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. Fog627

    Fog627 Legend

    148
    2
    Aug 27, 2009
    This week 6 of the 12 games are being carried by the PAC-12 (5 national and 1 regional). The other six are also broadcast.

    Next week 6 of the 12 are again on the PAC-12, but only one is national and the other five are on the regional networks. So depending on the set up, it is possible to miss six of the twelve games carried by the PAC-12 even with an agreement.

    To me, this is why the BTN format of having alternate channels available for concurrent live broadcasts is the preferred way to go.
     
  2. David Ortiz

    David Ortiz Save the Clock Tower!!

    2,427
    75
    Aug 21, 2006
    Fresno, CA
    The national Pac-12 Network is showing three games live on Sept. 8, but two of them are TBD.
     
  3. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    I do not think that is always correct. I believe under the current contracts, the SEC, and not the home teams, owns the rights to the SEC games. The SEC contract with ESPN runs through 2023

    In the past (before all SEC games were televised), Kentucky (through Jim Host and Associates) produced their own broadcasts of some of the away games. Granted, these were only shown regionally on a hodge-podge of stations in Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, and Missouri, but for those with a BUD, the games were in the clear, and it was always announced on the UK Radio network what the satellite coordinates were.
     
  4. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    You might be right, but the ESPN contract runs through 2023. We will see what happens after that. As long as I can get the home and away Kentucky basketball channels, I will be happy.
     
  5. Fog627

    Fog627 Legend

    148
    2
    Aug 27, 2009
    That makes sense...there are two groups of concurrent games - three at 12:30 PST and two at 7:30 PST. The online PAC-12 Network schedule shows them as being on the regional networks...but the the national picking one out of each group makes sense.

    Thanks for the clarification.
     
  6. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,679
    1,105
    Nov 13, 2006
    I agree with you but.... I don't think you can consider it rushing in since they have been available to negotiate for over a year....
     
  7. kick4fun

    kick4fun Godfather

    487
    6
    Aug 9, 2006
    Thank you, well said.. They've had a year to get this going..
     
  8. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I think he meant long term deal for the customer. Changing providers is sport for some people but is a commitment for others (and may be if you get a price knockoff).
     
  9. Fog627

    Fog627 Legend

    148
    2
    Aug 27, 2009
    McKayla would not be impressed with the progress of these negotiations!!! :)
     
  10. JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    I'm not to sure how sarcastic I was being (just a little). I agree with your assessment of where the channels are going. I really think we will get to the multi-channel per team distribution model.

    I also agree with you that the multi-camera system will also come into play. My point is that I believe that kind of micro content control will drive ala-carte. Content isolation will force them into the model they don't want.
     
  11. JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    The negotiation doesn't start until one side or the other or both have something to lose. The PAC-12 will be asking for ridiculous carriage requirements and cost, while D* will be offering .0001 cents per sub on their sports tier.

    It takes both sides to negotiation. I've said before, neither side is less/more at fault or less/more responsible for waiting until now.

    I would venture to guess that if the distribution cost had been favorable, D* would have jumped all over it. It doesn't mean PAC-12 is asking too much, it just means they are probably asking enough that D* has to do an impact analysis. If the cost is that high, then D* is forced to wait until the last possible second to see if they can gain leverage on that cost. If they didn't I would be pissed at them for being a bunch of incompetents.

    You can flip that argument to PAC-12. They have a known cost to operate. They have a price in mind to pay for that operational expenditure. They are working on other peoples money right now. They won't broker a deal unless they absolutely HAVE TO.

    You all are assuming that the asking price for the PAC-12 and the carriage requirements are reasonable. I wouldn't make that assumption. I would guess because of the money leveraged to get this off the ground, the initial pricing is probably ridiculous.
     
  12. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    My prediction for the future is that satellite companies like DirecTV and Dish will just lease transpondor space to the content providers. The content providers will then sell their programs directly to the viewers. Any school that wanted to distribute their own broadcasts would lease space on the birds and sell programs to their alumni and fans. Everything will be a la carte, but the deals will be directly between the content providers and the viewers.
     
  13. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    No matter how it ends up, DirecTV can only lose. The PAC 12 does stand to gain by having their networks on DirecTV, but for DirecTV, it is a matter of whether they lose less by carrying the PAC 12 or by not carrying the PAC 12. There is no way for DirecTV to gain from this.
     
  14. JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    I'm not sure how it will be brokered, but I agree that most offerings will be a la carte. However, this is not the model the content owners want. But, they are the ones forcing the micro management of their content. Once they figure out that they shot themselves in the foot, they will try to figure out a way to litigate someone for something.
     
  15. JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    You misunderstand economics completely if you think only DirecTV can lose. There is a very simple curve that will show them where the cost to subscriber loss ratio is. I'm also one of those that think the offering is over valued by the content owner and the reality of its actual value will be shock to them.

    Just ask how well the Long Horn Network is going. If it wasn't for ESPN blowing a stupendously stupid amount of money on it, they would have already folded. As it stands ESPN has a big ugly white elephant to show visitors.
     
  16. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    There is a way to gain customers though. Last year, PAC12 football games could be seen nationwide (via RSN's), where now many games are not available outside of the PAC12 networks. Since cable providers do not always carry PAC12 outside of the PAC12 territory, and it is not carried by Charter, U-verse, Dish, or FIOS, DirecTV could snap up a few customers here and there.

    NOT carrying PAC12 will mean they will bleed some customers to TWC and Comcast. But as with all business decisions, a lot of things need to be taken in to account.... expected customer loss vs price paid for networks vs possible price increases because of networks vs future expectations/churn of customers etc..... I think DirecTV management has seen the powerpoint slides from those who have done the research on all that internally.

    I personally believe carrying all 7 networks in HD is a smart business decision. And put them in the Sports Pack, except the 1 regional where applicable.
     
  17. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    If you are going to put them all in the sports pack, then six is the maximum required as NOTHING will be on the national channel that is not already on one of the six.
     
  18. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    And if they are all in the sports pack, why have all six. Essentially, you are talking about making 90% redundant programming part of the same purchase.
     
  19. JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    I think this is the part most people miss. There is little or no increased revenue avenue for D* here. Only cost. And, it is most likely incredibly expensive. If the cost to profit via carriage costs exceeds the loss to profit via sub loss, then they won't carry the channels.

    Also, D* knows they sell on sports. So, they are on the spot. But, I don't think they will sign a stupid deal like ESPN did. ESPN does it because they just force the cost across their offerings (which is the model they like). Imagine how good those investments would look if they had to pay for themselves! D* will increase subscriber rates, but they know where that pain threshold is for subscribers.
     
  20. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    At least, this is what we know right now..... I don't expect that to change MUCH so 6 should be enough. But I have no idea what the future looks like.

    In theory, it could happen that an important football game will be on the national network, where the regional network affiliated with the team on that football game will air an important basketball game.

    But I have no clue how the future scheduling is going to look like.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page