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
591 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   fireponcoal

fireponcoal

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 725 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.


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

#22 OFFLINE   iluvtv

iluvtv

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 189 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 OFFLINE   oakwcj

oakwcj

    Lower Echelon

  • Registered
  • 622 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
  • 19,418 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
  • 36,907 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.

#26 OFFLINE   Tubaman-Z

Tubaman-Z

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 509 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:16 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.


I am in Twins territory (just north of central IA :) ). If they charge me $2/month during the season to see the Twins, not a problem. If they charge me $200/year - so long. I'm kind of nostalgic and don't mind listening to baseball on AM radio.

P.S. Did you mean Hawkeyes? Last I checked the Buckeyes were somewhat NE of central IA. :)

Edited by Tubaman-Z, 29 January 2013 - 04:21 PM.

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)   

DirecTV HR21-200, 2008 (DirecTV anniversary gift)
DirecTV HR20-100 (2TB eSATA), 2007
DirecTV since 1995

<><


#27 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,153 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:33 PM

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.

Likely one of the reasons why DirecTV no longer wants to pay for the outer ring coverage for some RSNs if the channel insists on having it in the base packages for the outer ring viewers. On the otherhand here in NEPA, we're considered part of the outer ring for Root Pittsburgh and we can get the games if we subscribe to the Sports Pack.

#28 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,253 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:52 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.

pay for a channels for the Bears I don't the NFL rules will let teams have there own channels and if we get to that NFL ST will need like 32 HD channels in less the games show up ON RSN channels (then just need remapping and if cables wants NFT ST some day indemand may need to shutdown or cut NBA LP, MLB EI, NHL CI down to 1 feed per game and limited HD on Sundays to fit it all games in HD and SD with just 1 feed a game also have to plan for overlap.

Also the NFL may not want games to end up stuff like CSN phlly or CSN NW that are on very systems in the local area that being a VERY BIG Change for all local games on OTA TV.

In the past the Cubs have talked about about having there own channel like YES.

But right now the teams do fine with 80% of CSN Chicago and a high number of games on WGN / WCIU. AS well all of the WGN America games.

In the past the bulls, sox, and blackhawks had there games on the pre cable PAY UHF channels and when sports vision moved to cable I think it was like a few bucks a mo add on to basic cable.

But in Winnipeg they have the season TSN JETS channel for $10 /mo. Maybe some thing like that can work for Team channels.

And maybe for multi team channels say $7* mo or a flat yearly cost with a price brake for paying up front.

* for that to work the basic pack with have to be priced for not having the RSN channel part of it.

But haveing team channel wanting say $10 year round even in the off season does not really work to well even more so with it foreced into the base pack.

Also the Blackhawks tried ppv and that did not last for long + bars where stealing it or paying the home rates for it also it got in way on some systems with other ppv events needing the same bandwidth.

Any ways back then I was very into the bulls on tv and that was on the main sports channel / the CLTV sports channel over flow slot and wgn.

It was hard to get bulls tickets then and very few people went to blackhawks games.

Now the blackhawks are doing very well and there tv ratings are very good.

Edited by JoeTheDragon, 29 January 2013 - 05:07 PM.

I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#29 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,153 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 29 January 2013 - 04:57 PM

pay for a channels for the Bears I don't the NFL rules will let teams have there own channels and if we get to that NFL ST will need like 32 HD channels in less the games show up ON RSN channels (then just need remapping and if cables wants NFT ST some day indemand may need to shutdown or cut NBA LP, MLB EI, NHL CI down to 1 feed per game and limited HD on Sundays to fit it all games in HD and SD with just 1 feed a game also have to plan for overlap.

The NFL is good about having cable games available OTA in the home market, provided the game sells out. Word is Versus lost the bid for Thursday Night Football because they insisted on having it be a cable exclusive.

#30 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,704 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:24 PM

The NFL is good about having cable games available OTA in the home market, provided the game sells out. Word is Versus lost the bid for Thursday Night Football because they insisted on having it be a cable exclusive.


Funny thing is that the NFL floated the idea a long time ago that the Super Bowl be on cable or (shudder) pay per view. They at least got that part right.
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

#31 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,253 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

Funny thing is that the NFL floated the idea a long time ago that the Super Bowl be on cable or (shudder) pay per view. They at least got that part right.


and then they will lose all the Ad's. also I think that FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS can out bid cable channels for the super bowl and make it up in ad spots.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#32 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 29 January 2013 - 06:56 PM

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.


And they can't form an alliance as that is anti-competitive price collusion from what I understand. Not my area of expertise, but I believe that to be the case.
DIRECTV employee

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

#33 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,704 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:08 PM

and then they will lose all the Ad's. also I think that FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS can out bid cable channels for the super bowl and make it up in ad spots.


I guess. Cable is slowly taking over everything else. The BCS Championship is probably the largest single crowning event on cable. But the earlier rounds of everything else are going cable but by bit.

