FCC Ruling Paves Way For Flyers Games, CSN To Reach Satellite TV
by Travis Hughes on Jan 20, 2010 7:52 PM EST
in News
Email
Print
The Federal Communications Commission voted 4-to-1 on Wednesday to eliminate the so-called "terrestrial loophole" in a 1992 federal cable law, which requires cable operators to give competitors access to cable-owned programming that is transmitted using satellite connections. Until now, the provision didn't apply when the cable operators send those programs over land-based networks instead.
Using left over infrastructure from the days of the old PRISM Network, Comcast had kept it's Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia channel off satellite television systems in the Delaware Valley since it's creation in 1997, when it replaced PRISM.
The infrastructure fit in to the "terrestrial loophole" that's discussed in the quote and article above, and while it makes sense from a business perspective for Comcast to do everything they can to keep a popular channel they own off of competing systems, it at the same time locked out thousands, if not millions of local sports fans from access to Flyers, Phillies, and Sixers telecasts.
With the FCC's ruling today, the days of that competitive advantage Comcast had over satellite television in the region appear to be over, and now the cable and media giant will be forced to give DirecTV and Dish Network the opportunity to add CSN Philly to their channel lineups.
It's certainly good news for sports fans throughout the Delaware Valley. Many Comcast subscribers have been forced to stay with the company solely so they'd have access to local sports telecasts, and those people will now have options when forking over their money to a television provider.
Verizon FiOS, the only one of Comcast's competitors in the area not fitting into the terrestrial loophole, and therefore the only one with CSN Philly on their channel lineup, is not yet widely available like cable. Many people also live in areas where access to Comcast, the region's only cable provider, is non-existent, leaving them with only satellite as an option.
Now, those people will have access to all the Philadelphia sports they'd like. It may be some time before these rules are put into effect, as there is much legal wrangling to endure. Still, the ball is rolling, and the days of Comcast's domination of the Philadelphia sports fan seem to be coming to a close.
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm a Fios subscriber
And I get CSN, but not CN8—so I still miss a fair amount of Flyers/Phillies games throughout the season. I wonder if they will still have dominion over that now that this ruling has been made.
You’ve been without it for so long you missed them changing the name to “The Comcast Network”, or TCN.
That’s seriously unfortunate since TCN shows a ton of hockey games at 10:30, mainly Sharks games since they have a CSN affiliate. Hopefully you get it now.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
It’s weird — Comcast says that TCN doesn’t fit in to the loophole, and that it’s available on every provider: cable, satellite and telco. If that’s true, I think it’s Verizon’s decision not to carry it.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 20, 2010 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
And here’s the link for that:
http://www.csnphilly.com/pages/inner_09/comcast_faq
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 20, 2010 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
Very interesting. I remember having to call and bitch to Comcast since they didn’t have TCN HD for the start of the season. That was quickly changed.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
This is good news indeed, for all sports fans. But I can’t help but wonder if they are going to air more games on the Comcast Network more often, to keep people on Comcast. Knowing their track record, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.
Can’t get FIOS here down in South Philly yet, though. Which is what I really want, more so for the Internet Speeds. I refuse to pay for Comcast’s Cable, who like to throttle your speeds.
Some think too much, then come too soon
I just curse the sun, so I can howl at the moon
Since the other carriers are choosing not to carry TCN, they very well may relegate more games to that network. I hate those games because no matter which sport it is we’re deprived of Post Game Live, but I still expect it to happen. That way, Comcast will either keep the customers or they’ll at least force the other providers to pay for TCN in addition to CSN.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 20, 2010 8:05 PM EST up reply actions
And if they do that, they’ll get a piece of my mind. I won’t switch back to Comcast—I work from home—and Fios has much better internet speeds/accessibilty. So, I’ll either be forced to watching it online or not watching it at all. Hockey is still a niche market and the Sixers suck, so they had better be careful how they proceed here.
