TWC/Charter/Verizon/AT&T/Cox/DTV Ch. Guide (see 1st post)

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby therealdeal on Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:10 pm

Yeah the channel is definitely awesome. Particularly Backstage Lakers. Then they also will show classic games from time to time.

The other day they had the 1987 Game 4 vs. Celtics game on which was awesome...
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40322
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby Lakerjones on Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:23 pm

Aghhhhh! Don't talk about it any more guys. Don't want to hear about it until I have it myself. Coming up on do or die time very soon.
Lakerjones
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 15212
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:37 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby FabFourLakers on Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:04 pm

Ok so what is the DEAL?! Are DirecTV/Dish/any other networks getting the channel or what?! This is ridiculous...at least I can watch the lakers/clippers game tonight because it'll be on FSN....but seriously, do I have to stream all the non-nationally televised games this year?! So ridiculous...i need to move back to LA and get TWC. Sucks that TWC is not available in irvine otherwise I'd totally pay for it!!!

ARGH!!!!!!! :bang:
User avatar
FabFourLakers

 
Posts: 11764
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:47 pm
Location: Irvine, CA

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby CaCHooKa Man on Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:26 pm

FabFourLakers wrote:Ok so what is the DEAL?! Are DirecTV/Dish/any other networks getting the channel or what?! This is ridiculous...at least I can watch the lakers/clippers game tonight because it'll be on FSN....but seriously, do I have to stream all the non-nationally televised games this year?! So ridiculous...i need to move back to LA and get TWC. Sucks that TWC is not available in irvine otherwise I'd totally pay for it!!!

ARGH!!!!!!! :bang:


probably by october 30th for directv
User avatar
CaCHooKa Man
Human Highlight Reel
 
Posts: 20560
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby CaCHooKa Man on Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:10 pm

Time Warner Cable Sports statement on distribution

With the Los Angeles Lakers, LA Galaxy and Los Angeles Sparks, two networks and unprecedented behind-the-scenes programming, Time Warner Cable SportsNet and Time Warner Cable Deportes are delivering tremendous value for Southern California sports fans.

Any assertion that we are the highest priced regional sports outlet in the country is simply untrue; as a significant buyer of regional sports across the country, we know that there are higher priced regional sports networks, including Root Sports that we buy from DirecTV.

Cox and DirecTV know that there is no regional sports network anywhere in the country that is offered on an optional tier -- that would be unprecedented.

If Cox or DirecTV choose not to carry our networks, we and their customers will be very disappointed but we are confident there will be other alternatives for their customers to see this highly-anticipated Lakers season.
User avatar
CaCHooKa Man
Human Highlight Reel
 
Posts: 20560
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby LTLakerFan on Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:40 pm

lakerfan2 wrote:
NewDynasty wrote:Clippers game is televised tonight. The clippers announcers said we can watch it on fsn since its a clippers home game.


Mute. Turn on 710AM. Win.

Seriously, they are the dumbest set of announcers I've ever laid ears on.

They literally make my ears bleed. From the blind homerism on obvious calls against the Clippers, to straight up hating. And those Lawler-isms, BINGO! Are just straight annoying.


DUH why didn't I think of that. Hope the timing isn't too far off with the radio and TV signals. Anything but Michael Smith. :bang:
LTLakerFan

 
Posts: 6501
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: SoCal

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby OX1947 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:26 pm

The first domino has exploded. This is the only article with proof for Cox. I read over at LG that someone talked to Charter and Charter isn't cutting a deal either.

http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2012/10/t ... rns_do.php

Just a week to go before the first regular season game on the new SportsNet channel and Laker fans who don't have Time Warner are starting to sweat, Cox Cable, which has 1.2 million subscribers (mostly in OC and San Diego counties), proposed to carry the new channel on a specialty tier but Time Warner said no. Time Warner has also failed to sign deals with DirectTV and Dish Network. Don't be surprised if they can't come to terms before the start of the season (it's a long year). Time Warner's deal with the Lakers didn't come cheap - an estimated to run $3-billion over 20 years - and neither will its distribution contracts with other carriers. In the short term, Cox, DirecTV and the others have far more to lose by not running the Lakers. From the LAT:

