Time Warner to stop airing Viacom stations at 12:01 January 1st

[DeToxRox]

Time Warner Cable Loses Viacom: MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central To Go Dark (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/time-warner-cable-cuts-of_n_154378.html)

LOS ANGELES — "SpongeBob SquarePants" may be getting squeezed off of Time Warner Cable.

Media giant Viacom Inc. said its Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 16 other channels will go dark on Time Warner Cable Inc. at 12:01 a.m. Thursday if a new carriage fee deal is not agreed upon by then.

The impasse over carriage fee hikes would mean "SpongeBob" and other shows like "The Daily Show" will be cut off to 13 million subscribers, said spokesman Alex Dudley, a vice president at Time Warner Cable, the nation's second-largest cable operator.

Viacom has asked for fee increases of between 22 percent and 36 percent per channel, an amount that could increase customers' cable bills, Dudley said. Viacom spokeswoman Kelly McAndrew said the requested increase was in the very low double-digit percentage range.

"The issue is that they have asked for an exorbitant increase in their carriage fees and their network ratings are sagging," he said. "Basically we're trying to hold the line for our customer."

Viacom said the increases would cost an extra 23 cents a month per subscriber _ which works out to $35.9 million more in total. It said that Americans spend a fifth of their TV time watching Viacom shows but its fees make up less than 2.5 percent of the Time Warner cable bill.

"We make this request because Time Warner Cable has so greatly undervalued our channels for so long," it said.

"Ultimately, however, if Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV and the rest of our programming is discontinued _ over less than a penny per day _ we believe viewers will see this behavior by their cable company as outrageous," it said.
Story continues below
advertisement

Tense negotiations are continuing at the highest level, Dudley said.

Viacom accused Time Warner Cable of not negotiating.

"It is our sincere hope that they will come to the table and negotiate a deal," said McAndrew. The network operator also intends to tell viewers about the dispute in TV ads in 11 major markets.

Part of the disagreement is that most of the popular shows are rerun on Web sites where Viacom collects advertising revenue that it does not share with Time Warner, Dudley said.

"We don't think that's fair," he said. "They're trying to have their cake and eat it too online, where anybody can get it for free."

Viacom has staked much of its revenue-growth prospects on its ability to extract higher carriage rates out of its cable and satellite affiliates despite an ad slowdown and weak ratings.

In the third quarter, media network revenue, which accounts for about two-thirds of the total, grew 6 percent to $2.1 billion, despite global ad revenue falling 2 percent, largely because of double-digit percentage growth in affiliate fees and the success of its "Rock Band" video game.

Viacom shares rose 69 cents, or 3.7 percent, to close at $19.26 on Tuesday, while Time Warner Cable shares added $1.56, or 7.7 percent, to $21.76.

The channels that would be affected are: Comedy Central, CMT: Pure Country, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, and VH1 Soul.

[Galaxy]

Time Warner certainly seems to fight with every company.

[JonInMiddleGA]

TW could virtually forget about selling local advertising to anyone buying targets 12-34.

Then again, I'm not sure how much adv. any of the operators are expecting to sell in Q1 '09 anyway, so they could roll the dice on it I guess. Doesn't really hurt them from that standpoint except in the younger demos, and for safe A25-54 buys on TVL (one of the best bangs for the buck I've found in local spot cable over the past year or so).

[kcchief19]

I would have thought as the second largest cable company in the U.S. that TWC would have more than 13 million subscribers.
Then again, I'm not sure how much adv. any of the operators are expecting to sell in Q1 '09 anyway, so they could roll the dice on it I guess. Doesn't really hurt them from that standpoint except in the younger demos, and for safe A25-54 buys on TVL (one of the best bangs for the buck I've found in local spot cable over the past year or so).
Wouldn't be surprised if that was a consideration -- if you're going to go to war at any point, now would be a good time when it wouldn't cost that much. Of course, on the other side of the coin, revenues will be so piss poor in the first quarter that every dollar may count. But from a revenue standpoint it's going to hurt Viacom a lot more than it hurts TWC.

Nine times out of 10 these are games of chicken that get settled at the last minute. I wouldn't worry until Thursday morning.

[DanGarion]

First I've heard of this, I'll post more when I hear about this internally.

[DanGarion]

Time Warner certainly seems to fight with every company.

Or maybe they just see that broadcasters shouldn't be bullying the companies that send out their content to viewers... ;)

[Galaxy]

Or maybe they just see that broadcasters shouldn't be bullying the companies that send out their content to viewers... ;)

No arguments here. :)

[Alan T]

My 2 year old is getting very annoyed at the scrolling bar across Noggin demanding time warner and BrightHouse customers to call and demand they keep that channel. She keeps saying "daddy broken... broken" and pointing to the screen.

I am neither a Time Warner nor Bright House customer, but I still get the advertisement, so assume everyone is getting it today :)

[Raiders Army]

Viacom said the increases would cost an extra 23 cents a month per subscriber _ which works out to $35.9 million more in total. It said that Americans spend a fifth of their TV time watching Viacom shows but its fees make up less than 2.5 percent of the Time Warner cable bill.
I think the math works out to be 156,086,956.32 subscribers.

[MizzouRah]

My 2 year old is getting very annoyed at the scrolling bar across Noggin demanding time warner and BrightHouse customers to call and demand they keep that channel. She keeps saying "daddy broken... broken" and pointing to the screen.

I am neither a Time Warner nor Bright House customer, but I still get the advertisement, so assume everyone is getting it today :)

Yep.. watching Spongebob and seeing that scrolling bar too.

[Draft Dodger]

there are no good guys and bad guys in this - just folks trying to make a buck

[Draft Dodger]

(not that there's anything wrong with that)

[Raiders Army]

there are no good guys and bad guys in this - just folks trying to make a buck

Time Warner will forever be the bad guy in my mind. When they have a monopoly on your cable and give you crap customer service, I will not give them benefit of the doubt. I know they're trying to make a buck, but when they have you over the barrel there's a difference between fairness to your paying customers and trying to maximize your profit.

Our experience with their internet/cable/phone was horrible and we had to get rid of the phone because our infrastructure in our neighborhood was so old. Of course, it's the city's fault not theirs...although they advertise we can receive their services without the *.

I'm glad we have DirecTV and no longer have to deal with Time Warner.

[sterlingice]

there are no good guys and bad guys in this - just folks trying to make a buck

No, but there are more and less defensible positions. Big Ten Network- grossly overplaid their hand. ESPN does that to an extent- they charge way more as a percent than they get viewers but that's because people are rabid about their programming. No one really bitches if a Walker, Texas Ranger rerun is canceled but if we can't see the 2000 Flushes Toilet Bowl in HD, then it's the end of the world.

Usually, I'm with the cable companies on this one but Viacom has a decent case here and if they settle halfways in the middle, it would be fair. CC and Nick pull pretty good ratings, especially for cable. But, as kcchief and JIMGA pointed out earlier, if you want a quarter to go to war and minimize revenue loss- this might be the one because there's going to be little revenue to be had. This is going to make the advertising slowdown from the early 00's look like a boom economy for that industry.

SI

[DanGarion]

monopoly...

I'm glad we have DirecTV and no longer have to deal with Time Warner.

Where is the monopoly when you have been able to make a choice of what provider you want?

This is like saying the water company has a monopoly so you've chosen to get water delivered from Sparkletts instead. There are different mediums that you can get the services through, the cable company has theirs, which is the wires that they installed. I'm sure I'm a bit biased, but I don't see a monopoly when there are choices.

