http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...v-and-att/

AT&T is headquartered in Dallas. If indeed AT&T gets to own part of the Pac-12 network, do they push for a new expansion into Texas? Pac-16 still has a chance?

(09-10-2015 03:28 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  AT&T is headquartered in Dallas. If indeed AT&T gets to own part of the Pac-12 network, do they push for a new expansion into Texas? Pac-16 still has a chance?

.....No

I guess not: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-collapse/

Quote:The Pac-12 Networks won’t be on DirecTV anytime soon.

The conference has rejected a proposal by DirecTV’s parent company, AT&T, that would have allowed carriage on the satellite provider but come at an enormous cost to the conference, a source said Saturday.

The league’s presidents and chancellors determined that AT&T’s requests would have compromised the networks’ business model and long-term profitability without granting enough in return.

The networks are wholly owned by the league, in contrast to counterparts at the Big Ten (co-owned by FOX) and SEC (co-owned by ESPN).

The proposal by AT&T, which took control of DirecTV this summer, likely would have forced the Pac-12 Networks to redo their existing distribution deals (with Comcast, DISH, etc.) at a lower subscription rate, jeopardizing future profits.

AT&T is believed to have wanted an equity stake in the networks, according to a source, but that was not the primary concern of the CEOs.

The conference currently uses what’s called a Most Favored Nation agreement, which gives any partner access to the best subscription rates available.

In addition, the income from carriage on DirecTV would have been lower, initially, than previous reports ($2 million to $3 million per school per year), according to sources.

AT&T also wanted to expand its presence on campuses.

The source did not rule out the possibility of AT&T returning to the negotiating table with a different offer, but said nothing was imminent.

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/with_replies

(09-10-2015 03:28 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  AT&T is headquartered in Dallas. If indeed AT&T gets to own part of the Pac-12 network, do they push for a new expansion into Texas? Pac-16 still has a chance?

I think it's still a possibility. And expanding with Big 12 teams is much better than picking the best MW teams. I think we could see some fine tuning of the network that could include looking at the central time zone or taking on a partner.

The best result, if the Pac went that route, is to try to Pick-Up TX/OK, then fill in some geographic holes w/ NM & UNLV for 15/16...

(09-14-2015 01:20 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  The best result, if the Pac went that route, is to try to Pick-Up TX/OK, then fill in some geographic holes w/ NM & UNLV for 15/16...

PAC 12 does not want the Longhorns until they give up the Longhorn Network which they will refuse. If Texas does not go? Oklahoma and Kansas could go to the Big 10. Without Oklahoma, there is no need to get Texas. Could they actually think about UTEP, UTSA, Houston and SMU as expansion candidates? They also want the Asian market, and Hawaii is close to the the Asian Continent. Hawaii, San Diego State, UNR, Boise State, New Mexico, Colorado State and any of the Texas schools not in the Big 12 could do.

(09-10-2015 03:28 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  AT&T is headquartered in Dallas. If indeed AT&T gets to own part of the Pac-12 network, do they push for a new expansion into Texas? Pac-16 still has a chance?

ESPN is HQ in Connecticut.................You saw what that did for UConn and the P5.

(09-13-2015 10:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I guess not: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-collapse/

Quote:The Pac-12 Networks won’t be on DirecTV anytime soon.

The conference has rejected a proposal by DirecTV’s parent company, AT&T, that would have allowed carriage on the satellite provider but come at an enormous cost to the conference, a source said Saturday.

The league’s presidents and chancellors determined that AT&T’s requests would have compromised the networks’ business model and long-term profitability without granting enough in return.

The networks are wholly owned by the league, in contrast to counterparts at the Big Ten (co-owned by FOX) and SEC (co-owned by ESPN).

The proposal by AT&T, which took control of DirecTV this summer, likely would have forced the Pac-12 Networks to redo their existing distribution deals (with Comcast, DISH, etc.) at a lower subscription rate, jeopardizing future profits.

AT&T is believed to have wanted an equity stake in the networks, according to a source, but that was not the primary concern of the CEOs.

The conference currently uses what’s called a Most Favored Nation agreement, which gives any partner access to the best subscription rates available.

In addition, the income from carriage on DirecTV would have been lower, initially, than previous reports ($2 million to $3 million per school per year), according to sources.

AT&T also wanted to expand its presence on campuses.

The source did not rule out the possibility of AT&T returning to the negotiating table with a different offer, but said nothing was imminent.

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/with_replies

I'm guessing this has nothing to do with AT&T.

Probably just the same old greedy a__holes that used to wear DTV hats and now wear AT&T hats, at the negotiating table.


I guess the only question I have is if the Nations clause is used by the BTN. It seems like such an obviously bad deal for the content providers, so why would the P12N allow it?

If that clause wasn't in the deals signed with DISH, we wouldn't be talking about this. They could sign with DTV at the lower carriage rate. If DISH wanted that rate, then they could negotiate for it on the next contract.

(09-14-2015 01:20 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  The best result, if the Pac went that route, is to try to Pick-Up TX/OK, then fill in some geographic holes w/ NM & UNLV for 15/16...

I doubt that is the strategy. If they could land OU and UT and still wanted more teams schools like TT and KU would likely be added before New Mexico or UNLV.

(09-14-2015 05:04 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-10-2015 03:28 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  AT&T is headquartered in Dallas. If indeed AT&T gets to own part of the Pac-12 network, do they push for a new expansion into Texas? Pac-16 still has a chance?

ESPN is HQ in Connecticut.................You saw what that did for UConn and the P5.

I think that is likely going to change in the near future.

I can't see ESPN moving - they recently plunked down about $1 Billion in capital improvements on their campus, including the new studio where SportsCenter is produced.

(09-15-2015 05:20 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I can't see ESPN moving - they recently plunked down about $1 Billion in capital improvements on their campus, including the new studio where SportsCenter is produced.

They are in the process of having millions in tax breaks that they were promised by state put on hold. Many corporations are downsizing in Connecticut because of this.
http://www.centralctcommunications.com/b...6fe97.html
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2015/07/c...e-session/
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local...10911.html

(09-14-2015 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 10:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I guess not: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-collapse/

Quote:The Pac-12 Networks won’t be on DirecTV anytime soon.

The conference has rejected a proposal by DirecTV’s parent company, AT&T, that would have allowed carriage on the satellite provider but come at an enormous cost to the conference, a source said Saturday.

The league’s presidents and chancellors determined that AT&T’s requests would have compromised the networks’ business model and long-term profitability without granting enough in return.

The networks are wholly owned by the league, in contrast to counterparts at the Big Ten (co-owned by FOX) and SEC (co-owned by ESPN).

The proposal by AT&T, which took control of DirecTV this summer, likely would have forced the Pac-12 Networks to redo their existing distribution deals (with Comcast, DISH, etc.) at a lower subscription rate, jeopardizing future profits.

AT&T is believed to have wanted an equity stake in the networks, according to a source, but that was not the primary concern of the CEOs.

The conference currently uses what’s called a Most Favored Nation agreement, which gives any partner access to the best subscription rates available.

In addition, the income from carriage on DirecTV would have been lower, initially, than previous reports ($2 million to $3 million per school per year), according to sources.

AT&T also wanted to expand its presence on campuses.

The source did not rule out the possibility of AT&T returning to the negotiating table with a different offer, but said nothing was imminent.

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/with_replies

I'm guessing this has nothing to do with AT&T.

Probably just the same old greedy a__holes that used to wear DTV hats and now wear AT&T hats, at the negotiating table.


I guess the only question I have is if the Nations clause is used by the BTN. It seems like such an obviously bad deal for the content providers, so why would the P12N allow it?

If that clause wasn't in the deals signed with DISH, we wouldn't be talking about this. They could sign with DTV at the lower carriage rate. If DISH wanted that rate, then they could negotiate for it on the next contract.

Virtually every channel has a most favored nation clause with every cable/satellite provider at this point. It's a non-starter for cable/satellite companies to not have that clause in place these days. Note that matching the pricing for traditional cable subscriber fees is usually "easy" to deal with - both sides know that they can't realistically mess with that number. The complexity comes in with more ancillary rights that aren't universally granted, such as digital streaming, authentication, how much is allowed to be shown on YouTube or other third party video providers, etc. In the case of AT&T/DirecTV and the Pac-12, it likely came down to how to value equity stakes in the network and/or on-campus provider rights that aren't as clear as to how they impact the most favored nation clause with other companies. Would DISH and Comcast make claims that they were entitled to equity or new on-campus provider rights under their own MFN clauses? That's probably what the Pac-12 was much more worried about. By comparison, the pricing for traditional cable subscriber fees are concrete and very clear - you have to pay x dollars for the network (no more and no less).

(09-16-2015 01:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(09-13-2015 10:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I guess not: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-collapse/

Quote:The Pac-12 Networks won’t be on DirecTV anytime soon.

The conference has rejected a proposal by DirecTV’s parent company, AT&T, that would have allowed carriage on the satellite provider but come at an enormous cost to the conference, a source said Saturday.

The league’s presidents and chancellors determined that AT&T’s requests would have compromised the networks’ business model and long-term profitability without granting enough in return.

The networks are wholly owned by the league, in contrast to counterparts at the Big Ten (co-owned by FOX) and SEC (co-owned by ESPN).

The proposal by AT&T, which took control of DirecTV this summer, likely would have forced the Pac-12 Networks to redo their existing distribution deals (with Comcast, DISH, etc.) at a lower subscription rate, jeopardizing future profits.

AT&T is believed to have wanted an equity stake in the networks, according to a source, but that was not the primary concern of the CEOs.

The conference currently uses what’s called a Most Favored Nation agreement, which gives any partner access to the best subscription rates available.

In addition, the income from carriage on DirecTV would have been lower, initially, than previous reports ($2 million to $3 million per school per year), according to sources.

AT&T also wanted to expand its presence on campuses.

The source did not rule out the possibility of AT&T returning to the negotiating table with a different offer, but said nothing was imminent.

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/with_replies

I'm guessing this has nothing to do with AT&T.

Probably just the same old greedy a__holes that used to wear DTV hats and now wear AT&T hats, at the negotiating table.


I guess the only question I have is if the Nations clause is used by the BTN. It seems like such an obviously bad deal for the content providers, so why would the P12N allow it?

If that clause wasn't in the deals signed with DISH, we wouldn't be talking about this. They could sign with DTV at the lower carriage rate. If DISH wanted that rate, then they could negotiate for it on the next contract.

Virtually every channel has a most favored nation clause with every cable/satellite provider at this point. It's a non-starter for cable/satellite companies to not have that clause in place these days. Note that matching the pricing for traditional cable subscriber fees is usually "easy" to deal with - both sides know that they can't realistically mess with that number. The complexity comes in with more ancillary rights that aren't universally granted, such as digital streaming, authentication, how much is allowed to be shown on YouTube or other third party video providers, etc. In the case of AT&T/DirecTV and the Pac-12, it likely came down to how to value equity stakes in the network and/or on-campus provider rights that aren't as clear as to how they impact the most favored nation clause with other companies. Would DISH and Comcast make claims that they were entitled to equity or new on-campus provider rights under their own MFN clauses? That's probably what the Pac-12 was much more worried about. By comparison, the pricing for traditional cable subscriber fees are concrete and very clear - you have to pay x dollars for the network (no more and no less).

Thanks for the clarifications.

It still comes down to DTV being greedy a___oles. Why does it think it deserves more out of the P12N than what DISH is getting?? It doesn't.