As predicted, Cablevision and Disney-owned WABC-TV New York reached a settlement of their dispute over retransmission fees, returning WABC-TV to more than three million Cablevision subscribers minutes after the start of the Academy Awards telecast.

WABC released a statement indicating a tentative agreement had been reached:

“ABC7 and Cablevision have made significant progress and have reached an agreement in principle that recognizes the fair value of ABC7, with deal points that we expect to finalize with Cablevision. Given this movement, we’re pleased to announce that ABC7 will return to Cablevision households while we work to complete our negotiations.”

Details of agreement were not released, but many expect WABC-TV will be paid 50-60 cents per month per Cablevision subscriber.

“It is a deal that is fair to our customers and in line with our other programming agreements,” Cablevision spokesman Charles Schueler said. “We are very grateful to our customers for their support and pleased to welcome ABC back.”

WABC-TV officially returned 8:43 pm Sunday, Cablevision said. The awards show began at 8:30 pm.

Cablevision characterizes the dispute as a "TV tax" on its subscribers

More than three million Cablevision subscribers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are without their local ABC station as another retransmission fee dispute reached an impasse late Saturday night.

WABC-TV, the top-rated television station in New York went dark on Cablevision customer screens Sunday morning, potentially depriving cable customers access to tonight’s Academy Awards telecast.

“If Cablevision is serious about doing right by their customers and returning ABC7 and its programming to them, then they need to act now. The ball is in their court,” WABC-TV president and general manager Rebecca Campbell said in a statement.

The station says it sent Cablevision a new proposal earlier today, but Cablevision had not yet responded.

Cablevision argues it already pays $200 million dollars a year for Disney-owned cable networks like ESPN, and WABC’s request for what the company characterizes as $1 per month per subscriber is too much.

Cablevision is telling subscribers “it is wrong for ABC to demand $40 million in new fees to help pay the salaries and bonuses for top ABC executives” and characterizes the additional fees as a “TV tax.”  That argument might have some sway had Cablevision not recently agreed to some hefty pay raises and bonuses for its own management, while customers faced another rate increase.

Coming just two months after another high profile dispute between the cable operator and Scripps’-owned Food Network and HGTV, some Cablevision subscribers have had enough.

Stop the Cap! reader Jen said she ordered Verizon FiOS for her Long Island home as soon as she heard about the dispute.

“We’ve been here before and I just knew these guys would not get serious about negotiations until after the station was pulled, and I’m tired of them playing with my lineup arguing over who gets my money,” Jen writes.  “Verizon FiOS had a great sign-up offer and they don’t have these bull-headed disputes that drag customers into the middle of the ring to get repeatedly gored.”

Jen’s service was installed Friday, so she’s enjoying tonight’s Oscar telecast while her neighbors might not.

“Maybe we’ll have them over so they don’t have to play around with rabbit ears,” she adds.

Cablevision has been hounded by politicians who are also annoyed with programming disputes.  Cablevision says it would agree to binding arbitration and wants the Federal Communications Commission to intervene.  Both possibilities are highly unlikely, however.

What is likely is the high profile Academy Awards broadband will act as a de facto deadline for the two sides to hammer out a final agreement in time to allow WABC back on the lineup.  Most likely, both sides will settle around the 50-60 cent range for New York’s channel seven.

WABC-TV New York tells viewers Cablevision dropped channel 7 early Sunday morning after negotiations failed to resolve a dispute over fees. (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cablevision Dispute WABC 3-5-10.flv

Cablevision is running this message for subscribers explaining the loss of WABC-TV from the cable lineup. (3 minutes)

Cablevision subscribers: Just two months after facing the loss of HGTV and the Food Network, get ready to lose WABC-TV — the ABC affiliate in New York, just hours before the Oscars telecast is set to begin.

Cablevision’s contract with Disney-owned WABC-TV will expire March 7th, and both sides have not reached an agreement.

The dispute centers around retransmission rights fees.  Currently, WABC permits Cablevision to carry its channel on their lineup for free.  But now the station wants to be paid.  WABC claims Cablevision earns $18 million a month from its broadcast basic lineup of mostly-local channels, and it’s time to share a portion of that with the station.

Cablevision has so far not agreed to the asking price.

