Again, do you think the Rockets/Astros/CSN pulled their "pay so much" number out of thin air? They didn't -- it's based on precedent. If the price is so much that the providers are going to "lose big money", then they're idiots for signing comparable deals in comparable markets. Obviously there are limits. But barring ridiculous circumstances, yes, I believe airing the games of local sports teams should be a basic obligation for a cable provider. That's my opinion. And I don't think the asking price here is ridiculous, assuming it's based on precedents signed by the providers.
It's obviously based on the billion dollars Comcast paid as well as the majority ownership they gave away for the rights. Comcast knows what they have to get per subscriber not to lose money and it sounds as if they bid it up to a point that the providers just aren't interested.
Uh, ok. I'm a believer in free market and do not think a private business has an obligation to provide a certain product. If demand for that product is such that it is good for their business then they will want in on it. If it is not, that is their business. Jim Crane owns the Houston Astros, ATT doesn't, Directv doesn't, Dish doesn't, Jim Crane does. It isn't up to ATT, Direc and Dish to make sure I can watch Jim Cranes team
And somehow someone thinks that it is the responsibility of Dish, Direc and ATT to bring us that channel, regardless of this
And why did Comcast pay the figure they did? Hint: it has to do with comparable networks in comparable markets.
Why is anyone responsible for paying the price that Comcast needs to make money? Explain that responsibility? You sound like whiney Postolos. Well so and so got paid a lot of money so we deserve to get paid a lot of money. Huh? And the consumer gets to pay for all of it.
I believe in the free market too, but it cuts both ways. They can make whatever "business" decision they want, and I have a right to be upset about it if I disagree with them or if it goes against my interest. I think businesses should try and act in the interest of their paying customers, when reasonably possible. Do they have to? No, I'm not favoring legislation to mandate this, so drop the "free market" stuff. But beyond what's legally required, there are certain ethical rules I'd like to see a company play by when I pay them thousands of dollars per year. In this case, unless the circumstances are extreme, I think they have an ethical obligation to offer the games of local professional teams. I realize some won't agree, and that's fine. I'm not calling for legislation. Just my personal opinion. What are extreme circumstances? Basically, a negative impact to their business. I don't buy that for a second here. For starters, their margins are sky-high already. Beyond that, I don't see customers leaving DTV/Dish/UVerse in droves if they add CSN. If anything, I see more people subscribing to those companies because they do offer CSN! I don't think it's a net negative for provider business if they added CSN today at the CSN asking price. I think it's a positive. I think they believe they can get an even bigger positive if they stare Crane down and get him to blink. Some would call the above merely business. For me, though, it's greed and crosses the line.
Why just apply that logic here in Houston, then? Where was this noble spirit of protecting the consumer when all the networks agreed to the new FSSW deal that the Mavs and Rangers renegotiated? By all accounts, the per subscriber figure there is comparable to what CSN is asking for here. Or the 15 or so others that have been agreed to under the new model. If a paying cable customer in Dallas gets to watch his local team on the extended basic UVerse tier, I think I should have that same right here.
You can apply this kind of logic to everything. How come ESPN gives Dallas its own page. Where's our page? Wha, wha. How come the Yankees get to charge thousands of dollars for a seat but the Astros don't? Why is that fair? Why is it fair that tickets for certain visiting teams are sold for more than tickets for others? Oh, it's because business is business it's not a moral test of fairness. Your whole thing here is silly. The providers have no obligation, inherent or implied, to carry what they don't feel is worth the financial commitment. Period. If Comcast wants to pay a billion dollars and give ownership stakes for the rights then that's their judgement. No one is obligated to meet their price. If this is the market the providers feel is the best place to take a stand of RSN's then that's their choice. This is a great time to make a stand based on the dynamics of one team being historically bad, the other being incredibly mediocre., and ratings being bad. It makes perfect sense to make a stand in this market and that's obviously what they're doing. And when it comes down to it, the providers are trying to keep prices down with their stand. Giving in means higher costs and I'm sure higher rates for all of us. That's just not debatable. I don't really want to pay more for my cable because Ho Chen is going to list his best tweets after the game or we get to learn what Jose Altuve eats for breakfast. This isn't a noble spirit. It's business. There's certainly a price point for service where the providers lose customers, not just sports fans. Why would the providers want to raise prices to fund an RSN and lose customers in the process? That's bad business.
I do. I think less of ESPN because there's an ESPN Dallas and not an ESPN Houston. You can apply the laws of sheer greed to everything and chalk up anything to "just business", but I don't share that world view. I think there are some companies that are better than others at customer service and being fair, and if I'm giving thousands per year to a company, I'm going to judge how they perform for my needs. As for a "price point" where providers lose customers, I don't think we're there or the providers wouldn't have signed comparable deals in comparable markets. I don't buy that they thought it was a good business decision in Dallas and suddenly, a year or two later, think they're going to lose customers if they add CSN Houston. I don't think their revenue expectations are all that different. I think they see more vulnerable owners in Houston, and a new network that gives them (the provider) more leverage.
You didn't sign a contract with them that stipulated carrying Astros and Rockets games though. I would be mad, and I am extremely mad and angry, but I certainly don't feel that they are obligated to purchase a channel, at whatever price CSN says they want for it, because that is the channel I would watch almost all the time. On what is probably the biggest fan board out there, on the two threads talking about this subject, what are there, about 10 of us who are constantly going back and forth over this? Some of us are passionate about wanting to watch these games, but we are such a small drop in the bucket. Hell, Crane himself said very few customers have switched and they needed "thousands" to switch. I would say there are very very few who have even called and got a discount. If "thousands" were doing that it would certainly put more pressure on the others to get a deal done, but the fact is that isn't happening . . .and the sad thing is, Les and Jim don't seem to give a darn, and csn sure don't
For sure. As that article I posted earlier pointed out: ESPN charges $5 per subscriber and the RSNs around the country are also approaching that $5 threshold. It's due to the screwed up economic model that MLB is operating under - the one that forces non-baseball fans to pick up the tab for TV contracts that benefit MLB teams.
Mine is too, i'd rather watch the games, but Uverse did give me a significant discount because of this, and said they would continue to do so at the end of the year they have already discounted me if a deal isn't done by then. If a deal does get done, I still get the discount.
Yup. And I have a hard time demonizing the Astros when the team they're supposed to be competing with on the field -- the Rangers -- has a similar deal to what the Astros are seeking in a similar market. I put more fault on the providers for opening that door in the first place by agreeing to those other deals. Then the providers turn around and act like they're fighting for the "little guy" in all this. Irks me to no end.
Haha, yea it Irks you a lot huh. Those dang providers. . .of course you are watching the games . . .but still, damn Uverse, Direc, Dish . . .Jerks won't pay what Jim, Les and CSN are demanding . . .doh
