I don't know if DirecTV is really the villain in the failed Pac-12 negotiations. As many people know, DirecTV has fought to help change the current TV provider system where endless stupid channels that no one really watches, except for fleeting seconds when flipping through channels, are bundled together with a few channels that many people actually want. That system is primarily pushed by the content creators/media companies, like Viacom, and drives up costs because these worthless channels are still paid for by the content delivery companies (cable, DirecTV, etc.) who pass on the costs to consumers. As a consumer, I know that ideally I would only pay for what I actually watch, in an a la carte system.

What we probably know is that the Pac-12 Network is likely pushing for their channel to be bundled with other channels, like the Big-10 Network, to increase their exposure, which results in higher advertising revenues and clout since they, at least theoretically, reach more households.

DirecTV yielded to the demands of Viacom this past summer when they tried to push for a la carte content delivery, and maybe they'll yield to the Pac-12 Network, but that's not necessarily a good thing in the long term for consumers. In the end, if the Pac-12 Network yields and agrees to let the channel be added a la carte and not bundled, that may be a win for many or most people.

Of course, the negotations probably involve more than just the bundling issue, but we'll probably never really know all the specifics.

OskiMD;841955471 said:

---

I don't know if DirecTV is really the villain in the failed Pac-12 negotiations. As many people know, DirecTV has fought to help change the current TV provider system where endless stupid channels that no one really watches, except for fleeting seconds when flipping through channels, are bundled together with a few channels that many people actually want. That system is primarily pushed by the content creators/media companies, like Viacom, and drives up costs because these worthless channels are still paid for by the content delivery companies (cable, DirecTV, etc.) who pass on the costs to consumers. As a consumer, I know that ideally I would only pay for what I actually watch, in an a la carte system.

What we probably know is that the Pac-12 Network is likely pushing for their channel to be bundled with other channels, like the Big-10 Network, to increase their exposure, which results in higher advertising revenues and clout since they, at least theoretically, reach more households.

DirecTV yielded to the demands of Viacom this past summer when they tried to push for a la carte content delivery, and maybe they'll yield to the Pac-12 Network, but that's not necessarily a good thing in the long term for consumers. In the end, if the Pac-12 Network yields and agrees to let the channel be added a la carte and not bundled, that may be a win for many or most people.

Of course, the negotations probably involve more than just the bundling issue, but we'll probably never really know all the specifics.

---

I don't think either party is at blame. This is just business. You have two parties who each are trying to maximize their return (or interests) to shareholders and stakeholders by negotiating the best possible deal. In any negotiation there are pros and cons and each side has a "best alternative to a negotiated resolution" from which they seek leverage over the other party. Both sides probably hve complex spreadsheets that show underlying assumptions and potential financial outcomes. So, nothing new here. The downside for us as Cal fans is that we're stuck in the middle, pawns in the broader business exercise that both sides are involved with.

None of us are privy to the details but based on what we think we know I disagree with your premise.

I think this is just a good old fashioned business negotation over $ where DTV thinks they've got enough leverage to make a better deal than everyone else already got.

TheSouseFamily;841955476 said:

---

I don't think either party is at blame. This is just business. You have two parties who each are trying to maximize their return (or interests) to shareholders and stakeholders by negotiating the best possible deal. In any negotiation there are pros and cons and each side has a "best alternative to a negotiated resolution" from which they seek leverage over the other party. Both sides probably hve complex spreadsheets that show underlying assumptions and potential financial outcomes. So, nothing new here. The downside for us as Cal fans is that we're stuck in the middle, pawns in the broader business exercise that both sides are involved with.

---

That makes sense. In the end, even a la carte content delivery doesn't necessarily mean that the consumers will actually save any money themselves, although it may benefit DirecTV and its shareholders.

Get it done people, so I can decide whether or not to get DirecTV. :p

tequila4kapp;841955478 said:

---

I think this is just a good old fashioned business negotation over $ where DTV thinks they've got enough leverage to make a better deal than everyone else already got.

---

You may be right, and if so, I guess we should all hope for DirecTV to 'pay up' since these deals will directly or indirectly affect how much money comes to the individual Pac-12 members. Or is that already pretty much set with the $1B deal that was signed previously?

OskiMD;841955471 said:

---

I don't know if DirecTV is really the villain in the failed Pac-12 negotiations. As many people know, DirecTV has fought to help change the current TV provider system where endless stupid channels that no one really watches, except for fleeting seconds when flipping through channels, are bundled together with a few channels that many people actually want. That system is primarily pushed by the content creators/media companies, like Viacom, and drives up costs because these worthless channels are still paid for by the content delivery companies (cable, DirecTV, etc.) who pass on the costs to consumers. As a consumer, I know that ideally I would only pay for what I actually watch, in an a la carte system.