I don’t know if they’ll take away from CSN that much just to get back some poor semblance of a competitive advantage, though. They’ve dumped so much money into improving the CSN brand locally and nationally that I can’t imagine they would undercut those efforts like that.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 20, 2010 8:12 PM EST up reply actions
It would be stupid to do that since Comcast just bought NBC and hopes to turn Versus (or some other channel) into serious ESPN competition. The CSN brand needs to be strengthened, not the opposite.
Exactly, and there’s certainly been a concerted effort to strengthen it over the last year. I talked about this with Sarah Baicker on the radio show, but I mean, just look at the talent they have now: Panaccio, Salisbury, Didinger, etc.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 20, 2010 8:21 PM EST up reply actions
This is a great find, Travis.
I have a feeling this will help a lot of people in the Allentown area too, since Service Electric is so much cheaper up there, but until now couldn’t air Phillies games.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 20, 2010 8:00 PM EST reply actions
This is very very far from actually going into effect.
For one thing, the dissenting vote says that its over-reaching by the Comissioners that federal courts will overturn.
Whether thats true or not, if its even mildly questionable federal courts will most likely grant an injunction preventing Comcast from having to provide CSN to satellite until after the litigation is settled.
Should note, it will be years before the litigation is settled.
Also, in further reading, its very likely an issue for the courts to decide. Trying not to get very legal about it, but basically the loophole is something that was written in by Congress in a statute.
A Commission then is asked to enforce the statute Congress passes. Commissions most often have the responsibility of interpreting and enforcing those statutes.
In this case, the Commission voted to amend the statute. This is highly irregular. They claim that they have the authority based on, essentially, it fitting the circumstances of an extreme situation, which is possible.
The Federal Courts will now decide if this actually fits that extreme situation.
Hope that makes sense.
I meant to imply this in the initial writing, so apologies if I didn’t do so. But I threw an extra sentence in the closing to try and make it a little clearer.
Here it is in simpler terms, basically affirming exactly what you’re saying, I think.
The measure could still be challenged in court. Many experts have questioned the FCC’s authority to close the loophole. One of the FCC’s Republican commissioners, Robert McDowell, voted against the proposal, stating that he sympathized with his fellow commissioners’ intent, but he said he felt the FCC did not have the legal authority to interpret the regulation as it has in this order.
I do have a question, though.
According to WSJ, the ruling sets up a process where DirecTV and Dish (and any other company) could ask the FCC to intervene on a case-by-case basis and force Comcast to share CSN (or whatever other channel is being withheld in each individual circumstance).
The FCC’s decision could be a blow to cable operators like Comcast and Cablevision that have used exclusive access to local sports as a competitive advantage. While the vote won’t give their pay-TV rivals immediate access to local sports channels, it will set up a process for companies to ask the FCC to intervene if they feel a cable operator is unfairly denying access.
But what you’re saying is that it’ll be argued that the FCC doesn’t have the power to do that, correct? And that would mean it basically comes down to if the courts believe the loophole effectively limits competition? Cablevision, which uses the same loophole to limit access to HD feeds in the NYC area, says that they can argue otherwise. From the original AP article:
Cablevision said the new rules do not mean that it will automatically have to make its high-definition sports programming available to AT&T and Verizon. In a statement, Cablevision said if the phone companies file a complaint, it could prove that any troubles they have competing have nothing to do with the sports channels.
Is that the basis of the legal argument?
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
The legal argument is whether comcast not sharing CSN rises to the level of “unfair acts”.
The FCC, according to what I’ve read, is authorized to take action to remedy “unfair acts”. Thats what I was referring to above when I said “extreme situations”.
Seeing comcast’s actions are statutorily authorized, I find it hard to believe they can be considered “unfair acts”. I’ve got basically no knowledge of this realm of government (its really not even law), but I would think that comcast doesn’t have to provide CSN until an act of congress.
Right, okay. I think we’re on the same page here.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
This is Awesome!
