Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Lakers New Regional TV Network - NOW ON THE AIR


  • Please log in to reply
2096 replies to this topic

#201 OFFLINE   kb24sd

kb24sd

    The Specialist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 189 posts
Joined: Jun 21, 2012

Posted 03 September 2012 - 09:26 PM

they have it as a sub feed and maybe in a few years prime ticket may go away or fold down to a part time over flow of FS west.


That may actually happen as soon as after the Dodgers 2013 season if Time Warner throws billions at them also like they did to get the new TV deal with the Lakers.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#202 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,983 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:27 AM

Yeah down here in San Diego I think Fox Sports San Diego is a poorly designed and utilized channel.Right now all it shows is the Padres and maybe some Del Mar Horse races.No other programming is being shown.

Which is why I'm wondering why Directv chose to carry the channel.Them an Cox Cable down here are the only providers carrying it.AT&T U-Verse, Time Warner, and Dish Network are refusing to carry it at Fox's asking price.


Maybe because that channel will also have plenty of prime ticket programing during the nba and NHL season, and that DIRECTV may have also cut a deal for it along with all the other RSNs at the same time long before it actually launched. Who knows....

#203 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,983 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:29 AM

they have it as a sub feed and maybe in a few years prime ticket may go away or fold down to a part time over flow of FS west.


I still think if anything, it might go Spanish to compete with twc spanish channel if they lose the Dodgers... If they don't lose the Dodgers, I expect no changes what so ever, accept maybe gaining other second tier sports...

#204 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,089 posts
Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:42 AM

they have it as a sub feed and maybe in a few years prime ticket may go away or fold down to a part time over flow of FS west.


In theory, with the loss of the Lakers Directv should be pushing Fox for some rebates on programming for these channels (i.e. pay less due to less content). They've still got hockey and the Clippers, but these properties are simply worth less than the Lakers.

As for the $3.95 cost for the new Laker channel, it's both sides that need to find some common ground. Not every sub is interested in paying another $5 a month (hey, need to include some profit for the distributor) extra just to get the Lakers.....and is that extra $5 just a charge for the LA market? Why should the rest of the USA absorb that $5 hit when LA has (now or soon to be) six RSNs (with Pac 12, Time Warner, possibly Dodgers, etc.)?

This is why I see the Viacom deal as dumb for Directv to even renew across the board.....people want sports and will change for sports.....they rarely will change for the Viacom channels, there just isn't much there for someone to pay extra. This is one place where Directv could have put a provider in its place.

#205 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,192 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 04 September 2012 - 07:41 AM

In theory, with the loss of the Lakers Directv should be pushing Fox for some rebates on programming for these channels (i.e. pay less due to less content). They've still got hockey and the Clippers, but these properties are simply worth less than the Lakers.

As for the $3.95 cost for the new Laker channel, it's both sides that need to find some common ground. Not every sub is interested in paying another $5 a month (hey, need to include some profit for the distributor) extra just to get the Lakers.....and is that extra $5 just a charge for the LA market? Why should the rest of the USA absorb that $5 hit when LA has (now or soon to be) six RSNs (with Pac 12, Time Warner, possibly Dodgers, etc.)?

This is why I see the Viacom deal as dumb for Directv to even renew across the board.....people want sports and will change for sports.....they rarely will change for the Viacom channels, there just isn't much there for someone to pay extra. This is one place where Directv could have put a provider in its place.

$3.95 is English + Spanish language. Maybe they can put the Spanish one in the Spanish pack so they are only paying about $2 to add it to the main pack in that area.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#206 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 04 September 2012 - 09:35 AM

In theory, with the loss of the Lakers Directv should be pushing Fox for some rebates on programming for these channels (i.e. pay less due to less content). They've still got hockey and the Clippers, but these properties are simply worth less than the Lakers.


Yeah I am not quite sure how this works contractually.... GOLTV just lost loads of soccer rights, and now GOLTV will be removed from sports pack, which means they are allowed to make changes to the contract on the fly, probably under certain conditions.

I would imagine that if you signed a deal with a channel, and 25% of the "worth" of the channel walks off to another channel, there would be clauses in said channel contract that would allow certain changes. If they also lose the Dodgers in 2013, Fox Sports will have lost 2 of the three biggest franchises in the region (the 3d one being the MLB Angels), as the Clippers and NHL are, although very much revenue sports, not as big as the Lakers and the 2 MBL teams around here.

