Say it ain't so Time Warner (Los Angeles, San Diego: 2013, costs, move)

[AADAD]

In a city this size to have such a divisive issue on fans watching a game. Years.......Unbelievable

Frankly it takes the fun out of the sports fan to have this bs still going on. For gosh sake who got whose panties in a wad in this town?

FOX Sports San Diego and Time Warner Still at Odds | NBC 7 San Diego

[1AngryTaxPayer]

I don't think Filner has a grasp about program cost. If the Padres would lower what they want for their feed it would be easy.

[tonyinsd]

First of all, it's Fox Sports. The Padres sold their rights to Fox Sports, and they don't control things.

Second, when four out of the five MSOs have signed a contract, and one hasn't, the outlier is the one who hasn't. It's nothing new for Time Warner. They didn't carry the NFL network for TEN YEARS!

The offer that got all the other MSOs to sign is on the table for Time Warner. They're not taking it. Why? If the other providers could make it work then they should be able to as well.

[AADAD]

And the beatdown on TW goes on.

I received the following statement from Henry Ford, senior vice president and general manager of Fox Sports San Diego: "It's very encouraging to have Mayor Filner bring attention to this issue and hold Time Warner Cable accountable. All of the other major providers in San Diego -- Cox, DirecTV, Dish and AT&T -- see the value and have agreed to offer Padres telecasts to their customers. Time Warner Cable's continued blackout of these games is inexplicable, especially in light of their spending on sports rights in Los Angeles."

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by tonyinsd

First of all, it's Fox Sports. The Padres sold their rights to Fox Sports, and they don't control things.

Second, when four out of the five MSOs have signed a contract, and one hasn't, the outlier is the one who hasn't. It's nothing new for Time Warner. They didn't carry the NFL network for TEN YEARS!

The offer that got all the other MSOs to sign is on the table for Time Warner. They're not taking it. Why? If the other providers could make it work then they should be able to as well.

Padres own 20% but yes, that doesn't matter. What does matter is that with most deals they probably aren't the same. That is probably why they are balking. I can't say who I used to work for but the program costs for some of these channels were ridiculous. ESPN was the absolute worst at one point.

[tonyinsd]

In an interview with 1090, which Matthew Hall transcribed -- talk about the downfall of the Union Tribune, reporters now need to transcribe things instead of having access to people to do it -- the CEO of the Padres said that the offer which the other four MSOs took is on the table for Time Warner.

Padres: No TV deal unless Time Warner customers flee in droves Page 1 of 3 | UTSanDiego.com

"Yeah, Fox made them an offer and said, 'Hey, here's what it cost to carry the games.' And Time Warner came back and said, 'Here's what we're wiling to pay.' And Fox came back with a counter offer that was then accepted by the other four carriers and Time Warner hasn't really moved off their position from a year ago."

Unless he is lying, then Time Warner has the same deal as the other MSOs and turned it down. It does not surprise me given their track record. This is a MSO who didn't carry the NFL network for ten years, when pretty much all the rest of them picked it up. They also killed MSG for a while but then Linsanity pissed a lot of people off and they agreed to terms.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by tonyinsd

In an interview with 1090, which Matthew Hall transcribed -- talk about the downfall of the Union Tribune, reporters now need to transcribe things instead of having access to people to do it -- the CEO of the Padres said that the offer which the other four MSOs took is on the table for Time Warner.

Padres: No TV deal unless Time Warner customers flee in droves Page 1 of 3 | UTSanDiego.com

"Yeah, Fox made them an offer and said, 'Hey, here's what it cost to carry the games.' And Time Warner came back and said, 'Here's what we're wiling to pay.' And Fox came back with a counter offer that was then accepted by the other four carriers and Time Warner hasn't really moved off their position from a year ago."

Unless he is lying, then Time Warner has the same deal as the other MSOs and turned it down. It does not surprise me given their track record. This is a MSO who didn't carry the NFL network for ten years, when pretty much all the rest of them picked it up. They also killed MSG for a while but then Linsanity pissed a lot of people off and they agreed to terms.

I'm guessing there are a lot of less than truths going on. It's as bad as politics.

[tonyinsd]

Given Time Warner's track record, I think it's them.

It may not be the exact same deal on the table for them as for the other MSOs but it's probably comparable.

When four MSOs get it done and one doesn't, especially one with Time Warner's record, something tells me it's not on Fox Sports.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by tonyinsd

Given Time Warner's track record, I think it's them.

It may not be the exact same deal on the table for them as for the other MSOs but it's probably comparable.

When four MSOs get it done and one doesn't, especially one with Time Warner's record, something tells me it's not on Fox Sports.

I think going forward we will see a lot less choices as ISPs move closer to ala carte. Have you noticed more and more pay channels? Less standard channels with more pay channels.

[tonyinsd]

A la carte would be ideal. But it's not going to happen.

What happens is that the content providers say, so, you want to carry this network in high demand? We'll be happy to let you, provided you pay us x dollars and carry these other networks that belong to us which don't have good viewership.

It's extortion, plain and simple!