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

#981 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,231 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 24 October 2012 - 08:59 PM

Hard to believe that's true at all. Root Sports Northwest? Mariners. Root Sports Pittsburgh? Penguins and Pirates. Root Rocky Mountain? Rockies. Root Sports Utah? Jazz.

The only one that would seem to even be remotely in the ballpark would be Pittsburgh, but even that seems unlikely.


Also when and where did DIRECTV or COX ever claim TWC SportsNet and Deportes were the "highest priced regional sports outlet?" :confused:

The COX SVP for instance just said they were "extremely expensive for basically a one-team channel," which they are.

This is probably why carriers want to add them to an optional sports tier for the high asking price they want, at least for the time being.

Now if TWC had both the Lakers and the Dodgers or something, that would be different.

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

#982 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,237 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 24 October 2012 - 10:56 PM

Here is TWC SportsNet's official statement:



Link:

http://www.twcsports...ght-102412.html

It's going to get more nastier in the press between TWC vs. D* and the other TV providers the longer this dispute continues to drag on :rolleyes:


Cox and DirecTV know that there is no regional sports network anywhere in the country that is offered on an optional tier -- that would be unprecedented.

and there is no regional sports network that comes with a Spanish channel that they want in a basic pack.

Now are they ok with the Spanish channel being in a optional Spanish pack?
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#983 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,897 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:48 AM

Cox and DirecTV know that there is no regional sports network anywhere in the country that is offered on an optional tier -- that would be unprecedented.

and there is no regional sports network that comes with a Spanish channel that they want in a basic pack.

Now are they ok with the Spanish channel being in a optional Spanish pack?


That may be one of the key elements, and how they are both spinning things. I'd bet that twc is saying they may pay as much for root as they are asking for one of their channels, and cox and DirecTV are probably looking at the total cost of both channels, in part because twc apparently is only selling them as a package deal. Twc can't have it both ways.

Of course one thing that twc is forgetting, they are adding a third RSN to the area, meaning that suddenly the price for the exact same sports is increasing by the full amount of what they are asking, which will have to result in a direct hit to our bills.

#984 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,897 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 12:49 AM

I think that explains what I thought would happen with new networks on the most part. Sports pack, ala carte or bussed basically.


Yeah, I'd say unless its dirt cheap, DirecTV doesn't want to add any new networks unless its in its own package or a la cart.... They really don't need any new channels to keep or gain customers, except maybe new RSN channels as they come along.

#985 OFFLINE   ChicagoBlue

ChicagoBlue

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 303 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2011

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:16 AM

Here is TWC SportsNet's official statement:



Link:

http://www.twcsports...ght-102412.html

It's going to get more nastier in the press between TWC vs. D* and the other TV providers the longer this dispute continues to drag on :rolleyes:



TWC is full of @#$@ in that article. A commenter correctly points that out. TWC wants $3.95 for their channel while Root Sports charges $2.36 and $3.26 respectively. So for TWC to claim they pay Directv more for Root Sports than what they are asking for of their Lakers channel is a blatant lie.

Furthermore, Root Sports Pittsburgh (which charges $3.26) has the Pirate and Penguins, about 225 games in total. The Lakers channel will deliver 57 I believe.

TWC is flat full of @#$% on this claim.

#986 OFFLINE   ChicagoBlue

ChicagoBlue

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 303 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2011

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:26 AM

Cox and DirecTV know that there is no regional sports network anywhere in the country that is offered on an optional tier -- that would be unprecedented.

and there is no regional sports network that comes with a Spanish channel that they want in a basic pack.

Now are they ok with the Spanish channel being in a optional Spanish pack?


You are thinking old school. Cox, DTV and others are trying to change the paradigm. What happened in the past is in the past, the world has changed. Directv leadership in their own statements are clear on this,

"DIRECTV CFO Pat Doyle was recently quoted in a BusinessWeek report as saying that the "dialogue" around sports networks needs to change so that only "the people that want sports ... pay for sports."

The same article cites DIRECTV CEO Mike White as saying that, if he had a magic wand, "the first thing I would peel off is regional sports networks." He added, "The cost is just too high."


Their margins are shrinking drastically over the last few years with 10%+ programming cost increases that they cannot pass on to customers at the same rate. In the "old" days of 5 or 10 years ago, sports programming was high but not this high. So deals made then should not be compared to the landscape of today. Furthermore, deals today often involve only a few teams, thus further adding on to cost while they still have to pay for the former RSN and whatever scraps they keep on their network.

I would not be surprised if DTV adds the Lakers, but I would equally not be shocked if they never add Pac 12, Houston, Philadelphia, Northwest or when new contracts come up that they no longer continue to carry them. Yes, their brand was build somewhat on sports, but even then sports customers only make up about 35% of their base. They are alinating far more customers that are not sports fans with huge price increases for sports content their non-sports customers don't care about. They cannot ignore those 65%.

