That's all fine and good. And you're exactly right -- this is a lot bigger than Astros baseball. Where you come off as biased, to me, is that you aren't blaming the providers for their role in this. Drayton McLane and Les Alexander aren't horrible human beings who plucked this evil plot out of the sky four years ago. They crafted this carefully based on precedents set elsewhere, by other teams who have also received equity stakes in RSNs and bundled their properties for tremendous profits. And no, not just in NY or LA. The providers agreed to pay those new, elevated prices and signed multiple deals, including with teams the Astros/Rockets are directly competing with. And NOW they're trying to draw the line? NOW they're wanting to play hard ball and act as if they're worried about the consumer? You're dead on accurate that the CSN side is greedy and attempting to push profits. But the providers aren't standing up for the little guy. If this were really a case of people saying "enough is enough", they'd make this same fight across the board. Instead, they're picking and choosing a few select cases to hold hostage -- basically, whichever ones are most convenient to them. That's not a principled stand. That's cutthroat business -- the same logic the CSN side is using. Both sides are greedy and using fans as pawns in a bigger game. The best way to resolve it is to hold both accountable and push each toward a compromise.
Hardcore fans that are screaming for coverage and following these negotiations closely are not the tipping point. The point of this move is to entice the average viewer and get more signatures on that petition, so to speak. True or false: someone who is given CSN for a month and then has it taken away will desire the channel more afterwards. The answer, obviously, is true. And that's what CSN is banking on here. Otherwise, why give it away? My cable company did the same to me with HBO. Gave me a few months free in the hopes I would grow attached (or more attached) the programming, then took it away and wanted to charge me for it. Pretty basic strategy that is used quite often.
I agree with him. If you don't support a fair deal for the network you basically don't support a very important part of the team's finances. You may hate it but why can't our teams make the same as other major market teams? Principle? Take a hit for the fans? **** that. The money they set themselves up to make now is what will help the team sustain a great team (they cost money). And your take that FSN was "good enough" just shows how much of a Houston sports fan you really are. The network was garbage and they tried to buy low on your teams and failed. Glad they did.
Where you continue to show YOUR bias is your continued insistence that CSN is comparable to the other stations that have made deals with the providers. They may be competing with those teams on the field, but their product offering is not the same. I've demonstrated repeatedly through ratings that even when the teams were good the Rockets/Astros are not a television draw. You say the providers are drawing a line in the sand NOW as if they've given these same deals to comparable markets when that is not true.
Click on the link in my sig. I work for an oil and gas trade publication and freelance for the Houston Press covering the Texans. And if CSN has a "company line", I have my doubts that it involves calling themselves greedy and equally responsible, as I've said over and over again in this thread.
I don't give a damn about either of the parties...Comcast or Uverse (my provider.) Honestly...I don't care what kind of sneaky games they run. I'm telling you as an Astros fan..and a Houston sports fan generally...I want to be able to watch the games on my television. And if my provider refuses to pick it up for a week...even when it doesn't cost them a dime...then I'm not happy with that...no matter how sneaky their games are amongst one another. I'm not a party to those negotiations and I'm not gonna profit either way...the only "side" I'm interested in here is my own and being able to watch the game while not sacrificing the service I enjoy with Uverse. That's it. I pay Uverse for service...if they can offer me additional programming for absolutely free that I would like to watch, then as a consumer of that service, I'm not thrilled with that.
Agreed. I don't care what DirecTV (my provider) pays to get CSN personally because if they pass $4 to me oh well. No skin off my back. But, I do realize that what CSN wants is out of line and I know the history of Comcast/NBC being terrible business partners.
No, you haven't. You showed ratings evidence from 2011 and 2012 and acted as if that's indicative of projected ratings over a 20-year period. That's disingenuous and you know it. You're comparing the Rangers at a peak to the Astros at an extreme valley. A 15- to 20-year agreement most likely involves up and down cycles for every franchise involved, and it's impossible to project ratings without evidence from both in the prior 15-20 years. Where's your ratings evidence from 2005?
Great! Free trial Comcast Houston Sportsnet when the NBA season is already over! Brilliant! I'm really not surprised that Comcast is consistently rated one of the least customer friendly companies in the United States.
Remember the kicker here is that CSN want's to collect the $3.40 for every subscriber (on the basic tier) across the entire region, not just charge the people that would pay for it. So they are saying they are going to take $3.40 from the provider's margin or require every subscriber to pay $3.40 more. I don't think the providers are going to take the bait.
Too bad we don't live in Europe but even a FC Barcelona how are publicly owned by the citizens of Barcelona and pay $200 a year just to have a say in the team pdont get free access to all the games. Business is business. Great teams cost big money. These players are not volunteer workers,
"Obviously"? Speak for yourself. To me, the answer is false. The cable company gives you things like HBO because most extended-basic customers haven't ever had it. Personally, I never have. Almost everyone that has extended basic in this region already had the Astros. Many for 20 and 30+ years. This isn't getting someone attached to a new, premium product. This is an established and known entity. If they care about the Astros at all, they already know they aren't getting the games and already want to see them. There is nothing "new" to attach them to.
1.) We have zero real knowledge of the asking rate. 2.) Every RSN in the entire United States gets their dollar figure from every subscriber on the basic tier in their home region. There isn't a single network anywhere that "just charges the people that would pay for it". If you exclusively blame the Astros/Rockets/CSN for asking similar terms to every other RSN in the country, including many smaller ones, then I think you may need some time in business school.
Prior to 2005 the Astros couldn't even convince Fox Sports to air all the games. In 2004 there was only 133 games aired on television. Real demand!
I would never ask labor to work free, but I wouldn't mind the entrepreneurs working free when there is little or no personal risk involved.
on 2) The Astros/Rockets want to be among the highest paid RSN agreements in the country, ahead of the Yankees, ahead of the Red Sox, etc.
Well, guess what... for the majority of people, the answer is true. You and I are outliers in this equation. We follow the Rockets closely, we already *want* the channel. Giving it out for free can do nothing but spur demand for CSN, period. Even if the effect is minimal (which it absolutely will be), there is *nothing* for CSN to lose here. Not to mention the added benefit of making the cable companies look like big ol' meanie-heads when they neglect to pick it up.
Every boom has it's bust, this looks like the point where the exploitative model may change. How long do you think it will be before the Itunes of sports will offer to stream me any game I choose to pay for? democracy!