I am a directv user because I live in Salt Lake City, and I could never get our Philly Broadcasters and it was usually in Standard def. But now it seems like im getting HD and get to listen to Philly commentators!
Now they just need to end that Versus Battle, and I will be very happy.
maybe this is the reason for my free CSN-HD disappearing. since mid december i’d say, i noticed i was getting CSN-HD FREE! i have an HDtv and sub-channel 121.1 was CSN-HD, i was so excited when i seen this. Flyers games were sooo much cooler to watch and found myself watchin an increased amount of CSN. today i turned it on and it was 6ABC’s HD channel. complete bummer. think i’ve found it again on ch. 115.3
you callin me a know-nothin? sir, i'll have you know i happen to know very little.
So, I’m very late in noticing the Daily News article, and others may already know about this so I apologize if everyone knows it but me, but apparently the terrestrial loophole has implications I never realized. For those like me that missed it entirely, a Daily News reporter got clearance to be in the War Room in Toronto during the Maple Leafs game last week: Rich Hofmann: Hanging out in the NHL replay room in Toronto
Anyway, this is the part that got my attention (emphasis mine):
Then the Leafs’ Jay Rosehill appears to score a goal behind the Flyers’ Michael Leighton, and one voice raises above the others.
“Murph, that one went in a little funny,” says Mark Barbetta, from one of the workstations arrayed around the room. At which point, you can feel the adrenaline build.
Thus does a clockwork kind of process begin: the video review of a disputed goal.
….
As this conversation is happening, the process has already begun. TSN, the broadcast outlet televising the game, comes quickly with the replays – several of them, including from the overhead camera that is controlled by the NHL itself. (The Flyers’ broadcast is not viewed because Comcast SportsNet is not available on satellite dishes.)
Am I reading that right, that our feeds can’t be used in the War Room to look at disputed goals? If that’s true, it puts a whole new spin on the Pittsburgh situation.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 20, 2010 11:52 PM EST reply actions
I’m pretty sure you’re exactly right.
I meant to include this when writing the article but I threw it together quickly and it slipped my mind. But that’s an excellent find.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
But it’s 10 times harder for me to rationalize calling out FSN Pittsburgh for withholding a replay if we don’t send any, ever…
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 21, 2010 12:15 AM EST up reply actions
It’s kind of weird, because our games are sometimes on Center Ice, which means they’re obviously available via satellite — although not locally because of blackout restrictions. Thinking about it, that may be what Hofmann means in that article. By satellite, he could be referring to Center Ice, not if they’re available on local satellite systems.
That would kind of explain why the CSN feed is rarely available on Center Ice (which could be for as simple a reason as they charge too much), and it would only be in those rare situations that Toronto gets our feed.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 12:33 AM EST up reply actions
I guess it would be available on the nights we give our CSN feed to the NHL network, too, but that still drastically limits the number of games Toronto could see. I’m not cool with this revelation at all, because I don’t want us to do to somebody else what FSN Pitt did to Gagne.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 21, 2010 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
Well, if our feed isn’t going to Toronto at all, CSN isn’t really under any obligations as FSN Pitt was in that situation. It’s different than knowingly withholding a camera angle for the purpose of preventing a goal.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
I realize we aren’t doing it intentionally or maliciously, but if we have the right angle, I still don’t think it’s fair to the player who deserves to have a goal count. I guess it’s just a personal desire for consistency for the sake of fair play.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 21, 2010 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
Oh, yeah. I’m totally with you there. But I think it’s more on the NHL for not having the technology on hand to have access to every feed. Like I said before, the War Room is just a room in an office building with a few TV’s, the Center Ice package, a bunch of DVR’s, and a few guys watching hockey. Anybody could set that up, really. It’s nothing special.
If the NHL wants to ensure integrity in these situations, they have to get access to the raw video coming from each camera straight from the control room of each network carrying every game. If a truck in the parking lot at Mellon Arena or where ever can beam a feed back to Philadelphia for local broadcast, it can do the same and beam each camera angle up to Toronto for review.
