The Washington Post editorial page yesterday published a self-serving piece that openly advocated the approval of a merger between NBC-Universal and Comcast, creating one of America’s largest and most concentrated media companies.  But considering who owns the Post, the editorial might as well have been written by Comcast CEO John Roberts.

Containing only a non-specific disclosure that the newspaper “has interests in broadcast and cable television,” the editorial laments interference from “advocacy groups” that oppose the merger, claiming they are “poor prognosticators of the effects of large media mergers.”  The newspaper found no problems with media concentration in the United States, which itself should be an indictable offense, until one realizes the company that publishes the newspaper is, itself, a concentrated media company.

The Washington Post and Cable One are both owned by the same company.

The newspaper owns Cable One, a particularly nasty, low-rated cable operator that spied on its broadband customers and overcharges them for broadband service through a complicated Internet Overcharging scheme.  In fact, Cable One is the cable company that brought America the “$10/GB overlimit fee,” a low blow for the company’s customers on the so-called “economy tier,” which delivers pathetic 1.5Mbps service with a maximum limit of just 1GB!  This is the kind of cable company that proves sometimes dial-up service -is- better.

As far as the Post is concerned, the FCC will keep America safe from any uncompetitive market-power-enabled-abuses from a Comcast-NBC behemoth, itself a stunning statement from a newspaper that claims to know what is really going on in Washington.

Even our readers know complaining to the FCC about anything is like talking into a black hole.

When it comes to the Washington Post editorial page, profits come first, and Cable One can generate them with its own abusive pricing practices.

For the rest of the country, the irony of a dead-tree-format newspaper finger-pointing at advocacy groups (that don’t own cable companies), accusing them of getting the future wrong is a mighty rich irony.

The reality-based America I live in thinks media is already too-consolidated, too shallow, and increasingly abusive and too expensive.  The Post‘s advocacy of a mega-merger like Comcast-NBC only points to just how out of touch the newspaper is getting these days.  As Americans clamor for more media diversity, more competition, and more choices at lower prices, the Washington Post is just fine with the exact opposite.  But then you’d expect that from a company whose business plan depends on it.

Telephone companies will lose up to half of their broadband market share if they insist on sticking with DSL technology to deliver Internet access, according to a new report from Credit Suisse analyst Stefan Anninger.

Anninger predicts DSL will increasingly be seen as the “dial-up” service of the 2010s, as demand for more broadband speed moves beyond what most phone companies are willing or able to provide.  Credit Suisse’s analysis says DSL accounts sold in the United States top out at an average speed of just 4Mbps, while consumers are increasingly seeking out service at speeds of at least 7Mbps.  The higher speeds are necessary to support high quality online video and the ability for multiple users in a household to share a connection without encountering speed slowdowns.

A lack of investment by landline providers to keep up with cable broadband speeds will prove costly to phone companies, according to Anninger. He believes a growing number of Americans understand cable and fiber-based broadband deliver the highest speeds, and consumers are increasingly dropping DSL for cable and fiber competitors.  Any investments now may be a case of “too little, too late,” especially if they only incrementally improve DSL speeds.

Anninger says providers may be able to offer up to 18Mbps in five years by deploying ADSL 2+ or VDSL technology, but by that time cable operators will be providing speeds up to 200Mbps, and many municipal providers will have gigabit speeds available.

The impact on phone company broadband market share will prove bleak for phone companies in all but the most rural areas, Anninger predicts.  He says by 2015, cable companies will have secured 56 percent of the market (up by 2 percent from today), phone companies will drop from 30 percent to just 15 percent, Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, and wireless broadband will each control around 7 percent of the market, with the remainder split among municipal fiber, satellite, and other technologies.

Anninger is also pessimistic about wireless broadband being a wired broadband replacement in the next five years.

A Credit Suisse online survey of 1,000 consumers in August found that less than half would consider going wireless only.  The reasons?  It’s too slow, too expensive and most plans have Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles.

Although cable companies are on track to be the big winners in broadband market share, still have one giant hurdle to overcome — a lousy image.  Just 36 percent of cable customers say they are “very satisfied” with their local provider.  More than 60% of FiOS and U-verse’s broadband customers said they are “very satisfied” with the services these advanced telephone company networks provide.  Consumer Reports has regularly awarded top honors to Verizon FiOS for the last several years.

Independent phone companies and smaller cable operators routinely score at the bottom, typically because they are relying on outdated technology to supply service.