Most of you probably don't know why Dish abandoned New York years ago. Most of it was due to the regional sports network costs. When you add MSG, SNY, YES, MSG+ the cost to a Dish or Fios or DTV is about $18 to $20 a month per subscriber. Think about that for a moment. They are charging $60 for a basic package and $20 of it is coming from 4 channels that many people don't care about. Now add in the cost of ESPN, another $4+, and CNN, FOX, Bravo, etc, etc, etc and whe you add it all up, these guys are making next to nothing on those packages. No money to reinvest in their business.

The distributors see this loud and clear and DTV is trying to change the conversation. They may fail, they will lose some subscribers, but their goal is to stay in business because the world has changed. It cannot go on like it has. The more and more that the DTV's and others push back, the chance of sports sanity in the cost structure might take hold. Might.

#987 OFFLINE   Hutchinshouse

Hutchinshouse

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,632 posts
Joined: Sep 27, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 08:58 AM

We've all seen this movie before. Mudslinging, lies, "looking out for customer's best interest" (my favorite by the way :lol:), blah blah blah. Just get the deal done already. Raise my bill if need be. Go Lakers!

#988 OFFLINE   dvdmth

dvdmth

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,017 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO
Joined: Jul 24, 2008

Posted 25 October 2012 - 09:10 AM

TWC is full of @#$@ in that article. A commenter correctly points that out. TWC wants $3.95 for their channel while Root Sports charges $2.36 and $3.26 respectively. So for TWC to claim they pay Directv more for Root Sports than what they are asking for of their Lakers channel is a blatant lie.

Furthermore, Root Sports Pittsburgh (which charges $3.26) has the Pirate and Penguins, about 225 games in total. The Lakers channel will deliver 57 I believe.

TWC is flat full of @#$% on this claim.


Technically, TWC is right. Remember that the $3.95/mo price is for both TWC SportsNet and TWC Deportes combined, so each by itself would average only $1.98/mo (below ROOT's price).

Again, that's technically speaking. For all intents and purposes, they are asking for more than DirecTV asks for basically the same type of programming.

#989 OFFLINE   TJNash

TJNash

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 158 posts
  • LocationSan Diego
Joined: Jun 05, 2012

Posted 25 October 2012 - 10:00 AM

Technically, TWC is right. Remember that the $3.95/mo price is for both TWC SportsNet and TWC Deportes combined, so each by itself would average only $1.98/mo (below ROOT's price).

Again, that's technically speaking. For all intents and purposes, they are asking for more than DirecTV asks for basically the same type of programming.


TWC is not even technically right, as they are not offering the channels on an individual basis to providers, as far as we know. Who cares if they pencil out to $1.98 each if you are forced to buy BOTH, or nothing at all?

#990 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,897 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:39 AM

TWC is not even technically right, as they are not offering the channels on an individual basis to providers, as far as we know. Who cares if they pencil out to $1.98 each if you are forced to buy BOTH, or nothing at all?


Especially if they are trying to force equal distribution of the two channels as well.

#991 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,897 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 11:43 AM

TWC is full of @#$@ in that article. A commenter correctly points that out. TWC wants $3.95 for their channel while Root Sports charges $2.36 and $3.26 respectively. So for TWC to claim they pay Directv more for Root Sports than what they are asking for of their Lakers channel is a blatant lie.

Furthermore, Root Sports Pittsburgh (which charges $3.26) has the Pirate and Penguins, about 225 games in total. The Lakers channel will deliver 57 I believe.

TWC is flat full of @#$% on this claim.


There will be a lot more than 57 games on the Lakers channel. You are forgetting the sparks, Galaxy and a bunch of college football and basketball games. With that said, I know the penguins are popular, although not even playing now, and possibly this year, but how popular are the pirates these days? I really don't know... The Lakers though, they are big. Comparison wise, the Lakers are Yankees big in the nba. I think that's got twc thinking they can get more than they should be asking. I wish DirecTV had tried to get the Lakers rights via a new roots channel...

#992 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 681 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:07 PM

"DIRECTV CFO Pat Doyle was recently quoted in a BusinessWeek report as saying that the "dialogue" around sports networks needs to change so that only "the people that want sports ... pay for sports."

The same article cites DIRECTV CEO Mike White as saying that, if he had a magic wand, "the first thing I would peel off is regional sports networks." He added, "The cost is just too high."


I really hope D* sticks to this and other operators join them. If MSOs united and put sports channels a la carte, these ridiculous new networks would have to come down to a reasonable level justified by the marketplace. I say this as a huge sports fan, the fact that every team is now so greedy that they think they need their own channel is getting ridiculous.

