911
    pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    447
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    50% of the population lives in the Eastern time zone. About 20% live in the Pacific and Mountain time zones combined. Any perceived bias is probably based on these numbers.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. Sep 25, 2013 #956 of 2911
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    DirecTV customers: Your bill is going up again

    And I thought the reason D* didn't pick up the PAC 12 Net was to keep rates in check.
    Lied to again by D*
     
  17. Sep 25, 2013 #957 of 2911
    pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    447
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    I don't think DirecTV ever said rates would be frozen without the addition of PAC-12 Networks.
     
  18. Sep 25, 2013 #958 of 2911
    James Long

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

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    No ... the PAC-12 Network is an RSN. They serve a larger region than most RSNs (similar to the RSN Big Ten Network) but they are a sports network that concentrates their coverage on affiliated teams within their region.

    The point about Longhorn network carriage was in response to the claim that being affiliated with ESPN would give PAC-12 carriage.

    I do not know why BTN gets better treatment on DirecTV than any other RSN. Perhaps it is because they were one of the first and they are being treated like a national college sports network instead of a regional with a large region. It sounds like PAC-12 wants the same treatment. So far PAC-12 has failed to achieve their goal.
     
  19. Sep 25, 2013 #959 of 2911
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,242
    552
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    You're awfully quick to conclude character over matters not in evidence.
     
  20. Sep 26, 2013 #960 of 2911
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,566
    144
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    Yes, the bill is going up, but the bill would have had to go up even more if the PAC 12 network was added to the basic package.
     

Share This Page