Cablevision, Verizon Continue Feud Over MSG HD Verizon continues to lobby FCC for access to the channel... Verizon continues to be very annoyed with the fact that Cablevision won't give them the ability to deliver the Cablevision owned-MSG HD sports channel to FiOS customers. Cablevision withholds access to the channel from competitors like U-Verse, Dish and FiOSTV in order to prevent sports fans from migrating. Verizon's been hard at work lobbying the FCC to put a stop to this, going so far as to recently use your complaints in our forums in a filing at the FCC. Verizon upped the ante this week by issuing a press release again urging the FCC to act: The refusal to provide this programming, Verizon said in its filing, "has significantly hindered or prevented Verizon from providing its competing programming service ...to the many customers for whom this regional sports programming is 'must have.'" The filing stated: "For these customers, a service lacking their teams' games in HD is not a meaningful choice at all." From what we've seen of discussion in our forums, most of our customers would tend to agree. Not too surprisingly, Cablevision doesn't. "Cablevision functions in the most competitive environment in the country and the idea that a phone company more than 10 times our size needs a regulatory bailout is absurd," Cablevision SVP Charles Schueler responds in an e-mail sent to Broadband Reports. "The phone company's problems are due to things like copycat products, poor customer service, confusing bills and long-term contracts filled with fees and excessive termination penalties."
|
  pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Last gasp effort to stop the fleeing Of their customers from fleeing to competitors. Can't blame them for doing this. I think Verizon sadly just gotta fork up extra $$ to Cablevision, which in turn makes Verizon's TV packages more expensive, ah the world of bickering.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen. | |
|  | Natoma
join:1999-08-30
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Last gasp effort to stop the fleeing Cablevision must really fear Verizon FIOS TV. I can get MSG and other Cablevision-owned TV stations on TimeWarner cable, so I don't understand what Cablevision's problem is here.
That said, I would definitely switch to FIOS TV if it were available in my building.
I can't stand TimeWarner. | |
| | |  KevNYCPremium
join:2002-03-31
Seattle, WA | Re: Last gasp effort to stop the fleeing Time Warner doesn't service CV areas, FiOS does. | |
|
 RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | Whine Just looking at the brief on DSLR, I think that Verizon has the shoe on the other foot.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | | Re: Whine Actually the FCC has a law/rule that works for Cablevision. VZ can complain all they want but the FCC would have to re-write the rules.
If VZ doesn't like it then tough shit. Cable wins this time around. | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | free market Why isn't Verizon petitioning the FCC to overturn the terrestrial transmission loophole (aslong as it never touches a bird, no right of access to the signal)? Verizon doesn't want its own medicine?
Someone not like the free market? (CV maintaining programming content exclusivity)
Why doesn't Verizon just buy Cablevision? Its market cap is $5.39 billion, $10 billion should easily cover it. | |
| |  nycdavePremium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:10
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: free market The terrestrial loophole argument doesn't hold water - Cablevision lets Time Warner carry MSG HD. Cablevision won't even approach the table to discuss the carriage with Verizon, so it isn't a question of $$$..
This is a pure example of a monopoly refusing to allow the competition access. TW doesn't compete with Cablevision, but VZ certainly does. | |
| | | | | Re: free market Like verizon isnt doing this with the third party dsl companies? | |
| | | | | The loop hole does cover CV and TWC as they can send the signal using fiber right to the other's headend and still by-passes the birds.
and like Majortom said, VZ does the same thing with 3rd party ISPs. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Verizon has a massive debtload, I doubt their shareholders would be too pleased with another major purchase at this point. (And the Dolans would likely demand a huge premium) | |
|
| | NFL Gee DirectTV and NFL do the same to cable by not letting cable have NFL Sunday ticket? | |
| |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: NFL said by funtoo :
Gee DirectTV and NFL do the same to cable by not letting cable have NFL Sunday ticket?
Not quite, because all of the cable companies have the same opportunity to bid for the NFL Sunday Ticket. The infrastructure makes things technically more difficult and costly to offer a similar experience, but at least they have a chance to bid for it.
In this situation, Verizon is given absolutely no method to even attempt to provide their viewers with the HD feed of MSG.
It's different. | |
| | | | | Re: NFL Direct tv has all MSG feeds
in demand sports sucks any ways only 1 HD feed at one time.