Time Warner Cable is seeking as much as $3.95 per-month, per-subscriber for the two channels. The two channels launched Oct. 1. Besides the Lakers, SportsNet and Deportes also carry the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer team. Time Warner Cable is also expected to pursue rights to the Dodgers, whose contract with Fox's Prime Ticket regional sports channel expires after next season. "I think it is extremely expensive for basically a one-team channel," said Dave Bialis, senior vice president of Cox's California operations.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby CaCHooKa Man on Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:57 pm

cox, at&t and directv paid over $4 per subscriber for the padres network (fox sports san diego) so that argument doesnt hold weight. this is the lakers were talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twc-att-20121005,0,4357659.story

Cost clearly isn't an issue. Fox Sports San Diego costs more than Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles networks. According to people familiar with the matter, Fox's San Diego channel is over $4 per subscriber per month while Time Warner Cable's is $3.95.
User avatar
CaCHooKa Man
Human Highlight Reel
 
Posts: 20560
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby OX1947 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:11 pm

CaCHooKa Man wrote:cox, at&t and directv paid over $4 per subscriber for the padres network (fox sports san diego) so that argument doesnt hold weight. this is the lakers were talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twc-att-20121005,0,4357659.story

Cost clearly isn't an issue. Fox Sports San Diego costs more than Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles networks. According to people familiar with the matter, Fox's San Diego channel is over $4 per subscriber per month while Time Warner Cable's is $3.95.


Yah, almost 90% of the season was done before they did it. That is whats going to happen here too. Book it.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby revgen on Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:44 pm

IMO, I think the carriers are waiting to see what happens with the Dodgers. The Dodgers are currently in a 6 week exclusive negotiation period with Fox Sports. Once that period is over, they are free to negotiate with Time Warner Cable. Don't be surprised if Magic Johnson, with his connections to the Lakers and AEG decides to use his muscle and bring the Dodgers over to TWC as well.
"Every time he’s hurt, he always plays, he always comes through."

- Metta World Peace on teammate Kobe Bryant
revgen
HDTV/Multimedia Guru
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:53 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby OX1947 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:47 pm

revgen wrote:IMO, I think the carriers are waiting to see what happens with the Dodgers. The Dodgers are currently in a 6 week exclusive negotiation period with Fox Sports. Once that period is over, they are free to negotiate with Time Warner Cable. Don't be surprised if Magic Johnson, with his connections to the Lakers and AEG decides to use his muscle and bring the Dodgers over to TWC as well.


Please God, no. One disaster deal is enough. Please stick to Fox, Mag...
OX1947

 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby Vito Andolini on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:07 pm

Called DirecTV this afternoon. Rep said he had nothing new to tell me he said "we have a 99% success rate when negotiating for channels"

Very optimistic we'll have the channel by 10/31
User avatar
Vito Andolini

 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:29 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby Chillin on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:14 pm

OX1947 wrote:
CaCHooKa Man wrote:cox, at&t and directv paid over $4 per subscriber for the padres network (fox sports san diego) so that argument doesnt hold weight. this is the lakers were talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twc-att-20121005,0,4357659.story

Cost clearly isn't an issue. Fox Sports San Diego costs more than Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles networks. According to people familiar with the matter, Fox's San Diego channel is over $4 per subscriber per month while Time Warner Cable's is $3.95.


Yah, almost 90% of the season was done before they did it. That is whats going to happen here too. Book it.


Actually you are wrong. Cox cable had the Padres from the beginning of the season. Time Warner Cable did not and still does not receive that channel for customers in the San Diego area.

