dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2010-10-19 18:24:52: As the retransmission fee dispute between Cablevision and New Corporation roars on, Cablevision has been lobbying lawmakers to engage in binding arbitration. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

anondirectv
@optonline.net

anondirectv

Anon

I'm going back to cablevision

I'm going back, just in the nick of time. This leftist Liberal Socialist (according to fox news, though I'm just a democrat.) is tired of shitty customer service. A charge for everything from a new box to a dish adjustment after high winds, because the original installer didn't do it correctly.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

2 edits

KrK

Premium Member

That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

Simple and easy solution that would turn some of the power back to the consumers and give the TV operators more leverage.

It would mean extortionists like Fox would have to more carefully consider their actions before wholesale blackouts, as there would a be a greater downside for them, whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider.

Brilliant move, nips the problem in the bud. I support it.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation?

is that a misprint Karl? just curious... kind of threw me off.

tomkb
Premium Member
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL

1 edit

2 recommendations

tomkb

Premium Member

what?

Why do lawmakers need to get involved in this in a supposed free country whose roots are capatalism? It sounds to me as if everything is unfolding as it should. These are corporations for pete sake.

There is something just plain wrong in this country.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to David

Premium Member

to David

Re: uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation?

said by David:

is that a misprint Karl? just curious... kind of threw me off.
Yes it is a typo. It is News Corp.

HarleyYac
Lee
Premium Member
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ

HarleyYac to tomkb

Premium Member

to tomkb

Re: what?

Wrong..
A:) I am paying for it let me watch it.
B:) Govt (Or we the people via govt) should step in
C:) Regulation not more DE regulation.

Long run if no one does anything we have no choice but pay more!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5 to KrK

Premium Member

to KrK

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time. And that type of arbitration inevitably leads to splitting the difference. For example Cablevision would demand no increase at all. Fox would demand a large increase in fees. And the arbitrator would almost always pick something in between. You can see what the end result will be - Fox winning by default and the higher costs being passed on to the cable company's customers.
The bill would require broadcasters to keep their signals up during a negotiation impasse. The Federal Communications Commission would then evaluate if the negotiations were being made in good faith. If they were not done in good faith, the FCC could then order binding arbitration or give the cable company two days to determine whether to accept the broadcaster's offer. If the company does not accept the offer, the broadcaster can request arbitration or pull its signal
What does Kerry care, his wife is worth $100's of millions.
hbk4099
join:2005-12-30

hbk4099 to HarleyYac

Member

to HarleyYac

Re: what?

I love how cablevision is pushing for arbitration with their dealings with FOX, but not for their disputes with Dish and Fios over the channels they(cablevision) owns. Its funny how this company acts so differently when they are talking about their content provider and their program provider.

GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium Member
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI

GlenQuagmire to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

Wait... I know that name. He ran for president, and LOST.
56403739 (banned)
Less than 5 months left
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL

2 recommendations

56403739 (banned) to KrK

Member

to KrK
said by KrK:

whereas now the downside almost all lies with consumers and their current TV provider.
Why should government give a shit what Fox produces or who they allow to show it? There are a lot of other program producers out there...it's not like News Corp. is the sole provider of television programming.

Let the market run its course. If they do this enough, and lose enough eyeballs in the process, it'll hurt their balance sheet...which is the only way to get a corporation's attention. And that is EXACTLY the way it should be. Then they won't be able to spend outrageous amounts for rights to things like the NFL...which will in turn keep them from demanding higher fees for carriage...which may finally end this madness. That would work with pirates like Disney and ESPN, too.

Unfortunately, the whiny couch potatoes here want the government to do what a free market is perfectly capable of. Just turn the damn TV off.
slckusr
Premium Member
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC

slckusr

Premium Member

If anything

Were goign to see some regulation pop up related to these disputes. So it might be a good thing.

HarleyYac
Lee
Premium Member
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ

HarleyYac to hbk4099

Premium Member

to hbk4099

Re: what?

I am no fan of CV. I left them the year they did not carry YES.

