CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Meh, not a Sports Fan but... I do buy Cohen's argument. In this day and age where lots of people follow NFL teams other than their local market, DirecTV's exclusive with the NFL effectively does deny cable customers the ability to watch a lot of games that they'd be interested in.
Besides, content is content is content. It hardly seems fair to force owners of some channels to sell their content to anyone and everyone but to allow others to set up exclusives.
Either exclusives are OK or they're not. Pick one.
--
"Religion allows people who would otherwise be arguing about whether the Death Star could beat a Borg Cube to have a place of respect within society." |
|
| I for one am against exclusive deals PERIOD so keep that in mind.
However, there is a difference here between the NFL deal and your own networks.
One as you partnering with another company that anyone and everyone was able to bid on and the other has you keeping your channels away from the competitors for the sake of keeping them away from competitors giving yourself a competitive advantage. |
|
|
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | said by Skippy25:I for one am against exclusive deals PERIOD so keep that in mind. Well, I can see both sides.
One as you partnering with another company that anyone and everyone was able to bid on and the other has you keeping your channels away from the competitors for the sake of keeping them away from competitors giving yourself a competitive advantage. Well, the problem with this is that there are all kinds of ways of getting around this restriction. Comcast could spin off its networks and place their ownership entirely in the hands of the Roberts family. Then the networks make the decision to sell only to Comcast.
Entirely legal setup under your rules. And then we're back to square one.
A lot of this has to do with whether you take a more pro-consumer or more pro-private property view of these things. On the one hand, Comcast's network is Comcast's property and they can do anything they like with their content, including not selling to anyone they don't like.
On the other hand, consumers win out when you can get any channel on any cable company.
I kind of look at this in terms of no-smoking laws. In theory, I think bars should be able to set any rules they please. But I really really like not being around cigarette smoke while I'm out drinking.
Same here. I like the private property theory. I don't like how it plays out in practice as far as consumer choice is concerned. That's the dilemma we face in this country.
--
"Religion allows people who would otherwise be arguing about whether the Death Star could beat a Borg Cube to have a place of respect within society." |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | As a consumer, I don't want exclusive deals either but from a business point, I completely understand it.
I know people in several of these cities who got certain companies BECAUSE they knew that if they wanted to see teams, they had to get that service. |
|
| The problem is that CSN Philly and MSG HD are NOT EXCLUSIVES.
Comcast and Cablevision pick and choose who to sell to. Their exclusivity argument goes out the window the minute they sold to some competitors and not others.
CSN Philly is available on FiOS TV and MSG HD is available to Comcast, TW, and DirecTV. |
|
