Be prepared for terrible customer service. I'm 30 days into X1. They charged me $188 for installation (including Home Security) they failed to mention until I got my first $432 dollar bill two weeks into my service. I've been trying to get it resolved and been cut off and hung up on no less than 3 times. I got banned from the X1 forum for stating my experience. I have service complaints in because the X1 box will not select the surround sound option or retain the favorites selection on the guide. They can't or won't fix it but they have a very nice intern level person call and apologize for the corporation. I swapped because my 2 year introductory offer was $100 less than my Uverse/home security/home phone anyway. And, the TV interface is actually pretty cool. I am loathe to have to cancel Comcast go through all the trouble to replace my TV, security and phone, but man they do suck.
I'm ok with most of your post except the bolded part. Dude isn't saving money for a rainy pay day down the road. He will set a budget each year based on projected revenue for that year.
Astros are trash! 60% of Houston cant watch Sports because of good ole fashioned greed. Obermann had Crane as Worst sports figure in the Nation this week. Felt good to see that A hole on the bad side of Media.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...trikeout/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co Erroneous Story Claiming Houston Astros Most-Profitable Ever A Massive Strikeout Astros owner Jim Crane may be making a profit, but a recent Forbes story claiming that this year it is the most-profitable MLB club in history is grossly inaccurate. Business is a difficult industry to cover, and more so with Major League Baseball. As a private industry, financial information is rarely—if ever—disclosed. So, it was with interest (and some shock) that I saw an article here on Forbes.com claiming the 2013 Houston Astros: Baseball’s Worst Team Is The Most Profitable In History. There are few times that an article refuting a Forbes colleague is in need of publishing, but this is one of those instances. Beyond statements from the Astros and club president Reid Ryan saying that the article was factually incorrect—something that could smack of protectionism—the fact is, the Astros are not the most profitable MLB club in history. As well, they are most assuredly not even the most profitable this year. Here are the reasons why the story is not only off-base, it has to be classified as grossly inaccurate. At the heart of the story is this contention: The Astros are on pace to rake in an estimated $99 million in operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) this season. That is nearly as much as the estimated operating income of the previous six World Series championship teams — combined. And this: Crane has dropped payroll despite raking in revenue from one of the biggest television deals in all of baseball. It is here that the story veers terribly off course and undermines the headline grab. The TV Deal Is Not Lucrative in 2013, and Is Running at a Loss Dan Alexander, the author, writes: The regional sports network Comcast SportsNet Houston pays the Astros $80 million a year to show their games — about $50 million more than the Astros got under their previous deal. The massive boost in revenue means that the Astros have plenty of spare money. They could pay for their current payroll six times over with money from their local television deal alone. And they bring in nearly $40 million from other television and radio deals. There’s a huge problem with this passage that completely erases the $80 million: At this point in time, Comcast SportsNet Houston has no major carriage agreements with anyone outside of their own partner, Comcast. With start-up fees to get the regional sports network off the ground, the fledgling RSN is running at a loss. Not only do my sources in the broadcast industry say that cash calls for CSN Houston have already taken place, other reports speak to how difficult gaining carriage is, and will likely, continue to be. SNL Kagan, which Alexander quoted for the “most profitable, ever” story has said separately, “CSN Houston ‘has been a bust.’” Indeed, the Astros have pulled back from trying to make any carriage deals this year, and will try to make something happen… in 2014. Even If CSN Houston Revenues Were There, $80 Million Annually Is Off So, CSN Houston is running in the red now, but let’s say it wasn’t. Let’s say that there was carriage distribution with DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, AT&T U-verse, Suddenlink, et al. The Astros still would not be getting $80 million each year of the agreement. Like player contracts, the average annual value associated is often not what is achieved at the beginning. For broadcast rights deals, many times escalators don’t kick in until later in the agreement. According to sources with knowledge of CSN Houston, the first few years of the broadcast agreement do not come anywhere near $80 million annually. Startup Costs Not Accounted For Alexander was keen to bring in the broadcast revenues that allowed for his article to state the lofty (and erroneous) headline, but he certainly didn’t apply EBITA to Comcast SportsNet Houston. Regional sports networks ultimately are cash-cows, but there are substantial start-up costs associated to them. As one executive said to me, “It’s not uncommon to have start-up costs at or near $100 million for an RSN.” Local Rights Fees Subjected to Revenue-Sharing While the Astros will no longer be able to receive revenue-sharing due to market size, all clubs in Major League Baseball have a portion of their net local revenues “pooled” which are then used to disperse to the have-nots of the league. While regional sports networks are considered a form of a revenue-sharing tax dodge—revenues from non-baseball related programming are considered outside of revenue-sharing—the fact is, local rights fees for the Astros broadcasts are part of revenue-sharing. So, not only at the early outset of the broadcast deal do the Astros not get the lofty annual $80 million amount cited, it is cut down further by revenue-sharing. The Article Paints the Astros As Greedy Based On a Flawed Premise For those that have followed my work on Forbes, they know that I have not always written favorably of Astros owner Jim Crane. Early on, I was one of his staunchest critics, and my prior story here on Forbes was cited as part of the reason Crane was not initially approved by MLB’s owners for the sale. So if there ever were an analyst to go after an owner for not putting winning ahead of profits, it would have been me with Crane. But, this is simply not the case here. Other analysts have cited the cutting of payroll to the bone as a matter of greed, so Alexander’s article is simply one more in the line. The premise by which Crane and General Manager Jeff Luhnow are operating works like this: the minor league system was rated one of the worst when Crane purchased the Astros, and player contracts at the Major League level were inefficient in terms of gaining wins for the salary being spent. In a case of “pulling the Band-Aid off quickly,” MLB player payroll has been stripped to the axles and emphasis has been placed on building up the minor league system. The Astros organization now has playoff teams at all four levels of the full-season minors (Oklahoma City, Corpus Christi, Lancaster, Quad Cities). The last organization to do this was the Texas Rangers in 2011. There are two additional Astros minor league clubs, Greeneville and Tri-City, that are currently in first place in their respective divisions, with an opportunity for playoff berths, as well. Along the way, Crane has said he will not spend more than 50 percent of revenues on MLB player payroll, something that Commissioner Selig has said he’d like to see of all owners, as well. If Crane holds true to this, when revenues increase, and player development is fully righted, the club will increase player payroll to much higher levels. This method of having internally developed players, signing extensions to core talent from the farm system, and selectively signing free agents is considered best practices for building a sustainable and winning franchise. What Alexander has done in his story is use incorrect methodology, tied it to the current state of the Astros, and frames it as a money grab. While it is impossible to see whether the Astros will indeed spend as those revenues increase, there is at least one sign in the four-year contract given to second baseman, Jose Altuve. This was a wise move as Altuve is a prospect within the Astros system and would not become arbitration eligible until 2015. The contract covers his final pre-arbitration year and all three arbitration years. The option years in the contract cover two free-agent years. That aligns with at least part of Crane and Luhnow’s plan. The question will be if the practice continues in coming years. The Astros Are Profitable, but is that a Bad Thing? None of this is to say that Alexander does not cover legitimate issues with revenues for the club. There are still ticket sales, there is centralized revenues that all 30 of MLB’s clubs enjoy, and what profits are there are being used to pay down debt that Crane took on to purchase the club, something that increases club value at the time of any sale. One source claims that currently owner Jim Crane doesn’t even collect a salary from the Astros, although there’s nothing to say that there are other forms of compensation. But, the question is, is it wrong for baseball as business to be profitable? As noted, the Astros are not even remotely close to being the most profitable in history, let alone this year. But there is certainly profit coming in to the “Astros” just not “CSN Houston” at this time, it’s just the levels that are so radically off in the original article. Ultimately, the measure of whether the Astros plan of “pain for gain” in such a radical fashion pays dividends by becoming competitive quickly. I have concerns about all the change around the club and how that impacts fan experience, but that is a separate matter than what Alexander said in his story. The key is whether the Astros talent reaches competitive levels, the carriage of CSN Houston makes it to the major players, and whether Crane then holds true to his plan to then invest. The bottom line is Alexander’s story missed the bottom line. The 2013 Astros aren’t anything remotely what was portrayed. In that, the story is a massive strikeout. The Astros could eventually move into the upper escalones of profitability… somewhere in the distant future. Follow Maury Brown on Twitter @BizballMaury
And what do you call the organization and owner that are in deep cahoots and in bed with said "awful trash"? CSN doesn't happen without the Rockets joining forces with the Astros.
