HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

VERSUS back on DTV / FCC closes CSN Loophole

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2010, 05:32 PM
  #1
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
VERSUS back on DTV / FCC closes CSN Loophole

guess Comcast couldn't drag it out any longer after Friday !!!


Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 03-23-2010 at 01:07 PM.
Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 05:38 PM
  #2
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
guess Comcast couldn't drag it out any longer after Friday !!!
You must have had to change pants, my friend.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 05:44 PM
  #3
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
You must have had to change pants, my friend.
no, i got the games on TSN.

i'm just happy to see comcast get theirs

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 06:00 PM
  #4
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
no, i got the games on TSN.

i'm just happy to see comcast get theirs
By "get theirs", do you mean come to a mutually acceptable bargain?

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 06:15 PM
  #5
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
i mean no longer be able to withhold the channel during fee negotiations in order to hopefully get it to drag into the playoffs and have people scrap DTV

the FCC says that they can no longer withhold channels during such disputes

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 06:52 PM
  #6
Miss Mess
Registered User
 
Miss Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 4,566
vCash: 500
awesome

Miss Mess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2010, 06:58 PM
  #7
legionOfdoom
Registered User
 
legionOfdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 233
vCash: 500
The holdout between comcast and directtv ended up working in my (and many others) benefit actually. Only missed a few regular season Flyers games that aired on VS, watched virtually every other Flyers game on a comped CenterIce package, and now get all playoff games.

Solid

legionOfdoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 11:03 AM
  #8
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
i mean no longer be able to withhold the channel during fee negotiations in order to hopefully get it to drag into the playoffs and have people scrap DTV

the FCC says that they can no longer withhold channels during such disputes
Not what happened here, they actually came to an agreement...this isn't a temporary thing while they work out a deal.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 02:37 PM
  #9
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not what happened here, they actually came to an agreement...this isn't a temporary thing while they work out a deal.
they were 2 separate points:

the FCC says that they can no longer withhold channels during such disputes

i never claimed the 2 were related, that's why i put space in between them. the article clearly stated they came to an agreement:

"Comcast Corp. and DirecTV said Monday after the markets closed that they have reached an agreement that allows DirecTV to carry Comcast’s Versus channel again" .... right after the last of the Flyers games on the VS schedule aired BTW ... no small coincidence.

in the future, the same dispute cannot result in comcast pulling the channel.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 02:47 PM
  #10
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
they were 2 separate points:

the FCC says that they can no longer withhold channels during such disputes

i never claimed the 2 were related, that's why i put space in between them. the article clearly stated they came to an agreement:

"Comcast Corp. and DirecTV said Monday after the markets closed that they have reached an agreement that allows DirecTV to carry Comcast’s Versus channel again" .... right after the last of the Flyers games on the VS schedule aired BTW ... no small coincidence.

in the future, the same dispute cannot result in comcast pulling the channel.
Closing the "terrestrial broadcast loophole" has no bearing on whether they are forced to sell Versus to DirectTV.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 02:51 PM
  #11
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
they were 2 separate points:

the FCC says that they can no longer withhold channels during such disputes

i never claimed the 2 were related, that's why i put space in between them. the article clearly stated they came to an agreement:

"Comcast Corp. and DirecTV said Monday after the markets closed that they have reached an agreement that allows DirecTV to carry Comcast’s Versus channel again" .... right after the last of the Flyers games on the VS schedule aired BTW ... no small coincidence.

in the future, the same dispute cannot result in comcast pulling the channel.
Ohh I'm going to regret this...

You should start providing us with your insight on Comcast's motive (as opposed to your speculations and your personal bias against Comcast) regarding your implications that Comcast is somehow biased against the fans of the teams they themselves own. You're making the accusation, I want you to explain the motive.

And no - please do not come back at me with telling me how Comcast was refusing to distribute CSN-P to DTV and other satellite providers. There was a specific, technology-related business decision to do so on Comcast's part that we've gone over and over and over.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 02:58 PM
  #12
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
they were 2 separate points:

the FCC says that they can no longer withhold channels during such disputes

i never claimed the 2 were related, that's why i put space in between them. the article clearly stated they came to an agreement:

"Comcast Corp. and DirecTV said Monday after the markets closed that they have reached an agreement that allows DirecTV to carry Comcast’s Versus channel again" .... right after the last of the Flyers games on the VS schedule aired BTW ... no small coincidence.

in the future, the same dispute cannot result in comcast pulling the channel.
Wait, the FCC has ruled that companies cannot remove their product from a purchaser if the purchaser isn't paying the asking price?

Maybe the lunatic right is correct, and we are becoming communists.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 03:14 PM
  #13
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
Closing the "terrestrial broadcast loophole" has no bearing on whether they are forced to sell Versus to DirectTV.
don't see anyone claiming otherwise.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 03:15 PM
  #14
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
I want you to explain the motive.
$$$$$

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 03:17 PM
  #15
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
don't see anyone claiming otherwise.
serious?

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 03:44 PM
  #16
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,749
vCash: 50
Take it for what it's worth but on radio here in Chicago they said the confilct was partly resolved to the fact UFC is going to begin showing events on Vs

According to the guy (Media analyst) he said there was an increase in people calling about the future of Vs on Direct TV because of the UFC fights.

UFC will have 2 live fights this year and VS expects to expand coverage of UFC in coming years.

Also have deal to show NBA developmental league and are expected to acquire the rights to more Pac 10 and Big 12 football games.

VS is starting to establish itself as a major sports network.

He expects them to make a push for NBA TV rights when there deal with ESPN expires

Blackhawkswincup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 03:46 PM
  #17
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
serious?

the loophole was not related to the VS situation. everybody knows that.

keep up with this, or don't try to run with the big dogs.

loophole = old PRISM technology loophole from 1992
VS = completely unrelated


[psssst: that's why there are separate threads]

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 03:54 PM
  #18
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawkswincup View Post
Take it for what it's worth but on radio here in Chicago they said the confilct was partly resolved to the fact UFC is going to begin showing events on Vs

According to the guy (Media analyst) he said there was an increase in people calling about the future of Vs on Direct TV because of the UFC fights.

UFC will have 2 live fights this year and VS expects to expand coverage of UFC in coming years.

Also have deal to show NBA developmental league and are expected to acquire the rights to more Pac 10 and Big 12 football games.

VS is starting to establish itself as a major sports network.

He expects them to make a push for NBA TV rights when there deal with ESPN expires
I know when that hubbub all started up, there was a lot of talk that the UFC crowd was going to carry more clout than the NHL crowd just because of how noisy they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
the loophole was not related to the VS situation. everybody knows that.

keep up with this, or don't try to run with the big dogs.

loophole = old PRISM technology loophole from 1992
VS = completely unrelated


[psssst: that's why there are separate threads]
Yes, but then what does the court ruling have to do with contract disputes between channel providers and cable entities? If the FCC actually ruled that companies cannot pull their channels when a contract is up and a new one is not agreed to...that's ridiculous (and goes well beyond Comcast specifically).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 04:02 PM
  #19
might2mash
Post-apocalyptic
 
might2mash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Bend
Country: United States
Posts: 4,616
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to might2mash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yes, but then what does the court ruling have to do with contract disputes between channel providers and cable entities? If the FCC actually ruled that companies cannot pull their channels when a contract is up and a new one is not agreed to...that's ridiculous (and goes well beyond Comcast specifically).
It's for ongoing negotiations. I don't believe it would have actually applied to this situation since the negotiations fell apart completely for several months between Comcast and DirecTV. This deal was a result of new negotiations, not those started before a previous contract expired.

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 04:04 PM
  #20
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
what does the court ruling have to do with contract disputes between channel providers and cable entities? If the FCC actually ruled that companies cannot pull their channels when a contract is up and a new one is not agreed to...that's ridiculous (and goes well beyond Comcast specifically).
that's exactly what they ruled. [i assume to prevent company A from saying " 5,000 % fee increase this year, until you pay, no channel for you"]

i'll find the article

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 04:06 PM
  #21
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
that's exactly what they ruled. [i assume to prevent company A from saying " 5,000 % fee increase this year, until you pay, no channel for you"]

i'll find the article
Why shouldn't they be able to do that.

You have a job...and you're getting paid below market for your work. You go to your boss and say, "I'm going to quit/seek new employment unless you give me a raise."

Pretty reasonable to remove a product if you're not getting paid what you want for it.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 04:12 PM
  #22
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Why shouldn't they be able to do that.

You have a job...and you're getting paid below market for your work. You go to your boss and say, "I'm going to quit/seek new employment unless you give me a raise."

Pretty reasonable to remove a product if you're not getting paid what you want for it.
i don't necessarily disagree with that ... i'm certain i read it .. i'll post as soon as i can find it

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 04:22 PM
  #23
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,242
vCash: 500
"Provisions for continued service during disputes are intended to keep process from “being unduly lengthy and expensive,”


http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/201...orts-networks/

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 05:12 PM
  #24
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
"Provisions for continued service during disputes are intended to keep process from “being unduly lengthy and expensive,”


http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/201...orts-networks/
Instead, they'll be unduly underpriced. Way to cut off Comcast's balls, FCC.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2010, 05:24 PM
  #25
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
"Provisions for continued service during disputes are intended to keep process from “being unduly lengthy and expensive,”


http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/201...orts-networks/
Wow that's a terribly written article.

On the upside, this is comedy gold:
Quote:
Comcast’s Cohen believes the right answer for the American consumer is that the Sunday Ticket should be available on any cable company in the country that wants to offer it, just like MLB and NHL packages. However, Pilson Communications President Neal Pilson, former CBS Sports president, disagrees, pointing out that the NFL, not DirecTV, controls Sunday Ticket.

“Comcast is barking up the wrong tree,” he says, adding that there is a very specific reason the NFL did a deal with DirecTV: a 10% buy rate is around 1.8 million homes.

Offering it over cable, however, could see subscription rates of around 10 million homes, he says. “That would significantly dilute the value of the agreements the NFL has with the broadcast networks. The NFL can’t make a deal with cable without diluting the revenue stream related to broadcast rights.”
Comcast: we should make NFL ST available to more customers!

NFL proxy: No go, the NFL will make less money if more people can watch.

Yep, Comcast is the dick.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:18 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.