This makes the marketplace ripe for disaffected consumers to jump to an alternative provider.  Unfortunately, as most Americans face a duopoly of the cable company they hate and the phone company that doesn’t deliver the services they want, there is no place for them to go.

Anninger also predicts the risk of broadband reform by reclassifying broadband under Title II at the Federal Communications Commission is now “minimal.”  That suggests Net Neutrality enforcement at the FCC is not a priority.  The Credit Suisse analyst says if action hasn’t been taken by winter or spring of next year, it’s a safe bet the Commission will never re-assert its authority.

"DVD's are so five years ago!"

Netflix, which has seen its Canadian streaming-only video service welcomed with usage cap reductions by Rogers Cable, has finally started to wake up to the threat its online video business model is one speed throttle or usage cap away from oblivion.

As the video rental company now contemplates launching a streaming-only version of its service in the United States, it has now firmly waded into the Net Neutrality debate.  In a filing earlier this month, Netflix impressed upon the Federal Communications Commission the importance of prohibiting providers from establishing blockades to keep its competing video service from threatening cable-TV revenue:

“The Commission must assure that specialized services do not, in effect, transform the public Internet into a private network in which access is not open but is controlled by the network operator, and innovative Internet-based enterprises are permitted effective access to their consumers only if the enterprises pay network operators unreasonable fees or are otherwise seen by such network operators as not threatening a competitive venture.”

Netflix online video packs a real wallop, as Americans embraces the service as a suitable and cheaper replacement for premium cable movie channels.

Sandvine, which pitches “network management” products to the broadband industry, reported Netflix now represents more than 20 percent of all downstream broadband traffic in the United States during peak usage times between 8-10pm.

The company’s financial results seem to affirm its growing impact as an online video entertainment player.  The Washington Post reports in the third quarter, Netflix saw a 52 percent gain in subscribers to 16.9 million. Revenue increased 31 percent to $553 million. But most interesting: 66 percent of subscribers watched more than 15 minutes of streaming video compared with 41 percent during the same period last year. The company predicted Wednesday that in the fourth quarter, a majority of Netflix subscribers would watch more content streamed from the Web on Netflix than on DVD.

That prompted CEO Reed Hastings to say Netflix should now be considered a streaming company that also offers DVD-by-mail service.

If providers launch Internet Overcharging schemes that limit broadband usage or throttle their competitors to barely usable speeds, that growth could come to an end quicker than the introduction of the next “unfair usage policy.”

Sandvine’s research confirmed something else.  As broadband speeds increase, so does usage.  In Asia where broadband speeds are dramatically higher than in the United States, Sandvine found median monthly data consumption is close to 12 gigabytes per household compared to 4 gigabytes in North America.  And Asians stay very close to their broadband connections, using them on average for almost 5.5 hours per day, compared to just three hours for North Americans.

When one considers the majority of broadband users are only starting to discover online video, those numbers are headed upwards… fast.

With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

Another fight over retransmission consent leaves New York-area Cablevision subscribers in the middle of a dispute they will ultimately pay for.

At 12:01am Saturday, an unintended economic stimulus package kicked in for New York area sports bars as News Corporation yanked Fox network affiliates in New York and Philadelphia from Cablevision subscribers in a dispute over programming fees.

WNYW-TV (Fox), WTXF-TV (Fox), WWOR-TV (MyNetwork TV), Nat Geo WILD, Fox Business Channel, and Fox Deportes were all replaced with a looped message from Cablevision attacking Fox for negotiating in bad faith and greedily demanding more money than the cable company pays for every other New York area broadcaster, combined.

The dispute sent sports fans scurrying for access to weekend sporting events blacked out on the cable system serving Brooklyn, Long Island, and parts of Connecticut and New Jersey.  Cablevision customers were denied yesterday’s New York Giants-Detroit Lions football game and Philadelphia Phillies-San Francisco Giants baseball playoff game.  For a brief period, Fox raised the ante by also blocking Cablevision broadband subscribers from accessing Fox programming on Hulu, until political pressure and complaints from consumer groups forced Fox to retreat.

At issue, as always, is money.  Broadcasters are increasingly insistent on being paid for the right to retransmit their programming over cable systems.  Without agreements, a broadcaster can insist that a cable system drop their station(s) from the lineup until a retransmission consent agreement can be reached.

For years, many smaller independent stations fought to get on cable systems — for free — especially in areas where poor reception made it difficult to watch.  Broadcasters increased local advertising rates thanks to the extended viewing area many cable systems provide.

