Hawks, Bulls, & Sox new channel is Chicago Sports Network (CHSN)

DisgruntledHawkFan

Blackhawk Down
Jun 19, 2004
58,667
30,211
South Side
If he's working 2 jobs 50+ hours a week, he still isn't watching with a digital antenna, because he probably works during most, and can't DVR them. So now you're talking adding the cost of a DVR into the mix.

And I'm sorry, but someone making 45k can probably afford a base streaming or cable package that offers the local sports channels. The NBCSN channels were offered on the lowest tier of any cable/streaming package you can have with any of three providers that I've had over the last 5 or 6 years.


I'm speaking to IF they have nothing in place by then.

It's still been an absolute shitshow of a project/planning/implementation. It's like a high school media club is spearheading this whole thing.
It's two jobs twenty something hours a week because companies don't want to pay benefits. I know I couldn't afford it because I had medical issues and worked 28 and 25 hours at two different jobs to barely pay my mortgage. I've watched like three cubs game this year as a result.

This is a poorly implemented thing that's still a net positive.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,701
22,563
Chicago 'Burbs
It's two jobs twenty something hours a week because companies don't want to pay benefits. I know I couldn't afford it because I had medical issues and worked 28 and 25 hours at two different jobs to barely pay my mortgage. I've watched like three cubs game this year as a result.

This is a poorly implemented thing that's still a net positive.
Did you have high speed internet at your house during that time? If so, it's like another $40 a month to add on the lowest tier of a TV package with a company like Xfinity, and then you'd have the cable sports channels. $40 a month is like not eating a takeout meal two days in a month.
 

DisgruntledHawkFan

Blackhawk Down
Jun 19, 2004
58,667
30,211
South Side
I'm assuming it won't be an option because, to start the season, it won't be an option. They have made zero comments about YouTube TV or Xfinity broadcasting their games. None. The season starts in two weeks, and they still haven't finalized the deal with DirecTV, who they have actually mentioned by name. The statement on their website doesn't inspire much confidence, either:

"
We are working to make Chicago Sports Network available to more fans in more places than ever before. It is our goal to offer CHSN on fans' preferred platforms with financial options that enable all fans to access our games and network content.

"

"We are working."
"It is our goal."

I'm not sure how much you've worked around technology, but those are the things you say when you're not sure you can deliver.

Who is asking for free programming? People that have YouTube TV and Xfinity aren't getting it for free.... That service is already paid for. For cable users, you're already paying fees to watch those teams. You know, how Xfinity and DirecTV charge customers extra for Marquee network, even if you don't want it?

We live in a first world country. Every argument we have is a first world argument. Duh.

This is not a nothing issue. The Blackhawks, White Sox, and Bulls are telling the majority of their fans and customers that if they want their product, they will need to go out, buy an antenna, hook it up, and watch their games OTA. They are actually making it HARDER for the overwhelming majority of their fans to tune in. How is this a nothing issue? It's almost marketing malpractice. You always want to make it EASIER to consume your product, not more difficult.

Billionaires aren't looking to take money from the working class? Lol. What a naive statement. The OTA shit is nothing more than leverage for their negotiations with the major providers. That's it. Corporations offer NOTHING for free, and this is no exception. You can bet your ass that if/when these games come to Xfinity, it comes with a premium. I actually have doubts that it will ever come to YouTube TV, because YouTube TV doesn't do RSNs....


Brother I know billionaires don't give out things for free better than anyone I'm just saying that poor people being able to watch for a one time ten dollar expenditure is better than people who are being inconvenienced by having to hook up a wire to the back of their TV.
 

DisgruntledHawkFan

Blackhawk Down
Jun 19, 2004
58,667
30,211
South Side
Did you have high speed internet at your house during that time? If so, it's like another $40 a month to add on the lowest tier of a TV package with a company like Xfinity. $40 a month is like not eating a takeout meal two days in a month.
Had direct tv it's $50 for internet $70 for basic cable.
 

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
70,229
103,758
Cambridge, MA
As I understand it, they needed the OTA deal done before they could get one done with the cable providers - and the cable subs have to carry it, by the 'must carry' law.

We'll see what happens in the next 2 weeks, as this could be much ado about nothing.
The issue with must-carry is a station can only demand ONE subchannel to be carried.

IF a deal can made with Xfinity the channels will most likely be on a higher-priced tier than basic similar to what Bally Sports had to accept after a long blackout this season.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,701
22,563
Chicago 'Burbs
Brother I know billionaires don't give out things for free better than anyone I'm just saying that poor people being able to watch for a one time ten dollar expenditure is better than people who are being inconvenienced by having to hook up a wire to the back of their TV.
Nobody is arguing that having OTA programming is a bad thing man. They're arguing that this entire thing is a shitshow because they have no streaming or cable platforms carrying the channel like 3 weeks before the regular season starts, thus forcing people who already have and pay for those services, to go spend more money in order to watch.

Had direct tv it's $50 for internet $70 for basic cable.
Usually Xfinity packages their lowest tier of high speed internet and lowest tier of cable TV, which includes local sports channels, for around $90 or $100 a month. From my experience. It's usually on a one year basis. When that year is up, you call back and just get the newest promotion they offer for a similar price.
 

DisgruntledHawkFan

Blackhawk Down
Jun 19, 2004
58,667
30,211
South Side
Nobody is arguing that having OTA programming is a bad thing man. They're arguing that this entire thing is a shitshow because they have no streaming or cable platform way to watch in place like 3 weeks before the regular season starts, thus forcing people who already have and pay for those services, to go spend more money in order to watch.


Usually Xfinity packages their lowest tier of high speed internet and lowest tier of cable TV, which includes local sports channels, for around $90 or $100 a month. From my experience.
I've never argued it's not been poorly handled I've been arguing with you and your brother because hooking up a $10 antenna is apparently a ridiculous inconvenience.

I'll be able to watch the Hawks before my first railroad check hits. There's way more positives than negatives to this. For now. For a lot of people.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,701
22,563
Chicago 'Burbs
I've never argued it's not been poorly handled I've been arguing with you and your brother because hooking up a $10 antenna is apparently a ridiculous inconvenience.

I'll be able to watch the Hawks before my first railroad check hits. There's way more positives than negatives to this. For now. For a lot of people.
It IS an inconvenience, though. Whether you think it's a "first world problem" or not... having to go out and buy or order a tv antenna(one for each TV in the house unless I wanna constantly swap it from TV to TV), buy a DVR if I want to record, pause, or rewind, on top of already paying for my TV streaming service... is an inconvenience, and honestly, I likely won't do it.

Know what I'll do? I just won't watch until they have a plan in place with streaming/cable providers. Think I'm the only one who will make that choice for a bottom 5 team in the NHL, or the worst team in MLB? They will lose viewers on account of this. Those like me, who will choose not to bother, will outnumber those who pick up an antenna and tune in OTA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68

IU Hawks fan

They call me IU
Dec 30, 2008
28,857
3,144
NW Burbs
The issue with must-carry is a station can only demand ONE subchannel to be carried.

IF a deal can made with Xfinity the channels will most likely be on a higher-priced tier than basic similar to what Bally Sports had to accept after a long blackout this season.

I don't see these situations as similar at all.

Bally was forced there because they were looking for a higher fee than Xfinity was willing to pay. CHSN is looking for wide distribution, they'll give it away for free to get in more homes and drive ad revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DisgruntledHawkFan

DisgruntledHawkFan

Blackhawk Down
Jun 19, 2004
58,667
30,211
South Side
It IS an inconvenience, though. Whether you think it's a "first world problem" or not... having to go out and buy or order a tv antenna(one for each TV in the house unless I wanna constantly swap it from TV to TV), buy a DVR if I want to record, pause, or rewind, on top of already paying for my TV streaming service... is an inconvenience, and honestly, I likely won't do it.

Know what I'll do? I just won't watch until they have a plan in place with streaming/cable providers. Think I'm the only one who will make that choice for a bottom 5 team in the NHL, or the worst team in MLB? They will lose viewers on account of this. Those like me, who will choose not to bother, will outnumber those who pick up an antenna and tune in OTA.
And they might have that plan in place before October first. You're annoyed you have to do a very minimal amount of work to watch the Blackhawks. My argument is poor people can watch the Blackhawks when they previously couldn't. You could be right about them potentially losing viewers. I don't care.
 

DisgruntledHawkFan

Blackhawk Down
Jun 19, 2004
58,667
30,211
South Side
I don't see these situations as similar at all.

Bally was forced there because they were looking for a higher fee than Xfinity was willing to pay. CHSN is looking for wide distribution, they'll give it away for free to get in more homes and drive ad revenue.
Yes. I don't see cable providers turning down free top four in the country sports for pennies on the dollar.
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,701
22,563
Chicago 'Burbs
And they might have that plan in place before October first. You're annoyed you have to do a very minimal amount of work to watch the Blackhawks. My argument is poor people can watch the Blackhawks when they previously couldn't. You could be right about them potentially losing viewers. I don't care.
Difference being that no one has ever argued with you that it's BAD that they're going to show Hawks games OTA via antenna. The only argument posed by people on here complaining in this thread, is that being the ONLY option less than two weeks before the start of games being played. You're arguing something that no one ever argued against, for some reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
19,250
26,852
Chicago, IL
They won't have a plan before October 1st. You know why? Because if they had a plan, you would already have heard about it. Their placeholder website wouldn't be 90% a FAQ about watching OTA content. The biggest problem for a corporation is uncertainty and doubt. If they had a plan, they would be quelling that with ANY kind of update on Xfinity and streaming options. Unless they just plan on going "SURPRISE!". But I doubt it.

Here's the reality. Your product sucks. All three teams are hot garbage.

The White Sox are a historically bad team. There's no light at the end of the tunnel, because the tunnel quite literally never ends.

The Bulls are mired in mediocrity. While they aren't historically bad, there's no light at the end of their tunnel, either. Just a middling, barely miss the playoffs, stuck in limbo organization.

The Blackhawks are in the very first stages of a rebuild. They have one legitimate player worth watching as of right now. Who knows how that rebuild plays out, but one thing is for certain. They are going to be a bad team this season. They are likely going to be a bad team next season.

You know what makes absolutely no f***ing sense from a business and marketing perspective given the above? Making it more difficult to watch your teams. Because, like my brother said, I just won't watch them. They aren't "can't miss TV". They are "I put them on in the background because I can."

The inconvenience of having to buy/order an antenna, hook it up, likely having to take my 65" TV off the wall to connect it, and then having an INFERIOR product than I've ever had, to watch sports? Nah. I'll pass, and wait for them to behave like a professional organization.
 

DisgruntledHawkFan

Blackhawk Down
Jun 19, 2004
58,667
30,211
South Side
Difference being that no one has ever argued with you that it's BAD that they're going to show Hawks games OTA via antenna. The only argument posed by people on here complaining in this thread, is that being the ONLY option less than two weeks before the start of games being played. You're arguing something that no one ever argued against, for some reason.
And tomorrow it might be handled and it's a non-issue for everyone is my point.
 

CallMeShaft

Registered User
Apr 14, 2014
16,302
22,728
Any word on AT&T and dish?
AT&T and Directv are more or less the same thing at this point; same ownership. So Directv having it means AT&T will have it, just a question of what tier of package is needed.

Dish hasn't carried NBCSCH in years because of the cost, so I have my doubts getting them on board is of much significance. It might happen, but don't hold your breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68 and Mrfenn92

Fenway

HF Bookie and Bruins Historian
Sponsor
Sep 26, 2007
70,229
103,758
Cambridge, MA
I don't see these situations as similar at all.

Bally was forced there because they were looking for a higher fee than Xfinity was willing to pay. CHSN is looking for wide distribution, they'll give it away for free to get in more homes and drive ad revenue.

Xfinity and NESN are at loggerheads as Xfinity wants to move NESN to a higher-priced tier and would be willing to do the same with NBC Sports Boston which they own 80%.

By doing that Xfinity would no longer charge a 'regional sports fee' that everybody pays.

1726606771677.png


The Kraken just announced their OTA network and struck a streaming deal with Amazon so Prime customers in Washington, Oregon and Alaska will get the games as part of their membership.

 

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
190,338
23,274
Chicagoland
AT&T and Directv are more or less the same thing at this point; same ownership. So Directv having it means AT&T will have it, just a question of what tier of package is needed.

Dish hasn't carried NBCSCH in years because of the cost, so I have my doubts getting them on board is of much significance. It might happen, but don't hold your breath.

Interestingly enough something to keep eye on down line for people with those services


It seems inevitable for them to merge as its likely best way for them to prolong survival at this point. Dish has been especially in bad shape in recent years
 

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
19,250
26,852
Chicago, IL
Xfinity and NESN are at loggerheads as Xfinity wants to move NESN to a higher-priced tier and would be willing to do the same with NBC Sports Boston which they own 80%.

By doing that Xfinity would no longer charge a 'regional sports fee' that everybody pays.

View attachment 907563

The Kraken just announced their OTA network and struck a streaming deal with Amazon so Prime customers in Washington, Oregon and Alaska will get the games as part of their membership.

So let's get this straight for all of us Chicago fans here. The Seattle Kraken, who have been a sports organization for all of three years.... struck a deal with Amazon, so their fanbase can catch their games on Prime. Meanwhile, the Chicago Blackhawks, Chicago Bulls, and Chicago White Sox....have yet to announce a presence on any streaming platforms. Just f***ing lol.
 

Mrfenn92

Proud to be American
Sponsor
Nov 27, 2018
33,157
33,288
Chicago,Illinois
AT&T and Directv are more or less the same thing at this point; same ownership. So Directv having it means AT&T will have it, just a question of what tier of package is needed.

Dish hasn't carried NBCSCH in years because of the cost, so I have my doubts getting them on board is of much significance. It might happen, but don't hold your breath.
Thanks
 

ChiHawks10

Registered User
Jul 7, 2009
28,701
22,563
Chicago 'Burbs
So let's get this straight for all of us Chicago fans here. The Seattle Kraken, who have been a sports organization for all of three years.... struck a deal with Amazon, so their fanbase can catch their games on Prime. Meanwhile, the Chicago Blackhawks, Chicago Bulls, and Chicago White Sox....have yet to announce a presence on any streaming platforms. Just f***ing lol.
Was just coming to say... the Kraken, an infant organization, have managed to secure streaming on Prime Video... and the Hawks still haven't secured even cable as a provider. What a shitshow. :laugh:
 

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
19,250
26,852
Chicago, IL
Also, for all those people who are just enamored with the OTA availability, have a quick read here:


Of particular note:

Rule #2

The strongest antenna in the world won’t provide good reception if you are in a bad signal area blocked with trees, buildings, etc.

Rule #4

If you have trees, houses and other structures in your area and have your antenna on a pole, don’t assume that you have the antenna in the path of the strongest signal. It probably isn’t.

Summary-

Start by FINDING the best signal location for your antenna. This is MUCH MORE critical than the strength of the antenna you choose. MUCH MORE critical!!!!

For example. I normally pick up a station from a distance of 69mi. This station, although it’s signal level is very low, is received perfectly well with no interruptions simply because I have a clear path to the transmitter. I can use a small, weak antenna, sitting on my deck and get perfect reception at all times.

HOWEVER, this station is only received in ONE location in my backyard! If I move the antenna 1 ft either way, or mount it higher, even as far as 30 ft up in the air or anywhere else in the yard, I receive NOTHING, PERIOD! Even a stronger antenna won’t bring in the signal at all unless it’s positioned in this ONE location!

When the wind blows, this distant channel provides me with solid reception I can’t get from my local channels that are only 13mi. away. For my local stations, the signal has to travel through thick trees and when the wind blows I have multipath issues and fluctuating signals that causes the signal to drop out.

The ATSC 1.0 signal is often far less reliable than a traditional analog signal that older TVs used to receive. So generally, unless you are in an urban area and in line of sight of the TV towers, an outdoor antenna is almost a necessity.

It's like people here aren't old enough to remember all of the issues with OTA broadcasts and why cable TV became a thing. But nowadays, instead of static for a poor signal, you just get a frozen picture, or no picture at all.

This sounds f***ing awesome.
 

statswatcher

the smartest guy in athens knows he's dumb
Jul 27, 2022
591
794
Also, for all those people who are just enamored with the OTA availability, have a quick read here:


Of particular note:









It's like people here aren't old enough to remember all of the issues with OTA broadcasts and why cable TV became a thing. But nowadays, instead of static for a poor signal, you just get a frozen picture, or no picture at all.

This sounds f***ing awesome.
fwiw, i got a buddy who lives out in the woods with one of these things. works fine for the most part from what i've seen. comparable to satellite tv. funny thing is he has two tv's in his living room, and when he turns on the second tv, it breaks up the signal for all channels under like channel 15 or something lol.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ChiHawks10

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
19,250
26,852
Chicago, IL
fwiw, i got a buddy who lives out in the woods with one of these things. works fine for the most part from what i've seen. comparable to satellite tv. funny thing is he has two tv's in his living room, and when he turns on the second tv, it breaks up the signal for all channels under like channel 15 or something lol.

I mean, that sounds just like what I remember from when I was ....8 years old.

This is a good resource to figure out what kind of signal you can expect to receive for the OTA broadcast.


You aren't looking good even in somewhere like Naperville....
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad