J
Jul
Guest
Should comcast sportsnet Philadelphia be on satellite like all the other regional sports channels in the USA ?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
I
imhomerjay
Guest
No, in a free-market economy, the owners of all of the channels should get to decide where to offer their shows. If that means to all providers because it makes the owners the most money, yippee for them.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
And restaurants should be able to refuse service to anyone.And homeowners should be able to refuse to sell their house to anyone.Comcast's clear intent here is restraint of trade, which is illegal.Of course if DirecTV and Dish had cajones, they would take QVC off their systems and see how Comcast likes that. And every time one of Comcast's cable franchises comes up for renewal, they would organize subsribers in the area to show up at the hearing.If Comcast has the right to run their business however they want, the rest of us have the right to form an opinion about how they run their business and to generate as much public ill will as we possibly can.Comcast is EVIL!
Comcast's intent is to have an edge on the competition. This is the same thing that goes on with Directv, the owner of HDNET, that's a channel that is not offered on most cable companies lineups. The main reason they do not have to offer Comcast sportsnet to sat companies because of the way it's delivered to it's local systems(via fiber). That will never change. It is not transmitted through the air (sat or through antenna). So yes cable customers(not just comcast) in the Philly area will always have exclusivity. BTW sat companies will not drop QVC because Comcast does not own QVC anymore. They sold it two years ago.fred flintstone said:
F
fred flintstone
Guest
I'm starting to realize that Julius often presents complaints in the form of rhetorical questions. It's a tactic mostly associated with wives, girlfriends and mothers (As in: "Why haven't you cleaned up the basement yet?").
J
Jul
Guest
No but many sports fans that have Dish are upset that CSN is not on their service. What I sad about CSN is my opinion, not the law of the land that you guys think I'm trying say here.Mike said:ccsn-philly on directv-dishnetwork never gonna happendoes everything have to be done to please you julius ???
I
imhomerjay
Guest
The analogy doesn't work. It's more like it isn't the government's Constitutional place to tell Applebee's it must share its recipes with TGI Friday's.fred flintstone said:
Just looked this up, and QVC isn't owned by Comcast any more, but the point is fair. If the dish guys want to drop channels owned by another company as the contracts expire, it's up to them, as it should be.All business works best when the government sticks to what the Founding Fathers set it up to do in the first place.fred flintstone said:
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Julius said he disagreed with Comcast's business practice. He did not say anything about the government. You brought the government into the discussion. You also mentioned the free market economy. People are free to draw their own conclusions about Comcast, to say what they think of Comcast to influence others' opinions and to vote with their wallets.And before you argue that Comcast should be free of government interference, let's keep in mind that Comcast is a government-franchised monopoly. You or I can not go start our own cable company. Comcast as a monopoly has provided poor service and constantly raised prices. You can't have it both ways. There is no free market for cable service. FCC rules were designed to keep established cable companies from quashing the only possible form of competition in emerging in satellite companies by keeping satellite services from having the same access to channels. Those rules have worked well and cable service has improved with competitive satellite TV service - with the exception of one lone loophole protecting one sports channel in one market.Let Comcast compete on price, quality and service like any other business - not by a predatory practice designed to restrict customer choice.
Outside of cost and the excessive duplication of service in subscribing to both Comcast and satellite, there is nothing stopping a person from subscribing to both Comcast and a dish service.So, no, the channel does not need to be on satellite, no more than CN8 or your local school board's channel has to be offered by DirecTV and Dish.Is it unfair to fans of the pro sports teams in this town who don't want to subscribe to Comcast? Only if you live somewhere that doesn't offer Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia on cable. Reaching out to those people by making the channel available on satellite is not nearly as strategic from Comcast's point of view as it is to force sports fans to subscribe to Comcast to get their sports teams.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Inquirer Article Today Outlines Fight To Close Comcast's Loophole
Coincidentally, Jeff Giles has an excellent article in this morning's Inquirer Business section: "Trying to Right Cable Loophole."http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/14469128.htmThe article outlines the history of regulations requiring satellite-delivered cable channels to be made available to both satellite and cable companies. At the time these regulations were passed, Comcast was relatively small but there was concern giant cable companies like Time-Warner would try to kill satellite TV at birth by denying access to channels like CNN, TBS and HBO. Originally, Prizm was available on satellite. Comcast killed the channel to take advantage of this loophole.Key passages from the article:
Coincidentally, Jeff Giles has an excellent article in this morning's Inquirer Business section: "Trying to Right Cable Loophole."http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/14469128.htmThe article outlines the history of regulations requiring satellite-delivered cable channels to be made available to both satellite and cable companies. At the time these regulations were passed, Comcast was relatively small but there was concern giant cable companies like Time-Warner would try to kill satellite TV at birth by denying access to channels like CNN, TBS and HBO. Originally, Prizm was available on satellite. Comcast killed the channel to take advantage of this loophole.Key passages from the article:
If you do not approve of Comcast's practices, write your Senators and Representative.Pennsylvania:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c fm.cfm?State=PANew Jersey:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c fm.cfm?State=NJDelaware:http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c fm.cfm?State=DERepresentatives (Enter your home zip code)http://www.house.gov/
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Never say never.Rupert Murdoch now controls DirecTV.He also controls Fox Sports Network.CSN is an FSN affiliate.The current situation leaves a hole in FSN's coverage.Murdoch can eat the Roberts for breakfast.A lot of topics keep getting brought up repeatedly on radio boards. Why is this one different? I still fail to see why some people are such fans of the Roberts - viscious and avaricious cable moguls who would drive a truck over those "fans" if it suited them. People keep saying radio is liberal but people in radio are highly deferential to money and power. They get treated badly by management but oppose unions. They spin the news to suit whoever is in power and don't even realize. Not really conservative; more like authoritarian.Here are the Roberts with a government mandated monopoly and people saying the government should leave the poor guys alone and let them run their business however they want. HELLO!!!!The only reason CSN is not on satellite is because it has not been enough of a problem for DirecTV and Dish to bother with. They are still signing up people in Philly. Comcast high prices and terrible service continues to drive away customers. Why pay lawyers? It's starting to be worthwhile to clamp down on Comcast - in all sorts of ways. And the Roberts will get what's coming to them. I suppose seeing them in jail is too much to hope for.
J
Jul
Guest
Is it not out of the question that FOX buys CSN and turn it into FSN Philly and that way everyone gets the channel? I think FOX must find a way to buy the channel if Comcast doesn't want to put sportsnet on direct TV and Dish? This whole thing is bad for the sports fans in Phillyfred flintstone said:
Bingo. DirecTV may make their usual complaint, but they also have an ace: NFL Sunday Ticket. I know its apples/oranges but Comcast mentions it, and IT is a valuable exclusive that DirecTV has gotten where the cable companies didn't have an equal fair shot of bidding for it. The broadcast networks had a clause with the NFL, that the out of market games couldn't be offered to cable, originally.Philadelphia market is 3% of the national TV HH. 97% of the country is w/o this problem, and the satellite providers have 97% of the country where they can compete and make a lot of money, thus they stay in the black, resulting - FCC sees nothing wrong with the overall status qufred flintstone said:
n the QVC comment from Page 1, it's true Comcast sold it. But Comcast owned it for more of its existance, and DirecTV and Dish prospered with the commission sales from QVC. (Shopping networks compensate the sat providers per sub and small % of sales). The Philadelphia issue wasn't big enough to boycott Comcast's QVC product. Comcast eventually sold the popular QVC channel, which the satellite companies engendered, and Comcast made billions from the divestiture. Don't think of Charlie Ergen, CEO of Echostar, or any executive of DirecTV solely out there in favor of providing competition. There thought is where they can make most money, and with the established rules and marketplace, by nature they are providing competition. But, If it means trying to merge the 2 companies together and create a satellite monopoly, it'll be tried out - which Echostar did try but didn't win approval. If QVC brings thems millions in revenues, more than going through an effort to boycott a Comcast product until Comcast hurts, the satellite companies will choose the one bringing more money, carrying QVC. As Echostar considers YES (Yankees Net.) too expensive for what they consider it should be worth, Echostar won't carry it, leaving NY Yankees sports fans with less choice.But, on the loophole - If this situation (an RSN holding the exclusive 3 pro teams, and barring satellite carriage) happened in NY or closer to the capitol, the rules would have been changed. Another point is that Philadelphia needs Comcast in the city and region. It's like their biggest Fortune 500 company right? If Comcast were to move its offices to NY (which was mulled at the AT&T merger), the PA congressmen would no longer be friends of Comcast, and rules would be changed. Maybe there is a shot of closing the loophole with the Adelphia merger. Given the FCC's record of favoritism to the loophole or Comcast, though, Ithink the FCC would somehow manage to grandfather the Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia situation even if the loophole was closed for other markets or any new situations.Re: Inquirer Article Today Outlines Fight To Close Comcast's Loophole
PRISM was never on satellite. SportsChannel Philadelphia was on satellite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism_(TV_channel)One factoid:-Comcast owned a part of Primestar, however, Comcast didn't even want to grant Primestar access to Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia when it launched. Primestar later got bought by DirecTV, who transitioned Primestar customers to the DirecTV system.On my valuable exclusive comment on DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket, it is true DirecTV has added millions of customers with NFL Sunday Ticket. However, it remains a loss leader. DirecTV forks millions to the NFL for exclusivity for it, in hope to get more Total Choice subscribers. On Comcast Sports Net, I believe it's also a loss leader. First and foremost, Comcast loses lot of potential subscription revenue, and advertising revenue from the network for all the millions that go to satellite and never see CCSN. The Sixers and Flyers, owned by Comcast, lose an unmeasurable amount of exposure by not being available to many, including youths who are expected to patronize the teams when they become older. Thus the value of the teams are a lot less, than say another major market team. All this is done as a loss leader, just to help boost some cable revenues in the Philadelphia market.For those who mentioned HDNET or the local school board channel, neither are quite deciding factors. The loophole has brought lower satellite penetration compared to other markets. And general entertainment services are generally able to be duplicated. On the boycott of Comcast products, it didn't make enough of a dent with Echostar and OLN. Echostar (Dish Net.) is now carrying Comcast's OLN again, after pulling it for sometime. The carriage drop was mainly b/c Echostar didn't see the value of the channel to its cost, not something political or strategic for CCSN really. There may have been more of a dent if both Echostar and DirecTV had boycotted QVC (a shopping channel-cash cow type service, but not an entertainment one), back when it was majority Comcast owned, but point is, neither provider is really interested in boycotting Comcast's products to make an issue for CCSN-Philly. Despite what Echostar and DirecTV say in public comments, like you said, it has not been enough of a problem for DirecTV and Dish to bother with.fred flintstone said:
I
imhomerjay
Guest
A good point, and quite funny. The image of Rupert Murdoch as the champion for the little guy is comical. Ergen, Murdoch....whoever, and in whatever business, are out to make as many bucks as possible (as well they should be). It's not altruism at work. I thought I read this week that DirecTV just added something like 250,000 customers. Sounds like they're doing well. Another interesting angle is the concept of a monopoly. A few years back, my town approved a franchise for RCN to come in. Yes, I'm one of those types who attends tons of local public hearings (when most people would rather have root canal sans novicane), but they do provide some interesting bits of knowledge. As I understand what I heard, the law prohibits any new or renewed agreements with local cities to be exclusive (so once any existing exclusive agreements expire, they'll never happen again). RCN got their agreement, easily it seemed, but had financial problems and defaulted on their end of the deal to build a network. Now the council is looking at a proposal from Verizon, and it would seem they'd get an agreement (other towns have passed them)--and one could guess Verizon will be less likely to wind up in bankruptcy. Plus there are two satellite companies. So to get MTV, ESPN, FNC, etc., and my local TV stations I have three choices, someday to be four, and had one company had a better business model, it would have been five. That's not a monopoly. Sure, the signals may arrive in different ways, but the end result on the TV is the same whether it comes from the sky or the telephone pole.rch66 said:
Regional sports networks are a double edge sword. On one hand, providers need them. Other hand, rates go through the roof with them.In the Philadelphia area, it's not as if DirecTV is giving any discount to customers here. In NY, roughly $8 of the basic package cost goes to the NY based RSNs (there are 4 of them, x $2/mo). Granted, NY sports market is a farce currently. In Philadelphia, DirecTV pockets the programming cost set aside for the local RSN, and we get 0 RSNs. Here's a thought: why not offer a discount, b/c we are so unfortunate (as what they tell Congress and FCC). Instead we are subsidizing other markets.I tried both DirecTV and Dish Net., and didn't find either spectacular. DirecTV hasn't added a premium channel in years and runs it service without types like HBO Comedy and such. Back in the day, they dropped international services from their lineup and left their internationals subscribers with equipment but no programming. This despite the fact that the market was booming and Echostar was adding thousands of international customers. Prior to Murdoch, they operated under a mismanagement type style. Having more independent roots, Echostar has been more out to see what's profitable, etc., but they have sold buggy equipment and have used customers as beta-testers. Since now, you have to pay even to lease a HD receiver from them, you have to ensure the equipment is stable. You can't just drive over to an office and exchange. Dish will also pull popular channels off the system, for a period, which may bother some. Maybe Murdoch is better, but some of things DirecTV has done isn't so pleasant. What was up with dropping WLVT 39 earlier this year. They were really out of touch with the locals here, and it's practically impossible to complain. Atleast with Comcast, you can go to an office, the local newspapers are there, etc. Not to justify the loophole and FCC/Congress role, but just on satellite vs. comcast overall, satellite may be a better alternative for some, but atleast w/ me, I find Comcast to offer more a value, and I prefer the fact they are local. I think Verizon/FIOS could put a dent into Comcast's services. Verizon though has to see what'll they'll offer that will be unique or in demand. I don't expect a price-war (esp. if Verizon is limited to just few communities), but maybe some stabilizing in prices.
F
fred flintstone
Guest
Good points. Although I wouldn't consider Comcast "local" just because the company headquarters is in Philadelphia. Any company has to have a home office someplace but Philadelphia is just one market they serve these days. Yes, Comcast has customer service offices but going there to complain does no good; whatever your complaint is, those people can't do anything about it. If DirecTV and Dish pocket $8 per subscriber in the Philadelphia DMA, that's a big incentive not to fight the loophole too hard. But still, comparing basic services, the satellite services still offer more channels for a (somewhat) lower price - and provides a better picture than cable's analog tier.At all these conglomerates, bean counters rule - public be damned. Whom should you hate more: Murdoch or the Roberts? Tough choice.And Verizon is just as bad.
- Status