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
#902 ·
WebTraveler said:
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.
I haven't used the slingbox YET for PAC-12 Networks since I've been able to watch every game so far. But when the time comes I won't think twice about it. I won't even spend a second of my time rationalizing it.
 
#904 ·
#906 ·
If selling only to people who want to watch the Pac 12 was their goal, they'd offer such a streaming package. They want to sell to all of a provider's customers like BTN and ESPN do, because there's a lot more money to be made selling to people who don't want it as well as to those who do :)
 
#907 ·
I go back to a time when there were maybe two or three college football games on TV every weekend and that's it. And it seems that people were satisfied with that at the time. The same applies to other sports. But now it seems that people aren't happy unless almost every single game is televised. And if a game isn't televised they complain about it.
 
#908 ·
john262 said:
And it seems that people were satisfied with that at the time. The same applies to other sports.
I don't know if I'd agree that they were satisfied at the time. I remember my father installing a powerful antenna with a rotor on the roof of our house when I was a kid so he could watch the NY Giants games from a Connecticut station back when all home games were blacked out locally, regardless of whether they were sold out or not. This was back when the Giants were sold out solely with season tickets and had something like a 20 year waiting list to get those season tickets.
 
#909 ·
john262 said:
I go back to a time when there were maybe two or three college football games on TV every weekend and that's it. And it seems that people were satisfied with that at the time. The same applies to other sports. But now it seems that people aren't happy unless almost every single game is televised. And if a game isn't televised they complain about it.
SO what? Growing up in Southern California, the first NFL-AFL championship (It wasn't called the Super Bowl until 1970) was blacked out.
This is 2013. We're going to complain.

Games that we going to miss this week thanks' to the geniuses at D*:
Colorado @ Oregon St 3p (ET), Noon (PT
California @ #2 Oregon 10:30p (ET), 7:30 p (PT)
 
#911 ·
My problem isn't that DIRECTV isn't adding something new. My problem with the whole situation IS pac12 took games away from us and said pay a ton more for the same amount of football and basketball games. This isn't like a normal channel increase. It's a massive new channel plus normal increases.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk
 
#912 ·
Curtis0620 said:
So you won't miss anything good then.
Your opinion.

Oregon is one of the most entertaining teams to watch that has come along in a long time. Their high-speed offense is a marvel, and I for one (besides being a suffering Cal Bear fan) would really like to watch that game.
DirecTV must really not like doing business in Oregon.. this weekend both of its schools are not going to be on and the ongoing non-carriage feud with CSN NW.
 
#913 ·
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.


Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

I have 7 receivers, 5 HR24s, 1 Genie (HR34), and 1 HR21. I am under contract for another year. The early termination fee for me to leave would be a small fortune. And I doubt I could find another company to replace all of that without paying another small fortune.

Even if it was feasible and affordable, I still wouldn't leave unless I could get NFL Sunday Ticket somewhere else.

I do wish Directv would give me the Pac 12 network, but me leaving over it isn't an option.
 
#915 ·
inkahauts said:
My problem isn't that DIRECTV isn't adding something new. My problem with the whole situation IS pac12 took games away from us and said pay a ton more for the same amount of football and basketball games. This isn't like a normal channel increase. It's a massive new channel plus normal increases.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk
That's not quite true.

It's true Pac 12 took the content to another platform. Its true the Pac 12 charges.

But where the issue is the RSNs (Fox Sports whatever, Root Sports whatever, etc.) didn't reduce their fees for the loss of content. So did Directv reduce its cost per subscriber for the lose of content? Nope. They've replaced it with high school football from Seattle.

Also, consider that there is a LOT more content on TV as well.
 
#916 ·
sdk009 said:
Games that we going to miss this week thanks' to the geniuses at D*:
Colorado @ Oregon St 3p (ET), Noon (PT
California @ #2 Oregon 10:30p (ET), 7:30 p (PT)
The Pac12 Network deserves some of the blame as well. DirecTV has offered to carry the network on an a la carte basis but the Pac12 Network said no. I support Directv on this because I don't want to pay for a network that I don't want to watch.
 
#917 ·
WebTraveler said:
I would gladly go to the Pac 12's website and purchase a monthly package to stream if they had it.
But they are not a direct to consumer platform.
And that is PAC-12's choice. They have decided to bundle their streaming with their linear channel(s) sold only through participating cable/satellite providers.

WebTraveler said:
Also, consider that there is a LOT more content on TV as well.
It isn't the content that DirecTV was sold. The RSNs went to DirecTV with a list of content that they agreed to provide. "Look at what you get for only $x per subscriber per month." And then they lost that content. The RSNs no longer have to pay PAC-12 for the games they lost yet they still collect the fees from DirecTV and (in most cases) have not replaced the lost programming with content of equal value.

Most subscribers are not turning on their TV looking for just any content ... they are looking for their desired content. "200 channels and nothing on" isn't the situation most subscribers want to be in.

The promise of multi-channel video distribution is that the content one seeks will be there. Perhaps we need to get to the level of 2000 channels and nothing on. On demand is helping with content that can be stored.

I watched the 1966 movie "The Bubble" a couple of weeks ago via on demand. I read about the movie on the Internet (it was basically a 3D demonstration film with a thin plot and a lot of things coming close to the camera so they would stick out into the audience). I wanted to see it. I used the search feature on my receiver, found the movie and watched it with a slight delay to allow for downloading. That's the way it should be.

The reality of multi-channel video distribution is the people who own the rights to content control how that content is distributed. If they say "content offered only through participating cable/satellite providers who carry the linear channel(s) to a negotiated group of customers" that's how it is delivered - or it isn't delivered at all. It is their content.
 
#918 ·
That's not quite true.

It's true Pac 12 took the content to another platform. Its true the Pac 12 charges.

But where the issue is the RSNs (Fox Sports whatever, Root Sports whatever, etc.) didn't reduce their fees for the loss of content. So did Directv reduce its cost per subscriber for the lose of content? Nope. They've replaced it with high school football from Seattle.

Also, consider that there is a LOT more content on TV as well.


It's completely true.


No. I don't consider there to be a lot more content cause I don't give a rip about any of the extra. And most don't. Sure some do, but not for the price difference that it took to get there.

And DIRECTV isn't going to be able to drop the prices until they renegotiate, and do you really think channels are going to take a hit? Maybe less inCrease next time, but then They probably aren't complaining to much cause now they can make more profit. It's not DIRECTV that is causing this. Its the darn channels. Oh we lost stuff, well,that just means more profit! That's how all these leagues and channels think. That is the problem.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk
 
#919 ·
James Long said:
And that is PAC-12's choice. They have decided to bundle their streaming with their linear channel(s) sold only through participating cable/satellite providers.

It isn't the content that DirecTV was sold. The RSNs went to DirecTV with a list of content that they agreed to provide. "Look at what you get for only $x per subscriber per month." And then they lost that content. The RSNs no longer have to pay PAC-12 for the games they lost yet they still collect the fees from DirecTV and (in most cases) have not replaced the lost programming with content of equal value.

Most subscribers are not turning on their TV looking for just any content ... they are looking for their desired content. "200 channels and nothing on" isn't the situation most subscribers want to be in.

The promise of multi-channel video distribution is that the content one seeks will be there. Perhaps we need to get to the level of 2000 channels and nothing on. On demand is helping with content that can be stored.

I watched the 1966 movie "The Bubble" a couple of weeks ago via on demand. I read about the movie on the Internet (it was basically a 3D demonstration film with a thin plot and a lot of things coming close to the camera so they would stick out into the audience). I wanted to see it. I used the search feature on my receiver, found the movie and watched it with a slight delay to allow for downloading. That's the way it should be.

The reality of multi-channel video distribution is the people who own the rights to content control how that content is distributed. If they say "content offered only through participating cable/satellite providers who carry the linear channel(s) to a negotiated group of customers" that's how it is delivered - or it isn't delivered at all. It is their content.
With all due respect, aside from movies on demand, there is very little direct broadcast to consumer available.

If the Pac 12 were to do what you suggest: (1) they'd lose the systems they have now - why would they stay online paying 80 cents/month per subscriber when there is another competitor (themselves) now that sells it direct to consumer, (2) Pac 12 would have to set up a backroom customer service operation and spend a lot of money on that.

Will not happen for the same reasons none of the other content distributors have done it.
 
#921 ·
sdk009 said:
Your opinion.

Oregon is one of the most entertaining teams to watch that has come along in a long time. Their high-speed offense is a marvel, and I for one (besides being a suffering Cal Bear fan) would really like to watch that game.
DirecTV must really not like doing business in Oregon.. this weekend both of its schools are not going to be on and the ongoing non-carriage feud with CSN NW.
An Oregon or Cal fan will watch this game. Nationally, this is a terrible game.
 
#922 ·
Curtis0620 said:
An Oregon or Cal fan will watch this game. Nationally, this is a terrible game.
Nationally this is a terrible game? That's just your opinion.

In the opinion of someone in New Jersey who qualifies as 'Nationally', Oregon is ALWAYS a game you want to watch, regardless of who they're playing (although playing a Pac-12 team and playing at raucous Autzen Stadium makes it even better), and regardless of what the final score may wind up being.

If the game meets your criteria for terrible, then you shouldn't watch it. But there are a lot of us who would like to watch this game.

Sandra
 
#926 ·
Why don't those of you so passionate about what's a good game or not provide some viewer numbers? It's not about the avid fan living in Jersey who really wants to see Oregon demolish Cal; it's about the number of those. Pretty slim is my bet.
 
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