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

#126 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 388 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 04:55 PM

I just checked... my bill (in Orange County) does not show it. Yet.


No offense, but I'll be a little ticked if you don't get it and I do! lol

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

#127 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,294 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:15 PM

I think you're wrong on this one. The $4/mo (or whatever it is) from the LA-region DTV subscribers that they'd be getting is at best break-even to the amount of money they'd make from new cable subscribers that would ditch DTV to get their beloved Lakers. That's what they're really hoping for, just like Comcast does. They want to be the only option for the die hards and pick up a ton of new subscribers who will then buy PPV, internet, telephone, etc. Honestly, if the feds didn't require them to offer their product to DTV, I bet they wouldn't even bother talking to at all.


The problem is your only taking about some of the la market,. TWC doesn't own the entire Lakers market where this channel can be broadcast. I'd be surprised if they covered more than 50% of the market. I am in a charter area myself, so I am screwed no matter what unless TWC does some deals. Plus there is no way they can gain as many customers in the areas they control to offset what they would lose if they have no carriers in the other areas where they don't have service. This just isn't like any area that comcast is holding hostage. Not like any of those areas at all.

#128 OFFLINE   Ronmort

Ronmort

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 286 posts
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:17 PM

Yes also carries the Nets games, Big 12 basketball, Yale football and basketball games, some ACC bb games.

#129 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 388 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:30 PM

The problem is your only taking about some of the la market,. TWC doesn't own the entire Lakers market where this channel can be broadcast. I'd be surprised if they covered more than 50% of the market. I am in a charter area myself, so I am screwed no matter what unless TWC does some deals. Plus there is no way they can gain as many customers in the areas they control to offset what they would lose if they have no carriers in the other areas where they don't have service. This just isn't like any area that comcast is holding hostage. Not like any of those areas at all.


Actually, they cover most of the area since they absorbed Adelphia and others. This map is old, but gives you a pretty good idea.

http://www.timewarne..._region_map.gif

There's also no reason they can't make a few concessions with Charter and the other cable co's in the area, without giving the same breaks to DTV. From a business standpoint, there's just no reason to give DTV any deal since they can take customers in every area that TWC services. The million dollar question is at what price per subscriber is more valuable to them than the potential gain in subscribers. Sounds like it might be $4.

#130 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,294 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:38 PM

No offense, but I'll be a little ticked if you don't get it and I do! lol


I have never seen this charge either.... Nor have my folks, or anyone else I know. When did you start seeing it?

#131 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 388 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:42 PM

I have never seen this charge either.... Nor have my folks, or anyone else I know. When did you start seeing it?


I've had it since February! What the heck? Is it package based maybe? I have the grandfathered Choice Xtra Classic.

#132 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,294 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:43 PM

Actually, they cover most of the area since they absorbed Adelphia and others. This map is old, but gives you a pretty good idea.

http://www.timewarne..._region_map.gif

There's also no reason they can't make a few concessions with Charter and the other cable co's in the area, without giving the same breaks to DTV. From a business standpoint, there's just no reason to give DTV any deal since they can take customers in every area that TWC services. The million dollar question is at what price per subscriber is more valuable to them than the potential gain in subscribers. Sounds like it might be $4.


There are literally millions of homes that are not covered by them in the Lakers market. Remember, it goes from the boarder to Fresno, and Nevada and Hawaii too. (I know TW has most of Hawaii and some of san diego too)

I still think that number could easily be for both channels, so its really more like 2, which is what was being said at the get go, and makes sense. The other thing to remember is, they may be asking for more than it might really be worth today so they can bid as high as possible for the dodgers if they already know what their income of this will be.

If they get the Dodgers, then yeah, I think you could then easily compare the sports on this channel to the ones on YES overall as a total, because you will have two of the top 5 franchises in the biggest 2 sports on RSNs. (no nfl is on an rsn) And no one will even think of the Nets as being big time...

#133 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,294 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:44 PM

I've had it since February! What the heck? Is it package based maybe? I have the grandfathered Choice Xtra Classic.