[Celeval]

Where is the monopoly when you have been able to make a choice of what provider you want?

satellite != cable

[DanGarion]

Not sure if an entire list of the channels was posted but here it is.

BET
Logo
MTV Jams
Palledia HD
Comedy Central
MTV2
MTV Hits
KBEH
Nick Toons
VH1 Soul
MTV
Noggin
MTV3
VH1 Classics
Nickelodeon
Spike
TV Land
VH1

Includes On Demand (network related) programming

From the news I'm hearing this morning it's being announced that it's very unlikely that the channels will go off the air, most likely there will be an extension!.

[DanGarion]

satellite != cable
Is that the cable companies fault? :)

[sterlingice]

MTV Jams
MTV2
MTV Hits
MTV
MTV3


With that many MTV's, one of them has to play music videos and not stupid ass reality crap, right?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hoo, boy. If Noggin goes off the air, my 2 year old daughter would peddle her tricycle to the Time Warner offices and beat someone to death with a stuffed animal.

[sterlingice]

Hoo, boy. If Noggin goes off the air, my 2 year old daughter would peddle her tricycle to the Time Warner offices and beat someone to death with a stuffed animal.

Gold :D

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

ESPN does that to an extent- they charge way more as a percent than they get viewers but that's because people are rabid about their programming.

So are the advertisers. ESPN is consistently one of the highest priced networks for local cable advertising. As you pointed out, that isn't all ratings driven because outside of specific live event sports the audience really doesn't come close to justifying the rates charged to run a commercial on ESPN in Charlotte or Topeka or wherever.

Supply & demand drives that on the local level and between affinity buys (biz owner/decisions maker likes PTI and wants to have his spot in it) and vanity buys (biz owner's friends watch PTI & he wants them to see his spot in it), the raw demand is about the strongest of any network on cable at the local level, pushing ad costs to levels that are downright staggering relative to the audience they generate. Easy example would be that I can buy a national :30 on probably half the networks on cable for less than a :30 costs on MNF in most of the top 30 single markets. It's f'n ridiculous.

This is going to make the advertising slowdown from the early 00's look like a boom economy for that industry.

It already has as far as I can see. It's already been worse for us, a lot worse & I'm afraid we're not close to bottom yet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Gold :D

QOTD quality indeed.

[sterlingice]

It already has as far as I can see. It's already been worse for us, a lot worse & I'm afraid we're not close to bottom yet.

Advertising: making my wife glad she never went into it, since 2002. She has an advertising degree from the journalism school at Mizzou but graduated during the last big downturn and couldn't find a job. She never ended up in the field and probably never will.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Gold :D

SI

You have no idea. Commercial-free kids programming is a beautiful thing. If we're watching a show with commercials on another network that's not pre-recorded on the DVR, she starts saying 'fas for' over and over again, wondering why we aren't fast forwarding through the commercials. She's been 'Nogginized'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Advertising: making my wife glad she never went into it, since 2002. She has an advertising degree from the journalism school at Mizzou but graduated during the last big downturn and couldn't find a job. She never ended up in the field and probably never will.

SI

Wait, you're a split household? Yikes. I'm guessing those marriage vows had a couple of extra lines about not killing your spouse during Border War games.

[sterlingice]

Wait, you're a split household? Yikes. I'm guessing those marriage vows had a couple of extra lines about not killing your spouse during Border War games.

She doesn't really care that much about sports (except a little baseball). The only way she typically knows that KU and Mizzou are playing is because I've been watching it or I told her about it.

SI

[QuikSand]

Is that the cable companies fault?

Seriously, do you get paid for this work? Your tireless efforts to defend the cable industry here are obvious and noted... but your vigor for doing so seems to exceed just what one might expect from the "I happen to know something about this subject" variety of same.

Is part of your job to actively shill for cable companies in semi-public settings?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Seriously, do you get paid for this work? Your tireless efforts to defend the cable industry here are obvious and noted... but your vigor for doing so seems to exceed just what one might expect from the "I happen to know something about this subject" variety of same.

Is part of your job to actively shill for cable companies in semi-public settings?

Dan just bought a house. He needs the money. Cut him some slack.

[QuikSand]

Actually, I'd be sort of relieved if it turned out clearing the name of cable companies one net forum at a time was a money-driven endeavor for him, rather than just a consuming passion.

[Kodos]

I'd just like to say that Comcast sucks.

[sterlingice]

Dan just bought a house. He needs the money. Cut him some slack.

I'm not sure you're the best one to be poking fun at the alleged company shill ;)

SI

[DanGarion]

Seriously, do you get paid for this work? Your tireless efforts to defend the cable industry here are obvious and noted... but your vigor for doing so seems to exceed just what one might expect from the "I happen to know something about this subject" variety of same.

Is part of your job to actively shill for cable companies in semi-public settings?
Nope. But when when you've worked in an industry and for the same company for 11 years you tend to have a little bit of loyalty.

And I haven't always defended the industry, I point out the flaws that I see. I just think people have strange views when they say something is a monopoly but there are various choices. A monopoly is where there is only one way to get something and it's only through one company. Getting TV, Internet, and Phone service is not a monopoly.

Terrestrial, Cable, Dish, DirectTV, Verizon, ATT, etc. There are options for everything, if a consumer can't see this they aren't looking hard enough.

[DanGarion]

Dan just bought a house. He needs the money. Cut him some slack.

I wish this made me more money.

[DanGarion]

Actually, I'd be sort of relieved if it turned out clearing the name of cable companies one net forum at a time was a money-driven endeavor for him, rather than just a consuming passion.

If it makes you happy I'll stay out of the one sided cable company posts and let you guys say whatever you want about the industry I work in.

[DanGarion]

And just for your consideration here is Time Warner Cable's press release.

Statement from Glenn Britt, President & CEO, Time Warner Cable Regarding
Viacom's Threats to Pull MTV Networks from Time Warner Cable Customers
Business Wire News Release
TWC
Time Warner Cable Inc
2008-12-31T12:20:00-05:00
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Christmas is over, but Viacom is still playing Scrooge, threatening to
pull its MTV Networks off of Time Warner Cable at midnight tonight unless we ask our customers to pay
exorbitant price increases.
Viacom claims their demands equate to "pennies," but that is misleading and insulting to our customers,
from whom Viacom is trying to extort another $39 million annually - on top of the hundreds of millions of
dollars our customers already pay to Viacom each year. That doesn't sound like pennies to us.
Demanding that our customers pay so much more for these few networks would be unreasonable in any
economy, but it is particularly outrageous given the current economic conditions.
We sympathize with the fact that Viacom's advertising business is suffering and that their networks'
ratings have largely been declining. However, we can't abide their attempt to make up their lost revenue
on the backs of Time Warner Cable customers. We've negotiated in good faith and made several
concessions to help reach a fair and reasonable deal. We've asked for an extension of the current
contract while we continue to negotiate. But Viacom doesn't appear to be interested in what's fair
and reasonable for American consumers - they're only interested in propping up their sagging bottom
line, and they are poised to pull their networks from Time Warner Cable customers tonight.
Huge price increases like what Viacom is demanding threaten the ultimate value of cable TV. Time
Warner Cable is a retail distributor of products we purchase wholesale. Wholesale programming costs
are rising dramatically every year, and, like all multichannel distributors, we have to pass on at least a
portion of the increases to our customers. Viacom's MTV Networks are just a few of the hundreds of
channels we carry. If every channel demanded huge, double-digit increases like what Viacom is trying
to force our customers to pay, it would be impossible to keep the price of cable reasonable for our
customers.
Time Warner Cable has reached hundreds of distribution agreements with other networks. In fact, we
currently have deals with every other cable programmer. The negotiations aren't always easy, but we
work hard to reach agreements that are fair to our customers and to both businesses.
We hope Viacom won't pull the MTV Networks from Time Warner Cable customers, and we'll negotiate
up to the last possible minute and beyond. But ultimately, it is Viacom's decision. We implore them to join
with us to reach a fair resolution or grant an extension, and we hope they won't carry through with their
threat to take their networks away from our customers tonight.
Source: Time Warner Cable

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sorry Dan, but as long as the exclusive franchise agreements exist, it's a monopoly. The greed of local governments isn't necessarily the fault of the cable companies but it exists nonetheless.

