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
#877 ·
mrdobolina said:
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.
Pac 12 is on record so many times saying that the deal is "substantially the same as Dish" and the "same as Dish"

Directv is on record saying its too much for all our customers to pay.

One can take this many ways....either one or both are lying. I can't believe that Directv is truthful because I sincerely doubt its even plausible that Pac 12 is asking for every customer of Directv to get at least one Pac 12 channel.

I do believe Dish is truthful because they'd be kidding themselves if they think Dish gets one deal and Directv gets something more.

I think that Directv thinks it deserves a lesser rate for a lot of reasons: (1) more customers, (2) more sports bar access, (3) because they think they should.

I think that Directv's NFL deal is really stretching its available dollar though.

I do think that the whole pricing model in pay tv is broken though. Every year programmers want more and more and more and there is a break off of what customers will pay. Sooner or later in order to keep prices at the $100 mark you will see channels start peeling off. One day I predict the only channels will be ones owned by the big conglomerates because the little smaller channels won't have any leverage at all.

Now what we do not know if there is some kind of discount rate for early subscribers.....i.e. Comcast signed on first, did it get the best rate and lock it in? Does Dish get a better rate because they signed on the first season....and signing on in season #2 will naturally would seem to bring a little higher rate.
 
#878 ·
WebTraveler said:
I think that Directv thinks it deserves a lesser rate for a lot of reasons: (1) more customers, (2) more sports bar access, (3) because they think they should.
Or (4), they think Dish paid too much. It is not a good assumption to think that they think they should get a better deal. Maybe they think Dish signed a bad one. No matter what, DirecTV thinks the deal that PAC 12 is offering is not good enough for them. And PAC 12 thinks the deal DirecTV is offering is not good enough for them.

You are right. The system is at least on the edge of breaking.
 
#879 ·
tonyd79 said:
Or (4), they think Dish paid too much. It is not a good assumption to think that they think they should get a better deal. Maybe they think Dish signed a bad one. No matter what, DirecTV thinks the deal that PAC 12 is offering is not good enough for them. And PAC 12 thinks the deal DirecTV is offering is not good enough for them.

You are right. The system is at least on the edge of breaking.
if Dish paid too much then everyone else paid too much and everyone signed a bad deal, and then we all go back in a circle.

If Dish and the others signed a bad deal then you wouldn't see Cox, Comcast, and others add Pac 12 to their systems in more and more places around the nation.

Bottom line is Directv made a business decision that it was not worth it to Directv. I don't see that changing unless there is a new CEO and management team. I do see it happening IF Directv passes on the NFL, but only then.
 
#880 ·
WebTraveler said:
Pac 12 is on record so many times saying that the deal is "substantially the same as Dish" and the "same as Dish"

Directv is on record saying its too much for all our customers to pay.

One can take this many ways....either one or both are lying. I can't believe that Directv is truthful because I sincerely doubt its even plausible that Pac 12 is asking for every customer of Directv to get at least one Pac 12 channel.

I do believe Dish is truthful because they'd be kidding themselves if they think Dish gets one deal and Directv gets something more.
So Pac 12 is saying "substantially the same" as Dish: What I am hearing, though (yes, I understand no one in this thread knows every single detail) is that Pac12 is seeking BTN-like carriage. On Dish, they have BTN-like carriage, as far as I understand: BTN is offered in a standard package "in market" (in every Big 10 state) and in the sports package out of market. My question was more of "Could Pac12 be insisting on same carriage as BTN on DirecTV" where BTN is offered in standard packages (Choice & above) no matter if the customer is "in market" or "out of market", and DirecTV is saying "Hell no."

I'm a fan of the Big 10. I am very glad that DTV carries BTN in my package. Since I live in CO, I would also get Pac12 if DirecTV offered it "in market" Choice and above. That would also make me happy, because it would mean more college hoops games.
 
#881 ·
WebTraveler said:
if Dish paid too much then everyone else paid too much and everyone signed a bad deal, and then we all go back in a circle.

If Dish and the others signed a bad deal then you wouldn't see Cox, Comcast, and others add Pac 12 to their systems in more and more places around the nation.

