As of now, way less than slim and just slightly above none. The 2 proposals currently being reported is sell to ATT/DTV or liquidation.
Seriously, who would keep Dish if it's the only provider in SE Texas that doesn't carry the Rockets/Astros? I personally wouldn't even have cable if not for Rockets and Astros games.
Could be Tuesday or he could have accidentally pressed the 'S' key instead of the 'D' key. Who knows, long day for DB.
well, duh <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Bond says Comcast couldn’t get distribution in part because it was seeking rate that was higher than what Comcast itself was paying.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/status/519485645509894144">October 7, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Can anyone elaborate on this? The fact that Comcast was receiving a discount shouldn't affect the decision of another carrier about whether carrying the network is/is not a profitable decision. Is the idea simply that other carriers intentionally wanted to tank the network (regardless of whether it made sense for them to carry it) so Comcast didn't receive a competitive advantage over the long run?
If you are buying a product for 5 dollars then asking your competitors to pay 25 dollars for it when it's probably valued at closer to 8 dollars, you shouldn't be shocked that they don't bite the bullet and get ripped off by you. The other carriers were going to either have to raise their rates to offer CSN in their base package or just take a hit in profit. They chose to do neither and I don't blame them. Greed and stubbornness has more to do with the failure of CSN than anything else.
If the product is worth 8 and you want 25, obviously no carrier is going to carry it. But the implication in the hearing today is that the product wasn't valued too highly; rather, the other carriers just didn't like that Comcast was getting a discount.
Another problem was that Comcast was insisting that the channel be made available in their base packages. They could have gotten their asking price, but the channel would have been either part of a sports package or sold a la carte. That was offered several times and the CSN group said no. If they really wanted a deal done, they'd have offered the channel for what they were paying or at least allowed other carriers to offer the channel as they saw fit. Since they didn't do either of those things, the channel failed.
In part, the value of a channel is dependent on what other people are paying for it. If I have to pay $10 for ESPN while you have to pay $2, then I have to charge my customers more than you do. That gives you a competitive advantage as a whole over me and lets you steal my customers. If all the providers in a market raise their rates by a uniform amount, then you're not put at a competitive disadvantage.
Putting CSNH on a-la-carte or on specialty tiers was never going to fly. The ONLY way their revenue projections would work would be if each carrier paid the rates PER SUBSCRIBER. And since a-la-carte or specialty sports tiers would have had only a tiny fraction of the subscriber base of the base tier, it was not a reasonable option, ever.
Well, it was never a reasonable option to ask more from the other carriers than Comcast was paying, but they chose to go with it anyway. Making it to where only a small percentage of the market has access to the channel ensured that it failed. Again, greed and stubbornness led to the downfall of CSN Houston.
Just to whine one more time... why couldn't the bubble burst on someone more deserving?? Like Dallas, or Salt Late City. Why Houston? /gratuitouswhining #apologies
It's our lot in life. As a Houston sports fan for 39 years, I'm used to generally being kicked in the balls repeatedly by my teams in some form or fashion. Excluding 1994 and 1995, of course.
