comcast gotta be paying people off

[RFtech]

No SportsNet for competitors

Philadelphia sports fans lost again. This time, it's not the Phillies or Eagles letting them down. It's the U.S. Senate.

An overhaul of the telecommunications industry being considered in Senate legislation originally included language that would have required cable companies to share local sports programming with competitors, such as satellite TV.

In other words, Comcast Corp. apparently would have been required to sell its SportsNet channel, which carries most games of the Phillies, Sixers and Flyers, to competitors.

But that part of the legislation, originally introduced by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, has disappeared from the mammoth bill.

Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for the Senate Commerce Committee, which is overseeing the bill, said the provision was dropped because several members expressed concern about it. He would not name the members.

But senators did hear testimony in the last two weeks from Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and from Comcast executive David L. Cohen, advising the committee to drop the provision. McSlarrow said the proposed law was confusing. Cohen said it was a narrow issue that didn't merit federal attention.- Miriam Hill

 

[ronfelder]

No SportsNet for competitors

Philadelphia sports fans lost again. This time, it's not the Phillies or Eagles letting them down. It's the U.S. Senate.

An overhaul of the telecommunications industry being considered in Senate legislation originally included language that would have required cable companies to share local sports programming with competitors, such as satellite TV.

In other words, Comcast Corp. apparently would have been required to sell its SportsNet channel, which carries most games of the Phillies, Sixers and Flyers, to competitors.

But that part of the legislation, originally introduced by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican, has disappeared from the mammoth bill.

Aaron Saunders, a spokesman for the Senate Commerce Committee, which is overseeing the bill, said the provision was dropped because several members expressed concern about it. He would not name the members.

But senators did hear testimony in the last two weeks from Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and from Comcast executive David L. Cohen, advising the committee to drop the provision. McSlarrow said the proposed law was confusing. Cohen said it was a narrow issue that didn't merit federal attention.- Miriam Hill

Didn't you know that Comcast has lots of politicians in their deep pockets? They have Philly wrapped around the little finger.

Ron

 

[Robdoggz]

This is why i dont get into sports too much politics i dont wanna have to get mad everytime they black out a team i like thats not local.

 

[SmityWhity]

I agree with you Robdoggz! I haven't been following that issue, really don't care one way or the other. Besides not liking sports, I just barely like TV.

However, it seems to make sense to me to drop the requirement.

If NBC, CBS, ABC, or FOX had exclusive rights to certain games, then why should they sell to COMCAST? If they had to sell to COMCAST, it wouldn't be exclusive.

So, why should COMCAST have to sell to anybody else? I'm sure if the price was right, they would consider it.

Guess I'll go and get a six-pack and watch "The Weather Channel." After that, I can watch the TV Guide go round and round, it changes every 30 minutes.

 

[roachxp]

I though Comcast still has to provide the Sportsnet feeds to satellite companies if they want the Aldelphia merger to be approved.

 

[ronfelder]

I though Comcast still has to provide the Sportsnet feeds to satellite companies if they want the Aldelphia merger to be approved.

Believe they finagled their way out of it on that issue too.

Ron

 

[ronfelder]

I agree with you Robdoggz! I haven't been following that issue, really don't care one way or the other. Besides not liking sports, I just barely like TV.

However, it seems to make sense to me to drop the requirement.

If NBC, CBS, ABC, or FOX had exclusive rights to certain games, then why should they sell to COMCAST? If they had to sell to COMCAST, it wouldn't be exclusive.

So, why should COMCAST have to sell to anybody else? I'm sure if the price was right, they would consider it.

Guess I'll go and get a six-pack and watch "The Weather Channel." After that, I can watch the TV Guide go round and round, it changes every 30 minutes.

wrong because Comcrap will seell it to competeing cable companies, just not to satelitte.

Ron

 

[SmityWhity]

IRT "wrong"

Do I understand, they are selling it to other cable companies, but not to satellite companies?

If so, more than likely the other cable companies are probably located in different counties and are not "directly" competing against them. Plus the cable companies have to stick together to survive; in my experience traveling around the country, I would say a lot of cable companies have poor customer service as well.

As I said - if the price is right, just about anything is for sale - including some elected officials. Then it comes down to the buyer's morales - will he be willing to pay the price? On the last Charlie Chat, it was said we don't have a particular channel because the seller wouldn't give E* the same price as given to others.

Sounds like the U.S.A. system is working. (Even if some believe COMCAST paid more than their constituents did. )

Just my democratic thoughts.

 

[ronfelder]

IRT "wrong"

Do I understand, they are selling it to other cable companies, but not to satellite companies?

If so, more than likely the other cable companies are probably located in different counties and are not "directly" competing against them. Plus the cable companies have to stick together to survive; in my experience traveling around the country, I would say a lot of cable companies have poor customer service as well.

As I said - if the price is right, just about anything is for sale - including some elected officials. Then it comes down to the buyer's morales - will he be willing to pay the price? On the last Charlie Chat, it was said we don't have a particular channel because the seller wouldn't give E* the same price as given to others.

Sounds like the U.S.A. system is working. (Even if some believe COMCAST paid more than their constituents did. )

Just my democratic thoughts.

They sell it to all cable companies that are considered part of the Philly metro region and would want Philly sports. Comcast now owns all of the city. How can another cable company compete against Comcrap in a given area when there is only one franchise for a given area? That's the problem no competition.Hopefully Verizon and AT&T will solve that. Only competition out the is from D* and E*.

BTW Comcrap won't sell at any price. That's why they're taking advantage of that loop hole over terrestrial distribution.

Ron

 

[RFtech]

I though Comcast still has to provide the Sportsnet feeds to satellite companies if they want the Aldelphia merger to be approved.

FCC chairman offers cable sports deal, but leaves out Philadelphia
By Miriam Hill and Jeff Gelles
INQUIRER STAFF WRITERS

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has proposed a deal with Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Inc.: If they agree to conditions that include offering their local sports programming to competitors at reasonable prices, the FCC will approve their acquisition of cable systems owned by the bankrupt Adelphia Communications.

But the proposal will change nothing in Comcast's hometown of Philadelphia, said people familiar with its details.

Viewers here could watch most Phillies, Flyers and Sixers games on TV only on cable. Unless Comcast decides to change its policy, satellite customers would continue to miss out.

The FCC's bargain would apply only to other markets. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's goal is to bar Comcast and Time Warner from keeping local sports to themselves elsewhere, according to two FCC officials who have seen the proposal and spoke today on condition of anonymity. Details of Martin's proposal were first reported Monday by USA Today.

The proposal, similar to rules imposed on News Corp., owner of Fox News, when it acquired DirecTV in 2003, would also require Comcast and Time Warner to accept binding arbitration in disputes over how much it can charge competitors for professional sports telecasts.

Comcast's ownership of local sports channels around the country, and the possibility that it could withhold sports elsewhere as it does in Philadelphia, was among the main reasons the Adelphia deal has become something of a logjam at the FCC, the officials said.

The complex deal, worth about $17 billion, was first proposed in April 2005, and includes a swap of systems already owned by Comcast and Time Warner that would increase their footprints in major markets that they already dominate. Comcast would not comment for this story because the deal is pending. The FCC also turned down a request for comment.

Separately, the judge overseeing Adelphia's bankruptcy case today granted the company permission to sell its assets to Time Warner and Comcast.

Judge Robert Gerber of the Southern District of New York said he would approve an order to detach the asset sale from the rest of Adelphia's bankruptcy process, allowing it to be executed without the approval of an overall restructuring plan. Adelphia sought the separation to bypass creditor disputes that have slowed the company in its filing of its plan.

The sale agreement with Time Warner and Comcast had been put in jeopardy because of a July 31 deadline at which the buyers could retract their offer. The offer includes a $12.7 billion cash component and the rest as shares in Time Warner. Once complete, the acquisitions would secure Time Warner's and Comcast's status as the two biggest cable operators in the nation.

Comcast's representatives have met repeatedly with FCC commissioners and staffers to press its case, and have done the same in testimony to congressional committees weighing proposals to rewrite an exemption in program-access requirements set by Congress in the Cable Act of 1992.

The law requires a cable company that owns programming distributed by satellite to allow other pay-TV companies to carry it. But it exempts programming distributed by land-based cables or wires.

Satellite companies such as DirecTV and Echostar, and competitive cable companies such as RCN Corp., argue that the exemption was intended to encourage cable companies to invest in news coverage and other local programming.

Echoed recently by some in Congress, they say the rule should not allow a cable company to restrict rivals' access to "must-have" local sports events, as Comcast does by withholding SportsNet from the satellite carriers.

Comcast has responded by pointing out that it has not used the exemption beyond Philadelphia, where the $22-billion-a-year company is headquartered, even though it now owns similar channels in Washington, D.C., Chicago and California.

The FCC chairman apparently accepted Comcast's argument that Philadelphia should remain an exception.

"The chairman just said, 'Let's make a deal. We'll protect your crown jewel,'" one of the FCC officials said.

 

[cablewithaview]

one thing, why won't Dish and DirecTV buy other regional sports channels offered by Comcast? Those they can because they are uplinked by satellite and they don't touch them with exception of a couple. If I was Comcast, I would sell it providing they would purchase ALL of the regional networks like they do Fox Sports.

 

[charper1]

Because sometimes they purposely drive the asking price so high to keep them out of DBS customers hands. It really is that simple. Same thing with some of the local affiliates. Anything to keep the playing field skewed.

 

[cablewithaview]

Because sometimes they purposely drive the asking price so high to keep them out of DBS customers hands. It really is that simple. Same thing with some of the local affiliates. Anything to keep the playing field skewed.

in this case Comcast is not driving up the asking price for this one channel, but denying this channel to satellite providers because it is not uplinked via satellite like other feeds are. there is a "loop hole" as some calls it, that allows this one channel not being sold to dbs providers. they have to microwave or deliver via fiber to other cable systems in the area.

 

[charper1]

Sorry, I thought we were only referring to those channels not covered by the fiber loop "loop-hole" ?