Fox Sports San Diego 2012 for Padres games

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

Yeah what they're asking is pretty ridiculous... FSSD is justifying the price increase by claiming that they're a round-the-clock sports channel while what TWC and the rest were getting before was a channel that basically only showed Padres games and little else. However, their round-the-clock claim is suspect because they're just broadcasting the feed from Fox Sports Primeticket, a LA based RSN that U-verse, Dish, and TWC already carry. Cox did not carry this LA based RSN, which is why they were willing to strike a deal. As far as I know, DirecTV's carriage agreement with FSSD only covers live events, meaning that they will air Padres games, but black out the channel the rest of the time.

---

I agree with you that is somewhat suspect.  Also, if the average price for other round-the-clock RSN's is $2.50 per subscriber, $5 per subscriber is rather steep.  I think all parties will work things out eventually.  It just make take longer than Padre fans would like to see.

[jeffcoindust]

well i think the idea is that somewhere down the line fssd and fspt are going to be distinct channels. I wouldn't be surprised if FSSD negotiates deals to air SDSU/USD basketball and baseball games and then set up some original programming that exclusively cover San Diego sports. I'd also imagine that UVerse, TWC, and the rest have pretty good deals to carry FSPT and don't want to drop the channel in lieu of FSSD only to have to renegotiate to pick primeticket up at a much higher price sometime down the line.

[jeffcoindust]

Darth Padre, in response to your Lakers statement I totally agree. The one thing that has become blatantly apparent is that these RSN's are charging an arm and a leg because sports is the last frontier of live tv/commercial watching.  I don't know about you guys, but sports are about the only thing I'll watch live and sit through commercials for anymore. Any other programming, I DVR, even if it's just the first 20 minutes so that I can fast forward through commercials and finish the show live.

[Darth Padre]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

Yeah what they're asking is pretty ridiculous... FSSD is justifying the price increase by claiming that they're a round-the-clock sports channel while what TWC and the rest were getting before was a channel that basically only showed Padres games and little else. However, their round-the-clock claim is suspect because they're just broadcasting the feed from Fox Sports Primeticket, a LA based RSN that U-verse, Dish, and TWC already carry. Cox did not carry this LA based RSN, which is why they were willing to strike a deal. As far as I know, DirecTV's carriage agreement with FSSD only covers live events, meaning that they will air Padres games, but black out the channel the rest of the time.

---

I agree with you that is somewhat suspect.  Also, if the average price for other round-the-clock RSN's is $2.50 per subscriber, $5 per subscriber is rather steep.  I think all parties will work things out eventually.  It just make take longer than Padre fans would like to see.

---

I don't think making a deal gets any easier now that the season has started.  As a Padre fan, I don't hold out much hope that customer  interest will increase as the season progresses, thus less pressure will be put on ATT/TWC to get the channel going forward.  Fox will not reduce the price given  that the two major carriers have already agreed to pay it.

Again, your $5 per figure is coming from Time Warner.  Huge grain of salt there.

[jeffcoindust]

I just can't wait to go through this again in the fall once the Pac-12 family of RSN's launches!!!

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

I just can't wait to go through this again in the fall once the Pac-12 family of RSN's launches!!!

---

Prepare yourself now!  As more new sports networks are created, these disputes will just continue because sports networks have the highest carriages fees.  

Just how much are customers willing to have their bill increase to carry all of these new channels?  It's a difficult situation.

[Den1960]

To be honest I will be switching back to Cox if I cannot get coverage of the Aztecs this year. This past BB season I had Cox basic but it was not a high-def picture. When the Aztecs were on CBS Sports Newtwork I could watch it in HD. I could have gone with a HD box but I asked myself why pay two big bills. While I do like Uverse my limiting factor is being able to watch local sports. Cox is better focused in that regard. When I switched over to Uverse I was told by the salesperson that they would be adding both Channel 4 and The Mtn soon. I was not unhappy with Cox but felt that I could try something different.

I have been a bit surprised by the "community" guy's attitude on here. Even though he isn't affiliated with ATT his signature does make it seem like he is (especially by listing the tech support number there). As a business owner I would be quite upset with some of his responses here since there are those that thought he was linked to ATT.

I have gone to the link to ask ATT to add the channel. I did that before with 4 and The Mtn to no avail. I suppose if they start losing subscribers they may be more prone to listen since, invariably, providers want to know why you quit their service.

