Here's another tweet from DirecTV <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/BenDuBose">@BenDuBose</a> We must have a legal agreement in place before we are able to broadcast any channel.</p>— DIRECTV Service (@DIRECTVService) <a href="https://twitter.com/DIRECTVService/statuses/396310154884308992">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I completely understand why DTV won't air the channel. All we can do as DTV customers is call and b**** and moan and hopefully they will change their minds. Or at least give us discounts.
No, it would be like letting someone test-drive a car for 45 days, and then taking it back after the 45 days and telling them they can't buy it after they have come to like it. It would be pure foolishness to fall for this trick. They didn't fall for it last year, they won't fall for it this year either, at least not until they have an agreement in place.
Yes, because of a policy that THEIR leadership chose. Thus, they certainly COULD show it... they choose not to. It irritates me to no end that both sides treat the fans/viewers like they're brain-dead idiots. Yes, I understand their motivation for that policy -- it's a solid, no-risk business principle. Just come out and say that. Be honest. They don't have to hide behind the whole "we can't" nonsense while portraying themselves as helpless.
Except in this case, the car is the same exact car that they've driven their entire lives. As such, the driver already knows they like it, already knows they miss having it and has already formed a conclusion that the manufacturer (not the dealership) is to blame.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>FYI re <a href="https://twitter.com/CSNHouston">@CSNHouston</a> free view, reason I haven't mentioned Dish Network is court testimony indicated Dish uninterested in net at any price.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396319357170491393">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>That could change, of course, but it likely would require customer requests to Dish, and probably quite a few of them.</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396319612804939776">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Doesn't surprise me about Dish. They are the cheapskates in the room and probably have the lowest subscriber base. You add in the general sports apathy in the city to anything non Texans related and I'm not surprised at all that Dish couldn't care less.
Yeah - its actually a smart business practice for at least one company to play the role of the anti-sports company. They can save money on all those stations and provide a cheaper service for the segment of the market that doesn't care too much about sports.
The only reason CSN is promoting this free trial farce is to simply rile up the fan base again. This is no different than that petition they had us all sign. Zero incentive for the providers to allow viewers a free trial.
Up here in Dallas, Directv is running a free trial of the NBA League Pass but even so, the game would be blacked out in Houston. The Mavs game will be on FSSW.
Perhaps they have a company or legal policy against doing something like that without any kind of carriage agreement to be able to actually OFFER what is being previewed? If that were the case (and I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't), then there is nothing dishonest about saying they 'cannot'.
So who made the call on offering this free preview? Was it unilaterally done by Comcast/CSN? Was it requested by the Astros, who are now the defacto "trustee" in getting an agreement in place? Obviously its just another PR-grabbing stunt to try to paint the providers in a "greedy" light, after they've all basically gotten no blame for this whole thing... which is partly right, but to say that they've played zero role in this quagmire is somewhat inaccurate.
So not telling the whole truth is ok too? There's nothing stopping DirecTV from putting together a legal agreement to carry the free preview. So if they've decided against that, just say so. Put out a statement...something. Getting really tired of the non answers and the back and forth on the phone and through email.
So Dish and DirecTV are out. Haven't heard anything from Uverse or Time Warner. I really wonder whats waiting for us at the end of these 45 days. If Crane can't get the deal done, does the judge blow it up or turn everything over to comcast?
They "can not" BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN POLICY. That's the dishonesty. I work as editor of a trade publication in the oil and gas industry. Hypothetically, what if I instituted a company policy that said we are never to cover ExxonMobil? Then, if a reader emailed me asking why there are no stories about ExxonMobil, would I be genuine in replying back and saying "sorry, we cannot cover them"? I would hope, in that hypothetical, you'd say I was full of ****. Because of course I can cover whoever I want. It's just that I arbitrarily crafted a policy of my own choosing (which could be changed to something else whenever I want). It's not that DirecTV cannot air the trial. It's that they will not. Are they justified in the latter decision? Perhaps, but they should be open and honest with their customers. Treat them like adults, state their factual decision and their reasoning for it. Instead, they're hiding and pretending to be helpless, apparently believing that most of their subscribers are morons.
