The Blog

In reading filings in the Comcast/NBCU docket today I came across a poignant submission by the Portland Trail Blazers.  You can read it here – it’s short.

Back in 2007, the Trail Blazers signed up with the Comcast Regional Sports Network in their area (CSN).  The idea was that Comcast would distribute their basketball games and, in Comcast’s words, “dramatically increase exposure for the Trail Blazers” and bring more fans more programming related to the games.  Comcast also apparently said that they’d make the games available to other cable and satellite distributors in the region.

Well, that hasn’t happened.  Hundreds of thousands of fans who don’t subscribe to Comcast but who live in the area can’t see the games. They’re irate, and the Trail Blazers are saying that they’re worried that Comcast will use their market power in local distribution to even greater effect once they have added NBCU content to their roster.

It’s not the largest story, but it’s not unique.  (And it may be that the Comcast clean-up campaign is already on its way to fix the situation before the next public hearing or event in connection with the merger.)  Comcast’s response (as of February – there may be an update that I can’t find) is that they’re a private company and they’re negotiating in good faith but haven’t found a price that’s good for both sides.

There are two large gears that mesh together in the Comcast setting – (1) control over programming (or programmers who won’t break ranks for fear of upsetting Comcast) plus (2) control over distribution to competing pay-TV distributors (or ways to raise their competitors’ costs through expensive bundled services).  Put them together in the live sports/business/entertainment sectors, and you’ve got a situation that may make for more poignant stories.