yesterday i called my cbale operator and he said that they will discuss with other cable operators and hope that they will start the channel next month
Indian Viewers - STAR CRICKET , will it be as elusive as Neo Sports ?
- Thread starter aditya123
- Start date
yesterday i called my cbale operator and he said that they will discuss with other cable operators and hope that they will start the channel next month
tatasky also got the deal with espn
now tataksy will also show india england series
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1110665
i m feeling very sorry that still there is no sign of star criket in pakistan
now tataksy will also show india england series
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1110665
i m feeling very sorry that still there is no sign of star criket in pakistan
Last edited:
sohum
Executive member
Time is cutting short; less than 5 hours to go before the match starts so hope everyone gets their channel deal figured out.
Abhas
Retired Administrator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Location
- New Delhi, India
we are getting it on tata sky 
harishankar
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Location
- India
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
To me it's not whether one is "getting" it or not. To me it's only one more disgrace in Television rights making a mockery of all viewers who subscribed to ESPN/Star Sports on their promise of delivering quality Live cricket on their existing networks ESPN and Star Sports (as they advertised so often).
It's not about the money. If they charged Rs. 1/- for "Star Cricket" I still wouldn't subscribe. It's a complete betrayal on their part to all their regular subscribers (including myself) to fragment their audience by launching a new channel and make more easy money by forcing subscription on their new channel.
ESPN-Star has lost all my respect after this move. Sheer opportunism on their part to exploit the interest generated by the Indian tour of England to make more quick bucks.
They may have every right to launch a new cricket channel, but I also have every right to reject them outright... I am no longer addicted to live cricket. Hell I can live without even score updates... But I'm disgusted that they would stoop to the level of fly-by-night operators...
Sad state of affairs.
It's not about the money. If they charged Rs. 1/- for "Star Cricket" I still wouldn't subscribe. It's a complete betrayal on their part to all their regular subscribers (including myself) to fragment their audience by launching a new channel and make more easy money by forcing subscription on their new channel.
ESPN-Star has lost all my respect after this move. Sheer opportunism on their part to exploit the interest generated by the Indian tour of England to make more quick bucks.
They may have every right to launch a new cricket channel, but I also have every right to reject them outright... I am no longer addicted to live cricket. Hell I can live without even score updates... But I'm disgusted that they would stoop to the level of fly-by-night operators...
Sad state of affairs.
Last edited:
sohum
Executive member
To be fair, they will still show a large amount of live cricket on ESPN/Star Sports because of coinciding schedules. I'm pretty sure I read that the ODI series will be telecast in English on ESPN and in Hindi on Star Cricket.
It is obviously not a betrayal to all their regular subscribers because some subscribers (such as myself) have no problem with it. I think it is unwise of you to force your opinion on such a large proportion of the Indian TV-watching population. In fact, if you look at it from another point of view, ESS are moving towards a stage where they will try and show all their cricket on Star Cricket (except when it is not possible). This is an ideal scenario for someone who was taking the ESPN/Star package to watch cricket and nothing else to now drop those two channels and subscribe to just Star Cricket.
On the contrary, I'm glad ESPN-Star has finally split cricket into a different channel because it is clear that they have too many telecast rights in various sports around the world to be able to show everything properly. As a result, I am able to watch tournaments such as the Asian 9-ball tour live on Star Sports, whereas this time would probably be otherwise used to show repeat telecasts of the Indian tour. It is a very good move, in my opinion, and one that I appreciate immensely.
All I can say is good for you that you have beaten your addiction.
harishankar
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Location
- India
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
Sohum,
I didn't thrust my opinion on other subscribers of ESPN/Star. It's just that In *my* opinion everybody has got cheated and shortchanged. If you looked at their advertisements for over a year, you would realize that ESPN/Star's main selling point was Indian cricket (and other channels had got the bulk of Indian cricket in the last few years). Otherwise they wouldn't have so many subscriptions to watch a low percentage of cricket coverage, particularly Indian cricket. Now it's going to reduce even further on the two main channels ESPN and Star Sports. If you think otherwise, that's fine by me. But obviously the above post is my view and I can say that in my view at least every subscriber has got shortchanged by this move.
You can defend them and that's your opinion, but I will never accept their move. If they had to launch a new channel right at the start of a Test series which was generating some interest, it's rank opportunism, plain and simple.
