Tag archive for "nbc universal"

Blog, Issues, Where Are My Games?

Comcast/NBC Merger Engagement Could Last a Year

No Comments 23 February 2010

nbc_comcast_logoAccording to The Washington Post, the two current stake holders of NBC Universal, Vivendi SA and General Electric, Co., are playing hardball with respect to the price of shares sold to Comcast in the proposed merger deal. Vivendi which holds a 20% stake in NBC says the current figure is ’several hundred million dollars off. While this news on the surface would appear to be a sign of some relief to consumers and sports fans, it’s really only delaying the inevitable. 

While the big players in the $30 million deal will walk away with smiles on their faces, this level of consolidation will surely bring more pain and suffering to sports fans across the country. As SFC has reported, a merged Comcast NBC giant would flex its muscles as owner of programming, distribution on the local station, and broadband in more than 11 TV markets including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, D.C., Houston, Miami, Denver, Hartford and Fresno. 

Furthermore, that list fails to include the harm Comcast currently poses to Trail Blazer fans across the state of Oregon. Fans of Portland’s NBA team are forced to pay Comcast’s ransom to watch their games.  What’s even worse is that entire regions of the state, and locals across state lines in Washington are unable to subscribe to Comcast even if they could afford to do so.

Comcast has claimed repeatedly that they would make the games available to competitors so that all Oregon could watch the games, but at what price? If Comcast is pricing out the competition, what’s the difference between this and a ‘local sports exclusive’ in which the media giant just says, ‘no’?

It’s these types of examples that spawn the action the SFC has taken in petitioning the FCC and joining a coalition, as it did on Friday, to write and send a letter directly to Comcast President and CEO Brian Roberts urging the company to withdraw it’s litigation seeking to overturn the FCC’s pro-sports fan ruling to close the ‘terrestrial loophole’.

At some point, the greed needs to stop. Sports Fans Coalition will not count on these media giants to act in the best interests of sports fans. SFC will not rest on the laurels of a positive decision by the FCC.

A delayed merger approval process does not build confidence in the company to act more socially responsible when business practices and behavior of the past will surely dictate how it will act in the future. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Issues, Where Are My Games?

Sports Fans Coalition Sends Letter Direct to Comcast

4 Comments 22 February 2010

nbc_comcast_logo
Sports Fans Coalition joined a coalition of consumer advocates, labor interests and video service providers urging Comcast President and CEO Brian Roberts to drop litigation that seeks to overturn an FCC regulation he has pledged to follow even if his company prevails in court. Comcast joined Cablevision taking the FCC to court over its decision on a program access requirement designed to ensure that programming owned by cable operators is shared with competing cable and satellite TV providers so that sports fans are not left out in the cold asking ‘Where are my games?’

 

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.

Indeed, one of Comcast’s proposed voluntary merger commitments involves applying FCC program access rules to retransmission consent negotiations with NBC owned-andoperated TV stations only “for as long as the FCC’s current program access rules remain in place.” Conspicuously absent from this promise is any acknowledgment that if Comcast is successful in eliminating the exclusive contract ban in litigation, the “current” program access rules would not apply, and Comcast’s commitment will have vanished before the merger review is even concluded.

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.

Withdrawing from the litigation would neither assuage all of our concerns about Comcast’s past and present actions with regard to the program access rules, nor diminish the need for the Dept. of Justice and FCC to conduct a thorough review of your transaction. It would, however, be an important gesture to bolster the promises you made to Congress on February 4th.

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…”

“I think what you did was put an NBC-produced show [the now-canceled Jay Leno Show] on at ten o’clock for five nights a week is what I think you did,” Franken retorted.

Uncategorized

SFC Sends Letter to Government to be Tough on Merger

4 Comments 07 January 2010

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

COMCAST-NBC

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

Uncategorized

COMCAST Screws Portland Trailblazers Fans for Third Straight Season

2 Comments 31 December 2009

BLACKOUTHere is a personal story from one of our members highlighting the local sports exclusive issue in action at the expense of the sports fan:

Over two years ago, Comcast NW signed a contract with the Portland Trailblazers.

At that time, they promised to get the rest of the state’s cable companies and the dish providers signed up so all Oregon could enjoy our only pro sports team. 

Today, two and a half seasons later, most of Oregon still can’t see the Blazers on their local cable TV station or on a dish.

In my case, because I also live within the blackout area of the Rose Garden (150 milies even on away games), Blazers games are also blacked out on NBA LEague PASS, NBA TV and even NBA Broadband.

I would buy Comcast if I could. I would buy a local cable company that now shows Comcast, if I could. But I can’t and so I’m screwed.

-SFC Member

The issue is a serious one.  If a company promises to provide coverage to its fans, why shouldn’t it be held accountable?  It should. 

That’s why the Sports Fans Coalition was formed.  Accountability.

In related news, the Comcast/NBC Merger is currently being reviewed by the FCC.  We are advising the FCC to not only close the ‘terrestrial loophole’ that allows local sports exclusives (i.e. blackouts), but to incorporate into their guidelines strict rules on how the merged company can act in order to protect the sports fan. 

Join the Coalition and you’ll receive periodical updates on what we’re doing about these issues, and how you can make a difference today.

Uncategorized

Today Versus Tomorrow: Less Sports?

1 Comment 11 December 2009

COMCAST-NBCEver 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?

Uncategorized

Comcast/NBC Bad for Fans?

7 Comments 03 December 2009

COMCAST-NBCSports Fans,

Today’s announcement of a merger between Comcast and NBC-Universal raises some pretty important questions for fans:
 
Will you have a harder time watching your home-town games after the merger?
 
Will you have to pay to watch online sports video or participate in online fantasy leagues?
 
Will we see more places like Philadelphia, where one company (Comcast) owns the team, arena, sports channel, and cable system, then makes you subscribe to the cable system in order to watch the games?
 
Sports Fans Coalition will ask whether this merger is bad for fans.  We’re going to ask tough questions in Congress, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and elsewhere.

But we need you!  Join the SFC, submit your thoughts on the issue, and  send a signal that your government needs to make sure that sports fans don’t get played.

We want access to our local games, online sports, and not get held over a barrel.
 
Sports Fans Coalition





About SFC

SFC is the American sports fan’s advocate in the D.C. public policy arena fighting for sports fans in every city across the country.

Sports Businesses, Leagues, and Universities are grasping for our cash left and right. Let's join together to keep their hands off our wallets unless and until we have a say in how that money is spent. Futhermore, we sports fans believe we should be able to watch our games, no matter how we get our media.

Read More >>

SFC on Twitter