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

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. Jul 29, 2013 #261 of 3040
    camo

    camo Godfather

    1,164
    96
    Apr 15, 2010
    My solution until Directv gets the Pac 12 network cut all extras like movie channels on Directv. Purchase portable tripod mounted Dish 1000.2, sub to Dish 120+ and add multi-sport package to include Redzone. Not necessary but I want Redzone also.
    Cost portable Dish 1000.2 and 211K HD receiver (Amazon)(Solid Signal) receiver, all for 220 dollars. No subscription necessary pay by month shut off once football season is over. Total cost ($390) Mid Sept-mid January 510 dollars minus 120 savings by removing Directv programming I rarely watch anyway. I'll have a portable setup for camping and tailgating as an bonus.
     
  2. Jul 29, 2013 #262 of 3040
    FenixTX

    FenixTX Godfather

    480
    6
    Nov 11, 2005
    If you, or anyone else, leaves one provider for another because one doesn't carry a channel then you can't complain about how high your satellite/cable bill is and will become. Not saying that you are complaining. It just amazes me when someone complains about not having a channel but then whines when there bill goes up. Once again, not saying you are doing such. Just some people that do. Switching providers for a channel no matter how much you want it isn't a solution. We need to stand up to all those niche sporting channels so out bills don't go up. The sports programming industry is outrageous right now. And it's going to get worse. The Big Ten's TV contract is up for renewal in a couple of years which will blow this overpriced PAC-12 contract out of the water and that scares me so much. There is no end in sight unless we stand up against this. Sorry. End of rant. :)
     
  3. Jul 29, 2013 #263 of 3040
    Contra

    Contra Mentor

    76
    0
    Aug 24, 2009
    Wow, that's easy for you to say. My area is not served by cable, so I have D*. Which means i will miss 3-5 USC football games this year. From 2002 to 2011 I did not miss one single USC game, every single one was televised. Now it's hello 1970s.

    Wonderful job? Larry Scott has been a disaster.
     
  4. Jul 29, 2013 #264 of 3040
    sum_random_dork

    sum_random_dork Icon

    915
    22
    Aug 21, 2008
    While I respect those that say "...I don't want this channel because I don't want my bill to go up xx $." That is being a bit short sighted, what if the next channel fight is over a channel you want? What happens if B1G Network goes away because of the money wanted, or the SEC channel isn't added because of it's cost? Just because you personally don't watch a channel doesn't mean other fans don't feel a strong passion and energy towards that channel.

    Two of my biggest issues in regards this whole disaster of deal DirecTV/Pac 12 had are-
    When the deal was on the table for DirecTV (and we were hearing strongly supported rumors it was almost done) that DirecTV walked away from the deal because they wanted to think about it and see if they could get a better deal later. Well then DirecTV took the deal to Dish who took that deal. Now you can say this is wrong/not true etc. But all the facts laid out last year point to it being true. If you were selling your house and had 2 people very interested in it and you were close to a deal with one person and they said "well we want to think about it and get back to you." Then you took that deal to the 2nd buyer laid out the same deal and they said "hey that's a good deal we'll take it today." What would you do? Probably take the deal and sign up. Well DirecTV had the deal but thought they could hold out for a better deal and lost, now they are mad at Pac 12 networks saying they want too much money for the channel because "Dish got a better deal."

    2nd issue is with the RSN surcharge being added to SF Bay Area customers of $2 a month. When the CSN deals were done a few years ago we never had to have a surcharge. When you call into DirecTV CSRs they are telling Nor Cal customers that the surcharge is added because of the new Dodgers and Lakers channels. Well the Lakers and Dodgers are not covered in this market so that doesn't make sense. If DirecTV had added Pac 12 Network(s) and was adding the $2 charge to help cover the fees on the West Coast I could understand it more. But a random $2 charge isn't right nor fair to customers who are not receiving anything new.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Jul 29, 2013 #265 of 3040
    boukengreen

    boukengreen Legend

    518
    32
    Sep 22, 2009
    i don't think everyone that has mutiple rsn gets that charge because i haven't seen it with south and sportsouth
     
  6. Jul 29, 2013 #266 of 3040
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,043
    1,163
    Nov 13, 2006
    While I respect those that say "...I don't want this channel because I don't want my bill to go up xx $." That is being a bit short sighted, what if the next channel fight is over a channel you want? What happens if B1G Network goes away because of the money wanted, or the SEC channel isn't added because of it's cost? Just because you personally don't watch a channel doesn't mean other fans don't feel a strong passion and energy towards that channel.

