# FCC Votes To Close Terrestrial RSN_Exemption



## markman07

http://bit.ly/4UdPJu

"
Cable operators who do not share their owned terrestrially delivered regional sports networks with their competitors will be presumed to be in violation of Federal Communications Commission rules against unfair acts or practices."

Didn't see this posted yet.....but if I missed it ...Mods please delete / merge / whatever


----------



## 1980ws

Finally, some common sense on this matter. It will be interesting to see how much of a court challenge is put up. Could I really be watching Comcast Sportsnet Philadelphia later this year?? I'm about to faint, and add last nights events yet. Holy Cow! Never say never!


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Press release from DIRECTV:



> DIRECTV Applauds FCC Closure of 'Terrestrial Loophole'
> 
> 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."
> 
> About DIRECTV, Inc.
> 
> DIRECTV, Inc. (Nasdaq: DTV), world's most popular television service to more than 18.4 million customers in the United States and is leading the HD revolution with more than 130 HD channels. Each day, DIRECTV subscribers enjoy access to over 265 channels of 100% digital picture and sound, exclusive programming, industry-leading customer satisfaction (which has surpassed national cable companies for nine years running) and superior technologies that include advanced DVR and HD DVR services and the most state-of-the-art interactive sports packages available anywhere. For the most up-to-date information on DIRECTV, please visit directv.com.
> 
> SOURCE: DIRECTV, Inc.
> 
> DIRECTV, Inc.
> Robert Mercer
> (310) 964-4683
> [email protected]


----------



## sum_random_dork

Great News! Hopefully now things start to break and we get all the RSN's!!!


----------



## trdrjeff

Sounds like good news for the Padres fans here in San Diego, I know its been a sticking point not being able to get Channel 4.


----------



## Hutchinshouse

awesome!


----------



## trdrjeff

Stuart Sweet said:


> DIRECTV, Inc. *(Nasdaq: DTV)*


Seems odd that DirecTV doesn't realize they trade on the NYSE


----------



## minorthr

This is beyond huge news. Finally after 8 years I'll be able to watch Phillies Flyers and 76ers games.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

trdrjeff said:


> Seems odd that DirecTV doesn't realize they trade on the NYSE


Google says they trade on Nasdaq:

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:DTV


----------



## trdrjeff

D'oh, I hadn't realized they had gone through with the plan to primarily trade stocks with 1, 2, or 3 letters on NASDAQ


----------



## Steve

I wonder if this means that they must supply the HD RSN feed, if applicable?

E.g., some of my family members who are NY FiOSTV customers only get the Cablevision MSG channels in SD. I have to assume that's because Verizon and Cablevision compete aggressively for customers in this area.


----------



## 1kyardstare

Hurray! I know I for one have written to the FCC and to my Senators about this issue (I am sure that went a long way:nono2

I wonder what happens next (court challenge, feet dragging etc.) -- I wonder if Comcast will use VS (or some other method) for most of this content (76ers, Phillies, Flyers) and hold that back from DirecTV using that as a new "loophole"/cost fee raising battle.

I am still pessimistic about this happening any time soon, if at all. But hey that's what living in Philly means right? -- angry/pessimistic - every one is out against "us".

Hopefully we will see Philly Comcast Sportsnet on D* soon!


----------



## Ryan

I believe there are two current issues relating to Comcast. First is that they make the channel available to FiOS, which, while probably consistant with federal law in the matter, is pretty inconsistant in a 'spirit of the law' sense.

Two, Comcast is going to have to play very nicely with the FCC, the DOJ and other agencies which might have say in their acquisition of NBC. Is CSN-Philly (one channel in one city) worth protecting to the detriment of creating a national media empire?

as one FCC commish points out, this decision seems to conflict with current law, so there's likely to be a law suit over that aspect. So any quick resolution is not likely. Perhaps, as related to my point 2, Comcast will read the writing on the wall, and decide to make the channel available without waiting for the legal matters to conclude. Somehow, I'm not hopeful about that, and expect them to sit on the sidelines and just wait.

And even if the legal matters conclude that the channels cannot be arbitrarily withheld, there's still the whole negotiation for fees, which certainly is already a problem between Comcast and DirecTV regarding Versus.

In short, I'm still not holding my breath, although I think it will happen eventually that CSN ends up on satellite.


----------



## phrelin

We'll now find out just how important the NBCU acquisition is to Comcast. If Comcast says one negative word about the decision it will feed the acquisition opponents. Unfortunately Comcast isn't the only content withholder. Cablevision and Cox will take the ruling to court.


----------



## woj027

I wonder how long it will take for this for RSN's to show up on Satellite? Or will it get drug out in the courts for years?


----------



## jeepwrang3

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


----------



## ziggy29

I think this will go to court before it can be implemented. As the dissenting vote in the FCC noted, this may be overstepping the bounds in terms of interpreting the 1992 Act. His opinion, apparently, is that this would require action by Congress to clarify its intent. 

I've long felt it inappropriate and anti-consumer for cable and satellite services to also own the content, but I'm not confident that an FCC ruling that might contradict the explicit powers given the FCC by Congress will hold up. But as noted before, if Comcast wants to start buying networks, they probably need to play nice and not appear to seem eager to hold some of its programming "hostage" for anti-competitive means.


----------



## mhayes70

That is great news!!! Finally the FCC did something right.


----------



## mikep554

Steve said:


> I wonder if this means that they must supply the HD RSN feed, if applicable?


According to the article: "MVPDs will not be able to deliver a standard-definition version of a regional sports network and withhold the HD version as a way of complying with access requirements. The HD version will be treated as a separate service for purposed of filing program access complaints."

Sounds like they will have to deliver both feeds.


----------



## harsh

Seems somewhat duplicitous that DIRECTV speaks out against sports exclusives.


----------



## bones boy

Can someone put a list together as to which RSNs are being withheld from which markets? Or is that too vast of a task?


----------



## jeepwrang3

harsh said:


> Seems somewhat duplicitous that DIRECTV speaks out against sports exclusives.


I know where you're going with this, but there is a huge difference between Spending tons of money to get a particular sport, and to refuse to share a signal based on a loophole thats outdated and has been upkept to this point thanks to corrupt govt officials.


----------



## ziggy29

harsh said:


> Seems somewhat duplicitous that DIRECTV speaks out against sports exclusives.


There's some hypocrisy there, I guess, but legally there's a big difference between bidding for exclusive right to carry on something like NFLST and actually owning the content yourself and making it exclusive.


----------



## Steve

mikep554 said:


> According to the article: "MVPDs will not be able to deliver a standard-definition version of a regional sports network and withhold the HD version as a way of complying with access requirements. The HD version will be treated as a separate service for purposed of filing program access complaints."
> 
> Sounds like they will have to deliver both feeds.


Thanks, Mike. That's good news for Knicks and Rangers fans in this area.


----------



## Mike Al

harsh said:


> Seems somewhat duplicitous that DIRECTV speaks out against sports exclusives.


