Wrong. They've been carrying it for about a month.
Seriously, you need to check the regulations before you start arguing about something you clearly have not researched. There was someone on DSLReports who acted the same way...FiOS will never have MSG HD and the FCC has no authority to do this.
He was wrong...and so are you. The ball for this is in DirecTV's court. They need to file an official request with the FCC, just as Verizon and ATT did, to have the FCC act on this. Until they do, the FCC won't do a thing and Comcast will continue to withhold CSN Philly.
Once that paperwork is filed with the FCC, there will be news about it.
I have checked my facts, and I have yet to see anything to say I am wrong, again, based on reports and things I have seen before many times, including here on this forum board and elsewhere. Don't compare me to others, and don't compare the MSG situation to the one in philly. They are all completely independent of each other. I will offer up some aritcles for you to read so maybe we can at least see each others points a little clearer. Please dispute all this and do so by offering actual links to some of your rebuttles. Seriously, I want to know why all the stuff I have read is wrong. If you can show me links that prove your points, great, I'll happily admit I am wrong, but I have yet to see anything that contradicts that the FCC can not force comcast to sell the philly rsn to directv or dish, for a price the FCC sets, which you seem to think they can do. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
Here are some facts that I have read over the years that you seem to completely contradict some of your assertations...
How long has Verizon been able to carry the channel...
Now maybe these are two different areas, and one area just added it as well, or else I completely missed the uproar when this was agreed to but never actually happened. If you can point me to any article saying so, please do. But according to this, Verizon fios has had the channel for a WHILE, or December 2006 based on this:http://www.multichan...t_Agreement.phphttp://broadcastengi...agreement-0112/http://news.thomasne...d-Versus-501159http://newscenter.ve...ments-with.html
and of course a channel lineup for verizon fios from 2010...http://www22.verizon..._031810_CLU.pdf
I can also find several articles stating that dish was set to file with the fcc over comcast not negotiating in good faith to let them have the channel back in the summer of 2010, but I haven't ever seen or been able to find anything that says how that has come out. And that would probably have to have been changed by now anyway, since comcast bought NBC, and that does have a huge affect.
The fcc can absolutely force someone to offer it, but if you can point me to anything anywhere in any ruling or even an article that proves the FCC can force a certain rate on a provider, please point me to it. And you just can not even begin to compare the msg thing with this one. They are not at all alike. The providers already had the sd version, and msg was withholding the hd versions. That issue isn't even on they same planet, not to mention they are idiots to try and use a loophole to get away with that. And that loop hole doesn't apply to comcast philly anymore anyway, and they aren't hiding behind it either.
Verizon had CSN because Comcast allowed them to carry it. They could have prevented Verizon from having the channel if they wanted. But the reason Verizon pushed to close the loophole was because they wanted access to MSG HD, which CableVision was keeping from AT&T and Verizon. They were using the loophole to prevent carriage.
BTW, if these providers could charge ridiculous rates for channels, then I have a question. Why isn't MSG charging an arm and a leg for MSG HD and MSG+ HD? I mean it's not like CV didn't fight hammer and tong to prevent AT&T and Verizon from having the channels. They did. They made no bones about the fact that they would refuse until the end of time to give the channels over. They went to some extreme lengths to do it. For example, they took the MSG holdings and created their own separate company with them, claiming that they were an independent operation. Why? Because independent operators aren't required to provide their channels to everyone - this ruling ONLY applies to providers that own channels. The FCC didn't buy that argument.
Then CV sued, twice, to argue that the FCC didn't have the authority to close the loophole like that.
That didn't work, so they went one last route - after the FCC found in Verizon's/AT&T's favor, CV sued one more time - they argued that Verizon and AT&T didn't meet the definition required to receive the channel - they disputed that either company was being hurt financially by not having the channel. A move that also failed.
So... here you have one provider (CV) that has channels (MSG HD) that were being denied. CV has a very virtriolic hatred of AT&T and Verizon. They fought like crazy to prevent them from getting MSG HD. They went down on that fight swinging like crazy. And STILL CV didn't charge usery rates to AT&T and Verizon. Odd, huh? Makes no sense... unless you consider that: it's illegal for CV to do that.
Not to attack you, but your understanding of this issue isn't correct. DirecTV is being denied CSN BECAUSE of the loophole. Verizon was denied MSG HD BECAUSE of the loophole. The idea that Verizon could get access to the channel if they just ran fiber for the entire transmission is 100% wrong. The terrestrial loophole basically says this: if I'm a provider and I have a channel that I carry terrestrially only, I can prevent ANY other carrier from having that channel. Period. This whole move by the FCC is to close (in many cases) the loophole. How in the world can this NOT affect DirecTV? Of course it does.
The loop hole was about avoiding dbs distribution, not fiber distribution, so I don't think the loop hole applied at all to verizon, which I believe was what they had been saying at the time. Not at all the same as the fact the loop hole let them not offer to sat because the channel never touched a sat uplink. (see the full loop hole a little latter) And that's what their argument used to be as to why they let verizon have it but wouldn't even talk to dbs.
Again, MSG is another issue entirely, and not relevant enough to even bring to this conversation. One is about having multiple versions of the same channel being allowed, and the other is about getting the channel period. Not to mention, how do you know they aren't charging an arm and a leg? They didn't want them to have the channels in hd period, in an attempt to say look, if you really don't want our service, well give it to other providers but not as a good a version, so we can still make our ad revenue on you and not take that hit, but still also give us a leg up on the competition so that more people will likely come to use anyway. They where trying to have their cake and eat it too, twice over. They where trying to fight it like McCourt was trying to fight to keep the Dodgers. They did everything wrong, and tried smoke and mirrors to say they could get the loophole, even though that's not at all true anyway, based on the fcc ruling. And their last suit, that was that they weren't being hurt because it was only offered in sd, and not hd and sd. Again, a totally different situation. Should we someday see that channel on dbs, we will never see an sd only version of comcast philly, I am sure of that! As bad as comcast is, not even they are that stupid!
And its not illegal for them to charge more. Show me one thing that att and verizon aren't paying more for the hd channels now please. Besides, who knows whats included in those contracts in the first place. It could have been worded just so that verizon and att said that the carriage of the hd versions was included in the contract price. Again, I have seen nothing in the ruling regarding the pricing being set by the FCC. Can you point that out to me, maybe I am missing it.
The loop hole in how it was affecting the the philly market... ( I did not mean to imply that verizon should be able to carry it because they ran fiber. Sorry if I wasn't clear there, I was referring to the fact that comcast never sent the signal out via sat at any point, so that allowed them to avoid offering it to dbs providers)Unlike most other cable networks, CSN Philadelphia is distributed only via microwave and fiber optics. The infrastructure Comcast uses for this was left over from the now defunct PRISM Network. Since CSN Philadelphia does not uplink its signal to any satellite, Comcast was able to avoid an FCC regulation that requires most television channels to be offered to direct broadcast satellite (DBS) companies (known as the "terrestrial loophole"). As a result of limited availability, DBS providers DirecTV and Dish Network realized far slower penetration into the Philadelphia market. Craig Moffett, a senior analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. L.L.C., estimated the number of potential customers lost due to the loophole at 450,000.
On January 20, 2010, the FCC voted 4-1 to close the terrestrial loophole. Lawyers for DirecTV and Dish Network had attempted to show that Comcast Corporation, who owns both CSN Philadelphia along with most of the cable systems in the Philadelphia market, acted in restraint of trade because it did not uplink CSN Philadelphia to satellite. Comcast does not plan to appeal the decision, so DirecTV and Dish can negotiate immediately to add the channel to their lineups. Both providers formally asked for access to the channel on June 25, 2010.  On July 28, 2010, it was reported that Comcast is in talks with DirecTV and Dish Network for carriage of CSN Philadelphia.  Two days later, after accusing Comcast of refusing to negotiate in good faith, Dish Network said it will file a complaint with the FCC.  The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the original FCC's ruling on June 10, 2011. 
Now here is the big thing. None of this loop hole stuff applies to comcast philly anymore at all, no matter what, and comcast is not at all hiding behind any loop hole anymore, by their own doing, and that isn't even up for debate, even though some of you guys seem to think that's what they are doing. Here is why. They agreed to make all their channels, including philly rsn available to all providers including dbs as part of their agreement in buying NBC. An article to read.http://www.dailyfina...n-its-backyard/
One last point - your definition of 'economic harm' isn't the same as what the FCC's is. The FCC considers loss of customers due to lack of having the channels 'economic harm'. Verizon made that very argument with RSNs. Studies that they did indicated that the DBS penetration rate in the Philly market was 40% below the average for a market this size. 40%. They found similar numbers in other markets, like San Diego. The common factor in all those markets? The lack of access by DirecTV and Dish to the RSNs for the market.
You better believe it's causing DirecTV economic harm. The definition you're using is the same one that CV used in trying to stop Verizon from having MSG. It was utterly rejected by the FCC and later by the second circuit court.
Yeah, again, they can't use that argument to force comcast to agree to a certain price for carriage of the channel. That was about not even being offered the channel. Again different things.
The only real recourse Directv has is to file a complaint with the fcc that they are not negotiating in good faith. And I'd love to see them prove that, but I just don't think that's going to happen. I can easily see comcast saying they will only negotiate carrige for that channel bundled with other nbc owned channels, and other stipulations, including fees based on the fact the channel would be national on Directv, its digital rights etc, and that's something that the FCC has yet to stop, no matter how much most people would love to see that. Why do you think the fcc keeps responding to all the complaints people file about how they don't get involved in pricing disputes? Because that's whats going on here now. Obviously that's not the way its always been, but it is today, and that's why I doubt we will see the channel. The only real chance IMHO to see it picked up sooner rather than latter is if Directv can negotiate a great bundled deal for all NBC/Comcast owned stations that it wants, and none of the ones it doesn't want. CSN Philly is now in the exact same situation as CSN NW. Pricing purgatory. So when does all the contracts that DirecTV has with Comcast/NBC other channels come up for renewal? That's the date I'd look at as the first chance to see the channel on Directv.
Oh, and Directv would never want the FCC to decide a price for a channel either... No provider would. They just want the FCC to do a few things to make it easier for them to negotiate from a position of more power. Like not let companies ONLY negotiate for bundled channels. Of course, bundles sometimes gets them better pricing, so its a double edged sward.