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
- - - - -

L.A. Dodgers, Time Warner Cable deal could top $8 billion


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Sports_Fan

Sports_Fan

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 4 posts
Joined: Feb 12, 2012

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

Hi Everyone,

Continuing a theme of boldly going where no previous ownership has gone before, the Dodgers are close to a deal where they would launch their own channel in a partnership with Time Warner Cable starting in 2014.


Read more at the LA Daily News: http://www.dailynews...-deal-could-top


My question is are the dodgers going to be on the Lakers Time Warner Cable channel or have the dodgers on there own Time Warner Cable channel.

Why not have Time Warner Cable channels for the ducks, clippers, angles so that fox sports west and prime and change there name to pac 12 channels.

Why not Time Warner Cable merge college tv channel feeds for college football and college basketball on the pac 12 for those two "fox sports west" and "prime ticket" channels on directv. People can pick the games if the like more then two games are played at the same time.

Edited by Stuart Sweet, 23 January 2013 - 12:38 PM.


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

#2 OFFLINE   celticpride

celticpride

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 967 posts
Joined: Sep 06, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

boy i thought the laker deal was bad ,this is worse,I wonder how much directv and others will have to pay now? I just wish directv or any other providers wouldnt force everyone in so cal. to pay higher fees for these channels,they should only pay for it if they want it otherwise just block access to the channel.:mad:

#3 OFFLINE   iceturkee

iceturkee

    DINFOS Trained Killer

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,168 posts
  • Locationdaytona beach, fl
Joined: Apr 01, 2007

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:50 PM

it is getting silly. soon all pro sports teams will want their own channel. ask the indians how that worked for them?

#4 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,870 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:07 PM

This would require DIRECTV to carry 6 RSNs, and the cost to DIRECTV could be a billion dollars a year. Ridiculous.
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#5 OFFLINE   TomK

TomK

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 371 posts
Joined: Oct 18, 2010

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:51 PM

They need to be priced as premium channels like HBO, etc. That's fair to whomever wants to watch those channels and fair to those of us who don't want them.

#6 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,036 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:57 PM

it is getting silly. soon all pro sports teams will want their own channel. ask the indians how that worked for them?


Silly was passed a long time ago.
DIRECTV employee

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

#7 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 419 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:24 PM

They need to be priced as premium channels like HBO, etc. That's fair to whomever wants to watch those channels and fair to those of us who don't want them.


That's what many of us hope for. I know it sucks for fans, but I hope DirecTV doesn't cave and let TWC force all subs to pay for this channel.

In my area I'm missing CSNNW and PAC12 Networks, but I'm ok with this because I don't like how the programmers force everyone to pay up. I would happily pay extra to get these channels, but only if they are part of a sports pack or as a premium channel.

#8 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,214 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:25 PM

They need to be priced as premium channels like HBO, etc. That's fair to whomever wants to watch those channels and fair to those of us who don't want them.


maybe not HBO level but at least a sports theme pack or dual base packs.

A sports base pack with tears.

and

A entertainment base pack with tears.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#9 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,559 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:26 PM

maybe not HBO level but at least a sports theme pack or dual base packs.

A sports base pack with tears.

and

A entertainment base pack with tears.


Except when you cut down the number of subs who have the channel, it will get closer to HBO pricing than you think rather quickly.

In fact, when Home Team Sports (now CSN Mid Atlantic) started around Maryland, it was a premium costing exactly what HBO cost at the time.
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

#10 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:32 PM

it is getting silly. soon all pro sports teams will want their own channel. ask the indians how that worked for them?


Didn't work for the Royals either...remember RSTN?

It has, however, worked for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.


Sandra

#11 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,559 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:33 PM

Didn't work for the Royals either...remember RSTN?

It has, however, worked for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.


Sandra


Didn't work for the Yankees, actually. They have sold out to Fox with rumors of YES morphing into a national outlet with Big Ten sports.

Plus, at least YES, is more than the Yankees. It is also the Nets and college sports.
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

#12 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 419 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:33 PM

Except when you cut down the number of subs who have the channel, it will get closer to HBO pricing than you think rather quickly.

In fact, when Home Team Sports (now CSN Mid Atlantic) started around Maryland, it was a premium costing exactly what HBO cost at the time.


I know we've had a difference of opinion on the outcome of a la carte, but I think everyone (almost) can agree that breaking out the sports channels would be a good idea. :)

#13 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:43 PM

Didn't work for the Royals either...remember RSTN?

It has, however, worked for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.

RSTN was mostly a games only feed.

SNY has the backing of Comcast and Time Warner and is the offical network for Jets coverage during the off season.

NESN launched in 1984 when RSNs were in their infancy, they also have the Bruins. CSN New England which launched as PRISM New England in 1981 only has the Celtics and New England Revolution if you count the MLS.

And as others have said, YES also has the Nets so they have live sports most of the year.

#14 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,559 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:44 PM

I know we've had a difference of opinion on the outcome of a la carte, but I think everyone (almost) can agree that breaking out the sports channels would be a good idea. :)


When they position themselves as premiums in terms of gouging customers, yes.

But a middle of the road RSN that provides value to customers, no.

And I still think it would be provider suicide to break out ESPN.
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

#15 OFFLINE   TravelFan1

TravelFan1

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 209 posts
Joined: Apr 01, 2009

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:11 PM

Didn't work for the Yankees, actually. They have sold out to Fox with rumors of YES morphing into a national outlet with Big Ten sports.

Plus, at least YES, is more than the Yankees. It is also the Nets and college sports.


Tony, it has been working quite well for the Yankees. And it for sure worked well for Goldman Sachs and their partner in the channel - I forgot the entity name. They sold out to Fox for a very pretty penny, they made a ton on this transaction.

In fact, the success of Yes network is the reason why all these RSNs are being created. But I agree with most of the posters here that this RSN model is broken, 8 billion dollars is a completely insane number, but it's only being suggested 'cause time warner is counting on the dodgers channel to be add in a tier similar to the one for the lakers, so that the millions of tv subscribers in la la land pay for it and tw can recoup the dough.

Rip: Comcast: July 2005 - April 2009 & Dish Network: April 2009-July 2011
Directv since June 2011 and loving it!
Directv wish list:BBC World News, Fox Deportes HD, WatchEspn, FoxSports2Go


#16 OFFLINE   TravelFan1

TravelFan1

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 209 posts
Joined: Apr 01, 2009

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:14 PM

Btw, if the dodgers can get 7bi/25 years - that's the number that's vented on espn and la times today - sky's limit for the next yankees tv contract - i'd dare to say north of 10bi for the same amount of time.

Rip: Comcast: July 2005 - April 2009 & Dish Network: April 2009-July 2011
Directv since June 2011 and loving it!
Directv wish list:BBC World News, Fox Deportes HD, WatchEspn, FoxSports2Go


#17 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,870 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:20 PM

All I can say is, capitalism is great, getting the best deal you can is great, but capitalism goes both ways. At some point people will balk at these huge deals. Frankly a bit surprised it didn't happen in the last four years before these deals got as big as they are.
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#18 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 672 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:23 PM

If D* or other providers don't draw a line in the sand and soon, the ridiculous fees are just going to encourage more people to cut the cord. I'm sure D* has a team analyzing where that line should be.

#19 OFFLINE   cmasia

cmasia

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 698 posts
Joined: Sep 18, 2007

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:56 PM

Sadly, in 15 years, I can see the Dodgers crying poverty for being locked into such a "terribly cheap and undervalued" deal for 10 more years.




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