I was with Cox for many years and never had an issue with them. Their picture was just fine and their internet was just as fast. No, they may not have as many channels as ATT (haven't checked lately) but they have the ones I watch (and as of now, more of the ones I watch).

[Den1960]

And the Aztecs and USD. Supposedly they will be carrying UCLA and USC (not that that matters to me but they draw a lot here in SD).

[Den1960]

You need to add in the fact that it isn't just the Padres the channel will cover. It will include the Clippers & Ducks (no NBA or NHL here in town so you do get fans down here for both), the PAC12 (emphasis on UCLA and USC who draw well down here) and SDSU and USD (both local teams). Wouldn't you expect that package to be worth more than just the Padres draw?

[sharksfansd]

---

Darth Padre wrote:

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

sharksfansd wrote:

I am in an area where TWC is #1 in the area - although COX rules in much of the county - and this would have been a perfect opportunity to get subs from those current TWC that want to watch the Padres.  Hopefully AT&T is treating this differently than the NFL Network and NHL Network negotiations.

---

What NFL Network negotiations are you referring to?

---

I assume he's referring to the fact that TWC does not have the NFL Network and whether or not ATT took advantage of that fact.  in any case, nice attempt to shift the focus of the conversation.  Yes, ATT has the NFL network. 

The bottom line is ATT will have failed to do as promised and instead of potentially gaining customers from TWC, they will lose significant portions of their tiny market share once the season begins tomorrow. 

---

Oops, sorry about that.  Darth Padre has it right in that I meant to say that AT&T should view this as a far better opportunity to take some market share from TWC.  Meaning that more customers that are with TWC will clamor for FS San Diego than the NFL Network and the NHL Network.  Thanks Darth Padre.

[sharksfansd]

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

looks like unless there's some sort of 11th hour miracle, it ain't happening before tomorrow, kids.

---

Thanks for sharing. 

I do like this forum, but since the company won't respond here it is best to use Twitter and Facebook (which I have been doing ) in order to get a response from AT&T.

[sharksfansd]

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

I just can't wait to go through this again in the fall once the Pac-12 family of RSN's launches!!!

---

Same issue as NHL Network and FS SD, unless the price is cheap I would see it as a long shot that the Pac-12 Network gets on U-verse. 

[sharksfansd]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

I just can't wait to go through this again in the fall once the Pac-12 family of RSN's launches!!!

---

Prepare yourself now!  As more new sports networks are created, these disputes will just continue because sports networks have the highest carriages fees.  

Just how much are customers willing to have their bill increase to carry all of these new channels?  It's a difficult situation.

---

I am not willing to have a higher bill, but I am willing to pay a la carte (I know, I know, that debate).  If FS SD is $5.00/mo (as referenced earlier), ESPN is $4.00/mo, and then adding up the other select channels I want, the price may be similar to what I pay now, perhaps  less, or maybe even more.  I don't know for sure unless there is some transparency for us consumers.

I am willing to pay a premium for the channels I want while not paying for those channels I don't watch.

[sharksfansd]

---

Den1960 wrote:

To be honest I will be switching back to Cox if I cannot get coverage of the Aztecs this year. This past BB season I had Cox basic but it was not a high-def picture. When the Aztecs were on CBS Sports Newtwork I could watch it in HD. I could have gone with a HD box but I asked myself why pay two big bills. While I do like Uverse my limiting factor is being able to watch local sports. Cox is better focused in that regard. When I switched over to Uverse I was told by the salesperson that they would be adding both Channel 4 and The Mtn soon. I was not unhappy with Cox but felt that I could try something different.

I have been a bit surprised by the "community" guy's attitude on here. Even though he isn't affiliated with ATT his signature does make it seem like he is (especially by listing the tech support number there). As a business owner I would be quite upset with some of his responses here since there are those that thought he was linked to ATT.

I have gone to the link to ask ATT to add the channel. I did that before with 4 and The Mtn to no avail. I suppose if they start losing subscribers they may be more prone to listen since, invariably, providers want to know why you quit their service.

I was with Cox for many years and never had an issue with them. Their picture was just fine and their internet was just as fast. No, they may not have as many channels as ATT (haven't checked lately) but they have the ones I watch (and as of now, more of the ones I watch).

---

I like AT&T, but if COX was in my area I would have switched already (primarily for the NHL Network). 

For now, I hang tight for COX to get in my area - won't happen with TWC having my portion of the county - or TWC to get NHL Network and FS SD before AT&T.  It really would pain me to go back to TWC.  I just can't stand their customer service or lack thereof.

