<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FAIR Blog &#187; Cablevision</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fair.org/blog/tag/cablevision/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fair.org/blog</link>
	<description>The national media watch group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:08:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Dropping Fox: A Thought Experiment</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/10/20/dropping-fox-a-thought-experiment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/10/20/dropping-fox-a-thought-experiment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Hart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cable TV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brian Stelter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cablevision]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=16016</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brian Stelter has a piece today (10/20/10) in the New York Times explaining the latest in the fight between Cablevision and NewsCorp. NewsCorp wants the cable company to pay them more money--a lot more--for airing Fox's broadcast signal (and a few, smaller cable channels). The two sides couldn't reach a deal, and as of Saturday, Cablevision [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>Brian Stelter has a piece today (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/business/media/20hulu.html?ref=todayspaper&amp;pagewanted=print">10/20/10</a>) in the <strong>New York Times</strong> explaining the latest in the fight between <strong>Cablevision </strong>and<strong> NewsCorp.</strong> <strong>NewsCorp</strong> wants the cable company to pay them more money--a lot more--for airing <strong>Fox</strong>'s broadcast signal (and a few, smaller cable channels). The two sides couldn't reach a deal, and as of Saturday, <strong>Cablevision</strong> customers in the New York area weren't able to watch <strong>Fox</strong>.</div>
<p><strong>NewsCorp</strong> upped the ante, as Stelter reports, by blocking <strong>Cablevision</strong> customers from accessing <strong>Fox</strong> shows on the popular streaming video site <strong>Hulu</strong>. While that maneuver didn't last long, it did represent a pretty clear example of what a major media company can do to violate  net neutrality.</p>
<p>These fights (as Megan Tady of Free Press noted in a piece in <strong>Extra!</strong> in <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4024">March</a>) are about giant media companies fighting amongst themselves over money, with the public mostly powerless to intervene.</p>
<p>But when I see <strong>Fox</strong> getting involved in these fights, I can't help but imagine a battle over the carriage fees that cable companies pay for the <strong>Fox News Channel</strong>--costs that are passed on to you, the consumer, whether or not you watch <strong>Fox News</strong>. <!--preview-break--> By <a href="http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/">some counts</a> you pay three times more for Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity than you do for, say,  <strong>MSNBC</strong>.</p>
<p>So what if a cable company decided that was too much? And what if <strong>Fox</strong> retaliated by pulling <strong>Fox News Channel</strong> from your cable system?  Somehow I think we'd all manage to get through the day.</p>
<p>Or, even more drastically, what if customers could choose whether or not they wanted to pay for <strong>Fox News Channel</strong> in the first place, through an ala carte cable menu? <strong>Fox</strong> rakes in millions of dollars every year from viewers and non-viewers alike; it seems like a decent media system would give people the right to not contribute to Murdoch's empire.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/10/20/dropping-fox-a-thought-experiment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Laying to Rest the &#039;Bandwidth Bogeyman&#039;</title>
		<link>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/29/laying-to-rest-the-bandwidth-bogeyman/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/29/laying-to-rest-the-bandwidth-bogeyman/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Voiles</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cablevision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S. Derek Turner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=8438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Free Press is welcoming (4/28/09) as "a long overdue step in the right direction" the news that "Cablevision announced plans to offer download speeds of 101Mbps and upload speeds of 15Mbps" without charging "usage caps or overage fees" to users. Research director S. Derek Turner explains that the plan
does, however, beg the question why Cablevision [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Free Press is welcoming (<a href="http://live.freepress.net/node/56674" target="_blank">4/28/09</a>) as "a long overdue step in the right direction" the news that "<strong>Cablevision</strong> announced <a href="http://www.infopackets.com/news/internet/2009/20090428_cable_firm_sets_speed_record_with_101mbps_broadband.htm" target="_blank">plans</a> to offer download speeds of 101Mbps and upload speeds of 15Mbps" without charging "usage caps or overage fees" to users. Research director S. Derek Turner explains that the plan</p>
<blockquote><p>does, however, beg the question why <strong>Cablevision</strong> can offer fast access with reportedly no caps or overage fees, when others claim such a plan would cause the sky to fall and an <a href="http://www.humanproductivitylab.com/archive_blogs/2008/01/31/estimating_the_exaflood.php">exaflood</a> to break the Internet. We hope this new announcement will put an end to the bandwidth bogeyman.<br />
<!--preview-break--><br />
We also encourage companies like <strong><a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2683">Cablevision</a></strong> to think about the other part of the value equation--price. These days, lower prices are just as important as faster speeds.</p></blockquote>
<p>For some of the history feeding Turner's healthy skepticism about giant media corporations' claims regarding the Internet, read the fair magazine <strong>Extra!:</strong> "Deregulation's History of Empty Promises: Net Neutrality and the Supermedia Monopolies" (<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3423">3-4/07</a>) by Jeff Chester.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/04/29/laying-to-rest-the-bandwidth-bogeyman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

