Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by Stuart Sweet, Sep 17, 2012.
They said the deals were the same. Then they said the deals were only nearly the same. Then we have the exclusive portions if the deal with Dish. Lies and half truths.
Oh, and Directv was so honest and forthcoming? Seriously? What is the real difference between substantially the same and the same to any lay person?
Directv back in June stated they didn't carry the channel and were not sure of their plans. By late July they stated that they wanted to carry the channel and then were in negotiations. By August they announced there would be an "update" closer to when school starts. Then school started at various Pac 12 schools and Directv kept saying when "school starts," then that turned into when the "season starts," then on the eve of the season starting Directv walked away completely and has filled the media waves of various contraduictory comments ever since.
Really, let's talk about who is being honest and forthcoming here. You really think that when 4 of the largest 5 and 8 of the largest 10 are on board that the deals are so different by providers? Yea, right, I don't believe that for a single moment.
What really exclusive portion with Dish? Oh the stadium advertisement? Well, there have been some small signs that say Dish in a few places. I honestly would have thought there would be a lot more push by the Pac 12 than those few signs. You are aware that deal was offered to Directv and they passed on it.
Your comment is way off base and simply there is no truth whatsoever. Simply put, if anyone is being disingenuous it's Directv. Now, it's OK if Directv does not want to carry the Pac 12. They can just be honest and say that up front.... "we do not intend to carry the Pac 12 network under terms offered to our competitors."
...you have to ask that? Okay...
The difference between the two statements is that one means that the terms are the same, while the other means that they are different.
What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?
For me there has been many different games that have provided "proof" the channel is worth carrying. But you being in "Hoosier Country" may feel differently. There have been a few Cal games I wanted to see and if I am not mistaken the Cal Poly SLO upset of UCLA in basketball last night was also on Pac 12 networks. We didn't get to see "The Cival War" this weekend of OR/OR St which while a blowout win for OR still was a game I would like to have watched of 2 ranked teams.
So while you may not say that is proof, that's just what you think. Others of us do enjoy Pac 12 teams/games and would much rather watch that than being force fed B1G 10 games on ESPN/B1G 10 networks, or second rate SEC Games without much interst outside of the South.
The most popular PAC-12 match-ups have been on other networks. You're talking about regional interest for a national channel. The pressure on DirecTV to add it just hasn't been there.
Again, you're stating what you feel is what everyone feels. No difference between that and B1G 10 network, in fact Pac 12 network gets better games than the B1G gets based on their TV contract. It's obvious what we say won't matter to you because you have made up your mind and will take DirecTV's side until the end. That's fine, but please stop putting everyone down that says facts and lays out why they want the channel. We are not in the wrong, we pay good $ to DirecTV and would like to see this channel. You can say that there is only a regional audience for the channel, but Pac 12 schools like USC, UCLA, Stanford all have large Nat'l audiences because their graduates end up all over the country. I would also bet that many people would much rather have watched the OR/OR St game on Saturday then some of the afternoon games we were offered on DirecTV.
The biggest PAC-12 match-ups were on other networks. That isn't an opinion, those are the facts. Why are bringing up the BIG-10 Network? This discussion is about this new niche channel. BTW - the deal for the BIG-10 Network took a very long time to get done. A bad example if want them to add this one anytime soon...
Fine, but now its basketball season and we're going to miss 13 basketball games this week because of D*'s obstinate stance not to listen to its subs. Five of the conference's teams received votes in this week's AP poll and for some of us who like college basketball more than college football, this is a big deal.
Listen to its subs? If enough customers cared that much about it, they would leave and DirecTV might be compelled to ink a deal. They are a business making a business decision. It's one channel. It apparently doesn't carry enough weight to affect churn.
It was all the talk at my Thanksgiving dinner. Not having the Civil War and access to the Trailblazers is a major slight in the Portland market.
The tavern owners aren't liking having to subscribe to Comcast in addition to DIRECTV.
Talk is cheap. Unless enough customers speak with their wallets, it doesn't matter.
You are just so wrong.
The deals are substantially the same to the providers for those customers in ordinary households. Where they are not the same is with commercial establishments because Directv has far more commercial establishments than anyone else.
Now since you are blown out of the water on the "substantially the same" issue you now retort to saying something dumb: "What proof has there been that this network is even worth carrying?"
Proof? So you are suggesting that every west coast customer including alumni, students, etc. not watch the Pac 12 because you deem it not important? It's very important to me and many others. There is the proof right there.
So Directv makes a business decision not to carry the channel? That is perfectly fine, so why have they been so evasive about it? Why not be straight shooters from day one and just say "we made a business decision not to carry it?" Instead you had Michael White a few weeks ago start whining out loud about all of it. It is perfectly OK to not carry the channel.
Plus when 4 of the largest 5 providers have it there is proof that there is demand for the channel. When 8 of the top 10 have it there is proof that there is demand for the channel.
