ColoradoBear1;841954412 said:

---

What a BS line.

Channels I want to pay for: ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, TBS, MLB, NFL, P12 network, FX, FSN, weather channel. Channels I might not complain about paying for: Big Ten, Golf, ESPNU, NBC sports, Comedy Central.

Things I don't want to pay for: 300 freaking other garbage channels that I never watch and 10 or so channels that have maybe 1 or 2 shows a year worth watching that are available soon after on Netflix or DVD.

Sorry, DTV, paying for a channel alone is not the way things work, and it's YOU that wants and benefits from these bundles. Deal with it. Of course customers want individual channels. Who's stopping it?

---

The networks are stopping it. They are DEAD SET against a la carte cable pricing (where you make your own package of just the channels you want and each channel has a set price). That's why we have this halfass system where you have to subscribe to a bundle to get the channels a la carte on the internet.

That said, the current system works fine for DirecTV too, and they are definitely the ones being obstinate about adding the Pac-12 Network.

Let them know how you feel. I certainly have been.

SchadenBear;841954448 said:

---

Ha, it may come down to who has the smartest, most well connected New York Jewish Lawyers.

I'm betting on Larry Scott.

---

I thought I did. 😜

Count me as another who has dropped DTV. I told them it was due 100% to their failure to carry P12 network.

The PAC12 will do what is best for the PAC12, DirectTV will do what is best for DirectTV and we than fans will get what is left.

CalBearz02;841954588 said:

---

DirecTV knows that there won't be enough members cancelling..

---

.. i've got no idea how many households and business accounts are sufficient for a dominant nat'l cable company's demonic green eyeshade types to say "Enough.. re-leash the hounds".

But who does?

#shrugs

Everybody here seems to think the Pac-12 Network is a powerhouse network with content more important than say the Big 10. Do you really believe that this content is more important to Direct-TV than say the MTV Networks or AMC? The reason I bring those two truly powerful content providers is that both were taken to the woodshed by Direct-tv and ultimately made a deal that Direct-Tv thought was fair. Both of these networks went black on Direct-tv and held out as long as they could before it began to materially damage them. In both cases distribution won out over content.

Last time I checked the Pac-12 is not on the air so the only way Direct-tv can deal with them is by not making a deal until they are satisfied with the terms and conditions. Larry Scott can write a nasty letter every day and Direct will go on with their business. Unless someone out there can say the Pac-12 is being fair in their valuation of their content through inside knowledge this thing is going to go for a while. For instance, is the Pac-12 as important to Direct as the other conferences it has deals with where football is king? Has anybody mentioned how mush easier this deal would have been if Scott had delivered teams of greater value than Colorado and Utah? All I can say is if Direct and the Pac-12 don't have a deal by mid-october it could be iced until summer football practice starts for the 2013 season. Sure hope not because I would love to watch the new network but I'm not giving up my Direct service to do so.

One thing i can guarantee is that when a deal is finally done both sides will say they won.

CalBearz02;841954588 said:

---

DirecTV knows that there won't be enough members cancelling simply because of not having the Pac network...and they're right!

---

There are also folks like me, who likely would have gone to Directv, if they had carried Pac12.

exactly, they are probably missing out on thousands of potential new customers.

manus;841954195 said:

---

The Pac12 network is the big dog in this negotiation as it has the product; if anything, the more USC loses, the better the deal for the Pac12 network...

---

Direct TV has the viewers and knows what their worth. It's up to the PAC 12 to decide if it is in their best interest to walk away from that revenue.

maxer;841954542 said:

---

The networks are stopping it. They are DEAD SET against a la carte cable pricing (where you make your own package of just the channels you want and each channel has a set price). That's why we have this halfass system where you have to subscribe to a bundle to get the channels a la carte on the internet.

That said, the current system works fine for DirecTV too, and they are definitely the ones being obstinate about adding the Pac-12 Network.

Let them know how you feel. I certainly have been.

---

You are definitely correct in regards to the networks, but I do think long term the sat companies benefit a lot from the bundles... especially since they have such high fixed costs due to needed to launch satellites. Business would be very different for them since for most of the additional channels, the marginal cost would not justify the bandwidth IMO. Sat companies are also at a huge disadvantage compared to cable/telco companies in the ability to offer a la carte since in the not to distant future, I'd think it would be possible for cable/telco to offer streaming to every household as a 'pipe' for content.

On demand and Uverse are early versions of this, but not the same quality, and they do have some technical limitations right now.. Uverse requires fiber and not rolled out to the entire nation, plus channel quality and internet speed slow down if multiple tuners are on in a household. On demand actually broadcasts the 'on demand channel' to every house on the cable subsystem, so cable relies on no everyone using on demand at the same time. Dish and DTV will have a hard time competing if that ever happens fully.

But yes, the networks are benefiting greatly. Pac 12 net is one of them, as is the entire p12 conference in the ESPN/Fox/FX TV deal too.

My point is that the p12 net is not all that different than many others in that some want it, some don't. We pay for all.

