Cablevision Fights FCC Ruling Requiring They Share MSG HD FCC ruling 'arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion' says Cablevision 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 Philadephia 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. Under Federal law, 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. At the time, Cablevision issued a statement praising the FCC for ensuring an effective complaint proces, but at the same time arguing the agency lacked the authority to make the ruling. It now appears that Cablevision has quietly taken that fight to the courts: According to a copy of the petition obtained by Multichannel News, Cablevision is appealing "on the grounds that the Order exceeds the Commission's jurisdiction and authority; is contrary to constitutional right; violates the Communications Act of 1934, the Administrative Procedure Act, or other statutes; and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law." Rather than appealing the decision with the FCC, the company went straight to the court, according to a source. The petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was filed March 15. A Cablevision spokesperson had no comment. While Comcast originally hinted that they'd challenge the ruling in court as well, they've apparently put those plans on pause while they look for regulatory approval of their merger with NBC Universal.
|
 | | Well why not? It worked for Comcast. The courts seem to be in agreement that the FCC has no power over wire signals. | |
|  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Re: Well why not? If Cablevision wins this in court, it just forces Congress to make such things clear in the law. Even Cablevision can't afford to buy enough Congress critters to clearly act against the public interest. | |
|  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Well why not? What's so different about this type of programming than, say, Dish Networks "Invitation Only" network where they have exclusive content available only to Dish Network customers?
I know THIS is going to push the envelope, a little, but if this is the case, then how does NFL have exclusive agreements with one provider? I bring this up ONLY becuase if they're going to ensure content is available from a programmer (which in this case is the cable operator) to a carrier (such as cable, satellite, Fios, etc) then they need to ensure that ALL programmers engage in open carrier status AND make it available "for a reasonable price"... again, I know the NFL is a bit of a stretch from the fact it's not "cable".. but the "fair price" rule should also apply to ALL program carriers as well. | |
|  |  |  |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Well why not? said by fiberguy:I know THIS is going to push the envelope, a little, but if this is the case, then how does NFL have exclusive agreements with one provider? The out of market packages are a little different, in that you wouldn't have natural access to them on any other provider anyway.
What makes the MSG-HD issue different is that this affects Dish / FiOS / U-Verse customers in their local market from being able to see their local sports team. (ie, sports fans in NYC won't sign up for anything other than CableVision or DirecTV)
So if you want to see the New York Rangers, owned by the Dolan Family, you either need buy tickets to see them at Madison Square Garden (owned by the Dolans), or subscribe to CableVision (owned by the Dolans) to watch them in HD at home. The Dolans also strong-armed other area teams into signing with MSG, so they have the broadcast rights for the Sabres, Islanders, and Devils as well. (That's 4 out of 30 teams in the NHL)
What makes this especially murky for me is they take public support in the form of $14 million a year in property tax breaks on the Madison Square Garden property. The Dolans have a good monopoly going and they're propping it up at the expense of taxpayers. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Well why not? Another minor difference is that with the NFL type packages all carriers have an opportunity to compete to acquire the rights to broadcast them. With this, all other carriers are being flat out blocked as to not compete with the carrier that controls the content.
I personally think exclusive agreements through programming should be banned period. The only thing they do is jack up the price for consumers and attempt to lock them into a carrier. | |
|  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | The only thing I really want to comment on are the tax breaks.. they got tax breaks, usually, for bringing business to town to generate jobs and other tax revenue... not to be "controlled" in every aspect of their business.
McDonald's may get a tax break for opening new stores in an certain part of the state, for example, but it doesn't mean that they have to let Burger King sell their Whoppers in their stores becuase they got tax breaks.
But, my points are very specific about signals... I see two sides to this... 1) If the company purchases the product and provide it to their customers.. so be it. I don't see why they should HAVE TO sell that competitive edge to the competition.. I Start to produce a widget.. it's a unique widget.. I am going to make a lot of money based on it and draw customers myself - why should I be forced to sell that widget wholesale to my competition? 2) I can also see that if they want to force a cable operator to sell their programming to others and not allow a self-exclusive agreement with themselves, then that rule should be broadened to ALL signal providers, and yes, that includes the NFL. While they can jack their prices if they want (which does violate the "reasonable fee" rule, they should NOT be able to sell that signal exclusively. In THIS case, the NFL and Comcast Spectacor are in the same boat for both being content providers.
Content is content (outside of public airwave television) if you sell it to one, you sell it to all. If you want to produce and distribute it yourself, then I believe you should also have that right as well. | |
|
 |  JPLPremium join:2007-04-04 Downingtown, PA kudos:1 | said by Camelot One:It worked for Comcast. The courts seem to be in agreement that the FCC has no power over wire signals. Wow, is this a misreading of the recent court decision with regard to Comcast's throttling of their HSI service. The court found no such thing. In 2005 the FCC changed its status of internet service so that it effectively became a lightly regulated utility. Under such a classification, they had no authority to enforce a 'no throttling' regime on HSI providers. That was a purely consitutional issue - the FCC wasn't granted the authority to heavily regulate such 'lightly regulated' utilities.
Note, though, that the classification of HSI in that way was done by the FCC. All they have to do is reclassify internet service, and they'll basically have the authority to enforce no throttling. Essentially the FCC is trying to have its cake and eat it too. If they want the authority that they seek for net neutrality, then they have to change how they view internet service.
Now, I do grant that the Comcast decision could make it more difficult for the FCC to enforce their elimiation of the terrestrial loophole, but not because they have no authority over wire signals - sorry, that's just a silly argument. It makes it more difficult because the terrestrial loophole is a construct of Congress... per specific legislation. Without the FCC being given specific authority, by Congress, to regulate with regard to that legislation, the FCC may have overstepped its constitutional authority to close the loophole. In other words, the Comcast decision lays a precedent for the courts slapping down the FCC for overstepping its authority. Something, that some would argue, they also did with closing the loophole. | |
|
 jophanPremium join:2009-07-12 Jenkintown, PA | Terrestrial loophole I've never understood why this isn't a clear antitrust violation. I have heard that vertical integration tends to get less priority than horizontal, but haven't heard a clear rationale. The recent Comcast experiment with the 3D version of the Masters is another example, where other MSOs that do not compete with them were provided the feed at no charge but competitors were not offered it at all. Doesn't this define a cartel? | |
|  | | What of NFL? Satellite Companies still get away with having NFL Sunday ticket. This is bullcrap. Make them not have exclusive contracts too then!!! I hate Satellite!!! They are ugly!! | |
|  |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium join:2004-12-20 La La Land kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: What of NFL? As I understand it, EVERYONE was offered this, DirecTV was the only one to take them up on the offer. You can't complain that you don't have access AFTER you choose not to get the access.  -- RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!! In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: What of NFL? Um... NFL Sunday Ticket was put up for bid to the highest bidder. They've made it exclusive to DirecTv and priced it SO high that no one else would touch it. | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
·Comcast Digital ..
| Re: What of NFL? Comcast made a bid of 300 million if i remember correctly. Somehow directv offered 700 million, comcast was going to offer 800 million but retracted figuring no one would buy it for $250 per year that it would take to recoup that. Smart decision as directv has to practically give it away to new and current subs to keep people subbing to it. | |
|
 |  | | said by Heated Man:Satellite Companies still get away with having NFL Sunday ticket. This is bullcrap. Make them not have exclusive contracts too then!!! I hate Satellite!!! They are ugly!! So you think it's ok for comcast to buy nbc and make it and all there channels cable only? | |
|  |  | | said by Heated Man:Satellite Companies still get away with having NFL Sunday ticket. This is bullcrap. Make them not have exclusive contracts too then!!! I hate Satellite!!! They are ugly!! Oh good lord, this again?
DirecTV does not own the teams, the channels or the programming. They were simply willing to spend $700 million a year to be the exclusive distributor.
Everyone else had the opportunity but balked.
And...how exactly is MSG or MSG+ in HD an exclusive? Comcast, Time Warner, RCN and DirecTV all carry them. | |
|  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: What of NFL? It doesn't matter. In the case of Comcast, they're providing it under Comcast Spectacor, which is part of Comcast, yes. BUT, they are a programmer.. NFL is a programmer as well. The point being made, to which I agree with, is that content should be sold to EVERYONE at "a fair price" and 700 million a year is a bit much and then you hit the key point.. "exclusive" ... this means that no one else is allowed to have that content. Yes, this is a bit off the topic of cable owned content - but the point is the same. DirecTv bid high to BE the EXCLUSIVE content carrier.. those deals should not be allowed. | |
|  |  |  |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium join:2004-12-20 La La Land kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: What of NFL? said by fiberguy:DirecTv bid high to BE the EXCLUSIVE content carrier.. those deals should not be allowed. I disagree, they bid FOR that exclusivity, when the contract ends, ANYONE could bid for that SAME deal. Comcast & CV, while allowing SOME to carry, refuse to allow others to EVER carry. BIG difference. -- RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!! In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|  |  |  |  |  1 edit | Re: What of NFL? There's also another difference...the Sunday Ticket is strictly OUT OF MARKET. IOW, local markets don't suffer. The existence of Sunday Ticket has not harmed local viewers at all.
In fact, the NFL has made sure that local teams (as long as they're sold out) are always seen in their local markets by EVERYONE with a TV. Even the cable games are shown over the air in the local markets.
In short, anyone bringing up Sunday Ticket in comparison to what Cablevision and Comcast are doing here is comparing apples to oranges. There's nothing similar about them. | |
|  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Then I could really care less.. Comcast decided to buy something, produce something, and distribute it themselves. I don't think they should be forced to sell their competative edge to anyone else. Period.
Or, ALL program providers, regardless of who they are (minus OTA) that provides a signal to one, should provide it to ALL - listening NFL? I could care less what market.. Just think what would happen if HBO decided to go exclusive with TWC.. DirecTV would be up in arms. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: What of NFL? With every post you make you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. This is about UNIQUE LOCAL programming being withheld in anti-competitive, anti-consumer effort.
There's nothing local about Sunday Ticket (or HBO for that matter) and there's nothing that prevented any other company from buying the rights. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: What of NFL? What are you missing? You're looking at things as they are "today".. you're looking at the so-called local delivery of programming.. I get that.. I'm not a retart. MY POINT, that you don't want to see, take in, etc. is that the signal should in-fact be a signal placed out for sale to any carrier that wants it.. Games CAN be shown out of market - what do you think the NFL does? Shall I tell you? I had 12 years in with Comcast as an employee and am very well aware of the company and what it does/did... get it? I'm BASHING the employer I used to work for.
AS the SAME time, I"m also comparing "agreements" of "excluding" people from them for WHAT EVER reason... and in the case of Sunday Ticket, the service is out for sale to THE HIGHEST BIDDER - which in effect locks people out.
I think you said it best... your point is the only point.. so move on. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Here is a clear fix. Do as they did with MLB Extra Innings. Offer it at the current price and then state HD and SD has to be covered for all games. This will eliminate the cable forks because of lack of band with. They cant even care more than one HD MLB, NBA or NHL season packages. Mean while Directv carries most games in HD unless blocked(IE Comcast Philly).
The only way to resolve this is to eliminate exclusivity contracts with any company. I will bet many of us have agreements for a product that are companies use, how is this different?
Look at Government and City bids. It they go to the lowest bidder. | |
|  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 1 edit | Re: What of NFL? So... more monkey rigging is the answer huh? Tell me.. are you a fan of net neutrality too?
Let ME 'spain something to you, and everyone else here... becuase this gets old. "FAIR" doesn't apply to what you agree with and will benefit you.. "FAIR" is "FAIR" across the board, even if it goes against something that you want to see happen, believe, or want for yourself.
There REALLY is a LOT of double standards on this site.. I need to get my rubber boots out. | |
|
 |  |  1 edit | said by robjlevin:And...how exactly is MSG or MSG+ in HD an exclusive? Comcast, Time Warner, RCN and DirecTV all carry them. Service Electric also carries them. For that matter we also get News 12, not in HD though (for now). | |
|
 | | att has not room to talk if cablevision has to share the channel with other companies. maybe att should have to share the iphone with all cell provider. or direct tv would have to share the nfl sunday ticket with everyone | |
|  heat84Bit Torrent Apologist join:2004-03-11 Fort Lauderdale, FL | Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? That's even more unfair. I'm surprised the NFL let it happen since they'd make more money if more people had the ability to subscribe to it. -- Bit Torrent is my DVR. | |
|  |  EPS join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? I believe DirecTV gets the NFL Sunday Ticket exclusivity by paying lots of money to the NFL... it's not a loophole type of thing, as far as I know. (Since DirecTV doesn't own the NFL) | |
|  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? said by EPS:I believe DirecTV gets the NFL Sunday Ticket exclusivity by paying lots of money to the NFL... it's not a loophole type of thing, as far as I know. (Since DirecTV doesn't own the NFL) Why isn't it the same? Comcast just decided to sell their service to themselves as an "exclusive deal"... this is just an example of some carriers wanting their cake and to eat it too. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? But they're not selling to just themselves. They've also sold CSN Philly to Verizon. It's not an exclusive.
