Television and cable - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Television and cable (/thread-5263.html)

---

Re: Television and cable - CowboyIndian - 06-12-2013

"A consumer could, for example, choose ABC and NBC, but opt out of CBS and Fox, as they do today with HBO and Showtime," he said. Such an approach, he argued, would end the blackouts that occur when a broadcaster and distributor are unable to come to terms on a distribution contract, as well as give consumers choice and broadcasters the ability to "charge as much as they think their content is worth."

Please, god, since Larry Scott fumbled on the goal line, let us have this.

---

Re: Television and cable - washingtonismoney - 06-12-2013

(06-12-2013, 06:34 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:Please, god, since Larry Scott fumbled on the goal line, let us have this.

This is not likely to be as good a world for consumers as people seem to believe.

See: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/prisoners-of-cable/309109/?single_page=true

---

Re: Television and cable - stupac2 - 06-12-2013

Matt Yglesias has written on this extensively, here's one: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20130517-matthew-yglesias-why-a-la-carte-wont-fix-cable.ece

It would be nice to be able to just stream everything I want to watch (which is very little) online for relatively cheap, but it seems that we're fairly far away from that being a possibility.

---

Re: Television and cable - dabigv13 - 06-12-2013

Yglesias' is a bit behind the times, with broadband and 4G wireless, the distribution network problem is no longer the bottleneck. His points about a "lose-lose-lose" situation is probably valid- if you went a la carte and picked the ESPN networks, Comedy Central, the Pac-12 network/whatever, your total savings over your cable bill would not be that significant. But I do think there will be a market correction when it comes to the NFL and NCAA, which drives ESPN costs, which drives cable costs.

After the next CFB season I'm cutting my cable....the truth is that I can watch most of the TV I want through netflix or blu-ray, and the one or two shows I can't, I can just download off the internet illegally (*cough cough* Game of Thrones). Most of my friends who are not sports fans have already cut their cable. I think there is a generational shift that's taking place that these opinion pieces are not taking into account.

---

Re: Television and cable - CowboyIndian - 06-12-2013

(06-12-2013, 06:45 PM)garvin link Wrote:I'm afraid Larry Scott is in the opposite camp. DirecTV offered to carry the Pac-12 Network as an a la mode option, for which individual subscribers would pay only if they wanted it. Scott reacted like Dracula to a cross. The conference wants to be paid for each and every DirecTV customer, whether those people want the channel or not.

I know...as a DirecTV subscriber with no other option besides DISH, which is not palatable, he's on his way to becoming my bete noir, although he seems stuck on "clown" at the moment.
Thanks, Larry.

---

Re: Television and cable - Farm93 - 06-12-2013

We are the Pac-12.

DirecTV does not love the Pac-12 and believes there are not enough of us in the West to care about.  Larry needs everyone in the footprint to pay the Pac-12 because that is what the BigTen already has WITH DirecTV and that is what the SEC will get too.  Since we came up to 12 in the conference to keep up with the Joneses we need a deal like the Joneses.

To give DirecTV what they demand would cause a renegotiation to all of the other deals.  I suspect it might actually mean it is better for DirecTV to get nothing than give every content provider that 20-40% renegotiated price.

Cox, Comcast, Dish - the choices are there.  Don't think they are good for you?  That's fine, but then you doing EXACTLY what DirecTV is counting on.  I know I will go to Dish in August because even if the service is generally terrible they have the only channel I actually want to get from my content provider.

---

Re: Television and cable - CowboyIndian - 06-13-2013

(06-12-2013, 10:36 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Cox, Comcast, Dish - the choices are there.

Not everyone lives next to a cable and as far as DISH goes, because of a previous dealing with him, I wouldn't piss on Charley Ergen if he were on fire. So much for options.
Once again...thanks, Larry.

---

Re: Television and cable - CowboyIndian - 06-13-2013

(06-13-2013, 08:34 AM)garvin link Wrote:Personally, I suspect that the conference overplayed its hand.

Amen.

---

Re: Television and cable - washingtonismoney - 06-13-2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/media/gatekeepers-of-cable-tv-try-to-stop-intel.html?src=recg

---

Re: Television and cable - Farm93 - 06-13-2013

(06-13-2013, 08:34 AM)garvin link Wrote:

Quote:To give DirecTV what they demand would cause a renegotiation to all of the other deals.

Almost certainly not true. Generally speaking, most-favored-nation clauses in cable deals only apply to other cable systems. Satellite has a different business model. Conceivably, granting different terms to DirecTV would force renegotiation of the Pac-12 Network's deal with Dish, but even that might not be true. The Dish deal includes making Dish an official Pac-12 sponsor, which may very well make that contract sufficiently sui generis that most-favored-nation clauses don't apply.

I believe in normal content contracts your assumptions would apply.  However, I think the Pac-12 landed its cable "partners" before the channel launched by providing them some protections and assurances.  Wilner writes about this all of the time, so my beliefs are based primarily on his commentary.  And it makes sense to me.  The early content providers took all of the risks and absorbed big costs to pay for a conference channel they had never seen.  Why would they agree to an early deal if late companies to the party would get better terms?  That would create enormous incentives to be last rather than first, and the conference needed people to jump, not sit on the fence.

In any event, the Pac-12 conference has noted that they will only offer DirecTV the terms that the others have agreed to and will not provide DirecTV with better terms than the existing partners were given.  DirecTV clearly believes all of the early partners overpaid, but now the price range is set.  DirecTV doesn't want to pay that range, therefore anyone that wants the Pac-12 (legally) should go to another company.

It is just business.  Pac-12 has a price that others were willing to pay.  DirecTV does not believe the Pac-12 is worth that price. 

That's cool.  I have complained to DirecTV for months, now it is time to just find a content provider that values the Pac-12 at the price point the Pac-12 is willing to accept.  The Pac-12 in 2012-2013 will give as much money to its schools as the BigTen, Big 12 and SEC have given to their schools.  And that is a big change from two or three years ago.  So I am pretty certain that the Pac-12 universities have a fair amount of love for Larry now.

---

Re: Television and cable - needle - 06-13-2013

Quote: So I am pretty certain that the Pac-12 universities have a fair amount of love for Larry now.

I tend to agree.

Pac-12's Scott Is the Highest Paid College Commissioner

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324787004578493403151863338.html

The pay figure is just above $3 M for 2011-2012, and it includes $1.38 M in bonus money.

By the way, I wonder if Scott is thinking about his next job. In July, he'll have been Pac-12 commish for four years.

---