 | | Open Mind If they were keeping an open mind about weather it makes "sense" or not they'd leave it there and let their customers decide after the new network takes place.
TWC just doesn't want open and outside opinions on the news. | |
|
 | | | Re: Open Mind Their customers have already spoken with their viewing habits. Current TV has the lowest ratings of any news channel. If that changes with the new owners (but with Al Gore still on the board or directors) they can always add the channel. | |
|
| | | | Re: Open Mind How exactly does a network increase its ratings when no one can view it? | |
|
| | | | | Re: Open Mind Well they could start the same way a lot of new networks do: Pay per subscriber rather than bill per subscriber. Once they get market penetration, then they can start billing per subscriber. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Open Mind Al Jazeera English already offers carriage of their signal for free. Current TV did charge a meager sum of money for carriage but that will probably change now that Al Jazeera has purchased them.
It's quite unreasonable to expect a network to have to pay for carriage when they aren't selling anything like QVC and HSN. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Open Mind Why is that unreasonable? Many networks did that, the list would include SciFi, Fox News, Cartoon Network, and many others.
They can fund it with advertising, just like everybody else. | |
|
| |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by Automate:Their customers have already spoken with their viewing habits. Current TV has the lowest ratings of any news channel. If that changes with the new owners (but with Al Gore still on the board or directors) they can always add the channel. Typical BS argument. Current had excellent documentaries, they just lacked the funding to go to HD and TWC just want to extort some money from AJ, not to mention Current's anti-corporate-fascist stance which files right in the face of the interests of these scumbag corps like TWC.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
 ·Cox HSI
| Or it could just be that TWC doesn't want to pay for a channel that it thinks nobody will watch. I remember this same kerfuffle happening over G4TV and ABC Family, namely different cable providers didn't want to pay the per-subscriber rate for channels that none of their subscribers actually watch.
Only difference here is that due to the nature of the content, they're by default saying it's political when it very well may not be. | |
|
| | | | Re: Open Mind Al Jazeera English offers carriage of their signal for free. This is why Burlington Telecom carries them.
I have no doubt that they will be extending that to policy to Al Jazeera America as well.
This is a bullshit excuse. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
| Re: Open Mind Carrying a signal is never free. Even within a cable system, there are still bandwidth limitations. For example, they could free up that spectrum to make way for higher speed internet connections.
Given how TWC is now forced to compete with google fiber, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the reason they dropped that channel.
For this reason, a lot of new TV networks will actually pay the cable carrier to carry their network in order to penetrate the market. Once they gain the viewers, they can go on either paying nothing or charging.
If you really want to watch al jazeera, you can always subscribe to satellite, they don't really have much in the way of bandwidth contention issues, and I'm sure they'll carry that channel since it is just replacing an existing one. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Open Mind Oh please. Carrying a 480i SDTV channel accounts for basically zero bandwidth use on a digital cable system. Time Warner could drop a single analog channel off their system and free up space for a dozen digital SD channels.
Time Warner will carry crap like the "Gospel Music Channel" but they won't carry an important world news broadcaster.
Capacity is a lame excuse when we aren't even talking about a HD channel here.
I'm sure reclaiming that 7% of a single QAM256 channel and the 3 Mbps of bandwidth Current TV uses will free up enough capacity to compete with Google's 1 Gbps fiber product. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
| Re: Open Mind Well let's apply occham's razor for a second here. What's the more likely scenario:
1) TWC, which is practically run by Ted Turner (a very outspoken liberal who used to own Turner cable before it merged with TW) is in a conspiracy to censor free speech.
2) This is part of a long term goal of TWC to make more spectrum available for other uses.
Aside from that, I think if it wasn't a big deal to keep the channel, they'd prefer to do so over taking in bad PR. Again, I think it is more likely they want more spectrum.
Is freeing up spectrum the real reason? I have no idea, but I think saying that they're trying to stifle speech is rather hastily jumping to conclusions. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·MegaPath
| Re: Open Mind Why is it jumping to conclusions? They could have dropped the channel long ago, or better yet never offered it to start off with. And if they're going to "consider" their options in the future after dropping it, you can bet it won't be back. And the spectrum cry is BS. If TWC cared about the spectrum use on their networks as a whole, they'd be moving over to SDV completely or some other way to compete. Heck, they could deploy IPTV or even FTTH with some mid-sized changes to the network as a whole, but won't even do that. Instead their focused on their "Signature Home" and "1hour install windows" that others have been doing well before them. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
| Re: Open Mind That particular channel was once LINK, World News, then Current, and now apparently Al Jazeera. It looks to me like this channel hasn't ever had much viewership, and is just kind of the turd that keeps getting kicked around. Why bother keeping it if that trend doesn't look to change any time soon? I mean ask yourself, how many people do you know that will actually regularly tune in to Al Jazeera?
I think TWC probably asked themselves the same question, and are acting accordingly.
As for IPTV and FTTH, that would take a long time and a lot of money to do. Not only are you looking at deploying new cable, but also completely field replacing CPE and throwing out standby CPE. Also if I'm not mistaken, TWC already does SDV.
And while people like you and I really want FTTH, most people don't even know what the hell that is. They'd be spending a ton of money to change to a technology that might never pay for itself.
Mind you I'm not defending TWC, they're one of those asshole companies that sticks the CCI flag on all channels. Personally I hope google kills them. However I don't think there's somebody sitting behind a desk somewhere plotting their next evil deed with their pinky pointed at their mouth. Things like the CCI flag and AJ being pulled off are more likely the result of bureaucracy. | |
|
| | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Open Mind said by Rakeesh:That particular channel was once LINK, World News, then Current, and now apparently Al Jazeera. It looks to me like this channel hasn't ever had much viewership, and is just kind of the turd that keeps getting kicked around. Why bother keeping it if that trend doesn't look to change any time soon? I mean ask yourself, how many people do you know that will actually regularly tune in to Al Jazeera?
Sorry but this argument makes very little sense... you are saying that since the channel keeps changing it's content it has no viewership so TW should change its content?
The change from Current to Al Jazeera IS a change of content, regardless of who does it. If TW dropping the channel were not politically motivated, they would simply go with the change and make a decision based on its ratings. The people arguing that the station gets no ratings are leaving out the fact that there is almost no one that carries it. How exactly can a channel have ratings when it is unavailable? There is no doubt the channel would have higher ratings than some of the crap TW is keeping.
The change is political. Your Illuminati comment not withstanding, American media is not willing to let alternate ideas into the American mainstream where they can help it. They want to preserve the status quo where they are in control of what the majority of Americans see and think about. It is very similar to the virtual blackout of 3rd party presidential candidates and I won't be a bit surprised if other outlets also drop them. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| It wouldn't take much money to deply FTTH on a cable network. They can easily do so with as much fiber as they have in the field. They need to replace the last what 900 feet to the customers maybe a little more? And instead of replacing the lines, they can use the same ones and pull the coax out and run the fiber right inside, the same as Buckeye Cable was trying with Owns Corning cable. And if smaller companies are deploying FTTH TWC has no reason why they can not. And may not pay for itself? How about, not having to do tech visits to install service? Ship the STB and be done with it, they could activate the entire house and the ONT remotely, Service calls would be down to basically nothing, You wouldn't have to worry about Joe Blow down the street stealing cable and screwing up the entire plant in that area. More HD, More Internet, real time video to the home using STBs and the new Skype/Asus phones that are coming out. TWC could do it, they just flat out don't want to.
And Google won't kill them. 1 Market of TWC's is nothing for them when they have countless other towns and in some areas entire states of service. And Google won't be expanding anytime soon, if at any. | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by Rakeesh:Well let's apply occham's razor for a second here. What's the more likely scenario:
1) TWC, which is practically run by Ted Turner (a very outspoken liberal who used to own Turner cable before it merged with TW) is in a conspiracy to censor free speech.
