  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | That's what you get... ...when you let content providers become content delivery systems. Ooops! | |
|
 | | | Re: That's what you get... Sure, cable will give that one up as soon as they get a fair bid @ NFL Sunday Ticket. Just because one company recklessly ponies up, while risking their own future, in order to lock every other competitor out of the bidding. Let these companies get access to that lineup and watch the migration begin. | |
|
| |  HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: That's what you get... Irony is that they let TW have them and I believe COX. This battle they will lose.. When?? God knows
Lee | |
|
| | | | said by AzForumWatch :
Sure, cable will give that one up as soon as they get a fair bid @ NFL Sunday Ticket. Just because one company recklessly ponies up, while risking their own future, in order to lock every other competitor out of the bidding. Let these companies get access to that lineup and watch the migration begin.
Exactly! | |
|
| | | Couldnt agree more with this one. | |
|
|  runnoftPremium
join:2003-10-14
Deerfield, IL
kudos:1 | Absolutely. Exclusive content agreements are NOT in the consumer's interest and should not be permitted on public utilities such as cable and satellite and OTA. | |
|
| |
3 edits | Re: That's what you get... My thoughts.. "Absolutely agree", an argument I originally felt strongly for Verizon FIOS as well as any other provider, now a fair argument for AT&T.
I can understand if AT&T said they want Cablevision's News 12, thats their baby, homegrown sort of say.. another words they generate it themselves.
Think about it; how fair would it be to these different providers, much less for the customers, if say, FIOS bought media rights to the Mets, AT&T the yankees, well cablevision already has rights to the garden and everyone says, you can't have my HD content.. the customer would be cheated no matter what.
Don't know what to call it so i'll just call it open rights content.. content all customers expect to access no matter what. All customers, no matter what their provider is, should be able to say, for some reasonable price, they want the Mets, the Yankees at the best the given quality the content is available & their system could deliver. Fair competition means being able to access content on an even platform, my feeling.
I feel if Cablevision doesn't do this, they could create the above mess. Viewers, could you imagine having to live with a company that does not deliver to your satisfaction cause they are the only ones who will display a high quality version of your favorite sports team. I don't know how anyone can consider that fair competition. | |
|
| | |
| | | HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: That's what you get... in NJ VZ and CV and the rest are considered so .They are watched over by the »www.bpu.state.nj.us/
Lee | |
|
|  MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX | They cry about this yet Direct TV is only one who gets NFL ticket that some BS right there.
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
| | | | Re: That's what you get... said by MysticGogeta:They cry about this yet Direct TV is only one who gets NFL ticket that some BS right there. Totally different situation. DirecTV paid for those rights above and beyond what anyone else was willing to offer.
They don't own the channels or the content.
CVC on the other hand, owns the channels and the delivery method and are picking and choosing who to negotiate with. | |
|
| | | | The difference is DirecTV doesn't own the NFL. NFL has the right to sell broadcast rights to the highest bidder. | |
|
| | Irony? Verizon and AT&T whining about anti-competitive behavior is the most *facepalm* inducing irony I have seen in a while. | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Irony? Irony: Cablevision can block access to MSG from competitors, while AT&T/Verizon (wireless) block competing VoIP apps (or apps from the their network they don't like)
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | Re: Irony? Actually far more important than that is the duopolistic control over the middle mile that AT&T and Verizon have, and the intense criticism lobbed at them for hugely marking up prices on access to the middle mile. | |
|
| | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Irony? said by sonicmerlin:Actually far more important than that is the duopolistic control over the middle mile that AT&T and Verizon have Huh? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Irony? said by espaeth:said by sonicmerlin:Actually far more important than that is the duopolistic control over the middle mile that AT&T and Verizon have Huh? AT&T and Verizon own the majority of the back end internet "backbone" infrastructure in the U.S. and as such have a lot of influence on the price of access to the internet backbone.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Irony? Correction: they don't have the majority of the internet backbone infrastructure. But between the backbone and you, it's all them. | |
|
| | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Irony? said by iansltx:Correction: they don't have the majority of the internet backbone infrastructure. But between the backbone and you, it's all them. Unless you have service from Qwest, Frontier, CentryLink (formerly CentryTel & Embarq), Charter, RCN, Comcast, TWC, Cablevision, Cox, etc. None of those carriers rely on Verizon or ATT backhaul for their upstream connectivity -- they push traffic to carriers like Level(3), GlobalCrossing, Qwest, Telia, Cogent, Savvis, PCCW/BTN, etc. | |
|
| | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Irony? Good point, but for high speed backhauls you're at the mercy of either the MSO or the telco at the last mile. Smaller cable companies (CableOne for example) and telcos (basically anyone smaller than the ones you mentioned) have to pay the ILEC for backhaul, and that can get very spendy very quickly. | |
|
| | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Irony? said by iansltx:Smaller cable companies (CableOne for example) and telcos (basically anyone smaller than the ones you mentioned) have to pay the ILEC for backhaul, and that can get very spendy very quickly. The LEC-based data circuits are billed according to the PUC-regulated tariff schedule. This has been the case since deregulation in the 90's -- the wholesale fee for all core services is the same regardless of which company is doing the retail sale of the service, even if it's the retail wing of the iLEC itself.
That's your local government at work. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Irony? However these rates were set awhile back and thus don't reflect market realities today. PUCs don't regulate fiber backhauls which are what's needed to bring in major bandwidth these days.
Besides, $100 per Mbit for loop and port for a T3 isn't going to allow for next-gen services by any competitor. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  elbm
join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD | Re: Irony? T3's cost what they do because of Service Level Agreements (SLA). There is alot of protection built into delivering a T3. At the customer prem there is 1+1 protection on the DS3 card, the timing, Comm/Management cards, Hi Speed optical cards, most are on upsr fiber rings and there is a duplication of all of this at every point that the DS3 is "switched". Along with all that redundancy the SLA assures 99.999 up time with guarantees on service restoration time. It is not cheap to deploy and maintain this stuff. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Irony? Fiber has SLAs too and I've gotten cheaper quotes for fiber around here than a T3. Also, the nice thing from the telco's perspective about an SLA is that you can break it and still make a crapload of money. Depending on the provider this happens all the time, particularly with T1s, which are basically just hyped up DSL connections these days. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | elbm
join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD | Re: Irony? Yeah, T1 on copper are transmitted via dsl technology and you are right T1 are almost treated as dial tone these days. As for the cheaper fiber quotes-- most likely they are ethernet based non-redundant service as opposed to protected TDM services that deliver DS3's. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Irony? However the Ethernet services are much simpler to implement and still have an SLA. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Irony? said by iansltx:However the Ethernet services are much simpler to implement and still have an SLA. I agree, I recenly saw some quotes from this area and ethernet is about 1/2 the price of a T3/DS3 yet delivers the same speeds.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by espaeth:Unless you have service from Qwest, Frontier, CentryLink (formerly CentryTel & Embarq), Charter, RCN, Comcast, TWC, Cablevision, Cox, etc. None of those carriers rely on Verizon or ATT backhaul for their upstream connectivity -- they push traffic to carriers like Level(3), GlobalCrossing, Qwest, Telia, Cogent, Savvis, PCCW/BTN, etc. Which, often times, switches over to ATT or Verizon backend at some point to get to it's destination. Do some trace-routes to various sites. I am not on ATT or Verizon but I see their routers come up a lot in tracerts. Have you even seen the sizing charts that compare backend sizes? Level 3, GC, Cog, etc. are like specs compared to the spider-web-like appearance of ATT and Verizon on those charts.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | | | | espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Irony? said by jimbo2150:Which, often times, switches over to ATT or Verizon backend at some point to get to it's destination. Do some trace-routes to various sites. I am not on ATT or Verizon but I see their routers come up a lot in tracerts. You shouldn't see ATT or Verizon in a trace unless your destination happens to be on their network. They aren't centric to any kind of traffic pattern, and that shows quite well in metrics like the Knodes index. See: »www.fixedorbit.com/metrics.htm
said by jimbo2150:Have you even seen the sizing charts that compare backend sizes? Level 3, GC, Cog, etc. are like specs compared to the spider-web-like appearance of ATT and Verizon on those charts. ATT and Verizon are stretched very far, and very thin. They connect a lot of edge customers, but really don't have the core bandwidth to support the same amount of transit volume as a Level(3) or Global Crossing. When Comcast ended their contracts with ATT in 2006/2007, they cut ATT's US backbone loading levels by over 50%.
