It's Cable (Comcast) vs. the Capital city (D.C.) - who wins?
answer may be NOBODY :-(
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
A couple of entries for today's date in Dave Hughes' sometimes excellent (sometimes spiced with a bit too much political bashing) web site: dcrtv.com
Some clips from that site:
Comcast Denounces DC's Nats TV Legislation - 5/2 - From the DC Biz Journal: The DC Council Tuesday passed emergency legislation to force Comcast to begin airing Washington Nationals games, although the cable TV firm immediately disputed the city's legal standing to enforce such a bill. The legislation requires Comcast to begin airing the Nats or be forced to renegotiate its franchise deal with the city. With the baseball season a month old, most of the area's cable subscribers still can't watch the Nats due to a dispute between Comcast and the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which is owned by Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos. Said Comcast Executive VP David Cohen: "This legislation will not have any legal effect as local government efforts to mandate programming are clearly impermissible under federal law".....
... and
DC Nats TV Ruling Could Backfire - 5/2 - From Doug Buchanan at WUSA: "A move intended to get more Washington Nationals games on TV could now backfire on local lawmakers. And if that happens, many of us could be reaching for the old fashioned rabbit ears in hopes of getting better reception. This could be the last resort. If Comcast doesn't budge, Nats fans hoping to see more of their team on the tube will suddenly find themselves wishing they could see a lot more than just a baseball games on TV because cable service could be cut in the District." Meanwhile, Nationals TV carrier MASN took out a full-page ad in Tuesday's Washington Post in support of DC Council member Jack Evans' plan to introduce legislation that would force area cable TV giant Comcast to carry the DC baseball team.....
Quick history: Peter Angelos/MLB own the newly created MASN (Mid-Atlantic Sports Network) which is an Angelos creation. Angelos created it to take over the rights to the Orioles broadcasts in future years (he gets back the rights in 2007 if things don't change). He also created it to take the Washington Nationals broadcasts, then intending to sell the channel as a local sports network to cable/satellite subscribers. Thus far only RCN (a small competing cable system mostly in Montgomery County, Maryland and in parts of D.C.) and one of the Northern Virginia (non-Comcast) providers is carrying the channel on cable, and only DirecTV is carrying the channel by satellite. That leaves the Comcast customers, and Dish Network customers without the broadcasts. Neither side really seems to want to make nice, so Comcast still refuses to carry the channel, and without the competition from Comcast, Dish Network has done a ho-hum of their own about the channel, which isn't carrying any other programming currently.
Ok, now that you've seen the clips, and seen the history, you might get more from where I'm coming from here, and from what I'm going to write here.
I think Comcast and WUSA are wishfully thinking. Comcast has been playing a very dangerous game. While WUSA fears that their viewers may be left to watch TV via rabbit ears, and while Comcast says that there's no standing for the city of D.C. to do what they have done, both are wrong. D.C.'s city council is, as best I could tell, well within it's rights as grantors of the cable franchise for the city of D.C. able to regulate that franchise. Comcast may not like it, but they created the mess through their own actions.
Note, I'm not saying that Comcast doesn't have a point about no agency having a right to tell them what programming they must carry. That becomes a free speech fight, and one which Comcast can easily win. They have a right to exercise free speech and choose to carry, or not carry, a channel or program of their choice. But when they do so, they can open up clauses in contracts that allow a served area, such as the city of D.C. to claim that their management of the cable system runs counter to the best interests on the citizens of the served area. It's a fine line that they have been walking, and one I think they'd fall on very easily if the issue goes to the courts. They'd be told that yes they have the right to free speech in choosing what channels they want to carry, or what programs they wish to make available, but they'd then be told that the city has a right to void the contract and revoke the franchise if they are found to be failing to serve the best interests of the citizens. So they'd win the battle, but lose the war, as they'd be forced to abandon the franchise back to the city, or forced to sell it to another provider. Which provider, I'm not sure, but one that wouldn't be Comcast.
If that were to happen, they'd also be a very dangerous example for other cities to follow in dealing with the evil cable monopolists. Screw over the citizens of the cities, lose your franchise, lose your investment, and get far less than fair market for the franshise as someone new comes to town.
There's also the issue of competition in general. As Verizon rolls out FiOS, and AT&T does some of the same, there've been regulatory hurdles that have kept them out of areas where there were exclusive cable franchises. It's entirely possible that D.C. could take advantage of Comcasts actions to start making a sweet heart deal with either Verizon or AT&T. They could grant rights to come in and compete, and perhaps offer tax incentives for spending on physical plant needs and other 'start up' costs that could offer a big advantage to either of them. If that happens, suddenly Comcast finds that customers they used to have are looking at much cheaper competitors.
How the fear mongers at Channel 9 (WUSA) fit into things is simple enough. They are legitimately worried that customers that now see them via Comcast could be left without signal until a competitor comes into the area, or in some transition period if Comcast really lost their franchise. If that were to happen, they may have some reason to worry, but I have to think that competition would move in quite swiftly to take advantage of their wounded foe (Comcast). Even if it was from some brethren in the cable broadcasting industry, a market of between 200,000 and 800,000 homes wouldn't be left unserved long.
Comcast's VPs and other big wigs need to pick up the phone, swallow some pride, and make a deal, even if only a temporary one, to carry Nationals games. Even if it's one where they buy the rights to the games that are already produced by MASN and air only some of the games, some would be better than none, and would show progress. Showing progress would buy time to make a deal on their own terms, rather than on that of the pols. Are they smart enough? Who knows, so far it hasn't seemed like it.
