# Coalition fights Blazers' sellout of fans



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Canzano hits another homerun and highlights people who have no chance of getting Comcast service and their efforts to affect change. I also like the snotty East Coast response at the end of the article. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/or...sports/1197431743275010.xml&coll=7&thispage=2



> The staff of three employees at the office of the American Land Rights Association installed a new telephone line this week, and they began answering calls, "Hello, Blazer Fan Access Coalition."
> 
> Also, on Monday, they sent out 21,000 e-mails to Trail Blazers' fans living in rural areas. And as you read this today, there's a good chance they're feeding some of the 14,000 proposed fax transmissions they plan to send out.
> 
> ...


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

I hve to say I really dug this article. I hope something comes of the coalition.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Nice article by Canzano. I'd love it if Blazers fans would show a solidarity here in Portland that maybe doesn't exist elsewhere in the country. I know it's not likely to happen, but it would really put Comcast (why is it I want to refer to them as "Scumcast"?) into a tizzy if they started getting calls from current subscribers threatening to change to another provider if Comcast doesn't make the broadcast available to other carriers at a reasonable price.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Nice article by Canzano. I'd love it if Blazers fans would show a solidarity here in Portland that maybe doesn't exist elsewhere in the country. *I know it's not likely to happen, but it would really put Comcast (why is it I want to refer to them as "Scumcast"?) into a tizzy if they started getting calls from current subscribers threatening to change to another provider if Comcast doesn't make the broadcast available to other carriers at a reasonable price.*


No offense, fellow Blazer fans, but as a Comcast subscriber and one who gets to see all the games, **** that.

-Pop


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> No offense, fellow Blazer fans, *but as a Comcast subscriber and one who gets to see all the games, **** that.*
> -Pop



That's a pretty selfish way to look at the situation. Typical of my generation and younger, however, so I'm not surprised.

If Comcast is fine missing out on 650,000 households of consumers, then I am fine not watching the team play. I'm also not going to any more games this season until this situation is resolved, and judging by the lowball offers on the TV broadcast last night for the 200 level, it appears I am not the only one staying home.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I will only go to the remaining games I have in my 10 game package and no more until there is a deal with other providers. I also will make sure I don't spend one penny on any of the Blazer sponsors. The Blazers said that would be ok with them. I highly doubt that when they get less money from their sponsors. I can't get Comcast at the coast even if I wanted too.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

In case you didn't see in on page 1 of the Oregonian, here's another article about the Comcast situation:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1197431710275010.xml&coll=7


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

e_blazer1 said:


> In case you didn't see in on page 1 of the Oregonian, here's another article about the Comcast situation:
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1197431710275010.xml&coll=7


Excellent article. I recommend EVERY Blazer fan read it regardless if you have Comcast, satellite, Charter, FIOS or whatever. It's well written and well researched. It makes it very clear what Comcast's motivation is here - to gain market share from their competitors by forcing consumers to switch to Comcast if they want to watch Blazers games on TV.



Brent Hunsberger said:


> _"Federal law, with rare exceptions, requires cable companies to offer programming to cable and satellite competitors on fair terms. But regulators and industry experts allege that when companies such as Comcast and Time Warner control both the supply and distribution of sports programming, they can demand higher rights fees from competitors -- possibly driving rates up for everyone, including non-sports fans.
> 
> For instance, they say:
> 
> In Comcast's hometown of Philadelphia, the cable company denies satellite providers access to the city's pro baseball, hockey and basketball team games. Partly as a result, the FCC found, the region's satellite penetration was 11 percent in 2005, about half the national average of 22 percent."_


And...



Brent Hunsberger said:


> _"The Washington impasse prompted federal regulators to establish the arbitration condition in the Adelphia purchase. The FCC concluded that the lack of access to sports networks in both Philadelphia and San Diego reduced satellite subscriptions by at least a third."_


There have been lawsuits in several other markets against Comcast for monopolistic business practices and antitrust violations (do a google on Comcast and monolopoly, Comcast and lawsuit, or Comcast and antitrust for PLENTY of reading material on the subject). Their corporate business model seems to be to acquire local monopolies on desirable content and then use it to charge competitors higher than market rates and force them to also pay for less desirable programming as part of the "package". They are a corporate bully that uses monopolistic business practices to gain market share and as an unfair advantage in their "negotiations" with their competitors.

I will NEVER subscribe to ANY Comcast service. I will NOT change providers to feed their corporate greed. Even if they manage to successfully use non-competitive business practices to drive all their competitors out of business, I will never have Comcast cable service in my house. I'd rather give up TV altogether than give Comcast my business. 

Due to their past non-competitive business practices, the FCC has had to step in and mandated "that Comcast share all current and future regional sports networks with competitors on reasonable terms -- or face commercial arbitration."

Well, if they were offering "reasonable terms" this would have been resolved by now. Time to stop *****footing around. DirecTV, Dish and Charter need to join forces and take them to court to force Comcast into federally mandated commercial arbitration.

This is where your letters come in. Write your current provider, and send a copy to the TrailBlazers, urging them to band together against Comcast and force them into arbitration. Due to Comcast's record for monopolistic practices, arbitration is the only way a deal can be reached that's fair to all parties - and gets us what we want, more Blazer games on our TVs.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> No offense, fellow Blazer fans, but as a Comcast subscriber and one who gets to see all the games, **** that.


I recently signed up for Comcast specifically so I could get the games. I know it sucks for others who can't see them just yet, especially if they can't get out of their current contract. Hopefully something is in the works to bring that channel to other services shortly. In the meantime, maybe we could show a bit of resourcefulness within our community and watch games at the homes of those that do have it. I'm in SE and if someone wants to PM me about watching a game or three I'll probably be home watching them... I've an 8' wide projection screen :smile:




Canzano said:


> I explained yellow Hummers, and league records for technical fouls, and loading dock incidents, and pointed out that all this, despite perennial playoff appearances, resulted in an empty Rose Garden Arena because fans here are not like the blind sheep who line up to be sheered in other markets.


Never one to let facts get in the way of his oft repeated myths, the empting of the RG happened seasons after these events when the losing started. 

STOMP


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Someone in Blazer management should be taking criticism, not just Comcast, because this was forseeable and is still preventable. Fox had the contract until this summer, and they managed to have everyone see games. The Blazers could threaten to abrogate the contract in court, or just stop cooperating with Comcast, let them sue, buy out their contract, and return it to Fox.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I feel bad for people who are out of the area and don't have comcast as a choice, but for all others who have the choice, I don't feel bad. You choose to not watch the Blazer games, I choose to watch them.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

The team got rid of everyone who could even remotely be tagged with the "Bad Character" label.

They have actually won several games in a row, and are not stinking the place out.

Despite this, there are some people who just have to find an excuse to piss in the cornflakes. Not satisfied with making themselves miserable, they are determined that the rest of us don the sack-cloth and ashes with them.

I say this with all due respect and affection: bugger off and stop coming up with excuses to be unhappy!


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Maybe this is a good sign:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/12/verizon_cable_has_deal_to_carr.html

And while we're on the subject, it's irritates me that Comcast has coerced some areas in Oregon to eliminate potential competition. We don't have any other options for cable in my area and they've increased the price every year for about the last 20 without adding much in the way of services or channels. I have a friend who has Comcast in the Santa Barbara area (much much higher cost of living and wages there) and she pays less than half of what we do and gets more channels.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> The team got rid of everyone who could even remotely be tagged with the "Bad Character" label.
> 
> They have actually won several games in a row, and are not stinking the place out.
> 
> ...


Along those same lines, I find it inappropropriate to be asking fans to boycott the Blazers.

While some find it selfish that Blazer fans with comcast aren't concerned about those without it. I find it selfish that those without comcast want everyone to boycott the Blazers and thus hurt the organization. 

Cushman is trying to preach some moral high ground as to why we should all boycott the Blazers to serve his own self interest.

And if verizon can strike a deal with comcast the first week thye are up and running, why can't directtv?

Are we sure cushman is a blazer fan and not a directtv representative?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> I* recently signed up for Comcast specifically so I could get the games.*
> STOMP


I hope you are OK with dramatic rate increases for your Comcast package over the next year. If Comcast Sports stays exclusive to Comcast Cable, that $130 million isn't going to pay for itself, and the advertisers will expect cuts due to the relatively small audience size.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Along those same lines, I find it inappropropriate to be asking fans to boycott the Blazers.
> 
> While some find it selfish that Blazer fans with comcast aren't concerned about those without it. I find it selfish that those without comcast want everyone to boycott the Blazers and thus hurt the organization.
> 
> ...



:clap:

Most of us get to choose who we get our TV service from. Sure you didnt know a year or more ago that the Blazers would be on CSN and your service doesnt have that channel... but thats the nature of the business. Not all the various HD channels are available to me on Comcast that some of you who have the dish get. Do I complain? No, because I choose to stick with Comcast. Just like buying a car, you have to choose which make/model (comcast/dish) works best for you because they dont all have the same features (channels). I know its easier for me to think this way since I have CSN, but I just dont understand so many people blaming CSN/Blazers/Dish for the choice they made.

I think CSN will be on the Dish's soon anyway and we'll all be happy watching our Trail Blazers.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

GOD said:


> I feel bad for people who are out of the area and don't have comcast as a choice, but for all others who have the choice, I don't feel bad. *You choose to not watch the Blazer games, I choose to watch them*.



Would you like to pay for me to get out of my current situation? A situation in which I could watch the games last year? Short-sighted, selfish posts like these make everyone lose in the long-run.

Get ready for rate increases! I had Comcast for years, and by the time I dumped them I was paying 3x what I had originally signed up for. Or, Comcast's monopolistic practices work, no other options are available, and Comcast then charges us whatever they please.

I'm with BNM. I will never support anything Comcast again. This is two times I've been burned by them; at least the first time was financial and I had a much cheaper (DirecTV) option.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Dish and DirectTV never raise their rates? ever? I doubt that.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> *I know its easier for me to think this way since I have CSN*, but I just dont understand so many people blaming CSN/Blazers/Dish for the choice they made.
> 
> I think CSN will be on the Dish's soon anyway and we'll all be happy watching our Trail Blazers.


You are right. It is much easier for you to think this way. Now imagine you are locked into a 2 year contract for Comcast and DirecTV starts a network and won't let you see Blazer games. Games that you saw last year. To say that people shouldn't be upset about this is just silly. Great, you have Comcast. In the world of the internet, I feel that some of you feel superior to those of us shut out of games this year due to a TV viewing decision made years ago.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

B_&_B said:


> :clap:
> 
> Most of us get to choose who we get our TV service from. Sure you didnt know a year or more ago that the Blazers would be on CSN and your service doesnt have that channel... but thats the nature of the business. Not all the various HD channels are available to me on Comcast that some of you who have the dish get. Do I complain? No, because I choose to stick with Comcast. Just like buying a car, you have to choose which make/model (comcast/dish) works best for you because they dont all have the same features (channels). I know its easier for me to think this way since I have CSN, but I just dont understand so many people blaming CSN/Blazers/Dish for the choice they made.
> 
> I think CSN will be on the Dish's soon anyway and we'll all be happy watching our Trail Blazers.


You have a choice but many (I think 300,000-600,000) can't even get Comcast if they wanted too. I understand if you have a choice and want to watch the Blazers switch to Comcast. I know it isn't easy with contract's with your provider etc. I can't see why Comcast wouldn't want to sell their channel to cable company's that are serving an area where Comcast isn't available. You would think any money from those cable company's and the extra ad revenue from extra viewers would help Comcast.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> Dish and DirectTV never raise their rates? ever? I doubt that.



Yuck it up. If the other providers stand their ground, you will be paying for Comcast's monopolistic and hardball tactics.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

B_&_B said:


> Dish and DirectTV never raise their rates? ever? I doubt that.


They do raise rates but usually less often and at a smaller increase.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

PapaG said:


> Would you like to pay for me to get out of my current situation? A situation in which I could watch the games last year? Short-sighted, selfish posts like these make everyone lose in the long-run.
> 
> Get ready for rate increases! I had Comcast for years, and by the time I dumped them I was paying 3x what I had originally signed up for. Or, Comcast's monopolistic practices work, no other options are available, and Comcast then charges us whatever they please.
> 
> I'm with BNM. I will never support anything Comcast again. This is two times I've been burned by them; at least the first time was financial and I had a much cheaper (DirecTV) option.


It's a business decision by them. I wish I got GSN so I could watch High Stakes Poker, but that's not an option unless I want to pay more. I choose not to. Cable TV is not a Right. It is a luxury that we pay for. I think the analogy above about the make/model of car is apt to this choice. I would love to drive a porsche but they cost too much for me, so I choose something in my price range, but i don't get the power, handling and style that porsche offers. 

You signed a 2 year contract. Whose fault is that? You wanted lower rates, and you got that. But there is a cost for paying less, you get less. THis non-stop pity party is tiring. 

I was thinking of leaving comcast to save a few bucks but then this whole blazer thing happened and I decided to stick with Comcast. If they open up the service to everyone, they may lose me as a customer. Does it make sense for them to do something that will lose them customers? I don't think so. So if they are going to give up the rights to the channel, they have to make sure that they get something in return thats worth the potential loss in customer base. That would be a hefty chunk of change for the channel. When the price that other companies are willing to pay is more then they will lose by not keeping the channel private, they will make the deal.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

GOD said:


> It's a business decision by them. I wish I got GSN so I could watch High Stakes Poker, but that's not an option unless I want to pay more. I choose not to. Cable TV is not a Right. It is a luxury that we pay for. I think the analogy above about the make/model of car is apt to this choice. I would love to drive a porsche but they cost too much for me, so I choose something in my price range, but i don't get the power, handling and style that porsche offers.
> 
> You signed a 2 year contract. Whose fault is that? You wanted lower rates, and you got that. But there is a cost for paying less, you get less. THis non-stop pity party is tiring.
> 
> I was thinking of leaving comcast to save a few bucks but then this whole blazer thing happened and I decided to stick with Comcast. If they open up the service to everyone, they may lose me as a customer. Does it make sense for them to do something that will lose them customers? I don't think so. So if they are going to give up the rights to the channel, they have to make sure that they get something in return thats worth the potential loss in customer base. That would be a hefty chunk of change for the channel. When the price that other companies are willing to pay is more then they will lose by not keeping the channel private, they will make the deal.


And again, I wonder what tune you would be whistling if the shoe was on the other foot. I honestly can't see why any of you would be trying to put down fellow fans like me for a freaking TV decision. It's foolish, and if you noticed, the "boycott" emails were sent out to people in the affected regions. I just happen to be joining it now that Canzano wrote about it. KGW/TNT/ESPN games I will watch. CSN games? Not a chance on TV or radio, and I won't be purchasing any game tickets for me or my clients. Of course, now you can get 200 level seats for $22/each, which is hilarious in and of itself.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

I don't blame Comcast for trying to get the maximum mileage out of their investment in the Blazer broadcast rights. I blame Blazers management for being willing to sell so many of their fans down the river by agreeing to give Comcast a monopoly. They have absolutely no excuse as they went through the difficulties of trying to negotiate their own deal with cable and satellite providers for their own regional sports network a few years back. They also had full knowledge of what Comcast did in other markets. I don't know exactly how many more dollars the Blazers got out of Comcast vs. what FSN was offering, but you have to wonder if some dimwit actually thought those dollars wouldn't come at the expense of some pretty PO'd fans. As I've said in other threads, I live outside of Comcast's area and have absolutely no options to get their broadcasts. For me, the Blazers' decision effectively removed my opportunity to see around 25 or so games per year that were formerly available on FSN. It's really dandy that a lot of you who can get Comcast get to see all of the games this year. For people like myself, it sucks and I'm pretty ticked off about it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Tortimer said:


> You have a choice but many (I think 300,000-600,000) can't even get Comcast if they wanted too. I understand if you have a choice and want to watch the Blazers switch to Comcast. I know it isn't easy with contract's with your provider etc. I can't see why Comcast wouldn't want to sell their channel to cable company's that are serving an area where Comcast isn't available. You would think any money from those cable company's and the extra ad revenue from extra viewers would help Comcast.


Because that would establish a "fair and reasonable rate" that they would then have to, by FCC mandate because of past non-competitive business practices, offer to their other competitors.

BNM


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Because that would establish a "fair and reasonable rate" that they would then have to, by FCC mandate because of past non-competitive business practices, offer to their other competitors.
> 
> BNM


Your right. I really didn't think about that but I'm sure that's true.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Spud147 said:


> Maybe this is a good sign:
> 
> http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/12/verizon_cable_has_deal_to_carr.html
> 
> And while we're on the subject, it's irritates me that Comcast has coerced some areas in Oregon to eliminate potential competition. We don't have any other options for cable in my area and they've increased the price every year for about the last 20 without adding much in the way of services or channels. I have a friend who has Comcast in the Santa Barbara area (much much higher cost of living and wages there) and she pays less than half of what we do and gets more channels.


That is a good sign.

I've been saying since a special deal for new subscribers for Comcast stops today that we might finally see some deals made and it looks like it has already happen.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

PapaG said:


> And again, I wonder what tune you would be whistling if the shoe was on the other foot. I honestly can't see why any of you would be trying to put down fellow fans like me for a freaking TV decision. It's foolish, and if you noticed, the "boycott" emails were sent out to people in the affected regions. I just happen to be joining it now that Canzano wrote about it. KGW/TNT/ESPN games I will watch. CSN games? Not a chance on TV or radio, and I won't be purchasing any game tickets for me or my clients. Of course, now you can get 200 level seats for $22/each, which is hilarious in and of itself.


PapaG, it's not that I don't feel bad for you, I wish that everyone go the chance to see every Blazer game. But, this whole boycott thing and blaming Comcast is wrong in my opinion. Dish, or whoever you are with is making a business decision just as comcast is. Dish knows that most of their viewers are with them to save money, so they don't want to pay for a product that will raise their rates. Comcast is spending a lot of money to have the rights and produce the channel, and they don't want to give it away. This is not one companies fault, or anyones fault. This is how business works. 

I equate the people organizing this boycott to people who try to legalize weed. They spend tons of money and energy trying to push through some legislation to make pot legal, which just isn't very important. Imagine if those people spent the same amount of time fighting for something of importance like raising funds to fight cancer, or help starving children. They could make a big difference. But instead they spend all their time trying to legalize marijuana because they smoke weed. You watch blazer games so you think it should be your right to watch the games on whatever package you choose. I just don't think that this reaches the level of boycott. 

I think everything will be worked out, and at that time I may leave comcast because I want to pay less, but until that time comes, I'll spend a little more and watch my Blazers. You can always go to a bar and watch, or over to a friends and watch, or go to a home game, or listen on the radio, or find some other way to deal with the situation if you don't want to pay to be with comcast. Choices are what drive the economy. If people were leaving dish to get the channel, then dish would offer more to get the channel. But right now, it's all just complaining. The boycott might even work since it affects financial decisions. But I doubt it will have any effect since very few people relative to the customer base will join. 

Good luck on getting a deal brokered, I hope it happens soon.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

GOD said:


> PapaG, it's not that I don't feel bad for you, I wish that everyone go the chance to see every Blazer game. But, this whole boycott thing and blaming Comcast is wrong in my opinion. Dish, or whoever you are with is making a business decision just as comcast is. Dish knows that most of their viewers are with them to save money, so they don't want to pay for a product that will raise their rates. Comcast is spending a lot of money to have the rights and produce the channel, and they don't want to give it away. This is not one companies fault, or anyones fault. This is how business works.
> 
> I equate the people organizing this boycott to people who try to legalize weed. They spend tons of money and energy trying to push through some legislation to make pot legal, which just isn't very important. Imagine if those people spent the same amount of time fighting for something of importance like raising funds to fight cancer, or help starving children. They could make a big difference. But instead they spend all their time trying to legalize marijuana because they smoke weed. You watch blazer games so you think it should be your right to watch the games on whatever package you choose. I just don't think that this reaches the level of boycott.
> 
> ...


I admit I am just incredibly frustrated by this situation. I know that I have been posting about it for months biggrin, but it just seems completely useless to try anything other than a boycott at this point. I've emailed the Blazers, I've emailed DirectTV, I've emailed Comcast...I'm done with it. It's easier to just take my ball and stay home until the corporations figure out how to make the most amount of money before they need to make a deal.

Anyhow, tell me how the game goes tonite. I won't be watching or listening.

Peace, my lord. :cheers:


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

GOD said:


> PapaG, it's not that I don't feel bad for you, I wish that everyone go the chance to see every Blazer game. But, this whole boycott thing and blaming Comcast is wrong in my opinion. Dish, or whoever you are with is making a business decision just as comcast is. Dish knows that most of their viewers are with them to save money, so they don't want to pay for a product that will raise their rates. Comcast is spending a lot of money to have the rights and produce the channel, and they don't want to give it away. This is not one companies fault, or anyones fault. This is how business works.
> 
> I equate the people organizing this boycott to people who try to legalize weed. They spend tons of money and energy trying to push through some legislation to make pot legal, which just isn't very important. Imagine if those people spent the same amount of time fighting for something of importance like raising funds to fight cancer, or help starving children. They could make a big difference. But instead they spend all their time trying to legalize marijuana because they smoke weed. You watch blazer games so you think it should be your right to watch the games on whatever package you choose. I just don't think that this reaches the level of boycott.
> 
> ...


It's our right to boycott Comcast and the Blazers just as it is the right of the Blazers to sell their TV rights to Comcast. I see part of your point but with the renewed interest in the Blazers IMO this is bad for them in the long run. Comcast isn't going to allow this channel to be carried on other providers. Comcast is suppose to get a reasonable value for their channel and they are not asking for a reasonable price. Comcast was asking for $2.00 per subscriber and be carried on all the providers customers which is crazy. Comcast knows this and is just asking for the moon so Directv/Dish or other cable company's won't carry the channel. Comcast legally can't do this and eventually will be fined and will have to let Directv and Dish carry the channel at a reasonable rate. Directv/Dish don't really care enough to force Comcast to allow them to carry the channel. Portland/Oregon is such a small market for them and it hardly even affects them.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

GOD said:


> PapaG, it's not that I don't feel bad for you, I wish that everyone go the chance to see every Blazer game. But, this whole boycott thing and blaming Comcast is wrong in my opinion. Dish, or whoever you are with is making a business decision just as comcast is. Dish knows that most of their viewers are with them to save money, so they don't want to pay for a product that will raise their rates. Comcast is spending a lot of money to have the rights and produce the channel, and they don't want to give it away. This is not one companies fault, or anyones fault. This is how business works.
> 
> I equate the people organizing this boycott to people who try to legalize weed. They spend tons of money and energy trying to push through some legislation to make pot legal, which just isn't very important. Imagine if those people spent the same amount of time fighting for something of importance like raising funds to fight cancer, or help starving children. They could make a big difference. But instead they spend all their time trying to legalize marijuana because they smoke weed. You watch blazer games so you think it should be your right to watch the games on whatever package you choose. I just don't think that this reaches the level of boycott.
> 
> ...




Well said man. And I agree. 
Luckily I have Comcast. They're hella expensive, but hell, thats why I work; ....for luxuries like Cable, etc 

People that dont get the choice, sorry, that's your providers deal, so blame them, not the Blazers.
:cheers: anywho, enjoy the game tonight GOD


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Another thing is we were told by the Blazers that it would all be worked out by time the season started. Everyone expected to be watching these games. It'd be a different matter if from the get go they said satellite providers wouldn't be carrying the channel. At least then you know it from the get go. The worst thing is this limbo we are stuck in not knowing when or even if for sure a deal will be made.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Oh on another note, I suppose you could always convince someone to record the game on their TV-Tuner card for your private viewing.... dunno if that's legal or not, but hell, I download TV shows all the time.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

GOD said:


> Cable TV is not a Right.


Actually, it is - at least in this country where broadcasters and cable companies use public resources (public airwaves and public utility right-of-ways) to deliver their services. In exchange for the use of these public resources, they are bound by their license, granted by the FCC, to serve the public's needs in a fair and competitive manner. So, no it's not free, but it is a right that is backed by our federal government when they grant a provider an operating license.



GOD said:


> You signed a 2 year contract. Whose fault is that? You wanted lower rates, and you got that. But there is a cost for paying less, you get less.


It's nobody's fault. However, I was misled by the Blazers and Comcast. I signed my contract with DirecTV, AFTER the Blazers announced they had sold the rights to the games to Comcast SportsNet AND that the games would also be available to satellite customers. Please read Mike Barrett's blog from May, 21, including quotes from Comcast SportsNet president John Litner. In that article BOTH the Blazers AND Comcast say that the games will be available on satellite. Here's a couple of direct quotes from that article:



Mike Barrett on May 21 said:


> "Basically, what this means to Trail Blazer fans is that you'll likely be seeing every single game next season on TV. Comcast SportsNet Northwest is now on board to carry 55 games on cable and *satellite*."
> 
> "They are currently working on a channel number for the new network on cable, *and on satellite*. Litner did say today that on cable, Comcast SportsNet Northwest would likely be on expanded basic cable. I've taken some worried e-mails in the past month asking about availability of the network to fans all over Oregon, and *to those who subscribe to a satellite provider*. Litner said today it will be *available everywhere*, and that those details will come out *in the near future*."


So, that was May and it's now December. Both the Blazers and Comcast stated the games would be available on satellite. Are they, no. They both flat out lied. I signed a two year contact with DirecTV back in early June, after reading that article, and now I'm stuck with another 18 months left on my contract and no access to the Blazers games as promised back in late May.



GOD said:


> THis non-stop pity party is tiring.


Nobody is forcing you to read it.



GOD said:


> I was thinking of leaving comcast to save a few bucks but then this whole blazer thing happened and I decided to stick with Comcast. If they open up the service to everyone, they may lose me as a customer. Does it make sense for them to do something that will lose them customers? I don't think so.


Doesn't matter what you think, they are MANDATED by the FCC to offer their competitors access to their regional sports programming at reasonable terms. If you didn't read the article in today's Oregonian (not the Canzano column, the one by Brent Hunsberger), here's one of the relevant quotes:



Brent Hunsberger said:


> "Such stalemates have unfolded elsewhere, too. In Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, cable and satellite providers have clashed over access to marquee sports programming, leaving consumers helpless on the sidelines.
> 
> Last year, the Federal Communications Commission tried a new tack to avert such disputes. It approved the buyout of Adelphia Communications Inc. by Comcast and Time Warner Cable Inc. on condition that Comcast share all current and future regional sports networks with competitors on reasonable terms"





GOD said:


> So if they are going to give up the rights to the channel


They would NOT be giving up the rights to the channel, they would be (SHOULD be according to the FCC, the federal agency that grants them their license) *selling* that programming to the other cable and satellite companies at reasonable rates - as REQUIRED by the FCC and as PROMISED by Comcast (and the Blazers) back in May when they signed the deal. Nobody is asking them to GIVE away anything. Is it to much to ask that they abide by the terms the FCC put in place to counteract their past monopolistic business practices? Is to too much to ask the games be "available everywhere" as their president promised back in late May? 



GOD said:


> they have to make sure that they get something in return thats worth the potential loss in customer base.


They would. They would get their fair and reasonable licensing fees from the other providers - as federally mandated.



GOD said:


> When the price that other companies are willing to pay is more then they will lose by not keeping the channel private, they will make the deal.


Actually, by all accounts, it is Comcast that is once again being unreasonable (and disingenuous) in their "negotiations" with the other providers. I suspect this will go to court and about the time my contract with DirecTV is up, an arbitrator will establish "reasonable" terms (as mandated by the FCC) and finally force Comcast to live up to the terms dictated by the FCC.

BNM


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

On a side note, has there ever been a "Boycott the Blazers!" group that Canzano hasn't embraced? 

I feel like starting a group: "Boycott the Blazers Untill the Dancers Wear Burquas!" Want to bet idiot boy would endorse me?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

I think a lot of people here don't understand how broadcast licensing works in this country. This isn't just a case of "that's the way business works", as some have suggested. This is *not* a "free market" situation where price is ultimately dictated by supply and demand. You can't just start a business to broadcast over the public airwaves (or go dig up everybodies' yard to bury cable). If it was that simple, I'd have my own BNM's SportNet channel - all Blazers, all the time! Broadcasting licenses are limited in availability due to limited availability of those public resources. Broadcast companies use these limited public resources that are allocated by the government, through the FCC, in the form of operating licenses. 

What that means is competition is limited, and in many markets that would result in monopolistic, or near monopolistic market conditions where, without competition, those holding the license could charge whatever they wanted. In order to prevent this from happening, the FCC requires that those they grant licenses to act in the public's interest and provide their content at fair and reasonable rates. It doesn't mean thy can't make a profit, it just means they can't change somebody 10x the going rate because they are the only game in town. This is where Comcast tends to have problems.

Comcast has been taken to court in several other markets for antitrust and non-competitive business practices. Because of their past violations, the FCC has placed special restrictions on Comcast (such as requiring them to offer their local sports programming to their competitors at reasonable terms). Like in other markets, it seems that Comcast would rather get taken to court than give up their regional monopoly. And, if a deal isn't reached soon, I suspect that's what will ultimately happen in this market like it has in many of Comcast's other markets.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

PapaG said:


> I hope you are OK with dramatic rate increases for your Comcast package over the next year. If Comcast Sports stays exclusive to Comcast Cable, that $130 million isn't going to pay for itself, and the advertisers will expect cuts due to the relatively small audience size.


As a consumer, if I'm not OK with something I'm paying for, I choose another path. I do this in lots of aspects of my life without whining to others and trying to add to my self pity party. Again, I expect the TV companies to figure something out soon enough but you're sure not gaining any support from me with your tact

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

GOD said:


> I feel bad for people who are out of the area and don't have comcast as a choice, but for all others who have the choice, I don't feel bad. You choose to not watch the Blazer games, I choose to watch them.


It's as simple as me choosing not to watch CSN on Dish?

well ****, had I know it was that easy...


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

mgb said:


> Another thing is we were told by the Blazers that it would all be worked out by time the season started. Everyone expected to be watching these games. It'd be a different matter if from the get go they said satellite providers wouldn't be carrying the channel. At least then you know it from the get go. The worst thing is this limbo we are stuck in not knowing when or even if for sure a deal will be made.


I agree with you 100%. Comcast even makes it worse by lying like they have in other markets. Of coarse if they didn't they would get in trouble. So, I guess they have to make it look like they are negotiating in good faith. Also the money has nothing to do with it for me. I would pay almost what ever Directv/Dish or Comcast want to charge. I was going to pay for NBA league pass which would have been no problem but Blazer games are blacked out for me.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

STOMP said:


> As a consumer, if I'm not OK with something I'm paying for, I choose another path.


That works great unless, as a consumer, you find that you have no choices available to get something that you want.



> I do this in lots of aspects of my life without whining to others and trying to add to my self pity party.


Last year, all Blazer fans in the Portland area had access to the free games on KGW and could subscribe to the cable or satellite service of their choice and get the games broadcast by FSN. This year Comcast subscribers have been given the keys to the kingdom and can watch every Blazer game. Those of us who don't have Comcast get only the KGW broadcasts. Those of us who live in an area where Comcast doesn't provide service have no options available to get the games. Sorry if our "whining" is bothering you. Maybe if you turn up the sound on the CSN broadcast a bit you can drown us out. I'd hate to disturb your enjoyment of the game.

And, speaking of "whining" the worst part for me is having to listen to Brian Wheeler call the games. His incessant whining voice everytime the opponent scores or gets a call is driving me nuts.



> Again, I expect the TV companies to figure something out soon enough but you're sure not gaining any support from me with your tact
> 
> STOMP


I really don't see much hope for this to get resolved in the near future. Frankly, the Blazers aren't good enough this year and are missing the Oden factor that would have had the casual fans clamoring for a resolution. As it is, it's only us fanatics who are upset enough to send the e-mails and phone in complaints. I'm not expecting Comcast to knuckle under easily and I don't see the other companies being willing to pay the asking price for what they see as not that hot of a ticket.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

BNM, you make a lot of good points. The question just comes down to what's reasonable for Comcast to demand. I don't know (and neither do the majority of us). It really sucks that Blazer fans are caught in the middle of this whole thing and I hope it gets worked out sooner than later. It is good news that one company got a deal worked out with comcast. peace.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> I'd love it if Blazers fans would show a solidarity here in Portland that maybe doesn't exist elsewhere in the country.


Anti-Comcast forces should form a local group and join the national group. League of Fans is a national organization that coordinates local organizations fighting teams and team owners. Develop Don't Destroy is an example of those local organizations. It fights New Jersey Nets owner Ratner over his plans to profit from building an arena in the middle of businesses he already owns.

http://www.leagueoffans.org/blog/

http://www.developdontdestroy.org/php/latestnews_ArchiveDate.php


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

GOD said:


> I feel bad for people who are out of the area and don't have comcast as a choice, but for all others who have the choice, I don't feel bad. You choose to not watch the Blazer games, I choose to watch them.


Thank you for your compassion, but you did notice, I hope, but there are several hundred thousand of us that have no choice. :mad2::upsetA Comcast monopoly) We cannot get Comcast if we wanted. 

In addition to sending letter or calls to our current supplier, it looks like we need to contact our representatives and maybe the FCC for pressure in arbritation.

gatorpops


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Sorry if our "whining" is bothering you.


I wasn't directing my comment at you. You're one of the many that I have empathy for. 

also I am aware of the various issues here and truly do hope things are resolved shortly

STOMP


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

GOD said:


> BNM, you make a lot of good points. The question just comes down to what's reasonable for Comcast to demand. I don't know (and neither do the majority of us). It really sucks that Blazer fans are caught in the middle of this whole thing and I hope it gets worked out sooner than later. It is good news that one company got a deal worked out with comcast. peace.


This seems easy to me. Arbitration would look at the other agreements that Comcast has made with other markets and dreive a median suggestion. I don't know these things but Comcast and Directv and Dish and Charter do. Comcast has to be asking too much im my opinon.

gatorpops


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

gatorpops said:


> Thank you for your compassion, but you did notice, I hope, but there are several hundred thousand of us that have no choice. :mad2::upsetA Comcast monopoly) We cannot get Comcast if we wanted.
> 
> In addition to sending letter or calls to our current supplier, it looks like we need to contact our representatives and maybe the FCC for pressure in arbritation.
> 
> gatorpops


Those of you far from Portland might want to note this paragraph from the Oregonian article today:



> In Sacramento, Comcast won rights to broadcast Sacramento Kings games in 2004. Charter and DirectTV accused Comcast of overcharging for the channel and *requiring them to carry games far outside Sacramento, where fewer Kings fans live.*


barfo


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

PapaG sounds like a rabble-rouser, probably violently against the Iraq War from the start. I'm with him. But Papa, you'll make more headway among those who can't get Comcast than among those who can. Pick your target audience better so you can win, and right on, right on, oh marketing skills brother. And consider running for local office someday. You've got what it takes.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Hector said:


> PapaG sounds like a rabble-rouser, probably violently against the Iraq War from the start. I'm with him. But Papa, you'll make more headway among those who can't get Comcast than among those who can. Pick your target audience better so you can win, and right on, right on, oh marketing skills brother. And consider running for local office someday. You've got what it takes.


I have no idea what you are talking about. How is pointing out an obvious misstep by the Blazers concerning their TV contract "rabble-rousing"? Also, last I checked, there were many posters in this thread who are in the same position I am; frozen out of CSN due to either no choice or TV contract obligations. What has been surprising are the hostile posts toward me for pointing it out. I'm not asking for "pity". That's just stupid, and BTW, I'm sure eblazer feels much better knowing he has some dude's empathy for his own plight. 

I don't want your pity. Frankly, I'd prefer if you didn't post anything at all regarding this since you apparently aren't in the same situation I am and all you seem to do is insult people.

Again though, I realize this is the internet, and "owning" someone is above all. Congrats, you have Comcast. You are a winner; I am a whiner.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

lol hail comcast and the interweb fight on Basketball forums everywhere!


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

Sorry, PapaG. All apologies. Just joking.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Hector said:


> Sorry, PapaG. All apologies. Just joking.



No problem. I couldn't pick pick up on your sarcasm font. :biggrin:


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Forgive me if this has been answered but I didn't want to read the whole thread...

As an out-of-state Blazer fan, I've been able to watch basically every game online for free, many of which are Blazer broadcasts. Is that not an option for those in the Portland Metro area? Is it blacked out on the internet? Also, is NBA league pass blacked out in the Portland Area? You could just spend the 170$ or whatever is and watch all the games without paying comcast, right?

Or wrong?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

ProZach said:


> Forgive me if this has been answered but I didn't want to read the whole thread...
> 
> As an out-of-state Blazer fan, I've been able to watch basically every game online for free, many of which are Blazer broadcasts. Is that not an option for those in the Portland Metro area? Is it blacked out on the internet? Also, is NBA league pass blacked out in the Portland Area? You could just spend the 170$ or whatever is and watch all the games without paying comcast, right?
> 
> Or wrong?


Wrong. All blacked out within 150 miles of the Rose Garden. Some people are hacking the Internet broadcasts, but there's no legal way to get them in the Portland Area. People anywhere else in the world can get better coverage than those of us in the local area who don't live in Comcast's service area.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> Wrong. All blacked out within 150 miles of the Rose Garden. Some people are hacking the Internet broadcasts, but there's no legal way to get them in the Portland Area. People anywhere else in the world can get better coverage than those of us in the local area who don't live in Comcast's service area.


Well screw the legal ways of getting the games online and do it illegally. It's not the authorities top priority or anything. You won't be a cellmate with Vick anytime soon. I think the ridiculous nature of your predicament would allow for this slight slip in moral standards.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Everyone wants to blame Comcast, but it isn't just their fault. Like some have pointed out, they are making a business decision. They paid a high price for rights to the Blazer games, and they expect a nice ROI for that. They are kind of being dicks about it, at least from the perspective of people who can't watch the games, but the team is one who sold them exclusive rights, and the satellite providers are the ones who aren't willing to pay enough to secure a lease those rights. How did Verizon manage to broker a deal with Comcast if they are so unreasonable? People are willing to declare that about Comcast who have no idea about the numbers involved. How on Earth do you make that evaluation? If Dish/DirectTV were willing to pay a "reasonable" price for rights to the games, then why haven't they demanded arbitration? They have standing, but they haven't done it. It doesn't seem like there is one clear bad guy here.

If anyone is serious about effecting change in this situation, then the incentives for the companies have to be shift the incentives for all parties. What we want is to come to an agreement. How do you force people to agree? Boycotting Comcast is a step in that direction, but it probably won't work. Fans love the team, and they aren't going to boycott them. If it did work, it would also provide incentive for the satellite providers to lower their offers to Comcast.

What would need to happen is to find a way for fans to still indulge in things Blazer while still hurting all the parties involved who have yet to agree. We want to provide them all with incentive to find a deal that puts the Blazers on every TV. The only way I see that happening is with a two pronged boycott. To hurt Comcast and TBI, boycott the sponsors of Blazer broadcasts. To hurt the satellite providers, boycott the "upsell" items they provide, which includes (I presume) extra pay channels and movies on demand. This way, every fan can still watch the games whenever possible and still participate in some way, whichever TV provider they presently have. Every fan who agreed not to purchase something as part of the boycott should send an email to someone at the company involved. As Blazer fans, we can't give up the team, but we can give up other stuff. If people actually did it, a few hundred emails along with a noticeable divet in business would induce each party to seek agreement aggressively.


----------



## Hector (Nov 15, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> All blacked out within 150 miles of the Rose Garden. Some people are hacking the Internet broadcasts, but there's no legal way to get them in the Portland Area.


That's a big swath of territory. I drew a circle on my Streets and Trips software. If it's a straight line on a map, the circle goes north of Seattle. It crosses into Lynnwood, but not quite Everett. It includes Yakima and Ellensburg, but not Moses Lake. It just misses Richland-Kennewick-Pasco. It includes Eugene, LaPine, and barely hits Reedsport on the coast. Not quite to Roseburg or Pendleton. In summary, most Blazer fans are cut out. (Most Sonic fans, too.)

What are the ILLEGAL ways to receive anything in the Portland area? When the capitalist market makes wrong decisions, government regulates it. In this case, Blazer management should represent the fans. They should push Comcast behind the scenes at first, then pressure them in public with some pro-fan statements. Management should take an activist role instead of saying, it's none of our business.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksandprofits/2007/12/the_solution_to_the_comcastbla.html


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

If Verizon can strike a deal with CSN, why cant Dish Network and Direct TV? That makes me think the blame should be more on the Dish's than Comcast. Obviously Verizon thought CSN's price was fair, and I'll bet that Verizon doesnt have the money to spend like the Dish's do.

When I was deciding between getting a dish or going with Comcast, the #1 factor in my decision was the dish's required me to sign a 2 year contract. That's mainly why I went with Comcast. The other factor was at the time you had to fork over a bunch of $$ for a HD receiver. Those of you who (who had both options) decided to sign the contract with Dish, now have to stick with it. But that was your choice. 

Do you guys think the Trail Blazers are happy with this situation? I really doubt it. I'm sure part of their sales pitch to its advertisers are the # of people that will see their commercial during a Blazer game. Obviously with CSN not being on the Dish's, it hurts that # and probably has an impact on their ability to get advertisers and make money. That leads me to believe that the Trail Blazers want a deal done just as bad as the rest of us.

I'll bet KGW is loving this situation. A friend who works over at KOIN told me yesterday that the ratings for the Trail Blazer games on KGW have been very very good.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

PapaG said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about. How is pointing out an obvious misstep by the Blazers concerning their TV contract "rabble-rousing"?


obvious misstep? $130 million from CSN compared to the much smaller amount they got from FSN is not a "obvious misstep" in my opinion. 

You also have to factor in the fact that FSN is a horrible network that is going down hill fast. Their programing sucks, especially if you live here in the Portland area.

Patience, in time you all will get CSN and love its programing.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> *obvious misstep? $130 million from CSN compared to the much smaller amount they got from FSN is not a "obvious misstep" in my opinion. *
> You also have to factor in the fact that FSN is a horrible network that is going down hill fast. Their programing sucks, especially if you live here in the Portland area.
> 
> Patience, in time you all will get CSN and love its programing.


15k announced last night on the heels of a 4 game winning streak. I'm not the only person ticked off about this.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

PapaG said:


> 15k announced last night on the heels of a 4 game winning streak. I'm not the only person ticked off about this.


There have been several articles about how ticket sales are up and so is the attendance.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

PapaG said:


> 15k announced last night on the heels of a 4 game winning streak. I'm not the only person ticked off about this.


Your right and it is going to hurt the Blazers a lot more then just attendence. I done posting about Comcast on this forum because it seems the people that have Comcast don't understand what is going on.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

B_&_B said:


> :lol:
> Do a little research buddy. There have been several articles about how ticket sales are up and so is the attendance.


Yes, ticket sales are up because of Oden but they have not been selling tickets since the Oden injury and Comcast problem unless they have almost given them away.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Tortimer said:


> Yes, ticket sales are up because of Oden but they have not been selling tickets since the Oden injury and Comcast problem unless they have almost given them away.



Sorry, but you are wrong. 

Wanna place a wager on the attendance # for the Jazz game tomorrow night? I'll bet it will be larger than any game in Dec. of last year.

I think, on average, those of us who have Comcast/CSN are thinking more rationally/business oriented regarding this issue than those of you who dont. You guys are pissed off, and I dont blame you, but that anger and bitterness effects your way of thinking. As Yoda said, "Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny". :biggrin:


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

You sound like the Blazers financial advisor B&B. Ultimately I think pissing off 30+ % of your fans isn't going to be a good financial thing in the long run. Your two statements about the Blazers being very happy with the big cash and the deal, and them being upset about the situation, don't really mesh. 

It's just like me being happy about being able to buy cheap Nike's... I may not like that some people are working for 5 cents a day or whatever...I may even say I am not happy with that situation and sympathize with those against it, but at the end of the day... give me my cheap Nikes. 

The Blazers, by allowing Comcast to run their radio adds urging them get us to pressure our providers, by allowing Comcast to use the players on their mail advertisements urging people to 'switch to watch the Blazers' etc... are really in bed with the problem. And oh yeah... there is the Aldridge Comcast triple play commercial. 

So yeah... the Blazers may say they are upset with the situation, but certainly not enough to do anything about it. The best way to avoid wars is to do a lot of business with a country... and the Blazers and Comcast are doing a lot of business right now.

Of thw two...I believe Comcast is much more to blame. I am sure the Blazers were told there would be a deal.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Good points Paxil.

I wasnt aware of players being used or Comcast adds saying "switch to Comcast to see the Trail Blazers". I have seen the Aldridge commercial, and thinks its pretty funny. But that commercial is pretty generic, doesnt say "switch to watch the Trail Blazers". It is pretty much an add for Comcasts "triple play" of phone, tv, internet. I'm sure part of the deal with Comcast was that CSN got advertising rights during the broadcasts etc, so you'd be seeing/hearing those adds regardless if CSN was on the dish's or not.

What do you think of the fact that Verizon struck a deal with CSN? Why cant the dish's?


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

B_&_B said:


> Sorry, but you are wrong.
> 
> Wanna place a wager on the attendance # for the Jazz game tomorrow night? I'll bet it will be larger than any game in Dec. of last year.
> 
> I think, on average, those of us who have Comcast/CSN are thinking more rationally/business oriented regarding this issue than those of you who dont. You guys are pissed off, and I dont blame you, but that anger and bitterness effects your way of thinking. As Yoda said, "Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny". :biggrin:


I have a 10 game package and the Jazz game is part of the package. I will be at the Jazz game and it probably will be almost a sell out. It is a weekend game against a good team. Most of those tickets were bought early before the Oden injury or Comcast Sportsnet problem. Most of the rest of any tickets sold are special almost give away deals. I'm not saying the give away deals are bad because the Blazers still get part of the parking and food sales.

I said I wasn't going to post about the Comcast deal and this is the last for sure. You are the one that doesn't understand what is going on or if you do and still have think like this then it doesn't do me any good to agrue with you. Have a nice day. :biggrin:


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

B_&_B said:


> Good points Paxil.
> 
> I wasnt aware of players being used or Comcast adds saying "switch to Comcast to see the Trail Blazers". I have seen the Aldridge commercial, and thinks its pretty funny. But that commercial is pretty generic, doesnt say "switch to watch the Trail Blazers". It is pretty much an add for Comcasts "triple play" of phone, tv, internet. I'm sure part of the deal with Comcast was that CSN got advertising rights during the broadcasts etc, so you'd be seeing/hearing those adds regardless if CSN was on the dish's or not.
> 
> What do you think of the fact that Verizon struck a deal with CSN? Why cant the dish's?


Ok one more post about Comcast. Comcast wants $2.00 per subscriber and Version is just starting up in Portland and doesn't have as many subscribers locally or nation wide as Dish or Directv. I'm sure Version isn't paying $2.00 per subscriber but what ever they are paying it doesn't affect them like Dish or Directv. Dish and Directv have something like 12-18 million scubscribers and at $2.00 per subscriber would be just crazy on their part for something that is only wanted in the Oregon area.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Tortimer said:


> Ok one more post about Comcast. Comcast wants $2.00 per subscriber and Version is just starting up in Portland and doesn't have as many subscribers locally or nation wide as Dish or Directv. I'm sure Version isn't paying $2.00 per subscriber but what ever they are paying it doesn't affect them like Dish or Directv. Dish and Directv have something like 12-18 million scubscribers and at $2.00 per subscriber would be just crazy on their part for something that is only wanted in the Oregon area.


Good point. Where did the $2 per subscriber # come from? I'm not saying you are wrong, just curious if that info came directly from the dish's or Comcast (I didnt read the entire Crapzano article, but I will now). $2 per subscriber seems crazy to me.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I don't believe it was in the Crapzano article but in many of the earlier article's invloving Directv/Dish and Comcast. Comcast even tried this with them in other Comcast Sportsnet with the $2.00 per subscriber. Comcast is just not negotiating in good faith which is require by the FCC. They will eventually be fined if Dish/Directv or one of the cable company's wants to fight this. It probably depends on how important it is to them and Oregon really isn't that big of a deal to Dish or Directv being such a small market.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

One thing that pissed me off was this:



> Cable companies claim Comcast wants too high a price for the network. Comcast, they say, also wants the network included in extended basic service. But the channel's content -- which includes high school sports and sports talk radio -- isn't compelling enough to distribute so widely, they say.


Comcast wants CSN to be included in on the dish's extended basic service package, but yet they dont give me the NFL Network as part of my extended basic service on Comcast, which is what the NFL wants them to do! Hypocrites!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> One thing that pissed me off was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast wants CSN to be included in on the dish's extended basic service package, but yet they dont give me the NFL Network as part of my extended basic service on Comcast, which is what the NFL wants them to do! Hypocrites!


Ya, how ironic is that? I posted about a week ago how funny that was.

That ad people have mention ended yesterday so we'll probably see some deals finally getting done as we already have with Verizon.

In that one article it did say that Verizon can afford to pay more than most providers, but it's a start. It also said that Comcast wants a certain amount for subscribers local to the team and less the further away the subscriber. If true that means they are not charging Directv $2 or whatever for every subscriber. Just speculation though because we don't know for a fact anything except I know I couldn't watch the game last nite!! :azdaja:


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

B_&_B said:


> One thing that pissed me off was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast wants CSN to be included in on the dish's extended basic service package, but yet they dont give me the NFL Network as part of my extended basic service on Comcast, which is what the NFL wants them to do! Hypocrites!


There is so much money involved and there is such big business politics going on . . . personally I don't believe Comcast, the dish providers or the Blazer management on this issue.

Every entity is going to do what is in their best interest and we the people will either benefit or get screwed based on decisions by big business that again is not looking out for the best interst of us.

Sounds skeptical, but that is what I beleive. I also think the fact we are affected by big business decisons that best serve big buisnesses transends cable/dish issues and affects us on many aspects of our life including oil prices, insurance costs and retirement returns.

It is a big business world and we just live it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Tortimer said:


> Ok one more post about Comcast. Comcast wants $2.00 per subscriber and Version is just starting up in Portland and doesn't have as many subscribers locally or nation wide as Dish or Directv. I'm sure Version isn't paying $2.00 per subscriber but what ever they are paying it doesn't affect them like Dish or Directv. Dish and Directv have something like 12-18 million scubscribers and at $2.00 per subscriber would be just crazy on their part for something that is only wanted in the Oregon area.


Bingo! Verizon FIOS (or whatever they call their new fiber optic service) is very new and only offered in selected neighborhoods where they've ripped up the sidewalks and installed the necessary fiber optic cable. They've targeted middle to high income neighborhoods, and high density housing (apartments) first, as those are the ones most likely to give them the quickest return on their infrastructure investment. And then they can use those profits to pay for installing the fiber optic cable in lower income/lower density residential areas. If you live out in the boonies, I wouldn't expect Verizon to be running fiber optic cable out to your farm any time soon. It just doesn't make economic sense.

So, for now, Verizon has about six customers for their fiber optic TV service. At $2.00 a pop that's about $12.00 for the rights to the Blazers games from CSN. Of course I'm being facetious, but how many people do YOU know that have the Verizon fiber optic TV service? Anyone? They installed the cable in our subdivision a year and a half ago, but none of my neighbors have switched (in spite of bi-weekly solicitations in the mail trumpeting low introductory rates). Everybody I know has either cable or satellite. Which means they likely have a fairly long term service contract that keeps them tied to their current provider. Also, people are resistant to change. What they have works, they are used to it and they don't want to have to stay home all day waiting for the Verizon installer to show up and hook up a new service. It's easier to just keep things the way they are.

So, if Comcast is really asking $2.00 per subscriber (and I've seen that number mentioned in a couple articles) and DirectTV and Dish really have 12 - 18 million subscribers in the Portland area, that's $24 - $36 million for something costing them $13 million per year - and that doesn't even include the $12 they got from Verizon, the advertising revenues from commercials run during the games, possible licensing revenues from other cable providers (Charter), etc. Obviously, I don't have all the numbers, but it sure sounds to me like Comcast is trying to recover all or most of that $130 million investment in the first couple years of their 10 year deal and then reap huge profits over the remaining ~8 years. Again, to those who say that's just good business on Comcast's part, remember the FCC mandate that they provide their regional sports programming to other providers at reasonable terms. Obviously, what they consider "reasonable" terms is different from everybody else's definition, but that's what happens when they are used to operating as a monopoly in other markets. Profit margins others would consider insane are built into the Comcast business model.

In order for this to go to arbitration, one (or more) of the other providers has to sue them in court and force them into binding commercial arbitration. I think that's where this is headed. If you want to get something done, write your service provider and urge them to take Comcast to court and trigger the commercial arbitration clause in the FCC mandate. Even suggest that all the affected providers join forces in a joint suit against Comcast. They will all benefit in the end and they can share up front legal costs.

BNM


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> Bingo! Verizon FIOS (or whatever they call their new fiber optic service) is very new and only offered in selected neighborhoods where they've ripped up the sidewalks and installed the necessary fiber optic cable. They've targeted middle to high income neighborhoods, and high density housing (apartments) first, as those are the ones most likely to give them the quickest return on their infrastructure investment. And then they can use those profits to pay for installing the fiber optic cable in lower income/lower density residential areas. If you live out in the boonies, I wouldn't expect Verizon to be running fiber optic cable out to your farm any time soon. It just doesn't make economic sense.
> 
> So, for now, Verizon has about six customers for their fiber optic TV service. At $2.00 a pop that's about $12.00 for the rights to the Blazers games from CSN. Of course I'm being facetious, but how many people do YOU know that have the Verizon fiber optic TV service? Anyone? They installed the cable in our subdivision a year and a half ago, but none of my neighbors have switched (in spite of bi-weekly solicitations in the mail trumpeting low introductory rates). Everybody I know has either cable or satellite. Which means they likely have a fairly long term service contract that keeps them tied to their current provider. Also, people are resistant to change. What they have works, they are used to it and they don't want to have to stay home all day waiting for the Verizon installer to show up and hook up a new service. It's easier to just keep things the way they are.
> 
> ...


Directv and Dish have 30+ million subscribers total between them nation wide. They have I think 300,000-400,000 in Oregon. If Comcast is charging $2.00 per subscriber even locally and something less nation wide that is still way to much money. Dish/Directv normally pays something around .05 or less per subscriber on their sports channels. There is no way they would pay $2.00 or even .05 per subscriber for everyone. If they did that with every channel they would have to charge 100's of dollars for their lowest priced package.

The problem with Directv/Dish or one of the cable company's taking Comcast to arbitration is the cost. Like I said 300,000-400,000 subscribers in Oregon and over half of those live in areas that can't get Comcast so they wouldn't change providers. Let's say 200,000 might be able to change to Comcast but only maybe at the most 10% are Blazer fans. Out of the 10% I doubt even half would switch and that is only losing at the most 10,000 customers between Dish and Directv. They have to pay for Lawyers and take the time to go to arbitration. You also have a slim chance they might lose and then have to pay Comcast's high price. You never know what will happen in arbitration but it would be a slim chance Comcast could win. It just doesn't look good for it to get settled unless Comcast decides it wants more Ad revenue and lowers their demands. Directv/Dish have gone to arbitration with Comcast before but it was for a lot larger market and they were losing a lot of money with customers leaving to go to Comcast. I really doubt that Comcast Sportsnet Northwest will affect them finiancially at all. Sorry for the long post!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

This is way over simplifing the situation but skimming through the thread I see some irony here:

It is comcast who decided to invest a ton of money into Oregon sports with their primary focus on the Blazers. (I would think most fans would be happy that some big business took such an interest in Oregon sports).

It is the dish providers who don't seem overly concerned with the channel because it really doesn't affect them (Ptd is such a small market).

*Yet most of the backlash is against the company that decided to dedicate resources to Oregon sports.*

Yes there are some who now don't get to see about 25 Blazer games a year, and that suck (I too hope it is resolved soon) But I think, comcast decision to create this network helps make Portland more of a sports city and is very good for Oregon sports in general.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> This is way over simplifing the situation but skimming through the thread I see some irony here:
> 
> It is comcast who decided to invest a ton of money into Oregon sports with their primary focus on the Blazers. (I would think most fans would be happy that some big business took such an interest in Oregon sports).
> 
> ...


Comcast didn't make this decision to "create this network helps make Portland more of a sports city". They did it so they could have a regional monopoly and make huge profits. Suggesting Comcast had some altruistic motivation to do something for the greater good is beyond laughable.

And, it's not that the satellite providers have no interest in licensing the rights to carry the Blazers games. They have no interest in doing so at the ridiculous, monopolistic prices Comcast wants them to pay.

BNM


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> This is way over simplifing the situation but skimming through the thread I see some irony here:
> 
> It is comcast who decided to invest a ton of money into Oregon sports with their primary focus on the Blazers. (I would think most fans would be happy that some big business took such an interest in Oregon sports).
> 
> ...


I think in general you are right and will help Oregon sports if most people can watch. I think it is 53 games not 25 that many people in Oregon can't see this year. It is mandated by law (FCC) that Comcast has to let other providers have the rights to show the channel at a reasonable rate decided with a good faith negotiation. I'm not going to go in the complete reason that is the law but Comcast knew this when they bid on the Blazers. If they overpaid it is their problem. They knew appproximately how much money they could charge for carriage from the other providers. Comcast has tried this in at least 2-3 other markets and have been fined and had the FCC upset with them before. Why should we be upset with Dish/Directv and the other cable company's. They would carry this channel if they could get it for the same price they pay for other channels from larger markets. Comcast and the Blazers are the two that should be accountable for this problem. Now if Comcast comes out and lowers their asking price and Dish and Directv doesn't carry the channel then we should get upset with them not before.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> Comcast didn't make this decision to "create this network helps make Portland more of a sports city". They did it so they could have a regional monopoly and make huge profits. Suggesting Comcast had some altruistic motivation to do something for the greater good is beyond laughable.
> 
> And, it's not that the satellite providers have no interest in licensing the rights to carry the Blazers games. They have no interest in doing so at the ridiculous, monopolistic prices Comcast wants them to pay.
> 
> BNM


I'm not saying comcast did it to make Portland more of a sports city . . . I'm saying that is what I think the effect of them puoring money into the Oregon sports scene.

I'm not sure why you are convinced the sat providers are interested in the licensing rights carry the Blazer games. Maybe comcast is asking some ridiculous price, maybe not . . . have the sat providers counter offfered? From the stories on this board, it doesn't sound like sat provider care one way or another . . . who am I to know but it makes me laugh at the idea some beleive there are some power poeple for Directv who are overly concerned about the customers who may leave in the Ptd market due to this issue. I see no incentive as to why sat providers should care about an Oregon sports channel. 

Bottom line to me: it is comcast who decided to invest into Oregon sports, and most sports fans should be glad they did (again no disrespect to those who don't get comcast, I would be pissed too . . but it will get sorted out and then we all be happy Oregon sport fans)


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm not saying comcast did it to make Portland more of a sports city . . . I'm saying that is what I think the effect of them puoring money into the Oregon sports scene.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are convinced the sat providers are interested in the licensing rights carry the Blazer games. Maybe comcast is asking some ridiculous price, maybe not . . . have the sat providers counter offfered? From the stories on this board, it doesn't sound like sat provider care one way or another . . . who am I to know but it make me laugh at the idea some beleive there are some power poeple for Directv who are overly concerned about the customers who may leave in the Ptd market due to this issue. I see no incentive as to why sat providers should care about an Oregon sports channel.
> 
> Bottom line to me: it is comcast who decided to invest into Oregon sports, and most sports fans should be glad they did (again no disrespect to those who don't get comcast, I would be pissed too . . but it will get sorted out and then we all be happy Oregon sport fans)


I agree when and if this gets settled I think it will be a great thing for Oregon sports. I hated FSN and glad we have our own channel and can show the Blazers, UO, OSU(maybe eventually) PSU and Oregon HS sports etc. I'm praying it can get settled before next year when Oden and Rudy start playing.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

B&B the add urging to switch was postcard I got in the mail and I'd guess it only went to DirecTV and Dish customers. 

I am lucky enough that I can get Verizon FiOS TV, I have their internet right now already. I can't dump DirecTV though... because of the cost... however... if Verizon doesn't have a commitment I might just pay the $49 bucks a month just during the Blazer season. Besides... they'd also string Cat5 to two more rooms for me for free. =)

I don't know why Verizon was able to reach a deal, but what people are suggesting makes sense. I looked on their site and I didn't see CSNW listed anywhere... but I trust from what people are saying here that it is offered.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Paxil said:


> B&B the add urging to switch was postcard I got in the mail and I'd guess it only went to DirecTV and Dish customers.
> 
> I am lucky enough that I can get Verizon FiOS TV, I have their internet right now already. I can't dump DirecTV though... because of the cost... however... if Verizon doesn't have a commitment I might just pay the $49 bucks a month just during the Blazer season. Besides... they'd also string Cat5 to two more rooms for me for free. =)
> 
> I don't know why Verizon was able to reach a deal, but what people are suggesting makes sense. I looked on their site and I didn't see CSNW listed anywhere... but I trust from what people are saying here that it is offered.


I have a choice between verizon or comcast . . . if you have researched the difference between the two I would love to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I have a choice between verizon or comcast . . . if you have researched the difference between the two I would love to hear your thoughts.


If you have a HDTV I heard Verizon has more and better HDTV channels. I know Verizon is cheaper and from my past experience wouldn't go to Comcast unless there was no other choice.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I haven't actually seen the Verizon service yet, but I have seen the HD between Comcast and DirecTV on the exact same TV and it was noticeably better on DirecTV. I can say Verizon FiOS internet is magnitudes better than cable... like the difference between dialup to cable. I'd take a close look at the channel lineup and compare the two if I were you... and the quality of the DVR's... and of course... the price. Again... if Verizon has Blazer games and no commitment... I may subscribe until the end of the Blazer season. Ultimately I think FiOS type service is the wave of the future... and unlike the satellites that DirecTV and Dish have to put up... the read the cost of the installation is subsidized... like $2000 per household. Why? I am not really sure... maybe someone with better knowledge of cable and phone companies can explain that... I think I also read somewhere that they would give away some type of internet service for free at some point as part of the agreement... but it was all stuff I read on the forums so I am not sure what it true.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Thanks Tort and Paxil for your input.

I'm one of the many who love HD. In fact, when I surf, the first section I surf is the HD section. 

Thanks again for the input. If I switch over, I'll let people know what I think of Verizon.

FWIW- I like comcast for the convenience (I too signed up because of no long term contract and not having to buy the equipment). But their customer service is terrible (employees have no idea what they are talking about) and I have had problems with the DVR. But it is user friendly and you don't have to mess with equipment . . . if the DVR machine breaks they repleace it. I wonder if the competition with verizon will lower rates . . .


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I wonder if the competition with verizon will lower rates . . .


In the long run it should, but in the short run, if you just call them up and tell them you are considering switching, they will probably offer you some incentives to stay. The customer service people, if you are nice to them, have broad authority to give away discounts and deals.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Paxil said:


> B&B the add urging to switch was postcard I got in the mail and I'd guess it only went to DirecTV and Dish customers.
> 
> I am lucky enough that I can get Verizon FiOS TV, I have their internet right now already. I can't dump DirecTV though... because of the cost... however... if Verizon doesn't have a commitment I might just pay the $49 bucks a month just during the Blazer season. Besides... they'd also string Cat5 to two more rooms for me for free. =)
> 
> I don't know why Verizon was able to reach a deal, but what people are suggesting makes sense. I looked on their site and I didn't see CSNW listed anywhere... but I trust from what people are saying here that it is offered.


I talk to the guy running the coalition and he said no deal has been made with Verizon. At least when he called Verizon they said none had been made. He said the report that Verizon had made a deal with Comcast to carry CSN Northwest was a error. Perhaps it was just who he talk to, but before I got Verizon I'd make sure.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mgb said:


> I talk to the guy running the coalition and he said no deal has been made with Verizon. At least when he called Verizon they said none had been made. He said the report that Verizon had made a deal with Comcast to carry CSN Northwest was a error. Perhaps it was just who he talk to, but before I got Verizon I'd make sure.


He is almost certainly misinformed. 



Oregonian said:


> Verizon, which began installing its FiOS cable TV service in Washington County homes earlier this week, said Wednesday it expects to add Comcast SportsNet Northwest to its channel lineup in standard definition by year's end, and in high definition during 2008.


barfo


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

barfo said:


> He is almost certainly misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> barfo





> Originally Posted by Oregonian
> Verizon, which began installing its FiOS cable TV service in Washington County homes earlier this week, said Wednesday it *expects* to add Comcast SportsNet Northwest to its channel lineup in standard definition by year's end, and in high definition during 2008.


That certainly doesn't sound like a done deal to me. The Blazers expects Comcast to reach a deal with all of the other providers. I'll believe it when it's a done deal.

This does sound a little more promising.



> The company also says it has reached a preliminary agreement with Comcast to offer the channel that carries Portland Trail Blazers' games as part of the new service.


http://www.ktvz.com/Global/story.asp?S=7492643


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mgb said:


> That certainly doesn't sound like a done deal to me. The Blazers expects Comcast to reach a deal with all of the other providers. I'll believe it when it's a done deal.


Well, no one said it was a done deal. They said they'd reached agreement in principle, and they just announced that a day or two ago. So yes, technically it could still fall apart. But for the "leader of the coalition" to say there is no deal with Verizon, well, that's a bit disingenuous. Or he doesn't read the newspapers. 

barfo


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

barfo said:


> Well, no one said it was a done deal. They said they'd reached agreement in principle, and they just announced that a day or two ago. So yes, technically it could still fall apart. * But for the "leader of the coalition" to say there is no deal with Verizon, well, that's a bit disingenuous*. Or he doesn't read the newspapers.
> 
> barfo



How so? Either there is a deal for Comcast or is there not. I had Mike Barrett being referenced on this board as far back a June saying not to worry, a deal was on the way.

Does Verizon have a deal? Yes or no?


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

barfo said:


> Well, no one said it was a done deal. They said they'd reached agreement in principle, and they just announced that a day or two ago. So yes, technically it could still fall apart. But for the "leader of the coalition" to say there is no deal with Verizon, well, that's a bit disingenuous. Or he doesn't read the newspapers.
> 
> barfo


I think there will be a retraction or another article very soon saying there is no deal with Verizon.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

GREAT NEWS!

"Verizon Communications Inc. has struck a preliminary deal to carry Comcast Corp.'s regional sports channel on Verizon's new cable network beginning this month, breaking what had seemed to many sports fans to be an intractable impasse between Comcast and other cable operators. 

The pact between the two rivals will bring Portland Trail Blazers games to thousands more homes in the metro area and may help clear the way for satellite carriers and cable operators elsewhere to start carrying Comcast's sports channel." 



http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/119752173392270.xml&coll=7


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Wow . . . with all the speculation and emotion over this topic, I thought everyone would be glad with this news . . . maybe not.


"We're vigorously negotiating with all providers," said Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia. He says talks continue with Dish Network, DirecTV Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. on a daily basis. 

"The success of this network comes from widespread distribution. The network depends on revenues from affiliates like Verizon and other providers as well as advertising revenues," Fitzpatrick said. 

Fred Christ, policy and regulatory affairs manager for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission in Washington County, said he thinks Verizon's deal with Comcast makes it more likely other cable operators and satellite providers will also cut a deal. 

"I would assume that indicates Comcast is serious about getting that channel on other systems," Christ said.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Wow . . . with all the speculation and emotion over this topic, I thought everyone would be glad with this news . . . maybe not.
> 
> 
> "We're vigorously negotiating with all providers," said Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia. He says talks continue with Dish Network, DirecTV Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. on a daily basis.
> ...


I was going to post and even had it ready to post but thought it would just look like I'm just going to be whining more. Comcast had a deal with Verizon in Phil with there Comcast Sportsnet there and never did make a deal with Directv or Dish and it has been going on for years. It might even make it harder for Dish and Directv to settle or take Comcast to arbitration. Verizon can pay more per subscriber because they don't have many subscribers and if they are paying anything over .05 per subsciber(going rate for max on any other sports channel) Dish or Directv never will never carry the channel. If it was a reasonable deal with Verizon Dish and Directv would have excepted the deal long ago. Sorry, about the whining we will just have to wait and see if this is a good thing for the rest of us.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Tortimer said:


> I was going to post and even had it ready to post but thought it would just look like I'm just going to be whining more. Comcast had a deal with Verizon in Phil with there Comcast Sportsnet there and never did make a deal with Directv or Dish and it has been going on for years. It might even make it harder for Dish and Directv to settle or take Comcast to arbitration. Verizon can pay more per subscriber because they don't have many subscribers and if they are paying anything over .05 per subsciber(going rate for max on any other sports channel) Dish or Directv never will never carry the channel. If it was a reasonable deal with Verizon Dish and Directv would have excepted the deal long ago. Sorry, about the whining we will just have to wait and see if this is a good thing for the rest of us.


Maybe it is bad news, which would explain why posters are excited about this news.

I was looking at this in particular that I thought was very positive:
"Fred Christ, policy and regulatory affairs manager for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission in Washington County, said he thinks Verizon's deal with Comcast makes it more likely other cable operators and satellite providers will also cut a deal"

But again . . . maybe not.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Wow . . . with all the speculation and emotion over this topic, I thought everyone would be glad with this news . . . maybe not.


Yeah, I'm sure the six people who actually have Verizon FIOS TV are whooping it up. Probably too busy celebrating to post in this thread.



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> "We're vigorously negotiating with all providers," said Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for Comcast SportsNet in Philadelphia. He says talks continue with Dish Network, DirecTV Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. on a daily basis."


They told us the SAME thing back on May 21 (see my earlier post for quotes and a link). They lied then. Why are we supposed to believe them now? They told us in May that they were negotiating with the satellite and other cable providers, that a deal would be announced very soon and that *all* Blazer fans would have access to these games. I posted it back on page 3, but many seem to have missed it, or chosen to ignore it.



Mike Barrett on May 21 said:


> "Basically, what this means to Trail Blazer fans is that you'll likely be seeing every single game next season on TV. Comcast SportsNet Northwest is now on board to carry 55 games on cable and *satellite*."
> 
> "They are currently working on a channel number for the new network on cable, *and on satellite*. Litner did say today that on cable, Comcast SportsNet Northwest would likely be on expanded basic cable. I've taken some worried e-mails in the past month asking about availability of the network to fans all over Oregon, *and to those who subscribe to a satellite provider*. Litner said today it will be *available everywhere*, and that those details will come out *in the near future*."


So, that was May - before the lottery, before the draft, before the Zach trade, before the Blake signing, before summer league, before Oden's surgery, before training camp, before the start of the regular season, before the current five game winning streak and before the season was over 1/4 completed. I don't know how YOU define "in the near future", but that sure doesn't meet my definition. The season is now over 1/4 over and where are all these games I was promised I'd be able to see on my TV back in May? Excuse me if I don't get all giddy when some corporate bull****ter from Comcast tells me a deal is coming soon. They lied seven months ago and I see absolutely NO reason to believe ANYTHING they say now.

Keep in mind, both the Blazers and Comcast told me back in May - before I signed my two year DirecTV contract - *that a deal with the satellite providers would be announced in the near future and that I'd be able to see ALL these games on my TV*.



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> "I would assume that indicates Comcast is serious about getting that channel on other systems," Christ said.


I would make no such assumption and given Comcast's track record anyone who would is seriously naive.

Sorry if that sounds like whining, but I have no tolerance for liars and so far all we've gotten from Comcast is lies, lies and more lies. And that's why I'm not personally "glad" about this "news". I won't be glad until a deal is announced and I can finally see what I was promised by the Blazers and Comcast back in May. Until then, I consider anything Comcast says as just more BS.

BNM


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> I would make no such assumption and given Comcast's track record anyone who would is seriously naive.
> 
> 
> BNM


Fred Christ: policy and regulatory affairs manager for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission in Washington County. I'm sure Christ is not seriously naive. In fact I'll venture to guess he knows more about this issue than you.

You've taken a shot on me in this thead already saying that I was implying something (which clearly I wasn't) that was beyond laughable. So now it's my turn . . . it appears you are so pissed off about the situation you refuse to accept anything other than comcast is evil and you aren't clearly seeing both sides of the issue.

The idea that you felt you were promised something that didn't happen allows you to dismiss anything that is said by comcast is beyond laughable.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Fred Christ: policy and regulatory affairs manager for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission in Washington County. I'm sure Christ is not seriously naive. In fact I'll venture to guess he knows more about this issue than you.


He doesn't KNOW anything and he admitted it. He characterized his own statement as an ASSUMPTION. If he KNOWS something, there is no need to ASSUME.



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You've taken a shot on me in this thead already saying that I was implying something (which clearly I wasn't) that was beyond laughable. So now it's my turn . . . it appears you are so pissed off about the situation you refuse to accept anything other than comcast is evil and you aren't clearly seeing both sides of the issue.


What I'll accept is the truth. Did Comcast tell us the truth back in May? No. Are they telling us the truth now? Who knows, but given their track record of lying to us on this issue, I refuse to be naive enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's not about me being pissed, it's about me refusing to be hoodwinked by them a second time. I believed them in May and they lied. Why should I believe anything they say now?



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> The idea that you felt you were promised something that didn't happen allows you to dismiss anything that is said by comcast is beyond laughable.


In your opinion. Personally, when someone lies to me once, I tend to not trust them in the future. If you find that laughable, that's your choice.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Tortimer said:


> I think there will be a retraction or another article very soon saying there is no deal with Verizon.


Why do you think that? It seems very 9/11 to suspect both Comcast and Verizon of lying about this. Where is the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD?

barfo


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

If it's true that Verizon has a deal made with Comcast, it doesn't necessary mean it's good news for Satellite providers.



> In Philadelphia, Comcast distributes the signal only by land line. By doing so, it is able to avoid an FCC regulation that requires most television channels to be offered to direct broadcast satellite companies. Thus, DBS customers in the Philadelphia region do not get access to the local team's games. However, cable companies other than Comcast within the CSN Philadelphia market, such as Service Electric, do have access to the channel.


I thought Directv carried every CSN sport network, but no satellite provider carries CSN Philadelphia


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

barfo said:


> Why do you think that? It seems very 9/11 to suspect both Comcast and Verizon of lying about this. Where is the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD?
> 
> barfo


9/11? Wow, that seems out of left field.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

PapaG said:


> How so? Either there is a deal for Comcast or is there not. I had Mike Barrett being referenced on this board as far back a June saying not to worry, a deal was on the way.
> 
> Does Verizon have a deal? Yes or no?


I would say yes, they have a deal. It would be unusual for a deal of this nature (i.e. small potatoes) to fall apart after both parties have announced it. But anything is possible, including the deal falling apart after they've signed it in blood and started broadcasts. 

As far as Mike Barrett goes, surely you know he doesn't speak for Comcast or any other provider. 

barfo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> As far as Mike Barrett goes, surely you know he doesn't speak for Comcast or any other provider.


No he doesn't, but he does speak for the Blazers and John Litner speaks for Comcast.



Mike Barrett on May 21 said:


> "Basically, what this means to Trail Blazer fans is that you'll likely be seeing every single game next season on TV. Comcast SportsNet Northwest is now on board to carry 55 games on cable and *satellite*."
> 
> "They are currently working on a channel number for the new network on cable, *and on satellite*. Litner did say today that on cable, Comcast SportsNet Northwest would likely be on expanded basic cable. I've taken some worried e-mails in the past month asking about availability of the network to fans all over Oregon, *and to those who subscribe to a satellite provider*. Litner said today it will be *available everywhere*, and that those details will come out *in the near future*."


Sounds to me like both the Blazers and Comcast misrepresented the truth (which is PC for lied). It's now mid-December and the CSN Blazer broadcasts are NOT "available everywhere" and NOT available "to those who subscribe to a satellite provider". Those are some pretty unambiguous statements - unfortunately they aren't TRUE.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> No he doesn't, but he does speak for the Blazers and John Litner speaks for Comcast.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, your definition of near future may not be universally accepted; secondly Litner wasn't quoted there, Barrett was (apparently) paraphrasing. Besides, Barrett is a raving optimist - do you believe him every time he says player X is coming to camp with a new attitude, in the best shape of his life, etc? 

I can understand why you are unhappy with the situation, I would be too. But you signed a two year contract based on something in Mike Barrett's blog? Whose fault is that really?

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I've honestly given up on getting CSN in my lifetime (on dish). And I've just decided to accept that the team did this because they were too stupid and short-sighted to think it through before they saw the green.

Or maybe they secretly think that the way to win us back as fans (as a whole) like they had us in the 80's, was to re-create the atmosphere of fewer than 30 games on OTA broadcast.

Forget Rip City being reborn...Blazercable is reborn!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Last week the ticket sales office called me again to see if I was interested in any of their multi-game packages. I told them I wouldn't be attending any games or spending any money on the Blazers until the comcast thing was fixed.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> First of all, your definition of near future may not be universally accepted;


Ummm.... OK. In terms of geologic time or when discussing evolution, seven months is less than the blink of an eye, but in the context of the NBA, where an entire 82-game regular season lasts less than six months, seven months can hardly be considered "near future".



barfo said:


> secondly Litner wasn't quoted there, Barrett was (apparently) paraphrasing. Besides, Barrett is a raving optimist - do you believe him every time he says player X is coming to camp with a new attitude, in the best shape of his life, etc?
> 
> I can understand why you are unhappy with the situation, I would be too. But you signed a two year contract based on something in Mike Barrett's blog? Whose fault is that really?


Wow, big assumption on your part. Just because I quoted Barrett's blog doesn't mean it was the entire basis for my decision to sign a two year contract with DirecTV. The fact that the CSN games would be available to satellite subscriber was also mentioned in the official press conference with Mike Golub and John Litner. It was also widely reported in the local news at the time that the games would be available to satellite sunscribers. It was mentioned in the Oregonian and on all the local TV stations.

BNM


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Wow, big assumption on your part. Just because I quoted Barrett's blog doesn't mean it was the entire basis for my decision to sign a two year contract with DirecTV. The fact that the CSN games would be available to satellite subscriber was also mentioned in the official press conference with Mike Golub and John Litner. It was also widely reported in the local news at the time that the games would be available to satellite sunscribers. It was mentioned in the Oregonian and on all the local TV stations.
> 
> BNM


I apologize for the bad assumption. Since that was what you quoted as evidence that you'd been misled, I assumed that was what you were misled by. 

barfo


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> I apologize for the bad assumption. Since that was what you quoted as evidence that you'd been misled, I assumed that was what you were misled by.
> 
> barfo


Apology accepted. I quoted it because it was handy and easy to find without wading through a hundred pages of google hits.

BNM


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

barfo said:


> Why do you think that? _*It seems very 9/11 *_to suspect both Comcast and Verizon of lying about this. Where is the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD?
> 
> barfo



What are you talking about?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

At this point I can only assume that Mike Barrett, Mike Golub, and the Blazer organization are liars.

What a joke.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

PapaG said:


> What are you talking about?


Sorry, I assumed regular readers of this forum would understand the reference. I was saying that belief that both Verizon and Comcast are lying when they say they've reached agreement on terms for the blazer broadcasts is rather like certain conspiracy theories promoted on the OT forum, wherein anything the authorities say - no matter what it is - is assumed false.

ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD was a reference to one particular such screed, in which an ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD was under the WTC when it was destroyed (and is now missing).

barfo


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

barfo said:


> Sorry, I assumed regular readers of this forum would understand the reference. I was saying that belief that both Verizon and Comcast are lying when they say they've reached agreement on terms for the blazer broadcasts is rather like certain conspiracy theories promoted on the OT forum, wherein anything the authorities say - no matter what it is - is assumed false.
> 
> ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD was a reference to one particular such screed, in which an ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD was under the WTC when it was destroyed (and is now missing).
> 
> barfo


Oh, OK. I don't do the OT forums. I have a hard enough time here without knowing who the political nutsos are. :biggrin:


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I caught the reference Barfo... and it was funny. =) I tried to reply but a bit bucket ate it.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Last week the ticket sales office called me again to see if I was interested in any of their multi-game packages. I told them I wouldn't be attending any games or spending any money on the Blazers until the comcast thing was fixed.


What was their response?

The people boycotting the games sure are missing some great ones!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> What was their response?
> 
> The people boycotting the games sure are missing some great ones!


The same can be said of those who can't get comcastsportsNW in the first place..


oooh snap.


----------

