Be the Spark!

contribute now

The Blazers Blackout

AIR DATE: Thursday, December 4th 2008
Download the mp3 for this show.

How soon will all Portland Trailblazer games be accessible to fans in the Northwest?

The Portland Trailblazers are expected to have a great season this year, but many of their dedicated fans won't get to see 65 percent of their games. For a second season in a row, some fans will miss crucial Blazer games because negotiations between Comcast Sportsnet and other cable and satellite providers remain stuck.

A year ago, Comcast spent $130 million on the rights to air Trailblazer games for the next ten years. Comcast Sportsnet said at the time that the deal would make Blazer games more accessible to more fans, but it hasn't worked out that way. Comcast Sportsnet, Direct TV and Charter Communications have not agreed on price and packaging, leaving Direct TV and Charter Communications customers out of luck when it comes to watching Trailblazer games. Some fans have gotten so frustrated that they've joined forces to boycott Trailblazer sponsors in hopes of putting pressure on Comcast and cable providers to reach a deal. At this point, the only option for Blazer enthusiasts without Comcast Sportsnet Northwest is to watch the few games broadcast nationally on ESPN, or their local television networks.

Are you a Blazers fan who has missed televised games? Have you found a way to access every game despite the ongoing negotiations between Comcast and cable and satellite providers? What responsibility does the team have to remedy this situation?

Guests:

Photo credit: *sean / Flickr / Creative Commons

Tagged as: business · comcast · trailblazers

The biggest reason, by far, for steadily increasing cable fees is the outrageous cost of sports programming. One channel, ESPN, costs every subscriber to cable or satellite close to four dollars each month. The last thing we need is one more sports channel that [i]everybody[/u] has to pay for. Add it ala carte, if at all.
willie44 —
First, its not just the Blazers - it is also University of Oregon sports.
Second, don't forget Dish Network in this discussion as well.
Third, none of the major providers have signed on to carry this channe - Charter, Direct, and Dish. That tells you something.

Comcast argues for one treatment for non-Comcast channels (must be on a sports tier) See the recent activity for NFL Network and the Big 10 Channel. In fact, NFL and Comcast are currently arguing before the FCC on channel placement. But when it is a Comcast channel, Comcast says all providers must put it on their basic tier or it can't be there at all. So Comcast argues both sides of the coin depending on what side they are on.

Put simply, Comcast has a subscriber retention problem in Portland. Every day I see more and more satellite dishes going up, but few going down going the other direction. If Comcast were to agree to put the channel on its competitors more people would jump ship. Comcast offers lousy service and rates that continue to increase - well past inflation. People are simply fed up.

In the end, David Manougan of Comcast is the one who is really playing hardball and I think his integrity stinks.
WebTraveler —
rather than post a long one myself, WebTraveler has said what I wanted at least as well... (thumbs up, WT)
tpohara —
Comcast trying to hold onto customers in Portland is definitely one of the biggest reasons for why they are making the terms unacceptable to Dish and Direct.

I'm sure Comcast is very sorry that Verizon took the deal.

hoopla —
It is sad that the Blazers have choosen to do a deal with Comcast; a company that is both a programmer and a cable competitor. They have no interest in the fan. They are only interested in their own competitive position and revenue stream, and have no incentive to negotiate with others. The Blazers by doing the deal have hurt the fans. When Fox or KATU/Channel 8 carries them we all benefit and at no extra cost. If the Blazers wanted an exclusive, why not put it on a sports tier, where those willing to pay for sports could buy it, rather than a deal that closed out fans or increased the cost of the average consumer. I agree with someone else, the deal with Comcast is just one more exammple of why all of us are paying more for our cable fees. It is outrageous what the cost of sports broadcasting is becomming. NO choice, just higher costs.

Oh, and for those of us that do get the blazer games, have you seen the poor quality of the telecast picture, compared to last year, or to the games on ESPN or Channel 8? Now, how is that a better deal for us, the Fan??!