Also, for people that keep putting that $3.95 per subscriber out there, everyone does realize that the amount of $3.95 is not what the customer has to pay but what the Cable or Satellite company will have to give Time Warner Cable for that channel. It is the decision of the provider on how much they want to put on the subscriber or they can not raise rates at all and eat all of it. Providers are requesting to have TWC Sportsnet on a tier so they wont have to pay for every subscriber they have and the company is not going to just charge the subscriber $3.95 for that tier they will charge the customer the price of that tier with all the additional channels that come with it. Everyone should be rooting on for the channel to be on the basic lineup or you will have to add an additional tier that may cost upwards of $10 a month for other channels you may not even want to have.

If every time a provider negotiated with a company to add channels and had to increase rates you would have a monthly rate increase not a yearly one that all companies usually adhere to.
Chillin

 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:14 pm

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby JGC on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:27 pm

OX1947 wrote:
CaCHooKa Man wrote:cox, at&t and directv paid over $4 per subscriber for the padres network (fox sports san diego) so that argument doesnt hold weight. this is the lakers were talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twc-att-20121005,0,4357659.story

Cost clearly isn't an issue. Fox Sports San Diego costs more than Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles networks. According to people familiar with the matter, Fox's San Diego channel is over $4 per subscriber per month while Time Warner Cable's is $3.95.


Yah, almost 90% of the season was done before they did it. That is whats going to happen here too. Book it.


Bottom line is that AT&T paid $4 per subscriber. I posted this 3 weeks ago in here.

So go direct your outbursts at the non-TWC carriers. They are the ones not willing to pay less than what AT&T paid for the freaking Padres. They are being offered the channel and the non-TWC guys are refusing to carry it.

You should be mad at DirecTV for refusing to carry the channel for their customers including you!
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby OX1947 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:35 pm

Chillin wrote:
OX1947 wrote:
CaCHooKa Man wrote:cox, at&t and directv paid over $4 per subscriber for the padres network (fox sports san diego) so that argument doesnt hold weight. this is the lakers were talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twc-att-20121005,0,4357659.story

Cost clearly isn't an issue. Fox Sports San Diego costs more than Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles networks. According to people familiar with the matter, Fox's San Diego channel is over $4 per subscriber per month while Time Warner Cable's is $3.95.


Yah, almost 90% of the season was done before they did it. That is whats going to happen here too. Book it.


Actually you are wrong. Cox cable had the Padres from the beginning of the season. Time Warner Cable did not and still does not receive that channel for customers in the San Diego area.

Also, for people that keep putting that $3.95 per subscriber out there, everyone does realize that the amount of $3.95 is not what the customer has to pay but what the Cable or Satellite company will have to give Time Warner Cable for that channel. It is the decision of the provider on how much they want to put on the subscriber or they can not raise rates at all and eat all of it. Providers are requesting to have TWC Sportsnet on a tier so they wont have to pay for every subscriber they have and the company is not going to just charge the subscriber $3.95 for that tier they will charge the customer the price of that tier with all the additional channels that come with it. Everyone should be rooting on for the channel to be on the basic lineup or you will have to add an additional tier that may cost upwards of $10 a month for other channels you may not even want to have.

If every time a provider negotiated with a company to add channels and had to increase rates you would have a monthly rate increase not a yearly one that all companies usually adhere to.


No.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby Doc Brown on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:36 pm

Image
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19446
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby OX1947 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:42 pm

JGC wrote:
OX1947 wrote:
CaCHooKa Man wrote:cox, at&t and directv paid over $4 per subscriber for the padres network (fox sports san diego) so that argument doesnt hold weight. this is the lakers were talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twc-att-20121005,0,4357659.story

Cost clearly isn't an issue. Fox Sports San Diego costs more than Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles networks. According to people familiar with the matter, Fox's San Diego channel is over $4 per subscriber per month while Time Warner Cable's is $3.95.


Yah, almost 90% of the season was done before they did it. That is whats going to happen here too. Book it.


Bottom line is that AT&T paid $4 per subscriber. I posted this 3 weeks ago in here.

