Child Item

Site Totals

61214 Questions Answered 267 Categories

MSG HD and MSG PLUS HD

As a NY sports fan, we have only the Giants, Jets, Mets, Nets and Yankees in High Def. But what about Hockey and the knicks? I hears Verizon was filing a suit against Cablevision so that cablevision can release the HD channel for MSG and MSG Plus. Any updates? C'mon Verizon push harder!! We can't have another season go by without the Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Knicks, Redbulls and Liberty in High Def!! Lets work out a deal and get us the HD Channels we deserve!

Comments

UnnDunn

I'm sure Verizon is doing all it can to get access to MSG/+ HD. They know fans want it.

Caps09

Verizon has done all it can do at this point, and everyone's waiting on the FCC to do its job. You can contact them through the website at www.fcc.gov

GDHussak

Sabres are on MSG too (in Buffalo and surrounding areas).

As much as I love EVERYTHING about FiOS, I'm getting to a point where I'm looking around at Time Warner and DirecTV again.

MarkNJ

With cablevision's current problem with Fox , now would be a good time for verizon to publicly agree to binding arbitration on access to MSG HD

NMS16

Actually, I believe that the FCC has already ruled in Verizon's favor and Cablevision has appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Final briefs are not due until December 21, 2010. See Cabelvision Systems Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (Case: 10-1062).

ajmerk

Yes! FIOS should have MSG in HD, watching the Knicks and rangers on regular definition is painful. Please get MSG and MSG+ in HD in a hurry!

Hubrisnxs

http://www.tvpredictions.com/cablemsg102010.htm More info can be found here

NMS16

That article is not entirely accurate; Cablevision is not "appealing the decision to the FCC." The FCC has already ruled that Cablevision's decision to provide Verizon with only a standard definition MSG signal was improper - thus closing the terrestrial loophole. Cablevision then appealed the FCC decision to United States Court fo Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Cablevision submitted its"petition for review" to the court on March 15, 2010, and now, it is Cablevision (as petitioner) versus the FCC (as respondent). All of the briefs have been submitted and the case will be orally argued in front of three judges on February 14, 2011.

After that, we will just have to wait for the court's decision.

Hubrisnxs

twitter.com/fiostv the twitter representative for Verizon advised one of the followers that they have gone to the FCC and that they are awaiting more info this week.

You can follow him on twitter to keep up to date on that transaction

NMS16

I wouldn't hold my breath. I am far from an expert on this matter, but the way I see it, unless there is suddenly a settlement between Cablevision and Verizon, or Cablevision and the FCC (which I highly doubt), I think we are going to have to wait for the Court of Appeals to issue its decision.

Hubrisnxs

the fcc does seem a bit feckless and toothless on the issue, so I would wager you're probably right.

I hope I am surprised though

NMS16

According to the docket, oral arguments were held this morning. It is important to note that since this is an appellate case, there is no drawn out trial. The involved parties have all submitted their briefs and replies, and they are each given 20 minutes to argue their position in front of the three justices assigned to the case.

Now that this is done, the waiting game begins. It is possible that the court will release its decision within a week, month or year (or longer). I am hoping that it is sooner rather than later.

skohly1

R u saying it was scheduled today or are u saying it was actually held?

tikk

I'm posting in this thread because I too am interested in the result. Someone posted an account of the oral argument on Feb. 14, 2011 before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which can be read here. That suggests that the FCC had a better time of it, but you can't always read into what happens during oral argument. It might read as impenetrable unless you're a lawyer.

I accessed PACER in order to see what was possibly going on, because when the DC Circuit does render an opinion, it'll be published there. If the Court does rule in the FCC's favor, it'll remand to the District (trial) Court, which would hopefully sign an order directing the enforcement of the FCC's decision to permit competing carriers access to their programming.

Anyway, there's no opinion yet, but that's not that odd because it usually takes around 2-3 months for a Circuit court to render an opinion after oral argument (at least in the 2nd Circuit that's the case, not sure about D.C. Circuit's docket). But there have been a few subsequent submissions, namely letters to the Court pursuant to F.R.A.P. Rule 28(j), alerting the Court of decisions in other courts subsequently rendered which have bearing on the outcome of the case before it. The FCC submission is here, and the two Cablevision submissions are here and here.

If you're confused by the first link to the report from oral argument, those letters aren't going to mean much to you. But I figured I'd provide them here anyway in case anyone who cares can view.

skohly1

Tks for this. Many of us are on pins and needles for this decision. By the time table mentioned the 2-3 months is almost up so perhaps we can get a resolution soon?

klossfam

I'm still a little surprised at the length of time this has dragged out - I understand the stale mate but it definitely exposes Verizon to lost business. Especially in Western NY where hockey is the MOST IMPORTANT thing and Time Warner is very aggressive. Also, the availability of uncompressed CBC HD (UHF 20 aka 5.1) providing Hockey Night in Canada.

I'm the nut that has a DB8 HD antenna pointed right at the CN Tower (56 miles away) with a 15db quality drop amp providing a GREAT signal..Pulling in a great HD signal at 95% signal strength only reminds me more about what I'm missing with 95% of the Sabres broadcasts.

You'd think Verizon is large enough to wield a sizeable sword but I'm assuming this is still a semi-limited exposure to potential loss of business to TW.

adkrasinski2

Fios needs to add:

ABC News Now HD

Boomerang HD
Cartoon Network HD
CBS College Sports Network HD
CNN Headline News HD
E! HD
FEARnet HD
FiOS1 HD
FiOS TV Infomation HD
Fox Soccer Channel HD (FSC HD)
FUNimation HD
G4 HD
MTV2 HD
NECN HD
NESNplus HD
Nick 2 HD
Nick Jr. HD
Nick Toons HD
Ovation HD
OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network HD (OWN HD)
PBS Kids Sprout HD
SportsNet New York HD
TeenNick HD
Turner Classic Movies HD (TCM HD)
TV Land HD
TV One HD
Univision HD East

Buffman31

Good to know that I can hook up a good ol' fashion antennae and pick up CBC HD. I used to keep TWC basic only for the CBC/CFTO broadcast, but finally couldn't justify the $12 a month. I may have to add this until the FiOS MSG HD decision.

Be nice to see the Canadian HD channels offered as an add-on. For us WNYers, this is considered local programming.

Mark

NMS16

The 48 page opinion is in! Have not read it yet but it looks promising. The court ruled in favor of the FCC (and Verizon) on all but one of the issues. We'll have to wait and see what role, if any, that this lone issue plays. Lets hope that this all gets sorted out before the start of the NBA/NHL seasons...if there is a 2011-12 NBA season.

SEE: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf (Cablevision Systems Corp. v. FCC 6/10/11)

NMS16

We are looking better and better...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/fcc-can-require-cable-companies-to-share-sports-shows-appeals-court-rules.html

SabresFan1

Let's hope this get's done soon!!!

Caps09

I doubt it. Cablevision says they are "pleased" with the part of the ruling that requires the FCC to reconsider the idea that exclusive terrestrial programming contracts are categorically unfair. If the FCC rules on the program accress complaints, Cablevision will appeal the ruling. Whenever the FCC modifies it's regulation, Cablevision will challenge that. Cablevision seems to have every intent on holding this up in court for years.

Of course, at the end of their statement, they once again dismissively refer to Verizon and AT&T as "phone companies" like cable is still the way to go for video service in 2011. They are so arrogant, they continue to say "Verizon and AT&T should be required to compete based on the quality of their products and not by manipulating federal law". It's kind of unbelieveable that these clowns can take themsevelves seriously at this point.

Buffman31

Let's hope they rule on the general intent of opening up competition, instead of being led down the path of cable(and satellite) v "phone " companies, who are now really multimedia providers.

Of course, the Sabres could decide to get TWC to provide a local feed (rumor), instead of MSG, and then we FiOS subscribers will be stuck paying for Center Ice. Stuck, because I already get the online feed, which I use when out of town, and somehow they'll be on some remote regional sports feed (which again I'll have to pay for...it's the only sport I watch regularly).

Maybe we could convince CBC to cover us, then convince Verizon to pick up CBC/CFTO/CHCH as a local option.

Just thinking out loud......

Child Item