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.
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
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.
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?
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.
