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. Aug 2, 2013 #421 of 3048
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,697
    39
    Jul 21, 2008
    google fiber is adding pac12 and Longhorn Network to sports pack in the KC systems (they have big ten in basic)

    Unknown if the the Austin system will have Longhorn in basic and big ten in sports pack. pac12 in basic or sports pack? CSN Houston? RSN fee?

    Unknown if the Provo UT system may have pac12 in basic?? and Longhorn and big ten in sports pak?
     
  2. Aug 2, 2013 #422 of 3048
    nmetro

    nmetro Godfather

    946
    54
    Jul 11, 2006
    With Congress considering ala carte for programming and networks like ESPN charging $6 a subscriber, it is quite possible that the run away costs for sport salaries, tickets, merchandise, etc. has hit a maximum price point. The Pac-12, wants 7 channel slots fro their full time channels. BTN only has one and uses part time alternate channels when the need arises. The cost for both of them are about the same. But, which 7 HD channels do you bump to add Pac-12? Or, how much does it cost DirecTV to add 7 HD channels; certainly one channel is cheaper. Pac-12s model, works for cable, because they only have to carry two feeds (national and regional); this is not the case with satellite. But, frankly their model is not only expensive, it is not sustainable. Other RSNs get away with one feed, plus an alternate or two; even ESPN does this, as well.

    I would like to see Pac-12, as it would complement BTN, because of the ties both conferences have. But, I also do not want to see HD channels go away, and be replaced by Pac-12, and many subscribers wouldn't either. So, I do not blame DirecTV for their stance, someone has to step in and finally say; enough!
     
  3. Aug 3, 2013 #423 of 3048
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,207
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    With Congress considering ala carte for programming and networks like ESPN charging $6 a subscriber, it is quite possible that the run away costs for sport salaries, tickets, merchandise, etc. has hit a maximum price point. The Pac-12, wants 7 channel slots fro their full time channels. BTN only has one and uses part time alternate channels when the need arises. The cost for both of them are about the same. But, which 7 HD channels do you bump to add Pac-12? Or, how much does it cost DirecTV to add 7 HD channels; certainly one channel is cheaper. Pac-12s model, works for cable, because they only have to carry two feeds (national and regional); this is not the case with satellite. But, frankly their model is not only expensive, it is not sustainable. Other RSNs get away with one feed, plus an alternate or two; even ESPN does this, as well.

    I would like to see Pac-12, as it would complement BTN, because of the ties both conferences have. But, I also do not want to see HD channels go away, and be replaced by Pac-12, and many subscribers wouldn't either. So, I do not blame DirecTV for their stance, someone has to step in and finally say; enough!


    No linear regular channels would need to go away for them to carry the pac12 channels. That's not really an issue. They'd likely do what dish does anyway. Bt even if they carried all seven, they could still pick them all up. Its just a matter of what else they wouldn't pick up for another year,maybe. I'd be easy to pull down a couple ppv channels even if needed. Still I think dish's approach would work best.
     
  4. Aug 3, 2013 #424 of 3048
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,043
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Some of you may notice you're missing a post or two. I already posted about making personal comments and we were heading down that path and rather than let the bickering start I'm stopping it now.

    Not to mention I've said it numerous time in numerous threads...Discuss the topic and not each other.

    :backtotop

    Mike
     
  5. Aug 3, 2013 #425 of 3048
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Yea, but is there anything that has not been said?!!!!

    Its like getting together with the same friend to complain about the same thing all the time. After awhile it gets old.

    Mostly everyone has an option to get Pac 12 if they want to. I get the fact that many people were in a contract last year and really couldn't switch and get that some folks stayed with the hope the process would get worked out. But now its crystal clear that if you want it you need to go elsewhere. So talk is cheap, action is priceless.

    That said, the next big issue is whether Fox Sports 1 is available on which systems.....its 2 weeks out now and we don't have many on board.....so what happens to these channels in a few weeks? Does Speed continue to exist because it has a contract to provide programming? Or at the last minute does Fox cut a deal to make sure the channel is available, even to its initial revenue detriment,,,,do you cut costs to ensure loyalty and access?

    Or what if system X says, "look Fox we'll carry Fox Sports 1, but we want a discount on programming for all the other FSN channels you are taking sports from and putting them on FS1" like Pac 12 football, basketball, regional baseball games, etc. That's the next battle.
     
  6. Aug 3, 2013 #426 of 3048
    Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,043
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    You've made your point so if this thread isn't to your liking maybe you should avoid the thread. As long as it's civil it stays open.

    To everyone let's move on back to topic please.

    :backtotop

    Mike
     
  7. Aug 3, 2013 #427 of 3048
    carlsbad_bolt_fan

    carlsbad_bolt_fan Icon

    803
    16
    May 18, 2004
    Carlsbad, CA
    Once again, you're wrong. DirecTV has more sports offerings, IN TOTAL than any other provider. They are the SPORTS LEADER.
     
  8. Aug 3, 2013 #428 of 3048
    Contra

    Contra Mentor

    76
    0
    Aug 24, 2009
    Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why the Pac-12 Net doesn't just put their content online and sell it a la carte. There are a lot of DIRECTV customers in the Pac-12 markets (LA and SF are huge) who would certainly pay a few dollars a month to watch their college teams play.
     
  9. Aug 3, 2013 #429 of 3048
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering why the Pac-12 Net doesn't just put their content online and sell it a la carte. There are a lot of DIRECTV customers in the Pac-12 markets (LA and SF are huge) who would certainly pay a few dollars a month to watch their college teams play.


    I believe the online content is contractually exclusive to the carriers that carry the linear channels.
     
  10. Aug 3, 2013 #430 of 3048
    Joe Tylman

    Joe Tylman Legend

    368
    55
    Dec 13, 2012
    The biggest reason is if they do that they lose major negotiating power. They would in effect set the price of what they believe the package is per individual subscriber. MVPD's would not have to carry the channel and could just refer customer's to that or state that since they had set a price they would carry it at the same price point. Channels like these are not able to survive on their subscriber base but more of in spite of their subscriber base. The MVPD's know this and are at the point where they have to show the content owners that. It's going to be a rough transition from where the content owners could force the issue due fear of churn to the point where churn will happen regardless so it's better to do what is better for the majority. Look at MLBEI as an example. They're diluting what the EI is worth because they're offering a service for cheaper with online access. That will hurt them in the next rounds of negotiation. They'll either have to include that package with EI subscribers or reduce the cost to make up for it. I know this can spark a debate on EI is better than the online but the fact is they have created a way for subscribers to watch it and therefor the pressure is off MVPD's to carry it.
     
  11. Aug 4, 2013 #431 of 3048
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Because millions and millions of customers at 80 cents a month outweighs a 1/2 million customers at 5 a month! That also puts Pac 12 into a direct distribution business and then it needs a backbone to manage it......people, customer service numbers, etc. Thats not what they are good at and its not economically efficient for them for one channel.

    Plus this would destroy the distribution system as we know it! This the same reason why you can't simply subscribe to HBO or any of the other premium channels without a subcription to a provider.

    And the channel is not so much for us....its to raise revenue for the schools.....
     
  12. Aug 4, 2013 #432 of 3048
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    That is likely true.....when you include sunday ticket because no one else has it...and you include the nation as a whole.....
     
  13. Aug 4, 2013 #433 of 3048
    tjguitar

    tjguitar Mentor

    157
    9
    Aug 23, 2006
    Heck, even if you don't include Sunday Ticket, they offer way more out-of-market RSN's in their sports pack than anyone else.
     
  14. Aug 4, 2013 #434 of 3048
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,207
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
     
  15. Aug 4, 2013 #435 of 3048
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,347
    243
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Then charge $9.99 or $14.99 a month thru Roku, Apple TV, PS3, XBox, etc. People WILL pay for sports IF given the opportunity, the problem is we don't have the opportunity. They will never know if they don't try it.
     
  16. Aug 4, 2013 #436 of 3048
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
     
  17. Aug 4, 2013 #437 of 3048
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    Oh, I am all for this model, but it's not going to happen. Good luck. The existing programmers won't go this route because they'll cut off the entire distribution model them. New ones might
     
  18. Aug 4, 2013 #438 of 3048
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,347
    243
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Well it needs to happen and soon. But its obviously the new ones aren't going to do it. Maybe when contracts renew.

    I still find it funny that I can watch any out of market games on the streaming devices but if I want to watch my local teams I have no other option but to subscribe to cable or satellite.
     
  19. Aug 4, 2013 #439 of 3048
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,399
    585
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Well, yes, many people will, but I for one don't see myself ever watching but the very occasional game on anything but an HD screen of some size. Perhaps it's an age thing, or being used to something, or an ability to pay more for what I like.
     
  20. Aug 4, 2013 #440 of 3048
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Why is Dish not an option?


    Not an option for me. I have a limited sky view and directv works but not dish.

    I have no access to the PAC 12 channel. Other options are fios and Comcast. Neither has it in my area. Dish would be the only option for me but I have no line of sight.
     

Share This Page