If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Time Warner CEO offers a deal to get CBS back to the 11.9 million subscribers. Both sides still waiting to see when customers actually notice the channel is gone   (reuters.com) divider line 140
    More: Unlikely, CEO, CBS, Time Warner Cable, media market, Craig Moffett, Verizon FiOS, subscribers, RBC Capital Markets  
•       •       •

2980 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2013 at 8:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-06 03:13:36 PM  
Who the fark watches TV? My dad doesn't even have a TV.
 
2013-08-06 03:20:21 PM  

Fireproof: Some lemme get this straight: CBS wants to double the price they receive for their content.

TWC says "Fark no, we'd have to raise rates."

CBS: "Fine, we'll just pull our content from you, then!"


Why would I feel the slightest bit sympathetic for CBS in this case?


I don't.  I live in one of the six markets where the CBS-owned channels went dark.  There are four people living in the house.  Only one found himself bothered and that was remedied with an OTA signal antenna attached to the TV in his room.

Now, if TWC lost Cartoon Network and Boomerang, the cat would scream bloody murder.  Yes, I have a feline that likes watching cartoons.
 
2013-08-06 03:22:05 PM  
fark CBS. They don't have anything I can't live without.

You know how big of an asshole you have to be to make people take the cable company's side?
 
2013-08-06 03:22:56 PM  
Also, I have one of those stupid antenna thingies (in addition to cable). I can watch CBS if I want.
 
2013-08-06 03:40:45 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: fark CBS. They don't have anything I can't live without.

You know how big of an asshole you have to be to make people take the cable company's side?


F*ck them both.  I'm on my side.  I only want CBS for football and golf.  So, I got NFL Sunday Ticket for 50 bucks bundled with Madden 25th Anniversary NFL. Problem solved. The golf I can do without, but I have a digital box for an antenna, so meh.
 
2013-08-06 04:34:27 PM  
I used to work for the second highest rated cable company. We got bought by TWC. The difference is like night & day.

TWC doesn't care about employees or customers. I work on the business side of things. They have no problem telling customers with $10,000 contracts to fark off, or wait for months for service.

This is the 4th blackout of a channel we've had and every time we've received email talking about the other guys' 'outrageous' or 'ridiculous' demands. Every time. Even the TV message when you turn to Showtime uses the word outrageous.

I read the annual report we were mailed. 5 things were voted on at the shareholders meeting. 4 concerned executive pay and the fifth was to allow more money to be allocated to government lobbyists. 

Glenn Britt was paid $15 million in 2011. He did so well that the $6.25 million bonus portion was upped to $6.44 million. He got a $1 million raise in 2012. 
I haven't been able to find a single person that got a 6.6% raise in the past 2 years.

/I miss Insight
 
2013-08-06 04:39:13 PM  

DreamSnipers: FTA "Letting customers cherry pick the channels they want could cut revenue of media companies. Needham & Co estimated in July that the cable industry including media content providers could lose 50 percent of its revenue, about $70 billion, if the a la carte was widely adopted."

And it is important that the cable companies continue to extort $70 billion from the public.


Fireproof: Some lemme get this straight: CBS wants to double the price they receive for their content.

TWC says "Fark no, we'd have to raise rates."

CBS: "Fine, we'll just pull our content from you, then!"

Why would I feel the slightest bit sympathetic for CBS in this case?


There are no 'good guys' in this fight. It's two multi-billion dollar corporations fighting over money while agreeing the public doesn't have a right to choose cheaper alternatives to get programming.
 
2013-08-06 04:52:59 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Smelly Pirate Hooker: fark CBS. They don't have anything I can't live without.

You know how big of an asshole you have to be to make people take the cable company's side?

F*ck them both.  I'm on my side.  I only want CBS for football and golf.  So, I got NFL Sunday Ticket for 50 bucks bundled with Madden 25th Anniversary NFL. Problem solved. The golf I can do without, but I have a digital box for an antenna, so meh.


Sure, but I'm just sayin', if I gotta choose a side, I will side (grudgingly) with TWC. Only because CBS (and all the other "content providers") believe their product is worth more every year, despite evidence to the contrary. Minus sports, I don't think their argument is persuasive. And it's kind of interesting and amusing to see one of the cable companies (kind of) putting up a fight. Usually they just cave. I'm not sure I believe they care about keeping costs low (because of my $80 a month basic cable bill), but whatever.

I don't give any farks at all about sports. So if they want to drag this shiat out, fine by me.

I will agree that all networks and cable companies are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.
 
2013-08-06 04:58:04 PM  

Girion47: That's funny, I have Time Warner Cable internet and I still am able to get all of the CBS shows I care to watch.


Indeed. CBS, a network full of old people, still doesn't seem to understand the concept that they should make ISPs as happy as possible if they wish to stay afloat in the digital age.
 
2013-08-06 05:17:20 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'm not sure I believe they care about keeping costs low (because of my $80 a month basic cable bill), but whatever.

I will agree that all networks and cable companies are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling.


Bastards, the lot of them, sure.  But, the cable companies are limited. They're finding that they're really bumping into the 'f you' price ceiling where a lot of crap-paid proles will drop.  $1000 a year is a bloody lot to a lot of people.  The "people won't cut the cord" from the cable companies is starting to sound like Baghdad Bob.

CBS doesn't care (directly) about that problem. Eventually, fewer cable subscribers would mean lower retrans fees (even at higher rates per sub), but it's a removed effect.

The cable companies will survive, financially, as 'dumb-pipe' internet service providers.  Which is exactly what they will be in 15 years.  Revenues (and share price) will be down, but they will survive and be profitable on that business alone.  The telcos are so inept that they don't really have competition outside the region that already has FIOS. That's what gives them the power to stare down the content companies.

Who is going to be bankrolling dumb sitcoms and reality shows in 15 years?  This... this I don't know.  Which gives me a little optimism that they might just die.
 
2013-08-06 05:21:05 PM  

DubtodaIll: realmolo: Kids growing up these days don't care about TV. They watch YouTube, and probably Netflix.

15 years from now, when the young children of today have their own homes, they won't be paying for cable TV. They won't care. And that's when things will get crazy.

I'm not paying for cable now, I've just got internet + netflix and that provides plenty of entertainment for a much lower cost than cable.


You do realize that is only because of the current model.  Many of the shows you like would never have been produced if those specific stations did not automatically receive funding per subscriber.

That said:  I pretty much only watch football myself.  My TV (For the purposes of cable) has not even been turned on since the last superbowl.  I see no reason to watch the broadcasts of the small handful of shows I like and be forced to view the crappy commercials.  I would much rather watch commercial free versions.
 
2013-08-06 05:32:55 PM  

bionicjoe: I used to work for the second highest rated cable company. We got bought by TWC. The difference is like night & day.

TWC doesn't care about employees or customers. I work on the business side of things. They have no problem telling customers with $10,000 contracts to fark off, or wait for months for service.

This is the 4th blackout of a channel we've had and every time we've received email talking about the other guys' 'outrageous' or 'ridiculous' demands. Every time. Even the TV message when you turn to Showtime uses the word outrageous.

I read the annual report we were mailed. 5 things were voted on at the shareholders meeting. 4 concerned executive pay and the fifth was to allow more money to be allocated to government lobbyists. 

Glenn Britt was paid $15 million in 2011. He did so well that the $6.25 million bonus portion was upped to $6.44 million. He got a $1 million raise in 2012. 
I haven't been able to find a single person that got a 6.6% raise in the past 2 years.

/I miss Insight


I worked at Insight as a TSR back in 06-07.   Hated that job.
 
2013-08-06 05:36:50 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'm not sure I believe they care about keeping costs low (because of my $80 a month basic cable bill), but whatever.


They don't. Couldn't care less. The only thing they care about is that every time they raise the price, the more people cut the cord.

Comcast has lost over 275,000 customers in 4 months.

Time Warner Cable (TWC) has lost over 119,000 customers in 4 months.

Overall, "Big Cable" has shed over half a million customers in 4 short months (3rd quarter).

Rising carriage fees (which in turn fuels rising cable bills) is the main culprit.

That's why I think A-la-Carte is going to be a reality, soon. There's only so much money they can bleed from Internet customers (which they've already been raising the price of year-over-year), as there's too much competition out there (whereas cable providers pretty much have a monopoly in their respective markets).

Shareholders are going to demand action. and they're going to have to change their business model if they want to stay in business.
 
2013-08-06 05:45:35 PM  

Kazrath: I'm not paying for cable now, I've just got internet + netflix and that provides plenty of entertainment for a much lower cost than cable.