They'd have a better argument if they hadn't cut a deal with VZ. | |
|  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? Then it's one way or another.. you either sell it to everyone, or you keep it for yourself. Period. And, that applies to NFL as well... NFL has decided to sell their service to DirecTV.. they do, however, sell SOME of their games to OTHER carriers as well.. NFL would have a better argument if they didn't do that... right? And sorry, you can't play the "But the Sunday games are different" card.. football is football. The NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE is in the business of selling games and game content. It can't be both ways. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? There's one of two things going on here. Either you just like acting like a troll looking for a fight or you just don't understand.
Either way, I'm done with you. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? There's a third thing going on here.... you want to make your point and get me to accept it as is and since I won't, you're crying foul and calling me a troll.. Bravo!
Run along now..  | |
|
 |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by heat84:That's even more unfair. I'm surprised the NFL let it happen since they'd make more money if more people had the ability to subscribe to it. DirecTv pays the NFL $1 bil a year regardless of how many actually subscribe to Sunday Ticket. The NFL gets the money on the FRONT end not the back. | |
|  |  | | NFL Sunday Ticket is sent out to bid....the bid was won by DirecTV. DirecTV doesn't own the NFL or any team in it. Anyone could bid on it, but in truth only Dish and probably Comcast could offer the NFL what they want.....nation wide distribution. The NFL only wants the package on one major player, if it were on all networks it could cut into local TV contracts (NBC, ESPN, CBS, FOX).
Comcast OWNS CSN Philliy and CSN NW....they are withholding CSN from other companies out of fear their customers may switch to other providers. Same deal with MSG and the Dolan's. They own the network(s) and the teams, that's where it becomes unfair. Sadly for D*, E* and other customers they don't get a choice in the Philly area because of the wording that was put into the law by Senator Spector. Most of the other CSN networks (Chicago, Bay Area, Boston, California, SNY) are owned by more than Comcast so it makes it harder for them to withhold the channel from other providers. So confusing an issue like CSN Philly or MSG with NFL Sunday Ticket are two totally different things. If you don't like the Sunday Ticket deal getting mad at D* isn't the answer it's the NFL that made the choice to do the deal. | |
|  |  |  TavokkPremium join:2009-05-05 Smyrna, DE | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? I thought I just read somewhere in the past week that Comcast and Verizon signed a deal to carry The Comcast Network and Comcast SportsNet on Verizon FIOS in Philly.
Found it:
»www.multichannel.com/article/451···+Comcast | |
|
 |  | | said by heat84:That's even more unfair. I'm surprised the NFL let it happen since they'd make more money if more people had the ability to subscribe to it. Totally incorrect. ST is the only programming that sold to a distributor at a flat rate. Additionally, do you really think DirecTV would pay the NFL all that money if everyone else was carrying it?
The only reason they're paying it is for the exclusivity. | |
|  |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? You think that NFL cares where they get their money? If you take 1 billion a year, divide that between DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, TWC, ATT, Cox, MediaCom, etc. that the NFL wouldn't make more than 1bil annually?
Me thinks that DirecTV wanted it to be exclusive to them.. pretty simple. Still shouldn't be allowed.
So DirecTV gets to have exclusive content, but companies like Comcast can't purchase, own, and carry their own programming?? | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? Do you even understand the definition of exclusive and local?
Explain to me how CSN Philly is an exclusive if FiOS has it?
