I understand everything you're saying... but Lopez loses me entirely when he implies I had a contract with Uverse whereby I'd pay them a monthly rate for access to Rockets/Astros games. I didn't have that with Uverse...and neither did anyone else. You could pick a certain number of channels....those channels were listed...they included FoxSports Southwest. But they did not include anything to suggest that, come Hell or high water, my monthly payment would guarantee me that I would be getting my Astros/Rockets...and because now I'm not getting them, that I'm somehow owed something. Programming on channels changes all the time...I don't get to go back and ask for my money back when AMC cancels my favorite show....nor do I get to go back and insinuate that I somehow had a deal with Uverse to provide me specific programming. They provide access to channels...nothing more. I'm not sure if Lopez doesn't understand that or if he is trotting out a disingenous argument. Either way, he's wrong.
I'm not buying this argument either. Doesn't DirectTV already carry some of the CSN channels in other markets. Why would they have an issue with CSN-H then??
As with any industry, there are bad apples. But they're few and far between. The vast majority do things the right way. I've known talk radio guys that openly mock some of the products they've had to read an ad spot for. I don't know John well, but he's been around the business a while, and I don't think it's right to assume the absolute worst unless you have a specific reason to. Most guys do understand the line, from my experience.
So if every channel Uverse offered started showing nothing but the Bachelor, you would be okay with it because those are the channels you agreed to? People subscribe to Uverse for the content. I am completely dissatisfied with the content. On a side note, Uverse is lucky that my wife likes the Bachelor. We are looking to switch providers as soon as contract is over. Granted, we won't be getting a two year contract.
That's a crazy argument that doesn't touch on what's actually happening here. Would I be ok with it? Of course not....but Uverse doesn't dictate the programming of the stations. Programming gets cancelled and added all the time. Uverse isn't responsible for that. I understand what The Cat is saying about making sure they had an out....but even if they didn't, that doesn't mean Uverse is robbing me because the Rockets and Astros chose to pick a new partner for programming. I never had a deal with Uverse to provide me Astros/Rockets games specifically. I promise you...if you tried to bring a lawsuit alleging that somehow you were owed money by one of the providers because they promised you Astros/Rockets and now, because the Astros/Rockets moved to a different channel, that you would lose that case.
Where I disagree with you is on the analogy of AMC cancelling your favorite show. That's flawed because the importance of one show to AMC's overall value is nowhere near the Astros/Rockets to FSN. For example, I love "Mad Men", but when it goes away, AMC won't be as void as FSN is now. More importantly, it isn't charging $3/subscriber. FSN is charging an extremely high per-subscriber fee based on the implicit understanding that they'd have the local pro teams. If the providers didn't give themselves a way out of that fee in the event that FSN loses 99% of its value, then they're idiots and you shouldn't have to pay for that. I agree that Lopez takes it a step too far in saying you had a specific contract for the Astros/Rockets games. To me, that reads like he was being folksy and overly broad. What I'm guessing he means is that the portion of your bill that goes to FSN was negotiated under the premise and belief that they would have the games, and now that they don't, they owe you a lower rate. Fortunately, the providers largely seem to understand this and are willing to make adjustments. (By the way, Steph Stradley mentioned on Twitter a couple of weeks back that FSN actually gave money back to the providers to compensate for no longer having the games. If that's the case, you're certainly owed some of the savings. But I don't know what her source was on that, so I can't vouch for it.)
If UVerse accepted money from FSN to compensate for no longer carrying the Astros/Rockets and then refused to share any of that money with a subscriber who continues to be charged a monthly FSN fee negotiated when FSN formerly had the Astros/Rockets... I think that would be an interesting case. I don't know the law well enough to speculate on the result, but there's certainly something wrong there.
Yeah, I wanna see where allllll these providers have agreements with allllll their subscribers saying that in the event the Astros/Rockets leave FSN, you're entitled to a refund. I sincerely doubt that's in the contract. I know Steph is an attorney as well...but I think she was passing on what she had heard too. I have no idea where that is coming from, aside from Comcast's press releases.
I've never read my own agreement with Uverse...but my guess is it says something like: "we are in no way responsible for the programming of the channels you subscribe to."
I think you're giving him WAY too much credit here. I think he knows exactly what he's doing. BTW, the providers aren't giving people credits because they understand some broad point about how they previously negotiated with FSN. They're giving people credits so they won't cancel their service. That is the only reason.
Oh, I wasn't saying (and she wasn't either) that there's an "agreement" in writing that you're legally entitled to a refund. What I thought was interesting was her statement that FSN had already compensated the providers financially for losing the Astros/Rockets. If that's the case, then it's only fair that you shouldn't have to continue paying the same $3/month rate (or whatever it is) that you were paying for FSN before they lost the rights. Not speaking from a legal standpoint... just common sense and decency. If the providers are no longer paying FSN a figure that justifies $3/subscriber, then you should get some sort of discount if you're paying that in your monthly package.
Either way, to me, it's a minor nitpick. I think his much broader point is a valid one: you shouldn't be responsible for continuing to pay the same high price for FSN now that they lost the rights to the teams. FSN is extremely pricey and their prime-time offerings here tonight are "UFC Reloaded" and "World Poker Tour". That's a ripoff. I don't see why it can't be both. Obviously avoiding cancellations is the leading factor, but the enormous ripoff that FSN represents on a per-subscriber basis in the Houston area is significant.
Funny -- last week you said I worked for Comcast. Now I'm John Lopez? Maybe it's all a conspiracy -- John Lopez's entire sports radio career is a front for his side work as a Comcast executive and infiltrating ClutchFans as a seemingly anonymous poster nicknamed "The Cat"! (Or maybe you should stop throwing out blind insults and generalizations to anyone who dares disagree with you and actually discuss the situation like an adult.)
They're handing out discounts like candy, The Cat. Call and they'll lower your bill..and add 100 channels and boost your internet while they do it. Most people are NOT under contract with providers to begin with...if they want out, they can get out. If they feel they're not getting their money's worth, they can cancel. I've been pretty even throughout this...arguing it's not a moral issue but just a business dispute. But I have to say, Comcast's approach with the way they have presented it of late pisses me off...it assumes an extremely dumb audience, which is disingenuous and offensive.
Hard to have an actual discussion with someone who takes what you say and changes it to what fits your argument better, sorry John
Absolutely. But I don't think the other side is much better. The provider approach of drawing the "sports tier" line is disingenuous and offensive to Houston, considering there's not a single RSN in the entire United States that isn't available on the extended tier in its home market. I get your points and respect them... but I think it's possible to find fault with CSN while simultaneously acknowledging that the providers share responsibility. That's what irks me in a lot of posts here (not yours).
This bears repeating because of how true it is. Comcast is trying to portay itself as right and virtuous while portraying the providers as pillaging marauders who have wrenched your sports teams from you. It isn't even close to being this little thing called the truth.
