how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2008-12-31 08:42:56: User [user=Heterman] writes in to note that a dispute between Time Warner Cable and Viacom may result in Time Warner Cable customers losing Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 16 other channels unless the two sides can reach an agreement. ..
|
  XPAMDPremium
join:2002-06-08
united state | Did it for Big Ten They managed to hold the line on the Big Ten Network for a year before relenting and adding it, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if TW held out for a short period. | |
| | miscDude
join:2005-03-24
Hendersonville, NC | Re: Did it for Big Ten Unfortunately BTN was a different situation. BTN was a new station, so people didn't feel they were losing anything. They just weren't gaining the coverage they wanted.
In this case consumers will feel like they are losing the channels/service. Worse yet, some of Viacom's channels being yanked have been around for so long they are considered "standards".... the basic of the basic as far as what you are supposed to get with pay-tv.
Your average consumer will probably not understand why they have cable, but don't get MTV, Nick, etc....even if they don't normally watch those channels anymore. | |
| | | | I'm amazed to find myself on TW's side on this. Those kinds of increases are just not justified in this economy or by Viacom's ratings, which over the entire tier are basically flat. Wanting a piece of the online revenue as a buffer to those increases is reasonable, particularly since on demand online content that used to exclusive for TW subs devalues the cable subscription.
How can you justify 20-30% price increases, with no increase in appeal and an economy that is close to, if not deflationary? | |
|
gigantePremium
join:2000-06-30
Anchorage, AK | a-la-carte choices The answer to all this would be for the cable/satellite companies to allow truly 'a-la-carte' programming choices. That way if someone really wanted Comedy Central they could fork over the increased delivery charges from Viacom. The main reason this will never happen because all these truly awful networks that have no viewership would cease to exist - which is the way it should be. 400 channels broadcasting the same crap over and over for 14 hours a day is really what's insane. | |
| |  MacGyverDon't Waste Your EnergyPremium,ExMod 2003-05
join:2001-10-14
Canada
kudos:1
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: a-la-carte choices I pared down my satellite TV subscription for this exact reason. I complained to my provider that very few of the channels they were bundling together in four to ten channel "themes" were airing programming that I did not want in my home, so as a result I cancelled those entire "themes".
Also almost none of those channels broadcast any original programming anyway, so I saved $12 a month for mostly reruns.
Plus now I don't have to scroll through 50 worthless channels in the program guide. | |
| | | | The cable companies don't have the choice to allow a la carte programming, because of the content providers like Viacom.
What you don't seem to understand, is that cable companies must pay by the subscriber for all channels in a package, even if most customers don't watch the channel. Disney does this with ESPN as well. If a cable company wants to carry ESPN, they must pay per subscriber, and they must also pay for ESPNC, ESPNews, etc, etc.
So if a cable company goes out on their own and decides to do a la carte, and you ONLY want ESPN, the cable company must still pay for you to have ESPNC, ESPNews, ESPNU, etc, etc. Just so that they can carry ESPN for you.
It is the content providers that must be regulated into a la carte pricing, NOT the cable companies and satellite providers. Until people understand who the real culprits here are, this is not going to happen. As long as consumers blame the cable companies and can switch to satellite, or vice versa, the content providers will always be happy to increase their rates and not be blamed.
Hopefully, Viacom will go blank on TWC and finally call attention to the content provider as the bad guy in all of this mess. | |
|
| | If TW doesn't drop their rate... ....I'll dump them. Obviously, if they're not paying for these channels then our bills should reflect this.
I currently have basic cableTv & standard cable modem services and my bill is just shy of $115. For that I receive 66 channels. The Viacom deal will drop at least 7 of the 66...leaving 59. Theoretically that should be a significant drop in our bills. While I'll miss several of Viacom's channels, lets stop with the games and instead of calling to demand Viacom repent, we call TW and demand they kill the fluff channels.
Channels I never watch: Ch2 (community), Ch5&7 (government), Ch14,16,22&27 (shopping), Ch17&68 (religion), Ch18&19 (ESPN1&2), Ch20 (TvGuide). I'll trade these 12 channels for the 7 I'm loosing in the Viacom ultimatum. | |
|  coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
2 edits | No great loss No great loss
Though I have DirecTV, the loss of these channels would not even be noticed here. The only channel worth considering is Comedy Central and then only because of John Stewart and Steven Colbert. As both publish their content on the Internet, what would really be lost if those channels just went *poof!*?
JMHO
Mike | |
| | | Are you guys sure... That this isn't a blessing in disguise?
Note to Viacom: TV Watchers have an attention half-life that of a mayfly. If you pull your content for any time longer than 10 minutes, viewing patterns will change and some of those viewers will not return.
You are, in the grand modern traditions of the entire entertainment industry, just shooting yourselves in your fool foot.
