# FCC seeking to close programming access loophole



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

FCC seeking to close programming access loophole:


> WASHINGTON - Federal regulators are seeking to close a loophole that allows cable TV operators to withhold sporting events and other popular programming that they own from rival providers such as satellite TV.


(redacted)


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I have redacted a bit of the article to stay away from copyright issues. Click on the link to read more.


----------



## mikep554 (Feb 14, 2007)

I wonder if Comcast's proposed purchase of NBC has stirred up a hornet's nest that they will eventually wish they would have left undisturbed?


----------



## jrodfoo (Apr 9, 2007)

mikep554 said:


> I wonder if Comcast's proposed purchase of NBC has stirred up a hornet's nest that they will eventually wish they would have left undisturbed?


One can only hope. I would love to see CSN Philly..


----------



## Coca Cola Kid (Jul 19, 2009)

I hope the FCC wins this case. the loophole is unfair to any fans that they can't see their sports.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Wow.. this would indeed be big if it were to happen. I am not holding my breath though. 

I did write to the FCC (as an organization) and to each FCC member (individually) back in October about my displeasure about Comcrap withholding CSN Philly (and thus, Phillies, 76ers, and Flyers games) from D* and Cablevision withholding MSG HD/MSG+ HD (and thus Rangers, Islanders, and Devils games) from the NHL CI package. Two different issues both related to cable companies who own networks and sports teams withholding sports from fans. If this indeed happens, I'd like to think my email may have played a little part.. 

Not holding my breath but I will cross my fingers..


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

The FCC should close this loophole, of course, but this is just another example of the empty suit known as Bud "Light" (Kenesaw Molehill) Selig. MLB should not permit the Padres and Phillies to enter into such deals. That simple.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

mikep554 said:


> I wonder if Comcast's proposed purchase of NBC has stirred up a hornet's nest that they will eventually wish they would have left undisturbed?


It certainly seems that way.



> The FCC's move comes as the commission begins its regulatory review of Comcast's proposal to buy a controlling stake in NBC Universal from General Electric Co. Although the two matters are separate, some analysts expect the FCC to close the terrestrial loophole for Comcast as a condition of regulatory approval for that deal.


----------



## BWELL316 (Jun 2, 2007)

Here's a link to it from the LA Times..
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/12/fcc-wants-to-get-rid-of-key-cable-programming-rule.html


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

SamC said:


> The FCC should close this loophole, of course, but this is just another example of the empty suit known as Bud "Light" (Kenesaw Molehill) Selig. MLB should not permit the Padres and Phillies to enter into such deals. That simple.


You dont have to worry in two years as a Padres fan. After jumping on the Padres this year about us not getting the SD4 telecasts, the Padres responded back to me first saying Cox Cable didnt even have intentions of renewing a contract with the Padres and he also told me the Padres would be switching to a means that will be avail on multiple platforms ( those were his exact words) Most likely a rsn will take over the Padres games. Till then there is two more years left of the Cox Cable contract. Can't wait till that day comes!!!!!


----------



## 1980ws (Mar 18, 2008)

I have visions of "Daily News Live" and Phillies/Eagles Post Game Shows dancing in my head. Please, please God of Satellites Carriers let this happen!


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

If the network is distributed by means the FCC can't control, then they have no authority to dictate who must carry that network. Closing the loophole would mean them assuming authority for a medium they may not currently have authority to regulate.

Anyway even if the loophole does fall, don't expect these missing channels to magically appear on the DBS providers. They'd still have to be negotiated over, and I'm sure Comcast would do everything in its power to make the price as unattractive as possible.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I don't think the FCC can do a thing - our own Senator Arlen wrote this into law.

The FCC can't change laws, only Congress can.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

I love this misinformed bit in the LA Time article:



> DirecTV has come out in support of gutting the loophole. Of course, DirecTV has exclusive content of its own in the form of the NFL Sunday Ticket package. The cable industry would love to have that. Maybe if the FCC gets rid of the loophole, DirecTV will tell the NFL to let everyone have access to Sunday Ticket. Yes, I'm laughing as I type this.