Did you get service directly from Directv, or through a third party?

If you don't mind me asking what are all your programming charges not including any discounts? Ill compare to mine later and see if maybe yours was far older and thats their way of catching you up or something....

I have the same package.

#134 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 388 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 28 August 2012 - 06:51 PM

Did you get service directly from Directv, or through a third party?

If you don't mind me asking what are all your programming charges not including any discounts? Ill compare to mine later and see if maybe yours was far older and thats their way of catching you up or something....

I have the same package.


I subscribed through DirecTV back in 2003.

Before discounts my charges are:

Choice Xtra Classic for $68.99
HBO & Sports for $27
HD access for $10
Regional Sports Fee for $2
DVR fee for $8
DTV Cinema for $0
Whole Home for $3

I do have a few discounts, but that would be B.S. if they were charging me extra because of that...

#135 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:19 PM

There are literally millions of homes that are not covered by them in the Lakers market. Remember, it goes from the boarder to Fresno, and Nevada and Hawaii too. (I know TW has most of Hawaii and some of san diego too)

I still think that number could easily be for both channels, so its really more like 2, which is what was being said at the get go, and makes sense. The other thing to remember is, they may be asking for more than it might really be worth today so they can bid as high as possible for the dodgers if they already know what their income of this will be.

If they get the Dodgers, then yeah, I think you could then easily compare the sports on this channel to the ones on YES overall as a total, because you will have two of the top 5 franchises in the biggest 2 sports on RSNs. (no nfl is on an rsn) And no one will even think of the Nets as being big time...


Totally agree with last paragraph.
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

#136 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:20 PM

Actually, they cover most of the area since they absorbed Adelphia and others. This map is old, but gives you a pretty good idea.

http://www.timewarne..._region_map.gif

There's also no reason they can't make a few concessions with Charter and the other cable co's in the area, without giving the same breaks to DTV. From a business standpoint, there's just no reason to give DTV any deal since they can take customers in every area that TWC services. The million dollar question is at what price per subscriber is more valuable to them than the potential gain in subscribers. Sounds like it might be $4.


Giving one company breaks over another is not quite legal.
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

#137 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,826 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:00 AM

Giving one company breaks over another is not quite legal.


Unless you own the channel. TWC isn't paying it's own channel carriage rights, and it would be a wash anyways. :D Same with Comcast owned channels.

And what is "a break". Say DirecTV does carry PAC12 for instance after long negotiations, chances are they have been given a discount over what cable companies agreed to months ago.

Some people pay sticker price for a car, I managed to knock of $2k off of my new car a few years back, and $500 off of a second hand truck I bought. (And that $2k was after their "severely discounted must-go special deal price".)
[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.

#138 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:14 AM

Unless you own the channel. TWC isn't paying it's own channel carriage rights, and it would be a wash anyways. :D Same with Comcast owned channels.

And what is "a break". Say DirecTV does carry PAC12 for instance after long negotiations, chances are they have been given a discount over what cable companies agreed to months ago.

Some people pay sticker price for a car, I managed to knock of $2k off of my new car a few years back, and $500 off of a second hand truck I bought. (And that $2k was after their "severely discounted must-go special deal price".)


Do not believe that is true. TV carriage is strictly regulated. It is not a car deal. And any discount directv would get would then be reflected in other contracts which typically include favored nation clauses.

I do believe that Comcast pays itself for CSN Philly. I know that one part of my company pays another for services.
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

#139 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 388 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:41 AM

Do not believe that is true. TV carriage is strictly regulated. It is not a car deal. And any discount directv would get would then be reflected in other contracts which typically include favored nation clauses.


