On Friday, Oregon’s biggest newspaper, the Oregonian, published a guest column from SFC Executive Director Brian Frederick.

Blazer TV access: Stop hogging the ball, Comcast

The Portland Trail Blazers’ season tips off in less than two weeks and Blazers fans can expect more of the same — from Comcast, that is.

In late February, Brad Blakeman, a board member for the Sports Fans Coalition, flew out from Washington, D.C., to testify in front of the Oregon Legislature. Blakeman spoke on behalf of Blazers fans who were unable to watch games because of contract disputes between Comcast and other satellite and cable TV carriers.

In 2007, the Blazers signed a 10-year, $120 million agreement with Comcast, giving the company the rights to show Blazers games on Comcast SportsNet Northwest. Not surprisingly, Comcast then jacked up the access fees for other cable and satellite carriers in the region. In effect, Comcast is forcing customers to switch to Comcast in order to see Blazers games. (Comcast has signed agreements with local cable carriers who don’t compete with Comcast.)

Nevermind that Blazers fans in rural areas can’t even get Comcast service (or local cable service) if they wanted to. And bear in mind that fans in Portland kicked in $35 million to help build the Rose Garden.

While the Trail Blazers organization is certainly not without fault, it’s not happy about the situation and it’s fighting back against Comcast. Team President Larry Miller wrote the Federal Communications Commission recently stating that Comcast has broken its promise with the team to increase the Blazers’ exposure. Miller complained that Blazers fans were being “held hostage.”

Blazers fans aren’t the only ones. Sports fans in Philadelphia have had to deal with Comcast flexing its muscles in the local market for more than 10 years. Not only does Comcast own Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, which carries three of the four major teams in town, but it also owns two of those teams — the Flyers and the 76ers — and the arena they play in. As a result, satellite providers have been squeezed out of Philadelphia, and sports fans and media consumers have little choice but to play ball with Comcast.

Since the Sports Fans Coalition last weighed in on the issue in Oregon, nothing has changed. Comcast still hasn’t made good on its promise to make Blazers games available to more fans regardless of who provides their TV. Many Blazers fans who want to watch the team this season will be forced to subscribe to Comcast or miss the entire season.

But there’s still hope.

In January, Comcast, GE and NBC Universal filed papers in Washington, D.C., asking the government to approve Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal. Given its need to maintain a positive public image, Comcast would like to keep the situations in Portland and Philadelphia under wraps. When Blakeman arrived in Oregon to speak up on the issue, Comcast scrambled several representatives to fly out and defend the company. Comcast clearly sees the public perception of its treatment of sports fans as a potential Achilles heel in efforts to acquire NBCU.

Considering how Comcast has used these two regional sports networks to drive out competition, imagine what it could do with a national broadcasting network. (Don’t have Comcast? Will you miss out on NBC Sunday Night Football? The Olympics?)

Comcast should be forced to account for how it has broken its promise with Trail Blazers fans immediately. Oregon citizens should contact their elected officials and ask them to speak out publicly against the merger until Comcast stops abusing the loyalty of Blazers fans. If ever there was a time for sports fans to demand answers from Comcast, it’s now.

Brian Frederick can be reached at bfrederick@sportsfans.org.

People in Portland love their beer. At last count, Portland had more breweries than any other city in the country. But Portlanders also love their Trail Blazers. The city has one of the most passionate fan bases in the NBA. Yet, for the last few years they’ve been getting a raw deal. And not just at the hands of the Lakers.

Comcast is the biggest villain in Portland right now.

While Portland may seem pretty distant for those of us on the East Coast, the situation is Portland is actually a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. If the Comcast-NBC merger is successful, sports fans around the country may end up feeling like Blazers fans.

In 2007, the Trail Blazers signed a 10-year, $120 million agreement with Comcast, giving the company the rights to show Trail Blazer games on Comcast Sports Network. Not surprisingly, Comcast then jacked up the fees for other cable and satellite carriers in the region to show Blazers games. In effect, Comcast is forcing customers to switch to Comcast in order to see Blazers games. (Comcast has signed agreements with local cable carriers who don’t compete with Comcast.)

Nevermind that Blazers fans in rural areas can’t even get Comcast service (or local cable service) if they wanted to.

