Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by blueoyster, Feb 1, 2011.
Does "Mega March Madness" refer to the tournament coverage or the discussion?
Outstanding news. I must admit that I find a bit of humor in all of this as I was admonished that it wouldn't happen on another thread about a month ago when I suggested Directv, as the sports leader, would have all the games in HD. In fact, I believe I was told that the NCAA Tournament wasn't a big enough deal for this to occur. Non-sports fans need to stick to programming threads about movies and sitcoms.
How much power do providers / sports leagues have? Is it up to the teams? That may why CSN CHI ended up on all systems that teams would not stand for comcast only.
They seem to have the power to force CSN Philly / CSNNW / others on to NHL CI / NBA LP and MLB EI but not the power to let them be in the local area.
The NFL forces the ESPN and NFL network games to OTA for the teams local areas.
well the Olympic was said before the D-12 delay and other BIG cable systems (big story in the Chicago area) lacked that channel in HD as well.
OK, now I'm confused. Is the reason there will NOT be a mix channel this year because DirecTV can no longer charge 70 bucks for MMM? We seem to get mix channels for plenty of other events which are broadcast without an additional charge (Golf, Tennis, Soccer, etc.) so why is/would this be different?
So let's try to sum up the logic here...
So before you said D* losing exclusivity to all the games didn't count against them because it was the NCAA taking a step backwards, so exclusivity doesn't count when determining the HD sports leader according to you.
Now you're saying that if D* hadn't gotten the ability to broadcast the remaining 20% of the games in HD, that too wouldn't have counted against them since it wasn't a true sports channel. So it has to be a true sports channel to count towards being the HD sports leader according to you.
So where does that leave us then? Basically no major sport's championship counts as they aren't on true sports channels (superbowl, world series, NBA finals, etc etc etc).
What about NFLST? Since exclusivity doesn't count and they are all games that can be found on non-sports channels, then that must not count against any of the other providers...
Obviously I don't subscribe to this logic, and probably no one else does either. Just pointing out how you twist your words around as things change to always paint D* as the one not at fault no matter what. No logic is flawed if it helps D*.
Are they the HD sports leader? Absolutely! Would it have counted against them had they not gotten this deal done? Absolutely! I'm glad they once again acted like the true HD sports leader even though their biggest defender insisted they would not, they should not based on assumed cost and going against their pristine business model, and that it wouldn't matter anyway because it didn't count somehow.
I wish there was a "like" button on here.
Why are you not actually reading any of these posts? You attempted to "sum up" what you suggest is my logic and then listed things which I have not said.
I never said anything about exclusivity. Once again, someone is attempting to take various "step backwards" comments and attach them to entirely different statements...to simply fit an agenda you appear to have. You are also trying to misconstrue my comments about the impact that 13 non-HD games would have on their status. I never said it was because truTV is not a sports channel. I simply stated that it is not, as a matter of fact. It has not been, until this event, a channel which broadcasts even a small amount of sports programming. These will be their first sports broadcasts in their broadcast history. When you look at the grand total of all of their HD sports offerings, these 13 games account for an incredibly small percentage. It would be as if everyone who posts in the anticipation thread suddenly canceled their DirecTV service. That would be a mere blip on the radar. The lack of 13 NCAA tournament games in HD would be unfortunate, but it would do nothing to change their status when compared to any other provider in the country. I have no idea why you would want to argue that point.
Also, I said they would not add truTV when that was what we had been told. Why had we been told that? We were told that because those were the facts at the time. Did this proclamation come from me? Of course not. I simply relayed that information when someone mentioned a wish that the channel be added or asked if we had any information. I said that they should avoid adding it if they (as a service provider) and their customers were being held hostage over this event. As should any provider. Costs are going up and DirecTV has 80 retrans deals to work out this year alone. Any attempt by DirecTV to negotiate a fair deal on their part benefits their customers as well. It helps to keep their price increases minimal and their future product/service offerings moving forward. An agreement should be negotiated based on the channel as a whole, not 13 games out of a year. If you don't believe that a shoddy deal has an end effect result on customers, I can't help you. With their delayed addition of the full truTV HD channel to come at a later date, I am assuming/guessing that they worked out a more beneficial deal than they would have received add the full channel this week or next.
If you want to come after me and attempt to create an argument where there isn't one....enjoy. You said the following:
I agree that no one else probably subscribes to the logic you referred to. I sure don't. Simply because the logic you referred to is not mine.
I have absolutely no desire to argue with you. We should all just be happy that this has been resolved. I've said my peace, take another chance to say yours. Then we can both move on and be happy with this news.
Again, I'm hoping that the delayed deal to add the full truTV HD channel includes a packaged deal for other Turner channels as well.
In fairness, this deal just got done yesterday so they were correct at the time. Directv just plays their cards so close to the vest that it's impossible to know what they're going to do next.
