Reading GARM is like reading a Yahoo message board - I wouldn't put much stock into their opinions, and I certainly wouldn't recommend getting worked up over it. No one over here in the rational board seems to be suggesting that that Comcast is lying about anything.
I think part of the reason that people are going to support the providers is that CSN is the one trying to raise the cost of their cable service, while providers are trying to hold that down. I think it's the same reason people haven't turned on TWC in Austin for the Longhorn Network. At the end of the day, TWC was giving me all my sports. ESPN/UT/LHN took that away and wanted more money t show me the same thing. So it's hard for me to get upset with TWC when the other side was the instigator of the problem. While it may suck for me as a fan, I appreciate that TWC is at least trying to get a better deal which ultimately benefits me. Them giving in would be done at my expense.
Use Google. Run a search for "directv FX deal". Multiple articles will come up showing that the Fox deal that kept them from losing FX included all of the Fox channels, including regional sports networks.
I don't think the LHN is an appropriate parallel because a university-specific sports network has never been done before. There's no precedent. Here, there's plenty of precedent for regional sports networks being picked up on the extended basic tier, many at similar prices to what CSN is reportedly (but not confirmed) asking. If the providers want to hold costs down, that's one thing. But it seems they're making an example out of Houston and that's what irks me. The reason CSN is asking for what they're asking is because comparable networks in comparable markets have gotten deals done at that rate. I agree that RSNs in general are overpriced, but they've overpriced specifically because providers relented and agreed to pay that rate. Now they're trying to put toothpaste back in the tube and ignore the precedent they set in other markets when they negotiate in Houston.
Again, if that's the case, I'd like for DirecTV to have the decency to come out and say it themselves. They haven't. Don't give these corporate, made-for-good-PR soundbytes about giving fans the choice when you aren't doing that in other markets and you aren't willing to give me that choice for other channels.
It makes no sense at all to think it is a "ploy". Honestly, how could Crane gain public support by saying "if you want to watch the games you can switch to comcast"???? If he was saying things like, we are trying to negotiate but the others aren't wanting to negotiate, that would be a possible ploy, but saying we are not going to blink and when thousands leave them then they will follow in line . . .don't see how that could benefit him at all as a negotiating ploy.
Comcast is certainly telling some lies in the new commercial. When they say the other carriers are charging us the same but they "took away" our teams. 1) They didn't "take" our teams away, Drayton and Les did that 2) We aren't all still paying the same amount, all I had to do was call ATT and complain and I got a free month, $10 off each additional month for a year, and a free upgrade on internet speed for a year. The lady that I spoke with also told me that after a year when the discounts run out, if this still isn't settled, call back
One person's precedent is another person's mistake, though. What you call trying to put toothpaste back in the tube may be them trying to not repeat the mistakes they've already made and learned from. The fact that the Astros gave a huge deal to a ****** outfielder doesn't mean they should do it again because they've set that precedent - they made a mistake and (hopefully) learn from it. It could simply be that the providers thought these channels were worth more than they turned out to be, so they are no longer willing to pay that price. I think whoever's on the hook for the $2 billion in the LA Dodgers deal is similarly going to regret it when they realize the ad revenue isn't going to materialize at that level.
Funny. I haven't heard any of the providers say anything about it other than they believe the asking price is excessive and at that price they would want to offer it on an expanded sports tier. As for every channel a la carte, that is simply a naive notion. The owners of the content are very large entertainment companies with many channels. For instance, Fox will not sell FX without Nat Geo and several others. If the CSN partners are sophisticated enough to start an RSN, they are sophisticated enough to know that providers generally will not pass along inflated costs to carry a second RSN in a market for which they are already contractually obligated to carry one RSN already.
Fair and plausible perspective. But at the same time, based on those precedents, I have a hard time making the CSN Houston side out to be monsters for seeking a similar value to established monetary precedents from their on-field rivals (namely, the Rangers). The reason I focus on the GARM-type fans is because they're instrumental to this ultimately getting done. In most of the other stalemates, the resolution often comes when fans raise enough hell that politicians and other important people step in. Here, that's not really happening. It seems the majority are content to just sit back and quietly type "**** Comcast" on a message board or Facebook page and not really demand anything. It's particularly frustrating when they call the CSN side "liars", all the while ignoring the fact that the providers are putting forth an argument that is quite obviously BS. I think your scenario is very plausible. But they've said nothing to even hint at that. They haven't, to my knowledge, expressed regret over prior deals. They haven't spoken to a locked-in contract with FSN. They haven't acknowledged the inherent unlevel playing field that they created by giving that money to other teams (and now not the Astros). Instead, their campaign is seemingly to try and make the Astros/Rockets look unreasonable for asking the channel be on extended basic in their home market -- the same tier that every other RSN in the country is on. Basically, I'm tired of hearing people b**** about CSN Houston's "lying" ad campaign while the providers run one that is every bit as disingenuous.
Can you point me in the direction of a provider statement that even mentions the price relative to the tier issue? Genuinely curious. Almost everything I've seen from them references the tier -- your assumption that it's based on "at that price" is putting words in their mouth.
To be fair, even Crane has said they are seeking a higher price and won't blink. So honestly, I don't think it is putting words in anyone's mouth to say they are asking for a high price.
CSN is running a commercial saying the providers removed access to the teams and kept our bills the same. That's just not true, period. The providers didn't do a damn thing. Our bills are the same because we still have the exact same channel lineup we had last year. Why would they just across the board drop pricing when their costs are the same? Do the Astros do that? Did they cut prices for tickets, concessions, and jerseys the last few years because of the horrible product they put out? I called my provider to complain about CSN and they gave me a substantial discount (my bill is $30 cheaper per month) for the next year. CSN is lying about the access and they're being completely disingenuous about the billing.
You missed my entire point. Of course CSN is asking for a higher price than the providers are willing to pay. Otherwise, there would be a deal. The point is that DirecTV and the other providers are making it out to be more than that. Their public PR campaign is basically one repeated statement of "we want it on a special sports tier". Not at that price... or anything really mentioning the cost. Their public relations angle is basically blowing up the "sports tier" angle, when there's not a single RSN in the entire United States that isn't on the basic tier in their home market. I agree with you that the heart of the issue is the price dispute. But that's not what they're alleging. Thus, their ad campaign is every bit as disingenuous -- if not more -- than the CSN Houston one that everyone is b****ing about.
Understood. I'm not saying there aren't lies being told on the CSN Houston side. There certainly are. My point, as it always has been, is that it's a two-way street. Both sides are massive, greedy corporations willing to say anything to get an extra 1% of margin. The best way to get a deal done is to b**** at both of them and hope there's eventually movement to the middle.
This is posted on DirecTV's site. I don't see the disingenuous behavior. They want to hold costs down and they state as much on their site. They've obviously drawn a line on these RSN's and that line just so happened to start here. No Fan Should Be Sidelined http://directvpromise.com/no-fan-should-be-sidelined/ Anyone who pays for TV service should have a choice over what teams they want to follow. And anyone with no interest in sports should not be forced to pay a huge premium for something they don’t care to watch. No matter who provides your TV service, the relentlessly rising price of sports has already caused everyone’s bill for basic TV to more than double from about $40 to $80 over the past decade. And in many large cities, the cost for fans to keep the same local teams’ games they’ve always had will double still again between this year and next. Many teams, leagues and conferences will deny their most loyal fans access to games in order to get everyone—whether you’re a fan or not—to pay the soaring price of admission. Every TV viewer should have a choice: Fans should have access to the games they want, and viewers with no interest in sports should not have to pay for what they don’t want. Huge Money to Teams Comes Out of Your Pocket Every time a league, conference or team scores a huge payday for TV rights, it comes at every loyal customer’s expense. Look at all these huge price increases that each team, conference or league now wants you to pay just to get the same games as before. January 2013:The cost of admission to LA Dodgers baseball games inside of every cable or satellite customer’s home is climbing more than 600 percent as the Dodgers will launch yet another LA regional sports network – SportsNet LA – at a cost of at least $280 million per year to local residents. Instead of combining the Dodgers with the Lakers on TWC SportsNet, the team and Time Warner Cable will now cause everyone to pay more than double for two separate networks that are each most relevant for less than half the year each.
It's disingenuous because they don't mention their own role in this. The Astros are competing with the Rangers on the field, and television revenue is a big factor. The Astros didn't pull $3.40/subscriber or whatever they're asking out of thin air. It's based on precedent from other franchises and networks in comparable situations. You want to draw the line here? Then you owe an explanation and an apology for starting the whole mess in the first place by agreeing to those contracts in other markets. I haven't seen anything of the sort. They're simply making these teams and networks out to be greedy monsters and acting like they're innocent victims protecting the little guy.
When I b****ed to ATT about it, I got a month free, $10 off for a year and a free internet upgrade for a year. b****ing to CSN just gets my comments erased from their website
