Cablevision And ABC Kiss, Make Up Verizon tries to scoop up annoyed Cablevision subscribers... Cablevision's 3.1 million customers got to watch the Oscars last night after all -- with ABC and Cablevision striking a last-minute deal that brought ABC back to the Cablevision lineup a few minutes after the Oscars began. As with Time Warner Cable's recent debate with Fox, ABC was looking to be paid a fee per subscriber just like pay cable channels. Disney/ABC was apparently looking to be paid $1 per subscriber, and after heated negotiations, Cablevision apparently was willing to pony up about 55-65 cents per subscriber, according to the Los Angeles Times: Cablevision said earlier that Disney had been demanding an extra $40 million a year to let it carry WABC, or about $1 per customer each month. Disney disputed that figure but declined to elaborate. People close to the talks say Cablevision had made an offer of 25 cents per subscriber. Terms of the tentative deal were not disclosed, and there were differing accounts of the value of the contract. One person familiar with the deal said it came out to about 55 to 65 cents per subscriber; another said the figure was closer to 27 to 37 cents Verizon of course found the skirmish the perfect opportunity to market FiOS TV to annoyed Cablevision customers. While these debates vaguely involve consumers -- it's only in the sense that said consumers are used as public relations weapons in the dispute over which giant company will take home more money. The end result usually is higher rates for TV service, and no matter who "wins," it's usually not the consumer. What did Cablevision/ABC users really get from the feud? Interrupted programming, lots of advertising telling them what to do, and inevitably higher rates for their efforts.
|
  fcislerPremium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY | refund Give me my 27 - 65 cents back a month and block ABC 7. | |
|  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: refund said by fcisler:Give me my 27 - 65 cents back a month and block ABC 7. The customers aren't really winning with this deal. Yes, they got their Oscars telecast, but they will pay more for cable service in the end. But hey - Disney and Hollyweird keep using their content monopolies to keep cable prices rising every year(and sometimes twice a year). The content providers are the real monopolies the FCC should be going after and NOT cable companies & telcos. | |
| | | | | Re: refund said by Romney2012:The content providers are the real monopolies the FCC should be going after and NOT cable companies & telcos. Either way, it's still the pot calling the kettle black.
--
kevin's blog | |
| | | | | | Re: refund Not really. With all the options out there, cable companies really can't have a monopoly. But unfortunately ABC can really do some damage to all the cable companies and telcos with this since CC/Telcos can't sell service without a "basic" subscription which is local, everyone will be forced to take a price increase no matter what level of service they have. Maybe CC/Telcos can rework contracts where a "basic" isn't required anymore. | |
|
 jsimmonsPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-24
Falls Church, VA | Going off-air anyone? Soon it will be time to put up my off-air HDTV antenna and just let them duke it out. | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Going off-air anyone? You had better do it in the next few years, because free OTA broadcasts will be going the way of the dodo eventually. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Going off-air anyone? Free OTA television is under attack by none other than FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with his ill advised plan to take more spectrum from broadcast TV. If the cell phone and cable companies have their way free TV and local news broadcasts will be a thing of the past replaced with ever higher monthly bills. | |
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Going off-air anyone? I don't believe it's just the FCC, wireless companies, or cable companies, I think the media conglomerates are interested in moving from an advertising-only supported content distribution model to subscriber-based and advertising supported content distribution models. I think everyone is on board with free OTA TV disappearing except for the consumers that actually watch it (myself included). | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| The FCC is probably getting money under the table from the media companies that want to end all free distribution of any kind. The FCC is beholden to the media, not to consumers.
Next thing you know they will try to say that using an antenna to receive OTA is piracy and has to be stopped. | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
3 edits | said by Sammer:Free OTA television is under attack by none other than FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with his ill advised plan to take more spectrum from broadcast TV. If the cell phone and cable companies have their way free TV and local news broadcasts will be a thing of the past replaced with ever higher monthly bills. That's simply not true! What the FCC is exploring is that The I network is doing in New York City. Their channel 31 was atop the WTC, and instead of moving to Empire like the other TVs did, instead they installed 3 lower power digital transmitters spread out within the market and syncronized them. It works SO well that The FCC wants other broadcasters to try it. The day of big towers and million watt transmitters is dead. It died with analog TV. Want proof? NOT ONE NYC TV station has committed to move to the new WTC tower. The new paradigm will be several lower power transmitters and antennas to cover a city/market-just like cellular does. | |
| | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Re: Going off-air anyone? said by qworster:said by Sammer:Free OTA television is under attack by none other than FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with his ill advised plan to take more spectrum from broadcast TV. If the cell phone and cable companies have their way free TV and local news broadcasts will be a thing of the past replaced with ever higher monthly bills. That's simply not true! What the FCC is exploring is that The I network is doing in New York City. Their channel 31 was atop the WTC, and instead of moving to Empire like the other TVs did, instead they installed 3 lower power digital transmitters spread out within the market and syncronized them. It works SO well that The FCC wants other broadcasters to try it. More often than not single frequency distributed transmission systems don't work well because the current US digital TV standard wasn't designed for and is not well suited to them. Multiple frequency digital UHF translators have worked well but that takes more UHF spectrum rather than less. There has also been technology developed just in the past five years that would also work quite well even with single frequencies but unfortunately would require new equipment for both broadcasters and OTA viewers and even with the most advanced technology channels 21-36 & 38-45 would still be needed for digital TV. Finally most broadcast stations will only take the road of the barely surviving "infomercial" network stations if that's there only choice. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: Going off-air anyone? said by Sammer:said by qworster:said by Sammer:Free OTA television is under attack by none other than FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski with his ill advised plan to take more spectrum from broadcast TV. If the cell phone and cable companies have their way free TV and local news broadcasts will be a thing of the past replaced with ever higher monthly bills. That's simply not true! What the FCC is exploring is that The I network is doing in New York City. Their channel 31 was atop the WTC, and instead of moving to Empire like the other TVs did, instead they installed 3 lower power digital transmitters spread out within the market and syncronized them. It works SO well that The FCC wants other broadcasters to try it. More often than not single frequency distributed transmission systems don't work well because the current US digital TV standard wasn't designed for and is not well suited to them. Multiple frequency digital UHF translators have worked well but that takes more UHF spectrum rather than less. There has also been technology developed just in the past five years that would also work quite well even with single frequencies but unfortunately would require new equipment for both broadcasters and OTA viewers and even with the most advanced technology channels 21-36 & 38-45 would still be needed for digital TV. Finally most broadcast stations will only take the road of the barely surviving "infomercial" network stations if that's there only choice. While it's true that COFDM works better in a synced system, I Network has proven that 8-VSB works well enough that it should be tried elsewhere. The FCC is also talking about paying stations for their spectrum-and many marginal stations might well take the $$ and pull the plug.
PS: My choice was COFDM for DTV. Going with 8-VSB was a bad choice. | |
|
|  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | said by jsimmons:Soon it will be time to put up my off-air HDTV antenna and just let them duke it out. I have thought about that as well but I really do use non-rabbit ears channels too much to warrant that.
Prices really are getting higher though | |
|
| | Whatever... "The end result usually is higher rates for TV service, and no matter who "wins," it's usually not the consumer."
Stay classy there Cablevision and Disney/ABC, stay classy. Way to punish your paying customers with your petty slap fight. | |
|  JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
 ·Optimum Online
|  Only person that is screwed is the customer
I currently pay about $205/month for CV phone, internet (boost), and TV - my "triple play" deal has ended. That's almost $2,500 per year for those services, which is crazy when you think about it.
When will this end? The ability for a network to simply pull their signal is a little crazy, and inversely, the ability of the cable company to say "ok, fine. pull your signal, I don't give a shit" is almost equally as crazy.
I'm fully aware that companies exist to make products, deliver services, and ultimately make a profit. I have absolutely no issue with that. With that said, it seems that greed is the ultimate factor here, and the customer keeps getting screwed.
--
"Soulshine. Better than sunshine. Better than moonshine. Damn sure better than rain."
I'm waiting, rather patiently I believe, for springtime.
| |
| | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: Only person that is screwed is the customer said by Jeffrey:I currently pay about $205/month for CV phone, internet (boost), and TV - my "triple play" deal has ended. That's almost $2,500 per year for those services, which is crazy when you think about it. Do what I did - Pull the plug. I disconnected my TV service entirely.
Don't feed the cable pig:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=8liHWu2yYZQ | |
| | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: Only person that is screwed is the customer Me too! About two years ago. I pretty much only watch PBS recorded on my media center PC. If I want quality programming besides PBS, I wait a year for Showtime/HBO series to come to Netflix. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by Jeffrey:Like Karl says, the consumer really didn't win here. We lost ABC for almost a day (no big deal), and ultimately, our bills for TV will go up. The consumer got this when they asked the government to get involved back in the 90's. Maybe Karl should note that in his op-ed pieces here on BBR. Doubt it though.
I currently pay about $205/month for CV phone, internet (boost), and TV - my "triple play" deal has ended. That's almost $2,500 per year for those services, which is crazy when you think about it. It is... have you considered cutting down on the premiums you subscribe to as well?
When will this end? When the consumer stops asking the government to help them. It's time the consumers unite and take a stand against the industry they hate so much.
Look, and don't take this as an attack, but it's the truth. The government is "we" the people, is it not? However, the government continues to fail us and it's our own fault. We keep putting idiots and morons into office, do "we" as a people not? WE the people are capable of forming our own organizations which can then grow in numbers - and strength is numbers has it's power. However, no one will do this; everyone is waiting around on their hands for 'someone else' to take the lead and make the first step - do all the work. In life, most people just want to be cheer leaders and not a leader. People want to sit back and just bitch.
If you really want to know when this will end... it's when people turn away, look away... STOP SUBSCRIBING! Not just for a month.. not a few months.. but for a good amount of time and it has to be done in groves! The corporations that people hate so much survive on money, not blood. If you cut them, they bleed money. If you want to hurt them, don't give them money. The problem is people won't cut the cord becuase cable is a drug to too many people. So.. to answer your question in short....
... this isn't ever going to end. Who's going to do your work for you? The government? No... they've proven this time and time again.
Real quick: The definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
The ability for a network to simply pull their signal is a little crazy, No it's not.. it's their signal. When the contract term is up, they pull the plug. What's crazy about that? You're not owed.. you're not entitled just becuase you're a consumer, are you? If a carrier no longer has permission to carry a signal, it must be pulled; its not crazy.
and inversely, the ability of the cable company to say "ok, fine. pull your signal, I don't give a shit" is almost equally as crazy. I don't think this is crazy either... its part of negotiation. If they just rolled over and paid up, don't come to BBR the next time they raise their rates bitching that your rates went up again.
Do you think that letting the signal just go doesn't hurt ABC/Disney? OF COURSE IT DOES! Use your head here... several million customers * $0.60 per head is a big chunk of change to ABC. Equally, Cablevision IS fighting for you ... they're trying to keep their costs low to the consumer so you don't have to eat THAT in a price increase. (And please everyone, spare me the "cable goes up every year" bs - it goes up becuase networks raise their fees, and costs rise... you want it to rise even more??)
As much as it would suck to lose the signal for a period of time, its part of negotiation AND they do this to keep their prices low. Cablevision is fighting to keep it's customers. If you don't believe that, why do you think FiOS was stepping up the advertising becuase of this? Cablevision KNOWS if they lose their signal that people would look to another provider if they could. Fios knew this, ABC knows this, so does Cablevision.
On a side note, what the laws SHOULD prohibit is predatory marketing in cases of contract negotiations for a period of time before and after these periods. There is NO reason why Dish/DirecTV or a competing service should be pulled into contract disputes at anytime with other providers. THAT, in my opinion, is what is crazy.
I'm fully aware that companies exist to make products, deliver services, and ultimately make a profit. I have absolutely no issue with that. I do! ... in this case! It's local broadcast and I think the local broadcasters were handed a pot o' gold by "we the people" ... and they don't deserve this. By the way, you know that digital transition all locals went through? Who do you think paid for that? .... cable and satellite subscriber revenue. Local broadcasters must show to the FCC that they are capable of surviving for a period of time, upon start up, with no ad revenue at all in order to get a license. They must then be able to generate ad revenue and be self sustaining in order to continue. I never knew that cable TV subscribers were 'ad revenue'..
With that said, it seems that greed is the ultimate factor here, and the customer keeps getting screwed. When you say it only in sense, and if you direct this towards ABC, then I can agree 100% with you, whole heatedly. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online
·EarthLink
| Re: Only person that is screwed is the customer said by fiberguy:The consumer got this when they asked the government to get involved back in the 90's. I don't see how. The history of cable TV prices clearly shows that less government involvement means higher prices. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Only person that is screwed is the customer Someone else said it just fine so there is no need for me to repeat it:
»$200 per Month
And, in addition to this other post I linked here, the fact is that prices did NOT go down... I've said this many times before here as well.. as soon as the government got involved to "lower prices for consumers" and to "force the cable operators to be more consumer friendly", about 80% of pay tv subscribers saw a 15% to 20% increase in their bills.. and, the consumer started to see those other things such as higher installation rates/fees, and then things like equipment charges were broken out on the bill. The equipment fee change did drop the service rate and itemized the equipment but now they have TWO items, sometimes three items now, that they can increase.. and did.
But overall, compared to what people used to pay for services back in the early 90's, many monthly average bills have in fact gotten better, in comparison. In some cases, better.. in some cases, worse. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Only person that is screwed is the customer But then the government got out of the cable TV business, and prices jumped even more! | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Only person that is screwed is the customer said by Bobcat:But then the government got out of the cable TV business, and prices jumped even more! Did you even bother to read the post on the link that I posted? or are you just playing ignorant?
Prices, over all, have actually done down in many cases. The fact remains that prices go up in many products. A service like TV is only going to go up.. prices of DURABLE goods are what can go down, in time. Non-durable goods actually will usually continue to see steady increases as time goes by.
And, again, why is it ALWAYS cable tv and satellite's fault that prices go up? Maybe, if you want, government should regulate Hollywood... they're the ones raising prices to the cable companies in the first place.. or did you not see that ABC wants more money in the original article...? That cost only gets passed on to the consumer. I'm sure CV sat right by and said "Hey, ABC!! RAISE THE RATES!!" ... as you can see, they held off and said "no, you're not raising the rates like you want".. and the signal went dark... (damn evil CV for trying to keep rates down)
Second, just becuase you now have the choice to pay ONE provider for three services and have one large bill instead of many smaller bills doesn't mean that the rates "went up"... people used to pay cable about $45 a month for basic not to recently.. now they're all complaining about $150 bills... but they fail to mention that $45 only included cable and the $150 includes phone, and internet and they forget to include the premiums, DVRs, etc. ... I find these arguments disingenuous and shows a total lack of any educated thoughts.
Things have changed... we now have more options.. we have more premiums, we have phone services now, DVR, multiple HD sets to power up, etc etc. Naturally, when you take more, your bill is more.
When it comes to prices that people pay for cable, I only look at the basic cable rate, which yes, have gone up. However, like I said, they're bound to go up anyway over time.. and much becuase the price is passed on to them by the providers.
So when you say "But then the government got out of the cable TV business, and prices jumped even more!" ... they jump about 3% a year, right? That's a far less leap than the 15% to 20% that they jumped when govt got involved, isn't it?
If people want to lower their cable bills, ... subscribe to less services.. Drop the pay channels, drop the DVR or multiple DVRs... drop the multiple HD boxes, and drop the higher tiers... guess what happens when they see a reduction of subscribers using these services???
Further, there is another argument I KNOW will come out of this.. "Why do we have to rent the boxes, I want to buy my own"... so that's fine. I'll head this one off now to save a reply later... If the average home has 1 DVR and 2 HD boxes, that's about $30 extra on a bill... that's also about $1200 in equipment to purchase on your own, and maintain it too... to that, I say, if the option is there, and it is, ... go drop the money and do it.  I bet that $30 a month looks better. Besides, most people have "out of sight, out of mind" issues.. they can drop $1200 on equipment and brag about how much they're saving per month... but they forget how much interest they pay to their credit card companies on the money they borrowed, and how you really have to budget on an annual basis, not just monthly. But anyway, what do I know.. I've never been in debt like so many millions of struggling Americans are today...  | |
|
| | | | GREAT POST! It's nice to see that some people actually get how this game really works!
In regards to predatory marketing, I very much agree. What is amazing to me is that FiOS doesn't quite understand that they will be in the exact same boat that Cablevision was in when their contract is up. Unfortunately by Cablevision folding on this, it really hurts customers because it gives that much more authority to companies like ABC/Disney. It's really a shame that Cablevision customers are in an uproar against Cablevision since they really were trying to keep prices lower. It will be interesting to see what Time Warner does since their contract is almost up as well.
In a time where everyone is complaining about money and prices going up, it's sad that now would be the time that ABC/Disney pushes this, but it's understandable that they don't want to wait. Sad, but understandable. | |
|
| | | OTA TV - $0
OOMA VoIP Service $0/mo
DSL Internet from AT&T $40/mo
Netflix $13.99/mo
Hulu - $0
Annual cost $647.88 | |
| | | | |  voipguy
join:2006-05-31
Forest Hills, NY | Re: The point is this: said by qworster:Cablevision charges people 18 bucks a month to pick up just LOCAL channels. Out of this they probably make in excess of 12 dollars a month profit. How do you get that figure?
Broadcast basic service charges pay for people to answer the phone, process bills, trucks and technicians to install and maintain service, a portion of the outside plant, etc. Remember, until recently, Broadcast Basic programming costs were ZERO. Now, thanks to "Retransmission Consent", the costs are substantial.
TV Broadcasters can deliver their signal to TVs over the air! And sell advertising! Using spectrum that they did not pay a dime for! Also, unlike cable channels, broadcast channels do not allow the cable operator to sell local advertisements (typically 2 min/hour). I don't see why cable should pay anything at all for over the air services.
If a customer lives in a good signal area, they would not subscribe to cable to just to receive over the air services.
If a customer lives in a bad signal area, they are DOING THE BROADCASTER A FAVOR by getting that signal into the home, so they can sell advertising to a larger audience.
Perhaps the advertising model is not what it used to be. In any case, the "value" of a signal available over the air is MUCH LESS to a cable operator than a signal that is exclusive to cable. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: The point is this: said by voipguy:said by qworster:Cablevision charges people 18 bucks a month to pick up just LOCAL channels. Out of this they probably make in excess of 12 dollars a month profit. How do you get that figure? Broadcast basic service charges pay for people to answer the phone, process bills, trucks and technicians to install and maintain service, a portion of the outside plant, etc. Remember, until recently, Broadcast Basic programming costs were ZERO. Now, thanks to "Retransmission Consent", the costs are substantial. TV Broadcasters can deliver their signal to TVs over the air! And sell advertising! Using spectrum that they did not pay a dime for! Also, unlike cable channels, broadcast channels do not allow the cable operator to sell local advertisements (typically 2 min/hour). I don't see why cable should pay anything at all for over the air services. If a customer lives in a good signal area, they would not subscribe to cable to just to receive over the air services. If a customer lives in a bad signal area, they are DOING THE BROADCASTER A FAVOR by getting that signal into the home, so they can sell advertising to a larger audience. Perhaps the advertising model is not what it used to be. In any case, the "value" of a signal available over the air is MUCH LESS to a cable operator than a signal that is exclusive to cable. How? Because I work in the industry, that's how! Profit margins on cable are HUGE-well in excess of 50%.
How do you think the Dolans have all that money to lose on all their dumb ventures and STILL make a killing? | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: The point is this: You are confusing CV (which is more a regional than national cable provider; NYC is CV's core market) with the industry at large. TWC is about CV's size, and doesn't have that sort of margin; Comcast is several times the size of CV, and isn't even close to that (and that doesn't include NBC Universal's revenue). And besides, isn't CV (unlike either Comcast or TWC) a *private company* (taken private by the Dolans), which means they don't publicize SQUA-DOOSH about profit/loss statements?
Who do you work for (you said you work in the industry) - Disney (as in ABC, if not WABC)? You're trying to be Mickey in "Fantasia", except with numbers; pulling them out of thin air.
If you hate the Dolans (and love Disney), explain why (especially if you work for them). | |
|
3 edits | Cablevision == hypocrites Cablevision is crying that ABC broadcasts for free, yet Cablevision applied for and received a waiver from the FCC to encrypt local channels on its system (in some areas), claiming that it is losing revenue due to theft of services.
The common interpretation of FCC rules is that local channels are supposed to be carried in the clear.
My question is" If ABC is supposedly "free" because they broadcast OTA what exactly are they losing???
This is nothing more that pure greed from the Dolans.
They should just STFU and pay the 60 cents per subscriber, and not raise the customers' bills one penny! | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Cablevision == hypocrites said by fifty nine:They should just STFU and pay the 60 cents per subscriber, and not raise the customers' bills one penny! You should go in business, start paying more for a product and not raise your price to your customers too then.
So, based on what you said that they applied for a waiver from the FCC to encrypt locals "IN SOME AREAS" due to "theft"... what's the problem with that? Yes, the FCC says they must be carried in the clear.. you said it, and it's common knowledge to anyone that knows... but the VERY FCC granted the waiver, as you said as well. So what's your problem? They asked for it in "some areas".. not "all areas"..
I don't follow your misguided logic here.
How about you re-direct your anger at the locals that are allowed to use the public airwaves AND still charge for the very signal that is supposed to be free.
You want anger? Its the very cable subscription rates that allowed the locals to pay for the Digital Transitions AND HD upgrades in their studios.. and for that nice kiss we all gave them, their HD signal is charged IN ADDITION to the customer.
For christ sakes, start throwing your anger where it belongs.. and in this case, it's not cablevision.. it's ABC. | |
| | |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Cablevision == hypocrites The Dolans pulled this same stunt with Time Warner Cable, withholding their then-Cablevision-owned Madison Square Garden and Fox Sports New York networks in a fee dispute.
Karma is a bitch.
Disney is fully within their rights to charge for programming that Cablevision makes money off of.
And your assumption that cable subscribers paid for local television station digital upgrades is unsupported by fact. | |
| | | |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | | | You should go into business, make a product that people want and charge nothing for it. Because that's exactly what the Dolans are asking for.
As for the whole cable theft excuse, they are crying to the FCC about cable service theft but the only channels they are obligated to carry in the clear are locals. Now they are saying they shouldn't have to pay anything for local channels because they are free over the air.
That is the hypocrisy, and this is pure greed by the Dolans. I'm glad that I moved out of the Cablevision service area. Fuck them! | |
|
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| said by fifty nine:Cablevision is crying that ABC broadcasts for free, yet Cablevision applied for and received a waiver from the FCC to encrypt local channels on its system (in some areas), claiming that it is losing revenue due to theft of services. The common interpretation of FCC rules is that local channels are supposed to be carried in the clear. My question is" If ABC is supposedly "free" because they broadcast OTA what exactly are they losing??? This is nothing more that pure greed from the Dolans. They should just STFU and pay the 60 cents per subscriber, and not raise the customers' bills one penny! This is true, but in reality.. that's what was proping up that perpetual $29.95 triple play 1-year deal. Now that they have to pay the OTA companies $$ MONEY $$ they will have to raise their introductory rate (maybe $10 each?). Fine, do that, BUT................. Raise the tier on broadband... 30/5(15?) will do nicely, thank you. | |
| | | |
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Negotiate the Other Disney Properties Prior to this "deal", carriage of WABC was "free" because Cablevision and the other carriers agreed to Disney's outrageous demands for carrying ESPN, ESPN2 and a host of other overpriced properties. Now that WABC is a paid service, they should go back and lower the cost of ESPN and ESPN2 since they are no longer bundling WABC with those services. (Fat chance)
Disclaimer: I am a Disney shareholder.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | And people always want the gov's help!! ... Um... we NEVER seemed to have this problem with local channels UNTIL the government got involved back in the 90's!
Thank yourselves - Yes, the consumer. Bravo! Instead of sitting in here bitching and moaning about paying more for the local channels, why not go out and celebrate YET ANOTHER brilliant rescue by the government after the poor consumer demanded government assistance!?
Seriously - for one, there should be NO reason why a local channel gets paid ANYTHING by a subscriber... not a dime! The laws changed to must carry and permission to carry and started all this nonsense in the first place. (Again, must I remind people as to the why this happened again??)
But, when the idiotic government DID allow for such BS to happen, maybe they should have also put restrictions on THEM (the broadcasters) just how much THEY could charge for it, which even then I still don't agree the locals should be getting paid ANYTHING for their signal in the first place.
If the broadcasters want to be paid for their signals through cable and satellite subscriptions, they should lose their OTA broadcasting license - period! They should have to make a choice; one or the other. The only thing, in pay TV delivery, that they should have had was the "must carry" status.. not pay for carry status as an option.
But yea.. this continually screws over the TV VIEWER... but again, before people come here bitchin' and a' moanin' about the consumer being screwed.. just remember, you have yourself to thank for every time you ask for the GIVErment to get involved. PLEASE keep this in mind the more you guys ask for them to help "fix" things like broadband and cellular services... and if people can't see then, then god help you.
There is an old saying,... "A generation who doesn't know history has no past or future".. This kind of thing is bound to repeat and only get worse.
In short - the locals should be free on cable TV and Satellite. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
| | Why are they paying the networks anyway? I was under the impression that the major 3 + FOX networks were free over the air. My "Cable" bill is for the cable channels that I receive, not the network ones. They can continue to make their huge money in advertising while keeping the lion's share of the viewing audience.
I do enjoy ABC, but if they try and take it away from me, they can have it! I'll just get an antenna and get it free. | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Why are they paying the networks anyway? said by klein :
I was under the impression that the major 3 + FOX networks were free over the air. My "Cable" bill is for the cable channels that I receive, not the network ones. They can continue to make their huge money in advertising while keeping the lion's share of the viewing audience.
They are for now but not necessarily in the future. However the law currently allows broadcast stations to choose retransmission consent or "must carry" for cable and satellite retransmissions. If a local full power station chooses "must carry" the local cable company must provide the station to all of its subscribers but the station is not compensated. If the station chooses retransmission consent then the terms are negotiated with the cable company and the station can be compensated. BTW that huge money from advertising revenues is down (not so huge anymore) for all broadcast stations. | |
|
| | | Get an antenna Why are people paying for something that is free? If your require pay television and get a satellite.
Before Digital Television, you could make a point for paying for broadcast TV, but with ASTC, I can't see why anyone would pay for INFERIOR picture quality from a service provider, when OTA has better quality. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Get an antenna said by lohertz:Before Digital Television, you could make a point for paying for broadcast TV, but with ASTC, I can't see why anyone would pay for INFERIOR picture quality from a service provider, when OTA has better quality. Because most people don't care if it's "better quality"... as long as the picture is clear, I don't think too many people seek out an even clearer picture. Most people just don't want to see snow or ghosting on the locals... and even more people don't want to see an antenna hooked up on their TV either..
But you said it best... locals are "free" and should be even if they are carried over a cable line or through a satellite signal. | |
| | | | Not true in every instance. In Rochester, WXXI PBS has all four subchannels active over the air, dramatically reducing the bitrate of the main HD feed. Time Warner has a direct fiber link to WXXI and is passing it along at the full 19Mbps, thus picture quality is much better on cable then it is over the air. And by the nature of digital signals you either have it or you don't. Those in fringe areas that could get channels with a weaker signal, picture quality may not be the greatest but you could get at least something, now you get nothing.
I have antenna on my roof, and a pretty damn good one though, from when we had satellite and locals weren't available, haven't had it hooked up in about 8 years though and have no plans to. No need to. Cable is far superior to anything over the air. And satellite sucks big time. Had Dish Network from 1998 to 2004 and DirecTV from 2004 to 2006. Absolutely nothing special about them. DirecTV has a shitty HD line up and a piss poor movie channel selection, Dish Network sucks at sports. Satellite TV is probably one of the most overrated services around.
And I love seeing that old Cable Pig propaganda piece from Dish Network. I remember when that campaign first came out. Dish raised rates on their own service a few months later. | |
| |  HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1 | I agree !!! However lots of people do not know this fact/ They pony up for the Cable/SAT/Telcom because they think they are getting something better.
I am getting the HDTV ant for the kids rooms and just keeping 3 boxes .. | |
|
| | Really? "Cablevision's 3.1 million customers got to watch the Oscars last night..."
You say that like it's a good thing. | |
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Optimum Voice
| $200 per Month Look, I am no CV enthusiast, but when I think back oh, say 15-20 years, I look at it this way:
1995 - around $100/month to Verizon or Bell Atlantic
- around $80 for cable TV
- around $30-$40 for DIAL-UP Internet
2010 - $200 a month to CV for AT LEAST 4 times the channels I had in 1995, unlimited phone and 15/2 Internet (I don't have BOOST yet).
I am actually paying LESS now than 15 years ago. And if you adjust for inflation it's MUCH less.
Yes, it probably should be cheaper  | |
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| It's not like their aren't other options I used to be a cablevision subscriber, I had the triple play, but the service kind of sucked, overly compressed picture, a dvr that was horrid etc.
I switched to directv, now I know that satellite occasionally goes out due to weather, but it's a lot cheaper $80 for 4 boxes and a DVR cable can't compete and I am not so addicted to television that I can't pop in a dvd or god forbid read a book if the weather knocks it out, which actually only happened twice over this horrible weather.
I got phone-power voip to replace the cable phone, I paid in advance and it worked out to $8 a month for two years again.
Still have cablevision for internet, their one decent product because I didn't want to go through the hassle of a fios install.
which is a third option.
I think people seriously overvalue their TV, if I didn't have two roommates, I would probably cancel and just watch OTA tv | |
| |  hlrose
join:2002-01-22
Los Angeles, CA | Re: It's not like their aren't other options said by MovieLover76:I think people seriously overvalue their TV, if I didn't have two roommates, I would probably cancel and just watch OTA tv I haven't owned a TV in years and had no trouble watching the Oscars last night. I just had to do a little research to find an HD stream of the program. As a bonus, instead of endless commercials I got to see uninformed film reviewers discuss the show during breaks. IMHO, the best foreign language film of 2009 was directed by one of the presenters of that particular award. | |
|
| | .60 Per subscriber seems reasonable to me As long as I can opt out. Whatever happened to ala-carte? | |
| | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: .60 Per subscriber seems reasonable to me That was my thought reading this. I am not a sports nut but I am forced to pay more for so much I don't ever watch. Other subscribers are paying for my channels. Maybe they should go to a system where you pay a toll if your TV is on a channel that channel gets paid some set amount. I may lose a channel I like because only 5 other people watch it. I will get over it. It happens all the time on network if the number of eyeballs is not big enough the show get canceled.
If cable does not get their act together the internet is going to become the broadcast medium of choice. Hulu is proposing charging. If that works the way cable works today will begin to change. | |
| | Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| said by OkByMe :
As long as I can opt out. Whatever happened to ala-carte?
I'm no cable advocate here.. but level playing field.. ala-carte for it all! Not just locals. Most of us can feed the "video" habit from the internet and/or other options besides a cable-tv subscription, so if you want those potentials ala-carte is the only way to get 'em. | |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | lol *YAWN*
I expected this to happen... Nothing more than a schoolyard fight at the corporate level.
Who gives a fuck?
-Tzale | |
| | | Marriage made in heaven - hell All this supposed bargaining, negotiating, and hand wringing over fees between TV networks and the rebroadcasters is just so much theater. It's for show, the primary viewers being the FCC. "See guys. There really is competition here. The industry in doing fine. The consumer loves us when we fight to keep their TV bill down. We're an industry that regulates itself. You can just devote your time to other things. No need to pay any attention to us. These are not the droids you're looking for."
Neither of these industries (TV networks and rebroadcasters) could be making half as much money without the other. It's a marriage made in heaven for them, and one made in hell for the consumer who gets higher and higher prices every year, regardless of the actual cost to provide the sevices. As much as I hate government to be too involved in my life, this situation cries out for regulation. The big players know that, and are doing everything they possibly can to avoid it.
| |
|  DownTheShoreTag, you're itPremium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:11 | HA! Missed The Oscars Anyway I didn't know that they had kissed and made up so I didn't know that the Oscars were being shown on CV.
Oh, well, I probably enjoyed "Holmes on Homes" more. | |
| Fixit
join:2010-01-17
Costa Mesa, CA | OTA & Cable TV I do not watch a lot of TV but when I do I like the quality to be good.My problem with cable TV is it is never as good a picture as OTA TV. If these cable companies could give as good of picture as OTA I might consider getting cable. But their engineers do not know how to tune their systems correctly to give a quality picture. Many areas do not have as many OTA stations that So.Cal has so I understand that people have to go with what is offered in their area. | |
| | XJakeX
join:2005-03-05
Coventry, RI | Re: OTA & Cable TV I agree. My neighbor with FIOS mavels at the quality of my OTA picture, and it really gauls him that I get Hi Def for free. | |
|
| |
|
|
