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

Cable Companies still fighting FCC Loophole Closure:

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-14-2010, 05:52 PM
  #1
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,380
vCash: 500
Cable Companies still fighting FCC Loophole Closure:

Even with a January FCC order closing the terrestrial loophole and a court decision affirming that order, it looks like competitors like Verizon's FiOS and DirecTV will still have to pull company-owned regional sports programming from Cablevision Systems' cold dead hands. According to information obtained by Multichannel News, the MSO has jumped over the FCC and taken its case directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C.

In a petition, Cablevision said it was appealing the FCC's jurisdiction and authority because it is "contrary to constitutional right; violates the Communications Act of 1934, the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes." As if that isn't enough, Cablevision added that the FCC ruling is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law."

Comcast had hinted that it would similarly offer battle when the FCC, under pressure from telcos, closed the "terrestrial loophole" cable operators used to withhold local programming-primarily sports-from telco and satellite competitors. Now, however, the MSO is more interested in making friends to finish its merger with NBC Universal than ruffling more feathers in Washington, so they've been quiet.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/cab...zon/2010-04-14


Comcast, the nation's largest cable operator, has assured legislators vetting its proposed joint venture with NBC Universal that it will not challenge the FCC's decision.


http://www.multichannel.com/article/...ion_Ruling.php

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 06:04 PM
  #2
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Relentless

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 11:31 PM
  #3
kyle evs48
No words needed
 
kyle evs48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 30,179
vCash: 500
I hate Dolan.

kyle evs48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2010, 11:58 PM
  #4
DeadPhish5858
Rumham!
 
DeadPhish5858's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: the Shade
Country: United States
Posts: 13,477
vCash: 1321
Send a message via AIM to DeadPhish5858
Another one of these? Really?

DeadPhish5858 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:19 AM
  #5
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadPhish5858 View Post
Another one of these? Really?
What can you do?

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:22 AM
  #6
BWAVgal
Hextall*Hakstol 2016
 
BWAVgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Norristown, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,787
vCash: 50
So what does this mean in english?

BWAVgal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:30 AM
  #7
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
You realize that Comcast isn't the villain in this story?

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:32 AM
  #8
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:41 AM
  #9
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 CantSeeColors View Post
What can you do?

might2mash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:41 AM
  #10
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

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 11:45 AM
  #11
claude boivin lives
flat out spectacular
 
claude boivin lives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,845
vCash: 500
Perhaps someone can recommend a good FCC/Cable Companies/Loopholes/Comcast discussion board for Bernie to join? HFboards seems like the wrong place. FCCboards, perhaps?

claude boivin lives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 12:09 PM
  #12
SolidSnakeUS
Registered User
 
SolidSnakeUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pipersville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,923
vCash: 500
I still want the FCC to regulate Net Neutrality. But Comcast didn't want that.

SolidSnakeUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 12:41 PM
  #13
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnakeUS View Post
I still want the FCC to regulate Net Neutrality. But Comcast didn't want that.
We just lived through the Golden Age of the Internet, I mean, eventually, a lot of the content on the internet is going to be monetized and torrents/free DLs are going to get more and more regulated.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 12:50 PM
  #14
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
We just lived through the Golden Age of the Internet, I mean, eventually, a lot of the content on the internet is going to be monetized and torrents/free DLs are going to get more and more regulated.
Maybe. The only reason that stuff is getting discussed is because there's a ton of lobby money from industries trying to get them to regulate it. However, what has proven true is that the folks out there using the web are far more skilled at working around this stuff than they are at regulating it.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 12:56 PM
  #15
SolidSnakeUS
Registered User
 
SolidSnakeUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pipersville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Maybe. The only reason that stuff is getting discussed is because there's a ton of lobby money from industries trying to get them to regulate it. However, what has proven true is that the folks out there using the web are far more skilled at working around this stuff than they are at regulating it.
And in the end, people going around it will win because they will always find a way, even if something is implemented to stop them.

SolidSnakeUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 01:01 PM
  #16
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Maybe. The only reason that stuff is getting discussed is because there's a ton of lobby money from industries trying to get them to regulate it. However, what has proven true is that the folks out there using the web are far more skilled at working around this stuff than they are at regulating it.
That's true, but I'm not just referring to free DLs.

I mean, WSJ charges for content, NYT is going to start doing it next year, there have been consistent rumors about Hulu starting to charge, and etc.

The point is that there are always workarounds, but there's some top of the line content out there now that may not be available in the future. A lot of these companies are too smart to not figure out how to eventually start charging more.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 01:02 PM
  #17
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnakeUS View Post
And in the end, people going around it will win because they will always find a way, even if something is implemented to stop them.
I mean, the US gov't has proven incapable of regulating our ports of entry...we really think they're going to successfully regulate the amorphous blob that is the internet with any degree of success?

I mean, you have the newspapers trying to monetize access to their content at the moment, and I think that's going to blow up in their face.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 01:05 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 FlyHigh View Post
That's true, but I'm not just referring to free DLs.

I mean, WSJ charges for content, NYT is going to start doing it next year, there have been consistent rumors about Hulu starting to charge, and etc.
WSJ is special because they're an industry paper more than anything else...so you can't really compare them to others. NYT is a mess, and, as just said, I don't think it's going to work. There are too many other sources of news that you can access for free...and that will always be the case. Why pay for the NYT when you can read a blogger that relates that information to you for free?

On top of that, some absurd % of newspaper writing is recycled information already...they're going to charge for that?

Quote:
The point is that there are always workarounds, but there's some top of the line content out there now that may not be available in the future. A lot of these companies are too smart to not figure out how to eventually start charging more.
Sure, they'll try...and then someone else will come in and undercut them. I think you'll see some payments for high demand, exclusive content...but the problem that the internet actually creates is that exclusivity doesn't last very long.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 01:17 PM
  #19
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
WSJ is special because they're an industry paper more than anything else...so you can't really compare them to others. NYT is a mess, and, as just said, I don't think it's going to work. There are too many other sources of news that you can access for free...and that will always be the case. Why pay for the NYT when you can read a blogger that relates that information to you for free?

On top of that, some absurd % of newspaper writing is recycled information already...they're going to charge for that?
The Times has problems (some of their editorials on the Greece crisis have been flat-out embarrassing), but they're the dominant newspaper on the web.

What these guys need to start doing is emulating the WSJ model and charging for premium content although that would entail bringing in some more decent op-ed guys (I am not paying to read Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman).

I think bottom line, companies will eventually figure it out. There's a lot of money-making potential in the Internet, but newspapers in particular have gone about making that money the wrong way.

Quote:
Sure, they'll try...and then someone else will come in and undercut them. I think you'll see some payments for high demand, exclusive content...but the problem that the internet actually creates is that exclusivity doesn't last very long.
The thing is that these companies need to start developing and creating content that is unique (like op-eds and etc. in newspapers) and then charging for that content while leaving other stuff for free. If Hulu expanded their library and started offering movies in higher-def as a subscription service while keeping their basic library available (and maybe cutting it back a bit), I think they could make some decent money.

The problem is that a lot of companies still haven't realized it. I mean, I've enjoyed shows like The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, BoB, etc. without ever paying a dime for them because I either don't want to pay for HBO/Showtime/whatever or I don't have time to watch them when they air.

If HBO offered me a chance to watch these episodes in high def for $.99 each online instead of watching on a lower quality site, I'd probably pay it and I bet other people would as well.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2010, 01:21 PM
  #20
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
This is all irrelevant misdirection and it has nothing to do with Comcast burning down orphanages.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2010, 10:59 AM
  #21
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,380
vCash: 500
Padres staying put on cable TV
FCC closed loophole, but procedures not set

By Mike Freeman, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 12:02 a.m.

Padres fans hoping to watch their games on TV services other than cable are finding that Cox Communications and Time Warner Cable are still the only show in town.

And it will probably stay that way all summer.

Despite a Federal Communications Commission decision in January that forbids cable companies from keeping local sports programming all to themselves, the Padres games are not appearing yet on DirecTV or AT&T U-verse in the San Diego market.

That’s because complicated federal procedures for fully implementing the commission’s January decision have yet to be completed.

Part of the rules went into effect April 2, before the Padres opened the regular season. But an important piece, which detailed steps for competing companies to file complaints if cable operators refuse to negotiate licenses for local sports programming, haven’t become official.

The Office of Management and Budget must examine these proposed procedures to ensure compliance with the federal Paperwork Reduction Act. There is a public comment period, and a notice must be posted in the Federal Register.

And it isn’t clear how long all this might take.

Moreover, New York-based Cablevision filed a notice with a federal court in Washington, D.C., of its intent to challenge the FCC’s January decision, which ends the so-called terrestrial loophole in the federal Cable Act of 1992.

The Cable Act requires cable companies to provide access to local programming they own to rivals at reasonable licensing rates. But the terrestrial loophole created an exemption for local channels that don’t rely on satellite feeds.

The loophole has been most contentious with sports programming in Philadelphia, New York and San Diego. Cablevision’s notice of appeal, filed March 15, contends the commission exceeded its authority and jurisdiction when it decided to close the loophole.

“Instead of appealing to the FCC, Cablevision went over their heads and decided to take it to the circuit court that oversees FCC rulings,” said Mark Kersey, a cable industry analyst based in Solana Beach. “That’s only going to delay the process, obviously.”

So when might Padres games find their way onto Cox rivals DirecTV or U-verse?

“When it comes to regulatory policy and legal action, it’s really difficult to say for sure,” Kersey said.

Cox has exclusive rights to show the Padres games through the 2011 season. It licenses its broadcasts to Time Warner Cable, which isn’t a direct competitor.

But it refuses to license the games to rivals AT&T or satellite television providers.

Last year, AT&T filed a complaint with the FCC, claiming the lack of access to the Padres has hamstrung its efforts grow its U-verse TV service in San Diego, which it launched in 2007.

Cox and Time Warner have 87 percent of the San Diego subscription TV market. In other cities without local sports exclusives, satellite and telephone companies have a combined market share on average of 33 percent, according to AT&T.

AT&T and DirecTV declined to comment. A Cox spokeswoman said the company was still trying to determine how to proceed, given the complexity of the federal rule-making procedures.

In the past, Cox has said it has spent $100 million developing Channel 4 San Diego, which shows a variety of programs in addition to the Padres. It contends that AT&T, which has an exclusive deal to provide service for the iPhone, and DirecTV, which is the sole carrier for the NFL Sunday Ticket package, are unfairly attempting to benefit from Cox’s investment in Channel 4.

When the commission closed the loophole, it said it would not apply the decision to pending complaints, such as AT&T’s action against Cox.

AT&T has asked the commission to rule on its complaint anyway. The company is hoping that because the FCC decided to close the loophole in January, it would have no reason not to uphold the complaint.

An FCC spokeswoman declined to comment because the complaint is pending.

Reps. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, and Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, sent a joint letter to the commission on March 31 asking it to take action.

The letter stated “all signs point to an exciting summer” for the Padres. “Yet many fans in our districts will be unable to watch the games on television. … Therefore, we urge you to resolve this complaint in a timely manner.”

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2010, 11:20 AM
  #22
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
Padres staying put on cable TV
FCC closed loophole, but procedures not set

By Mike Freeman, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 12:02 a.m.

Padres fans hoping to watch their games on TV services other than cable are finding that Cox Communications and Time Warner Cable are still the only show in town.

And it will probably stay that way all summer.

Despite a Federal Communications Commission decision in January that forbids cable companies from keeping local sports programming all to themselves, the Padres games are not appearing yet on DirecTV or AT&T U-verse in the San Diego market.

That’s because complicated federal procedures for fully implementing the commission’s January decision have yet to be completed.

Part of the rules went into effect April 2, before the Padres opened the regular season. But an important piece, which detailed steps for competing companies to file complaints if cable operators refuse to negotiate licenses for local sports programming, haven’t become official.

The Office of Management and Budget must examine these proposed procedures to ensure compliance with the federal Paperwork Reduction Act. There is a public comment period, and a notice must be posted in the Federal Register.

And it isn’t clear how long all this might take.

Moreover, New York-based Cablevision filed a notice with a federal court in Washington, D.C., of its intent to challenge the FCC’s January decision, which ends the so-called terrestrial loophole in the federal Cable Act of 1992.

The Cable Act requires cable companies to provide access to local programming they own to rivals at reasonable licensing rates. But the terrestrial loophole created an exemption for local channels that don’t rely on satellite feeds.

The loophole has been most contentious with sports programming in Philadelphia, New York and San Diego. Cablevision’s notice of appeal, filed March 15, contends the commission exceeded its authority and jurisdiction when it decided to close the loophole.

“Instead of appealing to the FCC, Cablevision went over their heads and decided to take it to the circuit court that oversees FCC rulings,” said Mark Kersey, a cable industry analyst based in Solana Beach. “That’s only going to delay the process, obviously.”

So when might Padres games find their way onto Cox rivals DirecTV or U-verse?

“When it comes to regulatory policy and legal action, it’s really difficult to say for sure,” Kersey said.

Cox has exclusive rights to show the Padres games through the 2011 season. It licenses its broadcasts to Time Warner Cable, which isn’t a direct competitor.

But it refuses to license the games to rivals AT&T or satellite television providers.

Last year, AT&T filed a complaint with the FCC, claiming the lack of access to the Padres has hamstrung its efforts grow its U-verse TV service in San Diego, which it launched in 2007.

Cox and Time Warner have 87 percent of the San Diego subscription TV market. In other cities without local sports exclusives, satellite and telephone companies have a combined market share on average of 33 percent, according to AT&T.

AT&T and DirecTV declined to comment. A Cox spokeswoman said the company was still trying to determine how to proceed, given the complexity of the federal rule-making procedures.

In the past, Cox has said it has spent $100 million developing Channel 4 San Diego, which shows a variety of programs in addition to the Padres. It contends that AT&T, which has an exclusive deal to provide service for the iPhone, and DirecTV, which is the sole carrier for the NFL Sunday Ticket package, are unfairly attempting to benefit from Cox’s investment in Channel 4.

When the commission closed the loophole, it said it would not apply the decision to pending complaints, such as AT&T’s action against Cox.

AT&T has asked the commission to rule on its complaint anyway. The company is hoping that because the FCC decided to close the loophole in January, it would have no reason not to uphold the complaint.

An FCC spokeswoman declined to comment because the complaint is pending.

Reps. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, and Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, sent a joint letter to the commission on March 31 asking it to take action.

The letter stated “all signs point to an exciting summer” for the Padres. “Yet many fans in our districts will be unable to watch the games on television. … Therefore, we urge you to resolve this complaint in a timely manner.”
Good. It should stay that way. If a company like Comcast spends the money to create a network, and secure the TV rights to a sports team or league, they should not be forced to share that network with their competition.

Things like that should be a factor in your choice of a TV provider. Just like if I want NFL Sunday Ticket, I have to get a dish. Just like if I want a Slurpee, I better go to 7-11 instead of Wawa.

I also dislike the idea of an unelected group of people, who are completely unaccountable to anyone, can make decisions that can affect businesses and consumers to the degree that the FCC can.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2010, 12:07 PM
  #23
Murphy7
Drop the puck
 
Murphy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country:
Posts: 1,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
Reps. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, and Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, sent a joint letter to the commission on March 31 asking it to take action.

The letter stated “all signs point to an exciting summer” for the Padres. “Yet many fans in our districts will be unable to watch the games on television. … Therefore, we urge you to resolve this complaint in a timely manner.”
Does this mean the government is going to give everyone either cable or a dish? What about the poor people who don't even have TVs? Will the gov't have to house the homeless because they need something more than a cardboard box to protect their new electronics equipment?
I hate this blabbering. It's like when the Giants and Pats met in the 2007 season finale and New England was going for a perfect regular season. The game was on NFL Network. Then the politicians come out and waaahhhh, waaahhhh, the game's not on my cable. How will people see such an important event? **** politicians. If people want to watch a game, they need to do something about it -- other than changing laws. That game ended up on CBS and NBC because the pols threatened the NFL. Yet the pols don't care that Sunday Ticket is available through just one outlet. They probably get free tickets to the games.
In San Diego, many fans can't see the Padres. Oh, well. If I get a dish, I don't get the Flyers, Phillies, or that basketball team that fills dates at the Wach. Oh, well.
It's crazy that pols can't improve tax burdens, the job market/economy, help the poor, the aging, the sickly, etc., but they can fight to get a game on the tube.
Thanks, losers. I hope Hunter and Filner have very short political careers, then find work flipping burgers.

Murphy7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2010, 12:57 PM
  #24
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
Good. It should stay that way. If a company like Comcast spends the money to create a network, and secure the TV rights to a sports team or league, they should not be forced to share that network with their competition.

Things like that should be a factor in your choice of a TV provider. Just like if I want NFL Sunday Ticket, I have to get a dish. Just like if I want a Slurpee, I better go to 7-11 instead of Wawa.

I also dislike the idea of an unelected group of people, who are completely unaccountable to anyone, can make decisions that can affect businesses and consumers to the degree that the FCC can.
Bernie is going to flip the F out on you dude.

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 04:18 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.