So go direct your outbursts at the non-TWC carriers. They are the ones not willing to pay less than what AT&T paid for the freaking Padres. They are being offered the channel and the non-TWC guys are refusing to carry it.

You should be mad at DirecTV for refusing to carry the channel for their customers including you!


My bill with directv for the first 12 months averaged 10 bucks a month. Why would I be mad at Directv? Directv said they would put the channel on a sports tier package so people who do not watch laker games, do not pay for something they do not watch. But TWC says no, they want to buttrape those who do not watch too. I think people like you lose the point of principal. You think I am talking strictly for me? I am standing up for people who get screwed everyday who have done nothing to anyone. And while this is a small situation, well, if you have a 100 of these things, it's a big one. Yah, sounds cheesy, but there is a breaking point for everyone when greed seems to keep coming and coming and coming from every facet of life.

Stop ripping people off who do not ask for it. That is my point. I have already found a solution as of today, so I actually do not care if the channel comes to Directv. But I will still be vocal and stand up for those who do not have my resources.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby Doc Brown on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:44 pm

Image
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19446
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby JGC on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:50 pm

OX1947 wrote:
JGC wrote:
OX1947 wrote:
CaCHooKa Man wrote:cox, at&t and directv paid over $4 per subscriber for the padres network (fox sports san diego) so that argument doesnt hold weight. this is the lakers were talking about.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-twc-att-20121005,0,4357659.story

Cost clearly isn't an issue. Fox Sports San Diego costs more than Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles networks. According to people familiar with the matter, Fox's San Diego channel is over $4 per subscriber per month while Time Warner Cable's is $3.95.


Yah, almost 90% of the season was done before they did it. That is whats going to happen here too. Book it.


Bottom line is that AT&T paid $4 per subscriber. I posted this 3 weeks ago in here.

So go direct your outbursts at the non-TWC carriers. They are the ones not willing to pay less than what AT&T paid for the freaking Padres. They are being offered the channel and the non-TWC guys are refusing to carry it.

You should be mad at DirecTV for refusing to carry the channel for their customers including you!


My bill with directv for the first 12 months averaged 10 bucks a month. Why would I be mad at Directv? Directv said they would put the channel on a sports tier package so people who do not watch laker games, do not pay for something they do not watch. But TWC says no, they want to buttrape those who do not watch too. I think people like you lose the point of principal. You think I am talking strictly for me? I am standing up for people who get screwed everyday who have done nothing to anyone. And while this is a small situation, well, if you have a 100 of these things, it's a big one. Yah, sounds cheesy, but there is a breaking point for everyone when greed seems to keep coming and coming and coming from every facet of life.

Stop ripping people off who do not ask for it. That is my point. I have already found a solution as of today, so I actually do not care if the channel comes to Directv. But I will still be vocal and stand up for those who do not have my resources.


All I'm saying is that DirecTV can carry the channel RIGHT NOW. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing this.

But they don't want to. What your bill is, is irrelevant. DirecTV can carry the channel right now but they are choosing not to.

Are you saying it's ok for DirecTV to not carry the channel, if they don't feel the terms are favorable for them to do so?
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby Scnottaken on Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:51 pm

I guess I understand where OX's coming from. I feel the same way towards EA.
I want to hear "Beat LA" chants at a Clipper vs Laker game
User avatar
Scnottaken

 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby OX1947 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:07 pm

All I'm saying is that DirecTV can carry the channel RIGHT NOW. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing this.

But they don't want to. What your bill is, is irrelevant. DirecTV can carry the channel right now but they are choosing not to.

Are you saying it's ok for DirecTV to not carry the channel, if they don't feel the terms are favorable for them to do so?


