dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Fox/Cablevision Fight Becomes Partisan Political Mess
As Verizon gets blocked from covering Long Island debates by Cablevision
by Karl Bode 06:24PM Tuesday Oct 19 2010
As the retransmission fee dispute between Cablevision and New Corporation roars on, Cablevision has been lobbying lawmakers to engage in binding arbitration. Democrat John Kerry has introduced a bill that would force companies to keep TV channels live during negotiations, while News Corporation is busily lobbying GOP members to fight against government involvement in these kinds of feuds. Meanwhile Verizon, who has been making hay from the dispute by urging impacted customers to switch to FiOSTV, is now complaining about being blocked from covering Long Island political debates by Cablevision.

view:
topics flat nest 

anondirectv

@optonline.net

I'm going back to cablevision

I'm going back, just in the nick of time. This leftist Liberal Socialist (according to fox news, though I'm just a democrat.) is tired of shitty customer service. A charge for everything from a new box to a dish adjustment after high winds, because the original installer didn't do it correctly.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

2 edits

That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

Simple and easy solution that would turn some of the power back to the consumers and give the TV operators more leverage.

It would mean extortionists like Fox would have to more carefully consider their actions before wholesale blackouts, as there would a be a greater downside for them, whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider.

Brilliant move, nips the problem in the bud. I support it.

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time. And that type of arbitration inevitably leads to splitting the difference. For example Cablevision would demand no increase at all. Fox would demand a large increase in fees. And the arbitrator would almost always pick something in between. You can see what the end result will be - Fox winning by default and the higher costs being passed on to the cable company's customers.

The bill would require broadcasters to keep their signals up during a negotiation impasse. The Federal Communications Commission would then evaluate if the negotiations were being made in good faith. If they were not done in good faith, the FCC could then order binding arbitration or give the cable company two days to determine whether to accept the broadcaster's offer. If the company does not accept the offer, the broadcaster can request arbitration or pull its signal
What does Kerry care, his wife is worth $100's of millions.
--
Take poll on how you will vote on Nov 2nd

GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

Wait... I know that name. He ran for president, and LOST.
--
Yes, its stuck in a windows this time.
moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
said by FFH:

Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time.
Binding arbitration is a joke. When you pay for a judge to decide your case, you have already bought the decision.
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

Agreed. We already have fair "binding arbitration", it's called a court of law.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
said by FFH:

Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time. And that type of arbitration inevitably leads to splitting the difference. For example Cablevision would demand no increase at all. Fox would demand a large increase in fees. And the arbitrator would almost always pick something in between.
It's only in mediation that something in between is picked. An arbitrator chooses one of two proposals (one from each side) and one side wins completely. The only splitting the difference in arbitration occurs in the proposals because the arbitrator is supposed to choose the more reasonable (doesn't always happen) of the two proposals.

56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

2 recommendations

said by KrK:

whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider.
Why should government give a shit what Fox produces or who they allow to show it? There are a lot of other program producers out there...it's not like News Corp. is the sole provider of television programming.

Let the market run its course. If they do this enough, and lose enough eyeballs in the process, it'll hurt their balance sheet...which is the only way to get a corporation's attention. And that is EXACTLY the way it should be. Then they won't be able to spend outrageous amounts for rights to things like the NFL...which will in turn keep them from demanding higher fees for carriage...which may finally end this madness. That would work with pirates like Disney and ESPN, too.

Unfortunately, the whiny couch potatoes here want the government to do what a free market is perfectly capable of. Just turn the damn TV off.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by 56403739:

Unfortunately, the whiny couch potatoes here want the government to do what a free market is perfectly capable of.
Content providers are granted a monopoly by government called copyright. Broadcast stations are granted a license by government. Cable TV can't operate without a franchise from local government to use public right of ways and is forced to carry broadcast stations that elect must-carry and has to pay to carry those that don't, etc. While you may have a point about whiny couch potatoes, where exactly is this free market?

56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by Sammer:

Cable TV [...]is forced to carry broadcast stations that elect must-carry and has to pay to carry those that don't, etc.
Must-carry elected stations do not receive a fee from the cable company, while those who wish to be compensated are not required to be carried. The programming producers set what they think is a market price and the cable system decides whether they want to pay that much for it. It's called arriving at a valuation for a product, and is very much a free market. You are confusing the product with the package.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
The Free market in many ways is nothing more then an ideal--- and a myth in reality. It's an abstract concept which actually fails utterly when attempted, much like Communism.