Blame the NFL not DirecTV for the the fact that they have the exclusive on Sunday Ticket. The NFL wanted it exclusive. Others had the chance to quote for the rights. No one else wanted it.


----------



## bobukcat

Mike Al said:


> Blame the NFL not DirecTV for the the fact that they have the exclusive on Sunday Ticket. The NFL wanted it exclusive. Others had the chance to quote for the rights. No one else wanted it.


I would suggest that others wanted it but were not willing to pay more than D* does.

Strictly hypothetical, and possible OT, but what if Time Warner or Comcast bought the exclusive NFLST rights and only their customers could get it. Would everyone still see this as being a significantly different legal issue??


----------



## PWenger

I wrote a letter 2 years ago to the FCC, which I posted here. As I said then, I will now claim full credit for getting the loophole closed...:lol:.

In all seriousness, this is wonderful. Maybe, just maybe, I'll be able to watch a Phillies game this year...I'm not holding my breath for the end of the hockey season.

Comcast has been the company of excuses and loopholes to me for years. To this day, in the year 2010, they claim their is "not enough room on the utility poles" to run cable tv or internet down my road. I live 25 miles from Philadelphia, for goodness sakes, not in remotest Alaska. I am sure it is just the fact that there are only 4 houses that could be serviced, and they don't want to spend the money to run the lines. I just hope this costs them some business...they have played the monopoly game too long with far too much arrogance.


----------



## Mavrick

I noticed this in the Dishnetwork press release: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171432



> consumers can no longer be held hostage during a contract dispute between cable programmers and video distributors. DISH Network thanks Chairman Genachowski for his leadership and for standing up for consumers and competition.


Would this mean that during a contract dispute over coverage of a station that it would not get removed while the sides try and resolve their differences and come to an agreement.


----------



## mreposter

Ryan said:


> And even if the legal matters conclude that the channels cannot be arbitrarily withheld, there's still the whole negotiation for fees, which certainly is already a problem between Comcast and DirecTV regarding Versus.


Maybe this is one reason Directv seemed in no hurry to work out a deal for Versus. Now they can sit down with Comcast and negotiate a deal for both VS and the RSNs.


----------



## Terry K

bobukcat said:


> I would suggest that others wanted it but were not willing to pay more than D* does.
> 
> Strictly hypothetical, and possible OT, but what if Time Warner or Comcast bought the exclusive NFLST rights and only their customers could get it. Would everyone still see this as being a significantly different legal issue??


They can't buy the exclusive rights to it. TW and Comcast first of all do not compete with one another. Secondly, it would do them no good to buy the exclusive because of other cable cos in this country like Cox and Charter who'd be locked out of it. So yes, it would be a MUCH different issue.


----------



## Jimmy 440

Great news.I'll believe it when I see it somewhere in the 600s on D.


----------



## BudShark

harsh said:


> Seems somewhat duplicitous that DIRECTV speaks out against sports exclusives.


"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."

Sounds to me like they applauded the OPPORTUNITY to provide consumers with the programing they wanted. In other words, the ability to bid on it - which is the same ability the cable company had for Sunday Ticket. No where do I see that DirecTV said sports exclusives are bad. They said 'withholding cable-owned RSN" from satellite is bad.

Its still up to DirecTV and Dish to negotiate a fair price - but at least they have the same chance the cable company had for Sunday Ticket. But of course, stating facts wouldn't allow you to make your dig at DirecTV now would it...


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Picture Doctor Evil (Comcast) asking D* and E* for "$1 Million Dollars" per sub."

Comcast is darn smart - they'll figure out a way to skirt this vote.


----------



## Newshawk

harsh said:


> Seems somewhat duplicitous that DIRECTV speaks out against sports exclusives.


BAD DOG! BAD DOG! Now where's that newspaper?


----------



## sum_random_dork

bones boy said:


> Can someone put a list together as to which RSNs are being withheld from which markets? Or is that too vast of a task?


CSN Philly, CST (Cox/Comcast Sports South), San Diego 4 (not sure if they'll count that as an RSN), Comcast Sports South (Houston), and you kind of also have CSN NW out there as well....those are the ones I know off the top of my head. Plus CSN and D* still need to come to agreemebts on CSN Bay Area, California, and Chicago.

You also have various cable companies upset wtih CSN California and still haven't worked out agreements much to the dismay of A's and Sharks fans in Nor Cal.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

I like this quote from the article...


> _Nearly 84% of respondents in a recent online poll by the Philadelphia Inquirer said they would switch TV providers if they could get Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia from another company._


I read this as 84% of their customers don't like Comcast but the monopoly on sports keep them tied to cable.

It also says a lot about the importance of sports in channel lineups.

Mike


----------



## Peter305

MicroBeta said:


> I like this quote from the article...
> 
> I read this as 84% of their customers don't like Comcast but the monopoly on sports keep them tied to cable.
> 
> It also says a lot about the importance of sports in channel lineups.
> 
> Mike


No one should assume that we will see CSN Philly any time soon. Yes, this is a great decision, but Comcast will do all they can to fight for their Philly monopoly.


----------



## Beerstalker

Here's the FCC News Release, and Order:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295842A1.pdf

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-17A1.pdf


----------



## JoeTheDragon

mikep554 said:


> According to the article: "MVPDs will not be able to deliver a standard-definition version of a regional sports network and withhold the HD version as a way of complying with access requirements. The HD version will be treated as a separate service for purposed of filing program access complaints."
> 
> Sounds like they will have to deliver both feeds.


So will MSG HD be back on center ice?


----------



## JoeTheDragon

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Picture Doctor Evil (Comcast) asking D* and E* for "$1 Million Dollars" per sub."
> 
> Comcast is darn smart - they'll figure out a way to skirt this vote.


The law says that they can't not do that they must offer a rate that is on par and doing that may just kill the NBC / comcast deal as well.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Peter305 said:


> No one should assume that we will see CSN Philly any time soon. Yes, this is a great decision, but Comcast will do all they can to fight for their Philly monopoly.


But comcast playing hard ball may be bad for the comcast nbc deal.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

sum_random_dork said:


> CSN Philly, CST (Cox/Comcast Sports South), San Diego 4 (not sure if they'll count that as an RSN), Comcast Sports South (Houston), and you kind of also have CSN NW out there as well....those are the ones I know off the top of my head. Plus CSN and D* still need to come to agreemebts on CSN Bay Area, California, and Chicago.
> 
> You also have various cable companies upset wtih CSN California and still haven't worked out agreements much to the dismay of A's and Sharks fans in Nor Cal.


there is also comcast network chicago / CN 100 that shows some sports.

But can we also now get comcast sports net VOD as well?

and this may even make CLTV even more open then it is now.


----------



## ziggy29

In the end, we may be seeing how serious Comcast is about wanting NBC. The more they fight this, the less kindly I suspect federal regulators and legislators will look at their desired acquisition with favor.

In short, if Comcast plays hardball in Philly, they might win a Pyrrhic victory -- winning a very costly battle which ultimately loses the war.


