38 recommendations |
Uh...."It's a typical gutless act by a cable carrier seeking to promote its own self-interest"
Not unlike a typical gutless act by a professional sports entity seeking to promote its own self-interest. |
|
camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT
25 recommendations |
camper
Premium Member
2015-Nov-23 2:39 pm
It's about time...  It's about time the cable companies start standing up to the sports industry. Congratulations to Comcast for taking this position!
The sports industry should be on the premium channels where they are in similar company with other high-fee low-viewership channels. |
|
24 recommendations |
nfotiu
Member
2015-Nov-23 2:55 pm
Yankees are the gutless onesIf the Yankees are the ones with so much guts, then make the channel a la carte. I'm sure Comcast would have no problem offering it a la carte for whatever Yankees want to charge. Yankees fans get to watch their team, the people who don't watch don't have to pay for it. Win-win for everyone right? Oh, but not for the Yankees who think everyone who wants cable needs to subsidize their 20 million/year players. |
|
cb14 join:2013-02-04 Miami Beach, FL 1 edit
20 recommendations |
cb14
Member
2015-Nov-23 2:39 pm
I am with Comcast on thisSports channels are extremely expensive and should be premium. |
|
|
DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX
12 recommendations |
Worthless channel kill it.Just another case of some sports group thinking they deserve their own channel but in reality they're not worth it.
though if they made a MLB channel that would be good because it would get those baseball games off of more important broadcast TV. (like how the NFL channel helped by removing those football games so they don't interrupt stuff anymore. |
|
11 recommendations |
Funny..."This amounts to nothing more than a money grab." Says the fellow dishing out in excess of $217 million in baseball player salary next year. (for those who care: » www.baseballprospectus.c ··· team=NYA) |
|
8 recommendations |
Pay as you go...This is exactly why there should be:
1. Unbundled channels. General customers won't pay for what they don't watch and those that actually want to see the Nets can pay. (I wish I could turn off YES for basketball season!)
2. Stream-only channels so that customers won't need to pay the cable provider for exorbitant and ridiculous fees for broadcast surcharges, boxes, additional set, etc. I'd rather bring the channel with me anyway so I can watch on the go.
The irony of (insert RSN) calling out (cable provider) when the RSN typically demands that it be carried on the basic tier and EVERYONE pays. Both sides are their own worst enemies. There should be a clause in any contract to build new stadiums - if you take any public money, the same percentage of financing will be equal to the number of games on free TV. You want $250 million for your $500 million stadium? 81 baseball/40 basketball/hockey games (not nationally televised) will be on a local station.
20th century thinking for 21st century technology. |
|
6 recommendations |
john2020
Anon
2015-Nov-23 3:06 pm
Original TopicI would take Comcast seriously if they passed their savings on to their customers, but I'm pretty sure they don't, and I doubt when it's time to raise everyone's bill like every cable company does every year, that the increase will be less because of this. So, if you actually do watch the YES network, I can understand those people complaining. I hope they do get some sort of reduction in their bill. |
|