[oufanindallas]

---

sharksfansd wrote:

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

I just can't wait to go through this again in the fall once the Pac-12 family of RSN's launches!!!

---

Prepare yourself now!  As more new sports networks are created, these disputes will just continue because sports networks have the highest carriages fees.  

Just how much are customers willing to have their bill increase to carry all of these new channels?  It's a difficult situation.

---

I am not willing to have a higher bill, but I am willing to pay a la carte (I know, I know, that debate).  If FS SD is $5.00/mo (as referenced earlier), ESPN is $4.00/mo, and then adding up the other select channels I want, the price may be similar to what I pay now, perhaps  less, or maybe even more.  I don't know for sure unless there is some transparency for us consumers.

I am willing to pay a premium for the channels I want while not paying for those channels I don't watch.

---

The problem with what  you are saying is that's the bulk rate the providers pay the networks,  I would expect it go much, much, much higher if it went ala carte since with the way contracts are worked out now, providers carry lesser channels from the newtorks to keep the bigger channels at a lower price.  If people started choosing only the channels they want the newtorks would have to charge higher rates to customers in order to keep the same income flow in.  So that $4 or $5 / channel would be more like $40 or $50

The networks get to charge that $4 per channel based on number of subscribers, ESPN is in the majority of packages whether you watch it or not, so take that $4 and multiply it by the number over UVerse subscribers,  roughly 3.5 million

that's how much ESPN gets per month from AT&T to broadcast ESPN.

[CTEL08]

THAT $3 BILLION att owes to tmobile for their failed merger is going to have to be made up somewhere, thanks for doing your part san diego county peeps!

[CTEL08]

with all due respect, thats sounds like a  pretty unrealistic assessment of the market oufan

the vast majority of espns expenditures go out to the sports leagues whos games they buy the broadcast right to.

if the pay television market, for whatever reason, be it regulation or market driven, were to move to the a al carte model, they could only realistically raise the amount they charge per sub so much before consumers would baulk. 

less subs fees = less capital

less capital = less money to bid on contracts for broadcast rights

lower contract bids = more competition from the big 4 broadcast networks and other cable networks

the consumer has more choices, the sports leagues might have to learn budget a little better if their tv contract revenue drops. in other words, mack brown might have to learn to get by on $ 4 million/yr. 

[hrodder2]

[quote]well it is game day and still no fssd so i have placed an order for a cox bundle. goodbye uverse! i think when my cell phone contract is up i'll switch that too. [/quote]

I'll be doing the same thing come Monday if still no FSSD on U-Verse

[dwinth]

---

hrodder2 wrote:

[quote]well it is game day and still no fssd so i have placed an order for a cox bundle. goodbye uverse! i think when my cell phone contract is up i'll switch that too. [/quote]

I'll be doing the same thing come Monday if still no FSSD on U-Verse

---

Good luck with your new provider.

[oufanindallas]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

with all due respect, thats sounds like a  pretty unrealistic assessment of the market oufan

the vast majority of espns expenditures go out to the sports leagues whos games they buy the broadcast right to.

if the pay television market, for whatever reason, be it regulation or market driven, were to move to the a al carte model, they could only realistically raise the amount they charge per sub so much before consumers would baulk. 

less subs fees = less capital

less capital = less money to bid on contracts for broadcast rights

lower contract bids = more competition from the big 4 broadcast networks and other cable networks

the consumer has more choices, the sports leagues might have to learn budget a little better if their tv contract revenue drops. in other words, mack brown might have to learn to get by on $ 4 million/yr. 

---

And how is my assestment wrong.  Broadcast priveleges are sold in bulk.  The majority of contracts also include lesser watched channels as a requirement for a smaller amount, but are still required to be carried.  If all of a sudden it went to ala cart the networks would quickly lose a huge revenue source and they would have to make it up somewhere.  I'm not talking about JUST ESPN/Fox Sports, ALL networks would be effected.  Without potential viewers due to bundled deals with providers, the network wouldn't be able to sell as much advertising, without advertising, much less revenue coming in, without revenue, no shows, no shows, no network.

Sports would be one of the few that actually survive as the majority of sports fans would pay for their channels.  Other networks, not so much.  As much as I like to watch HGTV, DIY  and Food Network, I'm not willing to pay a separate price to watch them.  Same with ID which my wife watches, NatGeo and NatGeo wild, Disney, NickJr. Hub, etc.   Many would feel the same and the newtorks would seriously start to suffer.

