Comcast: We'll Fight FCC's Terrestrial Loophole Order > Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive

reply to Z80A

Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive

reply to JRW2

reply to Z80A
I think we could establish some kind of regulation to prevent a content distributor from possessing exclusive rights to a local sports franchise, and given the times, this should include both HD and SD. NFL Sunday Ticket does not destroy this type of competition, as it still allows for people to have a choice on how they want to watch their local teams on TV. They should not have to choose between FiOS or Cablevision. That's going too far.

reply to JRW2

reply to JRW2
This is apples and oranges. Comcast has purchased cable companies and regional sports networks all over the country. Only the Philly Sportsnet is excluded from being made available to the satellite companies. Their networks in Chicago, the Bay Area, etc are still available on satellite. The reason is that when Comcast takes over a regional sports network that is already offered via satellite, they cannot legally make it exclusive to their cable only network because it is already available on satellite. Comcast Sportsnet Philly on the other hand has never been made available on satellite, and therefore the loophole in the law has made it possible for them to exclude it from being offered via satellite. I was a Directv customer for years in the Philly area, and this loophole is one reason why Comcast will never get a nickel from me. One interesting sidenote is that Verizon FiOS TV service does include Comcast Sportsnet in the Philaelphia area. I suppose that since Verizon is not a satellite TV company, the loophole did not apply. If/when Comcast takes over NBC, they would not legally be able to withhold it from satellite companies because it is already available on satellite.

reply to jmn1207
I don't. I think if VZ wants some content bad enough they can bid for it.

Otherwise where does it end? Does CBS get to complain that they don't get to air House or American Idol and Fox complain that they don't get CSI or NCIS and both complain they don't get Monday Night Football? Should Microsoft complain that they don't get Mario or Nintendo complain they don't get Halo? Should every channel but one scream that they don't get to air the Super Bowl? The world is created from exclusives of what form or another.

reply to VirtualSlew
It's apples and apples. Exclusives are EVERYWHERE. Whether it's the Knicks, NFL Sunday Ticket or Halo.

If VZ wants it, let them bid on it. Comcast doesn't own those teams. Those broadcast rights are up for bids to any network willing to fork over the cash. If Disney rolls up with a truckload of money, the would be on ABC or ESPN. If VZ creates a Sports Net and rolls up with a bigger truck load of money than Comcast, they'll be on Verizon.

These teams and leagues have every right to get as much money and make whatever deal they want. It's their intellectual property. You don't have a "right" to see the Knicks or Yankees.

reply to Z80A

reply to Z80A

correct, the motto of the isp's and telco's "no competition no choice and the big one no price drops.

reply to Z80A
You know who owns the Flyers and Sixers, right?

reply to jmn1207
But Comcast, Cablevision or others aren't the content creators when it comes to these sports offerings. Yes, CV may have the MSG network and own a venue but they do not own the broadcast rights. Broadcast rights are owned by the team and the league and if VZ or Fox Sports rolls in with a better offer the team and league will certainly take it.

These leagues and teams have no loyalty. It's business and the company who writes the biggest check gets the rights. And these leagues and teams have every right to milk every dime they can out of their properties. MLB is regulated by Congress as part of their gov't granted monopoly so they may be able to make some claim but the NBA, NHL and other leagues aren't. They can be as greedy as they like as watching sports is not a right, it's a privilege.

reply to Z80A
But what about Comcast, who owns the channel, venue, and team?

reply to Z80A

reply to Z80A
Actually, Comcast does own the Flyers and 76ers.

reply to Jodokast96
Then it's their property and if you want to watch you go with the provider who has it just like if you want an iPhone you have to go with AT&T, if you want NFL Sunday Ticket you have to get DirecTV or play Halo 3 you have to get an XBOX.

There is no right to watch the Knicks. They are a private team playing in a private venue on a privately owned network. I think a channel should be able to keep their multi-zillion dollar investment exclusive, that is unless they somehow used public funds to set it up or their regulated like MLB (under antitrust law). Otherwise it's the government coming in and telling a company they have to offer their private property to a competitor at a price set by the government (since CV wouldn't be able to say, Okay, the broadcast rights are a Trillion Dollars so obviously the gov't would have to say what "reasonable" means).

In other businesses, the law respects private property. The government can't compel Apple to license OS X for use on non-Apple hardware. The government can't compel Microsoft to port Halo 3 to Sony and Nintendo. The government can't compel Verizon to open FiOS lines to content competitors like they had with DSL. And the government shouldn't be forcing CV to "port" their privately owned content to Verizon.

If the FCC were to tell VZ they had to open their fiber to ISP competitors at "reasonable price" they would (as they had in the past) flip their wigs. But VZ expects CV to surrender their property at a rate set by the government.

reply to PhillyFan
Then it's their property and they can sell it anyone they want.

reply to Z80A
Not every team plays on privately owned property

We have seen many teams use taxpayer dollars to pay for new stadiums/arenas