Federal Trade Commission OK's Adelphia Takeover

[ThatManDan]

(From "Broadcasting & Cable")

The Federal Trade Commission Tuesday approved the approximately $12.7 billion purchase of bankrupt Adelphia by Time Warner and Comcast without any conditions attached.

The two companies plan to split Adelphia’s 5.2 million subscribers between them and to swap some of their own existing subscribers between each other.

The FCC still has to sign off on the deal.

If the FCC gives it the go-ahead, as is expected, Comcast will serve approximately 26.8 million subscribers, or 28.9% of U.S. pay-TV subscribers.

Time Warner Cable says it will add 3.5 million subscribers, increasing its share of national pay-TV subscribership to 17.9%.

(Read more at

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6303706.html?display=Breaking+News

 

[r566]

> (From "Broadcasting & Cable")
>
> The Federal Trade Commission Tuesday approved the
> approximately $12.7 billion purchase of bankrupt Adelphia by
> Time Warner and Comcast without any conditions attached.
>
> The two companies plan to split Adelphia’s 5.2 million
> subscribers between them and to swap some of their own
> existing subscribers between each other.
>
> The FCC still has to sign off on the deal.
>
> If the FCC gives it the go-ahead, as is expected, Comcast
> will serve approximately 26.8 million subscribers, or 28.9%
> of U.S. pay-TV subscribers.
>
> Time Warner Cable says it will add 3.5 million subscribers,
> increasing its share of national pay-TV subscribership to
> 17.9%.
>
> (Read more at
>
http://www.broadc> astingcable.com/article/CA6303706.html?display=Breaking+News
>

Will the FCC bureaucrats will impose any conditions to Comcast and Time Warner?

Let's see. As per News buying DirecTV, NewsCorp, owner of DirecTV, is required to sell all Fox programming at a fair rate to Comcast, but Comcast can eschew offering the feed of Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia, despite being the largest multichannel provider and now acquiring Adelphia.

If Stop&Shop was granted a loophole allowing it to be the only permitted grocer to sell milk in NorthEast, would the FTC have any qualms?

 

[KMRichards]

> Let's see. As per News buying DirecTV, NewsCorp, owner of
> DirecTV, is required to sell all Fox programming at a fair
> rate to Comcast, but Comcast can eschew offering the feed of
> Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia, despite being the largest
> multichannel provider and now acquiring Adelphia.

I'm sure there is a comment process going on at the FCC. Why don't you lookup the docket number and write in?

> If Stop&Shop was granted a loophole allowing it to be the
> only permitted grocer to sell milk in NorthEast, would the
> FTC have any qualms?

Apples and oranges. Or perhaps apples and walnuts.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[r566]

> > Let's see. As per News buying DirecTV, NewsCorp, owner
> of
> > DirecTV, is required to sell all Fox programming at a fair
>
> > rate to Comcast, but Comcast can eschew offering the feed
> of
> > Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia, despite being the largest
>
> > multichannel provider and now acquiring Adelphia.
>
> I'm sure there is a comment process going on at the FCC.
> Why don't you lookup the docket number and write in?

In fact, both DirecTV and Dish Network, the SBCA have already commented. The FTC and FCC already have the comments. When they hear CSN Philly brought up, they just ignore it. Ditto when the program access laws were re-evaluated and extended, but no major changes were made, or Comcast acquiring AT&T systems.

Yet, NewsCorp. is regulated that its Fox channels must be available to all providers.

>
> > If Stop&Shop was granted a loophole allowing it to be the
> > only permitted grocer to sell milk in NorthEast, would the
>
> > FTC have any qualms?
>
> Apples and oranges. Or perhaps apples and walnuts.
>

How? A local monopoly on a given commodity.

It could be determined that a local RSN is a must have product, just like milk would be at a grocery store.

No other markets have this situation (3 pro-teams affiliated with a cable owned RSN, exclusive teams to a region, and distributed cable only). The satellite companies are prospering in other markets, but not in the Philadelphia market, and thus cannot compete effectively. The consumer sector suffers with less choice and likely inflated prices, here.

So, goes for the FTC doing their job to preserve competition, evaluating anti-trust concerns with mergers and the intent of program-access laws.

By not attaching conditions, it only permits Comcast and Time Warner to withhold local sports programming in more markets.

Just another win for Comcast and the cable cartel.

 

[KMRichards]

> > Apples and oranges. Or perhaps apples and walnuts.
>
> How? A local monopoly on a given commodity.
>
> It could be determined that a local RSN is a must have
> product, just like milk would be at a grocery store.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. There is no sense that the "need" for a RSN equates to a "need" for milk. One is a food staple, the other is not.

No violation of the program-access laws exist in the Comcast situation for one simple reason: The Philadelphia service is not available via a satellite feed (being the descendant of Prism, using its own dedicated microwave network) whereas the Fox channels are, and Comcast does have satellite carriage of similar networks it owns that do transmit via satellite, such as Comcast SportsNet Chicago.

In short, the lack of satellite transmission <u>by Comcast</u> in distribution of the channel excludes it from the very laws you claim the FTC is "protecting" them from. It is simply outside the classification of the programming those laws govern.

Your argument would fall flat if presented to the FTC.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[HomerJay]

The law is quite clear--signals delivered via terrestrial means are not required to be offered to satellite. When an entity is already being distributed via satellite, that's one thing, but SportsNet never has been...and that would make it unreasonable seizure to force a company to invest in a new distribution system, for the sole purpose of providing its programs to a competitor. (By the way, competing cable providers can get SportsNet.)

> > Let's see. As per News buying DirecTV, NewsCorp, owner
> of
> > DirecTV, is required to sell all Fox programming at a fair
>
> > rate to Comcast, but Comcast can eschew offering the feed
> of
> > Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia, despite being the largest
>
> > multichannel provider and now acquiring Adelphia.
>
> I'm sure there is a comment process going on at the FCC.
> Why don't you lookup the docket number and write in?
>
> > If Stop&Shop was granted a loophole allowing it to be the
> > only permitted grocer to sell milk in NorthEast, would the
>
> > FTC have any qualms?
>
> Apples and oranges. Or perhaps apples and walnuts.
>

 

[RWickson]

Thank God...I can't wait to get Comcast and get rid of Adelphia's sucky cable. Any ideas on a timeframe that this might get the final rubberstamped ok?

 

[r566]

> The law is quite clear--signals delivered via terrestrial
> means are not required to be offered to satellite. When an
> entity is already being distributed via satellite, that's
> one thing, but SportsNet never has been...and that would
> make it unreasonable seizure to force a company to invest in
> a new distribution system, for the sole purpose of providing
> its programs to a competitor. (By the way, competing cable
> providers can get SportsNet.)
>

And laws can be changed, or specific conditions can trump a loophole. It's the FTC's job to scrutinize mergers, and impose conditions in these situations. This merger is the two largest cable operators annexing another, with ability for horizontal price fixing for regional sports net programming.

"and that would make it unreasonable seizure to force a company to invest in a new distribution system"

I never indicated for forcing a company to invest in a new distribution system. None would be needed. The satellite companies already have a point-of-presence for uplinking local channels in each city, including Philadelphia. That would simply mean one party offering a fiber optic source to another party. Right now, Comcast doesn't want to offer it, but it wouldn't be a new distribution system at any way.


> > > Let's see. As per News buying DirecTV, NewsCorp, owner
>
> > of
> > > DirecTV, is required to sell all Fox programming at a
> fair
> >
> > > rate to Comcast, but Comcast can eschew offering the
> feed
> > of
> > > Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia, despite being the
> largest
> >
> > > multichannel provider and now acquiring Adelphia.
> >
> > I'm sure there is a comment process going on at the FCC.
> > Why don't you lookup the docket number and write in?
> >
> > > If Stop&Shop was granted a loophole allowing it to be
> the
> > > only permitted grocer to sell milk in NorthEast, would
> the
> >
> > > FTC have any qualms?
> >
> > Apples and oranges. Or perhaps apples and walnuts.
> >
>

 

[r566]

> > > Apples and oranges. Or perhaps apples and walnuts.
> >
> > How? A local monopoly on a given commodity.
> >
> > It could be determined that a local RSN is a must have
> > product, just like milk would be at a grocery store.
>
> I think that's a bit of a stretch. There is no sense that
> the "need" for a RSN equates to a "need" for milk. One is a
> food staple, the other is not.
>

There is a need for must-have programming.

If you recall, EchoStar and DirecTV were vocal proponents for extension [of program access], claiming they could lose access to 45 cable-affiliated networks, including such marquee brands as CNN, Discovery and Home Box Office.

If the satellite operators lost these must-have networks, churn would diminish their subscriber base, and you'd hear about bankruptcy.

If you understood the intent of program access, it was to clearly give the satellite companies, and overbuilders (like RCN), the ability to have must-have programming to compete against the cable companies. A loophole did exist (based on type of transmission), giving Comcast the ability to circumvent offering CCSN-Philly in Philadelphia, but it was a loophole. The channel is the only source for the only pro NBA, NHL and MLB affiliated team in the region. Fortunately for the satellite companies, it affected less than 3% of the [potential] customerbase, or the Philadelphia market, with about 3% of the TV HH according to Nielsen Media.

> No violation of the program-access laws exist in the Comcast
> situation for one simple reason: The Philadelphia service
> is not available via a satellite feed (being the descendant
> of Prism, using its own dedicated microwave network) whereas
> the Fox channels are, and Comcast does have satellite
> carriage of similar networks it owns that do transmit via
> satellite, such as Comcast SportsNet Chicago.
>
> In short, the lack of satellite transmission by Comcast in
> distribution of the channel excludes it from the very laws
> you claim the FTC is "protecting" them from. It is simply
> outside the classification of the programming those laws
> govern.
>

Wrong. It's not outside the classification. Again, program access laws were renewed but the loophole (or qualifying types of transmission) wasn't reconsidered. The intent of the law remains the same. So, the must-have popular cable network programming wouldn't become exclusives to providers.


> Your argument would fall flat if presented to the FTC.
>

 

[HomerJay]

> > The law is quite clear--signals delivered via terrestrial
> > means are not required to be offered to satellite. When
> an
> > entity is already being distributed via satellite, that's
> > one thing, but SportsNet never has been...and that would
> > make it unreasonable seizure to force a company to invest
> in
> > a new distribution system, for the sole purpose of
> providing
> > its programs to a competitor. (By the way, competing
> cable
> > providers can get SportsNet.)
> >
>
> And laws can be changed. It's the FTC's job to scrutinize
> mergers, and impose conditions in these situations. This
> merger is the two largest cable operators annexing another,
> with ability for horizontal price fixing.
>
And where is the law that blocks a provider from signing an exclusive programming pact as in DirecTV's case? DirecTV has no problem exploiting their competitive advantage when it comes to Sunday Ticket, as well they shouldn't. But to whine that someone won't give you their toys, in complete accordance with the law and upheld in multiple court cases, while you go and stock up on your own toys gives hypocrite a whole new meaning.

No customer will have reduced choice because of this. The government red-tape factory did the right thing in this case and should use it as a model for other cases. The so-called ability for price fixing is a red herring. If programming costs are driven down by increased scale, that benefits consumers, it doesn't harm them.

 

[r566]

> > > The law is quite clear--signals delivered via
> terrestrial
> > > means are not required to be offered to satellite. When
>
> > an
> > > entity is already being distributed via satellite,
> that's
> > > one thing, but SportsNet never has been...and that would
>
> > > make it unreasonable seizure to force a company to
> invest
> > in
> > > a new distribution system, for the sole purpose of
> > providing
> > > its programs to a competitor. (By the way, competing
> > cable
> > > providers can get SportsNet.)
> > >
> >
> > And laws can be changed. It's the FTC's job to
> scrutinize
> > mergers, and impose conditions in these situations. This
> > merger is the two largest cable operators annexing
> another,
> > with ability for horizontal price fixing.
> >



> And where is the law that blocks a provider from signing an
> exclusive programming pact as in DirecTV's case? DirecTV
> has no problem exploiting their competitive advantage when
> it comes to Sunday Ticket, as well they shouldn't. But to
> whine that someone won't give you their toys, in complete
> accordance with the law and upheld in multiple court cases,
> while you go and stock up on your own toys gives hypocrite
> a whole new meaning.
>

The classic NFL Sunday Ticket tie-in. The NFL and DirecTV aren't co-owned, and DirecTV forks millions for the exclusivity as a loss leader. The broadcast networks, including CBS, originally had clauses that prevented cable from getting NFL games. Local programming trumps as a must-have over an out-of-market alacarte package, but that's an opinioned statement.

Anyways, it is true that Echostar, having no big exclusivity, has been a lot more vocal about the inability to have CCSN-Philly, and raised the comment to the FTC. Echostar is waiting upon conditions. Comcast-OLN unavailable on Dish Network is also be awaited.

I do feel NewsCorp controlled DirecTV has become a poorer operator, and would likely be in the 'they don't care' boat, unless this started cropping in other markets.

> No customer will have reduced choice because of this. The
> government red-tape factory did the right thing in this case
> and should use it as a model for other cases. The so-called
> ability for price fixing is a red herring. If programming
> costs are driven down by increased scale, that benefits
> consumers, it doesn't harm them.
>

When an operator is blocked out of local must-have pro-sports, they can't sign customers. Choice benefits consumers(customers).

 

[HomerJay]

>
> > And where is the law that blocks a provider from signing
> an
> > exclusive programming pact as in DirecTV's case? DirecTV
> > has no problem exploiting their competitive advantage when
>
> > it comes to Sunday Ticket, as well they shouldn't. But to
>
> > whine that someone won't give you their toys, in complete
> > accordance with the law and upheld in multiple court
> cases,
> > while you go and stock up on your own toys gives
> hypocrite
> > a whole new meaning.
> >
>
> The classic NFL Sunday Ticket tie-in. The NFL and DirecTV
> aren't co-owned, and DirecTV forks millions for the
> exclusivity as a loss leader.


The question of whether the programming originates from a co-owned organization or through a contractual relationship is as much a "loophole" as the satellite delivery question.

Yes, DirecTV forked over millions to get an exclusive programming package. In exactly one market, a cable company has created valuable content of its own that it uses for the same competitive purposes. Forcing one company to invest in unnecessary technology solely so that a competitor can reap the benefits is creating an uneven playing field.

Part of the problem is outdated laws, even when they're not a full "generation" old. DirecTV and Dish are hardly stuggling competitors. The last I read, they get something like 3/4 of all new pay-TV customers between them. That's a heck of a good place to be.

>
> Anyways, it is true that Echostar, having no big
> exclusivity, has been a lot more vocal about the inability
> to have CCSN-Philly, and raised the comment to the FTC. It
> could also do with Echostar waiting on the OLN issue.

Since DirecTV has gone out and locked up rights to exclusive programming, EchoStar could do the same; not NFL, but that's not cable's doing either. There's nothing preventing them from looking for an opportunity, perhaps on a lesser scale, from finding something to give them a competitive advantage.


> >
>
> When an operator is blocked out of local must-have
> pro-sports, they can't sign customers. Choice benefits
> consumers.
>

At the end of the day, pay TV is not a right; it's a luxury. I'm of a libertarian philosophy in many cases, so I tend to believe the government should keep its nose out of non-essential services. You might like and want a particular channel, but that doesn't mean it's the place of the government to step in with communist-style rules to make sure you can have it exactly the way you want it. No true harm comes from not being able to see channel X on satellite because the cable company doesn't give it to them.

