AT&T Starts Pushing Harder For Access To MSG HD Dish, DirecTV do the same with Comcast in Philly Satellite and telcoTV providers have long been annoyed with the fact that some cable companies withhold access to cable-company owned regional sports channels. In New York, Cablevision withholds access to the channel from competitors like U-Verse, Dish and FiOSTV in order to prevent sports fans from migrating. In Philadelphia, Comcast does the same thing with their SportsNet Philadelphia channel, and by proxy, Philly has some of the lowest satellite TV subscription rates in the nation. It's an anti-competitive tactic to everybody but the channel owners. Legally, cable companies are required to lease channels they own to competitors at "reasonable" rates. But sloppy wording in the law was long manipulated by cable industry lawyers to exempt channels delivered via terrestrial ground lines and not satellite feeds. Last year, AT&T and Verizon lobbyists really began pushing the FCC to put an end to it, even going so far as to use your complaints in our forums as ammunition in filings. Last January the FCC issued an order (pdf) designed to put an end to such practices among cable carriers by finally closing the "terrestrial loophole" with an FCC vote of 4-1. To be clear, the ruling only essentially created a process by which case-by-case instances of this kind of behavior could be heard and addressed. Those rules went into effect June 21, so this week we're starting to see companies fire up the official complaint process. AT&T has gotten the ball rolling by telling any press outlet who'll listen that Cablevision is not negotiating for access to MSG HD "in good faith," and that they'll soon be complaining with the FCC that they can't get access to this "unique and irreplaceable" content. Meanwhile, DirecTV and Dish have formally requested access to exclusive Comcast sports programming in Philadelphia. It may be a glacial process, but it appears that Comcast and Cablevision's anti-competitive edge in these markets is about to come to an end.
|
  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
3 edits | Works both ways Direct TV owned (partly) the Big Ten Network, and held out to cable companies back in 2007-2008. Many people missed the epic Appalacian State win over Michigan (i laughed, but I am a Sparty fan).
The NFL holds everyone else hostage with the Sunday Ticket too. More than ever now, sports are a business, and being a dedicated fan costs more and more.
I can see it from both point of views. If I started a network, and I had programming that everyone wanted to see, I would want top dollar for it too. There shouldn't be a sense of entitlement to watch a team for an area, just because a sports team plays here. Sports, like programming, is business.
By the same token, I want to watch the Lions every Sunday, and I dont want to worry about which providers carry my home team (assuming its not blacked out, another lovely NFl rule) | |
|  | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Works both ways and dont forget DTV spending more money the god to maintain a monopoly contract on NFL Sunday Ticket.
but U-Verse and FiOS customers should be happy in a way, because if their systems got MSG or Sportsnet you can bet that it would not be tucked off in an optional sports package and that everyone's bill would have to go up.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | Re: Works both ways said by Kearnstd:and dont forget DTV spending more money the god to maintain a monopoly contract on NFL Sunday Ticket. but U-Verse and FiOS customers should be happy in a way, because if their systems got MSG or Sportsnet you can bet that it would not be tucked off in an optional sports package and that everyone's bill would have to go up. NFL ST is a OUT OF MARKET PACKAGE! CSN Philly, CSN NW, SD 4 is in Market! | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Works both ways I think you missed the point and this happens often here. It's not a tit for tat and then some kinda thing.. this is more of the pot calling the kettle black. It doesn't matter WHAT is done to stop customer churn or bleed, it's the fact that they do it in any form. You can't call it "competing" when you have to rope customers in to your service in any-form.
Competition is and generally USED to be competing on PRICE and QUALITY of service which ultimate equates to value to the customer.
But the OP is correct to say that they all do it. Telco, of all people, shouldn't be complaining about methods used to stop customer bleed as they were the industry that first invented and implemented the "contract" which in a sense is self-based entitlement to themselves. It started way back in the cellular days of A/B systems ... didn't matter back then either because you always purchased your handset, one that was totally capable of being either A or B operated. They put you in contract with an ETF just for signing up.
In the terms of "contracting" the customer into staying, that is something that congress needs to put an end to. Sure, the phone companies will threaten and warn that prices will go up to consumers, however, that threat AND action will be short lived when they realize that the customer won't sustain that model.
