Ask a question
Search in U-verse Forums

U-verse Forums

Reply
Posted Feb 20, 2014
6:17:41 AM
View profile
Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

Will the new Sportsnet L A channel for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse?

Will the new Sportsnet L A channel for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse?

Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

4,976 views
51 replies
(1) Me too
(1) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(51)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Mar 29, 2014 5:03:25 PM
0
(0)
Mentor

I would gladly pay a reasonable price to see the Dodgers play. I hope we get a deal done soon, so I can start to enjoy the baseball season.

I would gladly pay a reasonable price to see the Dodgers play. I hope we get a deal done soon, so I can start to enjoy the baseball season.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

31 of 52 (1,558 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Mar 31, 2014 2:45:01 PM
0
(0)
Contributor

Why would they need an additional fee? To make money of course or they should look at it this way. Charge customers the same rate just to prevent people from switching to another provider. I myself am planning to switch as soon as my contract is over, regardless if they pick up the channel. I blame uverse for making me miss some of the season already, plus the channels always freeze, go black for about 10 minutes. I can get the same with Brighthouse plus get the Dodgers game. U-verse just lost this customer. They should factor that into their decision. The Dodgers aren't the Astros. There is a bigger fan base and market in L.A.

Why would they need an additional fee? To make money of course or they should look at it this way. Charge customers the same rate just to prevent people from switching to another provider. I myself am planning to switch as soon as my contract is over, regardless if they pick up the channel. I blame uverse for making me miss some of the season already, plus the channels always freeze, go black for about 10 minutes. I can get the same with Brighthouse plus get the Dodgers game. U-verse just lost this customer. They should factor that into their decision. The Dodgers aren't the Astros. There is a bigger fan base and market in L.A.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

32 of 52 (1,465 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Mar 31, 2014 3:27:12 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert
Edited by texasguy37 on Mar 31, 2014 at 3:30:10 PM

McGee2181 wrote:

 

Why would they need an additional fee? To make money of course or they should look at it this way. Charge customers the same rate just to prevent people from switching to another provider. I myself am planning to switch as soon as my contract is over, regardless if they pick up the channel. I blame uverse for making me miss some of the season already, plus the channels always freeze, go black for about 10 minutes. I can get the same with Brighthouse plus get the Dodgers game. U-verse just lost this customer. They should factor that into their decision. The Dodgers aren't the Astros. There is a bigger fan base and market in L.A.


Because it costs them money to add and deliver a new channel.  There is a cost beyond the carriage fee paid to the channel owner.  It's not free.

 

It's all about the Bemjamins.  It is a business decision not an emotional decision.  If it makes good economic sense to add the channel, it will be added.  If it does not make good economic sense to add the channel, it will not be added.


McGee2181 wrote:

 

Why would they need an additional fee? To make money of course or they should look at it this way. Charge customers the same rate just to prevent people from switching to another provider. I myself am planning to switch as soon as my contract is over, regardless if they pick up the channel. I blame uverse for making me miss some of the season already, plus the channels always freeze, go black for about 10 minutes. I can get the same with Brighthouse plus get the Dodgers game. U-verse just lost this customer. They should factor that into their decision. The Dodgers aren't the Astros. There is a bigger fan base and market in L.A.


Because it costs them money to add and deliver a new channel.  There is a cost beyond the carriage fee paid to the channel owner.  It's not free.

 

It's all about the Bemjamins.  It is a business decision not an emotional decision.  If it makes good economic sense to add the channel, it will be added.  If it does not make good economic sense to add the channel, it will not be added.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

[ Edited ]
33 of 52 (1,454 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Mar 31, 2014 4:48:53 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

McGee2181 wrote:

Why would they need an additional fee? To make money of course or they should look at it this way. Charge customers the same rate just to prevent people from switching to another provider. I myself am planning to switch as soon as my contract is over, regardless if they pick up the channel. I blame uverse for making me miss some of the season already, plus the channels always freeze, go black for about 10 minutes. I can get the same with Brighthouse plus get the Dodgers game. U-verse just lost this customer. They should factor that into their decision. The Dodgers aren't the Astros. There is a bigger fan base and market in L.A.


