8 ms·

Charter, Comcast don’t have First Amendment right to discriminate, court rules

146 points by ProAm 8y ago

AaronM 8y ago
Interesting, I looked at the channels they offer and I couldn't see any reason why they would refuse to carry the network, none of their programming seems in poor taste or extreme.
- tyingq 8y ago
  Maybe revenue potential versus some other channel in that slot?
- JackFr 8y ago
  If you've ever seen "Comics Unleashed" you know that Byron Allen is basically unable to create or recognize entertaining programming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed
  - bksenior 8y ago
    He used to be on at like 4a when I was in high school. I genuinely dont understand how this guy has had his own shows consistently for 2 decades and STILL most people have never heard of him.
- mikeryan 8y ago
  There's a limited amount of bandwidth that can be carried over your cable line and its pretty much tapped out until more carriers switch to an IP based system. Ultimately these providers do need the ability to "discriminate" on which channels they choose to allocate bandwidth to. It's a strange case trying to make a racial discrimination case here (more so for Comcast as apparently someone from Charter said a few things out of line)
  - kw71 8y ago
    Well this isnt so much the case anymore with switched networks. This was a thing 10 years ago when I retired from broadcasting. Basically the headend sets up a video session for the program if someone in the area tunes to the channel. This is like vod streaming except more than one viewer can utilize the session/stream.
    - mikeryan 8y ago
      I was going to mention this but didn't want to get too far into the weeds. My understanding was the the infrastructure rollout to Switched Video has slowed as providers look at leapfrogging to IP based solutions. Comcast's X1 platform can run IP based.
      - milankragujevic 8y ago
        Hm, I always thought IP based solutions were worse, given my terrible experience with IPTV (Actual IPTV, over DSL on a different VPI/VCI number)... + they can track your viewing habits...
        kw71 8y ago
        Like I said above I retired from this business a decade ago but I have a hunch that IP is going to be a better experience over docsis or any other broadband link. I don't see much complaining from fios/uverse customers, and I worked independently on a metro WAN iptv development in moscow, which worked pretty well when the residents had fast-ethernet connections, once we got the infrastructure to handle all the multicast traffic.
        metildaa 8y ago
        IPTV like what Centurylink Prism offers is a really good experience. Extremely fast channel switching, live previews of the last couple channels you were on, and a decent UI made for a good experience. I have yet to find another IPTV provider that offers tthe first two features mentioned, despite it being possible with ddecade old technology running WinCE (in Centurylink's case).
- kw71 8y ago
  It's a business decision, the network usually demands a per-subscriber fee for carriage on a cable plant.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It depends. Some networks pay the cable company, other networks get paid by the cable company and others just ask for a spot and share ad revenue and allow the cable company to advertise locally.
    - kw71 8y ago
      I think the shopping channels pay for carriage, and they are popular beyond my wildest expectations - if I did anything to make one of them go out there would be calls complaining about it immediately!
educationdata 8y ago
"In addition to recounting Entertainment Studios' failed negotiations with Charter, Plaintiffs' amended complaint also included direct evidence of racial bias. In one instance, [Charter VP of programming Allan] Singer allegedly approached an African-American protest group outside Charter's headquarters, told them "to get off of welfare," and accused them of looking for a "handout." Plaintiffs asserted that, after informing Charter of these allegations, it announced that Singer was leaving the company. In another alleged instance, Entertainment Studios' owner, Allen, attempted to talk with Charter's CEO, [Tom] Rutledge, at an industry event; Rutledge refused to engage, referring to Allen as "Boy" and telling Allen that he needed to change his behavior. Plaintiffs suggested that these incidents were illustrative of Charter's institutional racism, noting also that the cable operator had historically refused to carry African-American-owned channels and, prior to its merger with Time Warner Cable, had a board of directors composed only of white men. The amended complaint further alleged that Charter's recently pronounced commitments to diversity were merely illusory efforts to placate the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)." - The evidence of discrimination is extremely weak. None the things mentioned ("get off of welfare", "handout", "boy", "change his behavior") is necessarily racism. But the result is not surprising, since the ruling is from the 9th Circuit. A side note. This kind of law suit properly will increase implicit racial bias, because it is trying to reenforce the idea that welfare and bad behavior only or strongly links to African Americans. See: Even completing a Race Implicit Association Test increases implicit racial bias: https://psyarxiv.com/vxsj7/ https://psyarxiv.com/vxsj7/
- ggggtez 8y ago
  Comcast/Charter was trying to say 1st amendment allows them to discriminate based on race (in essence, similar to the Cake-shop ruling). The ruling just says that the companies do not have that right. The plaintiff still needs to prove it happened, but that's what the trial is for.
  - 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
    Not sure about this one tbh. On the one hand this seems an awful lot like compelled speech, OTOH it doesn’t seem like the cable companies have a valid reason to bar broadcasting ESN’s offerings. I’m not really sure what race has to do with it. The CEO happens to be black, sure, but I feel like some details are missing from this story.
ggggtez 8y ago
The TL;DR is: The court says it's ok to say "no" to accepting a channel. BUT not if it was because of racism. The trial will focus on whether they can prove it was racism, or some other reason.
- gmfawcett 8y ago
  I think the lede for the article is a better summary: "A US appeals court ruling today said that cable companies do not have a First Amendment right to discriminate against minority-run TV channels." I first read your tl;dr as, "The companies can refuse channels, but not if those channels are racist."
- rconti 8y ago
  Agreed. If Charter said "too few of our customers will pay for this channel, it's not worth it to us", then they're within their rights. They shot themselves in the foot by having a VP of programming make racist comments to protestors. If those racist comments are found to be evidence that they also refused to carry the channel for race-related reasons, then they've got a problem. If the two facts are unrelated, then they don't. I wonder what happens if some emails are found during discovery that say "only X% of our customers are African-American, and X is less than our threshold for whether a channel will be profitable for us"? I suspect that would be an illegal reason, as, of course, customers of any race might be interested in this channel.
  - mikeryan 8y ago
    It doesn't seem like the channels in question target an African American audience. http://entertainmentstudios.com/network/ http://entertainmentstudios.com/network/ Frankly they look like cheap knockoffs of existing channels.
    - howard941 8y ago
      Would you make an exception for The Weather Channel?
madengr 8y ago
I hope YouTube is sued next, for pulling “right wing” programming.
sudovancity 8y ago
Honestly, anything that goes against the interests of these two companies, in particular, I am fine with. I hold an unhealthy resentment towards both of them.
Proven 8y ago
Completely ludicrous

