Cablevision Continues to Fight FCC Over MSG HD Pursues Stay With Second Circuit Appeals Court Just as Verizon yesterday was busy telling customers they'd finally be getting MSG HD in a few weeks after a long fight with Cablevision, Cablevision was busy filing suit against the FCC for their order requiring Cablevision share Dolan-owned programming. Last January the FCC issued an order (pdf) designed to put an end to cable operators preventing competitors from accessing local sports channels owned by the cable company. The rules went into effect in June, and the FCC's Media Bureau ruled in September that Cablevision and MSG violated the agency's new rules by withholding HD versions of MSG and MSG-Plus from Verizon and AT&T. Cablevision offered Broadband Reports the following statement: "We are pursuing a stay with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals while we seek a review of the Orders. We continue to believe that an unbiased review of the data can only result in one conclusion: that there has been no competitive harm to the nation's two largest phone companies. In a highly competitive marketplace like New York, a forced sharing of offerings only deters companies from investing and innovating, which hurts both fair competition and consumers. Verizon and AT&T should be expected to compete based on their products and not by manipulating federal law." Things aren't looking too hot for Cablevision's argument, and it seems likely FiOS TV customers will still probably get MSG HD in mid December.
|
 | | They both suck... Wouldn't it be great if Verizon and AT&T could withhold phone services from Cablevision? Or if there was a HD version of phone service that could be denied to Cablevision users?
Personally, I just wish I could get MSG2HD and MSG+2HD on Time Warner when there is an overflow game. Good thing there's no NBA this season as no Knicks games mean less chance of overlap. | |
|  | | | Re: They both suck... said by jasondean:Wouldn't it be great if Verizon and AT&T could withhold phone services from Cablevision? Or if there was a HD version of phone service that could be denied to Cablevision users?
Personally, I just wish I could get MSG2HD and MSG+2HD on Time Warner when there is an overflow game. Good thing there's no NBA this season as no Knicks games mean less chance of overlap.
Directv has the overflows in HD now. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line What crap | |
| | | | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line Hey it's the same argument used by the telco and cable companies against line-sharing. Might as well try it. | |
| | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line said by JasonOD :Hey it's the same argument used by the telco and cable companies against line-sharing. Might as well try it.
And it is funny the FCC saying that Cablevision is hurting the competiveness of Verizon and AT&T by not giving them MSG-HD. It may annoy the customers of Verizon, but it sure isn't making Verizon uncompetitive in NYC and surrounding areas.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
| |
| | | | NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line agree with that 100%. Maybe CV should be going after the Telco's private networks that they advertise. | |
|
| | | | said by JasonOD :Hey it's the same argument used by the telco and cable companies against line-sharing. Might as well try it.
Speaking of which, when is Verizon sharing the fiber optic lines? Oh right, they don't have to. | |
| | | | | | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line said by fifty nine:said by JasonOD :Hey it's the same argument used by the telco and cable companies against line-sharing. Might as well try it.
Speaking of which, when is Verizon sharing the fiber optic lines? Oh right, they don't have to. Speaking of which, when is Comcast, Time Warner Cable, or Cablevision sharing their cable lines?
Oh right, they don't have to. | |
| | | | | | | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line said by fifty none :said by fifty nine:said by JasonOD :Hey it's the same argument used by the telco and cable companies against line-sharing. Might as well try it.
Speaking of which, when is Verizon sharing the fiber optic lines? Oh right, they don't have to. Speaking of which, when is Comcast, Time Warner Cable, or Cablevision sharing their cable lines? Oh right, they don't have to. Time Warner does. I used to use New York Connect via Time Warner. About the same price but with dialup included. | |
|
| | | Technically cablevision just has to start commercials showing how verizon is cherry picking neighborhoods for fios while optimum is available everywhere.
Cablevision should let Verizon pay for MSG HD. I never understood why cablevision does not do a massive ad campaign with FIOS limited availability. | |
| | | NWOhio
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line CV said before they'd let them but they don't want to pay what CV wants for it. So VZ goes and cries to the FCC. | |
| | | | |
| | | | said by majortom1029:Technically cablevision just has to start commercials showing how verizon is cherry picking neighborhoods for fios while optimum is available everywhere.
