[Kk21pwa9]

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- On Tuesday, January 5, Tennis Channel filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission demonstrating that Comcast Cable Communications is violating the FCC's program carriage rules, which prohibit cable system operators from discriminating against unaffiliated cable programming services in favor of networks they own. According to the complaint, Comcast isolates Tennis Channel on a premium sports tier received by a small fraction of Comcast subscribers while it carries Comcast-owned networks that compete with Tennis Channel on basic tiers available to far more subscribers at no additional charge.

"We did not want to file this complaint, but Comcast has left us with no choice," said Ken Solomon, chairman and CEO of Tennis Channel. "After steadily building the most comprehensive single-sport network in television over the past few years, in the first half of 2009 we had numerous discussions with Comcast. We made offers with added incentives for it to move us to a competitive, broadly penetrated service tier, as it has done recently with the MLB, NHL and NBA channels, in which it has financial interests. But Comcast declined to do so."

According to evidence included in the complaint, Tennis Channel's ratings performance is comparable in its service area to that of Comcast's leading sports services, the Golf Channel and Versus; it offers coverage of all four of tennis' Grand Slam events, while the Golf Channel and Versus offer little or no comparable coverage of the major events in the sports they cover; it charges a per-subscriber rate that is about half the rate charged by the Golf Channel and Versus, but broadcasts more than 2,700 hours per year of event coverage - compared to 2,400 hours on the Golf Channel and 1,350 hours on Versus; and it offers a full-time high-definition service.

Comcast's Golf Channel and Versus are among the most broadly distributed channels on Comcast systems, reaching almost all of Comcast's 23.8 million subscribers, according to the complaint, while Tennis Channel is limited to the added-cost premium sports tier that reaches only about 2.6 million homes. "This ten-to-one disparity in carriage seriously impedes our ability to grow and compete in the sports cable marketplace," said Solomon. "It results solely from Comcast's decision to protect the services it owns from legitimate competition."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-80784752.html

[Kk21pwa9]

This is TC's own press release, so read it with an understanding that there is a slant to it. But they are trying to get off the Sports Premium Tier that Comcast has them confined to, and get to a more basic package (along with the ESPNs, Versus, the Golf channel...).

Comcast is the largest cable network in the country, so if TC is successful before the FCC, it would put the Tennis Channel in about another 23.3 million homes (less those that subscribe to the premium sports tier).

This should be interesting to follow. I hope Tennis Channel is successful.

[Ephedrine]

As an AT&T Uverse subscriber, I would also like them to devote some more time trying to hammer out a deal with them. I hated Comcast a lot (since it never worked right), but I miss TC.

[saopinax]

January 4, 2010
NEWS ANALYSIS

Next Up on Cable TV, Higher Bill for Consumers

By BRIAN STELTER

The performances on “American Idol” may be erratic and the plot twists on “Lost” may be unpredictable, but one facet of television is certain: the costs just keep going up.

On New Year’s Day, the News Corporation, the media empire controlled by Rupert Murdoch, wrangled new payments from Time Warner Cable, including subscriber fees for the Fox Broadcasting network, which is free for viewers with over-the-air antennas.

The high-stakes deal reflected the scramble by media companies to reduce their dependence on advertising.

Something else also happened that day: Time Warner Cable put another rate increase into effect.

It will not be the last time. Along with Fox, other broadcasters say they deserve a share of the cable and satellite bills that roughly 100 million American households pay each month. At the same time, the cable-only channels that have lured viewers away from broadcast, with shows like “SpongeBob SquarePants” and “The Closer,” are lining up for further fee increases.

Viewers usually do not notice until the price goes up, but their pay TV bills are a battleground for media companies. “Content providers are testing the limits — hoping to raise the bar as high as possible,” said Steve Ridge, the president of the media strategy group for the consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates.

These battles are playing out just as the television industry is coping with the wrenching changes brought on by new competition from the Internet.

Broadcasters have long envied the fact that their cable channel competitors are paid two ways, through advertising and subscriber fees. So now, the television networks are fighting for every penny they can.

Several years ago, CBS started asking for fees, and the News Corporation followed in negotiations last month, demanding a dollar for each subscriber every month from Time Warner Cable. The average digital cable customer already pays nearly $75 a month, the research firm Centris found last year.

