Why are Pac-12 Networks and DirecTV at odds?

[Buffarino]

While a la carte would certainly reduce the number of channels, it may improve the quality of those that remain. I personally believe it is never going to happen, so I'm not too worried about it.

The technology to do it has been around for over 10 years. It's the content providers who have killed it from what I have heard.

 

[Junction]

Junction, there's no basis for that. But there is history for the other way - there were a lot of local TV-channels that made ample profits and were in business for two decades. So profitable that the big networks went thru and bought them up.

Personally, I'm much rather risk it. Why give Entitlements to groups that don't earn it? And puh-leeze, the threats of "They'll raise the prices!" - heck, they raise prices because the sun rises. A cloud appears. I'd love to see TV channels survive on the programming their viewers really like, rather than having the Judge Judy's, Jerry Sandusky-Springer and umpteen shopping channels be propped up by misuse of my dollars to ComCast, AT&T and TimeWarner. Make them be responsible AND have proper accounting.

But that's what it's all about. Proper accounting. The fear of all studios and networks.

It's all about economics. Niche channels aren't going to draw a lot of viewers willing to pay separately for them. But they still cost money to produce. And they provide value and diversity to the programming lineup. If they don't support themselves a la carte, they go away under that system, and we're all left with the choice of the crap on the broadcast networks, ESPiN, Fox News and maybe a couple channels for the kids. It's not some great conspiracy concocted by the evul cable cabal (and I agree that's what they are). It's market economics. I don't know why we've decided those don't exist anymore....

I'm curious what those local channels are that the big networks went in and bought up, and how that's relevant to a discussion of the economics of cable television.

 

[CUFan]

The technology to do it has been around for over 10 years. It's the content providers who have killed it from what I have heard.

That's really what I meant by my post. My point was more that obviously some of the lesser subscribed to channels would fail. Furthermore, the competition for good content would increase as well, since the better the channel the more they make. If the content providers were consistently good at generating content, the economics for a la carte would probably be more attractive. However, I'm sure the way it is done now provides more insurance and predictability (from a revenue perspective) for content providers.

Internet subscription-based models can only increase the a la carte offerings, but I am sure the content providers and delivery guys will protect the bundled versions as long as possible.

 

[DesertDawg526]

[video=youtube_share;fSAWB_XTMkg]http://youtu.be/fSAWB_XTMkg[/video]

 

[absinthe]

Great Wilner article on this:
http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread....latest-offer-is-“disingenuous”-and-here’s-why

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Actually, a la carte on Apple TV would frickin awesome....

 

[ximianKernel]

Awful Announcing blogger take on BTN, PAC-12N and the satellite/cable companies carriage negotiations

http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012...patiently-awaiting-the-arrival-of-reason.html

 

[DesertDawg526]

Actually, a la carte on Apple TV would frickin awesome....

:nod:

 

[ximianKernel]

Actually, a la carte on Apple TV would frickin awesome....

will be totally into that... or Google TV

 

[SuperD]

Wilner raised an interesting point about a couple of DirecTV channels being the primary losers when then the conference decided to create its own channel for tier 3 content. The Root channels lost a considerable amount of content as a result of that decision and I wonder if DirecTV didn't decide to play hardball in order to help try and recoup some potential losses from those channels.