I actually have comcast now, it's decent, but they have been getting stingier on giving me discounts lately. My condo complex installed DTV on the roofs last winter, which I was pretty stoked about because all of the building's balconies face east/west, so no light of sight. Been waiting on DTV ever since, paying attention to the P12 negotiations. Just go an email from comcast that they now do TIVO w/ on demand support in the Denver metro now, so I think I'm giving up and ordering up a TIVO premiere and getting that set up next week.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

Everybody here seems to think the Pac-12 Network is a powerhouse network with content more important than say the Big 10. Do you really believe that this content is more important to Direct-TV than say the MTV Networks or AMC? The reason I bring those two truly powerful content providers is that both were taken to the woodshed by Direct-tv and ultimately made a deal that Direct-Tv thought was fair. Both of these networks went black on Direct-tv and held out as long as they could before it began to materially damage them. In both cases distribution won out over content.

Last time I checked the Pac-12 is not on the air so the only way Direct-tv can deal with them is by not making a deal until they are satisfied with the terms and conditions. Larry Scott can write a nasty letter every day and Direct will go on with their business. Unless someone out there can say the Pac-12 is being fair in their valuation of their content through inside knowledge this thing is going to go for a while. For instance, is the Pac-12 as important to Direct as the other conferences it has deals with where football is king? Has anybody mentioned how mush easier this deal would have been if Scott had delivered teams of greater value than Colorado and Utah? All I can say is if Direct and the Pac-12 don't have a deal by mid-october it could be iced until summer football practice starts for the 2013 season. Sure hope not because I would love to watch the new network but I'm not giving up my Direct service to do so.

One thing i can guarantee is that when a deal is finally done both sides will say they won.

---

Exactly. Directv isn't trembling in their boots because of a handful of pac12 football fans.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

Everybody here seems to think the Pac-12 Network is a powerhouse network with content more important than say the Big 10. Do you really believe that this content is more important to Direct-TV than say the MTV Networks or AMC? The reason I bring those two truly powerful content providers is that both were taken to the woodshed by Direct-tv and ultimately made a deal that Direct-Tv thought was fair. Both of these networks went black on Direct-tv and held out as long as they could before it began to materially damage them. In both cases distribution won out over content.

---

Your view is different from mine, to be sure. I do not think that the Pac-12 Network is a powerhouse network; only that the Pac-12 Network has set its price and is sticking with it. DirecTV (aka DTV)has simply chosen not to pay the Pac-12's price right now.

I think DTV is willing to try and wait out the Pac-12 Network and the Pac-12 is unwilling to budge on price below what other cable and satellite companies are paying.

I can't really comment on the power that AMC and MTV had because I'm not familiar with the draw that each of those networks had. But I'd guess that a significant portion of DTV customers let DTV know that they were prepared to walk.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

Last time I checked the Pac-12 is not on the air so the only way Direct-tv can deal with them is by not making a deal until they are satisfied with the terms and conditions. Larry Scott can write a nasty letter every day and Direct will go on with their business. Unless someone out there can say the Pac-12 is being fair in their valuation of their content through inside knowledge this thing is going to go for a while. For instance, is the Pac-12 as important to Direct as the other conferences it has deals with where football is king? Has anybody mentioned how mush easier this deal would have been if Scott had delivered teams of greater value than Colorado and Utah? All I can say is if Direct and the Pac-12 don't have a deal by mid-october it could be iced until summer football practice starts for the 2013 season. Sure hope not because I would love to watch the new network but I'm not giving up my Direct service to do so.

---

It seems to me that you're saying that you're annoyed that the Pac-12 isn't going to come to a deal with DTV anytime soon. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably be annoyed, too.

But it seems that neither DTV nor the Pac-12 Network is particularly interested in what you or I think if we're not willing to spend money on their product. And so, DTV customers who want the Pac-12 Network but will not switch to a different cable or satellite company will wait...and wait...and wait.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

One thing i can guarantee is that when a deal is finally done both sides will say they won.

---

Of that, there is no doubt.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

Everybody here seems to think the Pac-12 Network is a powerhouse network with content more important than say the Big 10.

---

It's not more important that BTN, but the carriage rate is lower, as is the package for most of the country. BTN has more national appeal right now sure, but that why BTN is included in the CHOICE package NATIONWIDE, while P12 is asking to be in CHOICE in the 6 states, which is similar placement to what they receive on DISH and cable.

I think many people are overstating the national aspect of the negations. Regional demand is what will make or break P12. I know that sucks for DTV customers in Texas or Chicago or wherever, but the deal depends on subs in LA, SF, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, etc ditching DTV.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

Has anybody mentioned how mush easier this deal would have been if Scott had delivered teams of greater value than Colorado and Utah?

---

Haha now you are really jumping off course. is this really a criticism of scott for not getting Texas? News flash, that was 99% not happening, it was in Texas' hands and there's nothing Scott could have done to make it happen... trying harder would just be pathetic, and the concessions given to UT would have been massively intolerable. Are you talking OK St and OU coming w/o Texas? Ya right that was even less likely. But both did do wonders for the B12 getting their new TV contract.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

All I can say is if Direct and the Pac-12 don't have a deal by mid-october it could be iced until summer football practice starts for the 2013 season. Sure hope not because I would love to watch the new network but I'm not giving up my Direct service to do so.