The companies will not reveal what compromise they reached, but that figure will most likely become a benchmark for future deals. Disney is expected to ask for sizable fees for its ABC stations in negotiations this year.

In a twist, Comcast, the country’s largest cable provider, will soon own NBC Universal, if its acquisition is approved by the government, putting it in a position to pay out as well as collect fees for NBC.

Cable and satellite distributors are resisting the demands, but a “power shift,” as Mr. Ridge put it, is under way as broadband Internet becomes pervasive, putting a seemingly infinite variety of choices in front of consumers. Of course, broadband is not free, either, and it is often provided by the same companies that distribute television programming.

The News Corporation fight was unusual because it played out in public, with Time Warner Cable arguing that it wanted to hold the line on further fee increases. That looks impossible, however, as newly powerful cable channels seek to cash in.

They argue that they deserve more money for having invested millions in their original programming. Cable executives say privately that the demands, and resulting fights, are increasing in frequency. And every time they clash, there is a chance that viewers will miss out.

The sports network Versus, owned by Comcast, has been off of DirecTV’s satellite service for three months in a fee battle. More prominently, the Food Network and HGTV disappeared from Cablevision’s lineups in New York and New Jersey on Friday after talks broke down with the owner of the channels, Scripps Networks.

The Food Network costs distributors 8 cents a viewer on average now; Scripps wants a roughly 300 percent raise, according to people briefed on the negotiations. That might seem drastic, but 30 other channels, some with lower ratings, already earn that much. “We were really, really undervalued,” said Brooke Johnson, the president of the Food Network.

For ardent fans of “Iron Chef America,” the Food Network is undoubtedly worth 25 cents a month. But that logic, applied to dozens of channels, can become pretty expensive for viewers. For example, the owners of Oprah Winfrey’s cable channel, set to begin one year from now, are hoping that her star power will be worth 50 cents for each subscriber a month. The channel it is replacing, Discovery Health, gets only 12 cents now.

Consumers already pay dimes or quarters for most cable channels each month, whether they watch them or not. ESPN earns the most by far, $4.10 on average, and is forecast to receive more than $5 a month by 2012, according to the research firm SNL Kagan. Fox Sports Network gets $2.37 on average.

The next-highest paid channel, TNT, gets 96 cents. The Disney Channel, NFL Network, Fox News, USA and ESPN2 each get more than 50 cents. For every channel, the price per month is expected to rise each year.

“We hear from consumers that they are paying too much and getting too little for it. And there seems to be no end to the rate hikes in sight,” Mindy Spatt, a spokeswoman for The Utility Reform Network, said.

Even as consumers recover from the recession, there is little evidence that people are canceling cable en masse, although some know that calling up their local provider and threatening to cancel can quickly earn them a big discount.

Time Warner Cable is not alone in raising rates; higher prices go into effect for DirecTV and AT&T’s customers next month.

In Washington, where proposals for “à la carte” cable pricing were popular in recent years, some lawmakers and regulators now look to the Web as a more attractive, market-driven solution. Viewers will increasingly be able to bypass pay TV service and watch whatever they like online.

Distributors are trying to put a system into effect that will offer some TV shows online to existing subscribers only.

Time Warner Cable asserts that the power ultimately rests with the consumer. “They’re the ones who are going to resist these price increases that the programmers are trying to push,” said Alex Dudley, a spokesman for the company. “One need look no further than the music industry for an example of what happens when consumers feel taken advantage of by an entire industry.”

Lest anyone doubt that Americans, who watch an average of five hours of television a day, cannot part with their sets, look no further than Orange County, Fla., where two football fans sought an emergency injunction to avert a Fox blackout of their alma mater’s bowl game on Friday as the dispute with Time Warner Cable persisted. No one, not even Mr. Murdoch, was going to interrupt their viewing of the Sugar Bowl.

The fans lost the case but won their Fox, as the two companies committed to a new contract about 45 minutes before kickoff. Soon enough, though, those fans will be paying for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/bu...5p9gcVBuwUF5/Q

[saopinax]

This is TC's own press release, so read it with an understanding that there is a slant to it. But they are trying to get off the Sports Premium Tier that Comcast has them confined to, and get to a more basic package (along with the ESPNs, Versus, the Golf channel...).