Sumner really does not need any more money.
Oh, and I expect to be seeing a lot of this, everywhere in the industries, until a new FCC and FTC is seated. It's racheting things up as far as you can, so you really lose less ground down the road, when you get a long-needed FCC and FTC boot in your asses. | |
| | Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
1 edit | The DirecTV Ads will be off-the-hook IF TW does not pay then I can see the myriad of DirecTV ads now.
I bet Direct has the commercials ready to go right now.
They may even offer a special reduced rate for one year to get TW customers to move to Direct....
We'll be snowed under with the ads..... | |
| | | less then 2.5%? I found this late last night/ early this morning when the wife had asked me about it.
Statement from Viacom
NEW YORK, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The move by Time Warner Cable to force such channels as Nickelodeon, COMEDY CENTRAL and MTV off the air is another example of a cable company overreaching for profit at the expense of its viewers.
The renewal we are seeking is reasonable and modest relative to the profits TWC enjoys from our networks. We have asked for an increase of less than 25 cents per month, per subscriber, which adds up to less than a penny per day for all 19 of MTV Networks' channels.
We make this request because TWC has so greatly undervalued our channels for so long. Americans spend more than 20% of their TV viewing time watching our networks, yet our fees amount to less than 2.5% of what Time Warner generates from their average customer.
Throughout the country, we have negotiated equitable license agreement renewals, or are in the final stages of renewals, with virtually every cable and satellite carrier. Nevertheless, Time Warner Cable has dismissed our efforts at a fair compromise and has effectively chosen to deny its customers some of the most popular TV shows on the air.
As a result, we are sorry to say that for Time Warner Cable customers our networks will go dark as of 12:01 on January 1st, denying Time Warner customers shows like Dora the Explorer, SpongeBob SquarePants, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, and The Hills.
Ultimately, however, if Nickelodeon, COMEDY CENTRAL, MTV and the rest of our programming is discontinued -- over less than a penny per day -- we believe viewers will see this behavior by their cable company as outrageous. Time Warner Cable subscribers who are being handed a January 1st $3 monthly increase in Raleigh, Orange County, Los Angeles, and New York City are simultaneously facing the removal of beloved shows across 19 channels.
We find it a shame that Time Warner Cable remains unreasonable at this time. We hope its leadership will have a change of heart and will seek to negotiate a fair renewal agreement.
SOURCE Viacom
»news.prnewswire.com/DisplayRelea···4&EDATE=
Other then nick at night and spike i wouldn't miss them. The price of cable is too damn high as is.
If they dont come to terms, then i would expect a lower cable bill but that wont happen. TW will find some chitty channels to replace them with that no one watches. kinda like what they have now. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: less then 2.5%? So what if its "a penny a day" (increase)?
Why are TWC customers supposed to pay ANYTHING for channels they don't watch?
Now is the time for Time Warner to offer ala-carte, and only pay Viacom for the channels as they're subscribed by customers. Likewise for ESPN, LIN, and any other content providers. | |
| | | | Viacom's charges to Time Warner amount to 2.5% of revenues, that doesn't include the other channels owned by others. I hope you don't think that fees from all channels are included in that 2.5%. Plus that could include internet and telephone revenues.
I'd like the see where they get off thinking that they average 20% of all televison viewers. Maybe if you count only kids under 8. | |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Why just TWC? Why is Viacom only demanding an increase from TWC? Does it cost them more to provide their content to TWC than it does to Dish, DTV, Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T? And why is this just becoming public now?
This reeks of bullshit.
--
I'm one of those people you can't take out of context. You have to see the whole me before I begin to make any sense. | |
| | miscDude
join:2005-03-24
Hendersonville, NC | Re: Why just TWC? said by PolarBear03:Why is Viacom only demanding an increase from TWC? Does it cost them more to provide their content to TWC than it does to Dish, DTV, Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T? And why is this just becoming public now? This reeks of bullshit. contract negotiation time. Basically, their existing contract expired and this is coming up because they haven't agreed upon a new one yet. Different MSO's have different contracts, with different expiration dates. | |
|
 btB
@sbcglobal.net | Jeez, Negotiations happen all the time when contracts expire. Just look at Time Warner's website where there is always a list of channels that might go away if their contract is renewed. The same thing ALWAYS HAPPENS. Both sides will bicker back and forth. Eventually, they will come to an agreement because these are mainstream cable channels that would cause more harm than good (for both sides) if they were dropped. It is not as though TW's cable rates will be affected either way. TW just raises them for the maximum allowed by the local government whenever the time arrives. | |
| Chaldo
join:2008-03-18
West Bloomfield, MI | Call Viacom and Complain, not Timewarner/Brighthouse. Viacom is just using their channels to scroll that piece of garbage for you to call in and try to get Timewarner to sign a deal that will increase your prices. Call Viacom and complain to them would be a better idea of fighting back as a consumer..
VIACOM
1-212-258-6000 | |
| | | LOL @ TimeWarner Fios TV will not loose the channels. Only Time Warner, Time to switch to Fios folks | |
| | | | Re: LOL @ TimeWarner said by LOLTWC :
Fios TV will not loose the channels. Only Time Warner, Time to switch to Fios folks
You think everyone has a choice? Dumb trolls.   | |
| | | Rob_Premium
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL | Re: LOL @ TimeWarner yea.. one word.. TORRRRRRENTTSSS & PG to cover your ass.
FUCK this shit.. this is why we have DIGITAL cable. move them to that and let the customer choose. | |
|
| | | said by LOLTWC :
Fios TV will not loose the channels. Only Time Warner, Time to switch to Fios folks
And when FIOS's contract is up with Viacom? What then? If Viacom sees that they can extort the money out of Time Warner Cable, then why not try some of the other cable companies as well, when those other contracts expire. So you have a reprieve for now, doesn't mean there won't be problems down the line with your company as well. | |
|
| | Viacom The first time our family had cable was when it came to our town 35 years ago. Up until that time television consisted of the three major networks and PBS, all free broadcasts. Stations (with the exception of PBS) were supported by selling commercial time. Each network had to establish hundreds of broadcast stations throughout the country, each broadcasting to a given population area.
When cable TV first began offering channels other than the major networks, one advantage they offered was fewer commercials. The channels such as those offered by Viacom and others made most of their money by selling their channels to cable companies. They could do this cheaply since they only had to have a single satellite broadcast facility and didn't create as much complex content as the major networks. As a result, they offered more content and fewer commercials.
What I've noticed lately is that most cable stations seem to be mostly commercials. Broadcast stations are still regulated by the FCC for commercial time, but not the cable-only stations. I stopped watching moves on Comedy Central because they show 5 minutes of the movie followed by 5 minutes of commercials and even have pop-ups in the corner advertising other shows during normal broadcasts.
If Viacom, ESPN, and other "networks" are going to run so many commercials, they should be paying the cable companies to carry their channels rather than the way they do it now. I can watch commercial supported broadcast stations for free so why would I pay the cable companies to watch the same thing? I guess they realize that most of the younger generation today grew up without knowing there used to be a difference.
If Viacom wants to increase their rates then they should provide more content (and fewer reruns) and reduce the commercials. I wish all cable companies would stand up to them and the other networks.
Here in St. Louis our cable company (Charter) now has to pay Belo in order to carry CBS, which is free to anyone with an antenna. Given that the cable companies increase the audience for these stations you would think they would be able to make more from their advertisers.
The only Viacom station I even watch is Comedy Central, and then only for The Daily Show and South Park. I stopped watching MTV and VH-1 years ago when they stopped playing music videos and switched to worthless reality shows. | |
| | | well...good bye comedy central... there goes nights watching south park and futurama...  no more colbert report or daily show... | |
|  EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7
 ·Callcentric
| 23 cents a month According to this news story in the LA times, the price increase is 23 cents a month. Since Time Warner jacked up my rates $60 a year this past November, they better not hit me again or I'll be off to another provider.
My TW rates have gone up while their service has gone down. In our market they've dropped "real" channels and added shopping channels, which are useless 24/7 commercials.
I'm about done with them, and another increase will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis | |
| |  Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | Re: 23 cents a month I just wish these companies would let users select which channels they want. If a channel sucks, why should I pay for it? I know there are a million of marketing reasons why I should, but as the end user, what is the point?
Give me a provider that lets me pick and choose channels and I will jump to them. I should mention that I am a loyal 10 year DirecTV subscriber, and I would leave them in a heartbeat to the first provider that offered this.
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! | |
|
1 edit | Cut Through the BS: TWC Should Make Viacom Perform Here's what TWC should do. They should agree to pay Viacom whatever they want per viewer, place all the Viacom channels as part of separate package (maybe split it up into three packages like MTV-crap, kids' channels, and "everything else"), and charge customers for the packages with some some reasonable percentage added on top for TWC (profit). This way Viacom just can't get paid for the twenty crap MTV variants or for subscribers who don't have kids or watch only one Viacom channel. This way if the customers have a beef with the costs, TWC can send them to Viacom to complain and if Viacom whines that they're not getting enough revenue, it's their own damn fault for producing trash or overpricing their channels. | |
| |  vonage
join:2003-11-29
Parlin, NJ
kudos:1 | Re: Cut Through the BS: TWC Should Make Viacom Perform Thats a great site, mtvmusic.com...cant believe I did not see it before. | |
|
| |
|
TWC = The Worst Cable & Viacom = Viascam! Perfect Together!
