comcast Protest Rally @ RG

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Do you install comcast or something?

No. I just go with whoever is offering the best deal at the time, whether it's Comcast, DirecTV, FIOS, or DishNetwork. Right now it's FIOS (as far as who is the best of the non-internet feeds). But, none of those are as good as HD feeds over the internet, as you've been smart enough to figure out.

Also, I'm a supporter of www.savetheinternet.com . Earl Blumenauer is one of the leading Senators working in a bi-partisan campaign to limit mega-media giants like those I've mentioned from taking over the internet and limiting the last bastion of free speech.

This Comcast/Blazer thing isn't even the tip of the iceberg of the dangers going on that all here should be aware about if they care anything at all about free speech and fair play. And, isn't that what those who want the Blazers being telecast on Dish and DirecTV concerned about....fair play?

"Net Neutrality" is the subject of the Bills that Blumenauer and others are fighting for.

Check out these videos, they will scare you to death:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/videos
 
Last edited:
While FIOS by Verizon is the best right now, here' what else you get with your FIOS...

 
Says the guy who joined this month.

The issue isn't for people that have the choice to get Comcast, but choose not to. That's their choice. The victims are the Blazer fans that live within the blackout zone that Comcast DOESN'T serve. It's a huge area, btw. Of course, since you've followed this situation so closely, you understand that issue completely.

I have a choice. I just refuse to switch. Comcast is HORRIBLE. I still reserve the right to complain about it though. :ghoti:
 
There's gold! GOLD I TELL YOU!!! UNDER THE....satellite dish in my back yard. I buried my old gold coins there.
 
Comcast isn't playing hardball. DirectTV and Rupert Murdoch do not want to negotiate a deal. They want to try to make Comcast into "the enemy"

So what is your theory as to the cable companies' motives, other than the obvious? How are they increasing their profit by not making a deal? (The obvious is that Comcast is trying to charge them far more than they paid before Comcast got the contract.)
 
So what is your theory as to the cable companies' motives, other than the obvious? How are they increasing their profit by not making a deal? (The obvious is that Comcast is trying to charge them far more than they paid before Comcast got the contract.)

Comcast's motive is to get people to switch from whatever they are using to Comcast in order to watch the Blazer games. However, they also have to negotiate with Fox for the right's to show their channels (local sports, and other channels), so they can't negotiate poorly or in bad faith, as it could come back to bite them on the other negotiations. Comcast, thus, is negotiating fairly. They aren't going to give it away, and they already lost revenue the first couple of years that they had the contract, and could continue to lose money on it as Roy's loss mounts up, Oden continues to be AWOL, Cho continues to do nothing, etc.

DirecTV's motive is to negotiate a deal based on using their strength of multiple channels that they own (the Fox channels, etc.). When DirecTV starts to "bend" a little and let go of some of the "exclusive" NFL package that they negotiated, then your complaints can be warranted about Comcast.

DirecTV is the expert in holding out from other companies their "exclusive" rights to sporting events. If there's anyone to mistrust in the negotiating area, it's DirecTV. The NFL had to step in just to get the concession of letting other cable companies have "NFL Redzone" and "NFL Network".
 
11 and 9 baby, 11 and 9!
 
Don't listen to anything that Kingspoint is saying. Almost all if there is any facts are completely wrong. Comcast would lose if Dish or Directv wanted to push this and go before a arbitrator but they don't have anything to win and there is a slight chance Comcast could win. The amount of money Comcast is asking for is way more then any other regional sportsnet. They also want to be included in a higher tier then the rest of the sportsnets which would cost Dish and Directv way more then CSNW is worth. Comcast must negotiate in good faith at a reasonable fair price which has to be similar to what Dish and Directv are paying for other similar sportsnets. They are asking far more then any other Sportsnets even other Comcast sportsnets that are already carried. Even Paul Allen owned cable company hasn't reached a agreement with Comcast. I'm sure PA would do it in a heart beat if it was even close to a fair deal. I have gone over all the details to this negotiation on the forum before and am not going to go in to details again but trust me this is almost 100% Comcast fault and if this was a bigger market and was hurting Dish or Directv's business they would already be before a arbitrator.
 
Get your few facts right Rupert Murdock doesn't own Directv and hasn't for a few years.

You're just a front runner band wagon Rupert Murdock fan. You don't know the real truth!

GOLD!!!!!
 
Absolutely. But as MickZagger pointed out, there are other ways to receive the games. Each individual company has the right to negotiate separately with Comcast, and many companies have done so and those homes have access to the games.

People here have no idea what the bigger picture is, including Mr. Canzano.

Here it is in a nutshell. I'll just go over the basic skeleton of the situation:

Rupert Murdoch owns DirectTV. He also owns all Fox channels. He tried to buy out Dish Network about 7 years ago and the U.S. Congress forbade him from doing so as too few companies (like the owners of Comcast) have too much control.

You take that idea and you consider the reasons what the motives are when DirectTV and DishNetwork negotiate things.

Currently, there are several cities around the U.S. (Los Angeles, Cincinnati, etc....major cities) who lost their baseball television rights to watch their own teams (the Angels, the REDS, etc..) right during the middle of the pennant chase in the middle of September. Rupert Murdoch and Fox stopped broadcasting games. By doing so, he was attempting to get teams to not use their local cable companies who had Fox broadcasting like Portland has FoxNorthwest and the Mariners and switch to his DirectTV, which had the MLB baseball package.

It's pandering, it's maneuvering, it's high-stakes competition and Rupert Murdoch wants more control.

A similar thing is going on between Dish Network and some local channels, like people experienced here in Portland with ABC, Channel 2 for a while (at least a year, I think). Dish Network is the last medium, other than the internet, that isn't owned by some mega-media Giant like Disney, Murdock, Viacom, the BBC, Gannett, etc.

This "little" squabble of Comcast negotiating their rights to Blazer games for the next few years with DirectTV and DishNetwork is more complicated than people think. Comcast isn't playing hardball. DirectTV and Rupert Murdoch do not want to negotiate a deal. They want to try to make Comcast into "the enemy" and Comcast wants people to switch from DirectTV to Comcast. That's why several small local cable companies have been able to successfully negotiate with Comcast, but DirectTV has not. DirectTV doesn't want to. Comcast doesn't see any of the smaller cable companies as a threat so the negotiations are easier to complete.

DishNetwork and Comcast just haven't been able to come up with the right contract because DishNetwork is the little guy in this, yet they are big when you look at how few people bring this up to their attention compared to their overall clients. It's just not important enough to them based on their clients' feedback.

Again, none of this ever would have happened if 97% of the Blazer fans hadn't abandoned them during the tail-end of the Jail-Blazer days and the early post-Bob Whitsitt era. Fan appreciation dictated this contract, and fans have to live with it. They reap what they sowed.


I'm not sure if there is one true fact with anything you just posted. What are you a Comcast employee?
 
wait, Rupert owns "all" Fox channels?

he owns KPTV!?

I think the Meredith Corporation might want to be told about that.
 
John Malone TCI, Oracle CEO has owned Directv for a few years. I believe they are in the process of selling Directv or have already sold it. Rupurt Murdock hasn't owned Directv for years but still owns Fox networks.
 
I'm not sure if there is one true fact with anything you just posted. What are you a Comcast employee?
Which means that you don't know anything, so why make such a stupid post? If you want to talk about it, then come in to the conversation and talk about it. I already answered the question about working for Comcast.
 
Maybe given the recent news the plan should be to protest against Comcast for broadcasting the Blazers?

barfo
 
John Malone TCI, Oracle CEO has owned Directv for a few years. I believe they are in the process of selling Directv or have already sold it. Rupurt Murdock hasn't owned Directv for years but still owns Fox networks.

In late 2003, Murdoch acquired a 34 percent stake in Hughes Electronics, the operator of the largest American satellite TV system, DirecTV, from General Motors for $6 billion (USD). Also in 2003, Congress prevented him from purchasing Dish Network because he already owned too much.

On December 22, 2003, General Motors sold controlling interest in Hughes Electronics to News Corporation, forming the DirecTV Group. Certain conditions exist, however, in that News Corp must solve disputes with companies that carry its broadcast and cable channels. The corporation must treat all stations equally, not favor the Fox Network and FX.

The arbitration was to alleviate concerns that Fox would pull its network programming, which includes professional baseball and football, off cable systems to encourage viewers to subscribe to DirecTV.
News Corp. agreed not to pull either the network programming or its regional sports networks while a dispute was being arbitrated. Yet, they did it anyway this September.

John Malone is Chairman.

"Rupert Murdoch hasn't owned DirecTV for years"

After Congress wouldn't budge on his ability to corner the Satellite market by owning both DirecTV and DishNetwork, he did sell them just 2 years ago....not the exagerrated "years" that you were implying. I love his reasons:

Thursday 18-Sep-2008

News Corp. boss and former chief of DirecTV Rupert Murdoch says he sold his ownership stake in the satellite company, in part, because he was afraid it could never compete with the cable triple play. "I was frightened of the Triple Play in cable and then a superior service coming from the telephone companies," says Murdoch. "I might have been wrong," he says, adding "I don’t think I’m wrong in the long term." Despite several failed stints at trying to offer broadband (via DSL, satellite and even BPL), new owner Liberty Media continually hints that they're keeping the possibility open.

So, he said the exact same thing I said, that I go with the best system being offered, and that Comcast was better until Verizon's FIOS came along. Murdoch's not going down with a sinking ship.
 
Last edited:
Don't listen to anything that Kingspoint is saying. Almost all if there is any facts are completely wrong. Comcast would lose if Dish or Directv wanted to push this and go before a arbitrator but they don't have anything to win and there is a slight chance Comcast could win. The amount of money Comcast is asking for is way more then any other regional sportsnet. They also want to be included in a higher tier then the rest of the sportsnets which would cost Dish and Directv way more then CSNW is worth. Comcast must negotiate in good faith at a reasonable fair price which has to be similar to what Dish and Directv are paying for other similar sportsnets. They are asking far more then any other Sportsnets even other Comcast sportsnets that are already carried. Even Paul Allen owned cable company hasn't reached a agreement with Comcast. I'm sure PA would do it in a heart beat if it was even close to a fair deal. I have gone over all the details to this negotiation on the forum before and am not going to go in to details again but trust me this is almost 100% Comcast fault and if this was a bigger market and was hurting Dish or Directv's business they would already be before a arbitrator.

You couldn't be more wrong, and that's why Murdoch left DirecTV as he saw it as a loser short-term to Comcast and long-term as a loser to Verizon's FIOS.
 
Looks like it doesn't matter anymore as Comcast will be the loser in this one and they'll never recoup the costs of running that channel.
 
I live in Seattle and get Comcast. I get most of the games on Comcast Sportschannel, or whatever it's called, and it is the worst resolution of broadcast that I have seen in my adult life.

There is no HD option and the standard definition looks like someone rubbed rancid Vaseline on the lens. Terrible, terrible picture. The graphics look fine, and the close shots look OK, but the wide shot (you know, the majority of the game) looks like total ass.

With that being said, while I feel bad for Blazers fans who are screwed, I don't blame the Blazers or Comcast for making the deal that they did.

Ed O.
 
As I understand it, Comcast outbid its competitors to get the Blazers to allow it the TV rights. The competitors knew what the cable companies were willing to pay them and Comcast misjudged it on purpose to beat them. Comcast's plan was, having vastly overpaid the Blazers, Comcast would overcharge the cable companies to make a profit. But the companies refused, which is why Comcast is losing money on the deal. Therefore, the fact that Comcast is losing money is no reason to think they're right to be trying to charge so much. If that story is wrong, please correct me.

I wonder whether this is Comcast's general business model, and whether this is why we have to pay so much for cable. Maybe Comcast wins rights by overpaying TV networks, then passes the costs to us.
 
Do you guys really care much anymore? I get Comcast, and will tune into most games, at least parts, but what do you have to get excited about now? We're not even close to being a team that even has the potential to do any damage in the West, and we're not really brimming with youth either. Are you really going to protest because you can't see guys like Camby and Miller play?
 
Which means that you don't know anything, so why make such a stupid post? If you want to talk about it, then come in to the conversation and talk about it. I already answered the question about working for Comcast.

You don't argue with someone that knows nothing about the subject and trys to act like he does.
 
You couldn't be more wrong, and that's why Murdoch left DirecTV as he saw it as a loser short-term to Comcast and long-term as a loser to Verizon's FIOS.

Now you say that is why he left earlier you said he is the current owner. Just go away.
 
I live in Seattle and get Comcast. I get most of the games on Comcast Sportschannel, or whatever it's called, and it is the worst resolution of broadcast that I have seen in my adult life.

There is no HD option and the standard definition looks like someone rubbed rancid Vaseline on the lens. Terrible, terrible picture. The graphics look fine, and the close shots look OK, but the wide shot (you know, the majority of the game) looks like total ass.

With that being said, while I feel bad for Blazers fans who are screwed, I don't blame the Blazers or Comcast for making the deal that they did.

Ed O.

I really don't blame either one. The problem with Comcast is how the negotiate. Cable company's get their satellite bandwidth from the government in return they have to sell their channels to competing cable and Satellite providers at a reasonable fair price similar to other same type channels. This is where Dish/Directv and any big cable company could take them to a arbitrator and almost for sure win but Dish and Directv doesn't want to take the chance they lose for such a small share of their subscribers. Comcast wants it to be on a tier that almost all Directv/Dish subscribers get and almost all sportsnets are in a sports package that only people that want them pay. If your paying the going rate of .05 - .10 cents per subscribers per month or even the $2.00 per subscriber Comcast wants and pay for all 20-30 million instead of less then maybe 1 million that is a lot of money for something that isn't worth it for Directv or Dish.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top