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
- - - - -

Sports Channels/Networks not offered by DirecTV


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#101 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:48 PM

And that's the dilemma. There are many folks like yourself where it does mean something (real or just on principle) and there are others like Sandra that just say add it to the bill. DTV has tried to answer both by offering it to those that want it only, but Pac 12 has said no. That way Sandra could get it, Dawg and others could pass.


Satelliteracer I will defer to your industry knowledge, but isn't this the crux of the situation....and situations past? I mean, with my Total Choice package I get many many channels that I'll never watch...but I subsidize anyway because they're part of the package. I realize individually they may not be as expensive as the Pac 12 Networks, but collectively they do add up....and I pay for them anyway because I have a package.


Sandra

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

#102 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,035 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 05 March 2013 - 03:22 PM

Satelliteracer I will defer to your industry knowledge, but isn't this the crux of the situation....and situations past? I mean, with my Total Choice package I get many many channels that I'll never watch...but I subsidize anyway because they're part of the package. I realize individually they may not be as expensive as the Pac 12 Networks, but collectively they do add up....and I pay for them anyway because I have a package.


Sandra


I feel the difference is in the amounts. Its one thing to have a channel in Total Choice that costs 3 cents, quite another when it costs $1 or $3 or $5. Just my two cents.
DIRECTV employee

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

#103 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:05 PM

I feel the difference is in the amounts. Its one thing to have a channel in Total Choice that costs 3 cents, quite another when it costs $1 or $3 or $5. Just my two cents.


I dunno...I'm sure there are channels were the carriage rate is three cents, but accoring to reports Nickelodean, MTV, TNT, CNN, Disney (and others I'm not thinking of at the moment) are all a LOT more than 3 cents per month per subscriber.

In fact, closer to $1 or more in some cases...


Sandra

#104 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,879 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:21 PM

I dunno...I'm sure there are channels were the carriage rate is three cents, but accoring to reports Nickelodean, MTV, TNT, CNN, Disney (and others I'm not thinking of at the moment) are all a LOT more than 3 cents per month per subscriber.

In fact, closer to $1 or more in some cases...

Even though Disney Channel shifted from premium to basic cable back in the late 90s/early 00s (depending on when they struck new contracts with the individual provider), they still are not ad supported. The move to basic cable actually helped them take Nickelodeon down a peg, they wouldn't be a major player in the kids TV scene and beating Nickelodeon in ratings on a regular basis if they were still relegated to just the TVs that have a cable box. (Which at the time in most cases is not the TV in the bedroom of their target audience)

TNT charges higher since they have NBA rights

Nickelodeon and MTV have some of the highest rated programs on cable giving them the clout to charge higher and demand wider penetration. (Keep in mind highest rated doesn't mean the best when it comes to quality, just take a look at what's in the top 25 for the past few weeks)

CNN, I'd have to get back to you on that one since I don't have time to compare it to the other news networks right now, but my guess is keeping those news bureaus around the world and flying Anderson Cooper and a video crew to every natural disaster isn't cheap.

Edited by KyL416, 05 March 2013 - 04:39 PM.


#105 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,485 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:47 PM

I do have Choice Plus, but I really bought the Sports Pack to get Fox Sports South and MSG, since they show the SEC network games and Universal Sports and NBC Sports for cycling. The Big 10 is nice to have, too. I did not realize it came with Choice.


Yeah, the Big Ten has positioned themselves rather well for media with the BTN.
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

#106 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,718 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:25 PM

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1279503

Question is when will it stop, where is the tipping point, how much will it be before the providers say enough is enough?

#107 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 382 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:03 AM

Unfortunately, the PAC-12 network is looking like it might be what finally makes me ditch the satellite for the first time in 16 years. As a huge proponent of niche sports like tennis and water polo, I just can't help but feel DTV has jumped the shark when it comes to their role as the ultimate sports provider for more than just the big boys. I know the P12 is demanding wide carriage, but something tells me if DTV offered them enough money/subscriber, they'd make a compromise there. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'd happily pay an extra $20 to get things like p12 nets, FSC and the tennis channel in the sports pack. Alas, I'm forced to subscribe to Choice Ultimate for Tennis, the sports pack for soccer, and time warner for the p12. Talk about an expensive pain in the butt.

Satelliteracer said some people want cheap bills and some people just want every channel at any price, and yet somehow I'm not getting either. I will admit that some of my bitterness toward the p12 deal is due to the fact DTV bent over backwards for the Lakers channel that shouldn't even exist in my mind. If the dodgers pull the same junk and DTV caves to them before figuring out a p12 deal I am definitely out.

Edited by Devo1237, 06 March 2013 - 12:11 AM.