    Two of my biggest issues in regards this whole disaster of deal DirecTV/Pac 12 had are-
    When the deal was on the table for DirecTV (and we were hearing strongly supported rumors it was almost done) that DirecTV walked away from the deal because they wanted to think about it and see if they could get a better deal later. Well then DirecTV took the deal to Dish who took that deal. Now you can say this is wrong/not true etc. But all the facts laid out last year point to it being true. If you were selling your house and had 2 people very interested in it and you were close to a deal with one person and they said "well we want to think about it and get back to you." Then you took that deal to the 2nd buyer laid out the same deal and they said "hey that's a good deal we'll take it today." What would you do? Probably take the deal and sign up. Well DirecTV had the deal but thought they could hold out for a better deal and lost, now they are mad at Pac 12 networks saying they want too much money for the channel because "Dish got a better deal."

    2nd issue is with the RSN surcharge being added to SF Bay Area customers of $2 a month. When the CSN deals were done a few years ago we never had to have a surcharge. When you call into DirecTV CSRs they are telling Nor Cal customers that the surcharge is added because of the new Dodgers and Lakers channels. Well the Lakers and Dodgers are not covered in this market so that doesn't make sense. If DirecTV had added Pac 12 Network(s) and was adding the $2 charge to help cover the fees on the West Coast I could understand it more. But a random $2 charge isn't right nor fair to customers who are not receiving anything new.


    I think DIRECTV saying they where close to a deal last year was spin and they never liked any of the offers from pac12 and where never close to accepting the deal dish got because it was higher priced than they ever considered grabbing.

    And you know what, till there are several channels that start losing distribution (sports ones at least) they won't slow down their rate increases. This is why I think you are going to see all the new RSNs hit a brick wall with DIRECTV, including the sec, and likely the big ten, just like what's happening in Huston. I don't expect the Dodgers channel either.

    As for the charge, its supposed to be most any market with multiple RSNs. For the person who hasn't seen it yet, maybe they haven't had rate increases that warrant it yet. Give it time unfortunately. The Csrs are just confused about why it went up. No bill of any kind has gone up because of the Dodgers channel, it isn't being paid for yet, it hasn't launched yet, so that's all hogwash talk from Csrs saying any raise of any kind has anything to do with the Dodgers channel.
     
  7. Jul 29, 2013 #267 of 3040
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    I don't want to fight with you guys. I think everyone is entitled to get their RSN's.

    But now that DMAs are getting assessed fees on their RSN's I would say the time has come that RSN should be an optional package across the board.

    I also believe Directv will remedy this in the very near future.

    I would suggest a Base package with and without RSN's and still the option to add the sports pack if one choses.

    Then if someone wants YES in my case, I pay the extra RSN fee for the 6 months and drop it for the other six months out of the year.
     
  8. Jul 29, 2013 #268 of 3040
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,314
    233
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    How?
     
  9. Jul 29, 2013 #269 of 3040
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Package changes.
     
  10. Jul 29, 2013 #270 of 3040
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,043
    1,163
    Nov 13, 2006
    Sports is at the point where it alone needs three packages. One for all RSNs in your market. One for all sports only channels. (MLB, nfl, espn, FOX, etc) and one for out of market RSNs. Then still also have the ei, league passes, etc....
     
  11. Jul 29, 2013 #271 of 3040
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,043
    1,163
    Nov 13, 2006
    Package changes.


    Unfortunatly so much easier said than done because of existing contracts and no one wants tone that first channel that goes and says ok to this.
     
