JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to ski93
Re: Verizon vs Cablevision said by ski93:Its funny how Verizon for years, at least here in New England bitched about open access. Which took away from Cable's market share..Force the cable companies to open the very networks that they spent millions of dollars on to build from the ground up to the likes of AOL, Earthlink, Netzero and dozens more... But when they are asked to open their very own Fios and or copper networks the defenders of MA-Bell cry fowl...Cablevision has every right to protect their property..If what you say is true..The the government needs to kill the exclusive contract between the NFL and Direct TV..(crying) It's just not fair that a particular channel or service that's available to one but not the other...boo hoo...One should not be forced to give or sell a product that is exclusive to them or a subsidiary of said company..I'm tired of hearing this FAIRNESS rule...We all seem to have this entitlement attitude in this country..Suck it up folks...If Cablevision needs to share the wealth then shouldn't Verizon..allow more internet providers to piggyback fios for a means of taking market share from Verizon...fair is fair..right people...And don't separate tv/telco/internet either..they all come from both companies above in the discussion.. What in the world are you talking about? Verizon is piggy-backing on cable's backbone? Huh? Gee, I thought Verizon built, you know, it's OWN network. As for services like AOL and Earthlink 'sharing' cable's system... again, huh?! They're doing no such thing. Earthlink doesn't just walk in and piggy-back on cable's backbone. Sorry, but that's just nonsense.
Next, while I'm not wild about exclusive carry contracts (NFL ST on DirecTV), this is NOT the same thing at all. The fact that many don't see this really gets me... the issue isn't whether one channel provider can have an exclusive carry arrangement. They can, and do (e.g. CV's exclusive carry deal of MSNBC). The issue is: what happens when the channel is OWNED by pay TV service provider? THAT'S the issue. If MSG wasn't owned by CV, and they signed an exclusive carry agreement with CV this thread would be a nonstarter - there would be no issue for the FCC to look into.
But because CV OWNS MSG HD... that's another issue entirely. The FCC has regulations in effect to handle JUST this kind of arrangement. That's a real concern, because, with all the mergers between distribution companies and content providers that happened through the late 90's, you could easily have content wars between providers. Imagine DirecTV (when they were owned by News Corp) not allowing anyone else to have access to the Fox suite of channels... no FNC, FBC, F/X, Fox Reality, FMC, FSC,... etc. I'm sure cable subscribers would have been just fine with that arrangement... right?
CV has been playing games - no one is asking for special treatment against CV... Verizon is just asking that CV adhere to the same rules that govern all other TV service providers.
Finally, finally - look at my other post. Verizon, and all phone companies, are REQUIRED, per the 1996 telecommunications act, to share their copper networks. That's why you can get AT&T phone service even if your network is managed by Verizon. Funny... should they do the same with cable? Hmm... if you're talking about making things fair, wouldn't it be 'fair' to have CV open up its copper network to Verizon VoIP service? |
