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
- - - - -

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV


  • Please log in to reply
1990 replies to this topic

#1551 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,331 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:22 PM

I often think the pac12 channels are and should be more about brand appeal than money producer which means they need directv even more than they are willing to admit.

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

#1552 OFFLINE   jw_rally

jw_rally

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 48 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2014

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:05 PM

The comments by Larry Scott in the linked article below don't give much hope. I'm not sure how DirecTV can have deals in place for so many sports packages, channels, etc., but Larry Scott feels he must have AT&T broker a deal. Maybe the problem is more with Larry Scott and the model they have chosen. 

 

http://www.latimes.c...0805-story.html

 

Scott is hopeful that if AT&T closes on its deal to acquire DirecTV, it will ultimately be good for the Pac-12 Networks. Besides already being carried on U-Verse, AT&T is also a Pac-12 sponsor.

 

"We have a great relationship with AT&T," said Scott. "I think we can have positive and constructive conversations if that merger comes to pass."


  • Laxguy likes this

#1553 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Never say 'never'.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,644 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:25 PM

From CBSsports.com (5/24/14) "2012-13 fiscal year was the first that included the revenues from the Pac-12 Network along with the new 12-year media rights deal the league signed with ESPN and Fox. (Revenues for the fiscal year totaled $334 million). According to USA Today, the Pac-12 saw a $158.1-million increase in revenue from 2011-12, more than triple what the league reported for 2010-11."

Just a little more increase than the inflation rate, but don't let those pesky facts get in your way of your bias.

Way more than inflation. The addition of Pac-12 Net is small; the real increases come from ESPN and Fox. That's the point, the price would have gone up by at least the inflation rate from the date of the first contract, not just the previous year. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1554 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,938 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:17 PM

You don't seem to understand the meaning of need.

Needing something and wanting something are completely different.

I need food or I'll starve; I need DirecTV or I'll go bankrupt.

I want dessert because I have a sweet tooth; I want those extra millions.

 

I understand the meaning of need. You are overstating the value of need.

 

But not meeting a need does not mean you die. Your doctor says you need more calcium. You won't die, you will just get brittle bones.

 

The Browns need a new QB. The team does not dissolve if they don't get one. They just won't win as many games.

 

Do all the needy die every year? That would solve that problem in a gruesome way And yet, they are still there.

 

In this need, the need is to always make more money. If you do not, you tend to lose your job in certain positions. Ask all the CEOs of "successful" companies why they lost their positions (usually with nice golden parachutes), but the need is not there.


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

#1555 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,938 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:21 PM

The comments by Larry Scott in the linked article below don't give much hope. I'm not sure how DirecTV can have deals in place for so many sports packages, channels, etc., but Larry Scott feels he must have AT&T broker a deal. Maybe the problem is more with Larry Scott and the model they have chosen. 

 

http://www.latimes.c...0805-story.html

 

Scott is hopeful that if AT&T closes on its deal to acquire DirecTV, it will ultimately be good for the Pac-12 Networks. Besides already being carried on U-Verse, AT&T is also a Pac-12 sponsor.

 

"We have a great relationship with AT&T," said Scott. "I think we can have positive and constructive conversations if that merger comes to pass."

 

It is just part of his campaign to keep the bullseye on DirecTV.

 

Why?

 

Maybe there are actually grumblings inside his organization that he didn't land the big fish. Is he getting complaints from end customers that they don't want to switch to Dish?

 

I find his comments and actions to appear to be odd. Doesn't release the ratings. Keeps trying to work pressure on DirecTV (this one would be YEARS in the making).

 

Why, if all is hunky dory in Pac-12 land? It doesn't add up to me.

 

Plus, the LAST thing AT&T or DirecTV want to do right now is act as an individual company. Or have one broker for the other. Not a good idea right before you are asking for consent for a merger and you are claiming that the two will be kept separate.

 

Edit: I just read beyond the quotes offered. He comes off as a whiny little bitch because someone else got something he thinks he should get. Never mind that the SEC Channel models better for satellite and is a better value for DirecTV. Then he stupidly points out that the go-it-alone strategy has a flaw. HIS strategy. Can this man go away so someone sane can make a deal?


Edited by tonyd79, 07 August 2014 - 03:26 PM.

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

#1556 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,879 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 07 August 2014 - 04:06 PM

What about the PAC 12 being their own worst enemy? They set up a bunch of contracts with most-favored nation before they got any national coverage other than Dish. Don't tell me they are nationally available because of Comcast and that ilk. They are not. Go bunch random zip codes into their finder and you will see that other than Dish, there is little to no penetration on the East Coast.

