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.
and that, from what i can dig up for you, is the latest update ....
Here is the thing though. That isn't really an update. Let me explain to you what is going on. The FCC made a ruling about the terrestrial loophole under § 628(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 548) which states:
Quote:
(b) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for a cable operator, a satellite cable programming vendor in which a cable operator has an attributable interest, or a satellite broadcast programming vendor to engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers.
Cablevision challenged this ruling on multiple levels. First they said that the ruling under this section was outside of their power because that section of the Act pertains to distribution through airwaves, not terrestrially delivered programming. Second they challenged that the rules in general violate the First Amendment. Finally they challenged that the ruling was not in accordance with the rest of that section, the Administrative Procedure Act, and/or the First Amendment (basically that their ruling was arbitrary and capricious). The first two challenges were not successful. The court held that it was within its scope under § 628 to make the ruling and that it was within the First Amendment.
However, the third challenge (that the ruling that this practice was categorically unfair was arbitrary and capricious) was upheld. When dealing with administrative bodies, such as the FCC, they are granted great deference in their decisions. Basically, they can interpret their rules however they want as long as it is not arbitrary and capricious. The court held that their ruling was arbitrary and capricious and sent it back to the FCC to fashion a new rationale for their holding. If they can't do that, this terrestrial loophole will not be closed. It is unlikely that the FCC won't be able to do that because, like I said, as long as they can come up with something that is not deemed arbitrary and capricious, it will be upheld.
I am not familiar with what is going on with MSG on November 14th, but whatever it is I don't think it is connected to what is going on in this case (unless the FCC has made their ruling and it is either not being appealed or the courts have already upheld it, which is the update I am looking for). And if that is the case, then ok. But I haven't seen any updates and those articles from June and you telling me that MSG is coming soon is not an update.
if you want to think that Cablevision having to [apparently on the 14th] give up MSG HD after appealing the Terrestrial Loophole closure [and losing] has nothing to do with CSN Philly / Comcast and the Terrestrial Loophole closure, that is your right.
if you want to think that Cablevision having to [apparently on the 14th] give up MSG HD after appealing the Terrestrial Loophole closure [and losing] has nothing to do with CSN Philly / Comcast and the Terrestrial Loophole closure, that is your right.
it is my right to think they are related.
But you are missing the point of the ruling. The court didn't hold that the loophole is closed (which is why I said those earlier articles are misleading/incorrect). The court held that it is within the FCC's power to regulate the loophole through § 628 and the rules don't violate the First Amendment. Section 628 says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the FCC can prohibit certain unfair acts. The court held that holding the actions of Cablevision as unfair was arbitrary and capricious. Hence, at this point, the actions have not been deemed unfair and therefore are not being controlled by this regulation until the FCC rules on this issue again (which is the update I have been looking for, and hasn't happened as far as I can tell). It would be very strange if Cablevision decided to adhere to a ruling that is not final and could potentially not come for a long time, if at all (however, as I noted in my previous post, the FCC will likely be able to come up with a non-arbitrary and capricious ruling). It is possible, I suppose, however it is unlikely.
Here is some actual language form the case:
Quote:
Given the Commission's failure to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action” in defining certain acts of terrestrial withholding as categorically unfair, this part of its terrestrial programming order is arbitrary and capricious. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856; see also Kristin Brooks Hope Ctr. v. FCC, 626 F.3d 586, 589–91 (D.C.Cir.2010) (vacating a Commission decision as arbitrary and capricious for failure to provide “a reasonable explanation”). That said, we take no position on the ultimate issue of exactly how the Commission should define the inherently ambiguous *723 statutory term “unfair.” See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43, 104 S.Ct. 2778. But if the Commission believes that conduct involving the withholding of terrestrial programming should be treated as categorically unfair, as opposed to assessing fairness on a case-by-case basis or perhaps adopting a public interest exception mirroring the one for satellite programming, see 47 U.S.C. § 548(c)(2)(D), (c)(4), then it must grapple with whether its definition of unfairness would apply to conduct that appears procompetitive and, if so, whether that result would comport with section 628.
V.
The petitions for review are denied in part and granted in part. We vacate that portion of the Commission's order treating certain acts of terrestrially delivered programming withholding as categorically unfair and remand to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Think about this for one second. As to the bolded portion of that quote, why would Cablevision then comply with the vacated portion of the order? Their conduct, as held by this court, has not been deemed unfair, and therefore is not prohibited by section 628 (now, as noted in other posts, it is very likely that the FCC will hold that it is unfair and come up with a better rationale, but that has not happened yet).
Like I said, I don't know what is going on with MSG on November 14. You saying it earlier is the only time I have heard of that. That isn't really much of an update and certainly doesn't seem to mesh with what was said in court. It may be happening, but if it is, I doubt it is the result of this holding. Which, like I have been saying form the beginning, is the update that I am looking for (i.e. what is happening with this case now).
my god, all of that legal mumbo jumbo .... i'm just gonna wait and see if MSG HD is given up by CV on the 14th ......
MSG HD was being withheld via the loophole.
if MSG HD falls, i think CSN Philly will not be far behind ...... regardless, contacting the FCC [in my view] cannot hurt ... maybe you can contact the FCC and ask what the current status is ??
my god, all of that legal mumbo jumbo .... i'm just gonna wait and see if MSG HD is given up by CV on the 14th ......
MSG HD was being withheld via the loophole.
if MSG HD falls, i think CSN Philly will not be far behind ...... regardless, contacting the FCC [in my view] cannot hurt ... maybe you can contact the FCC and ask what the current status is ??
And there you go. This MSG case is a different case altogether than the Cablevision case I am talking about. I didn't read the entire FCC report in the MSG case, but it does seem that CSN Philly would probably have the same result as MSG, however as far as I know they aren't being sued in the same way (or at all) in the way that MSG is being sued, so again, it will be a long time before CSN is available unless they are already involved in this type of litigation.
it does seem that CSN Philly would probably have the same result as MSG
as they both centered around the Terrestrial Loophole .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers
And there you go. This MSG case is a different case altogether than the Cablevision case I am talking about.
... aaannnnnnnnddddddd since this thread is about CSN Philly / the terrestrial loophole closure [the loophole CV used to keep MSG HD from competitors] / the FCC and contacting them about CSN Philly, perhaps you need a different thread for your unrelated Cablevision Lawsuit
as they both centered around the Terrestrial Loophole .....
... aaannnnnnnnddddddd since this thread is about CSN Philly / the terrestrial loophole closure [the loophole CV used to keep MSG HD from competitors] / the FCC and contacting them about CSN Philly, perhaps you need a different thread for your unrelated Cablevision Lawsuit
Really? You first posted links to articles about the Cablevision lawsuit regarding the terrestrial loophole which I have been talking about. The first mention of MSG came a couple posts ago which I had no idea existed. If you had posted to that first, I would have responded the way I just did to the post about that.
Also, the Cablevision case that I am talking about does have to do with Comcast, much like it does have to do with the MSG case, in which it is cited throughout the FCC order. And again, the Cablevision case didn't hold that the loophole is closed for all types of acts that the cable companies are doing and neither does the MSG case. If Comcast gets sued, it has a chance to continue doing what it is doing and that is because of the ruling in the Cablevision case (that the loophole CAN be closed but the terrestrial withholdings are not categorically unfair and therefore are not always prohibited by section 628).
maybe you should start a discussion about it, as this thread is specifically about the CSN Philly terrestrial loophole closure & the FCC
I'm not real sure what you are getting at here. This whole discussion about the Cablevision case started when you linked to articles about the case. I responded to that saying basically that I knew what was going on there but was looking for a further update. We went back and forth a little and you posted to the same (or similar) articles. Then you mentioned MSG and I responded to that.
Quote:
the MSG HD terrestrial loophole closure is the same exact case:
I don't think you understand what is really going on here so I'm only going to explain it one more time. That link that you just posted is referencing an FCC order form January 2010. Cablevision challenged the order, part of which was upheld in June (the part about the FCC having the authority to close the loophole and the part about it not being in violation of the First Amendment). However, the part about all terrestrial withholdings being unfair was not upheld. That is where the case is right now. The MSG case that you cited to earlier is more on point than the Cablevision case that has been mentioned, but still is not going to necessarily have an impact on Comcast. Comcast could cut its losses and comply because it is likely in a similar situation to MSG, but they also can just ignore that ruling and wait to be sued. Once they are sued, they could win because, as the DC Circuit court noted, not all acts of terrestrial withholding are categorically unfair.
There is also the issue of where these suits are all taking place (one in DC, one in NY, and one that would potentially be in PA). These are all different jurisdictions who could come out with three different outcomes, so while the DC Circuit and the 2nd Circuit may hold terrestrial withholdings as unfair, the Third Circuit (where PA is located) may not see it the same way. Hence, nothing is likely going to happen in Philly any time soon.
There is also the issue of where these suits are all taking place (one in DC, one in NY, and one that would potentially be in PA).
pretty sure the FCC in Washington handles all of these cases, regardless of 'location'
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers
I don't think you understand what is really going on here so I'm only going to explain it one more time. That link that you just posted is referencing an FCC order form January 2010.......
save it, ive been following this longer than you have
you mentioned Cablevision ......
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers
But the case is still open to the best of my knowledge. The Court of Appeals upheld only part of the order, saying that they can regulate what is going on, but also remanded it back to the FCC to determine whether or not the cable company (Cablevision, I think?) has to follow the regulation. As far as I can tell the FCC hasn't ruled on that yet. That's what I mean when I am asking for something more current.
the Cablevision case involves the same terrestrial loophole covering CSN Philly
Cablevision appealed the ruling, not Comcast
Cablevision was ordered to give up MSG HD, that appears to be happening Nov 14th
Comcast as of yet hasn't been ordered to give up CSN Philly [apparently]
you can cite rules, case numbers etc etc etc all you want, the latest related news is MSG HD
contact the FCC for the exact status on CSN Philly, but the Cablevision case comes as a result of the loophole closure ..... is there some 'other' CV case ??
Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 11-10-2011 at 05:12 PM.
pretty sure the FCC in Washington handles all of these cases, regardless of 'location'
Yes and no. FCC makes the rules and interprets their rules. If a case is later filed in a different jurisdiction, those jurisdictions interpret the interpretations.
Quote:
save it, ive been following this longer than you have
Ok?
Quote:
you mentioned Cablevision ......
the Cablevision case involves the same terrestrial loophole covering CSN Philly
Cablevision appealed the ruling, not Comcast
Cablevision was ordered to give up MSG HD, that appears to be happening Nov 14th
Comcast as of yet hasn't been ordered to give up CSN Philly [apparently]
you can cite rules, case numbers etc etc etc all you want, the latest related news is MSG HD
contact the FCC for the exact status on CSN Philly
This is from the second post in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974
Court Upholds FCC Closing Of Terrestrial Exemption
That is an article about the Cablevision case, thus starting that discussion on page one before anyone had even responded. I asked for further update and you continued to link me to articles about the Cablevision case and referencing the case, until you mentioned the MSG issue, which, once I knew what was going on there, I responded to.
The one you are linking to in your second post is Cablevision vs. FCC. The one regarding MSG is Verizon vs. MSG. Two different cases in two different jurisdictions with two different outcomes at two different times.
The one you are linking to in your second post is Cablevision vs. FCC. The one regarding MSG is Verizon vs. MSG. Two different cases in two different jurisdictions with two different outcomes at two different times.
incorrect. there was 1 case: Verizon vs Cablevision. I see no proof that 'jurisdiction' affects the FCC, only your guess.
Cablevision owns the MSG HD channel. Paramount Communications was acquired by Viacom, who in turn sold the MSG properties to Cablevision and ITT Corporation, which had 50% ownership each. ITT sold its share to Cablevision
there is no 'XX' vs MSG suit. it was Verizon vs Cablevision over access now that the loophole closure and appeal rejection occurred
Madison Square Garden, L.P. and
Cablevision Systems Corp.,
Defendants
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers
That is an article about the Cablevision case
that article wrote about how Cablevsion took the news regarding the loophole closure / appeal .... but it's the same 'case', here are more on the same case, essentially the same article here, but including CSN:
incorrect. there was 1 case: Verizon vs Cablevision.
Ok this is getting silly. There is not one case being discussed here. There are two cases. Cablevision vs. FCC (which is the case most of your articles are referring to) which I have quoted from and described in great detail. This case can be found at 649 F.3d 695 (I don't know where to find it online and I am assuming that you do not have access to Westlaw so you'll have to google it to get a copy of the actual case). The other case, which you are now referencing to long after the discussion about the first case is Verizon vs. MSG which you have cited to in this post. Two different cases, both of which YOU brought into the conversation and I merely replied to.
Quote:
I see no proof that 'jurisdiction' affects the FCC, only your guess.
It is clear you don't know what you are talking about. Jurisdiction is not a guess. It is law. I'm not going to give you a full lesson in Civil Procedure, but there are two types of authority in the law. Binding authority (holdings from cases at the highest level court in the jurisdiction) that lower courts must follow. Persuasive authority (holdings from other jurisdictions) that courts do not have to follow. Just as a for instance, if you sued someone under a federal law in California, the same case could come out completely differently in Philadelphia. That is how the law works.
Quote:
Cablevision owns the MSG HD channel. Paramount Communications was acquired by Viacom, who in turn sold the MSG properties to Cablevision and ITT Corporation, which had 50% ownership each. ITT sold its share to Cablevision
there is no 'XX' vs MSG suit. it was Verizon vs Cablevision over access now that the loophole closure and appeal rejection occurred
Madison Square Garden, L.P. and
Cablevision Systems Corp.,
Defendants
that article wrote about how Cablevsion took the news regarding the loophole closure / appeal .... but it's the same 'case', here are more on the same case, essentially the same article here, but including CSN:
these cases are all regarding the loophole closure ..... appeal of it ...... and access .... as is the Dishes getting CSN Philly
That's fine. All these cases could impact CSN down the line, but right now, unless there is some kind of litigation against Comcast that I am not aware of, Comcast doesn't have to do anything. An order telling Cablevision to uplink all of its channels to Direct TV or whatever is not binding on Comcast. If the FCC or a company like Verizon sues Comcast, then something might happen. But it hasn't yet.
as for jurisdiction, i don't see anything in the articles / cases that says the FCC can / can't / must / must not do / authorize / force anything based on location / jurisdiction ..... can you show me ?
--------------------------------------
there has never been a Verizon vs MSG case. it was Verizon vs Cablevision .
but I see what's going on.
you are not considering the Loophole Closure as a 'case.'
you are considering CV's appeal as a case. 1 legal suit.
Verizon vs Cablevision as a 2nd case. 1 legal suit.
etc etc etc etc . from the Court / Lawyer standpoint, i assume technically you are correct.
i can see by your use of these legal terms that you are focusing on something different from me: i'm just a regular Flyers Fan .... i'm looking at the 'overall' issue[s]
if you want to break down these 2 basic 'issues' that i've brought up into 'cases' 'jurisdiction' 'rule of law' .. everything you'd see on 'LA Law', go ahead .... the exact technicalities of the legal 'cases' is nothing i care to discuss
i'm just discussing the 'general concepts' / parts of :
Loophole closure / CV appeal rejected / Verizon vs CV / MSG HD on Verizon
and
Loophole closure / xxxx / CSN Philly on the dishes
currently you are wondering what exactly xxxx is. you'll have to contact the FCC, i guess.
as for jurisdiction, i don't see anything in the articles / cases that says the FCC can / can't / must / must not do / authorize / force anything based on location / jurisdiction ..... can you show me ?
The whole jurisdiction deal is just the law. It wouldn't be in the cases or articles. It would come into play down the road with future challenges and such. This is a purely legal concept that applies across the board.
Quote:
there has never been a Verizon vs MSG case. it was Verizon vs Cablevision.
Dude, the case
but I see what's going on.
you are not considering the Loophole Closure as a 'case.'
you are considering CV's appeal as a case. 1 legal suit.
Verizon vs Cablevision as a 2nd case. 1 legal suit.
etc etc etc etc . from the Court / Lawyer standpoint, i assume technically you are correct.
i can see by your use of these legal terms that you are focusing on something different from me: i'm just a regular Flyers Fan .... i'm looking at the 'overall' issue[s]
Yeah, it appears we are not exactly on the same page here.
Quote:
if you want to break down these 2 basic 'issues' that i've brought up into 'cases' 'jurisdiction' 'rule of law' .. everything you'd see on 'LA Law', go ahead .... the exact technicalities of the legal 'cases' is nothing i care to discuss
i'm just discussing the 'general concepts' / parts of :
Loophole closure / CV appeal rejected / Verizon vs CV / MSG HD on Verizon
and
Loophole closure / xxxx / CSN Philly on the dishes
currently you are wondering what exactly xxxx is. you'll have to contact the FCC, i guess.
Fair enough. I was just trying to see if there something out there that I wasn't aware of, then trying to explain to you what the effects of the cases may be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what is going on with all of this.
The whole jurisdiction deal is just the law. It wouldn't be in the cases or articles. It would come into play down the road with future challenges and such. This is a purely legal concept that applies across the board.
i understand that. the loophole was a nation wide thing. the dishes are nation wide services [as is Comcast]. CSN's RSNs are distributed nation wide, so i guess jurisdiction could make some difference, but my focus is merely on when CSN Philly will get on the dishes
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers
it appears we are not exactly on the same page here.
Fair enough. I was just trying to see if there something out there that I wasn't aware of, then trying to explain to you what the effects of the cases may be. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what is going on with all of this.
yes, you are looking at the exact legal details, while i'm looking at the 'overall issue' .... 2 different ways to look at the same thing, no offense intended on my part
i do think that it will be good news if MSG HD goes live on Verizon, though ... it shows that the loophole closure achieved the goal: getting a previously withheld channel, distributed to competition
i understand that. the loophole was a nation wide thing. the dishes are nation wide services [as is Comcast]. CSN's RSNs are distributed nation wide, so i guess jurisdiction could make some difference, but my focus is merely on when CSN Philly will get on the dishes
That's my focus too. The jurisdiction may or may not come into play, I was merely pointing out that it could. I've been waiting for CSN to come to DTV for a while so I am hoping something happens soon.
Quote:
yes, you are looking at the exact legal details, while i'm looking at the 'overall issue' .... 2 different ways to look at the same thing, no offense intended on my part
i do think that it will be good news if MSG HD goes live on Verizon, though ... it shows that the loophole closure achieved the goal: getting a previously withheld channel, distributed to competition
Let's hope so. I hate Comcast (as a cable TV provider). They have great internet services and obviously I love what they have done for the Flyers, but their TV is too expensive and frankly not that great.
Let's hope so. I hate Comcast (as a cable TV provider). They have great internet services and obviously I love what they have done for the Flyers, but their TV is too expensive and frankly not that great.
have you considered just getting DTV, and using an out of market zip code until it gets resolved ?
you'd keep Comcast for internet, only. or just basic [like i do for 3, 6, 10, 17, 29]
have you considered just getting DTV, and using an out of market zip code until it gets resolved ?
you'd keep Comcast for internet, only. or just basic [like i do for 3, 6, 10, 17, 29]
Nah I don't feel like going through all the loophole BS. I've read your posts about it and I'm sure it works, I'd rather just wait until its fully available.
Nah I don't feel like going through all the loophole BS. I've read your posts about it and I'm sure it works, I'd rather just wait until its fully available.
lol .... it took 5 minutes to google an address to use & 1 phone call to DTV telling them i 'moved' out of the Philly mkt ..... 5 minutes later, it was done
then, i called comcast to go to 'basic' cable & internet only [that was the REALLY fun part]