What we probably know is that the Pac-12 Network is likely pushing for their channel to be bundled with other channels, like the Big-10 Network, to increase their exposure, which results in higher advertising revenues and clout since they, at least theoretically, reach more households.

DirecTV yielded to the demands of Viacom this past summer when they tried to push for a la carte content delivery, and maybe they'll yield to the Pac-12 Network, but that's not necessarily a good thing in the long term for consumers. In the end, if the Pac-12 Network yields and agrees to let the channel be added a la carte and not bundled, that may be a win for many or most people.

Of course, the negotations probably involve more than just the bundling issue, but we'll probably never really know all the specifics.

---

When it comes to TV negotiations, the villain is relative to one's own perspective. In this instance, Direct TV is using our universities TV network as a battleground to champion the a la carte television revolution. Therefore, in my opinion Direct TV is clearly the villain, not only because they choose our Network -- instead of the big 10 -- to make their stand, but also because of the nefarious manner in which they've manipulated the facts. Even going so far as to attempt to convince the viewer -- aka me -- what games do and don't matter.

Exhibit A

Direct TV said:

---

For the fourth consecutive week, and every week since the Pac-12 Network began, none of the games on Pac-12 Network feature nationally ranked opponents based on either the Associated Press or USA Today Coaches’ Poll.

---

Listen Direct TV, don't tell me what I should or should not find entertaining. I like watching ALL pac 12 games, regardless if the teams are ranked or not. Cal isn't ranked and is playing USC this weekend but I suppose I shouldn't really care.


Exhibit B, another attempt to manipulate data and marginalize MY universities football as Cal is featured in a couple of these games.

Direct TV said:

---

None of the games on the Pac-12 Network schedule feature any nationally ranked opponents based on either the current Associated Press or USA Today Coaches’ Poll. In fact, in most games to telecast on Pac-12 Network so far, the winners have easily outdistanced opponents, nearly tripling their scores.

---

Isn't it ironic that they are making a pitch for an a la carte system by attempting to tell the viewer what they should be watching?

And Exhibit C

Direct TV said:

---

Even though there are only two Pac-12 Network exclusives this weekend, they feature four Pac-12 teams. Those games are important to the USC, Cal, Utah and ASU fans who want them, and so we want them to have them however possible.

---

Once again, another attempt by Direct TV to marginalize our conference games. They imply that nobody aside from USC, Cal, Utah, and ASU fans would ever want to watch those teams play football. At this point I feel as if Direct TV is not only being dishonest, they are insulting my opinions by telling me what is and what isn't an important sporting event. Therefore, I can only conclude that Direct TV is the obvious villain from my perspective. Making matters worse for them is the fact that several other television providers HAVE signed deals with the pac 12 Network including the notoriously stingy DISH!

http://bayarea.sbnation.com/san-jose-sharks/2010/11/24/1835066/dish-network-vs-comcast-dish-decides-to-take-its-ball-and-go-home (Dish vs Comcast Sports)
and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/amc-vs-dish-viacom-vs-directv-brawling-satellite-providers-and-cable-companies-take-different-tactics/2012/07/12/gJQAGnaLgW_blog.html
(Dish and Direct TV vs Viacom)

While a la carte might be nice for consumers, I would hardly blame the p12 network for not wanting to be the ONLY network on a la carte, while P12 fans pay for hundreds of stations they don't watch, which is what everyone does.

Scott and Co. looked at standard business practices for the industry and started a network based on those expectations and then got 4 of the 5 biggest providers on board.

Directv saying they want to fans to have what they want and were willing to put p12 a la carte or PPV is really quite insulting PR campaign to both the network and fans. They are pretending they are in the fans corner, when it's really about their own pocketbook.

As for the P12 being at fault, sure, they are at fault as much as any other network. I would say they might be at fault less than big companies like Disney or Viacom that can use their size to influence the price they get (is forcing small stations to get the big ones on in all or nothing deals). P12 is one station and the only reason it is carried is because the providers think fans want it. No bundles, no dirty games. Just live sports for the p12 region.

Does the p12 want to be the most consumer friendly product out there? No it's not free, so that answers the question... The problem with a la carte in P12's situation (and any stations for that matter) is that once they offer a la carte pricing to one provider, every provider will demand it on the next contract negotiation. And we don't know long the DISH deal lasts, but it's probably 3-4 years. I think the big ten net is on their 2nd renegotiation since inception?

On top of that, the cable providers may be in it for the longer haul (rumors are they helped front the startup cost), but have specific language in the contract that FORBIDs the p12 from offering the network up to DTV or any provider on an a la carte basis. They are paying money to attract and retain customers, not to be undercut severely months later and have their customers jump to DTV.

P12 is in a good but not great spot. DISH was huge. Direct may also be in a good spot. It's entirely possible the contracts are framed to give P12 little room on price and no deal gets done.

"What we probably know is that the Pac-12 Network is likely pushing for their channel to be bundled with other channels, like the Big-10 Network, to increase their exposure, which results in higher advertising revenues and clout since they, at least theoretically, reach more households."

If you are one of the alumni that is OK with eliminating all the non-revenue sports, then you probably don't care about the bundling issue, you just want the Pac 12 network as cheaply as possible, and don't care about maximizing revenue for the conference schools that are expecting to get a substantial new source to pay for their athletic programs.

I'd rather see the school get the extra money, since I think it'll help soothe some of the athletics-academics friction. If that means I pay slightly more to get the network as part of my Comcast package, that's OK.

On this issue, one really cannot separate the status of being a consumer from the status of being a supporter of Cal athletics.

Absolutely not. Direct-TV's latest statment had numerous "factual" errors and for some reason failed to put the rankings by teams that were playing ton the Pac-12 Network.

Check out Wilner's latest post. Granted he is basically Pac-12 Net's mouthpiece, but he makes a lot of really good points.

OskiMD;841955479 said:

---

That makes sense. In the end, even a la carte content delivery doesn't necessarily mean that the consumers will actually save any money themselves, although it may benefit DirecTV and its shareholders.

Get it done people, so I can decide whether or not to get DirecTV. :p

---

You can get the Pac -12 on Dish now - or continue the handwringing.....

Since Directv allegedly has more subscribers (=than Dish, at least), and since they do have MORE sports (=for no extra fees) than others, one business model suggests they should settle soon, for they will not only please their current subscribers, but because of their "more sports meme," they could double down on that meme and get even more subscribers who are into sports...and make even more money! Meanwhile, the model they are currently subscribing to is just pissing current subscribers off, who may move elsewhere because of it!

I think the bottom line is that it's in the Pac-12's best interest for DirecTV to take the same deal that DISH Network took. Hence, that's what we should hope happens. More money for Pac-12 means more money for the schools, right? DirecTV's proposal would devalue the entire network. It would upset the current providers, and we may very well end up paying for it once those deals expire.

THE PAC 12 WAS SLOW imo TO GET UP AND RUNNING WAY TOO SLOW


CAN ANYONE TELL ME THIS ? could the pac 12 network have independantly set up its own servers and online network ( damn here we are here 3 clicks from sv and larry couldnt find anyone to jump on board with the necessary technology and capital to invest??? perhaps within the conf ) to stream directly to customers ANYWHERE you can get online ... cut out the middle man on the net get all the money


signed just thinking out loud

going4roses;841955583 said:

---

THE PAC 12 WAS SLOW imo TO GET UP AND RUNNING WAY TOO SLOW


CAN ANYONE TELL ME THIS ? could the pac 12 network have independantly set up its own servers and online network ( damn here we are here 3 clicks from sv and larry couldnt find anyone to jump on board with the necessary technology and capital to invest??? perhaps within the conf ) to stream directly to customers ANYWHERE you can get online ... cut out the middle man on the net get all the money


signed just thinking out loud

---

it sounds nice for consumers, but that's not the way things work.

The p12 network is actually in a good position the way it was rolled out. DTV would take it from good to great, but do online streaming as an a la carte offering and it wouldn't even be profitable. Which means it would not have even been created.

End of story.

i was thinking of coverage and availability as well as profits for the network thus the conf ... just a thought and thinking from my third eye vantage point - sorry i was thinking out loud again ...

forgive me sire have mercy on the weak and pitful ....Not lol


good position ? = no dtv coveragae for the CAL vs usc game sucks!....thats not a good look


let me ask you this ... is anyone to blame ? or ? who is the hold up ? wouldnt dtv stand to make more money and not lose customers due to this turmoil ? who is fighting the change?

Pac12 has made deals with just about everyone.

The holdup is clearly DTV undervaluing the product (value determined by the relationships already established)


Blame whoever makes you feel better, though.