You do realize that is only because of the current model.  Many of the shows you like would never have been produced if those specific stations did not automatically receive funding per subscriber.


However, if you're just looking for entertainment, millions and millions of hours of TV and movies  have already been produced (sunk costs).  Much of it unwatchably dated, naturally, but most of it hasn't gone anywhere.  More than anyone could ever watch in a lifetime.

Same is true of music.  In the '50s, there was only 20-some years of acceptably-recorded history to compete with.  Now, there's 80-some years.  Lots of dross, but you're still competing for eardrums with the very best of 1960, 1989, and every other year.

Also, like music, there's nothing magic about making low-budget entertainment any more.  Anyone with $500 to spend on a PC can make a YouTube series or a garage album, just because they want to, and just because they want people to see/hear it.

Of course, people still buy new novels and there are a million old novels.  Not saying there won't be some market for new programming, but it's not going to be like it's been.
 
2013-08-06 06:32:36 PM  

Fireproof: Some lemme get this straight: CBS wants to double the price they receive for their content.

TWC says "Fark no, we'd have to raise rates."

CBS: "Fine, we'll just pull our content from you, then!"


Why would I feel the slightest bit sympathetic for CBS in this case?


I have been a TWC customer for 15 years, both cable and Internet.  During that time, they have taken away at least seven channels (ESPN Classic, tru tv, cmt, bbc america, fuse, oxygen, and lifetime movie), my access to use groups, and started charging me a monthly fee for my cable modem (which they are raising by another $2 next month).  They have raised my bill every year.

Given that, what makes you think TWC would object to raising their rates?  Other than the fact somebody else gets my money and not them, of course.
 
2013-08-06 06:33:55 PM  

Kazrath: You do realize that is only because of the current model.  Many of the shows you like would never have been produced if those specific stations did not automatically receive funding per subscriber.


I dunno, they seemed to do pretty well prior to 1992, when the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act went into effect and started allowing the networks to charge for retransmission. Some might even argue that some of the best shows came from the 80s.

Even if that's not the case though, there are plenty of content MAKERS out there that sell their shows.  If CBS hadn't picked up Under the Dome, I bet SyFy would have been more than happy to do so.

(Under the Dome is owned and produced by Amblin Entertainment - CBS only distributes it. Granted, they pay Amblin for that privilege).

Even Netflix has made what, 3 original series so far? House of Cards, Hemlock Grove, and one other I can't remember the name of right now. And they don't even have commercials, so the ONLY money they make is from subscriptions (and Billions of that goes to content providers already).

Content isn't really the problem.

Eventually they'll either price themselves out of the market, or find another business model.  Either that or eventually they'll wind up with 1 cable customer who keeps forgetting to cancel every month, and his bill will be about $12 Billion a month. :)
 
2013-08-06 06:46:59 PM  

EWreckedSean: I missed Dexter not being on...


I saw it.
 
2013-08-06 06:56:42 PM  
Southern100:
Even Netflix has made what, 3 original series so far? House of Cards, Hemlock Grove, and one other I can't remember the name of right now. And they don't even have commercials, so the ONLY money they make is from subscriptions (and Billions of that goes to content providers already).


House of Cards, Hemlock Grove, Orange is the New Black, and Arrested Development.
 
2013-08-06 06:59:44 PM  

Southern100: I dunno, they seemed to do pretty well prior to 1992, when the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act went into effect and started allowing the networks to charge for retransmission. Some might even argue that some of the best shows came from the 80s.


Sure.  The advertiser model worked. Which it doesn't any more.  In 1992, roughly 40% of the nation still watched only antenna TV (I had to double-check that... I was in a small remote town where it seemed everyone had cable... but that's the number I found). Even with the early Simpsons, Fox was still joked about as an also-ran (their first big sports deal was in '93). Your classic 35-channel analog cable system, minus locals/religious/local-access/home-shopping/Weather/C-SPAN/etc, left only 15-18 slots for the big programmers and superstations.  Oh... and no internet diverting attention.  A lot of people watched a whole lot of TV and a whole lot of that was on the big three.  Which meant big ad revenue. Which meant programming.

Ad rates aren't even good enough to produce reality-TV-rate schlock any more (and keep the executives swimming in coke and the stockholders happy), let alone quality.
 