“Cablevision’s position is that ABC7 is worth little to nothing to its business and its proposed offers have been consistently unreasonable and unrealistic,” said Rebecca Campbell, president and general manager of WABC-TV. “We think these shows are valuable, and your bill shows that Cablevision must agree since you already pay for ABC7 as part of your Broadcast Basic Tier – a service for which, as a Cablevision customer, you pay as much as $18 each month.  Cablevision charges you for ABC7 and then keeps all the money.”

WABC has started a website to educate customers how to drop Cablevision and switch to a competitor such as Verizon FiOS, or get access to the station over-the-air.

Cablevision fired back accusing ABC of asking consumers to pay a TV tax amounting to $40 million that would have to be passed onto subscribers in another rate increase.

“It is not fair for ABC-Disney to hold Cablevision customers hostage by forcing them to pay what amounts to a new TV tax,” said Charles Schueler, Cablevision executive vice president.

Both sides indicate negotiations are continuing, and some compromise may still be reached before the deadline.

WABC-TV is running this 30-second ad telling viewers about the dispute with Cablevision, along with stories on their newscasts. (4 minutes)

The battle between Cablevision and Scripps over the carriage of two popular cable channels has been resolved, but customers in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are now wondering where their refunds are for three weeks of interrupted viewing.

“Why are we paying for two channels they’re not delivering,” asks Stop the Cap! reader Alvira in New Jersey.  Many others are wondering the same thing, now that Cablevision is billing customers for January service that delivered an incomplete cable lineup.

The town supervisor of Ramapo, in Rockland County, New York, is demanding rebates for customers.

“We want a refund,” said Christopher St. Lawrence.  “We have over 10,000 [customers] right here in the town of Ramapo.”

WABC-TV New York reports on customer demands for refunds from Cablevison. (2 minutes)

The resolution over the carriage dispute came last week, after negotiations finally achieved an agreement restoring the channels.

“This is the resolution everyone wanted, and to have achieved anything less would have been a profound disappointment,” said John Lansing, executive vice president of Scripps.

Scripps had demanded about 75 cents per month from each subscriber for the two networks.  Cablevision formerly paid 25 cents per month.  In the end, industry watchers suggest the two companies ended up agreeing on about 45 cents per month.

A Torrington man wants a law empowering consumers to charge their cable companies “rent” for allowing their unwanted cable boxes to stay in customers’ homes.

“I’ve got to keep it warm, I’ve got to feed it electricity. If anything happens to it, I’ve got to pay $175,” Stephen Simonin shared with the regulatorily-toothless Litchfield County Cable Television Advisory Council.  “It’s absolutely insane,” he said before being elected chairman of the Council.

The Republican-American covered the converter box debacle, and the ongoing dispute between Cablevision and Scripps-owned HGTV and Food Network, thrown off the cable lineup on New Year’s Day.

The growing variety and intensity of disputes between consumers and largely deregulated cable operators may signal a growing backlash against the cable industry and its potential for a more regulated future.

In the absence of regulation, Simonin said, “it is like the wild west.”

Simonin lodged official complaints about his converter box long before his wife began griping about the absence of Food Network from the family television. State regulators are equally powerless to force cable companies to provide content without converter boxes, or specific channel offerings, as are the various cable advisory councils.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate, said he opposed the federal law that deregulated the cable television industry in 1996, and continues to oppose it.

“I have said again and again and again over the years, Congress not only stripped states of their power to effectively protect consumers, but also failed to provide for federal protections,” Blumenthal said. There “really is no effective oversight or scrutiny.”

Telecommunications company-owned equipment, and the rental fee income earned from it, can occasionally be a source for profit-padding, especially when providers don’t allow customers to purchase and own their own equipment.  Television sets were supposed to be designed to accommodate digital cable transmissions without a required converter box as the country adopted new digital television-capable sets, but consumer experiences with a cable-box-free CableCARD plug-in cards have been mixed.

“The situation is infinitely more complicated than that suggests,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of Media Access Project. Schwartzman said about 90 percent of the televisions currently in use do not have the capability Simonin describes, though he agrees “companies like Cablevision are, in fact, monopolizing the set top box to their benefit.”

Schwartzman said the FCC has promised prompt review of a petition filed two weeks ago that demands consumers be allowed to purchase a converter box from a third party, rather than be forced to rent a box from their cable provider.

“This is a very active issue right now,” Schwartzman said.

Negotiations between Scripps and Cablevision continue to drag on in the northeast as New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey Cablevision cable subscribers go without their HGTV and Food Network.

