Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

FCC's program access rules headed toward extinction


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,763 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:58 PM

Could this hurt satellite?

FCC's program access rules headed toward extinction

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   Davenlr

Davenlr

    Geek til I die

  • Registered
  • 9,090 posts
Joined: Sep 16, 2006

Posted 17 September 2012 - 08:09 PM

I think only perhaps cable co owned sports channels. I cannot see any basic channel owned by any company being restricted from picking up 12 to 32 million more viewers. I can, however, see them withholding sports channels to force the local sports fans from having to subscribe to their cable service to get it.

Tivo Premier XL4, Tivo Premier, Tivo HD whole home on Xfinity HD, DirecTv Whole Home with 39" high gain KaKu dish, Roku3,SageTv 8 TB Win8 Server -> DVDO Edge-> Denon AVR, Klipsch KB15's/Panasonic 55ST60 plasma"


#3 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,229 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:51 PM

I think only perhaps cable co owned sports channels. I cannot see any basic channel owned by any company being restricted from picking up 12 to 32 million more viewers. I can, however, see them withholding sports channels to force the local sports fans from having to subscribe to their cable service to get it.


well I think the RSN that the teams have a big part of the owner ship are safe.

CSN Chicago has BIG sponsorship from NON comcast tv providers and the teams have 80% owner ship
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#4 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 6,763 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:57 PM

well I think the RSN that the teams have a big part of the owner ship are safe.

CSN Chicago has BIG sponsorship from NON comcast tv providers and the teams have 80% owner ship


The same for CSN Houston, the teams own 77% of the channel, lets hope they make it on D*.

Its too bad the Lakers don't have more say in their new channel.

#5 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,586 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:04 PM

Nice link, good catch.

One oddity in the reporting:
Quote:
competition in the distribution business. Another argument for getting rid of the regulations has been that program owners want their channels distributed on as many services as possible to reach more viewers and take in more money from advertising and subscription fees.
I wonder how do those rules prevent widening distribution? I think that's a strawman.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#6 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,898 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 18 September 2012 - 11:30 PM

The RSNs seem to be the most sought after programming that has been withheld by one provider to prevent another from having it. There are other "exclusive" channels but market forces have led to distribution. When a channel owner has a product that they can make a few million dollars off of each month by agreeing to distribution on other systems it makes sense. If they can make more money by keeping it an exclusive then that practice makes sense.

Even if the specific program access rules go away the carriers can still file a complaint against a company that refuses to share. It sounds like the program access rules were redundant rules.

#7 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 19 September 2012 - 02:56 AM

Congress has already set a precedence when they stepped in and stopped DIRECTV and MLB EI exclusivity. It will be interesting to see what happens when a cable company does choose to say "We don't have to legally provide it to you".
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#8 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,803 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 19 September 2012 - 04:44 AM

The net result is to commoditize popular programming. That likely will be more of an issue/impact to the source of the content but also impact the distributor.

More distribution providers offering the same service increases demand...and we know what happens to prices when demand goes up...

Edited by hdtvfan0001, 19 September 2012 - 05:59 AM.

DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#9 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 6,763 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 19 September 2012 - 05:57 AM

Even if the specific program access rules go away the carriers can still file a complaint against a company that refuses to share. It sounds like the program access rules were redundant rules.


Didn't seem to work too well with the CSN-Philly situation.

What the FCC should have done a long time ago is not allow cable companys to own cable channels, especially RSNs.

#10 OFFLINE   jeepwrang3

jeepwrang3

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 137 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2006

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:15 AM

Sorry, RatPatrol. I tend to just do a search for CSN Philly once a week on here and didn't see this thread.


Another interesting clause in that is

The largest vertically integrated cable company is Comcast, which after its merger with NBCUniversal became parent of several popular cable channels including USA, CNBC and Bravo. However, even after the program access rules go away, Comcast will still operate as if they were in place because it was one of the conditions it agreed to in return for approval of its merger.

So without knowing exactly what's in the agreement, they may still follow the path set forth. Its just frustrating that it seemed like change was finally going to happen.
Long time Lurker, first time poster :nono2:

#11 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,229 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:15 AM

The net result is to commoditize popular programming. That likely will be more of an issue/impact to the source of the content but also impact the distributor.

More distribution providers offering the same service increases demand...and we know what happens to prices when demand goes up...


Now Is cable holding out for a different rule or is will to wait for this rule to end and then pull most of the RSN channels and say Want OUR RSN then We want NFL ticket.

Or maybe even write a new law that makes it so that directv can't be the only system with the NFL ticket?
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#12 OFFLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,300 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:34 AM

Certainly, Comcast is behind this and will likely be the primary beneficiary.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#13 OFFLINE   runner861

runner861

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 859 posts
Joined: Mar 19, 2010

Posted 19 September 2012 - 10:52 AM

Congress has already set a precedence when they stepped in and stopped DIRECTV and MLB EI exclusivity. It will be interesting to see what happens when a cable company does choose to say "We don't have to legally provide it to you".


I don't recall that Congress did step in and stop Direct and MLB extra innings exclusivity. I recall that John McCain and John Kerry were threatening to introduce a bill to address the situation, but then MLB and Direct amended their agreement to allow cable to offer extra innings. Are you aware of some legislation that was signed into law addressing the situation?

#14 OFFLINE   espnjason

espnjason

    Armchair Referee

  • Registered
  • 529 posts
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Posted 20 September 2012 - 09:30 AM

I've mentioned before that DirecTV should make carriage of all CSNs including Philly a prerequisite for renewal or initial launch of any NBCU entity.

Time Warner theoretically could be dealt with in the same manner (Turner Networks et. al.).

MSG and Cablevision, despite the split, still have the same puppet master and thus will be the difficult one to deal with.

#15 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 20 September 2012 - 11:03 AM

I don't recall that Congress did step in and stop Direct and MLB extra innings exclusivity. I recall that John McCain and John Kerry were threatening to introduce a bill to address the situation, but then MLB and Direct amended their agreement to allow cable to offer extra innings. Are you aware of some legislation that was signed into law addressing the situation?


When Congress threatens to start hearings and introduce bills it's stepping in. DIRECTV didn't amend anything it's just that MLB took a lower bid and allowed multiple services.

DIRECTV isn't dumb they know that cable companies are going to start holding fans hostage with RSN's. The way to combat that is to focus on the out of market fans and overall sports nuts. So now we get to see if DIRECTV's lobbyist are as good, and as well paid, as the ones for the cable companies.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV




Protected By... spam firewall...And...