$5.00 for the new Dodgers channel.

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by lipcrkr, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. May 3, 2016 #841 of 921
    sunfire9us

    sunfire9us Godfather

    438
    10
    Feb 15, 2009
    It's going to be hard to believe me but today we are far better when it comes to getting any out of market sports period. Back in the 80's till the summer of 95, there wasn't such thing. I had a C band satellite dish and could get all the rsn's but was blacked out of ALL games. I even remember screaming back then to have the chance to pay to see those games. Originally, MLB and NBA were totally against selling those out of market rights even though they could make far more money than they were back then. In those days they were only in business with ESPN and the networks on such games.
     
  2. May 4, 2016 #842 of 921
    Grafixguy

    Grafixguy Godfather

    857
    156
    Mar 15, 2008
    New Jersey
    Ah C-Band! Those were the days.

    The NHL was the first to lift blackouts on the RSNs with that Satellite Sports Networks package you could buy. Before that it was hunt and peck to find the wild feeds.

    Good times but you're right...we're better off today. With the odd exception (I'm in South Jersey so forget Phillies and Flyers games) I'm a very happy camper.
     
  3. May 4, 2016 #843 of 921
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    8,020
    307
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Yeah I guess ...

    We never could take advantage of C-Band here though.

    The BUD's inherent one TV household limitation always made it totally unsuitable for big multi-TV ones like ours have always seemingly been here over the decades. Leaving us with no option beyond OTA except analog cable until DBS satellite came along.

    Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk
     
  4. May 4, 2016 #844 of 921
    sunfire9us

    sunfire9us Godfather

    438
    10
    Feb 15, 2009
    Yup your memory is good. First it was the NHL in the 94/95 season to lift the blackout then in the middle of summer 95 MLB finally. I'll never forget how odd feeling it was getting all the games lol. I had the rsn package so I saw them when it first happened. It was way cheaper on Cband too! You only paid for the rsn package and the pro games were included. It was DTV who started the double charging making it where you had to have their EI to get the games
     
  5. Nov 2, 2016 #845 of 921
    mws192

    mws192 Godfather

    585
    44
    Jun 17, 2010
    DOJ Sues AT&T-DirecTV Over Dodgers Non-Carriage Deal

    "Just as AT&T prepares to try and get its Time Warner merger through the Justice Department, DOJ said Wednesday (Nov. 2) it is suing D‏irecTV and its "corporate successor," AT&T, claiming it is the "ringleader: in a series of "unlawful information exchanges.

    The suit was filed by Justice in a California district court. AT&T says it sees the facts differently and will make its case in court.

    It alleges that DirecTV "unlawfully exchanged competitively-sensitive information with Cox, Charter and AT&T during the companies’ negotiations for the right to telecast the Dodgers Channel," as well as future plans to carry the channel--or not carry it."

    http://www.multichannel.com/news/courts/doj-sues-attdirectv-over-dodgers-non-carriage-deal/408838
     
  6. Nov 2, 2016 #846 of 921
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,887
    2,269
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The complaint alleges that information "was a material factor in the companies’ decisions not to carry the Dodgers Channel,” and points out that the Dodger Channel “is still not carried by DIRECTV, Cox or AT&T."

    The list of systems not carrying the Dodger Channel is much longer. Much much longer.

    David McAtee, AT&T general Counsel:
    "The reason why no other major TV provider chose to carry this content was that no one wanted to force all of their customers to pay the inflated prices that Time Warner Cable was demanding for a channel devoted solely to LA Dodgers baseball. We make our carriage decisions independently, legally and only after thorough negotiations with the content owner. We look forward to presenting these facts in court.”
     
  7. Nov 2, 2016 #847 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,041
    1,569
    Nov 13, 2006
    Only charter carries it that I know if. Maybe one other. It's a joke and I have a feeling someone got paid to make this happen. I expect it to get nowhere.
     
  8. Nov 2, 2016 #848 of 921
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,062
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    And Charter only picked it up after they entered an agreement to purchase Time Warner Cable
     
  9. Nov 3, 2016 #849 of 921
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    8,020
    307
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    Yeah ...

    So I wonder that in addition to the suit, as some have suggested the implicit message of this to AT&T/DIRECTV is also going to be that if you take SNLA it will make it a lot easier for the us (the government) to grant your merger with TW Inc.?

    "You scratch my back I'll do yours ....?

    Noth'in like a little sublime blackmail to get things mov'in eh?

    Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk
     
  10. Nov 3, 2016 #850 of 921
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    7,410
    715
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    DIRECTV said the channel costs them $5 per subscription home. I'm certainly not in favor of that rate hike. So give it to Dodgers fans for $40 per season. Or higher based on # of subscribers.
     
  11. Nov 3, 2016 #851 of 921
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,899
    1,606
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    The $5 would be for every Directv subscriber in and around LA, or at least all but those who have the most basic packages that don't include RSNs, and that's all 12 months because you can't shut off RSNs month to month. If they made it ala carte (which TWC will not permit) it would cost way more than $40 per season. It would be $60 per season, divided by the percentage of Directv subscribers who wanted the channel. So if 5% took it, that would mean it would cost $1200 per season! I doubt they'd have ANY subscribers at that price!