If that was true, why are there carriage standoffs every few months among different providers? They would all just be saying yes or no to the set price of each channel. But that isn't how it works. ESPN demands X from DirecTV because they want it in a certain package for a certain rate, and DTV wants them to provide 5 extra live tennis streams during the grand slams, meanwhile ESPN demands Y from TWC because they also have to give online access to the ESPN3 networks on their internet services, etc. They can fudge numbers anyway they want, and the cable co's know. The easiest method is the one we're seeing, "We charge everyone a minimum $4/mo to carry our precious Lakers. See look, my right hand is paying my left hand $4, so we all know it's a fair price!"

#140 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:08 AM

If that was true, why are there carriage standoffs every few months among different providers? They would all just be saying yes or no to the set price of each channel. But that isn't how it works. ESPN demands X from DirecTV because they want it in a certain package for a certain rate, and DTV wants them to provide 5 extra live tennis streams during the grand slams, meanwhile ESPN demands Y from TWC because they also have to give online access to the ESPN3 networks on their internet services, etc. They can fudge numbers anyway they want, and the cable co's know. The easiest method is the one we're seeing, "We charge everyone a minimum $4/mo to carry our precious Lakers. See look, my right hand is paying my left hand $4, so we all know it's a fair price!"


There is still play within the rules (a lot has to do with bundling and bulk rates but still has to stay within reasonable reach for every system). And most of the standoffs are because the channel wants MORE money, which, of course is setting the NEXT round of deals.

As for left hand paying right hand, that is exactly how big companies work. Our IT group is part of our company but the rest of the company pays them through the nose for IT services. There are no deals. You may think it is just fake money but it is not. It is important to everyone in the company. Companies are not just one financial entity. Different cost centers have different budgets and must maintain their own profit/loss. They have different burden and overhead rates and may even have their own sets of benefits for their employees and often have to deal with different local realities (government regulations, etc).

TWC and Comcast, as examples, are not monolithic. Very far from it. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the money going from a Comcast system in Delaware or anywhere else to CSN Philly is real and means a lot to both CSN Philly and to that Comcast system in Delaware.
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

#141 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 388 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:24 AM

And you can bet your bottom dollar that the money going from a Comcast system in Delaware or anywhere else to CSN Philly is real and means a lot to both CSN Philly and to that Comcast system in Delaware.


I'm sure it does. Just as I'm sure that money means a lot to the customers who are being gouged.

For the last several years, the LA area has received the following from FSW and Prime Ticket.

LA Lakers
LA Clippers
LA Dodgers
LA Angels
LA Kinks
Anaheim Ducks
CD Chivas
LA Galaxy
LA Sparks
USC Football & Basketball
UCLA Football & Basketball
PAC-10/12 Sports
Local High School Sports
Plus assorted UEFA Soccer matches and other sports

How much were we paying for all of that? I would be surprised if it was any more than $1.50 per channel. Now the Lakers, Sparks, and Galaxy want even more just for themselves. Soon, Fox Sports will want more for all their stuff based on what TWC got, and then the whole thing falls in on itself.

#142 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,826 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:24 AM

Do not believe that is true. TV carriage is strictly regulated. It is not a car deal. And any discount directv would get would then be reflected in other contracts which typically include favored nation clauses.

I do believe that Comcast pays itself for CSN Philly. I know that one part of my company pays another for services.


They may pay themselves just to keep the bookkeeping in order. I work for a very very large company, and money is being "paid" from one component to another all the time, which really is nothing more than subtracting money from one budget, and adding it somewhere else. That is nothing more than good accounting, so you know where the money is going. Standard legal practice also requires this kind of stuff being on paper, just in case a company component wants to break off in to its own company.

But there is no actual money being moved between accounts. The bottom line for TWC Holding will not change.

TV carriage deals are strictly regulated, but the PRICE is not. If the price was strictly regulated we wouldn't have this many carriage deal disputes where they demand 300% increases and whatnot.

Price can vary between providers, completely depending on how well they negotiate. I expect a TOUGH negotiation for these channels, and I even expect that one or two games might not be broadcast before a deal is reached.
[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.

