Weren't you the one claiming CSN was a superior product? How Houston has been abused by FOX and how the new product warrants the price? Now anyone that is older than six months old has already seen the product? This is you trying to have it every which way.
^ To clarify: do I think the majority of people who get CSN free will want the channel after a free trial? No. However, will more *total* people want the channel after a free trial than before it? Yes. Not many, but some.
The NBA supports this. If they didn't they'd let you give them money directly and un-block the games. You're just going to have to get used to it or support the Mavs because its not going to change.
I just meant, since sports are subsidized by tax payers anyway, maybe the taxpayers should just own the team and let the billionaires go invest in something with real risk to their own fortunes to make a living. Au contraire my friend, business models change when there is more money to be made. Itunes had $5.7 billions dollars in cash flow last quarter. When the NBA figures out they can charge $.99 each to stream games to a fair percentage of 6 billion people they may abandon their prohibitive model.
It's funny how you of all people -- the guy who spouts "CONTRACT TERMS" over and over again as an excuse for providers -- now acts as if contracts are irrelevant, when the shoe is on the other foot. From February 25, 2005: http://www.chron.com/sports/astros/article/Dierker-back-on-Astros-TV-crew-1593687.php So which is it? Are these contracts ironclad, or can they rewrite them whenever it's convenient? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways. The reality is that the industry was very different prior to the mid-2000s. Before then, it was taboo to sign away 99% of your games to cable. That's why the Rockets had their side deal with KTXH, and the Astros had theirs with KNWS. It also wasn't the norm to have 99% of your games televised, period. The Rangers sure didn't. Neither did most teams. By the way, I'm still waiting on your ratings evidence. Since we established the new FSN deal started in 2005 and 2006, surely you have evidence of weak numbers in those two years, right?
First of all, I'm not the one who brought up contract terms. You are when you started in with your whole "DirecTV can just cancel Fox Sports any time they want and if they can't then they are stupid for signing a contract!" Secondly, what did my post have to do about contracts? Astros games were not covered at even 90% between cable and network tv prior to 2005. There were plenty of games that weren't televised. I'm working on it. It takes time to find stuff on the Internet. I'm still waiting on your evidence of comparable markets getting deals comparable to what the Rockets/Astros are seeking. Of course, anytime you get pressed on this you will use your "we don't even know what CSN is asking!" when a post before you were defending CSN's asking price.
So someone who doesn't care to watch the Astros is suddenly going to be blown away and riot over expanded pre-game and post-game shows? Yes, CSN is a better product for fans because of the extras. But we're not talking about a side-by-side comparison here. We're talking about what's likely to rile the average fan up at the end of a hypothetical trial. At the end of the day, that's the games themselves. Those two arguments are not mutually exclusive.
For what it's worth, I don't blame the Rockets/Astros/CSN for wanting too much money. They have every right and SHOULD try to get every penny they can. I do have a problem with them not budging on their price and being willing to forfeit a season of television for 60% of their audience.
The reason I brought up contracts was the article I quoted. The Astros' prior contract with FSN ended in November 2004. If the contracts are as ironclad as you imply, then FSN probably couldn't increase the games it televised, even if it were desperate to. Not until the prior contract expired. As for rate of coverage, it's worthless without context. How many Rangers games weren't televised in 2004 or earlier? How about any other team not named the Yankees or Red Sox? It's a different era. My evidence is Jim Crane and Hutchings said it. Based on the company’s research, Hutchings said CSN Houston is seeking a lower fee for its core market in Houston than the Fox Sports Group receives from subscribers in its core Dallas-Fort Worth market for Fox Sports Southwest. http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2...rs-wont-blink-in-price-carriage-negotiations/ Does that automatically make it true? Of course not. But by that same token, one lone reporter in David Barron using an anonymously-sourced number without confirmation doesn't make the $3.40/subscriber true. For me personally, I'm OK with admitting that I don't know. That's why I blame both sides at the moment and want this public meeting to happen, so some of the evidence can get out in the open. You're the one rushing to a conclusion on which side to blame, so yes, the "burden of proof" is more on you than me. However, when your "evidence" involves believing everything on one side based on blind faith, while being immediately skeptical of anything you hear from the opposite... it seems like an issue of bias.
You are slipping into jerk mode Cat so you need to calm down a little bit. "believing everything on one side based on blind faith" I've been doing research, posting tv ratings, history of television negotiations that dealt with Comcast/NBC, comparative market ratings for the past two years, etc. and you respond with an article that quotes the director of CSN and tell me I'm believing on blind faith. That's rich. You keep claiming to be unbiased here and not taking a side, but you have continued to take CSN's side and bash the providers, call CSN's demands fair, claim they are in line with other markets, etc. And then you say things like "I don't know really" or "I'm not on anyone's side." You can tell yourself all day that you are somehow being neutral here, but no one on this BBS believes you. Your posts betray you.
If this is the point, then **** the providers for ruining the hopes of the Astros/Rockets franchises over the next 20+ years by not being willing to change the model earlier.
I do blame them, but I don't have a problem with them not budging on their price or asking a high price. It's a business. Do whatever you feel you need to do that is in your best interest. What does bug me is this 'woe is us' crap they pull as well as treating their potential customers/viewers like idiots.
Because you're making statements like this: 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. If you stop treating one anonymous source-fed report from one lone reporter as gospel, then I'll stop quoting the director of CSN. I've demonstrated repeatedly through ratings that even when the teams were good the Rockets/Astros are not a television draw. Yet in your post above, you admit to "comparative market ratings for the past two years", which obviously does NOT include "when the teams were good". When I say I'm not taking a side, I mean in my overall outlook. The above was an attempt at an analogy to try and reel you and others back in when you go off the rails. I fully agree that taking Hutchings' word at face value is silly. It's also silly to take the $3.40 figure as gospel based on one anonymous source-fed number from one lone reporter. Agendas are at play here. My hope was that in seeing how silly it looks to quote the director of CSN and accept is a fact, you'd realize that it's equally silly to do what you're doing. I'm more than happy to debate this issue without quoting things like that, so long as you drop the similarly unconfirmed stuff like what I posted above. Deal?
No one "supports" the providers, they are just big corporations too. But 'we used to get the games, and now we don't' is a pretty simple equation to solve. Especially with a low rent baseball team and salary capped Basketball team. We all want more money but blatant exploitation of a tax supported, monopolistic industry, showing little and no competitive success will be seen a distasteful. And the attempt to subvert public opinion with an obvious propaganda is just insulting. CSN as whole is like a bad joke about captialism. If this were a movie somebody would drive a pirate car through their studio windows.
Mayor Parker's position: “The proud followers of our Houston teams – many of whom have paid for the venues where the Astros, Dynamo and Rockets compete – have been patient as your negotiations with Comcast SportsNet Houston have unfolded,” Parker wrote. “That said, as the Rockets push toward the NBA playoffs and the Astros and Dynamo seasons get underway, the situation is intolerable.” http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2...ls-to-summit-meeting-on-csn-houston-carriage/ Does that sound like someone that's blaming only one side?
Somewhere in this thread I had a post about the Rockets season opener from a few years ago where their ratings were terrible compared to the rest of the league. Based on the 2010 season, Forbes had the Rockets as the 10th tv market in the NBA and the Astros as the 21st tv market in MLB.
You may quote what she actually said, the politically guarded statement. But I guarantee you, everyone was left with the impression that the taxpayers are pissed. We pass laws supporting these venues (albeit with visitor's taxes) and we can't see our teams because the billionaire owners want more profit.
Not sure if sarcasm? The money used belongs to the people (city) of Houston. Where that money originated from before that matters not. It's not a direct tax, but it is using public money that can be spent elsewhere. Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.