Progress has been incremental at best as Cablevision continues to refuse to accept paying the increased fees Scripps wants.  Cablevision’s declaration that is expects to never carry Scripps programming again doesn’t help.

Meanwhile, Food Network president Brooke Johnson has been running from one news channel to another to talk about Scripps’ position on the dispute, and that “hundreds of thousands” of viewers have complained about the loss of their two networks, a number Cablevision disputes.

Pali Research analyst Richard Greenfield, who covers the cable industry, defended Cablevision, giving credit to the Dolan family that owns Cablevision for standing up to Scripps’ rate increase request.

Greenfield accused Comcast and Time Warner Cable of “essentially rolling over” in their negotiations with Scripps, agreeing to price hikes for their networks, an allusion to Time Warner Cable’s campaign to fight back against programmer price increases.

If those cable companies “had taken a far harder stance with Scripps, Cablevision’s pushback may actually have forced Scripps’ hand,” Greenfield wrote.

Still, most viewers could care less about the power plays between cable and the programmers.  They just want their HGTV and Food Network back.

WCBS-TV New York ran these two reports during their 6pm and 11pm newscasts describing the battle between Scripps and Cablevision, and consumer reaction.  (4 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTNH New Haven Cablevision Dispute 1-7-10.flv

Same story, different city as WTNH-TV viewers in New Haven, Connecticut share their views on the dispute.  (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Brooke Johnson Cablevision Scripps Dispute 1-4-10.flv

Food Network president Brooke Johnson appeared on CNBC to take questions about the dispute and changing business model of cable TV and programmers.  (5 minutes)

Johnson also turned up on Fox Business News to discuss the dispute, how negotiations are going, and how viewers are reacting.  (6 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Brooke Johnson Cablevision Dispute 1-4-10.flv

…And Johnson also appeared on Bloomberg News accusing Cablevision of paying themselves top dollar for AMC, a network they own, while refusing to negotiate over a price increase for the “more popular” HGTV and Food Network amounting “to pennies per subscriber.”  (6 minutes)

Cablevision, the nation’s fifth largest cable operator, yanked Food TV and HGTV from suburban New York cable systems early this morning in another fight over programming fees.

The two popular cable channels, owned by Scripps Networks, were “no longer authorized” to be shown to Cablevision customers after the two companies failed to reach an agreement over what the cable operator should pay per month for the two networks.

Perhaps overshadowed by the bigger profile Time Warner Cable-Fox dispute which impacts cable customers across the country, the fight between Cablevision and Scripps has been nasty even by the standards of knockdown, drag-out fights characterizing most of these contract spats.

Cablevision characterized Scripps as “financially troubled” in its own account for the press this morning:

“We are sorry that Scripps’ current financial difficulties are making it impossible for them to continue our relationship on terms that are reasonable for Cablevision and our customers,” the company said in a statement. “We wish Scripps well and have no expectation of carrying their programming again, given the dramatic changes in their approach to working with distributors to reach television viewers.”

That’s about as final as it gets, as the cable operator signals it’s done haggling over prices, at least for now.

Cablevision has a website of its own to explain the decision to drop the two networks

As usual, customers are caught in the middle in an advertising and PR war back and forth.

This morning, Cablevision customers found this message running on the channels formerly occupied by HGTV and Food Network.

Scripps has set up websites for consumers to get their take on the matter, and has also taken to running some 30-second ads of its own, along with network personalities giving their testimony about why the channels are going to be missed.  I Love HGTV and I Love Food Network largely mirror each other’s content in a blog format.  Scripps argument for Food Network, which basically also applies to HGTV:

1. Food Network is among the most popular brands on television, consistently ranking among the Top 10 networks in cable and satellite. In fact, Food Network attracted record numbers of viewers in 2009.
2. Cablevision does not pay Food Network comparably to what it pays other Top 10 networks; yet it pays some networks that deliver substantially smaller audiences significantly more for their programming.
3. The rates currently paid to Food Network by Cablevision are among the lowest in the industry. In 2009, Food Network is 75^th of the 79 Nielsen-rated cable and satellite networks in terms of average rates received from distributors per subscriber. (Source: Kagan Research)
4. Cable subscribers on the whole, responding to the 2009 Beta Subscriber Study, said Food Network is worth $1.03 per month, which is considerably more than Cablevision is paying for the network’s programming and more than Food Network is asking in the current contract negotiations.
5. Cablevision customers pay an average subscription rate of $83 per month. The monthly fee Cablevision pays for Food Network is a small fraction of that figure.

Scripps fires back with its own ad alerting Cablevision subscribers to call and ask for HGTV and Food Network back on their lineup.

Judging from the comments left on both of Scripps’ sites, consumers know they are stuck in the middle and many are not thrilled with either party.  Some of the comments:

Each of you blames the other, but it’s probably a lot of both, and we, the viewers, are the real losers.  Thanks a lot to both Cablevision and Scripps. You’re just like the Republicans and Democrats — neither side seems to understand the meaning of or necessity for compromise to benefit the masses. Have a wonderful New Year.

You guys are schmucks. You waited until the very last minute, on New Years Eve, to tell everyone about this before launching your stupid campaign. You are using your customers to fight your battles, and are ultimately punishing all of them at the end of the day. And that’s pathetic.

YOU guys are the scumbags! You’re so greedy, I hope Cablevision snubs you. If Cablevision picks you back up at your hiked rate, we’ll be the ones paying an even higher bill, you idiots.
Thanks loads and happy new year to you, too. Greedy morons.

Whatever the disagreement is on funding, ultimately, it is us as the consumer who are paying the bill. My wife LIVES for the Food Network and would be willing to pay for it as a Premium channel. If that’s the road both sides want to take, both will lose out. Only a few like myself would be willing to pay extra for it……there will be other subscribers that could care less either way.

I turned on my TV this morning to watch the Rose Parade at 11 am and found an obnoxious rotating statement from Cablevision instead of the channel. I then went online to the web address they provided on screen and read their say -nothing statement that put the entire blame on Scripps networks. Instead of telling the customers there was a problem and asking what we would want to pay for these networks, they just yanked them. They are the most customer-unfriendly company I have seen, and it is not just from this action where I form this opinion.

We have enjoyed the FoodNetwork and HGTV but you deserve to be off Cablevision, there is no way your combined networks are worth almost $2 a month, 25 cents is about right. My cable bill is too high now, 2 bucks for what you have? Forget it, I will have to do it the old fashion way. We lived without you before and will live without you again.

To Cablevision, I have had my rates raised countless times over the past 10 years, and have nothing to show but more CRAP channels. I can’t watch NFL channel, I don’t get my hard to find football games because I am a fan of an out of area team, and now, I can’t watch the ONE CHANNEL that I regularly follow, FOOD Network. The fact that companies like you have spurned the “a-la-carte” system that would allow me to choose and pay for the channels I want (which I would gladly do for Food Network and HGTV) and instead want to keep your profit margin as large as possible is a testament to the corporate GREED that you embrace instead of a value based system. You can talk tough and try to put all of the blame on Scripps, but the truth is, you are both to blame.

Somehow, I don’t think this was the kind of reaction either company expected from customers who have wised up to who will ultimately pay to resolve this in the end.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Vern Yip HGTV Cablevision.flv

HGTV’s Vern Yip speaks to Cablevision customers about how to get HGTV back on their cable lineup.  (30 seconds)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Guy Fieri on Food Network Being Dropped.flv

Food Network’s Guy Fieri is “blown away” with Cablevision’s decision to drop Food Network from the lineup. (30 seconds)

Cablevision serves communities surrounding the metropolitan New York region

Despite the tight economy for most Americans, executives at some of the nation’s largest cable players will enjoy millions from their contract extensions, bonuses, and eye-popping stock options that could net upwards of $10 million more for a select few.  And you thought your rate increase was due to “increased programming costs.”

Cablevision is where the real Money Party has just gotten started.  The top three executives alone could receive a combined $50,000,000 next year… that is fifty million dollars, just for running a regional cable company with just north of three million subscribers.

Here is the breakdown:

Dolan

Cablevision CEO James Dolan: Cablevision has always been under the control of the Dolan family, who own a controlling interest in the stock.  James Dolan gets a five-year extension in his contract, with a base salary of $1.5 million per year plus a bonus of up to four times that amount.  In 2010, Dolan is also entitled to an additional bonus package in cash and equity worth around $7 million.  He is also on track to get that same bonus each of the next five years, but only if the company does well.  Dolan is also CEO of Madison Square Garden/MSG/Radio City Music Hall.  For managing those assets, he’ll receive an extra $500,000 in salary, a bonus up to four times that amount, and an extra cash and equity bonus expected to be about $1.75 million per year.

Dolan founded Cablevision in 1973.