Thanks Blazers for no caring about your fan base

Canby Fan
Canby Fan —
With DTV I am locked out from CSNNW (Blazers/Ducks) in Sunriver. Chambers Cable is not even considering CSNNW. I am frustrated to see that the DTV guide provides CSN to other areas of the country such as Chicago, New England, Calif. and elsewhere. If those folks can see their local teams, why are we denied? Their customer service folks tell me CSN comes to those subscribers at no extra cost. I would even be willing to pay. How fair is that? I blame them all DTV, CSN, and Blazers. Each sluffs off the responsibility and blames the others. That gives them an easy excuse to do nothing.
ski5er —
What is really frustrating is living in an area where your only choices for service are Dish Network, DirecTV, and Charter... that's it where I live and I couldn't get Comcast even if I wanted to. Yes, I know I don't even NEED a television but that's another topic. For Comcast to run those incredibly stupid commercials showing all the companies that carry Comcast other than Dish, Direct, & Charter infuriates me even more. My anger is with Comcast, not those other companies that are refusing to pay Comcast's apparently unrealistic demands.
Silverton, OR Fan
mxer203 —
"My anger is with Comcast, not those other companies that are refusing to pay Comcast's apparently unrealistic demands."

Just curious: why not be angry with one of those other companies? What makes you say that if company A doesn't want to buy company B's product, company B is charging too much? Why not say that company A is being stingy?
David Miller —
David,

This isn't a matter of being stingy. The incremental cost to add this one channel is very expensive compared to other cable channels. The real issue is that CSN insists this channel be made available to every cable customer which in turn requires a large rate increase to be applied to every cable customer. Many of these customers will never watch CSN or a Blazer game. If CSN allowed the network to be placed on a sports tier I would anticipate every system would have signed up by this time.
mmoore099 —
The seattle mariners are on the clear creek standard package but the blazers are not
T7283537 —
EXCLUSIVITY AND HIGH PRICES FOR ALL ARE THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

As an executive in a local cable company I have been involved with Blazer Broadcasting in its various formats, over the past 16 years. Historically, the Portland Trailblazers have struck an acceptable balance between serving the greater fan base and providing an exclusive experience to their ?dedicated? fan base. They accomplished this by combining programming on radio and broadcast television outlets, coupled with a pay option which has been provided in various forms including; pay per season, pay per game, and carriage on Fox Sports Northwest.

What made this model work for Blazer fans, was scheduling more games than this season on the broadcast outlets while providing the dedicated fan the option to make an individual decision to purchase the additional games. What made this model work for cable and satellite providers was associating the programming charges only with the additional games, i.e. they were due only form those customers who ordered the service.

This year it is unfortunate that all customers in those cable systems who have launched Comcast Sport Net, can likely expect a substantial rate increase (> $2.00) to offset these programming fees. I am faced each year with making the tough choices of balancing our customers? requests for new programming with contractual restrictions and programming fees to provide the service. The goal is to provide a cable service that generally meets their needs at an affordable price. After careful review we cannot justify the required rate increase, applied to all customers, not just Blazer fans, to cover the addition of this single channel.

Mitchell Moore
President
Clear Creek Telephone & TeleVision
mmoore099 —
Thank you for taking the time to post your POV.

At message number 40, I made a two-fold argument that Oregonians do have a "right" of access to Blazer and Oregon college sports games. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that argument.

In terms of what it means as a practical matter that fans have a right to the games, I would argue that all the parties (Blazers, Colleges, Providers) should be compelled to participate in some form of binding arbitration. A similar model would be the way utilities have to submit proposed rate increases....After all, if I don't like the way PGE runs, I can't buy my electricity from another company, and zoning regulations prevent me from building a two hundred foot windmill to generate my own power. The same is true with the limited number of frequencies available: If I hate all the existing companies, I can't set up my own cable service, for any amount of money.

I know next to nothing about this controversy, but with the little I do know I put the blame at the feet of the Blazers, who are trying to maximize their revenue at the expense of their fan base--despite the level of public money they receive. If the Blazers really need the type of media service they claim, then let them convince an arbitrator......

Bill Abendroth
Bill Abendroth —
In Bend, Bend Broadband has picked up CSNNW in their "Preferred" package. If you want more, you pay a little more. Why can't other Cable comapanies try that?
ski5er —
This whole situation brings to light a controversial subject that Comcast would rather never be discussed - a la cart service. How many people are paying for channels such as ESPN or Comcast Sports Net on cable and/or satellite but never watch them? It used to be a valid argument that it was technically difficult to offer a la cart pricing/service. That is no longer true, but Comcast (and satellite providers) continue to group rarely watched niche programming offerings together to make it seem like they have the most diverse programming. Consumers would prefer choice. Operators would prefer to not offer choice.

Would the Blazers have enough "subscribers" to support the cost of the broadcasts themselves if it was paid for by only the people actually watching the games rather than everyone subsidizing the cost?