The government is too big and keeps finding new ways to spend our money. All of these agencies and Congressional committees exist for one purpose: self prepetuation. On topics of non-essential services and issues that don't impact safety, the free market should be left alone. Consumers do have a choice--our "nanny state" culture, however, has reduced us to whining to the government when we don't *like* the choices, expecting Big Brother to step in and make things exactly the way we want them. I know it will never change of course--the politicans will pander for votes and keep the machine humming right along--but I'll take any victories for less red tape and interference where they come, no matter the subject.

My parents taught me an important lesson early on: "You can't always have what you want. Get over it."

 

[r566]

> >
> > > And where is the law that blocks a provider from signing
>
> > an
> > > exclusive programming pact as in DirecTV's case?
> DirecTV
> > > has no problem exploiting their competitive advantage
> when
> >
> > > it comes to Sunday Ticket, as well they shouldn't. But
> to
> >
> > > whine that someone won't give you their toys, in
> complete
> > > accordance with the law and upheld in multiple court
> > cases,
> > > while you go and stock up on your own toys gives
> > hypocrite
> > > a whole new meaning.
> > >
> >
> > The classic NFL Sunday Ticket tie-in. The NFL and
> DirecTV
> > aren't co-owned, and DirecTV forks millions for the
> > exclusivity as a loss leader.
>
>
> The question of whether the programming originates from a
> co-owned organization or through a contractual relationship
> is as much a "loophole" as the satellite delivery question.
>
>
> Yes, DirecTV forked over millions to get an exclusive
> programming package. In exactly one market, a cable company
> has created valuable content of its own that it uses for the
> same competitive purposes. Forcing one company to invest in
> unnecessary technology solely so that a competitor can reap
> the benefits is creating an uneven playing field.
>

I don't see the 'investments in unnecessary technologies' argument you are referring about as relevant. No new lofty investments in technology would be needed to uplink a channel. Laws are created with intent, and program access was brought into law on an intent, not just a technical consideration.

> Part of the problem is outdated laws, even when they're not
> a full "generation" old. DirecTV and Dish are hardly
> stuggling competitors. The last I read, they get something
> like 3/4 of all new pay-TV customers between them. That's a
> heck of a good place to be.
>

Yes, I did mention that they are prospering, primarily as they are enjoying economies of scale as national operators. Down to the root of it, I'm not concerned about the providers; it is the end consumers that the FTC should be thinking about when reviewing mergers.

If the situation in Philadelphia existed across the county (with lack of must-have programming), it might not be so, and you might satellite tv being ancilliary in nature, and not directly competing with cable. The way it was started, with all of gov't interventions, was the intent of allocating CONUS spectrum to DirecTV and Echostar, was so the mini-dish providers could effectively compete with cable television Further, to make that possible there needed to be some rules, including program access laws, that solved the programming issues.


> >
> > Anyways, it is true that Echostar, having no big
> > exclusivity, has been a lot more vocal about the inability
>
> > to have CCSN-Philly, and raised the comment to the FTC.
> It
> > could also do with Echostar waiting on the OLN issue.
>
> Since DirecTV has gone out and locked up rights to exclusive
> programming, EchoStar could do the same; not NFL, but that's
> not cable's doing either. There's nothing preventing them
> from looking for an opportunity, perhaps on a lesser scale,
> from finding something to give them a competitive advantage.
>
>
Echostar does have exclusive international channel programming. DirecTV does as well.


>
> > >
> >
> > When an operator is blocked out of local must-have
> > pro-sports, they can't sign customers. Choice benefits
> > consumers.
> >

From a macrocosmic standpoint, I have agreement with you on most your comments below.


>
> At the end of the day, pay TV is not a right; it's a luxury.
> I'm of a libertarian philosophy in many cases, so I tend to
> believe the government should keep its nose out of
> non-essential services. You might like and want a
> particular channel, but that doesn't mean it's the place of
> the government to step in with communist-style rules to make
> sure you can have it exactly the way you want it. No true
> harm comes from not being able to see channel X on satellite
> because the cable company doesn't give it to them.
>
> The government is too big and keeps finding new ways to
> spend our money. All of these agencies and Congressional
> committees exist for one purpose: self prepetuation. On
> topics of non-essential services and issues that don't
> impact safety, the free market should be left alone.
> Consumers do have a choice--our "nanny state" culture,
> however, has reduced us to whining to the government when we
> don't *like* the choices, expecting Big Brother to step in
> and make things exactly the way we want them. I know it
> will never change of course--the politicans will pander for
> votes and keep the machine humming right along--but I'll
> take any victories for less red tape and interference where
> they come, no matter the subject.
>
> My parents taught me an important lesson early on: "You
> can't always have what you want. Get over it."
>

 

[KMRichards]

> There is a need for must-have programming.
>
> If you recall, EchoStar and DirecTV were vocal proponents
> for extension [of program access], claiming they could lose
> access to 45 cable-affiliated networks, including such
> marquee brands as CNN, Discovery and Home Box Office.

I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't fly either. There is a big difference in the "must-have" factor between CNN/Discovery/HBO and a regional sports network.

If you don't see that, then I am not surprised your arguments fail.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[shadowman]

> Thank God...I can't wait to get Comcast and get rid of
> Adelphia's sucky cable. Any ideas on a timeframe that this
> might get the final rubberstamped ok?
>

The only question I have about the Adelphia sale is who will take over their operations in Puerto Rico, or will this be the last remaining system under Adelphia's name?

 

[JeeperOne]

Hi everyone:

> Since DirecTV has gone out and locked up rights to exclusive
> programming, EchoStar could do the same; not NFL, but that's
> not cable's doing either. There's nothing preventing them
> from looking for an opportunity, perhaps on a lesser scale,
> from finding something to give them a competitive advantage.

The NBA or maybe even the NHL would be RIPE for something like this. In fact, so would MLB if the owners saw fit.

Just my $.02 worth

Cheers

Pat<P ID="signature">______________

http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
Radio? Uhh.....What's THAT?? </P>

 

[r566]

> > There is a need for must-have programming.
> >
> > If you recall, EchoStar and DirecTV were vocal proponents
> > for extension [of program access], claiming they could
> lose
> > access to 45 cable-affiliated networks, including such
> > marquee brands as CNN, Discovery and Home Box Office.
>
> I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't fly either. There is a
> big difference in the "must-have" factor between
> CNN/Discovery/HBO and a regional sports network.
>
> If you don't see that, then I am not surprised your
> arguments fail.
>

The local RSN is one of the most watched channels in any given market, and given the popularity, that's how they are able to extract far more fees (over $2/mo/sub) than a channel like CNN. Given it's widespread coverage across the country on basic tiers, and its popularity, it has "must-have" factor, esp. when the RSN is the exclusive RSN, affiliated with 3 pro teams.

I don't respect your lack of any factual support (you originally didn't see any programming as must-have then view CNN, HBO as must-have but not RSN), incorrect opinions or your condescending attitude. Ironic that you are a Moderator. I'm bowing out of this thread now.

 

[KMRichards]

> (you
> originally didn't see any programming as must-have then view
> CNN, HBO as must-have but not RSN)

Why do you think I put "must-have" in quotation marks? Because I don't believe your argument.

> incorrect opinions

I'm sorry, there is no such thing. Facts can be correct or proved incorrect, but opinions are always correct because they reflect the personal view of the poster. An opinion cannot be called incorrect just because you disagree with it.

> your condescending attitude.

I tend to get that way when my replies to someone's view is answered with the same rhetoric I challenged.

> Ironic that you are a Moderator.

Moderators are not prohibited from participation on the boards they moderate. In fact, one of the criteria for moderators is that they only moderate boards they are active on. Perhaps that is another area you are lacking in knowledge of.

> I'm bowing out of this thread now.

Don't let the door hit you, etc.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>