But now that local ad revenue is not what it used to be, and with viewers going online for access to their favorite shows, agreements increasingly require cash payments for permission to carry stations.

For the nation’s largest television market — New York City, the amounts exchanged can be staggering — well over $100 million dollars each year.  With that kind of money at stake, disputes have become almost routine, and area viewers are sick of it.

“It’s all about the money,” complained resident Joe Figueroa. “They’re always greedy.”

Figeroa and fellow Bronx resident Shinequa Gaillard told WNBC-TV these disputes always leave customers in the middle.

Fox briefly yanked its shows on Hulu Sunday for Cablevision customers attempting to bypass the dispute

“I think neither one of the two are thinking about the customers and the viewers — neither one of them,” Gaillard said. “As consumers, what can we do? Nothing.”

Briefly over the weekend, viewers hoping to bypass the dispute by watching Fox programming on Hulu learned the network had decided to involve Cablevision’s broadband subscribers in the fight as well — blocking access to Fox-owned content.  Some of our readers, include PreventCAPS, noticed.

Stop the Cap! reader and Cablevision subscriber Jim in Garden City, N.Y., discovered the programming blockade when he tried to watch an episode of COPS on Hulu.

“Fox has gone hardball on us by blocking Hulu for anyone with a Cablevision IP address,” Jim writes. “This is how these bastards operate, cutting off programming even for those like me who don’t even have cable TV and should not be involved in this debate at all.”

Jim uses a rooftop antenna to access local stations, and does not subscribe to a Cablevision video package.  He’s convinced this is exactly why we need Net Neutrality enforced by law in the United States.

“Imagine if this was Comcast-NBC vs. Fox,” he warns. “Do you think Comcast wouldn’t think twice of pulling the plug on Fox’s website and video content if the two hated one-another?  They’d flip that switch off in a second.”

The implications did not go unnoticed by Free Press and other consumer groups.

“Consumers should have the right to watch online content, and this access should not be tied to a dispute over cable television carriage arrangements,” said S. Derek Turner, research director for Free Press. “This move is also an example of a major user of public spectrum abusing the public interest.”

The matter quickly also went political, triggering an angry response from Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) urging the Federal Communications Commission to step in and “actively defend Internet freedom and consumer rights.”

A few hours after statements like that, Fox pulled back and restored access, but the point was made for those who recognize media companies have major involvement in online and over-the-air programming.

Israel

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), whose district includes shut-out Cablevision subscribers, thinks these disputes have become way too common.

Cablevision subscribers have endured short-term lockouts from Food Network and HGTV, networks owned by ABC-Disney, and now this latest dispute with Fox.  Israel wants binding arbitration for these types of disputes, if only to shield customers from one side or the other yanking access:

“I spoke to officials today at the FCC and they confirmed they have offered to mediate arbitration and pledged to keep the heat on both parties to come to the table without disrupting service.  Haven questioned Chairman Genachowski about this issue in March, I know that he shares my concerns about the continued brinkmanship of these negations that threaten to leave customers in the dark.  I’m disappointed that both parties haven’t agreed to hold Giants fans harmless while negotiations continue.”

While Cablevision announced it was willing to enter arbitration to resolve the dispute, Fox officials refused, claiming it would reward bad behavior by the cable company.

Both players have their own websites defending their respective positions and trying to sign up viewers to help fight the battle.

News Corporation, which owns Fox, runs KeepFoxOn and is encouraging Cablevision subscribers to cancel subscriptions and switch to Verizon FiOS or satellite television.  It also accuses Cablevision of hypocrisy over their resistance to paying “fair fees” for Fox-owned programming.

Lew Leone, vice president and general manager of News Corporation’s WNYW and WWOR-TV says Cablevision wants special treatment:

Instead of negotiating like a responsible business, Cablevision decided to make this your problem in the hope that if they caused you, the viewer, enough inconvenience, then politicians would intervene.

That is what Cablevision’s call for “arbitration” is all about.   But ask yourself – do you think Cablevision would be ok with someone else stepping in to decide the price you pay them for cable and broadband service?

And the Cablevision family certainly doesn’t allow arbitrators to set the rates for their cable channels like MSG and AMC.  In fact, just a few weeks ago, MSG and MSG Plus went off the dial for millions of DISH Network subscribers – and MSG did not ask for arbitration.

Cablevision has called us greedy. It’s an interesting charge, given the fact that the price we’ve offered Cablevision for FOX5 and My9 is more than 70% lower than what the Cablevision family charges other cable operators for MSG and MSG Plus.

Frankly, it is hard to believe a company like Cablevision is accusing anyone else of greed.  Cablevision customers pay an average of $149 per month including up to $18 for broadcast stations – and that earned them an average profit of over $795 per subscriber last year.  Yet, they have only offered to pay less than a penny a day for FOX5 and My9.

Cablevision has stated that they intend to provide you with a rebate.  But if the rebate is equal to what they offered Fox for our stations, you can look forward to a credit of less than 30 cents on your next bill.

Cablevision officials fire back that they won’t be bullied.  The Cablevision website, along with a video airing on blacked out channels, accuses Fox of greedily demanding $150 million for stations, many of which customers can watch for free over-the-air:

• Cablevision currently pays 70 million dollars per year for News Corp’s programming (which includes channels such as FOX 5, My9, FOX Business Network, National Geographic Wild, and FOX Deportes), and now they are asking for more than 150 million dollars for the exact same programming – no new programming, just another 80 million dollars per year for News Corp.
• Cablevision has reached agreement with every other major broadcast station, including CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision. But News Corp is demanding more in fees for FOX 5 and My9 than Cablevision and our customers pay for all of the other broadcast stations combined!
• We think in these economic times that this is outrageous, especially since FOX 5 and My9 are available for free over the air, and they make many of their most popular shows available for free on the Internet.
• News Corp has pulled the plug on their most popular programming, holding viewers hostage until their unreasonable demands are met. NFL Football, the MLB playoffs and World Series, House and Glee are just a few of the programs that News Corp is depriving their viewers of in an attempt to bully us into accepting their unfair demands.
• Cablevision is willing to accept binding arbitration from an independent 3rd party to settle this dispute. We call on News Corp to accept binding arbitration, and to put FOX 5 and My9 back on the air for our customers until we can come to a fair agreement.

Both sides have publicized their views in the local media, including full page ads in New York tabloids.  One from Fox targeted Cablevision’s owners personally, accusing the Dolan family of getting top dollar for lesser-watched sports networks under the MSG umbrella while playing hardball over program fees for channels 5 and 9, heavily viewed in the New York area.

Right now, Cablevision pays about 25 cents per month for both broadcasters.  News Corporation reportedly wants a dollar per month.

Forbes entertainment columnist Lacey Rose warns these repeated battles may bring unintended consequences from viewers, especially for Fox:

The networks’ current strategy –block programming while trading barbs with the cable operator in question—may do more harm than good, however, as consumers are (further) incentivized to find new ways to occupy their time. (Much as they did during the 100-day writers’ strike, when new scripted programming was shelved for months.) Still more worrisome, the resulting fees that will be passed down to already cash-strapped subscribers in the form of higher cable bills could end up pushing them away forever.

In an era of 1,000-plus channels and infinite entertainment on the Internet, the broadcast networks are already in a precarious position with younger viewers, which advertisers pay a premium to reach. Blackouts or not, nearly 70% of cord cutters are under the age of 34, according to a BTIG study released last month — and that doesn’t include a growing subset of these younger, tech-savvy viewers who never even bother with a cable subscription, preferring entertainment outlets like Hulu and Netflix for their content.  Though the networks are loathe to admit it, viewership continues to decline as the median age of the audience at the big four rises. In fact, thus far this season the median age of a prime-time viewer is 50 years old, according to The Nielsen Company.

But at least for now, as negotiations continue in the third day of the programming blackout, there appears to be no end in sight.  Cablevision has even engaged in some programming blackouts of its own, denying access to today’s New York gubernatorial debate to Verizon FiOS, which prompted an angry response from the phone company.

“Verizon FiOS TV customers and millions of other viewers served by other providers across the state have essentially been blacked out of the debate, denying them their rights as citizens and voters, since Cablevision is the sole broadcaster of the event,” said Michelle Webb, general manager and chief programming officer of FiOS1, Verizon’s news channel for Long Island and northern New Jersey. “And while the broadcast will be available on certain websites and some radio, those may not be practical solutions for many people.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Cablevision Dispute 10-18-10.flv[/flv]

Stop the Cap! brings you a comprehensive roundup of coverage from the New York area regarding the Cablevision-Fox dispute, with coverage from WNYW, WABC, and NY 1 television, Cablevision and Fox themselves, and WINS and WCBS Radio.  (14 minutes)