Master Index of Archived Threads


Mets on TV

TheOldMole Jan 31 2006 12:34 PM

How can I find out if my local TimeWarner is going to be carrying the new Mets channel?

metirish Jan 31 2006 12:38 PM

I would guess they are, aren't they a partner in this deal along with comcast?

KC Jan 31 2006 01:04 PM

I think comcast and time warner are partnered into it, it's the cablevision arch rivals that have to worry - I just know we're going get screwed, at least at the beginning and I'm gonna be impossible to live with if I don't get every single Mets game available. OE: freaky, the whores de cablevision just sent me month end e-statement to my work email. They always have their hands out.

Nymr83 Jan 31 2006 03:46 PM

don't worry KC, i'm sure the "generous" people at Cablevision will refund you $1 per month for every month they don't carry the Mets. That $6 will, however, be small comfort to you come October when you have missed 6 months of Mets baseball.

Willets Point Jan 31 2006 03:54 PM

Can't you switch cable providers?

Nymr83 Jan 31 2006 04:09 PM

in alot of areas you dont have a choice (other than switching to satellite)

Willets Point Jan 31 2006 04:13 PM

Ah, don't you just love free market capitalism?

Frayed Knot Jan 31 2006 04:17 PM

]Can't you switch cable providers? Most cable providers have monopolies in those areas they cover, so no. The heart of the problem stems from the fact that these cable companies frequently are owners of the content (stations) they're providing in addition to being the distributor of them - and a momopoistic one at that. Last year's fight was based on Cablevision being the owner of MSG & FSNY channels (which carried some 120 NYM games) and what price they would charge to competing companies like Time-Warner & Comcast. Now, as TW & Comcast are partners w/the Mets on this new channel, the seller/buyer roles are reversed so Cablevision now not only has to buy the channel from the outside but it's a channel which is a direct competitor to it's owned stations and is carrying the programming that those stations used to have exclusive rights to. Some localities are slowly (VERY SLOWLY) allowing multiple cable vendors into some areas as the phone companies attempt to break into the cable TV biz but it's going to be a while before there's any real competition for consumers. Satellite TV is obviously an option but the new channel also has to strike a deal with them. It's gotta be one of the worst regulated industries in the country.

KC Jan 31 2006 08:38 PM

I just want my baseball games. Screw comments on capitalism and my dollar a month - I give a ton of money to Cablevision for all kinds of stuff, I don't need one dollar refunded per month, thank you. I hate the utility companies, every last one of them. I hate them with a hatred that would make Bret's hate of the Wilpons look like cream cheese on a bagel versus a boat load of muck dug up from the East River and left laying on a pier in early August for two weeks.

Edgy DC Jan 31 2006 08:49 PM

It's Metaphor Day here at the Crane Pool.

KC Jan 31 2006 08:55 PM

>>>It's Metaphor Day here at the Crane Pool.<<< Well, for my part I think that's a simile - I'm not clever enough to do metaphors very often.

Nymr83 Jan 31 2006 09:23 PM

i didnt say you wanted the dollar, i said you'd get it, which is pretty lame when for most guys their favorite sports team is 90% of the reason for having cable at all (the other 10% is OTHER sports teams and ESPN News) edit- YAY I'M BOBBY V!!!

KC Jan 31 2006 09:31 PM

If anyone ever does a book about BV, that picture would have to included in the middle pictures they put in sports books. It was classic the day after it happened and makes me chuckle every time I see it.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 31 2006 09:35 PM

You know that Bobby loves that photo -

KC Jan 31 2006 09:46 PM

Whatya have a backdoor key to that server? Maybe you're the hacker amongst us lol.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 31 2006 09:49 PM

I bookmarked the link to my story. Ya got a problem with that?

cleonjones11 Feb 01 2006 06:17 PM Cablevision in NJ No M-E-T-S

Frayed Knot wrote: ]Can't you switch cable providers? Most cable providers have monopolies in those areas they cover, so no. The heart of the problem stems from the fact that these cable companies frequently are owners of the content (stations) they're providing in addition to being the distributor of them - and a momopoistic one at that. Last year's fight was based on Cablevision being the owner of MSG & FSNY channels (which carried some 120 NYM games) and what price they would charge to competing companies like Time-Warner & Comcast. Now, as TW & Comcast are partners w/the Mets on this new channel, the seller/buyer roles are reversed so Cablevision now not only has to buy the channel from the outside but it's a channel which is a direct competitor to it's owned stations and is carrying the programming that those stations used to have exclusive rights to. Some localities are slowly (VERY SLOWLY) allowing multiple cable vendors into some areas as the phone companies attempt to break into the cable TV biz but it's going to be a while before there's any real competition for consumers. Satellite TV is obviously an option but the new channel also has to strike a deal with them. It's gotta be one of the worst regulated industries in the country. I live in Morris County and don't plan on actually seeing mant Mets games...so if they suck i'm golden...

Elster88 Feb 01 2006 09:03 PM

Willets Point wrote: Ah, don't you just love free market capitalism? IIRC from economics, only one cable provider is allowed per area because it keeps from millions of cable lines crisscrossing the skies. Same with electricity and phones. Thus, those monopolies are legal.

G-Fafif Feb 01 2006 09:36 PM

SI.com on SNY today. I'm posting a link to the second page of the article because I am not without a penchant for self-interest. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/alex_belth/02/01/sny.mets/1.html

KC Feb 01 2006 09:45 PM

>>>Coupled with analyst Keith Hernandez (who "has Tourette's where the truth is concerned," according to Prince)<<< What's that all about?

ScarletKnight41 Feb 01 2006 09:46 PM

Very cool - Greg hits the big time!

metirish Feb 01 2006 10:01 PM

]Coupled with analyst Keith Hernandez (who "has Tourette's where the truth is concerned," according to Prince) I think that's supposed to be a compliment, not sure how though.

G-Fafif Feb 01 2006 10:58 PM

metirish wrote: ]Coupled with analyst Keith Hernandez (who "has Tourette's where the truth is concerned," according to Prince) I think that's supposed to be a compliment, not sure how though. Keith can't help but blurt out what he's really thinking. No filter for BS. Yes, definitely a compliment.

metirish Feb 01 2006 11:07 PM

Yeah that's what I thought, the reference to Tourette's is not something you see every day, I think his no filter for BS comes form frustration at times.

Frayed Knot Feb 01 2006 11:52 PM

]IIRC from economics, only one cable provider is allowed per area because it keeps from millions of cable lines crisscrossing the skies. Same with electricity and phones Yeah, that was the given reason for a single phone company for years. ATT essentially wired this entire country and so they were granted a legal monopoly to all long-distance service based on that. But they also had to deal with much more stringent price regulation while Cable has little or none. This is like having to worst of both worlds: no competition OR regulation to cap pricing. Of course ATT eventually abused their monopoly long enough to the point where they got a court-ordered breakup shoved down their throats. IIRC, Congress's one attempt to regulate cable prices made the matter considerably worse.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 02 2006 05:46 AM

metirish wrote: Yeah that's what I thought, the reference to Tourette's is not something you see every day, I think his no filter for BS comes form frustration at times. The one time Keith told an unpleasant truth ("this team has quit") he had to put his testicles in escrow. after recanting before the Council of Active Mets and doing penance for his sin.

Willets Point Feb 02 2006 10:15 AM

Elster88 wrote: IIRC from economics, only one cable provider is allowed per area because it keeps from millions of cable lines crisscrossing the skies. Don't cables run underground in the city?

Edgy DC Feb 02 2006 10:22 AM

It's also not really an economics principle, but a logistics one. The other thing about cable companies is getting exclusive government contracts to simultaneiously provide the product of the programming to consumers as well as the services to deliver them is a huge setup for corruption.

Frayed Knot Feb 02 2006 11:27 AM

Which was exactly the kind of 'got you coming and going' practices that got the phone company broken up. They were granted a monopoly for long-distance service, but the local services were "granted" by them to individual companies (NY Tel, NJ Tel, etc) who they just happened to own. They also required you to rent equipment from them in order to use their lines (remember when you couldn't own your own phones) and that equipment was exclusively bought from a manufacturer (Western Electric) who they also owned!

metirish Feb 02 2006 11:45 AM

These cable companies try to squeeze you, when I was moving before Christmas I had arranged to get my cable cut by December 13th but no later than that,I had paid up to that date the guy from Suscom had told ne....cool with me, I then arranged to drop of the boxes and remotes of at the local office no later than the 15th, I was informed that if I didn't drop them of I would be billed for "equipment", fine with me, I dropped them off and got a recipt, a few weeks later at my new place I get a bill from Suscom for $634 for a 'failure to return equipment" charge....it was easily sorted out on the phone but still I got quite a shock...

Frayed Knot Feb 03 2006 10:39 AM

Just a single line in Phil Mushnick's NYPost column today, but: "The Mets' new SportsNet NY, say sources, has reached an agreement with DirecTV " What's encouraging here - aside from those who use DirecTV obviously - is that the channel's availability on satellite gives cable customers an alternative which in turn will put pressure on the cable companies to strive for an agreement. Cablevision, for instance, lost a significant # of subscribers to satellite TV with their whole YES flap a few years back - customers who most likely never returned even after things were settled - and now have an incentive not to do so again.