Comments on: Government Aid for Big Ten Network and NFL? http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:43:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Marc Kilmer http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8412 Marc Kilmer Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:38:11 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8412 True, the cable industry has been termed a "natural monopoly" and has been regulated as such. In reality, however, cable television providers only achieved monopoly status due to laws that make it very hard to compete against them. Earlier this year, however, legislators and Governor Strickland ended this situation in Ohio and enacted legislation that opens up the state cable television market to more competition. The laws that gave cable company monopoly status are gone. The comments above trying to justify government micromanagement of the cable industry do not reflect the reality of Ohio's current cable laws. HB 377 is indeed needless government intrusion in this industry. As was clearly indicated by Representative Blessing's words, he thinks the cable companies need to be forced to carry these the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network. Personally, I don't really care if Time Warner (or any other cable company) carries the Big Ten Network or the NFL Network. This is a fight between two corporations. There is no justification for using the government's power to tilt the balance in favor of one or the other, however. Ultimately, sports fans will decide the contest by using their purchasing power. As to the contention that I somehow misled readers about the specifics of the bill, I'm unclear as to why the point you bring up somehow would change the arguments against the bill. So the bill's arbitration requirement would only apply to cable companies that own and operate a channel that competes against the company bringing the complaint. That may actually make it worse. The way I read this provision is that if a company wants its competitor to carry its programming, and that company feels it is being treated "unfairly" (and what competitor wouldn't feel this way?), then that company can bring the government in to harass its competition. This provision is in the same spirit as the rest of the bill -- using the government to try and tilt the balance of power in a situation that is best resolved by market forces. True, the cable industry has been termed a “natural monopoly” and has been regulated as such. In reality, however, cable television providers only achieved monopoly status due to laws that make it very hard to compete against them. Earlier this year, however, legislators and Governor Strickland ended this situation in Ohio and enacted legislation that opens up the state cable television market to more competition. The laws that gave cable company monopoly status are gone. The comments above trying to justify government micromanagement of the cable industry do not reflect the reality of Ohio’s current cable laws.

HB 377 is indeed needless government intrusion in this industry. As was clearly indicated by Representative Blessing’s words, he thinks the cable companies need to be forced to carry these the Big Ten Network and the NFL Network. Personally, I don’t really care if Time Warner (or any other cable company) carries the Big Ten Network or the NFL Network. This is a fight between two corporations. There is no justification for using the government’s power to tilt the balance in favor of one or the other, however. Ultimately, sports fans will decide the contest by using their purchasing power.

As to the contention that I somehow misled readers about the specifics of the bill, I’m unclear as to why the point you bring up somehow would change the arguments against the bill. So the bill’s arbitration requirement would only apply to cable companies that own and operate a channel that competes against the company bringing the complaint. That may actually make it worse. The way I read this provision is that if a company wants its competitor to carry its programming, and that company feels it is being treated “unfairly” (and what competitor wouldn’t feel this way?), then that company can bring the government in to harass its competition. This provision is in the same spirit as the rest of the bill — using the government to try and tilt the balance of power in a situation that is best resolved by market forces.

]]> By: CableCustomer http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8344 CableCustomer Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:45:21 +0000 http://www.eyeonthestatehouse.org/2007/11/02/government-aid-for-big-ten-network-and-nfl/#comment-8344 As an Ohio cable customer who admires the free market, I must disagree with Marc Kilmer's analysis of H.B. 377. On both the overall picture and specific details, I believe Eye on the Statehouse (EOTS) is misguided. EOTS paints this issue as an example of the government meddling in the affairs of private businesses. In reality, the situation isn't so black and white. Since the 1940's, the cable industry has been known as a "natural monopoly," which is why it has <b>always</b> been actively regulated by the government in the form of franchising agreements and the like. Therefore, H.B. 377 isn't needless government intrusion, but simply the state government tweaking the process and operations by which it <b>currently</b> regulates the cable industry. As to the specifics of H.B. 377, Mr. Kilmer isn't telling the whole story. Not only does H.B. 377 require channel providers to show they have not been treated in a fair manner, but <b>it also </b> stipulates that arbitration can occur only in the circumstances where a cable operator owns and operates a channel that would compete against programming owned by an indepedent channel programmer. This is a detail that EOTS failed to report. To sum it up, I take an opposing view to EOTS. This isn't an issue of free-market interference. Rather, it's a clear example of the state telling the cable industry (which is already government-regulated, public-focused, and monopoly-oriented), to play fair with cable programmers. As an Ohio cable customer who admires the free market, I must disagree with Marc Kilmer’s analysis of H.B. 377. On both the overall picture and specific details, I believe Eye on the Statehouse (EOTS) is misguided.

EOTS paints this issue as an example of the government meddling in the affairs of private businesses. In reality, the situation isn’t so black and white. Since the 1940’s, the cable industry has been known as a “natural monopoly,” which is why it has always been actively regulated by the government in the form of franchising agreements and the like.

Therefore, H.B. 377 isn’t needless government intrusion, but simply the state government tweaking the process and operations by which it currently regulates the cable industry.

As to the specifics of H.B. 377, Mr. Kilmer isn’t telling the whole story. Not only does H.B. 377 require channel providers to show they have not been treated in a fair manner, but it also stipulates that arbitration can occur only in the circumstances where a cable operator owns and operates a channel that would compete against programming owned by an indepedent channel programmer. This is a detail that EOTS failed to report.

To sum it up, I take an opposing view to EOTS. This isn’t an issue of free-market interference. Rather, it’s a clear example of the state telling the cable industry (which is already government-regulated, public-focused, and monopoly-oriented), to play fair with cable programmers.

]]>