[QuikSand]

If it makes you happy I'll stay out of the one sided cable company posts and let you guys say whatever you want about the industry I work in.

It's not my place to ask you to change your behavior, though I understand that's what it sounds like I'm asking. And I would argue that I am very, very rarely among those doing the talking about the industry.

[DanGarion]

It's not my place to ask you to change your behavior, though I understand that's what it sounds like I'm asking. And I would argue that I am very, very rarely among those doing the talking about the industry.

I'm just sharing my point of view from the inside. Now could I be slightly biased, yes, but I really do see all sides of things. Just ask my wife, we she has a view on something I'll always take the other side so I can test her on why she is taking the side she's on... ;)

[Raiders Army]

Nope. But when when you've worked in an industry and for the same company for 11 years you tend to have a little bit of loyalty.

And I haven't always defended the industry, I point out the flaws that I see. I just think people have strange views when they say something is a monopoly but there are various choices. A monopoly is where there is only one way to get something and it's only through one company. Getting TV, Internet, and Phone service is not a monopoly.

Terrestrial, Cable, Dish, DirectTV, Verizon, ATT, etc. There are options for everything, if a consumer can't see this they aren't looking hard enough.

Noted. I understand there are various choices to receive television signals (hell, there are free ways of doing this via an off-air antenna)...however, the comment was directed towards Time-Warner having a monopoly on cable. If we were still in El Paso, we didn't have a choice when it came down to cable. They knew it and played it to the hilt.

The ONLY way to get high speed internet where we lived in El Paso was through Time-Warner. Of course, we could've gotten dial-up, but then my oldest son wouldn't be able to download porn at high rates.

[DanGarion]

Noted. I understand there are various choices to receive television signals (hell, there are free ways of doing this via an off-air antenna)...however, the comment was directed towards Time-Warner having a monopoly on cable. If we were still in El Paso, we didn't have a choice when it came down to cable. They knew it and played it to the hilt.

The ONLY way to get high speed internet where we lived in El Paso was through Time-Warner. Of course, we could've gotten dial-up, but then my oldest son wouldn't be able to download porn at high rates.

From a cable companies standpoint they own the cable wires that run through your neighborhood.

From a home ownership standpoint I wouldn't really want to see even more cables ran through my backyard on the poles there (aerial).

From a cities standpoint they think they should be in charge of who has access to easements in their municipality.

Of course lots of it comes down to cities, counties, and states that have signed exclusive franchise agreements with utility companies (water, gas, electricity, cable, phone, etc), and everyone is at fault for that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Dan, if you see a 2 year old girl on a tricycle armed with a stuffed teddy bear approaching your home, it's probably best to lock all the doors and barricade yourself in the basement until she falls asleep or leaves the area. You've been warned.

[DanGarion]

Dan, if you see a 2 year old girl on a tricycle armed with a stuffed teddy bear approaching your home, it's probably best to lock all the doors and barricade yourself in the basement until she falls asleep or leaves the area. You've been warned.
Hehe. I'm hoping things get solved, but from what I'm hearing Viacom is not going an offer an extension and it's looking like the customers and Time Warner Cable customer service reps are the ones that are going to get caught in the crossfire, since it's not like customers are going to call Viacom.

[Noop]

Seriously, do you get paid for this work? Your tireless efforts to defend the cable industry here are obvious and noted... but your vigor for doing so seems to exceed just what one might expect from the "I happen to know something about this subject" variety of same.

Is part of your job to actively shill for cable companies in semi-public settings?

http://www.bestdamnpodcastever.com/blogimages/superslam.gif

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hehe. I'm hoping things get solved, but from what I'm hearing Viacom is not going an offer an extension and it's looking like the customers and Time Warner Cable customer service reps are the ones that are going to get caught in the crossfire, since it's not like customers are going to call Viacom.

I'm not surprised. That press release that was posted didn't exactly sound like a peace offering when they started mentioning declining viewership and revenue in Viacom. Looked more like a jab to the face.

[BrianD]

This is the same type of language that was going around when the local Time Warner lost access to the local Fox affiliate. Either Time Warner is being unreasonable by not giving the stations more money, or the stations are asking for too much. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Since Fox had this same disagreement with DirecTV the year before and ABC had a recent issue with Dish, this just seems to be the new standard. Like the music industry, everybody is fighting for pieces of a shrinking pie.

[gstelmack]

Sorry Dan, but as long as the exclusive franchise agreements exist, it's a monopoly. The greed of local governments isn't necessarily the fault of the cable companies but it exists nonetheless.

Not here anymore. In North Carolina they negotiate with the state, so we have UVerse starting to take orders for competing service in this area. So, we have TWC now, UVerse starting right now, and DirecTV/Dish for those who can see the satellites. I'm starting to enjoy the competition.

On the one hand, I see TWC's point that all these channels are asking for more money, and I for one am glad they held the line on the NFL Network for example. On the other hand, they charge an exhorbitant fee for my DVRs, which just went up $3/month to $11/month, so I'd like to know what they are spending it on, given how craptaciular Navigator has been (and it's only JUST starting to stabilize).

So I'm angry at both sides for being greedy, and if it weren't for football I'd just cut TV altogether and buy DVDs of all the kids shows and the handful of other things we watch...

[DanGarion]

Just to add to my defense of Time Warner Cable. I really think that as employees we here at TWC in Los Angeles do a lot of things to try and help our customers, as long as the customers requests are reasonable. I've done the customer service thing, I did technical support here for 8 years and went above and beyond for many a customer, especially when I know we were in the fault. There were times when we had free time in my old department and we would cruise message boards and look for people having issues and attempt to help them. Heck I still do this sometimes today. In the past year I have contacted Consumerist to get a hold of a customer in our area that had posted a complaint and I got him in touch with the appropriate department to resolve his issue, I stayed in touch with him through the process to make sure it was fully resolved. On another occasion the guy that writes for 6-4-2 which is a Dodgers/Angels blog was complaining about TWC and I contacted him and work with our Office of the President to answer his questions and try and resolve those problems that we had control over. Even though I'm not in the "customer service" field at my company any more, I do look at helping customers that I see that had a real problem and trying to get it solved. This is because I take pride in my job and I have pride in what my fellow employees do for our customers and for our community (such as offered countless hours of assistance after major emergencies in our communities, as well as volunteering for numerous charity organizations. So if I'm going to come off as some quasi paid ra ra guy for my company so be it. I've seen it from the front lines what we do here.

[Crapshoot]

I'd just like to say that Comcast sucks.

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

[Crapshoot]

Sorry Dan, but as long as the exclusive franchise agreements exist, it's a monopoly. The greed of local governments isn't necessarily the fault of the cable companies but it exists nonetheless.

yup.

[Noop]

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

Comcast is beyond suck at this point. I swear they hire people who don't understand English or seems to think having an attitude with me will fix my problem.

[Chubby]

From a cable companies standpoint they own the cable wires that run through your neighborhood.

From a home ownership standpoint I wouldn't really want to see even more cables ran through my backyard on the poles there (aerial).

From a cities standpoint they think they should be in charge of who has access to easements in their municipality.

Of course lots of it comes down to cities, counties, and states that have signed exclusive franchise agreements with utility companies (water, gas, electricity, cable, phone, etc), and everyone is at fault for that.

Irrelevant. They have to give access over the wires to competing cable companies and I for one wouldn't guve a shit about having 1 more line running into the house if it meant a reduction in cable rates due to actually having competition

[DanGarion]

Irrelevant. They have to give access over the wires to competing cable companies and I for one wouldn't guve a shit about having 1 more line running into the house if it meant a reduction in cable rates due to actually having competition

Do you realize that if cable companies had to give access over their wires to competing cable companies the # of channels you get would be significantly reduced? This is because every cable company out there is already using all of the frequency spectrum that their cable plant can push, having another cable company on the same lines would require double the amount of bandwidth. Of course I'm speaking from my knowledge and I'm not familiar with any neighborhoods that have competing cable companies. If it was possible to have competition without more cables running through my city I'd be all for it, I'm fine with more competition, because that means there is also competition for my services...

[Alan T]

Comcast is beyond suck at this point. I swear they hire people who don't understand English or seems to think having an attitude with me will fix my problem.

I was not happy when I had Comcast, but when I bought my house a year and a half ago or so and ended up with Charter cable, I was wishing I had Comcast back. For everyone who is stuck with Comcast and declares how bad it is, Charter is far worse. Less programming options, Older firmware on devices (meaning less options that you have available), and their tech support is worse then Comcast (Comcast was just usually ignorant while Charter tech support downright lied about things and were misleading which I find far worse).

People complain about Comcast's internet policies or the direction they are going with some of their billing, but at least I never had any serious issues with Comcast that lasted longer than a few hours. Charter routinely had routers on their networks with bad packetloss (where web browsing would work but nothing like IPSEC tunnels or anything dependent on a decent connection) and couldn't even figure out what the problem was for six+ months.

The very day that Verizon rolled FIOS out to my neighborhood, I signed up and had an install within the week done. Anyone who is lucky enough to have Verizon FIOS are spoiled, easily the best available cable option that I have ever had.

[Alan T]

Do you realize that if cable companies had to give access over their wires to competing cable companies the # of channels you get would be significantly reduced? This is because every cable company out there is already using all of the frequency spectrum that their cable plant can push, having another cable company on the same lines would require double the amount of bandwidth. Of course I'm speaking from my knowledge and I'm not familiar with any neighborhoods that have competing cable companies. If it was possible to have competition without more cables running through my city I'd be all for it, I'm fine with more competition, because that means there is also competition for my services...

In my area there was no problem with Verizon running new fiber out to operate alongside Charter cable. Perhaps it was because they were doing that run to update phone lines anyways, so they replaced their phone with Phone/internet/TV though.

The only hurdle as far as I have heard for Verizon rolling out to more of Massachusetts is many of the local towns get greedy and demand way too much from Verizon to roll out their services to an area that might not be much more than break even at best. So from what I could tell they were trying to get authority from the state to roll it out at a state level everywhere, but I guess ran into legal hurdles where it was not the state's jurisdiction. (or something like that).

As best I can tell, the people that a community should complain to if they are not happy with the local cable provider's services is their local town government. However I doubt much ever comes from that at all ever.

[DanGarion]

In my area there was no problem with Verizon running new fiber out to operate alongside Charter cable. Perhaps it was because they were doing that run to update phone lines anyways, so they replaced their phone with Phone/internet/TV though.

The only hurdle as far as I have heard for Verizon rolling out to more of Massachusetts is many of the local towns get greedy and demand way too much from Verizon to roll out their services to an area that might not be much more than break even at best. So from what I could tell they were trying to get authority from the state to roll it out at a state level everywhere, but I guess ran into legal hurdles where it was not the state's jurisdiction. (or something like that).

As best I can tell, the people that a community should complain to if they are not happy with the local cable provider's services is their local town government. However I doubt much ever comes from that at all ever.
Oh yeah, they have been rolling out here throughout the area. The only problem we have run into is that Verizon was using contractors and they have a tendency to sometimes cut trunk lines that are running to neighborhoods when they are doing their plant extensions.

[gstelmack]

Just to add to my defense of Time Warner Cable. I really think that as employees we here at TWC in Los Angeles do a lot of things to try and help our customers, as long as the customers requests are reasonable. I've done the customer service thing, I did technical support here for 8 years and went above and beyond for many a customer, especially when I know we were in the fault. There were times when we had free time in my old department and we would cruise message boards and look for people having issues and attempt to help them. Heck I still do this sometimes today. In the past year I have contacted Consumerist to get a hold of a customer in our area that had posted a complaint and I got him in touch with the appropriate department to resolve his issue, I stayed in touch with him through the process to make sure it was fully resolved. On another occasion the guy that writes for 6-4-2 which is a Dodgers/Angels blog was complaining about TWC and I contacted him and work with our Office of the President to answer his questions and try and resolve those problems that we had control over. Even though I'm not in the "customer service" field at my company any more, I do look at helping customers that I see that had a real problem and trying to get it solved. This is because I take pride in my job and I have pride in what my fellow employees do for our customers and for our community (such as offered countless hours of assistance after major emergencies in our communities, as well as volunteering for numerous charity organizations. So if I'm going to come off as some quasi paid ra ra guy for my company so be it. I've seen it from the front lines what we do here.

When you get to the correct people, they can be pretty good.

I have TWC right now because they called me after noticing I had a shunt on my line to block TV (since they cleverly install a device that breaks down every couple of years and screws up my internet service to make sure I don't somehow get a TV signal in the house...) to see if I wanted to try them out. I'd been thinking of this because of local channel support, as I was getting them OTA and DirecTV wanted to charge me $400 to upgrade to MPEG-4 at the time (after paying $400 to go HD and then another $300 to get an HD-DVR and still not getting all the HD I had been originally promised).

So they gave me a 60-day free trial to check it out alongside DirecTV and then decide which one I wanted to keep.

Except of course that the paperwork wasn't quite right, and the guy that came out to do the install was a contractor who wanted money up front, and there was no mention of running a line to my TV (since the interior house wiring for this sucked, and all I really had were the DirecTV lines).

Since this is what I had been afraid of, I just gave up right there. Then a local VP called, offered to send out his best crew to get the install done, and made sure I was taken care of. And we still thought long and hard because the first line of support was exactly why we had DirecTV in the first place.

To his credit he did make sure everything was done right, and took care of at least one other billing glitch along the way.

Then they rolled out Navigator and almost lost us again since the first box that got it loved to decide it didn't want to record some things. We had to reboot it every other night to keep it working. They got a functional version of the software out just in time.

But of course the real question is, why do I have to get to a VP to get an install done right?

[DanGarion]

Then they rolled out Navigator and almost lost us again since the first box that got it loved to decide it didn't want to record some things. We had to reboot it every other night to keep it working. They got a functional version of the software out just in time.

But of course the real question is, why do I have to get to a VP to get an install done right?

We haven't launched Navigator here yet (thank god) but it's only like a month away.

As for why it took a VP, beats me, it's policy here that we collect CODs for 1st month on every install, so unsure why the CSR wouldn't have notified you of that. The trap that you had on your line shouldn't fail and there is no conspiracy that makes it fail every so often, but I know you were just kidding around on that. Our billing system is extremely complex, so much so that I do everything I can to stay away from it, and I'm a smart guy that understands things easily. As for running a line, what did you expect them to do beam it to you wirelessly? :)

[-apoc-]

I love TWC/Brighthouse. In the 6+ years that I have had them I have rarely encountered any problems. 2 Internet lags at 2 different places caused by faulty/aging routers(or whatever their term for them is) in the neighborhood that were fixed within a week and the upgrade to the new DVR operating system which really blow compared to the old one. But then again my insanely fast internet makes up for most of it so I dont care :)

I hope they stick it to Viacom on this one and I should probably email them about it.

[gstelmack]

We haven't launched Navigator here yet (thank god) but it's only like a month away.

As for why it took a VP, beats me, it's policy here that we collect CODs for 1st month on every install, so unsure why the CSR wouldn't have notified you of that. The trap that you had on your line shouldn't fail and there is no conspiracy that makes it fail every so often, but I know you were just kidding around on that. Our billing system is extremely complex, so much so that I do everything I can to stay away from it, and I'm a smart guy that understands things easily. As for running a line, what did you expect them to do beam it to you wirelessly? :)

Well, this was a free trial to get me to switch from satellite, so there wasn't supposed to be any out-of-pocket cash, including any COD. After 60 days I could hand in the box and walk away. From what the tech said, she just forgot a notation on the form that indicated I didn't need the COD.

The trap has failed once already, and the RoadRunner tech said he HATED them, as they fail every couple of years and he is always replacing them to get internet / phone service restored to folks who don't also have TV. When he came out and I described the issues we were having, he went right out and swapped it without even trying anything else first, and everything cleared up immediately.

I think you misunderstood the line part: I knew I needed a line run to the TV, but the rep forgot to mark that down, and the tech wanted to charge me for it. Again, I was up front on what I needed if they wanted me to take advantage of this free trial, and she forgot to pass all that along to the tech who was to come out and set it up.

[gstelmack]

Oh, and to be fair, I could talk about the DirecTV installer who decided he couldn't figure out where to drill to run a line through out of my crawlspace, so he ran it through one of my crawlspace vents, preventing me from ever closing it. Had to get him to come back out and fix that...

[Chubby]

Do you realize that if cable companies had to give access over their wires to competing cable companies the # of channels you get would be significantly reduced? This is because every cable company out there is already using all of the frequency spectrum that their cable plant can push, having another cable company on the same lines would require double the amount of bandwidth. Of course I'm speaking from my knowledge and I'm not familiar with any neighborhoods that have competing cable companies. If it was possible to have competition without more cables running through my city I'd be all for it, I'm fine with more competition, because that means there is also competition for my services...
Do you realize that it has been that way for years in NY? Adelphia didn't have their own wires, same thing goes for Verizon and internet access w/wires.

It is certainly possible to have competing services over the same wires as the content being pushed thru those wires doesn't come near capacity for the majority of areas.

[Chubby]

Just to clarify -

I don't really have an axe to grind with TW. I have always gotten good service from them and outside of the intital RR install (2000ish when my neighborhood near SU was the 1st in CNY to get RR) I have nary had a problem. My beef with them has beenin the grand scheme things (like this with Viacom, f'ing with buffalo folks and bills games, horrible CS when I do need to call them sometimes, NFL network) along with the no competition. Not having competition breeds this crap and while it's not that bad in CNY I'm sure it is in other areas.

[Tekneek]

I think Viacom is asking for too much. Perhaps TWC should offer a Viacom package, put all of their channels in it, and charge exactly what Viacom wants per subscriber for it. Of course, Viacom would not likely accept that at all. They probably want it forced onto everybody with service.

[kcchief19]

Hehe. I'm hoping things get solved, but from what I'm hearing Viacom is not going an offer an extension and it's looking like the customers and Time Warner Cable customer service reps are the ones that are going to get caught in the crossfire, since it's not like customers are going to call Viacom.
Unless TWC puts a screen on every single channel that says Viacom has taken away this channel and here's the number to call to raise all holy hell. At that point, TWC is in charge because who's going to go finding the number for TWC when they have given me Viacom's number on screen?
From a cable companies standpoint they own the cable wires that run through your neighborhood.
Tell that to AT&T. 25 years ago not a single company other than AT&T owned any phone lines connecting subscribers -- then the courts said it was an illegal monopoly, broke them up and required AT&T to provide essentially free access to anyone who wanted to sell long distance to AT&T's lines, including their central offices. AT&T had to pay to upgrade their central offices to accommodate all the companies that needed access. Bottom line -- there's a precedent for this, and the cable companies would be wise to not force the hand of the courts or Congress.
Of course lots of it comes down to cities, counties, and states that have signed exclusive franchise agreements with utility companies (water, gas, electricity, cable, phone, etc), and everyone is at fault for that.
Again, pretty much irrelevant. If the courts rule that the cable companies have a monopoly, the franchise agreements are out the window. It doesn't matter that the city has an agreement (AT&T had exclusive agreements with states too), ultimately the antitrust issue is that individual consumers are having a utility thrust upon them without choice.

[Chubby]

I think Viacom is asking for too much. Perhaps TWC should offer a Viacom package, put all of their channels in it, and charge exactly what Viacom wants per subscriber for it. Of course, Viacom would not likely accept that at all. They probably want it forced onto everybody with service.
a la carte is something the cable companies steadfastly refuse to go to

[Raiders Army]

Time-Warner told me they didn't own the lines and the city needed to upgrade the lines in order for me to get TV signals/internet/phone. Maybe things are different in L.A.

We've lived in three different places (an hour North of NYC, El Paso, and now Cache, OK) and Time-Warner was the "provider" in two of them. We definitely weren't happy with them in El Paso. In NY, they weren't so bad.

[DanGarion]

Do you realize that it has been that way for years in NY? Adelphia didn't have their own wires, same thing goes for Verizon and internet access w/wires.

It is certainly possible to have competing services over the same wires as the content being pushed thru those wires doesn't come near capacity for the majority of areas.

Are you talking about the wires that drop to the house, or the main trunks/feeds that feed the neighborhoods? Wasn't aware of areas that are that way, I'm only familiar with overbuilders that run their own trunk/feed lines in neighborhoods that we service.

Crazy we push content from 21 Mhz all the way to 1 Gig and nearly all the spectrum is used for channels. But then we also waste some of the bandwidth on channels being on multiple QAM frequencies for god knows what reason, not to mention that we still push analog content which really wastes bandwidth, but keeps people happy that don't have cable boxes or a QAM tuner.

[DanGarion]

Well, this was a free trial to get me to switch from satellite, so there wasn't supposed to be any out-of-pocket cash, including any COD. After 60 days I could hand in the box and walk away. From what the tech said, she just forgot a notation on the form that indicated I didn't need the COD.

The trap has failed once already, and the RoadRunner tech said he HATED them, as they fail every couple of years and he is always replacing them to get internet / phone service restored to folks who don't also have TV. When he came out and I described the issues we were having, he went right out and swapped it without even trying anything else first, and everything cleared up immediately.

I think you misunderstood the line part: I knew I needed a line run to the TV, but the rep forgot to mark that down, and the tech wanted to charge me for it. Again, I was up front on what I needed if they wanted me to take advantage of this free trial, and she forgot to pass all that along to the tech who was to come out and set it up.

Nice incompetency on the CSR. Can't say I haven't seen that happen time and time again. :(

[Chubby]

Are you talking about the wires that drop to the house, or the main trunks/feeds that feed the neighborhoods? Wasn't aware of areas that are that way, I'm only familiar with overbuilders that run their own trunk/feed lines in neighborhoods that we service.

Crazy we push content from 21 Mhz all the way to 1 Gig and nearly all the spectrum is used for channels. But then we also waste some of the bandwidth on channels being on multiple QAM frequencies for god knows what reason, not to mention that we still push analog content which really wastes bandwidth, but keeps people happy that don't have cable boxes or a QAM tuner.

I'm almost positive it was a shared use of main cables and house lines.

Yah, now I couldn't tell you how much bandwith Adelphia took up or how much TW uses now (% of capacity) but I know they aren't using everything.

My beefs would also apply to Crapcast or any other big cable provider, it just happens to be TW here.

[DanGarion]

a la carte is something the cable companies steadfastly refuse to go to

I'm split on a la carte. I see the logistical nightmare it can cause for a company by customers that want to constantly change the channels they have.

Plus I think that we would end up having many less channels if a la carte became status quo because those channels that less people watch wouldn't be given support by being included in packages.

The only way I could see this work on the cable company side is that if we allowed a la carte we would also have to have stipulations on fees for changing channels, as well as 1 month minimum subscriptions. Because it would be a nightmare to have the penny pinching type people that would call every day, or even every couple hours to change the channels included in their lineup so they could pay the least possible amount.

Maybe the industry should look into a pay for use concept, like they want to do for Internet... Where if you watch a channel you are charged a certain amount based on the length of time you watched it... :D

[Chubby]

Time-Warner told me they didn't own the lines and the city needed to upgrade the lines in order for me to get TV signals/internet/phone. Maybe things are different in L.A.

We've lived in three different places (an hour North of NYC, El Paso, and now Cache, OK) and Time-Warner was the "provider" in two of them. We definitely weren't happy with them in El Paso. In NY, they weren't so bad.

Heh, was this joe CS tech or someone with actual knowledge tho :) It's certainly possible they don't own the lines but I'd take it with a grain of salt too :)

[gstelmack]

I'm split on a la carte. I see the logistical nightmare it can cause for a company by customers that want to constantly change the channels they have.

DirecTV has an awesome website where you can change your packages very easily. ;)

They did have to implement a rule about not dropping a channel until X amount of time has passed from when you added it to deal with people adding HBO for a day once every week just to record the Sopranos, but that was the only real issue with it.

[gstelmack]

I think Viacom is asking for too much. Perhaps TWC should offer a Viacom package, put all of their channels in it, and charge exactly what Viacom wants per subscriber for it. Of course, Viacom would not likely accept that at all. They probably want it forced onto everybody with service.

I agree with you on this. Lots of content makers are getting demanding with their pricing when only a minority of people on the cableco really want it. NFL Network got burned by this. Heck, my kids have mostly gone past Dora and Diego and watch mostly Sprout, Qubo (on NBC), and Disney channel (plus DVDs which are the most popular) so there is not a single channel in that Viacom list I'll miss.

It also puts a dent in the whole "you get TV for free so you must watch our advertising" argument being used against various fastforward / rewind features on DVRs, since they are getting a chunk of money per customer, not just per viewer.

OTOH, the cable companies haven't been shy about raising rates either, have been slow to roll out HD, and are gouging me on things like "DVR fees" that are unrelated to channel costs and claiming "free HD" by charging me an arm and a leg for the converter box instead of charging me for the HD, so there are no saints in this battle.

[DanGarion]

OTOH, the cable companies haven't been shy about raising rates either, have been slow to roll out HD, and are gouging me on things like "DVR fees" that are unrelated to channel costs and claiming "free HD" by charging me an arm and a leg for the converter box instead of charging me for the HD, so there are no saints in this battle.

I'm 100% with you on that, I honestly can't even answer what all the charges are for. We are raising our rates this year, but it was inevitable due to rising costs. I still only have 20 HD channels where I'm at, but part of that is because it costs a lot to upgrade the cable plant, costs associated with the equipment that sends the signal all the way down to upgrading the nodes, amps, etc for the increased range of frequencies we will be using. Then on top of that running into various issues with the plant after the upgrade is done. I was supposed to get another 20 channels last month but I'm still waiting.

I'm only going to try and explain what the fees could possibly be for. DVR Fees of course would be, um well it's a service and other companies charge it so we should be able to as well (other companies being Tivo).

The HD converter box is more expensive, and it's more expensive to maintain and repair once they come back from a customers home.

My experience with equipment is that a lot of the stuff is crap and faulty, but I honestly blame most of that on the manufactures, so as a consumer you are pretty lucky there really aren't any full fledged consumer digital cable boxes or digital cable DVR boxes on the market yet (I don't consider Tivo a digital cable box because you can't get the cable companies guide and you have to pay Tivo for their service). Someday Scientific Atlanta and Motorola will get their act together. We swap out boxes a lot and we wouldn't be able to swap a customers owned box.

[SteveMax58]

I think Viacom is asking for too much. Perhaps TWC should offer a Viacom package, put all of their channels in it, and charge exactly what Viacom wants per subscriber for it. Of course, Viacom would not likely accept that at all. They probably want it forced onto everybody with service.

I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that this is the case.

They would never agree to such terms, and in fact are one of the biggest opponents to a-la-carte programming. They are the biggest example of a company that has 3-4 solid networks and then "forces" cable companies to offer the remaining 20 that nobody watches by making outrageous price demands for offerring only their flagship services.

[SteveMax58]

OTOH, the cable companies haven't been shy about raising rates either, have been slow to roll out HD, and are gouging me on things like "DVR fees" that are unrelated to channel costs and claiming "free HD" by charging me an arm and a leg for the converter box instead of charging me for the HD, so there are no saints in this battle.

I can tell you why they do this.

An HD-DVR box is basically a computer, both in price, and in required functionality by the FCC(i.e. it must support 1394...even though nobody uses it). These boxes cost (and remember the volumes we're talking here) $400-$600 each. At $10/mo it would take at least 4 years just to make your money back for the box. More likely...you'll need to buy a new box within 4 years(or closer to 3 depending on newest must-have features and hopefully it doesnt just "die" in 2 years since the manuf wont buy it back). And none of this accounts for the cost of transporting, warehousing, testing, (potentially)replacing, etc.

The FCC also does not allow cable companies(or any MSO), to charge any higher than $9/mo (could be $12, I forget ATM). So when they charge you for these silly fees and the like...they are doing so to compensate for not being allowed to recoup in a more straightforward manner. Right, wrong, or indifferent...these types of nonsensical regulations just lead to higher customer confusion about their bills (and the phone companies have similar legacy-issues for much of their own silly charges and fees). Again...corporations do not "eat" costs...they just find other ways to pass them on. Might not like it, but this isnt the only industry doing that.

On the Viacom point...as much as I would love to see them get a deal worked out...it just doesnt make any sense to start raising rates significantly just for Viacom as it sets a precedant for every other companies' negotiations. I think those of you pointing to TWC having issues with NFL, CBS, ABC, and the like in the past should realize that these companies have been wildly more successful than TWC for years and years. Cable companies' only leverage to keep rates down was their "monopolistic" nature(though I can tell you it is perfectly "legal" to go start your own cable co and start applying for franchise licenses, r-o-way permits, etc...it's just God-awfully expensive to do such a thing).

Hate to sound like a cable co spokesman(I am a cable co employee), but like Dan, I've seen these issues from many sides and can tell you this would be the equivalency of EA offerring Madden for $160 tomorrow. Even if you "could" afford it...would you really want to encourage every other company to do the same?

