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
- - - - -

News Corp to end Speed and Fuel Channels, convert them to Fox Sports


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   luckydob

luckydob

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 451 posts
Joined: Oct 01, 2006

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:34 PM

Got better numbers than those from a respected industry source who makes their money tracking these things? :rolleyes:


Without knowing the exact costs, these estimates are just a guy making a guess...which could mean: garbage in = garbage out. What does it matter anyway? They could be close, or the could be way off. NO ONE KNOWS...at least here on this board as the agreements are not public knowledge. Wall Street ESTIMATES ESPN brought in 11 billion for Disney. Estimates again, because they dont break it out. Now, how do you break that out for each channel and ad revenue for the ESPN network of channels? More estimating...more estimating = more margin of error. The truth is that the general public will likely never know exact costs.

#52 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:37 PM

Without knowing the exact costs, these estimates are just a guy making a guess...which could mean: garbage in = garbage out. What does it matter anyway? They could be close, or the could be way off. NO ONE KNOWS...at least here on this board as the agreements are not public knowledge. Wall Street ESTIMATES ESPN brought in 11 billion for Disney. Estimates again, because they dont break it out. Now, how do you break that out for each channel and ad revenue for the ESPN network of channels? More estimating...more estimating = more margin of error. The truth is that the general public will likely never know exact costs.


Now stop making sense! :) Let's not even mention that SNL Kagan even acknowledges that they are estimates. Oops... :)
DTV = Digital Television

#53 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,476 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:48 PM

<Moderator note>While talking costs is very much a reasonable part of this discussion, each other is not. Please be polite and don't talk about each other. I have had to delete posts and quotes of posts.

Thank you,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#54 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,374 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:52 PM

Without knowing the exact costs, these estimates are just a guy making a guess...which could mean: garbage in = garbage out. What does it matter anyway? They could be close, or the could be way off. NO ONE KNOWS...at least here on this board as the agreements are not public knowledge. Wall Street ESTIMATES ESPN brought in 11 billion for Disney. Estimates again, because they dont break it out. Now, how do you break that out for each channel and ad revenue for the ESPN network of channels? More estimating...more estimating = more margin of error. The truth is that the general public will likely never know exact costs.

SNL Kagan is not a guy ...

SNL Kagan provides financial and operational information and exclusive insight that isn't available from any other source. Generated by the same industry experts the networks themselves trust for custom valuations, business plans and M&A deal appraisal.

Developed over the course of more than 40 years, SNL Kagan's unique process for compiling TV networks data includes surveys, interviews with top management and involvement at key industry events. SNL Kagan combines intelligence from each individual network and builds aggregated data from the bottom up.
http://www.snl.com/S...TVNetworks.aspx

SNL Kagan has a 40 year reputation to protect and they are the best source for information that anyone has provided.



Now ...
Based on the articles linked, it appears that Fox has enough sports to fill Fox Sports 1 and overflow to Fox Sports 2. I am surprised to read that they are only asking 90c to $1 for Fox Sports 1. Perhaps they are asking for other concessions (better tier placement, placement of FS1 and FS2 next to each other in the channel listing, online/download content, etc) along with the reported 90c to $1.

If the content pans out I don't see $1 as a problem.

Edited by James Long, 10 February 2013 - 10:57 PM.


#55 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,476 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

Adding to one of James' points, if satelliteracer points to a source, it might be a hint that the source's estimates are pretty reliable, without being able to say so directly... :)

Peace,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#56 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:03 PM

Based on the articles linked, it appears that Fox has enough sports to fill Fox Sports 1 and overflow to Fox Sports 2. I am surprised to read that they are only asking 90c to $1 for Fox Sports 1. Perhaps they are asking for other concessions (better tier placement, placement of FS1 and FS2 next to each other in the channel listing, online/download content, etc) along with the reported 90c to $1.

If the content pans out I don't see $1 as a problem.


They are not using a strategy of overflow from FOX Sports 1 to FOX Sports 2.
DTV = Digital Television

#57 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,374 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:10 PM

They are not using a strategy of overflow from FOX Sports 1 to FOX Sports 2.

True. Since the channels do not exist yet they are not following that strategy.

But from the Dallas News article you quoted:

On the day it launches, Fox Sports 1 will have more stature and ultimately tonier programming than NBC Sports Network and CBS Sports Network.

Much of Speed’s programming will zoom over to Fox-owned Fuel TV, which itself may be re-branded Fox Sports 2, the answer to ESPN2.

We will find out what happens when they have rights to competing events once that occurs ... and once the channels are up as FS1 and FS2.

(Note: My use of FS1 and FS2 designators are unofficial and should not be taken as the official names for the future networks.)

#58 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:12 PM

True. Since the channels do not exist yet they are not following that strategy.


Yes, considering that is not how they have discussed handling the two channels.
DTV = Digital Television

#59 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,374 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:18 PM

Yes, considering that is not how they have discussed handling the two channels.

Based on the articles they have enough content to do so. That is all I said. I did not say that they would or would not follow that strategy, only that they would have enough content to do so (based on the articles).

#60 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:57 PM

Look for a large college basketball deal to be announced soon from the schools leaving the Big East.
DIRECTV employee

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

#61 OFFLINE   CDJohnson25

CDJohnson25

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 75 posts
  • LocationOn a long and lonesome highway, east of Omaha
Joined: Nov 04, 2007

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:50 AM

On the bright side, neither ESPN nor Fox Sports have not gone down the Reality Road and replaced their main programming with that crap.

Yet.

#62 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:16 AM

We have no idea how much it is.


Estimates were provided so your assertion is factually incorrect.