Bottom line is Directv made a business decision that it was not worth it to Directv. I don't see that changing unless there is a new CEO and management team. I do see it happening IF Directv passes on the NFL, but only then.
I am not being black and white about this. I said that maybe DirecTV thinks that Dish made a bad deal. As for the rest, cable is a different animal than satellite. Cable is still local even when companies are multi-regional. They NEED local channels more than satellite does. Spreading the carriage for a cable company doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Once they made the deal, they made the deal. Plus, I seriously doubt that ANYONE is paying full price out of market. Even then, maybe DirecTV thinks it is a bad deal for them, too.

My only point is that we cannot assume that DirecTV wants a better deal than others get. They may want a better deal than the others signed but there is no evidence that they think they deserve special consideration.

And you are right, they both (DirecTV and the PAC 12) made a business decision on carriage and pricing.
 
#882 ·
mrdobolina said:
So Pac 12 is saying "substantially the same" as Dish: What I am hearing, though (yes, I understand no one in this thread knows every single detail) is that Pac12 is seeking BTN-like carriage. On Dish, they have BTN-like carriage, as far as I understand: BTN is offered in a standard package "in market" (in every Big 10 state) and in the sports package out of market. My question was more of "Could Pac12 be insisting on same carriage as BTN on DirecTV" where BTN is offered in standard packages (Choice & above) no matter if the customer is "in market" or "out of market", and DirecTV is saying "Hell no."
That is my line of reasoning. It is the only path I can find that doesn't make either side really lie (just a bit of spin, which is normal). PAC 12 can say they are seeking essentially the same deal based upon each provider and DirecTV can say it is too much. No matter what, it is clear that DirecTV values BTN more than the PAC 12 Network at this point. We will see what happens when BTN is up for renewal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrdobolina
#883 ·
The B1G is jointly owned by Fox Sports and the conference, while the PAC 12 solely owns its own network.
The relationship between D* and Fox probably had something to do when the carriage agreement was struck as to how the B1G is being carried.
Don't forget, Dish has an advertising agreement with the PAC 12 Net that affected the price its paying, so there really can't be a comparable pricing option available for D*.
 
#884 ·
tonyd79 said:
That is my line of reasoning. It is the only path I can find that doesn't make either side really lie (just a bit of spin, which is normal). PAC 12 can say they are seeking essentially the same deal based upon each provider and DirecTV can say it is too much. No matter what, it is clear that DirecTV values BTN more than the PAC 12 Network at this point. We will see what happens when BTN is up for renewal.
In my opinion DirecTV SHOULD value BTN more. As an Illinois alum living in Denver, I randomly meet more Big 10 fans than I do Pac 12 fans. I know CU was only recently added to the Pac12, but there is something to be said about living in a Pac12 market and meeting more Big10 fans than even CU fans or Pac12 fans in general. Sure, perhaps I attract B1G fans since I can relate to them more easily, but still, Pac12 is just not the viewer draw that a Big10 or an SEC is for Football or really for Basketball either.

As far as Dish goes, perhaps they did make a bad deal in hopes that they could usurp some subscribers on the basis of "Look at us, we have a sports channel that DirecTV doesn't!!" Then, with an MFN clause, if DirecTV comes in and works a better deal, well that will lower Dish's rate, too.
 
#885 ·
.......

I can't believe that Directv is truthful because I sincerely doubt its even plausible that Pac 12 is asking for every customer of Directv to get at least one Pac 12 channel.

.......,

/quote]

You are kidding right? Pac12 wants this channel in every home in the country if they can.

I'm more sure they wan the same distribution for the national channel that the big10 has than anything else which is a low teir. They want everyone to have I I expand their brand in many ways. This is obvious why do you think thy started the channel in the first place?

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
 
#886 ·
sdk009 said:
The B1G is jointly owned by Fox Sports and the conference, while the PAC 12 solely owns its own network.
The relationship between D* and Fox probably had something to do when the carriage agreement was struck as to how the B1G is being carried.
Don't forget, Dish has an advertising agreement with the PAC 12 Net that affected the price its paying, so there really can't be a comparable pricing option available for D*.
Two problems with that line of reasoning.

1. Owning a big stake in GSN has not gotten DirecTV GSN HD.

2. Fox actually divested its controlling interest in DirecTV prior to the launch of BTN. By the time of the BTN launch, Liberty Media was in control of DirecTV. The final move was made several months earlier.

What is more likely is that at the time of BTN's launch (August 2007), DirecTV was still in expansion mode and was pretty much still the company that had every big channel at its launch. That has changed quite a bit, especially with regional sports channels.
 
#887 ·
inkahauts said:
.......

