|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Aug 16, 2012 19:01:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Aug 16, 2012 19:12:48 GMT -8
I think it is also a good indicator that Fox Sports SD was set up for the Padres and Padres only.
They have no interest in other local programming.
|
|
|
|
Post by myk13 on Aug 16, 2012 19:17:11 GMT -8
I hope #2 isn't true
|
|
|
|
Post by buckeyedad on Aug 16, 2012 19:23:11 GMT -8
Why must we assume that Time Warner and Cox must be "mutually exclusive"? Didn't Cox allow their Channel4 Padres coverage to be picked up outside of just Cox?
I'll be really pissed is SDSU allows their fans to be screwed in a manner reminiscent of how the No. County Padre fans are being screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Aug 16, 2012 19:30:17 GMT -8
Why must we assume that Time Warner and Cox must be "mutually exclusive"? Didn't Cox allow their Channel4 Padres coverage to be picked up outside of just Cox? The track record of both cable operators shows that Cox allows way more decisions to be made at a local level to reasonably provide locally important channels and one time events (ie. the Idaho and NM St FB games the past few years). The track record of TW shows that they don't give a damn about anything but money. They poured millions into acquiring the Laker rights and I seriously doubt they are going to reasonably negotiate with other operators. Hell, TW in San Diego still doesn't carry NFL network. What makes you think they'll bend over backwards to provide the Aztec games to Cox, AT&T, or satellite customers? We're screwed with Time Warner. |
|
|
|
Post by mightymightyaztecs on Aug 16, 2012 20:04:49 GMT -8
Why must we assume that Time Warner and Cox must be "mutually exclusive"? Didn't Cox allow their Channel4 Padres coverage to be picked up outside of just Cox? The track record of both cable operators shows that Cox allows way more decisions to be made at a local level to reasonably provide locally important channels and one time events (ie. the Idaho and NM St FB games the past few years). The track record of TW shows that they don't give a damn about anything but money. They poured millions into acquiring the Laker rights and I seriously doubt they are going to reasonably negotiate with other operators. Hell, TW in San Diego still doesn't carry NFL network. What makes you think they'll bend over backwards to provide the Aztec games to Cox, AT&T, or satellite customers? We're screwed with Time Warner. Time Warner simply does not give a f x x x . If they can stonewall the most popular sports league in the country then Aztec fans won't even register on their radar. At least Cox has picked up several Aztec games and broadcasted them on Channel 4 over the years. Not to mention buying the naming rights for the arena before basketball on the Mesa was ever popular. |
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Aug 16, 2012 20:28:32 GMT -8
I have a hard time believing the cable service provider for nearly every zip code contiguous to the campus zip won't carry every Aztec hoop games worth televising in a season that will draw solid ratings.
I personally think it's likely we'll see them on Ch4 again.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Aug 16, 2012 20:35:36 GMT -8
Hmmm...I wonder how this plays out for DirecTV customers? DirecTV has been very good to the my sports fix, so I'm counting on them to pick up these games too.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Aug 16, 2012 20:56:34 GMT -8
The difference between Cox and TW is that Cox is more willing to provide content and pass off the carriage fees to customers. TW isn't.
The LA times said that TW is asking $4 per customer from satellite and other cable providers for the Lakers channel. That's more than any other regional sports channel in the nation. I'm also just curious on how TW is going is going to package SDSU. Are they going to try and turn the Lakers channel into a So-Cal thing and put SDSU on the same channel or spin off a second channel? What happens if there is a time conflict?
Pragmatically, I think Cox and SDSU will make a deal for a few Ch4 simulcasts and there may be a midnight hour deal with DirecTV.
Pessimistically, everyone but TW customers will be shut out and if there isn't a second channel for live Aztec broadcasts, they could end up playing a tape delayed 2nd fiddle when there is a time conflict with the Lakers.
Knowing that TW has both FB and MBB rights, it is one hell of a bad position to be in when it comes to a national presence going into such important seasons for both teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Aug 16, 2012 21:19:14 GMT -8
Thank god its only one season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deja Vu U Monty on Aug 17, 2012 6:59:11 GMT -8
Directv is, indeed, in negotiations for carrying the Laker channel in the Laker market areas (CA, NV and HI.) I was talking with a rep a couple months ago when I called to see what price increases there would be for the sports tier this year (I subscribed Sept - Feb this past year then cancelled)
Apparently the holdup isn't the $4 they want necessarily but the fact that TW wants it on the tier that everyone gets and not the additional Sports tier that many of the Fox regionals, Root, and Comcast are on. Frankly that seems fair since we get FSSD at no additional charge. But TW is insisting on the $4 fee for the entire subscriber base and DTV wants it to be only the Sports tier base.
I'm sure that these are just talking points. DTV has mucho subscribers in the Laker area and thus can't afford to alienate them. A deal will get done. Just "when?" is the only question. Hopefully it will be this season so we can see our boys play. Like James says, thank God it's the last time we have to worry about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by mayham81 on Aug 17, 2012 7:07:31 GMT -8
What about uverse?
|
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Aug 17, 2012 7:18:57 GMT -8
You will always have PBS. |
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Aug 17, 2012 8:22:51 GMT -8
I pretty much side with DirecTV on every dispute. I hope they don't pick up the Lakers channel at all but I know that isn't happening. Hopefully the dispute goes the way of Viacom who caved after their ratings tanked.
Regarding the Aztecs, I'll probably have to watch a few games over the web. That's ok as it'll be better than the broadcast quality of what we had with the Mtn. Even if there is no stream I'd rather watch 70% of the games in HD over 100% of the games on the Mtn. I'm one of the few who is glad the Mtn is gone.
..Sent from my HTC Evo..
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsman16 on Aug 17, 2012 8:37:00 GMT -8
You will always have PBS. thats great lol |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 17, 2012 9:16:24 GMT -8
I pretty much side with DirecTV on every dispute. I hope they don't pick up the Lakers channel at all but I know that isn't happening. Hopefully the dispute goes the way of Viacom who caved after their ratings tanked. Regarding the Aztecs, I'll probably have to watch a few games over the web. That's ok as it'll be better than the broadcast quality of what we had with the Mtn. Even if there is no stream I'd rather watch 70% of the games in HD over 100% of the games on the Mtn. I'm one of the few who is glad the Mtn is gone. ..Sent from my HTC Evo.. I really miss the MTN, I miss it so much I covered my tv screen in Vaseline so I can reminisce |
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Aug 17, 2012 9:58:32 GMT -8
I pretty much side with DirecTV on every dispute. I hope they don't pick up the Lakers channel at all but I know that isn't happening. Hopefully the dispute goes the way of Viacom who caved after their ratings tanked. Regarding the Aztecs, I'll probably have to watch a few games over the web. That's ok as it'll be better than the broadcast quality of what we had with the Mtn. Even if there is no stream I'd rather watch 70% of the games in HD over 100% of the games on the Mtn. I'm one of the few who is glad the Mtn is gone. ..Sent from my HTC Evo.. I really miss the MTN, I miss it so much I covered my tv screen in Vaseline so I can reminisce Make sure to pierce your speakers with a knife and pour a little acid on them. You'll really want the full Mtn effect. ..Sent from my HTC Evo.. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Aug 17, 2012 10:17:58 GMT -8
Also, tape a picture of Skeletor to the screen and pretend he's doing color...
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 17, 2012 10:41:17 GMT -8
Time Warner bought Padres games from Cox. Cox will buy Aztecs game from Time Warner, if they get exclusive rights. Bank on it. But maybe the Aztecs should only sell Time Warner non-exclusive rights and an agreement against selling to directly competing outlets. That would mean the Aztecs could sell that product again to Cox cable.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Aug 17, 2012 10:44:44 GMT -8
Why must we assume that Time Warner and Cox must be "mutually exclusive"? Didn't Cox allow their Channel4 Padres coverage to be picked up outside of just Cox? The track record of both cable operators shows that Cox allows way more decisions to be made at a local level to reasonably provide locally important channels and one time events (ie. the Idaho and NM St FB games the past few years). The track record of TW shows that they don't give a damn about anything but money. They poured millions into acquiring the Laker rights and I seriously doubt they are going to reasonably negotiate with other operators. Hell, TW in San Diego still doesn't carry NFL network. What makes you think they'll bend over backwards to provide the Aztec games to Cox, AT&T, or satellite customers? We're screwed with Time Warner. Because Cox doesn't compete with them and TW can make money on the deal. It is a no-brainer. Next basketball season, the Aztecs will have the rights (not NBC/CBS) and if TW screws half the county (again), the Aztecs will remember. |
|