And, before anyone hits me with "cable does that too" tit-for-tat argument, (and it's bound to happen as it does every time) please re-read my point as this is just one example first of all. Second, yes cable does do this, however, it's few and far between that cable does it and it's not a requirement. Yes, cable has its own set of ropes they throw on the customer, its just that phone has a long history of doing a much better job at it. | |
| | | | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Works both ways Too bad these rules do not apply to cellular handsets, the entire iPhone on AT&T has pissed a lot of people off. For many Quality in the Provider keeps them in place, but they still want the hardware.
Every other country this is less of an issue, and there is real competition between carriers. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Works both ways Another poor example. Apple offered the iPhone to other carriers. Only ATT was willing to fork over the cash. | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | They can't force a handset maker to make their set for every single carrier's technology.. That's about the same Deplhi HAS to make a radio for both XM and Serius, pre-merger. That's like saying apple has to make their hardware run Windows Natively and their software run on a PC natively.
HTC doesn't make each and every handset they do for them to run on every carrier.. where is the outrage for that situation?
So far, RIM is one of the few phone set makers that generally release a Curve for ever carrier. I don't believe the Storm, however, is available on ATT is it? Or Sprint is it? Where is the outrage in that? .... so, with that said, why is apple being singled out? | |
|
| bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| said by baineschile:The NFL holds everyone else hostage with the Sunday Ticket too. More than ever now, sports are a business, and being a dedicated fan costs more and more. The difference with Sunday Ticket (not that it's much consolation to the people who want to get it but can't) is that it isn't owned by the service provider that carries it. Other providers could (in theory) get it by offering more for it than DirectTV is willing to. | |
| | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
| Re: Works both ways It doesnt may any sense to me though, that the NFL would go strictly with direct TV. Even if they charged less than half, the amount they would make up by offering to cable and fiber would make up for it.
Same theory with apple concerning the verizon iphone | |
| | | |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
·VOIPo
| Re: Works both ways said by baineschile:It doesnt may any sense to me though, that the NFL would go strictly with direct TV. Even if they charged less than half, the amount they would make up by offering to cable and fiber would make up for it. Same theory with apple concerning the verizon iphone Side note there, I work with someone that subscribes to Sunday Ticket. He called in to cancel and they lowered the price to $140 instead of $299. Might be worth a call.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
| | | | | | said by baineschile:It doesnt may any sense to me though, that the NFL would go strictly with direct TV. Even if they charged less than half, the amount they would make up by offering to cable and fiber would make up for it. Same theory with apple concerning the verizon iphone The NFL, like Apple, prefer exclusivity over ubiquity...
--
.:|:. Go Wheatley or Go Home! | |
| | | | | | said by baineschile:It doesnt may any sense to me though, that the NFL would go strictly with direct TV. Even if they charged less than half, the amount they would make up by offering to cable and fiber would make up for it. Not likely. Without exclusivity, it's worth far less. While DTV may actually lose money on it, you can be sure that a very large number of the subs are sticking with DTV because of it.
Given a choice of providers nobody knows how many would leave.
Besides, as someone already pointed out, the networks wouldn't be happy about having it widely available. It would be a major dent in local ratings. | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by bt:said by baineschile:The NFL holds everyone else hostage with the Sunday Ticket too. More than ever now, sports are a business, and being a dedicated fan costs more and more. The difference with Sunday Ticket (not that it's much consolation to the people who want to get it but can't) is that it isn't owned by the service provider that carries it. Other providers could (in theory) get it by offering more for it than DirectTV is willing to. Show me the rule where it says it has to be on ONE provider only? How about DirecTv offers half of what it's currently paying then the others can make up the rest and everyone is happy. If DirecTv service is soooo great they don't need things like exclusive deals to keep customers. I mean if you have to rely on that then your service must suck ass. | |
| | | |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Works both ways said by BF69:Show me the rule where it says it has to be on ONE provider only? How about DirecTv offers half of what it's currently paying then the others can make up the rest and everyone is happy. The NFL doesn't want that. Local TV stations are able to collect big dollars from advertisers due to the draw of the NFL. The games are predominantly played on Sundays (usually in competing timeslots), so the league doesn't want to make it too easy to see a team other than your local team and cause advertising sales to drop in weak markets.
