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
1718 replies to this topic

#1401 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,970 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 28 March 2014 - 12:05 AM

Would I be happy if they agreed to the same deals that other carriers have agreed to for those networks, absolutely. Pac-12 is asking for the same rate and tier as they got from Dish and numerous cable companies. I think the (former) sports leader could/should pay for that. Obviously, you can't agree to any arbitrary rate that some idiot RSN throws out there (like the Dodgers channel or your hypothetical YES deal), but they don't have to. For new channels they can wait until the channel lowers their price enough that other companies are willing to set the true market worth, or overpay slightly with the same "best rate" clause that's standard in most of these contracts. That way you're only paying a major premium while the channel is exclusive to you. If any one else makes a cheaper deal, you get that deal too.

DirecTV's welcome to pick and choose whatever channels they want, but I still think attempting to please everyone will lead to pleasing no one.

Maybe dish can afford the pac12 because it doesn't carry the Lakers or any New York rsns. In fact they probably spend tons less on the set of pac 12 channels than DIRECTV does on the others. Pac12 is very important to dish strategically but because DIRECTV is so strong in places dish has no hope the pac12 is an after thought by comparison for DIRECTV.

These things are so far from black and white it's scary.

Think of it this way. DIRECTV is being asked to spend about $9 more a year or more to carry the same teams it carried two years ago. I they can have that by a buck and not carry a few if the games they use to that won't really cause Much problem for their bottom line then that's what they are going to do. And our bill went up 1.63 or so for rsns is all this year. ;)

It's all jut ridiculous. I hope they never pick up The Dodgers channel Or the pac12 channel and I'm a big fan of both. But this has to stop.

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

#1402 OFFLINE   fleckrj

fleckrj

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,073 posts
  • LocationCary, NC
Joined: Sep 04, 2009

Posted 28 March 2014 - 07:06 AM

If you accept that the Pac12 wants the same amount per customer from DirecTV as it is receiving from Dish and the cable companies, when you consider the number of customers involved, the Pac12 is asking for 30% more from DirecTV than it is receiving from Dish, and much, much more than it receives from cable companies, since the cable deals are done by location and not nationally.


  • Laxguy likes this

#1403 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,510 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 28 March 2014 - 04:26 PM

Sigh. You cannot compare cable and satellite in this case. Completely different animals. We've been over this before. And you know that MFN is never exact. It cannot be. It would never work. If it were, there would be no volume discounts, for one thing. Also, there would never, ever be any negogiation when contracts came up. No increases. No decreases.


Oddly the content providers and carriers seem to have figured out how to have MFN and raise prices. I'm not sure if they have ever figured out how to decrease a price. "Going forward, you will give no other carrier a better deal than the one we agree to today. If you do, our deal will be adjusted to match the better deal."

If DISH is paying $10 per subscriber and DirecTV cuts a deal for $9.90 you can be sure that DISH will immediately be on the phone asking for $9.90 ... and if they don't get it there will be yet another lawsuit between a provider and a carrier. Pac-12 coming up with a new "quantity discount" that is not in the DISH contract would just lead to a court case.
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.

#1404 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,435 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 28 March 2014 - 07:58 PM

Oddly the content providers and carriers seem to have figured out how to have MFN and raise prices. I'm not sure if they have ever figured out how to decrease a price. "Going forward, you will give no other carrier a better deal than the one we agree to today. If you do, our deal will be adjusted to match the better deal."If DISH is paying $10 per subscriber and DirecTV cuts a deal for $9.90 you can be sure that DISH will immediately be on the phone asking for $9.90 ... and if they don't get it there will be yet another lawsuit between a provider and a carrier. Pac-12 coming up with a new "quantity discount" that is not in the DISH contract would just lead to a court case.


Pretty sure you are wrong about a 1% difference which is what your example has. That would never work.

Anyway. There is no way that directv should have to pay the same without a stadium signage deal. If the PAC 12 (blame ios for the caps) is trying to pull that, they are plain nuts.
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

#1405 OFFLINE   chillyfl

chillyfl

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 63 posts
Joined: Sep 11, 2012

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:22 PM

I'm surprised how much this conversation refuses to acknowledge what is knowable.  We know exactly what packages the P12N are on from provider to provider.  Dish is 120+ in footprint, Sports package outside footprint, HD only for games with overflow channels.  ATT is U200 in footprint, sports package outside footprint (P12N, P12 LA, P12 Bay Area) with HD available with $10 HD upgrade.  Comcast has the regional P12N (i.e P12 Bay Area) on Digital Starter in immediate footprint, Digital Preferred in areas like Fresno (in state but not a primary area for team), and the generic P12N channel on Sports Package everywhere (in or out of footprint).  Cox, Time Warner, and Brite House are all similar to Comcast, though I know Brite House adds all regional channels to sports package.

 

What is the takeaway? Inside footprint EVERY provider has at least one P12N channel on a basic package.  Generally not the cheapest package, but one of the more popular packages (ATT U200, Dish 120+, Brite House Standard, etc..)  Outside of the Pac-12 states, whether Dish, ATT, or Cable, the Pac-12 Network is only available on a sports package.  After that there are some differences from provider to provider: Dish is SD with HD and overflow channels for games, ATT has 3 channels, Britehouse all 6 regionals on their Sports package.

 

Think of this like buying a car.  There is the basic package that everyone has to buy, and then options that can tailor the car to what works best for you.  Now, based on what DirecTV themselves have said of wanting Pac-12 as a stand alone channel, they've come in and and told the Pac-12 they don't want the car, they only want the tires.  And if the Pac-12 insists on selling them the car they don't really want, they want a phenomenal deal compared to everyone else.  Last fall the ASU AD was quoted as saying that DirecTV was offering less than 2/3 of the other contracts.  In that same time frame, DirecTV said the actual value of the P12N to them is even less than what they had offered.

 

I know much has been made by some on this board of the signage deal that Dish got, but that is only a couple percent of the total value of their contract, and a red herring in the conversation.  If the Pac-12 and DirecTV were only a couple percent away, a deal would get done.  But both sides have made it clear they aren't anywhere close.

 

One question is how can DirecTV put such a lower value on the P12N than other providers.  One thought I have is that in a Harris Poll, Westerners voted Professional Football as their favorite sport more than any other region in the US.  By comparison, Sotherners voted College football their favorite sport more than any other region.  I believe, because the west has such a high percentage of NFL followers, as long as DirecTV has Sunday ticket, they can put a lower value on college football out west compared to other providers that don't have Sunday Ticket.  So it is reasonable to think that Sunday Ticket puts DirecTV in a better position to demand lower rates because so many sports fans out west are unwilling to walk away from the only provider of ST.

 

Assuming Pac-12 wants the network on Choice in footprint and Sports Package outside of footprint (these would be the consistent packages with where the other providers offer the network), DirecTV would increase P12 total subscribers by about 20% (back of envelope swag).  Assuming MFN would result in current rates dropping to DirecTV rates, Pac-12 shouldn't even consider a DirecTV offer until it is within ~20% of the current contracts, and that would be to break even.  My sense from listening closely to both sides over the last year, is that I don't even think they are that close.  In the end, it seems both sides are actually better off without the other.



#1406 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,970 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 30 March 2014 - 08:42 PM

One small thing you may have missed that we still aren clear on. Pac12 also said they wanted the same distribution as the big ten channel. That is in a different package with DIRECTV. It's national with choice so if that's what they are after then that's a massive difference as well.

But truly I think DIRECTV is fed up with all the sports channels wanting bigger coverage and prices from them that aren't something that is a concern with cable companies.

Why do you think dish has never picked up the Lakers channel?

And no one has picked up the Dodgers channel.

#1407 OFFLINE   camo

camo

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 477 posts
Joined: Apr 15, 2010

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:06 PM

We need to be realist cost increase in satellite and cable TV are out of control. Jobs, income pay increases are not at the same level. The millenniums are increasingly using the internet for entertainment. Many are not subbing to TV providers at all, primarily because of cost. Somewhere there has to be a stop to the staggering rate increases. 