Sunday ticket on cable will suck UP To two HD games* a weak.
*do to black rules with the 2 games we pick to be in HD are on local tv then you will get them on your local channels and not get any game at that time on in demand Sunday ticket.
also poor PQ as it will be 15:1 yes 15 games in sd on 1 qam. | |
| | | ski93
join:2005-02-14
Northwood, NH | Not true..Direct TV simply at the end of each contract expiration ante's up more and more money to keep NFL Sunday Ticket exclusive..thus increasing the cost to its clientel..Cable companies have tried but the money hungry NFL simply wants more money..Great example NFL network trying to force cable tv operators to carry them on basic cable tiers and increasing the subscription rate almost a buck a head, which would rake in millions for them...Comcast told them to screw and NFL lowered rate and was not placed on basic cable they were placed in a digital package..Verizion is simply getting treated like they treat the competition in other regions of the country with exclusive carriage. If you want your fav baseball teams or hockey or any other college of pro sports team shop around...you have dish..direct tv..in nyc area half a dozen land based providers.. | |
| | | | | The cable companies actually have not been able to fairly bid for the NFL package. The NFL has tried to force Cablevision, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. to put their NFL network as part of their basic cable package as a "good faith" type gesture before allowing the bid. Then Direct TV goes and bids more than five times their previous bid for exclusive rights to the NFL programming.
I am more than willing to bet that if you dig deep enough you find that there are people in the NFl who own a signifigant portion of Direct tv. | |
| | | |
2 edits | Re: NFL Well im not a one sided person, I understand the cable companies gripe too.. I am pretty sure my info is accurate on this, this is what I feel though....
I can see these cable companies gripe on the NFL package as well. Exclusive contract should be deemed as completely anti-competative.
I am not saying that two companies can't get together to create a preferential environment between each other but there is a difference between offering a channel package to your competitors to keep fair competition in place as long as you can make a fair and reasonable profit (something like operational costs + 10% revenue) but not offering it at all or at ridiculous markups is just plain unfair and anticompetative. Telcos offering TV packages should get the same fair shake as well.
Content locks can and should be deemed anticompetative. There is a difference between offering it at a reasonable price and just overmarking or locking it up forcing customers to have to go to only one provider in order to be able to get it. | |
| | | | | | | Re: NFL Cablevision built up the channel, and it's their own content, from their own team, and their own venue. The SD version of the Channel is already on Fios. Verizon needs to go back to the marketing drawing board, and find another facet to compete. There is no legitimate reason the FCC should require CV to share the HD version. | |
| | | | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: NFL said by ZachAttack:Cablevision built up the channel, and it's their own content, from their own team, and their own venue. The SD version of the Channel is already on Fios. Verizon needs to go back to the marketing drawing board, and find another facet to compete. There is no legitimate reason the FCC should require CV to share the HD version. If Exxon owned/partnered with Toyota and decided they were no longer going to allow Honda's to fill up at their stations, I suppose they could try this too. It's their oil, processed at their plants, distributed by them, and sold at their gas stations. Some things need regulations for the protection of the consumer.
The Trade Practices Act covers refusal to deal, among other possible violations from Cablevision. Claims of anti-competitive conduct is as legitimate a reason as any for the FCC to step in and investigate the situation. We'll see where it all finally leads, but considering the resources both parties have, I doubt a solution will be found anytime soon. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: NFL Unless I'm blind and haven't paid attention, even a Google Search shows no such act as the "Trade Practices Act" exists Federally or in New York, which is the jurisdiction of both companies. While our anti-trust regulations the Sherman Act, etc. have provisions neither company has been deemed an illegal monopoly, and Cablevision has followed to the letter everything the FCC has required them to do. Someone else said it here and it puts it quite succinct however sad it is, whoever has the biggest pockets and is able to buy the FCC will win, I just hope it isn't Verizon, "The Phone Company" screwed us for years, why let them back into power over us now. | |
|
| | | | |
2 edits | said by ZachAttack:Cablevision built up the channel, and it's their own content, from their own team, and their own venue. The SD version of the Channel is already on Fios. Verizon needs to go back to the marketing drawing board, and find another facet to compete. There is no legitimate reason the FCC should require CV to share the HD version. I am no expert but this is my feelings on this so feel free to argue it..
It was not a fair platform… cable companies bought up content while telcos couldn’t offer video yet ---not a fair purchasing platform--- but then it was ok for cable to offer competitive phone service ---.
Sorry but I cannot see where cable companies, at least at a reasonable rate, not fully opening access to their content at the best quality possible is in any way, not –anticompetative--.
Please, do argue the point, maybe i'm missing something. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: NFL They do offer the content. You can view MSG on all platforms in the Area, actually you can get MSG on most platforms in the country. In the past they withheld MSG completely from competitors and the FCC dictated that they have to sell this channel to Verizon. They followed this rule to the letter. MSG-HD is the content they already provide to Verizon in a better picture format, the FCC requires them to provide MSG, but not MSG-HD. United States law is distinct it allows businesses to operate and maximize profits, compete, and it is not considered illegal until it is damaging to consumers, so anti competitive is not an issue, because they share MSG.
Verizon is a NYC company they could have purchased Madison Square Gardens, the Knicks, the Rangers, anytime they were on-sale. If they offered Cablevision enough $$$ they could buy them now, maybe (if the company was so inclined to sell, it could be that they would accept no amount of money). Which is also the case with the HD version of the channel, Cablevision reserves the right not to sell the HD version of MSG fro any amount of money and keep it as their exclusive product until the FCC requires them to. I don't like the Phone Company, or the Cable Company. But, there is nothing illegal with what they are doing, Verizon is competing based on Internet Speed, and Price. Cablevision is competing on Exclusive product. Right now Cablevision has the upper hand with HD content, Verizon should choose to compete on another point. | |
| | | | | | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: NFL I understand that Cablevision is doing everything by the book in this matter, but it's the book that might need to be updated.
We don't want a situation where HD versions of channels with potentially millions of viewers are blocked from competitors. I don't want to be forced to get Time Warner Cable just for TNT HD. If Disney were to purchase or make an agreement with Comcast, would they be able to prevent ESPN HD and the rest of their HD cable lineup from being available to anyone that chooses to use a different provider?
It just seems like somebody needs to step in and take a closer look at how things currently are, and perhaps bring up some options for regulating this potential mess. I do believe this is a gray area with regards to competition. You seem to consider MSG and MSG HD as a single product, but many see them as separate and distinct entities. Where is the consumer's choice for MSG HD? Should a TV provider be allowed to own media content? Does this fuel anti-competitive abuse?
I think Verizon has deeper pockets and more influence, so I'm betting that Cablevision will eventually cave and offer the HD version. Once this happens, I'm sure the next move from Cablevision will be a ridiculous price offered to Verizon, which will send everyone back to the courtroom for more rounds of fighting.
Unless Verizon adds another 15 million FiOS TV subscribers, it will be to Cablevision's advantage to block the HD channel. Otherwise, Cablevision would probably stand to make more money from potential viewer ratings and advertisement sales. DirecTV has 20 millions subscribers, so even though they might compete on some level with Cablevision, the number of viewers was very high in comparison to Verizon's (~2-3 million), and it hurt their pocketbook more by withholding MSG HD from the satellite TV provider than by selling the right for them to include it in their lineup. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: NFL While I don't watch MSG, I believe MSG-HD is just MSG broadcast in High Definition. It's one product, just a different quality version of the picture.
I don't think we need more regulation when the rules as they are now work 99.9% of the time. It is usually in the interest of a cable company/broadcaster/distributor/team to have the channel available to as many people as possible. There are maybe 3 occasions where this hasn't worked, Channel 4 San Diego (AT&T), CSN-Philadelphia (Directv), and MSG-HD (Verizon), in all three cases it's sports that's the driving factor, and it's mostly the Phone company coming in like yesterday and trying to carve out niche neighborhoods to extract high profit. For almost every other channel its a non-starter these channels are made available to everyone and anyone.
Cablevision is competing with the HD Version of MSG, they're doing nothing wrong. Verizon has every other channel known to man, higher speed internet, and a half dozen other reasons they create a better product than Cablevision. Other company's don't and won't play this game, because in the end this will only hurt MSG. In your hypothetical situation where HD versions are confined to one network owned by the distributor, I think in that situation what would happen is people would stop caring, the HD Versions would wither and perish, or everyone else would eventually reach a point where everything is in HD, except those channels and that would put them at a dis-advantage. In the near future everything will be in HD anyway, so no point in withholding HD. Unless you're in a captive market with an aggressive competitor like Verizon, then I can see how being able to market Fios doesn't have all the teams in HD like io does, would be a winning strategy, at least for the present.
