Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of DBSTalk by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
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

#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.

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

#62 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 383 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
  • 6,596 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
  • 383 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
  • 370 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
  • 6,596 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

    High tech and loving it.

  • Super Moderators
  • 20,245 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
  • 19 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
  • 425 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
  • 383 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
  • 6,596 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
  • 425 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
  • 383 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
  • 6,665 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.

#76 OFFLINE   Jaspear

Jaspear

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 372 posts
Joined: May 16, 2004

Posted 11 February 2013 - 12:07 PM

Not sure about MLB though.


Multichannel News speculates that they may have the rights to MLB games from teams that have deals with the Fox RSNs:

The new national sports networks, starting with the 2014 MLB season, also may also be able to televise games involving clubs that Fox's RSNs have rights contracts with it. For instance, an Angels-Detroit Tigers game slated for FS West and FS Detroit could air nationally as Fox holds the regional rights to both teams. Conversely, the deal would not apply to the Boston Red Sox (NESN) and Washington Nationals (MASN).


"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, 1993 - 2003.

#77 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,999 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 11 February 2013 - 12:10 PM

I don't think he's missing your point. You pay for channels you don't watch and implied that another model or provider was maybe more in line with your viewing habits. He's pointing out that the situation exists regardless of what it is that you actually want to watch - some one us always going to pay for something they don't want... Even on Netflix.


I'm paying for: Lifetime, LMN, STYLE, AMC GROUP, E!, A&E, GOLF, CLOO, on and on.

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#78 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,101 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 11 February 2013 - 12:10 PM

Multichannel News speculates that they may have the rights to MLB games from teams that have deals with the Fox RSNs:


Oh. So. Wrong.

Their rights are regional.

They do have national cable rights to some games in the next deal.
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

#79 OFFLINE   mhking

mhking

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 541 posts
Joined: Oct 27, 2002

Posted 11 February 2013 - 01:15 PM

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


I would speculate that at least some form of this would exist, considering how much crossover NBC Sports Network has picked up from the Comcast Sports Group.
Wish list of channels for D*: C-Span 3; BBC World News; Sky News International; CBC Newsworld; France24; EuroNews; Eurosportnews; Setanta Sports News; ABC News 24 (Australia); Australia Network (soon to be ABC Asia Pacific); Al Jazeera English; Russia Today; NHK World; DW-TV -- Heck, how about an entire English-language international tier so I don't have to keep switching to my Roku?

#80 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 541 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 11 February 2013 - 01:35 PM

Similar to branding in Australia and New Zealand. One has to wonder if we will see international sport from the Fox owned Sky Sports and Fox Sports networks overseas. That will really make things interesting and worth it a 80 cents per channel.




spam firewall