The other problem is typically channel capacity. The NFL had the stipulation in the last contract that all games needed to be covered in HD. Right now the cable companies, Verizon FiOS TV, and ATT U-Verse all rely on collective bargaining through InDemand for their sports package offerings. Currently for MLB Extra Innings and NHL Center Ice InDemand is only carrying a single HD channel, and it's shared between the sports packages.
said by BF69:If DirecTv service is soooo great they don't need things like exclusive deals to keep customers. I mean if you have to rely on that then your service must suck ass. Normally you make some decent arguments -- I'm sorry, but this one is just weak. In the Pay TV market when everybody is basically offering the same ubiquitous channel line-up, exclusive features are critical for differentiation from the competition. Cable has a massive on-demand library, FiOS has every movie channel from every network, Dish has the most general package national HD channels on satellite, DirecTV has the most full-time sports channels in HD. Each provider has their niche through either technology benefits or contractual agreements. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Works both ways "The NFL had the stipulation in the last contract that all games needed to be covered in HD."
While I won't and can't argue what you're saying at all, I'll simply throw a spin on that..
The NFL can want and demand all they want, but again, this is a failure on our government as well. I think that we all know the NFL simply "created" that stipulation as a CYA or PR talking point when they're called to the table on who they have sold their service to in the first place.
There are many people in this country that do NOT have HD still and probably won't for a long time to come. Far be it for the "NFL" to dictate that their signal "has to be" carried in HD. Just like the requirement to carry broadcast basic in the clear, equipment free, I think that rule should be somewhat extended to a rule that states that a content provider can't force a carrier to deliver their signal ONLY in HD unless it's an HD only service. And even then, I still don't know if I'd agree with that rule either. I just don't think that it should be up to the content provider to allow or demand such a rule as that is clearly meant to exclude people from being able to subscribe or view the service.
As to your rebut of his second quote you made, I have to agree with him as well. He's focused on the issue that they have "exclusive deals".. yes, every provider has their own niche.. however, that should be something that THEY have offered in the form of service, quality, and options... and an option should NEVER be tied to the programming. Dish Network says it best in their advertising against DirecTV... "Does paying more for the same service on DirecTV make it any better?" ... The signal and channels are the same on any carrier. What separates them in PQ, Customer Service, Overall Value, hardware options, customer comforts like guides and other things, OnDemand service or lack of, and cost which still plays more into value.
Contractual agreements, in the end, should be more dictated by buying power and or contract length and terms.. not simply what some one provider is willing to pay out for it, obviously, in hopes to raise the bar and shut out the competition from ever getting it. In this case, if I'm recalling right, DirecTV was willing to pay an amount for a product which also essentially dictated the price that others would have to pay.. I do believe that NFL ST *IS* available to other carriers should they want it, but they'd have to pay the same price that DTV is.. right? | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | It doesn't matter WHO owns it.. DirecTV made an intentional move to take a dominance position which shut out the "competition"... DirecTV's move was intention to create an environment of need on the customer's part.. a "need" to stay with DirecTV for a single purpose. ie: exclusivity.
My point has long been that when it comes to "entertainment" in the United States is that they can't simply regulate the retrans carriers alone. They've LONG overlooked regulation on the content creators as well. The FTC rules partially apply to the industry in a whole while the FCC/Congress and law in general regulates the re-trans portion of the industry.
They NEED to level the playing field in general for the ENTIRE industry in order to make true competition come into play.
The NFL should have the same set of rules and restrictions as the Provider owned services by all rights. There should be no exclusivity agreements OR over inflated agreements which mimics an "exclusive agreement" allowed in the industry at all.
NFL can simply state that NFL games are worth what DirecTV is paying for it - which we all know is a pile of donkey manure in the first place. With that, the NFL should have to show WHY their service is worth that much and DirecTV should also be forced to show their profit/loss on the service.. it was DirecTV that offered up what they did WITH intentions to create an exclusive environment. In other words, they're willingly operating in a loss for a product.
In basic, there should be no regulation or rule specific to a phone carrier, cable operator, fiber service, satellite, content provider, or carrier owned service.. the rules should be the same across the board and our inept government needs to pull their heads out of their very talented bums and actually be effective to the industry AND the people they serve (notice I said serve?) for once... but then too, I also have hopes that pigs will actually fly too. | |
| | | | | | Re: Works both ways said by fiberguy:It doesn't matter WHO owns it.. It most certainly does. EVERY provider in the country had a shot at Sunday Ticket. DirecTV paid the most.
And once more you fail to see the difference in out of market packages and in market channels.
Those who can't get Sunday Ticket don't miss anything locally. Those in Philly who can't get CSN miss local programming.
As for you assertion that DTV is losing money on ST, I wouldn't argue but you're only looking at it on the surface. How many of the ST subs would stick with DTV if they could get ST elsewhere? It's the exclusivity that makes it as valuable as it is. If everyone could carry it, it wouldn't be worth in total what DTV is paying for it.
