AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Pac 12 network / direct tv (PACN now on fuboTV streaming)
- Thread starter absinthe
- Start date
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
Sweet!
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
Superior and Arvada too.
Thats my point. Other aggregators are going to come along and disrupt cable and satellite's business model. Those aggregators will not have to bear the cost of the delivery system like cable and satellite companies do because they'll piggy back on existing infrastructure. Hopefully one of them will carry the P12Network.
Internet subscription would be my preference hands down. I don't watch much tv right now and joined the cord cutters last month, even canceled internet. I'm on T-Mobile and use their 'Binge On' service for streaming(use the hotspot on my phone), and most sites that I stream from like Netflix, Amazon, ESPN, Fox, etc, are approved sites. So far so good. Youtube, Pac-12 Networks and NBA TV are the only sites I'd want that aren't on the list yet.
Wow. Your watching Netflix over TMoble. Awesome
Yellow Shirt
Club Member
What's the PAC12 Network?
EddieCrowder
Well-Known Member
If Wilner is right and I have believed it since the startup Larry is going to be forced to sell an equity share with one of the big guns. When that happens it will be a moot point every carrier that has any swag at all will have the PAC.
I just had the realization that Larry Scott may have been either accidentally or intentionally brilliant. Because of how everything was structured, the Pac12 can go to market with the P12 network whenever they want.
That's a big (and valuable) thing to be able to control.
I just realized that I might have to explain why I think it's valuable: Larry Scott will get a lot more for selling a piece of the Pac12 Network now than he would have gotten for it a few years ago when they set it up. Valuations have gone up, way up, since then.
Tell that to Pac-12 schools that have been receiving a portion of what SEC and Big 10 schools have been receiving the last handful of years. Pac-12 is behind in the arms race. Scott overplayed his hand. He needs distribution more that DTV needs football games starting after midnight on the east coast.
Tell that to Pac-12 schools that have been receiving a portion of what SEC and Big 10 schools have been receiving the last handful of years. Pac-12 is behind in the arms race. Scott overplayed his hand. He needs distribution more that DTV needs football games starting after midnight on the east coast.
Was thinking last night how ironic it is that CU and the utes were invited to the Pac12 because of their TV market in Denver and Salt Lake City...someone obviously did not do their homework. The Pac12 and all providers of "local" TV and especially sports programming, should have had all this ironed out, before any contracts signed.
The big fishes in that that you left out were OU and UT delivering a big chunk of the Dallas, Houston, et al., TV markets. That part not working out greatly diminished the value and the plans.
Obligatory **** Texas goes here.
EddieCrowder
Well-Known Member
Miami is right losing DFW, Austin/San Antonio and most of Texas except the Sheep ****ers (aka Aggies) fans was a blow. That said Larry has done his best to unsure the $EC and BIG reamin the clear cut winners in the arms race. He has played this wrong but he could pull a Lloyd Christmas and totally redeem himself if he makes the right decision now. So yes, I am saying there's a chance
Given AT&T’s plan, the Pac12Nets probably can’t count on many new subscribers via U-verse – not that there is a mass of untapped customers out there. (Chances are, if you want the Pac12Nets, you’ve got them; if you haven’t switched from DTV to a Pac12Nets carrier, you aren’t planning to.)
For the most part, the subscription and revenue numbers are what the subscription and revenue numbers are.
Except for this:
It strikes me that in order for AT&T to lure customers to DTV, it will have to drop the price. After all, AT&T is now seeking subscribers for DTV who have already chosen a different carrier.
Maybe I’m dead wrong, but what better way to compel that pool of consumers to make the switch than by dropping the price?
When I look at the Uverse packages, which INCLUDES broadband service (DTV does not), Uverse is way cheaper. BUT, you have to be in an area that provides cable.
200 channels is cheaper on DTV but if you have separate internet add $60 to $36 above.
300 channels is cheaper on Uverse because it includes internet.
I wonder if the longterm plan for ATT is to shift everyone on to DTV including the cable subscribers in order to beef up their broad band speeds.
EddieCrowder
Well-Known Member
"I wonder if the longterm plan for ATT is to shift everyone on to DTV including the cable subscribers in order to beef up their broad band speeds"
BINGO ! we have a winner
BINGO ! we have a winner
Some of you may recall in the first couple of years of this P12N thingy that you had live games on all the time and a choice depending on which pair of channels your provider gave you (you usually have to pay extra to have your regional and the national). That was apparently because they had to broadcast "something". Now that the network has a "library" of past content the P12N have reached their goal to put only live games on the National Channel and replays or regionally relevant content on the regional. So, you might flip the national on and see an Arizona v ASU blowout and UCLA and Oregon are also playing in a nail biter but they are not on and you can't get them because when you go to P12N Mountain you get a replay of the CU Utah game. WTF?
