Home » Cablevision »Editorial & Site News »Net Neutrality »Verizon » Currently Reading:

Cablevision-owned ‘Newsday’ Rejects Verizon FiOS Ads – Another Argument for Net Neutrality?

Phillip Dampier August 31, 2009 Cablevision, Editorial & Site News, Net Neutrality, Verizon 4 Comments

newsdayOpponents of Net Neutrality regularly dismiss concerns about providers blocking, interfering with, or rejecting content as little more than scare-mongering.  Even in the case of competitors, they assure us, no provider would ever consider getting between the customer and the services they choose to use.  Therefore, we don’t need Net Neutrality provisions enacted into law.

Wouldn’t you know, Cablevision-owned Newsday, a newspaper on Long Island, just unknowingly illustrated what happens when a company puts its own competitive and ownership interests ahead of not only the customer, but also newspaper common sense.

As any newspaper reader knows, the local cable and phone companies are not shy about advertising their products.  For years, Verizon has been spending several hundred thousand dollars a year to run full page ads touting its FiOS service on Long Island.  Such regular advertisers are hard to find these days in the ailing newspaper industry.  Last year, Newsday itself was put up for sale, acquired by Cablevision for $650 million dollars.

Now that the local cable company owns Newsday, they’ve decided to reject advertising from Verizon for its FiOS service. Verizon is now Cablevision’s biggest competitor, providing fiber optic service for television, broadband, and telephone service across Long Island.

The New York Times reports that Newsday has basically told Verizon “don’t call us, we’ll call you” when the phone company inquired about advertising space.

Newsday won’t comment about the reasons why Verizon’s ads were rejected, other than issuing a generic statement:

“We do not comment on specific ads except to say that Newsday, like every other media company, including The New York Times, accepts or rejects advertising at its own discretion,” said Deidra Parrish Williams, a Newsday spokeswoman.

Eric Rabe, a senior vice president of Verizon, told the Times that was fine with him, noting that’s money from Verizon’s pockets not going to feed Cablevision’s pervasive presence across Long Island.

The Dolan family, which runs Cablevision, dominates Long Island, running the cable system, a popular news channel – News 12, and is still the primary place consumers go to acquire broadband service.  Now they also own the biggest newspaper on Long Island as well.

This hasn’t been the first instance that Cablevision-owned Newsday has gotten embroiled in ethical controversy.  The Times notes:

In January, the top three editors at Newsday did not report for work for a few days amid reports that they had been fired or had resigned in a dispute with Cablevision over the paper’s coverage of the New York Knicks basketball team, which is also owned by the company. The editors returned to duty, and neither they nor the company offered a full explanation of what had happened.

Newsday also recently rejected advertising from the Tennis Channel, which is upset with Cablevision because it will not carry the channel.  The Tennis Channel was rebuffed by Newsday when it tried to buy ads inviting viewers to find the network on Verizon FiOS or satellite.

Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader at the journalism foundation Poynter Institute, was troubled by Newsday‘s antics.

“Newspapers accept ads at their own discretion, but they generally set the bar pretty high for rejecting advertising, because they don’t want to be seen as denying access to free speech,” she said. She added that appearing to deny an ad for competitive business reasons, rejecting an ad that is not obviously offensive or failing to explain the rejection, could undermine a paper’s credibility.

Could a company that considers it has the discretion to reject competitors’ access to its properties also extend that notion to its broadband service?  If a competing video provider used broadband to deliver access to its channel lineup, would a competitive threat like that be welcome on Cablevision’s Optimum Online?  How about criticisms of the company or its assets?

Newsday has chosen loyalty to its owner over lucrative advertising revenue to help sustain the paper.  That has disturbing implications for the broadband world as well.

Enacting Net Neutrality protections into law guarantees a company never finds itself in a quandary over where loyalties lie.  These protections guarantee that providers do not hamper, block, or interfere with the online services customers want to utilize.  No “competitive reasons” need ever be used as an excuse to block service from consumers.

Cablevision has not engaged in any online bad behavior to date, but why wait around to find out what the future holds?




Share

Other stories of interest:

  1. Cablevision Spins Off Madison Square Garden, Appreciates 2nd Quarter Broadband Profits
  2. Verizon FiOS Launching in Pittsburgh
  3. Vienna Virginia Man Dead After Encounter With Verizon FiOS Technician
  4. Groton, Massachusetts Approves Verizon FiOS: Loudest Complaint? Why Isn’t It Here Yet.
  5. Spec-U-Plex: Pondering Cablevision’s Sale to Time Warner Cable

Currently there are 4 comments on this Article:

  1. TM says:

    Corporate censorship. Wal-Mart does it. Why not newspapers and other media providers?

