1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

L.A. Dodgers, Time Warner Cable deal could top $8 billion

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Sports_Fan, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. Sports_Fan

    Sports_Fan New Member

    4
    0
    Feb 12, 2012
    Hi Everyone,

    Read more at the LA Daily News: http://www.dailynews.com/dodgers/ci_22429328/l-dodgers-time-warner-cable-deal-could-top


    My question is are the dodgers going to be on the Lakers Time Warner Cable channel or have the dodgers on there own Time Warner Cable channel.

    Why not have Time Warner Cable channels for the ducks, clippers, angles so that fox sports west and prime and change there name to pac 12 channels.

    Why not Time Warner Cable merge college tv channel feeds for college football and college basketball on the pac 12 for those two "fox sports west" and "prime ticket" channels on directv. People can pick the games if the like more then two games are played at the same time.
     
  2. celticpride

    celticpride Icon

    971
    1
    Sep 6, 2006
    boy i thought the laker deal was bad ,this is worse,I wonder how much directv and others will have to pay now? I just wish directv or any other providers wouldnt force everyone in so cal. to pay higher fees for these channels,they should only pay for it if they want it otherwise just block access to the channel.:mad:
     
  3. iceturkee

    iceturkee DINFOS Trained Killer DBSTalk Club

    1,217
    16
    Apr 1, 2007
    daytona...
    it is getting silly. soon all pro sports teams will want their own channel. ask the indians how that worked for them?
     
  4. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    This would require DIRECTV to carry 6 RSNs, and the cost to DIRECTV could be a billion dollars a year. Ridiculous.
     
  5. TomK

    TomK Godfather

    371
    2
    Oct 18, 2010
    They need to be priced as premium channels like HBO, etc. That's fair to whomever wants to watch those channels and fair to those of us who don't want them.
     
  6. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Silly was passed a long time ago.
     
  7. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    That's what many of us hope for. I know it sucks for fans, but I hope DirecTV doesn't cave and let TWC force all subs to pay for this channel.

    In my area I'm missing CSNNW and PAC12 Networks, but I'm ok with this because I don't like how the programmers force everyone to pay up. I would happily pay extra to get these channels, but only if they are part of a sports pack or as a premium channel.
     
  8. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,700
    39
    Jul 21, 2008
    maybe not HBO level but at least a sports theme pack or dual base packs.

    A sports base pack with tears.

    and

    A entertainment base pack with tears.
     
  9. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Except when you cut down the number of subs who have the channel, it will get closer to HBO pricing than you think rather quickly.

    In fact, when Home Team Sports (now CSN Mid Atlantic) started around Maryland, it was a premium costing exactly what HBO cost at the time.
     
  10. Sandra

    Sandra Legend

    330
    28
    Apr 16, 2012
    Didn't work for the Royals either...remember RSTN?

    It has, however, worked for the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, etc.


    Sandra
     
  11. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Didn't work for the Yankees, actually. They have sold out to Fox with rumors of YES morphing into a national outlet with Big Ten sports.

    Plus, at least YES, is more than the Yankees. It is also the Nets and college sports.
     
  12. pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    I know we've had a difference of opinion on the outcome of a la carte, but I think everyone (almost) can agree that breaking out the sports channels would be a good idea. :)
     
  13. KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,543
    655
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    RSTN was mostly a games only feed.

    SNY has the backing of Comcast and Time Warner and is the offical network for Jets coverage during the off season.

    NESN launched in 1984 when RSNs were in their infancy, they also have the Bruins. CSN New England which launched as PRISM New England in 1981 only has the Celtics and New England Revolution if you count the MLS.

    And as others have said, YES also has the Nets so they have live sports most of the year.
     
  14. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    When they position themselves as premiums in terms of gouging customers, yes.

    But a middle of the road RSN that provides value to customers, no.

    And I still think it would be provider suicide to break out ESPN.
     
  15. TravelFan1

    TravelFan1 Legend

    233
    9
    Apr 1, 2009
    Tony, it has been working quite well for the Yankees. And it for sure worked well for Goldman Sachs and their partner in the channel - I forgot the entity name. They sold out to Fox for a very pretty penny, they made a ton on this transaction.

    In fact, the success of Yes network is the reason why all these RSNs are being created. But I agree with most of the posters here that this RSN model is broken, 8 billion dollars is a completely insane number, but it's only being suggested 'cause time warner is counting on the dodgers channel to be add in a tier similar to the one for the lakers, so that the millions of tv subscribers in la la land pay for it and tw can recoup the dough.
     
  16. TravelFan1

    TravelFan1 Legend

    233
    9
    Apr 1, 2009
    Btw, if the dodgers can get 7bi/25 years - that's the number that's vented on espn and la times today - sky's limit for the next yankees tv contract - i'd dare to say north of 10bi for the same amount of time.
     
  17. Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    All I can say is, capitalism is great, getting the best deal you can is great, but capitalism goes both ways. At some point people will balk at these huge deals. Frankly a bit surprised it didn't happen in the last four years before these deals got as big as they are.
     
  18. lokar

    lokar Icon

    748
    13
    Oct 7, 2006
    If D* or other providers don't draw a line in the sand and soon, the ridiculous fees are just going to encourage more people to cut the cord. I'm sure D* has a team analyzing where that line should be.
     
  19. cmasia

    cmasia Icon

    1,065
    89
    Sep 18, 2007
    Las Vegas
    Sadly, in 15 years, I can see the Dodgers crying poverty for being locked into such a "terribly cheap and undervalued" deal for 10 more years.
     

Share This Page