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
- - - - -

$5.00 for the new Dodgers channel.


  • Please log in to reply
659 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   lipcrkr

lipcrkr

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 282 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2012

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:43 PM

According to my local Sports TV station in LA. So $5.00 a month for Dodgers baseball starting in 2014 with NO WAY OUT unless DirecTV declines which i doubt. Unbelievable.

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

#2 OFFLINE   Unknown

Unknown

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 353 posts
Joined: Oct 16, 2007

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:02 PM

According to my local Sports TV station in LA. So $5.00 a month for Dodgers baseball starting in 2014 with NO WAY OUT unless DirecTV declines which i doubt. Unbelievable.


There no way directv is gonna want make us pay 5 bucks a month for that channel, sorry to tell you this. but this is gonna be 1 long fight with directv and the Dodgers. that is way too high for anybody.

Edited by Unknown, 28 January 2013 - 09:10 PM.


#3 OFFLINE   old7

old7

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 270 posts
Joined: Dec 01, 2005

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:25 PM

SportsNet LA won't start until 2014. It still is pending Major League Baseball’s approval. Lot's of time for speculation on the price.

#4 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,882 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:45 PM

I don't understand why they can't just use the current TWCSN channel, why do they need a whole new channel? Lakers in the winter, Dodgers in the summer.

Dodgers Deal Will Taste Bitter to Fans

#5 OFFLINE   old7

old7

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 270 posts
Joined: Dec 01, 2005

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:59 PM

I don't understand why they can't just use the current TWCSN channel, why do they need a whole new channel? Lakers in the winter, Dodgers in the summer.

Dodgers Deal Will Taste Bitter to Fans


Because in order to hide a large chunk of cash coming from TWC, they need to be partners in the new channel, otherwise they risk sharing about one-third of the TV rights with "low-revenue teams."

#6 OFFLINE   Mariah2014

Mariah2014

    Breaking the mold

  • Registered
  • 836 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in Washington
Joined: Apr 21, 2006

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:01 PM

I would expect Directv to not pick this channel up unless the price drops drastically or it is offered ala carte. I suspect that Time Warner will be one of the only providers with it.

#7 OFFLINE   lipcrkr

lipcrkr

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 282 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2012

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:34 PM

SportsNet LA won't start until 2014. It still is pending Major League Baseball’s approval. Lot's of time for speculation on the price.


True, but it's ONE baseball season away. I will start my second year on DIRECTV in May 2013, in which the baseball season for 2014 will be well under way.
The reason why i'm bummed and lots of other people are bummed, is because TWC will make up the difference in higher fees to the customer because the 7 billion amount will have to be shared to other teams. That is why my local TV station quoted the higher than normal $5.00 amount.

#8 OFFLINE   lipcrkr

lipcrkr

    Legend

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 282 posts
Joined: Apr 27, 2012

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

I would expect Directv to not pick this channel up unless the price drops drastically or it is offered ala carte. I suspect that Time Warner will be one of the only providers with it.


I also didn't expect TWC to pick up the Lakers, but they did.

#9 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,882 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:47 PM

Dodgers officially announce deal with Time Warner Cable

Going to get to the point that the LA area is going to have a $10 a month RSN fee.

#10 OFFLINE   dvdmth

dvdmth

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,036 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO
Joined: Jul 24, 2008

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:34 PM

I would expect Directv to not pick this channel up unless the price drops drastically or it is offered ala carte. I suspect that Time Warner will be one of the only providers with it.


If the channel were a la carte, it would be a LOT more expensive (say, $20/month) and would make a lot less money and ultimately fail. These channels live on non-sports fans - without their contribution, the channels cannot survive. The same can really be said about most channels, not just sports.

I think TWC is throwing tons of money around to try to get something exclusive. They see what Comcast has pulled off and think they can do the same. They tried with the Lakers, but DirecTV overcame the cost. Now they're trying again with the Dodgers.

#11 OFFLINE   goinsleeper

goinsleeper

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 673 posts
Joined: May 22, 2012

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:00 AM

Maybe it's time for the fans to go on strike...

#12 OFFLINE   MikeW

MikeW

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,553 posts
Joined: May 16, 2002

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:36 AM

Maybe it's time for the fans to go on strike...


No "maybe" about it. Subscriber apathy is leading the charge. This is a damn shame.

#13 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,309 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:10 AM

If the channel were a la carte, it would be a LOT more expensive (say, $20/month) and would make a lot less money and ultimately fail. These channels live on non-sports fans - without their contribution, the channels cannot survive. The same can really be said about most channels, not just sports.

I think TWC is throwing tons of money around to try to get something exclusive. They see what Comcast has pulled off and think they can do the same. They tried with the Lakers, but DirecTV overcame the cost. Now they're trying again with the Dodgers.


what about theme packs? or even a NO sports choice (NO ESPN, sports nets, RSN's ) with all the other main channels?
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#14 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,882 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:39 AM

what about theme packs? or even a NO sports choice (NO ESPN, sports nets, RSN's ) with all the other main channels?

Or a sports only pack without all the other crap?

#15 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:45 AM

what about theme packs? or even a NO sports choice (NO ESPN, sports nets, RSN's ) with all the other main channels?


Good luck getting the content owners to agree to that...which they would have to do.
DTV = Digital Television

#16 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:51 AM

Here's the thing guys, go back to September and October and look at all the comments of anger for not carrying the Lakers channel. Then look at the comments about the anger of the Dodgers pricing.

See any issues here?

You have one very vocal group that wants their games no matter what. You have another very vocal group that doesn't want to pay for games they don't care about. Directv, Dish, Verizon, Charter, etc, etc, etc, are caught in the middle. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

You do the deal, rates are going up considerably and you lose some subscribers. Don't do the deal, you lose subscribers because you don't have the content.
DIRECTV employee

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

#17 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 712 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:59 AM

You do the deal, rates are going up considerably and you lose some subscribers. Don't do the deal, you lose subscribers because you don't have the content.


According to Forbes, Dodger TV ratings averaged a 1.14 last year. How can that possibly be worth $5 a month for every LA area subscriber? I honestly think cord cutting will grow if D* doesn't put a stop to this stuff. Even presuming every single LA area viewer was also a D* subscriber, I would think D* could afford losing 1.14% of their customer base rather than give in to this.

#18 OFFLINE   pfp

pfp

    Whatever

  • Registered
  • 1,557 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2009

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

Here's the thing guys, go back to September and October and look at all the comments of anger for not carrying the Lakers channel. Then look at the comments about the anger of the Dodgers pricing.

See any issues here?

You have one very vocal group that wants their games no matter what. You have another very vocal group that doesn't want to pay for games they don't care about. Directv, Dish, Verizon, Charter, etc, etc, etc, are caught in the middle. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

You do the deal, rates are going up considerably and you lose some subscribers. Don't do the deal, you lose subscribers because you don't have the content.


Which is why customers should be given a price for the channel and have a choice to subscribe to it or not.

Price is $1 - subscribe or don't
Price is $10 - subscribe or don't
Price is $100 - subscribe or don't
I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

#19 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:59 PM

Which is why customers should be given a price for the channel and have a choice to subscribe to it or not.

Price is $1 - subscribe or don't
Price is $10 - subscribe or don't
Price is $100 - subscribe or don't



If it were only that simple. You need to start way further up the food chain. ESPN needs their $6.5 billion in affiliate fees to pay for Monday Night Football, college football, college basketball, the NBA, etc, etc. They are going to get it, one way or another to pay their bills.

They need to know consistent revenue streams, which is why they demand it be bundled because it becomes predictive revenue and stable revenue.

How's the a la carte pricing in Canada going and why are people now realizing that when they lowered their bill by $10 a month they lost 40% of their channels in the process and aren't thrilled about it.
DIRECTV employee

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

#20 OFFLINE   TravelFan1

TravelFan1

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 227 posts
Joined: Apr 01, 2009

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:29 PM

Interesting article, with a different issue being laid out, on espn.com:

http://espn.go.com/l...rk-sportsnet-la

Dodgers is showing other mlb teams how to circumvent MLB revenue sharing agreements.

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


#21 OFFLINE   fireponcoal

fireponcoal

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 741 posts
Joined: Sep 26, 2009

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:41 PM

People will always find ways to get the content they desire with or without paying providers an outrageous sum. People are increasingly not content with the current state of affairs... Either things will change or providers themselves will find their models outmoded. Not sure how this will happen but I'm sure a paradigm shift of epic proportions may occur. People want something different and it's becoming more and more obvious all the time.

Poopoo Ala Carte all you want but people are already creating their own version of that regardless of whether it's good for business or not... A younger generation is indeed finding other alternatives to paying content providers and many of them will continue to do so when it comes time for them to purchase homes. No way around it other then an alternative that entices their habits..

Edited by fireponcoal, 29 January 2013 - 05:24 PM.


#22 OFFLINE   iluvtv

iluvtv

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 190 posts
Joined: Sep 29, 2005

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:04 PM

I'm a Giants fan so I say good riddance. :D
  • Reno911 likes this

#23 ONLINE   oakwcj

oakwcj

    Lower Echelon

  • Registered
  • 624 posts
Joined: Sep 28, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

I'm a Giants fan so I say good riddance. :D


Yes, but Vin Scully transcends the team he broadcasts for.

#24 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 20,266 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:03 PM

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Short of forming an alliance, they're only damned if they don't if someone can't take the pressure and buckles to the team demands.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#25 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,961 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

Very disappointed with this. It's not because I'm a Red Sox fan living in California (which I am) and therefore have no use for the Dodgers, but because these humongous sums of money take the fun out of a simple game that brings joy to millions. I'm not naive enough to think there will be this massive fan revolt, but sooner or later people will either lose interest or begin to pirate the games (and other channels with them.) Rational pricing begets rational customers.

This is the kind of content provider greed that quite honestly threatens to dismantle the pay-TV model. First, people abandon pay TV for streaming alternatives, then without the cash-cow pay TV deals, streaming costs to the customer shoot through the roof. Next thing you know there is massive piracy and everyone loses.

And let me tell you, if you don't live in Southern California, don't sit back and chuckle because you think this is a CA problem. This is your problem too, any of you who live in markets where there are teams with nationwide appeal. Hey Chicagoans, how would you like to pay for a channels for the Bears, another for the Cubs, another for the White Sox, another for the Bulls, another for the Blackhawks...

And if you live in, I don't know, central Iowa or whatever (no offense intended to Buckeyes, just making an example) you'll pay more to import those team feeds, too.

Major miscalculation on the Dodgers' part, and major miscalculation on TWC's part in not bundling the Dodgers into TWC SportsNet.
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.




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