Also, please explain how any local market is harmed by Sunday Ticket? | |
|  |  |  |  | | said by fiberguy:You think that NFL cares where they get their money? If you take 1 billion a year, divide that between DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, TWC, ATT, Cox, MediaCom, etc. that the NFL wouldn't make more than 1bil annually? Me thinks that DirecTV wanted it to be exclusive to them.. pretty simple. Still shouldn't be allowed. So DirecTV gets to have exclusive content, but companies like Comcast can't purchase, own, and carry their own programming?? also this year NFL ST is roomer to be on line and you will NOT NEED Directv to buy it. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Does this effect NFL Sunday ticket too? The ST contract with DTV has four seasons to go and you can rest assured that DTV will pay whatever the NFL wants to keep it. | |
|
 |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by heat84:That's even more unfair. I'm surprised the NFL let it happen since they'd make more money if more people had the ability to subscribe to it. This is actually not the case. The NFL has an interest in keeping subscribership to the out of market package as low as possible to maintain value for the affiliates that air the games.
With the exception of a handful of national games (ie, Monday night football) all NFL games are played nearly concurrently on Sundays. Each game is broadcast by one of the OTA networks within the DMA, and the station receives compensation for the local broadcast by selling local advertising.
Say you live in a crap market like Detroit. If the Sunday Ticket package were easy to subscribe to you might be tempted to watch other out of market teams which would be airing advertisements from whatever market the broadcast originated from. Now your local market loses out on TV viewers, and the fee the local network is willing to pay the NFL for broadcast rights drops significantly.
The NFL is pretty much banking that even in markets with underperforming teams, people will still choose to watch the NFL football they can get. | |
|
 | | Rangers in HD Cablevision won't be carrying any of the Rangers' playoff games this year. Ha, ha. | |
|  | | THE NBA forces the feeds to be on NBA LP same thing with MLB THE NBA forces the feeds to be on NBA LP same thing with MLB.
The NHL was to cheap to force HD feeds like how the NBA and MLB did. | |
|  | | FCC should put a stop to that. This is why I think allowing Comcast to buy NBC is a bad thing. What if Comcast takes the Scifi channel or any other popular channel and feed it through terrestrial ground lines in order to block other carriers from offering those channels. We are on slippery slope here folks. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
 guppy_fishPremium join:2003-12-09 Lakeland, FL kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
1 edit | Get over this, its nothing new And CV no longer owns MSG ( spun off last month ), so even if this court action fails, CV will just use the point.
There is no law that will ever force a content creator to have to sell to everyone, that would be like CBS complaining they can't show Fox's American Idol. media company's have used exclusivity since the invention of movies, and then TV to have an added value. Nothing is wrong with this and if you want your MSG-HD, then you can pay to have it, just can't pit Verizon against CV to save you NY folks AND have all the same channels. | |
|  |  RickNYPremium join:2000-11-02 Manorville, NY Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Get over this, its nothing new said by guppy_fish:And CV no longer owns MSG ( spun off last month ), so even if this court action fails, CV will just use the point. There is an overlap between the senior management of the Company and Cablevision. James L. Dolan serves as the Executive Chairman of the Company and as the President and Chief Executive Officer and as a director of Cablevision. Hank J. Ratner serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and as Vice Chairman of Cablevision. In addition, immediately following the Distribution, eight of the members of our Board of Directors will also be directors of Cablevision, and several of our directors will continue to serve as officers and/or employees of Cablevision concurrently with their service on our Board of Directors.
Of course it was spun off, and surely there will be no influence from Cablevision on distribution agreements.. | |
|
 bnceo join:2007-10-11 Bel Air, MD | Sigh, Makes me Sad The DirecTV and Dish Network issue is different in that anyone in the US has access to it. It's a national service. With MSOs like Comcast and Time Warner, not everyone in the country can just get TW/Comcast/Cox.
I love the Cablevision ads taunting FiOS for now having MSG in HD when it's them who are blocking it.
For those touting the example of iPhone and AT&T: You can get the iPhone anywhere in the country. You are NOT restricted. Now if you want 3G service, that's a diff story. But you are not prevented from buying the phone and plan. With a Comcast getting the NFL package, people in Dallas, Norfolk, and other non Comcast markets would be locked out completely. At least with DirecTV, it's still an option. | |
|  |  kpfx join:2005-10-28 San Antonio, TX Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sigh, Makes me Sad Did MSG flat-out say no-go to Verizon and U-Verse? Or did they come up with a price-point that they didn't like (yet was apparently OK for dish, TWC, etc...)?