We have the technology to do this sort of thing. There may be logistical issues and money concerns, but it can be done and it’s on the NHL to do it.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
There may be logistical issues and money concerns
The only concerns are ones of competency in the NHL.
There’s an HD Slingbox for $260 from Amazon.com. Put it in the CSN studios in the wachovia center, or even Ed Snider’s apartment on Rittenhouse Square, and they have access to all the CSN camera angles.
However, keep in mind CSN just buys the away game video feed, anyway, so having access to the CSN broadcast wouldn’t have changed anything about that incident.
Totally agree about CSN buying the away game feed, but that still leaves 30 or so home games not broadcast on Center Ice or the NHL network for which we should be accountable. There’s no rational explanation for not finding a way, no matter whether you believe the NHL is on the hook for the cost or we are, especially if there’s a solution less than $500. It would make it more fair for our own players too, because we may have the right angle for a game-changing goal that could spell a win for us.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 21, 2010 1:20 AM EST up reply actions
1) Less than that when you count in versus and nbc.
2) No team coming in to Philly brings their own video crew either, I imagine. Hence, the NHL is getting the visiting team feed… which is bought from and identical to the CSN feed.
So, now that I think about it, not having the CSN feed makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Yes, without a doubt. I guess that was my way of saying that the NHL will have its excuses, but there’s no reason why they shouldn’t make something like this happen.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
Well, there are some instances where the home and the away broadcasters use their own feeds. It’s not common and I can’t point to an exact instance of it, but I know that it does happen from time to time.
Regardless, though, the issue is that the War Room only has access to the angles that are actually broadcast over the air, the ones on Center Ice, the ones everybody else has access to. In most cases, networks broadcast every available angle, but that’s where the problem in Pittsburgh came — they didn’t show one angle.
The NHL should have access to the raw feeds coming directly from the cameras, which is, as you mentioned, relatively easy and cheap to get done.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 1:32 AM EST up reply actions
It matters in the sense that we are relying on the other network to get those angles to Toronto. Even if the NHL should be paying for the equipment, we’re letting the situation be outside the scope of our control. We should have the ability to submit the angles ourselves, we shouldn’t have to worry about the FSN Pittsburgh incident ever being repeated.
Fanhouse just had a debate about this. Some relevant discussion:
I like that we have an elaborate setup in Toronto, and every replay goes through there. What is ridiculous is that local regional sports networks would have any ability whatsoever to control what the War Room sees.
After the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh incident I asked why the league uses a system where the home team’s broadcast could prevent officials in Toronto from seeing a potential goal. I was told they don’t normally rely on just one feed, but instead the feed from both the home and away broadcasts. For that particular game, the Philadelphia feed was not available. That’s still a flaw in the system, isn’t it?
The NHL’s primary job out of the most recent controversies is making sure that officials are working together — and not seemingly against each other — on the ice, along with working with television networks so they have all available camera angles and no homer producers trying to hide the truth.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 21, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly, and that’s why I think the NHL should be reaching directly into the control rooms of local networks to have access to every single raw camera angle. As I wrote last week…
They must demand all available video from all networks covering the game, local or national. Make it a rule. As of now, the league only has access to the video that’s actually broadcast, not the raw video from each camera. The NHL should demand that they have access to the live feed coming from each camera into the control room to be sure they’re getting every available look. Now, they’re just guys in a room with Center Ice, a bunch of TV’s, and a bunch of DVR’s. Anybody can do that with the right amount of money.
They must create oversight in making sure networks follow this new rule, as well. Standardize where cameras are located in arenas and have a map of each arena that shows exactly where each camera is located. Make sure that each and every camera is accounted for, even if one of them was pointed at a fan picking his nose when a reviewable call is made.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
Thats a whole different issue. I’m not going to get into it in this thread because its pretty far afield. But remember that most teams don’t have their broadcasts anywhere as tidy and accessible as the Flyers do. And I’m not sure all those companies would be nearly so happy to tie the NHL into their equipment. (And the NHL isn’t in a position to be alienating broadcasters.)
Hell, for many years after replay was instituted, the Chicago Blackhawks didn’t even broadcast the majority of their games locally.
Right. I’m saying I just don’t care what the broadcasters think, and for a lot of these regional networks, losing hockey would be devastating to their channels. I’d go out on a limb and say that’s true even in a place like Tampa, where right now that’s probably some of the only live sports coverage Sun Sports has.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
You have it very very backwards.
The NHL team needs those broadcasters way more than than the broadcasters need them.
http://www.foxsportsflorida.com/pages/main
Sun Sports covers the Heat, Magic, Panthers, Lightning, Seminoles, Gators, Rays, and Marlins.
Do you really think the Panthers and Lightning aren’t dead last in ratings amongst that list?
I don’t want to get in to this too much because it’s such a tangent, but there are two networks down in Florida. FS Florida covers the Miami/South region, Sun covers the Tampa/Orlando/North region.
Today, for example, the Lightning game is the only live sporting event on in that Northern half of the state. I believe they also have Magic games, too, but they don’t have an anchored news show like SportsNite or a panel show like DNL or anything.
So if they lose hockey, that’s probably just under 70 or so nights a year (when accounting for nights the Magic and Lightning would have played on the same night) where they won’t be showing any live sports coverage and just your typical boring, run-of-the-mill replays of Marlins EXTRA ’09.
That’s a crushing blow to a regional sports network, I’d imagine.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Sun Sports is jointly owned by comcast and fox sportsnet. But its entirely programmed by Fox.
According to wikipedia, the Lightning aren’t actually even on one of the two channels.
Sun Sports and FSFlorida are sister channels, and games can air on either channel depending on who is playing at what time (particularly with the Marlins and Rays, since both teams routinely play at the same time). The two channels do not focus on one region of Florida
Wikipedia also says that the channels are the exclusive home of Heat, Magic, Lightning, Panthers, Rays, and Marlins.
And they show a lot of college sports, as well. So I don’t think they’d miss the Lightning all that much. Plus, being associated with Fox Sports, they could just turn one of the channels into an equivalent of TCN, showing other market Fox Sports games.
No. No. A thousand times no.
1) Away Games:
Every away game the Flyers play, CSN is still relying on the other team’s broadcasters for video anyway. So even if the NHL ran a giant fiber-optic cable from the CSN studio in the wachovia center directly to toronto, the war room would still only see what the other team chose to broadcast.
2) Home Games;
The visiting team buys the video broadcast from CSN just the same. So the visiting team’s broadcast is controlled by CSN.
Now, Travis makes the point that there are a limited number of games each year when both teams do their own video. I know it happens but its definitely very very rare. Combined with the rarity of a goal being reviewed, its a pretty negligible probability.
Look at the Fancast quotes I put up or LegionOfDoom’s comment below. Having both feeds doesn’t sound like the exception, it sounds like it’s supposed to be the norm.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 21, 2010 10:01 AM EST up reply actions
FCC and Comcast
I really hope the FCC stand their ground and this loop hole get closed. As a DirecTV customer living about 2 hours from Philly I always have to listen to the other teams feed and I rarely get to see CSN Philly’s broadcast and it really sucks.
DirecTV Center Ice claims dual feeds for it’s games where you can watch either the home team or away team, except if your a Flyers fan. I actually called and questioned DTV about it and they said they have a note on the their system that basically says if your a Flyers fan you will not get the CSN feed simply because of Comcast’s rights to not broadcast it. Which is complete BS.
I get all the other CSN stations as well as FSN, so why is it they only to block out Philly? I think it simply boils down to greed.
I get all the other CSN stations as well as FSN, so why is it they only to block out Philly?
