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. Sep 15, 2013 #861 of 2972
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,102
    Nov 13, 2006
    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
     
  2. Sep 15, 2013 #862 of 2972
    James Long

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

    45,944
    1,024
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
     
  3. Sep 15, 2013 #863 of 2972
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,364
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    O-Blad-i, O-Blad-a! Brotha!
     
  4. Sep 16, 2013 #864 of 2972
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
  5. Sep 16, 2013 #865 of 2972
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
  6. Sep 16, 2013 #866 of 2972
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,364
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    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.
     
  7. Sep 16, 2013 #867 of 2972
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    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.
     
  8. Sep 16, 2013 #868 of 2972
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    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)
     
  9. Sep 16, 2013 #869 of 2972
    mrdobolina

    mrdobolina AllStar

    396
    15
    Aug 28, 2006
    A Mile High
    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.
     
  10. Sep 16, 2013 #870 of 2972
    fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Sep 16, 2013 #871 of 2972
    sum_random_dork

    sum_random_dork Icon

    911
    18
    Aug 21, 2008
    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.
     
  12. Sep 16, 2013 #872 of 2972
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    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?
     
  13. Sep 16, 2013 #873 of 2972
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,364
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Can you please post a link?
    How does the multi-million dollar deal with other networks figure in?
     
  14. Sep 16, 2013 #874 of 2972
    sum_random_dork

    sum_random_dork Icon

    911
    18
    Aug 21, 2008
    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.
     
  15. Sep 16, 2013 #875 of 2972
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,364
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    I have no doubt they own it, but the figures of profit, etc. are what interest me.
     
  16. Sep 17, 2013 #876 of 2972
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
  17. Sep 17, 2013 #877 of 2972
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
  18. Sep 17, 2013 #878 of 2972
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    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.
     
  19. Sep 17, 2013 #879 of 2972
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,091
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
  20. Sep 17, 2013 #880 of 2972
    mrdobolina

    mrdobolina AllStar

    396
    15
    Aug 28, 2006
    A Mile High
    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.
     

Share This Page