#108 OFFLINE   larryharry59

larryharry59

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 54 posts
Joined: Feb 05, 2012

Posted 06 March 2013 - 06:02 AM

Unfortunately, the PAC-12 network is looking like it might be what finally makes me ditch the satellite for the first time in 16 years. As a huge proponent of niche sports like tennis and water polo, I just can't help but feel DTV has jumped the shark when it comes to their role as the ultimate sports provider for more than just the big boys. I know the P12 is demanding wide carriage, but something tells me if DTV offered them enough money/subscriber, they'd make a compromise there. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'd happily pay an extra $20 to get things like p12 nets, FSC and the tennis channel in the sports pack. Alas, I'm forced to subscribe to Choice Ultimate for Tennis, the sports pack for soccer, and time warner for the p12. Talk about an expensive pain in the butt.

Satelliteracer said some people want cheap bills and some people just want every channel at any price, and yet somehow I'm not getting either. I will admit that some of my bitterness toward the p12 deal is due to the fact DTV bent over backwards for the Lakers channel that shouldn't even exist in my mind. If the dodgers pull the same junk and DTV caves to them before figuring out a p12 deal I am definitely out.

Tennis Channel and Fox Soccer is on Choice Xtra now

#109 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 382 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:32 AM

Tennis Channel and Fox Soccer is on Choice Xtra now


I was talking more about FSP and BeIn, but I didn't realize Tennis was moved back down to Extra. Regardless, it's stupid I have to subscribe to a premium package for one sports channel, and the sports pack for the others.

#110 OFFLINE   donalddickerson2005

donalddickerson2005

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 230 posts
Joined: Feb 13, 2012

Posted 06 March 2013 - 11:03 AM

Devo1237. I agree with you. Another thing I would like is an all sports package for like $100 a month but you get every sports channel NFL NBA NCAA NHL MLB not to mention ppv boxing-mma plus all other sports not named here.
Hr34-700 living room
C31-700 bedroom
H23-600 family room

#111 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,078 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 06 March 2013 - 12:07 PM

I will admit that some of my bitterness toward the p12 deal is due to the fact DTV bent over backwards for the Lakers channel that shouldn't even exist in my mind. If the dodgers pull the same junk and DTV caves to them before figuring out a p12 deal I am definitely out.


The PAC 12 in its current form should not exist, either. It should have been like the Big 10 network with a single full time channel and either priced lower or included only in the Sports Pack.

I also agree that separate Lakers and Dogers channels should not exist. Now, if they were to share one channel that also included the Kings or Ducks and the Galaxy, that might be more reasonable but what will the Lakers channel show between March and September? What will the Dogers channel show between October and March?

#112 OFFLINE   TJNash

TJNash

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 146 posts
  • LocationSan Diego
Joined: Jun 05, 2012

Posted 06 March 2013 - 01:41 PM

Devo1237. I agree with you. Another thing I would like is an all sports package for like $100 a month but you get every sports channel NFL NBA NCAA NHL MLB not to mention ppv boxing-mma plus all other sports not named here.


This is a non-starter for about 50,000 reasons.

#113 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 382 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:52 PM

The PAC 12 in its current form should not exist, either. It should have been like the Big 10 network with a single full time channel and either priced lower or included only in the Sports Pack.

I also agree that separate Lakers and Dogers channels should not exist. Now, if they were to share one channel that also included the Kings or Ducks and the Galaxy, that might be more reasonable but what will the Lakers channel show between March and September? What will the Dogers channel show between October and March?


While I agree the 7 networks was a dumb way to go, the P12 Nets have already shown they're willing to make a compromise with the satellite companies by agreeing to let Dish Network only carry the National channel.

#114 OFFLINE   DawgLink

DawgLink

    Woof Woof Woof

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:05 AM

Question is when will it stop, where is the tipping point, how much will it be before the providers say enough is enough?


I think it has slowly started, I am the definition of a hardcore sports fan who got as much sports as possible.....but this was the first year that I did not get the sports pack OR MLB Package. Too much.

Just browsing a few other TV forums that I visit daily, I would say that in the last 3 months, I have seen more people saying that they DID drop packages or services for the first time that they can remember....in all of my years at these places combined.

I still shake my head at my so-called TV/Internet bill every month as I have VERY slim packages yet prices that should be illegal, IMO

With these additional sports networks launching...I expect prices to rise quickly the next 2 years

#115 OFFLINE   djrobx

djrobx

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 502 posts
Joined: Jan 26, 2009

Posted 07 April 2013 - 09:42 AM

Yeah, if my bill would go up by $50-$100 or so by adding the Pac-12 Networks, that would give you pause. But chances are we're talking about a few extra dollars per month, if that.

The problem is that these expensive sports networks are popping up like weeds, and they all want to be added to everyone's bill unconditionally. I think everyone already pays ESPN well over $3 per month. Then there's the regional sports networks, specialty networks, etc. Others have already brought up the ridiculous additions of Lakers and Dodgers specific networks in LA.

I don't watch ANY sports. I'm happy to subsidize a certain amount, but at some point, enough is enough and we have to stop feeding these pigs. I'm sorry that the sports you want fell below the line. The obvious solution is a-la-carte pricing for this programming due to its price, but the networks are demanding that DirecTV make a cash grab from people who don't want their product.

#116 OFFLINE   donalddickerson2005

donalddickerson2005

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 230 posts
Joined: Feb 13, 2012

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:30 PM

The problem is that these expensive sports networks are popping up like weeds, and they all want to be added to everyone's bill unconditionally. I think everyone already pays ESPN well over $3 per month. Then there's the regional sports networks, specialty networks, etc. Others have already brought up the ridiculous additions of Lakers and Dodgers specific networks in LA.

I don't watch ANY sports. I'm happy to subsidize a certain amount, but at some point, enough is enough and we have to stop feeding these pigs. I'm sorry that the sports you want fell below the line. The obvious solution is a-la-carte pricing for this programming due to its price, but the networks are demanding that DirecTV make a cash grab from people who don't want their product.

Alacart for every channel us sports nuts also don't like paying for your OWN network or lifetime.
I'd love pay per network. But that will never happen.
Hr34-700 living room
C31-700 bedroom
H23-600 family room

#117 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,485 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:45 PM

Alacart for every channel us sports nuts also don't like paying for your OWN network or lifetime.
I'd love pay per network. But that will never happen.


No you wouldn't. Your bill would go up and you'd get less.

The only real issue right now is the nuts who think they will get tons of money just cause they are 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

#118 OFFLINE   DawgLink

DawgLink

    Woof Woof Woof

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

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:18 PM

I think those who are big sports nuts (like me) will be shocked when their bills don't decrease with carte pricing.

DirecTV and other companies won't set themselves up to suddenly have less-than-usual income

And to me that means that sports pricing would increase

#119 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,581 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:04 PM

DirecTV and other companies won't set themselves up to suddenly have less-than-usual income

I'd look more at the programmers than at DirecTV and other carriers.

Take the amount a sports network like ESPN charges per subscriber and multiply it by the number of subscribers ... then divide it by the number of subscribers who would "opt in" if subscribing to ESPN was a choice (not included in nearly every package in the tier system). Then adjust the number of subscribers for those who would not accept the new higher price.

I believe ESPN would do OK under a la carte as they have a mix of programming where something on their channels appeals to each potential subscriber. The real losers in the sports realm would be the RSNs. Their variety of top sports is limited (even more so in the multi-RSN markets). Do the same math for their channels ... watch $1 to $3 per month channels (when sold to nearly every customer in a home market) jump to $10 when they still have to pay the bills after losing subscribers when people are given a choice.

For DirecTV these channels are carried at a loss ... but it the current marketplace it is better to pay ESPN their $5 and RSNs their $1-$3 and have the channels available than be the carrier without sports. The new $2 RSN fee (in select markets) is just the beginning of expressing the extra cost RSNs are to DirecTV. If a la carte were available perhaps "sports" customers would pay the full cost of having the channels and the rest of their customers bills would be lowered. But such a move would need to be done by all carriers ... otherwise the complaint would be "DirecTV charges extra for ESPN and RSNs while other providers include the channels in their basic package". They would lose customers over the change.

#120 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,197 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:55 PM

I'd look more at the programmers than at DirecTV and other carriers.

Take the amount a sports network like ESPN charges per subscriber and multiply it by the number of subscribers ... then divide it by the number of subscribers who would "opt in" if subscribing to ESPN was a choice (not included in nearly every package in the tier system). Then adjust the number of subscribers for those who would not accept the new higher price.

I believe ESPN would do OK under a la carte as they have a mix of programming where something on their channels appeals to each potential subscriber. The real losers in the sports realm would be the RSNs. Their variety of top sports is limited (even more so in the multi-RSN markets). Do the same math for their channels ... watch $1 to $3 per month channels (when sold to nearly every customer in a home market) jump to $10 when they still have to pay the bills after losing subscribers when people are given a choice.

For DirecTV these channels are carried at a loss ... but it the current marketplace it is better to pay ESPN their $5 and RSNs their $1-$3 and have the channels available than be the carrier without sports. The new $2 RSN fee (in select markets) is just the beginning of expressing the extra cost RSNs are to DirecTV. If a la carte were available perhaps "sports" customers would pay the full cost of having the channels and the rest of their customers bills would be lowered. But such a move would need to be done by all carriers ... otherwise the complaint would be "DirecTV charges extra for ESPN and RSNs while other providers include the channels in their basic package". They would lose customers over the change.


What about stuff that few people want and other channels that sports fans don't want to pay for.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.




spam firewall