 

They set up their multi-channel system and boxed themselves into lacking deals. They claim they have to get X number of dollars out of DirecTV because of their existing contracts. Leaves them little room in making a deal. Gave away stadium rights to Dish, giving them less to deal with outside of their standard template for their cable-oriented multi-channel system.

 

All the noise about the Pac 12 is coming from the conference. They are still campaigning. Sounds like need to me.

 

I think Pac 12 probably had no choice but to offer MNF status in the contracts to be able to sign any big deals. No one wants to risk being first and find out later they agreed to a price 50% higher than everyone else. MNF guarantees that if someone plays hardball the early signees have the benefit of early carriage as well as getting the lower price later.

 

I wonder if in addition to MNF it also includes a true-up, so that if Pac 12 buckled and offered Directv 10% less than what everyone else is getting, the others would not only get a 10% cut, but Pac 12 would have to make up that 10% for the previous life of their contracts. I've seen contracts written that way before, but I have no idea if that is common in the sports rights/entertainment world. Maybe there are other clauses that further restrict Pac 12's flexibility, like if they allowed Directv to give them different placement (in a sports pak or ala carte) that they'd have to allow existing contracts to do the same.

 

Scott thought he'd be laughing all the way to the bank and calling himself a genius for not partnering like Jim Delaney did, but Slive decided it was smarter to partner SEC with ESPN, despite SEC clearly being in a better position to go it alone than the Pac 12.


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


#1557 OFFLINE   Bradman

Bradman

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 61 posts
Joined: Aug 08, 2011

Posted 07 August 2014 - 04:13 PM

The PAC-12 badly overplayed their hand and are paying the consequences. They have left a lot of money on the table, and in the end, some heads should roll.


Edited by Bradman, 07 August 2014 - 04:13 PM.


#1558 OFFLINE   BusterAvis

BusterAvis

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 233 posts
Joined: Jul 13, 2012

Posted 07 August 2014 - 05:10 PM

Actually, the Pac 12 has that Hollywood arrogance and as a result thought they could go in on it "alone".

I'm wondering if they regret that decision now.  Probably not, because they assume that once AT&T buys out DirecTV (if it goes through), then AT&T will automatically cater to their demands.

What they don't realize is that AT&T is still keeping the DirecTV division the same (it will still be known as DirecTV with the same DirecTV infrastructure and DirecTV channels), so it will still be DirecTV negotiating for what channels they take on.

For example, once the merger goes through, a person with UVerse will still have certain channels that DirecTV customers can't get, and vice versa.



#1559 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 411 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 05:24 PM

DirecTV is stationed and based right there in Los Angeles as well.

Does that mean they have that "Hollywood" arrogance (as badly stereotyped and naive as that statement is)?

AT&T cannot supersede existing contracts signed between parties, unless there was a clause in them that allowed changes after the fact, but they can make decisions for DirecTV regarding future contracts.

It's obvious programming choices are playing a key role in their decision to buy DirecTV considering the NFL clause.

Will there be wholesale changes? I have no idea. But I think the attitudes on both sides will change.

Edited by Bambler, 07 August 2014 - 05:25 PM.


#1560 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,938 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 06:06 PM

I think Pac 12 probably had no choice but to offer MNF status in the contracts to be able to sign any big deals. No one wants to risk being first and find out later they agreed to a price 50% higher than everyone else. MNF guarantees that if someone plays hardball the early signees have the benefit of early carriage as well as getting the lower price later.
 
I wonder if in addition to MNF it also includes a true-up, so that if Pac 12 buckled and offered Directv 10% less than what everyone else is getting, the others would not only get a 10% cut, but Pac 12 would have to make up that 10% for the previous life of their contracts. I've seen contracts written that way before, but I have no idea if that is common in the sports rights/entertainment world. Maybe there are other clauses that further restrict Pac 12's flexibility, like if they allowed Directv to give them different placement (in a sports pak or ala carte) that they'd have to allow existing contracts to do the same.
 
Scott thought he'd be laughing all the way to the bank and calling himself a genius for not partnering like Jim Delaney did, but Slive decided it was smarter to partner SEC with ESPN, despite SEC clearly being in a better position to go it alone than the Pac 12.


I posited the same question a while back. It can't be nailed to the exact price. That just wouldn't ever work as you could never do a new deal with someone new. There have to be parameters that have some wag in them or you are always locked to one price.

And yes, that is exactly what Scott thought. Maybe it is as little as him trying to prove he was right. That would only because of a massive ego that is not getting accolades from the industry, the world. Or it is not the success he hoped. Or both. That is all consistent with his odd begging for directv and the lack of real data coming out of the channel's offices.
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

#1561 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,938 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 06:08 PM

Actually, the Pac 12 has that Hollywood arrogance and as a result thought they could go in on it "alone".
I'm wondering if they regret that decision now.  Probably not, because they assume that once AT&T buys out DirecTV (if it goes through), then AT&T will automatically cater to their demands.
What they don't realize is that AT&T is still keeping the DirecTV division the same (it will still be known as DirecTV with the same DirecTV infrastructure and DirecTV channels), so it will still be DirecTV negotiating for what channels they take on.
For example, once the merger goes through, a person with UVerse will still have certain channels that DirecTV customers can't get, and vice versa.


Goes back to the original tone deafness on satellite and the industry in general. They didn't understand and built a model that doesn't work for satellite. Eventually, they adjusted a bit for Dish but they still push the family of channels when that isn't what they are.
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

#1562 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 411 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 06:08 PM

He signed deals with almost every provider BUT DirecTV. Who is being arrogant?

Look at the recent history of DirecTV and carriage agreements...

#1563 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,938 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 06:12 PM

He signed deals with almost every provider BUT DirecTV. Who is being arrogant?
Look at the recent history of DirecTV and carriage agreements...


Hmmmm?

Directv has deals with everyone but PAC 12, CSN Houston, CSN Philly, CSN northwest and the dodgers channel.

CSN Philly and CSN northwest have a history, even when directv was the first in line for every channel.

CSN Houston and the dodger channel have only their owners for carriage.

That leaves PAC 12 as the only major left.

Where is directv's recent history? Bargain hard and eventually sign? Expect for PAC 12.

Meanwhile, directv is silent.
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

#1564 OFFLINE   boukengreen

boukengreen

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 362 posts
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Posted 07 August 2014 - 07:55 PM

Larry Scott takes shot at Directv http://collegefootba...ots-at-directv/
There are some things arrows can't kill, for everything else there's Master Sword.

#1565 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,188 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:10 PM

I posited the same question a while back. It can't be nailed to the exact price.


MFN (in general) does not require the same deal for all ... it only requires no better deal for anyone new. The price does not have to be exactly the same ... the deal just can't be better than those with MFN.

If the deal DirecTV accepts is no better than one Pac-12 has given to any company with MFN then there would be no problem. MFN is built around the concept that the earlier adopter does not want to end up with a worse deal than a company who waited. There are likely points that were agreed to (such as price and channel placement) that if Pac-12 conceded to DirecTV would adversely affect their current carriage deals.

Different companies could have different points that would upset them if DirecTV got a better deal in a certain area ... it makes the negotiations into a tango of more than just Pac-12 and DirecTV. The dance also involves making every MFN company happy - either by not giving DirecTV a better deal or by adjusting deals that would not be as good if Pac-12 conceded.

At the end of the day Pac-12 could be better off without DirecTV. I'm sure Pac-12 wouldn't mind being carried by DirecTV - but it needs to be done on terms where Pac-12 is better off when they gain carriage and they do not have to concede too much of what they already have under agreement with others.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#1566 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,658 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:51 PM

He signed deals with almost every provider BUT DirecTV.

They don't have deals with Charter, Verizon FiOS TV, RCN or Cablevision. Their deal with U-Verse is only for the national, Los Angeles and Bay Area feeds, while providers like Comcast don't carry them on every system nationwide.

#1567 OFFLINE   mhking

mhking

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 550 posts
Joined: Oct 27, 2002

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:58 PM

I'm sick of both DirecTV and Larry Scott on this. Both of them want to have their collective oneupmanship party and the fans are the ones who lose out. Both keep trying to say that they are "thinking of the fans" -- Bull. Both of them are more concerned with thumping their chests to say they're most important... [rolling eyes]


Wish list of channels for D*: C-Span 3; Sky News International; CBC Newsworld; France24; EuroNews; Eurosportnews; Setanta Sports News; ABC News 24 (Australia); ABC Asia Pacific; 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?

#1568 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Never say 'never'.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,644 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:21 PM

Larry Scott takes shot at Directv http://collegefootba...ots-at-directv/

 

Awfully surprising that a sister company of Comcast would publish such rubbish about a competitor!   

 

(not) 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1569 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,331 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:34 PM

I'm sick of both DirecTV and Larry Scott on this. Both of them want to have their collective oneupmanship party and the fans are the ones who lose out. Both keep trying to say that they are "thinking of the fans" -- Bull. Both of them are more concerned with thumping their chests to say they're most important... [rolling eyes]


Really? Directv would pick it up in a heartbeat if they got a deal they thought was advantageous. But they haven't ever seen one so that's how it is.