All I am saying there should be REAL consumer protection. NOT the Corporate BS Lobbyists agenda.
Lee
ineedatech
join:2002-07-10
Fort Washakie, WY

ineedatech

Member

IPTV

This is the time for new networks to come in strike new deals and focus on another business model for iptv

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

Uh...

The content created by companies like News Corporation is private property. The government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to repurpose that property without providing just compensation to the owners of said property.

Somehow I doubt that John Kerry, who by the way likes to dodge taxes, is making any provisions for just compensation in his bill.
hbk4099
join:2005-12-30

hbk4099

Member

broadcast basic

the thing I dont get is Cablevisions most basic package is broadcast basic, its supposed to have all the local channels. They having been charging between $10-18 for the past 7+ years for this level of service. So my question is if they were getting all the locals for free this package was pure profit. It wasnt until earlier this year when the broadcast channels I believe ABC being the first started demanding money. Why should Cablevision be able to profit off someonelses material?

Btw just so everyone has an idea Cablevision is not allowed to sell tv services for less then they pay for the services. So if we take this and know that they have a digital family package that includes everything in broadcast basic+family+iO digital which is normally like $70+ and know they offer it as a winback for people switching from another provider for as low as $25 as part of their triple play package you can see how much they are making off these packages. Also the gold which they charge $99 for can be had for like $65 as a winback. Cablevision could eat this increase and still be making money hand over fist and not have to worry about people leaving for other providers.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: uhh... is it supposed to be news corporation?

News Corp is the short name for News Corporation. The company involved in the negotiations is actually Fox Television Stations Inc which is a subsidiary of News Corporation.
fifty nine

fifty nine

Member

The history of must carry

The history of must carry.

The cable companies all got the signals for free within a fifty mile radius. The catch is that they had to carry all of them.

Cable companies didn't like this. They sued. They won. First amendment and all of that jazz.

FCC revises the rules several times to comply with the court order. Finally it was settled that stations could either force must carry and charge no money or agree to carriage for a fee and they weren't forced to carry them.

Now we have come full circle with the cable companies not liking the rules that THEY helped create.

NJBoricua75
Born And Raised
join:2000-09-13
Brooklyn, NY

NJBoricua75

Member

Gotta side with Cablevision on this...

The Dolans are far from angels but News Corp is absolute scum. Neither of them are really looking out for the consumer. In the end it all amounts to greed. But if I'm gonna side with one, it'll have to be Cablevision. News Corp going as far as blocking IP addresses of Cablevision subscribers from viewing content on fox.com and blocking content from Hulu??? That's where they crossed the line.

celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium Member
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ

celeritypc to hbk4099

Premium Member

to hbk4099

Re: broadcast basic

said by hbk4099:

the thing I dont get is Cablevisions most basic package is broadcast basic, its supposed to have all the local channels. They having been charging between $10-18 for the past 7+ years for this level of service. So my question is if they were getting all the locals for free this package was pure profit. It wasnt until earlier this year when the broadcast channels I believe ABC being the first started demanding money. Why should Cablevision be able to profit off someonelses material?

Btw just so everyone has an idea Cablevision is not allowed to sell tv services for less then they pay for the services. So if we take this and know that they have a digital family package that includes everything in broadcast basic+family+iO digital which is normally like $70+ and know they offer it as a winback for people switching from another provider for as low as $25 as part of their triple play package you can see how much they are making off these packages. Also the gold which they charge $99 for can be had for like $65 as a winback. Cablevision could eat this increase and still be making money hand over fist and not have to worry about people leaving for other providers.
And all that would make sense if it didn't cost a cable provider anything to give you those broadcast signals. In reality, there are plant/facilities to build and maintain, personnel to pay, vehicles to fuel and insurance to pay. Programming costs are about 65% of the cost of what you get, the rest is the amount of what it takes to provide you with service. The difference of that total cost and what you pay is profit, something every company is in business for.
Bobcat79
Premium Member
join:2001-02-04

Bobcat79 to NJBoricua75

Premium Member

to NJBoricua75

Re: Gotta side with Cablevision on this...