The big corporations in the media/film industry, the cable industry, and the satellite industry continue to fight for less consumer choice and more control. Consumers continue to lose, and the FCC continues to sit idle while we are all screwed. Whatever happened to cable cards and open access for consumers who didn't want to pay for a cable box? When will we get the service we want when we want it? It is time for a change...
mhatter —
"This whole situation brings to light a controversial subject that Comcast would rather never be discussed - a la cart service"

Yep!

I would like to only pay for what I want to watch, instead of subsidizing what I don't want to watch! I am on Dish and I absolutely hate subsidizing the Mormon Church channel in order to be able to watch the Daily Show. And I hate subsidizing families who watch many channels all day long when I only watch a very few in a very limited number of hours.

Being required to pay for many unwanted channels is not really "choice", it is extortion, IMNSHO, in my not so humble opinion.
Tom D Ford —
It's all about money and you can bet Comcast is asking the satellite providers for a bundle, which of course, will be passed on the consumer. I believe the Blazers (and Ducks) owe it to their fans to mediate this conflict in favor of the fans.
Mister Richard —
The Blazers receive millions of dollars per year in tax breaks to keep the team located in Portland. The fact that the community is financially subsidizing the team should be reason enough to require local games to be accessable to local residents. As for Comcast, they are an evil, vile company. The Oregon PUC refuses to act on complaints against them saying that they fall under FCC jurisdiction, and complaints made to the FCC receive replies directing you to contact the Oregon PUC. Its an illegal racket. Nothing more.
mydogatemyemail —
"The Blazers receive millions of dollars per year in tax breaks to keep the team located in Portland. The fact that the community is financially subsidizing the team should be reason enough to require local games to be accessable to local residents."

I think it is outrageous that the City of Portland does business with anyone who demands and accepts bribes in the form of tax breaks and any other financial subsidies and The Blazers are only one bad example. This financial extortion is just wrong, wrong, wrong, in my opinion.
Tom D Ford —
I split season tickets with a friend, so I get to see at least half of the games live, but I've been listening to the other half of the games. I feel slightly immoral about this though since I hate supporting all things FOX (95.5 is a Fox Sports Channel)
justin.timmons@gmail.com —
Blazer fans are thankful, especially these days, for the great radio broadcast that has been around for decades. Thank you Blazers Radio Network.
Sustainable Broker —
Just in case anyone is wondering, they've got the internet figure out too. I tried NBA HiDef to watch the games over my internet connection, but those are blacked out when it is a game Comcast would broadcast. Feels like the fans have the choice between moving out of Portland, or supporting a remote team.
poiuqwer —
I blame the Blazers for this. They have been obsessed with these exclusive deals for a while. From the failed Action Sports Network to this deal with Comcast. What worked for the fan was when the Blazers were on Fox Sports NW...that worked just fine for just about everyone.

The essential problem is that there simply are not enough NW sports to sustain a NW sports channel. You have the Blazers and then some folks who care about the Ducks or the Beavers, but that's about it. Further, the Ducks or Beavers are not as popular as college sports teams on the east coast. So, while the Blazers play 82 games, what else is this channel supposed to show? High school football? No one really cares about that. There simply aren't enough sports to sustain a channel like this. Why would the satellite companies purchase it? Half the year there would be nothing worth watching and the other half of the year, there are some Blazer games on some nights...there simply isn't enough programing.
dubmecrazy —
It strikes me as patently absurd that you are treating this as a worthy "news" issue. How about the fact that Directv subscribers don't receive cable access or the OR house channel? That's something actually, you know, AFFECTS people.
nickeyrobo —
What is the "significant cost"? I"m a Dish Network subscriber...and I want to pay for the games..............Let me pay for the games!
past98 —
It is a basic public interest question.

When the Blazers ask for money for their stadium, the public should assume some affordable access to the entertainment they provide. So, the Blazers are to blame if they brokered a deal that fails to serve the public interest on all means of distribution.

On the Comcast side there is an equal violation of public interest for selfish reasons. They have been given an exclusive Cable monopoly in their areas of operation. In turn, the expectation is that they should also serve the public interest for this privilege. Which is something they have a history of not taking seriously.

On a final note, this is all a sad joke to have regional pride in a sports franchise that has no contractual reason to care about us. Once Paul Allen's Microsoft stocks take a big enough hit, you can be sure the Blazers will get a for sale sign and go to some other city. Where's the passion then? We've all been played by monopolistic capitalism at it's best. Sadly, like the lack of oversight in the financial industry, it might be time to consider just a little regulation on behalf of the consumer/taxpayer's interest when giving away the farm.
mediaoffline —
We live less than a 1/2 mile from where Comcast service ends on our rural road, with limited local reception and no other choice but to use a satellite provider. As a Blazer fan since birth (I was born during the Championship season of '77), we have brought back the tradition of listening to the games over the radio - something we haven't done since the early 90s!
chauncy313 —
Doesn't the fact that Comcast is a content providing competitor of DirecTV, Charter, etc. contribute to the reasons these other providers will not carry CTV?

With Fox Sports Net being a competitor you can see the difference between the two. One is a customer of the providers and the other, Comcast, is swimming in each pool.
dviens —
Just plain wrong. Fox Northwest, home of the Mariners, is owned by Liberty which owns DirecTV, a competitor of Comcast who refuses to carry Comcast's network.
T7283537 —
Good. The less sports 'folks' get to watch, the better. If we could get rid of all the sports teams in Oregon and their fans, we would be better for it.
scottmil —
Communist. (I'm joking)
Bill Abendroth —
It's intereasting that Comcast doesn't want the people who want their service to pay more but they are perfectly happy for those who don't want it to pay more.

That doesn't make sense. If you want a service expect to pay for it, why subsidies sports fans by charging non sports fans.

Rory, Portland
FatherJack —
OK...I call BS on the Comcast guy....saying how they are providing a bunch of more telecasts than were available previously.

Let's talk about now-dead Blazer Cable. As a customer of Charter at the time, I had access to nearly every game the entire season, for multiple seasons. And while when the Blazers were on Fox Sports Northwest they telecast slightly fewer games, it wasn't a LOT fewer games.

All I know is that now (currently a Dish customer) I see many fewer games, and cannot subscribe to any alternate means of delivery (NBA League Pass) because of league blackout issues.
antediluvian —
I do not understand the Comcast gentleman's argument for why the programming cannot be offered on a sports level - all the programming that he compares the ratings to are other sports channels or sports programs....
It is entirely reasonable to assume that there are folks out there who do not watch TV at that particular time slot.
PortlandMom —
My understanding is that Comcast has the priviledge to provide services to the Portland community under contract with the city. I would like to hear what authority the city(ies) might have to require more reasonable pricing of comcast next time the contract is up for negotiation. Some amount of public service is required.
BarbBull —
As an emphatic non-fan, I am not impressed by the Comcast argument that implies that everyone wants this, so it's fine to require it to be provided for all. I don't want it, and won't buy any service that requires me to buy it as part of the package. Why should I pay for it when I don't want it? You can't make me. And it costs you (Comcast) and your distributors both. There are other people in your potential market bases you are also missing out on in your [b]choice[/b] of how you are marketing this. You'll make more money if you rethink this.
Rfredine —
The Comcast rep is used to dealing with these questions and spouting the same "effective" but completely wrong answers.

- The quality for any game they don't put on the HD channel is terrible. It was not just a couple where they had meltdowns (such as Dec 8). He's trying to blame overall poor service on a couple of instances where they were really bad.

- Comcast is right that it is a very popular option with high ratings. That should, however, be an argument for lowering the price to distributors and making money off of advertising, or making all sports channels a la cart. The latter is something Comcast is fighting tooth-and-nail with the FCC.
hoopla —
To take a business aspect on this issue after this long of a stalemate is ridiculous. I 100% believe that at this point, the Blazers should have stepped in and used their influence to find a settlement. I know that the Blazers do not have a legal basis to do so, but come on...they are losing fans and making people angry over this issue. Common sense...common sense.
thatlimkid@gmail.com —
WHat's really driving this issue is that Comcast apparently misjudged how much to pay for the rights fees......they agreed to pay so miuch that they simply need to charge over $2 per person subscribed to any distribution channel (cable, satellite) in order to recoup they investment. Yet the market (in this case, distribution partners) is saying that is too much.