[SteveMax58]

I'm almost positive it was a shared use of main cables and house lines.

Yah, now I couldn't tell you how much bandwith Adelphia took up or how much TW uses now (% of capacity) but I know they aren't using everything.

My beefs would also apply to Crapcast or any other big cable provider, it just happens to be TW here.

I dont think anybody would be sharing "cables" per se which run from pole-to-pole(though sometimes companies lease fibers from each other, but thats different).

I imagine you may have seen an apartment/townhome area which as a homerun option for each unit to take competing companies...or you were in an exclusive development(doesnt have to be overly fancy, but likely newish) that overbuilt for this purpose.

But it isnt possible for cable companies to literally share the hardline coax which acts as a trunk to feed and branch off to individual homes.

[SteveMax58]

Hoo, boy. If Noggin goes off the air, my 2 year old daughter would peddle her tricycle to the Time Warner offices and beat someone to death with a stuffed animal.

Would this be...Quadola??

My 2-yr old son will be doing the same thing tomorrow morning. He's gonna be pissed.

[gstelmack]

I can tell you why they do this.

An HD-DVR box is basically a computer, both in price, and in required functionality by the FCC(i.e. it must support 1394...even though nobody uses it). These boxes cost (and remember the volumes we're talking here) $400-$600 each. At $10/mo it would take at least 4 years just to make your money back for the box. More likely...you'll need to buy a new box within 4 years(or closer to 3 depending on newest must-have features and hopefully it doesnt just "die" in 2 years since the manuf wont buy it back). And none of this accounts for the cost of transporting, warehousing, testing, (potentially)replacing, etc.

I get all of that. Just surprised it went up 25%. They are the ones obsoleting their boxes on a regular basis, and as pointed out they break down like mad. Plus they ship these tiny hard drives in them to keep them as cheap as possible.

Surprised they run $400-$600 apiece though, given that they have far less horsepower than say an Xbox 360.

As for the 1394 feature, the reason people don't use most of those features is because they typically don't work. Go check out the Navigator AVS forum for how well the eSATA connection works, let alone folks that really want the 1394 for streaming to a PC that never seems to function. We can also discuss the CableCard feature that was supposed to let folks buy their own DVR (such as a TIVO) that they obsoleted as fast as they could.

[Tekneek]

a la carte is something the cable companies steadfastly refuse to go to

The providers don't like it either. That's why they force carriage in specific packages in their contracts much of the time.

[DanGarion]

I get all of that. Just surprised it went up 25%. They are the ones obsoleting their boxes on a regular basis, and as pointed out they break down like mad. Plus they ship these tiny hard drives in them to keep them as cheap as possible.

Surprised they run $400-$600 apiece though, given that they have far less horsepower than say an Xbox 360.

As for the 1394 feature, the reason people don't use most of those features is because they typically don't work. Go check out the Navigator AVS forum for how well the eSATA connection works, let alone folks that really want the 1394 for streaming to a PC that never seems to function. We can also discuss the CableCard feature that was supposed to let folks buy their own DVR (such as a TIVO) that they obsoleted as fast as they could.

160 GB hard drive in a DVR up until recently was pretty robust that would record 60 hours of digital cable content, unfortunately it only records 20 hours of HD content.

The Xbox 360 price is subsidized by game, accessories sales as well as licensing. I'm going to take the word they in your whole post as a conglomerate of cable companies, hardware companies, MPAA, FCC, and the publics demands, since I think they all have some blame in most of the obsolescence.

[Subby]

I <3 FiOS.

[SteveMax58]

I get all of that. Just surprised it went up 25%. They are the ones obsoleting their boxes on a regular basis, and as pointed out they break down like mad. Plus they ship these tiny hard drives in them to keep them as cheap as possible.

But the problem is that they are forced to obsolete the boxes and move to an open, seperable security platform. All cable companies are doing this slowly but surely. It's part of the new True2Way initiative mandated by the FCC. They(the FCC) believe it is in consumers' interests to have the ability to go to Best Buy and get a box off the shelf and keep it. As a developer you may be interested in looking into it more as you could, in theory, develop apps for cable boxes...OpenCable (http://www.opencable.com/) and OCAP (tru2way) CENTER | OCAP/EBIF Developer Network (http://oedn.net/ocap_center) will have some useful info if interested.

As a side note...I can tell you from first hand knowledge that cable companies would be happy to not have to plan, project, buy, warehouse, and be held hostage by the big 2 manufacturers of cable boxes ever again. I'm not sold on it being best for consumers, honestly, but choices are choices, and I am for that.

Surprised they run $400-$600 apiece though, given that they have far less horsepower than say an Xbox 360.

Yeah, thats more of the top of the line HD-DVR with multiple tuners, etc. models. The functionalities that are costly are the HD decoding and tuners, myriads of conversion boards and the like. But as an example...that 1394 option adds about $25 per box. So...you can do some easy math and see the relative cost for such features.

As for the 1394 feature, the reason people don't use most of those features is because they typically don't work. Go check out the Navigator AVS forum for how well the eSATA connection works, let alone folks that really want the 1394 for streaming to a PC that never seems to function. We can also discuss the CableCard feature that was supposed to let folks buy their own DVR (such as a TIVO) that they obsoleted as fast as they could.

I cant speak to the specifics of the 1394 feature working or not working in certain circumstances as their are (intentional) limitations to what can be sent to a PC and what cannot(and these are generally dictated by the broadcasters, like Viacom). I'll have to shoot over there and see what kinds of problems people are seeing.

As far as CableCard, it will allow TiVO interop soon, but as noted above, compatibility is not quite good enough yet. There is a new rev on the way, from my understanding, that specifically addresses it. TiVO is a big, big priority in cable co's these days.

Navigator had a ton of bugs that should have been caught before releasing it to the public(in my view). It is 1000% better today than upon release (which may not be saying much if you believe it sucked completely upon release). It is constantly being developed though, and will continue to improve over the coming months.

Not trying to sell you(or anybody) on cable co's at all. They have their faults and aggravate me as well. But I do think they sometimes get blamed for things that they really cant win with. They can hike rates and keep Viacom going, then they get blamed for being greedy and raising rates. They let Viacom go off the air, and they get blamed for being greedy yet again.

[SteveMax58]

I <3 FiOS.

Thanks!!

I played a pretty key role in getting that picture nice and pretty for ya! :)

[DanGarion]

Thanks!!

I played a pretty key role in getting that picture nice and pretty for ya! :)

BOO! J/K ;)

[RainMaker]

Do you realize that if cable companies had to give access over their wires to competing cable companies the # of channels you get would be significantly reduced? This is because every cable company out there is already using all of the frequency spectrum that their cable plant can push, having another cable company on the same lines would require double the amount of bandwidth. Of course I'm speaking from my knowledge and I'm not familiar with any neighborhoods that have competing cable companies. If it was possible to have competition without more cables running through my city I'd be all for it, I'm fine with more competition, because that means there is also competition for my services...

Lets be honest here, the infrastructure problem with the cable companies is in part fault of their own. They have received massive amounts of tax credits and funding to build out the infrastructure in the U.S. They have failed miserably at doing so. I guess fail may not be the best word considering they did pocket a lot of that money for themselves.

And other attempts to build out the infrastructure have been thwarted by many of the cable companies who like hanging on to their little monopoly.

In the end, Time Warner fights to keep their monopoly anyway they can. Therefore they deserve the brunt of any blame. When you actively hire family members of politicians and bribe them to keep out competitors, you can't sit back and cry when people are upset with your services. Other countries have no problem providing better services at a fraction of the cost.

