Coming Soon? NO sports networks choice

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ronsanjim, Nov 21, 2011.

  1. Red Dog

    Red Dog Godfather

    Aug 3, 2008
    My philosophy as well. If they did this and the Choice Xtra rates bump up significantly, I'll dump them sooner than you can say FIOS.
  2. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    Nov 1, 2010
    On the two ones I bolded..... Those channels actually pay DirecTV for carriage, instead of the other way around. Which in turn means that removing them would actually INCREASE your bill, instead of decreasing it.

    Would you pay EXTRA to have them removed? :D
  3. trainman

    trainman Hall Of Fame

    Jan 9, 2008
    But the NFL channel shows football, college and pro. :confused:
  4. n3vino

    n3vino Godfather

    Oct 2, 2011
    Well if you put it that way, of course not. I'll just program them off my favorites list.
  5. gib4500

    gib4500 AllStar

    Apr 11, 2004
    what i fear would happen is those that opt out of "sports" will get a few dollars discount on there bill while those that decide to keep "sports" will get a significant increase in their bill causing many to drop directv altogether. Then directv won't be the sports leader anymore which would cause them massive numbers of people dumping directv. In my opinion i think if they start this up they have to go all the way and offer ala-cart otherwise it's not going to go over well at all.
  6. tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    May 23, 2008
    Glad you guys would be happy with it. Not sarcasm. Im not interested in a la carte. I may only watch 40 channels or whatever - but i have the opportunity to watch something on the others if i so choose, without have to call directv and get the channel added. I'm ok with my monthly bill as it is now, recognize others may or may not have been as fortunate during these past few years, but I want more choice for content, not less.
  7. mreposter

    mreposter Hall Of Fame

    Jul 29, 2006

    That's the risk. Disney (the company that owns ESPN) certainly isn't going to let Directv pay less in total for those sports channels that are now in the basic tier. So whatever the total bill is for ESPN, that cost will have to be covered by a smaller population of customers.

    If you remember back to the VS negotiations, Directv wanted to put VS in a sports tier, but pay VS roughly the same price per subscriber. But since it would be in a sports tier, fewer customers would be covered and VS' overall revenue from Directv would have fallen significantly.

    Disney/ESPN isn't going to say, "sure, no problem dropping 10% of your subscribers, we don't mind losing monthly revenue from 2 million people!"
  8. islesfan

    islesfan Hall Of Fame

    Oct 18, 2006
    That would be cool! I haven't watched a football game in, well a really long time, and I've never watched a college football game. Maybe one NBA and MLB game a year, I could do without that too. If I could just have NHL and lacrosse (CBSU has that mostly covered) I wouldn't need anything else!
  9. TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    Jul 27, 2006
    Should we go totally ridiculous and block out the sports portion of the news broadcasts too?

    Local channels are not sports channels even though they may have a few hours of sports. They are paid for no matter what content is on them.
  10. zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    Nov 11, 2007
    Don't forget commercials advertising local sporting events also.
  11. ronsanjim

    ronsanjim Godfather

    Mar 18, 2008
    Zacks Equity Research is reporting today that the decision has already been made, to offer the NO sports package.
  12. espnjason

    espnjason Armchair Referee

    Sep 30, 2008
    I tried looking on the respective website, it is subscription only.

    Without spoiling, is the "Non-sports" package exactly as anticipated on this thread?
  13. pbg

    pbg Godfather

    Oct 11, 2007
    I'd be happy with my locals and my sports subscriptions. I need a little Wheel of Fortune now and then to exercise the brain in between games.
  14. RACJ2

    RACJ2 Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2008
    It doesn't really say much more then the Bloomberg article. Seems to be their opinion that its a done deal.

    Attached Files:

  15. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Yes! People who say they want no sports should get none.
  16. jmpfaff

    jmpfaff AllStar

    Dec 12, 2004
    I'll say again that how they treat the "partial sports" channels like TBS, FX, TNT, etc. is going to be key in whether this works.

    Cutting the pure-play sports channels revenue but not impacting the partials means that the non-sports channels will have more freedom to bid for part-time sports packages (turning themselves into partials).

    I have a funny feeling that the per-subscriber rate for a channel like TNT went through the roof when they got the NBA contract. Will the same happen to ABC Family when they get the Monday Night Football contract moved to them?
  17. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    This is why I am ridiculing the whole thing. Sounds more like saber rattling in preperation for talks with ESPN than anything else. Who is really impacted that makes a difference in cost? NFL maybe, but surely not NHL Channel, local RSNs, the Tennis channel. The real target here is ESPN.
  18. Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    Talk about waste of time, is there anyway to group reality shows?
  19. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    Jun 18, 2006
    I rather doubt it.
  20. DawgLink

    DawgLink Woof Woof Woof

    Nov 5, 2006
    Washington, DC
    As some others have said, there will have to be some sort of catch, imo. I can't imagine some of the sports channels just letting the TV companies drop them from the basic packages.

    Maybe I am wrong though....

Share This Page

spam firewall