#143 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:47 AM

They may pay themselves just to keep the bookkeeping in order. I work for a very very large company, and money is being "paid" from one component to another all the time, which really is nothing more than subtracting money from one budget, and adding it somewhere else. That is nothing more than good accounting, so you know where the money is going. Standard legal practice also requires this kind of stuff being on paper, just in case a company component wants to break off in to its own company.

But there is no actual money being moved between accounts. The bottom line for TWC Holding will not change.

TV carriage deals are strictly regulated, but the PRICE is not. If the price was strictly regulated we wouldn't have this many carriage deal disputes where they demand 300% increases and whatnot.

Price can vary between providers, completely depending on how well they negotiate. I expect a TOUGH negotiation for these channels, and I even expect that one or two games might not be broadcast before a deal is reached.



The overall price is not regulated but go read the CSN Philly thread. You cannot give a great price to one company and gouge another. It is not enforced by push means; the company that is being gouged has to file an appeal.

As for money being real...it is real. Just because it is not paper and coins handed from one person to another does not make it real. Legally it is real. It is not just good accounting process; there are legal ramifications in tracking that money. And, as far as the departments within the company, it is a real as it gets. We just had a guy fired from his budgetary responsiblity because he cost one part of the company money at expense of another. Maybe he should explain that the money isn't real until it is outside the company.
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

#144 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,826 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:31 PM

I'm sure it does. Just as I'm sure that money means a lot to the customers who are being gouged.

For the last several years, the LA area has received the following from FSW and Prime Ticket.

LA Lakers
LA Clippers
LA Dodgers
LA Angels
LA Kinks
Anaheim Ducks
CD Chivas
LA Galaxy
LA Sparks
USC Football & Basketball
UCLA Football & Basketball
PAC-10/12 Sports
Local High School Sports
Plus assorted UEFA Soccer matches and other sports

How much were we paying for all of that? I would be surprised if it was any more than $1.50 per channel. Now the Lakers, Sparks, and Galaxy want even more just for themselves. Soon, Fox Sports will want more for all their stuff based on what TWC got, and then the whole thing falls in on itself.


Here is the big thing:

Under the previous deal with Fox Sports, Fox Sports paid the Lakers about $30 Million a year for TV rights.

Time Warner is paying $150 Million a year for the same rights, or a 500% increase.

It is not whether the Lakers are WORTH that money, but it is what has been PAID. And that means that TWC has to ask for a higher price to recoup that money.

THAT is the big problem. Because we all know that TWC is trying to get that money back from cable and dbs providers. Who in turn need to charge us, their customers.

Another aspect is the Dodgers. Their rights come up after the 2013 season, and TWC is expected to big BIG for those rights. Since a contract is usually signed for 5+ years in these kinds of carriage deals, they are going to want to deal AS IF they already have those rights, so that when they do they have some income coming at them to recoup those rights.

So this deal.... could get REAL ugly. This deal WILL be done.... but it won't be anytime soon.

Edited by maartena, 29 August 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[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.

#145 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,910 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:07 PM

Here is the big thing:

Under the previous deal with Fox Sports, Fox Sports paid the Lakers about $30 Million a year for TV rights.

Time Warner is paying $150 Million a year for the same rights, or a 500% increase.

It is not whether the Lakers are WORTH that money, but it is what has been PAID. And that means that TWC has to ask for a higher price to recoup that money.

THAT is the big problem. Because we all know that TWC is trying to get that money back from cable and dbs providers. Who in turn need to charge us, their customers.

Another aspect is the Dodgers. Their rights come up after the 2013 season, and TWC is expected to big BIG for those rights. Since a contract is usually signed for 5+ years in these kinds of carriage deals, they are going to want to deal AS IF they already have those rights, so that when they do they have some income coming at them to recoup those rights.

So this deal.... could get REAL ugly. This deal WILL be done.... but it won't be anytime soon.


For now forget the Dodgers. No one is going to sign a contract based upon what might be.

And yet Fox Sports had to pay out that long list of teams. All TWC is paying so far is the Lakers and Galaxy (?).

Seems like 5x is more than covered.