2013-08-06 07:26:50 PM  

Girion47: That's funny, I have Time Warner Cable internet and I still am able to get all of the CBS shows I care to watch.


As I understand it, the CBS block is only in a few TWC markets (where there are CBS stations that are owned-and-operated by CBS Networks, not in markets where there are CBS stations owned and operated by other broadcast companies); basically, if you are in a TWC market where the CBS station isn't owned and operated by CBS Networks, this drama does not apply to you :D

(As an aside--pretty much none of the Former Insight Markets Recently Borged By TWC would need to worry here, because none of our CBS affiliates are owned by CBS Networks--they're all owned by other companies (often Belo in ex-Insight territory).  Hence, we can still get streaming CBS shows--which are being blocked in those CBS markets that ARE owned-and-operated by CBS, but not in CBS markets that are owned by the likes of Belo et al.)
 
2013-08-06 07:43:34 PM  

alkhemy: San Gabriel mountains,



You can't find local news station that streams on the web?  Did you even try?

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/live
 
2013-08-06 07:44:55 PM  

Lawnchair: Ad rates aren't even good enough to produce reality-TV-rate schlock any more (and keep the executives swimming in coke and the stockholders happy), let alone quality.


SyFy seems to do ok, and as of 2009 it was estimated they only charged cable companies around 21¢ per subscriber.

In fact, here's the whole chart (from 2009), taken from this site: http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason - why/ and put together by SNL Kagan (an in-depth analysis and proprietary data on the constantly-evolving media and communications business):

i0.wp.com
Again, these #s are from 2009, so quite a few of them will be higher now, and this doesn't include all the channels available (like the big networks - these are all cable-only channels).

An average of 20¢ a cable channel. Just for the 172 channels listed, that's almost $35 a month JUST in carriage fees, and that doesn't even cover all of the available channels.

$4.08 a month JUST for ESPN. Whether you watch it or not. (and it's estimated it's between $5-$6 today).

Sports channels in fact (according to Kagen) account for about 40% of cable fees. I can't stand sports. You can thank me for keeping your bill low, since I'm subsidizing your cable costs. :-)

But if A&E, SyFy, AMC, and others can produce original programming on 25¢ a month, I *do* have to wonder why CBS wants so much more. And keep in mind that's ONLY to the network itself - the local stations (affiliates) are apparently happy with whatever carriage fees they're getting.
 
2013-08-06 07:49:42 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Southern100:
Even Netflix has made what, 3 original series so far? House of Cards, Hemlock Grove, and one other I can't remember the name of right now. And they don't even have commercials, so the ONLY money they make is from subscriptions (and Billions of that goes to content providers already).


House of Cards, Hemlock Grove, Orange is the New Black, and Arrested Development.


House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are quality programing on par with the best cable has to offer. Arrested Development's new season was a mess and I've never seen Hemlock Grove.

So 2 out of 4 isn't bad. And I hear they're actually helping produce season 2 of Lilyhammer which was good.
 
2013-08-06 07:55:14 PM  

Great Porn Dragon: Girion47: That's funny, I have Time Warner Cable internet and I still am able to get all of the CBS shows I care to watch.

As I understand it, the CBS block is only in a few TWC markets (where there are CBS stations that are owned-and-operated by CBS Networks, not in markets where there are CBS stations owned and operated by other broadcast companies); basically, if you are in a TWC market where the CBS station isn't owned and operated by CBS Networks, this drama does not apply to you :D

(As an aside--pretty much none of the Former Insight Markets Recently Borged By TWC would need to worry here, because none of our CBS affiliates are owned by CBS Networks--they're all owned by other companies (often Belo in ex-Insight territory).  Hence, we can still get streaming CBS shows--which are being blocked in those CBS markets that ARE owned-and-operated by CBS, but not in CBS markets that are owned by the likes of Belo et al.)


Sorry to disappoint, but CBS.com is blocked on Time Warner here in Louisville.   Again, doesn't matter torrents carry everything.
 
2013-08-06 07:56:52 PM  

Southern100: But if A&E, SyFy, AMC, and others can produce original programming on 25¢ a month, I *do* have to wonder why CBS wants so much more. And keep in mind that's ONLY to the network itself - the local stations (affiliates) are apparently happy with whatever carriage fees they're getting.


Well, those networks get ad revenue, too, so it's not just $.25/month.  You also have to remember, though, those networks air far less content than the broadcast networks.  I mean, AMC only airs about 10 original, scripted shows each year or less than 140 hours of content each year.  ABC, CBS, and NBC will air that much original content in two months in the fall or spring.  And when factor in how many more people watch the broadcast networks, they should be charging WAY more than the cable networks for retransmission.  But the paradigm shift hasn't quite caught up yet, and they're having to go slow with the increases.
 
2013-08-06 08:10:26 PM  

Southern100: Lawnchair: Ad rates aren't even good enough to produce reality-TV-rate schlock any more (and keep the executives swimming in coke and the stockholders happy), let alone quality.

SyFy seems to do ok, and as of 2009 it was estimated they only charged cable companies around 21¢ per subscriber.

In fact, here's the whole chart (from 2009), taken from this site: http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason - why/ and put together by SNL Kagan (an in-depth analysis and proprietary data on the constantly-evolving media and communications business):


Again, these #s are from 2009, so quite a few of them will be higher now, and this doesn't include all the channels available (like the big networks - these are all cable-only channels).

An average of 20¢ a cable channel. Just for the 172 channels listed, that's almost $35 a month JUST in carriage fees, and that doesn't even cover all of the available channels.

$4.08 a month JUST for ESPN. Whether you watch it or not. (and it's estimated it's between $5-$6 today).

Sports channels in fact (according to Kagen) account for about 40% of cable fees. I can't stand sports. You can thank me for keeping your bill low, since I'm subsidizing your cable costs. :-)

But if A&E, SyFy, AMC, and others can produce original programming on 25¢ a month, I *do* have to wonder why CBS wants so much more. And keep in mind that's ONLY to the network itself - the local stations (affiliates) are apparently happy with whatever carriage fees they're getting.


But if A&E, SyFy, AMC, and others can produce
original programming on 25¢ a month, I *do*
have to wonder why CBS wants so much more.

Three letters SyFy doesn't have. N. F. L. Also March Madness. Also, building up a warchest to compete in the billions for some compelling sports (which is their primary weapon in this arms race).

Personally, I like sports. But, I'll watch womens soccer and lacrosse if its free.
 
2013-08-06 08:25:44 PM  

rugman11: Southern100: But if A&E, SyFy, AMC, and others can produce original programming on 25¢ a month, I *do* have to wonder why CBS wants so much more. And keep in mind that's ONLY to the network itself - the local stations (affiliates) are apparently happy with whatever carriage fees they're getting.

Well, those networks get ad revenue, too, so it's not just $.25/month.  You also have to remember, though, those networks air far less content than the broadcast networks.  I mean, AMC only airs about 10 original, scripted shows each year or less than 140 hours of content each year.  ABC, CBS, and NBC will air that much original content in two months in the fall or spring.  And when factor in how many more people watch the broadcast networks, they should be charging WAY more than the cable networks for retransmission.  But the paradigm shift hasn't quite caught up yet, and they're having to go slow with the increases.


Ok, you have a point. I don't know how many scripted shows someone like ABC airs, but I would consider "Once Upon a Time", "Rookie Blue", and "666 Park Avenue", "Greys Anatomy" etc. original content with considerable production costs.

Following people around with cameras while they yell or make kissy faces at each other though ("Wife Swap", "Extreme Weight Loss", "The Bachelor" or "The Bachelorette", etc.), not so much. :-)  Shows like that cost them almost nothing to make.

But those fees should be filtered up through the LOCAL channels, should they not?

IE, take CBS Houston (an affiliate station, not "owned" by CBS) as an example. It's not affected by the carriage dispute.  CBS Houston has to pay the CBS Network for the right to broadcast those shows, so whatever that cost is, is apparently already being covered by their carriage fees and advertising. If the network is so strapped for cash, why aren't they doubling their affiliate fees?

It's only the stations OWNED by CBS that are asking for the (allegedly) higher fees.

And it's a never ending cycle.  If every content provider DOUBLED their carriage fees, cable would be dead overnight.

As it is, Carriage fees overall have more than tripled just in the last 10 years.  As cord-cutters can attest, many have already said "enough is enough".
 
2013-08-06 08:45:06 PM  

Southern100: IE, take CBS Houston (an affiliate station, not "owned" by CBS) as an example. It's not affected by the carriage dispute. CBS Houston has to pay the CBS Network for the right to broadcast those shows, so whatever that cost is, is apparently already being covered by their carriage fees and advertising. If the network is so strapped for cash, why aren't they doubling their affiliate fees?

It's only the stations OWNED by CBS that are asking for the (allegedly) higher fees.


They've probably got contracts with the non-CBS stations regarding those fees, so they can't just hike them any time they want.  And the reason it's only CBS stations that are looking for higher fees is because those are the networks up for renewal right now.  I'm sure, in the future, other affiliates will do the same thing.

And it's a never ending cycle.  If every content provider DOUBLED their carriage fees, cable would be dead overnight.
As it is, Carriage fees overall have more than tripled just in the last 10 years.  As cord-cutters can attest, many have already said "enough is enough".


You're absolutely right here, and I think it's why these disputes are getting more vituperative and more protracted.  The cable companies have realized that we're right about at the maximum that people are willing to pay for cable television and they aren't going to pay much more.  I think we're going to move toward more tiered pricing, so that cable companies can keep prices down while still paying the increasing carriage fees.  But even that's an uphill battle because none of the networks want to be taken off the basic package, and you have so many conglomerate-owned networks now that they can force cable companies to carry their smaller networks in order to carry the bigger ones.  It's going to be a tough fight.
 
2013-08-06 10:06:09 PM  

alkhemy: Where I live, in the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains, there isn't a single station on TV or radio that I can get a clean signal from, so the only way we get TV is by cable or Dish. While a lot of the stuff I watch (not that much to be honest) is available in other ways (Netflix, Hulu Plus, iTunes, etc.) the one thing we can't get that we like is the morning news to play in the background while we're getting up in the mornings.

If I could find a good reliable stream for that, I'd quite cable TV in a heartbeat!


Here in Oregon I get three local stations that steam their morning show online. Have you checked the stations websites?
 
2013-08-06 10:50:05 PM  

Smelly McUgly: If you have Roku, the private code is BBCN, by the way.


Good to know...Except I'm not seeing it anywhere.  There are BBC audio only things on Roku NewsCaster, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.  I'd actually be willing to pay the British TV tax (or fee or whatever it is) if I could get access to all the BBC channels.

One PBS station where I live runs an hour long broadcast of BBC news up against the other PBS station's hour long broadcast of Al Jazeera (and I don't have a DVR for this stuff so it was a tough choice) - it's really frustrating at times because at other times they just show crap.  Oh look, America's Test Kitchen is on 2 different PBS channels at the same time and they're different episodes - whatever.

If it's there, I'll find it.

The 2 PBS stations where I live don't cooperate at all and often their programming decisions frustrate the hell out of me.

I think they like competing against each other.    Just one example is they both run yoga shows early in the morning.  That's okay even though I'm not into yoga, but why do they air competing yoga shows at the same time? The yoga fans must choose one or the other and miss out on one of them while people like me are just flipping channels wondering why they can't air something like Frontline or Nova since they aired those against each other the previous night.

I know PBS has a video website, but they don't offer everything.  It's public television, FFS.  Archive it and make it on demand not just for the US, but for the whole world.

And the BBC is funded through TV taxes, right?  Okay, I'll cough up the cash if I could watch it whenever I wanted rather than whatever PBS decides to air or subscribing to BBC America which AFAIK is only available if I pay millions of dollars to my local cable monopoly first.
 
2013-08-06 10:53:05 PM  

alkhemy: Where I live, in the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains, there isn't a single station on TV or radio that I can get a clean signal from, so the only way we get TV is by cable or Dish. While a lot of the stuff I watch (not that much to be honest) is available in other ways (Netflix, Hulu Plus, iTunes, etc.) the one thing we can't get that we like is the morning news to play in the background while we're getting up in the mornings.

If I could find a good reliable stream for that, I'd quite cable TV in a heartbeat!


KTLA-5 Livestreams their station (including morning news) at the following times:

Monday-Friday:
4 a.m. to 10 a.m.1 p.m. to 2 p.m.6 p.m. to 7 p.m.10 p.m. to 11 p.m.Read more: http://ktla.com/video/#ixzz2bFO3EcfQ
I'm sure there's more out there that stream their morning shows (as David mentioned above), but they'll be contractually obligated to only stream their own locally produced content, not the content they get from the network.  So you can probably get the morning news, but network stuff like "Good Morning America" would be out-of-bounds.