What I am saying is, it is documented that DirecTV wanted to make a deal to put the channel on a sport tier. And just so you know that I am not one of those freeloading, charity, wanting everything for free type, I knew dang well that when I saw 3 billion, i knew I would be helping out there as a Laker fan. I have owned businesses, I know the game. And I would be more then happy to pay for quality. I am a pay for quality not pay little for crap, kinda guy. I do go to Ruth's Chris and pay the extra caysh for top line steak. However, that is a choice I make. I am not being forced to eat 60 dollar steaks. So, when I feel like I am being shaken down or worse, see someone else, you are gonna hear from me. Because that's how I do things.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby JGC on Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:11 pm

OX1947 wrote:
JGC wrote:All I'm saying is that DirecTV can carry the channel RIGHT NOW. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing this.

But they don't want to. What your bill is, is irrelevant. DirecTV can carry the channel right now but they are choosing not to.

Are you saying it's ok for DirecTV to not carry the channel, if they don't feel the terms are favorable for them to do so?


What I am saying is, it is documented that DirecTV wanted to make a deal to put the channel on a sport tier. And just so you know that I am not one of those freeloading, charity, wanting everything for free type, I knew dang well that when I saw 3 billion, i knew I would be helping out there as a Laker fan. I have owned businesses, I know the game. And I would be more then happy to pay for quality. I am a pay for quality not pay little for crap, kinda guy. I do go to Ruth's Chris and pay the extra caysh for top line steak. However, that is a choice I make. I am not being forced to eat 60 dollar steaks. So, when I feel like I am being shaken down or worse, see someone else, you are gonna hear from me. Because that's how I do things.


Fixed the quotes.

Anyway, why aren't you mad at DirecTV for not being greedy and just eating the difference (between sport tier and for all) so you can enjoy your Lakers? They could do that if they weren't so greedy, right?
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby OX1947 on Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:22 pm

JGC wrote:
OX1947 wrote:
JGC wrote:All I'm saying is that DirecTV can carry the channel RIGHT NOW. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing this.

But they don't want to. What your bill is, is irrelevant. DirecTV can carry the channel right now but they are choosing not to.

Are you saying it's ok for DirecTV to not carry the channel, if they don't feel the terms are favorable for them to do so?


What I am saying is, it is documented that DirecTV wanted to make a deal to put the channel on a sport tier. And just so you know that I am not one of those freeloading, charity, wanting everything for free type, I knew dang well that when I saw 3 billion, i knew I would be helping out there as a Laker fan. I have owned businesses, I know the game. And I would be more then happy to pay for quality. I am a pay for quality not pay little for crap, kinda guy. I do go to Ruth's Chris and pay the extra caysh for top line steak. However, that is a choice I make. I am not being forced to eat 60 dollar steaks. So, when I feel like I am being shaken down or worse, see someone else, you are gonna hear from me. Because that's how I do things.


Fixed the quotes.

Anyway, why aren't you mad at DirecTV for not being greedy and just eating the difference (between sport tier and for all) so you can enjoy your Lakers? They could do that if they weren't so greedy, right?


Well, I will try and keep this short and to the point. I have had both services. TWC did NOTHING during my time with them. Not free trials, not referral programs, not equipment and HD upgrades, I mean, NOTHING. As a matter of fact, they uped my bill and gave me worse service.

Directv, gave me a deal that covered my costs from breaking contract with TWC, they gave me opportunities to cut my bill (refer a friend), they have awesome picture quality, great DVR functions, always have free trials for premium channels and when i speak to someone on the phone, it never sounds like I am talking to some hag in Hoboken.

So, the track record for me says, TWC has never cared about customer service. They care about their bottom line with no regard to the customer. I mean, this channel isnt about just the Laker games, its a Laker channel. The fact that they didnt care about Laker fans having the ability to watch the first show on the Laker channel tells you a lot on how well they care or know Laker fans. It wasnt about preseason games, its a Laker channel, we want to watch the channel. But, they never saw it like that. For a year, they had plenty of time to get deals done, but instead, we are waiting and there is 6 days left until the first game.

