thumbs down from:
Dude111 
| Time Warner Time Warner Cable will screw you any way they can find, and blame it on someone else | |
|
 |  NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: Time Warner Perhaps TW should pay the fee to Fox, and then hide their channel somewhere in the middle of their lineup, handing over their former premium placement spot to a competitor or selling it off to someone else. If sold, the profit could be put toward offsetting Fox's unreasonable demand for more money.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| | | [Insert monopoly name here] will screw you any way they can find, and blame it on someone else. | |
|
| | | Fox sucks the big one.I stay away from FOX except one show I am buying on DVD when it comes out otherwise I am not there.
Slime Warner is my ISP and they definately suck.
Two Greedbag Companies both should die | |
|
|  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| I love how Karl bitches and moans about rate-hikes, but when a story like this comes up, he's up in arms about the lack of FOX being carried (which makes this even more ironic, Karl...). When it comes down to it, TWC has been on the side of consumers (regardless if that's their real intent) more than any other cable company i've dealt with. Sometimes that's the NFL's attempts at destroying the current OTA broadcast setup of football by forcing games onto the otherwise lame and pointless NFL Network. Other times it's FOX's Rupert Murdoch trying to milk another $50 million for a free OTA channel.
Hey Karl, how bout you write up a piece on how this negotiation will affect free over-the air broadcast in the future? How Murdoch wants to scuttle the Network-affiliate model, and eradicate free, over the air broadcasting?
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| | why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETWORKTV?
I can see the other fox stuff? but the free FOX stuff what is next for fox to make Fox OTA like the old ON TV? | |
|
| | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by castsucks :
why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETWORKTV? FCC must carry/retransmission consent rules, that's why. | |
|
| | nycitynyPremium
join:2005-08-09
New York, NY Reviews:
 ·VoicePulse
·PHONE POWER
| Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by fifty nine:said by castsucks :
why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETWORKTV? FCC must carry/retransmission consent rules, that's why. Exactly. And that's why I'm on Time Warner's side on this one. The FCC requires that Time Warner carry OTA Fox so why should Time Warner have to pay for it? I can see them paying for cable only channels. But the broadcasters got their way years ago when the FCC started requiring retransmission. They can't have it both ways with a requirement and a fee. The broadcast companies already make more advertising dollars by having their programming sent into cable households at a high quality alongside other cable channels. Fox is just getting greedy here. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | nycitynyPremium
join:2005-08-09
New York, NY Reviews:
·VoicePulse
·PHONE POWER
| Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by swintec:I believe, the way I have been reading it, is that the networks have a choice. They can either wave there right for must carry and go for subscriber based pricing or they can exercise must carry rules...not both. Well, that is slightly less onerous but still puts the broadcast networks in the driver's seat. Either they get free high quality distribution of their programming or they extract (extort?) money from their distributor. It is their choice, not the choice of the cable companies. A sweet deal if you ask me.
Perhaps the cable companies should be allowed to charge broadcasters for including their OTA signal alongside cable offerings where viewers can conveniently access it without dealing with an antenna or separate digital converter for older TVs. | |
|
| | | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW The FCC is in the pockets of the broadcasters and always has been. It is hollyweird that is the true monopoly and NOT cable companies. If the FCC was serious about regulating monopolies and cutting the costs of cable TV, they would go after the broadcasters. But don't hold your breath. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW I'd be happy with reading stories that bash all the lunatics out in Hollywood that see fit to exercise extreme greed, steal our money, and then tell us how we should live. Let's start with all the ones who cried about how the world was going to end if we didn't elect a socialist the other year.
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by NOVA_Guy:I'd be happy with reading stories that bash all the lunatics out in Hollywood that see fit to exercise extreme greed, steal our money, and then tell us how we should live. Let's start with all the ones who cried about how the world was going to end if we didn't elect a socialist the other year. But it didn't end when we didn't elect a socialist.
--
I'll do it later. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW um yes you did
/ot | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | said by Romney2012:The FCC is in the pockets of the broadcasters and always has been. Easily the least accurate statement you've posted here this month. If it were true, the FCC would not currently be busily regulating broadcasters out of business.
The cable systems have the option to not carry a broadcast channel that opts out of must-carry and demands retransmission consent fees, just like a cable system can opt to not carry a cable-only channel it doesn't feel is worth the price. Once News Corp. demanded a fee their O and O stations are no longer under must-carry protection and Time Warner is fully within their rights to remove them from the system instead of paying. Whether that is a good business decision for them is up to them to figure out. This is how the rules were written years ago, and is the free market you so cherish at work.
Pretending that they are being put-upon by a handful of broadcast stations is about as disingenuous as it gets. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW I have to agree with you here.
The must carry rules are designed to protect SMALLER INDEPENDENT broadcasters, while giving larger broadcasters the freedom to negotiate carriage for a fee (or not).
The only reason why Time Warner is even giving Fox the time of day is because Fox's programming is in demand by TWC's subscribers. If an independent like WMBC, WLNY, WTBY or WRNN (these are independent stations in NYC) demanded a per subscriber fee from any cable company, they would be laughed out the door, dropped from the lineup and very few people would miss them. | |
|
| | | | |
2 edits | said by nycityny:said by swintec:I believe, the way I have been reading it, is that the networks have a choice. They can either wave there right for must carry and go for subscriber based pricing or they can exercise must carry rules...not both. Well, that is slightly less onerous but still puts the broadcast networks in the driver's seat. Either they get free high quality distribution of their programming or they extract (extort?) money from their distributor. It is their choice, not the choice of the cable companies. A sweet deal if you ask me. Perhaps the cable companies should be allowed to charge broadcasters for including their OTA signal alongside cable offerings where viewers can conveniently access it without dealing with an antenna or separate digital converter for older TVs. The rules were designed this way to protect smaller independents who don't have a wide audience.
As for cable operators charging broadcasters - not going to happen. The most top rated programming on TV is on the broadcast networks. Therefore the broadcast stations are in the driver's seat. I think the only channels which the programmers pay the cable operator for are shopping channels. | |
|
| | | | | | said by swintec:I believe, the way I have been reading it, is that the networks have a choice. They can either wave there right for must carry and go for subscriber based pricing or they can exercise must carry rules...not both. Right. The rules are that the broadcaster can force must carry and expect no compensation, or require retransmission consent and may or may not charge a fee to do so.
In terms of the big four (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox) the must carry rules really don't do much because they are so popular that they are nearly always under retransmission consent and not must carry. Retransmission consent essentially puts broadcasters on a more or less equal footing with other cable channels in that cable operators don't have to carry them but if they want to they have to ask permission and (in most cases) pay a fee to do so, which is negotiated between cable provider and broadcaster.
And that's what this is - a negotiation that has broken down.
Must carry doesn't even enter the picture because none of the stations in dispute are going to force must carry. Their programming is popular enough that they don't have to do so. Must carry was designed to protect smaller independent broadcasters which are not as popular as the big four.
When you look at it this way, the must carry rules are very fair and not skewed towards big broadcasters at all.
What gives some the impression that broadcasters are charging "excessive" fees for their programming is the fact that they also distribute it over the air, for free. But the free over the air distribution is akin to an alternate delivery method like an online stream. The license is between them and you, the viewer. They have not licensed the signal to any cable company or other entity for retransmission. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by nycityny:Exactly. And that's why I'm on Time Warner's side on this one. The FCC requires that Time Warner carry OTA Fox so why should Time Warner have to pay for it? I can see them paying for cable only channels. But the broadcasters got their way years ago when the FCC started requiring retransmission. They can't have it both ways with a requirement and a fee. The broadcast companies already make more advertising dollars by having their programming sent into cable households at a high quality alongside other cable channels. Fox is just getting greedy here. Your facts are wrong. Time Warner Cable here in Austin did drop the local NBC affiliate, KXAN, from their cable lineup last year for a few weeks until the fee dispute was resolved. So it is not an FCC requirement to carry local stations ... at least those who are not giving away their retransmission rights. And, we'll probably see the same thing re Fox on January 1 .. they'll be off of the TWC roster, replaced by a slide telling you to call Fox and blame them.
I'm on the other side. As the original article says, TWC is used to getting free or very-low-cost retransmission rights to network programming, and they just don't want that to change. Well, things are changing and they'll have to pay for that just like they pay for other programming. They are just being stubborn, and unwilling to change their thinking.
I ask a question: why is it that no one else besides Time Warner seems to have this problem? | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by MyDogHsFleas:said by nycityny:Exactly. And that's why I'm on Time Warner's side on this one. The FCC requires that Time Warner carry OTA Fox so why should Time Warner have to pay for it? I can see them paying for cable only channels. But the broadcasters got their way years ago when the FCC started requiring retransmission. They can't have it both ways with a requirement and a fee. The broadcast companies already make more advertising dollars by having their programming sent into cable households at a high quality alongside other cable channels. Fox is just getting greedy here. Your facts are wrong. Time Warner Cable here in Austin did drop the local NBC affiliate, KXAN, from their cable lineup last year for a few weeks until the fee dispute was resolved. So it is not an FCC requirement to carry local stations ... at least those who are not giving away their retransmission rights. And, we'll probably see the same thing re Fox on January 1 .. they'll be off of the TWC roster, replaced by a slide telling you to call Fox and blame them. I'm on the other side. As the original article says, TWC is used to getting free or very-low-cost retransmission rights to network programming, and they just don't want that to change. Well, things are changing and they'll have to pay for that just like they pay for other programming. They are just being stubborn, and unwilling to change their thinking. I ask a question: why is it that no one else besides Time Warner seems to have this problem? If you can put up an antenna and get a station via OTA, why should ANYONE have to pay for it? As long as the cable co's are paying for the means to get the signal from the station to their facility (fiber, etc.), they shouldn't have to pay the broadcaster / station a damn thing. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW Retransmission consent of copyrighted content. Seems to be such a difficult concept around here. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by openbox9:Retransmission consent of copyrighted content. Seems to be such a difficult concept around here. Not really. Simple logic and sound judgement are though.
As the poster stated, if it can be had for free over the air, then why should they have to pay to deliver it when they are actually doing them a favor to begin with by packaging it and delivering it over a "better system"?
It should simply be a wash. The programmers are getting a better system of delivery and the content delivers are making their customers happy by including that in there. | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by Skippy25:As the poster stated, if it can be had for free over the air, then why should they have to pay to deliver it when they are actually doing them a favor to begin with by packaging it and delivering it over a "better system"? And the broadcasters have the option to require the cable companies to carry their broadcasts at no cost. But instead, more broadcasters are choosing to demand money in exchange for the opportunity to carry the broadcasts. What am I missing? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by Skippy25:said by openbox9:Retransmission consent of copyrighted content. Seems to be such a difficult concept around here. Not really. Simple logic and sound judgement are though. As the poster stated, if it can be had for free over the air, then why should they have to pay to deliver it when they are actually doing them a favor to begin with by packaging it and delivering it over a "better system"? It should simply be a wash. The programmers are getting a better system of delivery and the content delivers are making their customers happy by including that in there. It is arguable whether or not cable is a better system of delivery. If it weren't for FCC rules prohibiting material degradation of broadcast signals I'm sure Comcast and others would recompress and stuff them 3 and 4 per QAM with lots of macroblocking and motion artifacts.
As for the "free over the air" issue, is it legal for you to tape shows or movies from TV and sell them to others without permission? What about selling CDs with songs you recorded from the radio? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW I really question the logic in cable/sat/iptv having to pay to distribute anything to begin with and feel the system is ass backwards. You pay (or should be paying) Dish, Comcast, or AT&T for the distribution of the content, not for the content itself.
In reality, I believe the content producers should pay the "shippers" of their content for the convenience and really the ability to even reach a vast majority of their customers to begin with. UPS and Fedex don't pay Dell or Macy's to deliver their packages, so why is Comcast paying Disney to deliver theirs? Cable is the only thing that allowed them to expand to the channels and reach the audiences they have reached and earn the billions they have earned over the decades since it came out. If Disney had to go OTA they would not have nearly the channels or audiences they have today. It is my understanding that cable was originally started by a few people in a mountainous region trying to get local OTA they couldn't get otherwise. That instantly gave those network a bigger audience to sell ads to and earn more from companies placing those ads. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW It's not really a similar comparison.
Now if UPS only shipped computers, and the customers buying the computers had to pay the shipping costs, then it might make sense. In this scenario, Dell could ask that UPS or Fedex pay them. After all, having customers pay UPS to ship Dell computers could be hugely profitable. UPS would simply raise their rates to cover the amount that would be lost to Dell.
It's a fundamental problem. The consumers that are ultimately paying for a product, are not directly connected to the supply and demand chain. We have very little tangible control over the cost of the product, like we do with many other goods that we purchase.
The entities involved would love to keep things this way, as we have seen that both the content providers along with the content distributors stand to make enormous profits from this type of model. We get the crumbs, while these two giants fight between themselves on how to divide the pie.
| |
|
| | | | | | | | said by openbox9:Retransmission consent of copyrighted content. Seems to be such a difficult concept around here.  | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW Useful retort as normal. Thanks for playing. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by openbox9:Useful retort as normal. Thanks for playing. Sorry, you're just not worth the effort. Being a broken record and all. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by digitalfreak:If you can put up an antenna and get a station via OTA, why should ANYONE have to pay for it? As long as the cable co's are paying for the means to get the signal from the station to their facility (fiber, etc.), they shouldn't have to pay the broadcaster / station a damn thing. This is basic, basic stuff and I'm surprised every time someone claims this. Please take the time to read or listen to the disclaimer and copyright notice that's included with every broadcast show. This prohibits you from retransmitting or rebroadcasting their shows without an express written agreement.
You are committing the fallacy of "if I have a copy, I own the copy and I can do anything I want with my copy". That is expressly not the case and is precisely why copyright law exists. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW Time Warner seems to be the one that pushes back the most. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 | TWC et al are amatuers at this compared to Dish Network.... | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by scooper:TWC et al are amatuers at this compared to Dish Network.... No, Dish Network just gives in so that they might have a reason to steal customers from DirecTV or a cable company. What better thing for Dish to be able to advertise on TV, "Subscribe to Dish Network, THE ONLY PLACE TO GET ALL FOX CHANNELS."
Every Sat and Cable company, and now Phone companies, must deal with these agreements whenever they are about to expire. Some go with the flow and take it, or work out an amicable agreement before anything comes out.
Fox is the one that made this public, TWC was not saying which broadcaster(s) were trying to get more money.
But when you used to be retransmitting a FOX affiliate for free, and then suddenly they want $1 PER SUBSCRIBER, that is a HUGE thing. Time Warner Cable has about 14 million subscribers, and they all get a FOX affiliate since that is on basic cable.
So that means $14 million a month extra to carry something that they had for free. So they either take the hit and pay $14 million per month, probably laying off workers or not doing upgrades, or they raise everyone's cable bill by $1. Everyone loves rate increases right? Especially after they already had their annual increase.
Who would not push back against this? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW Dish doesn't just "give in."
Charlie has dropped channels numerous times due to disputes over carriage fees. | |
|
| | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | A decade ago, when I lived in Cedar Park, TX, Cox cable was in a dispute with Fox that kept that channel off of cable for over a week.
I woke with a hangover on New Year's Day, 2000, all set to watch my Longhorns play in a bowl game at 11 AM. I discovered that Cox vs Fox was happening, and I had no football game available. Everything was closed, as it was a holiday, and I had to jury-rig an antenna out of some stereo speaker wire and a couple of coat hangers.
I was so pissed that I went to Radio Shack as soon as they were opened looking for a real TV antenna, but came away with a DirecTV satellite dish and installed it and canceled my service with Cox.
I am thankful that the cause was not Y2K related, as it was Jan. 1st, 2000  , but I am saddened that my 'Horns got destroyed by the Razorbacks in the Cotton Bowl that day.  | |
|
| |  maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| said by fifty nine:said by castsucks :
why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETWORKTV? FCC must carry/retransmission consent rules, that's why. Must Carry is now optional. Which is why they can get away with pulling their networks.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETW said by maartena:said by fifty nine:said by castsucks :
why does the cable co have to pay to HAVE OTA FOX and MYNETWORKTV? FCC must carry/retransmission consent rules, that's why. Must Carry is now optional. Which is why they can get away with pulling their networks. Exactly. But why do you call it "getting away?"
With the current rules, broadcasters can either:
Force carriage and forfeit their right to compensation for carriage.
OR
Not force carriage but instead negotiate with cable providers for carriage, whether it be for fee or not, just like every other network on cable does.
The former is special protection for smaller stations that would probably not get carried on cable if cable companies had the choice, and the latter puts broadcast networks on a level playing field with cable programmers. How is that "getting away" again? | |
|
samo300Premium
join:2009-03-28
Suwanee, GA | TWC and Fox TWC and Fox should stop the negotiations. Customer complaints and advertising rates will resolve the dispute. | |
|
| | No one saw this coming? All comments aside, more and more (legal) programming is getting streamed online. With broadband pretty much in every household, it's a no brainier. Especially with services like hulu, where the commercials are actually bearable.
I swear, who wants to pay to watch commercials? I sure don't and the commercials today are not what they used to be years ago. I really think you get more commercial than show, but then again I didn't time it...but it does seem like that.
And Time Warner is complaining that the companies want more money? Duh! Less and less people are watching cable tv and watching their shows streaming (or other less legal ways).
They did this to themselves, period. They want more and more money and don't want to embrace the current technology.
If Time Warner REALLY wanted to make some money, then bring the programming online and this way people outside of their market can sign up for programming...you see the hidden gold mine there? Don't have to worry about cabling to their houses, or maintaining the boxes...their ISP does all that. I guess that goes back to a "dumb pipe" theory.
But, no, these greedy cable CEOs still think they can make a killing by hiking rates and selling proprietary cable boxes. Hell, you could even see a proprietary cable box for your online service....but apparently no company sees the value in that.
Once a cable provider lets me stream my available channels on my phone, will be the day I pay for cable. And why not? It's yet another place you can put ads targeted towards mobile users, which equals $$$$.
Oh well, perhaps the cable TV industry is more complicated than I am aware of. What do I know, I am just an IT guy by day, programmer by night. | |
|
|
See 17 replies to this post |
|
| | The las vegas hotels / casinos will yet them take fox away The las vegas hotels / casinos will yet them take fox away as that WILL BE VERY BAD FOR the sports books and more. | |
|
| | | Re: The las vegas hotels / casinos will yet them take fox away Are people forgetting that you can pick up FOX with a pair of rabbit ear antennas. Really it's not that serious. | |
|
| | | | Re: The las vegas hotels / casinos will yet them take fox away said by flyingjoey:Are people forgetting that you can pick up FOX with a pair of rabbit ear antennas. Really it's not that serious. Are you forgetting that some of us live in fringe areas where there are NO OTA signals?
We have to rely on cable or satellite, there is no other choice. | |
|
| | maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·DIRECTV
| said by flyingjoey:Are people forgetting that you can pick up FOX with a pair of rabbit ear antennas. Really it's not that serious. Oh please tell me where you live that you can get Fox Sports and Prime Ticket over the air? All that the regional Fox affiliate broadcasts is maybe 1 or 2 football games per week in winter, and 1 or 2 baseball games in summer. Most of Angels Baseball is on Fox Sports.
Either way, shove em up Fox, i'll bet by the time baseball season starts, and probably a LOT sooner, they will have resolved this.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
| | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: The las vegas hotels / casinos will yet them take fox away said by maartena:said by flyingjoey:Are people forgetting that you can pick up FOX with a pair of rabbit ear antennas. Really it's not that serious. Oh please tell me where you live that you can get Fox Sports and Prime Ticket over the air? All that the regional Fox affiliate broadcasts is maybe 1 or 2 football games per week in winter, and 1 or 2 baseball games in summer. Most of Angels Baseball is on Fox Sports. Either way, shove em up Fox, i'll bet by the time baseball season starts, and probably a LOT sooner, they will have resolved this. Agreed but I think he is just talking about the articles going around the net that seem to be getting the most attention which is people not being able to pick up Fox for the BCS games....which can be gotten with Rabbit ears | |
|
| UnnDunnPremium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY | Hotels/casinos and sports books most likely have DirecTV because they'd need NFL Sunday Ticket. | |
|
| | the internets.. Porn, discovered a way to make money through subscription sites. Why can't ESPN, Discovery, viacom networks do a similar thing? I would love to ditch cable that I have (the most basic of packages), and pay subscriptions right to the stations I want, no cable company involved. I already watch what i want (thank you to the HULU/Netflix gods), when i want. | |
|
| | | Re: the internets.. said by why cant we :
Porn, discovered a way to make money through subscription sites. Why can't ESPN, Discovery, viacom networks do a similar thing? Because their prices would be rediculous. Offering a subscription model per-network online would most-likely cost you the same if not more than cable for just a couple of sites. You know the greedy SOBs are ganna want you to pay premium for even 1 channel. Personally, I would rather have a Hulu-like setup where there is no "live TV" element. Just post new episodes of shows so I could watch when and where I want and I would be happy. Don't need 24-hour service.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| ca tech
join:2009-12-30
San Pablo, CA | an expensive porno costs 30,000 grand to make? this doesn't cover the sound track budget of a big network show for one week.
also al carte programing is unpopular with broadcaster.... why sell 10 channels when you can sell 30 channels (read: of ad space) for a bundled rate.
i mean god forbid law and order was on just 1 channel.
--
[insert standard disclaimer here] | |
|
|
1 edit | The owners of Hulu have already indicated that it may become a pay service in one form or the other in the future. How exactly is anyone's guess (and I don't know either). | |
|
| | Retrans Fees Having gone thur these battles, I can tell you it is not fun, especially when you are a small operator like us. The thing that gets me is that the federal government give these broadcastors the airwaves to broadcast their signal. networks have to pay satilite fees so you could expect to pay for them. so with local channels the people are actually having to pay twice, once with the free airwaves they are giving away and once to there cable company. we happen to live on the very edge of our market, so rabbit ears would not be an option for people in our area. we have 61 channels of basic cable for $25, so we are not making money off of it. Just something for people to think about.
Jessie | |
|
| | | Re: Retrans Fees said by cable guy fl :
so with local channels the people are actually having to pay twice, once with the free airwaves they are giving away and once to there cable company. Personally, I think the broadcasters should be paying the cable cos to broadcast their stuff, but I know they certainly don't feel that way. Who's the one actually delivering the service? Cable Cos. Who makes most off advertising? Broadcast networks. Yet money flows uphill?
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| 56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Those airwaves are hardly free. OTA TV stations pay over 17 million dollars per year in regulatory fees for the privilege of being subject to licensing. Also, since the early 1990's broadcast licenses have been subject to auction just like wireless licenses.
I'm glad to hear your system is not gouging customers. You'll find that Comcast charges twice that for fewer "basic" channels. | |
|
| | You lose? Just tell them "screw you." So you loose Fox News, big loss there... and I don't watch football, don't care.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
 JSYPremium
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY | As usual! As usual, both sides are being "greedy". Fox trying to make as much money as possible and TWC using this ploy to make it seem like they're on "our side" with their polls and such. Please... if TWC was really that serious about being on our side - then they would go to their shareholders and explain to them that they need to adjust profit margins to make the subscribers happy. Fox is doing what other networks are going to do - they will all eventually charge for the OTA programming as well. Frankly the "us" vs. "them" in my eyes is us - the audience, against them - TWC + the programming providers. TWC isn't really on our side. | |
|
|
| | When do we get subscriber choice? Yet another argument in favor of unbundling cable services entirely. I'd be happy to give up every single Fox station - both those involved in this dispute and those not involved - with the sole exception of FX. I could easily come up with another 100 or so I never bother with from my TWC lineup of digital extended basic services. | |
|
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Midwest
·voip.ms
·MyPhoneCompany
| Re: When do we get subscriber choice? said by Grantb2:Yet another argument in favor of unbundling cable services entirely. Right on, man! What Time Warner is leaving out of the discussion is that they could unbundle and let those who want the higher-cost channels pay for them. Of course, TW would lose some of their markup too. They don't want to become just a dumb pipe.
What we have here is a rapidly changing business model. Guess what? The revised model will be less profitable. Especially if no one shows up to watch all the damned commercials.
Can anyone else smell the desperation?
--
USNG:
16TDN2870
Find your Lat-Long:
Geocoder | |
|
| | Cable Re-transmission Fees I am not a fan of Time Warner cable, but frankly, I don't get the business model where a content provider (networks like TNT, Fox, Discovery etc.) gets away with all their incessant commercials AND charge me a fee for the privilege (the cable and satellite companies don't eat these costs, they pass them on to us).
For all the providers and especially for local broadcast stations this makes no sense. Isn't it in their best interest to reach as many homes as possible so they can maximize their ad rates? No, they want a buck a head, whether anyone is watching or not. I think they only do it because they can. We shouldn't put up with it.
Would you pay an extra dollar a month for every radio station and TV station that you can pick up over the air? Of course not. For many content providers, Cable and satellite is the ONLY way to get their commercials to our household. I shouldn't have to pay for it on top of having to endure the long commercials. | |
|
| Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Cable Re-transmission Fees Why do you have to pay for a magazine that has ads in it?
Why do they run ads in a movie theater when you've paid for the movie?
Why, when you buy an expensive ticket to a pro sports event, are you bombarded with advertising during the event via signs and other marketing hoopla?
etc. etc. etc.
Obviously.... they are trying to maximize their revenue by any means possible without completely driving away the customer. | |
|
| | | How much do you think it costs to produce a TV show?
A popular show like 24 gets around 10 million viewers on average. If each person pays a buck per episode that's $10 million. That's not much to go around, and that's assuming that many people will pay for an episode when they've been getting it for free so long. | |
|
 ChucklesPremium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Rupert Murdoch Murdoch will hold out and get his money from the cable companies and then all the other networks will scream they want more money too!
Either the cable company pays more for Fox and increases their rates or they drop Fox. Hopefully the cable company puts Rupert's contact information on their phone tree...
--
"You misunderstand the function of commercial television. Your eyeballs are the product that is for sale; the advertisers are the customers. The paying customers are pissed off with the amount of time wasted in showing you useless movies." -dave | |
|
| | drop the fox drop the fox and let subscribers torrent.. ie no throttling bittorrenet-- problem solved... imperfect soution.. but then again.. isn't it a "BUYER'S MARKET" in a recession?
just like meats, fruits & vegetables.. once they get rotten, they ain't worth manure prices... once the masses of fox viewers get a taste of torrenting & see how much better it is than the commercial laden programming.. they won't want to PAY for it at any price.. so, imo... fox (the seller) has the most to lose.. though this argument (by extension) will come back to bite twc & the other big companies in the a** when its cable network exclusive programming that's under the sell/buy negotiations of the future... | |
|
|
| | | Re: These companies forgot their roots. It's amazing how often symbiotic relationships turn parasitic. | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| I Don't Care Who It Is I don't care if it is the cable company fighting the content provider or vice versa. At least they are doing something. I wish some cable companies would stand up to Disney and their overpriced ESPN services. $4 per subscriber for a channel many many people could care less about?!?! Granted neither party to this fiasco is innocent but at least they are fighting each other now. I just wonder who is going to blink. The assumption is that TWC will give in at about $.50 per sub and then pass that on to the infinitely deep pockets of their subscribers. Unfortunately you will never convince a majority of the population to give up on subscription TV.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | | Re: I Don't Care Who It Is said by n2jtx:I don't care if it is the cable company fighting the content provider or vice versa. At least they are doing something. I wish some cable companies would stand up to Disney and their overpriced ESPN services. $4 per subscriber for a channel many many people could care less about?!?! Granted neither party to this fiasco is innocent but at least they are fighting each other now. I just wonder who is going to blink. The assumption is that TWC will give in at about $.50 per sub and then pass that on to the infinitely deep pockets of their subscribers. Unfortunately you will never convince a majority of the population to give up on subscription TV. You think $4 per subscriber is bad?
ESPN wants $4+ per room for hotels and forces them to have epsn sd in each room to get epsn HD as well. | |
|
| | No gun to your head You can get free television with an antenna. You want the extra programming, you have to pay for it. | |
|
| |
| |
 QuiglagGod is LovePremium
join:2004-09-19
Ontario, CA | Verizon is the winner Verizon is going to be the real winner in areas where they overlap with Time Warner.
I am glad I switched over to Verizon from TW. I would be pretty upset if I missed my hockey games or the new season of 24.
--
My Website & Gallery - Tool Reviews | |
|
| | No more TV After the first of the year im dropping Cable TV. That $100 im spending would be put to much better use buying and or renting movies and TV shows. Who cares if I dont get to see some of them untill released on DVD. I have plenty in my collection now. If this is what its going to be like its just not worth it. Besides Im a gamer and most of my TV time has been filled with thinking, strategizing, and reacting. No need to just sit there like a vegetable. Screw you Time Warner Im Outta Here! | |
|
| | price increase flyer for central new york time warner just got a flyer about new price increases.....funny they were just asking me last week to get tough about price increases | |
|
|
|
·
These companies forgot their roots.
Re: No gun to your head