Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Last gasp effort to stop the fleeing
Of their customers from fleeing to competitors. Can't blame them for doing this. I think Verizon sadly just gotta fork up extra $$ to Cablevision, which in turn makes Verizon's TV packages more expensive, ah the world of bickering.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen. |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs: | Whine
Just looking at the brief on DSLR, I think that Verizon has the shoe on the other foot.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| free market
Why isn't Verizon petitioning the FCC to overturn the terrestrial transmission loophole (aslong as it never touches a bird, no right of access to the signal)? Verizon doesn't want its own medicine?
Someone not like the free market? (CV maintaining programming content exclusivity)
Why doesn't Verizon just buy Cablevision? Its market cap is $5.39 billion, $10 billion should easily cover it. |
|
funtoo
@comcast.net | NFL
Gee DirectTV and NFL do the same to cable by not letting cable have NFL Sunday ticket? |
|
nycdave
Premium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to patcat88
Re: free market
The terrestrial loophole argument doesn't hold water - Cablevision lets Time Warner carry MSG HD. Cablevision won't even approach the table to discuss the carriage with Verizon, so it isn't a question of $$$..
This is a pure example of a monopoly refusing to allow the competition access. TW doesn't compete with Cablevision, but VZ certainly does. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| Battle on 2 Fronts
These unhappy Verizon customers should complain to their favorite teams about pressuring Cablevision into allowing FiOS TV to have access to MSG HD. (it's really not a Chinese food network?)
Let them know you won't be changing services, and that they will lose fan support with these exclusive contracts. In the short term, they may just look at the quick buck, but if the fan base erodes, there goes their livelihood.
|
|
Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL | Remember the old days...
in cable, before ESPN,
when MSG was the 1 sports channel available out here on flyover country cable systems.
(back in late 70s/early 80s) |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to funtoo
Re: NFL
said by funtoo :
Gee DirectTV and NFL do the same to cable by not letting cable have NFL Sunday ticket?
Not quite, because all of the cable companies have the same opportunity to bid for the NFL Sunday Ticket. The infrastructure makes things technically more difficult and costly to offer a similar experience, but at least they have a chance to bid for it.
In this situation, Verizon is given absolutely no method to even attempt to provide their viewers with the HD feed of MSG.
It's different. |
|
Bobcat
Premium
join:2001-02-04
Bedminster, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Bob61571
Re: Remember the old days...
MSG couldn't even sell enough commercial time to cover an entire hockey game. By the third period, there were no more commercials, and you'd just watch the players hanging out on the ice when play stopped.
--
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| So What?
If Cablevision owns the channel and it isn't a publicly broadcasted signal then Cablevision has the right to sell access to channel to whoever it wants.
Verizon complains rightfully when other companies want to compel it to share its fiber optic network with them. Funny how it wants the rules changed when it pertains to something it wants.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | reply to nycdave
Re: free market
Like verizon isnt doing this with the third party dsl companies? |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
|  Time to give the entertainment industry a dose of regulation
 As I see it the entertainment has been given a monopoly through the copyright law. It is time to regulate the entertainment industries program pricing when they sell programming to the cable companies. The excuse the cable industry always uses whenever they raise prices is that programmers are raising prices therefore we must raise prices. On the other hand when two entertainment transport (Cable/Telephone/DBS) companies operate in the same market and one owns a programming source, there is no reason for the program owner to give up exclusivity that is the way to create product differentiation. |
|
TheWiseGuy
Dog And Butterfly
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
Yonkers, NY
| reply to jmn1207
Re: Battle on 2 Fronts
said by jmn1207  :These unhappy Verizon customers should complain to their favorite teams about pressuring Cablevision into allowing FiOS TV to have access to MSG HD. (it's really not a Chinese food network?) Who do you think owns the NY teams, Rangers/Knicks that are on MSG? (answer=Cablevision) So basically the fans will be complaining to CV.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore. |
|
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to pnh102
Re: So What?
said by pnh102 :If Cablevision owns the channel and it isn't a publicly broadcasted signal then Cablevision has the right to sell access to channel to whoever it wants. Verizon complains rightfully when other companies want to compel it to share its fiber optic network with them. Funny how it wants the rules changed when it pertains to something it wants. You're comparing apples to oranges here. The sharing of a network isn't the same as sharing a channel. The difference is in when a cable provider is the OWNER of a channel. The FCC frowns on such things - otherwise you could have some really ugly relationships out there. For example, DirecTV used to be majority-owned by News Corp - parent of Fox. Would it have been ok to have DirecTV prevent other systems from carrying the fox suite of cable channels?
