If you haven’t heard about the Trail Blazers’ experiment with variable ticket pricing, it’s been the subject of much controversy in Oregon. Our friends at BlazersEdge.com posted this announcement last year.

More recently, Brian Smith from The Columbian interviewed the Blazers Senior Vice President of Sales & Marketing Sarah Mensah, and it appears that this practice will not only continue, but is going to increase across the board.

With the rise of StubHub and similar ticket resale organizations, Mensah claims that the increase in data has provided a more accurate measure of ticket values.  To take it a step further, it has allowed the team to raise prices on particular season ticket-holders, pricing them out, with the knowledge that fans will pay more money in the resale.

Season ticket-holders have plenty of reasons to be frustrated. While many are worried about the increase in price for their specific sections, there is growing fear that the Blazers will tinker with other variables like row-by-row pricing, increasing the complexity of section pricing, raising costs and reducing the number of league minimum seat prices.

While it boggles the mind why any organization might emulate the airline industry, that’s exactly what Mensah says they are attempting to do. The adjustable pricing is barring the die-hards from entering the doors. While those without the cash are left at home, many aren’t even able to watch the games on TV.

Fans are not so eager to anger the team by protesting such tactics. Fans fear the Blazers might find a way to go the way of the Seattle Supersonics and escape from their contract with the city which was part of the $34.5 million which built the Rose Garden. However, it is not likely for fans to be effective without organizing their efforts and raising their voices in unison expressing their discontent.

SFC-Portland is your home to let your voice be heard.

Visit the Facebook and Twitter pages to become a fan and follow what the Local Chapter is doing about the issues that affect sports fans.

Also, sign the petition to demand your Blazers games today.

I traveled last week to Salem, Oregon to testify before Members of the Oregon General Assembly with regard to Comcast Cable’s blacking out of Portland Trail Blazers home games. Thousands of Trail Blazers fans are denied enjoying their favorite past time because of the greed and control exercised by a cable provider who refuses to provide the feed for home games to competitors in areas they cannot and do not service.

SFC struck a nerve in Oregon and challenged lawmakers and fans to take on Comcast, the Trail Blazers, and  satellite providers to “do the right thing” by fans. There is no good reason why tens of thousands of sports fans are unable to enjoy Trail Blazers home games in the comfort of their homes, their favorite restaurant or bar.

Now it is up to the fans to get off the bench and take to the court and take on this issue, head on. There is no doubt that fans can make a difference and SFC is there to help.

Sign the petition directing Oregon State representatives to take on this issue.

Become a fan of the Local Chapter in Oregon, SFC-Portland, on Facebook.

Follow SFC-Portland on Twitter.

Here is the full text of the letter:

Mr. Brian L. Roberts

Chairman and CEO

Comcast Corporation

1 Comcast Center

Philadelphia, PA 19103

February 19, 2010

Dear Mr. Roberts:

The undersigned groups submit this letter in response to your statements in recent congressional hearings on Comcast’s proposed merger with NBC Universal. We take this opportunity to voice concerns regarding Comcast’s commitment to abiding by the Federal Communications Commission’s program access rules.

In litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of  Columbia Circuit, Comcast seeks to eliminate a key component of the program access regime: the ban on exclusive contracts between a cable operator and a satellite-delivered cable programming network in which a cable operator has an ownership interest. In light of Comcast’s participation in this litigation, Sen. Al Franken questioned you on the subject of Comcast’s commitment to abiding by the rules. In response to further questioning during the hearing, you promised that Comcast would adhere to FCC program access rules even if the court declares them to be invalid.

We share Senator Franken’s concerns regarding your pledge. Your assurances are undercut by the fact that your company has a history of opposing the program access rules and is currently trying to dismantle critical parts of the program access regime.

Moreover, it is highly unusual that Comcast would continue to spend  shareholder dollars to overturn an FCC regulation that it has promised to follow regardless of the case’s outcome. The fact that Comcast has not withdrawn from the litigation raises questions about whether your company will follow through on this commitment.

Respectfully,

American Cable Association

Communications Workers of America

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers Union

Free Press

Media Access Project

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association

Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small

Telecommunications Companies

Public Knowledge

Rural Independent Competitive Alliance

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association

Sports Fans Coalition

What was Sen. Franken so mad about? Watch some of the back-and-forth here, and Matthew Lasar provides some excellent play-by-play on Sen. Franken’s line of questioning during the Senate Subcommittee Hearing here:

“I worked for years for NBC,” noted former Saturday Night Live cast member and now Senator Al Franken (D-MN) in his opening remarks. “I really feel I owe a lot to NBC, but what I know from my previous career has given me reason to be concerned… very concerned” about the merger.

Franken recalled that back in the 1980s, the television networks urged the FCC to drop its Financial Interest and Syndication (FYN-SYN) rules, which barred networks from owning all but a small chunk of the programming that they aired—which the agency did. The senator recalled that, at the time, NBC executives promised that relaxing FYN-SYN would not lead the network to favor its own content.

“But by 1992 NBC was the single largest supplier of its own primetime programming,” Franken continued. “Today, if an independent producer wants to get its own show on NBC’s schedule, on any network’s schedule, it is routine practice, and you guys know it, for the network to demand at least part ownership of the show… And that’s just a fact. So while I commend NBCU and Comcast for making voluntary commitments as part of this merger, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t trust these promises.”

Later on in the hearing, Franken disclosed that Comcast’s Roberts had met with him days earlier, claiming that the FCC’s program carriage rules would protect consumers. “You said that those rules will make sure that you always have a wide variety of programs because they forbid you [NBC] from discriminating against other company’s programs.”

With that, Franken pointed to a large sign board behind him with a quote from Comcast in its recent battle with the NFL Network over which tier on Comcast would carry the sports channel. 

