Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Pepe Sylvia, Oct 20, 2011.
People, Not Profits!
People, Not Profits!
As I said, many, not all.
Of course not, every for-profit business is out there to maximize profits. I'm just countering the tone of some in this thread that Fox is being greedy and DirecTV is being noble. They both just want to make more money.
I don't think "many" is accurate though. FSN doesn't show many games that they don't produce.
I don't think DIRECTV is being noble. I think they're being good businesspeople by realizing that their customers don't want to pay more for the same content and neither do they. The closest I'll say they come to nobility is the concept that as a very large provider, their actions have an impact on other providers. By refusing to cave, they are impacting the whole industry. If that sounds noble to you, fine. It just sounds like good business to me.
Exactly. The pricing of channels is the result of a complex and interconnected web. It's naive to simply assume that you can cut out just the sports channels and magically keep everything else for a lower price.
Then again, it's equally naïve to think that sports channels cost the same. They cost more, but they have more appeal.
But it's not the same content. FX (especially) has more content now than they did when the contract was signed. DirecTV should pay more, because they're making money by offering these channels.
DirecTV is going to raise rates in the spring no matter what happens in these negotiations. So they'll be making more money, and their subscribers don't even have the luxury of being able to negotiate. The people who provide the content DirecTV deserve a cut of that too.
Of course. If people didn't want to watch ESPN, they wouldn't be the most expensive channel.
As a disclaimer, then, I ought to mention that I rarely watch ESPN. If one of my teams is on, then yeah but otherwise, not so much.
So, don't count me as a sports hater like some, but do realize that I personally will not be grossly impacted no matter what the outcome of this. I try to be fair but of course my personal preferences are going to be part of my argument.
I will be grossly impacted. I watch shows on FX, I watch the RSN's on Saturdays for college football, I watch the EPL on Fox Soccer and FSP, and I watch Formula 1 on Speed. My local RSNs don't matter much right now since we lost our hockey team and the NBA isn't playing, but I may be forced to sign up for cable if I lose all of that programming.
And I respect your opinion as well as all those who agree with you.
Week 8 FSN produced games:
Kansas St at Kansas
Oregon at Colorado
Tulsa at Rice
Oregon St. @ Washington State.
BC @ VT
Three are on MSG+ which isn't impacted by the dispute. All five are on various RSNs NOT owned by Fox and not a part of this dispute. What would be lost would be FCS (maybe) and FX exclusives.
Interesting. I will admit I am not nearly as well-versed on college sports TV contracts as I am on the pros. Thanks for the info.
Cable is not an option for me. If we lose the RSN's I am screwed,,,:nono:
Unless its you're home team, then you'll be blacked out.
The Ultimate Fighter is coming to FX next year and I would hate to miss that.
We've been talking college.
I'm sorry to disagree with most but I would like for one of the satellite TV providers to be the one you could count on to have "everything" as long as you were willing to pay for it.
DirecTV has fit that description more so than Dish , but the company appears to be changing its approach.
I seldom watch any of these channels but if these channels are not worth paying for, which ones will be the next to go?