The NFL is talking about expanding their playoffs. I would not be surprised if the new games are on espn with local only ota.
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

#34 OFFLINE   RML81

RML81

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 111 posts
Joined: Jul 03, 2011

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:16 PM

At some point, somebody is going to outprice themselves. A provider is going to have to tell ESPN or another network "no" someday.

#35 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,704 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:19 PM

At some point, somebody is going to outprice themselves. A provider is going to have to tell ESPN or another network "no" someday.


I think the war will be over RSNs more than espn. Espn still delivers for the providers and even though the main channel is pricey, the rest of the group really isn't.

The inventory espn has keeps them in the game. But single team channels like the dodgers channel are much more vunerable. This could get painful for time Warner. They locked themselves into a 25 year contract.
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

#36 OFFLINE   HGuardian

HGuardian

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 429 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2010

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:25 PM

Likely one of the reasons why DirecTV no longer wants to pay for the outer ring coverage for some RSNs if the channel insists on having it in the base packages for the outer ring viewers. On the otherhand here in NEPA, we're considered part of the outer ring for Root Pittsburgh and we can get the games if we subscribe to the Sports Pack.


I think where it becomes an issue is where DIRECTV doesn't allow you to get the content at any price, IE if you were a Tigers fan in Iowa and DIRECTV decided, even if you had Sports Pack, they would be blacking out the White Sox, Royals, and Twins. You'd miss around 45 games a season even if you had Extra Innings in that situation.

#37 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:26 PM

Agreed. Battles are far more likely to be waged over standalone channels than networks like ESPN than come bundled with other varied channels.

(A hatchet copy and paste job)

HideMedia Network

A+E Networks (owned by Disney (50%) and Hearst Corporation (50%))
A&E
History
Bio.
H2
Military History
Crime & Investigation Network
Lifetime
Lifetime Movie Network
Lifetime Real Women

Disney-ABC Television Group

Disney/ABC Television Group Digital Media
Walt Disney Television
Disney-ABC Domestic Television - formerly Buena Vista Television
Disney-ABC International Television - formerly Buena Vista International Television
ABC Television Network
ABC News

ABC Entertainment Group

ABC Digital
ABC Entertainment
ABC Studios - formerly Touchstone Television & ABC Television Studios
Times Square Studios (division)

ABC Family

ABC Family
ABC Spark - with Corus Entertainment
ABC Family Digital
Marvel Productions/Saban Entertainment. Ltd Library

ABC Owned Television Stations Group

WLS-7 Chicago, Illinois
KFSN-30 Fresno, California
KTRK-13 Houston, Texas
KABC-7 Los Angeles, California
WABC-7 New York City
WPVI-6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
WTVD-11 Raleigh-Durham
KGO-7 San Francisco, California
Live Well Network
ABC National Television Sales
ABC Regional Sports and Entertainment Sales

ESPN, Inc.

(Disney 80%)

ESPN and HD
ESPN2 and HD
ESPN on ABC - formerly ABC Sports
ESPN Classic
ESPNews and HD
ESPN Deportes
ESPN Films
ESPNU
ESPN Kids
ESPN Classic
ESPN Now
ESPN Plus
ESPN Original Entertainment
ESPN Pay-Per-View
ESPN Regional Television
ESPN International (see for complete list of channels)
ESPN America
TSN (20%)
ESPN Radio
Mobile ESPN
ESPN3
ESPN The Magazine
ESPN Books (an imprint of Disney's Hyperion Books)
ESPN Home Entertainment
ESPN Outdoors
BASS
ESPN Digital Center


http://en.m.wikipedi...isney#section_3
DTV = Digital Television

#38 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,153 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:27 PM

I think where it becomes an issue is where DIRECTV doesn't allow you to get the content at any price, IE if you were a Tigers fan in Iowa and DIRECTV decided, even if you had Sports Pack, they would be blacking out the White Sox, Royals, and Twins. You'd miss around 45 games a season even if you had Extra Innings in that situation.

Blame MLB for that. Even if a provider doesn't carry an RSN the blackouts cover their entire territory. If DirecTV could they would give them the games via Extra Innings as they would make more money from that than they would paying the RSN extra for outer ring rights.

#39 OFFLINE   HGuardian

HGuardian

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 429 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2010

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

Blame MLB for that. Even if a provider doesn't carry an RSN the blackouts cover their entire territory. If DirecTV could they would give them the games via Extra Innings as they would make more money from that than they would paying the RSN extra for outer ring rights.


Oh, I do blame MLB. I've mentioned this before but MLB should create a limit of 2 teams that can claim media exclusivity (ie blacking out the opponents feed) in any particular location. Teams should be able to keep their huge swaths of land as their territory sure if they can reach deals with providers, but they shouldn't have exclusivity.

#40 OFFLINE   wilbur_the_goose

wilbur_the_goose

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,419 posts
Joined: Aug 16, 2006

Posted 30 January 2013 - 07:13 AM

Welcome to the pain we've been "suffering" in Philly for 10+ years with CSN-Philly.




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