On national signing day they decided to broadcast a show about NLI day INSTEAD of two or three live basketball games. Again, if you went to the regional channel you can't see the game like you could in years past because they are showing content relevant to the two schools in that region.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/college/pac-12/university-of-washington/article59945336.html
http://registerguard.com/rg/sports/33972283-81/pac-12-tv-not-viewer-friendly.html.csp
Tv fans have apparently been voicing their displeasure about this.
On national signing day they decided to broadcast a show about NLI day INSTEAD of two or three live basketball games. Again, if you went to the regional channel you can't see the game like you could in years past because they are showing content relevant to the two schools in that region.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/college/pac-12/university-of-washington/article59945336.html
http://registerguard.com/rg/sports/33972283-81/pac-12-tv-not-viewer-friendly.html.csp
Tv fans have apparently been voicing their displeasure about this.
P12Net should rework to be like the BIGnet, 1 national feed and 1 or more alternate channels when there is more than one live contest on at a time. Heck you might make one of them the PAC12 Olympic Sports Network. The regional feed idea I think ratchets up production costs without benefiting the viewer or making more money.
They just can't get out of their own way.
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...ing-will-continue-for-basketball-tournaments/
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...ing-will-continue-for-basketball-tournaments/
I get the concept; force subscribers to add the national after getting the regional so both parties make more money.
That said, given the lack of synergy and bad press this seems like a dumb idea.
Dish just added B1G Network to my package for no additional charge.
PAC12 Network needs to do something to get unstuck.
PAC12 is in the business of managing sporting events, they are not in the TV distribution business. Logic would say that if they were find the right partner (with an equity share to motivate them to sell the product) that the distribution would increase rapidly.
I like the idea of keeping full control but if you can increase revenues significantly the league wins. An additional benefit would be that economies of scale from the distribution company would likely allow them to reduce production and distribution cost without reducing quality.
PAC12 Network needs to do something to get unstuck.
PAC12 is in the business of managing sporting events, they are not in the TV distribution business. Logic would say that if they were find the right partner (with an equity share to motivate them to sell the product) that the distribution would increase rapidly.
I like the idea of keeping full control but if you can increase revenues significantly the league wins. An additional benefit would be that economies of scale from the distribution company would likely allow them to reduce production and distribution cost without reducing quality.
But then you cede your future to companies that are or are on their way to being on shaky financial ground (Disney with ESPN, Fox).
And you dont know whats going to happen with the cord cutting. That shoe needs to drop first before you make a move.
The providers we would depend on are now starting to offer "skinny" packages that leave out the guys we'd want to hitch our wagon to. We would be depending in part on families paying the bill that never watch the channel. That's how ESPN made their money.
In the last deal offered (ATT) the schools presidents voted 12-0 not to accept the offer.
All of the above adds up to a coming price war. The content providers have priced themselves into a difficult corner. No one of the delivery companies is going to want to add another cost center that most customers dont want. The P12N is unfortunately about 10 years too late to this party. They need to add a streaming option.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...edge-as-cable-networks-cite-subscriber-losses
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/05/di...e-sling-tv-isnt-helping-stem-subscriber-loss/
http://informitv.com/2016/02/19/us-operators-lost-781000-subs-in-2015/
Last edited:
@ the bold: Yes Please!
Deleted member 807
Guest
3 IP only TV offerings in the works later this year from DirecTV to counter declines in linear subscriber counts.
Over the top offerings announced this week at an investors conference to be rolled our by 4Q.
Directv Now - regular DirecTV streamed over the Internet, likely including on-demand and PPV options. No dish needed.
Directv Mobile - targeted at those whose primary viewing habits are on tablets and phones. Good for people who haven't become home owners with nice home theater systems, and for those who are wanting to catch a 20 minute show during the morning train/lyft ride, at lunch, or while hanging out at the waiting room.
Directv Preview - free ad-supported streaming platform with select offerings that are targeted at value conscious viewers. This is an entry platform. A user might not be able to binge watch an entire season, but would be able to access a few episodes for free, and perhaps even buy pay-per-view OTT. The viewer could be a subscriber of t-mobile, sprint, Comcast, AT&T or whoever.
Here's my personal take on all this. None of these OTT options require monthly set-top box rental or Tivo/DVR equipment. That's cool.
With access to 26 million DTV subscribers and 40 million AT&T mobile subscribers, Directv is betting on their ability to negotiate lower content fees than competitors, which might provide a cost advantage over Netflix, plus an ability to carry live TV options is possible, too. Rights to carry Sunday Ticket or NFL over wireless will be interesting to see play out.
The opportunity to bundle any of these DirecTV IP-TV options with AT&T Internet, mobile, telephone, linear TV, home security, or other packages creates some marketing advantages that will be difficult for other pure-play competitors to match. With a mobile network covering the US and Mexico, and a satellite footprint that reaches all 50 states and much of Latin America, there is amazing reach.