When the merger between media companies and distribution companies started happening, there was serious concern that these type of turf wars would indeed happen. What CV is doing is likely a violation of FCC regulations regarding the distribution of channels owned by cable operators.
When it comes to using a fiber network - that's a different issue entirely. There is no requirement to share, e.g., cable lines... or satellite space. About the ONLY area where lines are required to be shared is with copper phone lines. The 1996 Telecommunications Act required it - and a major justification for allowing it came from the fact that the federal government paid a good chunk of the money with rolling out those copper lines decades ago. That's not the case with fiber - FiOS is totally paid for by Verizon, and as such is their own proprietary distribution system. To say that they have to open up their fiber means that cable companies should also be required to open up their networks to allow competitors to use.
An argument can be made that cable companies who own channels should be allowed to only give them to whomever they want. But if you have that, it better be a consistent regulation, that adheres to everyone. CV is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
What the FCC should do in this case is just eliminate the stupid terrestrial loophole. If they find in Verizon's favor, that's very likely (in my opinion) to be the end-result. |
|
Natoma
join:1999-08-30
Brooklyn, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Pizz
Re: Last gasp effort to stop the fleeing
Cablevision must really fear Verizon FIOS TV. I can get MSG and other Cablevision-owned TV stations on TimeWarner cable, so I don't understand what Cablevision's problem is here.
That said, I would definitely switch to FIOS TV if it were available in my building.
I can't stand TimeWarner. |
|
dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
clubs:
 ·VOIPo
·magicjack.com
·Optimum Online
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Road Runner
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| Send the WAAAAMBULANCE
...over to Verizon HQ.
DirecTV managed to ante up the necessary bucks to carry MSG HD.
Why can't Verizon ?
It's not that they can't - it's that they don't WANT to - because it would eat into their profit margins...
Cry me a river....
(PS - my sympathies lie with the poor subscribers who can't get the channel - not with the corporate entity that's playing games).
--
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
|
|
CO_Chris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO | reply to Bobcat
Re: Remember the old days...
I remember when there was MSG and Sports channel back in the day when TWC came to Glendale Queens. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to TheWiseGuy
Re: Battle on 2 Fronts
Oh goodness me, yuck. I was not aware that this was a rich brat version of taking the ball home and ruining the game for everyone.
I would really find it difficult to remain loyal to an organization that pissed on me and dropped me in the mud. I'd be an Islander/Nets fan until those other teams were sold or bankrupt, and I would do my best to avoid any type of support to the Dolans...ever. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
1 edit | reply to dbmaven
Re: Send the WAAAAMBULANCE
From what I have read it's that Verizon can't. Has there been an offer made that was refused based on price, or are the Dolans simply not even allowing Verizon to have the option to carry this channel? |
|
skurfa
join:2006-03-10
Yorktown, VA
| Funny that..........
Funny that everyone bitches about how the government should stay out of business yet they want the gov to help Verizon get a competitors offering? I own a restaurant, if I have a trademark on your favorite meal but you prefer a different restaurant, should I provide that recipe to my competitor so you can eat there?
Cablevision stated clearly they will not provide MSG to competitors, be it Verizon or anyone else, MSO's do not compete directly, not yet anyway, so selling it to TWC is not the same. More like me licensing that recipe to a restaurant in another town, but for obvious (at leats to me) reasons refusing to do the same for the restaurant down the street.
--
Fairtax.org, It's time. |
|