Time Warner, Inc. and Time Warner Cable are two entirely separate companies. Ted Turner has nothing to do with Time Warner Cable.
Glenn Britt is the CEO of Time Warner Cable and appears to be pretty clearly a Republican. Glenn Britt donated $2,000 each to the Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees, as well as $2,500 to Mitch McConnell's 2014 re-election committee.
Examining Britt's donations reveals that he is an unprincipled slimeball willing to donate to Democrats as well to get what he wants but he sends the bulk of his money to Republicans.
Time Warner also uses Switched Digital Video meaning they essentially have unlimited capacity as far as digital cable goes. This is why they carry more HD channels than any other cable company in the nation. | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
| Re: Open Mind /facepalm
Ok, you win, I'm sure that TWC is involved in a global conspiracy to silence al jazeera. I'm sure that the illuminati and the new world order are ultimately behind it, and TWC is just one of their pawns.
Happy now?
Tune in later, maybe they'll do some more faked moonlanding shots, and the CEO is probably the marksman who was waiting in the grassy knoll. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Open Mind Ah yes, when defeated with the facts, try some massive hyperbole? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 | Re: Open Mind Pointing out that Time Warner Cable has nothing to do with liberal Ted Turner (as Rakeesh claimed) but instead with republican Glenn Britt is 'black helicopter conspiracy'?!? | |
|
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| So are 30-40% of all Americans, depending on the poll, so what's your point? The political views of the CEO dictated this decision? Why don't they drop MSNBC then? Could it be that MSNBC actually has viewers? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Open Mind Read his post history, earlier he accused me of racism for simply disagreeing with him. He strikes me as being one of those morons who picket outside of wal-mart because they had a sale on dorito's for 99 cents while wearing a guy fawkes mask. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Based just on the number of viewers MSNBC would probably be dropped too, but it's probably bundled with other NBC Universal (Comcast) channels so TWC won't drop it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Dropping MSNBC would be like dropping Fox News.
Both are far extreme political views
Both are owned and bundled by much larger corporations (MS+NBC Universal/Comcast) and Fox Broadcasting Company. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | said by Rakeesh:Well let's apply occham's razor for a second here. What's the more likely scenario:
1) TWC, which is practically run by Ted Turner (a very outspoken liberal who used to own Turner cable before it merged with TW) is in a conspiracy to censor free speech.
Your "information" is 7 years old. Turner has nothing to do with TW or TWC. Next! | |
|
| | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | said by MURICA:Oh please. Carrying a 480i SDTV channel accounts for basically zero bandwidth use on a digital cable system. Time Warner could drop a single analog channel off their system and free up space for a dozen digital SD channels.
Time Warner will carry crap like the "Gospel Music Channel" but they won't carry an important world news broadcaster.
Capacity is a lame excuse when we aren't even talking about a HD channel here.
I'm sure reclaiming that 7% of a single QAM256 channel and the 3 Mbps of bandwidth Current TV uses will free up enough capacity to compete with Google's 1 Gbps fiber product.
I suspect more people watch "crap like" GMC than Current.
This isn't about about AJ-E. Its about Current.
AJ's purchase signals an influx of cash into the failed enterprise - an opportunity for TWC to renegotiate. Its all about money, not editorial bias.
Myself, I find AJ-E has more "news" than CNN, and ironically, with less anti-American bias. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| Google Fiber? LoL. They only compete with GF in 1 actual market. KC,KS/MO. That is the same divsion and NOT the entire company. TWC as a whole doesn't dictate how that area is run as far as Internet goes. That is why speeds and pricing are always different.