“The Commission is simply not equipped or constitutionally empowered to make an independent assessment of the myriad, complex, and dynamic considerations that affect carriage, tiering, and pricing decisions,” said the quote from Comcast attorneys. “Thus the First Amendment requires that the Commission exercise extreme caution before interfering with any carriage decision.“

“In other words,” Franken continued irately, “looking to get approval for this merger, you sat there in my office and told me to my face that these rules would protect consumers but your lawyers had just finished arguing in front of the Commission that it would be unconstitutional to apply these rules.”

Roberts looked a little offended by Franken’s comments. “When we met, perhaps I was confused. I thought that we were talking about program access, now you are talking about program carriage,” he explained—the latter category deals with where programs will appear on a cable distribution system after they have been granted access.

“Whether it’s program access or program carriage, did you not say that this rule protects the people of Minnesota?” Franken declared, then asked NBC’s Zucker about those FYN-SYN questions. “I think my characterization was pretty accurate, don’t you?”

Zucker paused. “It’s a long time ago and I think there’s a lot of factors that went into back then…”

“C’mon,” Franken interrupted. “You guys said: ‘We’re in the business of ratings! Why would we favor our own programming’?”

“I can tell you what’s happening today,” Zucker pressed on. “NBC has just ordered 20 pilots for new shows…”

Read the letter below and click on the link to sign the petition.

Dear President Obama and Members of Congress:

We represent a broad group of industry, labor and public interest organizations that are gravely concerned about Comcast’s proposed acquisition of NBC-Universal. We believe that a merger of this size and scope will have a devastating effect on the media marketplace. It will result in less competition, higher consumer costs and fewer content choices. It also will give one company unprecedented control over innovative new media that offer news, information, entertainment and cultural programming through emerging technologies.

A combined Comcast/NBCU would control a major television network and film studio, the nation’s largest cable company and its largest residential broadband provider. The merged giant would have strong incentives to discriminate against other multi-channel video providers in granting access to its wealth of programming, including all of its broadcast stations and “must-have” national and regional networks that air live or same-day sporting events, as well as the market power to enforce anticompetitive “bundling.” The proposed deal could make it even harder for diverse and independent voices to find an audience, as Comcast would have the incentive to prioritize NBC channels and programs over others. Control of NBCU programming also would give Comcast the opportunity to prioritize its own online video products over those of its competitors – or sharply reduce online video distribution altogether – pushing independent producers out of the picture.

Comcast has proposed to voluntarily agree to a handful of commitments in an attempt to avoid the imposition of more effective, and competitively essential, conditions on this merger. While these “commitments” purport to address concerns about localism and program diversity, and would extend the current (and arguably ineffectual) program access rules to broadcast and HD programming, they are mere window dressing. Moreover, they do not mitigate the competitive danger of the vastly increased vertical integration that would result from a Comcast/NBCU marriage, and they do not address the competitive issues raised by the merged company’s control over online video distribution – an increasingly important platform for television distribution. To prevent a disastrous impact on competition and consumer choice, any approval of the merger must include meaningful conditions that extend well beyond those previously imposed on less significant mergers.

The proposed deal raises the most basic antitrust and public policy issues for an administration that has declared both the importance of media diversity and an intention to be more vigilant against anticompetitive conduct and abuses of market power. We ask that you take a hard look at this merger and take the necessary measures to prevent harm to both consumers and competition.

Signed,

American Cable Association

Center for Media Justice

Common Cause

Communications Workers of America

Concerned Women for America

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers Union

Free Press

Kids First Coalition

Media Action Grassroots Network

Media Access Project

Media and Democracy Coalition

Morality in Media

National Association of Independent Networks

National Consumer League

National Organization for Women

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association

Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies

Parents Television Council

Public Knowledge

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association

Sports Fans Coalition

U.S. PIRG

Writers Guild of America East

Writers Guild of America West

Ever since Comcast and NBC-Universal announced plans to tie the knot, public interest groups and others have thought about what the world might look like after the honeymoon ends.  And it ain’t pretty. 

Here’s one story we’ve heard over and over again from our public-interest advocacy friends here in the Nation’s capital:

Versus, a sports network owned by Comcast, appears to be trying to get more high-quality, high-demand sports exclusives, so that the only way you can watch the game is if you get the Versus network.  Okay, so far that sounds like any other sports network trying to become the best thing since someone handed John Madden a microphone and a digital pen.

But then, take a look at what Comcast does today with sports programming in Philadelphia, where the only way to watch a game is if you pay a bounty to the local cable operator (Comcast). Or what it does around the country with regional sports networks, where you might get the sports you want to watch, or you might not, depending on whether your local pay-TV provider has paid its bounty– an ever increasing bounty, at that.  If you put these things together, our public interest experts tell us, you get more and more sports going exclusively to one network (Versus) and the only way to get that network is if you subscribe to the cable company that owns it.

The story turns into a downright horror show when the next chapter is read:  same deal for NBC sports.  You want to see the game?  Subscribe to Comcast and it’s all there for you.  You don’t pay The Man, you don’t see the game.

Sports fans will remember when Monday Night Football left the free broadcast airwaves for good back when ESPN (Disney) bought the rights.  It meant that you needed to get pay-TV from someone (cable, satellite, phone, whatever) if you wanted to watch MNF.  Can’t afford pay-TV?  Sorry.  To hear the public interest groups tell it, the Comcast-NBC merger could put one more brick on your back:  now, in addition to needing to subscribe to pay TV, you’d only have ONE COMPANY to choose from:  Comcast.

So, what do you think about the latest story circulating through Washington?  Is this a real threat to sports fans, or just another typical day in the sportsocracy?