Click for full size
Just like Cablevision blocks non-CV subscribers from accessing Newsday.
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA

qworster to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: Uh...

said by pnh102:

The content created by companies like News Corporation is private property. The government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to repurpose that property without providing just compensation to the owners of said property.

Somehow I doubt that John Kerry, who by the way likes to dodge taxes, is making any provisions for just compensation in his bill.
WRONG!

Once it's released into the public domain (as in broadcast over the air) it should become available for public usage. Following your logic, no one would be able to time shift or record any broadcasted content.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to NJBoricua75

Member

to NJBoricua75

Re: Gotta side with Cablevision on this...

Don't forget fuse on dish, msg hd on fios too.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to HarleyYac

Member

to HarleyYac

Re: what?

said by HarleyYac:

Wrong..
A:) I am paying for it let me watch it.
B:) Govt (Or we the people via govt) should step in
C:) Regulation not more DE regulation.

Long run if no one does anything we have no choice but pay more!
No, you have the choice not to pay.

If Dish/CV plays hardball to the end, and Rupert takes his marbles and goes home, with luck, we'll see him be the first to offer his channels ala carte via Roku/Wii/PS3, direct to the consumer - and when the other networks figure out how much margin he's making, they'll follow suit.

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL to Bobcat79

Member

to Bobcat79

Re: Gotta side with Cablevision on this...

said by Bobcat79:

Just like Cablevision blocks non-CV subscribers from accessing Newsday.
They are NOT blocking non-CV connection subscribers from access. They are just charging an access fee (which is waved if you have a Newsday Print Edition subscription or are using CV Connectivity). If I want to access the WSJ site, there is the same deal - Buy a WSJ Print Subscription or a WSJ Web Subscription. All you need to do is click on the button in the lower right or the link at the top. It will lead to a subscription page. The NYT site works the same way - you need a subscription to the NYT Site (although this gives you limited access unless you but a Recycled-Electrons Site or Dead-Trees subscription).

NJBoricua75
Born And Raised
join:2000-09-13
Brooklyn, NY

NJBoricua75 to Bobcat79

Member

to Bobcat79
said by Bobcat79:

Just like Cablevision blocks non-CV subscribers from accessing Newsday.
Like I said, the Dolans are from angels. We know this. Like anybody cares about Newsday anyway lmao. Just like the teams they own, that too sucks. Fios users aren't missing much by not having an HD feed of MSG lol. Trust me

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

1 recommendation

jester121

Premium Member

Such a travesty

No wonder Congress is getting involved -- imagine the poor citizens missing out on a couple channels of idiotic campaign commercials in this most wondrous of seasons... and all the money those poor politicians are wasting on ads.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to qworster

Premium Member

to qworster

Re: Uh...

said by qworster:

Once it's released into the public domain ...
It isn't. The content is still owned by its owners. The government has no right to take property from anyone without providing just compensation.
said by qworster:

Following your logic, no one would be able to time shift or record any broadcasted content.
That falls under the right of Fair Use. The dispute between News Corp. and Cablevision is not related to that.
Bobcat79
Premium Member
join:2001-02-04

Bobcat79 to RARPSL

Premium Member

to RARPSL

Re: Gotta side with Cablevision on this...

But the WSJ treats everyone equally. They don't block you based on your ISP, like Newsday/CV does.
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5

Re: That's an excellent idea (John Kerry Bill)

said by FFH5:

Kerry's bill will result in the disputes going to binding arbitration most of the time.
Binding arbitration is a joke. When you pay for a judge to decide your case, you have already bought the decision.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to elray

Member

to elray

Re: what?

Exactly. We need to get rid of the middleman. I don't care if it's IPTV or DBS or ATSC or whatever. Cable and dish systems are carriers and both now have very intelligent systems which could allow the consumer to directly pay Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, Disney and the rest for their programming.

How hard would it be to make watching TV like calling a 900 number from your phone? The phone company provides the pipe and bills you for the call but that's it.

I know this turns the cable/dish/phone company into a big, fat, dumb pipe but...
page: 1 · 2 · next