I would imagine that when they setup these contracts, that it is not only DirecTV that needs to deliver the channel under certain terms, but that the channel also needs to deliver the programming under certain terms, ESPECIALLY with sports as the rights to those are worth many many millions and could change channel from time to time.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#207 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,983 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:08 PM

$3.95 is English + Spanish language. Maybe they can put the Spanish one in the Spanish pack so they are only paying about $2 to add it to the main pack in that area.


Personally, I a would expect nothing less....

And if they can secure a lower fee via contract in place for fsn west, then we might be looking at more like $1.80 for the channel net. Of course the key thing is that fsn west just upgraded the number of games is year for the Angels, and the kings, so I don't know that DIRECTV will be able to use the loss of the Lakers & sparks & galaxy to get lower fees, since fsn has to a certain extent replaced the lost programing, all Be it with less popular programing, but popular programing none the less.

#208 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,073 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:41 PM

This is why I see the Viacom deal as dumb for Directv to even renew across the board.....people want sports and will change for sports.....they rarely will change for the Viacom channels, there just isn't much there for someone to pay extra. This is one place where Directv could have put a provider in its place.


I think you are right when it comes to percent of viewers - a higher percent will leave for sports than for Viacom; however, those who will leave for the Lakers are in one region. Viacom covered the entire country. If 10% leave DirecTV because they do not have the Lakers versus 1% leaving because they do not have Viacom, that is 10% of the Lakers territory versus 1% of the entire country.

I have to believe that DirecTV knows how much each channel is worth to them and decides what they are willing to pay based on the cost of carrying the channel versus the loss in revenue by people leaving if they do not carry it.

#209 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:57 PM

Think of it this way. CSN Philadelphia is available if Directv wants to add it. Problem is the station is priced so high Directv can't add it without passing the entire cost on to the customer. TWCS LA is priced in the same way. They would have to add a 4 to 5 dollar charge to everone inside that networks tv territory to cover the cost of a station that is way over priced at this time. They have no way to absorb that large of a fee without passing it completely on. Then they would make people mad who don't want it when they see a charge on their bill for it that they can't get rid of without going down to the entertainment package. As long as it is priced at a premium price, they won't add it. I have no doubt that Time Warner has been eying something like this for awhile ever since they took over Adelphia's LA territory. Unless ala carte happens, I would expect a person to need two if not every provider in their area to get every station they want. It's possible even then you wouldn't get everything you want. The days of one provider with everything are gone.


In this argument you are forgetting the most single important difference between CSN Philadelphia's and the new TWC SN LA.

- The teams that CSN Philly carries, were NEVER EVER carried by DirecTV.
- The teams that TWC LA is going to carry have been carried by DirecTV for pretty much 18 years (since their start).

In essence, they aren't losing any customers by not carrying CSN Philly, because they never had the customers that liked CSN Philly to begin with. With TWC SN LA however.... DirecTV customers are losing the most important major league franchise in the Los Angeles area. Combine that with the fact that DirecTV is a Los Angeles company, marketing has always been heavy here, and together with favorable weather conditions DirecTV is a tremendously important carrier here.

Unlike CSN Philly, where they would lose pretty much 0 customers, in Los Angeles they could easily lose hundreds of thousands of customers when Lakers season starts.

Also, Mike White has said that it is focusing on "retaining customers", rather than "gaining customers", which is a strike for CSN Philly (which would only gain customers not retain them) and a big plus for TWC SN LA which would not gain customers so much.... but would retain a LOT of them.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#210 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,435 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:07 PM

A big question to me is why teams would enter into a contract that limits their visibility. Many have not (the Chicago teams with CSN come into mind as they made sure they would be available on non-Comcast systems). Would the Lakers really jump on the money and lose their fan visibility? The TrailBlazers have lost a lot of fan exposure due to their contract with Comcast.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#211 OFFLINE   celticpride

celticpride

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 967 posts
Joined: Sep 06, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:43 PM

TWC is being greedy the lakers should of thought this out better,its clear they were only thinking of the billions, but thats unfair to the fans. TWC and the lakers assumed directv would just get this programming automaticly!I hope the fcc can force twc to make it more resonable price! I hope directv and verizon get this channel and i'm not even a lakers fan!:nono: if they make us pay a fee to get the channel i can do without it , laker celtics games are usally on TNT or ESPN anyway! those are the only 2 laker games i watch every year unless they play my celtics in the finals. P.S. I'm currently with verizon fios but plan on returning to directv .

