1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

FCC's program access rules headed toward extinction

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by TheRatPatrol, Sep 17, 2012.

  1. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
  2. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    Sep 16, 2006
    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.
  3. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    Jul 21, 2008
    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
  4. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    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. Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    Dec 2, 2010
    Nice link, good catch.

    One oddity in the reporting:
    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.
  6. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Apr 17, 2003
    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. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    Mar 18, 2008
    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".
  8. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    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...
  9. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    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. jeepwrang3

    jeepwrang3 Legend

    Aug 19, 2006
    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
    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.
  11. JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    Jul 21, 2008
    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?
  12. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    Apr 23, 2002
    Certainly, Comcast is behind this and will likely be the primary beneficiary.
  13. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    Mar 20, 2010
    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. espnjason

    espnjason Armchair Referee

    Sep 30, 2008
    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. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    Mar 18, 2008
    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.

Share This Page