Comcast is the largest cable network in the country, so if TC is successful before the FCC, it would put the Tennis Channel in about another 23.3 million homes (less those that subscribe to the premium sports tier).

This should be interesting to follow. I hope Tennis Channel is successful.

Moose I posted an article from the Times dealing with the same issues. TC is on a premium tier with Cablevision too so I am sure Cablevision will soon face the same issues. We just lost Foodnetwork and HGTV because Cablevision doesn't want to pay .25 cents per subscriber.

[Kk21pwa9]

At some point, I think the cable industry is going to be forced (either by the FCC, or by competition through the web) to go to a menu model for pricing. Give the consumer a listing of channels, give them a number that they can have delivered for however many dollars. The idea has been discussed for years, and the technology to do this is available, yet the cable operators fight it at every turn. But with the increase in 3g and other ways of delivering content to computers, sites like the TC can start offering their services alone for a certain fee, and bypass cable operators completely.

[saopinax]

At some point, I think the cable industry is going to be forced (either by the FCC, or by competition through the web) to go to a menu model for pricing. Give the consumer a listing of channels, give them a number that they can have delivered for however many dollars. The idea has been discussed for years, and the technology to do this is available, yet the cable operators fight it at every turn. But with the increase in 3g and other ways of delivering content to computers, sites like the TC can start offering their services alone for a certain fee, and bypass cable operators completely.

Agree 100%. The cable industry is being as shortsighted as the music industry was back in the day. I know that many seniors, unable to afford cable, get all of their TV online. I also know that shut ins rely on cable as their link to the outside world.

[mensforyouthis]

As an AT&T Uverse subscriber, I would also like them to devote some more time trying to hammer out a deal with them. I hated Comcast a lot (since it never worked right), but I miss TC.

We've held off on moving to Uverse because they don't have Tennis Channel (and have been working all our neighborhood AT&T contacts to find out when they might add it). Considering all the issues we've had with our cable provider lately, we may switch anyway (but I told my husband not until after the AO)

[enurneAcourdy]

Tennis Channel is also on a premium sports tier on Time Warner. I pay an additional $5 (plus tax) for it, a few extra Fox Sports Nets (that are worthless, by the way - do I really want to see college hockey between two schools in Missouri?), Speed and Fuel. I think all those, except tennis channel, are fox stations we were going to lose if that agreement had not been reached. Why is tennis channel lumped in with them?

I would also get AT&T U-Verse in a minute if they had the tennis channel.

[GlictStiply]

At some point, I think the cable industry is going to be forced (either by the FCC, or by competition through the web) to go to a menu model for pricing. Give the consumer a listing of channels, give them a number that they can have delivered for however many dollars. The idea has been discussed for years, and the technology to do this is available, yet the cable operators fight it at every turn. But with the increase in 3g and other ways of delivering content to computers, sites like the TC can start offering their services alone for a certain fee, and bypass cable operators completely.

I would like a la carte system but it will kill a lot of channel. What is the use of the Weather Channel???

[enurneAcourdy]

I would like a la carte system but it will kill a lot of channel. What is the use of the Weather Channel???

People love weather. I know local newscasts show ratings are higher when there is any kind of "threatening" weather.

[Carfanate]

I would like a la carte system but it will kill a lot of channel. What is the use of the Weather Channel???

I really wish I knew what the draw is... my mom loves this weather app that she loaded onto Firefox which will constantly tell you the conditions. I don't see the point in forecast saturation when I do just fine glancing at it once a week or so.

My general comment on the topic is that Comcast is terrible in general. I wish I had options out here... I ditched them for DirecTV television but had to hold onto them for internet.

A la carte programming has always been a tantalizing option, but I seriously dobut it will happen anytime soon. There is too much financial incentive for packaging as it exists now, and too few consumer protections against local provider deals to foster the competition required for reasonable-priced television.

[Kk21pwa9]

I would like a la carte system but it will kill a lot of channel. What is the use of the Weather Channel???

My brother in law watches The Weather Channel religiously. Guaranteed, he would take that as part of his programming.

Meanwhile, I could care less about probably 50% of the channels I receive. I have never watched QVC or The Home Shopping Network, but I get both. Same thing with Style, Speed, Golf Channel truTV. And there are a bunch of channels I watch maybe once a year (ScyFy, for example) that I could do without.

