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
03-18-2010, 06:34 PM
  #101
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
Since you've made it BLATANTLY clear that we're OBVIOUSLY not talking about SATELLITE at ALL
where did you invent this???
i am clearly proving to you that Comcast is denying only certain groups of it's customers from additionally subscribing to one of it's competitors and still getting to watch their old home towm CSN.

why you cannot comprehend that [besides you not wanting to admit that i'm right, of course] is beyond me.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 06:39 PM
  #102
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyFan4Ever View Post
the whole point of this conversation is to be able to watch other teams out of markey is it not? why would you want to watch other regional sportsnetworks othen for that reason?

or this an arguement of semantics lol
you don't even know what 'the argument' is, Mr. Cable Employee:

getting the games has never been the issue, as you would only ever get the games if you had the [for example] Centre Ice package [for the Flyers].

getting the games on satellite [we do so now- even some CSN Philly telecasts] is not the issue - you can already get them .. getting the pre game, post game, and Local Phllly coverage of your city's sports teams via CSN Philly is the issue.

[that's why i have been saying '....customer moves, but wants to watch hs old home town's CSN"

not just the games, since he already can]

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 06:43 PM
  #103
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No, I'm talking about [B]ordinary people
OK, so you admit that this happens:

a Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city.

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast.

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options [with competitors] = unequal treatment.



but don't like what will happen if Comcast changed this on their own, instead of having the FCC force them.

OK, I can live with that.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 06:52 PM
  #104
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
nope:


Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city.

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast.

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options = unequal treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
I can't imagine that that's possibly true. You're telling me that I can get any of Comcast's RSNs (with the one exception) in any location in the US via any cable provider? And, pray tell, what loophole is Comcast using to get out of broadcasting CSN-P on this one?
i assume colors is not the only thing you cannot see.

no, that's not what i'm telling you.


you changed me saying the customer 'cannot get' CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city.

into:

'can get in any location in the US via any cable provider'


i assume you are just being silly or argumentative.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 06:59 PM
  #105
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
Where do I see cable provider? How about "on Comcast cable in the new city." Is Comcast no longer a cable provider?
you see the words "on Comcast cable in the new city."

followed by "if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options" from comcast's competitors = getting CSN via a competitor.

it, obviously, does NOT mean getting CSN through a cable provider, as I clearly stated he:

"cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city."

and this WHOLE ISSUE is about getting CSN Philly on competitors [not cable provders] of Comcast like every other CSN nation wide.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 07:01 PM
  #106
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
i assume colors is not the only thing you cannot see.

no, that's not what i'm telling you.


you changed me saying the customer 'cannot get' CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city.

into:

'can get in any location in the US via any cable provider'


i assume you are just being silly or argumentative.
Your post says he can't get the philly feed and therefore is getting unequal treatment. This implies that if he were from any of the other Comcast markets, he CAN get them after moving. I admitted a long time ago that I'm being both silly and argumentative, but I'm also not wrong in reading your post that way.

On another note, I love? all the (random) punctuation in [this] thread!

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 07:02 PM
  #107
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
you see the words "on Comcast cable in the new city."

followed by "if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options" from comcast's competitors = getting CSN via a competitor.

it, obviously, does NOT mean getting CSN through a cable provider, as I clearly stated he:

"cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city."

and this WHOLE ISSUE is about getting CSN Philly on competitors [not cable provders] of Comcast like every other CSN nation wide.
So then this thread is about satellite? Or is it FiOS? As far as I'm aware, it's either them or cable in this country.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 07:59 PM
  #108
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
Your post says he can't get the philly feed and therefore is getting unequal treatment.

This implies that if he were from any of the other Comcast markets, he CAN get them after moving.

he cannot get his old town's CSN from any provider after moving.


if he was from another town, he CAN his old town's CSN after moving, from a competitor.

this is not an implication.

it is fact.

Comcast made that decision by withholding CSN Philly, while providing all other CSNs to competitors.


i hope you can now understand the difference between these 2 comcast customers & how comcast treats them unequally with regards to access to their old town's CSN.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 08:04 PM
  #109
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CantSeeColors View Post
So then this thread is about
this WHOLE ISSUE is about getting CSN Philly on competitors of Comcast like every other CSN nation wide.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 10:22 PM
  #110
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
this WHOLE ISSUE is about getting CSN Philly on competitors of Comcast like every other CSN nation wide.
Really? The topic says VERSUS.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 10:25 PM
  #111
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
this WHOLE ISSUE is about getting CSN Philly on competitors of Comcast like every other CSN nation wide.
So, this whole issue is about customers getting Comcast as customers of other companies (competitors)?

Wow, so I guess Comcast is treating their customers fairly.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 10:43 PM
  #112
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
FCC voted to close the “Terrestrial Loophole”

Since 1992 major cable companies like Comcast were able to block satellite companies such as Dish Network from being able to show certain channels in some of their main markets. For instance you could only get Philadelphia sports programming through Comcast only because of the Terrestrial Loophole that allowed cable companies to get away with it for years, until now.

On January 20, 2010 the FCC approved to stop letting companies block other companies from showing certain networks that they have control over. For years Satellite companies having been fighting to get this approved citing that it does not give satellite companies a fair playing field when it comes to competing in those markets.

Even though it was approved 4-1, cable companies still have the right to fight the decision before it fully goes into affect. There is no time table for when customers in the Philadelphia, New York, and Sand Diego areas will be able to get the regional sports networks through Dish Network, but the fact that it was approved is a big victory for satellite companies and residents in these areas.

http://www.expertsatellite.com/blogs...phole%E2%80%9D


Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city.

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast.

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options = unequal treatment.


the loophole closure will force comcast to treat those customers equally, and allow both the get their home town CSN in the new market .....

they will then come up to Time Warner cable's Ethics, who's CEO decided in 1992 not to use the loophole to squeeze more money out of their customers.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-18-2010, 11:35 PM
  #113
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
where did you invent this???
i am clearly proving to you that Comcast is denying only certain groups of it's customers from additionally subscribing to one of it's competitors and still getting to watch their old home towm CSN.

why you cannot comprehend that [besides you not wanting to admit that i'm right, of course] is beyond me.
Oh my god Bernie. First of all, you're proving NOTHING. Second of all, where did I "invent this?" FROM YOU:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post

so, I eliminated the part about being a customer of another company, it's not needed to prove my point:

a Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in his new city

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast. can you understand this??

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options [being able to still get access to his old town's CSN via competitors]

=

unequal treatment.

at this point, the customers are ONLY comcast customers
So answer the question:

Can a DC native who has CSN-DC on his Comcast cable in DC move to Chicago and get CSN-DC on his Comcast cable in Chicago?

Hint: the answer is no. Because Comcast treats all their customers equally.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 09:50 AM
  #114
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post

Can a DC native who has CSN-DC on his Comcast cable in DC move to Chicago and get CSN-DC on his Comcast cable in Chicago?
you are obviously refusing to understand: I've never claimed he could get CSN DC on cable - in fact, my whole points is that nobody gets their old CSN in a new town ON CABLE --- the way Comcast is treating them UNEQUALLY is that Comcast is deciding which group of their customers is permitted to get access VIA COMPETITORS to their old CSN .. just like I said:



a Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
he cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in his new city <-- why are you pretending that you cannot see this????

the point that you refuse to understand, is that the DC Comcast customer is given options [access via competitors to his old town's CSN] that the Philly customer does not get [access via competitors to his old town's CSN]

unequal treatment: one group of Comcast customers is allowed access via competitors to their old town's CSN, and one group of Comcast customers is not.

Comcast decides who is allowed access [via competitors] by using the terrestrial loophole.

that's the whole effin issue.


Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 03-19-2010 at 10:13 AM.
Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:12 AM
  #115
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
OK, so you admit that this happens:
Now, now, Bernie, we addressed you being dishonest in your quotation practice in the previous discussion. My "ordinary person" had absolutely nothing to do with your whiny hypothetical customers. Shareholders...you should look into what they are, and what rights, expectations they have from companies.

Quote:
a Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in the new city.

he is not a customer of any other company besides comcast.

if he was originally from another city, he'd have other options [with competitors] = unequal treatment.
He has the ability to get Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings, etc. like everyone else if he wants to watch games. Moreover, the key element you've missed throughout this is that these are not the same decisions city-to-city. Where Comcast has had the option to withhold these channels (as other companies have done) they've withheld them, where they haven't had that option the channel has been made available.

In every single city Comcast acts with the exact same logic: what is best for them. So, if they're operating with the same logic in each an every city, they're treating all of their customers fairly...

Of course, the real kicker is your final line...you think they should be facilitating the creation of customers for other companies. Please find an example of a business that operates that way in America. (Note: It certainly isn't DirecTV, or they'd be making NFL ST available.)


Quote:
but don't like what will happen if Comcast changed this on their own, instead of having the FCC force them.

OK, I can live with that.
Bernie...I don't care what Comcast does. I'm just trying to explain to you why it's idiotic to castigate them for doing what they've been doing. If Comcast was doing what you're suggesting they should have been doing, it would have been hurting their company. As your well aware since you noted that this FCC decision is expected to cost Comcast 450,000 customers. Do I think Comcast is a "bad guy" in this for attempting to hold onto 450,000 customers? No.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:14 AM
  #116
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
you are obviously refusing to understand: I've never claimed he could get CSN DC on cable - in fact, my whole points is that nobody gets their old CSN in a new town ON CABLE --- the way Comcast is treating them UNEQUALLY is that Comcast is deciding which group of their customers is permitted to get access VIA COMPETITORS to their old CSN
Not true, Bernie. That is specifically not true. Comcast is not deciding which group of their customers is permitted to get access...the FCC is. If Comcast could withhold each and every one of those channels, they would. That is, of course, before getting into joint ownership issues.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:40 AM
  #117
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Not true, Bernie. That is specifically not true. Comcast is not deciding which group of their customers is permitted to get access
don't even try it:

Comcast decided to utilize the terrestrial loophole, thereby denying access to CSN Philly via competitors.

[unlike Time Warner Cable, who elected not to use the terrestrial loophole to deny anyone access to anything]

Comcast certainly COULD HAVE decided to behave like Time Warner, and not use the loophole, going back to 1992.

they decided that making the extra money from then until the time that the FCC forces them to stop, was worth the bad PR and negative consumer reaction.


Absolutely COMCAST is the one deciding which of it's customers gets access to their old CSN via competitors.

if they decided not to use the loophole, all of their customers would be treated equally.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:41 AM
  #118
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
you are obviously refusing to understand: I've never claimed he could get CSN DC on cable - in fact, my whole points is that nobody gets their old CSN in a new town ON CABLE --- the way Comcast is treating them UNEQUALLY is that Comcast is deciding which group of their customers is permitted to get access VIA COMPETITORS to their old CSN .. just like I said:



a Comcast customer moves from Philly to a new city:

has comcast cable, internet , phone
has watched CSN from his home town for years
he cannot get CSN from his home town on Comcast Cable in his new city <-- why are you pretending that you cannot see this????

the point that you refuse to understand, is that the DC Comcast customer is given options [access via competitors to his old town's CSN] that the Philly customer does not get [access via competitors to his old town's CSN]

unequal treatment: one group of Comcast customers is allowed access via competitors to their old town's CSN, and one group of Comcast customers is not.

Comcast decides who is allowed access [via competitors] by using the terrestrial loophole.

that's the whole effin issue.
Actually, Bernie, I have excellent reading comprehension and cognitive skills. You, however - I'm going to assume you weren't the best member of your high school's forensics team.

You can't use half arguments to prove your point. And you cannot ignore other people's valid points and hypotheticals if you you want people to offer you the same.

I have not "pretended" to not see what you are saying. It's just what you are saying is wrong.

I didn't deny that a Philly native who is a Comcast customer - who moves to a new city - cannot get CSN-P on Comcast in his new city.

That is EQUAL to how a DC native who is a Comcast customer - who moves to a new city - cannot get CSN-DC on Comcast in his new city.

That is EQUAL to how a Chicago native who is a Comcast customer - who moves to a new city - cannot get CSN-Chicago on Comcast in his new city.

That is EQUAL to how a Bay Area native who is a Comcast customer - who moves to a new city - cannot get CSN-Bay on Comcast in his new city.

Therefore, since I am able to make the following statement:

A XYZ native who is a Comcast customer - who moves to a new city - cannot get CSN-XYZ on Comcast in his new city.

I can legitimately and without bias proclaim that Comcast treats each customer the same.


Why do YOU refuse to see THAT?


What those people have the ability to see on competitors is completely irrelevant to Comcast's "treatment" of their own customers.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:42 AM
  #119
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
He has the ability to get Center Ice, MLB Extra Innings, etc. like everyone else if he wants to watch games.
the issue is CSN, not the games -- the loophole is about withholding CSN


Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 03-19-2010 at 10:49 AM.
Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:46 AM
  #120
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post

A XYZ native who is a Comcast customer - who moves to a new city - cannot get CSN-XYZ on Comcast in his new city.

that's not the issue in any of the threads discussing the Terrestrial Loophole / closure, as the entire FCC loophole closure is regarding access via competitors.

feel free to start a new thread discussing that 'non issue', as that has never been a point of contention.

nor does it change the fact that Comcast decides who is allowed access [via competitors] by using the terrestrial loophole.... and that unequal treatment is what's being discussed.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:48 AM
  #121
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post

Of course, the real kicker is your final line...you think they should be facilitating the creation of customers for other companies. Please find an example of a business that operates that way in America.


Time Warner Cable, who elected not to use the terrestrial loophole to deny anyone access to anything.

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 10:58 AM
  #122
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
the issue is CSN, not the games -- the loophole is about withholding CSN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
that's not the issue in any of the threads discussing the Terrestrial Loophole / closure, as the entire FCC loophole closure is regarding access via competitors.

feel free to start a new thread discussing that 'non issue', as that has never been a point of contention.

nor does it change the fact that Comcast decides who is allowed access [via competitors] by using the terrestrial loophole.... and that unequal treatment is what's being discussed.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

You have consistently - consistently - made this be about "Comcast treating their own customers unfairly." You have made this be about the Comcast-to-Customer connection only. Competitors are completely irrelevant to your hypothesis that Comcast treats their own customers unfairly.

They unequivocally do not. Every single Comcast customer is given the same treatment.

And this is about the 6th time you've decided to change what "this is all about" because your points have been struck down.

But if you want to make this be about the ethics of the loophole again, let's talk about that, again. There was absolutely nothing illegal or unscrupulous about Comcast using the loophole.

Done. End of discussion.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 11:04 AM
  #123
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
don't even try it:

Comcast decided to utilize the terrestrial loophole, thereby denying access to CSN Philly via competitors.

[unlike Time Warner Cable, who elected not to use the terrestrial loophole to deny anyone access to anything]

Comcast certainly COULD HAVE decided to behave like Time Warner, and not use the loophole, going back to 1992.

they decided that making the extra money from then until the time that the FCC forces them to stop, was worth the bad PR and negative consumer reaction.


Absolutely COMCAST is the one deciding which of it's customers gets access to their old CSN via competitors.

if they decided not to use the loophole, all of their customers would be treated equally.
Bernie, why are you so dishonest in your arguments. Scared to do full quotes (you spliced a 3 sentence post!) because you have no good response?

Comcast purchased PRISM and used the existing technology. The FCC did not mandate that they make it available...so they didn't. The FCC did mandate that they make other technology available (thus why it was called the terrestrial loophole).

If the FCC hadn't ruled that they make other technology available...then Comcast would not have made those channels available presumably. Comcast's decision in each case would be exactly the same...it was the FCC making the decision of what content had to be made available and what content did not have to be made available.

As for Time Warner...good for them. It probably made sense for them economically, whereas this FCC ruling is going to cost Comcast a predicted 450,000 customers.

You have yet to establish that Comcast is treating their customers unfairly, or unequally. You've established that a FCC regulation had a "loophole" in it...which everyone was aware of.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 11:06 AM
  #124
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
Competitors are completely irrelevant to your hypothesis that Comcast treats their own customers unfairly.
i have made the point that Comcast decides who is allowed access [via competitors] by using the terrestrial loophole.... and that unequal treatment is what's being discussed.

the FCC loophole closure [and reason for these threads] is about CSN access via competitors of comcast.


comcast customers who relocate from Philly do not have the same options as comcast customers who relocate from DC with regards to accessing their old CSN via competitors.

Comcast causes that inequality, by using the loophole [which is optional]

competitors are COMPLETELY relevant, as the whole loophole closure is ONLY about CSN access via competitors.


Done. End of discussion.


Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 03-19-2010 at 11:16 AM.
Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-19-2010, 11:06 AM
  #125
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
Time Warner Cable, who elected not to use the terrestrial loophole to deny anyone access to anything.
Time Warner was driving business away from themselves to their competitors?

What channel? Did it cost them customers, or simply expand the broadcasting number of a channel so that they could earn more ad revenue?

Time Warner not taking advantage of the terrestrial loophole does not prove that they made a decision to give up business to their competitors in order to be nice. In fact, I'd guarantee you Time Warner made money in that deal.

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 08:01 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.