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

#621 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:49 AM

This.

The idea of DirecTV giving in and forcing the price onto a country that for the high, high majority will never watch OR will watch at most 2-3 times a year?


Yea, but this is not true. The deal is putting the network in place for those in Pac 12 territory, NOT the nation. The remaining part of the nation would get the channel in the sports pack, a deal in which they would pay extra for.

LA already has multiple sports channels om Directv, two Fox Sports Nets and most of the rest of us have no more than one Fox sports Net....we pay the same rates as LA and yet LA gets more sports networks, so who is subsidizing who here?

And I don't watch Speed, Fuel or some of these other (really) niche channels, yet I am subsidizing the viewing of these channels?

Here in Oregon we can't even get our NBA Trail Blazers on Directv because Directv favors it's own Root Sports NW subsidiary (which has NOTHING on it outside of the Mariners and in the winter the cupboard is almost completely bare - we do have Seattle area high school football). CSN NW (blazers) costs less per sub than Root NW does according to published numbers.....

Now also Pac 12 is charging .80 per sub according some reports. Root NW is charging $2.40 accoriding to reports. Root used to carry Pac 12, so in theory instead of $2.40 cost for Root should drop for the loss of Pac 12 content, meaing that those dollars can shift over and cover the .80 charge for Pac 12.

So who is subsidizing who here? Your understanding of the situation is flawed and wrong. Sorry to burst that bubble.

And, beyond that most of the rates between providers are similar....so the new mantra with "Directv is pay the same and get less!" In fact, my new Dish Network bill (even w/o considering the new sign up rebates, etc.) is less than Directv. Comcast bills are roughly the same as Directv. So how does a competitor do it and charge the same or less than Directv?

So if you are still with Directv I'd call them up and get whatever deal you want...they'll pay. When terminated Directv they offered me the kitchen sink, $10 credit for 2 years, free HBO, showtime, etc. for 6 months, free sports pack for 6 months, free NFL Sunday Ticket, brand new equipment, etc. I probably could have even held out for more. But I said no and they kept pushing more.....so do it, call and get a credit for yourself. I agree sports channel costs are going up......but Directv, owning three of them directly, is just as much of the problem as anyone else....they lost content and they refuse to adjust their price for it, so now they make even more money....charge the same for Root but have little or no cost on content anymore!

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

#622 OFFLINE   DawgLink

DawgLink

    Woof Woof Woof

  • Registered
  • 1,543 posts
  • LocationWashington, DC
Joined: Nov 05, 2006

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:35 AM

Yea, but this is not true. The deal is putting the network in place for those in Pac 12 territory, NOT the nation. The remaining part of the nation would get the channel in the sports pack, a deal in which they would pay extra for.

And many like myself have the Sports Pack and do not want a price increase off that based on a West-Coast channel that AGAIN few watch but 2-3 times a year.

And I don't watch Speed, Fuel or some of these other (really) niche channels, yet I am subsidizing the viewing of these channels?


So what? Why add more of those then?

Now also Pac 12 is charging .80 per sub according some reports.

I have seen different numbers from different reports.

Root NW is charging $2.40 accoriding to reports. Root used to carry Pac 12, so in theory instead of $2.40 cost for Root should drop for the loss of Pac 12 content, meaing that those dollars can shift over and cover the .80 charge for Pac 12.


And that price is absurd. As others have said, your market compares to the NY market in terms of ridiculously inflated prices.

Your understanding of the situation is flawed and wrong. Sorry to burst that bubble.


There is nothing flawed whatsoever in what I am saying as few if anyone wants this channel outside of the Pac-12 fans mostly on the West-Coast. Whether they add it to the Sports Pack, Essential, or whatever....the price the Channel wants is ABSURD with the utterly pathetic content for virtually the entire year.

#623 OFFLINE   DC_SnDvl

DC_SnDvl

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 276 posts
Joined: Aug 17, 2006

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:23 PM

They do this with the B1G Network now? Why would anyone expect any of the other conference networks to agree to anything less?

