jagged join:2003-07-01 Boynton Beach, FL 1 edit
1 recommendation |
jagged
Member
2010-Oct-27 8:55 am
Um...That's like throwing a tantrum because you got thrown out of a bar.
This gets more and more bizzare
first btw | |
|
| EvelKubKitty is crazy Premium Member join:2002-03-17 Mesa, AZ |
EvelKub
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 1:09 pm
Re: Um...Well they already have both Cablevision and Dish Network off the air... As this drags on, other companies contracts will reach expiration, so the numbers will increase if they can hold out. | |
|
| | |
Re: Um...there was a Fox ad on WOW cable the other day that said something about someone else's contracts coming up on the 1st of November and now contracts have get been reached to keep programming from Fox. but it never said who the cable provider was.
In the end this will only hurt Fox. | |
|
| |
-1 recommendation |
EnderBender to EvelKub
Anon
2010-Oct-27 3:24 pm
to EvelKub
Others have already resigned, and that's what Cablevision should do, but they don't care about their customers. | |
|
|
Collective bargaining?I know at the moment the other carriers have contracts in place, but it sure seems like the smart play here is for all of them to get together and do a little collective bargaining. Fox can handle the loss of Cablevision customers for a week or two, but they couldn't handle the loss of VZ, AT&T, Comcast, etc all at once, and would be much more willing to negotiate.
Then again that would require logical thinking from Cable and Telcos, which is as likely as me winning the lottery in all 50 states tomorrow. | |
|
| schmol join:2001-12-26 Windsor, PA |
schmol
Member
2010-Oct-27 9:17 am
Re: Collective bargaining?Yes, i agree these companies should just sit back and wait for FOX to cave, they have to be losing millions on this crap. | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to Camelot One
said by Camelot One:I know at the moment the other carriers have contracts in place, but it sure seems like the smart play here is for all of them to get together and do a little collective bargaining. Then again that would require logical thinking from Cable and Telcos, which is as likely as me winning the lottery in all 50 states tomorrow. Except what you suggest is illegal. If the cables & telcos got together they would break antitrust laws. | |
|
| | |
Re: Collective bargaining?said by FFH5:said by Camelot One:I know at the moment the other carriers have contracts in place, but it sure seems like the smart play here is for all of them to get together and do a little collective bargaining. Then again that would require logical thinking from Cable and Telcos, which is as likely as me winning the lottery in all 50 states tomorrow. Except what you suggest is illegal. If the cables & telcos got together they would break antitrust laws. ROFL like that's ever stopped any of these companies! | |
|
| | TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm Premium Member join:2000-11-08 Da Bronx ·Verizon FiOS Ubiquiti NSM5 Synology RT2600ac Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
2 recommendations |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:If the cables & telcos got together they would break antitrust laws. Yes, but if they each made an independent decision that FOX should pay for access to their respective networks, it would be a simple business decision based on free-market principles. I see nothing anti-trust about saying "you want access to OUR subscribers? YOU PAY". You are a fan of the free market right? Bob | |
|
| | | TheGhost Premium Member join:2003-01-03 Lake Forest, IL |
TheGhost
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 12:30 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?I thought Fox locals can force carriage for free under must carry if it came to that, but they are instead trying to negotiate that they get paid instead, which is also allowed by the government.
The government should rewrite whatever stupid policy they put in place allowing providers of OTA TV to charge for their signal to be carried WITHIN the markets they serve. All the Cable Co's are doing is providing a central antennae to their customers for the OTA channels. | |
|
| | | | 56403739 (banned)Less than 5 months left join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL |
56403739 (banned)
Member
2010-Oct-27 2:14 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?said by TheGhost:The government should rewrite whatever stupid policy they put in place allowing providers of OTA TV to charge for their signal to be carried WITHIN the markets they serve. All the Cable Co's are doing is providing a central antennae to their customers for the OTA channels. The cable companies wrote that law by suing to eliminate Must Carry in the 1990's. This is a perfect case of "be careful what you wish for"...prior to the current Retransmission Consent law what you want is how it worked, except that cable systems had to carry all TV stations within their markets. The cablers didn't like that, so here we are. | |
|
| | | aximr Premium Member join:2001-09-28 Wood Ridge, NJ |
to TamaraB
Fox or any other content provider is not and would never pay the cable companies or telco for access to their subscribers, Why would they? Their the ones with the content that the subscribers want.
