This isn't about going out and making new deals with carriers to add the station to their programming...this is about negotiating with other groups to take over Comcast's role in this entire Network. Astros haven't been able to do that up to now because third parties would be freaked out about being sued by Comcast for tortious interference...this order protects the Astros' ability to go out and do this....and also protects third parties who negotiate with the Astros about stepping into that role. This isn't about merely trying to get DirecTV or Uverse to carry the channel anymore.
DTV has an added advantage in that ANYONE can switch to their service. Comcast is limited to their cable infrastructure as to who can receive their service. Any Comcast subscriber can switch to DTV if they want to get the channel (if DTV gets the deal) but 60% of Houston households and people like me in the Beaumont area have no way of receiving Comcast.
I already knew that but I will play along. So we can't take Crane at his word when he says the Astros will be losing money under the deal. He will be getting higher media rights than he has had before but have to absorb 10 mil or so in network losses for a few years. That is offset though with his incredibly low payroll that will likely be that way for several more years since he has a built in "Comcast screwed me" excuse that he can roll out for fools to believe.
It means the Astro's can not only negotiate carriage deals but also deals that would have another entity, like Direct TV, buy out Comcast's share of CSN-Houston. The judge, however, would have to approve any deal that the Astros can come up with.
that's jumping the gun. the astros probably just want to sign carriage fee deals with comcast on their backs.
Given the fact that they(the Astros) have already rejected the only offers made for carriage deals, I highly doubt any of the other carriers will pony up any more money than was already offered by Direct TV. Through the judges ruling, the Stros can also negotiate any deal including Comcast buyouts.There was talk about seeking other business plans/models. I assume the only way they would seek a business plan/model would be if another entity buys out Comcast. There is no reason for another entity to supply a business plan/model showing long term profitability for just a carriage deal. The other entities could care less about profitability if they are not partners in the deal rather only how much they have to pay to broadcast the channel.
He hasn't said the Astros would be losing money in this deal. He said CSN-H would be losing money. For at least a few years - we have no idea if and when CSN-H would be profitable. And that's in relation to whatever profits they were originally projected to earn. So if it was supposed to make $10MM year, that's a net $20MM that he'd be eating compared to projections. If he has an alternative that is better than that, then he has an obligation to his partners to hold out for and/or pursue that. It's not his fault Comcast couldn't generate what they claimed, and his obligation is, given that they failed to do their job, to look out for the best interests of his organization (the Astros) and the organization he is the largest owner of (CSN-H). Apparently, he doesn't feel that CSN-H taking $200MM in losses over the next decade is in in the best interests of one or both. He's on the clock now to find a better alternative. This is just pure speculation based on your hatred from Crane.
From the original article: “We’re very excited about trying to get something done here for the Astros, the Rockets, the fans and the city,” Crane said. “We think there is demand. … We’re not looking for the best deal in the universe, just a fair deal that is good for the teams.” Crane said he will consult “with all the players — Fox, DirecTV, AT&T, Time Warner. I will work to try to get something favorable so that we can move on with or without Comcast in the deal.” It's clear that ditching Comcast is one option they will explore.
okay, technically i guess they could negotiate a buyout during this period. i guess that could happen if they have been talking to others. if not, that seems very difficult
It's the point of the order. There are two separate paragraphs absolving the Astros from liability for bringing in a replacement; and absolving third parties from liability for tortious interference in seeking to come in as replacement for Comcast.
I personally think that is what will happen. I think Direct TV will end up getting a deal to buy out Comcast interest in CSN-H. Direct-TV has incentives to pony up enough to money to pacify the judge that Comcast isn't getting shafted too bad because of the fact that they are a satellite provider anyone can switch to their service. They could potentially receive a lot of new customers, even in rural areas, if the other carriers are not willing to pay the carriage fees they demand. Comcast is limited to their cable infrastructure as to people switching to their service to receive channels they want that only they provide.
I tend to agree - because I'm not sure what other structure the Astros could come up with that would be worth anything. If they are just signing carriage deals, that doesn't seem to change things any.
Anyone can switch to Direct TV if they want the channel but nobody can switch to Comcast if it is not provided in their area. Besides, Direct TV provides great service.
Just as a side note - Hughes is as crooked as Comcast or worse. Some of the things they have done to people - extortion, racketeering, literally ruining peoples' lives through abuse of the legal system... Having said that, Comcast is the bunch I want shut out into the cold on this deal.
So there's a possibility that the CSN Houston will continue to operate, but be owned by DirecTV and shown on multiple platforms?