In the meantime, we the fans, at least the non-Comcast fans, are screwed.
antediluvian —
Interesting point. Charter says the fee is too high for their own customers but the rights fee was established by their own sister company the Blazers.
T7283537 —
Some of us who listen to the Blazer games on the radio are also angry. They have switched this year to less powerful stations and we who live out can not hear the games anymore.
smile4karl —
I haven't heard anything about DirecTV and Dish. I think they are willing to put the Balzers on the Local RSN (regional sports network) Essentially people who live in the Blazers region would get the channel on their basic tier. But the rest of the country would have to pay to see the blazers on NBA Full Court. Did anyone talk about that yet?
orst93 —
Since the Trailblazers management has chosen to be unprofessional and unethical in refusing to provide a spokesman for this discussion, I'll be writing complaint letters to the NBA president's office as well as Trailblazers' corporate headquarters about this issue. I cannot believe that the NBA public relations people would approve of this snub to local public broadcasting. I believe that I am more angry about this than the television issue. Who do the Trailblazers think they are? They take millions in tax breaks from our city and receive free police overtime to provide street level security for them. They have responsibility to speak to the local media.
mydogatemyemail —
I think what Comcast is doing is terrible. They are forcing other companies to try and buy an entire channel. What happens to the people that only want to watch the blazer coverage, but don't care much about the Ducks, or whatever else they want to watch? The basketball fans lose out.
monica.sack —
the days of a sports franchise simply selling out to the highest bidder are coming to a close. there is far too much choice and competition for the viewers/fans disposable income to let someone else manage your image in the video broadcast medium. like the horrible choice oregon state made to move to KPAM because they were the highest bidder and essentially blackout large portions of the state because of KPAM's poor broadcast signal and affiliate network. if you own a sports franchise or are in charge of a college team you better make sure the contracts you sign give you, the proxy for the fans, the power to make changes that maximize your image control.

also the comcast rep keeps forgetting to mention they own the rights to the content AND the pipes that carry it not to mention much of their service area is a publically granted monopoly. when does the public stand up and say 'we GAVE you a valuable chunk of the public's property now GIVE us something back'

jackaninny —
i will add that not having 100% of your sports content broadcast in HIGH quality high definition is a travesty and the last people i need to hear excuses about hidef from is comcast - their hd quality is HORRIBLE.

for reference see -
http://tinyurl.com/2tetkh
jackaninny —
RE: Oregonians "right" to view Trailblazer and College games...

I know I am the LAST person to make a comment on this topic--I plan on letting my TV go blank when my rabbit ears stop working--but I am sympathetic to the view that fans do have a "right" to view those games for two reasons.

First, the Blazers (and especially the state colleges) receive an ENOURMOUS amount of government support, in terms of subsidy for arenas and direct state assistance to keep the product going. Otherwise, the colleges couldn't field teams and the Blazers would move to some southern city. So, because there is public funding, that creates a reciporical obligation to provide access to the product--after all, Oregonians are paying for it, even if they don't buy any tickets.

Second, the model of a "free market" does not work for the media. For example, if I think Minute Maid charges too much for lemonade, I can set up a lemonade stand in my front yard and compete with that corporation. However, if I think Comcast is doing a lousy job, I can't buy for any amount of money a broadcast frequency and set up a competing network. When Congress set up the FCC to pass out the limited number of broadcast frequencies, the FCC was directed to administer the brodcast licenses "in the public interest." Part of the "public interest" is (arguably) being able to watch the Blazers, UO and Oregon State sports teams--if you're willing to pay the price.

If those sports are not available at any price, then those broadcasters are not acting in the interest of the public.....

So for those two reasons--the high level of public dollars going to those sports teams, and the "public interest" mandate to broadcasters--I would argue that sports fans do have a good argument that they have the right to view those games.

Bill Abendroth
Bill Abendroth —
There's plenty of blame to got around, but the biggest issue is the competition for subscribers between the providers. Comcast, as others have pointed out, is in direct competition with the very providers who refuse to carry their sports channel. DirectTV and other providers are loathe to do business with Comcast, and who can blame them? It was a big coup on Comcast's part. Since the only way to get Blazers on TV is with Comcast (other than ESPN occasionally), the losers are us. Money is NOT the issue as the providers know they can make money on it. They just don't want to play with Comcast. A pox on all your houses!
DKSand —
I'm waiting for the Think Out Loud staff to get called into the OPB head office and asked why the Trailblazers and Comcast are threatening to withhold their donations to OPB this year because Think Out Loud "dared" to "question" their business practices. I would not put this past Comcast or Paul Allen.
mydogatemyemail —
I also agree with WebTraveler's comments. And, if the U of O or the PAC 10 start to follow some other programs, consumers will suffer even more or not be able to view the college games they enjoy today. When sports teams/programs due exclusive deals all consumers will have to pay for the opportunity to view their favorite teams. Something must be done to preclude monopolies in programing and distribution. Or force the sports programmers to allow those carrying the programs to put them on sports tiers where those wanting, willing to pay and who can affort to pay can have the sports, and others do not have to pay for something they don't want.
Canby Fan —

Comments are now closed.

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics