Yeah, that was my issue. The wording. They can if the want to. They just don't want to. I do understand why they don't want to. Just thought the wording was odd.
Letter to judge say it was Rockets idea agreed to by all partners. When this happened last time during Astros season it was Astros' idea agreed to by all partners.
I would love to know what's going on with Crane and the negotiations. Has he already made the call to the providers? Do they have conversations set up? Or have they already said they're not interested?
Apparently the free offer has to be accepted by Thursday <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Doubtful. They have until Thur. to pick up network for free. MT <a href="https://twitter.com/brizzle012">@brizzle012</a>: <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Feigen">@Jonathan_Feigen</a> will i be able to watch game if i have uverse?</p>— Jonathan Feigen (@Jonathan_Feigen) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Feigen/statuses/396350344730390528">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Will catch up with <a href="https://twitter.com/CSNHouston">@CSNHouston</a> folk and carriers before the end of day on free view updates. Deadline to pick up free view is aptly. Nov. 8.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396350934608920577">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Let me correct that date: AT&T, others have until Friday to pick up CSNH for free. Wouldn't bet on it. As always, wise to follow <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron">@dfbarron</a> .</p>— Jonathan Feigen (@Jonathan_Feigen) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Feigen/statuses/396351685787779073">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This is a pretty significant investment that a company would consider. There's some due diligence that would need to be done before you'd formally agree to anything. I can almost guarantee you he's got calls out on this...we know he was talking to Fox earlier this year, before the hearing.
You know what? They have shareholders to answer to, people whose lives, investments, retirements, all of that and more tied up in a company, and they are expected to behave in a responsible manner. One of the ways a company behaves in a responsible manner is by implementing policies and procedures, putting them in place. They do not these things casually, or out of malice or spite, but in order to protect their shareholders from loss. If I were a shareholder in Hughes (I am not), I would be absolutely FURIOUS if I discovered that someone in the company committed to offer a channel to viewers which the company literally had zero ability to actually offer for sale. The reason I would be furious would be because of the losses of customers this would surely cause. Because after the 'free trial' was over, and the channel was 'taken away' by DTV, the customer backlash would not be against CSNH, it would be against DTV. It would be the height of foolishness to offer the 'free preview' of the channel under the current circumstances. In fact, I would be very curious to know if ANY of the major carriers has ever offered a 'free preview' of a channel to its viewers which it had no ability to actually OFFER to its customers after the 'free trial' was over. I suspect that number would be zero. In any case, and fortunately for the investors, there are very likely policies and procedures, company by-laws, things of that nature, which literally and concretely prevent the company from entering into such an arrangement. It is neither dishonest nor misleading to claim they 'cannot' offer the channel, because they in fact can't. (Assuming there is a policy against it) I understand being upset about the situation. I myself missed almost the entire Rockets season last year. I am angry at all parties involved. But I do not allow myself to think or talk irrationally about the situation, because all that does is make things worse. And I'm sorry, but it would be completely irrational to assume that DTV even COULD offer up a channel as a free preview which they have no ability currently to offer for sale. They cannot because they literally cannot.
Actually, one of the providers agreed to air the channel for free back in May I think...they just couldn't agree on the 5 state region vs just the Houston area. So yes, it is possible. They literally can accept the free trial
Honestly I can't remember which one it was, wasn't DirecTV though. Point is, they actually have the ability to do it. It's not that they literally can't. It's that they won't. Big difference
You still have shown no evidence of this. There is, however, evidence to the contrary (Rockets/Astros programming being taken away in October 2012 after many years of being offered, and the backlash was against CSNH, not the providers). Zero ability? DTV offers CSN affiliates all over the country. They could strike a deal with CSNH in the next 30 minutes, if they wanted to. However, they choose not to based on their business analysis. The only scenario where DTV would somehow lose tons of customers over this is if it turns out there's a ton of unexpected demand... and if that proves to be the case, they have the ability to strike a permanent deal for the channel and it would seem to be a prudent business decision to do so. They absolutely can. They choose not to because in their judgment, it would be a poor business decision. That is a matter of choice and interpretation on their part, and they owe it to their subscribers to explain that process, not hide behind a supposed mandate that doesn't really exist.
Oh, and to MadMax and danielcp, yes it was Suddenlink that agreed to the channel but not to the regional distribution terms. Perhaps this time CSNH will be more flexible on the terms, since only a small part of the 5-state area would be able to see Rockets games, anyway (NBA territorial rules). Very different from the Astros/MLB setup. I'm going to tell my fiancee that I can't stop by Kroger on the way home from work today, because I have a personal policy against going to that store. I look forward to seeing how that excuse works.
Ok, I understand you feel strongly about it. And yes, they COULD make a bad deal and THEN have the ability to offer the channel to customers. However, they don't have a deal, and until they do they cannot offer the channel. I don't understand why you think this is somehow misleading or dishonest. Also, I did ask if one of the MAJOR carriers had ever done that, which to me meant DTV, UVerse or Dish. I don't know how big Suddenlink is, maybe they are huge, but I have always thought of them as one of the smaller providers, such as the ones who already agreed to carriage last year. Try this as a little thought experiment. Pretend your Fiancee asked you to stop and get some chicken on the way home, which of course you would do. However, let's now pretend that when you got to the store, the chicken was $500. And you go ahead and buy it because, well, she wants chicken. So when you get home with the chicken, and you tell her what the price was, what would be her reaction? You think she might be a little upset with you? Fact is, you operate under the same restrictions as the companies do. If you brought the chicken to the register, and the teller said 'That'll be $500', you would be completely honest if you then said 'I can't do that!'. You can't, because doing so would be completely irresponsible. I know you are just trying to be funny, but in fact your example was not a bad one, had you actually applied it to the actual situation. Regardless of all of that, they don't owe anyone an explanation. Everybody knows the offer of a 'free trial' is nothing but a cynical PR ploy, meant only to entrap the providers and shift blame onto them. Nothing more. Why does it matter to you so much what reason they give? It's not happening, it doesn't matter what they say, they could say it's because of a full moon or something. The reason is irrelevant. We all know why the Rockets are not on the other carriers: the price was and remains too high.
When I find myself in one of these difficult situations, I tell my fiancé that I prayed hard and God told me he didn't want me to [whatever request was]. While I get a chuckle out of it, it is generally a short term gain.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Definitive word, via e-mail from a <a href="https://twitter.com/DIRECTV">@DirecTV</a> spokesman, on <a href="https://twitter.com/CSNHouston">@CSNHouston</a> free view offer: "We are not participating."</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396375172149563392">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Suddenlink is pretty significant in this region, which is where they're first and foremost trying to strike deals. They're much bigger than Phonoscope and the like. I wouldn't say "I can't do that". I'd say something along the lines of "sorry, I don't want it if it costs $500". Because yes, I could afford it if I valued the chicken that highly. I don't, so I choose not to pay that price. By the way, your analogy of a free trial to a $500 chicken is pretty funny in its own right. They don't owe anyone an explanation? SERIOUSLY? Most people are paying DTV in the THOUSANDS each year, many because they're known as the leader in sports programming. They carried Astros/Rockets games for years, but now not only do they not offer them, but they reject a free trial twice? And after all the money the average subscriber gives them, making numerous top DTV executives multi-millionaires, they don't even owe you as much as an honest explanation? My God, corporate America really has some people hoodwinked beyond repair. That's amazing. As for the price, we don't even know the details of what it is. We don't fully know what comparable networks got in comparable cities. We don't even know what the rebate they supposedly got from FSSW is. It's educated guesswork from what limited information guys like David Barron have access to and a handful of reports from various cities and outlets. Could it be too high? Sure, but both sides have us almost completely in the dark. That's how the game is played, I get it, but if I'm paying one of those sides thousands each year... I'm b****ing if they're not going to be reasonably open and honest with me. Sorry.
