No Astros on TV? I'll just watch my adopted NL team...SF GIANTS. We've been fighting for CSNHOUSTON access for months now. Only now does this clown come out and say fans need to take action against DIRECTV. F U BRO! F U
What do you want Crane to say? Sure, we'll cave in? Do you want, as DirecTv proposes to charge extra for customers that want to watch the games?
From a PR standpoint, just say some BS about how negotiations are difficult but on-going, etc. I don't have any problems with the decisions he's making with the team, but he does need to just shut up. He comes across as a douchebag everytime he opens his mouth. This is exactly how these sports networks should work (like the Longhorn Network). They should all be ala carte additions - then all the providers would be happy to add them and pass on the costs to those who actually are interested. But they are right to hold off and not raise the cost for all their customers for a channel only a small portion want.
That's fine as long as they use that logic across the board. They don't. UVerse even picked up the aforementioned LHN on the extended basic tier within the past year. The providers need to stop telling us this ala carte bull**** when they're repeatedly putting new networks in other locations on extended basic.
It's their business. They can run it how they want. If we don't like it we get another provider. The providers don't get public money to build their brand nor an anti-trust exemption to protect their business. If the Astros persist this way then customers refuse to go to games and thats certainly goingto happen. Their stance is ridiculous. Help us get money from your cable provider. Huh? My provider gave me a significant discount, probably 15 times the subscriber fee CSN is asking, so I'm good with their stance.
They can run it how they want, of course. But that doesn't make them immune to criticism. Just as you think the teams owe something to the public based on public funding and anti-trust exemptions, I think the providers owe customers (many of which pay $100/month and more) the right to watch the local professional sports teams. For me, it's one of the only reasons I have cable in the first place. They can do whatever they want, but don't sit here and tell your paying customers that the "extended basic" is the issue when you're simultaneously striking deals for similar RSNs, including the Longhorn Network. I would expect the company I'm giving over $1,000/year to to be more honest with me.
I'm not sure why you are so pro-Comcast in this. The other providers didn't "remove access" to the Rockets/Astros like Comcast is claiming. The teams did that. Unfortunately there is a contract with Fox Sports that the other providers are still locked into. I know I know, you've already said that you think they can get out of those any time they want. Yawn. The Astros/Rockets want to be paid like one of the best markets in the country when Houston ISN'T one of the best MEDIA markets in the country when it comes to sports AND the providers already have contract obligations to Fox Sports. It's a losing proposition for the providers.
CSN is asking something like 7 times the price that the LHN is asking - and the LHN's number is ridiculous too. But LHN has a competitive advantage - if no one else is carrying it in your market, you might be able to gain customers as a result of adding it, especially in the Texas area. So there's some advantage to being the first company to add the network in that respect. But I think they'll regret it in the long-run. However, Comcast already has the network for something like 40% of Houston. So DirecTV or uVerse aren't going to gain customers by adding the network - they might lose less, but presumably that hasn't happened to a big extent, and especially won't given that the Astros aren't very good. You pay $100/month for your cable. If the numbers that were reported are correct, LHN wants $0.50 / month. CSN wants $3.50 / month. So for your carrier to get it and not lose money, they'd have to increase everyone's cable bill by 3% - that's insane for one station. It's certainly worth well more than the LHN, but neither is worth the prices they are asking, in my opinion. Especially if UVerse/DirecTV haven't lost many customers to Comcast during Rockets' season. I suspect this is a powerplay by Comcast to challenge their rivals, and neither side is going to budge.
The providers didn't remove that right. The teams did. We already have an RSN. The Astros wanted a lot more money so they left and created their own. They didn't like the offer FSN gave them so now they're bypassing the existing RSN to create their own and try to get more money, packing on a bunch of additional coverage to promote their own brand, straight from the providers. They're not fooling anyone here. Why would the providers pay for two RSNs? And why would they pay even more per subscriber for a second RSN. Why would they do that? Because the Astros think its fair market value? The value of a market is whatever someone is willing to pay. For the providers its just math. A rating of 1, 22,000 viewers in a top ten market. It doesn't make sense to pay what the Astros are looking for. Hearing these stupid ads from CSN where they are flat out lying just makes them look horrible. They're obviously getting worried and maybe a little desperate. They had a horrible plan to get this done and its playing out in front of all of us,
SHOW ME THE CONTRACT. You're giving the providers the benefit of the doubt for reasons of which I have no idea. It's been basically three years now since CSN was announced. You're telling me they had no outs in that time? No legal recourse? Plus, as studogg said, the providers are complete freaking idiots if they didn't give themselves an exit clause in the original FSSW agreement that allows them to get out of it should FSSW lose rights to the local team. Why should customers have to pay for their idiocy? I'm not pro-either. I just think the same standards should be used across the board. You're just assuming the providers have an iron-clad contract with FSSW, all the while assuming the worst of CSN and demanding transparency.
Why should the providers have blind loyalty to an RSN that now shows no professional sports (other than the Dallas Stars)?
The vast majority of the region the Rockets and Astros (especially the Astros, the top shareholder) need to be doesn't even have Comcast. People can't change even if they were willing! That's why I don't buy the "Comcast powerplay" angle. As far as the difference in price between the LHN and CSN, I get it. But that's not the point. My point is that the "ala carte" talking point is complete bull****. I don't think there's a single RSN in all of sports that isn't on the extended basic tier in their home market. Basically, it comes down to the price -- but DirecTV is puppeting this "sports tier" garbage because they now it's a line that superficially sounds good. It's PR. Yet hardly anyone calls them out on a blatant lie.
So you believe the providers have the ability to get out of that contract but would rather not? I don't believe for a second they would prefer to give customers credit on their bills and lose customers rather than just dropping FSN.
Preferably all TV would work that way, but it doesn't. 200 channels, and I watch maybe 10 of them. How many regional sports stations are add-ons? I know mine isn't...
Cat is very pro-comcast in this, and you won't be changing his/her mind on that either so don't even try. I have to laugh when I hear all the talk about the carriers negotiate, when I hear Crane himself say "if the fans want to watch they can switch to comcast" . . .and then say "when thousands switch the other carriers will fall in line" . . .Crane could care less if anyone can watch right now or not, he knows it will be a couple of years before the product on the field is good and he is convinced that when the team is good, the fans will come back and fill the part. He is very likely right on that, but it is pretty sick to see an owner stick the finger at his fan base
