good effort...and i'm not trying to discourage anyone... but there's no way in the world that a carrier is going to come in and make an offer now in the midst of what's happening in this bankruptcy and the terms of the agreed order. not merely to just start showing the channel.
I just think that "risk" is microscopically small. I'm not assuming that the general public is as educated as fans here. But those who care somewhat about the Rockets/Astros do have a base level of understanding of the issues, as evidenced by the comment sections on essentially any news story about CSN. If DTV has the channel for a while as part of a free trial, I don't think people would suddenly blame DTV when it goes away. If folks were that simple minded, everyone in October 2012 should've been outraged when DTV/Dish/Uverse had the Astros/Rockets programming and then suddenly didn't. In short, we're already at the point where programming (Astros/Rockets) that fans had for years is no longer available because big businesses could no longer agree. And people don't blame both sides equally... they blame CSN. That underlying principle is still there, should providers accept the free trial, so nothing of any substance would change.
But again, people reading a news story about CSN aren't your average publc - it's the tiny fraction of people who are interested in the details of what's going on. I think you're overestimating the commitment level of people. Lots of people don't care the details. Lots of people will just watch the teams if they happen to be on. They *did* blame the providers initially. But DTV could say "Comcast put it on a different channel took it away from you" and eventually that message stuck. Comcast hoped it wouldn't and that's why they did that big publicity campaign. But if you suddenly do get CSN-H and then it goes away, then it's a harder message for DTV to sell again. I think the best evidence that this isn't the case is the stance of the providers. If they felt that they could carry it for 45 days and make their customers happy with little to no risk to them, they would. They don't because it makes their messaging far more difficult and puts them in a weaker negotiating position. CSN-H also knows this, which is why they keep offering these free trials. If I remember right, LHN tried the same thing a few years back with no luck. All the major providers are independently coming to the same conclusion that it's a bad idea.
Where is your evidence of this? Not trying to be disagreeable, genuinely curious. From the outset, everyone I heard or talked to about this -- here, in comment sections, people around Houston, my friends and family -- largely blamed CSN more than the providers. I never noticed a shift in public opinion... it seemed pretty decidedly against the Astros/Rockets/CSN from the outset. The poll results in the GARM have never wavered much, to my knowledge. Yes, and I think the providers are making a mistake. Corporate executives can be incredibly conservative and risk-averse. Big companies make mistakes all the time because they're not aggressive enough to move quickly on new information. They aren't infallible. I think the free trial is a shot to gain them good will with customers without much (if any) downside. I could be wrong -- perhaps I'm overestimating the average commitment level and knowledge of the average subscriber on this issue. That seems to be the root of our disconnect.
<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>
I don't think it's necessarily risk-aversion, though I agree that they are certainly risk-averse. I just don't think there's much upside for the possible downside they'd have to deal with - it's a high risk / low reward scenario. They know no one is leaving their service over this and most people already see them as the good guys, and so some short-term good will doesn't have much value to them. I'll see what I can find about the original perception of the various players. I just seem to remember that there was much more variety of opinion back then. Lots of people were calling and complaining to their providers and the like - that's an indication that people are upset with the provider. Then over time, there was more of "CSN-H should lower their demands!" or whatnot, which was more of an indication of people blaming CSN.
I think that scenario was inherent because at the beginning, people had no idea how this would play out. It seemed plausible that should customers show demand for the channel, the provider would be more willing to negotiate for the channel. From there, most people "showed demand" by signing the petition and/or calling their provider... and nothing happened. Unless they want to do the same thing 20 times to no avail, they're more likely to just vent. I don't think that just because someone called their provider and asked for CSN-H that they're necessarily upset with or blaming their provider. I think that's an oversimplification (which is what a lot of the problem is here). I think many people -- including dozens here on this BBS -- are willing to tell providers that they'd like the channel while simultaneously believing the CSN asking price or negotiating strategy isn't reasonable. To me, if they looked closely enough, people were always blaming CSN... but the providers are trying to play it extremely safe and with a uniform standard. Anyway though, the bottom line is we view the risk in different ways. I agree that the reward isn't enormous, but in an era where competition is cutthroat and more and more people are starting to ditch cable altogether for the internet, I think any small gains with existing customers are very much needed. To me, it's a scenario of extremely minimal risk for a moderate gain.
The thing is, there really isn't any gain for the other providers beyond "good will". They know that you probably aren't going to change to comcast if they refuse this free preview, but if subscribers get it and like the channel and then lose it, some people might decide to change. It also would prove or disprove the idea that there is no demand for the channel, where now they can just say there is no demand and nobody can prove otherwise. For the fans sake it would be nice if they took the free preview, but there isn't enough incentive for them to bother, because they know they won't lose any viewers over it.