Because Philly is the only CSN with terrestrial distribution… because Philly is where comcast is located. Back before satellites were accessible to tv, they already had the philadelphia area completely accessible by wire, and continue to distribute in that manner.
The same can’t be said for any other region of the country in regards to comcast.
Right. They’re using the infrastructure from the old PRISM network, which was a premium channel distributed by ‘terrestrial’ cable. Hence the ‘terrestrial loophole.’
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
?
hey i have a quick question for you about DTV and getting all of the other CSN & FSN stations. Living in philly or wherever, are you able to watch all of the other sports games (nhl, mlb, etc) on those csn/fsn stations or are they blacked out to force you to buy center ice or mlb’s package? Curious its kind of a selling point for me. thanks
by zerofischer on Jan 21, 2010 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
blacked out unless you buy the respective package…
Philly Sports and Coyotes Hockey - and yes, I am tired of defending my teams...
by Jordan Ellel on Jan 21, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
I have the Sports Package as well as Center Ice and there are times when they games are both on Center Ice and FSN of Comcast. Sometimes one game is on as many 4 channels.
I do still get blacked out on some games. VS games obviously are not on because of DTV’s pissing match with Comcast. But it seems that when the Flyers play on NHL Net, that game is always blacked out. DTV claims it’s the NHL telling them which game to carry so I am not sure that has anything to do with Comcasts right or not.
by LegionofDoom on Jan 21, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
I'm in a situation that doesn't fall under any of the categories
We have Comcast in the region, but it’s not available where I live – I’m on one of the successors to Time-Warner. I don’t think the FCC ruling will affect me, since I don’t have a dish; I still won’t get most games.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
To be fair
I am probably the only person who supports Comcast on this one. They own the team own the channel and own the cables and infrastructure and should be allowed exclusive content rights. Under these same rules shouldn’t DirectTV be forced to lose exclusivity on the NFL Sunday Ticket package. That is a major competetive advantage and the only reason why DirectTV is still in business. Many people is the Philly are actually have both services for the Sunday Ticket and CSN channels. Either way I heard on 610 this morning that DirectTV is going to have to negoiate with Comcast and pay for the channels so Comcast is probably going to ask for an absurd amount of money that DirectTV wouldn’t pay anyway and nothing will change. But if DirectTV gives up exclusivity on the NFL Sunday Ticket I am sure Comcast would care less about CSN.
I also doubt that CSN Philly would be made available to all DirectTV customers probably just local ones. So you guys who are out of market will probably get you local CSN channel CSN Pacific or CSN Mid-Atlantic etc… based on where you live. To get all the Flyers games you will still need the Center Ice Package.
Exclusivity to licenses and distribution of content should be illegal in general in all media. Basically the bigger company to outbid the smaller guys for important content and pay for a monopoly. EA Sports did it with the Madden Franchise getting the NFL players rights, MLB and NHL games were exclusive for XM Radio not Sirius, NFL and NASCAR on Sirius not XM it is just wrong. Even companies like Walmart and whatever who buy the exclusive rights to sell U2’s new album etc.. it is wrong. In all these cases these companies don’t own the content they just pay for the exclusive rights to it in which case the customer is the one who gets screwed.
To me this seems like a outschool kickback or bribe to me. Here is a bunch of money don’t sell your product to my competetior I can charge what I want and you get a large nice sum of cash regardless of how well your product sells.
You’re incorrect a bit on DirecTV. We get EVERY CSN station, and FSN station, and all the MSG stations and everything else out there (if you buy the sports package). The ONLY station we don’t get is CSN Philly and it is because of the loophole. If the FCC closes it, then it will become a part of the sports package (DirecTV is clearly already paying a hefty sum of $$$ to Comcast to broadcast all the other ones).