#1570 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,879 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 07 August 2014 - 10:08 PM

I'm sick of both DirecTV and Larry Scott on this. Both of them want to have their collective oneupmanship party and the fans are the ones who lose out. Both keep trying to say that they are "thinking of the fans" -- Bull. Both of them are more concerned with thumping their chests to say they're most important... [rolling eyes]

 

Where's Directv's one-upmanship in this? I haven't heard them state anything other than saying the same thing every time they're asked that they think Pac 12 is too expensive. Larry Scott is the one who is doing multiple interviews in the past few days getting all butt hurt because Directv did a deal for SEC Network but Pac 12 is still left out in the cold.

 

Scott obviously thinks that Directv is wrong in saying the Pac 12 is too expensive, but everyone has a different belief as to the value of something, and since the Pac 12 is apparently offering Directv a set price and not willing to lower it, and Directv thinks that's too high, things are going to stay the same until someone changes their mind. Scott is hoping AT&T buying out Directv will cause that change of mind. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, we'll see (if it is even approved)


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


#1571 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,317 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 07 August 2014 - 10:15 PM

But is Pac 12 pushing for basic for all on DTV? and not basic in market and sports pack out of it? Other other systems it is like that with a BIG BUT they also have BTN the same way. Directv has BTN for all in basic.


I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#1572 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 3,879 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:30 AM

But is Pac 12 pushing for basic for all on DTV? and not basic in market and sports pack out of it? Other other systems it is like that with a BIG BUT they also have BTN the same way. Directv has BTN for all in basic.

 

No one knows exactly what Pac 12 is asking for, and what of that Directv is balking at. There are rumors, and statements made by each side, but there aren't under oath when they make those statements so I wouldn't assume they're being 100% truthful. Each wants to make the other side look like the bad guy who is responsible for Pac 12 not being on Directv.

 

We really can't even gather anything from Mike White saying Pac 12 is "too expensive". Whether something is worth what is being asked depends on the conditions under which it is offered. If Pac 12 offers it at price X but that's dependent on national coverage, that's a lot higher total bill for Directv than if it is offered at the same price but is in a sports pak outside of the Pac 12 states. Same thing if they insist on making all 7 channels available rather than one - the cost to Directv is a lot higher to deliver 7 full time channels rather than just one as with BTN and SECN.

 

Even if they come to an agreement someday, we'll likely never know who caved and what the sticking point was that held it up for so long.


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


#1573 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,938 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:33 AM

Where's Directv's one-upmanship in this? I haven't heard them state anything other than saying the same thing every time they're asked that they think Pac 12 is too expensive. Larry Scott is the one who is doing multiple interviews in the past few days getting all butt hurt because Directv did a deal for SEC Network but Pac 12 is still left out in the cold.

 

Scott obviously thinks that Directv is wrong in saying the Pac 12 is too expensive, but everyone has a different belief as to the value of something, and since the Pac 12 is apparently offering Directv a set price and not willing to lower it, and Directv thinks that's too high, things are going to stay the same until someone changes their mind. Scott is hoping AT&T buying out Directv will cause that change of mind. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, we'll see (if it is even approved)

 

And I keep wondering why he is doing that? Does he think he is going to shame them into carrying it? That would indicate his business knowledge level as very low, so I don't think that is it.

 

I think he is getting presssure from somewhere. People asking why the SEC and not the Pac-12 (see, I type it that way when I am at a computer and not on a smart phone). Most likely that is coming from inside the Pac-12. I think it is an indication that the network(s) have not delivered on their promise.

 

Something is not rosy in Pac-12 land.


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

#1574 OFFLINE   Devo1237

Devo1237

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 388 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2008

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:06 AM

And I keep wondering why he is doing that? Does he think he is going to shame them into carrying it? That would indicate his business knowledge level as very low, so I don't think that is it.

 

I think he is getting presssure from somewhere. People asking why the SEC and not the Pac-12 (see, I type it that way when I am at a computer and not on a smart phone). Most likely that is coming from inside the Pac-12. I think it is an indication that the network(s) have not delivered on their promise.

 

Something is not rosy in Pac-12 land.

 

Maybe he's doing it because recent events dictated a response.  I would be more surprised if he said nothing.



#1575 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,938 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 08 August 2014 - 11:58 AM

Maybe he's doing it because recent events dictated a response.  I would be more surprised if he said nothing.


Repeatedly?

And, if all is well, what response is dictated? I don't see a statement from BTN on the sec contract. I don't see anyone else commenting, in fact.
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




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