[GlictStiply]

My brother in law watches The Weather Channel religiously. Guaranteed, he would take that as part of his programming.

Meanwhile, I could care less about probably 50% of the channels I receive. I have never watched QVC or The Home Shopping Network, but I get both. Same thing with Style, Speed, Golf Channel truTV. And there are a bunch of channels I watch maybe once a year (ScyFy, for example) that I could do without.

Yes people do but I was trying to said a lot of some channels will most likely disappeared because of very few subscriber.

[bobibnoxx]

I would like a la carte system but it will kill a lot of channel. What is the use of the Weather Channel???

I think it might be an American thing. I think I've seen more people follow the weather news than actual news.

[Haibundadam]

I would like a la carte system but it will kill a lot of channel. What is the use of the Weather Channel???

People like hurricanejeanne use it all the time. Trust me, if the Travel Channel isn't on the TV then the Weather Channel is for her.

[SannyGlow]

With my internet connection and the addition of the premium sports package in order to get TC, my Comcast bill is almost $200 a month. They raise the rates so often, it won't be long before consumers reach the breaking point.

[mensforyouthis]

Tennis Channel is also on a premium sports tier on Time Warner. I pay an additional $5 (plus tax) for it, a few extra Fox Sports Nets (that are worthless, by the way - do I really want to see college hockey between two schools in Missouri?), Speed and Fuel. I think all those, except tennis channel, are fox stations we were going to lose if that agreement had not been reached. Why is tennis channel lumped in with them?

I would also get AT&T U-Verse in a minute if they had the tennis channel.

Never thought I'd watch these until my son went to Univ of N. Dakota - I've actually tuned in to a few of those college hockey games.

[Kk21pwa9]

A little less biased than a TC Press Release - here's the NY Times report on the battle:


Tennis Channel Takes Feud With Comcast to F.C.C.
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: January 6, 2010

The Tennis Channel filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission late Tuesday accusing Comcast of keeping it on a digital sports tier while making the Golf Channel and Versus, channels that Comcast owns, far more widely available.

In its filing, the Tennis Channel said that Comcast’s “discriminatory refusal” to treat it fairly “is harming the network’s ability to compete in the cable marketplace.”

Comcast said in a statement that its 2005 contract with the Tennis Channel allows it to carry the network “on many different tiers, including the Sports Entertainment Package, where we currently offer it to our customers.”

The cable giant said it was “fully honoring the terms of our agreement” with the Tennis Channel and called the complaint “groundless.” The sports tier also includes the CBS College Sports Network, Fox College Sports and the NFL Red Zone.The Tennis Channel’s complaint is similar to one filed with the F.C.C. by the NFL Network against Comcast in 2008 after the cable operator dropped it from a broadly distributed level to its sports tier; the case was dropped when the league and Comcast came to an agreement that made the network more widely available.

Distribution on Comcast, which has about 24 million customers, is crucial for networks eager to maximize their revenue from monthly subscriber fees.

The sports tier is bought by about 2.3 million Comcast customers who pay $5 to $8 a month while while Golf and Versus, older networks, are distributed to virtually all of Comcast’s 24 million subscribers.

Tennis wants to expand well past its full-time universe of 25 million subscribers but only does so substantially during the Grand Slam tournaments. For the French and United States Opens, special previews make it available to more than 50 million people. For Wimbledon and the Australian Open, it is available to about 30 million.

The complaint says that Comcast refused to broaden the Tennis Channel’s availability during negotiations last year despite having added coverage of all four Grand Slam tournaments and creating a high-definition channel since the original contract with Comcast was signed. In trying to prove its case of “differential treatment,” the network cited a statement by Stephen Burke, Comcast’s president, saying that it views its own networks like “siblings” but networks it does not own as “strangers.”

Last summer, a feud over the Tennis Channel’s distribution on Cablevision prevented it from being seen by the cable operator’s customers during the United States Open. Cablevision won the acrimonious battle and carries the channel on its digital sports tier.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/sp.../07tennis.html

[cemDrymnVem]

With my internet connection and the addition of the premium sports package in order to get TC, my Comcast bill is almost $200 a month. They raise the rates so often, it won't be long before consumers reach the breaking point.

Good Grief. I was pitching a fit when my cable/internet bill went to $100. Of course, they don't even offer TC, but I'm getting used to that. Appreciate all those livestreams.