    I have no idea if Directv was guilty of collusion here, but requiring as a remedy that Directv must inflate the bill for everyone who lives in LA by $5/month (or $3/month if TWC has come down in price as rumored) would be unprecedented. I really doubt they'd consider doing that as a condition of accepting the TW buyout, because I don't think the FTC wants to allow that under any circumstances. I mean, the timing of this is really suspicious if nothing else. The general sentiment is that the Comcast/NBC deal should not have been allowed, but they can't retroactively change their mind on that. They needed an excuse for turning down the TW buyout after they allowed the NBC buyout.

    As far as Directv, Comcast, Dish and others who aren't carrying the Dodgers channel are concerned, this was an important line in the sand to prevent anyone else from doing a deal with a single team like TWC did with the Dodgers. The Cubs contract comes up soon, and it was already looking to be very valuable even before they won last night. Had the Dodgers channel been successful at getting cable/satellite companies to knuckle under and pay $3-$5 for that single team, imagine what a Cubs Channel would try to charge.
     
  12. Nov 3, 2016 #852 of 921
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    5,225
    110
    Jul 21, 2008
    AT&T/DirecTV needs to buy out the cubs local rights / start a new RSN and maybe even the blackhawks local tv rights as well and then play some hardball with
    Comcast
    WOW!
    Mediacom
    RCN
    Dish
    Charter communications
    Time Warner Cable

    The small systems like
    Cass Cable tv
    Butler-Berner Mutual Telephone
    Clarence cablevision
    and others likely will take take it or lose a lot people to directv.
     
  13. Nov 3, 2016 #853 of 921
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,899
    1,606
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    Paying through the nose for TV rights and hoping to make it up by playing hardball with others didn't work out well at all for TWC. Why would it work better if Directv does the same thing?
     
  14. Nov 3, 2016 #854 of 921
    HoTat2

    HoTat2 Hall Of Fame

    8,020
    307
    Nov 16, 2005
    Los...
    BTW, are we really correct still referring to "TWC" and not "Spectrum" or maybe "Charter/Spectrum?"

    Or are they still "effectively" two separate companies as Charter is still solidifying it's takeover?


    Sent from my LGMS550 using Tapatalk
     
  15. Nov 3, 2016 #855 of 921
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    7,410
    715
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    I agree.

    And the suit doesn't require that DIRECTV carry the Dodgers channel; it only alleges they were colluded with other providers not to pick up the channel at the price being asked.
     
  16. Nov 3, 2016 #856 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,041
    1,569
    Nov 13, 2006
    It's spectrum sports net etc now. Thy changed the Lakers channel too.
     
  17. Nov 3, 2016 #857 of 921
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,041
    1,569
    Nov 13, 2006
    The suit isn't suing to force them to carry the channel. Read several Los Angeles times articles today and while I can see why they have brought this I question its timing and I believe the way they got the info to get this going is when charter and Time Warner Cable entered into their agreement to merge. I think that's going to hurt them in the long run.

    Frankly while I can see how they come to this conclusion the entire idea of collusion is irrelevant in that one of the other carriers would have carried the channel anyway unless DIRECTV picked it up unlike the Lakers channel. So I don't think this lawsuit is worth the time and energy they are putting into it.

    But it is intriguing. Supposedly one cable provider said they would keep the weather channel from broadcasting ads against DirecTV about the Dodgers channel. That's a little eye raising.
     
  18. Nov 4, 2016 #858 of 921
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    10,899
    1,606
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    NBC Universal is part owner of the Weather Channel, so the "one cable provider" that could possibly keep them from running ads against Directv would seem to be Comcast.

    I agree that if true that's pretty strong evidence of collusion. It goes well beyond the "hey we won't carry this channel unless you carry it first" that would be more of a grey area. What I don't get is why the DOJ is suing only Directv/AT&T. Even if they were the ringleader, others are equally complicit if they not only went along with it but took positive action like blocking the Weather Channel from running anti Directv ads over the Dodgers Channel. This adds to my suspicions about the timing - only suing AT&T/Directv alone and doing so shortly after they announced they intention to purchase Time Warner Inc. reads to me like they were looking for a reason to block that deal.

    The question is, if collusion is proven in court, what sort of latitude does the court have in imposing remedies. For instance, when the FTC sued Apple over ebooks, they made them pay customers who had purchased books through Apple to make up what the court felt the customers overpaid as a result of their collusion with major publishers to set a minimum price for ebooks. Since customers weren't harmed by Directv's actions in this case, perhaps they determine some damages to be paid to TWC as the aggrieved party? As well as subject them to a court appointed monitor who makes sure they don't do anything like it again, presumably with harsh penalties should they violate the conditions.
     
  19. Nov 4, 2016 #859 of 921
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,887
    2,269
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The other part owner of The Weather Channel would also not want negative ads against DirecTV since they have a deal with DirecTV to supply their hotels with service. I stayed in a Doubletree by Hilton last week and noticed that the default power on channel was The Weather Channel and there was a DirecTV branded guide channel. The channels on the guide channel did not match the channels on the system ... but it was a DirecTV fed system (with a dish on the roof).
     
  20. Nov 4, 2016 #860 of 921
    keenan

    keenan Godfather

    612
    7
    Feb 8, 2005
    Could it be because DirecTV has coverage virtually everywhere, they're the largest provider in the LA market? If they carry the channel the cablecos would have to fall in line or possibly lose customers. The cablecos themselves only serve individual geographic areas, if one of them decided to carry the channel the others carriers wouldn't have to unless their customers decided to move to the area where it was carried.

    It could also be that the collusion was instigated by DirecTV, they were the "ringleader.

    A copy of the suit is available at the LA Times, I haven't read it, I might give it a look this weekend though, those things can get very boring very fast.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements