Comcast Situation
by Bakasama on Nov 18, 2009 11:51 AM PST
48 comments
I figured this might be a good Fanpost instead of a fanshot. I was listening to Canzano on my drive home yesterday and he has a segment called "the Skinny". In it he had information concerning the deal the Blazers have with Comcast and how Comcast is handling the negotiations with DirecTV and CSN.
The little bit of the news is that the blazers have formally told Comcast that if there is not a deal in place but the end of the calendar year then there will be penalties for Comcast.
The penalties could be that the blazers stream games on their site to allow those fans who do not have Comcast to see the game. Comcast says this would hurt their leverage and therefore their business.
Is this something the Blazers should be worrying about, especially since they just launched a video streaming service? Also from what I have researched Comcast has usually taken 2 to three years after they establish a channel to get it onto competitors broadcasts.
Thoughts?
About the 34 minute mark of the podcast linked below is where Canzano talks about the Blazers and Comcast.
http://vault.desjalogic.com/rcrweb/podcasts/sports/BFT_Tuesday_11-17-09_Hour_2.mp3
1 recs |
48 comments
Email
Print
Comments
...
I think comcast is making this to be a joke. They are exaggerating the amount it will hurt their business. People like me who acknowledge that they have to watch bills and can not afford $30+ for basic cable (which i would only watch the blazers, it’s an absolute joke) would rather watch streams. But the realistic situation that comcast has to realize is people who can’t afford their outrageous prices for basic cable usually end up just going to a friends or a bar. What’s hurting comcast is their prices, i wish there was some other cheap deal with less channels but apparently it’s not possible in 2009.
I just can’t believe how much cable is now, is it me or didn’t it seem wayyy cheaper back in the day?
-brandonmitchell.org
by brandonmitchell on Nov 18, 2009 12:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, unfortunately
As far as cable companies go, Comcast is about as good as it gets. They all have their downfalls. But compared to Time Warner, Cox, Charter, etc you get much more for your dollar with Comcast. Their customer service is pretty awful but that also is par for the course.
I have been in telecom industry for a little while now. I did residential installs for Comcast in East Portland/ Gresham/ Happy Valley until October of last year when I moved to Texas. It’s a pretty small percentage of people who have Comcast just for CSNNW. Most people would have it anyway, and most people who have Dish or Direct don’t make the jump for the one channel. Some do for sure, but it’s a very low percentage. I’m sure they make plenty of money off owning the broadcasting rights to all those games though.
I have Dish now, and am quite happy with it. But the cable company around here is Time Warner, and they are an absolute joke. Higher prices, less service, slower internet speeds/$, laughable equipment, etc. When I first moved here I looked into working for them and was shocked a company such as theirs can stay in business at all.
An Oregonian in Texas.
by NoiseMekanik on Nov 18, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am one of the few...
…who switched from DirecTV to Comcast just for the Blazers. I am very happy to watch the Boys every game in Hi-Def but I have to say… DirecTV’s actual service was superior. the DVR worked better and faster, the service included more perks and channels (NASCAR Track Pass for Example) and the “digital interface” as people who warned me called it is far better on DirecTV then Comcast. Comcast freezes and won’t change channels, the DVR is slow to respond and apparently the memory or whatever speeds response is inferior because sometimes it just won’t do what’s asked (change channels, bring up the guide, record or delete a show etc…)
The reality is the best case for me is if DirecTV was able to carry CSNW. If that was possible I never would have switched… I sold my soul to the cable devil for you so…
GO BLAZERS!!!
by Ilikeemall on Nov 18, 2009 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
most people dont notice
but comcasts picture quality is vastly superior to the satellites
I’m not a pixelphile or anything but i think in terms of picture quality for tv sources i think its broken down like this…
OTA (local channels) > fios > cable > satellite
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 18, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's kind of hard for me to judge...
I didn’t have Hi-Def before so my picture on our Flat Screen in the livingroom is top notch in comparison. I don’t really notice any difference on the non- Hi-def TV in teh bedroom but then again I don’t have the freezing up problem like on the other TV either…
by Ilikeemall on Nov 18, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is, in my opinion, untrue!
I have Dish and my daughter has Comcast. On HD channels satellite has a slight edge, although both are good. On non-hd channels on a flat screen cable is slightly better. This is my own opinion based on my own perceptions, so is subject to being wrong. I have also never read or heard anyone claim cable is better than sat.
by crakarjack on Nov 18, 2009 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i guess things have changed
just looked a few things up and at one point comcast had better picture than the satellites for HD, but they started compressing their content even more than the satellite companies in order to deliver more channels.
all in all OTA channels and FIOS are both uncompressed and should yield the best results possible given the source of the content.
All signals transmitted via cable or satellite are compressed. HD signals in their purest form are much too large to fit the bandwidth available via cable or satellite. A recent article in Multichannel News suggests that a single pure HD stream at the highest resolution specification in wide commercial use consumes about 36 times the bandwidth available via one channel in a modern cable network.
So cable and satellite providers compress the signal remarkably to conserve space and add programming. And according to Terrestrial Digital President Richard Schneider, the problem is only getting worse.
"As cable and satellite providers begin adding more channels, each signal will have to be compressed a little more to accommodate," Schneider said. "The result will be increasingly less impressive HD pictures and an upset customer base."
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 18, 2009 11:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the block quoting got screwed up
should have block quoted the rest of the post
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 18, 2009 11:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
totally not true
Dish Network has better HD picture quality, for sure. But most of that is probably due to superior receiver boxes (best in the industry, hands down). But there are soooooo many variables that must be taken into account beyond the provider and their equipment.
An Oregonian in Texas.
by NoiseMekanik on Nov 19, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i already retracted my statement
regardless fios is the only way to get uncompressed channels
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 19, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FIOS is also compressed.
All digital video signals are compressed including over-the-air HD broadcasts, DVDs, Blu-ray (HD) discs, etc. It is impossible for a consumer to get uncompressed digital video signals. Even the highest quality professional video material is compressed, (albeit) more lightly, for archiving movies from which consumer video releases are ultimately produced.
There are differences between the amount of compression used for over-the-air broadcasts, satellite companies, cable/FIOS companies, etc. It varies from channel to channel even from the same provider. It also varies over time. DirecTV was one of the first HD providers that initially reduced the resolution (softened the picture) of their HD broadcasts in order to reduce bit rates, and that was known in the industry as HD-Lite (a derogatory term) at the time. That may be where you got the idea that cable provided better HD video quality, which was true at the time.
Today, the amount of compression used by all providers changes as they add channels, change equipment, reduce analog services (cable companies are doing that to reclaim bandwidth for additional HD channels), etc. The compression methods have also changed, and will continue to change over time to allow more channels in the same bandwidth. Cable systems will also be changing to different methods of distributing digital video, one of which is called Switched Digital Video (SDV) that will ultimately provide them with enormously higher effective bandwidth so that much lower compression will be possible. Comcast has done limited SDV trials in some parts of the country, but doesn’t have a timeline for it yet (the last time I asked) because of the high cost of equipment conversions.
Disclaimer: I don’t work for Comcast or any other service provider, but I design digital video equipment and I’m very involved in the video industry.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 19, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you have one of the old grey DVR's they are absolutely horrible
Comcast does have out some new smaller black DVR’s that are 10x better along with having at least twice the storage space, Comcast let me go to the local service center and swap them out.
Rooo-D!
by truls on Nov 18, 2009 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It is a Grey DVR...
I’ll have to check into that…thanks forthe tip!
by Ilikeemall on Nov 18, 2009 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
SOLD MY SOUL . . .
to the cable DEVIL. (COINCAST)
* GIANT CABLE MONOPOLY, GREEDY NO GOOD PHILLY PILE . . .
SORRY I GOT CARRIED AWAY . . .
OH & COINCAST SUCKS !!!!!
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 19, 2009 4:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a pretty small percentage of people who have Comcast just for CSNNW
I know I am one of those people. Every fall I get CSNNW and the HD-DVR so I can get all the blazers games, every summer I cancel. I am very pleased with the HD road games this year.
by Avoozl on Nov 18, 2009 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...
I know they all suck but that problem is they don’t offer options for everybody. Most of the people who I know don’t have cable but I know if they offered some kind of plan for Comcast Sportsnet they would get it.
For god sakes I just got internet with them and there 6 months plan for $27/month is great, but once it expires it goes up to over $50 a month for basic internet.
-brandonmitchell.org
by brandonmitchell on Nov 18, 2009 11:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
did the drama well dry up... clownzano had to go dig out ol faithful ..
The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.
by faith on Nov 18, 2009 12:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
At least Canzano is still fighting the good fight
Entering the third year of this fiasco, I can’t believe Canzano is the only one seemingly keeping this issue alive. Good to hear the Blazers are finally talking penalties. I’ll be interested to see what they are.
by Dominator13 on Nov 19, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for realz
where’s my $25/month plan where I can pick six channels? Up here it’s close to $60 for cable service, and like you, all I want are blazer games.
we don’t even have a tv, so web streams are the weapon of choice. if a legit service could be put together with the quality of the recent justin.tv feeds, I’d pay a few bucks a game for sure.
the other thing that sucks is that the NBA put so much effort to get League Pass Mobile put together — without including audio league pass. I wish there was a way to listen to the radio feed on my phone somehow. Can’t stand wheeler, but at least it’d be something.
I’m still amazed there’s no blazer radio affiliate in Seattle.
by greyhound9 on Nov 18, 2009 12:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not a fan of Comcast, but a la carte cable would make it more expensive for everyone and/or have channels many people might want besides sports go out of business. E.g. HBO would be prohibitively expensive if a cable company could only spread it over those who subscribe to it.
Ceterum censeo Lakers esse delendam
by Norsktroll on Nov 18, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes - we need a Seattle radio affiliate. Now.
or maybe yesterday.
"whoever scores the most points is probably gonna win the game"
by kobestopper on Nov 18, 2009 12:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
While DirecTV and Dish
are hardly blameless in all this, Comcast seems to have made the business decision to hold Blazer coverage hostage in the hopes that (1) those who can switch to Comcast do so and/or (2) the price point for CSN is set at a level that is drives the sattelite price up, making Comcast a better option. I’m confused as to why Comcast can’t reach the same agreement it has with DirecTV for CSN Bay Area and S.Cal (which are available on the DirecTV sports pack for an extra monthly charge, bundled with ESPNU, MSG, etc.), so my guess is the reasons I mentioned above – hurt the competion, drive consumers to Comcast.
While it’s annoying, at least I have the option – I live in Northeast, so I could switch to Comcast – but after dealing with them in college, I’d rather send my money elsewhere. Horrible customer service, dodgy broadcast (I would hope this has improved), and high fees (I get a way better deal for what I want to watch with the dish). That, and JustinTV makes my “principled” stand more palatable. However, the organization really should have negotiated a better deal for the sizable chunk of folks who couldn’t get Comcast even if they wanted to. This is one of the few points I agree with Canzano on – the Comcast debacle is a black eye for the organization, and rather than dodging questions like a politician, Laryy Miller should get on this problem.
I hate Comcast
Card carrying member of Team Bayless
Start Rudy
by blazeraddict on Nov 18, 2009 1:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
But Laaawwy Miller wants . . .
the Blazer brand to go all over the World !
To bad he can’t even get it to the rest of Oregon !
Blazer business management is pathetic !!!
This HORRRRRRIBLE deal has left a BAD taste in many
Blazermaniacs throats !!
It's GO time !
by walkoff41 on Nov 19, 2009 4:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
just give me the opportunity
I have dish network. Where I live just outside of portland, Dish or direct is my only choice. Not having even an option to buy games is what is most frustrating. With a family, I can’t just go to the bar or elsewhere to whatch the game. I propose an opportunity to whach games as pay per view on dish or direct. 3.99 seems like an acceptable price. same as a movie. If they could do that, the problem could be solved and they would make there money.
by blue duke on Nov 18, 2009 1:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that sucks for sure.
As I’m sure Blazers games are blacked out on Dish League Pass. I have LP and haven’t missed a game yet. My one complaint is that only about half of them are in HD. Other than that it’s great. Really I can watch any and every NBA game I want to. If you counted just the Blazers games, it would cost about 2.50 per game, as some are on TNT or ESPN. But I find myself dropping in on other games much more frequently than I figured I would.
An Oregonian in Texas.
by NoiseMekanik on Nov 18, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Verizon FIOS is a halfway decent option if you can get it
CSN is broadcast in widescreen 480P. It actually comes in horizontally compressed and I have to stretch it to make it look correct. It’s not true HD, but FIOS has probably the best SD picture available. For HD snobs like myself it’s a little annoying, but it’s definitely not as bad I as expected it to be. Last year, CSN looked terrible.
by levelhed on Nov 18, 2009 3:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I take it back
Last night was just plain ol 4:3 SD. Comcast Sucks.
by levelhed on Nov 19, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does Fios carry the HD channel this year?
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Nov 19, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nvrmind, I should have read a little closer
Witty Unpredictable Talent and Natural Game
by iDea on Nov 19, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been with DirecTV since 1996
and I’m not switching for one channel. I have 3 DVR’s and I’m not going through the hassel of having comcast come out and run new lines ect…. I just wish they would be more reasonable with the satelite companies on their pricing structure. I hope it’s true that the Blazers are going to get tough with Comcast. I’d pay to see them streamed on the net if that was my options.
by Flapbreaker on Nov 18, 2009 4:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry to hear that.
If you can get comcast or verizon and choose to stick with directTV then you should reevaluate your fandom. I hate comcast just like everyone who bleeds scarlet red and black, so I switched to verizon when it was available, and now I can see all of the games and screw that Oregon Hating Company Crapcast!
3rd down... chainsaw noise please.
by GoBlaze22 on Nov 18, 2009 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
he is more loyal to directv than he is the blazers
jk
i can’t wait for fios to be in my neighborhood.
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 18, 2009 11:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Directv
They are also having a dispute w/comcast about the Versus channel. Their negotiations failed and they had to pull the channel. So now I can’t watch the NHL, Tour de France, Bull riding, MMA, Indy racing, the list goes on. That’s not even mentioning the Blazers! I may have to go to Dish, I will not cave in to Comcast!
COMCAST SUCKS!!
"Let's win the playoffs!!!!!"- Rudy Fernandez
by shamman on Nov 18, 2009 5:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
why dont directv and comcast just play fair
directv should give up exclusivity of nfl league pass, and comcast can give them versus and csn.
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 18, 2009 11:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I like your style philthyanimal.
a Television utopia, I can imagine it now…
3rd down... chainsaw noise please.
by GoBlaze22 on Nov 19, 2009 1:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lame post! Comcast is AWESOME!
I love my Comcast!
by Comcast Lover on Nov 19, 2009 5:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
IF they are making progress
it is only because Comcast has gotten as far as they can with their current strategy. By this point, anybody who was going to switch/ subscribe to Comcast just for CSN/Blazers has already done so.
The marginal benefit of selling the channel to other services is becoming bigger than that of hoarding it in order to attract new subscribers.
Two points scored by GO’ = "thunderdunk"
by T$ 225 on Nov 19, 2009 12:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Rather than blaming Canzano,
I think we should all be thanking him. He is the only one that tries to keep this issue alive! I am disappointed in Dave, Ben, Quick, Freeman, etc., that they have not taken a more aggressive stand against this comcrap. I am also disappointed in the bedgers that profess their love of Comcast, just because they got theirs, even though many of their bedge family are getting screwed. Ain’t that a huge factor in what is wrong with our society?
Since Comcast got this contract, they have not only locked out everyone w/o their service, (and a few other small cable companies), but they have also wiped out the League Pass option for almost everybody in Oregon and Washington. That is a direct attack on the satellite providers, but to what end? Most people that are struggling w/ this issue are not able to switch to Comcast. We seem to be pawns in some larger greed issue.
As far as the satellite providers culpability in this situation, it seems they are not willing to pay what Comcast is demanding. This seems obvious, but the fact that they have made deals w/ just about every other regional Comcast sports network, it looks like the sat companies don’t think this small market opportunity would be profitable at Comcasts required price.
As far as the Blazers culpability goes, they jumped at the $10 million bucks w/o providing for it’s whole fan base. Since they have bigger fish to fry (Larry Miller’s insulting remarks about global expansion) they also must not believe that the out of PDX market is lucrative enough to worry about. (While I am thinking about it, you think that might be why they kept the little Australian PG instead of Ime?. Expansion in the Australian market?)
We need to keep this story alive! Thanks Bakasama!
by crakarjack on Nov 19, 2009 12:38 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Hey philthyanimal,
all the way through this thread you sound like a Comcast employee. Are you? Just axing.
by crakarjack on Nov 19, 2009 1:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i've said a few times that FIOS is better than Comcast
meWOW
by Philthyanimal on Nov 19, 2009 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, do you work for fios?
Or maybe you own stock in cable technologies? Or you just have a true love and devotion to cable? Hey, hopefully this doesn’t sound hostile, because I’m really just messing w/ you.
by crakarjack on Nov 19, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The stupid thing is....
if comcast was smart instead of KGW streaming games for a price ( which doesnt make cents), comcast would and then they could own everyones soul. But they are ignorant.
Momma.....der go dat man
by AllHailRoy on Nov 19, 2009 2:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think there are some points that most people are missing about the coverage issues
Typically Comcast is portrayed as the evil party in this struggle, however …there is a lot blame to spread around…a lot.
- Fox Sports Net ….low balling the Blazers for the broadcast rights, forcing the team to find another provider (enter Comcast)
- Comcast for overpaying the Blazers for broadcast rights (before the economy took a dump) requiring higher licensing fees
- Direct TV for screwing with their own subscribers by using them as pawns in a battle to low ball Comcast (even after Comcast lowered it’s asking price, confirmed by Larry Miller)
- Charter for being in bankruptcy and not providing their customer’s Blazer coverage (if the pricing is feasable for Bend Broadband it should be OK for Charter)
- NBA for setting up the ridiculous blackout rules (yeah it is them…. not Comcast or even the Blazers who dictate blackout rules.). The NBA is also what is causing the live streaming to be as expensive as it is ($3.99 per game….wow!!) since they are charging most of the price for the rights to stream those games (also confirmed by Larry Miller).
Anyway the point being ….much of the stuff that Comcast gets blamed for is actually caused by other parties but Comcast has been anointed as the villain because of guys like Canzano and also because their name is on the channel everyone wants and not enough people have. Do not get me wrong ….Comcast is not blameless in this deal but they are far from the only culprit.
PS to AllHailRoy…Comcast would not be allowed to stream the games in the fashion you describe this would be restricted to Blazers with the NBA’s input….all they are allowed to do is what they have been doing….televise the games on their channel and then try to sell the channel to other providers (as well as their own customers).
"And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
by 92wastheyear on Nov 20, 2009 2:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