Cablevision should let Verizon pay for MSG HD. I never understood why cablevision does not do a massive ad campaign with FIOS limited availability.
You do realize Verizon FiOS covers a much larger footprint than Cablevision, right?
Seems to me like Cablevision are the cherry pickers, why aren't they expanding their footprint?
You are such a cablevision shill, defending everything Cablevision does, yet you don't realize how off your comments are.
Cablevision does not do a massive ad campaign with FiOS limited availability because the bottom line is that FiOS is available in more areas than Cablevision, and it would backfire on them. Somehow you must think that Cablevision covers all of the NY and NJ, guess what it doesn't.
Furthermore Cablevision competes only with Verizon FiOS for triple play subscribers, yet Verizon has to compete against Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, and Charter Cable. So if anything you should be supporting Verizon for going 1 against 5 vs Cablevision which does only 1 on 1. Next time you want to bring up your idiotic cherry picking argument, let me know when Cablevision is available to 15 million households like Verizon is.
PLEASE GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL THAT OPTIMUM IS NOT AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE.
Please let me know when I can get Optimum in Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, and most of New Jersey. Oh wait I can't because Cablevision has cherry picked and decided not to provide service in those areas. | |
| | | | | | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and did I say wrong?
Charles Dolan (founder of cablevision) was actually the person who founded Manhattan's first cable TV system - Sterling Manhattan cable. He sold it to what would eventually become Time Warner cable. Dolan used the money from the sale to start up Cablevision in Long Island, which expanded to other areas that were previously unserved. So technically, Dolan did bring cable to all or most of NYC. But they can't operate citywide because they don't have a citywide frachise agreeement.
Incidentally, Dolan also founded HBO.
The NYC territories are all carved up because of local franchise agreements. Verizon promised to wire the entire city with FiOS and was thus granted a citywide franchise by DoITT to spur competition. However, it is unlikely that they'll do this soon, if at all. I know, a phone company breaking promises, who would have thought?
quote:
Cablevision does not do a massive ad campaign with FiOS limited availability because the bottom line is that FiOS is available in more areas than Cablevision, and it would backfire on them. Somehow you must think that Cablevision covers all of the NY and NJ, guess what it doesn't.
The cable companies can band together and run an ad campaign like this. They don't have to take it from Verizon sitting down. | |
| | | | | | | Re: I love the general "Will hurt innovation" line Cable companies banding together is a poor counterargument. Verizon is 1 company, taking on several companies at once. You cannot combine all the cable companies together and make them out to be a single company, any more than you could band Verizon, at&t, centurylink, frontier, fairpoint, etc..
They are each their own company. Doesn't matter where cablevision started, they aren't in those areas now.
Just as Verizon is no longer in all the areas where they started.
As a matter of fact, your pointing out that cablevision sold off some properties proves that they cherry pick if you are going to say that Verizon also cherry picks because they sold off unwanted areas.
If anything Verizon is the only company that actually competes but you people are too blind to see it.
Verizon competes with any cable provider in its territory as well as competes against its "telco brethren" with Verizon Wireless service.
When does cable compete against any of its cable brethren in any form? | |
|
| | Two can play this game. Perhaps Verizon should retaliate with Cablevison. As many know, Verizon owns UUNet, and the former assets of the defunct MCI/Worldcom. UUNet makes up a large portion of the Internet Backbone, and I'm sure traffic over UUNet assets can be throttled or ignored. After all, 2 can play the denial game. Imagine the uproar Cablevision would make if Verizon basically shutdown Cablevision's IP Network? You can bet Cablevision would rush the courts with antitrust lawsuits if this ever happened. Of course, such action would be no different than Cablevision's MSG-HD argument (i.e. we own it and can do what we want with it). | |
| | | | Re: Two can play this game. Verizon can't do that. Net neutrality and all that jazz. | |
|
| |
|
|
