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 21, 2013 #901 of 3040
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Sep 21, 2013 #902 of 3040
    pdxBeav

    pdxBeav Godfather

    448
    35
    Jul 5, 2007
    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.
     
  3. Sep 21, 2013 #903 of 3040
    tnnolman

    tnnolman Cool Member

    96
    8
    Aug 9, 2009
    Good thing about this is there is a way to get more sports programming by subbing to extra feeds that you want to watch.
     
  4. Sep 21, 2013 #904 of 3040
    Mike Bertelson

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

    14,042
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
  5. Sep 23, 2013 #905 of 3040
    nitty316

    nitty316 Legend

    254
    3
    Aug 27, 2008
    I would gladly go to the Pac 12's website and purchase a monthly package to stream if they had it.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Sep 23, 2013 #906 of 3040
    slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,547
    763
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    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 :)
     
  7. Sep 23, 2013 #907 of 3040
    john262

    john262 AllStar

    147
    7
    Oct 26, 2011
    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.
     
  8. Sep 23, 2013 #908 of 3040
    Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    2,401
    186
    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island
    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.
     
  9. Sep 23, 2013 #909 of 3040
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    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)
     
  10. Sep 23, 2013 #910 of 3040
    Curtis0620

    Curtis0620 Hall Of Fame

    1,500
    25
    Apr 22, 2002
    So you won't miss anything good then.
     
  11. Sep 23, 2013 #911 of 3040
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,050
    1,165
    Nov 13, 2006
    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
     
  12. Sep 23, 2013 #912 of 3040
    sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    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.
     
  13. Sep 23, 2013 #913 of 3040
    BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    514
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Sep 23, 2013 #914 of 3040
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    But they are not a direct to consumer platform.
     
  15. Sep 23, 2013 #915 of 3040
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
  16. Sep 24, 2013 #916 of 3040
    john262

    john262 AllStar

    147
    7
    Oct 26, 2011
    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.
     
  17. Sep 24, 2013 #917 of 3040
    James Long

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

    46,119
    1,067
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
     
  18. Sep 24, 2013 #918 of 3040
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,050
    1,165
    Nov 13, 2006
    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
     
  19. Sep 24, 2013 #919 of 3040
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    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.
     
  20. Sep 24, 2013 #920 of 3040
    WebTraveler

    WebTraveler Icon

    1,092
    5
    Apr 9, 2006
    It does, but Root Sports, is the same as Directv. They would have reduced their fee to themselves to make up for the loss of content.

    (OK, in April/May they did give the Mariners ownership of Root NW.)
     

Share This Page