I agree that it's now possible to drop ESPN and Star Sports in favour of Star Cricket, but somehow I think that the brilliant guys at ESPN are going to "rotate" the matches on all three channels to make sure that people are subscribed to all three channels. It's just my guess though and I might be wrong.
In any case, I just posted this in the hope that others might feel some outrage. I myself have reached a stage of "don't care" and even this news didn't really surprise me all that much. I just wanted to share my thoughts...
I didn't thrust my opinion on other subscribers of ESPN/Star. It's just that In *my* opinion everybody has got cheated and shortchanged. If you looked at their advertisements for over a year, you would realize that ESPN/Star's main selling point was Indian cricket (and other channels had got the bulk of Indian cricket in the last few years). Otherwise they wouldn't have so many subscriptions to watch a low percentage of cricket coverage, particularly Indian cricket. Now it's going to reduce even further on the two main channels ESPN and Star Sports. If you think otherwise, that's fine by me. But obviously the above post is my view and I can say that in my view at least every subscriber has got shortchanged by this move.
You can defend them and that's your opinion, but I will never accept their move. If they had to launch a new channel right at the start of a Test series which was generating some interest, it's rank opportunism, plain and simple.
I agree that it's now possible to drop ESPN and Star Sports in favour of Star Cricket, but somehow I think that the brilliant guys at ESPN are going to "rotate" the matches on all three channels to make sure that people are subscribed to all three channels. It's just my guess though and I might be wrong.
In any case, I just posted this in the hope that others might feel some outrage. I myself have reached a stage of "don't care" and even this news didn't really surprise me all that much. I just wanted to share my thoughts...
Last edited:
sohum
Executive member
Fair enough, and I respect your opinion. However, one also has to understand that ESS is a company trying to make profits (which I'm sure you do, as you seem to be quite knowledgeable about economics if I remember correctly from your previous posts). They have no doubt put down a ton of money by acquiring telecast rights for various sports around the world and launching a purely cricket channel not only satisfies cricket buffs like myself but also means that they can show a variety of sports, such as carrom, pool and other sports of domestic interest.
Secondly, you have to understand that all channels have to work against the government, anyway, because the Indian government has decided that all ODI's, regardless of whether they are played at home or away, have to be telecast on DD. This severely cuts down on their profits, and coupled with the dishonest MSO's that they have to deal with at the cable operator level, I can certainly understand their reaction.
Thirdly, the launching of the channel was hardly new news--there was media flying around about it the day I landed in India--back in May. This was plenty of time for the whole mess to be sorted out, in my opinion. In addition, the channel was officially launched almost half a month before the test series began. The cable operators, obviously, tried to get a bargain as they always do.
From what I understand, the majority of Indian television consumers do not have a direct-to-home service and hence rely on their cable operators to procure channels for them. The operators then pay the channels and charge a monthly fee to the subscribers. When I was in this economically unsound system, I don't know what I was paying for, but I would only be telecast 3 sports channels at a time (there were at least 5 at that time). It was up to the cable operator to decide, then, which channels to show at which time. In addition to this, they even charged me for all the channels that I was "subscribing" to, money that was not necessarily going to the channels.
In the end, I think the demand for a quality cricket channel far outweighs any negative externality caused by ESPN/Star's behavior, and in fact, seems like it was just an attempt by them to offset the previously unfair behavior towards them.
Secondly, you have to understand that all channels have to work against the government, anyway, because the Indian government has decided that all ODI's, regardless of whether they are played at home or away, have to be telecast on DD. This severely cuts down on their profits, and coupled with the dishonest MSO's that they have to deal with at the cable operator level, I can certainly understand their reaction.
Thirdly, the launching of the channel was hardly new news--there was media flying around about it the day I landed in India--back in May. This was plenty of time for the whole mess to be sorted out, in my opinion. In addition, the channel was officially launched almost half a month before the test series began. The cable operators, obviously, tried to get a bargain as they always do.
From what I understand, the majority of Indian television consumers do not have a direct-to-home service and hence rely on their cable operators to procure channels for them. The operators then pay the channels and charge a monthly fee to the subscribers. When I was in this economically unsound system, I don't know what I was paying for, but I would only be telecast 3 sports channels at a time (there were at least 5 at that time). It was up to the cable operator to decide, then, which channels to show at which time. In addition to this, they even charged me for all the channels that I was "subscribing" to, money that was not necessarily going to the channels.
