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

#881 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:52 PM

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


Good point. The Lakers have no ownership stake in these two RSN's.
DTV = Digital Television

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

#882 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:10 PM

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.


Oh yes they did. I was specifically told this on the telephone when I called the President's office...that I do not need the channel. Not only once, but TWICE.

You now seem to think that you know what is talked about in my conversations with Directv? Dear Lord.

Why do you defend Directv so much? Are you really Mike White in disguise? You seem to have an answer for everything, yet are not included in every conversation a customer has. You just somehow have to be right on everything don't you?

There are also facts out there that are not part of press releases.

#883 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:12 PM

RSN = Regional Sports Network

Your comment:



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?


Fine, call them sports networks.

Pretty much every new sports network coming on line is owned by a league or team and they are taking content away from existing channels. In some cases filling a void and offering additional content that was not available, but mostly just taking away content from existing providers.

#884 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

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.


Fine, call them sports networks. Never said majority ownership, I said ownership includes the teams and in other cases the league.

My facts are sound. It's your interpretation that is flawed. We both know that I already have no respect for you and your opinions and we're going to spar on this if you and I battle back and forth, so best that we stop that here now.

#885 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,860 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:42 PM

Lets discuss the topic not each other. This thread is about the Lakers on Directv.
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#886 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:10 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 (Technically Fenway Sports Group owns 80%)
MASN owned by Orioles and Nationals
YES by the Yankees (Actually, that has changed. Technically by law the Yankees no longer own the YES Network. They are paid a rights fee from YES but the Yankees do not own them...a separate company called Yankees Global Enterprises along with Goldman Sachs owns YES Network)
CSN Chicago by several of the Chicago teams (Comcast owns 20%)
CSN Houston by Astros, Rockets (NBC Universal owns more than 22%)
Sportstime Ohio by the Indians (Actually, owned by the Dolan family under a separate business than the Indians)
Big 10 by Big 10 (only 51% of the network is owned by Big Ten. Fox owns 49%)
NFL by NFL
NBA by NBA
NHL by NHL (NBC Universal owns more than 15%)

That's off the top of my head.


Adding some color
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#887 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 399 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 12 October 2012 - 11:00 PM

I honestly get the sense that DirecTV will not carry this channel, at least not for the foreseeable future.

The only thing that may change their stance is:

1. Loss of subscribers
2. TWC agreeing to either lower their cost to nothing or ala-carte.

If DirecTV adds this channel at TWC's terms, then we can only guess that they felt the cancellation pressure.

Dish's apparent openness to the PAC-12 network is, in my opinion, penance for doing what DirecTV is currently doing. Cyclical.

Regardless, DirecTV, in my opinion, is damned no matter what they do, part of which is their own making.

#888 OFFLINE   lipcrkr

lipcrkr

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 276 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2012

Posted 13 October 2012 - 02:12 AM

I think DIRECTV will carry the Lakers come November. If not, i will stream the games online. I'm paying TWC $30 a month for Internet, so as long as i can watch the Lakers i'm fine. Will never go back to cable.

#889 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,960 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:33 PM

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.


They have said they would offer the channel if the pac 12 agree to a cost they felt was acceptable, or as an a la cart offering. PAC12 declined. I don't know how much more honest you can be.... And it is there place to decide what channels they carry for what prices, and its you place to decide if you agree or would be better off with a different carrier.

#890 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,960 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:35 PM

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.


You misunderstand what I am saying. They already add a $2 fee to some peoples packages specifically for rsns. They might start doing that with everyone on older packages if they create a new set of packages at higher prices. This would allow them to show the increase in costs of their packages as being related to the rsns. I am not going to explain the details of how/why, but I am thinking that concept.

Edited by inkahauts, 13 October 2012 - 04:41 PM.


#891 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,950 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:46 PM

I think DIRECTV will carry the Lakers come November. If not, i will stream the games online. I'm paying TWC $30 a month for Internet, so as long as i can watch the Lakers i'm fine. Will never go back to cable.


We're paying TWC ~$52.00 a month for internet, but I still can't get the stupid streaming site to work.

It just keep's saying I'm outside the area, yet I'm right here in So. L.A.

Go figure ...

Lousy service.

#892 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,502 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

You misunderstand what I am saying. They already add a $2 fee to some peoples packages specifically for rsns. They might start doing that with everyone on older packages if they create a new set of packages at higher prices. This would allow them to show the increase in costs of their packages as being related to the rsns. I am not going to explain the details of how/why, but I am thinking that concept.

OK ... forcing everyone in an area to pay $2 or $4 more for their RSNs might work (at least for DirecTV and the RSNs). Giving people the opportunity to "opt out" of an RSN won't keep the price low. An a la carte RSN is going to be more expensive (unless it is a channel people don't want). I believe we are on the same page with that.

Higher prices in some markets than others breaks the "national pricing" DirecTV likes to use ... but if it takes higher prices to get the channels it is a choice.

#893 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 13 October 2012 - 07:13 PM

They have said they would offer the channel if the pac 12 agree to a cost they felt was acceptable, or as an a la cart offering. PAC12 declined. I don't know how much more honest you can be.... And it is there place to decide what channels they carry for what prices, and its you place to decide if you agree or would be better off with a different carrier.


You know that was a revised message played in what, week 4? That's not being honest and forthcoming, that's simply pandering and self-serving.

Facts were all summer they first said "we have no plans," then they said, "we'd like to have it and we'll have an update closer to when school starts..." then when pointed out school had started at several Pac 12 schools were in session, they ignored it and continued to say the same, then on the eve of the opener they walked away completely, and then each week Pac 12 has been gunning for them in press releases and only finally, in week 4, they came up with this message.

So while they are NOW saying that, that is not what they said all along. All along they strung us along. They could have been honest up front and simply said "we cannot afford it w/o increasing the package cost" and then let that ride. But they didn't and have allowed most of their competitors to zoom right by. How are they doing it? Directv is the more expensive option of the providers as well, so something is awry here. But companies can make business decisions all the time - they should just be honest.

I can honestly tell you the coverage on Dish is great. I have most of the sports either on the 413 channel or on alternate channels. I am waiting for them to get the streaming option up for full-time access to Pac 12 Oregon and other regionals, they now say firmly by 10-19 they'll have that option for us.

Then when I cancel they make it a longer process than usual, trying to continue to talk me out of it, when I tell them over and over again I want out and here is why. But then they come back with NFL Sunday Ticket for free, $25 off for a year, free multi sport, new equipment, etc. I had to decline these options repeatedly and just asked to cancel....but even then they made me sit on hold for a bit. I think it's part of a strategy to make it hard. Again, goes right to being forthcoming and honest....I told them in the first sentence I want to cancel and here is why - I wasn't going to change my mind -and I respected their decision not to want me as a customer. I told them I got it and just wanted to go. But they still made it longer than what it needed to be.

So while NOW they say they'll add it as a PPV or to a sports tier, that is a week for massaged message because they are taking a beating.

I would also encourage EACH one of you to call up and threaten to cancel and push it to the last minute (or pretend to). Assuming you are a good customer who unloads $100 or more a month with them and is in good standing for a number of years you will be able to extract substantial savings from them - at least $25 a month for a year (I feel you could talk them into 2, free new equipment, free multi-sport, free pay channels, and so forth. Take Mike White to the cleaners. If you don't want to switch and are pissed off make em pay.

Regards.

#894 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,860 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 13 October 2012 - 08:49 PM

Folks,

This thread has required several clean ups due to inappropriate personal conversations. If this trend continues, all parties who participate will be banned from the thread without any distinction as to "who started it."

This is a valid topic and I don't want to see this thread dragged to the level of other sports threads.
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#895 OFFLINE   lipcrkr

lipcrkr

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 276 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2012

Posted 13 October 2012 - 09:15 PM

We're paying TWC ~$52.00 a month for internet, but I still can't get the stupid streaming site to work.

It just keep's saying I'm outside the area, yet I'm right here in So. L.A.

Go figure ...

Lousy service.


You need to stream the game on another website, not TWC. I'm watching it right now on my 52" TV. I don't know if i can give the link on here.

#896 OFFLINE   lipcrkr

lipcrkr

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 276 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2012

Posted 13 October 2012 - 09:18 PM

Folks,

This thread has required several clean ups due to inappropriate personal conversations. If this trend continues, all parties who participate will be banned from the thread without any distinction as to "who started it."

This is a valid topic and I don't want to see this thread dragged to the level of other sports threads.


Stuart, am i allowed to give out the link to other subscribers so they can watch the Lakers?

#897 OFFLINE   hdthebest

hdthebest

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 328 posts
Joined: Sep 10, 2007

Posted 14 October 2012 - 11:28 AM

I can not see D* not adding this channel ASAP a lot of local bars in L.A have D* just on D* carrying NFL Sunday Ticket. D* would lose a lot of customers if this is not added

#898 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,960 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 14 October 2012 - 01:37 PM

Evidently, twc commercials got lots of loud boos last night when they appeared on the scoreboard during the exhibition game at staples last night!

#899 OFFLINE   Sea bass

Sea bass

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 656 posts
Joined: Jun 09, 2005

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:44 PM

Evidently, twc commercials got lots of loud boos last night when they appeared on the scoreboard during the exhibition game at staples last night!


:up:

#900 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,703 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 14 October 2012 - 08:46 PM

Do you guys think it would have helped negotiations if the Lakers had part or majority ownership of the channel?

Of course they probably wouldn't have gotten the money they did.




spam firewall