#212 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,795 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:59 PM

Would the Lakers really jump on the money and lose their fan visibility?


They already have. TWC already has the rights WITHOUT securing agreements with satellite carriers. As far as I understand it, those contracts are inked and in stone, and the Lakers can no longer back out and say.... "well, we will take the rights back and sell them to Fox instead because of DirecTV".

This will be a VERY DIRTY negotiation, and fans should be prepared to lose up to two weeks of games..... We know how hard DirecTV plays things now (as seen with Viacom, PAC12) and although I firmly believe the channel is a *must have* for DirecTV, I also believe DirecTV isn't going to drop their trousers and bend over for this channel. They will negotiate hard, and they will not be intimidated by the start of the season. (And you can probably certainly forget about ANYTHING pre-season).

Those in TWC cable territory can at least get it for a month.... they do month to month, so you can just cancel it as soon as DirecTV reaches a deal. If you do not want to miss a game, this may be necessary.... As it really seems that DirecTV will roll over for no-one.
[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I am the Stig.

#213 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,708 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:05 PM

A big question to me is why teams would enter into a contract that limits their visibility. Many have not (the Chicago teams with CSN come into mind as they made sure they would be available on non-Comcast systems). Would the Lakers really jump on the money and lose their fan visibility? The TrailBlazers have lost a lot of fan exposure due to their contract with Comcast.


TWC is being greedy the lakers should of thought this out better,its clear they were only thinking of the billions, but thats unfair to the fans. TWC and the lakers assumed directv would just get this programming automaticly!I hope the fcc can force twc to make it more resonable price! I hope directv and verizon get this channel and i'm not even a lakers fan!:nono: if they make us pay a fee to get the channel i can do without it , laker celtics games are usally on TNT or ESPN anyway! those are the only 2 laker games i watch every year unless they play my celtics in the finals. P.S. I'm currently with verizon fios but plan on returning to directv .

Because its all about the money. They get paid up front regardless if anyone is watching their games or not. Look at Portland. Look at Philly. Maybe soon to be Houston. If Portland really cared about their fans they would have pulled out of the contract, which they had the optoin to do. But they didn't. Its all about money and greed.

Like I've said before, the leagues need to take control of their TV contracts and provide all games to all providers.

#214 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,906 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:07 PM

Wow... 29 of 82 games are on ESPN, TNT, ABC, or NBATV. I hope the rest are on LP for us out of market fans. I have a feeling it'll get on DirecTV.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#215 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,435 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:37 PM

They already have. TWC already has the rights WITHOUT securing agreements with satellite carriers. As far as I understand it, those contracts are inked and in stone, and the Lakers can no longer back out and say.... "well, we will take the rights back and sell them to Fox instead because of DirecTV".

This will be a VERY DIRTY negotiation, and fans should be prepared to lose up to two weeks of games..... We know how hard DirecTV plays things now (as seen with Viacom, PAC12) and although I firmly believe the channel is a *must have* for DirecTV, I also believe DirecTV isn't going to drop their trousers and bend over for this channel. They will negotiate hard, and they will not be intimidated by the start of the season. (And you can probably certainly forget about ANYTHING pre-season).

Those in TWC cable territory can at least get it for a month.... they do month to month, so you can just cancel it as soon as DirecTV reaches a deal. If you do not want to miss a game, this may be necessary.... As it really seems that DirecTV will roll over for no-one.


We have no idea what kind of clauses are in the contract for coverage. After the Trailblazer fiasco, you'd think a team would be a bit more proactive in making sure their games get to their fan base. It happened in Chicago and happens elsewhere. The teams have a say in distribution.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#216 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,435 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:39 PM

Because its all about the money. They get paid up front regardless if anyone is watching their games or not. Look at Portland. Look at Philly. Maybe soon to be Houston. If Portland really cared about their fans they would have pulled out of the contract, which they had the optoin to do. But they didn't. Its all about money and greed.

Like I've said before, the leagues need to take control of their TV contracts and provide all games to all providers.


Portland is an acknowledged mistake by the Trailblazers. They even tried to find a way out.

Philly is different. There are team/Comcast ties all over the place either in existence or at one point. Philly is a bad example to use because, by an large, the teams didn't want to be available elsewhere.

