The only reason why anybody wants this channel is for the games. I have yet to hear anybody bemoan not getting the channel because of their burning desire to watch Inside the Astros or the like. That's what makes an RSN unlike other channels. It's value is in the games it airs, and precious little else. As for whether CSN would complain about the lack of negotiation if the price was firm...sure they would. Why? To get people like you believing it isn't their fault. Of course...the providers have negotiated. They offered a tiered structure. A counteroffer like that is part of negotiation. I know, I know...that has never been done before with an RSN. Of course, this ignores that an RSN in a mid sized market has never been seeking over $3 a month per subscriber.
This. Les completely abdicated his responsibility to the fans when he left the local media rights in the hands of parties that do not have a stake in the Rockets.
Wanted to post this here too: for actionable moves we should set a twitter account and do coordinated attacks like calling small business advertisers of comcast sport channel and threatening boycott. The twitter angle or sms messaging would allow for a set time and everyone call between 3- 330PM kind of thing so the advertisers phone is tied up for 30 minutes, they are getting threatened of boycott and it is generally annoying. It doesnt take much to put together a list of folks that are mad to call and calling is easier to mount than showing up and protesting. Perhaps group 1 (10-15 people )call and 3PM, then group 2 (10 -15 people) call at 315Pm and group 3 at 320PM and so on. This would be very annoying and counter productive to their business. would create a stir. same could be done for 713 627 dunk number, same for astros, even the news channels. Doesnt require much but a text message reminding the person they are part of xyz group that needs to call xyz number at xyz time. Lawyers of clutchfans?? advise us as taxpayers what /how much/ how hard to sign in on a class action suit? Not to make money on this situation but again to be annoying and call to notice this garbage. Bad publicity. Suing the NBA, c&d scrap metal , gallery furniture basically include anyone and everyone so that perhaps on some level folks at rockets/astros can see.
I just find it so hard to believe that such a successful businessman like Les Alexander would do something like that.
when you have a partnership, all partners usually have to agree (general partners) on deals such as this. it isn't as if they just said, "okay, astros, you make the sole decision". It sounds like the astros just didn't agree, therefore only one or two of the two or three parties agreed, so no Rockets.
Yes, but you don't leave huge contingencies like this unplanned for so that your entire product is limited. You address them ahead of time. You deal with contingencies by putting in guidelines so that you're agreeing ahead of time that when DirecTV comes in and offers $X, it's already a given that it triggers the deal. You can address that contingency in any number of ways.... What you don't do is put your entire product in the hands of other people who have competing interests. There's way too much at stake for that. I'd also point out that Comcast is busy addressing these issues nationally. Houston is one of a few markets that is dealing with this right now...and a deal in Houston impacts deals elsewhere for them. They're also served by the fact that they owned by the same parent company that owns the only provider in town that offers the channel right now. There's tons of competing interests here. They all know that going in...with presumably smart business folks and attorneys crafting it.
That viewpoint is EXACTLY what CSN is challenging. For me personally, CSN Houston is a godsend. I love it for reasons FAR beyond the games, particularly the 30-minute "SportsNet Central" segments twice every night. It's basically an entire newscast dedicated to Houston sports. I spend MUCH more time watching CSN Houston than I did FSH, precisely because of their non-game programming. And yes, the amount of time that diehards would spend on a channel does have a relationship to its value. It's not just about the peak. LOL! This is a riot. Despite your repeated denials, I've told you exactly why providers would lie about things like the price ($3.40). Why? To get people like you believing it isn't their fault. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, your tune changes and you're suddenly willing to acknowledge reasons to mislead? Funny how that works. A top-10 market in the US is not mid-sized, for starters. Second, you're blindly believing this $3/month figure based on what the providers are telling you, yet you're refusing to give that same benefit of the doubt to the CSN side. Biased much?
We finally gave in and switched back to comcast i got to watch my first rockets game yesterday no more 790 radio
None, but I'm in a unique situation. The complex I live in comes wired with Phonoscope, which is one of the smaller providers that also has CSN. Basic cable is included in my monthly rent, so I don't have a breakdown by month, unfortunately.
I haven't heard 1 Comcast Subscriber mention being charged for the new channel. So a lot of you are in a "unique" situation. Comcast subscribers get to watch it and their provider either didn't have to pay for it or less likely didn't pass that cost along to the subscribers. Phonoscope probably has a contract with your complex that hasn't termed out yet. Once it does, lets us know what you get charged.
Isn't that rumored to be one of the sticking points? CSH wants their channel included on DTV/Dish/Uverse standard packages while they want to charge extra for it?
You are hilarious. You call me biased for going with the one reported figure. Yet you just assume they are lying without even one reported figure to back it up. You also fail to understand competition and that CSN has overvalued their product. Your business acumen is...shall we say interesting.
If I had CSN, I probably would enjoy the local sports programming too. It's not a new product though. DC had MASN and CSN Washington. I'm assuming CSN regional stuff exists in other markets too. Perhaps Houston is the first one up for renewal. Let's see what happens when other markets get in the same situation. Right now though, Portland is the best evidence by far about Comcast negotiating practices, and even those who have chosen to work with them have complained and are backing out. The Blazers' owner is complaining too. The evidence that is out there is showing that Comcast is demanding more than the market. Maybe that's not true in Houston, but that's where the available evidence (Portland situation and Houston reports) is pointing too.
You're going against Clutch's report. What's the difference? At least I'm willing to acknowledge blame on both sides, which you seemingly are not. My business acumen is a lot better than that of someone who takes enormous cable conglomerates at face value and assumes they're running a simple economic equation for the benefit of their customers without any other motive. Naive, much?
Oh my god. Anything you disagree with is a lie, how convenient. You don't have a damn shred of evidence to anything you propose other than your infamous use of logical deductions and this story now indicates the Astros held up a deal to get more money, yet (according to you) there is still a massive conspiracy by several corporations to hamstring the Rockets. Good to know. Looney, much?