In the end, I think the demand for a quality cricket channel far outweighs any negative externality caused by ESPN/Star's behavior, and in fact, seems like it was just an attempt by them to offset the previously unfair behavior towards them.
harishankar
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Location
- India
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
I agree that ESPN/Star are a business. But who are their customers? The viewers who have no control over decisions over TV rights? The cable operators who apparently choose at random what is suitable for airing and what is not? The government or the BCCI?
Because the attitude of these businesses are plain wrong. It's not wrong to make a profit. It *is* wrong to make a profit both by running advertisements and by charging the viewer for watching. I thought that pay channels had no right to show their customers advertising. Apparently I am wrong.
That seems to be the likely case. I think ESPN/Star are a bit pissed off by the BCCI's attitude towards them. But again, my cable operator apparently decided to air Star Cricket (we have CAS) without even our asking. My guess is that a majority of customers complained to him and he had to restore the channel.
In any case, I hardly watched a few overs before getting extremely bored.
The point of my original post still remains though: The majority of TV viewers has very little choice of what he can and cannot see even if he is willing to pay for channels and that's the tragedy of all this ugly battles over TV rights and the war between cable operators and tv networks. Even with CAS implemented, cable operators apparently have the final say on what channels can be viewed and what cannot because of their own greed combined with the greed of channels who choose to go "pay" overnight in order to exploit the hapless public.
We as paying customers have no voice in the whole issue. And that is my point...
Because the attitude of these businesses are plain wrong. It's not wrong to make a profit. It *is* wrong to make a profit both by running advertisements and by charging the viewer for watching. I thought that pay channels had no right to show their customers advertising. Apparently I am wrong.
That seems to be the likely case. I think ESPN/Star are a bit pissed off by the BCCI's attitude towards them. But again, my cable operator apparently decided to air Star Cricket (we have CAS) without even our asking. My guess is that a majority of customers complained to him and he had to restore the channel.
In any case, I hardly watched a few overs before getting extremely bored.
The point of my original post still remains though: The majority of TV viewers has very little choice of what he can and cannot see even if he is willing to pay for channels and that's the tragedy of all this ugly battles over TV rights and the war between cable operators and tv networks. Even with CAS implemented, cable operators apparently have the final say on what channels can be viewed and what cannot because of their own greed combined with the greed of channels who choose to go "pay" overnight in order to exploit the hapless public.
We as paying customers have no voice in the whole issue. And that is my point...
Last edited:
sohum
Executive member
I agree with the above point of view. But I do not agree with your initial argument that ESPN/Star are more to blame than the system that is in place. From the advertisements I watched on ESPN/Star and the successive airing of promotional material for Star Cricket, I was quite certain that the England-India tour was going to be broadcast on Star Cricket. My doubts were confirmed when the England-West Indies ODI series was shifted over there.
I think the middle-man that is the cable operator is hampering the system. If the channels had to communicate directly with the consumers, they would know that their PED is actually pretty large and would accordingly think twice before launching new channels and bagging more cash. However, they've got to do this if they are to survive. Already ESPN/Star lose far more money than the pathetic other pretenders that Indian television have because they show at least 6 balls an over; and sometimes they do not even take in between overs.
I think the middle-man that is the cable operator is hampering the system. If the channels had to communicate directly with the consumers, they would know that their PED is actually pretty large and would accordingly think twice before launching new channels and bagging more cash. However, they've got to do this if they are to survive. Already ESPN/Star lose far more money than the pathetic other pretenders that Indian television have because they show at least 6 balls an over; and sometimes they do not even take in between overs.
harishankar
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
- Location
- India
- Profile Flag
- India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
Sohum, you may be right. Maybe I was a bit too harsh on ESPN/Star. But the fact that they have to use such tactics to stay competitive shows the degeneration of business ethics in this field. Television networks have become sharks, trying to devour each other.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
I have Star Cricket on my Tata sky.
Gotta go call my dad back in the US! Tell him to get it there on DISH!
Gotta go call my dad back in the US! Tell him to get it there on DISH!
sohum
Executive member
There's no arguing this. I firmly believe this problem has mainly been created because too much money is going into cricket from sponsors. The BCCI as a result wants to sell its' tenders for exorbitant prices. The TV networks then need to pay more and hence charge more from their consumers. The system of subscribing to television then ensures that this system continues, because the real demand for channels is being lost at a lower level.