If they were going to carry the channel later, why take it off now??? It shows that TWC has no plans on ever bringing the channel back later. | |
|
| | |  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | The MSO isn't a charity. It doesn't matter if it is free, the MSO has to be able to generate revenues from carriage and they can get more of those revenues with a channel that gets ratings. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·MegaPath
| Re: Open Mind revenue from carriage? if the channel is FREE for them, they don't need to generate anything since they're not paying for the content that it has. Plus TWC is FREE to run their own ads over the channels they do broadcast on their system. So yes they'd be making money on that even if the channel is FREE to them. | |
|
| | | What a joke! The "Open Mind" didn't last even a day! | |
|
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
 ·Dish Network
| Screw that I have no problems with TW denying an anti-American pro-terrorist organization on its system. I wish more US firms were like that.
--
How nice. This country is being run by a broken record repeating the same two words over and over. Cretin. | |
|
|
See 64 replies to this post |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | I say... Good for them if it was.. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Political arguments like this are hilarious We have some posters here telling Democrats to stop crying about this and how it IS NOT POLITICAL BUT MAKES SENSE
Nevermind that these same posters are found on several forums on this site crying about every topic known to man and how the issues have to do politicals and how everyone is against them and bias, etc...The hypocrisy and stupidity is astounding.
It's like when Republicans tell Democrats to STOP BRINGING UP RACE yet I can't seem to go an hour without seeing either racial slurs, stories, or conspiracies with Democrats. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
| Re: Political arguments like this are hilarious Both sides are guilty of every single thing that each side says the other is guilty of.
The left vs right game is a big ball of shit that just leads people to vote for their team as if it is a football game, and it should really die IMO. I get called a conservative all the time when I express views that are traditionally considered libertarian, namely because the guy giving me that label wants to demonize me just because I don't share his view on that particular subject.
This kind of thing is really stupid and it needs to stop. I don't even vote anymore because the whole thing is just out of control. I've seen too many times where somebody votes for a given candidate just because their friends are voting for them, or because (and I shit you not, this is what a voter told me) they are voting for Obama because they like seeing a black man in office.
The issues aren't even important anymore, all that is important is image. I don't want to participate in an election that is just one big joke. | |
|
| | | You are the first one to bring up race in this news item. | |
|
| | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: Political arguments like this are hilarious I am bringing up the hypocrisy of race arguments....not that anything in this article has to do with race.
Did that point really fly over your head? | |
|
| | The question is... Does Al Jazeera have "anti-American" views or does Al Jazeera simply report the views in their "coverage area", which happen to be "anti-American" (or not). I have plenty of complaints about things going on in this country, so why should I expect those outside the U.S. not to say anything about what the U.S. does in other countries? (I don't watch TV news at all.)
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | Corporate media doesn't want people watching Al J. Corporate media doesn't want people watching Al J.
You learn more about what's going on in the world in 10 minutes of Al Jazeera than any of the American infotainment channels (including Current) broadcast in a year.
But that would be bad for business, you see. If the American viewing audience could watch a commercial free news network with actual news and people watched that, who would the infotainment networks sell pharmaceuticals to?
To those of you who think Al Jazeera is a terrorist sympathizer, you don't know what you're talking about and have obviously never watched the network. That was a rumor spread by Fox news over 10 years ago. | |
|
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·CenturyLink
| Re: Corporate media doesn't want people watching Al J. said by MaXx :To those of you who think Al Jazeera is a terrorist sympathizer, you don't know what you're talking about and have obviously never watched the network. That was a rumor spread by Fox news over 10 years ago.
Oh really well there are some of us who do know what we are talking about.
»frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spe···rent-tv/
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
| | |
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Time Warner I am a Time Warner customer in NYC. I want Al Jazeera broadcast here mainly for a different perspective on World News. It's more comprehensive than what every American owned company offers. I wrote Time Warner to complain. I'm even thinking of canceling my service.
This was clearly political and racist. It is also censorship. How many of the posters here are Time Warner customers? There are a lot of Muslim taxpaying, hardworking American citizens that live in the Time Warner, New York footprint.
Time Warner Cable is a racist Corporation. Politically motivated. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Time Warner It's unfair to call TWC racist and the politics have more to do with the content cartel than anything else. Most U.S. channels are owned by the content cartel. As an American liberal Al Gore got a pass that Al Jazeerza may not get. | |
|
| |
 THZNDUPDeorum Offensa Diis CuraePremium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2 | It's only business........ Doesn't Current TV being available to 59 million homes a month and yet only be watched by an average of 22,000 of them strike anyone as not a real good percentage?
If TW was being charged the $0.12/mo for their 12,000,000 subs, that rolls out to $1.4 million/mo.
For an average of 4400 of their subscribers to watch.........
At $318.18 each..............
How about it just goes ala carte.........
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | Al-Jazeera employees resign Al-Jazeera employees resign over the channel’s biased coverage
"Many employees at Al-Jazeera news channel are resigning over the Qatari-based news network's biased coverage of events taking place in the Middle East."
"Al-Jazeera is...accused of blowing the opposition movement in Syria out of proportion and covering up the truth in the country."
"It is also accused of fabricating whole stories about Libya and Syria and even staging its own footage at undisclosed locations. Al-Jazeera is also said to be forcing editors to give the stories a twist to benefit the state of Qatar's political views."
"It is widely believed that the Emir of Qatar has a direct influence on the nature of programs broadcaste in Al-Jazeera."
"Many employees at bureaus across the world including Lebanon have left their jobs over Al-Jazeera's biased stance against the Syrian government and in favor of the Bahraini regime. The latest person to quit was a key managing director." | |
|
|  japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Re: Al-Jazeera employees resign Umm, you are quoting Iran's PressTV. That's like asking Apple for an opinion statement on Samsung phones. | |
|
| | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Al-Jazeera employees resign BWAHAHA, great analogy! 
No sane person would buy into any Iranian propaganda - they are afraid, very afraid of AJ's open news about the anti-authoritarian changes across the Middle-East hence their pro-Assad stance and hatred toward any free flow of information.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | Re: Al-Jazeera employees resign Al Jazeera plays the piper, but Qatar calls the tune
"The long-time Berlin correspondent for Al Jazeera, Aktham Suliman, recently resigned from his post. The journalist tells DW [Deutsche Welle] that the Qatari government is exercising undue influence on Al Jazeera's reporting."
"In Syria, too, society is divided. You have the pro-Assad people, and those who are against him. However, when you make one side out to be mass murderers and turn the others into saints you're fueling the conflict, not presenting the situation in an appropriate and balanced way. There are murders, injustices and good things on both sides. But you don't see that on Al Jazeera. My problem is and was: When I see Al Jazeera's Syrian coverage, I don't really understand what's going on there. And that's the first thing I expect from journalism."
"Other countries like Jordan and Bahrain are experiencing similar phenomena - rebellion and protest against their ruling classes. But there's far less reporting on them. You'll notice how that corresponds to the state of Qatar's foreign policy."
"What's your take on German reporting on the Gulf states?"
"Catastrophic, scandalous, unforgivable. Of course, German and Western politicians are required to defend the interests of their countries. But why do journalists do that? It's extremely rare that German media report critically about Saudi Arabia or Qatar. There's seldom any reference to the fact that in Saudi Arabia you need a filming permit even if you're filming on the street, nor is there much discussion about the human rights situation in these countries." | |
|
 60632649Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY | More subscribers I think if Time Warner just admitted that islamic propaganda isn't going to go down well in New York, and it's a New York company then they might get a few extra subscribers. They're certainly sucking up to people enough, there's no commercial break on cable now without a Time Warner commercial. It's certainly no Manhattan Cable TV.
Seriously I don't care about hearing about how they're gonna try to blow me up... try me... I'm from NY, we don't die easy. | |
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | quote:
Time Warner Cable Insists Al Jazeera Snub Not Political
Which we know is BS!! | |
|
| | | Re: People can judge for THEMSELVES and watch it for free online.
That annoys the opposition more than anything.
»www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/ | |
|
| Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | Thank you.... I think its quite apparent! | |
|
|
|