146 points by ProAm 8y ago

Interesting, I looked at the channels they offer and I couldn't see any reason why they would refuse to carry the network, none of their programming seems in poor taste or extreme.

tyingq 8y ago
Maybe revenue potential versus some other channel in that slot?
JackFr 8y ago
If you've ever seen "Comics Unleashed" you know that Byron Allen is basically unable to create or recognize entertaining programming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Unleashed
- bksenior 8y ago
  He used to be on at like 4a when I was in high school. I genuinely dont understand how this guy has had his own shows consistently for 2 decades and STILL most people have never heard of him.
mikeryan 8y ago
There's a limited amount of bandwidth that can be carried over your cable line and its pretty much tapped out until more carriers switch to an IP based system. Ultimately these providers do need the ability to "discriminate" on which channels they choose to allocate bandwidth to. It's a strange case trying to make a racial discrimination case here (more so for Comcast as apparently someone from Charter said a few things out of line)
- kw71 8y ago
  Well this isnt so much the case anymore with switched networks. This was a thing 10 years ago when I retired from broadcasting. Basically the headend sets up a video session for the program if someone in the area tunes to the channel. This is like vod streaming except more than one viewer can utilize the session/stream.
  - mikeryan 8y ago
    I was going to mention this but didn't want to get too far into the weeds. My understanding was the the infrastructure rollout to Switched Video has slowed as providers look at leapfrogging to IP based solutions. Comcast's X1 platform can run IP based.
    - milankragujevic 8y ago
      Hm, I always thought IP based solutions were worse, given my terrible experience with IPTV (Actual IPTV, over DSL on a different VPI/VCI number)... + they can track your viewing habits...
      - kw71 8y ago
        Like I said above I retired from this business a decade ago but I have a hunch that IP is going to be a better experience over docsis or any other broadband link. I don't see much complaining from fios/uverse customers, and I worked independently on a metro WAN iptv development in moscow, which worked pretty well when the residents had fast-ethernet connections, once we got the infrastructure to handle all the multicast traffic.
        metildaa 8y ago
        IPTV like what Centurylink Prism offers is a really good experience. Extremely fast channel switching, live previews of the last couple channels you were on, and a decent UI made for a good experience. I have yet to find another IPTV provider that offers tthe first two features mentioned, despite it being possible with ddecade old technology running WinCE (in Centurylink's case).
kw71 8y ago
It's a business decision, the network usually demands a per-subscriber fee for carriage on a cable plant.
- scarface74 8y ago
  It depends. Some networks pay the cable company, other networks get paid by the cable company and others just ask for a spot and share ad revenue and allow the cable company to advertise locally.
  - kw71 8y ago
    I think the shopping channels pay for carriage, and they are popular beyond my wildest expectations - if I did anything to make one of them go out there would be calls complaining about it immediately!

educationdata 8y ago

"In addition to recounting Entertainment Studios' failed negotiations with Charter, Plaintiffs' amended complaint also included direct evidence of racial bias. In one instance, [Charter VP of programming Allan] Singer allegedly approached an African-American protest group outside Charter's headquarters, told them "to get off of welfare," and accused them of looking for a "handout." Plaintiffs asserted that, after informing Charter of these allegations, it announced that Singer was leaving the company. In another alleged instance, Entertainment Studios' owner, Allen, attempted to talk with Charter's CEO, [Tom] Rutledge, at an industry event; Rutledge refused to engage, referring to Allen as "Boy" and telling Allen that he needed to change his behavior. Plaintiffs suggested that these incidents were illustrative of Charter's institutional racism, noting also that the cable operator had historically refused to carry African-American-owned channels and, prior to its merger with Time Warner Cable, had a board of directors composed only of white men. The amended complaint further alleged that Charter's recently pronounced commitments to diversity were merely illusory efforts to placate the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)." - The evidence of discrimination is extremely weak. None the things mentioned ("get off of welfare", "handout", "boy", "change his behavior") is necessarily racism. But the result is not surprising, since the ruling is from the 9th Circuit. A side note. This kind of law suit properly will increase implicit racial bias, because it is trying to reenforce the idea that welfare and bad behavior only or strongly links to African Americans. See: Even completing a Race Implicit Association Test increases implicit racial bias: https://psyarxiv.com/vxsj7/ https://psyarxiv.com/vxsj7/

ggggtez 8y ago
Comcast/Charter was trying to say 1st amendment allows them to discriminate based on race (in essence, similar to the Cake-shop ruling). The ruling just says that the companies do not have that right. The plaintiff still needs to prove it happened, but that's what the trial is for.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
  Not sure about this one tbh. On the one hand this seems an awful lot like compelled speech, OTOH it doesn’t seem like the cable companies have a valid reason to bar broadcasting ESN’s offerings. I’m not really sure what race has to do with it. The CEO happens to be black, sure, but I feel like some details are missing from this story.

ggggtez 8y ago

The TL;DR is: The court says it's ok to say "no" to accepting a channel. BUT not if it was because of racism. The trial will focus on whether they can prove it was racism, or some other reason.

gmfawcett 8y ago
I think the lede for the article is a better summary: "A US appeals court ruling today said that cable companies do not have a First Amendment right to discriminate against minority-run TV channels." I first read your tl;dr as, "The companies can refuse channels, but not if those channels are racist."
rconti 8y ago
Agreed. If Charter said "too few of our customers will pay for this channel, it's not worth it to us", then they're within their rights. They shot themselves in the foot by having a VP of programming make racist comments to protestors. If those racist comments are found to be evidence that they also refused to carry the channel for race-related reasons, then they've got a problem. If the two facts are unrelated, then they don't. I wonder what happens if some emails are found during discovery that say "only X% of our customers are African-American, and X is less than our threshold for whether a channel will be profitable for us"? I suspect that would be an illegal reason, as, of course, customers of any race might be interested in this channel.
- mikeryan 8y ago
  It doesn't seem like the channels in question target an African American audience. http://entertainmentstudios.com/network/ http://entertainmentstudios.com/network/ Frankly they look like cheap knockoffs of existing channels.
  - howard941 8y ago
    Would you make an exception for The Weather Channel?

madengr 8y ago

I hope YouTube is sued next, for pulling “right wing” programming.

sudovancity 8y ago

Honestly, anything that goes against the interests of these two companies, in particular, I am fine with. I hold an unhealthy resentment towards both of them.

Proven 8y ago

Completely ludicrous