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

#861 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,272 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:52 AM

I must have missed the press release confirming that Directv will not be carrying TWC/Lakers. I must have missed the numerous press releases announcing all the other carriers that have signed on to take the channel.

But, hey, guys, don't let FACTS get in the way of your ill informed conclusions.


+1

Not only is there no definitive proof that DIRECTV has adopted such an allegedly obstinate and/or dishonest stand in their approach to negotiations over TWC SN outside of peoples' personal opinions drawn from DIRECTV's assumed attitude toward the Pac-12 network. But I continue to fail to see why DIRECTV is being singled out this way regarding carriage of these channels like the stubbornly lone holdout, when NO OTHER carriers have signed on with TWC to carry them yet either. :nono:

And no I'm not counting Bright House, since they are affiliated with TWC anyhow.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#862 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,260 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:17 PM

I don't think so. CBS and Directv just re-upped themselves in a deal announced a few days ago. http://www.chicagotr...0,6809781.story It included CBS Sports Network. So no mention of that channel going to a sports tier.

Didn't Pursuit just re-up as well a month or so ago?

Not sports, but ION just signed a new deal as well. They didn't get relegated to a higher tier.

So no, based upon all of this I do not think so. So again, if they all go on a sports tier then it makes sense to push one away.

It's also fair for the provider to say that they are making a business decision to not to carry the Lakers, Pac 12, or anyone else. But that is not what is being said from the highest levels of Directv.


Your assuming that these new contracts don't say they can make changes to the packages they are in at some point as long as they are in a group of a certain size....

And channels like ion, that probably cost less than pennies a day, no those will stay in place. CBS sports, I'd bet that's one of the cheapest sports channels there is right now, after the pursuit channels and such... I would not expect them to start rearranging tiers and such till they have enough contracts in place to move a lot of channel around, that's why I say in the future. I don't expect this kind of whole sale change for a few more years... for new channels coming on board now, DirecTV is showing that those are probably going to get relegated to higher tiers if the costs aren't real low, case in point the pac12 channel. Frankly, I wouldn't care if they made the twc channel a la cart and charged an extra $5 for it, but I don't see that happening. But if all the RSNs aren't careful, someday RSNs will cost us all an extra $4 a month as a separate line item.

#863 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,260 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:21 PM

Directv has obviously made a calculated risk by not carrying the Pac 12 Network they will not lose too many subscribers. We will have to see if that holds true and they do the same with the Lakers.


I've contended all along that the Lakers channel is far more implant than the pac12 channel is. Far more. Bt the combination of the two missing will be the most difficult to overcome for a large portion of the subscriber base.

I have also been wondering if they aren't expecting some customers that would pay for the channel a la cart to simply pick up a second service to get the other channels and not lose some customers that want these channels because of that.

#864 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,260 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:23 PM

Web is right. Why argue what's apparent? Let's see what unfolds in terms of subscriber numbers over the next few years and we'll see if DirecTV is right.

Ultimately, direcTV screwed itself in their negotiation stance. No matter what they do now, they're going to piss off anti lakers and anti pac-12 fans no matter where they put it and indiscriminately charge.

Reap what your big mouth sows....


Uh, no. There is no logic in that. If anything, people should be happy when/if they get the channels because it will be apparent that they waited till they got a deal they felt was lower in cost for them to carry than what they channels wanted, so they kept costs down...

#865 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,260 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

Actually, 3/4ths of their entire "sports package" falls into my no interest category. I don't want to subsidize what I don't want to watch.


Why don't you dump all providers and get over the air and netflix? Then you'd only be paying for what you want. Otherwise you will always be paying for many channels you don't watch or care about.

#866 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,260 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:27 PM

Exactly. DirecTV knows what the channel is worth to them. If they can get it for that price, they will take it. If not, they will accept the fact that they will lose some subscribers. If they pay more than what they feel it is worth to them, they will not be able to make up the difference by the number of customers they retain or gain.

It is not necessarily going to piss off anti Lakers and anti PAC 12 fans as long as what DirecTV pays for the channels is offset by the number of Lakers or PAC 12 fans they either retain or gain by adding the channels.

The biggest difference between the Big 10 network and the PAC 12 network is that the Big 10 network only requires one CONUS slot, but the PAC 12 wants seven CONUS slots. The other difference is that the Big 10 carriage was negotiated years ago when the costs to carry were not as great. Dish dropped the Big 10 when their contract expired. Let's see what happens when DirecTV's contract is up for renewal.

The big difference between the Big 10 network and the Lakers channel is that the Big 10 games are not be blacked out in 90% of the country, but the Lakers games will be.


Dish still has the big 10 channel, they didn't drop it. They came to an agreement on the last day I believe it was.

And the pac12 let dish go with just one conus and part time channels for overflow games, so I am sure they'd let DirecTV do the same, which means that argument does not hold water anymore either.

#867 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,260 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:29 PM

Personally, I find your statement(s)--especially about me--rather ironic. But that's beside the point.

I think DirecTV kind backed themselves into a hole with some of their statements and some of the reasoning sprayed here on whether DirecTV should or should not carry this channel.

By their own doing, this issue has galvanized people on both sides, especially IF they ultimately carry this channel, which would go against the essence of their argument to not carry this and other sport's channel.


DirecTV has never made an argument for not carrying sports channels, especially these channels. They have said they want the channels. There is no hole and they sure didn't back into it.

#868 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 409 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:10 PM

Why don't you dump all providers and get over the air and netflix? Then you'd only be paying for what you want. Otherwise you will always be paying for many channels you don't watch or care about.


Thanks. I'll be sure to heed your advice.

#869 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 409 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:13 PM

DirecTV has never made an argument for not carrying sports channels, especially these channels. They have said they want the channels. There is no hole and they sure didn't back into it.


Well, the proverbial hole that directv dug themselves into is the second part of the "statement" you're referring to.

#870 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:30 PM

Your assuming that these new contracts don't say they can make changes to the packages they are in at some point as long as they are in a group of a certain size....

But if all the RSNs aren't careful, someday RSNs will cost us all an extra $4 a month as a separate line item.


First, yes I guess I am assuming that since the press by either side didn't state a change in package. That would be something you'd publicly state in a press release though. Simply put there is no change. And simply put it is not reasonable to put one channel (out of quite a few) into a sports tier and leave the others alone.

RSNs as we know them are done anyway. They are becoming all substantially owned by the sports teams or leagues rather than providers. I think Fox is recognizing this by changing Speed into a national channel for all sports - there will come a day when fox RSNs will be no more.

#871 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,260 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:04 PM

First, yes I guess I am assuming that since the press by either side didn't state a change in package. That would be something you'd publicly state in a press release though. Simply put there is no change. And simply put it is not reasonable to put one channel (out of quite a few) into a sports tier and leave the others alone.

RSNs as we know them are done anyway. They are becoming all substantially owned by the sports teams or leagues rather than providers. I think Fox is recognizing this by changing Speed into a national channel for all sports - there will come a day when fox RSNs will be no more.


They never release any details of contracts unless they have an immediate impact. So we don't know squat about what may be in the latest contracts.

And who says one channel. That's my point in the long run I expect we will see more than three packages For basic channels, as some providers are testing that now. In not saying they be all sports either. Just more groups than we have now.

As for rsns I get what your saying but I'd say they are are going to head towards more rsns as teams want more time for just their stuff but the yes network will never be the norm. I think the Los Angeles market along with New York and a few others will always have more channels because of the number of teams.

FOX wants a sports channel like NBC and ABC have so they can bid on national rights for during the week for sports without having to screw up their network shows on FOX. There is a place for them alongside espn and NBC sports. Long run I see major games on regular networks next tier of games and secondary sports biggest games on national cable sports channels like espn FOX NBC and league channels and all the rest on a local RSN. They won't ever want to get rid of rsns because then that'd hurt their league pass sales.

#872 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:08 PM

RSNs as we know them are done anyway. They are becoming all substantially owned by the sports teams or leagues rather than providers.


A handful...that's it.
DTV = Digital Television

#873 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:17 PM

A handful...that's it.


More than a handfiul:

Pac 12 is owned by the Pac 12.
Altitude is owned by the same group that owns several of the Denver teams
NESN is 80% owned by Red Sox
MASN owned by Orioles and Nationals
YES by the Yankees
CSN Chicago by several of the Chicago teams
CSN Houston by Astros, Rockets
Sportstime Ohio by the Indians
Big 10 by Big 10
NFL by NFL
NBA by NBA
NHL by NHL

That's off the top of my head.

#874 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

They never release any details of contracts unless they have an immediate impact. So we don't know squat about what may be in the latest contracts.



If this was going ala carte as an option Directv would be out saying that in conjunction w/Pac 12. It's not.

Directv has made a business decision to not to carry the channel...just wish they'd be forthcoming with customers. It's not their place for them to tell me that I do not need the channel, which is what they did.

#875 OFFLINE   Spoonman27

Spoonman27

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 25 posts
Joined: Jul 12, 2009

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:50 PM

More than a handfiul:

Pac 12 is owned by the Pac 12.
Altitude is owned by the same group that owns several of the Denver teams
NESN is 80% owned by Red Sox
MASN owned by Orioles and Nationals
YES by the Yankees
CSN Chicago by several of the Chicago teams
CSN Houston by Astros, Rockets
Sportstime Ohio by the Indians
Big 10 by Big 10
NFL by NFL
NBA by NBA
NHL by NHL

That's off the top of my head.


Just to add to that list the SF Giants own 30% of Comcast Bay Area.

When the SportsChannel networks joined the Fox Sports Net family, the channel was rebranded as Fox Sports Bay Area in January 1998, and to FSN Bay Area in 2004. With the network being 45% owned by NBCUniversal, 30% owned by the San Francisco Giants and 25% owned by Fox, the network was rebranded as a part of the Comcast SportsNet family on March 31, 2008.[1]

#876 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,301 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:55 PM

But if all the RSNs aren't careful, someday RSNs will cost us all an extra $4 a month as a separate line item.

That is optimistic. The only way RSNs can be offered for "$4" is by allowing them to be cut off of the lowest tier and added back on for "$4" (the way DISH does it for $5). It can only be done because the majority of customers pay for the local RSNs via their higher than lowest tier packages.

If the RSNs were not in any tier and were always an add on they wouldn't be $4 per month. They would need to be $10-$15 per month or much higher for the RSNs to break even on the prices they are getting today.

#877 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:17 PM

More than a handfiul:

Pac 12 is owned by the Pac 12.
Altitude is owned by the same group that owns several of the Denver teams
NESN is 80% owned by Red Sox
MASN owned by Orioles and Nationals
YES by the Yankees
CSN Chicago by several of the Chicago teams
CSN Houston by Astros, Rockets
Sportstime Ohio by the Indians
Big 10 by Big 10
NFL by NFL
NBA by NBA
NHL by NHL

That's off the top of my head.


RSN = Regional Sports Network

Your comment:

RSNs as we know them are done anyway. They are becoming all substantially owned by the sports teams or leagues rather than providers.


NBA TV, NFL Network, and NHL Network are not (nor have they every been) RSN's.

You listed nine others. DirecTV carries more than 60 RSN feeds in some capacity (full-time/part-time/alternate). How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that RSN's are "done", as you said?

#878 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:20 PM

It's not their place for them to tell me that I do not need the channel, which is what they did.


No they didn't. I'd like to see the press release that included your name. You are only one of more than 20 million customers. They have multiple ways of gauging customer wants, needs, and desires.

#879 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,705 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:47 PM

First, yes I guess I am assuming that since the press by either side didn't state a change in package. That would be something you'd publicly state in a press release though. Simply put there is no change. And simply put it is not reasonable to put one channel (out of quite a few) into a sports tier and leave the others alone.

RSNs as we know them are done anyway. They are becoming all substantially owned by the sports teams or leagues rather than providers. I think Fox is recognizing this by changing Speed into a national channel for all sports - there will come a day when fox RSNs will be no more.


Odd you say that in a discussion of a new RSN fully owned by a cable company.

Most RSNs are either owned by cable companies or are a joint venture. Very few are team wholly team owned. MASN and YES come to mind.
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

#880 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,705 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:50 PM

More than a handfiul:

Pac 12 is owned by the Pac 12.
Altitude is owned by the same group that owns several of the Denver teams
NESN is 80% owned by Red Sox
MASN owned by Orioles and Nationals
YES by the Yankees
CSN Chicago by several of the Chicago teams
CSN Houston by Astros, Rockets
Sportstime Ohio by the Indians
Big 10 by Big 10
NFL by NFL
NBA by NBA
NHL by NHL

That's off the top of my head.


You are lumping national channels like NFL and nba into RSNs. And are lumping joint ventures including ones co owned by multiple teams as if it proves your point. CSN Chicago is still Comcast. The individual teams all have an ownership stake but that is just the way they are paid out. Even BTN is majority owned by Fox.

Your facts are a jumbled mess that do not prove your point at all.
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




Protected By... spam firewall...And...