Comcast should sell CSN philly, FOX should buy it and make it FSN Philly

[Jul]

As much as I hate to say this, it would be the right thing for comcast to sell comcast sportsnet Philadelphia right now to Rupert Murdoch and make it FSN philly and even add a second channel too so we can see more local sports broadcasts rather than the current arrangement with CSN and CN8 and the channels and all local games would be seen on SATELLITE locally and nationally. I'm not happy with current arrangement right now on how local sports games are broad casted on those 2 channels and changes should be made. This I think is the olny way the channel can be aired on Satellite sooner rather than later. I'm very disappointed that the fans that have the dish in the Philadelphia TV market haven't really complained enough and pressured Comcast to air CSN philly on the dish. I guess you don't really care about this issue. We must start an e-mail, calling and writing letter campaign to convince Comcast to put this channel on satellite. We should also contact the lawmakers in PA and the owner of 20th century FOX about this too. Enough is enough.

 

[PSULuis]

A couple of questions, Julius:

-Why do you hate to say what you said?

-Why would Comcast selling CSN Philly to Fox be "the right thing"? And put teams that they own/partially own on a competitor's channel and give up all the revenue?

-Just because YOU are not happy with the current arrangement changes need to be made? I'm sure Comcast is plenty happy with the arrangement.

-Comcast can care less if their channel is broadcast on Satellite. I'm extremely surprise that CSN Philadelphia is even available with Verizon Fios.

-You are asking people to complain and pressure Comcast to put CSN Philadelphia on the dish.....Have YOU done that?

-"I guess you don't really care about the issue"......ding ding ding!!!

-Fell free and start an email, call, and letter campaign to convince them to do so! Exercise you 1st ammendments rights! I'm doing it right now. But stop asking people to do things that YOU are interested in. Have some initiative and start it up yourself!

 

[Jul]

A couple of questions, Julius:

-Why do you hate to say what you said?

-Why would Comcast selling CSN Philly to Fox be "the right thing"? And put teams that they own/partially own on a competitor's channel and give up all the revenue?

The first one, CSN is a really good channel for local sports news and info so that's why I hate to say that. Second part because I think that FSN will put this channel on the dish right away and EVERY local game FSN will air, will be accessible nationally to be seen on the sports PPV packages of the NBA, NHL and MLB and other places including ESPN and other national media, FOX college sports, etc. not some games, EVERY GAME. Comcast is not good period and they should give up making more money to this channel and the sell sports teams they own.

 

[PSULuis]

The first one, CSN is a really good channel for local sports news and info so that's why I hate to say that. Second part because for some reason NBA MLB and NHL PPV services and national sports media like for years I guess wanted all the comcast/WPSG broadcasts of all of the games to be aired live on a satellite feed for the PPV and be used for other reasons like to show highlights from the game they aired Yes some games from the comcast feed are used for those 2 things but not every game like I think it should be. Comcast is not good period and they should give up making more money to this channel and the sports teams they own.
[/quote]

I forgot that Comcast is in it for the fun, not the money.

 

[toby]

Julius, you apparently have no grasp on the fact that Comcast exists for only one reason to make money.
To them the right thing is to do what makes them the most money for the least cost.
They could care less about their customers, being in effect a monopoly in almost all of ther areas they service.
You say "Comcast is not good period and they should give up making more money to this channel and the sports teams they own. "
They have no reason to do so, since that goes against the basic tenets of capitalism.

If you want Comcast to change, save the money you earn from your job and buy all the Comcast stock you can with it.
Then you can as a stockholder (i.e. someone Comcast actually cares about) attempt to get other stockholders over to your point of view.
Good luck with that, since the basic raison d'être for owning stock is to make money.
Given the fact that they would loose subscribers if they go loose exclusivity, revenue generated by either a sale or revenue from satellite carriage your scheme makes no sense.
Now I ask you why would anyone in their right mind do something to reduce their profits?

 

[compubit]

All I can say is - "Won't Happen".

(To paraphrase) The law says that an owner doesn't have to make a channel available to a satellite provider if the channel isn't transmitted over satellite (or is it that the channel delivered terrestrially)? Comcast created the channel (originally for Comcast systems). It's delivered terrestrially to other cable systems in the Philly area, and isn't distributed on satellite.

Let's say I have a unique product that I created and there's great demand for this item, and I also have my own store that sells my product. There's nothing that says I have to sell this to Walmart or Target, so that I can drive business to my store (vs. Walmart or Target). My stockholders are happy, since sales are up (and hopefully profits).

Now, 2 years from now, let's say Walmart makes me "an offer I can't refuse" - if I choose to accept the offer, though, I have to make it available to Target (but Target can sell it only if we can come to an amicable agreement). I'd then discuss it with my shareholders.

Comcast is in the same boat: they have a product, they control it, and they can do what they want with it, since they're following the letter of the law.

I'm a big fan of satellite TV (haven't had cable in 11 years...), but from the business side of things, Comcast is doing what they think is appropriate to make money.

On the NBA/MLB/NHL side of things for the "Season Pass" - depending on how the agreement is structured between the specific league, and the TV rights agreements, you may see a Comcast Sports Net Philly game on one of these packages - however, such a game would not be shown in the home market, as the local provider has the exclusivity in-market for the games. (I believe the out-of-market packagers can pick up a backhaul feed for airing, if it goes out over satellite). I'm not an expert on these contracts, so you'd need to further research them. Also, OTA broadcasts can be picked up for the Out-of-Market packages, plus there are only a few places where both teams are on Cable Only sports packages: Example: a Phillies/Padres game might not show up, if CSN/Philly and Cox 4 were both showing the game, and it was transmitted to the remote city via fiber optic lines...

Hope this makes it clear as mud...

Jim

 

[PSULuis]

So Julius, did you start a email, phone, and letter campaign? If not, did you at least voice your concerns directly to Comcast?

 

[Jul]

So Julius, did you start a email, phone, and letter campaign? If not, did you at least voice your concerns directly to Comcast?

I plan to e-mail comcast today about this.

 

[Al Johnson]

Satellite TV subscribers are not up in arms about this because people who must have a local sports channel do NOT subscribe to satellite TV. Those who do subscribe to satellite TV have decided they don't need the local sports channel in the area.

Comcast is stupid to not make their sports channel available satellite TV. In other markets, their sports channels are available by satellite and their cable systems still are competitive. In the Philadelphia market, they lose the subscriber fee they would receive for each DirecTV or Dish customer in the region plus the ad revenue they (and their teams) would receive with the additional cume for satellite viewers.

Fox is not the only other company operating local sports channels.

If DirecTV and Dish really cared about getting Comcast's sports channel in Philadelphia, they would boot the channels Comcast owns off their systems. They don't care. They are still getting subscribers in Philadelphia who pay the same rates as everybody else, only the satellite provers pocket the fees for the local sports channel which would go to Comcast; this makes Philadelphia much more profitable.

 

[toby]

So Julius, did you start a email, phone, and letter campaign? If not, did you at least voice your concerns directly to Comcast?

I plan to e-mail comcast today about this.

Julius, unless you are a stockholder it is an exercise in futility.
Such is capitalism.

 

[compubit]

Comcast is stupid to not make their sports channel available satellite TV. In other markets, their sports channels are available by satellite and their cable systems still are competitive. In the Philadelphia market, they lose the subscriber fee they would receive for each DirecTV or Dish customer in the region plus the ad revenue they (and their teams) would receive with the additional cume for satellite viewers.

In the other markets, either the Comcast-operated sports channels were originally owned by someone else (Comcast Middle Atlantic Sports Network), and Comcast bought the channel, or it was started by Comcast to replace a channel (Chicago, replacing FSN Chicago, IIRC). A lot also has to do with the teams airing on the channel. I believe in Philly, Comcast owns (or partly owns) some of the pro teams, so they can help "decide" whether or not to make the channel available to satellite; in Chicago, Cubs, Whitesox, Bulls, etc., want larger coverage. Plus Comcast doesn't have distribution system (other than satellite) for the area being covered by the channel.

If DirecTV and Dish really cared about getting Comcast's sports channel in Philadelphia, they would boot the channels Comcast owns off their systems. They don't care. They are still getting subscribers in Philadelphia who pay the same rates as everybody else, only the satellite provers pocket the fees for the local sports channel which would go to Comcast; this makes Philadelphia much more profitable.

DirecTV and Dish have tried in the past, but never got past the legal standing of the channel. I'm aware that there is love lost between Dish and Comcast - look at OLN/Versus - the Dish version didn't carry NHL hockey due to a dispute between the two.

 

[DToTheJ]

In the other markets, either the Comcast-operated sports channels were originally owned by someone else (Comcast Middle Atlantic Sports Network), and Comcast bought the channel, or it was started by Comcast to replace a channel (Chicago, replacing FSN Chicago, IIRC).

Actually, Comcast SN Chicago has been around a LONG time, and ended up getting whatever sports rights FSN Chicago had, effectively rendering them useless, as they did go dark last year. So while they replaced FSNC in terms of being a sports provider for coverage of most live sports, they were not created to fill a void.

 

[compubit]

Thanks for the clarification. Having been satellite-based for so long, plus down in Texas, I wasn't familiar with the details of CSN-C - just recalling what I (thought) I read on the net as FSN-C was dying.

The other thing is that there are probably several local sports channels out there on cable systems that aren't on satellite. They may be college/university-related (I'm sure that any major division 1 school could easily fill a 24-hour a day schedule with new, delayed or repeated sports broadcasts of school sports...), or local-sports related. Should each of them be put up on satellite?

Jim