If I was D*, I would lower all packages by $10/month and put the ESPN channels and your local RSNs in a $10/month addon. ESPN and the RSNs would not allow it and if they don't, drop them. You would lose customers to be sure but I think if D* made it clear to the public with an offer like this how much non-sports fans are paying for these channels that they would be OK in the long run.

#993 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,157 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 25 October 2012 - 02:30 PM

Raise my bill if need be. Go Lakers!


And that is where the sticking point is. TWC wants Cox and DirecTV to raise everyone's bill. Cox and DirecTV only want to raise the bill for those who actually care about the Lakers. At most, that would be 35% of the entire DirecTV subscriber base, but it might be less than 10%.

#994 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,815 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:07 PM

Raise my bill if need be. Go Lakers!


But why needs MY bill be raised by that much? I don't watch Lakers.
I do watch Galaxy, but they are worth $0.50 out of that $4.

I think I am not alone on this, even among Lakers fans: Why should this year's Lakers games be $4 more expensive than last years Lakers games?
[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.

#995 OFFLINE   shuye

shuye

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 85 posts
Joined: Oct 20, 2008

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:16 PM

But why needs MY bill be raised by that much? I don't watch Lakers.
I do watch Galaxy, but they are worth $0.50 out of that $4.

I think I am not alone on this, even among Lakers fans: Why should this year's Lakers games be $4 more expensive than last years Lakers games?

I agree. I'm in Houston, so I am facing the same thing with CSN Houston for the Rockets and Astros. If my bill goes up $50/year for the addition of the Lakers channel, I will seriously consider leaving DirecTV.

One question I have - since I am outside of the Lakers DMA, would I still see the Lakers Home games on the Lakers Channel? Would that take revenue away from the NBA league pass?

HR34-700 - owned
HR24-500 - owned
H24 - owned
Nomad


#996 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,815 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:31 PM

One question I have - since I am outside of the Lakers DMA, would I still see the Lakers Home games on the Lakers Channel? Would that take revenue away from the NBA league pass?


The way I understand it, if you are OUTSIDE the Lakers DMA, and in the case there is no agreement with TWC Sportsnet, NBA Leaguepass will use the opposing teams feed for the games with the lakers, so NO home feeds.
[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.

#997 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,231 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:35 PM

I agree. I'm in Houston, so I am facing the same thing with CSN Houston for the Rockets and Astros. If my bill goes up $50/year for the addition of the Lakers channel, I will seriously consider leaving DirecTV.

One question I have - since I am outside of the Lakers DMA, would I still see the Lakers Home games on the Lakers Channel? Would that take revenue away from the NBA league pass?


No, you would need NBA League Pass to receive the Lakers games through a national feed TWC SN is providing DIRECTV and other carriers for that purpose.

Even if DIRECTV comes to a deal to carry TWC SN you would still need LP to see the actual games, but if you subscribe to Sports Pack you can receive the non-game programming on TWC SN.

#998 OFFLINE   shuye

shuye

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 85 posts
Joined: Oct 20, 2008

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:42 PM

No, you would need NBA League Pass to receive the Lakers games through a national feed TWC SN is providing DIRECTV and other carriers for that purpose.

Even if DIRECTV comes to a deal to carry TWC SN you would still need LP to see the actual games, but if you subscribe to Sports Pack you can receive the non-game programming on TWC SN.

If that's the case, then these team owned networks almost have to be on some type of a la carte system. Do you really think DirecTV will have different price packages for each DMA? Why would I want to pay $4 per month for TWC SN if I cannot watch the channels without also paying for League Pass? Same for CSN Houston - why would someone outside of the Rockets or Astros DMA want to pay for the channel if they could not watch the games on the channel?

HR34-700 - owned
HR24-500 - owned
H24 - owned
Nomad


#999 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,897 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:53 PM

But why needs MY bill be raised by that much? I don't watch Lakers.
I do watch Galaxy, but they are worth $0.50 out of that $4.

I think I am not alone on this, even among Lakers fans: Why should this year's Lakers games be $4 more expensive than last years Lakers games?


Again' that's the key. This is a new channel that is asking for all new money but we are getting the exact same thing we had last year.

#1000 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,897 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:56 PM

If that's the case, then these team owned networks almost have to be on some type of a la carte system. Do you really think DirecTV will have different price packages for each DMA? Why would I want to pay $4 per month for TWC SN if I cannot watch the channels without also paying for League Pass? Same for CSN Houston - why would someone outside of the Rockets or Astros DMA want to pay for the channel if they could not watch the games on the channel?


Most markets only have one RSN for all their sports. There is only a few like Los Angeles that have multiple. And we now have three. That's the problem. Three is ridiculous when they want us to pay for all three one third more (or more) than what we where paying before for the exact same amount of sports.




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