DC Council Cable TV Resolution

May 2, 2006

Argh! The interwebs ate my post! Ok, trying this again. It’s a busy day at the DC Council chambers today – at least as it relates to baseball. Below is what transpired during the emergency cable tv resolution introduced in today’s session. Don’t worry – I don’t think your cable will be cut off on the 9th. Hopefully this will help move things along, although I have my reservations. If Congress was unable to intimidate the offending parties, then I’m not sure the city council can either. Time will tell!

Nationals on TV emergency declaration

Evans: I’m moving the declaration of this emergency as a result of the failure of both Comcast and Peter Angelos coming to any agreement. As you’ll remember, Congressman Davis instructed them to go out and come to an agreement and come back. On Friday, the parties reported back to Davis that no agreement had been reached and as a consequence, we are still in the state we have been of not having games broadcast on tv. This has begun to affect in dramatic fashion our economic investment in the team. Yet, we do not have an owner and are also not on tv. In consequnce, I think this is beginning to affect our fanbase. I don’t have an interest in how this gets resolved. What the emergency does is to instruct any cable provider in DC to put the Nationals on Tv. If they are unwilling, they come before the District gov’t to renegotiate their contract. I think given the stir over the last few days, this may be the catalyst to get these two parties together. We are not trying to resolve the dispute between Angelos and Comcast. We’re trying to get this team on television every night that they have a game so our fans can watch the games and rebuild interest. I believe we’ve come up with language that is legal and provides us with a mechanism that gets the parties together. We have two elephants fighting. Comcast and Peter Angelos. The victims of the two fighting are the grass – the fans. Something has to be done and hopefully this will be a mechanism to advance the cause.

Orange (cosponsor): Require every cable operator in the District to provide all Nationals games. They did not provide Congress a resolution. The council finds that it is in the public interest that all the Nationals games be broadcast. The District has made a significant financial investment in the team. Broadcast is a vital component to retain interest in the team. This is hard for me personally to push this legislation because I care for their (Comcast) organization. But we have a $611 million investment in baseball operations that we have to make sure is not jeapordized. This will hopefully get them to keep talking and bring them to the table.

Catania: It is an important topic for the viability of the Nationals so the fanbase can at least watch the games. My concern with the arrangement where we give Peter Angelos, the owner of a rival team, the broadcasting rights to the Nationals. Yes, you can say ‘well he stands to make a little money off this’. He stands to lose money if his Orioles tank and we succeed. I still don’t like the fact that this is so one sided that we use our power over Comcast to say, “you change the terms and conditions”. We’re talking about very wealthy corporate interests that are fully capable of reaching a compromise on their own. If we cut Comcast, that dramatically tips the scale in favor of Angelos. I personally don’t care. I would prefer the market decide this. I don’t like the fact that Peter Angelos knows that if he can put pressure on this body, we will damage Comcast to benefit him. I want to explore if we are willing to burden Comcast, then we are willing to burden Angelos. Eminent domain can be used for intellectual property as well. This gov’t has as much right to use eminent domain over intellectual property – threaten Angelos you will negotiate with Comcast in good faith or we will use our power of eminent domain over the intellectual property you produce here and give you fair compensation that we decide. At the same token, Comcast, you are not going to use your monopoly to exclude what people want which is to view this source. I think if we use both sides, we will witness who is acting fairly and who isn’t, and then tip the scale against the side using improper and bad faith. I will support this. If this doesn’t come out as fair and balanced, I’m prepared to decide what fair compensation is and use eminent domain over intellectual property.

Schwartz: I don’t want to look like we’re pressuring one side and not the other. I express that reservation. I like the interesting concept Mr. Catania just spoke of. The individual (Angelos) has a HUGE conflict of interest. The more interest there is in the Nationals, the less there may be in the Orioles. This is another of those impossible situations we find ourselves in. I certainly like the compromise put forward better than the initial concept put forward earlier. I like looking at Mr. Catania’s idea to level this playing field. I generally tell Congress to butt out as I’m a big fan of home rule. Since we can’t do anything with the FCC laws, Congress can do something about that. I’m hoping congress will use their leverage in this case to do something. The fact that our games are not broadcast puts the Nationals at a tremendous disadvantage. I don’t like our team being put at such a disadvantage. I think I’m goin to vote for this and I’m hoping it will help, but if we need additional leverage, I hope we look at Mr. Catania’s interesting ideas. I think maybe in this case we should ask Congress to help out because this is a federal law only they can help with. Because it’s FCC related, they have a legitimate right to get involved.

[I am still planning to write a post about this as that may not necessarily be the case in this issue]

Barry: I’m going to support it. I find it interesting that some of you support this bill but not the African American team ownership. That is amazing to me. You all be consistent. You’re as concerned about the fans watching the game and not the participation of African Americans.

Gray: I want to also thank the makers of this resolution for ameliorating the potential consequences. I understand they were extraordinarily harsh. Where we are now would require the two to enter into negotiations. Comcast isn’t the one that entered into this agreement, Peter Angelos was given the rights. Comcast has been a good partner to the District of Columbia. I really think it’s important that the public understand that this is a situation Comcast was pulled into. They never would have negotiated a deal like this. We’ve given our broadcast rights to a team that competes with us down the road. That’s like giving the marketing for Safeway to Giant. It probably wouldn’t be done effectively. We knew this day was coming. I’m going to vote for this today in hopes that these five days we have before us will get Comcast and Angelos to come to an agreement. I think it’s important we stand up and acknowledge it wasn’t Comcast that created this problem. I hope we will find a better solution than what we have now. Let’s be clear Comcast is a victim in this process.

Cropp: Let me associate myself with the comments Mr. Gray just made. Comcast is somewhat of a victim in this whole process. I encourage Comcast to go to the table and sit down. I understand very clearly the good things you’ve done and certainly Angelos has not done any of them. This is an issue that we need to deal with and we hope you will continue to operate in good faith in DC as you have in the past and we would encourage MLB and Angelos to get in and do what’s best for the citizens who are certainly the HUGE victims of this without the ability of our residents and fanbase to see their team win.

Mendelson: I want to echo the remarks you and colleagues have made. This is not about Comcast. I worry that with this legislation we might be creating some favorable legislation for Angelos. Like Catania, I’d be willing to consider further legislation. This puts our investment at risk if someone is withholding the viewing of these games from the market. We do have a financial interest in this. I’m certainly willing to revisit this matter if it appears the result today that there will be future advantage.

Ayes have it, motion passes.

Oops, wait – they decided they weren’t done talking.

Evans: I’d like to move the act and make some final comments. Like many of my colleagues, I don’t have an interest in Angelos or Comcast. I’m trying to get something to happen. On behalf of Comcast, I share their comments about a good company. I have Comcast and I’m one of those people who can’t watch the games. So, I have had an opportunity over the last couple weeks to meet Mr. Angelos and speak with Comcast. This isn’t a question of a bad party or good party – it’s a question of two entities that have an economic interest. Comcast could say we will pay you the same rate the other companies are paying and we’ll put the games on tv. Angelos could say I’ve decided not to go forward with my MASN organization and I will allow the Nationals to go on Comcast and that could happen tomorrow. Both parties have it in their discretion to resolve this matter. Neither wants to because they want the best economic arrangement. They have sued each other, they were in court, they are in a court of appeals in Maryland and that may not come down for a while. I just want to stress, it’s not about do we like one person over the other. All of you who have good relationships with Comcast or Mr. Angelos, encourage them to resolve this. Please do this for us. Figure out a way of doing it. When I talk to both parties, I have to say there’s a lot of animosity. They say the same thing about each other. I’m almost to the point I am with my 9 year old kid. Na na na na na. We have representatives from both parties here. I can see you both right here.

Orange: Clarify one point – the citizens of DC are the victims. I don’t think Angelos or Comcast is the victim. We should keep that out front. As we go over this process over the next week, we have to be mindful we are here as representatives of the citizens of DC and to protect our financial investment.

Barry: Question to Mr. Evans. Who’s refusing to negotiate?

Evans: It’s one of those situations that both parties believe they have offered up proposals that are reasonable and should be accepted by the other party. Both parties believe they are in the right and the other is in the wrong. I will convene a meeting at any time at any place for the parties to sit down and finish this. If someone refuses to come to the table, that says a lot. Baseball will come. Tom Davis said he or his reps will come. I will come. So that’s the proposal that’s out there. Take it back to your respective parties. I will meet any place any time in the next 3 or 4 days to get this done.

Barry: After the 9th, what’s going to happen if nothing is resolved.

Evans: What it says is this compels Comcast to sit down with DC to renegotiate the cable franchise agreement and agree to put the Nationals on television. We can’t compel them to do that, but it at least makes them sit down with us and tell us why they won’t put them on. If Comcast were to agree to Mr. Angelos’ initial terms “you pay me what they’re paying me and then you’ll put the games on tv”. There’s a law that says if Comcast pays less, then everyone pays less. There’s a further complication regarding the Orioles. [alluding to the Orioles contract Comcast has that expires after this season]

Mr. Barry – asks a lot of questions and obviously has not been aware of this issue. “Who’s broadcasting them where now?”

Evans: Channel 20 and channel 5 – about 30 games out of 162 potential games.

Mr. Barry: Are we serious about making them come to the table.

Evans: We shouldn’t have to get here. We have two major economic interests and we shouldn’t be here today doing this. C’mon folks! C’mon! You’re wasting our time.

Ayes have it (no nos). Motion passes.

Posted in Media, News, Washington Nationals