What I mean Crane is no hurry to get the TV deal done since he is making a profit. I understand what you're saying, but again, the Astros are not my point. I don't really care if they have a decent team now or in five years from now, or if they're stacking the minors with prospects. I don't have any interest in watching professional baseball anytime soon. My issue is with Crane and his reluctance to get the deal made that will make it possible for the Rocket fans to watch their team. I believe he will hold out as long as he wants so long as there is a revenue flow, be it from the current CSN deal or concessions. He will squeeze every cent out of the other providers he can, regardless of the ill will it is causing between his organization and Rockets fans. For that reason I dislike him, the way he does business and have no intention of watching his team. I think the only way he will get the message is if people quit watching, on TV and at the park, but that's just my 2 cents.
That is the dumbest thing ever. 60% of people in Houston don't have CSNH. He is not content with only earning revenue from 40% of the city. That is 60% he isn't getting a cent from. And Crane has allowed fans to bring their own food and drinks into Minute Maid Park. So he isn't trying to squeeze profit from everywhere he can. The only issue I have is that the price of CSNH is way too high.
Wait.. I thought the Astros and Rockets received the $$ from Comcast regardless, and the losses and/or missed revenue doesn't affect the teams, but rather simply hits Comcast's bottom line.. In other words, There could be 40% viewership, or 80% or even 100% availability with carriage deals, but the teams' $$ deals with Comcast will still pay them the same. Is that wrong?
I did get Dish Network to take 60 bucks off my bill for 10 months due to this crap. Was pretty easy as long as you are nice to the Rep on the phone.
Not surprising. Makes me happy that I am upholding the lifetime ban I put on Comcast in 2008 when they stood me up for back to back installation appointments then didn't allow me to transfer to a manager when I called to scream at them.
When did you call? I've called them a couple of times to politely complain and didn’t get anything. They just said they would note it on my account.
Hi Scionxa, Are you referring to cleaner, Spot Shield, then LP? I used that method last year to watch games, but all of the California games were blacked out due to the IP address was based from San Jose. Is there any way to change that IP address somewhere else during the Cali games? Thanks.
every time I check in I'm hoping something has changed. =( anyways, what is the minimum price for nba league pass broadband?
Since this thread is back on the front page anyway, here is a gem from everyone's favorite former Chron writer and current AM radio talking head: http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/09...csn-houston-deal-because-theyre-cowboys-fans/ ATT Uverse dragging on CSN Houston deal because they’re Cowboys’ fans? September 3, 2013 4:49 PM By John P. Lopez At first blush, it seems ludicrous to think something as basic and petty as team- or city-allegiance could affect a multi-million dollar deal involving sports fans in Houston. There simply CANNOT be more than a simple business impasse when it comes to why ATT Uverse, one of the nation’s largest television providers, has reached such a stone-cold negotiating wall. It’s just money, right? It’s a cut-and-dried, simple difference of opinion at the negotiating table, right? Money, after all, usually trumps fan allegiances and relationships. Houston is the nation’s sixth-largest media market and CSN Houston, owned in-part by the Astros and Rockets, is just caught in the crossfire until a deal is done. Right? ……. right? Well, consider what ATT Uverse’ actions have been since then-president of content and advertising Jeff Weber in essence told a recent media summit that Houstonians were bad sports fans who wouldn’t miss their Rockets, Astros and daily sports coverage of the Texans. In May, Weber, who now directs special projects for AT&T Uverse, said the following: “We’re not carrying certain regional sports networks in one of our biggest markets. We’re not carrying it and we knew we didn’t need to because the data was crystal clear about how intense those viewers were. “We looked at not just viewership. Everybody can have access to that. We looked at how many of our customers watched zero of those games, one, two, all the way through 150 games for baseball and 80 games for the basketball team that we’re talking about, and you could see that if a customer watched 30 games, pick a number, that’s a pretty intense viewer, and they are really passionate and the likelihood that they are going to churn goes up. “We could compare that against a bunch of other teams, and it was very clear that the viewership intensity in that particular market was low, and therefore we didn’t need to pay the rates that were asked, and we’re not.” Viewership intensity? The short interpretation of Weber’s comments: Houston fans don’t care, so why bother? Now consider where AT&T, headquartered in Dallas, has invested millions of sports dollars recently: The media giant AT&T spent $20 million toward naming rights for Dallas Cowboys Stadium. That sponsorship is in addition to what AT&T spent for naming rights of arenas in San Antonio, home of the Spurs, and San Francisco, home of the Giants. Weber’s words echo loudly now more than ever. AT&T understands sports and sports fans pay the bills — just not in Houston, despite nearly 30,000 Houston ATT Uverse subscribers taking part in an online petition encouraging the provider to add CSN Houston.