And bear in mind that fans in Portland kicked in $35 million to help build the Rose Garden.

While the Trail Blazers themselves are certainly not without fault, they are not happy about the situation and are fighting back against Comcast.

Blazers team president Larry Miller wrote the FCC stating that Comcast has broken its promise with the team to increase the Blazers’ exposure. Miller complained that the Blazers fans were being “held hostage.”

Without an NFL, MLB or NHL team, Portland fans – and fans around the state of Oregon – have only the Trail Blazers. Their fans are called Blazer Maniacs for a reason. It’s crucial that all those Blazer Maniacs join SFC Portland chapter chair Sarah Moon and demand that Comcast quit holding Blazers fans hostage.

As for the rest of us, Portland should serve as a wake-up call for what can happen when content providers and cable/satellite providers merge. If the Comcast-NBC merger is ultimately allowed to go through, sports fans around the country who don’t subscribe to Comcast may lose NBC Sports – NBC Sunday Night Football, the NHL, the Olympics, etc.

And if Comcast withholds The Office and 30 Rock … watch out.

Brian Frederick is the Executive Director of Sports Fans Coalition. He holds a Ph.D. in Communication and lives in Washington, D.C. His favorite teams are the Kansas Jayhawks, North Carolina Tar Heels, and whichever team his brother is coaching for. And the underdog. Email him at sportsfanscoalition@gmail.com

If you haven’t heard about the Trail Blazers’ experiment with variable ticket pricing, it’s been the subject of much controversy in Oregon. Our friends at BlazersEdge.com posted this announcement last year.

More recently, Brian Smith from The Columbian interviewed the Blazers Senior Vice President of Sales & Marketing Sarah Mensah, and it appears that this practice will not only continue, but is going to increase across the board.

With the rise of StubHub and similar ticket resale organizations, Mensah claims that the increase in data has provided a more accurate measure of ticket values.  To take it a step further, it has allowed the team to raise prices on particular season ticket-holders, pricing them out, with the knowledge that fans will pay more money in the resale.

Season ticket-holders have plenty of reasons to be frustrated. While many are worried about the increase in price for their specific sections, there is growing fear that the Blazers will tinker with other variables like row-by-row pricing, increasing the complexity of section pricing, raising costs and reducing the number of league minimum seat prices.

While it boggles the mind why any organization might emulate the airline industry, that’s exactly what Mensah says they are attempting to do. The adjustable pricing is barring the die-hards from entering the doors. While those without the cash are left at home, many aren’t even able to watch the games on TV.

Fans are not so eager to anger the team by protesting such tactics. Fans fear the Blazers might find a way to go the way of the Seattle Supersonics and escape from their contract with the city which was part of the $34.5 million which built the Rose Garden. However, it is not likely for fans to be effective without organizing their efforts and raising their voices in unison expressing their discontent.

SFC-Portland is your home to let your voice be heard.

Visit the Facebook and Twitter pages to become a fan and follow what the Local Chapter is doing about the issues that affect sports fans.

Also, sign the petition to demand your Blazers games today.

I traveled last week to Salem, Oregon to testify before Members of the Oregon General Assembly with regard to Comcast Cable’s blacking out of Portland Trail Blazers home games. Thousands of Trail Blazers fans are denied enjoying their favorite past time because of the greed and control exercised by a cable provider who refuses to provide the feed for home games to competitors in areas they cannot and do not service.

SFC struck a nerve in Oregon and challenged lawmakers and fans to take on Comcast, the Trail Blazers, and  satellite providers to “do the right thing” by fans. There is no good reason why tens of thousands of sports fans are unable to enjoy Trail Blazers home games in the comfort of their homes, their favorite restaurant or bar.

Now it is up to the fans to get off the bench and take to the court and take on this issue, head on. There is no doubt that fans can make a difference and SFC is there to help.

Sign the petition directing Oregon State representatives to take on this issue.

Become a fan of the Local Chapter in Oregon, SFC-Portland, on Facebook.

Follow SFC-Portland on Twitter.

Here is the full text of the letter:

Mr. Brian L. Roberts

Chairman and CEO

Comcast Corporation

1 Comcast Center

Philadelphia, PA 19103

February 19, 2010

Dear Mr. Roberts:

The undersigned groups submit this letter in response to your statements in recent congressional hearings on Comcast’s proposed merger with NBC Universal. We take this opportunity to voice concerns regarding Comcast’s commitment to abiding by the Federal Communications Commission’s program access rules.

In litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of  Columbia Circuit, Comcast seeks to eliminate a key component of the program access regime: the ban on exclusive contracts between a cable operator and a satellite-delivered cable programming network in which a cable operator has an ownership interest. In light of Comcast’s participation in this litigation, Sen. Al Franken questioned you on the subject of Comcast’s commitment to abiding by the rules. In response to further questioning during the hearing, you promised that Comcast would adhere to FCC program access rules even if the court declares them to be invalid.

We share Senator Franken’s concerns regarding your pledge. Your assurances are undercut by the fact that your company has a history of opposing the program access rules and is currently trying to dismantle critical parts of the program access regime.

Moreover, it is highly unusual that Comcast would continue to spend  shareholder dollars to overturn an FCC regulation that it has promised to follow regardless of the case’s outcome. The fact that Comcast has not withdrawn from the litigation raises questions about whether your company will follow through on this commitment.

Respectfully,

American Cable Association

Communications Workers of America

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers Union

Free Press

Media Access Project

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association

Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small

Telecommunications Companies

Public Knowledge

Rural Independent Competitive Alliance

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association

Sports Fans Coalition

What was Sen. Franken so mad about? Watch some of the back-and-forth here, and Matthew Lasar provides some excellent play-by-play on Sen. Franken’s line of questioning during the Senate Subcommittee Hearing here:

“I worked for years for NBC,” noted former Saturday Night Live cast member and now Senator Al Franken (D-MN) in his opening remarks. “I really feel I owe a lot to NBC, but what I know from my previous career has given me reason to be concerned… very concerned” about the merger.

Franken recalled that back in the 1980s, the television networks urged the FCC to drop its Financial Interest and Syndication (FYN-SYN) rules, which barred networks from owning all but a small chunk of the programming that they aired—which the agency did. The senator recalled that, at the time, NBC executives promised that relaxing FYN-SYN would not lead the network to favor its own content.

“But by 1992 NBC was the single largest supplier of its own primetime programming,” Franken continued. “Today, if an independent producer wants to get its own show on NBC’s schedule, on any network’s schedule, it is routine practice, and you guys know it, for the network to demand at least part ownership of the show… And that’s just a fact. So while I commend NBCU and Comcast for making voluntary commitments as part of this merger, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t trust these promises.”

Later on in the hearing, Franken disclosed that Comcast’s Roberts had met with him days earlier, claiming that the FCC’s program carriage rules would protect consumers. “You said that those rules will make sure that you always have a wide variety of programs because they forbid you [NBC] from discriminating against other company’s programs.”

With that, Franken pointed to a large sign board behind him with a quote from Comcast in its recent battle with the NFL Network over which tier on Comcast would carry the sports channel. 

“The Commission is simply not equipped or constitutionally empowered to make an independent assessment of the myriad, complex, and dynamic considerations that affect carriage, tiering, and pricing decisions,” said the quote from Comcast attorneys. “Thus the First Amendment requires that the Commission exercise extreme caution before interfering with any carriage decision.“

“In other words,” Franken continued irately, “looking to get approval for this merger, you sat there in my office and told me to my face that these rules would protect consumers but your lawyers had just finished arguing in front of the Commission that it would be unconstitutional to apply these rules.”

Roberts looked a little offended by Franken’s comments. “When we met, perhaps I was confused. I thought that we were talking about program access, now you are talking about program carriage,” he explained—the latter category deals with where programs will appear on a cable distribution system after they have been granted access.

“Whether it’s program access or program carriage, did you not say that this rule protects the people of Minnesota?” Franken declared, then asked NBC’s Zucker about those FYN-SYN questions. “I think my characterization was pretty accurate, don’t you?”

Zucker paused. “It’s a long time ago and I think there’s a lot of factors that went into back then…”

“C’mon,” Franken interrupted. “You guys said: ‘We’re in the business of ratings! Why would we favor our own programming’?”

“I can tell you what’s happening today,” Zucker pressed on. “NBC has just ordered 20 pilots for new shows…”