I think that providers can and should own content, exclusives help sell products. By having NFL Sunday Ticket, Directv has a certain group of subscribers that want only one thing, and they deliver. XM before they were bought by Sirius had MLB exclusively on Sat Radio, and that brought them a certain subscriber who wanted baseball and they delivered. | |
|
|  HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2
·Optimum Online
| I believe they have an agreement that lasts until 2010 or 11. Then they can negotiate. MSNBC has a similar contract with CV . That is why FIOS cannot get MSNBC SD or HD.
Cablevision is using the terrestrial loophole. It is not about the money or contract. | |
| | | tiyuri
join:2001-06-06
Little Silver, NJ | Re: NFL That isn't true. When I lived in NJ (in the NYC DMA) I got MSNBC with FIOS. The restriction was/is that FIOS can only offer MSNBC in towns that are not served by Cablevision. | |
| | | | HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: NFL Correct! I failed to explain it in depth. CV has an "Exclusive " carry contract. Thanks for the clairification 
Lee | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | i could see a great profit engine if one was the last cable holdout in an apartment building. course you would be sued and fined if you setup a low power UHF and beamed MSG games to other units lol.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Battle on 2 Fronts These unhappy Verizon customers should complain to their favorite teams about pressuring Cablevision into allowing FiOS TV to have access to MSG HD. (it's really not a Chinese food network?)
Let them know you won't be changing services, and that they will lose fan support with these exclusive contracts. In the short term, they may just look at the quick buck, but if the fan base erodes, there goes their livelihood.
| |
| | TheWiseGuyDog And ButterflyPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-04
East Stroudsburg, PA
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Battle on 2 Fronts said by jmn1207:These unhappy Verizon customers should complain to their favorite teams about pressuring Cablevision into allowing FiOS TV to have access to MSG HD. (it's really not a Chinese food network?) Who do you think owns the NY teams, Rangers/Knicks that are on MSG? (answer=Cablevision) So basically the fans will be complaining to CV.
--
Warning, If you post nonsense and use misinformation and are here to argue based on those methods, you will be put on ignore. | |
| | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Battle on 2 Fronts Oh goodness me, yuck. I was not aware that this was a rich brat version of taking the ball home and ruining the game for everyone.
I would really find it difficult to remain loyal to an organization that pissed on me and dropped me in the mud. I'd be an Islander/Nets fan until those other teams were sold or bankrupt, and I would do my best to avoid any type of support to the Dolans...ever. | |
| | | | | | Re: Battle on 2 Fronts i agree soo much | |
|
| | Remember the old days... in cable, before ESPN,
when MSG was the 1 sports channel available out here on flyover country cable systems.
(back in late 70s/early 80s) | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: Remember the old days... MSG couldn't even sell enough commercial time to cover an entire hockey game. By the third period, there were no more commercials, and you'd just watch the players hanging out on the ice when play stopped.
--
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice. | |
| | | | | Re: Remember the old days... I remember when there was MSG and Sports channel back in the day when TWC came to Glendale Queens. | |
|
 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 | Re: So What? 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 | 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 | Re: So What? 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! | |
|
|  dbmavenThere's no shortagePremium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
kudos:2
 ·VOIPo
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Time Warner Intern..
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| Send the WAAAAMBULANCE ...over to Verizon HQ.
DirecTV managed to ante up the necessary bucks to carry MSG HD.
Why can't Verizon ?
It's not that they can't - it's that they don't WANT to - because it would eat into their profit margins...
Cry me a river....
(PS - my sympathies lie with the poor subscribers who can't get the channel - not with the corporate entity that's playing games).
--
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
| |
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Send the WAAAAMBULANCE From what I have read it's that Verizon can't. Has there been an offer made that was refused based on price, or are the Dolans simply not even allowing Verizon to have the option to carry this channel? | |
| |  PathfinderDazed ConfusedPremium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Perhaps the Bookmobile should make a stop at your place first.
If you read the piece and link provided you would see that Cablevision refuses to sell the rights. | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | VZ should just point their dish and decode. then when sued by CV state that they where ready and willing to pay up and that CV refused to charge them to carry it.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
skurfa
join:2006-03-10
Yorktown, VA | Funny that.......... Funny that everyone bitches about how the government should stay out of business yet they want the gov to help Verizon get a competitors offering? I own a restaurant, if I have a trademark on your favorite meal but you prefer a different restaurant, should I provide that recipe to my competitor so you can eat there?
Cablevision stated clearly they will not provide MSG to competitors, be it Verizon or anyone else, MSO's do not compete directly, not yet anyway, so selling it to TWC is not the same. More like me licensing that recipe to a restaurant in another town, but for obvious (at leats to me) reasons refusing to do the same for the restaurant down the street.
--
Fairtax.org, It's time. | |
| | tiyuri
join:2001-06-06
Little Silver, NJ | Re: Funny that.......... But they sell it to DirecTV which is exactly the same thing. | |
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | It's more like a pub controlling the distribution of liquor licenses, and refusing to grant a license for the bar down the street. I'm all for a free, competitive marketplace, but with the significant power and money wielded by a select few number of conglomerates, it's in the consumers' best interest to expect a certain amount of regulation.
There is no reason why we cannot have capitalism with clearly defined limits and rules that would benefit society as a whole. A compromise should be found that allows Cablevision to make a significant profit with their products, but they should not be allowed to use their monopolistic-like control to stick it to their rivals.
If the government can bulldoze the house of a stubborn home owner and build a hotel in its place, it seems that they should have no problems making a policy that allows them to force an owner of a channel to make it available to anyone looking to add it without having to deal with discriminatory pricing or a refusal to negotiate. | |
| | |  maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Re: Funny that.......... said by jmn1207:It's more like a pub controlling the distribution of liquor licenses, and refusing to grant a license for the bar down the street. No, its more like a major pub chain that owns 30 pubs in the regions.... buying or owning a popular regional beer brand, and then pulling that brand from all other pubs.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Funny that.......... Your just making me thirsty, and it's Friday. | |
|
| | The FCC needs to stop this carp I want my cltv on direct tv The FCC needs to stop this carp I want my cltv on direct tv | |
| | | | Re: The FCC needs to stop this carp I want my cltv on direct tv you should learn how to spell DirecTV first. | |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Just another good reason why... Just another good reason why content providers should not be access providers. | |
| | | | Re: Just another good reason why... said by SLD:Just another good reason why content providers should not be access providers. WELL SAID! | |
|
maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Solution: Let Verizon - they are big enough - BUY another channel that is very popular on that market, and then pull it from Cablevision.
Then let them deal penny for a penny.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | | Nothing New Cable Operators have done this for years. San Diego with Cox (Padres in HD), Philly and Comcast, MSG and Cablevision. As long as the signal is terrestrially delivered (no bouncing off satellites) they do not have to offer it for distribution on other carriers (that was the rule before I left the biz).
AT&T just lost a suit over this very issue in San Diego.
»www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···refer=us
VZ has no chance unless they spend huge $$ on lobbyists to get the law changed. CVC, Cox, Comcast spent millions building these networks to differentiate themselves from their competition (DirecTV and DISH at the time). Why should they be forced to sell access to mortal enemies. DirecTV does the same thing with the NFL Sunday Ticket. Life's not fair. VZ needs to get over it. | |
| |
1 edit | Re: Nothing New said by VideoGuy :Cable Operators have done this for years. San Diego with Cox (Padres in HD), Philly and Comcast, MSG and Cablevision. As long as the signal is terrestrially delivered (no bouncing off satellites) they do not have to offer it for distribution on other carriers (that was the rule before I left the biz). AT&T just lost a suit over this very issue in San Diego. » www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···refer=usVZ has no chance unless they spend huge $$ on lobbyists to get the law changed. CVC, Cox, Comcast spent millions building these networks to differentiate themselves from their competition (DirecTV and DISH at the time). Why should they be forced to sell access to mortal enemies. DirecTV does the same thing with the NFL Sunday Ticket. Life's not fair. VZ needs to get over it. Not the same thing. Unlike Cox 4 SD and CSN Philly, MSG HD *is* on the bird. DirecTV and Dish AFAIK has access to it. | |
| | | | | Re: Nothing New CV would not have sent it to the bird. It would be sent to their data center via the GROUND which would still give them the loophole.
Although the MSG channels is not available to Ohio customers and as someone else said it's not offered to him on DirecTV either. | |
| | | | | | Re: Nothing New My parents get MSG, MSG+, and MSG+HD on Directv in Santa Ana, but MSG-HD is not available.
I don't see anything wrong with the situation. They own the teams, the venue, and the broadcaster. So they choose not to sell or even negotiate with Verizon what's the big deal? Verizon should just choose to compete with them on some other point. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nothing New in some areas it seems that those channels are not available to Dish Network or DirecTV. So it has to be by area.
But i'm beating CV does NOT upload those to the Birds for DirecTV and that they're only providing them with a landbased feed. which would in turn make Dish/Direc to provide the uplink.
But i agree. VZ is just a baby that can't have it their way this time. | |
|
 Steve MehsGun Control Is Using A Steady HandPremium
join:2005-07-16 | More BS from Karl Just more bullshit from cable hater Karl. Seriosly dude, can you get any more biased?
"Verizon continues to be very annoyed with the fact that Cablevision won't give them the ability to deliver the Cablevision owned-MSG HD sports channel to FiOS customers. Cablevision withholds access to the channel from competitors like U-Verse, Dish and FiOSTV in order to prevent sports fans from migrating."
1) Not one mention that DirecTV, the nations second largest MSO carries both MSG and MSG HD
2) Dish Network has MSG is standard def, given how Cheap Charlie runs that company, and the fact he hates sports, there really is nothing to see here
3) Does AT&T even have any systems in the areas that MSG would be considered a home RSN?
--
Don't Blame Me, I Voted For McCain
Welcome to The SSA, The Socialist States of Amerika, Lead By Your Dictator, Hussein Obama
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, B. Hussein Obama
Obama = Terrorist | |
| | | | Re: More BS from Karl How is this different from the YES network, which the Yankees own? They alone control who has exclusive rights to carryt thier channel. YES chooses to sell to as many providers as they can, in order to increase their brand and their revenues. However, if there was a provider that would be detrimental to their revenue, you can be absolutely guaranteed that the YES network would not be carried there.
The MSG network is owned by Rainbow Media / MSG, and they can choose to sell to whomever they want. The fact that Cablevision holds stake in the company, while definitely the reason why Verizon cannot carry the channel, is techincally moot. | |
| | | | | cable offers phone, telcos had to open their network ... Whoa, beg to differ.. my feelings on this... I'm pretty sure I am right on all of this, but this is definately what I feel about all of this...
When Verizon, then in part called NYNEX in NY was the sole local phone company, they didn't have to share any of their local plant.. then omg, in order to offer advanced services beyond their local area (ie: long distance, DSL), they had to resell portions of their network in order to get into it.
Now in turn, cable sells phone service --- in all fairness cable was allowed into the local phone business. Not only should Verizon be entitled (for at least a fair deal/price/arrangement) to be able to offer any channel, they should also get it in the maximum deliverable quality only limited by what their network can carry. Another words, cable companies should not be able to reduce FIOS's picture quality or reliability from the point of transmission so it doesn't look any better than cable's network can carry so they can purposely not let it look any better than cable.
For years, cable companies have been ironing out deals and swallowing up content. Why would the phone companies buy it up, they couldn't offer it yet. Once referred to as the baby bell companies, Verizon was once looked at as a telephone monopoly, is it not time to claim cable companies hold monopolies on content, its only fair.
Judge Greene broke up MaBell back in the early 80's when MCI wanted to be a competative long distance company, as I was told, AT&T felt the same way cable companies do now and never expected to have to open up their network but they had to. If cable companies can't at least offer their content for a reasonable price, maybe its time to do the same thing to cable's lock on content. Witholding MSG-HD puts a lock on that content without even a fair offering if I understand correctly.
Verizon wants to use what is here in the forums; unless they really don't say what they feel, why not, this is public information people share about what they feel and it is a great resource for opinions on all sides of the fence. | |
|
| |
|
|
Time to give the entertainment industry a dose of regulation
As I see it the entertainment has been given a monopoly through the copyright law. It is time to regulate the entertainment industries program pricing when they sell programming to the cable companies. The excuse the cable industry always uses whenever they raise prices is that programmers are raising prices therefore we must raise prices. On the other hand when two entertainment transport (Cable/Telephone/DBS) companies operate in the same market and one owns a programming source, there is no reason for the program owner to give up exclusivity that is the way to create product differentiation. 