In his original post he used the phrase "let us stop being passive and [profanity omitted] to get what WE want", thus implying that he is part of the group that wants something done.
Well I have Uverse. I'm lukewarm about it, but I just don't want to go through the hassle of switching.
I was lucky. I came back to comcast cable a couple yrs ago after trying dish. Got tired of the weather outages and crappy service and not to mention the ugly dish on my house. Hopefully this gets resolved soon.......
I switched over to Uverse in July 2012. I like them better then when I was with comcast, dish, and most recently DTV. I love being able to take the TV outside onto the patio. I love the service, the clarity, and the reliability. No problems there. I hate not being able to watch my Rockets. I refuse to be strong armed by comcast/astros/rockets/Les/Krane however. I will continue to stream as long as Uverse can't get the games.
We need to get back to bombing CSN's facebook page again. If for no other reason than to just to blow off steam and get a few good laughs. I see thadeus on there all the time. I posted this on their page yesterday when they were taking questions for Calvin Murphy: Calvin, my question is what's the score of the game? You see, I have no idea because CSN Houston isn't carried where I live (Houston). Speaking of Facebook, I saw someone post this on their page last night. Take it with a grain of salt, but interesting if legit: I will gladly pay extra every month to watch my beloved Rockets. I have no problem with this whatsoever. But apparently, CSN want's either all carriers customers or none. There is no in-between.
Of course Comcast-NBC doesn't want that deal. It would be a financial disaster to let the carriers offer it ala carte and only pay them for those that subscribe. Not enough people are willing to pay extra for it. One of the least watched sports teams in a major city. Comcast-NBC wants payment for every subscriber regardless of whether they watch Rocket games. But, I wouldn't kill them for that as it is pretty standard for sports networks to want that.
Other than HBO, SHO, etc., are there any other networks that you can get on Dish by themselves? Like can I have Dish and say, I want AMC, but NOT BRAVO!!! Or give me my ESPNs, but not Fox Sports SW?
They would probably lump it in with their sports bundle which is not very expensive. http://www.mydish.com/upgrades/sports/
so i called in yesterday to find out what my buyout was to cancel uverse the rep cracked me up and suggested that I use someones account and password that subscribes to comcast and login remotely to view the games. Then she got scared and qualified it as a statement not representing the views of Uverse. Serious question - is her suggestion even possible? Do they carry CSNHouston on their web streaming?
I have given up and am accepting the stream as part of life. I feel like I am playing missile command closing popups the whole time. Have been logging into clutchfans chat too since I am computer bound. The chat room is funny. seems to be the same people. I'm not going to put it on the main tv just yet. My wife asked me the other day if the rockets still have moochie norris. What is it some type of hdmi cord that plugs into tv I suppose? Has anyone tried downloading the app for HD on the front row site?
Interesting how the people that get the games don't seem to see the big deal. They think anyone upset over it is a crank and should get over it. To them CSN has done nothing wrong, Les has done nothing wrong, and we're just all crazy. Every single person that currently gets CSN seems to feel this way. Everyone that doesn't seems to feel the opposite way: betrayed and upset. But that's silly say all of the ones that get the games to all of the ones that don't. I say they stay the **** out of the only thread and the only mention (on this entire site) of more than half of Houstonians being blacked out. Can we have ONE thread at least where we're not told we're overreacting by being pissed off? I tried to start a thread for that exclusive purpose and it was taken down. This is our only place. You guys with the games can have the other thousands of threads (literally thousands) to talk about the team that we can't talk about because we aren't watching them because we can't -- except by illegal means. Anyone that is getting the games that tells Rockets fans not to overreact to suddenly being blacked out is just a dick and nothing but a dick. RM95 is already on ignore for me (and unfriended) for being by far the worst offender. Likewise this site is half-dead to me just for showing the true colors of many old regulars alone. There's also the fact that the fools in the D&D have finally gotten boring, the children in the hangout are children, and I only care about the sport and the team I can't see. I am not a football or baseball fan. For those of us without the games, the only reason to come here is to find out when the **** we're going to get the games. To come into the only thread in which that is discussed only to be half lectured to be reasonable is the final insult. It's quite obvious that RM95 and others don't give a **** about me or you because he's watching the games so nanny nanny boo boo. This place used to be a community of fans. But keep it up RM95 or the more subtle bobrek. Keep telling us how we're supposed to feel on the matter.
This isn't specifically about this CSN, but more generally about Comcast's takeover of the industry and how their virtual monopoly isn't just screwing over some sports fans but also the American public in general (my apologies if this is more appropriate for D&D). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/us-internet-suffers-when_b_2442649.html [rquoter] ... Who Is The 'Captive Audience'? That's the unfortunate and sad tale told by Susan Crawford, a Cardozo Law School professor and star of the tech-policy firmament in her important new book, Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly in the New Gilded Age published Jan 8, from Yale University Press. It's a title with a sly double meaning. It could refer to consumers, who, as Crawford demonstrates, are captive to big uncontrolled companies. It could refer just as easily to regulators who wilt in the face of industrial pressure and fail in their duty to protect the public. In Crawford's book, the focus is on Comcast, a remarkable company that has grown from putting up little cable systems in rural Mississippi to becoming not only the largest broadband provider in the country but also the owner of the NBC network, Universal movie studio (and theme park) and dozens of cable channels. Comcast will use every advantage it has, and the advantages are considerable, as gatekeeper of what gets on its cable systems and as the sole provider in many areas of essential high-speed Internet access. There is no regulation of cable rates. There is little competition and unfortunately the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under current Chairman Julius Genachowski has consistently dodged the issue, even though anyone looking at the consolidated market sees the need for drastic action. Comcast's command of its cable system has been rarely challenged, because small players don't have the lawyers, guns and money to take on a behemoth. Crawford goes through Bloomberg's struggles to force Comcast to get the Bloomberg news channel placed in a "neighborhood" with other news channels, as required by the merger agreement that gave Comcast NBCU. It took years of debate and millions of dollars and Bloomberg came away with most, but not all, of what it wanted. Unfortunately, Crawford didn't tell the tale of spunky little Tennis Channel, which is even more illustrative. Comcast puts Tennis Channel on a special sports tier for which customers have to pay extra and so has relatively few viewers. Comcast puts the Golf channel on the basic tier that everybody gets and it has lots more viewers. What's the difference? Comcast owns the Golf Channel. Tennis Channel has fought Comcast for years through hearings and bureaus and the whole FCC and won -- only to be stopped dead by a ruling from a Federal appeals court that hates the FCC, even when the Commission on occasion does things right. It's still tough out there for programmers. How Comcast Got NBC What Comcast has done isn't right, but it's hard to put all the blame on the company. It, like any other company, will do what it can until it is stopped. Crawford's book is a valuable behind-the-scenes look at how Comcast throws its weight and money around, to make sure it gets what it wants. The book's centerpiece is the purchase of the controlling interest in NBCU. Crawford sets out how the scene was set and the play performed before Congress and regulators, ending with self-congratulatory language from the FCC, and Comcast's statement that none of the conditions imposed on the purchase would change how it does business. Wonderful. Comcast's purchase of NBCU was the first of three blockbuster deals over the past couple of years. After that came AT&T's attempted purchase of T-Mobile, the second-largest cell company trying to swallow the fourth largest. That one was too much even for the timid Genachowski. Thankfully, the U.S. Justice Dept. stepped up to block the transaction, so Genachowski went along also. After those two came Comcast again, in cahoots with Verizon, to split up the telecom world. Comcast would have domain over the land, through wired high-speed broadband, while Verizon would rule the air. The FCC let it go through. Crawford's dissection of the deals and the background is thoroughly dispiriting. Goodness knows, regulators have tried to protect the public from gigantic railroad and oil barons. But from the earliest days a century ago, the government was "swiftly overwhelmed by the lobbying efforts of the railway lawyers, and railroad supervision is now largely in the hands of the railway industry." It's no surprise that, as Crawford says, we have a telecommunications system which has "all the monopolistic characteristics of the old Bell system but none of the oversight or universality." As she points out, the dreadful result for consumers is that we pay more for less than an advanced industrialized country should for telecom services. Even worse, the U.S. is left with a system in which the favored few have good service and the disfavored must settle with less and hardly anyone has a choice of service providers. Crawford isn't alone in that view. Internet pioneer Vint Cerf made that same point in a recent speech. ... [/rquoter]