What's sad is, Directv may very well make a deal. However, Cox, Verizon, Charter, ATT will not. So either way, someone will get screwed.
OX1947

 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:48 am

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby Doc Brown on Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:00 am

Image
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19446
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: TWC and Lakers Sign Long-Term Agreement for Lakers Games

Postby JGC on Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:48 am

OX1947 wrote:
JGC wrote:
OX1947 wrote:
JGC wrote:All I'm saying is that DirecTV can carry the channel RIGHT NOW. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing this.

But they don't want to. What your bill is, is irrelevant. DirecTV can carry the channel right now but they are choosing not to.

Are you saying it's ok for DirecTV to not carry the channel, if they don't feel the terms are favorable for them to do so?


What I am saying is, it is documented that DirecTV wanted to make a deal to put the channel on a sport tier. And just so you know that I am not one of those freeloading, charity, wanting everything for free type, I knew dang well that when I saw 3 billion, i knew I would be helping out there as a Laker fan. I have owned businesses, I know the game. And I would be more then happy to pay for quality. I am a pay for quality not pay little for crap, kinda guy. I do go to Ruth's Chris and pay the extra caysh for top line steak. However, that is a choice I make. I am not being forced to eat 60 dollar steaks. So, when I feel like I am being shaken down or worse, see someone else, you are gonna hear from me. Because that's how I do things.


Fixed the quotes.

Anyway, why aren't you mad at DirecTV for not being greedy and just eating the difference (between sport tier and for all) so you can enjoy your Lakers? They could do that if they weren't so greedy, right?


Well, I will try and keep this short and to the point. I have had both services. TWC did NOTHING during my time with them. Not free trials, not referral programs, not equipment and HD upgrades, I mean, NOTHING. As a matter of fact, they uped my bill and gave me worse service.

Directv, gave me a deal that covered my costs from breaking contract with TWC, they gave me opportunities to cut my bill (refer a friend), they have awesome picture quality, great DVR functions, always have free trials for premium channels and when i speak to someone on the phone, it never sounds like I am talking to some hag in Hoboken.

So, the track record for me says, TWC has never cared about customer service. They care about their bottom line with no regard to the customer. I mean, this channel isnt about just the Laker games, its a Laker channel. The fact that they didnt care about Laker fans having the ability to watch the first show on the Laker channel tells you a lot on how well they care or know Laker fans. It wasnt about preseason games, its a Laker channel, we want to watch the channel. But, they never saw it like that. For a year, they had plenty of time to get deals done, but instead, we are waiting and there is 6 days left until the first game.

What's sad is, Directv may very well make a deal. However, Cox, Verizon, Charter, ATT will not. So either way, someone will get screwed.


I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience. But I'm not sure why you feel that TWC should give you anything at all. They offer you a service for a set price. If you don't like the price or the service or both, you can go somewhere else.

I'm not sure what you mean though about not caring about Laker fans having the ability to watch the first show. If they went and acquired exclusive rights and then didn't bring the channel on the air in time or was refusing to offer it to other providers, I'd understand. But they've been offering the channel. For months now. And DirecTV is refusing to carry it. DirecTV is completely capable of giving you the channel, at no added cost right now but most likely because of their bottom line, they are choosing not to. It sounds like the only way they are willing to offer the channel is if it is on their own terms. I do not understand why you're not mad at DirecTV for not biting the bullet and just taking the deal so you can have your Lakers.

Maybe DirecTV should consider not giving away all of these upgrades and goodies they've given you and instead use that money to provide premium content and provide it early to their customers. I mean surely, the cost of providing each and every one of their customers with contract breakage subsidies, supporting a refer a friend program, great DVR functions, great picture quality, free trials for premium channels, and a nicer phone voice to talk to amounts to more than $3.95.

At the end of the day, DirecTV has had the ability to carry this channel for months now. There is a deal on the table right now for DirecTV and all they have to do is sign it. Sounds to me like DirecTV thinks the deal being offered isn't fiscally favorable to them and so because of the impact to their bottom line, they are choosing not to. How does this make them any different than any other for profit company?
JGC

 
Posts: 3781
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSNbot Media and 13 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.