Comcast Houston

[HudsonHawk]

So I'm at Best Buy today, and there's a DirecTV rep there.  He tells me that CSN and DirecTV have struck a deal.  However, it will not be available until October, when the Astros season ends and the Rockets season starts.  He said he didn't know when it would be announced, but that it's been done for a while, just lots of posturing on both sides.  But according to this guy, the deal is done.  We'll see.

[Andyzipp]

Seeing as I'm not leaving DirecTV, that's a pretty good piece of news...

[HudsonHawk]

Seeing as I'm not leaving DirecTV, that's a pretty good piece of news...

Same here.  I love my DirecTV.  I don't know if this guy was full of shit or not, but it sure sounded better than "yeah, I know that sucks dude...hang in there."

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

AT&T doesn't appear close to an agreement.

[Fredia]

i dont think time warne knows they exist. i tried to tell them about the free month thing and they assured me there was no such deal

[Bench]

Same here.  I love my DirecTV.  I don't know if this guy was full of shit or not, but it sure sounded better than "yeah, I know that sucks dude...hang in there."

I'm going with full of shit. I can think of no rational explanation for that decision. Commissions make people say all sorts of things.

[Ron Brand]

I'm going with full of shit. I can think of no rational explanation for that decision. Commissions make people say all sorts of things.

Just ask Scott Boras.

[remy]

I'm going with full of shit. I can think of no rational explanation for that decision. Commissions make people say all sorts of things.

+1

Bloody full of shite, lad.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm going with full of shit. I can think of no rational explanation for that decision. Commissions make people say all sorts of things.

What commission?

[OregonStrosFan]

What commission?

Warren commission... Have you not been paying attention?!?

[Waldo]

Best Buy employees don't work on commission.  At least, not at the Best Buy store I applied at when I was in college.

[HudsonHawk]

Best Buy employees don't work on commission.  At least, not at the Best Buy store I applied at when I was in college.

This guy worked for DirecTV.  We just started shooting the shit after I told him I'd been a customer for 15 or so years.  He wasn't trying to sell me anything.  He still may have been full of shit.   

[jbm]

What would be a conceivable reason to agree to carry it, but delay it until October?

[chuck]

What would be a conceivable reason to agree to carry it, but delay it until October?

Sympathy.

(That joke works better when the team's not on a near weeklong winning streak.)

[HudsonHawk]

What would be a conceivable reason to agree to carry it, but delay it until October?

Money.

[BizidyDizidy]

 Why pay the fee all summer to show a team no one wants to watch.

[HudsonHawk]

Why pay the fee all summer to show a team no one wants to watch.

He described it more as "CSN wanted payment for 162 games though they'd only be providing like 90".  In other words, CSN wanted to charge full price for a half-eaten sandwich, and DirecTV said "no thanks, we'll wait and start new with the Rockets season."

[Bench]

He described it more as "CSN wanted payment for 162 games though they'd only be providing like 90".  In other words, CSN wanted to charge full price for a half-eaten sandwich, and DirecTV said "no thanks, we'll wait and start new with the Rockets season."

That's so boneheaded on CSN's behalf that it's probably true.  

[jbm]

It also runs counter to the fact that they are still blasting CSN Houston and regional sports networks on their website as things that should always be on a separate tier.  Never mind the blatant hypocrisy of the claim, but it seems like if you quietly have an agreement, then toning down the rhetoric might be in order. 

[HudsonHawk]

It also runs counter to the fact that they are still blasting CSN Houston and regional sports networks on their website as things that should always be on a separate tier.  Never mind the blatant hypocrisy of the claim, but it seems like if you quietly have an agreement, then toning down the rhetoric might be in order. 

I'm just repeating what I heard, and it was encouraging because it was the first time I'd heard anything other than "it's the other guys' fault". 

As for putting RSNs on a tier, the way I understand it is that the providers have two choices...either a) put them on a separate tier and ask those who want it to pay for it, or b) put it on the basic programming and ask all customers to pay for it.  Option b means a lower cost per subscriber, but it means that everyone now has to pay more whether they're actually going to watch the channel or not.  RSNs want option b, to reach as many viewers as possible.  The providers counter with "it's not free, you want exhorbitant rates for it, so if we carry it, *someone* has to pay for it" and prefer option a.

[Arky Vaughan]

I'm just repeating what I heard, and it was encouraging because it was the first time I'd heard anything other than "it's the other guys' fault".  

As for putting RSNs on a tier, the way I understand it is that the providers have two choices...either a) put them on a separate tier and ask those who want it to pay for it, or b) put it on the basic programming and ask all customers to pay for it.  Option b means a lower cost per subscriber, but it means that everyone now has to pay more whether they're actually going to watch the channel or not.  RSNs want option b, to reach as many viewers as possible.  The providers counter with "it's not free, you want exhorbitant rates for it, so if we carry it, *someone* has to pay for it" and prefer option a.

So basically the RSNs want to be paid for their product in part (in large part, in fact) by end-use customers who have no interest in their product.

Which should come as no surprise since professional sports teams want their playing venues paid for in part by taxpayers many of whom will never pass through the turnstiles.

[Waldo]

So basically the RSNs want to be paid for their product in part (in large part, in fact) by end-use customers who have no interest in their product.

That's not unique to RSNs.

[juliogotay]

So basically the RSNs want to be paid for their product in part (in large part, in fact) by end-use customers who have no interest in their product.

Which should come as no surprise since professional sports teams want their playing venues paid for in part by taxpayers many of whom will never pass through the turnstiles.

I agree with your sentiment but I pay for a whole lot of channels that I will never use. I would gladly pay the higher on-demand fee however.

[Fredia]

i just want to see the astross

[Mr. Happy]

i just want to see the astross

+1

[Arky Vaughan]

I agree with your sentiment but I pay for a whole lot of channels that I will never use. I would gladly pay the higher on-demand fee however.

Agreed, both on paying a fee for having the channel, and also on paying for a bunch of channels I never watch.

[HudsonHawk]

Agreed, both on paying a fee for having the channel, and also on paying for a bunch of channels I never watch.

And if you're an advertiser, would you rather advertise on a channel that has 1,000,000 premium subscribers or one with 3,000,000 subscribers, but half of whom claim they never watch?

[subnuclear]

And if you're an advertiser, would you rather advertise on a channel that has 1,000,000 premium subscribers or one with 3,000,000 subscribers, but half of whom claim they never watch?

Are you referencing actual numbers there? I would expect 3,000,000 non-premium to 50,000 premium. In any case, premium subscribers don't necessiarily watch the channels they pay for.

[HudsonHawk]

Are you referencing actual numbers there? I would expect 3,000,000 non-premium to 50,000 premium. In any case, premium subscribers don't necessiarily watch the channels they pay for.

No, I'm pulling numbers out of my ass to illustrate the point of why CSN screams bloody murder at the thought of them being pay-for or on a premium tier. I have no idea what the actual numbers are. And whether anyone actually watches the channel or not is irrelevant. It's about advertising and the number of subscribers.

[Limey]

No, I'm pulling numbers out of my ass to illustrate the point of why CSN screams bloody murder at the thought of them being pay-for or on a premium tier. I have no idea what the actual numbers are. And whether anyone actually watches the channel or not is irrelevant. It's about advertising and the number of subscribers.

Not sure how apropos this is to the immediate post, but sports events are more attractive to advertisers than regular programming due to the immediacy of the product.  In the era of the DVR, people tend still to watch sports live, meaning that viewers are forced to sit through the commercial breaks, rather than whizzing past them at x2, x3 or even - for the mad lunatics - x4.

Thus, I'm not sure it's about advertising per se, it's more about the margins left to the carriers once Crane et al have extracted their fee.  The carriers are left trying to strike a balance between advertising revenue and tariff revenue so that they can make out like bandits also.  Premium subscribers means guaranteed money but lower advertising revenue, and vice versa.

[juliogotay]

No, I'm pulling numbers out of my ass to illustrate the point of why CSN screams bloody murder at the thought of them being pay-for or on a premium tier. I have no idea what the actual numbers are. And whether anyone actually watches the channel or not is irrelevant. It's about advertising and the number of subscribers.

No. Advertising rates are determined by viewers, not subscribers.

[Noe]

Not sure how apropos this is to the immediate post, but sports events are more attractive to advertisers than regular programming due to the immediacy of the product.  In the era of the DVR, people tend still to watch sports live, meaning that viewers are forced to sit through the commercial breaks, rather than whizzing past them at x2, x3 or even - for the mad lunatics - x4.

Thus, I'm not sure it's about advertising per se, it's more about the margins left to the carriers once Crane et al have extracted their fee.  The carriers are left trying to strike a balance between advertising revenue and tariff revenue so that they can make out like bandits also.  Premium subscribers means guaranteed money but lower advertising revenue, and vice versa.

Plus, there is another reason why CSN wants the broadcasters to do well. In due time, Crane and company will sell back their shares to the NBC Sports group (and Comcast) because it will be an attractive long term revenue maker. Crane and company do not want to be in the network management business long term... that is territory for the guys at NBC to handle. As such, a pay-for-view type of subscription model smacks more of niche product that Crane won't be able to sell back to NBC.

[HudsonHawk]

Not sure how apropos this is to the immediate post, but sports events are more attractive to advertisers than regular programming due to the immediacy of the product.  In the era of the DVR, people tend still to watch sports live, meaning that viewers are forced to sit through the commercial breaks, rather than whizzing past them at x2, x3 or even - for the mad lunatics - x4.

Thus, I'm not sure it's about advertising per se, it's more about the margins left to the carriers once Crane et al have extracted their fee.  The carriers are left trying to strike a balance between advertising revenue and tariff revenue so that they can make out like bandits also.  Premium subscribers means guaranteed money but lower advertising revenue, and vice versa.

When I say it's about subcribers more than viewership, I mean for the carrier.  Obviously the advertiser wants more people watching.  But for selling advertising on your channel, the number that allows you to charge more is the number of people who recieve the channel.

[HudsonHawk]

No. Advertising rates are determined by viewers, not subscribers.

It's determined by both.  What I mean is for the network.  They can charge more if they have 3,000,000 subscribers to a channel than if they have 50,000.  Even if only 50,000 actually watch any particular program at a time.