And one final point about exclusivity. CSN Philly isn't exclusive, nor is MSG HD. Those channels are carried by competitors of their owners. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Works both ways I failed to see nothing, rather, you did.
And how many customers would stick with DTV with out NFL? Not many as of the past becuase you used to be able to purchase it ala cart and many did.
As for mattering who carries it.. YES.. It DOES. I stand behind the notion that NO content carrier should allow for or write or over inflate any product out of reason in order to restrict and stop another carrier from having it. That includes DTV who by the form of their price negotiation artificially inflated the net worth of the program to set the price to others. Was the service up for auction? My understanding is that the others CAN buy it, if they're willing to pay what VZ bid the price up to.. again, it's wrong.
My stance is simple... programming is programming no matter who carries it. If it's available to one, it must be available to all. Period. All the rest of this argument is nothing I'm interested in. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Works both ways said by fiberguy:And how many customers would stick with DTV with out NFL? Not many as of the past becuase you used to be able to purchase it ala cart and many did. Are you so stubborn that you don't even realize that you just made a case for DirecTV's high bid for the Sunday Ticket package? It's that exclusivity that makes it valuable. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Works both ways said by robjlevin:said by fiberguy:And how many customers would stick with DTV with out NFL? Not many as of the past becuase you used to be able to purchase it ala cart and many did. Are you so stubborn that you don't even realize that you just made a case for DirecTV's high bid for the Sunday Ticket package? It's that exclusivity that makes it valuable. Great!!
Next time I'm in NYC/NJ area, I'll be sure to tell the major gas station chain out there "I'll GLADLY pay you $10.00 per gallon, Sir"...
Enjoy your outrageous fuel prices when I leave. 
I fail to see how your argument holds water on the surface. If you believe that, then do you believe that the price AT&T charges for internet or Verizon is reasonable? People are willing to pay that price, soooooo.. it must make it valuable, right?
People who continue to pay Comcast and Time Warner these huge monthly bills must also make the price of cable valuable too especially when a majority of people have access to satellite tv which is usually a bit cheaper..
No one HAS to subscribe to these services, but do.. so they much be valuable.
The price that ONE person is willing to pay doesn't necessarily negate gauging. Besides, we're also talking about leveling the playing field on the supplier versus carrier subject. I've LONG argued that it doesn't matter if you're the cable company who owns the network OR an independent owner such as the NFL or Viacom.. if they're going to set a rule for one, it should apply to them all with 'fair access' conditions. NFL, is not fair. Comcast, is not fair. If the gubberment continues to play these games where they allow one owner to play by one rule and another to play by a different set of rules and CONTINUE to over look that they're BOTH selling a "signal" and hoarding it at their own desire, these kinds of issues will NEVER get resolved.. the only thing we'll have out of this is more fuel for the consumer and BBR readers (for example) to have something to bitch about.
Care to take a second stab at that rebuttal?  | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Works both ways I stand pat on it.
The fact is the Sunday Ticket is a unique product in that the owner of that product doesn't want it distributed to everyone. Why is this so hard to understand?
The NFL itself knows what will happen if the ST is available to every cable system. It's value will diminish as will the value of the national tv rights because the affiliates will lose out to those watching games on ST. They lose advertising dollars because of that.
In short, while I get where you're coming from, there's not a lot of analogies you can make when it comes to this one product.
And for the record, I do not subscribe to Sunday Ticket and yes, cost is one consideration. | |
|
|  SabreDi relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | Ah, so that's why I couldn't find that game! I remember desperately scanning the ESPN ticker looking for updates when I knew what was happening, cursing everyone that the game wasn't televised. Now I know why. (yay App State!)
Good point reminding that it's not just the cable companies. And also good point about NFL SN. Personally I wouldn't be bothered about paying for a subscription to sports station packages (I know my wife gladly would pay to get her NFL fix); it's the provider exclusivity that's so galling (and questionable morally, if not necessarily legally or financially).
--
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.
Save American Soccer - Stop the MLS! | |
| |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
·SureWest Internet
·Clear Wireless
| said by baineschile:Direct TV owned (partly) the Big Ten Network, and held out to cable companies back in 2007-2008. Many people missed the epic Appalacian State win over Michigan (i laughed, but I am a Sparty fan). The NFL holds everyone else hostage with the Sunday Ticket too. More than ever now, sports are a business, and being a dedicated fan costs more and more. I can see it from both point of views. If I started a network, and I had programming that everyone wanted to see, I would want top dollar for it too. There shouldn't be a sense of entitlement to watch a team for an area, just because a sports team plays here. Sports, like programming, is business. By the same token, I want to watch the Lions every Sunday, and I dont want to worry about which providers carry my home team (assuming its not blacked out, another lovely NFl rule) To add to your post:
Wouldn't it be nice if subscribers were offered the choice of NOT having Sports programming, thereby maybe lowering cable bills?
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer!
| |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Works both ways said by spewak:said by baineschile:Direct TV owned (partly) the Big Ten Network, and held out to cable companies back in 2007-2008. Many people missed the epic Appalacian State win over Michigan (i laughed, but I am a Sparty fan). The NFL holds everyone else hostage with the Sunday Ticket too. More than ever now, sports are a business, and being a dedicated fan costs more and more. I can see it from both point of views. If I started a network, and I had programming that everyone wanted to see, I would want top dollar for it too. There shouldn't be a sense of entitlement to watch a team for an area, just because a sports team plays here. Sports, like programming, is business. By the same token, I want to watch the Lions every Sunday, and I dont want to worry about which providers carry my home team (assuming its not blacked out, another lovely NFl rule) To add to your post: Wouldn't it be nice if subscribers were offered the choice of NOT having Sports programming, thereby maybe lowering cable bills? sad thing is i think in the case of stations like ESPN it is part of the contract for it to be in the normal tiers. a contract to carry other channels owned by the disney corp like requires ESPN in a normal tier to get the rest of the package.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | |
bnceo
join:2007-10-11
Bel Air, MD | Still Waiting on FiOS And this is no Verizon's fault either. What Cablevision did was hold off getting MSG HD to FiOS. Then when a ruling was going to come down demanding that FiOS get MSG HD, the Dolans spun off MSG and now it's is own company. So while the Dolans still control both, it's viewed as a different company. And hence, why us FiOS users will keep getting shut out for a while.
I HATE the Cablevision ads that say FiOS doesn't carry 9 NY sports teams in HD. Because they make it seem like FiOS doesn't want to carry it. No no. They are keeping it away like it's some treasure. Ugh. | |
| |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: Still Waiting on FiOS said by bnceo: What Cablevision did was hold off getting MSG HD to FiOS. I is my impression that the same games/content is also available in SD and that FiOS (and others) can have access to it if they want. Just because the feed is available in both SD and HD to CV customers does not make it an CV exclusive unless they do not offer the SD feed to others. The games ARE available - Just not in HD. This is not the same as making the game unavailable in any form. | |
|
| | I want CN100 and Comcast sports Net Chiago VOD on Directv! I want CN100 and Comcast sports Net Chicago VOD on Directv!
Why are they able to black out NBA TV on Directv as there is a WNBA game on CN100.
Just think if the wolves made it to the AHL Calder Cup finals and NHL network got blacked out on Directv as well.
People in Philly also miss on some EPSN / MLB networks that are also on CSN Philly that they can't view.
Where is captain midnight or the max head room guy when you need them? | |
| | | Fios did it right... Well at least I get CSN on Fios in Philly.... I still want to know how much THAT deal is worth. | |
| | | | Re: Fios did it right... said by thebulldan:Well at least I get CSN on Fios in Philly.... I still want to know how much THAT deal is worth. I hear they still F* with CSN + / comcast network there. | |
|
guppy_fishPremium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:1 | CV doesn't own MSG MSG was split off in Jan of 2010
The rules are for a cable-company that also owns a content provider, which is no longer the case | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
JCO65
join:2010-01-15
Brick, NJ
kudos:1 | Balance the Field, I say... At least Comcast was smart enough to offer CSNPhilly to both AT&T and VerizonFIOS in HD. CV refused to even offer MSG and MSG+ in HD to those two systems yet.
If DirecTV could offer MLB extra innings to the cable systems, they should also offer NFL ST to the cable systems as well in order to balance the playing field. This would eliminate Comcast's point of contention as per CSN Philly to DirecTV.
As per MSG, The Dolans have no excuse to not offer the channels in HD to telco competitors. | |
| | | | Re: Balance the Field, I say... All sports packages are distributed to cable systems via InDemand.
The satellite companies negotiate those packages directly with the leagues. DirecTV has nothing to do with sports packages offered to anyone except their own subscribers. | |
|
| |
|
|
·