[TheRatPatrol]

Well there is a question of technicality here. They may not use sat at all' I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. What they may do (and this could be in part because the leagues packages demand it to be available out of market) is allow a broadcaster or provider access to their fiber feed, and then tell them they have to pay for and operate their own facilities to get it to their sats, and the Comcast won't provide any support for that. It could also be that the producers of the games supplies Comcast with the feeds as well as sats, with the knowledge that they must use all of comcasts logos, etc. there are many different things that could be going on.

That could actually also be a huge issue with DirecTV. They could be having a huge argument over who pays to get the signal to DirecTV and it's upkeep in the first place.

True, and there are other channels that D* receives via fiber too, I think MSG is one of them.

 

[B.Parent1974]

Is there an English version available?

Seriously, I don't see anything in there but a recap of what's happened in the last few years

The Commission partially exempted Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia from these
requirements because that network was terrestrially delivered before Comcast purchased it.

Given this, the Commission concluded that the method of delivery was not chosen for anticompetitive purposes, and
therefore decided not to subject Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia to its RSN conditions to the extent that the network
was not already available to MVPDs.

The Commission clarified in the Adelphia Order that the program
access conditions would apply to those MVPDs that had a license agreement for Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia
pre-merger.

We note that Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia is now also subject to the complaint process
adopted in the 2010 Program Access Order discussed below.

Any MVPD seeking access to Comcast SportsNet
Philadelphia may file a complaint pursuant to the procedures established in the rules.

In addition, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia is subject to the program access conditions adopted in the Comcast-NBCU Order.

 

[JoeTheDragon]

True, and there are other channels that D* receives via fiber too, I think MSG is one of them.

I think they get CSN CHI HD by fiber as well.

 

[la24philly]

so for those who had a chance to read the FCC document reguarding CSN,

What do you all make of it.

Parent, thats a good highlight,

JPL, your the master of all of this, whats your best guess

 

[DCSholtis]

Well there is a question of technicality here. They may not use sat at all' I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. What they may do (and this could be in part because the leagues packages demand it to be available out of market) is allow a broadcaster or provider access to their fiber feed, and then tell them they have to pay for and operate their own facilities to get it to their sats, and the Comcast won't provide any support for that. It could also be that the producers of the games supplies Comcast with the feeds as well as sats, with the knowledge that they must use all of comcasts logos, etc. there are many different things that could be going on.

That could actually also be a huge issue with DirecTV. They could be having a huge argument over who pays to get the signal to DirecTV and it's upkeep in the first place.

Taking for example ESPN on how they acquire CSN Philly for their highlight package I read somewhere that they had to make an agreement with Channel 6 in Philly and get the highlights through them. Even ESPN cannot get them thru CSN Philly.

 

[pennStateFootball]

Taking for example ESPN on how they acquire CSN Philly for their highlight package I read somewhere that they had to make an agreement with Channel 6 in Philly and get the highlights through them. Even ESPN cannot get them thru CSN Philly.

I have noticed that when the Phillies are on CSN, ESPN will very rarely show the highlights from CSN, they are almost always from their opponents broadcast. However, they do show highlights from MyPhl 17 when they are on there. So, ESPN is definitely not getting CSN highlights very easily.

However, MLB Network often shows cut-ins to Phillies games from the CSN feed. So, they are getting it somehow but ESPN isn't. I'm not sure exactly why.

Just some observations.

 

[FramundaCheeze]

Same with Flyers highlights on NHL Network......never CSN feeds...always the opposing team's

 

[la24philly]

I have noticed that when the Phillies are on CSN, ESPN will very rarely show the highlights from CSN, they are almost always from their opponents broadcast. However, they do show highlights from MyPhl 17 when they are on there. So, ESPN is definitely not getting CSN highlights very easily.

However, MLB Network often shows cut-ins to Phillies games from the CSN feed. So, they are getting it somehow but ESPN isn't. I'm not sure exactly why.

Just some observations.

comcast owns 5.44% of MLB network

so Im guesing because they have some ownership,they dont mind sharing the signal

 

[wilbur_the_goose]

And the Phils own about 1/3 of CSN-Philly. Incestuous, no?

 

[spaul]

I am sure that ESPN should be able to receive CSN highlights from 6ABC only for the fact that,6ABC is company owned by Disney .To which so is ESPN as well.Everybody here keeps coming up with detailed reasons for why we do or don't get CSN Phila. While, Comcast just hangs back adding any snag to us getting access .Just in recently mentioned in newspaper article they must be behind a push to have the city make homeowners either place dishes on rear or roof of houses.The only exception is if front is only place to receive signal then it must be painted to match color of brick or facing.Sounds like Comcast is bracing for mass exit or stopping any with this.This may or might work in the city but, there is a lot of us outside the city with satellite that still make receiving CSN Phila. a plus for Directv .Especially now that Fios stopped build out Directv could put Comcast on the run in the suburbs with CSN available to Directv.

 

[jpl]

Haha! Well, how long did DirecTV negotiate with amc, and some of the other providers? More than any 18 months. In fact they have been negotiating with Comcast for csnnw for longer than that I believe. Isn't that channel three years old now? Heck, I think they where negotiating with hbo for what four or five years for a new carriage agreement. That one no one really even cared to much about because they basically agreed to continue status que while they where negotiating after the contract ran out, but not until after they finally agreed to new terms did we see more hd channels from them and so on, so unfortunately, 18 months isn't that long.

There is no way on earth DirecTV is going to want to go to arbitration to get the channel either. They don't want a third party deciding how much they should have to pay and what services should be included in that pricing, if they could even file a petition and get that to happen in the first place. They could get stuck with a price that they feel wouldn't make them more money by the number of subscribers they would gain over say the first two years. That would not be good for them. Plus there is no way they want to set the percent of arbitration to solve these disputes, otherwise they'd lose a ton of bargaining power with all broadcasters.

As for the lawsuit, that was longer than any 18 months ago they got involved in that. I don't deny one bit that Comcast was initially hiding behind it. I am just saying now, it's simply a pricing issue. And besides, that loophole can affect many stations, not just one. Why not help get it closed and join in with others so you can hedge your bets and not have to spend as much on lawyer fees.

I have not read that last thing you said there, so I don't know the context. It could signal what your saying, but i doubt it, or it could signal that Comcast is basically saying, we aren't going to agree to their pricing because we feel it wouldn't allow us to make up the difference in monies we'd loose by letting them add that channel to their lineup, because I am sure they are figuring the loss of some customers to DirecTV in how much they want to charge for that channel so that they make as much or money overall from the deal as a whole. But if they could get Sunday ticket as well, then the loss of customers could be made up by them with the gain of nflst subs.

Nothing that Comcast has ever done runs contrary to my claim. They won't let that channel go for less than what they think it is worth, and since letting that channel go to competitors would cause them to loose subs, the cost of letting that channel go to competitors is astronomically higher for them than most RSNs. Not many situations exists that are quite this extreme.

I've been away from this thread for a while. First off... who said anything about 3rd party arbitration? Where did I even make an allusion to that?

Second, if you think that 18 months is normal for any negotiation like this... it's not. Maybe if they go with the voluntary route, but when the FCC forced MSG and Verizon to come to terms, they had 30 days to come to an agreement. That's it. It was delayed a little longer because MSG took the FCC to court, one last time, to avoid handing over the channel, earning them a very temporary stay on the order. But the stay was very short. From the time the FCC issued its ruling on handing over MSG HD until the day it got turned on with FiOS was a period of less than 60 days. Again, if you think that 18 months is an indication that Comcast is negotiating in good faith... I have a bridge to sell you.

Next, what I'd heard is what I stated earlier - Comcast gave two very different versions of the story on whether the CSN deal was part of the approval for NBC or not. It sounded to me like Comcast went back on that.

The final thing was the law suit. When the FCC first ruled on the closing of the loophole both Comcast and CV took the FCC to court, arguing that they didn't have the authority to close the loophole. When they lost in court, Comcast dropped the suit. CV, though, took it to appeal... and lost there as well.

Finally, finally - I'll hit on this one... last... time... It is illegal for a provider to charge a usery rate for a channel. If they could, then Comcast would do it with a bunch of channels that they own. They simply can't. If they were allowed to, you better believe that CV would be asking for blood for access to MSG HD. Charging an inordinate amount for a channel is the same thing as not offering it up in the first place. It's a shell game, and one the FCC will not play (just like they refused to accept CV's explanation that MSG was really an independent company). Comcast may want to charge a million dollars per subscriber for the channel, but the FCC simply won't allow it. If DirecTV hasn't gone to the FCC yet, demanding access to the channel, then they're being stupid. They have the opportunity to do it... it's clear that any negotiation that's been going on has NOT been in good faith. DirecTV should just end it by going to the FCC (unless they have already done so and are waiting for the FCC to issue a ruling on the matter).

 

[teebeebee1]

Problem solved, close the thread, CSN Philly is on tonight for the Lakers/Sixers feed!







Ya i know, not gonna stay around but at least we got it for one night *edit: albeit without Sound , maybe we aren't missing much not having this POS channel?"

 

[iceturkee]

I got sound. Just turned it on!

 

[cypherx]

Problem solved, close the thread, CSN Philly is on tonight for the Lakers/Sixers feed!

Ya i know, not gonna stay around but at least we got it for one night *edit: albeit without Sound , maybe we aren't missing much not having this POS channel?"

What channel number?

 

[iceturkee]

751-1

 

[Jake34]

751-1

That is NBA League Pass. No answer for us unless you buy it and then it may be blacked out anyway.

 

[jpl]

I just wanted to throw one more thing out there. For all the arguments that 'Comcast will just never let the channel go' - all I can say is this. Check out some fios forums some time. Go back about a year. Guess what you'll see? The EXACT same argument being made as to why we'll NEVER see MSG HD on FiOS. It was the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. I rebutted those arguments then, and I was right. And I'll rebut them the exact same way now.

 

[dishrich]

I think they get CSN CHI HD by fiber as well.

Actually, they now ONLY send up an HD feed on G17 C-band.
Affiliates that need an SD signal must downconvert the HD feed.

http://www.csnchicagoaffiliates.com/pages/overview

Also, considering that CSN CHI has multitudes of small & large cable affiliates in FOUR states, it's a little impractical to expect THAT many to get this via fiber...

 

[Grafixguy]

I just wanted to throw one more thing out there. For all the arguments that 'Comcast will just never let the channel go' - all I can say is this. Check out some fios forums some time. Go back about a year. Guess what you'll see? The EXACT same argument being made as to why we'll NEVER see MSG HD on FiOS. It was the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. I rebutted those arguments then, and I was right. And I'll rebut them the exact same way now.

Yup, our friend Guppy over there kept saying never happen with all types on nonsense arguments. The point is that never is very long time.

 

[JoeTheDragon]

Actually, they now ONLY send up an HD feed on G17 C-band.
Affiliates that need an SD signal must downconvert the HD feed.

http://www.csnchicagoaffiliates.com/pages/overview

Also, considering that CSN CHI has multitudes of small & large cable affiliates in FOUR states, it's a little impractical to expect THAT many to get this via fiber...

Directv, Comcast and others had a HD feed long before it was on C-band in HD.