Fox Sports San Diego 2012 for Padres games

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

hrodder2 wrote:

Be nice if the community leaders would just go away.

---

Well, that door swings both ways, if you know what I mean.

---

hrodder2 wrote:

I'm sorry but few of you bring anything postive to a thread. Just my .02

---

In most cases that's simply because there's nothing positive to bring.  If AT&T isn't carrying the Padres games, then they aren't carrying the Padres games.  What do you want us to do about it?  We don't have a magic wand or crystal ball.

All we can do is try to suggest a course of action that might help you.  Everyone who's been vocal in this thread about wanting the Padres games needs to face the fact that AT&T doesn't have them.  The ONLY way for you to get the Padres games right now is to investigate a source other than AT&T.  That has been repeatedly mentioned throughout the thread, and everytime it's mentioned the response is "that's not good enough for me".  Well OK, feel that way if you want.  But neither I nor any of the other CLs can do anything about it, so stop making us out to be the bad guy.  You're the one who is dissatisfied, not us.

[hrodder2]

[quote]n most cases that's simply because there's nothing positive to bring.  If AT&T isn't carrying the Padres games, then they aren't carrying the Padres games.  What do you want us to do about it?  We don't have a magic wand or crystal ball.[/quote]

Exactly you can't do anything , if you can't contact AT&T that we have a concern and get somebody on here that can do something, why bother, 99% of CL comments are wise cracks, just go away if you can't help, which yu can't.

BTW its rude to promise a customer you are going to deliver something then do nothing, zero feedback, ask how many went to that link to request FSSD then ask how many got any sort of reply. Bet its zero!

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

hrodder2 wrote:

Exactly you can't do anything , if you can't contact AT&T that we have a concern and get somebody on here that can do something, why bother, 99% of CL comments are wise cracks, just go away if you can't help, which yu can't.

BTW its rude to promise a customer you are going to deliver something then do nothing, zero feedback, ask how many went to that link to request FSSD then ask how many got any sort of reply. Bet its zero!

---

Again, the CLs are not AT&T employees.  We don't work for AT&T, we have no affiliation with AT&T, we don't know any special people at AT&T.  We're just customers like you.  What we can do is help.  We have told you repeatedly, you can request the channel from AT&T (and if they don't respond, that's not our fault).  Or you can go to another provider that carries the Padres games (and if that's not good enough for you, that's not our fault either).

We (the CLs) never promised you anything, so you can't blame us if your wishes aren't fulfilled.

Your problem is that you're simply so angry over not being able to see the Padres that you want to throw the blame at anyone and everyone, except yourself for being the only one who is truly holding you back.  Hint: To see the Padres, switch providers.   End of story.

[oufanindallas]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

---

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. 

---

I retired from the Navy in 2007 however nothing in my post suggests anything remotely related to socialism or communism.  I'm saying that with ala carte pricing you'd see the majority of the networks go away.  The problem is the "fair" price would cause the bill you have now to go much higher than it is now.  Since networks bundle channels together, I have the option to watch ABC Family since it's included with ABC.  If I had to pay to watch, I wouldn't since it's not a channel I watch regularly.

It's the same with HGTV, Food Network, DIY and the Cooking Channel.  They are all Scripps Network and are included in the same contract with providers.  Same with all of the Discovery Channels, and all the premium channels.  It's also the reason that when AT&T and Crown couldn't reach an agreement, Hallmark and Hallmark Movie Channel were removed.

[hrodder2]

approx 214 post and as of yet AT&T U Verse has yet to step up and bring everybody concerned up to date.

More of that good AT&T Customer service.

Oh good news & bad news

Good news Padres are televised on FSPT 774 & 1774

Bad news They are blacked out!! 

[sharksfansd]

---

hrodder2 wrote:

approx 214 post and as of yet AT&T U Verse has yet to step up and bring everybody concerned up to date.

More of that good AT&T Customer service.