In the end content is king, and the cable companies are in jeopardy of losing TV subscribers as the internet allows a new delivery of the content. Google TV, Hulu, Roku, Netflix, etc.....
Why do you think Comcast just bought 51% of NBC Universal?
I would look for more deals and partnerships like this in the future. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Collective bargaining?lol. not true. HSN, QVC and ShopNBC and every other shopping network PAYS the MSOs to be carried. how do you think they got on the lowest tier of every provider? | |
|
| | | | | aximr Premium Member join:2001-09-28 Wood Ridge, NJ 1 edit |
aximr
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 3:03 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?I said content. Not someone hawking their goods, the Shopping networks are nothing more then infomercials. They buy time from the cable companies just like a commercial. Did you ever wonder why their are no commercials on QVC, HSN and ShopNBC network? Because the pay for the time.
12% of American get TV Over the Air? your figure is a tad high, it more in line with about 7%. 100 million Households in the US subscribe to Cable/Telco/Satellite combined which is an 85 billion dollar industry and still content providers get more money each time their contract ends with any of the cable/telco/Satellite providers.
If cable could make Fox or any other content provider pay to air their shows then they would already be doing it. Just an FYI: Internet providers ie. cable/telcos/satellite have been talking about your idea with content providers/online merchants on the internet. Meaning they wanted to charge Google/Yahoo/Amazon/Monster etc etc... to bring their subscriber to the content providers websites. To date they have had no luck with that.
Cablevision is 0 for 2, having lost battles with HGTV/Food and ABC this year.
Time Warner, Comcast, Dish and Direct TV have all fared no better.
More people want to pay for what they want to see, and not get 200 useless channels. They key here is you subscribe to cable/Telco/Satellite to have access to content. Content the providers have to pay for in order to provide to you. Without content to supply to you, they don't have anything you want. | |
|
| | | | | | joako Premium Member join:2000-09-07 /dev/null |
joako
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 10:37 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?3 million New York-area Cablevision customers * X = 70 ~ 150 million/year.
For $23 ~ 50 per subscriber ONE TIME COST why can't cablevision just install TV antennas at each of their subscribers premesis? They aren't retransmitting, the customer gets the channel and everyone but Fox is happy. | |
|
| | | | 1 edit |
to aximr
said by aximr:Fox or any other content provider is not and would never pay the cable companies or telco for access to their subscribers, Why would they? Their the ones with the content that the subscribers want. You wanna bet? When only 12% of americans get tv through OTA and dropping, not having access to cable customers and their ad impressions would be bankruptcy for the OTA network. No net neutrality goes both ways buddy. 2 cable companies don't compete against each other either. | |
|
| | | | | 56403739 (banned)Less than 5 months left join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL |
56403739 (banned)
Member
2010-Oct-27 2:36 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?said by patcat88:No net neutrality goes both ways buddy. This has nothing to do with "net neutrality". | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Collective bargaining?said by 56403739:said by patcat88:No net neutrality goes both ways buddy. This has nothing to do with "net neutrality". Same concept. Cable companies could charge networks for access to the ad impressions/citizens. | |
|
| | | | | | | 56403739 (banned)Less than 5 months left join:2006-03-08 Naples, FL |
56403739 (banned)
Member
2010-Oct-27 3:06 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?said by patcat88:said by 56403739:said by patcat88:No net neutrality goes both ways buddy. This has nothing to do with "net neutrality". Same concept. Cable companies could charge networks for access to the ad impressions/citizens. Nope. Not even close. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 1 edit |
Re: Collective bargaining?Same concept. Net neutrality is about a content provider being charged to access viewers over the "free" internet. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Collective bargaining?said by patcat88:Same concept. Net neutrality is about a content provider being charged to access viewers over the "free" internet. Absolutely not. Net neutrality is about an ISP treating traffic fairly. It has nothing to do with restrictions on content imposed by content providers. If it did, pay services such as Netflix would be in violation of net neutrality principles because they charge people for access. Heck even you would be in violation since you prevent people from accessing your network. Website owners have the right to monetize their websites to make a profit and restrict the content for copyright and whatever reasons they wish, with certain very narrow exceptions, (such as denying you employment because of race, sex or national origin). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Collective bargaining?said by fifty nine: It has nothing to do with restrictions on content imposed by content providers. If it did, pay services such as Netflix would be in violation of net neutrality principles because they charge people for access. Heck even you would be in violation since you prevent people from accessing your network. Where did I say that? | |
|
| | | JPL Premium Member join:2007-04-04 Downingtown, PA |
JPL to TamaraB
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 12:38 pm
to TamaraB
said by TamaraB:said by FFH5:If the cables & telcos got together they would break antitrust laws. Yes, but if they each made an independent decision that FOX should pay for access to their respective networks, it would be a simple business decision based on free-market principles. I see nothing anti-trust about saying "you want access to OUR subscribers? YOU PAY". You are a fan of the free market right? Bob Yes it IS a violation of anti-trust laws. That's called 'collusion' and is very illegal. It's designed to prevent companies from coming together to fix prices in a market. | |
|
| | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm Premium Member join:2000-11-08 Da Bronx ·Verizon FiOS Ubiquiti NSM5 Synology RT2600ac Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
1 recommendation |
TamaraB
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 1:20 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?said by JPL:Yes it IS a violation of anti-trust laws. That's called 'collusion' and is very illegal. It's designed to prevent companies from coming together to fix prices in a market. Nonsense! Price-fixing is one thing, and yes it's illegal; they can't collude amongst themselves to fix the price of cable access (although they do). COST fixing/cutting is not anti-trust and is PERFECTLY legal. Wallmart does it legally all the time. Consumer boycotts (consumers colluding to fix costs) are legal as well. Cable companies refusing to purchase FOX content is certainly no more illegal than them refusing to purchase copper wire from Allied Wire & Cable. Bob | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Collective bargaining?said by TamaraB:said by JPL:Yes it IS a violation of anti-trust laws. That's called 'collusion' and is very illegal. It's designed to prevent companies from coming together to fix prices in a market. Nonsense! Price-fixing is one thing, and yes it's illegal; they can't collude amongst themselves to fix the price of cable access (although they do). COST fixing/cutting is not anti-trust and is PERFECTLY legal. Wallmart does it legally all the time. Consumer boycotts (consumers colluding to fix costs) are legal as well. Cable companies refusing to purchase FOX content is certainly no more illegal than them refusing to purchase copper wire from Allied Wire & Cable. Bob Perish the thought. They will never do it. Even if all of the cable companies get together, FiOS and the dish guys will seize the opportunity. | |
|
| | | | | joako Premium Member join:2000-09-07 /dev/null |
to TamaraB
said by TamaraB:said by JPL:Yes it IS a violation of anti-trust laws. That's called 'collusion' and is very illegal. It's designed to prevent companies from coming together to fix prices in a market. Nonsense! Price-fixing is one thing, and yes it's illegal; they can't collude amongst themselves to fix the price of cable access (although they do). COST fixing/cutting is not anti-trust and is PERFECTLY legal. Wallmart does it legally all the time. Consumer boycotts (consumers colluding to fix costs) are legal as well. Cable companies refusing to purchase FOX content is certainly no more illegal than them refusing to purchase copper wire from Allied Wire & Cable. Bob Walmart not buying Tupperware-brand containers for sale in their store is fine, irregardless of what Target does. Target not buying Tupperware-brand containers for sale in their stores is fine irregardless of what Warlmart does. Target ARRANGING WITH Walmart not to buy Tupperware-brand containers for sale in their store is NOT fine. Walmart observing that Target no longer sells Tupperware-brand containers and instead sells Chang Fong-brand containers for half the price and then doing the exact same thing because everyone stopped going to Walmart to buy containers is also totally fine. | |
|
| | | | |
to JPL
said by JPL:Yes it IS a violation of anti-trust laws. That's called 'collusion' and is very illegal. It's designed to prevent companies from coming together to fix prices in a market. Its not a violation if they make a "joint partnership" to negotiate with Fox. And you would still have to prove it in court through market share and other legal theories, and the DOJ has been bought out by big business anyway so anti-trust suits against Fortune 500s are rare or fail. | |
|
| | | | thenderScreen tycoon Premium Member join:2009-01-01 Brooklyn, NY 1 edit |
to JPL
If a dozen major laptop manufacturers get together to make the prices of their machines extremely high, that's price fixing, and bad.
If a dozen major laptop manufacturers get together and say "LG Philips has been pulling some bullshit lately. Let's all buy screens for our machines from Samsung, AU Optronics, & Chi Mei and maybe LG will get the idea" is part of the free market.
If everyone devices not to deal with FOX, they will have to change.
If everyone else deals with FOX but cablevision, cablevision will have to change. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by Camelot One:I know at the moment the other carriers have contracts in place, but it sure seems like the smart play here is for all of them to get together and do a little collective bargaining. Then again that would require logical thinking from Cable and Telcos, which is as likely as me winning the lottery in all 50 states tomorrow. Except what you suggest is illegal. If the cables & telcos got together they would break antitrust laws. It is entirely possible I missed something in the code. But I was under the impression the laws applied to the sale of goods and services, not the buying of them. So it would be a violation for the networks to get together and set a price, but not the carriers - who are the buyers. But with some of the carriers owning some of the networks, I guess that could get pretty complicated. | |
|
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 10:30 am
Re: Collective bargaining?said by Camelot One:said by FFH5:said by Camelot One:I know at the moment the other carriers have contracts in place, but it sure seems like the smart play here is for all of them to get together and do a little collective bargaining. Then again that would require logical thinking from Cable and Telcos, which is as likely as me winning the lottery in all 50 states tomorrow. Except what you suggest is illegal. If the cables & telcos got together they would break antitrust laws. It is entirely possible I missed something in the code. But I was under the impression the laws applied to the sale of goods and services, not the buying of them. So it would be a violation for the networks to get together and set a price, but not the carriers - who are the buyers. But with some of the carriers owning some of the networks, I guess that could get pretty complicated. The law also includes collusion to set buying costs as well as selling prices. » www.atg.wa.gov/antitrust ··· igging._D. Group boycotts. A group boycott is an agreement among competitors to engage in some form of concerted conduct, such as agreeing not to do business with a targeted individual or business, or only on certain agreed-upon terms. The USSC weakened this prohibition a little in 2007, but the conduct is still illegal. » www.dlapiper.com/files/u ··· pr08.pdf | |
|
| | | | TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm Premium Member join:2000-11-08 Da Bronx ·Verizon FiOS Ubiquiti NSM5 Synology RT2600ac Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
|
TamaraB
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 1:29 pm
Re: Collective bargaining?said by FFH5:The law also includes collusion to set buying costs as well as selling prices. There is no "collusion" if decisions are made independently, and based on sound business decisions. If it makes business sense for Cablevision to require broadcasters to pay, and others follow suit based on their bottom-line success, there is no collusion. Bob | |
|
| | | | | •••
|
| | |
to FFH5
not if they all refused to sign the new contracts when their contract expired.