Because Time Warner paid BILLIONS for the rights to broadcast the Dodgers, now they need to recoup those costs, currently only 3 providers carry this outrageously priced channel. Time Warner Cable, Brighthouse and Champion Broadband.  TWC is going to lose BILLIONS in this deal and it's the fans that will suffer.

Ask Comcast how that worked out for CSSN Houston and moved the Rockets and Astros off of Fox Sports Southwest.  Not very well for either the teams or the fans.  Granted the Dodgers are a much better team than the Astros, but for a small viewing footprint, the price is just plain stupid money.  MLB dictates that only those in the Dodgers viewing area can watch the games without MLB Extra innings so TWC is hoping that they gain enough subscribers to at least break even.  Probably not going to happen any time in the next 10 years.  Sure they will probably sign carriage agreement with DirectTV, Dish, Verizon, AT&T, but not at the rates that have been rumored of $4.00 per subscibers.  That's as much as ALL of the ESPN networks.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

McGee2181 wrote:

Why would they need an additional fee? To make money of course or they should look at it this way. Charge customers the same rate just to prevent people from switching to another provider. I myself am planning to switch as soon as my contract is over, regardless if they pick up the channel. I blame uverse for making me miss some of the season already, plus the channels always freeze, go black for about 10 minutes. I can get the same with Brighthouse plus get the Dodgers game. U-verse just lost this customer. They should factor that into their decision. The Dodgers aren't the Astros. There is a bigger fan base and market in L.A.


Because Time Warner paid BILLIONS for the rights to broadcast the Dodgers, now they need to recoup those costs, currently only 3 providers carry this outrageously priced channel. Time Warner Cable, Brighthouse and Champion Broadband.  TWC is going to lose BILLIONS in this deal and it's the fans that will suffer.

Ask Comcast how that worked out for CSSN Houston and moved the Rockets and Astros off of Fox Sports Southwest.  Not very well for either the teams or the fans.  Granted the Dodgers are a much better team than the Astros, but for a small viewing footprint, the price is just plain stupid money.  MLB dictates that only those in the Dodgers viewing area can watch the games without MLB Extra innings so TWC is hoping that they gain enough subscribers to at least break even.  Probably not going to happen any time in the next 10 years.  Sure they will probably sign carriage agreement with DirectTV, Dish, Verizon, AT&T, but not at the rates that have been rumored of $4.00 per subscibers.  That's as much as ALL of the ESPN networks.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

34 of 52 (1,439 Views)
Highlighted
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Mar 31, 2014 10:57:03 PM
0
(0)
Contributor
We will see what happens once people start switching providers. There will be enough to make a sizable dent in these carriers' wallets. Then we will see if the asking price was worth it.
We will see what happens once people start switching providers. There will be enough to make a sizable dent in these carriers' wallets. Then we will see if the asking price was worth it.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

35 of 52 (1,409 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 1, 2014 4:53:58 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

McGee2181 wrote:
We will see what happens once people start switching providers. There will be enough to make a sizable dent in these carriers' wallets. Then we will see if the asking price was worth it.

You funny.  The only people that would possibly leave over this channel is those in the LA footprint and only if they are baseball fans.  AT&T could lose every customer in the LA area and it would probably still be cheaper than paying $4 per subsriber for one niche channel.

 

Let's say there are 50k subsribers in the LA footprint and they average rate each is paying is $120.  That's $6 Million per month, whereas with 9 million subsribers @ $4 ea, that's $36 Million out each month

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

McGee2181 wrote:
We will see what happens once people start switching providers. There will be enough to make a sizable dent in these carriers' wallets. Then we will see if the asking price was worth it.

You funny.  The only people that would possibly leave over this channel is those in the LA footprint and only if they are baseball fans.  AT&T could lose every customer in the LA area and it would probably still be cheaper than paying $4 per subsriber for one niche channel.

