DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

· Geek til I die
Joined
·
9,822 Posts
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.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
5,510 Posts
Davenlr said:
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
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
8,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
JoeTheDragon said:
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.
 

· Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.
Joined
·
15,115 Posts
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.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,203 Posts
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.
 

· DaBears
Joined
·
5,992 Posts
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".
 

· Registered
Joined
·
31,115 Posts
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...
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
8,758 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
James Long said:
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.
 

· Legend
Joined
·
137 Posts
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.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
5,510 Posts
hdtvfan0001 said:
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?
 

· Icon
Joined
·
859 Posts
Shades228 said:
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?
 

· Armchair Referee
Joined
·
529 Posts
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.
 

· DaBears
Joined
·
5,992 Posts
runner861 said:
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.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top