Investors are receptive to the idea, with AT&T shares currently trading at near 52-week highs.
For the strategy to be successful, it will have to be priced right. No pricing details are currently known.
Will video quality be HD instead of 450bpi and will there be limited latency? Will the service be easy to use, devoid of technical difficulties and annoying customer service interactions? This is yet to be seen. For AT&T to realize this plan, it requires investments in integrated ordering & billing systems plus wireless and wired data networks that are optimized to haul these bandwidth hungry video applications.
Maybe the P12 presidents who voted 0-12 against AT&T's equity offer are sceptical or are uninformed about where TV is headed. Maybe they are correct in holding out for a better deal from DirecTV or an alternative partner. Maybe they are content to miss this boat and keep trying to go at it alone.
Larry Scott thought the opportunity to jump on board with AT&T was compelling enough to bring to the table. But as the saying goes, you can bring a horse to market, but you can't make it drink.
Over the top offerings announced this week at an investors conference to be rolled our by 4Q.
Directv Now - regular DirecTV streamed over the Internet, likely including on-demand and PPV options. No dish needed.
Directv Mobile - targeted at those whose primary viewing habits are on tablets and phones. Good for people who haven't become home owners with nice home theater systems, and for those who are wanting to catch a 20 minute show during the morning train/lyft ride, at lunch, or while hanging out at the waiting room.
Directv Preview - free ad-supported streaming platform with select offerings that are targeted at value conscious viewers. This is an entry platform. A user might not be able to binge watch an entire season, but would be able to access a few episodes for free, and perhaps even buy pay-per-view OTT. The viewer could be a subscriber of t-mobile, sprint, Comcast, AT&T or whoever.
Here's my personal take on all this. None of these OTT options require monthly set-top box rental or Tivo/DVR equipment. That's cool.
With access to 26 million DTV subscribers and 40 million AT&T mobile subscribers, Directv is betting on their ability to negotiate lower content fees than competitors, which might provide a cost advantage over Netflix, plus an ability to carry live TV options is possible, too. Rights to carry Sunday Ticket or NFL over wireless will be interesting to see play out.
The opportunity to bundle any of these DirecTV IP-TV options with AT&T Internet, mobile, telephone, linear TV, home security, or other packages creates some marketing advantages that will be difficult for other pure-play competitors to match. With a mobile network covering the US and Mexico, and a satellite footprint that reaches all 50 states and much of Latin America, there is amazing reach.
Investors are receptive to the idea, with AT&T shares currently trading at near 52-week highs.
For the strategy to be successful, it will have to be priced right. No pricing details are currently known.
Will video quality be HD instead of 450bpi and will there be limited latency? Will the service be easy to use, devoid of technical difficulties and annoying customer service interactions? This is yet to be seen. For AT&T to realize this plan, it requires investments in integrated ordering & billing systems plus wireless and wired data networks that are optimized to haul these bandwidth hungry video applications.
Maybe the P12 presidents who voted 0-12 against AT&T's equity offer are sceptical or are uninformed about where TV is headed. Maybe they are correct in holding out for a better deal from DirecTV or an alternative partner. Maybe they are content to miss this boat and keep trying to go at it alone.
Larry Scott thought the opportunity to jump on board with AT&T was compelling enough to bring to the table. But as the saying goes, you can bring a horse to market, but you can't make it drink.
Last edited by a moderator:
First off if I could get a streaming package that would give me all the Buffs games I would cut the cord (to the dish in my case) today. I don't watch TV series, my wife's programs are available over the air for the most part.
That said until the distribution model gets changed we are stuck with what we have.
Yes giving up an equity stake would mean a certain degree of loss of control, how much control depends on the size of the stake and agreement between the parties. Theoretically the PAC could still maintain control over content if the agreement stated that, further flexibility in terms of future modes of distribution is also something that could be negotiated.
Point is that if you give sufficient reason for a distribution company to move your product they will. Right now the PAC has neither the expertise nor the relationships nor the influence to force anyone's hand in picking up the network.
Unless something is done to move the project forward it will continue to slide into the backwater
Or, those content providers can go around DTV and offer directly to consumers via something like Amazon or AppleTV.
Or maybe the offer was so extraordinarily low that it led to a 12-0 vote against.
All partnering with ATT/DTV does for you is insure that you will only be distributed on ATT/DTV.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Amazon or AppleTV still have to negotiate content deals and sign contracts with the likes of the NFL or Disney or Universal for the rights to distribute their intellectual property.
Content negotiators are going to sell their property to the highest bidder. For Apple and Amazon to undercut the establishment, they are going to have to subsidize content purchases by dipping into the profitability of other parts of their business.
This isn't a technology issue as much as a human issue where Hollywood and American media creators refuse to sell movies and TV programming for less than its worth.
Last edited by a moderator: