Not many people are likely to grasp the impact this is going to have nationally for conference realignment.

- Pac 12 owns their own network. They can sell some of their network in the open market. This is horrible news for the ACC Network.

- The Pac 12 will now see an increase of $3 million per school annually ($36 million annually)

Larry Scott's sales pitch just became a lot easier and he also gets the last laugh after so many people bashed him.

Shalini Ramachandran ‏@ShaliniWSJ 1h1 hour ago
FCC is poised to approve AT&T's $49B deal to buy DirecTV. Chairman Wheeler set to circulate order. Story coming to @wsj from @tgryta $T $DTV

Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline 16m16 minutes ago
IF @Pac12Networks are on DTV basic w/in league footprint, could mean $2.5 - $3 million more per school annually

(07-21-2015 05:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline 16m16 minutes ago
IF @Pac12Networks are on DTV basic w/in league footprint, could mean $2.5 - $3 million more per school annually

It will be put on basic coverage. People are already saying you can guarantee it happens.

(07-21-2015 05:17 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 05:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Jon Wilner ‏@wilnerhotline 16m16 minutes ago
IF @Pac12Networks are on DTV basic w/in league footprint, could mean $2.5 - $3 million more per school annually

It will be put on basic coverage. People are already saying you can guarantee it happens.

Great news for a struggling channel.

Hello PAC, here comes Texas.

Without reading anything other than these posts, I must infer that:

- AT&T likes the P12N
- thus, AT&T will put the P12N on the basic tier of DTV service (once they own it)
- thus, P12N will have more subscribers via DTV, at the same carriage fee
- thus, more revenue from DTV to the P12N

Is that right? And if so, why does AT&T like the P12N so much?

If AT&T can purchase DirecTV, surely they could also purchase Raycom Sports.

We are now approaching the moment of truth for Larry Scott.

For almost three years, Larry has managed to avoid being the fall guy for "the DirecTV problem". (About 20 to 30 percent of the cable/satellite subscribers in the Pac-12 states are with DirecTV.)

He all but promised the Pac-12 presidents that PTN would be on DirecTV after the AT&T purchase became final. If PTN is on DTV soon after the sale becomes final, then it's all good. If not, then Scott has to scramble to sell all or part of PTN to ESPN or Fox in order to get more leverage for PTN. And if that doesn't go well... I'm just speculating, but I will speculate that if it doesn't end well, Scott might be out.

Wilner Article

Quote:An otherwise forgettable Tuesday in the dead of summer took a newsworthy turn for the Pac-12 this afternoon:

According to multiple news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, the chairman of the FCC has signed off on AT&T’s takeover of DirecTV.

That could be good news … very good news … over the long haul for the struggling Pac-12 Networks.

Several insta-reaction points:

*** FCC commissioners still must formally approve the deal, and that could take days … or weeks …

*** Despite the oft-used description of the deal as a merger, it is not. It is a takeover. AT&T is in charge of DTV.

That’s good for the Pac-12, which has a business relationship with AT&T — it’s a sweeping partnership that includes sponsorship and equipment, not merely distribution — and no relationship with DTV.




*** Does this mean the Pac-12 Networks will be available on DTV in time for football?

After tracking this story for countless hours and interviewing innumerable sources on the topic, I can say for absolute certainty that I have no clue.

The Pac12Nets on the DTV airwaves by Sept. 5 can no longer be ruled out, but nor can it be counted on.

This is a $49 billion deal. It’s incredibly intricate. And the Pac-12 component is but a sliver of the gargantuan pie.

Frustrated Pac-12 fans with DTV should take a cautiously optimistic approach as the ’15 season approaches.

*** Multiple sources have suggested to me that AT&T could ask the conference for a lower in-market subscription price (approx $0.80) than the Pac12Nets are currently charging U-verse, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.

That’s when this could get interesting … when the league’s business model could require a tweak or two.

If the Pac-12 agreed to a price drop in exchange for distribution on DirecTV, then Comcast and DISH and all the other partners would ask for a similar deal (i.e., favored-nation clause).

Commissioner Larry Scott would have to determine whether the lower price for all partners would be offset by the projected increase in distribution.

This barely qualifies as back-of-the-envelope math, but just to illustrate:

The Pac12Nets currently have approx 12 million subscribers, with the vast majority being in-market homes at $0.80 per month.

That’s $115 million per year.

Let’s say AT&T asks for $0.60 per sub, the league agrees, and then offers that price to its other distributors.

It would take an additional four million subs at $0.60 for the Pac12Nets to retain the $115 million in annual income.

It so happens that there are approximately four million DirecTV customers in the league’s footprint, according to SNL Kagan.

More exposure, same revenue.

It would undoubtedly be more complicated, and it might never reach that point — maybe AT&T doesn’t ask for a lower price.

The intent here is simply to provide an overview. Tuesday brought good news for the conference, but there are several steps left.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...hats-next/

I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

There's a rumor that AT&T is planning to keep dish reception for DirecTV, and move UVerse TV customers to DirecTV so that they can free up bandwidth to deliver more high-speed internet through the pipes.

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

The Pac 12 Network is now going to get national coverage. The ACC Network is closer to reality in 2025 than it is in 2017.

The Pac 12 Network could now go to open market if they wanted to. ESPN is already having to deal with mandates to cut expenses. If the Pac 12 Network went to market, then FOX could get another strong partnership put together with another conference network. If ESPN wanted to stop that, they would have to pay big bucks while already being cash strapped.

ESPN is closer to having to file Chapter 11 than they are giving out another multi billion dollar bid for anything.

If ESPN was dead serious on having a network for the ACC very soon, they would simple say, "hey, we are making an ACC Network and will provide the details later." It would take a couple of minutes to write a memo. All we get from the ACC about a network is vague statements that don't even hold any water.

(07-21-2015 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

There's a rumor that AT&T is planning to keep dish reception for DirecTV, and move UVerse TV customers to DirecTV so that they can free up bandwidth to deliver more high-speed internet through the pipes.

That makes more sense. Direct TV has been strong in its TV offering, but suffered badly when competing against cable on bundles where the cable could offer much better internet access (it's what got me to switch back to cable).

A bundle of DTV's TV and ATT's wireless data could be formidable.

(07-21-2015 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

There's a rumor that AT&T is planning to keep dish reception for DirecTV, and move UVerse TV customers to DirecTV so that they can free up bandwidth to deliver more high-speed internet through the pipes.

So you're saying everyone who gets U-Verse now via fiber optic lines is going to be forced to install a dish?

That's not going to go over well.


As far as I know, DirecTV doesn't have land lines to customers and so the only way you can get the service is by installing a dish.

(07-21-2015 07:38 PM)krup Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

There's a rumor that AT&T is planning to keep dish reception for DirecTV, and move UVerse TV customers to DirecTV so that they can free up bandwidth to deliver more high-speed internet through the pipes.

That makes more sense. Direct TV has been strong in its TV offering, but suffered badly when competing against cable on bundles where the cable could offer much better internet access (it's what got me to switch back to cable).

A bundle of DTV's TV and ATT's wireless data could be formidable.

I'd rather just get everything over fiber optic lines, myself. That would be a TV box that does TVoIP and then a data modem.

My wife and I currently use AT&T internet and DirecTV for our TV service, so this would definitely be a win for us. I also prefer how AT&T prices things. If I had one gripe with DirecTV, it's that they treat their long time and loyal customers like crap while offering sweet deal after sweet deal to newcomers. Getting them to give us the same rates as new people coming in is like haggling for watches in ChinaTown. Eventually you get it for the price you want, but the haggling it takes is unreal. AT&T told us from day one that so long as we helped them in the form of taking brief customer loyalty surveys about their product, we could keep getting the introductory rates.

I do agree too, with the guy that said it doesn't make sense to push people towards having a dish. Yeah, you'd free up bandwidth, but I just can't see people going for that. I know I personally would love to ditch my dish for fiber optics, but I love the interface of DirecTV too much to do so. If it were offered through a line instead of UVerse, I'd jump for joy.

(07-22-2015 08:04 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  My wife and I currently use AT&T internet and DirecTV for our TV service, so this would definitely be a win for us. I also prefer how AT&T prices things. If I had one gripe with DirecTV, it's that they treat their long time and loyal customers like crap while offering sweet deal after sweet deal to newcomers. Getting them to give us the same rates as new people coming in is like haggling for watches in ChinaTown. Eventually you get it for the price you want, but the haggling it takes is unreal. AT&T told us from day one that so long as we helped them in the form of taking brief customer loyalty surveys about their product, we could keep getting the introductory rates.

I do agree too, with the guy that said it doesn't make sense to push people towards having a dish. Yeah, you'd free up bandwidth, but I just can't see people going for that. I know I personally would love to ditch my dish for fiber optics, but I love the interface of DirecTV too much to do so. If it were offered through a line instead of UVerse, I'd jump for joy.

Not that it would make people understand any more, but I can sort've sympathize with wanting to get all strictly TV data off the fiber network, so that it can be strictly used for data service (which of course a big chunk of that is streaming video). Since that's the way it's all going.

Perhaps one day (in the not too distant future...), all DTV customers will simply stream that interface and service as data over the internet with a special data modem box connected to your TV by HDMI. (aka, Apple TV, Roku, etc.)

(07-22-2015 08:04 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I do agree too, with the guy that said it doesn't make sense to push people towards having a dish. Yeah, you'd free up bandwidth, but I just can't see people going for that.

Makes sense to me. The number of U-Verse TV subscribers is small compared to the number of people already on DirecTV, and they can offer them big discounts if necessary to get them to put up a dish. They want to get as many people as possible on AT&T home internet now, and freeing up bandwidth is the way to do it. After they build out even more bandwidth 5-10 years down the road, then they can think about moving all their DirecTV customers off the dish and into the pipes.

(07-21-2015 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

There's a rumor that AT&T is planning to keep dish reception for DirecTV, and move UVerse TV customers to DirecTV so that they can free up bandwidth to deliver more high-speed internet through the pipes.

Interesting idea. My guess though is that to access stuff like on-demand and other IPTV based services you need to have the box(es) hooked up to both the dish and the wireline service. I know for Verizon which uses traditional digital QAM for delivering the channels, it does use IPTV-based schemes to deliver things like on-demand content, DVR control/authorization, etc. My guess would be the same thing would happen with AT&T and DirecTV, just that instead of everything coming in on the wireline pipe as it does for FiOS, the TV comes through the dish and the data/IPTV/VoIP feeds come through on the wireline pipe.

Update: FCC gave final approval, and AT&T closed its purchase of DirecTV today.

AT&T Completes Acquisition of DIRECTV