Oh good news & bad news

Good news Padres are televised on FSPT 774 & 1774

Bad news They are blacked out!! 

---

Hi,

Because this is a "peer-to-peer" forum we won't get an official response from AT&T here.  However, they do respond on their FB page and their Twitter feed.

This is their official response via their FB page on Friday afternoon when someone asked about adding FS SD:  "We're still in discussions, but we don't have any updates to share at the moment. Stay tuned here on the page for announcements!"

Let's hope they add it soon, but not going to get my hopes up. 

[hrodder2]

Thanks just posted over there.

[hrodder2]

Got the standard "We are in negotiations" answer. At least they do check the FB once and a while.

[Friar Faithful]

Thats if they do not tear down your post beacuse you were expressing your thoughts on them not carrying FSSD instead of stroking them or putting up a feel good story. 

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

---

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. 

---

I retired from the Navy in 2007 however nothing in my post suggests anything remotely related to socialism or communism.  I'm saying that with ala carte pricing you'd see the majority of the networks go away.  The problem is the "fair" price would cause the bill you have now to go much higher than it is now.  Since networks bundle channels together, I have the option to watch ABC Family since it's included with ABC.  If I had to pay to watch, I wouldn't since it's not a channel I watch regularly.

It's the same with HGTV, Food Network, DIY and the Cooking Channel.  They are all Scripps Network and are included in the same contract with providers.  Same with all of the Discovery Channels, and all the premium channels.  It's also the reason that when AT&T and Crown couldn't reach an agreement, Hallmark and Hallmark Movie Channel were removed.

---

I haven't seen anyone in this thread discuss the other part of the bundle vs. a-la-carte issue.  It's not just that ABC/Disney brings you a bunch of channels, it's also that when AT&T signs a contract, they sign up to pay the per-subscriber-rate for each subscriber who gets that channel.  So all of the U-200 subscribers are counted for each U-200 channel, not just the ones that watch it. This is true for all the channels across all the content providers at a tier. 

A simple example: if you take the 4.00 figure for ESPN and say that (to pick a number out of the air) 2,000,000 U-verse subscribers have U-200.  Thus AT&T would pay Disney $8,000,000 per month for ESPN.  Assuming that about 20% of homes would subscribe a-la-carte if offerred, then to make that same $8,000,000 the price would have to be $20.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be one of the 20% if the price were $20/month.  So what percentage would pay $20?  How about 10%.  Well, that's too bad, but because if only 10% take it, the price would have to be $40/month.

Yes, you subsidize the channels you don't want to get the channels you do want.  And so do I.  And we avoid the shopping channels that help subsidize the content channels for all of us.

This is what our quasi-free market has come up with, which is probably better than the federal government could have imposed.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

JefferMC wrote:

I haven't seen anyone in this thread discuss the other part of the bundle vs. a-la-carte issue.  It's not just that ABC/Disney brings you a bunch of channels, it's also that when AT&T signs a contract, they sign up to pay the per-subscriber-rate for each subscriber who gets that channel.  So all of the U-200 subscribers are counted for each U-200 channel, not just the ones that watch it. This is true for all the channels across all the content providers at a tier. 

A simple example: if you take the 4.00 figure for ESPN and say that (to pick a number out of the air) 2,000,000 U-verse subscribers have U-200.  Thus AT&T would pay Disney $8,000,000 per month for ESPN.  Assuming that about 20% of homes would subscribe a-la-carte if offerred, then to make that same $8,000,000 the price would have to be $20.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be one of the 20% if the price were $20/month.  So what percentage would pay $20?  How about 10%.  Well, that's too bad, but because if only 10% take it, the price would have to be $40/month.

Yes, you subsidize the channels you don't want to get the channels you do want.  And so do I.  And we avoid the shopping channels that help subsidize the content channels for all of us.

This is what our quasi-free market has come up with, which is probably better than the federal government could have imposed. 