----------



## dvrblogger

Steve said:


> I wonder if this means that they must supply the HD RSN feed, if applicable?
> 
> E.g., some of my family members who are NY FiOSTV customers only get the Cablevision MSG channels in SD. I have to assume that's because Verizon and Cablevision compete aggressively for customers in this area.


Yes it explicitly doersnt count SD as meeting the requirement. HD versions are considered a separate service that must be offered to everyone. Cablevision now needs to provide MSG HD to Verizon etc.


----------



## dvrblogger

ziggy29 said:


> In the end, we may be seeing how serious Comcast is about wanting NBC. The more they fight this, the less kindly I suspect federal regulators and legislators will look at their desired acquisition with favor.
> 
> In short, if Comcast plays hardball in Philly, they might win a Pyrrhic victory -- winning a very costly battle which ultimately loses the war.


According to the washington post article quoted in one of the links the FCC wants this approved and that it wont be a concession when they ask for FCC aproval of the merger. The FCC plans to ask for more concessions for the merger.


----------



## dvrblogger

JoeTheDragon said:


> there is also comcast network chicago / CN 100 that shows some sports.
> 
> But can we also now get comcast sports net VOD as well?
> 
> and this may even make CLTV even more open then it is now.


That is a good point. DO they need to offer the same VOD content from those channels to other providers or just the live channel.


----------



## Ryan

MicroBeta said:


> I like this quote from the article...
> 
> I read this as 84% of their customers don't like Comcast but the monopoly on sports keep them tied to cable.
> 
> It also says a lot about the importance of sports in channel lineups.
> 
> Mike


Those online polls are usually not statisticly valid, but still interesting.

I know a lot of people "hate" their cable company, but outside of new subscriber offers, the pricing and offerings are pretty similar. (Comcast just added 20+ new HD channels in Nov; makes me think they're trying to be more competitive in the offerings as they sense more competition coming. FiOS is rolling out in the city now (slowly!) as well as this issue with satellite.)


----------



## Ryan

mreposter said:


> Maybe this is one reason Directv seemed in no hurry to work out a deal for Versus. Now they can sit down with Comcast and negotiate a deal for both VS and the RSNs.


I saw that hypothesis before. Seems possible. Lets bargin once all the cards are dealt.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

A couple of years ago, I read that D*/E* penetration rates in the Philly DMA were under 5%. The national average is between 20% - 25%. 

This is all due to CSN-Philly not being available on satellite.

Of course, I've always wondered why they gave it to FIOS...


----------



## Steve

wilbur_the_goose said:


> [...] This is all due to CSN-Philly not being available on satellite.
> 
> Of course, I've always wondered why they gave it to FIOS...


Ya. Looks like they gave it to them in HD as well!


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Ryan said:


> Those online polls are usually not statisticly valid, but still interesting.
> 
> I know a lot of people "hate" their cable company,* but outside of new subscriber offers, the pricing and offerings are pretty similar*. (Comcast just added 20+ new HD channels in Nov; makes me think they're trying to be more competitive in the offerings as they sense more competition coming. FiOS is rolling out in the city now (slowly!) as well as this issue with satellite.)


I don't think that's true at all. It would cost me and extra $48/mo for hardware with Comcast...and on top of what I pay with DirecTV and before any programming packages. In my situation, Comcast would push my bill from the $144 (with taxes and fees) to >$200.

IMHO, nowhere near comparable...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## marker101

Great news. The "law" is completely baseless by today's standards anyways.


----------



## kevinwmsn

I'll celebrate when the appeal, which will likely come, gets shot down and the channels are added.


----------



## sum_random_dork

JoeTheDragon said:


> there is also comcast network chicago / CN 100 that shows some sports.
> 
> But can we also now get comcast sports net VOD as well?.


I wouldn't hold my breath for VOD, that'd be really hard to upload video for each RSN. I am not farmilar with the local stuff Comcast does, I know here in Nor Cal they have a Comcast "local" that does broadcast a few HS games and single A baseball games. But, I am not sure those would be classified as RSN's.


----------



## prushing

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Picture Doctor Evil (Comcast) asking D* and E* for "$1 Million Dollars" per sub."
> 
> Comcast is darn smart - they'll figure out a way to skirt this vote.


It all depends on who actually "owns" the channel. If Comcast doesn't own it, but a subsidiary does, as long as the finances only get reported at the Comcast level, they could charge whatever they want and say its fair to all carriers. I'm sure Comcast will try whatever they can to keep others out.


----------



## Msguy

What DirecTv should now do in good faith is release the NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone else, Dish Network, Comcast, ATT U-Verse, Fios, etc, etc, and then maybe by doing that the price will come down with competition. Hell the way NFL Sunday Ticket continues to go up year after year the package will soon be pushing the $350 mark. Am I dreaming here or could that happen? I will still stay with DirecTv no matter what because they are the best. But i feel this whole Keeping Comcast Philly off DirecTv all because DirecTv has the Sunday Ticket exclusive has gone on long enough. I truely believe it's time to release NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone. What do you all think? I think DirecTv should do that now since they may soon be getting all other RSN's. Atleast that is what I hope happens. That way it would be a Win-Win for consumers everywhere.


----------



## je4755

As an expatriate Philadelphian, I certainly look forward to seeing such CSN Philly shows as Daily News Live. But Comcast doubtless will fight this decision vigorously as it reinforces the threat already presented to its local customer base by Verizon FIOS.


----------



## 1980ws

Msguy said:


> What DirecTv should now do in good faith is release the NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone else, Dish Network, Comcast, ATT U-Verse, Fios, etc, etc, and then maybe by doing that the price will come down with competition. Hell the way NFL Sunday Ticket continues to go up year after year the package will soon be pushing the $350 mark. Am I dreaming here or could that happen? I will still stay with DirecTv no matter what because they are the best. But i feel this whole Keeping Comcast Philly off DirecTv all because DirecTv has the Sunday Ticket exclusive has gone on long enough. I truely believe it's time to release NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone. What do you all think? I think DirecTv should do that now since they may soon be getting all other RSN's. Atleast that is what I hope happens. That way it would be a Win-Win for consumers everywhere.


The NFL owns ST. I've always heard the NFL didn't want to dilute the networks broadcasts, they didn't want access from multiple sources. I think the reason Comcast kept their content was to keep subscribers from jumping, not because of ST. If they have the money to buy NBCU, they could have easily had ST.


----------



## jeepwrang3

wilbur_the_goose said:


> A couple of years ago, I read that D*/E* penetration rates in the Philly DMA were under 5%. The national average is between 20% - 25%.
> 
> This is all due to CSN-Philly not being available on satellite.
> 
> Of course, I've always wondered why they gave it to FIOS...


Comcast had no choice to share CSN Philly with FIOS mainly because they both utilize Fiber Optics and the loophole from the old PRISM day's that they used wasnt in effect since both FIOS and Comcast shared the same delivery system. The Loophole was based on old Microwave Technology that they had convinced Congress years ago, and even a few years ago that it would cost them too much to change the signals over, even when it was changed to fiber optic. Comcast played a huge game over everyone for years, and hopefully that day has ended.

Also, the NFLST people, learn how it works before acting angry about the Ticket. DTV/Comcast/Cablevision/DISH/all other subs had a chance to bid on the package, the NFL wanted it exclusive, and DTV paid an exorbitant amount to keep it. How is that in any way shape or form comparable to what Comcast has done?


----------



## Ronmort

It's probably years away before the disputed channels hit the satellite services. There will be years of court cases and appeals.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

jeepwrang3 said:


> Comcast had no choice to share CSN Philly with FIOS mainly because they both utilize Fiber Optics and the loophole from the old PRISM day's that they used wasnt in effect since both FIOS and Comcast shared the same delivery system. The Loophole was based on old Microwave Technology that they had convinced Congress years ago, and even a few years ago that it would cost them too much to change the signals over, even when it was changed to fiber optic. Comcast played a huge game over everyone for years, and hopefully that day has ended.


Exactly. The loophole has been outdated for years. Some providers have been receiving channels via fiber for the past few years now. MSG and Peachtree TV (Braves baseball) are delivered to D* via fiber now. CSN-Philly and SD4 are delivered via fiber for use in the MLBEI package (or at least they were two seasons ago).

Basically, with todays technology, TV channels can be delivered to providers via satellite or via fiber optics.


----------



## jeepwrang3

last i heard was once the Spectrum was imploded, they would be using satellites for all broadcasts. The CEO of Comcast was on WIP this morning, he basically went into that they will do everything they can to keep it off satellite, and that they want to know why DTV can have the NFL ST. All they do is deflect any negativity over to a deal that they lost out on.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

jeepwrang3 said:


> last i heard was once the Spectrum was imploded, they would be using satellites for all broadcasts. The CEO of Comcast was on WIP this morning, he basically went into that they will do everything they can to keep it off satellite, and that they want to know why DTV can have the NFL ST. All they do is deflect any negativity over to a deal that they lost out on.


Maybe instead of buying NBCU, they should have bid on the NFLST.


----------



## jeepwrang3

TheRatPatrol said:


> Maybe instead of buying NBCU, they should have bid on the NFLST.


i know. I didnt realize DTV has the NFLST until 2014 :lol:


----------



## BJM

jeepwrang3 said:


> last i heard was once the Spectrum was imploded, they would be using satellites for all broadcasts. The CEO of Comcast was on WIP this morning, he basically went into that they will do everything they can to keep it off satellite, and that they want to know why DTV can have the NFL ST. All they do is deflect any negativity over to a deal that they lost out on.


Well I wouldn't expect anything different from Comcast's CEO, he's trying to protect his company's interests. It's just that with regards to this particular matter, he's wrong.

Though I must say, if a cable entity wants to buy and maintain 100% control of an RSN, they have the right to distribute it any way they want. Give/sell it to a rival cable company, to a satellite provider, or not. D* and Dish are foolish to guarantee access to channels they do not have firm agreements with (and I'm sure they don't - look at the fine print), but our expectations are high.

Same with ST. If the NFL wishes to sell it in 2014 to the unholy consortium of Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox (42m subscribers), so be it. The NFL, for all their might, know how to market their sport. D* has "only" 18 million subscribers or so but if (in fairness) ST were available to every cable system the networks incl. ESPN would cry foul since their ratings would drop by about 1/2, I'd guess. Though I'd be interested to know how many people are watching the RedZone channel (cable) instead of the network games.


----------



## davidatl14

BudShark said:


> "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."
> 
> Sounds to me like they applauded the OPPORTUNITY to provide consumers with the programing they wanted. In other words, the ability to bid on it - which is the same ability the cable company had for Sunday Ticket. No where do I see that DirecTV said sports exclusives are bad. They said 'withholding cable-owned RSN" from satellite is bad.
> 
> Its still up to DirecTV and Dish to negotiate a fair price - but at least they have the same chance the cable company had for Sunday Ticket. But of course, stating facts wouldn't allow you to make your dig at DirecTV now would it...


Exactly!

Spot on take.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Msguy said:


> What DirecTv should now do in good faith is release the NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone else, Dish Network, Comcast, ATT U-Verse, Fios, etc, etc, and then maybe by doing that the price will come down with competition.


I think you need to be a bit more clearer regarding exactly what you want.

DirecTV can't exactly "release the NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone else". There is an agreement between DirecTV and the NFL to provide the Sunday Ticket service. I am fairly certain that the NFL will not let DirecTV sell Sunday Ticket to the other multichannel distributors.

So unless the NFL wants to release DirecTV from the Sunday Ticket contract and renegotiate, the status quo will remain. And I am fairly certain that the NFL doesn't want to pass up their $1 billion a year from DirecTV from 2012 to 2014.

Unless someone somwhere thinks that the NFL will make more than $1 billion by sharing the package with everyone (no way, not now, not never).

Edit: And regarding the price going down because of competition, take a look at the rest of the league pacakges. It appears to me that every multichannel company sells their version of the out-of-market sports package for the same price. In other words, the NHL Center Ice package is the same price on DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox and Brighthouse. So much for "competition".


----------



## je4755

"Craig Moffett, a senior analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. L.L.C., estimated the loophole may have boosted Comcast's subscriber base about 450,000 customers in the Philadelphia area."

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20100121_FCC_ends_Comcast_s_local_sports_monopoly.html


----------



## ziggy29

Greg Bimson said:


> I think you need to be a bit more clearer regarding exactly what you want.
> 
> DirecTV can't exactly "release the NFL Sunday Ticket to everyone else". There is an agreement between DirecTV and the NFL to provide the Sunday Ticket service. I am fairly certain that the NFL will not let DirecTV sell Sunday Ticket to the other multichannel distributors.


Yep. At first glance I can see why people think D* is trying to have it both ways in terms of wanting the withheld RSNs while not releasing its monopoly on NFLST -- but it's the NFL, not D*, enforcing the monopoly. Huge difference. I personally wish there was no monopoly (and that the RZC was available a la carte on D* as elsewhere), but that's not reality and D* does NOT have the choice to release NFLST to other providers. The only choices D* had were:

1. Be the high bidder to the NFL and be able to offer NFLST on an exclusive basis;
2. NOT be the high bidder and not be able to offer it.

Buying the rights and selling them back to other outlets is NOT an option here. And if that's a problem, it needs to be taken up with the NFL, not D*.


----------



## n3ntj

Gee, maybe my emails to each FCC commissioner back in October helped get the ball rolling. I can wish, eh?


----------



## RACJ2

D* clearly explained the difference between NFL ST exclusive rights and the RSN's in a document submitted to the FCC [Link]. Basically, having exclusive rights to NFL ST, does not in any way restrict the ability of local fans to watch their local teams. The cable co's withholding RSN's from other providers does.


----------



## 1kyardstare

"The vote could bring new sports programming by the summer to some television viewers with service from Verizon, AT&T, DirecTV Inc. and Dish Network Corp., said Paul Gallant, an analyst with Concept Capital's Washington Research Group, in an e-mail."

This according to Business Week 
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-may-have-to-share-sports-with-tv-rivals.html

We can only hope...


----------



## Peter305

1kyardstare said:


> "The vote could bring new sports programming by the summer to some television viewers with service from Verizon, AT&T, DirecTV Inc. and Dish Network Corp., said Paul Gallant, an analyst with Concept Capital's Washington Research Group, in an e-mail."
> 
> This according to Business Week
> http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-may-have-to-share-sports-with-tv-rivals.html
> 
> We can only hope...


I suspect Comcast is working right now to file a legal challenge to this. Comcast will fight this and even if they loose they then need to come to terms with DirecTV and Dish. So, all that to say let's not get too excited just yet. I suspect we are a good long while from seeing Comcast Philly on DirecTV or Dish.


----------



## ARKDTVfan

just give me CSS for the SEC games and I'll be happy


----------



## ziggy29

1kyardstare said:


> This according to Business Week
> http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-may-have-to-share-sports-with-tv-rivals.html
> 
> We can only hope...


From the article:



> "If the phone companies complain that they are unable to compete, we are confident that we can prove that it is for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with HD sports programming," Kerns said in the statement.
> 
> Satellite companies' share of the TV households in San Diego and Philadelphia is 33 percent to 41 percent lower than it would be if they could carry regional sports, the FCC concluded in a 2006 analysis.


Sounds like Ms. Kerns is claiming that 2+2 is something other than 4 here.


----------



## trdrjeff

Here's the local rag's take on how it will affect Channel 4 San Diego, owned by Cox

FCC throws Cox a curve on Padres


----------



## Lee L

ARKDTVfan said:


> just give me CSS for the SEC games and I'll be happy


Yes, hopefully this will allow CSS to be on DirecTV.


----------



## thelucky1

The FCC's new rules establish a formal process that allows satellite operators, phone companies and other competitors to file a complaint if they cannot get access to critical cable-owned programming that they need to compete. *The new rules also allow competitors to seek a "standstill" order that would prevent cable companies from pulling their programming during contract-renewal negotiations if a dispute leads to a complaint with the FCC.*

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


----------



## jeepwrang3

I'm still in shock that the FCC did such a great job


----------



## ziggy29

thelucky1 said:


> The FCC's new rules establish a formal process that allows satellite operators, phone companies and other competitors to file a complaint if they cannot get access to critical cable-owned programming that they need to compete. *The new rules also allow competitors to seek a "standstill" order that would prevent cable companies from pulling their programming during contract-renewal negotiations if a dispute leads to a complaint with the FCC.*


But these rules can't take effect today because of the right to appeal and go to court. Such actions would delay the ability to enforce those rules.


----------



## HarryD

WOW... pinch me! ... Could this really happen???


----------



## Upstream

ziggy29 said:


> Yep. At first glance I can see why people think D* is trying to have it both ways in terms of wanting the withheld RSNs while not releasing its monopoly on NFLST -- but it's the NFL, not D*, enforcing the monopoly. Huge difference. I personally wish there was no monopoly (and that the RZC was available a la carte on D* as elsewhere), but that's not reality and D* does NOT have the choice to release NFLST to other providers. The only choices D* had were:
> 
> 1. Be the high bidder to the NFL and be able to offer NFLST on an exclusive basis;
> 2. NOT be the high bidder and not be able to offer it.
> 
> Buying the rights and selling them back to other outlets is NOT an option here. And if that's a problem, it needs to be taken up with the NFL, not D*.


So let's say Cablevision spins off MSG and the NY Knicks & Rangers into a separate company called MSG Sports. MSG Sports then looks for exclusive contracts for their programming. Cablevision wins the bid and now carries MSG Sports (and all Knicks and Rangers games) exclusively.

How is that different than the NFL offering Sunday Ticket exclusively to DirecTV?


----------



## 1980ws

HarryD said:


> WOW... pinch me! ... Could this really happen???


I think this NBCU thing is our best shot at getting Comcast to budge. It will be interesting to see what Cox Cable does, since they are not trying to buy a network.


----------



## Kheldar

Upstream said:


> So let's say Cablevision spins off MSG and the NY Knicks & Rangers into a separate company called MSG Sports. MSG Sports then looks for exclusive contracts for their programming. Cablevision wins the bid and now carries MSG Sports (and all Knicks and Rangers games) exclusively.
> 
> How is that different than the NFL offering Sunday Ticket exclusively to DirecTV?


It isn't different, granted. But that's the point. In your scenario, Cablevision had to bid for the contract. Other providers would have the opportunity to bid for the programming. If Cablevision won exclusivity in an open market, that is totally different than Cablevision just not letting anyone else bid for it.


----------



## Albie

Upstream said:


> So let's say Cablevision spins off MSG and the NY Knicks & Rangers into a separate company called MSG Sports. MSG Sports then looks for exclusive contracts for their programming. Cablevision wins the bid and now carries MSG Sports (and all Knicks and Rangers games) exclusively.
> 
> How is that different than the NFL offering Sunday Ticket exclusively to DirecTV?


As long as the "new" MSG Sports is a truly independent entity not controlled by Cablevision or the Dolan's then there is no difference and I believe the FCC would allow it.


----------



## 1980ws

Upstream said:


> So let's say Cablevision spins off MSG and the NY Knicks & Rangers into a separate company called MSG Sports. MSG Sports then looks for exclusive contracts for their programming. Cablevision wins the bid and now carries MSG Sports (and all Knicks and Rangers games) exclusively.
> 
> How is that different than the NFL offering Sunday Ticket exclusively to DirecTV?


I think the risk to Cablevision is they are not the highest bidder, and lose the content completely.


----------



## Upstream

Kheldar said:


> It isn't different, granted. But that's the point. In your scenario, Cablevision had to bid for the contract. Other providers would have the opportunity to bid for the programming. If Cablevision won exclusivity in an open market, that is totally different than Cablevision just not letting anyone else bid for it.


Sure, but MSG Sports can rig the bidding so that DirecTV couldn't realistically win. Let's say they wanted to award exclusive rights on a zip-code by zip-code basis within the New York market. In order to win rights for a zip code, you would have to be high bidder in that zip code on an absolute basis.

Each cable company, with a larger subscriber base within each zip code it serves, could easily outbid DirecTV on an absolute basis, even if they don't outbid DirecTV on a per-subscriber basis. For example, in zip code 07001, DirecTV might have 50,000 subscribers while Cablevision has 200,000 subscribers. So DirecTV would have to bid an absurd 4x more per subsciber just to meet Cablevision's bid on an absolute basis.


----------



## ziggy29

Upstream said:


> So let's say Cablevision spins off MSG and the NY Knicks & Rangers into a separate company called MSG Sports. MSG Sports then looks for exclusive contracts for their programming. Cablevision wins the bid and now carries MSG Sports (and all Knicks and Rangers games) exclusively.
> 
> How is that different than the NFL offering Sunday Ticket exclusively to DirecTV?