Fox just hasn't lost CV though. They lost Dish as well. So that's 1 national provider and 1 regional provider that has a HUGE amount of customers and $$$$ to keep going. CV and Dish both know that Fox will give. And they also know the Courts can't do SHIT when it comes down to forcing CV or anyone else to carry fox channels. | |
|
| | | ••••••••
|
| moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
to Camelot One
said by Camelot One:I know at the moment the other carriers have contracts in place, but it sure seems like the smart play here is for all of them to get together and do a little collective bargaining. Fox can handle the loss of Cablevision customers for a week or two, but they couldn't handle the loss of VZ, AT&T, Comcast, etc all at once, and would be much more willing to negotiate. Then again that would require logical thinking from Cable and Telcos, which is as likely as me winning the lottery in all 50 states tomorrow. Only one problem with that. Right now, cable TV providers can blame rate hikes on the content providers. That gives them an excuse to raise rates. Now, if the cable companies play the game you are proposing and the rate hikes still happen, then that hurts any goodwill they got from consumers. Also, since Comcast now owns NBC, you think they won't leave their channels out of the "negotiations?" | |
|
moonpuppy
1 recommendation |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2010-Oct-27 9:21 am
Anonymous FCC official.........should be fired. Seems he is a paid hack for Fox because he is telling Cablevision to negotiate with Fox or else. This is a VERY dangerous precedent. If the FCC tells Cablevision to negotiate (aka pay up) then where does that leave the power of the cable companies to negotiate pricing. All it does it make it easier to jack up rates whenever the content providers want a little extra cash. Basically another government stimulus for content providers who don't seem to be hurting all that much compared to the average middle class family. If Fox decides to sue, then Cablevision should counter-sue AND start airing the dirty laundry like pricing structures and a few emails that were sent by Fox. Nothing like a little public disclosure. | |
|
| ••••• |
|
RE: Fox threatens to sueCablevision has already said they would agree with arbitration. But Fox said no to it. Oh well, it looks like Fox misjudged this situation. It is funny that Fox would piss off a ISP that they need to help protect it's content. | |
|
| ••• |
skatedorkI Bent My Wookie join:2002-01-04 Mahwah, NJ |
Just wrongEveryone is entitled to a rate increase but more than doubling your fees in a year is just ridiculous. The FCC should not be telling the cable companies to negotiate, the cable company needs to look out for their bottom line which directly affects the price the consumer pays. Has Fox doubled their fee with other cable companies or are they just doing this to Cablevision because they have deep pockets? | |
|
TheBionicFunkier than a mohair disco ball. Premium Member join:2009-07-06 united state
1 recommendation |
Can't feel too bad for CablevisionWhat, a cable company doesn't like paying arbitrarily raised rates for no increase in service? That's like a doctor complaining that he doesn't like sitting in a waiting room. Boo frickity hoo. | |
|
| |
Re: Can't feel too bad for CablevisionHey FiOS people, where's your MSG HD? | |
|
Murdoc49 Premium Member join:2009-02-08 Manitowoc, WI |
Murdoc49
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 9:28 am
Take what you are offered....from the cable and sat operaters you morons. If someone doesn't like something or disagrees in this country why does it always end up having to sue? | |
|
| •••••••• |
Baldy18Team Anandtech 4 Life. join:2001-08-29 Niles, MI
1 recommendation |
Screw Fox.Fox is paying Hugh Laurie $400,000 per episode so screw them. Networks need to stop operating like they have unlimited funds. The viewers are the ones suffering for this behavior.
I would gladly do without any channel for any period of time if Comcast would grow some and fight this ridiculousness like Cablvision is doing. Keep up the fight for the consumers Cablevision! | |
|
| ••••••• |
funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Fox cutting off nose despite its faceAt the end of the day, Fox fears the loss of ratings (immediate) and audience traction (future) which affects its ad dollars. Fox came from nothing, and should fear a return to obscurity.
Yet I don't really care whether Cablevision holds out. Both sides will sell us out -- the CATV viewer who just wants the content he pays a premium to get. | |
|
| brandonSome truth included in this post. Premium Member join:2003-03-31 Ocean Springs, MS
2 recommendations |
brandon
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 9:45 am
Re: Fox cutting off nose despite its facethe phrase is "to spite," not "despite." | |
|
roc5955 Premium Member join:2005-11-26 Rosendale, NY |
roc5955
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 9:37 am
Perhaps what Cablevision should dois to offer a package WITHOUT Fox, for a deep discount. I know that I would take it. | |
|
| ••• |
TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm Premium Member join:2000-11-08 Da Bronx ·Verizon FiOS Ubiquiti NSM5 Synology RT2600ac Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
1 recommendation |
TamaraB
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 9:40 am
Why shouldn't it be the other way around?Apart from OTA, FOX has no other outlet for their content. Shouldn't FOX be paying the cable operators to distribute their shows on cable? What if all cable operators simply told FOX to go stuff it? Free, or FOX pays, or no access to the audience FOX needs. Why does this seem upside down and backwards to me?
You would think that the distribution network has more power in this situation.
Bob | |
|
| ••••••••••• |
|
It's a negotiating tacticThis is just a negotiating tactic. Unfortunately, what will likely happen is that the two companies will meet somewhere in the middle, with the advantage slightly in Fox's favor, and everything will be settled. The Fox channels will be turned back on, and everyone will forget this whole episode in a few weeks. Then CV will simply raise rates a little more than they'd initially planned to, people will pay them, and the world will roll on. | |
|
| |
vzw emp
Anon
2010-Oct-27 5:02 pm
Re: It's a negotiating tacticRegardless of how this plays out, the consumer will still get screwed in the end. When have you ever known a cable TV bill to decrease?
This is a farce put on by 2 companies, nothing more. In the end they will still charge you more for the same service, guaranteed. | |
|
Dodge Premium Member join:2002-11-27
1 recommendation |
Dodge
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 9:48 am
Thank you both Fox and CablevisionI would like to take a moment to thank both Fox and Cablevision for this circus. After this idiocy started I stopped for a second to look at my cable bill vs what I actually watch and realized that between netflix, playon.tv and other free things out there I can save a bunch of money (hope geico doesn't sue me for this ), by cancelling my TV service all together. | |
|
| ••••••• |
|
Karlington
Anon
2010-Oct-27 9:51 am
What is the value of ?Ya can set a price, but if no one buys...
And that's a lesson Fox (and other networks) need to understand. The hard way, apparently. | |
|
banner Premium Member join:2003-11-07 Long Beach, CA
1 recommendation |
banner
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 9:54 am
No yankeesNew Yorkers have consolation that the yankees did not make it to the world series. | |
|
spewakR.I.P Dadkins Premium Member join:2001-08-07 Elk Grove, CA |
spewak
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 10:05 am
It's OfficialFox blinked first! | |
|
|
UselessWhen all parties involved come up with a solution that CONSUMERS don't have to foot the bill for I will pay attention then. No matter what though I know consumers are going to lose here. | |
|
caco Premium Member join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK |
caco
Premium Member
2010-Oct-27 10:15 am
Giants vs Rangers+time difference = advantage CablevisionI hope this drags out for a bit so FCC can see what a death grip content owners have on what gets on the pipes and decides that A La Carte is the only way to go. | |
|
| |
Re: Giants vs Rangers+time difference = advantage Cablevisionbeen here and said this before. a la carte will NEVER happen. the FCC has no legal power to even force broadcasters to do that. The FCC will be sued so fast they won't know what hit them. | |
|
|
Who edits and put this crap together?This news blurb is so messed up it's not funny. First off FOX is threatening to sue Cablevision NOT because they are directing people to FOX websites. It's because CSRs for Cablevision were directing them to websites that are illegally streaming FOX's content. The article to link is the Daily News not medialifemagazine.com, which screwed the whole story up and then gets screwed up here. Read these 2 articles and then tell me where FOX is threatening to sue Cablevision for directing customers to FOX's websites!!!! Here's ap link: » www.google.com/hostednew ··· 841e4090Fox also says Cablevision has been directing its customers to websites that carry Fox shows in violation of copyright laws.Daily News link: » www.nydailynews.com/ny_l ··· _il.htmlIn a sign of how nasty things are getting, one Fox employee who is also a Cablevision customer taped his conversation with a customer service rep, The News learned.
"Is there anyplace I can get these games?" the Long Island-based customer asks.
The rep first suggests the customer try adjusting his HD set, which would allow him to legally get the Fox signal over the air.
The rep then goes on to give out two websites where the customer might find the events. The sites do not have the right to broadcast games.
"You can watch them online," the rep says. "You know about that?"
"They pretty much have all the games," he says, repeating the site URL. "This is one I got in an email from here.
"Thank God for the Internet, right?" the rep says.
Asked by the caller where the sites came from, the rep says: "We have millions of people calling about these channels. We have a team that's like online trying to find things online for free. So they send us these emails."
Fox was quick to pounce on Cablevision for purportedly sending customers to illegal broadcasts. | |
|
| ••• |
|
Would Cablevision like itIf FiOS customer service began telling customers how to stream MSG HD from an unauthorized source? | |
|
|
|