I get that, but that's precisely my point (as I've said many times). The reason the providers are more willing to pick this fight with CSN (and not FSSW) is because it's easier and more convenient. At least for me, that's not good enough. If the providers really believe the costs for sports networks are out of hand and at a point where they are in jeopardy of losing customers, they wouldn't just pick the battles where they're convenient. They'd push back across the board. As it is, they're targeting the Houston RSN because it's most vulnerable from a business standpoint. And that's their right. But if folks are going to b**** nonstop about the greed of the CSN side, I feel compelled to point out similar greed on the other side.
when we had FSHouston, directv would only show the games, the channel would blackout before the postgame report. i wonder if theyll do the same if an agreement is reached with CSN.. also i wonder why weve received these city specific networks before DFW, they are the bigger market and likely have the larger fanbase throughout texas. yet theyve been stuck with the generic FSSouthWest that san antonio also shares. while we had FSHouston and now CSNHouston...
What you call easier and more convenient, I would call basic good business sense. You negotiate the best deal possible all the time. When FOX has leverage, they get a better deal. When DirecTV has leverage, they get the better deal. You only eat costs (or raise prices on your customers) when you have to - here, they simply don't have to because they know CSN doesn't have the leverage. If I was a stockholder in DTV, I'd be pissed if they just caved and made a bad business decision when they didn't need to. Except that it's not just sports networks that are being priced. They don't negotiate a price for FSSW in isolation - they negotiate it as part of a package with all the other FOX channels. What matters to the providers there is the total cost of the package - not the cost of any individual channel. Here, the whole package is CSN so they feel it's overpriced. There, they may feel FSSW is overpriced, but if the package as a whole is reasonable, they don't care. All these companies are greedy - it's part of their job. But in a battle of greedy corporations, one side is trying to make it more expensive for consumers, while the other is trying to keep costs down. It's natural that consumers will tend to side with the latter.
What about Astros fans in San Antonio? There is more than just basketball. What value does FSSW offer Mississippi and New Mexico? Or even Arkansas or Louisiana (other than the not very popular Hornets)?
For all those places, FSSW offered whatever teams were most convenient/relevant to that area. New Orleans might get the Astros and Rockets, while Shreveport might get the Rangers and Mavericks. With CSN, everyone gets the Astros and Rockets, regardless of interest. That's simply worth less than a network that has more teams and can target a team to the local market as best as possible.
Absolutely. But I also consider it "good business sense" for Jim Crane and the Astros not to accept a terrible deal that puts them light years behind the Rangers financially, despite having a very comparable market. That's my biggest beef with the consensus reaction to the CSN Houston dispute -- so many folks are willing to excuse the providers' actions by calling it "good business sense", while simultaneously going ape**** over Crane using the exact same logic. Even though they're negotiated as a bundle, there IS a per-subscriber fee for FSSW (or any other sports channel) in isolation, and the providers know they are establishing a precedent when they do so. We're more than consumers, though. We're Houston sports fans. In this battle, one side is willing to essentially give a blank paycheck to our biggest on-field rival, while at the same time attempting to cut corners in Houston and put the Astros (and to a lesser extent, Rockets) at an enormous financial disadvantage.
You speak as if this is an intentional act on the part of the providers while it is not. They (providers) are simply operating under the screwed up economics of the situation. The harsh reality is that the providers are not obligated to carry CSN simply because the Astros and Rocket decided that having their own little RSN "cash cow" was the way to go. Even so, if the providers saw real, tangible value (read $$$) in going along with CSN, this would have been settled a long time ago. As I see it, there really is NO incentive for either side to budge from their respective positions so what's left is a complete impass that going to last for a long time.
Right - and FSSW wouldn't be worth as much if negotiated today. Absolutely - I don't have a problem at all with Crane and company holding their line either. But I do think it's silly for them to be whining about the providers and trying to get consumers to do their work for them. You don't see the providers whining or telling people to call Crane and ask him to lower his price. Maybe - but I don't think it's the customer's responsibility to figure out how to finance their team. Especially at a time when the owner has slashed the payroll and is making stupid statements like if you want a bigger payroll, write him a $10 million check. Crane has done a terrible job being rude / offensive to his fanbase, and then asking for them to help fix his problems with CSN. He's doing every right as far as decision-making goes for improving the team - both with the payroll and the CSN mess. But he's failed the PR side, and based on his own attitude towards the fans, he shouldn't be expecting much support.
Eh, I think that's the basic nature of cable providers and new networks. If the customers don't ask for it, why would the provider pay money and add it? I don't think Crane can say exactly what the current demand is, so I don't see how it's "his job". Paying customers need to let their provider know. I think you're playing to the lowest common denominator there, whereas most fans who care enough to be involved in the CSN issues probably know better. As you said, he's doing everything exactly right for improving the team. Anyone who thinks payroll should be higher in 2013 is a ****ing idiot and has no clue how to build an MLB team. It would be completely illogical, and I took his "write the check" quote as almost mocking the question. Perhaps it's bad PR for Joe Six Pack who watches a couple of games per year in his internet-less trailer. For most fans, though -- especially those involved here -- I don't think the comments are rude or offensive. Quite frankly, they're common sense.
If I were DirecTV (my provider), then I would decline to pick up their freeview as a matter of principle. Because, what is going to happen is we will get our little freeview period and then it will be yanked again at the end of May. So, we have to get riled all over again when they yank it. To me, it's not worth flipping the switch and I'd rather just keep it the way it is. That said...I would watch some Astros games but I can live without and stick to my guns that no way is DirecTV going to raise my monthly rate so I can get CSN Houston. It either comes with the sports package I have now that Fox Sports was previously on...or I don't get it at all. NO DEAL! NO DEAL!
I don't get this argument at all. When Time Warner added the NFL Network this season, my bill didn't automatically go up. As a matter of fact, I just renewed my deal with them for more services and paying about the same as I was before. That has never been how it works. You likely have a contracted rate. Your bill is not going to go up if they add the channel.
Why would anyone get riled up that isn't already riled up? Unless you're 6 months old or younger, you've seen the Astros on your provider before. This isn't some new revelation. If someone is an Astros fan and isn't getting the games, they're already aware of this. If they're inclined to get frustrated and blame the provider, they already are. This isn't going to have a significant impact on negotiations. It just gives everyone involved a break. If you polled fans, I think most would prefer to be able to watch the Astros play in Fenway the next few days. It really is that simple.
I understand that. But my bill didn't go up $.61 when it was added. My bill stayed the same. So will the bill of anyone who is on a provider that eventually decides to add CSN whether it's added to the standard tier or specific sports package. Your bill is not going to change.
Do you pay attention to your cable bill and/or when your provider adds channels? Does your bill go up the next month? When your current deal is up, are you just going to accept new, higher rates? No. You're going to negotiate with them and play the "I'm going to cancel if you raise my rates" game like everyone else.