Some clips from that site:
Comcast Denounces DC's Nats TV Legislation - 5/2 - From the DC Biz Journal: The DC Council Tuesday passed emergency legislation to force Comcast to begin airing Washington Nationals games, although the cable TV firm immediately disputed the city's legal standing to enforce such a bill. The legislation requires Comcast to begin airing the Nats or be forced to renegotiate its franchise deal with the city. With the baseball season a month old, most of the area's cable subscribers still can't watch the Nats due to a dispute between Comcast and the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, which is owned by Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos. Said Comcast Executive VP David Cohen: "This legislation will not have any legal effect as local government efforts to mandate programming are clearly impermissible under federal law".....
... and
DC Nats TV Ruling Could Backfire - 5/2 - From Doug Buchanan at WUSA: "A move intended to get more Washington Nationals games on TV could now backfire on local lawmakers. And if that happens, many of us could be reaching for the old fashioned rabbit ears in hopes of getting better reception. This could be the last resort. If Comcast doesn't budge, Nats fans hoping to see more of their team on the tube will suddenly find themselves wishing they could see a lot more than just a baseball games on TV because cable service could be cut in the District." Meanwhile, Nationals TV carrier MASN took out a full-page ad in Tuesday's Washington Post in support of DC Council member Jack Evans' plan to introduce legislation that would force area cable TV giant Comcast to carry the DC baseball team.....
Quick history: Peter Angelos/MLB own the newly created MASN (Mid-Atlantic Sports Network) which is an Angelos creation. Angelos created it to take over the rights to the Orioles broadcasts in future years (he gets back the rights in 2007 if things don't change). He also created it to take the Washington Nationals broadcasts, then intending to sell the channel as a local sports network to cable/satellite subscribers. Thus far only RCN (a small competing cable system mostly in Montgomery County, Maryland and in parts of D.C.) and one of the Northern Virginia (non-Comcast) providers is carrying the channel on cable, and only DirecTV is carrying the channel by satellite. That leaves the Comcast customers, and Dish Network customers without the broadcasts. Neither side really seems to want to make nice, so Comcast still refuses to carry the channel, and without the competition from Comcast, Dish Network has done a ho-hum of their own about the channel, which isn't carrying any other programming currently.
Ok, now that you've seen the clips, and seen the history, you might get more from where I'm coming from here, and from what I'm going to write here.
I think Comcast and WUSA are wishfully thinking. Comcast has been playing a very dangerous game. While WUSA fears that their viewers may be left to watch TV via rabbit ears, and while Comcast says that there's no standing for the city of D.C. to do what they have done, both are wrong. D.C.'s city council is, as best I could tell, well within it's rights as grantors of the cable franchise for the city of D.C. able to regulate that franchise. Comcast may not like it, but they created the mess through their own actions.
Note, I'm not saying that Comcast doesn't have a point about no agency having a right to tell them what programming they must carry. That becomes a free speech fight, and one which Comcast can easily win. They have a right to exercise free speech and choose to carry, or not carry, a channel or program of their choice. But when they do so, they can open up clauses in contracts that allow a served area, such as the city of D.C. to claim that their management of the cable system runs counter to the best interests on the citizens of the served area. It's a fine line that they have been walking, and one I think they'd fall on very easily if the issue goes to the courts. They'd be told that yes they have the right to free speech in choosing what channels they want to carry, or what programs they wish to make available, but they'd then be told that the city has a right to void the contract and revoke the franchise if they are found to be failing to serve the best interests of the citizens. So they'd win the battle, but lose the war, as they'd be forced to abandon the franchise back to the city, or forced to sell it to another provider. Which provider, I'm not sure, but one that wouldn't be Comcast.
If that were to happen, they'd also be a very dangerous example for other cities to follow in dealing with the evil cable monopolists. Screw over the citizens of the cities, lose your franchise, lose your investment, and get far less than fair market for the franshise as someone new comes to town.
There's also the issue of competition in general. As Verizon rolls out FiOS, and AT&T does some of the same, there've been regulatory hurdles that have kept them out of areas where there were exclusive cable franchises. It's entirely possible that D.C. could take advantage of Comcasts actions to start making a sweet heart deal with either Verizon or AT&T. They could grant rights to come in and compete, and perhaps offer tax incentives for spending on physical plant needs and other 'start up' costs that could offer a big advantage to either of them. If that happens, suddenly Comcast finds that customers they used to have are looking at much cheaper competitors.
How the fear mongers at Channel 9 (WUSA) fit into things is simple enough. They are legitimately worried that customers that now see them via Comcast could be left without signal until a competitor comes into the area, or in some transition period if Comcast really lost their franchise. If that were to happen, they may have some reason to worry, but I have to think that competition would move in quite swiftly to take advantage of their wounded foe (Comcast). Even if it was from some brethren in the cable broadcasting industry, a market of between 200,000 and 800,000 homes wouldn't be left unserved long.
Comcast's VPs and other big wigs need to pick up the phone, swallow some pride, and make a deal, even if only a temporary one, to carry Nationals games. Even if it's one where they buy the rights to the games that are already produced by MASN and air only some of the games, some would be better than none, and would show progress. Showing progress would buy time to make a deal on their own terms, rather than on that of the pols. Are they smart enough? Who knows, so far it hasn't seemed like it.