If my parents have comcast in Houston, and Im in College Station, cant I use their login info and watch online?
i think it's fair to say Houston is not a basketball city, if you can't even watch the games on tv in Houston. a pure joke by the Rockets for doing this.
It'd be great if the League Pass people actually provided some comprehensive information on this. I guess it's in their best interest to avoid it though - that way, people pay for League Pass before they even know if they can watch local games. I understood it this way: Comcast Sportsnet Houston has the broadcast rights to Houston Rockets games. Any place where CSNH is part of the standard cable package, the game will be blacked out. It'd be great if someone who actually has the channel could clear this up. There are multiple ways to understand this.
I see your Portland example and raise you CSN Bay Area, CSN California, CSN Chicago, CSN New England, CSN Mid-Atlantic, etc., all of which have been picked up by the vast majority of providers. http://www.directv.com/sports/sports_pack?footernavtype=-1& Portland is an isolated case, probably because it's a smaller market with a struggling team where demand isn't as good. If we just sit and b**** at the Rockets/Astros and put no heat on the providers, that's exactly what they'll think of Houston, too.
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not saying CSN won't be available for 6 years, but that the Rockets/Astros think they have more leverage. Which could drag this out further into the season. And by the way, aren't those CSN's only available with the more expensive sports package? I have the choice package with DirecTv, so even though they might get a deal done, I might have to upgrade.
Maybe this is what the Chronicle guy meant by his tweet yesterday... The impasse could be that CSN wants the providers to put this on their normal lineups while the providers want to put it on a tier where they can charge more for it. FWIW, I didn't have to pay extra for CSN and my sister who lives in the Bay Area has CSN Bay Area as part of the standard package.
None of those channels were formed after the NBC Sports Group was established. CSN Bay Area was formerly an FSN station. CSN New England and CSN Mid-Atlantic were also established stations (NE was a Fox station) that already had contracts when they were taken over. In Philadelphia when Comcast started their network there (taking over for an old network) they only used certain fiber lines. This allowed them to avoid FCC rules about uplinking to a Satellite and so they refused to allow DTV and DISH to carry them. They got overruled in 2010 by the FCC and were ordered to uplink and negotiate with the carriers. To date they still haven't done so and DISH accused them of unfair trade practices and got a ruling against them.
Just checked my DirecTV guide.(League pass channels) On my other TV, the Rox vs Det game wasnt there any more.. On the TV i just checked right now, it says "Game may be subject to blackouts in parts of Houston and Detroit." With some luck, hopefully, league pass lets me(some/all of you) watch it.
I have Comcast and the free preview of League Pass going on right now, I'm pretty sure they blackout the games locally.
Like I said earlier in the thread, the disputes normally center around 1) The Network wanting fees and 2) The Network wanting the channel on a certain lineup. So example, FSN has a contract that requires it be shown on the tier 2 package at no extra cost. (Regarding Cat's opt out, it doesn't work that way with FSN. You can't just stop showing FSN in Houston but still have it in San Antonio, Austin, etc. and actually save money.) Comcast is likely demanding a per subscriber charger AND they want it in the same tier that FSN was in. DTV is probably willing to do #2 but for a lower per subscriber charge than what Comcast is offering. Considering Comcast and NBC's terrible business dealings in the past, I'm holding them to blame.
They're available with the more expensive sports package if you aren't in their region. If you're in their region, which I'm assuming you would be if/when CSN Houston gets picked up, it's on the more basic package. The fact that it's two teams isn't that unique. CSN Bay Area, for example, has both the Giants and Warriors (and both have ownership stakes, I believe). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet To me, the most likely scenario isn't CSN Houston (including Rockets/Astros) driving an unreasonable bargain, or a conspiracy to drive more folks to Comcast. Because if it were, how are all these other CSNs picked up? I think it comes down to providers thinking they can get a cheaper deal for CSN Houston than other CSN affiliates, based largely on the current struggles of the Astros/Rockets and weak ratings the past two years. The franchises, on the other hand, know the value of their product will be exponentially higher in the years ahead. Both have somewhat of a point, so a deal will happen when the two sides find middle ground. That typically doesn't happen when public outrage only focuses on one.
In case you missed my earlier post, most of the other CSN's were taking over existing contracts from FSN or other providers by buying them out. CSN Houston is a total startup. Also, Comcast has a history of not wanting to play ball with Satellite companies if they could avoid it. In Philadelphia they tried to avoid even allowing them the right to negotiate for it using some FCC technicalities.
You can if you're a Houston provider, which some holdouts are. As far as national chains, I see your point, but again, FSN isn't the only example. It's just one that quickly came to mind here in Houston. There are definitely basic tier channels out there that draw less interest than CSN Houston would and could be dropped. Even on a national level.
I'm not sure which ones are strictly Houston providers that carry it so I can't comment on that. I'm only talking satellite. Like who? Most of those channels you think could be dropped are part of media umbrella organizations. Take Bravo for example. DTV couldn't drop it because it is owned by NBC (Comcast!) You start going through channels and you'll realize how many of them are owned by larger media conglomerates.
What I was addressing with the other CSNs post was the conspiracy talk of Comcast not wanting other providers to pick up CSN Houston to force more folks to Comcast cable. If that's a legitimate goal, it doesn't matter if it's a startup or if they took over an existing contract. At some point, said existing contract would be up, and they would undoubtedly try the same bargaining tactic (if that were the goal). I know what happened in Philadelphia, but as I understand it, they were upfront about it the whole time. They outright said they were trying to keep satellite companies from negotiating for it. That's a far cry from what we've heard about CSN Houston.
Right, because they are required by law to allow satellite companies to at least negotiate for their distribution rights unless (until recently) they only used microwave waves and certain fiber to broadcast their channel. It would be illegal for them to say they don't want DTV and DISH to get their channel in Houston because they are trying to drive people away from them. That would be unfair trade practices and the FCC would slap them down which would proceed a lawsuit by the carriers that would net them millions at least. The one time they weren't required by law to have fair negotiations with the satellite companies they refused to allow them to bid. Edit: FWIW, I don't think it's necessarily true that they are against DTV, DISH and UVERSE getting their channel, but they are against it unless they pay out the nose for it.
Just because a channel is owned by a larger media conglomerate doesn't mean it's locked in alongside everything else under that umbrella. Take the Longhorn Network for example, which is owned by ESPN (and by extension, ABC/Disney). LHN isn't on satellite providers, yet ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPNews, etc. all are. Yes, I understand that LHN was a startup. But I don't buy your argument of these prior contracts being ironclad for the remainder of time. There are always opt-outs, expiration dates and renegotiations.
Comcast owns a controlling interest in CSN Philadelphia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_SportsNet Here, the Astros and Rockets own a combined 77% of CSN Houston and have a vested interest in expanding their brand. What incentive do they have to play ball with some supposed Comcast conspiracy? It'd be one thing if Comcast owned the majority of the network, but they don't.
You are correct that they aren't locked in, but they are negotiated as a larger picture. DTV can't just decide they want to dump Bravo and keep the rest of their NBC holdings the same. I never said the contracts are iron clad. There are not always opt outs though. You are thinking too much in terms of what you learned about tv rights through the LHN issue that prompted realignment. Those tv deals for college football have opt outs and realignment deals, but not all networks do that. I mean they obviously don't last forever, but still. Anyway, I was talking specifically about Fox Sports. DTV pays a fee to Fox Sports to carry all of their regional networks. Just because the Rockets switched off onto their own network it doesn't meant that DTV could ditch Fox Sports in that market and get a discount.