Edited by camo, 05 April 2014 - 08:07 PM.

2-HR24-500
SWM Slimline Dish, MRV Ethernet, media share
70" Sharp AQUOS LC70LE640U
55"LG LH90, 47"JVC LCD's 32" Vizio plasma.
Onkyo SR876 SR receiver


#1408 OFFLINE   stoutman

stoutman

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 440 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2003

Posted 06 April 2014 - 06:52 AM

I'm surprised how much this conversation refuses to acknowledge what is knowable.  We know exactly what packages the P12N are on from provider to provider.  Dish is 120+ in footprint, Sports package outside footprint, HD only for games with overflow channels.  ATT is U200 in footprint, sports package outside footprint (P12N, P12 LA, P12 Bay Area) with HD available with $10 HD upgrade.  Comcast has the regional P12N (i.e P12 Bay Area) on Digital Starter in immediate footprint, Digital Preferred in areas like Fresno (in state but not a primary area for team), and the generic P12N channel on Sports Package everywhere (in or out of footprint).  Cox, Time Warner, and Brite House are all similar to Comcast, though I know Brite House adds all regional channels to sports package.

 

What is the takeaway? Inside footprint EVERY provider has at least one P12N channel on a basic package.  Generally not the cheapest package, but one of the more popular packages (ATT U200, Dish 120+, Brite House Standard, etc..)  Outside of the Pac-12 states, whether Dish, ATT, or Cable, the Pac-12 Network is only available on a sports package.  After that there are some differences from provider to provider: Dish is SD with HD and overflow channels for games, ATT has 3 channels, Britehouse all 6 regionals on their Sports package.

 

Think of this like buying a car.  There is the basic package that everyone has to buy, and then options that can tailor the car to what works best for you.  Now, based on what DirecTV themselves have said of wanting Pac-12 as a stand alone channel, they've come in and and told the Pac-12 they don't want the car, they only want the tires.  And if the Pac-12 insists on selling them the car they don't really want, they want a phenomenal deal compared to everyone else.  Last fall the ASU AD was quoted as saying that DirecTV was offering less than 2/3 of the other contracts.  In that same time frame, DirecTV said the actual value of the P12N to them is even less than what they had offered.

 

I know much has been made by some on this board of the signage deal that Dish got, but that is only a couple percent of the total value of their contract, and a red herring in the conversation.  If the Pac-12 and DirecTV were only a couple percent away, a deal would get done.  But both sides have made it clear they aren't anywhere close.

 

One question is how can DirecTV put such a lower value on the P12N than other providers.  One thought I have is that in a Harris Poll, Westerners voted Professional Football as their favorite sport more than any other region in the US.  By comparison, Sotherners voted College football their favorite sport more than any other region.  I believe, because the west has such a high percentage of NFL followers, as long as DirecTV has Sunday ticket, they can put a lower value on college football out west compared to other providers that don't have Sunday Ticket.  So it is reasonable to think that Sunday Ticket puts DirecTV in a better position to demand lower rates because so many sports fans out west are unwilling to walk away from the only provider of ST.

 

Assuming Pac-12 wants the network on Choice in footprint and Sports Package outside of footprint (these would be the consistent packages with where the other providers offer the network), DirecTV would increase P12 total subscribers by about 20% (back of envelope swag).  Assuming MFN would result in current rates dropping to DirecTV rates, Pac-12 shouldn't even consider a DirecTV offer until it is within ~20% of the current contracts, and that would be to break even.  My sense from listening closely to both sides over the last year, is that I don't even think they are that close.  In the end, it seems both sides are actually better off without the other.

But, the drag of being alone and allowing others to create a narrative of you, is costly on a host of monetary and customer satisfaction metrics. The obfuscation now looks petty and counter to the premium sports provider that has been a driver to the better than average revenue per customer. As a useless ancedote in a statistical argument, my brothers and sister have Directv because we are sports nuts. We have access to Comcast, TimeWarner, ATT and FIOS. I have lots of siblings. We are not walking away due to missing a handful of college games, but the fight does shatter our belief that we have one place to get our sports. A few more fights in which Directv is alone at the end of the battle and they will lose a customer satisfaction metric as being the sports leading provider. In a business model, losing your niche can have grave consequences. If they lose it, what is left visa vie to Dish or cable operators? 



#1409 OFFLINE   joed32

joed32

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,630 posts
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Posted 06 April 2014 - 07:09 AM

But, the drag of being alone and allowing others to create a narrative of you, is costly on a host of monetary and customer satisfaction metrics. The obfuscation now looks petty and counter to the premium sports provider that has been a driver to the better than average revenue per customer. As a useless ancedote in a statistical argument, my brothers and sister have Directv because we are sports nuts. We have access to Comcast, TimeWarner, ATT and FIOS. I have lots of siblings. We are not walking away due to missing a handful of college games, but the fight does shatter our belief that we have one place to get our sports. A few more fights in which Directv is alone at the end of the battle and they will lose a customer satisfaction metric as being the sports leading provider. In a business model, losing your niche can have grave consequences. If they lose it, what is left visa vie to Dish or cable operators? 

ST.



#1410 OFFLINE   Bambler

Bambler

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 399 posts
Joined: May 30, 2006

Posted 06 April 2014 - 09:39 AM

The ironic thing is that if there's any programming that might attract the "younger generation," it is, in my opinion, programming such as this. At least in regards to college kids and/or recent college grads, among others such as your typical fan.

You're right in the regards to the "YouTube" generation and their lack of motivation to subscribe, but if there's any programming that might compel them to do it, these conference networks would probably be it as it isn't (at least as of now) available online, at least in regards to live programming.



We need to be realist cost increase in satellite and cable TV are out of control. Jobs, income pay increases are not at the same level. The millenniums are increasingly using the internet for entertainment. Many are not subbing to TV providers at all, primarily because of cost. Somewhere there has to be a stop to the staggering rate increases.


Edited by Bambler, 06 April 2014 - 09:40 AM.


#1411 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,227 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 06 April 2014 - 10:38 AM

BTN has been available live for several years now. It requires a subscription with a TV provider similar to WatchESPN, but do you really think the "YouTube generation" is going to be concerned about using their family's or friend's login details to watch?

 

At some point the providers will be forced to tighten up security around stuff like that to prevent or at least limit account sharing. Today it is a small audience so they probably aren't too worried about it - get the cord cutters hooked on it, then figure out how to make them pay for it...


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


#1412 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,970 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 06 April 2014 - 11:59 AM

But, the drag of being alone and allowing others to create a narrative of you, is costly on a host of monetary and customer satisfaction metrics. The obfuscation now looks petty and counter to the premium sports provider that has been a driver to the better than average revenue per customer. As a useless ancedote in a statistical argument, my brothers and sister have Directv because we are sports nuts. We have access to Comcast, TimeWarner, ATT and FIOS. I have lots of siblings. We are not walking away due to missing a handful of college games, but the fight does shatter our belief that we have one place to get our sports. A few more fights in which Directv is alone at the end of the battle and they will lose a customer satisfaction metric as being the sports leading provider. In a business model, losing your niche can have grave consequences. If they lose it, what is left visa vie to Dish or cable operators?

But DIRECTV isn't alone in not carrying the pac12 network. Charter never picked it up either. That's my only other option. Uverse is across the street but not on my side of the block. Literally. And I'm in a very major part of Los Angeles.

And dish isn't an option because they dont carry the Lakers.

#1413 OFFLINE   RandyOH

RandyOH

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 21 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2010

Posted 14 July 2014 - 12:37 PM

Any chance they pick this up in the fall?



#1414 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,227 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 14 July 2014 - 07:07 PM

Any chance they pick this up in the fall?

 

Seems unlikely. Neither side really has any incentive to budge. Directv has probably already had 98% of the defections they were going to have over this, and the Pac 12 probably can't afford to give in to whatever Directv is asking for, if it means the others want to change their contracts to get the same deal.

 

The Pac 12 Network either needs to start showing a lot of the top tier games (which it can't since FOX gets to pick the ones it wants first) or it needs a partner that gives it some leverage in negotiations.


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


#1415 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 670 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 22 July 2014 - 09:46 AM

http://www.sfgate.co...all-5636769.php

 

It looks like another season without the PAC 12 Net.  I guess that the execs at D* think they poop crushed pineapple as they are THE ONLY carrier that wants a different deal than the 66 who already carry the channels.  Ridiculous !!



#1416 OFFLINE   iceturkee

iceturkee

    DINFOS Trained Killer

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,162 posts
  • Locationdaytona beach, fl
Joined: Apr 01, 2007

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:03 AM

One small thing you may have missed that we still aren clear on. Pac12 also said they wanted the same distribution as the big ten channel. That is in a different package with DIRECTV. It's national with choice so if that's what they are after then that's a massive difference as well.

But truly I think DIRECTV is fed up with all the sports channels wanting bigger coverage and prices from them that aren't something that is a concern with cable companies.

Why do you think dish has never picked up the Lakers channel?

And no one has picked up the Dodgers channel.

my cable company bright house in central florida has it. i have watched one program. could live without it.



#1417 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,917 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:10 PM

It looks like another season without the PAC 12 Net.  I guess that the execs at D* think they poop crushed pineapple as they are THE ONLY carrier that wants a different deal than the 66 who already carry the channels.  Ridiculous !!

They just could be the only carrier that has the stones to say no to absurd pricing. And for most of us non-Pac-12 alumni, most of the games we want to see are available elsewhere. 


  • pdxBeav likes this
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#1418 OFFLINE   sdk009

sdk009

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 670 posts
  • LocationStanislaus County Farmland
Joined: Jan 19, 2007

Posted 22 July 2014 - 02:47 PM

They just could be the only carrier that has the stones to say no to absurd pricing. And for most of us non-Pac-12 alumni, most of the games we want to see are available elsewhere. 

"Absurd pricing" is Laxguy's opinion. 

I am not an alum of a PAC 12 school, but I want to see as much of its product as possible.  I like its brand of college football over that played elsewhere.

This is the third year in a row that I make a comment about wanting the Net and D*'s stance against carrying it, and Laxguy responds with his blindly loyal support of D*. 



#1419 OFFLINE   Sandra

Sandra

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 288 posts
Joined: Apr 16, 2012

Posted 22 July 2014 - 02:58 PM

http://www.sfgate.co...all-5636769.php

 

It looks like another season without the PAC 12 Net.  I guess that the execs at D* think they poop crushed pineapple as they are THE ONLY carrier that wants a different deal than the 66 who already carry the channels.  Ridiculous !!

 

I agree.  With all of our packages we already pay over $200 per month - at this point, what's $200 plus a small percentage more?  Both prices are crazy, but at least with the second option you get to see all the games.  My goodness, just cut a similar deal to the other 66 carriers.

 

Between the Dodgers and Pac-12 Networks, it's a wonder DirecTV has many sports customers in Southern California.

 

 

Sandra



#1420 OFFLINE   TJNash

TJNash

    AllStar

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

Posted 22 July 2014 - 03:17 PM

I agree.  With all of our packages we already pay over $200 per month - at this point, what's $200 plus a small percentage more?  Both prices are crazy, but at least with the second option you get to see all the games.  My goodness, just cut a similar deal to the other 66 carriers.

 

Between the Dodgers and Pac-12 Networks, it's a wonder DirecTV has many sports customers in Southern California.

 

 

Sandra

If DirecTV had suffered a mass exodus of subscribers in Southern California, you'd see these deals done.  It is obvious to infer that the exodus hasn't nearly been high enough to change DirecTV's bargaining position.


Edited by TJNash, 22 July 2014 - 03:18 PM.





spam firewall