And as for DirecTV and the rest, it is STILL what the channel and the Lakers are worth, not what TWC paid the Lakers. If it is not worth the money to DirecTV, Comcast, Fios, Dish, etc., then TWC is stuck holding the bag. Their decisions are not those of the other providers.
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

#146 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 715 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:50 PM

Here is the big thing:

Under the previous deal with Fox Sports, Fox Sports paid the Lakers about $30 Million a year for TV rights.

Time Warner is paying $150 Million a year for the same rights, or a 500% increase.

It is not whether the Lakers are WORTH that money, but it is what has been PAID. And that means that TWC has to ask for a higher price to recoup that money.

THAT is the big problem. Because we all know that TWC is trying to get that money back from cable and dbs providers. Who in turn need to charge us, their customers.

Another aspect is the Dodgers. Their rights come up after the 2013 season, and TWC is expected to big BIG for those rights. Since a contract is usually signed for 5+ years in these kinds of carriage deals, they are going to want to deal AS IF they already have those rights, so that when they do they have some income coming at them to recoup those rights.

So this deal.... could get REAL ugly. This deal WILL be done.... but it won't be anytime soon.


Crap like this is why a la carte needs to happen now. This cycle continues to escalate where sports networks pay ridiculous sums of money to sports teams and expect to recoup it from every pay tv subscriber, whether they watch sports or not. If all sports channels became a la carte, this scheme would fail instantly and until then, it's only going to get worse.

I know people say that a la carte would be more expensive in the long run and while I don't believe it, even if it was true at least my money would be supporting channels I like and not channels I don't.

#147 OFFLINE   maartena

maartena

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,826 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2010

Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:52 PM

Crap like this is why a la carte needs to happen now.


And crap like this is exactly why it won't.

Ferengi 10th Rule of Acquisition: "Greed is Eternal".
[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.

#148 OFFLINE   kb24sd

kb24sd

    The Specialist

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

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:01 PM

Concern growing about Lakers games not being on TV

Dwight Howard and Steve Nash are here.

But Lakers games on TV aren't. Not yet anyway.

The Lakers are done with KCAL/9 and Fox Sports West, and their locally broadcast games will be on the new Time Warner Cable SportsNet channel (and Time Warner Cable Deportes, the new Spanish-language sister network).
If the provider you use for TV in your household is Time Warner Cable, you're set – because that is the only cable or satellite distributor we know right now will have Lakers games.

If you have DirecTV, Dish Network, AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FiOS, Cox Cable, Charter Communications or anyone else, you could rightly feel antsy that you won't see on Oct. 1 TWC SportsNet launch day the exclusive footage already filmed of Howard's face as he put on a gold Lakers jersey for the first time in a quiet locker-room moment after all the hullaballoo of his inaugural news conference.

Or the Oct. 7 first game uniting Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Howard and Nash, as the exhibition opener is only on TWC SportsNet.
Or the Oct. 31 road opener in Portland, just the first of 70 regular-season Lakers games on TWC SportsNet.

Or ... you could rest assured that it's unfathomable that any cable or satellite provider would incur the long-term wrath of its customers by not delivering Lakers games – a sure sell even if this wasn't the season when Kobe's sixth NBA championship is closer than ever.
"We think it's good that the fans are concerned, because it shows how much they care about the Lakers," said Lakers spokesman John Black. "We would hope the fans have confidence in our new broadcast partner – as we do – that they will get the deals done and everyone enjoys what will be a better product than ever before."

The Lakers know how many fans are so fired up that they can't stand the prospect of missing a single Nash hairstyle or discovering whether Howard's second imitation (after he already debuted an excellent Kobe one) focuses on Gasol's oft-raised eyebrows or Mike Brown's frequently flashed teeth.
Big picture: These new networks will give Lakers fans a lot more access to that sort of stuff – and even just people talking about that sort of stuff.
There will be far more extensive pregame and postgame shows – especially compared to when the road games were on KCAL/9 – plus nightly Lakers news and features. There will be 24-hour programming with no infomercials. Some Galaxy soccer, Sparks women's basketball, CIF high school action and Mountain West football and basketball ... yet mostly a lot of Lakers, such as an entire reality series covering the recent Laker Girls tryouts or the specific moment of Nash being welcomed by Jeanie Buss in her office.
It's not exactly subtle, but here's the website that Time Warner Cable has set up for anyone seeking to inquire about getting these new networks: iwantmylakers.com.