I do appreciate the passion of the PAC12 viewer base, but this pretty much sums it up for me:


Very succinctly put.


This.

The idea of DirecTV giving in and forcing the price onto a country that for the high, high majority will never watch OR will watch at most 2-3 times a year?



#624 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:23 AM

And many like myself have the Sports Pack and do not want a price increase off that based on a West-Coast channel that AGAIN few watch but 2-3 times a year.


Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel. I know folks in the deep south always resist change, well unfortunately the world just does not work that way. Change is inevitable.


So what? Why add more of those then?


So let's remain in the past? So why add NHL Network, NFL Network, etc. over the years?

Maybe it's time to pull some sports channels off that are not getting good viewership and have poor content. (i.e. Root Sports NW and the others).

Life changes every day. I already cannot watch the Portland Trail Blazers on Directv because they favor their own 100% controlled Root Sports over CSN-NW.

I have seen different numbers from different reports.
And that price is absurd. As others have said, your market compares to the NY market in terms of ridiculously inflated prices.


Yep, but that price goes right to Directv as the owner of Root Sports. Directv is just as much a cause of the problem on sports channels as anyone else. Mike White talks a good game, but then fails to look in the mirror. Root Sports has an increase over the past 7 or 8 years just above the national average on sports channels. Main difference is Mr. White's own sports channels have very little content today, so he's raking in the cash on Root....they are charging premium rates and showing high school football, which costs them next to nothing.

There is nothing flawed whatsoever in what I am saying as few if anyone wants this channel outside of the Pac-12 fans mostly on the West-Coast. Whether they add it to the Sports Pack, Essential, or whatever....the price the Channel wants is ABSURD with the utterly pathetic content for virtually the entire year.


I flat disagree with that statement. The content of the Pac 12 Network costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges).

#625 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:26 AM

And many like myself have the Sports Pack and do not want a price increase off that based on a West-Coast channel that AGAIN few watch but 2-3 times a year.


Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel. I know folks in the deep south always resist change, well unfortunately the world just does not work that way. Change is inevitable.


So what? Why add more of those then?


So let's remain in the past? So why add NHL Network, NFL Network, etc. over the years?

Maybe it's time to pull some sports channels off that are not getting good viewership and have poor content. (i.e. Root Sports NW and the others).

Life changes every day. I already cannot watch the Portland Trail Blazers on Directv because they favor their own 100% controlled Root Sports over CSN-NW.

I have seen different numbers from different reports.
And that price is absurd. As others have said, your market compares to the NY market in terms of ridiculously inflated prices.


Yep, but that price goes right to Directv as the owner of Root Sports. Directv is just as much a cause of the problem on sports channels as anyone else. Mike White talks a good game, but then fails to look in the mirror. Root Sports has an increase over the past 7 or 8 years just above the national average on sports channels. Main difference is Mr. White's own sports channels have very little content today, so he's raking in the cash on Root....they are charging premium rates and showing high school football, which costs them next to nothing.

There is nothing flawed whatsoever in what I am saying as few if anyone wants this channel outside of the Pac-12 fans mostly on the West-Coast. Whether they add it to the Sports Pack, Essential, or whatever....the price the Channel wants is ABSURD with the utterly pathetic content for virtually the entire year.


I flat disagree with that statement. The content of Pac 12 sports costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges). So if we pay 80 cents per sub for Pac 12 for the whole thing or $2.40 something on Root for a few games here and there? We have a LOT more content for lower cost. Basically Pac 12 can do the whole thing for a lot less than others and give us better access at the same time.

Fact remains that Pac 12 will probably be the last league owned channel. The grain is so difficult now with the fights Pac 12 is having that it is unlikely any other league will be able to muster wide distribution.

#626 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,197 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

Yea, so what? Times change all the time. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean we remain in the past. And frankly, Pac 12 has alums and fans all over the country that do want the channel.


Of course. But in what numbers? Not the number of alums, but those who really want to watch their FB or soccer or BB team?

