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

The official Pac-12 discussion thread


  • Please log in to reply
830 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:32 AM

LYING?? Really? why then explain to us please the LIES that Larry Scott said.. I want to hear actual proof of the transcripts that occurred between PAC12 and Directv...


First the offers were the same. Then the Dish deal included exclusives. Now they say the deals were, "fundamentally similar."

The deal we've offered DirecTV is fundamentally similar to the deal that has already been accepted by DISH

http://www.sbnation....orks-directv-tv


Scott said that DirecTV has been "offered the same deal that Dish has been offered, so no doubt it's a fair deal. Dish thought so, and 40 cable companies thought so, so I hope they listen to their customers the same way the others have.

http://www.dailynews...e-provider-dish



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

#52 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,406 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:35 AM

It is BS.. I like how they said, "None of the games on the Pac-12 Network schedule feature any nationally ranked opponents based on either the current Associated Press or USA Today Coaches' Poll."

Really??? http://espn.go.com/c...otball/rankings
Shows USC is ranked 13.. That's just this week.
...


That says opponents, meaning both ranked.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#53 OFFLINE   kick4fun

kick4fun

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 474 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:41 AM

First the offers were the same. Then the Dish deal included exclusives. Now they say the deals were, "fundamentally similar."


Oh ya, BIG and HUGE Lies.. Larry Scott should be ashamed.. In fact, now he should give it away for free because Directv deserves it.. :confused:

#54 OFFLINE   kick4fun

kick4fun

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 474 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:49 AM

That says opponents, meaning both ranked.


First.. :icon_lame

2nd, but then they show these games on the Big10 network.. HMM.

Central Michigan at Iowa
UAB at Ohio State(16)
Eastern Michigan at Michigan State(21)
Idaho State at Nebraska(25)
South Dakota at Northwestern
Louisiana Tech at Illinois
Syracuse at Minnesota

I said it was BS to make the claims they only want to show RANKED TEAMS, but they deny the Pac12 and put this up?

#55 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:52 AM

Oh ya, BIG and HUGE Lies.. Larry Scott should be ashamed.. In fact, now he should give it away for free because Directv deserves it.. :confused:


No, he should offer a fair deal for his product. His bargaining power falls off substantially after this weekend. The network is the side missing the potential revenue, not DirecTV. If a PAC-12 fan really wants their network, they can choose to switch to a different provider.

The PAC-12 Network is missing out on the revenue from 20 million potential viewers. DirecTV only loses revenue from those customers who leave over not having a lone, very specialized, and unestablished network. The math becomes pretty simple. Either the PAC-12 Network needs to make an offer to DirecTV with rates that make sense or they must prove their value. That haven't done either.

#56 OFFLINE   kick4fun

kick4fun

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 474 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:57 AM

No, he should offer a fair deal for his product. His bargaining power falls off substantially after this weekend. The network is the side missing the potential revenue, not DirecTV. If a PAC-12 fan really wants their network, they can choose to switch to a different provider.

The PAC-12 Network is missing out on the revenue from 20 million potential viewers. DirecTV only loses revenue from those customers who leave over not having a lone, very specialized, and unestablished network. The math becomes pretty simple. Either the PAC-12 Network needs to offer DirecTV with rates that make sense or they must prove their value. That haven't done either.


I agree not having the network on Directv is missed a missed opportunity, but Larry Scott says this....
“In an ideal world, if I could've scripted it, you'd have all of them, but from what I'm told that never really happens when you're launching a network. If you look where we are, three weeks into it, I think we've got over 40 agreements, four out of the top five distributors between Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and now Dish. I think it's probably on par if not better than any other launch that's ever taken place. It ranks up there in terms of early success for any network. These things take time with all distributors, and we're hopeful that the distributors that don't have it not only see the quality of games we have on, the quality of the content, but also are responsive to their fans and their customers in the same way Dish and other cable companies have been. We're confident that those who don't have it, their customers will be responsive to the customers, the fans.”

That being said it's not a do or die deal if they don't agree quite yet or even this year.. I guess it takes time..
Also, I'm not jumping ship yet, I get the Pac12 Networks for free right now.. Best of both worlds, I got the Sunday Ticket and Redzone for a total of $80 plus I can stream all Pac12 Networks via Laptop to the TV.. It looks great and wish everyone could see what I'm seeing in terms of Pac12 network coverage..

#57 OFFLINE   RAD

RAD

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 16,255 posts
  • LocationDripping Springs, TX
Joined: Aug 05, 2002

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:59 AM

I'd take the Longhorn deal too, even though I think UT should have joined the PAC16. :) It's about adding sports, not denying us. If we have to get Big10 on the basic channels, then I want PAC12 too.


It's about adding things at a price customers would be willing to pay. He'll, come February there will be tons of posts here because the bill for service will go up $3 to $4 per month. I for one don't want to see my bill go up $7 or $8 per month because RSN's got added, IMHO RSN's need to go ala cart.

See post My Setup for configuration info.


#58 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:04 AM

I agree not having the network on Directv is missed a missed opportunity, but Larry Scott says this....
“In an ideal world, if I could've scripted it, you'd have all of them, but from what I'm told that never really happens when you're launching a network. If you look where we are, three weeks into it, I think we've got over 40 agreements, four out of the top five distributors between Time Warner, Comcast, Cox and now Dish. I think it's probably on par if not better than any other launch that's ever taken place. It ranks up there in terms of early success for any network. These things take time with all distributors, and we're hopeful that the distributors that don't have it not only see the quality of games we have on, the quality of the content, but also are responsive to their fans and their customers in the same way Dish and other cable companies have been. We're confident that those who don't have it, their customers will be responsive to the customers, the fans.”

That being said it's not a do or die deal if they don't agree quite yet or even this year.. I guess it takes time..


Those deals he gloats about not for national distribution, with the exception of Dish Network. Some of them are for small cable systems and others are limited to specific locations/systems within the larger cable operators. Small potatoes compared to DirecTV.

Also...

“In an ideal world, if I could've scripted it, you'd have all of them, but from what I'm told that never really happens when you're launching a network."

Wow...maybe this guy should stick to typical conference business and allow someone else to speak on behalf of the network if he isn't aware of something so simple.

#59 OFFLINE   donm

donm

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 168 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2003

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:06 AM

No, he should offer a fair deal for his product. His bargaining power falls off substantially after this weekend. The network is the side missing the potential revenue, not DirecTV. If a PAC-12 fan really wants their network, they can choose to switch to a different provider.

The PAC-12 Network is missing out on the revenue from 20 million potential viewers. DirecTV only loses revenue from those customers who leave over not having a lone, very specialized, and unestablished network. The math becomes pretty simple. Either the PAC-12 Network needs to make an offer to DirecTV with rates that make sense or they must prove their value. That haven't done either.


The Pac 12 is offering a fair deal. At least the same approximate deal they have offered all providers. If the Pac 12 took the Directv offer they would lose a lot of money when it came time came to renegotiate the other 40+ providers they have existinng contracts with.

What about the Big 10 Network, ESPN multiple channels, all the sports league channels and even most of the regular entertainment channels that could be in their own tiers. I don't blame Directv for not carrying the Pac 12 Network but probably there is no way it gets put in the RSN tier. It would just cost the Pac 12 Network to much money in the furture and a lot of unhappy providers and even some Directv customers. I would gladly pay for the sports package or the Pac 12 Network's own package but it won't happen.

#60 OFFLINE   kick4fun

kick4fun

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 474 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:06 AM

It's about adding things at a price customers would be willing to pay. He'll, come February there will be tons of posts here because the bill for service will go up $3 to $4 per month. I for one don't want to see my bill go up $7 or $8 per month because RSN's got added, IMHO RSN's need to go ala cart.


I totally agree.. If Directv decides to move the Big10 to the Sports Pack (probably can't because of BIG10 contract) and then add Pac12 along with all other sports into a sports tier, I think that's more than fair.. I would more than pay for that! :)

#61 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:12 AM

The Pac 12 is offering a fair deal.


Proof?

At least the same approximate deal they have offered all providers.


That is false. Like I said - first they claimed it was the same offer, then we learned of the exclusives to Dish, and now they say they are fundamentally the same. More falsehoods from a commissioner who is a fish out of water in a retrans negotiation and has backed himself into a corner with a network losing product value only a few weeks into the season. A tiny portion of people may leave DirecTV over this, but not enough to force DirecTV into a bad deal.

#62 OFFLINE   donm

donm

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 168 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2003

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:21 AM

Proof?



That is false. Like I said - first they claimed it was the same offer, then we learned of the exclusives to Dish, and now they say they are fundamentally the same. More falsehoods from a commissioner who is a fish out of water in a retrans negotiation and has backed himself into a corner with a network losing product value only a few weeks into the season.



