Speaking Of Giants' Obnoxiousness
I just saw a report that the team is going to buy a large share of Fox Sports Bay Area. FSBA has been my lifeline to A's games over here in Sacramento. Does anyone have any idea how this is going to affect northern California A's broadcasts? We already got shafted on the radio over here last year when they dumped A's radio broadcasts onto the lousy local ESPN outlet that broadcasts maybe a game a month if we are lucky. The year before we had it good as a local station would broadcast all night and weekend games. Now they want to take the games from my TV and replace it with the horrid "Kuip and Kruk" combo? Please say it ain't so?
0 recs |
13 comments
Comments
Comcast claims no...
and they own 60% of the station, but in the end it could be problematic. I think the only thing that might happen is FSN still wont air all the A's games and there might be more A's games on FSN plus this year.
What's really sickening is the Giants are now making money off of A's broadcasts. That means WE are paying for Rowand's rediculus contract. Ugg!
by Threepwood XX on Dec 12, 2007 3:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Depends how you look at it ...
while the Giants will, presumably, make some money off of their ownership, FSN pays the A's for the right to broadcast their games -- so from a more direct perspective, the Giants are helping to pay for the new ballpark in Fremont ...
by devo on Dec 12, 2007 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can we just make this moot
and create our OWN station already? Hey! Maybe we can try to pulla Braves or Cubs, and get a National Cable TV channel =]
by Zonis on Dec 12, 2007 3:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
TV 36
They should just buy a controlling interest in TV 36.
by Threepwood XX on Dec 12, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately for TV 36, that is the number of
people who can actually pick that channel up.
by theblackpearl on Dec 12, 2007 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's on cable ...
FSN, btw, is only on cable, so while I'm sympathetic to access arguments, it doesn't play here.
Its reception is fine on cable and the overwhelming majority of households have cable.
by devo on Dec 12, 2007 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
try watching 36 in Sacramento
Not so much...
by chri5 on Dec 12, 2007 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
or in Iowa...
...via MLB EI.
by UncleLeo on Dec 12, 2007 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's true ... (and I live in Sacramento)
but if they developed it into a worthwhile sports station, it would get picked up.
by devo on Dec 12, 2007 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the bigger concern
is the vertical integration that Comcast has achieved as both the controller of programming content and the dominant service provider.
Ask the folks up in Portland...if they have service from another cable company or satellite TV, they aren't able to watch the Blazers:
More than a month into the NBA season, tens of thousands of Portland Trail Blazers fans in Oregon and southwest Washington can't see most of their team's games on television.
Only Comcast Corp. cable subscribers can watch all games, carried on Comcast's new regional sports network. Even subscribers of Charter Communications Inc., a cable company owned by Trail Blazers owner Paul Allen, are shut out.
The reason: Comcast, which owns rights to game coverage and operates a dominant cable system, has not come to terms with satellite or other cable TV providers to transmit the games. As a result, nearly all residents who subscribe to satellite or live outside the Willamette Valley can't watch at home.
Industry observers say it's no coincidence that such a fracture would affect sports fans. Cable operators covet regional sports coverage because its power to draw an audience can boost their market shares -- and trim those of operators without it. But, observers say, it also illustrates a reality for everyone: Bare-knuckle competitive tactics can limit choices for viewers and potentially boost prices.
Full story in today's Oregonian
Oh sure, they'll be able to see those games eventually...as soon as their service providers bring enough gold to the corporate offices of Comcast. The cost of said gold will eventually filter down into the subscribers' service bills.
by Soaker on Dec 12, 2007 5:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Surprisingly,
it turns out legal, unregulated monopolies are bad for consumers.
Who would have thought that?
by PaulThomas on Dec 12, 2007 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I took a class in antitrust law
at Berkeley in 1982 or 1983. I wish I still had the reading materials and my lecture notes. Given the changes in that field over the last quarter-century, that would make for some amusing reading.
by Soaker on Dec 12, 2007 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And not get the cash at the book buyback?
Yeah, right. That was the kickstart to summer vacation!
by Scottbass on Dec 13, 2007 1:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















