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

mountain network /pac12 network...

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by sticketfan, May 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 16, 2012 #261 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I think he was telling the truth. Seven fulltime channels on conus is not a good idea. And as cable systems aren't even being held to having even two channels, why should directv have to have seven when one full time and up to six game time ones work just fine.

    You always make directv out to be pigheaded. What about the PAC 12 being pigheaded? Put on the parttimes an prove the value rather than just refuse the largest and beat sports carrier and the only source of out of town sports for the vast majority of bars?
     
  2. Jul 17, 2012 #262 of 1671
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Simply put, nothing is final until its final. And you think he is telling the truth....and what do you base that on? Your long history of watching TV? You have even less experience in TV than Michael White does and even less in business management experience than he does. You have your armchair and little else.
     
  3. Jul 17, 2012 #263 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    And you have your blind faith in the PAC 12.

    Tell me why directv should be forced to air all seven channels full time when cable contracts don't even require two.
     
  4. Jul 17, 2012 #264 of 1671
    BusterAvis

    BusterAvis Legend

    279
    20
    Jul 13, 2012
    There is no way DirecTV will start off having seven channels.
    They should at least have the national network by late August or early September (you would think).

    But they will not have all six additional regional networks to start off with.
    It's possible that they may have those within a year's time, but they will dip into this hot tub one toe at a time to test the water temperature first, before proceeding to go full body in.
     
  5. Jul 17, 2012 #265 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    That makes sense.
     
  6. Jul 17, 2012 #266 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Well.... cable companies will carry all 7 feeds full time. They just distribute them accordingly to their local areas. DirecTV could do the same thing, and simply not give access to the other channels based on a zipcode check, only allowing the same channel that cable grants access to in that particular area. Then it would be the same as cable. Or, it could get an edge to cable and allow all 7 to be seen through the sports pack and lure sports fans over from cable.

    Every sportsbar in the PAC-12 region has been able to tune in to any of the games as they were played, not blacked out, on a local RSN. As I said in an earlier post, my brother in-law in Arizona watches USC games sometimes in a local sports bar that could get FSWest. Of course that is only the GAME, not the side programming. And I have no idea whether there is enough programming on these 7 channels to warrant full time channel status, but I do know they will cover a bunch of other sports, every day of the week. I do believe that this situation should at least continue to exist, that you have the ability to tune in to any of the games played, all throughout the PAC12 region. So if DirecTv decides not to carry the full time networks for each region, they should somehow carry the games.
     
  7. Jul 17, 2012 #267 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Suddenly you forget how the technology works?

    It is NOT the same as cable. It requires bandwidth and commitment nationally for a satellite service.

    PLUS, the cable systems are NOT required to even carry TWO channels.

    The real method is national channel fulltime plus game channels for the regionals. But the PAC 12 has not agreed to that. Their off-programming is SOOOOO important.
     
  8. Jul 17, 2012 #268 of 1671
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    I don't know about "forced," but being practical IF Directv is going to compete then it has to offer the same channels as the local cable company. 1 national and 1 regional. There may not be an immediate drop, but over time there will be. That's reality.

    Then if you have all the channels on the system anyway why not offer them to everyone nationwide to differentiate themselves from the cable company. If the price price per subscriber is low enough then it would work.

    It's really that simple.

    Now it's all a business decision for Directv for sure. Do they not offer the Pac 12 they will be shutting themselves off from a lot of people who simply will not consider Directv. Sure it's not everyone. But Directv has built itself around sports, to abandon that now would be silly. Few people will leave because of Viacom, but a lot will leave because of their sports. I guarantee you that the sports customer demographic is worth more than the MTV, Nickolodean, Comedy Central demographic in direct dollars spent on Directv and direct advertising dollars. The advertisers will get more viewership and bang for their buck with a college football game than TVLand or MTV will generate, period.

    There are Pac 12 folks all over the country and all over the west. These folks will turn out for Directv if Directv gives them the opportunity to do so. Pac 12 fans will give up their east coast cable company for Pac 12 sports on Directv. But maybe Directv won't. Then what's the difference between the cable company and Directv? Zero. Let's be honest, satellite is sometimes a hassle, they require installation, term commitments, there are outages in bad weather, etc. So there is a bit of an inconvenience, so Directv has to be different from the cable compoany and not just the same.
     
  9. Jul 17, 2012 #269 of 1671
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    If they do not offer the national and the local RSN in each market then they will be unable to compete with the local cable company. And the Pac 12 won't do the deal without minimum coverage, so while Directv could want to do what you suggest as a practical matter the other side won't go for it.
     
  10. Jul 17, 2012 #270 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I have no problem with them putting it all on. You are not grasping the technology issue. A cable system puts on one (you keep ignoring that option) or two of the channels and they use up two slots of bandwidth, etc. Satellite companies, unless they put the channels on spot beams, have to use up seven national slots to accomplish the same. bandwidth is precious. Even if it exists today, it is a valuable commodity that a company cannot just treat trivially.

    That is why it makes sense for the national channel plus game only regionals. Satisfies the customers, puts less burden on the satellite system, provides the visibility for the conference and schools and puts the programming in bars across the country.

    I have no doubt that directv would sign up for that unless the price is very high (which I doubt based upon statements from all concerned) but the PAC 12 is insisting on full time channels only.

    Personally, I would welcome the channels either part or full time. It is just that a deal is more likely if they follow the BTN model on satellite.
     
  11. Jul 17, 2012 #271 of 1671
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    In my market, both of the biggest teams (Portland Trailblazers and Oregon Ducks) have contracts with Comcast so those with satellite only get to see the nationally televised games; even in many of the sports bars.
     
  12. Jul 17, 2012 #272 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yeah, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles. Both cable, u-verse/fios, Dish, DirecTV all receive the feeds the same way, via a commercial grade satellite. DirecTV picks it up in either Los Angeles or Colorado, and distributes it to its own satellites from there.

    Cable companies pick up the feeds at their local head-ends, and distribute them locally as needed. The difference of course is that the cable companies don't need to distribute all 7 to all PAC12 locations where they may do business. (Not all cable companies are everywhere, of course), where DirecTV by default has to put them all up on the satellite, and someone in North Carolina (where Time Warner probably won't even carry PAC12 at all) will be able to receive them because they are CONUS.

    It's the same for every channel of course:

    My cable company (TWC) for instance, carries HBO East and West, but all the other HBO feeds are West Coast only, where DirecTV pretty much has to carry the East and West for a good many - not all but a good many - of them across the entire U.S.

    That is just the way satellite works. We have - oh no wait! :D - Nickelodeon East AND West because of kids bedtime hours, where TWC here only has the West feed.

    Or, the need to carry ALL RSN's CONUS, where a cable company can probably do with a few RSN's, mostly from neighboring states and/or DMA's

    This really is no different.
     
  13. Jul 17, 2012 #273 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    As far as I know, neither are the satellite companies - when it comes to LOCAL DMA's. DirecTV is, for instance, perfectly in their right to match the exact situation cable will have:

    - Main PAC12 station for everyone.
    - 1 (or 2) "Market" station(s), based on zip code eligibility.
    - Other "Market" stations will not be seen/allowed, except maybe a commercial account for sports bars.

    They will create the same situation as cable that way.

    Of course it still doesn't take away the fact all 7 need to be on CONUS transponders, but as I said above.... no different than having to carry both East and West versions of the same station due to kids bed times, or market demand for premiums, and no different to the way they carry all other RSN's. That is just the way satellite works.

    But that doesn't mean they aren't allowed to create the same rules/availability for consumers, if they so feel inclined to match the cable situation. I don't see why they would WANT to, especially with sports bars in the mix, but that is a different question.
     
  14. Jul 17, 2012 #274 of 1671
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    No, I completely grasp the technology issue. It's you that are not grasping it. Directv has tons of bandwidth available, it's just how they elect to use it. Do they use it with the 17 (or 30) Viacom channels? Or do they use it for pay per view? Or do they use it for Extra Innings or other sports packages?

    Good management says that they use the bandwidth for whatever brings them the best return on their investment.

    Directv cannot not have the Pac 12 Network, because over time they will lose subscribers. Will the Pac 12 not sign a deal unless the local regional channel is on as well? Probably. So that means in the end then in order to carry the Pac 12 they will need the whole package.

