No they haven't. Providers have wanted to put CSNH on a sports tier in addition to a traditional package. CSNH a la carte would be CSNH without the traditional package and other channels.
You're confusing "premium tier" with John McCain's "a la carte" plan. The latter paves the way for legislation that all channels (including ESPN, CNN, or whatever currently is provided in your "basic" service) be allowed to be offered on an a la carte basis. Providers have long been against this, claiming it would drive up costs for consumers... but could also lead to less subscriber fees for the providers themselves. It may be semantics, but mentioning offering these channels on a "a la carte" basis similar to "John McCain's plan" is not the same thing as offering RSN's on a premium tier. And if providers end up "agreeing" to this, it could set a precedent to further the a la carte push that could end up leading to the downfall of "bundled" plans.
Either that, or the problems with CSN-H are structural to all of these CSNs and go far deeper than any single owner or participant in the process.
AT&T instead wants to offer the pricey sports network a la carte, giving customers the option to pay only if they want to. But CSN Houston — along with other regional sports networks — isn't interested. Because television networks earn a small monthly fee for every subscriber, being bundled into a standard cable package would mean a far more substantial earnings for the network. http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/15/4524502/sports-networks-a-la-carte-high-costs-att-csn-houston The article also says this about a Tennis Channel but they do reference it being on a premium tier and a not distinct reference to a-la-carte as they did with CSN-H. The Tennis Channel recently ended a court dispute with Comcast over that very issue. The channel sued because it was offered on a separate sports tier rather than as part of a standard cable bundle, leaving the network out of a massive pool of subscribers who would have had to pay whether they wanted it or not. Comcast won the dispute, but the Tennis Channel has already filed to appeal the decision
You may be right... Which other channels are bundled in to the a-la-carte reference made by AT&T regarding CSN H?
Well, the majority vote thing was a problem and it is a big reason why we are here. But, Mr Crane could have compromised without being drug in to court and possibly forced to do so. Despite what you would think from some posts around here. Most people in this area don't give a damn if Crane gets AL West money. They either just want the games on TV or don't care about sports. Then you have those who are steadfastly defending Crane all while having access to CSN H. So how objective are they if they have no skin in the game? On this board, when we have a team that looks like it will be the worst in baseball for 4 years in a row **** blocking our basketball team that could be championship material. So you gotta excuse me if Crane supporters catch flack.
Personally, I'm a fan of both teams, and I have Uverse. I can't see either, and it bugs the crap out of me. I see this whole thing differently than you do...but it bothers me that my older boy can't watch the Rockets every game. He's 14 and plays AAU ball...he plays hoops year round and the Rockets are his first love. This is the best record the Rockets have had since he's been alive, and he can only watch games that are on ESPN...and about half of those have 9:30 starts on a school night and I have to make him go to bed at halftime.
Just because an article uses "a la carte" incorrectly does not make you right. Even if you accept the way the article uses "a la carte" as legit, it is not being used in in the context of ""a la carte" set-up to their subscribers, similar to a bill Sen. John McCain". Under McCain's bill, CSNH a la carte would being able to buy CSNH without having to buy any other channels if a person so chooses.
I see we're back to forcing Crane to compromise to the "rotten" deals the judge stated they were right not to compromise to. Also, if the Rockets wanted to be on TV sooner, they would have not pushed for the bankruptcy, or blocked the buyout. They're just as much in it for the $$$ as any of the rest of the parties are.... and they've done nothing but "**** block" themselves on this matter.
I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that. Pay for Ballstreams... Best money you will ever spend. I coached basketball for a lot of years. Had a girl that I coached for a couple of years wind up getting a ring in the WNBA. Enjoy the time with your son, I did with my oldest and while my youngest can play because of his condition, I chose to start my own 501c3 to help him do things with his peers. I think combined with more late starts with the move to the AL, baseball not being perceived as the "cool" sport with kids these days and out of sight out of mind without TV coverage, the Astros are missing out on future fans. Most of us who liked baseball developed the interest at an early age.
Uhh... the entire basic cable package? You can't subscribe to CSN H, or any channel, truly "ala-carte". If the providers want to pave the way for that, I'll save a boat-load by not having to subscribe to 100 or so channels that I don't even know exist. Even if it saves me only a dollar on my plan, I'll take the cheaper one every single time.
Hyperbolize much? I myself was an Oilers fan first... then the Rockets had championship teams in my formative years... and only after that did I take a dedicated interest in baseball (filling the void after the Oilers had left). And despite the rough years, my love for the game has continued to grow. As far as "future fans"... its still far easier and more affordable to take the kids to 20 baseball games/year, vs. take them to any one NFL or one NBA game. And frankly, growing up I remember the games I went to far more than the ones I watched on TV... and going to games to watch a "winning" team (for which the Astros won't be horrid forever) really seal the bond more than anything else.
Look, dude. There are more ways to compromise than accepting that lone "1 provider rotten deal". You are one of the people who has the channel so what do you care if the rest of us can't watch.
None of the other sports networks are compromising the way you want (50%+ lower rates) - there's a reason for that. If they want the network to be successful, that lower rate doesn't work well. I don't have CSN-H. I live in Austin and used to get all the games. TWC is the primary carrier here and is one of the most aggressive at rejecting these channels - the Longhorn Network took 3 years to get on TV *in Austin*. I think all these RSN's are doomed to fail. The media rights fees are way too high, and the teams that managed to secure them are going to be at a huge competitive advantage going forward over the teams that don't. I have zero doubt that Crane will never get his $3.50 because the network is simply not worth that. I've said all of these things for years now. What I defend is Crane's *right* to fail. If he wants a rate I don't think he can get, it's not my place to say he shouldn't try. And given that the teams specifically negotiated veto rights, it's not Comcast or the Rockets' place either - the network was designed to only function if everyone is happy with the result and they should all abide by that. Otherwise, I believe it should be blown up and everyone can figure out what works for them individually. In the long-run, I believe the model that's going to work is the FSN types rather than a gazillion different networks for individual teams and cities. To me, all of this is irrelevant. The quality of the teams has zero to do with how Crane (or Alexander) should be allowed to run their businesses. I'm not an owner, so I don't see why I would or should have any input on that. They have to work this out amongst themselves, but I'm not going to pick sides because the owner of the crappy is team is looking out for his own interests while pretending that the other two parties are some kind of benevolent parties looking out for the greater good. Everyone is - and should be - doing what's in their best interests. If the partnership can't find an overlap of those interests, it should not exist - and in my opinion, it should never have existed.
I definitely care about resolving this matter, despite my access. Not only for the betterment of the sports teams, but for the city as a whole. The city is more "alive" when they spend more time talking about the team/games, rather than talking about how they can't watch the games. I care about the sports teams in this city all equally, and when they're not at their fullest strength, it affects me... don't know how else to explain it to you, and wouldn't expect you to understand as you clearly have the ability to irrationally loathe an owner enough that it clouds your judgement on the entire matter. All we know is that there's been only 1 offer, from 1 provider, that everybody was "right" to reject. We haven't heard of any since, and that's with three separate negotiating parties. And we've seen more cities around the nation with providers united to "take a stand" against RSN's to the point that I doubt any viable offers will ever come in.
Well.... Nick said against a-la-carte in any way, shape or form so maybe I wasn't referring to McCain's bill when I responded. Did you maybe take that in to consideration?
I wasn't suggesting that you didn't have to pay for basic. I thought maybe by a-la-carte, you could pay an additional charge per month just for CSN H and no other additional sports channels bundled with it. Let's say 20 bucks a month. Only people who wanted it would have to pay for it. That's what I interpreted U-Verse as saying.
You have an irrational quest to loathe my opinion of how the owner of the Astros has conducted business. Get over it. It's not just me, there are plenty of others who think he is the root of the problem.