Ratner

Cablevision Vice Chairman Hank Ratner: Ratner gets a base salary of $500,000 a year, an annual bonus up to four times that salary, $1.2 million annually for his role with MSG, and extra cash and equity around $1.4 million annually.  And just because he’s a great guy — a one-time stock award worth $1.75 million due on March 31, 2010.  But wait, there’s more.  He also deserves extra cash and equity as MSG’s chief, targeted at $5.4 million in 2010 and each year thereafter.

Ratner joined Cablevision in 1987.  Ratner helps to set corporate direction and strategy, and is the primary executive overseeing major business partnerships and transactions.  Prior to being appointed Cablevision vice chairman, he served as vice chairman of Rainbow Media Holdings, the company’s programming subsidiary.

Rutledge

Tom Rutledge, Cablevision’s chief operating officer: He’ll get $1.63 million annually in salary, plus an annual bonus up to four times that amount.  He’s a special guy, so he also gets a “special payment” of $7.75 million within ten days of putting his ‘John Hancock’ on the new contract.  Call it a signing bonus.  But he also gets extra cash and equity compensation aiming at $6.8 million in 2010.

Cablevision isn’t alone is spreading around the walking around money.

Liberty Media, one of those programmers that keeps upping the rates charged to cable and satellite providers, who in turn pass those increases on to you, have a reason for doing so.  Their salary costs keep going up for the special few on the top floor.

Maffei

Greg Maffei, prexy-CEO of the company, just got his own five year contract renewal taking effect January 1st.  He’ll earn a base salary of $1.5 million per year, with a guaranteed 5 percent raise every year and an annual bonus amounting around $3 million.  But he’ll also get more than 10 million options of Liberty’s three stocks, most in the high-tech Liberty Interactive, which is developing online applications and services.

What do you get?  A rate increase and programming you don’t want but have to pay for, and now you know why.

I realize this is a bit off topic for us, but I was bemused to learn Cablevision, the cable operator in suburban New York (and elsewhere), has launched iO TV Quick View, three new channels that display nine different kids, sports and news networks all on one screen.

Who is this for?  I suppose the carpel tunnel-suffering channel surfer that has worn his finger out moving up and down the cable dial looking for something to watch and never making it all the way to the end of the lineup.

Cablevision says these three channels will let viewers highlight each window showing a network and, with one button press, jump to the channel they want to see.

No doubt these three channels will be part of the pointless bragging rights cable companies play over the number of channels they offer customers, as if most are still concerned with counting them.

The 500 channel universe already threatens to become littered with networks like Cat Fur Entertainment, Dorm Room Cooking Channel, Log Rolling 24/7, Uncle Fred’s Aquarium TV, and the Uighur News Network, before someone came up with this.

Channel 670 (like you’ll find that):  Kids Quick View channel features box views of Disney Channel, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Boomerang, Discovery Kids, Disney XD, Nicktoons, Nick Jr. and Kids Thirteen.

Channel 671: News Quick View channel features News 12, News 12 Traffic & Weather, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, CNN Headline News, Bloomberg TV and BBC World News.

Channel 672: Sports Quick View, featuring MSG, MSG+, YES Network, ESPN, ESPN2, Speed Channel, Golf Channel, SportsNet NY and Versus.

Versus TV

I can already guess there will be some clashing between Cartoon Network’s more-adult oriented cartoons and Nick, Jr., among others.  Putting channels with Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, and Ed Schultz all on one channel will blow a hole in the fabric of space on 671, and few will pay attention to actual sports on 672 when the scantily clad ladies on Versus turn up… regularly.

“Our focus in the development of iO TV Quick View has been on discoverability and helping our customers find the perfect program to watch,” Cablevision’s SVP of strategic product development, Patrick Donoghue, said in a prepared statement.

“With so many channels to choose from, this new enhancement allows us to present current options in a number of popular programming categories, literally at a glance. And the end result is a visually beautiful presentation with easy navigation both within the mosaic and to the specific channels being spotlighted.”

Yeah, you’re going to pay for it.

Back in the mid-1980s, I first got involved in the fight against the cable television industry’s consumer abuses.  Cable had gotten cocky, and began to use their monopoly position to extract ever-increasing amounts of money from consumers, providing lousy service and engaged in anti-competitive abuse all over the marketplace.  Back then, competition for the overwhelming majority of consumers came from just one place – giant 10-12 foot satellite dishes.  These were the days before Direct Broadcast Satellite providers like Echostar/DISH and DirecTV (and PrimeStar, the cable industry’s own satellite provider that claimed to ‘compete’ with cable) provided competition to cable.

In the mid and late 1980s, your choice was a giant TVRO (TV-Receive-Only) satellite dish in the backyard or you hooked up to cable.  A tiny handful of communities had wireless cable, a service that was supposed to compete with cable but was seriously limited in channel capacity (in many communities, wireless cable ended up providing access to ‘adult’ content that cable wouldn’t carry as their biggest selling point) and quickly faded from view by the mid 1990s.

The abusive practices were all over the place back then:

• Cozy arrangements between cable companies and local governments resulting in outright bans of satellite dishes for aesthetic reasons, using zoning laws either prohibiting their installation or requiring landscaping to hide them from view (to the neighbors and to the satellites they were trying to receive, making them useless), or requiring expensive permit fees;
• A rush to scramble/encode satellite signals and then require consumers to purchase, outright, a costly descrambler from General Instruments called the VideoCipher II for $399 (or have it incorporated within a satellite receiver that typically cost $800-1000 and was available only for purchase), only to be replaced a few years later by the VideoCipher II+ (which consumers were also forced to purchase).
• Cable companies, which had ownership interests in most cable networks (which was nearly a pre-condition for getting your network on cable systems), often had exclusive rights to sell that programming, and frequently provided it “only on cable” or to satellite customers who could not subscribe to cable.  Some networks refused to sell to competitors, including dish owners, at any price.
• Anti competitive pricing was by far the biggest problem.  Prices for programming packages encrypted on satellite were sold to consumer dish owners in small or large bundles at pricing comparable or above what cable subscribers paid, despite the fact all of the costs to provide, install, and service reception equipment were borne by consumers.  No cable TV company overhead, no infrastructure or staffing and support costs, yet satellite dish owners were expected to pay the same high costs that cable subscribers paid, and also purchase their own equipment.  That was quite an investment: a 12 foot dish, satellite reception equipment, decoder, and installation routinely ran well over a thousand dollars, depending on the equipment and installation complexity, and that was before programming costs were factored in.

Rural consumers really got the short end of the cable stick, not able to buy cable even if they wanted to, and forced to spend big money, upfront, just to get satellite TV.

That inspired the consumer groundswell of support for legislation to stop the abuses, which overrode a White House veto by President George H.W. Bush.  Among other things, the Cable Act of 1992 put a stop to exclusive programming contracts which denied competitor access to cable networks.

Without that legislation, there would be no DirecTV or DISH today.

Now the cable industry is back, high-fiving over their victory to have the 30% ownership cap dispensed with, and are now taking on the next provision of the 1992 Cable Act they don’t like — the ban on exclusive programming contracts.

That’s right, it’s Back to the Future as Comcast and Cablevision take their legal business to the same friendly DC Court of Appeals that savaged the 30% cap, now seeking an immediate repeal of the exclusivity ban as well.

Oral arguments start September 22nd.

Most amusing of all is the argument made by Comcast and Cablevision, who claim despite the time and attention they are spending on overturning the law, not to mention the legal expense, the practical effect of an end to exclusivity bans would be… absolutely nothing.

“Widespread withholding is now implausible,” said the attorneys in the filing. “[T]here are proportionally fewer services to withhold. The limited withholding that may still occur will not threaten competition: most vertically integrated services have closely similar substitutes, and, when competitive MVPDs [multichannel video programming distributors] have sunk massive investments, withholding can no longer cause market exit.”

That’s right.  Big cable companies throw money away on attorneys who will presumably fight this case and the inevitable appeals for the next few years for no practical change whatsoever in the current competitive landscape.  The believe people will accept that an industry that had to be forced by regulation to compete on a level playing field will continue to respect that playing field once they plow it up.

Just trust us.  We’re your cable company.  You love us.

So it could be “nothing” as they suggest, or it could be a defensive response to challenges of their business plans from telephone company TV and online video competition.  Would you subscribe to a competitor that didn’t offer the networks you wanted to see because they were “exclusively” available only from the cable company?

Be it usage caps, consumption billing, exclusive contracts, “price protection agreements” that hold customers in place for 12-24 months (or longer), the war to keep consumers from choosing when, where, and how they access content is becoming fully engaged.

Satellite television in the mid-1980s was highlighted by Granada Television