---

You numbers are probably not that far off.  One additional point is that the $4 carriage fee is all paid to ESPN.  It does not include U-verse's cost for delivery of the channel or the additional amount that U-verse needs to charge to cover their overhead.  Thus, the customer now pays more than the $4/month for ESPN.  

In your example if only 20% of subscribe selected ESPN al la carte, the monthly fee that U-verse would have to pay to ESPN would be $20/month per subscriber; however, what U-verse charges the customer would have be higher than that amount.  U-verse might have to charge the customer $30/month for ESPN.

[jeffcoindust]

Tweet from FSSD's official account:

Fans, we hear you regarding TWC, AT&T, and Dish and wish we had more info for you. A fair rate went out to all. Cox and DIRECTV are on board

https://twitter.com/FoxSportsSD/statuses/189447086545174528

[oufanindallas]

---

jeffcoindust wrote:

Tweet from FSSD's official account:

Fans, we hear you regarding TWC, AT&T, and Dish and wish we had more info for you. A fair rate went out to all. Cox and DIRECTV are on board

https://twitter.com/FoxSportsSD/statuses/189447086545174528

---

It's all a matter of perspective on what Fox Sports considers Fair and what providers consider Fair.

[jeffcoindust]

also directv is only broadcasting padres games, and the channel blacks out the rest of the time. I'm sure they're paying a lot less for the channel than cox is because of their sweetheart deal with MLB as the exclusive TV carrier of Extra Innings.

[oufanindallas]

so if MLB hasn't approved the TV deal yet, how are other providers able to broadcast the games?  Just curious.

[jeffcoindust]

john moores told a reporter from mlb.com on opening day that the 1.2 b tv deal had been approved.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120406&content_id=27990276&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

[CTEL08]

---

JefferMC wrote:

---

oufanindallas wrote:

---

I retired from the Navy in 2007 however nothing in my post suggests anything remotely related to socialism or communism.  I'm saying that with ala carte pricing you'd see the majority of the networks go away.  The problem is the "fair" price would cause the bill you have now to go much higher than it is now.  Since networks bundle channels together, I have the option to watch ABC Family since it's included with ABC.  If I had to pay to watch, I wouldn't since it's not a channel I watch regularly.

It's the same with HGTV, Food Network, DIY and the Cooking Channel.  They are all Scripps Network and are included in the same contract with providers.  Same with all of the Discovery Channels, and all the premium channels.  It's also the reason that when AT&T and Crown couldn't reach an agreement, Hallmark and Hallmark Movie Channel were removed.

---

I haven't seen anyone in this thread discuss the other part of the bundle vs. a-la-carte issue.  It's not just that ABC/Disney brings you a bunch of channels, it's also that when AT&T signs a contract, they sign up to pay the per-subscriber-rate for each subscriber who gets that channel.  So all of the U-200 subscribers are counted for each U-200 channel, not just the ones that watch it. This is true for all the channels across all the content providers at a tier. 

A simple example: if you take the 4.00 figure for ESPN and say that (to pick a number out of the air) 2,000,000 U-verse subscribers have U-200.  Thus AT&T would pay Disney $8,000,000 per month for ESPN.  Assuming that about 20% of homes would subscribe a-la-carte if offerred, then to make that same $8,000,000 the price would have to be $20.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be one of the 20% if the price were $20/month.  So what percentage would pay $20?  How about 10%.  Well, that's too bad, but because if only 10% take it, the price would have to be $40/month.

Yes, you subsidize the channels you don't want to get the channels you do want.  And so do I.  And we avoid the shopping channels that help subsidize the content channels for all of us.

This is what our quasi-free market has come up with, which is probably better than the federal government could have imposed.

---

man im glad the monopolistic, bullying and price gouging  pov's being expressed here havent been allowed to spread elsewhere in the economy

can you imagine the grocery stores were allowed to conspire like this?

you go there because you want  some lettuce for you sandwich, and they say "oh no, we cant just sell you a head of lettuce for a dollar. if you want lettuce, youre going to have to have to buy a $25 salad. and for an extra five bucks, we can add bacon bits and boiled eggs"

because if they dont do that what would happen to the beet farmer, tomato growers and dressing makers. 

networks are showing programming because the shows are popular enough to be shown, not vice versa

if FSSD were to fold tomorrow, padres games would still be televised, just by some other network or local station

i do agree not many ppl would be willing to pay $40/mo for espn networks. so they'd prolly have learn to tighten their belts and quit overpaying for garbage like the longhorn network if they had to compete in a market economy. maybe the'd have to put stuff like nascar, mnf and the bcs bowl games back on abc to regain advertising revenue, instead of using them as leverage for their outrageous sub fees.

likewise, if ESPN couldnt survive a la carte and went belly up, other networks would be tripping over themselves to bid for college football, mlb, etc...

all i want is comcast sportsnet california and bay area and cbs sports net. the rest i can get OTA or online and  i could care less about financing channels that yall dont want to pay for yourselves. sorry if thats sounds rude, but if you think about it yall are asking other consumers to pick up your monthly tab and when you get down to it thats pretty rude too

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

You have to pay AT&T, who has to pay Disney, who has to pay MLB, so MLB can pay the teams, so the teams can pay those athletes those 7 or 8 figure salaries for "working" 7 or 8 months a year.  

Do you want to be responsible for breaking the gravy train?

[CTEL08]

---

JefferMC wrote:

You have to pay AT&T, who has to pay Disney, who has to pay MLB, so MLB can pay the teams, so the teams can pay those athletes those 7 or 8 figure salaries for "working" 7 or 8 months a year.  

Do you want to be responsible for breaking the gravy train?

---

LOLOLOL

*SNORT*

well since you put it that way, i dont want PAY-ROD having to suffer thru hosting high stake poker games in sub par penthouse housing on my conscience, TIME TO PONY UP EVERYBODY!

[Chadder33]

I signed up 3 years ago for ATT U-verse.  at the time the sales guy said they were working on getting the padres games.  Att then tells the world how cox communications is illegally keeping them from getting the games when cox owns the rights I don't know how it is illegal but that is what they said.  Cox contract with the Padres runs out this year and Fox Sports San Diego pick up the contract.  Cox buys it right away.  Att Uverse is no where to be seen so I can only assume they will claim something outlandish again so I can continue to get the Oprah network Bravo, Lifetime but still no Padre games. 

The worst part is I try to call twice to get answers and the good people of India don't have any idea what a padre is let alone that they play baseball.  Then I try to email but you can't do that either, you have to be asking something specific in the pull down menu's, there is no button for why aren't you buying the Padres game like Cox did within a day?  So it turns out that this is the only venue I have to get in touch with some one at Att and this is doing nothing for me but letting me vent. 

Can you cancel my 840 channels I don't watch and just give me the Padres.  I am sure you can purchase the games for the same thing that illegal company Cox Communications did.  how about just a freaking announcement about your efforts to negotiate or a statement on how Fox is illegally keeping you from getting the games.  Silence is no longer and option.

{post merged}

[mscelfo]

I just got a reply to a tweet from Tom Garfinkel (President/COO of Padres) that he switched to DirecTV from Time Warner.  At least he didn't switch from Uverse.  I'm still hopeful that it will be added but I can't get a peep out of AT&T regarding an update or if negotiations are ongoing or anything.

[oufanindallas]

---

mscelfo wrote:

I just got a reply to a tweet from Tom Garfinkel (President/COO of Padres) that he switched to DirecTV from Time Warner.  At least he didn't switch from Uverse.  I'm still hopeful that it will be added but I can't get a peep out of AT&T regarding an update or if negotiations are ongoing or anything.

---

And you won't. AT&T does not discuss ongoing negotiations.

[mscelfo]

who says they're ongoing?  that's my question.  AT&T won't comment on anything. 

[CTEL08]

att absolutely will comment to its customers on negotiations. i imagine all that it would require is, for the comments to benefit PR, more than it would hurt

regarding their negotiations with amc/rainbow/cablevision, picked from this article:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Fires-Up-PR-Assault-On-Cablevision-Rainbow-Networks-109371

"We don't want you to lose these channels. But neither AT&T nor you should have to pay more than the programming is worth. In order to keep prices as affordable as possible for you, we can't and won't give into networks' unreasonable demands and strong-arming. We have successfully reached hundreds of deals with other programmers, without them removing their channels. And we continue to work with AMC, IFC and WE tv to get prices that are reasonable for you."

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

That is not a comment on the status of the negotiations.  That is a standard PR answer that is designed to assure the customers that AT&T is aware of their concerns, but it says nothing about the status of the negotiations.  AT&T does not provide details of the status of ongoing negotiations.

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

That is not a comment on the status of the negotiations.  That is a standard PR answer that is designed to assure the customers that AT&T is aware of their concerns, but it says nothing about the status of the negotiations.  AT&T does not provide details of the status of ongoing negotiations.

---

my post was directed at customers in san diego county who are missing their padres games and are concerned why theyve gotten no news about it.  i wanted to let them know if att saw fit to make any comment, they would. but so far they have not. if it is a standard then why havent they let this be known about FSSD?

im not sure that theyre interested in semantics that you decided to inject. as far as i remember youve been pretty clear that youre not an att employee so not sure what gives the right to speak for them. if they wanted to come on here and speak for themelves, they certainly could. 

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

CTEL08 wrote:

im not sure that theyre interested in semantics that you decided to inject. as far as i remember youve been pretty clear that youre not an att employee so not sure what gives the right to speak for them. if they wanted to come on here and speak for themelves, they certainly could. 

---

I'm not sure why all of your posts on this forum are always so bitter, but so be it.  

As stated many times, we all have the right to comment in any thread on this forum as long as it is done within the guidelines of the forum. I will continue to do so.

By the way, I am speaking for myself.  Who are you speaking for when you state what AT&T will or will not do when commenting on negotiations?

[CTEL08]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

CTEL08 wrote:

im not sure that theyre interested in semantics that you decided to inject. as far as i remember youve been pretty clear that youre not an att employee so not sure what gives the right to speak for them. if they wanted to come on here and speak for themelves, they certainly could. 

---

I'm not sure why all of your posts on this forum are always so bitter, but so be it.  

As stated many times, we all have the right to comment in any thread on this forum as long as it is done within the guidelines of the forum. I will continue to do so.

By the way, I am speaking for myself.  Who are you speaking for when you state what AT&T will or will not do when commenting on negotiations?

---

so letting peeps know about what att has done in the past is bitter. nice way to try and change the subject and put it on an indivisual instead of the subject at hand texasguy. 

and i did not say you dont have the right to post, if you somehow interpreted something i posted that did then sorry for the confusion that you were having.

lastly, im simply an att uverse customer, and im not an english teacher, but  i think if you re-read your the post i originally replied to,  then you'd see how someone could think you were representing att. not everybody is a regular here and knows everyone's background, nor should we assume so. 

[Friar Faithful]

Don't know how delinquent this message is to all the "Padre Hopefuls" but here is a link to a channel survey indicating what channel(s) you are hoping for in your UVERSE areas.

Don't know how far or how high up this goes, hopefully our messages get noticed. 

Keep forwarding this to all the different blogsights.

http://uversechannels.att.com/

[mscelfo]

I literally fill out that form on line EVERY SINGLE DAY to no avail.  I leave a polite and formal request to add FSSD and ask for a response but to date, no response from anyone at ATT.  

I did get a response on their facebook page earlier today stating that they were still negotiating and they would keep fans up to date on the FB page.  however, it looks like my post and their response has been removed.  good times.