Of course if the LOCAL channels is all you want, IIRC correctly cable providers are obligated to provide those at a heavily reduced price. Comcast calls it "Limited Basic" here in Houston, and it's basically ONLY the 10 or so local channels. No idea what it costs though, it's something you usually have to call the provider to get information about.
 
2013-08-06 11:29:38 PM  

Dogpants: Nobody cares about 18-35, unless they're selling zit cream. 18-49 is the real, sought after demo, and yes, CBS is tops there, too.


How do you get 18-49 without including 18-35?
 
2013-08-07 12:28:58 AM  

gfid: Smelly McUgly: If you have Roku, the private code is BBCN, by the way.

Good to know...Except I'm not seeing it anywhere.  There are BBC audio only things on Roku NewsCaster, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.


You actually have to input the code after signing into your Roku account on the website.

Here you go, this links to the sign-in. Once you do that, you should be able to input the code. Then, just go to your Roku itself and the channel should be added:  http://owner.roku.com/Login/?ReturnUrl=%2fadd%2f

Also, the new season of AD was excellent, to that other guy that posted here. 3-for-4.
 
2013-08-07 02:15:06 AM  

Southern100: Kazrath: You do realize that is only because of the current model.  Many of the shows you like would never have been produced if those specific stations did not automatically receive funding per subscriber.

I dunno, they seemed to do pretty well prior to 1992, when the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act went into effect and started allowing the networks to charge for retransmission. Some might even argue that some of the best shows came from the 80s.

Even if that's not the case though, there are plenty of content MAKERS out there that sell their shows.  If CBS hadn't picked up Under the Dome, I bet SyFy would have been more than happy to do so.

(Under the Dome is owned and produced by Amblin Entertainment - CBS only distributes it. Granted, they pay Amblin for that privilege).

Even Netflix has made what, 3 original series so far? House of Cards, Hemlock Grove, and one other I can't remember the name of right now. And they don't even have commercials, so the ONLY money they make is from subscriptions (and Billions of that goes to content providers already).

Content isn't really the problem.

Eventually they'll either price themselves out of the market, or find another business model.  Either that or eventually they'll wind up with 1 cable customer who keeps forgetting to cancel every month, and his bill will be about $12 Billion a month. :)


Fair enough.  I still wish the "Content owners" would digitize everything (Even ancient stuff from the early 1900's) and offer it up for 25-50 cents a watch using an on-demand method.  They could rake in billions yearly from that old content sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere.
 
2013-08-07 05:33:04 AM  

Blue_Blazer: GBB: Blue_Blazer:  If they want to start a conversation about a la carte channels, they are gonna find a lot of people who start offering to pay for exactly 5 channels, no more and no less.

Until we find out that those 5 channels will be more expensive a al carte than just subscribing to "basic" service.  That's the payback cable providers gave out for being forced to provide a la carte by the FCC: make it inconvenient to the customer to hand pick which channels they want.  And that's exactly what they are doing to CBS.


Then I'll just give up and go back to streaming/pirating 100% of the time.  Doesn't really matter to me I guess, but I'll pay for my TV while it's a reasonable price.Although I live in a mixed market for NFL games, so it's a crap shoot whether I actually get the games I want to see on my TV.  Half the time I have to pirate stream them anyway.


I'm 37 and have lived on my own since 18. Never once in those 19 years have I paid a penny for cable. When I was younger I had better things to do and now I stream everything I watch over the internet. It works, it's easy and I have saved / will continue to save a ton of cash.
 
2013-08-07 09:14:09 AM  

Kazrath: DubtodaIll: realmolo: Kids growing up these days don't care about TV. They watch YouTube, and probably Netflix.

15 years from now, when the young children of today have their own homes, they won't be paying for cable TV. They won't care. And that's when things will get crazy.

I'm not paying for cable now, I've just got internet + netflix and that provides plenty of entertainment for a much lower cost than cable.

You do realize that is only because of the current model.  Many of the shows you like would never have been produced if those specific stations did not automatically receive funding per subscriber.

That said:  I pretty much only watch football myself.  My TV (For the purposes of cable) has not even been turned on since the last superbowl.  I see no reason to watch the broadcasts of the small handful of shows I like and be forced to view the crappy commercials.  I would much rather watch commercial free versions.


You really think theatre is motivated by money?  It's more that money has co-opted theatre because people love it so much.  Entertainment will always be made regardless of whether there is money in it or not.  I like watching things on the internet vs cable because there aren't ads interrupting the shows/movies.
 
2013-08-07 12:34:47 PM  

Lawnchair: gfid: The thing is, if cable companies and dish companies keep pulling this kind of thing they're going to just speed up their demise and force Showtime and AMC and whoever happens to be next to start offering online subscriptions without going through a TV provider.

And that will be a win/win/lose (win for consumers, win for the networks, lose for TWC, Dish, et al.)

If you don't hold the line somewhere, it's a dollar more every. single. year. until the stratosphere is breached.

Going a-la-carte could be a win for consumers maybe.  It's very little win for the networks.  The number of people willing to pay for the a-la-carte is much smaller.  Right now, lets say AMC gets 40 cents for every single cable subscriber (whether they watch AMC or not).  In the a-la-carte model, they have to charge more than 40 cents, since not everyone wants AMC.  If they charge $4 a month, they have to sign up 1/10th of the current cable households.  Even that is a  massive challenge.  Virtually no other model is going to provide as much cash as getting 40 cents from every cable-sub household.


The best guess is that most channels would be priced similarly to HBO/Showtime/Cinemax and thus the bill for 5 channels would be pretty similar to the current national average cable bill.  Ironically the lone people who might be better off would be dire hard fans of ESPN (who watch nothing else).
 
2013-08-07 12:39:20 PM  

Fireproof: Some lemme get this straight: CBS wants to double the price they receive for their content.

TWC says "Fark no, we'd have to raise rates."

CBS: "Fine, we'll just pull our content from you, then!"


Why would I feel the slightest bit sympathetic for CBS in this case?


More like TWC says we're raising rates, and CBS says we want some of that rate increase.  The rate increase was a given, it's cable. They're fighting over how much TWC keeps vs how much CBS captures.
 
2013-08-07 12:46:38 PM  

Southern100: Lawnchair: Ad rates aren't even good enough to produce reality-TV-rate schlock any more (and keep the executives swimming in coke and the stockholders happy), let alone quality.

SyFy seems to do ok, and as of 2009 it was estimated they only charged cable companies around 21¢ per subscriber.

In fact, here's the whole chart (from 2009), taken from this site: http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason - why/ and put together by SNL Kagan (an in-depth analysis and proprietary data on the constantly-evolving media and communications business):

[i0.wp.com image 708x643]
Again, these #s are from 2009, so quite a few of them will be higher now, and this doesn't include all the channels available (like the big networks - these are all cable-only channels).

An average of 20¢ a cable channel. Just for the 172 channels listed, that's almost $35 a month JUST in carriage fees, and that doesn't even cover all of the available channels.

$4.08 a month JUST for ESPN. Whether you watch it or not. (and it's estimated it's between $5-$6 today).

Sports channels in fact (according to Kagen) account for about 40% of cable fees. I can't stand sports. You can thank me for keeping your bill low, since I'm subsidizing your cable costs. :-)

But if A&E, SyFy, AMC, and others can produce original programming on 25¢ a month, I *do* have to wonder why CBS wants so much more. And keep in mind that's ONLY to the network itself - the local stations (affiliates) are apparently happy with whatever carriage fees they're getting.


It's very likely that sports fans are subsidizing you, since there are more of them (ratings aren't exactly the same but follow a pretty similar pattern to carriage fees), and they pay 60% of their bill for non-sports channels.
 
2013-08-07 05:56:21 PM  

nelsonal: It's very likely that sports fans are subsidizing you, since there are more of them (ratings aren't exactly the same but follow a pretty similar pattern to carriage fees), and they pay 60% of their bill for non-sports channels.


OhwaitYou'reseriousletmelaughevenharder.jpg

You're doing nothing but subsidizing people like A-Rod who will take home millions of dollars and pump their bodies up with drugs while demanding that cities like Detroit spend a half a billion dollars to buy a stadium and brag about all the jobs (i.e. hot dog vendors) it creates.

Sports is bullshiat - it's not even sporting anymore.  There's more sportsmanship involved in sprinkling the ground with bait and sitting on your back porch drinking and shooting at any deer that come up to eat it.  (which is to say none)
 
Displayed 40 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report