Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.
Channel 612 is waiting............
I'm trying!!! ...http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-optimistic-about-a-deal-with-directv/
Ugh Larry effing Scott.
But I hope he's right.
@HollyanneLiz: #wednesdayheadlines Could Pac-12 Network finally be coming to AT&T/DirecTV? US Senators are trying http://t.co/5Z5Ey8zxUL
Saw this too.............glad to see the one Senator from my State was on board with the letter..........that being said, really don't think it will have much of an impact.....haven't seen any response from either AT&T/Directv or Pac 12. In fact, haven't seen/heard much regarding this subject since "Larry effing Scott" (per Laxguy :righton made his proclamation at the Pac 12 Media Days.
That means nothing and no one cares what they all say. This is all about bottom dollar and thats all there is to that.
Wouldn't you know.......as soon as I make a comment about no news since Media days, I received the following notification....just make a simple statement and something pops out to make a liar out of you every time!!!
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2836441-155/pac-12-networks-trying-to-reach-directv.........however, sounds just like the same old rhetoric of days past!!!
Don't worry, that article says.. nothing really...
This is one of those stories that will play on a loop until the loop is broken. Pac-12 will eventually be carried in some form ... perhaps not at the level Pac-12 wanted or the price DirecTV wanted but the word "inevitable" comes to mind. But the story remains the same as it did years ago ... the deal will be signed when both parties can accept the deal.
I agree, and I will go one step farther in my speculation. The deal will be signed after the original deals (Dish, et al) expire.
If a deal isn't done by the end of next month don't hold your breath for it ever happening.
Both sides were dug into their positions before, the only thing that can affect that is the AT&T acquisition. Either AT&T's management orders Directv's management to get a done deal so it gets done under terms Directv previously rejected, or they don't give that order and leave it up to Directv in which case Directv's position doesn't change at all.
If the Pac 12 was holding out on the hope of the AT&T acquisition changing things, and it turns out it doesn't, it is possible that might get them to make concessions to Directv to make a deal happen.
Now that AT&T owns Directv and we don't get a deal I will be very surprised.
From Awful Announcing a few moments ago . . .
This came out on Sunday..........lots of the same press announcements have been floating around over the last two weeks..............I know there's still a couple of weeks until "Kick Off" for the Pac 12, but I'd feel a lot better if they'd get off their butts and either do it or not!
SOAPBOX ALERT: I truly wish both sides of the Corporate honchos would take the subscribers or fans (whichever the case may be) into consideration. Yes, I know, the subscriptions price vs number of actually subscribing plays a large factor as well as other contracts already in place; however, P12N could offer alternative means for subscribers who prefer Directv or Dish (been there, done that, not going back!)............especially with all the technology available, why not create some type of streaming subscriptions for those fans who are stuck in the middle of their games!
Unfortunately, the rules of business (at least on the DirecTV/AT&T part) are such that the only ones who get any consideration are the shareholders. DirecTV/AT&T must do what ever brings in the most profit to keep the shareholders happy.
You kinda said that wrong. It's the rules of all businesses including pac12 every bit as much as DIRECTV.
In a word, it's called "GREED"! Directv doesn't want to pay out too much and P12N wants it all.....with the consumer left holding the bag!!!! :bang
You are both right; however there is a minor distinction. DirecTV, as a publicly traded company, is required by law to put the shareholder above the consumer or employee. The PAC12 does put profits first, but that is policy - not a legal requirement. It all comes down to greed, and no one cares about the consumer unless enough consumers quit spending money that the bottom line is affected. That is what happens in a free market.
Well, yes and no. Fiduciary responsibility means the shareholders come first, but a company is free to put consumers or employees first if it can argue that doing so will lead to happier customers or more productive employees which will increase value to shareholders in the long run. Otherwise you'd never see a company replace a product after the warranty has expired or add parental leave beyond what the law requires.