There is no such thing as a Free market. There are sliding scales. Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy, unless you're dealing with an pure anarchy situation (and these never last for long either) because it's quickly replaced by a socialist economy but it's usually ruled by who has the most weaponry and is the most violent, until some type of Government is re-created.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by KrK:

There is no such thing as a Free market. There are sliding scales. Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy, unless you're dealing with an pure anarchy situation (and these never last for long either) because it's quickly replaced by a socialist economy but it's usually ruled by who has the most weaponry and is the most violent, until some type of Government is re-created.
So, you advocate going directly to the centrally-controlled socialist model. OK then.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by 56403739:

So, you advocate going directly to the centrally-controlled socialist model. OK then.
Really. Huh, I didn't see any such advocacy..... I guess however you advocate the straight to the gutter hyberbole attack when can't counter with something of substance model?

Apparently so.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by KrK:

said by 56403739:

So, you advocate going directly to the centrally-controlled socialist model. OK then.
Really. Huh, I didn't see any such advocacy..... I guess however you advocate the straight to the gutter hyberbole attack when can't counter with something of substance model?

Apparently so.
"Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy,"

You should read your own posts.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by 56403739:

"Every economy on earth could more appropriately be described as a socialist economy,"

You should read your own posts.
Having a problem with fact? Can't handle truth? What's the problem, exactly? You have grip on a certain unique reality principle?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
said by 56403739:

said by KrK:

whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider.
Why should government give a shit what Fox produces or who they allow to show it?
Because the citizenry seems to care.

That is the point of a Representative Democracy, is it not?

Yes, I know it stopped "representing" Citizen interests a long time ago. Doesn't make it right, however.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

56403739
Less than 5 months left
Premium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by KrK:

said by 56403739:

said by KrK:

whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider.
Why should government give a shit what Fox produces or who they allow to show it?
Because the citizenry seems to care.

That is the point of a Representative Democracy, is it not?

Yes, I know it stopped "representing" Citizen interests a long time ago. Doesn't make it right, however.
A representative democracy's task is to provide for essential services which the individual cannot economically provide for themselves. American Idol on Cablevision is not one such essential service.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 edit

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by 56403739:

A representative democracy's task is to provide for essential services which the individual cannot economically provide for themselves.
Interesting. I don't recall seeing that written into the definition of "Representative Democracy" anywhere. What I did see was that a Government of the people for the people by the will of the people.

That means if the people wanted to provide for essential services for citizens that they cannot economically provide for themselves then that's the will of the people.

OR it could also be that the people don't want their TV shut off because of companies in a pissing match, that could also be the will of the people. Either could be equally valid.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Kantical

@cogentco.com
Perfectly said "riblet". THANK YOU!!! Although, I would add that while it makes no sense for the government to try to create the parameters for these types of resolutions, they *should* instead focus on helping foster competition, infrastructure, and accessibility. Which would REALLY help the free market run it's course (in favor of consumers of course).

David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101

uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation?

is that a misprint Karl? just curious... kind of threw me off.

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation?

said by David:

is that a misprint Karl? just curious... kind of threw me off.
Yes it is a typo. It is News Corp.
--
Take poll on how you will vote on Nov 2nd

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation?

News Corp is the short name for News Corporation. The company involved in the negotiations is actually Fox Television Stations Inc which is a subsidiary of News Corporation.

tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

2 recommendations

what?

Why do lawmakers need to get involved in this in a supposed free country whose roots are capatalism? It sounds to me as if everything is unfolding as it should. These are corporations for pete sake.

There is something just plain wrong in this country.

HarleyYac
Lee
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online

Re: what?

Wrong..
A:) I am paying for it let me watch it.
B:) Govt (Or we the people via govt) should step in
C:) Regulation not more DE regulation.

Long run if no one does anything we have no choice but pay more!
--
My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings.
hbk4099

join:2005-12-30

Re: what?

I love how cablevision is pushing for arbitration with their dealings with FOX, but not for their disputes with Dish and Fios over the channels they(cablevision) owns. Its funny how this company acts so differently when they are talking about their content provider and their program provider.

HarleyYac
Lee
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online

Re: what?

I am no fan of CV. I left them the year they did not carry YES.

All I am saying there should be REAL consumer protection. NOT the Corporate BS Lobbyists agenda.
Lee
--
My opinion on religion and science? Science builds airplanes. Religion flies them into buildings.

kpc

@optonline.net
The proposed bill does not seem - from the description, to have that problem. It is a solution proposed for resolving these disputes for any conflict, not just when News Corps is the provider.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
said by HarleyYac:

Wrong..
A:) I am paying for it let me watch it.
B:) Govt (Or we the people via govt) should step in
C:) Regulation not more DE regulation.

Long run if no one does anything we have no choice but pay more!
No, you have the choice not to pay.

If Dish/CV plays hardball to the end, and Rupert takes his marbles and goes home, with luck, we'll see him be the first to offer his channels ala carte via Roku/Wii/PS3, direct to the consumer - and when the other networks figure out how much margin he's making, they'll follow suit.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: what?

Exactly. We need to get rid of the middleman. I don't care if it's IPTV or DBS or ATSC or whatever. Cable and dish systems are carriers and both now have very intelligent systems which could allow the consumer to directly pay Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, Disney and the rest for their programming.

How hard would it be to make watching TV like calling a 900 number from your phone? The phone company provides the pipe and bills you for the call but that's it.

I know this turns the cable/dish/phone company into a big, fat, dumb pipe but...

HarleyYac
Lee
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2
Ala carte I agree!!!
slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
kudos:1

If anything

Were goign to see some regulation pop up related to these disputes. So it might be a good thing.
ineedatech

join:2002-07-10
Fort Washakie, WY

IPTV

This is the time for new networks to come in strike new deals and focus on another business model for iptv

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

Uh...

The content created by companies like News Corporation is private property. The government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to repurpose that property without providing just compensation to the owners of said property.

Somehow I doubt that John Kerry, who by the way likes to dodge taxes, is making any provisions for just compensation in his bill.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

•••••
hbk4099

join:2005-12-30

broadcast basic

the thing I dont get is Cablevisions most basic package is broadcast basic, its supposed to have all the local channels. They having been charging between $10-18 for the past 7+ years for this level of service. So my question is if they were getting all the locals for free this package was pure profit. It wasnt until earlier this year when the broadcast channels I believe ABC being the first started demanding money. Why should Cablevision be able to profit off someonelses material?

Btw just so everyone has an idea Cablevision is not allowed to sell tv services for less then they pay for the services. So if we take this and know that they have a digital family package that includes everything in broadcast basic+family+iO digital which is normally like $70+ and know they offer it as a winback for people switching from another provider for as low as $25 as part of their triple play package you can see how much they are making off these packages. Also the gold which they charge $99 for can be had for like $65 as a winback. Cablevision could eat this increase and still be making money hand over fist and not have to worry about people leaving for other providers.

celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ

Re: broadcast basic

said by hbk4099:

the thing I dont get is Cablevisions most basic package is broadcast basic, its supposed to have all the local channels. They having been charging between $10-18 for the past 7+ years for this level of service. So my question is if they were getting all the locals for free this package was pure profit. It wasnt until earlier this year when the broadcast channels I believe ABC being the first started demanding money. Why should Cablevision be able to profit off someonelses material?

Btw just so everyone has an idea Cablevision is not allowed to sell tv services for less then they pay for the services. So if we take this and know that they have a digital family package that includes everything in broadcast basic+family+iO digital which is normally like $70+ and know they offer it as a winback for people switching from another provider for as low as $25 as part of their triple play package you can see how much they are making off these packages. Also the gold which they charge $99 for can be had for like $65 as a winback. Cablevision could eat this increase and still be making money hand over fist and not have to worry about people leaving for other providers.
And all that would make sense if it didn't cost a cable provider anything to give you those broadcast signals. In reality, there are plant/facilities to build and maintain, personnel to pay, vehicles to fuel and insurance to pay. Programming costs are about 65% of the cost of what you get, the rest is the amount of what it takes to provide you with service. The difference of that total cost and what you pay is profit, something every company is in business for.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

The history of must carry

The history of must carry.

The cable companies all got the signals for free within a fifty mile radius. The catch is that they had to carry all of them.

Cable companies didn't like this. They sued. They won. First amendment and all of that jazz.

FCC revises the rules several times to comply with the court order. Finally it was settled that stations could either force must carry and charge no money or agree to carriage for a fee and they weren't forced to carry them.

Now we have come full circle with the cable companies not liking the rules that THEY helped create.

NJBoricua75
Born And Raised

join:2000-09-13
Brooklyn, NY

Gotta side with Cablevision on this...

The Dolans are far from angels but News Corp is absolute scum. Neither of them are really looking out for the consumer. In the end it all amounts to greed. But if I'm gonna side with one, it'll have to be Cablevision. News Corp going as far as blocking IP addresses of Cablevision subscribers from viewing content on fox.com and blocking content from Hulu??? That's where they crossed the line.

•••••

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

1 recommendation

Such a travesty

No wonder Congress is getting involved -- imagine the poor citizens missing out on a couple channels of idiotic campaign commercials in this most wondrous of seasons... and all the money those poor politicians are wasting on ads.

jaa
Premium
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Optimum Online

I don't get it

Broadcast channels make their money from advertising, not subscribers.

Move viewers = more money from advertisers.

So why don't they PAY the cable companies to carry their channels so they reach more viewers??
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists.
Satch

join:2009-11-25

Re: I don't get it

It's a mess,

But I think the feds should stay out of it. If they become involved. every cable/dish company , when up for retransmission consent with a broadcaster, could wind up going to arbitration. Originally, I had supported a move to arbitration. But now, I don't think the feds should be the arbitrators.

However, there should be some provision that would allow the stations to stay on the air during renegotiations. The only thing both sides are getting by pulling signals is pissed off customers, lost ad revenue, and negative PR that hurts their businesses by playing the "blame game."

Jack