Jump to content

TWC Sportsnet LA


LTSC1980

Recommended Posts

Just to clear this up. It hasn't been "dropped" because the channel hasn't been launched yet. It's a new channel that is going to air the Dodger games this coming season. And with that fast approaching, I imagine that this feud is going to heat up quickly.

 

Still can't figure out why they didn't just put the games on the already-airing Time Warner Cable Sportsnet instead of creating a second channel. Guess it's a case of TWC and the Dodgers both getting stupid with money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just to clear this up. It hasn't been "dropped" because the channel hasn't been launched yet. It's a new channel that is going to air the Dodger games this coming season. And with that fast approaching, I imagine that this feud is going to heat up quickly.

 

Still can't figure out why they didn't just put the games on the already-airing Time Warner Cable Sportsnet instead of creating a second channel. Guess it's a case of TWC and the Dodgers both getting stupid with money.

 

That would have been the most logical thing to do but, it involves $8 billion dollars so the Dodgers wanted their own channel. Sportsnet LA is *owned* by the Dodgers. I put the asterisks because it's a bunch of b.s. since the arrangement the Dodgers had with TWC calls for the team to own the channel and produce the games while TWC will act as a distributor and pay the team an annual rights fee. The annual rights fee is guaranteed even if they don't have distribution deals with all video providers. They did this to circumvent MLB's rules when it came to sharing money from the tv deals. If the RSN that has the rights to an MLB team is owned by a company other than the team, then the team has to share about 30% of the tv revenue with the league. If the RSN is owned by the team, then what they owe the league is less because according to MLB, the teams are taking a risk owning their own RSN. Sorry to make it a long response, but yeah it came down to money pretty much. The Dodgers technically own the network, plus they wanted their own channel from the get go, so this is why they are not TWC Sportsnet. There are a few articles on the tv situation with the Dodgers, and several video providers balked at the idea of paying $5 per subscriber for the network, a month and supposedly the rights fee escalated every year. So they better come up with distribution deals soon, since opening day is a month away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I believe it launched on this past Tuesday.

 

On Time Warner Cable. It has yet to launch on DirecTV or the other video providers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Time Warner Cable. It has yet to launch on DirecTV or the other video providers.

I believe the original poster meant that it hasn't gone on air yet. The channel has launched, whether it's on every cable or satellite package or not. I think the proper terminology to use is that it has not yet debuted on DirecTV or been added to DirecTV's lineup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I half-wonder if the problem could be solved by making some of these sports channels premium services.

 

That's what we had in Philly for years, until Comcast bought the Flyers and Sixers. (It was also the priciest service of all of them.) Makes you wonder if another attempt at a PRISM would placate people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

All that needs to be said about this boondoogle, look no further than this article. http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/vin-scully-cant-watch-the-dodgers-on-tv-in-his-own-home.html

This channel needs to merge with its sister station TWC SportsNet already. There is not a need for a separate channel for the Lakers and Dodgers. The difference/similarity in names is also confusing.

 

Now if Clippers, Kings, Duck, or Angels rights were acquired I could see the need for the second channel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This channel needs to merge with its sister station TWC SportsNet already. There is not a need for a separate channel for the Lakers and Dodgers. The difference/similarity in names is also confusing.

 

Now if Clippers, Kings, Duck, or Angels rights were acquired I could see the need for the second channel.

 

The Sportsnet LA channel is *technically* owned by the Dodgers and operated by TWC. The Dodgers own the channel to somewhat circumvent MLB's rules on tv revenue sharing. So having both channels merge is unlikely. It's more likely that they'll either lower the cost to providers or the providers feel intense pressure to add the channel if the Dodgers get off to a hot start. I'll be honest here, The Dodgers don't care too much because TWC will pay them their rights fee either way, whether or not other providers pick up the channel and not having the games on tv might motivate some die hard Dodger fans to attend the game in person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm afraid that SportsNet LA will be in the same boat as what Comcast SportsNet Houston, Northwest, and Philadelphia are in, struggling to get major cable companies like directv, dish, etc. to carry that network, hopefully something will get worked out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm afraid that SportsNet LA will be in the same boat as what Comcast SportsNet Houston, Northwest, and Philadelphia are in, struggling to get major cable companies like directv, dish, etc. to carry that network, hopefully something will get worked out

 

While it boils down to money, the CSN Houston mess is not comparable to the Sportsnet LA situation. First CSN Houston is owned by Comcast, the Astros, and the Rockets (with Comcast owning a small stake in the channel). SNLA is owned by Dodgers and "managed/distributed" by Time Warner Cable. Also, there is little demand for CSN-H baseball wise because the Astros suck, on the flipside there is huge demand for Dodgers baseball- That has always been the case and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Eventually I do see an end to the impasse between SNLA and other cable/sat companies, can't say the same for CSN-H. Also, if i'm not mistaken, CSN Philadelphia is available on other cable companies systems beside Comcast (someone correct me if i'm wrong).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While it boils down to money, the CSN Houston mess is not comparable to the Sportsnet LA situation. First CSN Houston is owned by Comcast, the Astros, and the Rockets (with Comcast owning a small stake in the channel). SNLA is owned by Dodgers and "managed/distributed" by Time Warner Cable. Also, there is little demand for CSN-H baseball wise because the Astros suck, on the flipside there is huge demand for Dodgers baseball- That has always been the case and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Eventually I do see an end to the impasse between SNLA and other cable/sat companies, can't say the same for CSN-H. Also, if i'm not mistaken, CSN Philadelphia is available on other cable companies systems beside Comcast (someone correct me if i'm wrong).

 

Correct. CSN Philly is also available on Verizon Fios. The only place it isn't available is on Dish and Directv and that's because Comcast has been trying to keep it that way.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet_Philadelphia#Satellite_carriage_controversy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.