I'm pretty sure it isn't Comcast that is dragging their feet. I think it is still in court and the FCC might even wind up saying that Comcast and other companies don't have to uplink their stations. I think it is going to be a long time before anything happens with this situation (unless they settle out of court).
The FCC is going to be forced to deal with it's own hypocrisy at some point. But it's also a political entity and that's life.
The FCC is going to be forced to deal with it's own hypocrisy at some point. But it's also a political entity and that's life.
Such is life. The Court sent it back down and now Cablevision has a chance to win, but in the meantime I don't expect anything to happen regarding Comcast and DTV. It doesn't matter how many times people contact the FCC like the OP suggests. It's up to the FCC to determine how this will play out and they aren't going to do it because people are writing to them, they have to do it by the letter of the law. If they don't, they risk being reversed on appeal. Hopefully it comes down in favor of the customers and not the companies, but time's gonna tell.
Such is life. The Court sent it back down and now Cablevision has a chance to win, but in the meantime I don't expect anything to happen regarding Comcast and DTV. It doesn't matter how many times people contact the FCC like the OP suggests. It's up to the FCC to determine how this will play out and they aren't going to do it because people are writing to them, they have to do it by the letter of the law. If they don't, they risk being reversed on appeal. Hopefully it comes down in favor of the customers and not the companies, but time's gonna tell.
I wager Comcast ends up letting it go with a handshake agreement that NFL ST won't be a monopoly next time around. That's all they really want/need.
Bernie, you are talking exclusively about end user content. You realize that, right?
And Congress absolutely did something to DirecTV, they nullified a signed deal involving them.
Jest, what I realize is that everybody else here knows that I'm talking about the VERY clear difference between:
the NFL owning the programming, putting the exclusive US contract up for bid, Comcast getting outbid by another company
and
Comcast owning the programming [CSN Philly], AND the distribution. CSN Philly was never 'up for bid'
for you to claim that the 2 scenarios are 'the same exact thing' is laughable
and the FCC told MLB that they were not able to make their programming exclusive - it had nothing to do with what company won the bid. The FCC would have done the same thing had DISH Network, Comcast, Verizon etc etc etc been involved
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
I wager Comcast ends up letting it go with a handshake agreement that NFL ST won't be a monopoly next time around. That's all they really want/need.
they had 3 chances to get the NFL ST all to themselves already.
they let other companies outbid them.
what has this got to do with DISH Network ?? they are denying DISH Network customers from getting CSN Philly because of a legally bid for contract between the NFL and distributors ??
holding CSN Philly hostage because Comcast let other companies outbid them is laughable
Jest, what I realize is that everybody else here knows that I'm talking about the VERY clear difference between:
the NFL owning the programming, putting the exclusive US contract up for bid, Comcast getting outbid by another company
and
Comcast owning the programming [CSN Philly], AND the distribution. CSN Philly was never 'up for bid'
The Flyers weren't up for bid? Yes they were. Phils games are up for bid every time a contract is up. Same for Sixers now.
Of course all that is immaterial to the actual reality. Neither Comcast or DirecTV care one bit how the channel is getting on their programming, and neither do you. You are just using your very poor insight into these matters, and your ridiculous bias to create a fantasy land where Comcast is Sauron and you are hanging with the Hobbits over at DirecTV.
As for the rest of your post? Biased drivel, and a waste of time and bytes on the Internet.
Oh, and everyone, one of the primary reasons the Flyers have had such deep pockets is specifically because of the ownership controlling the teams network. So, when they do put CSN up on DirecTV (which I do think will happen, just as I expect NFL ST to be opened up), there's a good chance it could be reflected in the team's spending if Comcast loses customers to DirecTV.
there's a good chance it could be reflected in the team's spending if Comcast loses customers to DirecTV.
darn !! you mean all those Stanley Cups we've won since 1974-75 now won't happen ??
Oh, everyone you need to remember:
there is a salary a Minimum that each NHL team must adhere to ..... regardless of the tales of doom and gloom Jest predicts - The salary floor is fixed at US$16 million below the cap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974
CSN Philly was never 'up for bid'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
The Flyers weren't up for bid?
Jest, the rest of us are talking about CSN Philly. maybe you are posting in some alternate reality forum.
CSN Philly Channel was never up for bid. Comcast has always owned both CSN and the distribution of CSN.
that is not up for debate .
the situation is NOT the 'same exact thing' as the NFL owning the product and allowing Comcast, DTV, DISH, Verizon to bid for exclusive distribution of the NFL ... something Comcast passed on 3 times
Wait, you think CSN is an independent entity from the fact that the Flyers are owned by Comcast? CSN Philly was built entirely because they had control over the Flyers.
Jest, you keep trying to add / compare / equate this to that to justify Comcast using the now closing loophole.
you attempt to divert / change the topic off of the loophole closure, and how soon CSN will be available to all .....
here's what I think, in case you overlooked it:
this loophole situation is NOT the 'same exact thing' as the NFL owning it's product and allowing Comcast, DTV, DISH, Verizon to bid for exclusive distribution of the NFL ... something Comcast passed on 3 times
furthermore, i also KNOW [not think] that the CSN Philly Channel was never put up for bid like the NFL Sunday Ticket was. Comcast has always owned both CSN and the distribution of CSN.
Comcast cries about not having NFL ST, calling it the same thing as DirecTV not having CSN Philly, but it's really apples and oranges. NFL ST is owned by the NFL. Not by DirecTV. It's not a channel/package owned by another TV service provider. That's the issue here. If DirecTV were to buy NFL ST, and be the owners of it, then Comcast would have a point.
But the NFL isn't a TV service operator - they're a third party provider of programming. As such they can refuse carriage to whomever they so desire. It's no different than any other independent cable channel (a channel not owned by a TV service provider).
If NFL ST becomes a subsidiary of DirecTV, then Comcast would have a point. But it's not.
1.DTV can't sell that which it does not own.
2.Sunday Ticket is owned by the NFL who chose to sell to one provider only. They opened bidding to all provides and DTV had the high bid.
3.This is about local programming. Sunday Ticket is out of market sports.
4.Comcast owns CSN Philly and sells to all land based providers. IOW, it's not exclusive programming.
your attempts to somehow tie the 2 together is comical .. or, should i say "Biased drivel, and a waste of time and bytes on the Internet."
Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 11-10-2011 at 12:17 PM.
Comcast has still been able keep CSN off the Dishes, somehow.
maybe if more people demanded action .......
just sayin'
Those articles aren't exactly correct. The court upheld the FCC's rule for closing the loophole and that it didn't violate the First Amendment (as well as issues pertaining to evidentiary presumptions) but it overturned the FCC's determination that withholding terrestrial programming was categorically unfair. They sent it back to the FCC to rule on that issue again, so nothing is going to happen until the FCC rules again, which is probably going to be a while until things happen and when the FCC does rule again, Cablevision will likely appeal again and drag it out some more.
those articles are 100% correct, and included your point about “categorically unfair.’’
Well they are misleading maybe not incorrect. There is still a legal battle going on. The court essentially said that the FCC has the power to make this rule, but they have to prove that what Cablevision (and others) are doing is unfair and therefore under the rule. The court held that the FCC's ruling was arbitrary and capricious and its now on the FCC to come up with a reason as to why what they are doing is categorically unfair.
Quote:
then, allow myself to quote, myself .....
Demanding action won't do anything. This is a legal matter, not a PR campaign. When the FCC rules again, Cablevision I would guess is going to appeal again on the same or similar grounds (i.e. arbitrary and capricious). They may not win again on that issue, but this isn't something that is going to happen over night and writing letters is not going to change anything. It is a legal matter not a public relations matter or something like that. The FCC is going to rule again that the terrestrial programming contracts are unfair, but they will do a better job explaining themselves to make it not arbitrary and capricious. Then Cablevision I would imagine will challenge again saying it is arbitrary and capricious and the courts will then rule on it again, either for or against Cablevision. Once the case is officially over, things will go down. But that won't be for a while, no matter how many letters you write.
Well they are misleading maybe not incorrect. There is still a legal battle going on. The court essentially said that the FCC has the power to make this rule, but they have to prove that what Cablevision (and others) are doing is unfair and therefore under the rule. The court held that the FCC's ruling was arbitrary and capricious and its now on the FCC to come up with a reason as to why what they are doing is categorically unfair.
did you actually read the article ??
Quote:
Still, Cablevision was quick to stress the fight is not over since the ruling does conclude that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by treating certain conduct involving exclusive terrestrial programming contracts as “categorically unfair.’’ The court sent that matter back to the commission for reconsideration.
They mention it in passing. The general tone of the article, as judged by your response, is that this is pretty much done and soon it will be coming. Hence, misleading.
Quote:
you don't know that. the only action that we KNOW will result in nothing happening is: doing nothing.
I do know that. This is a legal matter, not some PR matter. You aren't going to write a letter to judges to get them to rule on something the way you want, that isn't how it works. The FCC is going to rule on this again that this is unfair and have to come up with a better reasoning for why it is unfair. When they do, Cablevision will likely appeal again and the courts will determine if that reasoning is arbitrary and capricious like the first holding was. If it is, it will go back to the FCC again. If it isn't, it should then be over (unless they appeal to Supreme Court, which I'm sure they will, though I don't know how likely it would be for the Court to actually hear the case).
The bottom line is that no amount of letters will change how a judge will rule on this issue and it will be some time before anything actually happens.
The bottom line is that no amount of letters will change how a judge will rule on this issue and it will be some time before anything actually happens.
while you are entitled to that opinion, that is all it is: an opinion.
It's very simple. The FCC created a process for requesting RSNs. If DirecTV wants CSN Philly, they'll follow that process. Comcast fought the decision in court, and lost. The courts have upheld the FCC's authority to do this. And the process was used to give Verizon and AT&T access to MSG HD. We'll know very soon (11/14 is when MSG HD is supposed to be turned on, per the FCC directive on that case) how well thought-out the process is.
CV has already tried this type of nonsense with other channels, and the FCC forced them to offer up the channels... and they complied. That enforcement mechanism has been in place for years, and has been followed for years. The ONLY thing that is different now is that this ruling by the FCC opens up a new class of channels (those protected by the loophole) to be included in the mix.
Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 11-10-2011 at 10:44 AM.