 

Let's say there are 50k subsribers in the LA footprint and they average rate each is paying is $120.  That's $6 Million per month, whereas with 9 million subsribers @ $4 ea, that's $36 Million out each month

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

36 of 52 (1,393 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 1, 2014 8:10:23 AM
0
(0)
Contributor
Well I do live in the LA footprint. I don't care what they have to do, just get the channel. I'm thinking eventually TWC will breakdown and let the carriers charge those that want the channel and make it optional to add or not. That would be the best way to do it. Those that want it can pay extra for it, less than paying for HBO or Showtime which show the same movies over and over; and those that don't watch the games don't have to get it. Unfortunately TWC doesn't want this since they would lose out on non Dodger fans that might start watching to give them more viewers. They can't do that if they have to order the channel as an add-on. Like I said though, this fan is switching to Brighthouse as soon as I can.
Well I do live in the LA footprint. I don't care what they have to do, just get the channel. I'm thinking eventually TWC will breakdown and let the carriers charge those that want the channel and make it optional to add or not. That would be the best way to do it. Those that want it can pay extra for it, less than paying for HBO or Showtime which show the same movies over and over; and those that don't watch the games don't have to get it. Unfortunately TWC doesn't want this since they would lose out on non Dodger fans that might start watching to give them more viewers. They can't do that if they have to order the channel as an add-on. Like I said though, this fan is switching to Brighthouse as soon as I can.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

37 of 52 (1,369 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 1, 2014 8:35:22 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

TWC will probably never allow ala carte ordering for this channel the same way other networks don't want ala carte ordering.  The only way TWC will buckle is for advertisers start complaining to TWC.  Would it be nice to be able to order your cable TV ala carte, sure, but you would end up paying as much if not more for far less channels.  The problems with sports teams and contracts to a certain provider such as Comcast and TWC is that in out of area regions, most people don't really care since they are unable to watch the main draw to those channels.  At least with FoxSports, they cover enough regions and carry college sports that many people watch those channels.  With Sportsnet even that won't happen since there is now a Pac-12 network that covers college sports in the area.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

TWC will probably never allow ala carte ordering for this channel the same way other networks don't want ala carte ordering.  The only way TWC will buckle is for advertisers start complaining to TWC.  Would it be nice to be able to order your cable TV ala carte, sure, but you would end up paying as much if not more for far less channels.  The problems with sports teams and contracts to a certain provider such as Comcast and TWC is that in out of area regions, most people don't really care since they are unable to watch the main draw to those channels.  At least with FoxSports, they cover enough regions and carry college sports that many people watch those channels.  With Sportsnet even that won't happen since there is now a Pac-12 network that covers college sports in the area.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

38 of 52 (1,360 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 1, 2014 1:18:09 PM
0
(0)
Teacher
AT&T would not have to pay $4 for every subscriber. Only in-market subscribers would pay that rate. Out-of-market would be substantially less without live sports.
AT&T would not have to pay $4 for every subscriber. Only in-market subscribers would pay that rate. Out-of-market would be substantially less without live sports.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

39 of 52 (1,323 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 1, 2014 1:38:05 PM
0
(0)
Explorer

Since the $4 per subscriber would only apply to the estimated 50K users that would be $200,000.  If 10 people leave to get the Dodgers channel that wouldn't concern Uverse.  If 10,000 people leave that would cost them 20% ($1.5 million) of the revenue generated by LA area subscribers using the estimated numbers previously stated.

Since the $4 per subscriber would only apply to the estimated 50K users that would be $200,000.  If 10 people leave to get the Dodgers channel that wouldn't concern Uverse.  If 10,000 people leave that would cost them 20% ($1.5 million) of the revenue generated by LA area subscribers using the estimated numbers previously stated.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

40 of 52 (1,313 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 1, 2014 7:54:43 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

qw545 wrote:

Since the $4 per subscriber would only apply to the estimated 50K users that would be $200,000.  If 10 people leave to get the Dodgers channel that wouldn't concern Uverse.  If 10,000 people leave that would cost them 20% ($1.5 million) of the revenue generated by LA area subscribers using the estimated numbers previously stated.


Unfortunately that's not the way it works, it would be per subscriber, not just per subscriber in an area.  The channel would be available for all, however, Dodgers games would be blacked out for those not in LA.  So no, it's not just 50K, it's approximately 9Million UVerse subscribers.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

qw545 wrote:

Since the $4 per subscriber would only apply to the estimated 50K users that would be $200,000.  If 10 people leave to get the Dodgers channel that wouldn't concern Uverse.  If 10,000 people leave that would cost them 20% ($1.5 million) of the revenue generated by LA area subscribers using the estimated numbers previously stated.


Unfortunately that's not the way it works, it would be per subscriber, not just per subscriber in an area.  The channel would be available for all, however, Dodgers games would be blacked out for those not in LA.  So no, it's not just 50K, it's approximately 9Million UVerse subscribers.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

41 of 52 (1,236 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 2, 2014 7:17:27 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

9 million?  Isn't the U-Verse TV subscriber number like 5.5 million?  There are 10.7 million, but the extra 5.2 m are internet only.  AFAIK.  YMMV. LOL. Smiley Very Happy

9 million?  Isn't the U-Verse TV subscriber number like 5.5 million?  There are 10.7 million, but the extra 5.2 m are internet only.  AFAIK.  YMMV. LOL. Smiley Very Happy

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

42 of 52 (1,214 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 2, 2014 10:54:26 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

dhascall wrote:

9 million?  Isn't the U-Verse TV subscriber number like 5.5 million?  There are 10.7 million, but the extra 5.2 m are internet only.  AFAIK.  YMMV. LOL. Smiley Very Happy


Ok, even still at 5.5 million subscribers, the total monthly payout to TWC would be $22 Million

and the 50K is a guess at number of LA subs.  Even still if 20% of them leave, that's only $1.2 compared to the $22 million that would be required to pay out each mothn.  That still saves $20.8 million per month.  Not seeing a big rush to make that channel available.  Consider Dish and Direct that have roughly  35 Million subscribers combined (20+ and 14+), not sure they will want to shell that kind of cash for one channel either.

 

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

dhascall wrote:

9 million?  Isn't the U-Verse TV subscriber number like 5.5 million?  There are 10.7 million, but the extra 5.2 m are internet only.  AFAIK.  YMMV. LOL. Smiley Very Happy


Ok, even still at 5.5 million subscribers, the total monthly payout to TWC would be $22 Million

and the 50K is a guess at number of LA subs.  Even still if 20% of them leave, that's only $1.2 compared to the $22 million that would be required to pay out each mothn.  That still saves $20.8 million per month.  Not seeing a big rush to make that channel available.  Consider Dish and Direct that have roughly  35 Million subscribers combined (20+ and 14+), not sure they will want to shell that kind of cash for one channel either.

 

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

43 of 52 (1,189 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 2, 2014 11:07:42 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

For those of you in the Los Angeles Dodger region who blame AT&T for not being able to watch Dodger games, here is a take on the problem by "Los Angeles Times" writer Bill Plaschke. He wrote this article yesterday about his experience of trying to find a place to watch the Dodgers on television.

 

What the Dodgers have done by creating SportsNet LA in such a manner that it reaches only 30% of Los Angeles puts the Dodgers in a bad light. Enjoy the article.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-plaschke-20140402,0,1941938.column#...

 

Here are the first three paragraphs of the article by Mr. Plaschke.

 

My whopper of a journey ended in a Burger King, in front of a darkened TV screen hanging in a corner obscured by a tall guy eating a bag of fries.

 

The Dodgers game had just ended, and I had missed it. All of it. Every pitch, every hit, every Vin. My Tuesday afternoon quest to watch the Dodgers' first domestic appearance on their new SportsNet LA channel had finished in fast-food failure.

 

Bad enough that this new channel reaches only 30% of Los Angeles. On the first day that would test the effect of the Dodgers' decision to cut a TV deal that has cut out the majority of their fans, the channel reached 0% of me.

 


Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

 

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

For those of you in the Los Angeles Dodger region who blame AT&T for not being able to watch Dodger games, here is a take on the problem by "Los Angeles Times" writer Bill Plaschke. He wrote this article yesterday about his experience of trying to find a place to watch the Dodgers on television.

 

What the Dodgers have done by creating SportsNet LA in such a manner that it reaches only 30% of Los Angeles puts the Dodgers in a bad light. Enjoy the article.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-plaschke-20140402,0,1941938.column#axzz2xkypPTIN

 

Here are the first three paragraphs of the article by Mr. Plaschke.

 

My whopper of a journey ended in a Burger King, in front of a darkened TV screen hanging in a corner obscured by a tall guy eating a bag of fries.

 

The Dodgers game had just ended, and I had missed it. All of it. Every pitch, every hit, every Vin. My Tuesday afternoon quest to watch the Dodgers' first domestic appearance on their new SportsNet LA channel had finished in fast-food failure.

 

Bad enough that this new channel reaches only 30% of Los Angeles. On the first day that would test the effect of the Dodgers' decision to cut a TV deal that has cut out the majority of their fans, the channel reached 0% of me.

 


Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

 

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

44 of 52 (1,181 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 2, 2014 11:22:27 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

dwinth wrote:

For those of you in the Los Angeles Dodger region who blame AT&T for not being able to watch Dodger games, here is a take on the problem by "Los Angeles Times" writer Bill Plaschke. He wrote this article yesterday about his experience of trying to find a place to watch the Dodgers on television.

 

What the Dodgers have done by creating SportsNet LA in such a manner that it reaches only 30% of Los Angeles puts the Dodgers in a bad light. Enjoy the article.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-plaschke-20140402,0,1941938.column#...

 

Here are the first three paragraphs of the article by Mr. Plaschke.

 

My whopper of a journey ended in a Burger King, in front of a darkened TV screen hanging in a corner obscured by a tall guy eating a bag of fries.

 

The Dodgers game had just ended, and I had missed it. All of it. Every pitch, every hit, every Vin. My Tuesday afternoon quest to watch the Dodgers' first domestic appearance on their new SportsNet LA channel had finished in fast-food failure.

 

Bad enough that this new channel reaches only 30% of Los Angeles. On the first day that would test the effect of the Dodgers' decision to cut a TV deal that has cut out the majority of their fans, the channel reached 0% of me.

 


Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

 


CSN Houston all over again, only with a better team.

-------

Resident Xbox ACE. Ask me almost anything about Xbox on U-Verse.

Xbox Gamertag: americangame
PSN: americangame
Steam:americangame
When friending me mention that you found me on the AT&T forums.

dwinth wrote:

For those of you in the Los Angeles Dodger region who blame AT&T for not being able to watch Dodger games, here is a take on the problem by "Los Angeles Times" writer Bill Plaschke. He wrote this article yesterday about his experience of trying to find a place to watch the Dodgers on television.

 

What the Dodgers have done by creating SportsNet LA in such a manner that it reaches only 30% of Los Angeles puts the Dodgers in a bad light. Enjoy the article.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-plaschke-20140402,0,1941938.column#axzz2xkypPTIN

 

Here are the first three paragraphs of the article by Mr. Plaschke.

 

My whopper of a journey ended in a Burger King, in front of a darkened TV screen hanging in a corner obscured by a tall guy eating a bag of fries.

 

The Dodgers game had just ended, and I had missed it. All of it. Every pitch, every hit, every Vin. My Tuesday afternoon quest to watch the Dodgers' first domestic appearance on their new SportsNet LA channel had finished in fast-food failure.

 

Bad enough that this new channel reaches only 30% of Los Angeles. On the first day that would test the effect of the Dodgers' decision to cut a TV deal that has cut out the majority of their fans, the channel reached 0% of me.

 


Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

 


CSN Houston all over again, only with a better team.

-------

Resident Xbox ACE. Ask me almost anything about Xbox on U-Verse.

Xbox Gamertag: americangame
PSN: americangame
Steam:americangame
When friending me mention that you found me on the AT&T forums.
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

45 of 52 (1,175 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 2, 2014 4:24:25 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

americangame wrote:

dwinth wrote:

For those of you in the Los Angeles Dodger region who blame AT&T for not being able to watch Dodger games, here is a take on the problem by "Los Angeles Times" writer Bill Plaschke. He wrote this article yesterday about his experience of trying to find a place to watch the Dodgers on television.

 

What the Dodgers have done by creating SportsNet LA in such a manner that it reaches only 30% of Los Angeles puts the Dodgers in a bad light. Enjoy the article.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-plaschke-20140402,0,1941938.column#...

 

Here are the first three paragraphs of the article by Mr. Plaschke.

 

My whopper of a journey ended in a Burger King, in front of a darkened TV screen hanging in a corner obscured by a tall guy eating a bag of fries.

 

The Dodgers game had just ended, and I had missed it. All of it. Every pitch, every hit, every Vin. My Tuesday afternoon quest to watch the Dodgers' first domestic appearance on their new SportsNet LA channel had finished in fast-food failure.

 

Bad enough that this new channel reaches only 30% of Los Angeles. On the first day that would test the effect of the Dodgers' decision to cut a TV deal that has cut out the majority of their fans, the channel reached 0% of me.

 


Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

 


CSN Houston all over again, only with a better team.


And a higher fee. I knew the deal was in the BILLIONS, but $8.5 BILLION is more than the GDP of some countries.  That's just plain STUPID.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

americangame wrote:

dwinth wrote:

For those of you in the Los Angeles Dodger region who blame AT&T for not being able to watch Dodger games, here is a take on the problem by "Los Angeles Times" writer Bill Plaschke. He wrote this article yesterday about his experience of trying to find a place to watch the Dodgers on television.

 

What the Dodgers have done by creating SportsNet LA in such a manner that it reaches only 30% of Los Angeles puts the Dodgers in a bad light. Enjoy the article.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-sp-dodgers-plaschke-20140402,0,1941938.column#axzz2xkypPTIN

 

Here are the first three paragraphs of the article by Mr. Plaschke.

 

My whopper of a journey ended in a Burger King, in front of a darkened TV screen hanging in a corner obscured by a tall guy eating a bag of fries.

 

The Dodgers game had just ended, and I had missed it. All of it. Every pitch, every hit, every Vin. My Tuesday afternoon quest to watch the Dodgers' first domestic appearance on their new SportsNet LA channel had finished in fast-food failure.

 

Bad enough that this new channel reaches only 30% of Los Angeles. On the first day that would test the effect of the Dodgers' decision to cut a TV deal that has cut out the majority of their fans, the channel reached 0% of me.

 


Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

 


CSN Houston all over again, only with a better team.


And a higher fee. I knew the deal was in the BILLIONS, but $8.5 BILLION is more than the GDP of some countries.  That's just plain STUPID.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

46 of 52 (1,126 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 9, 2014 9:37:34 PM
0
(0)
Voyager

Come on ATT, get the Dodger channel what ever it takes!!!

Come on ATT, get the Dodger channel what ever it takes!!!

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

47 of 52 (904 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 10, 2014 6:17:08 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

It's an election year. It's only a matter of time before the Dodgers, Time Warner and cable executives are hauled before congress demanding an explanation as to why their beloved constituents are no longer able to see the Dodgers.

 

What ultimately solves this would be the threat of legislation disallowing the practice of content providers and distributors being the same company (or some other adverse regulation) which would blow the Comcast-TWC deal out of the water.

 

 

It's an election year. It's only a matter of time before the Dodgers, Time Warner and cable executives are hauled before congress demanding an explanation as to why their beloved constituents are no longer able to see the Dodgers.

 

What ultimately solves this would be the threat of legislation disallowing the practice of content providers and distributors being the same company (or some other adverse regulation) which would blow the Comcast-TWC deal out of the water.

 

 

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

48 of 52 (888 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 10, 2014 7:10:11 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

Still don't know how Major League Baseball escapes the wrath of some of you.  Do you think they looked at TWC and the Dodgers and said, "Ohhhh no, you two work this out, we're not getting involved?"

 

MLB's greedy little hands are all over this, just like they signed-off, to an extent, in Houston with Comcast and the Astros.  And again, they seem to slink away from the crime scene with a good majority of people not paying attention to them.

 

Found it quite amusing, in getting HD Premium with the RSNs, that MLB pre-season "games" (practice sessions, more like, except they charge fans to watch) were getting blacked out.  One would think that, in the way that almost every company with a new product covets space on a WalMart shelf because of the millions of eyeballs they could be exposed to, MLB and the team owners would want to expose as many people as possible to their product before a new season begins.  And possibly those eyeballs would buy their overpriced OOM baseball package because of this.  But somehow all of these sport leagues think exclusivity is a huge benefit to them, especially in the age where you can actually bypass their little "roadblocks" if you really apply yourself (not endorsing such practices, but they do exist).  And MLB is hardly the only one:  Even the NBA Development League games get the blackout treatment.  The not-yet-stars deserve that royal treatment???

 

If TWC cannot get more than 30% of the Los Angeles/Dogers territory covered, things are not looking good.  Granted, we're only barely into the season, but if there was such demand for this, you would have seen closer to 80% signed up BEFORE the season started.  Haven't they had at *least* a year's head start on this already?

 

It's all just a waiting game until the fire sale pricing comes about.

Still don't know how Major League Baseball escapes the wrath of some of you.  Do you think they looked at TWC and the Dodgers and said, "Ohhhh no, you two work this out, we're not getting involved?"

 

MLB's greedy little hands are all over this, just like they signed-off, to an extent, in Houston with Comcast and the Astros.  And again, they seem to slink away from the crime scene with a good majority of people not paying attention to them.

 

Found it quite amusing, in getting HD Premium with the RSNs, that MLB pre-season "games" (practice sessions, more like, except they charge fans to watch) were getting blacked out.  One would think that, in the way that almost every company with a new product covets space on a WalMart shelf because of the millions of eyeballs they could be exposed to, MLB and the team owners would want to expose as many people as possible to their product before a new season begins.  And possibly those eyeballs would buy their overpriced OOM baseball package because of this.  But somehow all of these sport leagues think exclusivity is a huge benefit to them, especially in the age where you can actually bypass their little "roadblocks" if you really apply yourself (not endorsing such practices, but they do exist).  And MLB is hardly the only one:  Even the NBA Development League games get the blackout treatment.  The not-yet-stars deserve that royal treatment???

 

If TWC cannot get more than 30% of the Los Angeles/Dogers territory covered, things are not looking good.  Granted, we're only barely into the season, but if there was such demand for this, you would have seen closer to 80% signed up BEFORE the season started.  Haven't they had at *least* a year's head start on this already?

 

It's all just a waiting game until the fire sale pricing comes about.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

49 of 52 (879 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 10, 2014 10:13:08 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

Granted the Dodgers are a much, much better team than the Astros, but it's a similar to what is happening in Houston. CSN Houston now owns exclusive rights to the Astros games and only about 500K (out of approximately 5.6 Million Houston residents) have access to the channel because Comcast wants such a high price.  At least per MLB blackout rules, all of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma  and parts of New Mexico could watch the games when they were on Fox Sports Houston.  Monday they had their second 0.0 Nielsen rating and that was playing the Angels.  It lost out to reruns of 21 Jump Street and the Cosby show as well as the rain delayed Nascar race.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway

Granted the Dodgers are a much, much better team than the Astros, but it's a similar to what is happening in Houston. CSN Houston now owns exclusive rights to the Astros games and only about 500K (out of approximately 5.6 Million Houston residents) have access to the channel because Comcast wants such a high price.  At least per MLB blackout rules, all of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma  and parts of New Mexico could watch the games when they were on Fox Sports Houston.  Monday they had their second 0.0 Nielsen rating and that was playing the Angels.  It lost out to reruns of 21 Jump Street and the Cosby show as well as the rain delayed Nascar race.

” Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports … all others are games.”- Ernest Hemingway
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

50 of 52 (859 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 10, 2014 11:26:27 AM
0
(0)
ACE - Professor

oufanindallas wrote:

Granted the Dodgers are a much, much better team than the Astros, but it's a similar to what is happening in Houston. CSN Houston now owns exclusive rights to the Astros games and only about 500K (out of approximately 5.6 Million Houston residents) have access to the channel because Comcast wants such a high price.  At least per MLB blackout rules, all of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma  and parts of New Mexico could watch the games when they were on Fox Sports Houston.  Monday they had their second 0.0 Nielsen rating and that was playing the Angels.  It lost out to reruns of 21 Jump Street and the Cosby show as well as the rain delayed Nascar race.


In slightly related news a local furniture store (famous for the 6 million dollar super bowl giveaway) is going to give away more furniture if the Astros win more than 63 games (less than 100 losses).

 

I'm not taking that bet.

-------

Resident Xbox ACE. Ask me almost anything about Xbox on U-Verse.

Xbox Gamertag: americangame
PSN: americangame
Steam:americangame
When friending me mention that you found me on the AT&T forums.

oufanindallas wrote:

Granted the Dodgers are a much, much better team than the Astros, but it's a similar to what is happening in Houston. CSN Houston now owns exclusive rights to the Astros games and only about 500K (out of approximately 5.6 Million Houston residents) have access to the channel because Comcast wants such a high price.  At least per MLB blackout rules, all of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma  and parts of New Mexico could watch the games when they were on Fox Sports Houston.  Monday they had their second 0.0 Nielsen rating and that was playing the Angels.  It lost out to reruns of 21 Jump Street and the Cosby show as well as the rain delayed Nascar race.


In slightly related news a local furniture store (famous for the 6 million dollar super bowl giveaway) is going to give away more furniture if the Astros win more than 63 games (less than 100 losses).

 

I'm not taking that bet.

-------

Resident Xbox ACE. Ask me almost anything about Xbox on U-Verse.

Xbox Gamertag: americangame
PSN: americangame
Steam:americangame
When friending me mention that you found me on the AT&T forums.
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

51 of 52 (854 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 12, 2014 7:04:02 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

Although most of the points have been touched on at some point in this thread, here's the LATimes article from April 10: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140411,0,3635518,full.column

 

Back when Big Ten Network was ready to go live, Comcast wouldn't strike a deal because while B10 was going nationwide, they wanted the IN-market customers (those in the areas of the Big10 schools) to pay something like $1.00 per month whereas all others across the country would pay $0.25 per month.  When this "leaked out", customers were livid and flooded the network and the schools themselves with calls -- and this was back when Twitter was an egg in the recesses of somebody's brain, so no big "online protest".  FoxSports & the Big10 conference bigwigs scaled it back and viewers were happy.

 

Time Warner, famous for their "we stood up to the NFL for years because we don't think our customers should be forced to pay more", doesn't like it when the shoe's on the other foot, do they?

Although most of the points have been touched on at some point in this thread, here's the LATimes article from April 10: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140411,0,3635518,full.column

 

Back when Big Ten Network was ready to go live, Comcast wouldn't strike a deal because while B10 was going nationwide, they wanted the IN-market customers (those in the areas of the Big10 schools) to pay something like $1.00 per month whereas all others across the country would pay $0.25 per month.  When this "leaked out", customers were livid and flooded the network and the schools themselves with calls -- and this was back when Twitter was an egg in the recesses of somebody's brain, so no big "online protest".  FoxSports & the Big10 conference bigwigs scaled it back and viewers were happy.

 

Time Warner, famous for their "we stood up to the NFL for years because we don't think our customers should be forced to pay more", doesn't like it when the shoe's on the other foot, do they?

Re: Will the new Sportsnet L A for the Los Angeles Dodgers be available on Uverse

52 of 52 (790 Views)
Advanced
You must be signed in to add attachments
Share this post
Share this post