  12. Jul 29, 2013 #272 of 3040
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    I agree.
     
  13. Jul 29, 2013 #273 of 3040
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Yep, I agree but I strongly feel they will make a change.
     
  14. Jul 29, 2013 #274 of 3040
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,491
    641
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    One major thing you have to realize is that DirecTV uses national pricing for their base packages, despite the fact that in some areas you can have multiple RSNs or in the case of Philly, none.

    Cable on the otherhand uses regional pricing and the price varies based on the different channels they offer for a given system, including RSNs, general entertainment channels and others.
     
  15. Jul 29, 2013 #275 of 3040
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Cable also doesn't have the same channel line up across the board either.
    In my case Newfoundland area Cable only has 4 Premium HD channels right now, Where as Stroudsburg has all of them and the price difference is only $3.

    Cable also doesn't have MSG+, But they have Comcast Philly, but No out of market RSN eithers , unless you subscribe to Seasonal sports packs.
     
  16. Jul 29, 2013 #276 of 3040
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,491
    641
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    In Stroudsbyurg we didn't have the full MSG, what we had was an alternate version called MSG Zone 4, it was mix of MSG and FSNY (now MSG+) programming with a very different schedule (i.e. while FSNY aired TNA Impact on Friday afternoons, MSG Zone 4 had it Saturday nights, while the main MSG feed that NYC and DirecTV had didn't air it at all) and was limited to the Mets, Knicks, about half the Rangers games, no Devils, and no Islanders. When the Mets moved to SNY they dropped MSG entirely in Stroudsburg after the NHL and NBA season was over in 2006, so all they get now is SNY, YES and CSN Philly.
     
  17. Jul 29, 2013 #277 of 3040
    thepoloman33

    thepoloman33 Mentor

    47
    0
    Jun 20, 2006
    I added Comcast during football season last year just for P12 channel. Wife wasn't too pleased with 2 bills. I couldn't make the full switch because Comcast service in my area is terrible. Been pretty satisfied with DTV.

    I'm getting nervous as we get closer to the start of P12 football. Of Oregon's first 5 games, 2 will be on P12 channel, and 1 is on Fox Sports 1. Yikes! I know this thread is focused on P12 channel - but is anyone else concerned that Fox Sports 1 won't be added? I assume FS1 replaces the games previously shown on FX?

    Is it possible that both FS1 and P12N won't be on DTV this season?

    Go Ducks!
     
  18. Jul 29, 2013 #278 of 3040
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Package changes.


    Can't be done unilaterally. The result often winds up like the PAC 12 network.
     
  19. Jul 29, 2013 #279 of 3040
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    Yes FS1 will be replacing games that were on FX. Here's a link to the games scheduled to be on the Fox Networks this fall
    http://blog.timesunion.com/sportsmedia/fox-sports-announces-97-game-college-football-schedule/12733/

    I too am concerned that D* will not have an agreement with FS1 by 8/29. It's carrying games involving three PAC 12 teams on the first weekend as is the PAC 12 Net. That means we could miss 2/3rds of the opening week's games if no deals are struck with FS1 & the PAC12 Net.
    Hardly classifies D* as the sports leader if that pans out.
     
  20. Jul 29, 2013 #280 of 3040
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,110
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    You can suggest it ... but don't expect it. Entertainment is the base package without the in market RSNs. Choice and above will continue to have required RSNs. No self respecting RSN would walk away from the in market subscribers (and payment) that being in Choice brings them.

    Especially that particular RSN. They want your money ... and they know that sports fans will raise enough hell during the six months that they want the channel that DirecTV will put them in a package where people can't drop just RSNs. And if DirecTV plays hardball (as they apparently are doing with PAC-12) they will walk away and see how DirecTV does without their channel.

    YES agreeing to be carried without being in Choice and every higher package? Not likely.

    And if the negotiators at YES (or any other RSN) ever agree to such a deal expect the price of their channel to be much higher to compensate for the lost subscribers and ad revenue. High enough that it would be cheaper just to put the channel back in Choice.
     

Share This Page