Well, if Cablevision continued to have any interest in the hypothetical MSG Sports, that would be a key difference.

Another critical difference -- and perhaps the most important one as far as the FCC is concerned -- is that *exclusivity of NFLST doesn't deprive any viewers of the ability to watch their local teams*. An exclusivity agreement to carry an in-market RSN does. For example, keeping with your NYC theme, no NYC-area viewer is going to be shut out of watching Giants and Jets games because of the exclusivity of NFLST on D*. The locals which broadcast the Giants and Jets are still also available on cable, on Dish *and* on over-the-air "free" television.


----------



## 1980ws

Upstream said:


> Sure, but MSG Sports can rig the bidding so that DirecTV couldn't realistically win. Let's say they wanted to award exclusive rights on a zip-code by zip-code basis within the New York market. In order to win rights for a zip code, you would have to be high bidder in that zip code on an absolute basis.
> 
> Each cable company, with a larger subscriber base within each zip code it serves, could easily outbid DirecTV on an absolute basis, even if they don't outbid DirecTV on a per-subscriber basis. For example, in zip code 07001, DirecTV might have 50,000 subscribers while Cablevision has 200,000 subscribers. So DirecTV would have to bid an absurd 4x more per subsciber just to meet Cablevision's bid on an absolute basis.


And how many subscribers would D* gain, and Cablevision lose?


----------



## HarryD

1980ws said:


> And how many subscribers would D* gain, and Cablevision lose?


I'll bet that might be a reason why satellite isn't popular in Philly...


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Upstream said:


> So let's say Cablevision spins off MSG and the NY Knicks & Rangers into a separate company called MSG Sports. MSG Sports then looks for exclusive contracts for their programming. Cablevision wins the bid and now carries MSG Sports (and all Knicks and Rangers games) exclusively.
> 
> How is that different than the NFL offering Sunday Ticket exclusively to DirecTV?


Actually it's already a separate company called Madison Square Garden L.P. (it's a subsidiary and it's been approved to spinoff next month) and DirecTV does have the HD rights in the NYC and surrounding area. I have MSG Plus HD.

I believe they've locked out AT&T & FiOS though so what you're saying has already happened.

Mike


----------



## jpl

Steve said:


> I wonder if this means that they must supply the HD RSN feed, if applicable?
> 
> E.g., some of my family members who are NY FiOSTV customers only get the Cablevision MSG channels in SD. I have to assume that's because Verizon and Cablevision compete aggressively for customers in this area.


Actually, Verizon is the company that started this thing. They petitioned the FCC to eliminate the loophole because of their beef with CableVision. CV is not giving Verizon access to MSG HD or MSG + HD.

Although if you read the brief that they filed, it's pretty interesting. They use the example of the DBS companies to bolster their argument. Their argument went like this. In some markets (Philly and San Diego were mentioned specifically) DBS penetration is way below expected levels (40% below what would be expected in a market like Philly). The reason, Verizon determined, was lack of access to RSNs in those markets. So, even though Verizon wasn't affected by this in Philly, they used DBS penetration in Philly to prove their point.

They made the claim that RSNs have strong regional interest for TV subscribers, and not allowing full distribution of them gives companies an unfair competitive advantage. This is particularly true since those RSNs are tied to sports franchises - e.g. you can't see the Flyers in this market unless you have CSN, and you can't get CSN if you get DirecTV.

So, the reason for this finding is because Verizon doesn't have access to those channels by CV in the NY market. That was the whole point of the filing of this brief. So, to answer your question - yes, once this fully goes through, Verizon has every intention of adding MSG HD.


----------



## jpl

Just for the record, here's Verizon's press release on the ruling:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-ruling-victory-for-sports-fans-82175522.html


----------



## 1kyardstare

As mentioned by Rat Patrol earlier:

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/82300357.html

An excerpt:
_*A day after the Federal Communications Commission closed the "terrestrial loophole" that keeps Comcast SportsNet off satellite TV, company executive David L. Cohen said Comcast would challenge the FCC action in an administrative process at the federal agency.

DirecTV and Dish Network still must show that Comcast's exclusive right to the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers through Comcast SportsNet has hurt them competitively, which Cohen says is not a slam dunk. He spoke on WIP-AM (610) sports radio.

Comcast also will tie the issue to DirecTV's Sunday Ticket package of out-of-market football games, Cohen said on the radio.*_

Let the Comcast games begine (or not in the case of seeing Flyers/Phillies/76ers). I guess we will have to wait for awhile while all the posturing legalease and the NBCU acquisition/negotiations continue.


----------



## WebTraveler

What is interesting is how Comcast and other providers have to provide their channels.

For example, is the tiering issue going to be an issue? For example, if Directv wants to carry Directv Philly can Comcast mandate it be available at the lowest tier? Or can Directv put it in any tier they want, like sports pack so that people that want to pay the charge can, and those that do not want the channel do not have to pay for it?


----------



## WebTraveler

bones boy said:


> Can someone put a list together as to which RSNs are being withheld from which markets? Or is that too vast of a task?


I vote for you to put this together for us.:hurah:


----------



## Kheldar

WebTraveler said:


> What is interesting is how Comcast and other providers have to provide their channels.
> 
> For example, is the tiering issue going to be an issue? For example, if Directv wants to carry Directv Philly can Comcast mandate it be available at the lowest tier? Or can Directv put it in any tier they want, like sports pack so that people that want to pay the charge can, and those that do not want the channel do not have to pay for it?


Like any channel contract, I would assume that is all in the negotiation.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Comcast Sportsnet is an RSN like any other; I would expect to get it for free alongside MSG. Outside our area, you'd probably have to pick it up in a Sports Pack.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I've said this before.....but its time to do away with all of these RSNs and time for the leagues and/or teams to produce and show their OWN games and provide their feeds to everyone.


----------



## weirdude2304

If comcast wants to acquire nbc and possibly acquire smaller systems or merge with time warner in the future THEN they will HAVE to allow competitors access to services like comcast sportsnet philly, comcast network, pittsburgh cable news channel, pennsylvania cable news,New enlgland cable news,etc.


----------



## jpl

weirdude2304 said:


> If comcast wants to acquire nbc and possibly acquire smaller systems or merge with time warner in the future THEN they will HAVE to allow competitors access to services like comcast sportsnet philly, comcast network, pittsburgh cable news channel, pennsylvania cable news,New enlgland cable news,etc.


Not to put too fine a point on this, but most of those networks are already fully available to any other service who wants to carry then (including Comcast Network, Penn Cable News). As far as I'm aware, the only channels they lock down are their RSNs (e.g. CSN Philly).


----------



## WebTraveler

Well here it is.

Comcast to fight FCC ruling on sports telecasts

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/82341347.html

Just wait until Comcast controls NBC folks, it's just going to get worse.


----------



## harsh

RACJ2 said:


> D* clearly explained the difference between NFL ST exclusive rights and the RSN's in a document submitted to the FCC [Link]. Basically, having exclusive rights to NFL ST, does not in any way restrict the ability of local fans to watch their local teams. The cable co's withholding RSN's from other providers does.


The FCC doesn't really care about local versus displaced fans; that's the team's problem. DIRECTV's argument is a red herring and displaced fans are being screwed by the exclusive agreement.


----------



## ziggy29

harsh said:


> The FCC doesn't really care about local versus displaced fans; that's the team's problem. DIRECTV's argument is a red herring and displaced fans are being screwed by the exclusive agreement.


I'm not sure it's that cut and dried.

The development of NFLST didn't take anything away from fans. It was a new product. Football fans still have the same games available on their local network as always.

Personally, I'd like to see ST not be a monopoly, but that was the NFL's decision, not the decision of D*, but the bottom line is that the question about the "monopoly" D* has on NFLST is a LOT different legally than a cable operator's monopoly on an in-market RSN.


----------



## HarryD

WebTraveler said:


> Well here it is.
> 
> Comcast to fight FCC ruling on sports telecasts
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/business/82341347.html
> 
> Just wait until Comcast controls NBC folks, it's just going to get worse.


You know this would happen...

"...DirecTV and Dish Network still must show that Comcast's exclusive right to the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers through Comcast SportsNet has hurt them competitively, which Cohen says is not a slam dunk. ...
Comcast also will tie the issue to DirecTV's Sunday Ticket package of out-of-market football games, Cohen said on the radio..."

:nono2:


----------



## jpl

harsh said:


> The FCC doesn't really care about local versus displaced fans; that's the team's problem. DIRECTV's argument is a red herring and displaced fans are being screwed by the exclusive agreement.


I don't know how much merit DirecTV's claim has, but to me the NFL ST issue is different from what's being discussed with regard to the terrestrial loophole in one very important facet. DirecTV doesn't own NFL ST. The way I've always seen this issue comes down to ownership. The FCC seems concered if you own both a TV service company (cable or DBS) AND you control a content provider. The concern is that you have almost a conflict of interest in giving your channel to other providers. This all seems to stem from all the media mergers that happened in fairly recent years, where cable companies bought out media companies and vice versa.

I think the cable companies want to be careful about making the argument about NFL ST. Basically they would be arguing that an independent content provider (e.g. the NFL) wouldn't have the right to deny their stuff to a particular cable company. I don't think that should be the case at all. An independent cable channel should be allowed to say 'nah... we don't want to sell to you guys.' If, however, in the case of the loophole, you own both the content, and a form of TV distribution... that's where I draw the line. Especially when it comes to something like an RSN.

In other words, these are two totally different arguments, in my mind.


----------



## jpl

HarryD said:


> You know this would happen...
> 
> "...DirecTV and Dish Network still must show that Comcast's exclusive right to the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers through Comcast SportsNet has hurt them competitively, which Cohen says is not a slam dunk. ...
> Comcast also will tie the issue to DirecTV's Sunday Ticket package of out-of-market football games, Cohen said on the radio..."
> 
> :nono2:


Yes, this had to be expected. Parties have 45 days to submit challenges to the ruling, and CV did the same thing. They basically said that it'll be a cold day in hell before they give Verizon access to MSG HD. I would have been surprised if these cable companies didn't go down without a fight. But I think, in the end, they will go down with regard to this issue. I just don't see the FCC reversing themselves on this. Those statements by Comcast (they HAVE to show they've been hurt...) and by CV (no way are they going to get this channel) are just so much bluster. Verizon made the case that the DBS providers WERE hurt because of the terrestrial loophole. As I stated earlier THAT was the crux of their argument in this brief.


----------



## ziggy29

jpl said:


> An independent cable channel should be allowed to say 'nah... we don't want to sell to you guys.' If, however, in the case of the loophole, you own both the content, and a form of TV distribution... that's where I draw the line. Especially when it comes to something like an RSN.


Yup. In reality I don't like the concept of content distributors (like cable and satellite) owning content providers at all. But if this is going to be allowed, I think it's important to have -- and enforce -- laws which prevent anti-competitive behavior.

The comparisons to the D* contract with the NFL for Sunday Ticket are apples and oranges. The NFL offered all parties to put in a competitive bid and D* was the highest bidder. The NFL did that because they thought that was best for the NFL, not because it helped D* gain an advantage over the competition.


----------



## Upstream

jpl said:


> I don't know how much merit DirecTV's claim has, but to me the NFL ST issue is different from what's being discussed with regard to the terrestrial loophole in one very important facet. DirecTV doesn't own NFL ST. The way I've always seen this issue comes down to ownership. The FCC seems concered if you own both a TV service company (cable or DBS) AND you control a content provider. The concern is that you have almost a conflict of interest in giving your channel to other providers. This all seems to stem from all the media mergers that happened in fairly recent years, where cable companies bought out media companies and vice versa.
> 
> I think the cable companies want to be careful about making the argument about NFL ST. Basically they would be arguing that an independent content provider (e.g. the NFL) wouldn't have the right to deny their stuff to a particular cable company. I don't think that should be the case at all. An independent cable channel should be allowed to say 'nah... we don't want to sell to you guys.' If, however, in the case of the loophole, you own both the content, and a form of TV distribution... that's where I draw the line. Especially when it comes to something like an RSN.
> 
> In other words, these are two totally different arguments, in my mind.


Sunday Ticket is different, and I don't think it is directly impacted by this FCC ruling. But I could see the cable companies making enough noise that the next FCC ruling impacts Sunday Ticket.

As I noted earlier in this thread, Cablevision could just as easily spin off MSG into a separate company, and then use its market position to ensure it wins long-term exclusive rights to MSG programming.


----------



## ziggy29

Upstream said:


> As I noted earlier in this thread, Cablevision could just as easily spin off MSG into a separate company, and then use its market position to ensure it wins long-term exclusive rights to MSG programming.


There's still a bit of a difference. NFLST only adds out of market games and doesn't impact anyone's ability to see their local teams. An RSN with exclusivity impacts everyone else's ability to watch the local team.

Beyond that, I suppose in terms of offering MSG programming *out of market*, a totally independent entity probably could negotiate an exclusive carriage contract. That's what the NFL did with D*. But again, ST isn't impacting whether football fans can watch their local teams.


----------



## jpl

Upstream said:


> Sunday Ticket is different, and I don't think it is directly impacted by this FCC ruling. But I could see the cable companies making enough noise that the next FCC ruling impacts Sunday Ticket.
> 
> As I noted earlier in this thread, Cablevision could just as easily spin off MSG into a separate company, and then use its market position to ensure it wins long-term exclusive rights to MSG programming.


It IS spinning it off into its own company. But here's the thing, an independent company is not the same as a subsidiary company. For example, when News Corp owned DirecTV, DirecTV was a subsidiary company. But no one in their right mind would think that Murdoch didn't have full control over the company. Unless the MSG spinoff was truly independent, there is really very little different between having the subsidiary, or owning the assets outright.


----------



## jpl

I know this OT, but here's a news article talking about the MSG spinoff:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34416732/ns/business-sports_biz

Well, the article talks about spinning off the MSG operations - as in the arena itself. But I believe this includes the channel operations as well.


----------



## sunfire9us

1980ws said:


> I think this NBCU thing is our best shot at getting Comcast to budge. It will be interesting to see what Cox Cable does, since they are not trying to buy a network.


I dont think there will be too much trouble concerning Cox cable because the contract concerning the Padres will FINALLY be over in two more years and Cox already doesnt want to do the games. The Padres have already told me via email when the contract with Cox is over that they plan to move the games to a venue that will be avail to more platforms unlike now. So it wouldnt really be worth Cox's time since the contract is about FINALLY OVER


----------



## sunfire9us

Guys I think there may be a chance this will be over faster than we think concerning Comcast trying to pull legal crap. We all know the Sunday Ticket issue is crap and is NOT the same thing as what they were doing denying competitors access to those rsn's (Comcast's complaint). Thats all nothing but air from Comcrap and the fcc and legal system should see right thru it. From all the articles online I read concerning the loophole being closed I also read that the FCC is going to expect MORE concessions from Comcast before they ever do allow them to buy NBC. Lets hope that the FCC makes them have to sell off some if not all of those rsn's. The FCC wasn't planning on playing nice with Comcast. Either way in the end the sorry cable companies will lose FINALLY. Im sure you others had to have read what I saw concerning the FCC expecting more concessions from Comcast. It was on too many of the online news listings. Thats acutally good news for everyone.


----------



## Upstream

jpl said:


> It IS spinning it off into its own company. But here's the thing, an independent company is not the same as a subsidiary company. For example, when News Corp owned DirecTV, DirecTV was a subsidiary company. But no one in their right mind would think that Murdoch didn't have full control over the company. Unless the MSG spinoff was truly independent, there is really very little different between having the subsidiary, or owning the assets outright.


Cablevision has already approved the spin-off of MSG into a separate company (link). The company will be totally independent of Cablevision. But since Cablevision stockholders are getting the new MSG stock, initially the Dolan family will continue to have controlling interests in both companies. Nonetheless, they are independent public companies.

The new MSG company will own the MSG part of the current Cablevision. This includes the sports networks (MSG, MSG Plus, etc.), sports teams (Knicks, Rangers, etc.), and arenas/theaters (Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, etc.).

And you guys are kidding yourselves if you don't think the Dolans aren't going to try the scenario I described to keep MSG-HD programming off Fios. And they will use Sunday Ticket as their example. The battle between MSG/Cablevision and Verizon will force the FCC to deal with "Sunday Ticket"-type exclusive programming contracts.


----------



## harsh

jpl said:


> For example, when News Corp owned DirecTV, DirecTV was a subsidiary company.


News Corp had a controlling interest in DIRECTV, but they did not "own" the company; they didn't even own a majority of the DIRECTV shares. They owned enough shares to install Rupert in the big chair and along with some other News Corp bigwigs on the Board of Directors.

In much the same way, Liberty does NOT own DIRECTV. They own a controlling interest of the shares and in fact, a majority of the outstanding DIRECTV shares.

DIRECTV's board has elected to implement Liberty's reorganization plan but they are not a division or wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty.

The Cablevision situation is much more tightly coupled, but again, it is a publicly traded company as the Dolan attempt to take the company private in 2007 was rejected by the shareholders.

Feel free to talk about controlling interests and majority shareholders, but don't suggest that these companies are a subledger of some other company.


----------



## ziggy29

Upstream said:


> And you guys are kidding yourselves if you don't think the Dolans aren't going to try the scenario I described to keep MSG-HD programming off Fios. And they will use Sunday Ticket as their example. The battle between MSG/Cablevision and Verizon will force the FCC to deal with "Sunday Ticket"-type exclusive programming contracts.


That is a fair comparison in terms of withholding MSG from distant RSN packages. That would be a content owner negotiating exclusivity for airing *out of market* games.

But to repeat yet again, NFLST's exclusivity with D* does NOT deprive anyone in a local team's market from watching those local teams. NFLST only adds additional out of market games; it doesn't have an "exclusive" on the local teams playing that day.

Exclusivity for an in-market RSN, on the other hand, *does* deprive people of the ability to watch their local teams unless they subscribe to the service offering the exclusive package, which is a HUGE competitive advantage compared to merely offering $300+ out of market NFL packages. In other words, the FCC is likely to be far less concerned about "exclusivity" and a monopoly on offering *out of market* sports packages than they are about local fans being locked out of watching local teams.


----------



## texasmoose

I guess this news would fit into this thread?............Check out link:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...nate_Agreement_On_Satellite_Bill_Language.php


----------



## ms1960

Comcast sports southeast please so I can watch the SEC.


----------



## WebTraveler

Mike Al said:


> Blame the NFL not DirecTV for the the fact that they have the exclusive on Sunday Ticket. The NFL wanted it exclusive. Others had the chance to quote for the rights. No one else wanted it.


Let's make all sports channels ala carte and require operators to carry them all. This way if someone wants CSN Philadelphia and the NFL Network they can get it; if they don't they won't.

I think it would result in some going out of business, which maybe is a good thing. I can spend my money on other things - so the money still enters the economy.


----------



## jlosh

Any word on when we can expect CSN Philly on satellilite?


----------



## LarryFlowers

jlosh said:


> Any word on when we can expect CSN Philly on satellilite?


:lol:
You didn't actually think that this wouldn't face some legal challenges? I suspect that the FCC decision will standup but don't expect those involved to go down without a fight.


----------



## Sixto

There's alot going on:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394362

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394363

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394364​


----------



## harsh

Sixto said:


> There's alot going on:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394362
> 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394363
> 
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394364​


DIRECTV is going on and on defending WGN but I suspect that's a red herring.

I think Cox is really after the negotiated DIRECTV exclusives like ST, MLB and NASCAR.


----------



## Upstream

harsh said:


> DIRECTV is going on and on defending WGN but I suspect that's a red herring.
> 
> I think Cox is really after the negotiated DIRECTV exclusives like ST, MLB and NASCAR.


Yes. WGN is somewhat of a red herring. Cox's argument is that it's exclusivity agreement with the San Diego Padres is similar nature (from a contractual, legal, and regulatory persective) as DirecTV's agreement with the NFL. Therefore if the FCC forces Cox/Padres to share Padres programming, then they also need to force DirecTV/NFL to share NFL programming, including Sunday Ticket.

The WGN argument is mostly a red herring. But it is also about a regulatory technicality regarding whether DirecTV is bound by some clauses in the regulation or not.


----------



## jlosh

LarryFlowers said:


> :lol:
> You didn't actually think that this wouldn't face some legal challenges? I suspect that the FCC decision will standup but don't expect those involved to go down without a fight.


I expected legal challenges and a fight. I am more curious to find out how long the process will take and come to completion.


----------