I can't believe that Directv is truthful because I sincerely doubt its even plausible that Pac 12 is asking for every customer of Directv to get at least one Pac 12 channel.

.......,

/quote]

You are kidding right? Pac12 wants this channel in every home in the country if they can.

I'm more sure they wan the same distribution for the national channel that the big10 has than anything else which is a low teir. They want everyone to have I I expand their brand in many ways. This is obvious why do you think thy started the channel in the first place?

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app
No, I am not kidding.

There is no way Pac 12 is asking for every TV in the country to have Pac 12 Network. Sure they'd love it, but let's be practical. The deal on the table is the same offer as Dish got per Jon Wilner of the Mercury News.....
 
#889 ·
tnnolman said:
If Directv and PAC12 Network would kiss and shake hands for a deal we would get all of the fb and bb games that is not on right now.
Yep, or you can look elsewhere for TV services. Which is more likely - Directv adding the channels OR you going elsewhere to add the channels. It's at a decision point for you. You can choose to stay or you can choose to go. Or if you feel like you do not want to go, call up Directv ask to cancel because of it and they will throw so much at you in the way of promotions you will do very nicely. They offered me the sun and everything underneath it when I walked. But if you have no intention of leaving then take them on their offers. I don't normally advocate such a thing, but in this case I'd drive the nail in hard to screw them.
 
#890 ·
WebTraveler said:
They offered me the sun and everything underneath it when I walked. But if you have no intention of leaving then take them on their offers. I don't normally advocate such a thing, but in this case I'd drive the nail in hard to screw them.
If they offer, you aren't screwing them. If you take their offer, they win. And so do you if the offer is good.
 
#891 ·
It's really unfortunate we still don't have this channel. As a College Football fan I'm disappointed. Thankfully they have an agreement with Cox so I am able to use a friend of mine's Cox login for the IPAD app. Coupled with the fact that they upgraded the app so it works with Apple TV, I've been able to get the games on my TV with very high quality.
 
#893 ·
nitty316 said:
It's really unfortunate we still don't have this channel. As a College Football fan I'm disappointed. Thankfully they have an agreement with Cox so I am able to use a friend of mine's Cox login for the IPAD app. Coupled with the fact that they upgraded the app so it works with Apple TV, I've been able to get the games on my TV with very high quality.
Depending on the speed of your and a friend's Internet connection a slingbox can also solve many problems which may or may not be related to this topic.
 
#896 ·
nitty316 said:
It's really unfortunate we still don't have this channel. As a College Football fan I'm disappointed. Thankfully they have an agreement with Cox so I am able to use a friend of mine's Cox login for the IPAD app. Coupled with the fact that they upgraded the app so it works with Apple TV, I've been able to get the games on my TV with very high quality.
Technically that is fraud, well not technically, it is fraud. It's no different from walking into the store and walking off with the product.
 
#897 ·
WebTraveler said:
Technically that is fraud, well not technically, it is fraud. It's no different from walking into the store and walking off with the product.
Now, now let's not get crazy. His friend bought a good and is sharing it. This is going to be at the center of the evolution of the industry. You will be limited to one logon at a time.

By the way, you would have me arrested for fraud because I give out my slingbox logon to family in other states to watch local content.
 
#898 ·
Pretty sure the T's and C's of getting that login said only the subscriber's household is allowed to use it.

It is probably not policed much by the cable companies now because most people don't watch streaming content. But you can bet that if their subscriber numbers dropped by 30% they'd suddenly take a very close interest in seeing exactly who is using these logins, and do whatever they could to insure that you didn't share it with your friend or neighbor who cut the cord.
 
#899 ·
stoutman said:
Now, now let's not get crazy. His friend bought a good and is sharing it. This is going to be at the center of the evolution of the industry. You will be limited to one logon at a time.

By the way, you would have me arrested for fraud because I give out my slingbox logon to family in other states to watch local content.
The reality is that it is fraud and it is stealing. You can rationalize it anyway you want, but the reality is that it is illegal.

Whether someone would be arrested for it is doubtful a best.
 
#901 ·
pdxBeav said:
I would gladly give PAC-12 Networks and DirecTV my money if they would accept it. Since they won't, I'll find other creative solutions. No need to rationalize anything.
So do you steal from your local grocery store as well?

You can pay Directv more, but that's not who you are stealing from. You can get Pac 12, you choose not to and to steal it instead. That's wrong on just about every level.

Love how you rationalize theft.
 
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