#63 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:22 AM

Estimates were provided so your assertion is factually incorrect.


Nope. Those are estimates. We have no idea what the number really is. Those estimates could well off for all we know.
DTV = Digital Television

#64 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:29 AM

Nope. Those are estimates. We have no idea what the number really is. Those estimates could well off for all we know.


We have estimates so we have an idea. A small amount of research will enlighten the curious mind. Again, your assertion is incorrect.

#65 OFFLINE   TomK

TomK

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 371 posts
Joined: Oct 18, 2010

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:35 AM

Nope. Those are estimates. We have no idea what the number really is. Those estimates could well off for all we know.


Thank you Ellen.

#66 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:52 AM

We have estimates so we have an idea. A small amount of research will enlighten the curious mind. Again, your assertion is incorrect.


False. We have estimates without any idea how near or far they are from the truth.
DTV = Digital Television

#67 OFFLINE   Tom Robertson

Tom Robertson

    Lifetime Achiever

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 20,476 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:05 AM

A mathematician and an engineer were given the same practical test in a kitchen.

A cup was placed on the counter and they were told to put them into the cabinet above. Mathematician lifted the cup and set it into the cabinet. As did the engineer.

Then a cup was placed on the floor for each of them and they were told the same thing, "put the cup into the cabinet".

This time the engineer went first. Reaching down, he picked up the cup and put it were it belonged in the cabinet.

The mathematician, calmly picked up his cup from the floor and set it on the counter, saying "the rest has already been done." :)

Do we know the exact, precise numbers? Of course not. The numbers are not the same for all distributors and they change yearly.

But we can be fairly certain the numbers aren't "well off". There are ways to calculate income (a reported number) and break it out by ad sales, subscriptions, etc., at least to a degree. Off by 10cents is one thing. Off by a few dollars isn't possible. Couple of hundred million dollars a month kinda sticks out in a corp. bottom line. :)

Peace,
Tom

Go Packers!

My real treasures: 5 Grandchildren - S, D, M, M, C ; Now 5! Great-Grandtibbers - B, H, J, A, and M (Born 7/31/2011)


#68 OFFLINE   RandyOH

RandyOH

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 22 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2010

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:23 AM

I have a question about these national Fox sports channels: do they have the contractual rights to simulcast games from their RSNs?

#69 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:03 AM

All of these comments is why I am for pay per channel but then some channels would just go away because there would be no one watching. But then again if I had to pay knowingly $5 for ESPN I might not even though I'm a sports nut.


Unless you watch every bit of programming on a particular channel 24/7 - you'd still be paying for content you don't watch or want. I'm not in favor of this - but the only model that truly allows someone to only pay for what they want is to purchase by the program.

#70 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:04 AM

False. We have estimates without any idea how near or far they are from the truth.


I agree that you don't have any idea how near or far they are from the truth. ;)

#71 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

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

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:05 AM

I agree that you don't have any idea how near or far they are from the truth. ;)


We
DTV = Digital Television

#72 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 426 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:08 AM

there so many crap stations that no one watches, like Style, Logo, VH1 Classic, OWN, food, cooking, they are forced to carry them because they are packaged with more popular channels and the big companies say All or Nothing.

I have about had it and in a couple of weeks I am canceling all of my cable and gettting Netflix instead. For news I will just go on Fox or CNN website for free.

Screw it. If you want to pay up the ying yang for hundreds of channels you never watch, good luck to you.


And you'll still be paying for content you don't/won't watch. Any subscription based model that offers all you can eat viewing (whether its Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Directv or Time Warner Cable) will force you to pay for content you don't want and don't watch. And you know that... so it's not really about paying for content you don't want is it? You seem more upset at the total $ figure involved.

I also subscribe to Netflix Streaming (in addition to Directv Premier) and I don't particularly care for Romantic Comedies or Foreign Films.... Netflix should have an option where I can save 27 cents and remove Romantic Comedies from my available option.

#73 OFFLINE   espnjason

espnjason

    Armchair Referee

  • Registered
  • 529 posts
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:29 AM

I have a question about these national Fox sports channels: do they have the contractual rights to simulcast games from their RSNs?


I don't know about contractual, but I am led to believe that the various shows and replay games that are duplicated across the Fox Sports Nets would be consolidated into FS1&2.

There are far too many that complain about the Sports Pack because of the various replications outside of the actual games, notably within the FSN family of channels. Unfortunately, too many fail to realize D*'s scope of serving hundreds of markets within a single infrastructure. I subscribe to the sports pack because I prefer sports news from the various local sources.

In due course, this would lead to the major teams having greater programming control and localization of their respective RSNs while remaining within the FSN framework.

With all that said, I wonder if the new FS1&2 would pick up the Super Rugby/Rugby Championship from D* and give it more homes? I sense content migration from Fox Soccer + would be migrated over to at least FS2 thus would lead to more Rugby and Champions League soccer matches in the clear without a separate subscription.

Given all the properties under the FS umbrella, the cable networks have some serious potential.

#74 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 447 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:40 AM

We


Ok, ok. I'll give in. Let me rephrase it with your correction:

"We agree that you don't have any idea how near or far they are from the truth. ;)"

Tom's post summarizes it correctly, even regarding the engineer and mathematician.

#75 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,913 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 11 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

I have a question about these national Fox sports channels: do they have the contractual rights to simulcast games from their RSNs?

Fox doesn't have the national rights to carry the NHL or the NBA. So no, they couldn't take an NHL or NBA game from one of their FSN's and show it nationally because they don't have the rights to do so.

The NHL belongs to NBC.

The NBA belongs to ABC/ESPN/TNT.

Not sure about MLB though.




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