funtoo
@comcast.net | NFL
Gee DirectTV and NFL do the same to cable by not letting cable have NFL Sunday ticket? |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| 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. |
|
Lee GWB
Yaco
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to funtoo
I believe they have an agreement that lasts until 2010 or 11. Then they can negotiate. MSNBC has a similar contract with CV . That is why FIOS cannot get MSNBC SD or HD.
Cablevision is using the terrestrial loophole. It is not about the money or contract. |
|
tiyuri
join:2001-06-06
Little Silver, NJ | That isn't true. When I lived in NJ (in the NYC DMA) I got MSNBC with FIOS. The restriction was/is that FIOS can only offer MSNBC in towns that are not served by Cablevision. |
|
caster665
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to jmn1207
Direct tv has all MSG feeds
in demand sports sucks any ways only 1 HD feed at one time.
Sunday ticket on cable will suck UP To two HD games* a weak.
*do to black rules with the 2 games we pick to be in HD are on local tv then you will get them on your local channels and not get any game at that time on in demand Sunday ticket.
also poor PQ as it will be 15:1 yes 15 games in sd on 1 qam. |
|
Lee GWB
Yaco
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
1 edit | reply to tiyuri
Correct! I failed to explain it in depth. CV has an "Exclusive " carry contract. Thanks for the clairification 
Lee |
|
ski93
join:2005-02-14
Northwood, NH
 ·ViaTalk
 ·Metrocast Communic..
| reply to jmn1207
Not true..Direct TV simply at the end of each contract expiration ante's up more and more money to keep NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive..thus increasing the cost to its clientel..Cable companies have tried but the money hungry NFL simply wants more money..Great example NFL network trying to force cable tv operators to carry them on basic cable tiers and increasing the subscription rate almost a buck a head, which would rake in millions for them...Comcast told them to screw and NFL lowered rate and was not placed on basic cable they were placed in a digital package..Verizion is simply getting treated like they treat the competition in other regions of the country with exclusive carriage. If you want your fav baseball teams or hockey or any other college of pro sports team shop around...you have dish..direct tv..in nyc area half a dozen land based providers.. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to funtoo
i could see a great profit engine if one was the last cable holdout in an apartment building. course you would be sued and fined if you setup a low power UHF and beamed MSG games to other units lol.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
NFL fan
@optonline.net
| reply to jmn1207
The cable companies actually have not been able to fairly bid for the NFL package. The NFL has tried to force Cablevision, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. to put their NFL network as part of their basic cable package as a "good faith" type gesture before allowing the bid. Then Direct TV goes and bids more than five times their previous bid for exclusive rights to the NFL programming.
I am more than willing to bet that if you dig deep enough you find that there are people in the NFl who own a signifigant portion of Direct tv. |
|
techygeek
join:2008-04-30
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
2 edits | Well im not a one sided person, I understand the cable companies gripe too.. I am pretty sure my info is accurate on this, this is what I feel though....
I can see these cable companies gripe on the NFL package as well. Exclusive contract should be deemed as completely anti-competative.
I am not saying that two companies can't get together to create a preferential environment between each other but there is a difference between offering a channel package to your competitors to keep fair competition in place as long as you can make a fair and reasonable profit (something like operational costs + 10% revenue) but not offering it at all or at ridiculous markups is just plain unfair and anticompetative. Telcos offering TV packages should get the same fair shake as well.
Content locks can and should be deemed anticompetative. There is a difference between offering it at a reasonable price and just overmarking or locking it up forcing customers to have to go to only one provider in order to be able to get it. |
|
ZachAttack
join:2009-05-30
Yorba Linda, CA
·Time Warner Cable
| Cablevision built up the channel, and it's their own content, from their own team, and their own venue. The SD version of the Channel is already on Fios. Verizon needs to go back to the marketing drawing board, and find another facet to compete. There is no legitimate reason the FCC should require CV to share the HD version. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by ZachAttack  :Cablevision built up the channel, and it's their own content, from their own team, and their own venue. The SD version of the Channel is already on Fios. Verizon needs to go back to the marketing drawing board, and find another facet to compete. There is no legitimate reason the FCC should require CV to share the HD version. If Exxon owned/partnered with Toyota and decided they were no longer going to allow Honda's to fill up at their stations, I suppose they could try this too. It's their oil, processed at their plants, distributed by them, and sold at their gas stations. Some things need regulations for the protection of the consumer.
The Trade Practices Act covers refusal to deal, among other possible violations from Cablevision. Claims of anti-competitive conduct is as legitimate a reason as any for the FCC to step in and investigate the situation. We'll see where it all finally leads, but considering the resources both parties have, I doubt a solution will be found anytime soon. |
|
ZachAttack
join:2009-05-30
Yorba Linda, CA
·Time Warner Cable
| Unless I'm blind and haven't paid attention, even a Google Search shows no such act as the "Trade Practices Act" exists Federally or in New York, which is the jurisdiction of both companies. While our anti-trust regulations the Sherman Act, etc. have provisions neither company has been deemed an illegal monopoly, and Cablevision has followed to the letter everything the FCC has required them to do. Someone else said it here and it puts it quite succinct however sad it is, whoever has the biggest pockets and is able to buy the FCC will win, I just hope it isn't Verizon, "The Phone Company" screwed us for years, why let them back into power over us now. |
|
techygeek
join:2008-04-30
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
2 edits | reply to ZachAttack
said by ZachAttack :Cablevision built up the channel, and it's their own content, from their own team, and their own venue. The SD version of the Channel is already on Fios. Verizon needs to go back to the marketing drawing board, and find another facet to compete. There is no legitimate reason the FCC should require CV to share the HD version. I am no expert but this is my feelings on this so feel free to argue it..
