COMCAST SPORTS NET HOUSTON

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

Bug_1 wrote:

 [Keep it Legal] In the mean time I have lowered the level of my U-verse package from the top tier to U200 which is costing them money (and to tell the truth I don't miss most of the channels anyway. When I called ATT to complain about not having the Rockets games they basically just said "Sorry". But didn't offer anything in the way of information about what they are doing to change that or offering anything to me as a customer for the inconvenince. Everyone involved just expects us all to sit back until they figure out what they want to do and we are the ones losing out. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth about everyone involved in the decision to start up Comcast Sportsnet Houston and those who are making the transition either not happen ever or take a long time and that includes ATT.

---

Well, you need to be upset with every major TV provider, other than Comcast, since none of them have added Comcast SportsNet Houston.  There must be a reason for that.

[Bug_1]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

Well, you need to be upset with every major TV provider, other than Comcast, since none of them have added Comcast SportsNet Houston.  There must be a reason for that.

---

I can only guess why they havn't picked it up. Some carriers have, mostly smaller ones like Entouch and Consolidated communications. I just think there are certain basics that a serious carrier should make sure they have and local sports teams are one of those.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

Bug_1 wrote:

I can only guess why they havn't picked it up. Some carriers have, mostly smaller ones like Entouch and Consolidated communications. I just think there are certain basics that a serious carrier should make sure they have and local sports teams are one of those.

---

Those small carriers are the only ones who have picked up the new channel.  Other than Comcast, none of the major carriers (i.e. DirecTV, Dish, U-verse, etc.) have picked up the new channels,  There has to be a reason that carriage agreements have not been reached with any of the major carriers,  It's far from just U-verse.

[Bug_1]

---

texasguy37 wrote:

---

Those small carriers are the only ones who have picked up the new channel.  Other than Comcast, none of the major carriers (i.e. DirecTV, Dish, U-verse, etc.) have picked up the new channels,  There has to be a reason that carriage agreements have not been reached with any of the major carriers,  It's far from just U-verse.

---

Like I said. I can only guess and no one is coming out definitively and saying why they have not picked it up and what it would take for them to do so. I could understand if it was some channel that is a special interest like The History channel or something but not carrying local sports coverage has crossed a line.  I am sure that Comcast  and the other owners of the channel are trying to get more than what the carriers want to pay but this is like saying U-verse is not going to have KHOU because it is too high and yet they are going to still carry the game show channel. They need to be at the table and aggresively work something out. This is as bad as a lockout.

[jbb7aa]

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT THE LATEST ON ATT UVERSE GETTING CSN HOUSTON.... THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND, NOT BEING ABLE TO WATCH THE ROCKETS ON MY OWN TV........... I SEE COMMERCIALS BEING SHOWN THAT PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING THERE TV PROVIDER TO GET CSN.....ESPECIALLY ATT..........

I WILL BE VERY DISSAPPOINTED IF ATT DOES NOT GET  CSN AND I ALSO MISS THE ASTROS.........

COME ON ATT UVSER,,, I DEMAND THE CHANNEL

THATS WHAT THE COMMERICAL SAYS TO DO

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

Maybe you should post on the Rocket's web site to break their contract with Comcast and go back to their previous channels that I'm pretty sure AT&T (and others) carry.

Or, maybe post on Comcast's website about asking a fair price for the channel so AT&T will pick it up.

Or, maybe watch college basketball instead of that farse called NBA.

[oufanindallas]

What's bad though is for the 100's of Astro's fans that won't be able to watch them if a deal is not struck soon.  Contact the Asto's as well.  Do they have the same owner?

[Chemteam]

Be careful falling for concast's deception over all of this. As it's already been mentioned there is a reason why none of the other major providers have picked up csn. It's because they are asking for too much. And you can bet if a deal is made at the price that csn wants that cost will be passed down to the customer. Do you want your package price to go up by $5 to $10 every month? Well that is what will probably happen. If anything blame the astros new owner. Apparently a deal was made last month and he blocked it because he wanted more money.

[JP77063]

I know that AT&T is working on a lot of different issues, but something really needs to be address about the Comcast Sportsnet availability for the Houston market.  With 3 of its professional sports teams on Comcast SportsNet - 1 of them in mid-season, and the other two starting their seasons very soon - it seems ludicrous as to why AT&T cannot add this channel.  In contrast, you added the Los Lakers Time Warner Channel almost immediately.  If it is that Comcast SportsNet Houston is asking too much for its per subscriber fee, consider this: move the Fox Sports Houston or Fox Sports Southwest Channel that is currently the Regional Sports Network for the Houston market to the Sports Package Subscription.  Then insert the Comcast Sportsnet Houston channel in its place.  Since neither Fox Sports Houston nor FoxSports Southwest currently carry any of the Houston area professional teams, it does not make any sense to continue to carry them as the Regional Sports Network for the Houston market.  Just a thought. 

[JefferMC ACE - Wizard]

---

JP77063 wrote:

I know that AT&T is working on a lot of different issues, but something really needs to be address about the Comcast Sportsnet availability for the Houston market.  With 3 of its professional sports teams on Comcast SportsNet - 1 of them in mid-season, and the other two starting their seasons very soon - it seems ludicrous as to why AT&T cannot add this channel.  In contrast, you added the Los Lakers Time Warner Channel almost immediately.  If it is that Comcast SportsNet Houston is asking too much for its per subscriber fee, consider this: move the Fox Sports Houston or Fox Sports Southwest Channel that is currently the Regional Sports Network for the Houston market to the Sports Package Subscription.  Then insert the Comcast Sportsnet Houston channel in its place.  Since neither Fox Sports Houston nor FoxSports Southwest currently carry any of the Houston area professional teams, it does not make any sense to continue to carry them as the Regional Sports Network for the Houston market.  Just a thought. 

---

What is ludicrous to me is that sheeple fans keep taking the teams' line. In nearly every case, the TEAM jumped off common channels that were carried by most TV providers to specially channels so that they could get more money.  Then they turn their fans loose on the providers to sign up and pay them the more money.  This crap needs to stop.

[oufanindallas]

---

JefferMC wrote:

---

JP77063 wrote:

I know that AT&T is working on a lot of different issues, but something really needs to be address about the Comcast Sportsnet availability for the Houston market.  With 3 of its professional sports teams on Comcast SportsNet - 1 of them in mid-season, and the other two starting their seasons very soon - it seems ludicrous as to why AT&T cannot add this channel.  In contrast, you added the Los Lakers Time Warner Channel almost immediately.  If it is that Comcast SportsNet Houston is asking too much for its per subscriber fee, consider this: move the Fox Sports Houston or Fox Sports Southwest Channel that is currently the Regional Sports Network for the Houston market to the Sports Package Subscription.  Then insert the Comcast Sportsnet Houston channel in its place.  Since neither Fox Sports Houston nor FoxSports Southwest currently carry any of the Houston area professional teams, it does not make any sense to continue to carry them as the Regional Sports Network for the Houston market.  Just a thought. 

---

What is ludicrous to me is that sheeple fans keep taking the teams' line. In nearly every case, the TEAM jumped off common channels that were carried by most TV providers to specially channels so that they could get more money.  Then they turn their fans loose on the providers to sign up and pay them the more money.  This crap needs to stop.

---

I agree. I'm glad my Rangers signed a long term deal with Fox Sports.  I'd be upset if they changed to a different new channel and my provider didn't carry it.

problem is no one but a few smaller provders and of course comcast are carrying this channel

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

JefferMC wrote:

What is ludicrous to me is that sheeple fans keep taking the teams' line. In nearly every case, the TEAM jumped off common channels that were carried by most TV providers to specially channels so that they could get more money.  Then they turn their fans loose on the providers to sign up and pay them the more money.  This crap needs to stop.

---

That is the typical ploy of the content providers: 

1) Ask for more money from the TV providers

2) If the TV providers resists, use the customers of the TV providers as pawns to put pressure on the TV providers by threatening to cancel their service in order to get the the higher fees that they are seeking

We all know that the higher fees will translate into more money out of our pockets.  It still surprises me that customers still allows themselves to be used as pawns in this game.

[thebeachbumm]

I don't see how this will ever go through. Why would ATT allow a Comcast channel on their service. It makes no sense to have a competing cable providers specific channel.

I will be breaking my contract with ATT by March. I've got to have my Dynamo!

[oufanindallas]

---

thebeachbumm wrote:

I don't see how this will ever go through. Why would ATT allow a Comcast channel on their service. It makes no sense to have a competing cable providers specific channel.

I will be breaking my contract with ATT by March. I've got to have my Dynamo!

---

You are completely wrong in that assumption.  It isn't whether they would allow a comcast channel or not, it's the price that is the issue.  Complain to the sports team owners.  Comcast owns NBC, AT&T carries NBC and subsequent other channels and TW has the Lakers on UVerse.

[ken09211]

I got the Rockets and Astros last year.  Now they are gone.  What's up AT&T?

[dwinth]

---

ken09211 wrote:

I got the Rockets and Astros last year.  Now they are gone.  What's up AT&T?

---

Comcast SportsNet Houston now carries the Astros and the Rockets. No major provider carries that channel. CSN Houston is available regionally on Comcast, Coastal Link, En-Touch, Phonoscope, and Consolidated Communications.

You will not find it on AT&T U-Verse, Dish Network, or Direct-TV.

You should be asking what's up Houston Rockets and Astros?

From Wikipedia concerning carriage agreements:

The Houston Astros, who are part owners of Comcast SportsNet Houston along with the Houston Rockets and NBC, nixed an 11th-hour deal with DirecTV that could have put CSN Houston on the provider and delivered Rockets games to its subscribers at the beginning of the Rockets season.^[10] It is believed that such a deal, had it been completed with DirecTV, would have almost certainly led to similar deals with U-verse and Dish Network. Astros team president George Postolos, who held the same position with the Rockets until 2006, was one of the first to trumpet the idea of a joint network between the Rockets and the Astros in the late 1990s when he was still with the Rockets. Now, as the head of the Astros, he could be the person preventing his former team and employer from airing their games to the majority of Houstonians, which has been an embarrassment to the Rockets, particularly with the All Star game being played in Houston this year.

DirecTV has failed to reach a carriage agreement as of yet, despite a new deal with NBC Universal for its other cable channels. ^[11] CSN Houston is also trying to gain carriage deals with Suddenlink Communications (for the Victoria, Lufkin-Nacogdoches, and Bryan-College Station markets)^[12] and Time Warner, but have failed to do so. So far, fans have missed 42 Rockets games and counting. more than half of the NBA season.^[13] To date, no major providers (besides Comcast) carry the network. ^[11]

Ratings have been competitive based on the total number of households with the channel, but overall have suffered due to the lack of availability in the Houston DMA. Through 15 games, Rockets games are averaging about a 0.95 Nielsen rating, which equals about 21,050 households. That’s down from a 1.45 rating for the first 15 games on Fox Sports Houston, which was available on most providers in its market. CSN Houston President and GM Matt Hutchings had this to say; "I get it that everybody wants the channel. We want them to have it. We just have to find that right deal." ^[14] The current obstacle however to providing coverage on other providers is that CSN Houston, Rockets, and Astros signed a 10-year-deal with Comcast for exclusivity, with an opt-out date unknown to the public.^[15]

In total, only about 40% of Houston viewers have CSN Houston available to them, with residents of Pearland, Texas unable to obtain the channel due a local public access channel in channel space conflict with CSN Houston.

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

[thebeachbumm]

No kidding, price is always the issue. If it was free we would already have it.

I'm aware that comcast owns NBC but the NBC channel is not called COMCAST NBC. See  what i'm getting at? 

It's a 24/7 advertisement for the competitor.

[tardcj]

Regarding CSN Houston- Exactly how much more is CSN Houston demanding from UVerse as compared to what UVerse was spending with Fox Sports Network.  Then we know whether to fight for or against UVerse

By the way, this site would not let me choose from the list of UVerse Community Support.  Any ideas?

[dwinth]

---

tardcj wrote:

Regarding CSN Houston- Exactly how much more is CSN Houston demanding from UVerse as compared to what UVerse was spending with Fox Sports Network.  Then we know whether to fight for or against UVerse

By the way, this site would not let me choose from the list of UVerse Community Support.  Any ideas?

---

None of us on this forum can give you an answer. We are subscribers to U-Verse just like you. This is a peer-to-peer forum for subscribers. There may be people from AT&T who check the forum once in a while, but they would never reveal financial figures regarding negotiations between AT&T and the channel or group of channels involved.

---

Owning a computer and not having the internet is like buying a refrigerator and not stocking it with food.

[oufanindallas]

---

tardcj wrote:

Regarding CSN Houston- Exactly how much more is CSN Houston demanding from UVerse as compared to what UVerse was spending with Fox Sports Network.  Then we know whether to fight for or against UVerse

By the way, this site would not let me choose from the list of UVerse Community Support.  Any ideas?

---

Apparently quite a bit since none of the major providers (Dish, Direct, Verizon, Time Warner, Charter) have picked up the channel.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

Interesting article:

http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/csn-houston-president-growing-less-optimistic-about-reachin...

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Preposterous. The Houston Astros have been the last place team in Major League Baseball for the past 2 years, haven't been playoff contenders for years before that, and currently are last in payroll of all MLB teams. This is their first year in the American League as well, so they will be playing many teams unfamiliar to them. They have no superstars and only minimal talent to draw on due to a gutted farm system.

Their record this year is certain to be in last place again. On top of that, the large number of divisional games they played in previous years were in the Central time zone, resulting in games starting at 7:00 Houston time. Now that they're in the AL West division, most divisional games will be against west coast teams, giving many games a 9:00 Houston start time, thus many fewer viewers.

The CSN Houston president is without a doubt the most delusional man in the entire universe if he thinks that providers should pay $3.40 per subscriber per month for this channel. And this is a universe that includes Glenn Beck.

News flash, very few people in Houston care at all whether they get this channel or not. I know plenty of people who have U-Verse, DirecTV, Dish Network, private providers like Entouch cable, etc. who are not carrying CSN Houston. Hardly anyone is broken up about it at all. Of the few who are disappointed that they can't watch the Rockets or Astros, NONE of them are switching providers to Comcast to remedy the situation. A few have told me they're going to get a Roku and subscribe to MLB.TV, or maybe they'll listen on the radio. Forget it CSN Houston, you botched this worse than New Coke.

[oufanindallas]

A few have told me they're going to get a Roku and subscribe to MLB.TV, or maybe they'll listen on the radio. Forget it CSN Houston, you botched this worse than New Coke.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't MLB TV blackout your home team? 

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

They do black out the local games when live, but they're available as an archived game about 90 minutes after the game is over. Useful for early games or weekend games, or if you just want to stay up late.

I'm not saying it's right, but I also have heard that some people get a relative or friend elsewhere in the country to subscribe on their behalf so that the billing zip code is not where their local team plays.

[bill4002]

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

They do black out the local games when live, but they're available as an archived game about 90 minutes after the game is over. Useful for early games or weekend games, or if you just want to stay up late.

I'm not saying it's right, but I also have heard that some people get a relative or friend elsewhere in the country to subscribe on their behalf so that the billing zip code is not where their local team plays.

---

Billing zip code means zilch, they blackout according to IP location.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

bill4002 wrote:

Billing zip code means zilch, they blackout according to IP location.

---

They definitely do that on MLB.com, but I'm not positive about MLB.TV.

Of course, if they do, that's nothing that a VPN can't fix.

[oufanindallas]

I'm a Rangers fan and while I congratulate the Astros for their opening day win against my team, the Astros fans should really be ashamed of themselves. I know your team hasn't been the best, but seriously, there are more Ranger fans in the stadium tonight than their are Astros fans.  Maybe that greedy SOB owner and the owner of the Rockets will realize that by not having your team available on TV is really not helping your cause any. 

At least you should be able to watch the Astro's on Fox Sports when they are playing the Rangers.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

Here is another interesting article:

http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/csn-houston-takes-air-affiliate-battle/142574

[oufanindallas]

The banner read: "DirecTV, AT&T and Dish dropped your Houston teams…But your bill is the same.” The message was underlined by the Web address, IwantCSN Houston.com...

Really, the providers didn't "drop" the teams, in fact the channel is still there, the GREEDY owners of the Rockets and Astros are the ones to blame.  I'm sorry, I feel sorry for the Astros fans, they have the lowest payroll in MLB, the 8th highest ticket price, the most expensive RSN fees and the worst team in baseball. To say they are MLB is stretching it.  

Fans of those teams should be pounding on the owners doors demanding they lower their asking price for the channel especially since he has no intention of fielding a competitive team.

[americangame ACE - Warrior]

---

oufanindallas wrote:

The banner read: "DirecTV, AT&T and Dish dropped your Houston teams…But your bill is the same.” The message was underlined by the Web address, IwantCSN Houston.com...

Really, the providers didn't "drop" the teams, in fact the channel is still there, the GREEDY owners of the Rockets and Astros are the ones to blame.  I'm sorry, I feel sorry for the Astros fans, they have the lowest payroll in MLB, the 8th highest ticket price, the most expensive RSN fees and the worst team in baseball. To say they are MLB is stretching it.  

Fans of those teams should be pounding on the owners doors demanding they lower their asking price for the channel especially since he has no intention of fielding a competitive team.

---

Doesn't help that the old owner did everything he could to make the team as worthless as possible while trying to sell the team. Jim Crane has only had the team for a little over a year so you can't really blame him for the fact that the team he purchased was a glorified farm league for the Yankees.