You also won't find any major US data centers using ATT or Verizon network connectivity.
Softlayer, who operate large hosting facilities in Washington, Dallas, and Seattle
Network Access Corp (NAC.net) where DSLReports is hosted
Amazon
ATT / Verizon do quite a bit of business with end-user attachment, from residential DSL subscribers all the way up to Fortune 500 enterprises. For core backbone transit, however, they priced themselves out of the game years ago. | |
|
| | | | said by en102:Irony: Cablevision can block access to MSG from competitors, while AT&T/Verizon (wireless) block competing VoIP apps (or apps from the their network they don't like) Or the fact that they don't share their next gen networks with competitors like they do copper. | |
|
| djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | Exactly what I was going to say.
If Verizon or AT&T had the same exclusivity, they certainly wouldn't give it up and would probably use their lobbying dollars to make sure it would stay that way. | |
|
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: AT&T should hire Porky Pig as their president! Great point. The hypocrisy of AT&T complaining about this is almost too much for a mortal to handle. | |
|
| | | This isn't the same. AT&T doesn't own Apple, and Apple had approached Verizon FIRST and Verizon balked.
There is a distinct difference between a property holder keeping the stuff to themselves and competitive bidding like DirecTV did getting NFL Sunday Ticket or AT&T getting the iPhone. No one is getting a chance for MSG.
Your example would only fit if Apple were a cellular carrier themselves. | |
|
|
|  PathfinderDazed ConfusedPremium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: doesn't deserve a repeat Better send the WAAAAMbulance to your old school because they obviously failed to teach you to read.
said by article :
Cablevision withholds access to the channel from competitors like U-Verse, Dish and FiOSTV in order to prevent sports fans from migrating.
Price is not the issue. | |
|
| |  yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Re: doesn't deserve a repeat said by Pathfinder:Better send the WAAAAMbulance to your old school because they obviously failed to teach you to read. said by article :
Cablevision withholds access to the channel from competitors like U-Verse, Dish and FiOSTV in order to prevent sports fans from migrating.
Price is not the issue. According to the highly opinionated news editor of BBR. No offense to Karl, but I don't exactly consider him authoritative, especially when he jumps to the conclusion for the reader.
The truth is, all you know is hearsay.
--
Have more fun with your GPS.
Geocaching.com | |
|
|  BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Scarsdale, NY | TWC doesn't count, because they don't compete with OOL. Each side has their own territory and they don't overlap. | |
|
 totamakAnd they call me nuts?
join:2000-10-24
Los Angeles, CA | It's Cablevision's, the others can pound sand.. Pure BS. It's Cablevision's own content and they can do anything with it as they please (given the limits of contracts). They do offer it to service areas that Cablevision doesn't operate in (Obviously they won't lease it to DirecTV, nor Dish since their service area includes all of Cablevision's as well). The FCC shouldn't be involved at all - Cablevision can and should tell Verizon, AT&T, & the others to pound sand. | |
|
|  dbmavenThere's no shortagePremium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
kudos:2 | Re: It's Cablevision's, the others can pound sand.. False.
DirecTV has MSG and MSG+ in High Definition, and has had them for well over a year. | |
|
| | totamakAnd they call me nuts?
join:2000-10-24
Los Angeles, CA | Re: It's Cablevision's, the others can pound sand.. Yeah, found that out. Must be a pretty sweet deal that was offered and it makes sense in DirecTV's case, they are heavily sports focused. | |
|
| | | | | Re: It's Cablevision's, the others can pound sand.. When it comes to NHL Center ICE MSG and MSG+ HD were blacked out. This was all because of the pissing match between the Rangers and the NFL or should I say the Dolans and NHL over the website.
I enjoyed Devils hockey here in Minnesota until January. They it was blacked out. | |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | Trifecta Sports teams
NY Knicks (NBA) owned by Dolan family
NY Rangers (NHL) owned by Dolan family
Cable network
Cablevision owned by Dolan family
Broadcast networks
All Rainbow Media networks (AMC / IFC / etc) owned by CableVision
MSG / MSG+ owned by CableVision
CableVision licenses MSG / MSG+ HD feeds to cable companies outside of CV's service footprint only. DirecTV is the only competitor to get access to this network; the terms of that deal have never been made public (that I am aware of).
The NY DMA is absolutely massive, as is the fan base for NY sports teams. It would be one thing for the Dolans to lock this up if they operated a purely private enterprise, but they have secured millions in public funding to support their teams (ie, facility upgrades) -- and own a facility that has special exemption status from property taxes! The Dolans take these teams that they own, take public funding for the teams, and make the broadcasts of the games only available in HD on the network they own.
Say what you will about the anti-competitive things ATT and Verizon do, but you can't deny this situation with MSG-HD is pretty damn bold. | |
|
|
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | Hmmm... So... this is, essentially, at&t and Verizon asking the FCC to enforce some sort of "TV network neutrality" principle?
That's rich.  | |
|
 HarddriveProud American and Infidel since 1968.Premium
join:2000-09-20
Phone Room
kudos:2
·Comcast
| people in Hell want ice water. too bad AT&T and VZ. pay up or suck it up. you don't want to pay for access? too bad. how does it feel to not get your way? you act like a little 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum fit at mommy. 'Waaa! I want it! I want it!' too bad, so sad. if i were Cablevision, i would make the price of access so high, you wouldn't want the access.
--
I've come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass and i'm all outta bubblegum. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
| | Do the same with CLTV comcast Chicago needs to give that out Do the same with CLTV comcast Chicago needs to give that out to RCN, WOW, DISH, DIRECT TV, and U-Verse in Chicago land. | |
|
| | Laws The FCC made the law for the cable companies and others. ATT and VZ have laws written for them so why can't cable have them as well?
CV is only using the laws to their advantage the same as VZ and ATT do. | |
|
| | Defending the Cable Giant? I think you're going to be tight pressed to find anyone with sympathy for a company like AT&T...being that they were the ones that sorta came up with monopolistic practices in the telephone business in the first place! Nevertheless...Cablevision's clearly in the wrong here and needs to give up rights, even if it is just for the three people in CT that wanna watch a Knicks game. | |
|
| Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: Defending the Cable Giant? Cablevision isn't in the wrong. They have a rule/law that protects them. If they don't send THEIR feed via a bird they don't have to give/sell it to anyone else.
They're most likely doing it with DirecTV is sending it via fiber to a DirecTV uplink and then making DirecTV pay for everything on their own equipment, which protects Cablevision.
ATT has laws written for them and at times BY them. So why can't Cablevision use a law that favors them? Instead it because wrong and illegal? BullSHIT! | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| FCC? Try NBA & NHL I'm surprised this situation made its way to the FCC. One would think the sports leagues involved would facilitate the carriage on competing carriers - it's not like they threatened to kick Dolan ass over the Rangers' website or anything:
»www.nypost.com/seven/06202008/ne···6373.htm
Yes, I know that the Dolans sued the league first. Over their website. And merchandise.
If the NHL were smart, they'd put Verizon/AT&T and Cablevision in the same room and negotiate sideways: Tell Cablevision to offer MSG-HD to Verizon/AT&T when customers sign up for Center Ice (the NHL's out of market game package). Otherwise, EVERYONE loses Center Ice. I think they could have a deal for the start of the hockey season...
Sherman | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Heh... So that's the way to do things, when someone won't sell or give you something, go whine to the government.
I guarantee that if AT&T and Verizon ponied up enough money that Cablevision would be more than happy to sell either company access to MSG.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
|
| | It's just business I see nothing wrong with Cablevision keeping their competitive advantage with MSG. Why do we need the Government to intervene to please a few sports fans?
If you want MSG-HD, get Cable!!!
Maybe if Verizon shared the FiOS lines and ATT/Apple opened up the iPhone to other carriers like Verizon, Sprint and TMobile I would be more sympathetic.
But as of now Verizon can go to hell. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
 tfrionliTom F.
join:2001-06-21
Kings Park, NY
 ·Verizon FiOS
·Optimum Online
| Would be nice to have MSG HD on Fios.. but I don't miss it! I have FIOS. I don't really mind not having it, nor do I miss the NFL Sunday tkt. I wouldn't spend the money for it, not my bag..
I believe DirectTV spent 4 billion for the exclusive right to broadcast for the next 4-6 years, not sure of the duration. That's a ton of money and shows you how much it's worth to be the only provider of that content.
--
tfrionli | |
|
| | Smells Fishy. I have RCN cable and we have a couple Comcast Sports Net channels, including the HD versions. You don't see Comcast acting all selfish and greedy like Cablevision.
Pretty pathetic what's goin on out East... | |
|
| | | Re: Smells Fishy. said by DJ_Kismuth:I have RCN cable and we have a couple Comcast Sports Net channels, including the HD versions. You don't see Comcast acting all selfish and greedy like Cablevision. Pretty pathetic what's goin on out East... Aside from ignoring most posts on how MSG and MSG+ are being broadcasted on DirecTV and Time Warner perhaps you should realize that negotiating a deal for content is like that of any other contract, typically in good faith to which both parties mutually benefit.
One business does not typically go to a federal governing body and try to get them to issue a verdict on a sweet deal from another unless it threatens the profitability of their entire model, this example doesn't seem to no matter the money burned through lobbying. | |
|
| KyL416
join:2005-12-28
Tobyhanna, PA | There's a huge difference. Those Comcast SportsNet channels are distributed by satellite and have to be open to any competitors who are willing to pay the price for them. However Comcast's one network that isn't, their flagship CSN Philly, they refuse to even NEGOTIATE with satellite providers. | |
|
| | | Comcast only owns about 25% of Sports Net Chicago the teams own the rest. | |
|
| | good until This is good untill cablevision splits its sports divisions as a seperate company. which was also announced.
then it will not be a cable company locking out other companies. | |
|
binded2
join:2009-08-11
Providence, RI | screw them both dont do nothing for them let them pony up all that money if they want it
how they going to ask the gov for some thing like this
maybe they should push though some sort of cable tv Network neutrality
LOL
this is so funny right here
tell all of them companys to all F*** OFF
stars added by me LOL | |
|
| | If Apple can say OS-X can only be used on Apple hardware If Apple can say OS-X can only be used on Apple hardware, what's the differance?
My content on my hardware.
Try to use itunes with a non-Apple mp3 player! | |
|
| | | Re: If Apple can say OS-X can only be used on Apple hardware said by AstroBoy:If Apple can say OS-X can only be used on Apple hardware, what's the differance? They can't do that in some places out side of the usa and even some laws hear say that may be a no no.
also there people who can't get cable and may end losing there RSN.
With apple you can buy there hardware or not. cable is not the same way. Most people can get sat tv but few can get comcast. | |
|
|
|
·
·
AT&T should hire Porky Pig as their president!
AT&T must be run by a bunch of PIGS. AT&T sees no problem with an exclusive deal with Apple to offer the iPhone, then AT&T tells companies like Verizon to F.O. when they wanted to offer the iPhone. On the other hand when Cablevision has an exclusive to carry the Mono Sodium Glutamate Channel, the Weasels at AT&T and other entertainment carriers cry foul. Apparently Cablevision's competitors are getting a headache from not being able to carry the Mono Sodium Glutamate Channel. I think that the FCC should tell AT&T to F.O.