And, Mr. Traveller, have you any connection with Pac-12 in addition to being a fan?
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#627 OFFLINE   Mike Bertelson

Mike Bertelson

    6EQUJ5 WOW!

  • Moderators
  • 13,877 posts
Joined: Jan 24, 2007

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:31 AM

<snip>
I flat disagree with that statement. The content of Pac 12 sports costs less on Pac 12 Network (for more content) than Root Sports (or any other west coast RSN charges). So if we pay 80 cents per sub for Pac 12 for the whole thing or $2.40 something on Root for a few games here and there? We have a LOT more content for lower cost. Basically Pac 12 can do the whole thing for a lot less than others and give us better access at the same time.

Fact remains that Pac 12 will probably be the last league owned channel. The grain is so difficult now with the fights Pac 12 is having that it is unlikely any other league will be able to muster wide distribution.

The comment in bold brings up a very interesting thought exercise.

Let’s say it is 80¢ per sub. If DIRECTV is paying 80¢ per sub then the sub is paying 80+¢.

The question I find myself asking is this a reasonable cost for a single RSN and is it also reasonable to expect that other content providers won’t expect that they can get similarly priced carriage agreements in future?

Personally, I think costs per channel per subscriber are in danger of getting out of hand. e.g. If we have 100 channels averaging 75¢ per sub that’s $75/mo per subscriber to carry those channels.

I believe that with people using DVRs and functions like AutoHop we can expect it’s going to be difficult for broadcasters to maintain ad revenues. Once high carriage deals become the norm, it will be one way for broadcasters to recoup some of that missing ad money further driving up our monthly bills. IMHO, the PAC-12 carriage deal is the line in the sand only beacuse it came at a time when the line needed to be drawn and unfortunately the PAC-12 fans are caught in the middle.

My 2¢ FWIW.

Mike

µß
Since it costs 2.4¢ to produce a penny, my 2¢ worth is really 4.8¢ worth.  That 4.8¢ is my own and not the 4.8¢ of DIRECTV, Dish, or anyone else for that matter.


#628 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 403 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:59 PM

Happy for the Lakers' fans.

I knew the lines coming out of DirecTV were nothing more than empty rhetoric. Too expensive, don't want non-lakers fans paying or subsidizing for fans. Yeah right.

Complaining isn't enough as I think DirecTV felt the cancellation pressure as I can't explain them putting foot in mouth after holding out for this long.

DirecTV being 0 for 2 in two local sports networks for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (lakers and usc/ucla) wasn't and isn't healthy.

#629 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 385 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:09 PM

Man I hope the Lakers distraction helps bring the p12 negotiations back to the table. I'm dying not being able to see some bball!

#630 OFFLINE   woj027

woj027

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 823 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:19 PM

Happy for the Lakers' fans.

I knew the lines coming out of DirecTV were nothing more than empty rhetoric. Too expensive, don't want non-lakers fans paying or subsidizing for fans. Yeah right.

Complaining isn't enough as I think DirecTV felt the cancellation pressure as I can't explain them putting foot in mouth after holding out for this long.

DirecTV being 0 for 2 in two local sports networks for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (lakers and usc/ucla) wasn't and isn't healthy.


yea, but being 0-2 for local in Portland sports (Blazers and OSU/UofO) is apparently healthy. And further, being 0-2 for sports in Seattle ( Blazers -sorry sonics fans and WSU/UW) is also healthy.

our 6 (oregon) and 9 (washington) electoral votes don't mean much to California's 32….

#631 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:10 PM

Of course. But in what numbers? Not the number of alums, but those who really want to watch their FB or soccer or BB team?

And, Mr. Traveller, have you any connection with Pac-12 in addition to being a fan?


My wife and I are alums of different Pac 12 universities and our kids someday will likely be Pac 12 students, our parents were Pac 12 students, and of course, we hold season tickets to football and attend other sports events.

So no employment connection, alum and fan.

#632 OFFLINE   WebTraveler

WebTraveler

    Icon

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

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:11 PM

Happy for the Lakers' fans.

I knew the lines coming out of DirecTV were nothing more than empty rhetoric. Too expensive, don't want non-lakers fans paying or subsidizing for fans. Yeah right.

Complaining isn't enough as I think DirecTV felt the cancellation pressure as I can't explain them putting foot in mouth after holding out for this long.

DirecTV being 0 for 2 in two local sports networks for the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (lakers and usc/ucla) wasn't and isn't healthy.


Yea cancellations had to be significant, it was not looking pretty.

#633 OFFLINE   woj027

woj027

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 823 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:31 PM

As much as I don't like the ducks ( can't use the word hate) it would be great if Phil knight and/or nike campus had directv. It would be great for him to threaten to drop. Because the state of Oregon doesn't have ant clout to push a pac-12 deal

#634 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,197 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:51 PM

My wife and I are alums of different Pac 12 universities and our kids someday will likely be Pac 12 students, our parents were Pac 12 students, and of course, we hold season tickets to football and attend other sports events.

So no employment connection, alum and fan.


Thanks.

I was slightly dyslexic when I read the first sentence: "My wife and I are alums of 12 different Pac. universities..."!!!
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#635 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 403 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:57 PM

Well, one thing is for certain, DirecTV can never say they don't want non-fans subsidizing programming for fans, less we dig this all back up and laugh.

I'm sure they paid full price for this package or TWC was willing to discount everyone else they already signed (highly unlikely).

DirecTV is kind of sleazy in my eyes and they are losing their pristine reputation (at least I held them in that regard prior to this year). If they lose exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket, they may be in trouble in my opinion based on what they are publicly saying and doing.

Which begs to question: where's the pac-12 network and what's their excuse this time?

#636 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 403 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:26 PM

So NFL, get DirecTV for all you can. If I were you, I would.

#637 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 675 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:31 PM

Heads up: Civil War (Ore @ Oreg. St) game this Sat (11/24) on the PAC-12 Net (exclusively) at Noon (PST).
Thanks for nothing D*.

#638 OFFLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,961 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:51 PM

Heads up: Civil War (Ore @ Oreg. St) game this Sat (11/24) on the PAC-12 Net (exclusively) at Noon (PST).
Thanks for nothing D*.


Isn't that the network's first ever game with both teams ranked? It's about time they had a decent game ... it only took 13 weeks. Too bad the UCLA verse Stanford game is way more important since Stanford controls their own destiny. Stanford at UCLA gets national coverage on Fox... Fox picked the right game.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#639 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 18 November 2012 - 09:06 PM

Well, one thing is for certain, DirecTV can never say they don't want non-fans subsidizing programming for fans, less we dig this all back up and laugh.

I'm sure they paid full price for this package or TWC was willing to discount everyone else they already signed (highly unlikely).

DirecTV is kind of sleazy in my eyes and they are losing their pristine reputation (at least I held them in that regard prior to this year). If they lose exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket, they may be in trouble in my opinion based on what they are publicly saying and doing.

Which begs to question: where's the pac-12 network and what's their excuse this time?


They won't lose their exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. The NFL wants it limited to a single provider and DirecTV will have first dibs at signing a new deal. It's DirecTV's crown jewel. It isn't going anywhere.
DTV = Digital Television

#640 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 63 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:19 AM

Insomnia, so instead of counting sheep, I counted games involving both teams that are currently ranked in the BCS Top 25, up through the games this coming weekend. So through week 13, there will have been 39 total games of currently ranked teams and the PAC-12 Networks will have had 6 of those games. By network:

ESPN - 10
ABC - 7.5 (Oregon State vs UCLA was regional coverage split with ESPN2)
FOX - 6
P12N - 6
CBS - 5
NBC - 2
ESPN2 - 1.5 (see above for .5 game explanation)
ESPNG/SPNY/MASN - 1 (Rutgers vs Kent St.)




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