Why Did Fox and Comcast Sell part of FANBA to the Giants and What Does it Mean for the A's?
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 14, 2007 3:22 PM PST
9 comments
The Giants purchased 25-30% of FSNBA giving them ownership of the cable network that broadcasts the bulk of A's, Warriors, and Sharks games. This could have far reaching consequences depending on how much influence the Giants exercise in programming. As an A's fan I am concerned. Naturally the Giants come first to the Giants. When games conflict, will we see the A's delegated to lesser channels? Or will the A's broadcast be reduced?
So far news has been positive. FSNBA will now have pre and post game shows for all A's and Giants game and eventually for the Sharks and Warriors too. FSNBA will also broadcast a locally originated sports show.
The Giants did not make the purchase unless they obtained a competitive and cost advantage. How do the A's see this and what will be their response? Ideally, they might want to own their own network. The Yankees do. I believe thet Boston does. I also don't think it is economical for the A's to go it alone. So what are their options?
We already know that the A's do not have equal footing in radio broadcasts. Could TV be far behind?
0 recs |
9 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Nice post Dad
Only time will tell I guess. I, as have most I'm sure, have long felt a "West Bay" bias against the A's.
Sure, it's mostly from the radio side ("The Sports Leader") which is somewhat understandable, but I have even felt it from the local TV side as well. I have often been riled up when tuned into a local newscast to get the results of a game but having to watch highlights of the Giants losing before a quick blurb of an A's victory. It would be pretty upsetting if we were blindsided by FSBA became FSSF overnight.
On another "Bias" note:
I was getting a little preturbed yesterday when listening to Gary Radnich after the release of the Mitchell report. He kept mentioning "Jack Cust...Jack Cust..."
He said "oh man", and "wow", and "jeez". But I was like c'mon? Cust? That's the name you're gonna pull from the list and keep repeating? Not FP Santangelo or Benito Santiago or Matt Williams or Marvin Bernard or any of the other Giants on that list that he's serviced in his studio?
It seemed like he was rubbing it in.
Maybe I'm wrong. Whatever.
by Force on Dec 14, 2007 5:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A's Destined For Second Network
As has been reported for a number of years, FSNBA and the Giants have already agreed to kick the A's to a permanent second channel as soon as digital cable penetrates far enough to make it feasible. I hope that the channel the A's end up on is co-branded (as FSN Prime Ticket, nee FSN West 2, is in L.A.), not marketed as a "me too" channel. As long as the A's are in town, I can hope that there won't be a "Giants channel" with a multi dollar per month ripoff from every Bay Area extended basic cable household, ala the Yankees in the NYC metro area. If the A's ever leave, though, I'm sure the Giants would attempt it if it were still legal.
by muscatel on Dec 14, 2007 6:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The FCC
is now concidering cable's policy of bundling channels. They are concerned that we subscribers are paying for channels we never watch (We are). If we have to subscribe to channels separately, we might save money in the long run.
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 14, 2007 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you purchase more than just a few channels...
...you'd probably end up paying more, ala eating at a cafeteria instead of a buffet.
by UncleLeo on Dec 14, 2007 8:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is actually false
The vast majority of channels are either dirt cheap or actually free (ad-supported). There are a few extremely expensive channels like NFL Network, HBO, etc., a somewhat larger number of medium-price channels like ESPN, and a huge number of cheapies.
The evidence is overwhelming that consumers will save money in an a la carte system. And in any event, there's nothing stopping cable companies from OFFERING bundles-- people just don't want to be FORCED to buy a bundle of channels they have absolutely no interest in. The only reason the cable companies can get away with this is that they have legalized (and badly regulated) monopolies.
by PaulThomas on Dec 15, 2007 1:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you believe...
...that the retail price of each channel would be necessarily reflective of the wholesale price paid by the cable/satelite company?
Note that I also qualified my statement by saying it could depend on how many channels one purchases. If you buy alot of channels, it could very well be more expensive, and while bundled packages may (probably, even) still be offered, there's no guarantee they will be.
by UncleLeo on Dec 15, 2007 8:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As long as i get the channels...
...and can watch the games, and the quality of the broadcasts is fine, I really don't care what the network brand is.
by UncleLeo on Dec 14, 2007 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this is why Haren was traded
For Haren we get a bunch of prospects and a brand new TV channel!!!
or at least some new "They're young but they can play" A's commercials.
by buddahead9 on Dec 14, 2007 10:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
We just settled for lower level channels
by Nico on Dec 14, 2007 10:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