You give me proof they are not! If you read what Directv has been saying it is wanting to put the Pac 12 Network in it's own or the RSN tier. That is what they are saying is unreasonable not that the Pac 12 is trying to charge them more then anybody else. This is also what the Pac 12 has been saying. Of coarse all deals are a little different but very close. The Dish exclusive signage probably could have been Directv if they wanted and had sign with the Pac 12 first.

Also if the Pac 12 Network went in the sports package they wouldn't have 20 million customers. Maybe 1 million if that much. I actually would like to see all sports go to their own package or allow to purchase only the channels you would want but the providers won't let that happen

#63 OFFLINE   kick4fun

kick4fun

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 474 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:21 AM

Proof?



That is false. Like I said - first they claimed it was the same offer, then we learned of the exclusives to Dish, and now they say they are fundamentally the same. More falsehoods from a commissioner who is a fish out of water in a retrans negotiation and has backed himself into a corner with a network losing product value only a few weeks into the season. A tiny portion of people may leave DirecTV over this, but not enough to force DirecTV into a bad deal.


And here we go again.. Back and forth over who's giving who the better deal.. How do we know that Direct wasn't offered the exclusives 1st.. Maybe they gambled and took a pass, but then Dish came up and bought into it. Now the deal is "MAYBE SIMILAR". Just a guess. I wouldn't presume to call either team a liar, but I called BS on Directv saying they were only showing "Ranked Opponents" when in fact they are not with the BIG10 channels this weekend..

That same Commissioner who "is a fish out of water", successfully expanded the Pac10 to 12 teams, negotiated a huge contract with ESPN and Fox to grant each school $30 million a YEAR, and got Dish and 4 of the largest cable companies in the country and more than 40 others, one of which is the LARGEST --- Comcast. So, is this guy a fish out of water? The Jury is out!

#64 OFFLINE   donm

donm

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 168 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2003

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:25 AM

And here we go again.. Back and forth over who's giving who the better deal.. How do we know that Direct wasn't offered the exclusives 1st.. Maybe they gambled and took a pass, but then Dish came up and bought into it. Now the deal is "MAYBE SIMILAR". Just a guess. I wouldn't presume to call either team a liar, but I called BS on Directv saying they were only showing "Ranked Opponents" when in fact they are not with the BIG10 channels this weekend..

That same Commissioner who "is a fish out of water", successfully expanded the Pac10 to 12 teams, negotiated a huge contract with ESPN and Fox to grant each school $30 million a YEAR, and got 4 out of 5 carriers to bring Pac12 Networks to their programming, one of which is the LARGEST --- Comcast. So, is this guy a fish out of water? The Jury is out!


The jury is not out IMO. Scott is the best conference commissioner in all college.

#65 OFFLINE   kick4fun

kick4fun

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 474 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:25 AM

The jury is not out IMO. Scott is the best conference commissioner in all college.


THANK YOU!

#66 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:26 AM

You give me proof they are not!


...if it were a fair deal, there would be a deal. :rolleyes: A fair deal implies that it is something both sides can agree upon.

I actually would like to see all sports go to their own package or allow to purchase only the channels you would want but the providers won't let that happen


The providers? No, it's the content owners. Purchasing only the channels you want gets complicated when it becomes far more expensive and the channels you want disappear after a substantial loss of revenue. It's a la carte. It doesn't work.

#67 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:33 AM

I wouldn't presume to call either team a liar, but I called BS on Directv saying they were only showing "Ranked Opponents" when in fact they are not with the BIG10 channels this weekend..


Haha! :lol: How is it "BS" to use the PAC-12 Network's own broadcast schedule to show that they are quickly running out of marquee match-ups?

P.S. - The Big 10 Network already has a deal. This is about the PAC-12 Network not getting one done.

That same Commissioner who "is a fish out of water", successfully expanded the Pac10 to 12 teams, negotiated a huge contract with ESPN and Fox to grant each school $30 million a YEAR, and got Dish and 4 of the largest cable companies in the country and more than 40 others, one of which is the LARGEST --- Comcast. So, is this guy a fish out of water? The Jury is out!


Once again, not a single one of those cable providers are national providers. Also, many of those cable companies are either smaller, regional providers or are only offering the PAC-12 Network in specific systems within their overall footprint. DirecTV is the big ticket. It's one of only two national television service providers and easily dominates the other.

#68 OFFLINE   donm

donm

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 168 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2003

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:33 AM

...if it were a fair deal, there would be a deal. :rolleyes: A fair deal implies that it is something both sides can agree upon.



The providers? No, it's the content owners. Purchasing only the channels you want gets complicated when it becomes far more expensive and the channels you want disappear after a substantial loss of revenue. It's a la carte. It doesn't work.


Your right I meant content owners. Sorry!

OK not necessarily a fair deal but a similar deal that over 40+ providers already thought was a fair deal for them. It might not be in Directv's opinion though. I'm sure right now it is as close to a best deal that the Pac 12 can offer. If Directv doesn't want to do it both will move on. There is about 2-3 other providers the Pac 12 needs and then they can go without Directv. They are making 20-30 million per team from just Fox and ESPN and will be more from the other 40+ providers. It would be really nice to get Directv and there almost 20 million customers but not if they are going to lose money on the other 60+ million from other providers.

#69 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:39 AM

Your right I meant content owners. Sorry!

OK not necessarily a fair deal but a similar deal that over 40+ providers already thought was a fair deal for them. It might not be in Directv's opinion though. I'm sure right now it is as close to a best deal that the Pac 12 can offer. If Directv doesn't want to do it both will move on. There is about 2-3 other providers the Pac 12 needs and then they can go without Directv. They are making 20-30 million per team from just Fox and ESPN and will be more from the other 40+ providers. It would be really nice to get Directv and there almost 20 million customers but not if they are going to lose money on the other 60+ million from other providers.


At the end of the day, only the PAC-12 loses if there isn't a deal with DirecTV. It won't even be a blip on the radar for DirecTV. A fraction of a single percentage point will jump ship. The PAC-12 misses out of far more revenue than DirecTV risks losing in churn. The PAC-12 wants to charge big time network fees that they haven't earned. Good for them that they got the Dish deal. Dish is known for its missteps, so that isn't surprising.

#70 OFFLINE   Carl Spock

Carl Spock

    Superfly

  • Registered
  • 4,567 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2004

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:40 AM

I'm sure right now it is as close to a best deal that the Pac 12 can offer. If Directv doesn't want to do it both will move on.

Why do you think it's the PAC 12's best offer?

This early in the negotiations, I wouldn't expect either side to be at or near their bottom line. Those positions usually take months to get to.
hangin' with the bros at 40 Eridani A

#71 OFFLINE   donm

donm

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 168 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2003

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:47 AM

Why do you think it's the PAC 12's best offer?

This early in the negotiations, I wouldn't expect either side to be at or near their bottom line. Those positions usually take months to get to.


They have been negotiating for over a year. The Pac 12 is close to their best deal IMO because they can't go to much better or cause problems with their existing providers. I'm sure there are small things both sides could change but with what looks like Directv wanting the Pac 12 Network to be a RSN or their own package just makes it almost impossible.

#72 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,617 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:53 AM

I'm sure there are small things both sides could change but with what looks like Directv wanting the Pac 12 Network to be a RSN or their own package just makes it almost impossible.


Link? Source?

#73 OFFLINE   Carl Spock

Carl Spock

    Superfly

  • Registered
  • 4,567 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2004

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:54 AM

They have been negotiating for over a year.

When did the other service providers settle? If you were dealing with me, that's when I'd start real negotiations.
hangin' with the bros at 40 Eridani A

#74 OFFLINE   donm

donm

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 168 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2003

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

At the end of the day, only the PAC-12 loses if there isn't a deal with DirecTV. It won't even be a blip on the radar for DirecTV. A fraction of a single percentage point will jump ship. The PAC-12 misses out of far more revenue than DirecTV risks losing in churn. The PAC-12 wants to charge big time network fees that they haven't earned. Good for them that they got the Dish deal. Dish is known for its missteps, so that isn't surprising.



I think it is more then a blip for Directv. I think Directv right now is more worried then the Pac 12 about this agreement. Every time I call Directv they give me something else free without even asking for it. Free HBO, Showtime, money off my bill twice etc. They have emailed me 2-3 times with trying to keep me from dropping Directv.

If you think going in their own package or RSN is going to lose the Pac 12 a lot of money your fooling yourself. They would lose a lot more by doing that. Pac 12 wants to charge what the market will bare and over 40+ providers agreed. Dish is known for some missteps but are a hard group to get a deal done especially sports. You see Dish is dropping the Big 10 at the same time it signed the Pac 12. Maybe the Pac 12 Network is a better deal.

#75 OFFLINE   donm

donm

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 168 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2003

Posted 20 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

When did the other service providers settle? If you were dealing with me, that's when I'd start real negotiations.


The first 4-5 settled a year ago and more as the year went along.




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