As if the acquisitions of Howard and Nash weren't enough pressure, Time Warner Cable wants subscribers to prod their local providers to ante up the $3.95 monthly fee per subscriber, according to Sports Business Daily, to carry the two new channels.
Time Warner Cable does have its own bills to pay – specifically to the Lakers in the form of $4 billion over the next 20 years (or $5 billion if the option for five more years is exercised).

"Our commitment to the Lakers and their fans for the next 20 years is to deliver in-depth stories about the organization and its players while televising the games they can't miss," said Mark Shuken, senior vice president and general manager of TWC Sports Regional Networks.
Shuken, who described the company as "thrilled that the Lakers added Dwight Howard and Steve Nash," also referred to the upcoming season as "historic."
And, well, you'll just have to tune in to his networks to find out if that's any sort of overstatement.

Negotiations on "carriage deals" usually go down to the final days, so no one should panic with a month to go. It should be said that Time Warner Cable knows how dicey these negotiations can be from being on the other side, earlier this year costing Knicks fans much of Jeremy Lin's whirlwind emergence in a dispute with MSG and today still holding out as a distributor against NFL Network and missing Padres games all season on Fox Sports San Diego.
But the notion that Lakers games won't be on TV in Southern California is ludicrous.

This isn't 2002, when Cablevision completely underestimated the Yankees' new regional sports network and held out against it. YES Network has turned out to be a fantastic success for a simple reason: People in New York love the Yankees and love watching the Yankees.
Some things are simple and true.
Lakers fans love having Howard and Nash before they even play a game, for example.

And people in Southern California will love watching the Lakers on Time Warner Cable SportsNet, even if this is the first you've heard of the network's real name or you can't help starting to sweat those tricky carriage deals not yet being done.

Link:

http://www.ocregiste...able-games.html

#149 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,893 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:06 AM

"We think it's good that the fans are concerned, because it shows how much they care about the Lakers," said Lakers spokesman John Black. "We would hope the fans have confidence in our new broadcast partner – as we do – that they will get the deals done and everyone enjoys what will be a better product than ever before."

Duh, of course we're concerned, fans are not going to be able to watch your games if deals aren't done. And no we don't like the new broadcast partner, they're going to want sole control, they're going to want you to switch to their cable company.

If the Lakers really cared about their fans they would have stayed FSN, an already established RSN thats already available on all of those providers mentioned, so there wouldn't be any need for concern. Shades228 hit the nail on the head in his earlier post, the Lakers don't care if you watch their games or not, they've already been paid. Its all about the money.

I really hope this doesn't turn into another CSNNW situation.

YES Network has turned out to be a fantastic success for a simple reason: People in New York love the Yankees and love watching the Yankees.

YES (like NESN) works because its owned by the team that broadcasts on it. They need the providers more because theres no cable company involved that owns it.

#150 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,314 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:54 AM

Duh, of course we're concerned, fans are not going to be able to watch your games if deals aren't done. And no we don't like the new broadcast partner, they're going to want sole control, they're going to want you to switch to their cable company.

If the Lakers really cared about their fans they would have stayed FSN, an already established RSN thats already available on all of those providers mentioned, so there wouldn't be any need for concern. Shades228 hit the nail on the head in his earlier post, the Lakers don't care if you watch their games or not, they've already been paid. Its all about the money.


really years ago the Chicago teams dumped FSN and started CSN to get more control and there area covered alot of non comcast areas and CSN showed on ALL area systems even ones that where side by side with comcast. Also the teams own 80% of the network.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.




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