I agree that the exclusivity of Sunday Ticket is ridiculous and shouldn’t exist, but Comcast has used this loophole to basically screw over the entire Philadelphia area…and piss off the Philly fans that live outside that area. In the 5 years I’ve now lived in Phoenix, I’ve had Center Ice every year and been able to watch the Philly feed less than 20 times…given how biased most of the home announcers are for teams (especially Boston, Pitt, NJ, Washington), this is the most annoying crap in the world. It will be very nice if this gets worked out and I can get CSN Philly in the near future…
Also, it’s not just DirecTV that was being denied the broadcast. For the first few years here we couldn’t get satelite and used Cox Cable (the local Comcast) and they didn’t get the CSN feeds for Center Ice (or Extra Innings) either. So, I’d very much like this to get sorted out correctly.
Philly Sports and Coyotes Hockey - and yes, I am tired of defending my teams...
by Jordan Ellel on Jan 21, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
I absolutely agree.
Comcast is not helping the NHL or the Flyers by basically holding their breath and stomping their feet saying you can’t have the feed because we said so.
It basically comes down to Comcast saying, if your a Flyers Fan and you want local coverage of them you must buy Comcast Cable service. Period. So they are basically becoming a monopoly for Flyers coverage just because they want you to subscribe to what I believe is an inferior (I don’t want to start a DTV vs. Comcast debate) service.
I already get all the CSN, MSG, FSN stations so it’s pretty obvious the only reason they are holding onto CSN-Philly is too screw the Philly fans that don’t have Comcast. A pretty classless move as far as I am concerned.
by LegionofDoom on Jan 21, 2010 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
It basically comes down to Comcast saying, if your a Flyers Fan and you want local coverage of them you must buy Comcast Cable service.
Thats just not true. Time Warner Philadelphia had CSN and Verizon has CSN.
If thats true than whats the beef between Comcast and DTV and Dish?
If they can give their feeds to those other competing companies why will they not give it up to DTV or Dish?
Just because there is a loop hole seems like a pretty dumb reason to with hold coverage.
by LegionofDoom on Jan 21, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
They give it up to the other companies because they’re forced to by law. This loophole only allows them to withhold CSN from satellite providers.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
So essentially there is no financial gain to withhold the feed? So why withhold it?
Sorry, don’t mean to harp it just seems that it’s a pretty stupid reason to keep coverage away from viewers/ratings when after all the viewers/fans are what pays their salaries.
by LegionofDoom on Jan 21, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
So essentially there is no financial gain to withhold the feed?
I have no idea how you leapt to that conclusion, but its wrong.
Conclusion? Looks more like a question to me.
by LegionofDoom on Jan 21, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
Well, like I said in the article, Verizon isn’t available in all places, like my house for example. I have three choices for TV: Comcast cable, Dish satellite, and DTV satellite. One of those options has Flyers, Phillies, and Sixers games. Which one am I going to pick?
There’s financial gain because Verizon FIOS isn’t widespread yet.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
Comcast just made a very very compelling argument:
In an FCC filing Jan. 13, Comcast noted that satellite-TV penetration in the Philadelphia market rose to 14.4 percent of homes in 2009 from 3.9 percent in 2002 without the satellite companies’ offering Comcast SportsNet.
In addition, Comcast said satellite-TV penetration in the Philadelphia area was roughly the same as in some other big-city markets where satellite companies offer regional sports networks.
Satellite penetration in 2009 was 12.9 percent in New York, 14.6 percent in Boston, and 16.5 percent in Baltimore.
That really undermines the whole “unfair acts” idea, seeing as it results in basically no difference.
Also, they’re going to counter-challenge Sunday Ticket now on the same principle.
Fuck, the blockquote screwed up again. It should read like this:
In an FCC filing Jan. 13, Comcast noted that satellite-TV penetration in the Philadelphia market rose to 14.4 percent of homes in 2009 from 3.9 percent in 2002 without the satellite companies’ offering Comcast SportsNet.
In addition, Comcast said satellite-TV penetration in the Philadelphia area was roughly the same as in some other big-city markets where satellite companies offer regional sports networks.
Satellite penetration in 2009 was 12.9 percent in New York, 14.6 percent in Boston, and 16.5 percent in Baltimore.
Wait, they’re going to argue against “unfair acts” in the CSN situation while arguing for “unfair acts” in the NFL Sunday Ticket situation? Or they’re arguing their case in both situations based on the fact that satellite penetration has risen?
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 21, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
Comcast is the only one that should be questioned when it comes from unfair acts.
By blocking off programing to Sat TV providers when other networks have no problem with it airing their channels. More viewers means more revenue no matter how you slice it, so I don’t understand what Comcast’s problems is.
This ruling must really have Comcast shaking in their boots. I am willing to bet if CSN Philly is picked up on Sat TV a lot of Comcast customers will be switching. Especially since you will be able to get the same channels at a cheaper price.
Comcast had every chance to buy the rights to the NFL, they simply bid too low and DTV was the highest bidder so guess what? They got the contract. What so unfair about it?
by LegionofDoom on Jan 22, 2010 8:20 AM EST up reply actions
Well, Comcast isn’t the only one who should be questioned… they aren’t the only ones who use the loophole. Cox Cable, and Cablevision are just as much into this as Comcast.
by DragonGirl0583 on Jan 22, 2010 6:41 PM EST up reply actions
They’re arguing against “unfair acts” by pointing out that its, to use a legal phrase, “a distinction without a difference”.
That is to say, yes, withholding CSN is different from the other cities mentioned; yet, the result is that satellite has the same amount of penetration in all of those cities. Hence, its not an unfair act.
In a separate argument, Comcast is going to say “Hey, if its unfair for us to give CSN to everyone except satellite, how the fuck is it fair for satellite not to share Sunday Ticket with anyone?”
Okay. I just wanted to make the distinction that they can’t possibly argue that they don’t have to give up CSN, but that they should get Sunday Ticket. That’s just contradictory.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 23, 2010 5:23 AM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t even agree with you there, though.
Comcast withholds CSN only from satellite, it shares with multiple other cable providers. And it does so under statutory authority.
There’s no Sunday Ticket exception, and Direct TV withholds it from every other provider out there (even other satellite providers). The inequity is much greater in accessibility to Sunday Ticket than it is to CSN.
On March 23, 2009, it was announced that DirecTV paid $4 billion to extend its exclusive contract for NFL Sunday Ticket until 2014.3 After the 2014-15 NFL season, DirecTV will have had exclusive U.S. rights for the package for 20 straight seasons.
You can’t equate the fact that DTV does not share the Sunday Ticket with what Comcast is doing. NFL Sunday Ticket is a contract with the NFL. Direct TV paid the NFL for the exclusive rights to air. Comcast has no business need to withhold Philly programing nationally. It only hurts out of area fans. I would advise anyone that is a out of area Comcast subscriber to drop the service and tell them you are doing so because thier crappy policy prevents you from seeing the Philadelphia market games that wnat to see when you pay for MLB, NHL and NBA packages.
by Joe Mike Bradley on May 18, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Penguins, Bruins face their challenges in Eastern Conference showdown
- Olli Jokinen’s slump-buster is a Big Mac meal from McDonalds (Video)
- Friday’s Three Stars: Brassard wins it for Blue Jackets in overtime; Halak blanks Kings
- Puck Previews: Blues host Kings in first game after break; Blackhawks’ road struggles
- Best barometer of the St. Louis Blues’ success? Gifts from political lobbyists
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- WHL Roundup: A look at Friday's games
- Gabriel and Leipsic two goals each as the Winterhawks defeat the Silvertips 7-3
- Feser solidifies Americans win with two empty-net goals against the Thunderbirds
- Holberg scores winner in shootout as the Chiefs beat the Royals 6-5
- Brown makes 26 saves to lead the Rockets over the Cougars 2-1
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
