But he didn't, did he. So it's a moot point. Yes, if Les would have demanded that, I would be pissed at the providers instead of the Rockets. I would have viewed that as Les and the Rockets looking out for their fanbase and I would be siding with CSN Houston and the Rockets and against my carrier (Dish). I would have switched carriers before the season started. But he didn't. LOL, easy there big fella. He's not an *******. I'm sure you know that and you're just venting, which is totally understandable. But I do wonder why he's so active in this thread when he is one of the ones who is able to watch the games on TV. Kind of like a rich guy telling a homeless guy to get a job.
To all you DIRECTV subscribers out there, i just called DIRECTV and told them I was cancelling services due to them not having Comcast Sportsnet Houston. After several minutes of talking with the agent, I told him I would give it another month. He stated he would put a note on my account and forward it up the chain that I was strongly considering cancelling services due to this channel not being part of DIRECTV services, but that I would wait until January 1st. Perhaps if enough of us called in and threatened to cancel it might make a difference? A shot in the dark perhaps, but I hate feeling powerless.
I am guess we aren't going to get the channel. The rockets get microscopic ratings. I just don't think enough people care for DTV or Uverse to get the channel. The rockets are just screwing themselves.
I called and complained that I was paying for the package that included "local sports teams" but that I wasn't getting them and I wanted to change my service - they gave me $10 a month off for the next year...
Just silly. DTV had no problem working out deals with FSN throughout the country. The problems are happening now because the business of sports is changing with regards to television contracts. The Yankees started this with the YES Network, which they own and were able to sell distribution rights to carriers for a pretty price. That really changed the business of tv deals. The problem is that teams are trying to find ways to get their deals close to the types that the biggest markets are able to negotiate. What DTV is willing to pay for the Yankees or the Lakers isn't going to be close to what they are willing to pay for the Astros or Rockets. Nor should it be. Much smaller POTENTIAL audience, and then a smaller level of interest among the population that is there.
Did any of them "contractually obligate their negotiator to guarantee a deal be in place with all local providers before this situation ever even came CLOSE to what it has become?" Doubtful.
Hypothetical: So if the Comcast channel were to become optional instead of standard, and DirecTV, Uverse, Dish etc were to charge only Rockets viewers the costs that Comcast is insisting on, then that would come out to $75 to $100 monthly extra per Rockets game viewer? Honestly, that seems sort of ridiculous...perhaps I'm looking at it all wrong.
That is correct. However, as a Uverse/DirecTV/DishNetwork subscriber, you pay out of your ass for 98.665+% of the channels you don't watch which other subscribers do, so it is only fair that they share the CSN-H costs with you to compensate. Of course, the amount Comcast is asking is criminal and there is no way Uverse/DirecTV/DishNetwork will pay that. In fact, it's so ridiculous you can say that Comcast is not dealing in good faith and is screwing their CSN-H partners to advance Comcast's own competitive interest with the other big providers.
Then how does that explain how other CSN's are on Uverse/DirecTV/DishNetwork. Did they just decide to completely change their negotiation tactics and not want this specific channel on these providers? I apologize in advance if this is an ******* question, not my intention.
What if that is the case? I'm curious to know. What if they're asking more money in Houston because Comcast is being greedier and also because they paid so much to the Rockets? And what if the Rockets market share is much lower or not proportional to the costs of other deals around the country? Perhaps we just got screwed with bad timing.
Well it's not exactly fair to the non sports viewers.Regional sports networks are the main thing driving up cable/sat prices.Sports related programming already accounts for about 60%.They estimate it will increase around 8% yearly and we will be looking at an average monthly bill of $200,by the end of the decade.So I can understand someone who doesn't watch sports being a little upset.
I believe I read on another forum, maybe the dbstalk DirecTV Programming forum - there's a CSNHouston thread there, that many of those other CSNs being carried by DirecTV, Dish, etc where acquisitions owned by Fox Sports and others. Their distribution contracts were already in place or just renewed. The brand new upstart CSNs (Houston, Philly, Portland, etc…) aren’t available on satellite, Fios/UVerse.
Probably for the same reason that they get deals done quickly with the small providers: Ammunition in court. "But, but, this is not a systematic practice. As you can see, your honor, we got some deals done!" "On June 21, 2010, the Trail Blazers asked the Federal Communications Commission to require Comcast Corp. to make Trail Blazers games available to competing multichannel programming distributors such as DirecTV and Dish Network." http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2010/07/comcast_update_blazers_ask_fcc.html I mean, this is not exactly the first time Comcast has decided not to play fair.
Jake's Philly Steaks and Rockets Between my home (Comcast), country property (Direct TV w/ NFL package) and Jake's business (Comcast and Direct TV), I pay approximately $ 19,200.00per year....and two years ago couldn't get the Longhorns because of their network deal. It's way out of control. Thanks, Jake's Management.
All about price. Lakers got 3.40 per subscriber from DirecTv, and that's what Comcast Houston is asking. Pretty easy no from providers
