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 49
    More: Unlikely, CEO, CBS, Time Warner Cable, media market, Craig Moffett, Verizon FiOS, subscribers, RBC Capital Markets  
•       •       •

2979 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-06 09:19:23 AM  
3 votes:
Not just CBS but all CBS owned channels--Showtime, Smithsonian, CBS Sports.

Time-Warner's douche move is perfectly timed, as CBS has the PGA Championship this weekend, The last season of Dexter and the first of Ray Donovan are in full-throttle on Showtime and football is right around the bend with fall seasons starting at the same time.

Douchey, but effective.
2013-08-06 08:04:41 AM  
3 votes:
I think it will become pretty apparent when football begins.
2013-08-06 02:24:03 PM  
2 votes:
By the way, there's an effort afoot to revive one of the nastier provisions of SOPA, namely, making unauthorized streaming a felony. As if there aren't enough felonies already.
2013-08-06 12:17:21 PM  
2 votes:

rugman11: dj_spanmaster: So TWC has put a gun to the cable business model's head and said, "Do what we say, or our customers get your channel a la carte." Are they loaded? (The gun, the comments, and the negotiators, all)

Not really.  It's all posturing so that TWC can come out and say, "see, we wanted to give you a la carte but the networks won't let us."  Don't pay attention to anything anybody says publicly in these negotiations.  It's all just PR.


IIRC, this is the first time cafeteria style has been brought up in negotiations, even as a fear tactic. That by itself signifies a change. 

If a cunning cable company were to make such a model available to customers, I would strongly consider switching back to cable. But in the meantime I'll get by on OTA, Netflix, and Hulu.
2013-08-06 09:33:17 AM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?


Is Homeland back yet? There isn't much worth watching on showtime except that.
GBB
2013-08-06 08:38:25 AM  
2 votes:

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.

CBS isn't so innocent in this mess either.  Per FCC rules, TWC must continue to carry the channels during negotiation.  When the screens went black, it's because CBS turned it off, not TWC.  Ever since the Viacom threat a few years ago, TWC predicted that if they gave in to those demands, everyone else will follow suit when the contracts are up for renewal.  Lo and behold, just about every content provider has demanded higher fees when the contract has come up for renewal.
2013-08-06 10:50:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:25:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:56:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:55:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:44:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:32:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:39:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:32:48 PM  
1 votes:

Fubegra: Southern100: Just as companies like Cricket & MetroPCS starting forcing the big providers to start offering flat-rate cell phone pricing in order to compete

I hate to break the news to you, but Cricket has been bought out by AT&T, and MetroPCS by T-Mobile. My guess is that US Cellular will be the next carrier to get borg'd; they've already pulled out of the Chicago market and sold that spectrum to Sprint. Stupidly, they've kept the naming rights to Sox Park even though they no longer serve Chicago.


Yeah, but that's pretty recent.  I think that had it not been for Cricket/MetroPCS 5-6 years ago, it would have taken a lot longer for AT&T, Sprint, Verizon & T-Mobile to even consider flat-rate cell service. It probably would have still happened, just would have taken longer. :)

And I think the same thing will happen with Cable/TV at some point.  The big companies sure won't do it on their own (at least not without government intervention, and good luck with THAT with the million dollar lobbyists); the only thing that will make them change is competition.
2013-08-06 02:19:09 PM  
1 votes:
This dispute is getting all the headlines, but there's also a dispute going on between Dish Network and Raycom media, which has caused viewers in over 30 cities to lose some of their local networks. I lost CBS last week. I was able to watch Under the Dome online since my internet is through a different provider. I connected via Apple TV, so it wasn't a big deal. That's currently the only thing I watch on CBS, so I won't really start complaining unless this drags into football season.
2013-08-06 01:08:25 PM  
1 votes:

Geotpf: Lawnchair: Is local news a requirement?  Several world TV broadcasters in English out there on streaming and/or free-to-air satellite dish.  Al Jazeera English, Jewish News One, China Central TV, NHK World, France 24, Russia Today, etc. (I may have some weird world views after all that).

Interestingly, every single one of those channels, excluding Jewish News One, is a proproganda channel owned by a foreign government, and Jewish News One is obviously a religious based channel.


Actually, Al Jazeera, NHK and France 24 are pretty good.  CCTV and RT are biased as all hell - so much that I usually don't believe anything RT tells me and often just watch for comic relief or to see how a story is playing in Russia.  I haven't watched JN1 enough to have an opinion.

I'm not sure if you can stream BBC but you can watch clips of at least some of their news on their site and of course there's the PBS News Hour that you can watch online.  SkyNews has just added a channel on Roku so I wouldn't be surprised if they stream over the internet also.

But no matter where you get your news there will be some bias, so you should take that into account and if you care get it from a variety of sources.

I'm doing just fine without being able to turn on CNN, Fox and MSNBC 24/7.
2013-08-06 12:29:03 PM  
1 votes:

dj_spanmaster: If a cunning cable company were to make such a model available to customers, I would strongly consider switching back to cable. But in the meantime I'll get by on OTA, Netflix, and Hulu.


Oh, I think it's coming. It may be 5-10 years away, but it'll happen. Just as companies like Cricket & MetroPCS starting forcing the big providers to start offering flat-rate cell phone pricing in order to compete, all it will take will be a few companies like HuluPlus to start forcing the network providers to start offering alacarte pricing. (Heck, HuluPlus is almost there already).
2013-08-06 12:06:51 PM  
1 votes:

mithras_angel: I'll have to check the placeholder screen, when I get back, to see if that advice of "watch CBS.com" is still up.

If I am blocked, and there's something I ~must~ watch, I'll just get one of my brothers to set up a proxy I can go through on his Comcast side of the world.


You can read the story here along with a picture of the placeholder screen:

http://consumerist.com/2013/08/05/dont-be-fooled-both-time-warner-ca bl e-cbs-hate-your-guts/

TWC has asked them to remove the block, but they haven't done so yet to my knowledge.
2013-08-06 12:05:50 PM  
1 votes:

Carth: Lawnchair: For the public service component? One PBS affiliate per market would cover that niche adequately

I don't know much about the science of terrestrial television spectrum but if you kept part of it available for PBS wouldn't that defeat the purpose of trying to open it up for other uses? I thought the difference between 1 channel and 10 wasn't that great no?

Looks like according to Nielsen about 30 million Americans use OTA  which is less than 10% so not many.


TV has been packed down several times over the years. Former UHF channels 70-83 (800-900 MHz) were turned into the original cell-phone band in 1982.  52-69 (700-800 MHz) were more recently sold after the digital switch (all TV stations are on RF channels 51 or lower now, although some will show virtual numbers higher than that).  The FCC is well down the road of a packing everything into the range below  channel 35, freeing the 600 MHz range.  The other notion is that LTE is designed to be more flexible, so where there isn't a 'channel 22', they could lease that to Sprint or whoever.

Longer-term, the last stand for the handful of legacy terrestrial broadcasters (i.e., PBS) will be the high-VHF (channels 7-13) band.  Those frequencies aren't coveted for mobile phone/data.  It's not really optimal for digital TV (which is why that's mostly in UHF now), but it's acceptable and better than the low-VHF (channels 2-6).
2013-08-06 12:01:39 PM  
1 votes:

Southern100: mithras_angel:
3)  You just watch stuff on CBS.com.

Can't do that.   CBS blocked ALL of TWC's IPs to CBS.com. Even if you're not in a blacked out market, if you're on TWC you can't watch CBS.com.

But even if you don't HAVE cable (or Fios, or UVerse, or whatever), you can. It's free for everyone. Except TWC. Just another "Fark You" CBS is giving to TWC customers.


Huh.  Didn't know that.  Especially since TWC was advertising that "you can still watch your shows at CBS.com".  I didn't check, because I hadn't missed any shows yet. Honestly, if this wasn't the summer repeats, I probably would have, but I've no need to see the same episode of NCIS for a third time this year, not when I can watch Castle on a different station.

I'll have to check the placeholder screen, when I get back, to see if that advice of "watch CBS.com" is still up.

If I am blocked, and there's something I ~must~ watch, I'll just get one of my brothers to set up a proxy I can go through on his Comcast side of the world.
2013-08-06 11:58:38 AM  
1 votes:
Lawnchair:  Half the country doesn't even know/believe that you can still get TV with an antenna.  Most of the rest say, "it's just too much bother to do that".

Nah, I think most people know, but the only ones who care would be the ones who don't have cable or satellite, i.e. poor and cheap people, like myself.

If we were in a situation where we needed broadcast-broadcast TV to get out Civil Defence info, it's already a lost cause. Most people don't have and won't put up antennas (or, again, there wouldn't be blacked out people right now).

Eh, I dunno. The EAS is used a lot more than Civil Defense things. When Hurricane Katrina was approaching NOLA, some local stations switched to a 24/7 EAS "GET THE FARK OUT NOW!" message, and it almost certainly saved lives. The idea here is that there needs to be a way to get immediate emergency info out to people who can't afford cable.

I'm inclined to agree with you about the PBS affiliates, though.
2013-08-06 11:34:31 AM  
1 votes:

Southern100: Carth: Has anyone on fark tried using https://aereo.com? $8 a month for all the broadcast channels on any device and free DVR seems like it might be a good sports alternative for people.

Don't count on Aereo for long.  If the courts don't back the providers, the content providers (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS) are going to take their ball and go home - they're going to stop broadcasting OTA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/08/holy-cow-two-of -t he-big-four-tv-networks-are-considering-going-off-the-air/


I'd be surprised if they let them drop OTA broadcasts since it is a public health concern during local and national emergencies. they'd need to provide some other way of getting content to people free.

However, if dropping OTA means they start showing their broadcast free online I'm all for it.
2013-08-06 11:30:07 AM  
1 votes:

Lawnchair: Is local news a requirement?  Several world TV broadcasters in English out there on streaming and/or free-to-air satellite dish.  Al Jazeera English, Jewish News One, China Central TV, NHK World, France 24, Russia Today, etc. (I may have some weird world views after all that).


Interestingly, every single one of those channels, excluding Jewish News One, is a proproganda channel owned by a foreign government, and Jewish News One is obviously a religious based channel.
2013-08-06 11:29:20 AM  
1 votes:

Carth: Has anyone on fark tried using https://aereo.com? $8 a month for all the broadcast channels on any device and free DVR seems like it might be a good sports alternative for people.


Don't count on Aereo for long.  If the courts don't back the providers, the content providers (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS) are going to take their ball and go home - they're going to stop broadcasting OTA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/08/holy-cow-two-of -t he-big-four-tv-networks-are-considering-going-off-the-air/
2013-08-06 11:26:02 AM  
1 votes:
mithras_angel:
3)  You just watch stuff on CBS.com.

Can't do that.   CBS blocked ALL of TWC's IPs to CBS.com. Even if you're not in a blacked out market, if you're on TWC you can't watch CBS.com.

But even if you don't HAVE cable (or Fios, or UVerse, or whatever), you can. It's free for everyone. Except TWC. Just another "Fark You" CBS is giving to TWC customers.
2013-08-06 11:22:31 AM  
1 votes:

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?


Because when TWC increases your cable bill next month by $1, you'll be calling TWC and biatching at THEM and demanding to know why your bill went up.

And then when NBC does the same thing 2 months from now, and your cable bill goes up by another $1, you'll call TWC *again*.

And then again when ABC does it. And again when FOX does it. And then again when USA, WB, or whoever else does it.

TWC takes all the heat for the bill because people think that because they can get it for free over the air, that TWC MUST be just ripping them off hand-over-fist by charging $XX dollars a month for "Basic" cable.

It's the same shiat every couple of months. Not long ago it was DISH and AMC. Same story there. AMC wants more money, DISH has to take all the heat & blame for the channel going dark. Eventually they reach a compromise, AMC gets their money, and YOU pay for it.
2013-08-06 11:15:55 AM  
1 votes:

mithras_angel: 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.

So, this is either:

1)  You don't care to watch any CBS shows, and are thus unaffected, or

2)  Your local CBS station isn't blacked out, or

3)  You just watch stuff on CBS.com.


2 is because Time Warner take CBS down everywhere.  Just many places.  Some CBS affiliates are owned by Time Warner, and those haven't gone black (or put on StarzKIDS, which can be worse).


Torrents+OTA.
2013-08-06 11:12:52 AM  
1 votes:
I don't fault TWC at ALL here.

They know that if they keep having to raise rates because providers keep upping their carriage fees, that more and more people will continue to cut the cord.

So CBS wants to double their carriage fees from $1 to $2.

ESPN already charges carriage fees of between $5-$6 per customer (yes, that's right. Whether you watch it or not you're paying a very high fee for it, and since it's in pretty much the bottom tier pretty much everyone pays for it.)

And to make matters worse, Network providers (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) are currently considering STOPPING broadcasting and going "Cable Only" - because they KNOW people are cutting the cord due to their high fees and pulling their content for free OTA.   So Rabbit Ears or HD Antennas may not matter much in the near future.

A-la-Carte is going to happen at some point. It may be 5, even 10 years down the road for the majority of channels, but they really are going to have no choice. People are just not going to pay $100+/month just for basic channels (everything except HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc.)
2013-08-06 10:33:25 AM  
1 votes:

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!


Define 'the morning news' a little better, if you would please.

If NPR is an option (and you just can't get radio signal), virtually every NPR station streams legally.

Is local news a requirement?  Several world TV broadcasters in English out there on streaming and/or free-to-air satellite dish.  Al Jazeera English, Jewish News One, China Central TV, NHK World, France 24, Russia Today, etc. (I may have some weird world views after all that).

The cheapest paid plan out there right now is Dish Network's "Welcome Pack" (which they don't advertise, but it's only $20/month for locals and some odd stuff).  That package can't last long at that price, though, if all the network affiliate stations start demanding $2/sub/month (and probably $3 next year and $4 the year after that).
2013-08-06 10:32:11 AM  
1 votes:
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?
2013-08-06 10:18:34 AM  
1 votes:
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!
2013-08-06 10:09:57 AM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: cameroncrazy1984: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?

No, meant just the CBS content.

Okay well too bad you're not just paying for the CBS content.


FTFA:RBC Capital Markets analyst David Bank estimates that CBS currently receives $1 per month, per subscriber and is seeking to double that to $2 per subscriber.

Sure sounds like they want to charge extra for just CBS content.
2013-08-06 09:58:00 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-06 09:50:21 AM  
1 votes:
The old school exclusive cable contracts for towns required educational channels which Ted Turner set up to win the game in thousands of little towns.  Now those channels are running anything but educational shows and those cities should look at the fine print on the exclusive contracts and end them at once.
2013-08-06 09:42:53 AM  
1 votes:
CBS and all its affiliated channels is not available on my TWC powered TV?  Really?  I didn't notice.  Huh.  Maybe if they had a decent show on that interested me I would watch that network.

Now if Discovery, History, Military, Spike, BBCA or Velocity were to go away, then there would be gnashing of teeth and phone calls made to TWC demanding action.
2013-08-06 09:26:40 AM  
1 votes:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.


Showtime is free over-the-air? Where?
2013-08-06 09:23:09 AM  
1 votes:
Pay even more for something that is already free over the air?  Yea, no. Both CEOs can go fark themselves with a rusty chainsaw.
2013-08-06 09:12:54 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-06 09:10:53 AM  
1 votes:

Enormous-Schwanstucker: Lawnchair: Lawnchair: 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.

Also, I should point out that the people the  do get to pay them $4 a month aren't going to put up with 15 commercials per hour.  People, joy of psychology, put up with tons of commercials on their "free" (even though they're paying $60+/month) stations.

There goes another major revenue stream.

When a compelling program is on a particularly commercial laden channel (wait, thats all of them) I'll tune to that channel, hit pause and go do some mundane task around the house for 45 minutes or so. I come back to the TV and rocket through the commercials. Win/win but a pita nonetheless.


I just wait an hour or two and my torrent program automatically grabs them from my private tracker.  Already stripped of commercials.  Seeing as I work from home, I don't have to worry about spoilers from co-workers.
2013-08-06 08:59:35 AM  
1 votes:

GBB: CBS isn't so innocent in this mess either. Per FCC rules, TWC must continue to carry the channels during negotiation. When the screens went black, it's because CBS turned it off, not TWC. Ever since the Viacom threat a few years ago, TWC predicted that if they gave in to those demands, everyone else will follow suit when the contracts are up for renewal. Lo and behold, just about every content provider has demanded higher fees when the contract has come up for renewal.


This isn't quite true.  TWC pulled the channels.  "Must Carry" only applies to broadcast channels that are offering the service free (usually PBS and religious channels).  As soon as a network tries to charge a carriage fee, they forfeit their "Must Carry" rights.
2013-08-06 08:54:24 AM  
1 votes:

pdieten: Besides, the cable company provides a nice program guide for the broadcast stations, and you won't get anything that nice over the air. And how would you record those channels if you wanted to?


They do actually make DVRs for OTA antenna TV.   That said, I'm not sure I'd bother at this point.  The four main commercial networks + Univision have all made noise that they're planning to get out of the transmitting-by-antenna business sooner rather than later.  Especially if they can get paid to vacate the 470-700 MHz band to phone providers (which is also happening).  It's a tad complicated with the affiliate model over much of the country and contracts like the NFL, but it's coming.  People who are poor/cheapskates enough to use antennas (raises hand) are a crappy target demographic anyway.
2013-08-06 08:52:13 AM  
1 votes:

Blue_Blazer: FTFA: "A la carte is never going to happen," BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield said. CBS added that "anyone familiar with the entertainment business knows the economics and structure of the cable industry doesn't work that way and isn't likely to for some time."

Time-Warner ought to be careful here.  This is a nasty can of worms they are offering to open.  I currently pay about $15 dollars a month for the basic cable package that includes the major networks, C-SPAN, 2 PBS, and a bunch of garbage channels.  I only really carry this for football, and I'm just too lazy to cancel it the other 7 months of the year.  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.

Also:

gfid: he 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.)

I think you might not realize that Time Warner Cable is a massive internet provider, and they would probably start charging for data nationwide (I still pay a flat fee for unlimited broadband in my area).


The religious channels and sex channels will never alllow it and will lobby like last time to get it banned.

Fear the power of the whore channels that do anything for money on tv. Also the channels that show porn too.
2013-08-06 08:48:38 AM  
1 votes:

pdieten: Carth: Why would anyone in a major pay for the broadcast networks? You can get them free in HD with a small antenna.

Because if you want any cable channels, having one set of programming come in via the cable box and the other via antenna will obligate you to switch the video source on your TV. There are a lot of people in this world who are not smart enough to figure out how to do that.

Besides, the cable company provides a nice program guide for the broadcast stations, and you won't get anything that nice over the air. And how would you record those channels if you wanted to?


the programming guide would still be allowed to show what is airing on CBS/showtime. But does anyone actually use that anymore? The internet is so much quicker to look up what is on and when.

Switching sources would be more of a pain if there were 5-6 channels on antenna you needed to watch but with only one you hit the source button and CBS is on. Much easier than entering '854' or whatever arbitrary number they make it now. I never bothered recording anything since it is all available on demand (except sports) but sports most people watch live.

People would have to decide for themselves if switching the source to watch CBS is worth $25 a year. Hell assuming NBC, ABC and FOX want the same amount of money you could save $100 a year watching the networks over antenna if you really need cable.
2013-08-06 08:37:29 AM  
1 votes:
Why would anyone in a major pay for the broadcast networks? You can get them free in HD with a small antenna.
2013-08-06 08:20:29 AM  
1 votes:
My local channel in Lex, KY has CBS and Under the Dome was on last night although I could no doubt watch it online tonight if it wasn't on television.

Showtime and The Movie Channel hurts though. That credit from TW better be pretty damn big.
2013-08-06 08:17:28 AM  
1 votes:
FTFA: "A la carte is never going to happen," BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield said. CBS added that "anyone familiar with the entertainment business knows the economics and structure of the cable industry doesn't work that way and isn't likely to for some time."

Time-Warner ought to be careful here.  This is a nasty can of worms they are offering to open.  I currently pay about $15 dollars a month for the basic cable package that includes the major networks, C-SPAN, 2 PBS, and a bunch of garbage channels.  I only really carry this for football, and I'm just too lazy to cancel it the other 7 months of the year.  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.

Also:

gfid: he 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.)


I think you might not realize that Time Warner Cable is a massive internet provider, and they would probably start charging for data nationwide (I still pay a flat fee for unlimited broadband in my area).
2013-08-06 08:15:58 AM  
1 votes:
I wouldn't have even known about losing CBS had I not lost Showtime too.
2013-08-06 08:15:45 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-08-06 08:12:15 AM  
1 votes:
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.)
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report