    The channels will not be on the spot beams. Because that means someone in Seattle can't watch ASU or vice versa if the elect the sports pack. It's got to be on the whole system for it to work right for those in the Pac 12 footprint. Then once you have used that bandwidth then why not allow the nation total viewing - assuming the cost per subscriber in NYC is low enough. I think it will be. Pac 12 has a big interest in getting the games nationwide and if it is already using the bandwidth and the cost is low then you'll see it all over. That's one place the Pac 12 can wheel and deal - those homes outside the footprint can be almost free for Directv to make money on for now.

    Do you really think Viacom is not related? Do we need two Nick channels, for example? No we don't. In the age of DVRs and a premium (as you say) for bandwidth two Nick channels is a waste. Do we need two MTVs and two VH1s as well? I don't think so, but it depends in the end how much Directv can ultimately charge for the use of it's channels and make money to the end customer versus its costs to get the channel.

    The demographics of ad dollars and Directv packages strongly favor the demographics in the 40-55 range. These are the folks with disposable income to spend. Kids watching MTV have no money to buy a car, home tools from Home Depot, refrigerators from Lowes and the like. You market to who is your profitable customer.

    Is someone going to leave because they dont get MTV...maybe? Is someone going to leave because cable has Pac 12? Yep.


     
  15. Jul 17, 2012 #275 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Actually, they don't have TONS of bandwidth available. The sports packages mostly copy the feeds from RSN's, so they don't cost any extra bandwidth. A few exceptions are when Canadian teams are involved, especially with NHL Canadian vs Canadian teams. But they are temporary feeds, for the 3 hours a hockey game is on, they can just pull 1 PPV feed.

    The 17 Viacom channels are currently offline, but not removed from the satellite. As soon as they reach an agreement, they will be put back on the air. Not all of those are in HD either by the way.

    All in all, estimates are around 12 right now, and with some modifications they may be able to double that by using 6 instead of 5 HD per transponder, but I don't think you will see much beyond that.

    And with the two L.A. RSN's, the BeIN USA sports networks, the RSN's for Houston and New Orleans, and PAC12, it could very well be that all bandwidth is already spoken for, for this year.
     
  16. Jul 17, 2012 #276 of 1671
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    I don't think pac12 is trying to force DIRECTV to carry all seven channels , period. That doesn't make sense. I do however think they are saying that if you carry a channel, you can't carry it part time. And I think they are really haggling over what packages channels would fit in.

    Package wise, the only way I think it makes sense is to treat the locals as a regular RSN at best, and the national as a national feed. But getting everyone to agree on that concept is not easy.

    And there is no reason they can't put the locals on spot beams and the national on a conus. None, zero zip. Saves bandwidth, gets full coverage to markets, should make everyone happy if they have a brain about themselves. (I'm talking DIRECTV and pac12). Pus it means DIRECTV will essentially only be paying for two channels in all pac12 markets, and one channel everywhere else. Bars will just have the most popular games from the PAC 12 channels in non local markets, which is fine, that's probably all they ever showed anyway, and the same they could get from any other provider around anyway, because there is no way a cable company in Florida is going to carry anything other than the national channel, if they even carry it.
     
  17. Jul 17, 2012 #277 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    You have just proven that you do not grasp it at all.

    1. No one has ever proven that DirecTV has tons of bandwidth. There is only speculation on how much they have. And if they had tons, why are they planning an expansion?

    2. Having available bandwidth does not mean that it is not precious.

    3. It is not just about bandwidth itself. There are other costs involved in every channel that goes on the air.

    4. Viacom has NOTHING to do with this. You seem to think they can just throw the bandwidth at the PAC 12 because they are in a dispute with Viacom? That gets settled tomorrow (with likely more HD from Viacom as part of the result) and what does DirecTV do?

    5. EI only takes up the non-RSN channels. Like CSN Philly for Phillies games.

    6. The use of SEVEN slots of bandwidth on one entity is bad precedent and is a WASTE OF BANDWIDTH.

    I am sure that DirecTV would take one full time channel and game only channels for the other six. I am also sure that the PAC 12 wants full time channels (I read a quote to that effect; I am not going to look for it right now).

    WHY should it be seven full time channels? No reason whatsoever and you have yet to demonstrate one.

    Instead, you just rant about DirecTV not getting your favorite sports and ignore that the PAC 12 is probably more at fault.
     
  18. Jul 17, 2012 #278 of 1671
    maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Well... again, there is the sports bar issue.

    Last season ALL games were available for EVERYONE that could get the RSN's that they would show on. USC/UCLA games often showed on FS West for instance, so in theory even a sports bar in North Carolina could show that game on one of its monitors. There is no blackout with college sports.

    Putting the locals on spotbeams, would mean that *any* games shown on those, cannot be shown outside the reach of the spot beam.

    Now granted, I have no idea how popular say..... a USC/UCLA game would be in other parts of the country, but I would imagine there are sportsbars wanting to show those games. Also, there are many "transplants" in cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix that have taken advantage of cheap housing in those states and left California. They would actually be losing access to games, as they were able to receive them all before.

    So I don't think for that idea, spotbeams is the way to go. That said, we don't really need 7 full-times either, we could very well do with a few part-time game channels showing the bulk (or all) of the football, basketball and baseball games. That would appease 95%+ of the PAC-12 area population, if not more.
     
  19. Jul 17, 2012 #279 of 1671
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I pretty much read the quote somewhere. Been a long time now, so the position may have changed but it was what the PAC 12 wanted.
    That is what I am saying. It makes no sense.
    Since that is the cable model, I don't think that is the issue.

    You are right about the cable company in Florida, but not about everyone being happy. DirecTV would want the games on nationally so they can sell them to homes and, more importantly, to bars. That is DirecTV's edge. And the PAC 12 would want a national distributor to be able to, well, distribute.

    The real solution is game only for the regionals.
     
  20. Jul 17, 2012 #280 of 1671
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    You really do not get it do you? You come in here and attack me, etc. yet you do not even understand demographics and how that plays into it.

    You also say that tomorrow a deal will be struck with Viacom that will take more bandwidth away - as you say more HD channels.

    What I have said before and I will say it again is Directv has a LOT of bandwidth. Directv can choose how to use that bandwidth. Just because something is on it today does not mean that something will be on it into perpetuity. What Directv does with it's bandwidth is it's business and exactly how it uses that bandwidth will determine how profitable it is.

    For example, Directv can pull down pay per view channels and other movies if it wants to. Directv can pull down channels assigned to Viacom right now (or any one else when contracts are up). It can use that bandwidth any way it wants to.

    What I am trying to say - and clearly you are missing the point - is that from a demographic standpoint "can Directv make more money by taking it's bandwidth and put it out to another use?" Yes it clearly can. Then "what is the highest use that will bring the best return for the company?"

    Is Viacom (or whomever) the best use for 17 (or whatever it is channels)?

    Is PPV the best use for whatever number channels?

    If you do not offer Pac 12 Network how many will leave? Of those that will leave how much do they spend on Directv and how much does Directv make off of them? If you only offer a national channel, how many will leave?

    How much revenue will you make off a sports bar and other commercial set up IF you offer the full slate of Pac 12 channels? How much do you make in the bar if you offer Viacom? (Little)

    If you don't offer Viacom (or whomever) how many will leave? Of those that stay or leave - how much do you make off of them?

    Do you make more off a Pac 12 guy you lure from Comcast in Boston than you do retaining a duplicate Nick channel? (not total revenue - total net income).

    It is how one uses the bandwidth that maximizes net income for the company that will matter in the end.

    Viacom is no accident. It's contract expired and if it stays - all, some, or most, will be dependent on how much money they make, period. If these channels can be put to more productive use somewhere else you will see that.
    Directv does not need Viacom to survive. It does need sports to survive. W/O the additional sports options I would leave tomorrow. Directv knows it's attraction to many is sports. It can't lose those.

    The calculated risk is do they let me and others leave - we will eventually - if they don't offer the full package of Pac 12 OR do they blow out unproductive channels and put that bandwidth to better use? I know the answer.

    And yes to someone else - the new LA area RSN for the Lakers plays into all of this as well.

    Recall G4? That was buried awhile back. It wasn't worth it. Hardball was played with Versus. Its overall content was not nationwide or your high spending sports fan. Hardball was played and Directv won in the end. The price of the channel says Directv can still make money.

    In your opinion 7 slots of Pac 12 channels is a waste of bandwidth. But if Directv loses 3 M or 4 M subs for example in the long term maybe it is not a waste. I don't know what they'll lose, but out west it will be material. Not on day one, but it will happen.




     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page