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
753 replies to this topic

#626 OFFLINE   lokar

lokar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 725 posts
Joined: Oct 07, 2006

Posted 16 February 2015 - 10:35 AM

Parity just means every team has an equal chance to succeed.  You can make that case more in the NFL since all TV money is equally split than you can with any other North American sport due to the huge imbalances between local TV contracts in the MLB/NHL/NBA. 


  • slice1900 likes this

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

#627 OFFLINE   joed32

joed32

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,737 posts
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Posted 17 February 2015 - 07:33 AM

Not for nothing, but haven't I read stories lately about a possible move back to LA by the Rams?

Unless St. Louis builds them a new stadium.



#628 OFFLINE   milton

milton

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 265 posts
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Posted 18 February 2015 - 08:09 AM

Actually I never thought parity meant 8-8. In this context, parity means different teams make the playoffs and win championships. More different teams do so in MLB than in the NFL, and payrolls don't mean what you think they do. The Yankees haven't won in years, the Angels, Dodgers and Tigers didn't get past the first round, and the Red Sox were awful. High payrolls don't always equal championships. Concerns about teams buying championships just don't pan out.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk

 

MLB's divisional system actually combats the payroll inequities a bit.  The Central Division is guaranteed a playoff spot even though they are mostly small market teams plus Chicago (Cubs can't win).  Think of it as a quota system.  And baseball playoffs are somewhat of a crap shoot.  (It wouldn't be surprising if a 70-92 team beat a 100-62 team 3 out of 5.)

 

Yes, there are inequities within divisions, but the recent evidence supports the claim that high payrolls don't guarantee titles.



#629 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,930 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 16 March 2015 - 05:00 PM

Time Warner Cable 'Actively Pursuing' Talks to Finally Lift Dodger Blackout

http://www.thestreet...r-blackout.html

#630 ONLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,842 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 16 March 2015 - 05:59 PM

Time Warner Cable 'Actively Pursuing' Talks to Finally Lift Dodger Blackout

http://www.thestreet...r-blackout.html

 

Don't see how "actively pursuing talks" is supposed to make any difference when TWC is still not willing to make any compromises on the main sticking points. The near $5.00 cost per subscriber for a one team channel coupled with an insistence that the channel be placed in the basic tiers included in most to all programming packages of providers so all subscribers are saddled with the burden of paying for it. :nono2:      


DIRECTV sub. since Sep. of '95


#631 OFFLINE   George_T

George_T

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 307 posts
Joined: Sep 19, 2002

Posted 16 March 2015 - 07:04 PM

TWC actively pursuing agreement... on their terms, and their terms alone. Doesn't sound to me like TWC is ACTIVELY seeking a resolution.

#632 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 18,077 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 16 March 2015 - 07:40 PM

Sounds like fodder to me after reading the article. They are just blowing smoke. They won't reduce their demands at all and the providers have already lost all the subscribes they will to die hard fans by now. So Time Warner Cable is screwed.

Fine by me. ;)

#633 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,215 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:41 PM

Yep, article is a waste of time unless TWC is willing to negotiate on price or allow it to be carried ala carte. Otherwise all they're doing is calling up Directv and other providers and saying "hey, remember that deal you laughed at the last couple years, we're offering it to you again, do you want it?"


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL, 3xSWM16; 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#634 OFFLINE   milton

milton

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 265 posts
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Posted 17 March 2015 - 07:09 AM

I think TWC should publicly say they are willing to do a one-year deal at a lower price in the basic tier with the providers since the season is fast approaching and then collect some solid data on viewership by provider and ad revenue that is shared with the providers. Then in the offseason, re-evaluate.  This could put TWC in position next year to say "Directv is dropping the Dodgers."  And if the providers don't agree to this one-year fix, TWC can say "we tried."

 

Could even say that Vin's final year (which it could be) is one of the reasons.


Edited by milton, 17 March 2015 - 07:11 AM.


#635 OFFLINE   texasbrit

texasbrit

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,537 posts
Joined: Aug 09, 2006

Posted 17 March 2015 - 08:14 AM

How about a basic tier price of zero?  :)



#636 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,215 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 17 March 2015 - 08:53 AM

I think TWC should publicly say they are willing to do a one-year deal at a lower price in the basic tier with the providers since the season is fast approaching and then collect some solid data on viewership by provider and ad revenue that is shared with the providers. Then in the offseason, re-evaluate.  This could put TWC in position next year to say "Directv is dropping the Dodgers."  And if the providers don't agree to this one-year fix, TWC can say "we tried."

 

Could even say that Vin's final year (which it could be) is one of the reasons.

 

For this reason, Directv and other providers may not be willing to do a one year deal. It is easier to explain to subscribers why you never have had a channel than to explain why it was taken away.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL, 3xSWM16; 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#637 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    DaBears

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 6,051 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 22 March 2015 - 01:16 AM

For this reason, Directv and other providers may not be willing to do a one year deal. It is easier to explain to subscribers why you never have had a channel than to explain why it was taken away.

 

If you recall last year it was offered under some special terms and this is the exact reason why all the providers turned it down.



#638 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,215 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 22 March 2015 - 01:55 PM

I doubt there's anything TWC could do to get anyone else on board at this point. The other providers are waiting to see what happens with the Comcast deal. Comcast will have taken this fiasco into account when pricing the offer they made TWC. They will write down most of that $8 billion, and be able to price it more reasonably to get Directv and others on board. Why would Directv or anyone else take any offer TWC makes? Even if they offered it for half price, why take that without waiting to see what happens with Comcast first?

 

The other providers are happy to let TWC twist in the wind, and leave this as an object lesson in case anyone else ever has the dumb idea to bid $8 billion for 25 years of TV rights for a single team.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL, 3xSWM16; 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#639 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,007 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 22 March 2015 - 03:17 PM

Couldn't have happened to a nicer outfit! 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#640 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 18,077 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 22 March 2015 - 11:36 PM

I am not convinced they wont just stay the same when Comcast takes over if it does. Several more areas in Southern California will go from charter to Comcast if the merger is approved so they'd have even more customers they could try and leverage. And Comcast seems to be dumb about these things instead of wanting wide coverage they want money.

#641 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,215 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 23 March 2015 - 08:51 AM

You may be right, but if Comcast thinks they can induce a lot of customers from Directv, Dish and other cable providers to switch to Comcast just to get to the Dodgers Channel, good luck to them.

 

I think the leverage disappears after a while, certainly when it has been two years as is the case here and for Directv lacking Pac 12. You've already taken all the hit you're going to, so unless the deal gets a lot better you have no incentive to change your course since the customers who have left won't automatically switch back just because you add the channel they left over.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL, 3xSWM16; 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#642 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 18,077 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 23 March 2015 - 09:09 AM

Totally agree. They gain nothing by not lowering the cost and adding more carriers other than the charter customers.

#643 OFFLINE   jeret

jeret

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 53 posts
Joined: Apr 21, 2007

Posted 24 March 2015 - 12:28 PM

Time Warner Cable is expected to shoulder the burden of its bad deal.

 

http://nypost.com/20...ad-dodger-deal/



#644 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,215 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 24 March 2015 - 01:27 PM

That article claims the 'value' is $3 for that channel instead of the $5 they've been asking so far. I don't see any reason why other providers will bite at $3 when they refused at $5. Maybe they would have taken $3 if that was offered up front, but they've already taken whatever subscriber hit there is over this and lost the hardcore Dodgers fans to TWC - adding the channel now won't bring them back.

 

The ratings haven't been all that good even when there are games. I don't see Directv or anyone else paying $3 for a single team channel that only has a few hundred hours of content viewers want to see each year, and 8000+ hours when almost no one will be watching.

 

I'll bet everyone continues to hold out and hopes for further write offs that will drop the price further.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL, 3xSWM16; 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#645 OFFLINE   milton

milton

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 265 posts
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Posted 25 March 2015 - 05:32 AM

At $1.5 million per game, which is what TWC paid in 2014, TWC paid approximately $35 per game per viewer last year.  This is based on ratings of 42,000 households.


Edited by milton, 25 March 2015 - 05:37 AM.


#646 OFFLINE   JohnDG

JohnDG

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 217 posts
Joined: Aug 16, 2006

Posted 25 March 2015 - 10:34 AM

That article claims the 'value' is $3 for that channel instead of the $5 they've been asking so far. I don't see any reason why other providers will bite at $3 when they refused at $5. Maybe they would have taken $3 if that was offered up front, but they've already taken whatever subscriber hit there is over this and lost the hardcore Dodgers fans to TWC - adding the channel now won't bring them back.

 

The ratings haven't been all that good even when there are games. I don't see Directv or anyone else paying $3 for a single team channel that only has a few hundred hours of content viewers want to see each year, and 8000+ hours when almost no one will be watching.

 

I'll bet everyone continues to hold out and hopes for further write offs that will drop the price further.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe that issue is in which "tier" the channel is included.  if DTV could simply add the channel cost to the "regional sports fee" and then include only those subscribers who pay the fee, then the dispute would be over.

 

IMHO TWC is being unreasonable.in asking all DTV subscribers to pay for a relatively expensive service that only a minority wish to watch.

 

jdg



#647 OFFLINE   sunfire9us

sunfire9us

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 395 posts
Joined: Feb 15, 2009

Posted 25 March 2015 - 11:36 AM

I may be wrong, but I believe that issue is in which "tier" the channel is included. if DTV could simply add the channel cost to the "regional sports fee" and then include only those subscribers who pay the fee, then the dispute would be over.

IMHO TWC is being unreasonable.in asking all DTV subscribers to pay for a relatively expensive service that only a minority wish to watch.

jdg



You're correct on the situation. Dtv wants it to be only avail to those customers who want to pay for it vs making all of its customers especially non sports fans have to also pay.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk

#648 OFFLINE   keenan

keenan

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 567 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2005

Posted 25 March 2015 - 12:58 PM

Is TWC asking for it to be on a lower tier than any other RSN in other markets are now? In other words, the local RSN is not on the lowest basic tier of channels but usually on the next tier up. Is TWC asking for it to be on the same tier as ESPN, which I believe is Entertainment, while most RSNs are usually added when you get to Choice, which is where DirecTV probably wants it, and with a lower price?

 

While it's a bad situation for LA area Dodger fans it has been interesting to see it play out, it's like TWC was the odd man out when the music stopped playing, with regards to pricing/tiering of a sports channel anyway. 


Edited by keenan, 25 March 2015 - 12:58 PM.


#649 OFFLINE   sunfire9us

sunfire9us

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 395 posts
Joined: Feb 15, 2009

Posted 25 March 2015 - 01:49 PM

Yes they want SNLA in all tiers ( I doubt the very low one w/o any sports) so they can get more coverage in terms of advertising as well as from DTV since this is based per subscriber.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk

#650 OFFLINE   keenan

keenan

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 567 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2005

Posted 25 March 2015 - 01:52 PM

Yes they want SNLA in all tiers ( I doubt the very low one w/o any sports) so they can get more coverage in terms of advertising as well as from DTV since this is based per subscriber.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk

Yes, I understand the reasoning, I just wasn't sure if TWC was asking for something above and beyond what other RSNs usually get, and it appears they are.






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