Comcast favors Fox News, charges $204 more for MSNBC package

[Why Syzygy]

x-post from EA
(more info of cable gerrymandering at DU link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x471449

As of 8.12.09, Comcast has moved MSNBC from its Digital Starter Package to its Digital Classic Lineup while leaving Fox News on the Starter package. What this means is that one now has to pay an additional $17 per month ($204 per year) to view anything progressive enough to even remotely balance out FNC's right wing extremism (although, let's be honest, MSNBC could install Castro himself in Tweety's time slot and still not provide sufficient balance for the far-right insanity that is Beck/Billo/Hannity).

beachwriter429's diary :: ::

So they are calling this a "channel realignment," which I guess is like the broadcasting equivalent of gerrymandering. Apparently it's done with electronic switching from the Comcast HQ. The neighbor who alerted me to the situation is an attorney, and he thinks this appears to be to be an FCC/Fairness Doctrine violation. He has suggested to our Senator, Bill Nelson, that congress should enforce a "Menu Based" or "Cafeteria Style" subscription contract on the cable industry since it costs them nothing to make the switches.

I think the most immediate concern though is pressuring Comcast to include MSNBC in this Digital Basic Package IMMEDIATELY. If you'd like to join me, here are the email addresses of some key executives:

(original link)

[RoyGBiv]

1. As I've said before ...

This is about money. MSBNC wants more of it.

Cable companies don't care about the content of the various channels. They care what those channels cost them to re-broadcast compared to how much revenue they bring.

The people that need to be contacted are MSNBC executives.

[Why Syzygy]

2. I read that Faux

supplements (gives money to) all the businesses that keep their sets tuned to it. Wouldn't be surprised if they were doing the same for cable providers.

[RoyGBiv]

3. Actually ...

They just plain charge less.

Fox has an advantage because its "news" station is included in a basic package of very popular channels (and it is, itself, very popular, as sad as that may be) that are marketed by the parent corporation. Said corporation negotiates contracts with content providers (cable, satellite, etc.) allowing them to re-broadcast a block of those channels for a certain per-subscriber price. The contracts often also stipulate channel tiers on which the channels may or must be broadcast.

MSNBC doesn't have the same kind of leverage nor the ratings for them to demand the kind of fees they want.

For example, the contract they tried to negotiate with Cox a few years back attempted to increase the per-subscriber charge from 25 cents to 1 dollar without any other incentives. Cox said "no thanks" and threatened precisely the same thing Comcast is doing now. MSNBC's executives didn't like the taste of that battle and went into contract negotiations with Comcast with harder heads and, they felt, more ammunition through increased ratings in the wake of the 2006-2008 election season.

They were wrong.

I'm not defending Comcast, per se. I generally hate their business practices. However, the attempt to turn this into a battle in which the company is favoring a particular political message over another is wrong-headed and will lead nowhere.

[woo me with science]

4. You get what you pay for.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.