Hypothetically, if Uverse were to come to an agreement with CSN Houston, where would CSN be available besides Houston? Would it be available in Austin, San Antonio, etc. or would you have to subscribe to the sports packages to get it in other cities?
This just makes no sense to me. This isn't like test driving a new car. These are Astros/Rockets games that the majority of the audience has watched for 10, 20 or 30 years. They know full well what the content is. If they care enough to change providers over this, they'd have already done it. If there is demand for the channel, though, wouldn't it be a good business decision for them to pick it up? If CSNH unexpectedly ended up with high ratings, then that's an indication that a lot of people value the content, which would make it economically beneficial to a provider to offer.
So what do they gain by showing it? If even one person decided to change to comcast it would be a loss, and like you said people aren't likely to change if they don't pick it up or they already would have. A few people may get mad about declining the free preview, but if they aren't changing providers why should they care? Sure, but if there is high demand, then are comcasts rate requests unreasonable? Right now they tell the public there is no demand, the public refuses to change providers, and there is no data to prove otherwise. The providers seem to believe that if you aren't changing to comcast then you don't care enough for them to care. I'm not saying that is the way it should be, just that this seems to be the way it is.
Probably depends on the terms of the contract that they ended up negotiating. From my understanding part of the hold up was that the Astros wanted CSN to be a base package channel for all of Texas and several neighboring states, and the other providers would pay CSN for every subscriber in all those states. The other providers wanted it to be a much smaller region, or a premium station that individuals had to pay for if they wanted it rather than included with the base package.
<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>
To me, providers need all the "good will" they can get. The cable business is cutthroat. Time Warner had their fight with CBS; Dish with AMC. There are numerous others, too. Meanwhile, the internet is becoming an increasingly viable option for people to leave cable altogether. If they see a minimal-risk opportunity to build customer loyalty, they should think long and hard about taking it. Just on this BBS, I've seen quite a few people over the past year tell stories of how they seriously considered leaving their provider for Comcast (over CSN) but ultimately didn't pull the trigger. For some it was perceived reliability, others it was discounts, a few it was just comfort level. Keeping those accounts was big for the likes of UVerse/DTV/Dish, and they largely did it because they were able to build positive relationships with their clients and make them feel respected and listened to. It's not a slam dunk to take the trial, but the positive value isn't insignificant, either. The current stalemate is most likely because the providers genuinely believe the cost of CSN is too high for the demand. They're not actively conspiring to keep the Astros/Rockets off the airwaves. Given that, if data somehow proves they were wrong and that they have a market opportunity... then that's a better scenario for them than the status quo. (By the way, I know quite a few people that have told me they'd ditch Comcast for another provider the moment another CSN deal is struck, so there is some opportunity. It just comes down to how much.)
Not sure what SA's primary carrier is, but it's unlikely TWC in Austin will pick it up, unless the rate is substantially lower. The Rockets games won't be on, so that takes out a ton of value. TWC didn't even pick up the Longhorn Network for 3 years, so the odds of them chasing the Astros is low, especially while they suck. They've already got Spurs and Rangers games with FSSW. I think it will likely be a lost market for the Astros.
My understanding is that it's going to be on channel 0. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/n5AYMiAdqhQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Just a publicity stunt by CSN. I wouldn't take the offer if I were a cable/satellite provider either. My customers are already unhappy about not getting Rockets games, so I give them the games for free for a month and then take it away later so they can really get pissed off and leave for Comcast? No way. Taking the deal is almost tantamount to caving to whatever outrageous price CSN is demanding.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/DIRECTV">@DirecTV</a> statement on <a href="https://twitter.com/CSNHouston">@CSNHouston</a>: We'd be happy to make the channel available to Rockets fans for the long term, not just 45 days, ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396387513490620416">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>... if CSN Houston would agree to offer the channel to those customers who want to pay for it, or make it more reasonable ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396387710463524864">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>for all of our customers to receive. Showing the channel then taking it down after the free-trial period would only cause frustration ...</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396387851270504448">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>for fans and do nothing to help us reach an agreement with the network's owners."</p>— David Barron (@dfbarron) <a href="https://twitter.com/dfbarron/statuses/396388026865041408">November 1, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Is it me or is DirecTV the only carrier that is even willing to talk to CSN at this point? It's obvious that Dish Network will never get CSN, and AT&T sounds doubtful too.