Talk about misinformed and bad reporting. There is no "loophole" for Sunday Ticket. DirecTV simply outbid everyone. The cable industry could easily get ST for themselves if they would pony up the cash.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

Gee i wonder how much comcast paid the senator from pennsylvania to help pass that law.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Tom Servo said:


> If the network is distributed by means the FCC can't control, then they have no authority to dictate who must carry that network. Closing the loophole would mean them assuming authority for a medium they may not currently have authority to regulate.
> 
> Anyway even if the loophole does fall, don't expect these missing channels to magically appear on the DBS providers. *They'd still have to be negotiated over, and I'm sure Comcast would do everything in its power to make the price as unattractive as possible.*


I'm positive they would have some sort of arbitration clause built in so this would not happen.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Does anyone have a FCC Docket number?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> I love this misinformed bit in the LA Time article:
> 
> Talk about misinformed and bad reporting. There is no "loophole" for Sunday Ticket. DirecTV simply outbid everyone. The cable industry could easily get ST for themselves if they would pony up the cash.


Talk about talking out of your a**. :lol:


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

celticpride said:


> Gee i wonder how much comcast paid the senator from pennsylvania to help pass that law.


Millions. Comcast is the biggest campaign contributor to the good senator from the state of PA. Imagine that. :hurah:


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Millions. Comcast is the biggest campaign contributor to the good senator from the state of PA. Imagine that. :hurah:


Benedict Arlen won't be around for much longer. Doubtful he wins re-election.


----------



## PA GIANTS FAN (Mar 28, 2009)

itguy05 said:


> Benedict Arlen won't be around for much longer. Doubtful he wins re-election.


With any luck :kickbutt:


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

IMHO I am sure Comcast does not want this loophole to be used as a weapon against them during the approval process to buy NBCU.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

celticpride said:


> Gee i wonder how much comcast paid the senator from pennsylvania to help pass that law.


I believe that Comcrap is one of the biggest contributors from within the Commonwealth of PA to Arlen Specter. He will be fighting for his political life this coming spring..

Just imagine how much market share comcrap would lose in the Philly and Harrisburg market. Lots of Phillies, Flyers, and 76ers fans around here. I don't recall off hand but I think comcrap has something like a 75~80% penetration rate in these markets. If D* and E* got CSN Philly, the only real reason for people around here to have comcrap (for the Philly sports) would be gone.


----------



## radkamp (Jul 5, 2008)

so no games will be blacked out if we live in the local market?
why are games blacked out to the local market on the mlb package, does csn have anything to do with that?


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> Does anyone have a FCC Docket number?


I looked for one but never found anything aside from a report from March 09 denying AT&T's claims that the loophole was a form of unfair competition regarding Padres games on SD4 in San Diego.


----------



## spaul (Jul 19, 2009)

I left Comcast over 3yrs ago and got used to catching Phillies & Sixers over trhe air or when the game of the week.Now in the last year even when the game is on ESPN or other national channel it gets blacked out .Originally I,would get them spoke to Directv about this and it is all Comcast,s doing .So, when ever the game is on and is also on CSN Phila.Comcast won,t allow it to be shown in the area .They,re so bad there is no local over the air Sixers games at all this year too.Bottom line I, wouldn,t go back to them the only way I would switch from Directv is if Fios becomes available in my area which they do get CSN Phila. in HD since they are considered local like a cable co.In closing even the league passes black out the games which is wrong on many levels since your paying for it so that isn,t a option .


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I hope they can get CSS opened up as well.


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

CSS isnt like CSN Philly or SD4 is it? ( is it transmitted via satellite ?) never even knew of this rsn till recently


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

CSS is 100% available to DBS today. It is just, in the opinion of the companies, not worth the price charged, as it is the home for a few 8th choice SEC games and some CUSA games. If you look at the CSS website, most cable companies agree, since almost no cable companies other than its two owners carry it either.


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

Great!! This is the story of my life. I just signed a 1 yr commitment with my cable company so I could get Philly Comcast Sports Net.


----------



## 1980ws (Mar 18, 2008)

Well, it hasn't happened yet. This pending NBC-Universal thing is probably going to halt Comcast from fighting the loophole closure. But remember, Comcast has friends in high places.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

CSS's home page http://www.csssports.com/pages/main

They show SEC,ACC,Sunbelt,Conference USA, and Alantic Sun Conference. 
It's another RSN, its good to see the smaller conferences get coverage. Only Comcast carries them down here and but Mediacrap covers the area where I live.


----------



## edgo41 (Jul 2, 2007)

itguy05 said:


> Benedict Arlen won't be around for much longer. Doubtful he wins re-election.


big time down in the polls. what a jerk.


----------



## espnjason (Sep 30, 2008)

I hope the loophole is closed and on D* before April. Roy Halladay will likely be the opening day starter for the Phillies and I'd much rather have the CSN-Philly feed for that.


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

espnjason said:


> I hope the loophole is closed and on D* before April. Roy Halladay will likely be the opening day starter for the Phillies and I'd much rather have the CSN-Philly feed for that.


One of the articles I was reading concerning the loophole closure made it sound like it could be done by "early next year" only thing that bothers me is it always takes forever for a damned law to become full force lol


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

1980ws said:


> Well, it hasn't happened yet. This pending NBC-Universal thing is probably going to halt Comcast from fighting the loophole closure. But remember, Comcast has friends in high places.


You are correct. As the news articles have pointed out, Comcrap has been quiet this whole time concerning the loophole because at this time they are too interested in NBC. They would have to make the choice between the loophole or the NBC deal. The NBC deal is much greater so they will prolly give in and shut up on the loophole issue.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

sunfire9us said:


> One of the articles I was reading concerning the loophole closure made it sound like it could be done by "early next year" only thing that bothers me is it always takes forever for a damned law to become full force lol


Heck, early next year is in about 2 weeks..:lol:


----------



## dvdmth (Jul 24, 2008)

sunfire9us said:


> You are correct. As the news articles have pointed out, Comcrap has been quiet this whole time concerning the loophole because at this time they are too interested in NBC. They would have to make the choice between the loophole or the NBC deal. The NBC deal is much greater so they will prolly give in and shut up on the loophole issue.


Also, I think if Comcast must begin offering all their content to competitors as a condition of the NBC Universal deal, they might actually take a stand in favor of shutting down the terrestrial rule for everyone else, keeping Comcast's competitors from potentially gaining a competitive edge over them.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

DCSholtis said:


> I'm positive they would have some sort of arbitration clause built in so this would not happen.


I don't think there's any arbitration if the channels have never been carried by D* before. I'm talking about negotiating for new channels they the cableco would now have to provide if this new law passes.

I guess that'd also mean The 101 would have to be offered to cablecos.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

1980ws said:


> Well, it hasn't happened yet. This pending NBC-Universal thing is probably going to halt Comcast from fighting the loophole closure. But remember, Comcast has friends in high places.


but obama did say back in march that he has direct tv.


----------



## 1980ws (Mar 18, 2008)

I was wondering about Arlen and Ed Rendell (PA Gov.)


----------



## PA GIANTS FAN (Mar 28, 2009)

1980ws said:


> I was wondering about Arlen and Ed Rendell (PA Gov.)


Spector run is over after his party jumping last election and this is rendell's last term. :biggthump


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

The _real_ solution would be to prohibit programming distributors (Cable co's, D*, E*, FIOS, etc) from owning any stake in the progrmamming they deliver. With separation between program producers and distributors, you'd eliminate this Comcast/Versus/RSN nonsense.

It'd be OK, for example, for the Phillies, or Yankeess or whoever, to have their own network...unless the team is owned by a distributor (Comcast, the Dolan's, etc). Make a choice: either own the team/network, or own the means to distribute the programming.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

FLWingNut said:


> The _real_ solution would be to prohibit programming distributors (Cable co's, D*, E*, FIOS, etc) from owning any stake in the progrmamming they deliver. With separation between program producers and distributors, you'd eliminate this Comcast/Versus/RSN nonsense.
> 
> It'd be OK, for example, for the Phillies, or Yankeess or whoever, to have their own network...unless the team is owned by a distributor (Comcast, the Dolan's, etc). Make a choice: either own the team/network, or own the means to distribute the programming.


The email that I sent to the FCC a few months ago was really about this exact thing.. companies owning the sports team(s), the TV network that airs the sports team(s) games, AND the distribution means (pay TV provider).

I used Comcrap owning the Phillies and Flyers, owning CSN, and the Comcrap cable company. I also used the Dolans owning the Rangers, owning MSG network, and owning Cablevision. I think these two examples are exactly why these rules need to change. These rules protect only the owner and really do not have the customer/fans interest. It will be a great day for consumers (sports fan especially) if these rules are ever changed.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

FLWingNut said:


> The _real_ solution would be to prohibit programming distributors (Cable co's, D*, E*, FIOS, etc) from owning any stake in the progrmamming they deliver. With separation between program producers and distributors, you'd eliminate this Comcast/Versus/RSN nonsense.


That turns the cable/sat companies into dumb pipes with very little value and no leverage in negotiations with programming providers. It's the last thing the cable companies want and would likely lead to even more consolidation in the industry.

Business is brutal and like it or not competitors play hard-ball to stay on top. The current spat between Fox and Time Warner Cable - demanding a $1/per sub per month for Fox locals - is a good example of how nasty it can get.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

FLWingNut said:


> The _real_ solution would be to prohibit programming distributors (Cable co's, D*, E*, FIOS, etc) from owning any stake in the progrmamming they deliver. With separation between program producers and distributors, you'd eliminate this Comcast/Versus/RSN nonsense.
> 
> It'd be OK, for example, for the Phillies, or Yankeess or whoever, to have their own network...unless the team is owned by a distributor (Comcast, the Dolan's, etc). Make a choice: either own the team/network, or own the means to distribute the programming.


or may make it so that a owner of a RSN can only own as much as the teams that also own it.
CSN Chicago only has 20% AND each team has 20% each as well.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I wonder who else Comcast can buy. Casey seems to honest and he's not from Philly. I don't think a HR guy/gal could have enough clout.

wow - this may actually happen!

Now I'm excited!


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Guys, have patience. If the FCC closes this so-called loophole, expect Comcast to put up a fight through the courts. If they're able to at least obtain an injunction, this could drag on for more than a year or more following the FCC's actions.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Lord Vader said:


> Guys, have patience. If the FCC closes this so-called loophole, expect Comcast to put up a fight through the courts. If they're able to at least obtain an injunction, this could drag on for more than a year or more following the FCC's actions.


But the FCC can then just do the same with the comcast / nbc thing.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I wonder who else Comcast can buy.


D* or E* next, they'll be everywhere, it'll be Comcastic!


----------



## 311Man (Oct 20, 2007)

This will NEVER happen.


----------



## Starchy77 (Jul 18, 2008)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I don't think the FCC can do a thing - our own Senator Arlen wrote this into law.
> 
> The FCC can't change laws, only Congress can.


Have you seen what the EPA has done lately? Only Congress can pass laws, but other federal entities seem to be able create them anyway through regulation. Congress should be stopping this practice, instead they run away with their tails between their legs.


----------



## rnbmusicfan (Jul 19, 2005)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I don't think the FCC can do a thing - our own Senator Arlen wrote this into law.
> 
> The FCC can't change laws, only Congress can.


I think it stems to the program access rules, that the FCC renews:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/130372-FCC_Extends_Program_Access_Rules.php

I'm surprised though that the FCC are able to make a modification to the rules midway?

Anyways, the FCC will be involved in approving or blocking Comcast NBC. My thought is the FCC, led by 3 Democrats now with the Obama Administration appointing of a few new chairs, will vote for the closing, and Comcast won't appeal as they would want the NBC deal to pass.
Neither the Sixers or Flyers are particulary so hot right now either. If it passes, Comcast will see less benefit of owning the teams.

RE: Arlen
I think PA Senator Arlen Specter was just friendly to Comcast, so that Comcast would keep its HQ in Philadelphia and the jobs as well, instead of relocating to NY or elsewhere.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

First and last warning:

You're all wading into dangerous waters. Political discussion is not permitted here, and if it means there are some aspects of the FCC's operation that we can't discuss, so be it. 

When in doubt, best to avoid the words "unconstitutional", "Democrat" or "Republican", or calling President Obama by name. If you can phrase your post in such a way to avoid those words, it's got a better than average chance of being allowed here at DBSTalk.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

How about "teabaggers"?


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

the rules in these forums are ridiculous.. you can't have a discussion about this ****ing topic without discussing political implications. :nono2:


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

I have long felt that it is inappropriate for the satellite and cable companies to also own or control most content.


----------



## spaul (Jul 19, 2009)

Following up on this the Sixers attendance is near the bottom if not the bottom even with Iverson being back .Which was only to pad attendance that lasted 1 game.Saying this because the Sixers have not 1 over the air game for the whole season.Being use to catching them this way besides TNT once in a blue moon appearance since I left Comcast.The problem with this is not just Satellite getting access to CSN Phila.but, how do they expect to build a following when intercity people that can,t afford cable get not 1 tv game a year.That is why Comcast should not own the team and hold all the Philadelphia area fans hostage to their service or be shut out.They should of consentrate on better service and equipment which chased me away .


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I hope Comcrap gets a lump of coal in it's Christmas stocking.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

ziggy29 said:


> I have long felt that it is inappropriate for the satellite and cable companies to also own or control most content.


Cable and telco providers have worked long and hard to avoid being separated from content. When all you're buying from them is a connection, or "dumb pipe" as it is often referred to, then the business quickly degenerates into a price war and the lowest-priced companies quickly take over.

That might sound good for customers, but it's a disaster for the companies that own those pipes. It also tends to lead to less and less investment in system upgrades and new technologies. Dell pioneered this in the PC business, driving down costs and relying on Intel and Microsoft to do all the heavy lifting of developing new technology. But recently Dell has run into a brick wall and has struggled against companies like HP and Acer.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

An interesting twist:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020353163

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020353164​


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

And, if I recall correctly, DirecTV paid $4 BILLION for the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. These rights were first obtained in 1994.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Mark Holtz said:


> And, if I recall correctly, DirecTV paid $4 BILLION for the exclusive rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. These rights were first obtained in 1994.


and comcast passed on it as well.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

n3ntj said:


> The email that I sent to the FCC a few months ago was really about this exact thing.. companies owning the sports team(s), the TV network that airs the sports team(s) games, AND the distribution means (pay TV provider).
> 
> I used Comcrap owning the Phillies and Flyers, owning CSN, and the Comcrap cable company. I also used the Dolans owning the Rangers, owning MSG network, and owning Cablevision. I think these two examples are exactly why these rules need to change. These rules protect only the owner and really do not have the customer/fans interest. It will be a great day for consumers (sports fan especially) if these rules are ever changed.


Kinda like Ceaser owning the Colosseum.

They are the kings, and their sport teams and cable channels are their way of keeping us 'entertained'. :lol: Pay the piper.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

jaywdetroit said:


> Kinda like Ceaser owning the Colosseum.


Like the Comcra..., er, Comcast..., er, Wachovia Center and Spectrum?

http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/pressroom/comcastspectacor/comcastspectacor.html


----------



## jeepwrang3 (Aug 19, 2006)

Any words on dates of the meeting?


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

jeepwrang3 said:


> Any words on dates of the meeting?


Looks like January 20. http://www.multichannel.com/article...n_Terrestrial_Exemption_Order.php?rssid=20212


----------



## digidan (Apr 24, 2006)

If the FCC narrows and not close it, Comcrap will find a way to slime it's way through.


----------



## dog6869 (Oct 27, 2007)

So How does this FFC ruling affect Verus?? I hope we get it back soon or D* is not longer getting my Money,, I will be out of there......


----------



## sunfire9us (Feb 15, 2009)

no this has NOTHING to do with a satellite transmitted service such as VS. This has to do with channels transmitted via landline!


----------



## rfrogers1 (Jul 2, 2007)

if i got fios can i get csn philly? or with or without mlb package does anyone get philly game?


----------



## dvdmth (Jul 24, 2008)

rfrogers1 said:


> if i got fios can i get csn philly? or with or without mlb package does anyone get philly game?


It is my understanding Comcast does provide CSN Philadelphia to FIOS. The terrestrial loophole doesn't say they cannot provide the channel to others - it merely says they don't have to offer it if they don't want to. Comcast chose to offer the channel to Verizon, but not to satellite.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

If you have FiOS in Philly or Harrisburg, you can get CSN Philly HD on channel 576. I hope the FCC acts on this loophole so that D* can get CSN Philly HD. This may not happen for years.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

ANyone got a docket number?


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Ideas that help you understand this issue:

This rule dates back to the day of the BUDs, it simply requires that any channel distributed by sat be made availabe to any provider on a fair basis. It is meant to have various providers compete on price, since everything else should be (theoretically) equal. It also was intended to protect rural customers who cannot get cable (or good cable). The "loophole" says that channel sent out by landline only can be exclusive.

CSN is the local regional sports network for the Philadelphia teams. Comcast (which has the lowest customer satisfaction rating of any entity in the country, including the IRS, post office and the state DMVs, according to Forbes magazine) chooses to have a near monopoly on this channel by distributing it (at a significant expense) only by landline. As to why it does not do this with the other CSNs, the answer is geographic. The Philadelphia sports market is small and flat. Putting, say CSN-Mid Atlantic on landline means getting the signal to Lee County, Virginia, 300 miles away and across the eastern continental divide, just for one example. That is not economically possible.

A similar situation exists in San Diego, where the populated part of the market is just a few miles wide.

Comcast chosses to do this so it can compete on content. Does it work? I don't have access to cable vs. DBS numbers in the Philly market contrasted to some similar market, but it must, otherwise Comcast would give up about it.

Now to NFLST. This is simply put, not a channel, for these purposes. It is just a pay-per-season package. DirecTV, and this is the important point, loses money on this package. It pays the NFL *more* than it takes in from its subscribers.

The reason DirecTV does this is because it thinks that the availability of this programming makes people get a dish, and DirecTV thus makes money on all of the other services. NFLST is thus a "loss leader".

The NFL, for its part, rightly points out that dish is theoretically available to everybody, while if it signed with, a particular group of cable companies on a similarly exclusive basis, lots of people would not have access to NFLST, because their particular cable company would not have it, or they might not be able to get cable at all. And if it just made it available to all providers, it would make less money, since, as pointed out, the total amount subscribers pay for it is less than what DirecTV is willing to pay for it on an exclusive basis.

Versus is simply an infomercial, NHL, and minor sport carrying channel that DirecTV could carry, if it were willing to pay what Comcast, its owner, wanted. It is simply a business dispute and not a part of this discussion.


----------



## kc1ih (May 22, 2004)

Si, if this were passed would it mean that Comcrap would have to allow New England Cable News to be available to DTV if they wanted it?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

SamC said:


> Ideas that help you understand this issue:
> 
> This rule dates back to the day of the BUDs, it simply requires that any channel distributed by sat be made availabe to any provider on a fair basis. It is meant to have various providers compete on price, since everything else should be (theoretically) equal. It also was intended to protect rural customers who cannot get cable (or good cable). The "loophole" says that channel sent out by landline only can be exclusive.
> 
> CSN is the local regional sports network for the Philadelphia teams. Comcast (which has the lowest customer satisfaction rating of any entity in the country, including the IRS, post office and the state DMVs, according to Forbes magazine) chooses to have a near monopoly on this channel by distributing it (at a significant expense) only by landline. As to why it does not do this with the other CSNs, the answer is geographic.


also comcast owns the teams and a big part of the network.

Other CSN like Chicago comcast only owns 20% the teams the rest and the teams have the power to say no to cable only.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

kc1ih said:


> Si, if this were passed would it mean that Comcrap would have to allow New England Cable News to be available to DTV if they wanted it?


Possibly, but that won't guarantee that Comcast will offer the channel to others for a reasonable amount.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Tom Servo said:


> Possibly, but that won't guarantee that Comcast will offer the channel to others for a reasonable amount.


If that were the case there are options for that scenario. Right now those options don't even exist. Also with the stranglehold removed it could justify itself with people who hate cable but are "stuck" with it because of that channel.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

kc1ih said:


> Si, if this were passed would it mean that Comcrap would have to allow New England Cable News to be available to DTV if they wanted it?


Yes, but the key phrase is "if they wanted it". The big issue is Philadelphia, and to a lesser extent San Diego, and those RSNs. I really doubt DirecTV would devote the bandwidth to these cable-produced regional news outfits. Maybe NYC, but that would be about it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

SamC said:


> Yes, but the key phrase is "if they wanted it". The big issue is Philadelphia, and to a lesser extent San Diego, and those RSNs. I really doubt DirecTV would devote the bandwidth to these cable-produced regional news outfits. Maybe NYC, but that would be about it.


What bandwidth that can be on a spot beem.

and there can also be room for CLTV as well. There are very sports on there (not csn+ stuff)

also comcast cn8 (more local sports as well)


----------



## skylab (Dec 5, 2007)

Don't forget about COX Sports as well as many of the local Time Warner sports stations that air college basketball.


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

kc1ih said:


> Si, if this were passed would it mean that Comcrap would have to allow New England Cable News to be available to DTV if they wanted it?


Maybe, but I'd think that also means D* would have to provide the 101 and other D*-specific programming to Comcast, TW and other cable operators under similar terms (or at least negotiate in good faith if they wanted it).


----------



## ajc68 (Jan 23, 2008)

The irony is D* has funded the past few seasons of Friday Night Lights. Although, the series will be over before Comcast takes control of NBC.


----------



## dvdmth (Jul 24, 2008)

ziggy29 said:


> Maybe, but I'd think that also means D* would have to provide the 101 and other D*-specific programming to Comcast, TW and other cable operators under similar terms (or at least negotiate in good faith if they wanted it).


I don't think this would affect satellite providers at all. Cable and satellite are not subject to the same regulations, and cable has generally been regulated more strictly.

That said, it would be a bad idea IMO to force cable to offer their programming to satellite without also forcing satellite to offer their programming to cable.


----------



## jeepwrang3 (Aug 19, 2006)

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/82172667.html



> FCC closes loophole in cable program access rules
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> ...


 Finally, now lets hope they get it up and running soon


----------



## jrodfoo (Apr 9, 2007)

Wow....let's hope this actually gets CSN Philly and the rest of the channels on.....this will take a while to sort out and such I bet....


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Here is a humorous reaction to this story from elsewhere:


> I wonder if the NFL Sunday Ticket monopoly will be next to go. I have always wondered about the legality of one exclusive provider.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

kc1ih said:


> Si, if this were passed would it mean that Comcrap would have to allow New England Cable News to be available to DTV if they wanted it?


This would be good, but then if they added every local news network, it would eat up all of the new available channels that will open up when D12 goes into operation.

Brighthouse has a good one here in Central Florida, that I would also like to see.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Hoosier205 said:


> Here is a humorous reaction to this story from elsewhere:


Looks like cable operators already tried to use that very argument stating that D* shouldn't have exclusive rights to NFL ST [Link]. D* wrote this response [Link] and here is a portion of both of them:


> Several of the largest cable operators have cited to DIRECTV's NFL Sunday
> Ticket, which permits subscribers to watch out-of-town football games, in defense of
> cable's use of the "terrestrial loophole" to deny satellite subscribers their hometown
> sports programming.
> ...


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

dvdmth said:


> I don't think this would affect satellite providers at all. Cable and satellite are not subject to the same regulations, and cable has generally been regulated more strictly.
> 
> That said, it would be a bad idea IMO to force cable to offer their programming to satellite without also forcing satellite to offer their programming to cable.


Actually it does affect DBS. The loophole is what's preventing you guys from getting channels like CSN Philly. Close the loophole, and it would be illegal for cable providers from offering up the channel to DirecTV.

I think satellite companies are required to offer up any channels they own to cable companies too. For example, if for some reason Comcast wanted DirecTV's channel 101, I believe, unless I'm mistaken, they would have to offer it.

The whole point of these regulations is not to force a company to give away their stuff. The concern that the FCC has is with distribution companies also owning content providers. When you started seeing these mergers happen, there was much concern that it would create an environment where a specific channel could ONLY be offered on one specific system, giving them an unfair advantage.

The other alternative is to make it illegal for distribution companies (TV service providers) from owning content providers.


----------



## jtrain73 (Sep 25, 2006)

loudo said:


> This would be good, but then if they added every local news network, it would eat up all of the new available channels that will open up when D12 goes into operation.
> 
> Brighthouse has a good one here in Central Florida, that I would also like to see.


Agreed, CF NEWS 13 and BrightHouse Sports Network are channels I enjoy on cable that D* doesn't carry, but now could.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

jeepwrang3 said:


> http://www.philly.com/philly/business/82172667.html
> 
> Finally, now lets hope they get it up and running soon


Wow.. it looks like some progress is actually happening. I won't believe it, though, until I see CSN Philly as an RSN on D*. I wonder what Comcrap will try to charge D* to carry it, but then again, I would think Comcrap would have to offer it to D* for the same price as FiOS pays in the Philly area.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

n3ntj said:


> Wow.. it looks like some progress is actually happening. I won't believe it, though, until I see CSN Philly as an RSN on D*. I wonder what Comcrap will try to charge D* to carry it, but then again, I would think Comcrap would have to offer it to D* for the same price as FiOS pays in the Philly area.


this makes me want to do a little dance around the room:hurah:.....

i should know better but a win is still a win no matter how one looks at it.


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Jan 20, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- DIRECTV issued the following statement today: "The FCC's order today eliminating the terrestrial loophole is a big win for consumers and fair competition in the marketplace. We vigorously applaud the FCC for recognizing that withholding cable-owned regional sports networks from non-cable competitors significantly hinders competition and is anti-consumer. We are looking forward to offering DIRECTV customers the local sports programming they have been denied for so many years."


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

So... let's continue the discussion here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171431


----------