    TV, internet, telephone, newspapers…et al should not be allowed to be owned by the same entities. If you provide any one of these you should not be allowed to provide the others. This is MAJOR anti-trust territory IMO.

    The Gov’t can’t sensor anyone or anything, but there are no protections from such censorship by corporations.

  2. lucy says:

    I don’t consider this a net neutrality issue, because it’s not about content or content providers.

    It is, however, obviously an anti-competitive practice, and there already are laws on the books about *that.*

  3. BrionS says:

    This doesn’t concern me overly much for the simple reason that it has tons of precedent.

    Net Neutrality is ensuring that, as a network access provider, you are not degrading or otherwise intentionally interfering with the content traveling across the network in an unfair or disadvantageous manner to your competitors.

    In this case we’re talking about advertising. Health magazine don’t carry tobacco and alcohol ads, Gun magazines don’t run gun-control ads. Time Magazine doesn’t run ads for Newsweek. This is completely normal and not about Net Neutrality at all.

    If Cablevision were blocking Verizon ads at an ISP level for Internet users, then that would be a Net Neutrality issue.

    It’s important that we not confuse Net Neutrality with quasi-underhanded competition. If I publish a magazine I don’t have to run your ad if I don’t want to. If I sell Internet access, I can’t block your content because I don’t like you since I’m selling unfettered access.

    One could argue that content-based ISPs may be a thing of the future – and ISP that provides content filtering for customers and clearly states what they block and don’t block. But that would be in the terms of service for that ISP and it would need to be clear that it’s not your standard unrestricted internet access. It would also be necessary, if that ISP were the only one for a given area, to provide unfiltered access as well – the content blocking would be an extra service.

    For example, Adblock Plus – the Firefox extension – is not a Net Neutrality issue because it blocks content by the fact that it’s willingly installed by the user for the express purpose of blocking undesirable content. It is not standard and it is not imposed on people who want to see the content. Likewise software such as Net Nanny and other parental control software is not a Net Neutrality issue because it’s opt-in. ISP-level content filtering may be a source of revenue for some ISPs as an add-on service to block (un)popular content such as pornography or bit-torrent traffic for users who choose to subscribe to the filtered service. However I’d argue that ISP must still provide unfiltered service at the same levels of access (speed).

  4. Ian L says:

    This isn’t about net neutrality, as stated above. Anticompetitive behavior, yes. Net neutrality, no. Cablevision has gone on record saying that capping, throttling, etc. on their ‘net access isn’t going to happen anytime soon, so I don’t think we have to worry about that.

    Also, last I checked, Newsday isn’t the only publication available to Long Island readers. Also, it’s a private entity owned by Cablevision, so if CV wants to sacrifice profit at Newsday for possibly decreased churn on their cable business, so be it.

    That said, if Newsday gets discredited as “the Cablevision paper” I’d be down with that. Heck, why couldn’t CV just put under the Newsday logo “a Cablevision publication”?

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • James R Bivins: I know how satellite internet works,it signal comes from space and cable comes from on electric poles that cable run pole to pole.I have satellite int...
  • Tim Johnson: It seems like a lot of people are truly stupid...haha...of course cable is much cheaper! satellite companies are not trying to compete with cable serv...
  • Tim Johnson: Stop the cap? Are you serious? You have a whole website based on non-sense? It appears that you do not understand how satellite internet service works...
  • Paul: Very interesting and sure glad I went on-line to look up this company. The ad just appeared in the Dallas area Feb 10, 2012, and glad to know it's a s...
  • Loons In June!: No its not. Its hooked to a Cisco TW Cable DVR. The point I was making is that Riley Is comparing the TW App with what is effectively an overpriced sl...
  • Ben: Is your Slingbox an HD satellite receiver with 1TB DVR?...
  • nolan: ad says you may get 53 channels ? but 12 is a long way from 53 ! since i can get at least 31 channels with a rca flat antenna for $14.95 from wal-mar...
  • Loons In June!: Hi Riley nice commercial. Isn't Dish Networks TV everywhere just a slingbox? Or am I mistaken? Oh it is. "Dish will begin taking orders for the Vi...
  • Bill Bishop: Please note that these are the same clowns who sell the Heat Surge (you can bag all the glitz and get a thermostatically controlled 1500 watt heater a...
  • Jack J: Read the ad a little more thouroughly. It does not say you can get 953 channels. It says you can recieve approximatly 53 channels in your local area ...
  • Michelle: Thanks for the article... this ad just ran in Pittsburgh yesterday. Will make sure to forward to others! Many Thanks!...
  • Riley: I’m sure many Time Warner customers are happy that they have the ability to stream some channels to their iPhone. The main issue I see with the app is...

Your Account: