If you were Landry's or Herman Memorial ect, would you be cool paying for advertising during the game when the game is broadcast to so few people?
I notice you conveniently ignored the past two years clause. The fact of the matter is that if/when a deal gets done, it's going to be on a relatively long-term basis. The odds are good that the fortunes of both teams are going to be better than they have been in recent years, thus drawing higher ratings. As such, using only recent ratings as a baseline likely isn't realistic or truly reflective of the Rockets/Astros value. Big picture, this was absolutely the WORST time for the new network to start up. The teams know they have a higher value for their package than recent ratings but are having a hard time finding numbers to back it up. Providers don't want to take the leap of faith without hard evidence. Stalemate. I still think it gets resolved before baseball season, though.
I've made it quite clear that both sides are to blame, but you're ignoring reality and sticking to your blind agenda, like usual.
i called and didn't get jack. it's not everyone who calls. I don't know your source but Directv says different,
The key is talking to the right people. When I called, I spoke to customer service. I explained the issue and asked if there was anything they could do. They said there was not. I so ok, then we need to initiate canceling. How do I do that? Lady transferred me at that point. I was then transferred to another dept & went through the story again. This person told me that she could then take $10 off my bill. I said nah, not good enough. Turned out though, as she explained, that she was in the promotions dept. I then told her, look I was supposed to be transferred to the people who would cancel this for me. She said, oh you were transferred to the wrong people. I then talked to a guy named Jesse in the cancellation dept. Guy waved a magic wand & boom, hook up. Of course, I've been with Directv for 2+ years and got my goodies without reupping my contract. Lesson: threaten cancellation & get transferred from customer service & then vent to the cancellation dept. This was actually a 45 min call for me bouncing around & talking this issue through with the guy Jesse in cancellations.
Yep, told them the price i was quoted and the service provider that was offering me a bundle package so they knew I was serious.
Now your basic premise makes even less sense. Big, greedy cable company is going to give their subscribers $30 a month off and free Showtime for 6 months rather than pay the few dollars that CSN would cost. It could be that, at the asking price, the providers are not willing to pass that cost on to the majority of the subscriber base that could care less about sports. Explain to me how your premise is logical...I'm dying to know.
Watching on First Row...why isn't the picture better? I have Xfinity internet, maybe Comcast should offer a HD feed to subscribers.
Funny how you call somebody out for blindly sticking to a position. Barron told us e asking price, nobody else has said anything about it, and CSN has not denied it...but I just don't believe it. No sir, it must be a conspiracy of the providers. Pot...meet kettle.
if you are stuck without games, are you making an effort to at least follow the team on local radio? I don't understand the concept of boycotting the team or denying yourself the joy of following your hobby.
The few dollars? It's a few dollars FOR EVERY SUBSCRIBER. They're not giving $30 off to every subscriber - just a small handful that complain. My premise is that providers think they can stare down CSN Houston and ultimately get a lower monthly rate, and the short-term discount they give to a small handful of customers is far outweighed by their financial benefit if they get CSN Houston to blink. They think they can. What part of that isn't logical? I think we each believe very similar things here. The difference is you trust cable companies will be fair and agree if CSN Houston's asking price is appropriate. I don't. I think if they feel they have any leverage to drive CSN Houston lower, they'll do it, no matter how "fair" the asking price is. Maximizing margins. What part of "reportedly/believed to be" do you not understand? Anonymous source-driven reports like the one from Barron are inherently very flawed and notoriously inaccurate. Meet the starting center for the Brooklyn Nets, Dwight Howard! The bottom line for me is that it's completely illogical for CSN Houston to ask for the same subscriber fee ($3.40) that the Lakers just got in their deal with Time Warner in Los Angeles. And the providers have every motivation in the world to leak an artificially high number to the media to try and sway public opinion. I think that scenario is much more reasonable than CSN Houston, for some bizarre reason, holding to the same figure the Lakers got in LA. Doesn't pass the smell test. **** you, too. I enjoyed watching the game last night.
Your premise is illogical because it assumes two things that are very unlikely from a business perspective. First, you are ignoring history. This stalemate has been going on for six years in Portland. It is very unlikely that all the providers would band together for that long without at least one of them breaking ranks. That it has gone on for that long shows me that Comcast has greatly overestimated the value of its position...just like it has here. Secondly, you are assuming that the providers would not pass the cost along to the customers. They uniformly do with every channel price increase. If it costs $3 per subscriber over what the now defunct FSN Houston cost, they would increase the bill by $4 and make even more money. They have decided that, in this economy, it is not worth the risk of losing subscribers by increasing the bill further than the normal annual increase to carry a channel that so few people will watch on a nightly basis.
Uh, so what about all the Comcast SportsNet affiliates that do have wide distribution across cable providers? If you're going to cite the Portland example, you kind of have to acknowledge the 10 or so others that have been picked up. In reality, the track record speaks to my argument. CSN clearly knows how to get deals done. The one example where they haven't? In a smallish market (Portland) with a team that's struggled in recent years. To me, that reeks of the providers trying to get a sweetheart deal - just as I think they're doing here. I don't know what you're referring to on your second point. Of course they pass the costs along to their consumers. I understand that well. Where we disagree is on the issue of trust. You clearly trust the big cable conglomerates and give them benefit of the doubt, thinking (as you said) that they simply weigh the risk of losing subscribers by increasing the bill further against the subscribers they might add or retain by having the channel. For me, I don't completely buy that. I think it's PART of the equation, sure, but I also believe they're desperate to squeeze every last bit of margin. Even if CSN Houston were theoretically offering it for three cents per subscriber, if the providers think they have the leverage to eventually move CSN to two cents per subscriber, there's a good chance the providers would stonewall and refuse to come to the negotiating table (what Clutch said). Yes, even with a deal at three cents being a clear economic benefit. Obviously the 2/3-cent figures are wild hypotheticals, but it's about the principle. The bottom line is that you believe it's a simple economic equation for the cable companies, and when the cost comes to a point where the benefit outweighs the drawback, they would theoretically add CSN. I'm not that trusting. I've watched quite a few of these negotiations, and in my opinion, the providers will hold out even if adding the channel is beneficial to them, so long as they believe they can squeeze out a slightly higher margin over the long haul. Which one of us is right? I don't know, and obviously it's tough to prove right now. But if you refuse to even accept the possibility and/or logic of the other side, I think you're WAY too gullible. I certainly acknowledge the logic of your belief and the reality that you could be correct.
I've pointed this out to you Cat, but the examples where CSN has gotten deals done in other cities are mainly ones where they took over existing channels that were already on the air, not starting their own. In Philly they tried to avoid even negotiating at all with the carriers and were forced by a judge to do so.
I know, but as I responded to you back then, new negotiations happen all the time. Just because a cable provider has a channel doesn't mean they're automatically going to keep it for the remainder of time. Off the top of my head, note the Dish/AMC dispute last year. The contractual commitments do expire. If CSN is demanding a completely disproportionate fee for its startups, thereby breaking from regional sports network precedent... there's absolutely zero reason why they wouldn't seek a similarly unrealistic fee for the pre-existing networks once their contracts expire. In fact, it's every bit as possible that the distinction of a network being a "start up" could be manipulated by the providers. That is, it's harder for Average Joe subscriber to miss what he never had... thus putting less consumer pressure on the providers and allowing them to exert more leverage.
Again...you are assuming that all the providers are acting in lockstep for months at a time. If they were doing this to increase their profitability, the best way to do that is to add market share. If DTV would not add the channel, Dish or Uverse could gain market share by adding the channel and picking up some sports fans. The chances of the providers acting in concert "just because" for any appreciable amount of time is unlikely. When DTV had an impasse involving FX last year, Dish aired commercials offering deals to DTV subscribers to switch and get FX. As for the Comcast channels that do have wide distribution, you also have to look at the per subscriber fee. It shows, if nothing else, that the providers will carry CSN channels at a certain price point. In other words, it completely belies your premise that the asking price is not excessive. Do I trust the providers too much? Maybe. However, your distrust of them borders on paranoia and assumes a conspiracy that is unlikely in that cutthroat industry.
Acting in concert "just because"? No, there's an extremely obvious reason for the providers to band together -- because CSN's hand is weakest if NO ONE picks it up. If one or two main providers pick it up, it undercuts the argument for a lower fee. Switch the names around as you wish. The fact is that if providers want a lower fee, it makes complete logical sense for them to band together. A big difference with FX is that it's an existing network. It would be fairly difficult, if not impossible, for networks to band together all at the same time and ALL pull the channel. It may not even contractually be possible. Not to mention the consumer blowback from a channel many have a history of watching. In this case, with a true startup, it's much easier for rival providers to work together and exert the most leverage possible. Call it paranoia, if you wish. To me, it's fairly routine negotiations in cutthroat Corporate America.