It was not a fair platform… cable companies bought up content while telcos couldn’t offer video yet ---not a fair purchasing platform--- but then it was ok for cable to offer competitive phone service ---.
Sorry but I cannot see where cable companies, at least at a reasonable rate, not fully opening access to their content at the best quality possible is in any way, not –anticompetative--.
Please, do argue the point, maybe i'm missing something. |
|
ZachAttack
join:2009-05-30
Yorba Linda, CA
·Time Warner Cable
| They do offer the content. You can view MSG on all platforms in the Area, actually you can get MSG on most platforms in the country. In the past they withheld MSG completely from competitors and the FCC dictated that they have to sell this channel to Verizon. They followed this rule to the letter. MSG-HD is the content they already provide to Verizon in a better picture format, the FCC requires them to provide MSG, but not MSG-HD. United States law is distinct it allows businesses to operate and maximize profits, compete, and it is not considered illegal until it is damaging to consumers, so anti competitive is not an issue, because they share MSG.
Verizon is a NYC company they could have purchased Madison Square Gardens, the Knicks, the Rangers, anytime they were on-sale. If they offered Cablevision enough $$$ they could buy them now, maybe (if the company was so inclined to sell, it could be that they would accept no amount of money). Which is also the case with the HD version of the channel, Cablevision reserves the right not to sell the HD version of MSG fro any amount of money and keep it as their exclusive product until the FCC requires them to. I don't like the Phone Company, or the Cable Company. But, there is nothing illegal with what they are doing, Verizon is competing based on Internet Speed, and Price. Cablevision is competing on Exclusive product. Right now Cablevision has the upper hand with HD content, Verizon should choose to compete on another point. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| I understand that Cablevision is doing everything by the book in this matter, but it's the book that might need to be updated.
We don't want a situation where HD versions of channels with potentially millions of viewers are blocked from competitors. I don't want to be forced to get Time Warner Cable just for TNT HD. If Disney were to purchase or make an agreement with Comcast, would they be able to prevent ESPN HD and the rest of their HD cable lineup from being available to anyone that chooses to use a different provider?
It just seems like somebody needs to step in and take a closer look at how things currently are, and perhaps bring up some options for regulating this potential mess. I do believe this is a gray area with regards to competition. You seem to consider MSG and MSG HD as a single product, but many see them as separate and distinct entities. Where is the consumer's choice for MSG HD? Should a TV provider be allowed to own media content? Does this fuel anti-competitive abuse?
I think Verizon has deeper pockets and more influence, so I'm betting that Cablevision will eventually cave and offer the HD version. Once this happens, I'm sure the next move from Cablevision will be a ridiculous price offered to Verizon, which will send everyone back to the courtroom for more rounds of fighting.
Unless Verizon adds another 15 million FiOS TV subscribers, it will be to Cablevision's advantage to block the HD channel. Otherwise, Cablevision would probably stand to make more money from potential viewer ratings and advertisement sales. DirecTV has 20 millions subscribers, so even though they might compete on some level with Cablevision, the number of viewers was very high in comparison to Verizon's (~2-3 million), and it hurt their pocketbook more by withholding MSG HD from the satellite TV provider than by selling the right for them to include it in their lineup. |
|
ZachAttack
join:2009-05-30
Yorba Linda, CA
·Time Warner Cable
| While I don't watch MSG, I believe MSG-HD is just MSG broadcast in High Definition. It's one product, just a different quality version of the picture.
I don't think we need more regulation when the rules as they are now work 99.9% of the time. It is usually in the interest of a cable company/broadcaster/distributor/team to have the channel available to as many people as possible. There are maybe 3 occasions where this hasn't worked, Channel 4 San Diego (AT&T), CSN-Philadelphia (Directv), and MSG-HD (Verizon), in all three cases it's sports that's the driving factor, and it's mostly the Phone company coming in like yesterday and trying to carve out niche neighborhoods to extract high profit. For almost every other channel its a non-starter these channels are made available to everyone and anyone.
Cablevision is competing with the HD Version of MSG, they're doing nothing wrong. Verizon has every other channel known to man, higher speed internet, and a half dozen other reasons they create a better product than Cablevision. Other company's don't and won't play this game, because in the end this will only hurt MSG. In your hypothetical situation where HD versions are confined to one network owned by the distributor, I think in that situation what would happen is people would stop caring, the HD Versions would wither and perish, or everyone else would eventually reach a point where everything is in HD, except those channels and that would put them at a dis-advantage. In the near future everything will be in HD anyway, so no point in withholding HD. Unless you're in a captive market with an aggressive competitor like Verizon, then I can see how being able to market Fios doesn't have all the teams in HD like io does, would be a winning strategy, at least for the present.
I think that providers can and should own content, exclusives help sell products. By having NFL Sunday Ticket, Directv has a certain group of subscribers that want only one thing, and they deliver. XM before they were bought by Sirius had MLB exclusively on Sat Radio, and that brought them a certain subscriber who wanted baseball and they delivered. |
|
