DBSTalk Forum banner

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

320K views 3K replies 195 participants last post by  inkahauts 
#1 ·
Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

For fans who root for Pac-12 teams but watch their television via DirecTV, it's always a good news, bad news scenario when talking Pac-12 Networks.

The good news, as the Networks' new president Lydia Murphy-Stephans proudly notes, is that their first year, by their own standards, has been a rousing success. Launched in August, the Pac-12 Networks broadcast 550 live events in addition to more than 200 hours of original programming. In its second year, they plan to carry 750 live events.

So, that's the good news. The bad news, if you're a DirecTV subscriber: you still probably won't be able to watch any of it.

Murphy-Stephans, who was promoted from her position as executive vice president and general manager when then-president Gary Stevenson resigned in April, called it "a disappointment" that negotiations between the Pac-12 Networks and DirecTV haven't progressed.

Full Story Here

 
See less See more
1
#852 ·
fleckrj said:
I do not think the Longhorn network will ever be picked up by DirecTV unless it morphs into a Big 12 network

If I cared about the PAC 12, I woiuld be more upset with the conference for starting another unnecessary network and for doing it in such a way that is not favorable to a national provider like DirecTV. The PAC 12 should have followed the BIG 10 (and soon to be SEC) model or the PAC 12 should have gotten deals with the regional sports networks. Even before the SEC network launches, every SEC game is televised.
ESPN might try to use its next go-around with D* to leverage the Longhorn Network.

I'm pretty sure the PAC 12 Net isn't regretting its strategy since Verizon's FIOs and D* are the only major carriers that haven't picked up the Net.
 
#854 ·
WebTraveler said:
Why would they do that.....Pac 12 is bringing in substantial dollars and providing unparalled access. Fact that Directv chooses to not do business with them is on Directv not the Pac 12. Directv wants a deal different than everyone else.....why on earth would Pac 12 do that? Then they would owe substantial dollars back to every other system......that would get him fired. Your anger should be directed at Directv and CEO Mike White.....or you can just switch.
Some of your comment is untrue. If Directv and the Pac12 signed a contract that is different than the contract signed by other systems that would in no way obligate the Pac12 to refund any money to other systems. It doesn't work that way. Each contract that the Pac12 signs with individual cable and sat systems is independent of other contracts.
 
#855 ·
john262 said:
Some of your comment is untrue. If Directv and the Pac12 signed a contract that is different than the contract signed by other systems that would in no way obligate the Pac12 to refund any money to other systems. It doesn't work that way. Each contract that the Pac12 signs with individual cable and sat systems is independent of other contracts.
How can you say this? I mean, based on what source? It has been widely reported there's a "most favored nation" clause in the contracts.... but no one can really confirm that, either.
 
#856 ·
"Most favored nation" is such a good clause to have in a contract that I'd be surprised if any major carrier would sign a new contract without that clause. Every carrier fights for the best deal. MFN allows carriers to get what they feel is the best they can get without worrying that the next negotiation will give their competition a better deal.
 
#857 ·
Yes but who knows what exactly and how exactly those things are implemented.

I still think they could sign a deal that put it in the sports teirs and everyone could survivor. Pac12 could still charge more and no hurt MFN I would imagine and dtv would get what they want which is a different teir.

But who knows for sure. Oh yeah no one that can actually say. I hope they work irony someday. Id prefer to not have to stream the channels.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
 
#858 ·
Don't blame Directv if it chooses not to buy programming it considers too expensive for what it provides. What Dish paid is irrelevant. Dish thought it was worth it at the price it paid. Directv does not. Business decision. Just as there are channels Directv has that Dish doesn't consider worth what's being asked. PAC-12 can either lower the price or pound sand.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
 
#859 ·
inkahauts said:
Yes but who knows what exactly and how exactly those things are implemented.
People who are in the industry or pay enough attention to the industry to know what is going on.

inkahauts said:
I still think they could sign a deal that put it in the sports teirs and everyone could survivor. Pac12 could still charge more and no hurt MFN I would imagine and dtv would get what they want which is a different teir.
MFN prevents a competitor from getting a better deal without making the previous deals better. For example, if DISH agrees to $10 per subscriber per month with an MFN clause then Comcast getting a contract for $9 per subscriber per month would lower DISH's rate. Carriers are free to make worse deals than their competitors ... for example Comcast agreeing to pay $11 per subscriber after DISH agreed to $10 per subscriber would not affect DISH's rate.

If the tier is the point of contention that may get written in as an MFN. But after introducing a channel in a lower tier (the one Pac-12 wants) raising it to a higher tier (the one the carrier wanted) is bad for publicity. Such an MFN clause (ie: "you must place the channel(s) in Choice in market unless another carrier is given permission to place the channel in a higher package") would free up the previous contracted carriers to move the channels (and reduce the subscriber count) but there would be risk involved for the carrier. How would an in market customer like it if PAC-12 was in Choice when introduced and then a year later jumped to Sports Pack/Premier?

PAC-12 wants to ADD subscribers - not lose them. If a deal with DirecTV to add their subscribers caused PAC-12 to lose subscribers through other carriers or reduced per subscriber payments from other carriers it would be a bad deal for PAC-12. DirecTV would need to bring more subscribers and money to the table than PAC-12 would lose when accepting the deal.

It seems that PAC-12 is doing fine without DirecTV and are confident going forward. DirecTV can say the same.
 
#860 ·
James Long said:
PAC-12 wants to ADD subscribers - not lose them. If a deal with DirecTV to add their subscribers caused PAC-12 to lose subscribers through other carriers or reduced per subscriber payments from other carriers it would be a bad deal for PAC-12. DirecTV would need to bring more subscribers and money to the table than PAC-12 would lose when accepting the deal.
That's true so long as enriching coffers of PAC-12 is the main goal. Kinda leaves out the lofty goals of more exposure for the schools, athletes, and certain athletic programs. And fans, the fans who won't abandon DIRECTV® over this, are also inconvenienced.
 
#861 ·
People who are in the industry or pay enough attention to the industry to know what is going on.


MFN prevents a competitor from getting a better deal without making the previous deals better. For example, if DISH agrees to $10 per subscriber per month with an MFN clause then Comcast getting a contract for $9 per subscriber per month would lower DISH's rate. Carriers are free to make worse deals than their competitors ... for example Comcast agreeing to pay $11 per subscriber after DISH agreed to $10 per subscriber would not affect DISH's rate.

If the tier is the point of contention that may get written in as an MFN. But after introducing a channel in a lower tier (the one Pac-12 wants) raising it to a higher tier (the one the carrier wanted) is bad for publicity. Such an MFN clause (ie: "you must place the channel(s) in Choice in market unless another carrier is given permission to place the channel in a higher package") would free up the previous contracted carriers to move the channels (and reduce the subscriber count) but there would be risk involved for the carrier. How would an in market customer like it if PAC-12 was in Choice when introduced and then a year later jumped to Sports Pack/Premier?

PAC-12 wants to ADD subscribers - not lose them. If a deal with DirecTV to add their subscribers caused PAC-12 to lose subscribers through other carriers or reduced per subscriber payments from other carriers it would be a bad deal for PAC-12. DirecTV would need to bring more subscribers and money to the table than PAC-12 would lose when accepting the deal.

It seems that PAC-12 is doing fine without DirecTV and are confident going forward. DirecTV can say the same.


You seemed to miss my point. Yes we all know everything you said. No one here knows of package placement is part of the MFN clause in this instance especially in how it would relate to dtv vs others. Maybe dish would be the same (big if since we know there deal could never be the exact same as anyone else) but cable companies aren't at all the same in distribution patterned so I can't see a MFN tied to coverage area and packaging. Plus everyone has different packages. So who knows how they would conclude which package it goes into. Is it based on % of total customers? In market out of market? Number of customers? We do not know about pac12 specific contracts. That's my point.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
 
#862 ·
inkahauts said:
You seemed to miss my point. Yes we all know everything you said. No one here knows of package placement is part of the MFN clause in this instance especially in how it would relate to dtv vs others. Maybe dish would be the same (big if since we know there deal could never be the exact same as anyone else) but cable companies aren't at all the same in distribution patterned so I can't see a MFN tied to coverage area and packaging. Plus everyone has different packages. So who knows how they would conclude which package it goes into. Is it based on % of total customers? In market out of market? Number of customers? We do not know about pac12 specific contracts. That's my point.
We have a choice ... we can either read all of the reports we have from industry insiders and others who generally know what they are talking about or we can throw up our hands and say we don't know. We have a lot of clues and while no one is allowed say exactly what is in the confidential contracts signed up to this point we have enough information to continue discussion. We do know a lot.

The bottom line is that Pac-12 is not on DirecTV and neither PAC-12 or DirecTV seem to be worried about that situation. Life continues.
 
#864 ·
john262 said:
Some of your comment is untrue. If Directv and the Pac12 signed a contract that is different than the contract signed by other systems that would in no way obligate the Pac12 to refund any money to other systems. It doesn't work that way. Each contract that the Pac12 signs with individual cable and sat systems is independent of other contracts.
Completely false.....as has been discussed already here everyone of the major providers negotiates for the inclusion of a "most favored nation" clause in their contracts. True, we do not know with 100% certainty because none of us here have ever seen the contracts....but publicly and from quoted sources each one of the largest systems routinely uses these in their contracts. Call it whatever you want, but there is no way Directv is going to ever get a substantially better deal than anyone else.
 
#865 ·
Laxguy said:
That's true so long as enriching coffers of PAC-12 is the main goal. Kinda leaves out the lofty goals of more exposure for the schools, athletes, and certain athletic programs. And fans, the fans who won't abandon DIRECTV® over this, are also inconvenienced.
At the end of the day, if a "fan" of the Pac 12 won't consider leaving then that "fan" is not a true fan. Directv is not charging you any less than other providers for not having the Pac 12, so unless you get something from Directv that you cannot get somewhere else you may be getting ripped off so to speak. If you want Sunday Ticket then yes Directv is for you. If you want a RSN Directv has, but Dish or your cable company does not have then Directv is for you. If you want the east and west coast versions of some channels then maybe Directv is for you over cable companies. Think of it this way, if my car insurance provider charges me more and gives me less coverage then competitor A then, absent something else company A provides me over company B, you are getting ripped off.

Fact remains that the biggest barriers to switching are: (1) hassle of switching, and (2) contracts in place. But if you switch you often get the latest equipment and good promotional offers. To me, the older I get the more hassle it is. I don't have time to switch. But at the end of the day last October I dumped Directv over this....WHY? It was a pain the butt to continually not have the games I wanted to see.

But in the end, the individual fan is irrelevant...its who can bring the collective number of fans. Pac 12 network is not going away, to the contrary, its just getting bigger. This problem will not go away.
 
#866 ·
There are many other reasons for staying with DIRECTV® regardless of one's fandom. There will be a few good games I'll not see, but then there are a lot of good games I won't see due to time limitations and an appetite for college football that gets satisfied and then some with what I can get now on DIRECTV.
 
#867 ·
Admittedly the games scheduled for 9/21 on the PAC 12 Net are not going to have anyone breaking down the doors:

Idaho St @ UW 3p (ET), Noon (PT)
Idaho @ Wash St 10:30p (ET) 7:30p (PT) Washington Net only
New Mexico St @ UCLA 10:30p (ET) 7:30 (PT) All other Nets & National

UW & UCLA are off to good starts, but wins against these opponents this week are not going to do much to raise their spots in the rankings.
 
#868 ·
sdk009 said:
Admittedly the games scheduled for 9/21 on the PAC 12 Net are not going to have anyone breaking down the doors:

Idaho St @ UW 3p (ET), Noon (PT)
Idaho @ Wash St 10:30p (ET) 7:30p (PT) Washington Net only
New Mexico St @ UCLA 10:30p (ET) 7:30 (PT) All other Nets & National

UW & UCLA are off to good starts, but wins against these opponents this week are not going to do much to raise their spots in the rankings.
For some reason, one-third of the PAC 12 teams have byes this week, but again, unless you are a fan of UW, Wash St or UCLA, it seems the games that are available outside of the PAC 12 network are better than the ones that are on the PAC 12 network, especially Arizona State at Stanford and Utah at BYU..

Arizona State at Stanford (Fox)
Oregon State at San Diego State (CBS)
Utah State at USC (ABC)
Utah at BYU (ESPN2)
 
#869 ·
I have been following this debate casually. I'm not really invested in the Pac 12 other than I would love to add more sports (especially college hoops) to my DirecTV lineup, and that I have good friends who are rabid Arizona fans. Lately, everyone has been talking about the MFN clause, and if it includes tiers/certain amounts of coverage. I've also heard some talk about Pac12 desiring BTN-like carriage. For the sake of my discussion, I am going to exclude Comcast/cable co's because, let's face it, Sat & cable are pretty different animals since 1 is a national distribution and the other is local.

So my question is this: If Pac12 did write an MFN clause into its deal with Dish to have BTN like coverage, and Dish carries Pac12 in packages/tiers within Pac12 markets, and in the sports pack out of Pac12 markets, then why would giving DirecTV a similar deal (NOT how DirecTV carries BTN, but in package/tier within Pac12 markets, in sports pack out of Pac12 markets) be such a sticking point? Would the MFN clause be that "Any other carrier must carry our channel the exact same way they carry BTN"??? I wouldn't think so, but then again I'm just a schmo who likes to watch TV and sports on TV.

Could that really be the sticking point? Pac12 insisting they get the same coverage as BTN? If that's the case, then for sure they should pound sand. I've seen B1G, and Pac12, you are no B1G! Why would they allow Dish to have their channel be in a sports package out of market, and then not allow DirecTV to do the same?

Of course, I'm certain there must be other sticking points in this whole negotiation, but I just had to ask the question.
 
#870 ·
Another way around the MFN clause is to design an agreement that is impossible to compare directly to anyone else's contract. For example, if DTV agreed to pay a higher rate per subscriber but put the network in a higher package, then how does that compare to another contract?. On one hand, DTV gets a more limited subscriber base (i.e., those who are willing to pay extra for sports), which is advantageous to DTV, but on the other hand, they are paying more per subscriber, which is advantageous to the PAC 12.
 
#872 ·
sum_random_dork said:
Interesting to read from SBJD that the Pac 12 Network did turn a small profit. So even without DirecTV they are making money. They also made the point that the channel(s) are not for sale and they are not looking for outside investors to buy into their network.
The sale part may or may not happen some day. YES makes money hand over fist yet the Yankees sold it to Fox. Conference channels may be different animals. BTN is a partnership with Fox. PAC 12 is wholly owned by the conference, right?
 
#873 ·
sum_random_dork said:
Interesting to read from SBJD that the Pac 12 Network did turn a small profit. So even without DirecTV they are making money. They also made the point that the channel(s) are not for sale and they are not looking for outside investors to buy into their network.
Can you please post a link?
How does the multi-million dollar deal with other networks figure in?
 
#874 ·
Laxguy said:
Can you please post a link?
How does the multi-million dollar deal with other networks figure in?
you have to pay to read the article (I don't have a full sub for SBJD). https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/09/16/Colleges/Pac-12-ownership.aspx

As for ownership, yes the Pac 12 owns the entire channel. They did have some conversations when it started with many of the larger companies (Discovery and Comcast) were both motioned at one time but the school presidents decided to not bring anyone else in.
 
#876 ·
sdk009 said:
Admittedly the games scheduled for 9/21 on the PAC 12 Net are not going to have anyone breaking down the doors:

Idaho St @ UW 3p (ET), Noon (PT)
Idaho @ Wash St 10:30p (ET) 7:30p (PT) Washington Net only
New Mexico St @ UCLA 10:30p (ET) 7:30 (PT) All other Nets & National

UW & UCLA are off to good starts, but wins against these opponents this week are not going to do much to raise their spots in the rankings.
Not this week, but consider that next weekend there are some Pac 12 contests on the slate throughout the rest of the season.

Week of 9/28 has Colorado at Oregon State and Cal at Oregon. Now that we're into conference schedules it will go all season long now with Pac 12 games,

Of course, the regular networks this week have picked up the good games, just like in every conference.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top