You do not want the channel, I get that. That's fine. It was never been offered to you in the 1st place living in the midwest, so you never would have to pay for it. The deal is in market for those in the Pac 12 footprint and in the sports pack for those outside the footprint.
Now as a practical matter if there was no value WHY when I quit Directv did they offer: $20 off for a year, free NFL Sunday Ticket, free sports pack for a year, all of the pay channels free for 6 months, upgraded equipment for all TVs, etc. If something is of meager value why are they doing so much to prevent me from walking.
Because YOU don't think it is important is completely irrelevant to me and anyone else with an interest in the Pac 12. There are plenty of channels that I don't want or need, yet I have them.
Bottom line is that Pac 12 offers MORE sports at less overall cost than before. In the past we had some sports on various Fox or Comcast RSNs in the Pac 12 market, but very little. That's more access to not only football and basketball, but also other sports like volleyball, wrestling, soccer, swimming, baseball, etc. that rarely was shown on any RSN. Frankly, the Pac 12 has more sports on it than the Big 10 has on it's network.
I also feel like the costs of sports programming has escalated this will be the last college league to be able to successfully do a sports network. The timing was right and it happened and it is successful, despite what you say. So what Directv has passed, they've passed on other channels before and so what....a business decision was made....they could at least be honest about that business decision. That's what ethical people do. They respect customers and customers respect them. I was a long-time Directv customer who left in such disgust it's incredible.
And did I tell you that despite all the rhetoric of Directv, Dish is costing me less (even after all the discounts pass away)? That's pretty amazing to say the least.
You could have saved us both time by admitting you have no proof. The "substantially the same" issue exists just as it did before. You haven't been able to provide a valid argument regarding that. They initially claimed they were the same. Later, they claimed they were merely "substantially the same." Something can not be both the same and different simultaneously.
They have...4 of the 5 largest and 8 of the 10 largest providers all have it.
There is always one malcontent provider in the group and that one in this case is Directv. That's OK. If they were that comfortable in the decision Directv would have come out - and been honest in July and flat said, "we have made a business decision to carry the the channel." Instead, they flat lied and played games with the customer.
You will see a trickle out now since it's clear with basketball Directv is not coming on board, but by next summer you will see a good chunk leaving Directv. Maybe not enough to alter the decision, but that's OK.
But despite all of this Directv is not charging any less and they offer less (aside from NFL Sunday Ticket) than cable or Dish when comparing apples for apples on price and content. Now if you want NFL then yes you need Directv. That's a business decision they've made.
I look down the street and I know 6 of my fellow homeowners just in the immediate block that have cancelled Directv over this, so it's happening....some went w/Comcast others with Dish, but they left.
Really now...if there was a different deal on the table don't you think Directv would come out and say that? Seriously, get real.
How about this - you offer proof the deal is not the same? That Directv is being offered a worse deal than every other provider. Yea, in the end Directv is going to lose a LOT of customers over this....just wait....it's not over yet. They fooled many people during football season into staying put, offered them upgraded equipment to lock em in. In time it will all come down....you watch. Deception is the name of the game for Directv...
[as a practical matter nothing is exactly the same....Dish charges $8.99 for it's multi-sport, Directv $12.99; I think in my market Comcast wants $8 for it's slimmed down sports package You have some content differences in there; you have some base package differences between Directv, Dish, Comcast.) The commercial is where there is variance because Direct v has a much larger following.
Face it, you are just wrong.
It is the PAC-12 Network whose statements about their offer(s) that has been contradictory, not mine. THEY claimed that the offer to DirecTV was the same, then later said it was not.
I will await your proof of that. It is one new, specialty, niche channel that cannot even keep their most prominent conference games on their own network. They are not ESPN. It is silly to believe that this channel will make a noticeable dent in a 20+ million customer roster. Little to no churn...
Show me where the Pac 12 is contradictory.....
Providers would not have the network if customers did not want it. It's silly to think otherwise.
No one ever claimed the network is ESPN so I have no idea why that is relevant. 7 channels is .80 per sub versus $5 or so for ESPN....completely different markets altogether. Pac 12 shows things ESPN won't or can't. They are not competitors, they compliment each other, so you will never see the #1 game of the week on the network.
The network is already a success and we're not even through football season yet. Basketball is here and we can get sports like volleyball and gymnastics we never could get before. It provides more access than ever before.
Frankly, I think you are jealous about how much of a success this network already. There is always a malcontent trying to pour sour milk on everything. You are simply that guy. Really - why would it be your concern to continually bad mouth a channel you do not want? Why go on and on?
Bottom line is that even without Directv the network is doing just fine.....and yes, mark my words, before next football season, unless Directv gives in (and either carries the network OR drops their fees so dramatically) there will be a significant loss on the west coast. Maybe not nationwide, but on the west coast - absolutely. Now whether that means Directv changes course is anyone's guess. They may make a business decision to still not carry it. That's a choice they will make.
...they said the deal they offered was both the same and different.