Concast says Dish/Direct TV/ Charter do not want to carry CSNW

[Tince]

All their statement really says is some companies fell for their pricing, and they are using that to justify the pricing. It's the old "Well somebody paid that much for it, so it must be worth that much." It's kind of like when people sell comic books. It is only worth that much to some people. To the rest, it is not.

I totally agree with what you're saying, but why should Comcast charge Direct TV what Direct TV thinks its worth?

If Nordstroms is the only carrier of SmartCare shirts, and they decide to price them at $60, that's their right. If enough people buy them at $60, they'll keep the price at $60, they're not going to lower it to $40 because a fraction of the market thinks $60 is too much. I know that's not the best analogy, and I hate Comcast, but to think the Blazers aren't at fault or the Dish companies aren't trying to strong arm Comcast into a lower price seems a bit naive.

 

[espn_hall_of_famer]

I totally agree with what you're saying, but why should Comcast charge Direct TV what Direct TV thinks its worth?

If Nordstroms is the only carrier of SmartCare shirts, and they decide to price them at $60, that's their right. If enough people buy them at $60, they'll keep the price at $60, they're not going to lower it to $40 because a fraction of the market thinks $60 is too much. I know that's not the best analogy, and I hate Comcast, but to think the Blazers aren't at fault or the Dish companies aren't trying to strong arm Comcast into a lower price seems a bit naive.

I used to truly be disgusted with what Comcast was doing to not work out some middle-ground at the expense of the customers. But then when Dish Network gave ABC the boot for hiking up their prices and spent a year showing some loop feed of a couple of incredibly slimy guys trying to explain how ABC is the devil and trying to bring down society with their outrageous prices, I lost all credibility in Dish Network. Those guys are obviously rich, slimy bastards that don't really care about anything but their own estates. So now I'm not so sure to "cast the first stone" at Comcast as I think it is a two-way street with slimy execs on both ends having their pissing match at the expense of the citizens.

 

[Tortimer]

I totally agree with what you're saying, but why should Comcast charge Direct TV what Direct TV thinks its worth?

If Nordstroms is the only carrier of SmartCare shirts, and they decide to price them at $60, that's their right. If enough people buy them at $60, they'll keep the price at $60, they're not going to lower it to $40 because a fraction of the market thinks $60 is too much. I know that's not the best analogy, and I hate Comcast, but to think the Blazers aren't at fault or the Dish companies aren't trying to strong arm Comcast into a lower price seems a bit naive.

I agree and see nothing wrong with Comcast trying to get as much as possible. I also do think there is nothing wrong with Dish/Directv or any other major Cable company trying to get CSNW at as low as price as possible. I do also agree it is the Blazers and Comcast fault. I see no fault with Dish/Directv/Charter or any buddy else that doesn't want to carry CSNW at the price Comcast is asking. Like I said in a earlier post if it was even close to a fair deal for these companies especially Charter would be carrying CSNW. I know with the heat the Blazers have taken Paul Allen would want his own company Charter to carry CSNW. Dish/Directv/Charter and most if not all the major cable company's carry almost all the rest of Comcast sportsnets and would carry CSNW with a similar deal maybe even a small increase but not what Comcast is asking for. They just can't let Comcast force them into placing CSNW in a lower tier(more subscribers) then other sportsnets. That would cost them a lot more money and most of the subscribers wouldn't even want CSNW. Plus once other sportsnets contract would be up then they would want to be in the same tier as CSNW. It would really mess them up business wise and almost bankrupt them with trying to raise costs when people have so many choices now for content. You can blame Dish/Directv/Charter all you want but this problem is Comcasts and if CSNW were a more popular channel with Dish/Directv customers they would choose to go to arbitration with the FCC and probably win but don't want to spend the money or a small chance that Comcast might win.

 

[hasoos]

I totally agree with what you're saying, but why should Comcast charge Direct TV what Direct TV thinks its worth?

If Nordstroms is the only carrier of SmartCare shirts, and they decide to price them at $60, that's their right. If enough people buy them at $60, they'll keep the price at $60, they're not going to lower it to $40 because a fraction of the market thinks $60 is too much. I know that's not the best analogy, and I hate Comcast, but to think the Blazers aren't at fault or the Dish companies aren't trying to strong arm Comcast into a lower price seems a bit naive.

I doubt it and here is why. American history. Companies with that have a monopoly on a market abuse it, and I cannot think of a single exception to that rule.

 

[Tince]

I doubt it and here is why. American history. Companies with that have a monopoly on a market abuse it, and I cannot think of a single exception to that rule.

I guess it depends on how you define abuse. Maximizing profit?

 

[Masbee]

I guess it depends on how you define abuse. Maximizing profit?

do you understand what a monopoly is?

 

[illmatic99]

monopoly

 

[Tince]

do you understand what a monopoly is?

Absolutely.

If I remember correctly its exclusive possession/control of a good.

Still doesn't answer my question.

 

[Masbee]

Absolutely.

If I remember correctly its exclusive possession/control of a good.

Still doesn't answer my question.

When government granted, that monopoly is supposed to come at a price. The price is not supposed to be, "I get to charge the most I can get away with to maximise my profits".

Where is the trade-off?

Historically, government granted monopolies were either obviously corruption, or supposed to be a trade-off of guaranteed, but low and steady profits, in excange for exclusive rights.

That has been lost here. Now its assumed that Comcast can do whatever the fuck it wants? Because it is a business? In the business to make FAT profits? When did that start? How did the propoganda take hold? When did America lose its way so badly that down is up and up is down?

 

[Tince]

When government granted, that monopoly is supposed to come at a price. The price is not supposed to be, "I get to charge the most I can get away with to maximise my profits".

Where is the trade-off?

Historically, government granted monopolies were either obviously corruption, or supposed to be a trade-off of guaranteed, but low and steady profits, in excange for exclusive rights.

That has been lost here. Now its assumed that Comcast can do whatever the fuck it wants? Because it is a business? In the business to make FAT profits? When did that start? How did the propoganda take hold? When did America lose its way so badly that down is up and up is down?

I'm asking this question in all seriousness:

What price would be fair? Obviously people don't think Comcast should be allowed the right to pick the own price of their product, which I understand. To me, allowing Direct TV to pick their own price that is significantly cheaper than other outlets got doesn't seem so fair either. Do you think Comcast owes the outlets whom they've already struck a deal with a pro-rated discount for whatever Direct TV decides the price should be?

I think it's a little trickier of a situation than the extreme anti-Comcast people think.

 

[Tortimer]

I'm asking this question in all seriousness:

What price would be fair? Obviously people don't think Comcast should be allowed the right to pick the own price of their product, which I understand. To me, allowing Direct TV to pick their own price that is significantly cheaper than other outlets got doesn't seem so fair either. Do you think Comcast owes the outlets whom they've already struck a deal with a pro-rated discount for whatever Direct TV decides the price should be?

I think it's a little trickier of a situation than the extreme anti-Comcast people think.

Directv hasn't said one thing complaining about what price Comcast wants. I guess you must want Directv to pay what ever Comcast feels is the price. Comcast has said what they want and Directv has decided it is way to high and they have the right to not carry the channel. I know I probably didn't make a lot of sense but Comcast wants ESPN money for CSNW which is just crazy. Of coarse some mom and pop local cable company in Bend or Roseburg that only has 10,000 at most subscribers might have a lot more interest in the Blazers/Ducks can pay $2.00 per subscriber but no major nation wide content provider will pay that much for a channel when very few of their customers even care about CSNW. It like comparing apple and oranges. Plus Comcast, Foxsports and other sportsnets have already established what the going rate is which is around .10 cents or less per subscriber in package that isn't required for everyone but only people that are interested in it(sports packages). The cable company's that have signed up to carry CSNW doesn't mind paying that much because a lot of their customers are interested. I guess no matter how much I try to explain you won't get it. I can guarantee Comcast will never get anything close to what they are asking for CSNW on any major Satellite or cable company.

This is just a ruff ball park estimate just to show how unreasonable but those local mom and pop cable company's maybe pay Comcast $5,000-$10,000 per month at the most. Dish/Directv/Charter etc would be paying $100,000+ per month with the going rate for a sportsnet. Comcast wants Dish/Directv/Charter to pay something like $20,000,000 to 40,000,000 per month. That is why Directv/Dish any other major Cable company has quit even trying to negotiate with Comcast. I really think IMO Comcast really doesn't want to have Dish/Directv/etc carry CSNW unless they can rape them.

 

[Masbee]

I'm asking this question in all seriousness:

What price would be fair? Obviously people don't think Comcast should be allowed the right to pick the own price of their product, which I understand. To me, allowing Direct TV to pick their own price that is significantly cheaper than other outlets got doesn't seem so fair either. Do you think Comcast owes the outlets whom they've already struck a deal with a pro-rated discount for whatever Direct TV decides the price should be?

I think it's a little trickier of a situation than the extreme anti-Comcast people think.

There is no way to know what a "fair" price would be as there is no free market here.

There is an established price for other regional sports networks. That price is much, much lower than what Comcast is demanding.

And, they paid the Blazers more than many regional sports networks pay for air rights, supporting a claim that Comcast should get more than the usual.

But... Comcast used its excess profits from it monopoly in cable tv to outbid all others with that unusually high price for the Blazers, so that Comcast could solidify its ability to run their business on a monopoly model, ie, "overcharge for inferior product/service." They cynically used a legal loophole to violate the spirt of equal acess, which corrupt federal officials/ congress have allowed to remain open. Why? money, money, money.

Comcast has the power - they negotiated a tight control contract with the Blazers, and they are regulated by toothless and/or corrupt small-time local officials.

Comcast doesn't have strong incentive to sell the sportsnet at the typical regional sports network rates. They feel the amount they would receive would by less than they get by keeping Blazer fans in Comcast territory from using attenna, DirecTV, Dish, etc. It is hard to make up the loss of $100 per month with pennies per household, which is why they demand dollars. Because no one can force them to do it, they won't.

Comcast isn't all bad. They did a better job than Charter for example, of rolling out new technology, upgrading their network, expanding their HD, managing their finances and financing and remaining competitive enough with sat to rebound well. Compared to other cable companies and sat companies their product is at least average and their prices are on the high side, but not the highest.