And if that's the case... how is that different from what the NFL is doing with their content? Just curious because there's a lot of info missing here. | |
|  |  |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Sigh, Makes me Sad said by kpfx:Did MSG flat-out say no-go to Verizon and U-Verse? Or did they come up with a price-point that they didn't like (yet was apparently OK for dish, TWC, etc...)? To date, CableVision (or the Dolan family which owns Madison Square Garden -- both the facility and the network, CableVision, and the NY Rangers and Knicks) has refused to sell access to the channel to any pay TV operator that competes with the CableVision service footprint. They'll sell access to Comcast and Time Warner because their franchise agreements prevent overlapping service areas, but U-Verse, FiOS, and Dish have been completely shut out.
The only exception has been DirecTV, and that's as a result of tactics to try and force Dish Network's hand in carriage of the Rainbow Media (a CableVision company) developed Voom Network channels. When Rainbow failed to meet the HD content development benchmarks set out in the contract with Dish Network, the channels were dropped from the Dish Network lineup. Shortly after that occurred, Rainbow offered the MSG / MSG+ HD feeds to DirecTV and fired a bribe over to Dish that they too could have access to MSG/MSG+ HD if they re-instated the Voom HD channels. Dish refused to pump more money into Voom, and to this day are still locked out from getting access to MSG HD at any price. | |
|  |  |  |  kpfx join:2005-10-28 San Antonio, TX Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Sigh, Makes me Sad Hmmm..... so it sounds like an offer was made but it was along the lines of the sleazy channel bundling deal that the networks like to pull against the MSOs (i.e. Viacom forcing an operator to carry the carpet cleaning channel if they want to get Comedy Central).
So I don't think I'd be surprised that if the terrestrial "loophole" is closed the deal won't change. | |
|
 | | How does this matter How does this matter now? MSG and its channels are seperate companies so couldnt the msg company allow and not allow anybody to have their channel that they want now? | |
|  |  | | Re: How does this matter How about your walk into a store and watch other people buy something you want, but they won't sell it to you and there's no place else you can buy it? | |
|  |  |  1 edit | Re: How does this matter said by robjlevin:How about your walk into a store and watch other people buy something you want, but they won't sell it to you and there's no place else you can buy it? Unless you are being discriminated against due to being a member of a protected class (race, religion, gender, etc) I don't see how that is illegal or even morally wrong.
But this argument doesn't apply to MSG. If you want MSG HD, subscribe to cable. If you're on FiOS you can get a standard def feed. It is really that simple! So I don't really think that anyone is being denied MSG in HD. It's your choice to subscribe to a particular television provider, and one of them happens to carry MSG HD and the other does not. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Government Unhinged
Just who do the people running the FCC think they are? They are guilty of expropriating private property.
If Cablevision doesn't want to share their property with someone else, tough. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|  |  JPLPremium join:2007-04-04 Downingtown, PA kudos:1 | Re: Government Unhinged said by pnh102:Just who do the people running the FCC think they are? They are guilty of expropriating private property. If Cablevision doesn't want to share their property with someone else, tough. One problem with this - we're talking about RSNs here. It's not just private money that's involved. Think about how many tax dollars go into supporting a local sports franchise. | |
|
 | | Fire back Maybe verizon should stop allowing cablevision telephone customers access to the PSTN?  | |
|  Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| 2 cents.. Me thinks that some programming.. particularly SPORTS variety has TOO MUCH money involved. With all that money slushing around corruption of the sports integrity is the new reality. The old days of when a game was just a game are long gone. Now society just consumes a characterization of one. The NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB have become what the WWE have made highly addictive by mainstream culture. Then it boils down to watching how a few highly ranked people play the game rather than the teams winning.
In a few years time, VIDEO in all it's forms & genres will be massively consumed on the internet for free & the cable industry will have to decide whether to go down that road of suing people the way the RIAA/MPAA have done. Tricky balancing act because they are some of the same consumers which pay their isp bills month by month, year by year. Video is very hard to slap an effective DRM solution around as proved over the past 3+ decades. The catv subscription model is overdue for a head-on collision with internet subscription model. These companies trying to sue one another to scramble for the last remaining subscribership scraps is comical. | |
|
 | |
|
|