I don't doubt that you actually believed what you said to be factual. You just had no way of knowing that to be the case other than what Satelliteracer said a while back. You were basing your responses on old information from at best a second party source. After a while, you just can't be sure it is a fact anymore - like you said "things change". After a certain amount of time passes, and no one with actual knowledge like Satelliteracer updates us, we can't keep hanging onto old information. This is a perfect example of that.
We don't expect you to know what DirecTV is doing, but we also don't expect you to be condescending and tell us we're wrong for thinking they should have been working on a deal. In this particular case, no one knew, including Satelliteracer (or maybe he did, but he's been awful quiet lately). According to the "facts" you had, it wasn't going to happen and that was that - end of story. You left absolutely no room for any resolution. We were to just suck it up and manage with the SD content. It should be clear now that DirecTV, as the HD sports leader, did realize they dropped the ball on this one, worked hard to fix that, and corrected it for all of us. And we're happy for that. Clearly they felt it was important to have as the HD sports leader, even if it isn't on a "sports channel". See, we were actually on the same page as DirecTV thinking that. Go figure. Thank you DirecTV :hurah:
What are you talking about? Those were facts. Why in the world would I not believe that they were facts? Satelliteracer told us it wasn't coming. He is the source of all sources here, other than a press release or direct statement from Mike White. Just because circumstances/decisions/details/situations change...doesn't mean that those statement no longer factual.
Who didn't believe they were working on a deal? No one ever said that. I passed on exactly what information we had. At the time, it was said that it was not coming. Those were the facts. Obviously, things changed. It was not I who left no room for resolution. I wasn't the one initially reporting the facts. I was relaying that information on to those who asked and had apparently not seen that information.
No, that is not clear. What is clear is that DirecTV had every intention of doing this all along, based on the mailer that went out and Satelliteracer's comments. What is clear is that, while they wanted to do this and planned accordingly, there was a snag. Common sense tells us, based on how this played out, Turner was the snag. They worked it out. How exactly did DirecTV drop the ball when it is obvious they were working on and moving forward with plans to offer EVERY game in HD, until an issue arose with Turner? That's your definition of dropping the ball? Wanting to do something, working through a problem, and then achieving the goal is dropping the ball? No. If you do not understand that Tuner was the likely culprit who threw the switch on this problem...I can't help you there.
I think people are harping on you because they have nothing else to do. I guess you should have said "Unless something unexpected happens at the last minute,it is not coming". Personally I think that was implied with all of your statements. But people here forgot that you're apparently not a god and do not have access to a time machine.
Similarly, I forgot to put a right after my "you can still make out the basketball, can't you?" comment and two people promptly negatively replied. (maybe the same people...don't remember and don't care).
I also don't want DirecTV to charge me extra for adding TruTV HD. If it's free, who cares? I just don't want my bill to go up again next year just to show 13 games in HD.
Hoosier205 said "No truTV for the tourney. I'm not trying to be a downer, but I don't want to see anyone get their hopes up for something we already know isn't happening."
Yep, those sure were the facts. We definitely knew for sure it wasn't going to happen. You definitely kept the door open there for negotiation and resolution. Sure glad we didn't keep our hopes up like you told us to...:nono2:
Perhaps you should leave the "facts" for Satelliteracer to tell us. Probably more than a little something to the fact that he didn't come back out and say that again for a while now... Maybe he (gasp) knows more than he can tell us, which might leave you touting old information that's no longer relevant.
Good God Man! Let it go.
Is it not enough that we have the 13 Games in HD? Instead of trying to prove some misguided fruitless point.
You, Me, Hoosier, Sigma and all other Hoop fans should be happy about this instead of just droning on and on and trying to incessantly beat the same "dead horse" ad infinitum
Watching this UNC debacle verse Miami makes me want to boycott the tourney. :nono::lol:
Why is this so hard for you to understand? When I made that statement, those were the facts. Get it? Those were literally the actual facts. If I tell you right now that my phone is working, that is a fact. If it bursts into flames and melts away to a puddle five minutes later....that does not change the fact that my phone was working five minutes ago. Facts don't become non-facts simply because the circumstances change. When I said, "no truTV for the tourney"...we had been told "no truTV for the tourney." Those were the facts. Get it? Probably not...
Sure I get it. You said it wasn't happening. You were wrong. It really could happen and did. Very easy to understand.
You messed up your phone analogy. You conveniently left out the part that makes the statement wrong when the opposite happens. In order to follow the same logic you would have to say "is my phone going to break? We already know that's not gonna happen". Then when your phone does break, you realize you were wrong. Finally get it now? I can't explain it any simpler for you.
No, you really do not get it. You may as well have ended your post with that. :lol: Satelliteracer said it wasn't happening and I repeated that statement. They were factual statements at the time when they were made. Are you calling us both liars or just him? Either way, you'd be wrong.
You didn't just repeat his statement, you added something to it which did end up making it untrue. Your statement - not his.
If you're unable to comprehend using the correct version of your own analogy, it's just a waste of my time trying.