Ala carte is NOT the way to go.

[chris92071]

----And how is my assestment wrong.  Broadcast priveleges are sold in bulk.  The majority of contracts also include lesser watched channels as a requirement for a smaller amount, but are still required to be carried.  If all of a sudden it went to ala cart the networks would quickly lose a huge revenue source and they would have to make it up somewhere.  I'm not talking about JUST ESPN/Fox Sports, ALL networks would be effected.  Without potential viewers due to bundled deals with providers, the network wouldn't be able to sell as much advertising, without advertising, much less revenue coming in, without revenue, no shows, no shows, no network.---- Oufanindallas gets the weekly prize. In San Diego, KSWB has two subchannels. I expect them to show up on U-verse next carriage-renew time. Th!s TV ans Antenna. ~~ I switched to Cox. It is more expensive than U-verse even after incentives. TheHD options on U-verse are not there on Cox. Equipment is more$$$. I pay more for less.

[hrodder2]

hrodder2 wrote:

[quote]well it is game day and still no fssd so i have placed an order for a cox bundle. goodbye uverse! i think when my cell phone contract is up i'll switch that too. [/quote]

I'll be doing the same thing come Monday if still no FSSD on U-Verse

---

Good luck with your new provider. [/quote]

Been with them from years liked everything but the price, AT&T was cheaper but they lied to me promised FSSD. At least my first year will be at 50% off regular prices and I'll get the channels I want. Its called service.

[dwinth]

---

hrodder2 wrote:

hrodder2 wrote:

[quote]well it is game day and still no fssd so i have placed an order for a cox bundle. goodbye uverse! i think when my cell phone contract is up i'll switch that too. [/quote]

I'll be doing the same thing come Monday if still no FSSD on U-Verse

---

Good luck with your new provider. [/quote]

Been with them from years liked everything but the price, AT&T was cheaper but they lied to me promised FSSD. At least my first year will be at 50% off regular prices and I'll get the channels I want. Its called service.

---

I thought that Major League Baseball had to approve all of this with the Padres first before AT&T could come to an agreement with Fox Sports San Diego.

I understand your feelings. As a Cardinal fan, 20 games not being broadcast on Fox Sports Midwest is one thing, but not having the Cardinals at all is another thing.

If I understand this correctly, Cox will be gaining subscribers not just from U-Verse but from other television providers as well.

---

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

[chris92071]

Yes, dwinth you are correct. The assumption is FOX Sports will have the rights; and for all intents are broadcasting games. The final approval rests with the weasels at MLB. Which from a business standpoint for U-verse and others makes sense. They don't know the price tag. Cox is a heavy advertiser on air and product placement on FSSD.

[dwinth]

---

dwinth wrote:

---

hrodder2 wrote:

hrodder2 wrote:

[quote]well it is game day and still no fssd so i have placed an order for a cox bundle. goodbye uverse! i think when my cell phone contract is up i'll switch that too. [/quote]

I'll be doing the same thing come Monday if still no FSSD on U-Verse

---

Good luck with your new provider. [/quote]

Been with them from years liked everything but the price, AT&T was cheaper but they lied to me promised FSSD. At least my first year will be at 50% off regular prices and I'll get the channels I want. Its called service.

---

I thought that Major League Baseball had to approve all of this with the Padres first before AT&T could come to an agreement with Fox Sports San Diego.

I understand your feelings. As a Cardinal fan, 20 games not being broadcast on Fox Sports Midwest is one thing, but not having the Cardinals at all is another thing.

If I understand this correctly, Cox will be gaining subscribers not just from U-Verse but from other television providers as well.

---

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

---

Actually, I should have said Major League Baseball had to approve all of this with Fox Sports San Diego, not approve it with the Padres.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

---

Ala carte is NOT the way to go.

But, as I've said before, make it an OPTION.  If people want to (technically) pay more per channel, let them.    Some people just want a certain channel line-up without all the extra channels they never watch or care about.

---

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

with all due respect, thats sounds like a  pretty unrealistic assessment of the market oufan

the vast majority of espns expenditures go out to the sports leagues whos games they buy the broadcast right to.

if the pay television market, for whatever reason, be it regulation or market driven, were to move to the a al carte model, they could only realistically raise the amount they charge per sub so much before consumers would baulk. 

less subs fees = less capital

less capital = less money to bid on contracts for broadcast rights

lower contract bids = more competition from the big 4 broadcast networks and other cable networks

the consumer has more choices, the sports leagues might have to learn budget a little better if their tv contract revenue drops. in other words, mack brown might have to learn to get by on $ 4 million/yr. 