But I would hope the Lakers had learned from the Trailblazers. Don't marginalize your fan base. Or you may lose them.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#217 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,089 posts
Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 05:58 PM

I think there was one unintended glitch that screwed the Blazers. I think that they had some deal that required a certain # of households be represented as a backup plan....so then when Comcast wasn't doing what they needed to do they brought it up....but by then the Supersonics moved out of town and Blazers ended up with all of Northwest as their territory....Comcast added CSN NW to all it's Washington customers and then somehow met this criteria. Basically it was bad lawyer advice that got them into this mess. They trusted Comcast and got screwed - as has everyone else who has ever dealt with them.


Portland is an acknowledged mistake by the Trailblazers. They even tried to find a way out.

Philly is different. There are team/Comcast ties all over the place either in existence or at one point. Philly is a bad example to use because, by an large, the teams didn't want to be available elsewhere.

But I would hope the Lakers had learned from the Trailblazers. Don't marginalize your fan base. Or you may lose them.



#218 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,089 posts
Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:03 PM

Directv's test channel is the Pac 12 Network....if they don't get it and fans don't leave them maybe they'll negotiate real hard on the Lakers....if fans do actually leave for Pac 12 then maybe it will come to the table sooner.

They already have. TWC already has the rights WITHOUT securing agreements with satellite carriers. As far as I understand it, those contracts are inked and in stone, and the Lakers can no longer back out and say.... "well, we will take the rights back and sell them to Fox instead because of DirecTV".

This will be a VERY DIRTY negotiation, and fans should be prepared to lose up to two weeks of games..... We know how hard DirecTV plays things now (as seen with Viacom, PAC12) and although I firmly believe the channel is a *must have* for DirecTV, I also believe DirecTV isn't going to drop their trousers and bend over for this channel. They will negotiate hard, and they will not be intimidated by the start of the season. (And you can probably certainly forget about ANYTHING pre-season).

Those in TWC cable territory can at least get it for a month.... they do month to month, so you can just cancel it as soon as DirecTV reaches a deal. If you do not want to miss a game, this may be necessary.... As it really seems that DirecTV will roll over for no-one.



#219 OFFLINE   kb24sd

kb24sd

    The Specialist

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 189 posts
Joined: Jun 21, 2012

Posted 04 September 2012 - 07:29 PM

They already have. TWC already has the rights WITHOUT securing agreements with satellite carriers. As far as I understand it, those contracts are inked and in stone, and the Lakers can no longer back out and say.... "well, we will take the rights back and sell them to Fox instead because of DirecTV".

This will be a VERY DIRTY negotiation, and fans should be prepared to lose up to two weeks of games..... We know how hard DirecTV plays things now (as seen with Viacom, PAC12) and although I firmly believe the channel is a *must have* for DirecTV, I also believe DirecTV isn't going to drop their trousers and bend over for this channel. They will negotiate hard, and they will not be intimidated by the start of the season. (And you can probably certainly forget about ANYTHING pre-season).

Those in TWC cable territory can at least get it for a month.... they do month to month, so you can just cancel it as soon as DirecTV reaches a deal. If you do not want to miss a game, this may be necessary.... As it really seems that DirecTV will roll over for no-one.


Yup very well explained.

I'm already making plans to suspend my Directv account come late September and have Time Warner Cable come out and install service and of course will not sign a contract and will go month to month with TWC.

Problem is though I have a family friend member renting a room in my house who is a HARCORE Raider fan.

Sorry for him. But push come to shove I'm the one making the TV viewing decisions in my house which I own and I'm paying the Directv monthly bill so he really has no say on the matter when this year NFL Sunday Ticket is free since I just signed up this past June.

He can go to a local bar and watch his pathetic Raiders lose while getting drunk.

#220 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,983 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 04 September 2012 - 08:52 PM

Yup very well explained.

I'm already making plans to suspend my Directv account come late September and have Time Warner Cable come out and install service and of course will not sign a contract and will go month to month with TWC.

Problem is though I have a family friend member renting a room in my house who is a HARCORE Raider fan.

Sorry for him. But push come to shove I'm the one making the TV viewing decisions in my house which I own and I'm paying the Directv monthly bill so he really has no say on the matter when this year NFL Sunday Ticket is free since I just signed up this past June.

He can go to a local bar and watch his pathetic Raiders lose while getting drunk.


Or he can pay the twc bill and you can have both! :)




spam firewall