Politicians Urge FCC To Solve Fox/Cablevision Dispute Though Genachowski hints he has no plans to do so As we noted yesterday, News Corporation and Cablevision have taken retransmission disputes to an entirely new level of annoying. Their feud not only is blocking millions of New York area paying customer from viewing NFL games and MLB playoffs, but briefly involved Hulu blocking access to Fox content for Cablevision customers -- a move Fox quickly backed away from, apparently realizing the tactic would be a PR disaster (it was anyway). Despite Cablevision customers missing the popular show House Monday night, the dispute continues, with politicians trying to earn political brownie points from NFL and MLB fans by urging the FCC to step in. In a statement, (pdf) FCC boss Julius Genachowski suggested he'd be sitting this one out: Each year, thousands of agreements between broadcasters and pay-TV providers are reached without interruption of customer viewing. I remain hopeful that these two companies will do what is in the best interest of consumers and find a way quickly to resolve their differences. While federal law provides that the terms will be set by agreement between private companies, Fox and Cablevision share responsibility for protecting their audience's interests. I expect both companies to live up to this responsibility. The FCC did go so far as to issue an advisory suggesting consumers sign up for service from another provider, or buy a pair of rabbit ears.
|
  HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | Politicians ? I presume these politicians are from the greater NY area ? If the FCC gets involved, so that they show no favoritism, I trust they'll work on behalf of Dish Network in addition to Cablevision... | |
|  |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Politicians ? This once, Genachowski is correct. The FCC has no authority to enter into this negotiation. Some moron in Congress will have to specifically write and get passed a law giving them the power to hijack what is purely a private business deal between two corporations. | |
|
 JeffreyConnoisseur of leisurely thingsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·Vonage
3 edits | Switch providers, rabbit ears, or... ...fire up the Usenet client and/or BitTorrent and get the show you intended to watch/DVD (but couldn't), in high-definition and commercial free format, streamed right to my TV via my Xbox 360 from my WHS box.
Problem solved, a day after airing. I'd have to hit the bar for live events. (I'm saying that as if it's a bad thing-shame on me.)
Personally speaking, I really haven't missed Fox. If It weren't for Glee and the MLB, I realize that I could probably get away with not having it again, ever. American Idol is about to jump the shark, so my wife won't really miss that. With all of that said, it's not right what happening, and this crap is going to continue as long as we allow it to.
Who loses here? The customer is always going to lose, because they don't get their programming, and when they do get it back, the cost of their service will probably increase. In the meantime, CV may be losing subcribers (to DirecTV or Fios where available in CV's footprint), and Fox is losing some advertising revenue since a few million people in the NY-metro area can't get Fox. It has to impact the local evening news and their revenue stream. | |
| | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Switch providers, rabbit ears, or... Not huge on the sports side, but man that would suck... Would suck to miss Fringe too, and it would seriously piss me off. At least they're taking a couple weeks off, during which time perhaps an agreement can be reached.
Idol? That show still exists? About to jump the shark? Hmm... Glad to hear that people are caring less about it. Perhaps there is hope for humanity.
In such a major market, I would assume that rabbit ears would probably be enough to get solid OTA for most folks.
At least this is a good option compared to some areas which might require a bit more work. Probably less trouble than switching providers too. | |
| |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | exactly.
and there are free usenet sources out there. and they are reliable. | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·CenturyLink
| This is between Echo Star and Fox the Fed's need to stay out of this one. As my Dad always used to point out to me when I did something wrong, "Everything you touch turns to sh#t" indeed everything the FCC touches these days goes the same way. What is amazing is so many of these "channels" are showing retreaded shows UK anyway. I am able to watch such shows as much as much a 2 years before they show Stateside via "other" means, and in some cases because of content unedited. There is one show we will never see State side about the history of nudist camps. The lady that presented the show actually went into one of these Nature Camps to interview historians and while she had her cloths on nobody else did and there was no blanking out of what the English call the "juicy bits". The show was fascinating I had no idea the Naturalist movement had such a long history.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| | Well... so much for net neutrality I guess the FCC doesnt really care about net neutrality. Because when a website blocks you from watching content because of who your cable TV provider is, there is NO net neutrality there. | |
| | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: Well... so much for net neutrality said by derek4484 :
I guess the FCC doesnt really care about net neutrality. Because when a website blocks you from watching content because of who your cable TV provider is, there is NO net neutrality there.
Non-Cablevision customers are blocked from the Newsday site. Pot, kettle, black.
--
Critics are asking if Megyn Kelly blows goats. | |
| | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: Well... so much for net neutrality said by Bobcat79:Non-Cablevision customers are blocked from the Newsday site. Pot, kettle, black. Are you sure? It was my impression that you just need an account (which may be a paid subscription) to access the site if you are using non-CV access. CV customers are automatically subscribed. This is no different than the way the WSJ (for example) works (you pay for access). | |
|
| snsr
join:2008-05-29
Easton, CT | This really doesn't have anything to do with network neutrality. Cablevision is not restricting your use of your network connection. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits |  3 Cheers for Genachowski - staying out of fight
Cablevision has a lot more to lose in this battle than Fox does since it is their customers who will bolt to other cable or sat providers. So Cablevision will eventually give in. And PRICES will go up. And the sheep will whine about higher cable prices, forgetting that Fox caused it. Fox wins; Cablevision loses; as it always will in battles between content companies and delivery companies.
--
Take poll on how you will vote on Nov 2nd
| |
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Re: 3 Cheers for Genachowski - staying out of fight said by Linklist:Cablevision has a lot more to lose in this battle than Fox does since it is their customers who will bolt to other cable or sat providers. So Cablevision will eventually give in. They probably will but jumping to another provider is only a temporary solution. If you go to FiOS you will eventually have to deal with either paying $2+/month more for channels 5 and 9 or you too will sit through a blackout as Verizon tries to play hardball. The content companies want to extract as much money as they can from your wallet. I wouldn't mind seeing making 5 and 9 subscription channels with customers having the right to opt out of receiving them on cable. Let those who watch them pay for them.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
1 edit | BLock thru the web? Wait....Are they blocking Cablevision internet customers from viewing Fox content on Hulu? | |
| | | | Re: BLock thru the web? said by flycuban:Wait....Are they blocking Cablevision internet customers from viewing Fox content on Hulu? They were till they realised that it would get everybody on cablevisions side so they stopped blocking it. | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| would be interesting... to see the FCC try to do something about a dispute where both sides slip the FCC money under the table. How do politicians deal when competing lobbyists, both of whom give the politician money, want different things from the politicians?
The FCC doesn't want to get involved; they are too cosy with both Fox and Cablevision. | |
|  SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| When will Peeps learn The Government needs to keep it's mitts outta this. Just because "angry" customers maybe calling their elected puppet master during an election year, doesn't mean they can abuse their power in a effort to buy votes by getting involved.
This is a dispute between to companies. Neither provide a service that is important to maintain life or safty.
Hence there is no need for the government to step in. But then again, how many times has the government stepped in to settle strikes?
They could look at this as a from of strike, which would be interesting.
But as long as there are other providers, or the affected companies are providing a discount/alternate feeds to replace the ones that were lost, then there is no need for government to get involved.
--
To All Real Dads. For All Real Moms Every Real
Service. | |
| | | | Re: When will Peeps learn No the government should get involved. FOX should not be able to pull something that is given away for free.
OTher channels then should be given that OTA slot if FOx doesn't want Long island area people to get it.
Cablevision should just be able to hook their own antenna and then rebroadcast that to all their subscribers. They should not have to pay.
So since fox is allowed to use the OTA spectrum to broadcast their stuff the government should get involved. | |
| | | | | Re: When will Peeps learn said by majortom1029:No the government should get involved. FOX should not be able to pull something that is given away for free. OTher channels then should be given that OTA slot if FOx doesn't want Long island area people to get it. Cablevision should just be able to hook their own antenna and then rebroadcast that to all their subscribers. They should not have to pay. So since fox is allowed to use the OTA spectrum to broadcast their stuff the government should get involved. This was settled many years ago. The cable companies sued for free must carry to go away and won on 1st amendment grounds. They brought this on themselves. | |
| | | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | said by majortom1029:No the government should get involved. FOX should not be able to pull something that is given away for free. [...]So since fox is allowed to use the OTA spectrum to broadcast their stuff the government should get involved. The OTA TV stations do not get Fox programming for free either...they pay via affiliation agreements and by ceding commercial time to the network on a part-barter basis. Why should Cablevision be able to just pick a signal out of the air for free and then RESELL IT to thousands of people for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year?
Let's say you are a singer-songwriter and are playing at some hipster bar in Lindenhurst. There is no cover charge. I walk in and record your set, press CDs or put it up on iTunes and make money from it. By your logic, why should you get any of that since you were sitting there playing for [what was for me] free? | |
| | | |
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Atlanta, GA | Simple Just shut down all Fox owned networks, we'll all be better off, and probably a lot smarter for it. | |
| | | | |
| | FCC= No Power The FCC has no power over Fox nor Cablevision with this. If they were to stick their nose in this fight; both of them would be sure to tell the FCC to go fu*k itself.
At least CV is standing up to News Corp.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
| | | | Re: FCC= No Power said by hottboiinnc:The FCC has no power over Fox nor Cablevision with this. If they were to stick their nose in this fight; both of them would be sure to tell the FCC to go fu*k itself. At least CV is standing up to News Corp. How is that ? FOX is a main channel that is broadcast OTA. wasnt it the fcc who got rid of the rule that an OTA channel Must be carried? | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: FCC= No Power It was the OTA broadcasters who pushed to create retransmission consent. They viewed the cable companies as getting unearned excessive profits from selling access by coaxial cable to viewers in geographic areas the OTA signal could not be received clearly. This could be 60 miles away from the broadcast antenna or it could be 6 miles away due to multipath distortion in a big city. They said that the potential increase in advertising revenues from viewers who could not watch the OTA previously was not enough. It was too difficult they said to negotiate for the increase with advertisers and they wanted the money to come directly from the "rich" cable companies. In return for the right to negotiate, the OTA broadcasters agreed to give up "must carry" if they chose to go with retransmission consent. They were sure they held the monopoly position with a product the cable companies could not survive without. They stated they were going after the "excess" profits the cable companies earned and the demands they were going to make would not lead to cable rate increases. Except there were no "excess" profits, when you factored in possible future customer service calls, equipment upgrades, equipment repairs, employee benefits, pension funding, franchise fees, cable repositioning due to road widenings, sewer projects, and upgraded support for the Public, Educational, Government channels. So cable rates went up when retransmission fees were demanded. The cable customers blamed the cable companies entirely, but part of the blame was due to OTA broadcaster greed and laziness. Now the big networks that supply the OTA license holders(ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) have decided that they should get a cut of the "excess" profits made by the OTA license holders from retransmission agreements. The OTA license holders are not going to give up any of that money, so they demand even more from the cable companies, who are only going to have to pass it along to the customer, who is going to complain to the US Congress about rising cable rates. Previously the cable customers were kept in the dark about these retransmission agreements and how much they raised cable rates. The cable companies are tired of taking all the public anger over rising cable rates and have decided to resist publicly by exposing the previously secret details of how much the OTA license holders and networks are getting now and demanding in the future. Most of the public is surprised to find that what is supposed to be advertiser supported television has turned in to a pay subscription service. The customer originally agreed to pay for the cable companies service of erecting big antennas and getting the OTA signals received to the customers residence. There was not to be any extra fee to the OTA license holder, because they were getting more viewers for the advertising they showed. Which meant they could charge more for advertising, so any additional costs the OTA license holder had for cable transmission, (there are no such costs), would be covered. The customer gets it that non OTA networks like HBO are going to have to be a pay per subscriber service.
We really need the US Congress to pass a law to eliminate retransmission consent and to go to must carry as the only solution for all OTA license holders. The OTA license holders will have to figure out how to negotiate with the advertisers for compensation. The networks that supply them will have to figure out how to live within the nationwide advertising revenues they get. | |
| | | | 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: FCC= No Power said by davidhoffman:We really need the US Congress to pass a law to eliminate retransmission consent and to go to must carry as the only solution for all OTA license holders. We had that. The cable TV industry sued to have it declared unconstitutional. Next. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I find it hard to really blame one side over the other If Fox is asking for what Cablevision says, that is utterly absurd. The fact that they won't even sniff arbitration tells me they want nothing to do with any sort of fair agreement. They want to be over-paid and let others just deal with it
On the flip side, isn't Cablevision telling Verizon to shove it in terms of letting local Verizon people see the Gov's debate coming up? Isn't Cablevision the one with ATROCIOUS service and a terrible track-record of sit-downs with others?
Every time I blame one side, the other seems to have a terrible excuse.
I find it pathetic that Fox pulled Hulu but am I surprised? No. That is the way we have built our system.... | |
|  GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| Put up a freakin' antenna. FCC boss Julius Genachowski suggested he'd be sitting this one out...
Good for him. That's refreshing. I'm a bit surprised he has the sense to handle the issue in the proper way. The current administration hasn't been showing restraint, as they should have, when dealing with a variety of matters outside of the Fed's scope of authority; traditionally and Constitutionally.
Now, if they'll just continue to stay out of this and all future opportunities they have to overstep their bounds. | |
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Put up a freakin' antenna. Actually I think they've showed amazing levels of restraint considering all the absolute BS that's been going on. | |
| | | GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX | Re: Put up a freakin' antenna. I realize some people do think that, and that doesn't necessarily make them bad. Anyway, again, I'm happy to see Genachowski sit this out. | |
|
 ST2
@mycingular.net | FCC It is refreshing to see the FCC side with the content provider. Cablevision should do what the FCC wants and settle to any terms that Fox demands and then just pass the increased cost to the consumer.
The FCC can then berate Cablevision for raising prices, always good in an election year.
Since when is Baseball, Football or House a monopoly?
You can always find Bull riding, Poker or Jersey Shore as a substitute.
Once content is free, content will no longer be an issue.
. | |
| | | Baseball Baseball really is a Monopoly with carved out home telecast areas. They were granted this by Congress. | |
| | | Content Owners Are getting way too greedy. | |
|
| |
|
|