---

And how is my assestment wrong.  Broadcast priveleges are sold in bulk.  The majority of contracts also include lesser watched channels as a requirement for a smaller amount, but are still required to be carried.  If all of a sudden it went to ala cart the networks would quickly lose a huge revenue source and they would have to make it up somewhere.  I'm not talking about JUST ESPN/Fox Sports, ALL networks would be effected.  Without potential viewers due to bundled deals with providers, the network wouldn't be able to sell as much advertising, without advertising, much less revenue coming in, without revenue, no shows, no shows, no network.

Sports would be one of the few that actually survive as the majority of sports fans would pay for their channels.  Other networks, not so much.  As much as I like to watch HGTV, DIY  and Food Network, I'm not willing to pay a separate price to watch them.  Same with ID which my wife watches, NatGeo and NatGeo wild, Disney, NickJr. Hub, etc.   Many would feel the same and the newtorks would seriously start to suffer.

Ala carte is NOT the way to go.

---

[CTEL08]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

with all due respect, thats sounds like a  pretty unrealistic assessment of the market oufan

the vast majority of espns expenditures go out to the sports leagues whos games they buy the broadcast right to.

if the pay television market, for whatever reason, be it regulation or market driven, were to move to the a al carte model, they could only realistically raise the amount they charge per sub so much before consumers would baulk. 

less subs fees = less capital

less capital = less money to bid on contracts for broadcast rights

lower contract bids = more competition from the big 4 broadcast networks and other cable networks

the consumer has more choices, the sports leagues might have to learn budget a little better if their tv contract revenue drops. in other words, mack brown might have to learn to get by on $ 4 million/yr. 

---

And how is my assestment wrong.  Broadcast priveleges are sold in bulk.  The majority of contracts also include lesser watched channels as a requirement for a smaller amount, but are still required to be carried.  If all of a sudden it went to ala cart the networks would quickly lose a huge revenue source and they would have to make it up somewhere.  I'm not talking about JUST ESPN/Fox Sports, ALL networks would be effected.  Without potential viewers due to bundled deals with providers, the network wouldn't be able to sell as much advertising, without advertising, much less revenue coming in, without revenue, no shows, no shows, no network.

Sports would be one of the few that actually survive as the majority of sports fans would pay for their channels.  Other networks, not so much.  As much as I like to watch HGTV, DIY  and Food Network, I'm not willing to pay a separate price to watch them.  Same with ID which my wife watches, NatGeo and NatGeo wild, Disney, NickJr. Hub, etc.   Many would feel the same and the newtorks would seriously start to suffer.

Ala carte is NOT the way to go.

---

Welp, as i understand your post oufan, you pretty much said it all right there: you dont think most channels are worth paying your fair share for, so you think other people should subsidise tv networks for you. where i come from thats called socialisme.

if thats what ya want dont expect no support here. just personally one of the reasons i  served my country is to fight socialisme and all its different flavors like communism. i guess tehres a few thing you can argue where the that model works like public education or fire and police departments, but i sure wouldnt think pay tv networks should get to operate outside the free marketplace like it is now. 

[hrodder2]

Be nice if the community leaders would just go away. I'm sorry but few of you bring anything postive to a thread. Just my .02

Then again maybe that's the reason ATT has them keeps real ATT employee's from doing or saying anything responsible.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

hrodder2 wrote:

Be nice if the community leaders would just go away. I'm sorry but few of you bring anything postive to a thread. Just my .02

---

Anyone, including you and the community leaders, have a right to post in any thread on the forum as long as they are posting within the guidelines of the forum regardless of whether or not someone else deems their post as adding something positive to the thread.

If votes were taken on each message posted in this thread as to whether or not someone else felt that the message added something positive to the thread and those posts that were voted as not adding something positive were removed, the thread would be empty.

Everyone, including you and the community leaders, has a right to express their opinion on this forum whether or not it agrees with someone else's opinion as long as they adhere to the guidelines of the forum.  The right to express an opinion is not a one way street.

[spd2demun ACE - Master]

Wow! I guess you don't want ANY help? One of our duties is to report rude behavior.

---

hrodder2 wrote:

Be nice if the community leaders would just go away. I'm sorry but few of you bring anything postive to a thread. Just my .02

Then again maybe that's the reason ATT has them keeps real ATT employee's from doing or saying anything responsible.

---