 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | So What? If Cablevision owns the channel and it isn't a publicly broadcasted signal then Cablevision has the right to sell access to channel to whoever it wants.
Verizon complains rightfully when other companies want to compel it to share its fiber optic network with them. Funny how it wants the rules changed when it pertains to something it wants.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | said by pnh102:If Cablevision owns the channel and it isn't a publicly broadcasted signal then Cablevision has the right to sell access to channel to whoever it wants. Verizon complains rightfully when other companies want to compel it to share its fiber optic network with them. Funny how it wants the rules changed when it pertains to something it wants. You're comparing apples to oranges here. The sharing of a network isn't the same as sharing a channel. The difference is in when a cable provider is the OWNER of a channel. The FCC frowns on such things - otherwise you could have some really ugly relationships out there. For example, DirecTV used to be majority-owned by News Corp - parent of Fox. Would it have been ok to have DirecTV prevent other systems from carrying the fox suite of cable channels?
When the merger between media companies and distribution companies started happening, there was serious concern that these type of turf wars would indeed happen. What CV is doing is likely a violation of FCC regulations regarding the distribution of channels owned by cable operators.
When it comes to using a fiber network - that's a different issue entirely. There is no requirement to share, e.g., cable lines... or satellite space. About the ONLY area where lines are required to be shared is with copper phone lines. The 1996 Telecommunications Act required it - and a major justification for allowing it came from the fact that the federal government paid a good chunk of the money with rolling out those copper lines decades ago. That's not the case with fiber - FiOS is totally paid for by Verizon, and as such is their own proprietary distribution system. To say that they have to open up their fiber means that cable companies should also be required to open up their networks to allow competitors to use.
An argument can be made that cable companies who own channels should be allowed to only give them to whomever they want. But if you have that, it better be a consistent regulation, that adheres to everyone. CV is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
What the FCC should do in this case is just eliminate the stupid terrestrial loophole. If they find in Verizon's favor, that's very likely (in my opinion) to be the end-result. |
|
2 edits | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:If Cablevision owns the channel and it isn't a publicly broadcasted signal then Cablevision has the right to sell access to channel to whoever it wants. Verizon complains rightfully when other companies want to compel it to share its fiber optic network with them. Funny how it wants the rules changed when it pertains to something it wants. Maybe im missing something here, if so please fill me in...
A ficticious example: Say honda was in financial trouble and Exxon wanted to go into the car buying business so they bought the ailing company, while for some reason, unlike Exxon, Shell may have been interested but couldn't even legally sell the cars if they bought in on the business, then later it was legally decided that all oil companies can now market their fuel with the cars they own and Exxon turned around and said "my honda cars, I bought them" keep your oil to yourself.. you think that was a fair platform?
On the fiber optic argument, they do offer competitive services, in fact both cable and telco's do.. what about vonage, magicjack, netflix, blockbuster, etc. |
|
|
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Your example doesn't really apply. There is nothing legally stopping Verizon from offering this channel. Verizon simply hasn't made it worth Cablevision's while to show it.
If Verizon throws up a more $$$, I am sure Cablevision would reconsider.
Besides, I am sure if Verizon had exclusive rights to a sports channel for a particular city, it would be rather stingy about allowing its competitors to carry said channel.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