---

It may never happen, but DTV is only 20% of the market. Dish coming on board was huge and not expected by many, so P12 is fine. Due to 'most favored nation' contracts, it's very likely that conceding to DTV would mean lowering the rated to the other big providers, in the end giving up as much $$ in these discounts as is made from DTV. Letting DTV put P12 in an upper tier would mean NEXT negotiations ALL other providers would ask for the same, and they would get it, and that would be a HUGE loss in money over just not having DTV.

To be 100% honest, I'm amazed that the P12 net has the carriage it does have. It could be that it's overpriced to DTV and they'll never agree. But that doesn't mean Scott should just throw away money from the other providers. They are good partners who have signed up and are paying the rate. And as partners P12 should treat them better than and not worse than DTV.

P12 has no reason to agree to DTV at a lower rate. That's the bottom line that is obvious to me. If there are still other things being discussed, I really have no idea what they could be.

SRBear;841954803 said:

---

exactly, they are probably missing out on thousands of potential new customers.

---

I was waiting for DirectTV to sign a deal. If they had when Wilner wrote his piece, I probably would have become a DirectTV customer.

Instead, Dish got the deal done and I signed up with them the following Monday. I'm a first-time cable/satellite customer EVER. (And very happy to NOT have to pay outrageous Comcast prices.)

:gobears:

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

Everybody here seems to think the Pac-12 Network is a powerhouse network with content more important than say the Big 10. Do you really believe that this content is more important to Direct-TV than say the MTV Networks or AMC? The reason I bring those two truly powerful content providers is that both were taken to the woodshed by Direct-tv and ultimately made a deal that Direct-Tv thought was fair. Both of these networks went black on Direct-tv and held out as long as they could before it began to materially damage them. In both cases distribution won out over content.

Last time I checked the Pac-12 is not on the air so the only way Direct-tv can deal with them is by not making a deal until they are satisfied with the terms and conditions. Larry Scott can write a nasty letter every day and Direct will go on with their business. Unless someone out there can say the Pac-12 is being fair in their valuation of their content through inside knowledge this thing is going to go for a while. For instance, is the Pac-12 as important to Direct as the other conferences it has deals with where football is king? Has anybody mentioned how mush easier this deal would have been if Scott had delivered teams of greater value than Colorado and Utah? All I can say is if Direct and the Pac-12 don't have a deal by mid-october it could be iced until summer football practice starts for the 2013 season. Sure hope not because I would love to watch the new network but I'm not giving up my Direct service to do so.

One thing i can guarantee is that when a deal is finally done both sides will say they won.

---

I get your point on the B1G network, but I think someone already mentioned here that we're not even asking for what the B1G is getting (P12N asking for a lot less). Also, DTV has a stake in B1G net so it's not really apples to apples.

On the Viacom front, although DTV used some bush league methods (e.g., using Nickelodeon properties like Sponge to tug at the heart of children) with some degree of success, the balance of power in TV programming is going toward live events. Although Viacom's content is valued by many subs, it doesn't help advertisers/cable nets and, in turn, carriers when most of said programming is not immune to time shifting technology (DVR). Sports is somewhat immune to this transformation in viewer behavior the last 5-7 years, hence the crazy mega deals you see across many leagues and teams; Big 12 deal (seriously!?! they suck)....Lakers on Time Warner Sports Net (cha ching!). That's why, IMHO, although not the national footprint or viewership volume of an MTV, Nick, or VH1, Pac-12 Net can be in many ways just as valuable as the aggregate of content properties owned by the likes Viacom.

kasaja;841954735 said:

---

Unless someone out there can say the Pac-12 is being fair in their valuation of their content through inside knowledge this thing is going to go for a while.

---

Well, assuming that the P12's assertion is correct that they offered DTV the same deal as Dish and the cable carriers, then wouldn't that be a fair market value?

FiatSlug;841954920 said:

---

Your view is different from mine, to be sure.

---

Just FYI, kasaja has been probably the most consistently anti-Larry Scott and anti-P12 Network poster here from the beginning . . . so you may want to take any of his arguments with a grain of salt.

I was a bit pissed at Scott for not getting DTV on board before the season started, but the fact that he's got Dish in the fold now makes me think that it's DTV who is being stubborn in the negotiations. Dish has less reason to accept the P12's terms (since they care less about sports), but somehow they didn't think the offer was unfair.

This is honestly the #1 reason I keep Comcast and haven't switched to DirecTV. They seem to be getting more and more stubborn in carriage disputes and even more sanctimonious about it when channels are dropped from their lineup. They have exactly one advantage (NFL Sunday Ticket) when it comes to programming and otherwise aren't much better than anyone else.

they aren't perfect, but they have lots of local stores, show up to appointments on time, have On Demand movies and shows (some pay, some free) and have a pretty good website (you can even watch the Pac12 station via the web)