[SteveMax58]

BOO! J/K ;)

Hehe...I'm back with the "good guys" now though!! That counts, doesnt it??

[sterlingice]

I <3 FiOS.

Agreed. That said, Verizon has god-awful land-line phone service here. It fails to connect and disconnects more than my cell phone.

SI

[DanGarion]

Lets be honest here, the infrastructure problem with the cable companies is in part fault of their own. They have received massive amounts of tax credits and funding to build out the infrastructure in the U.S. They have failed miserably at doing so. I guess fail may not be the best word considering they did pocket a lot of that money for themselves.

And other attempts to build out the infrastructure have been thwarted by many of the cable companies who like hanging on to their little monopoly.

In the end, Time Warner fights to keep their monopoly anyway they can. Therefore they deserve the brunt of any blame. When you actively hire family members of politicians and bribe them to keep out competitors, you can't sit back and cry when people are upset with your services. Other countries have no problem providing better services at a fraction of the cost.

Can't really say anything on the first part since I don't know how a public company can pocket tax credits since they have to show their books to the public, but you evidentially know more then I do. Unless you are talking about Adelphia, who had people committing fraud which I don't support no matter who they are.

But as for the last comment regarding better services at a fraction of the cost, you could say that about many sectors in the US, and although the companies might push for it, it's our own government that allows it, who we all put in office.

[DanGarion]

Hehe...I'm back with the "good guys" now though!! That counts, doesnt it??

Eh, none of them are good guys really, except for the fact that they pay us when payday comes around. :)

[Chubby]

Can't really say anything on the first part since I don't know how a public company can pocket tax credits since they have to show their books to the public, but you evidentially know more then I do. Unless you are talking about Adelphia, who had people committing fraud which I don't support no matter who they are.

But as for the last comment regarding better services at a fraction of the cost, you could say that about many sectors in the US, and although the companies might push for it, it's our own government that allows it, who we all put in office.

That's all well and good (that the govt allows it) but that doesn't just wash the dirty hands clean...

[RainMaker]

a la carte is something the cable companies steadfastly refuse to go to

My biggest issue with a la carte is that it might completely eliminate a lot of smaller channels that are not popular. Take Discovery for instance. They have a lot of channels like the Discovery Channel, TLC, and Animal Planet. I really enjoy the Science Channel that they have. But it's probably not a channel that would have big subscribers and thus might simply get thrown in the dumpster by the company.

I think an a la carte system would just benefit the bigger stations more like ESPN. As someone who tends to watch a lot of the smaller networks like Bio, Science, etc, I'd be worried about losing them.

[RainMaker]

Can't really say anything on the first part since I don't know how a public company can pocket tax credits since they have to show their books to the public, but you evidentially know more then I do. Unless you are talking about Adelphia, who had people committing fraud which I don't support no matter who they are.

But as for the last comment regarding better services at a fraction of the cost, you could say that about many sectors in the US, and although the companies might push for it, it's our own government that allows it, who we all put in office.

Telcos Lay $200 Billion Goose Egg | WebProNews (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/05/12/telcos-lay-billion-goose-egg)
I, Cringely . The Pulpit . The $200 Billion Rip-Off | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html)

There are tons of other stories about this. It is fraud and they should be held accountable. But those companies own our politicians, so there is not much we can do. These companies have been getting credits and charging customers for infrastructure developments that never happen.

[SteveMax58]

Lets be honest here, the infrastructure problem with the cable companies is in part fault of their own. They have received massive amounts of tax credits and funding to build out the infrastructure in the U.S. They have failed miserably at doing so. I guess fail may not be the best word considering they did pocket a lot of that money for themselves.

How do you define "failed"? And I don't mean that sarcastically.

The US as a whole, has the most broadband access in the world. On a per capita basis, we rank #16 in the world.

Why not #1 per capita? Maybe it's because we have a more dispersed living arrangement compared to the rest of the world? It costs quite a fortune to run fiber and even hardline coax per mile (using US labor mind you). So without getting too deep into comparing US geographies and lifestyles, I'd say we are doing exceptionally well as an industry. Sure it would be nice if some of the more rural areas could have access more readily available...but to me, thats a failure on the part of the municipality and/or state not funding their own infrastructure projects and being a bit more innovative with wireless spectrum.

And other attempts to build out the infrastructure have been thwarted by many of the cable companies who like hanging on to their little monopoly.

In the end, Time Warner fights to keep their monopoly anyway they can. Therefore they deserve the brunt of any blame. When you actively hire family members of politicians and bribe them to keep out competitors, you can't sit back and cry when people are upset with your services. Other countries have no problem providing better services at a fraction of the cost.

As far as monopolies go...ALL businesses that have a firm control of a market tend to take protectionist stances. Phone companies did the exact same tactics when it came to cable co's offerring phone and internet services. I agree it's silly, but it happens in every industry.

Other countries? Maybe you are referring to Japan and maybe the UK? I would need to do some research on it, but I can speak first hand in regards to a few countries...and I saw prices for 256k (which is business class in India in 2006) which were higher than US T-1 rates.

[SteveMax58]

My biggest issue with a la carte is that it might completely eliminate a lot of smaller channels that are not popular. Take Discovery for instance. They have a lot of channels like the Discovery Channel, TLC, and Animal Planet. I really enjoy the Science Channel that they have. But it's probably not a channel that would have big subscribers and thus might simply get thrown in the dumpster by the company.

I think an a la carte system would just benefit the bigger stations more like ESPN. As someone who tends to watch a lot of the smaller networks like Bio, Science, etc, I'd be worried about losing them.

I agree with this analysis...and it's also the position the parent companies of them take.

In general, cable doesnt really care that much, other than the complexity and costs associated with an a-la-carte offerring(which would be substantial given current systems).

[sterlingice]

My biggest issue with a la carte is that it might completely eliminate a lot of smaller channels that are not popular. Take Discovery for instance. They have a lot of channels like the Discovery Channel, TLC, and Animal Planet. I really enjoy the Science Channel that they have. But it's probably not a channel that would have big subscribers and thus might simply get thrown in the dumpster by the company.

I think an a la carte system would just benefit the bigger stations more like ESPN. As someone who tends to watch a lot of the smaller networks like Bio, Science, etc, I'd be worried about losing them.

Agreed on this.

SI

[stevew]

Woke up this morning to laurenw telling me about this. She was all worried til I told her we have Dish and it doesn't matter for us. LeahW would be right behind mbbf's kid on her new rollerskates heading to twc if they cut her access to spongebob.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: the ala carte thing, just for some frame of reference, here's the 20 most watched networks (by households) for the week ending 12/14.

Primetime
USA (2,258,000)
ESPN
Fox News
ABC Family
TBS
Lifetime
Nick At Nite
TNT
Hallmark
A&E
Cartoon Network (1,111,200)
History
AMC
Spike
Sci Fi
CNN
Discovery
Comedy Central
FX
HGTV
MSNBC
Tru TV
TLC
Food
Headline News (648,000)

Total day numbers are similar, Nick #1 (1,667,000),Nick at Nite climbing to #2, and Adult Swim appearing at #8 replacing HLN. The rest just shuffle a few spots.

[SteveMax58]

I'm surprised to see Hallmark on that list. Must be seasonal programming.

[RainMaker]

How do you define "failed"? And I don't mean that sarcastically.

The US as a whole, has the most broadband access in the world. On a per capita basis, we rank #16 in the world.

Why not #1 per capita? Maybe it's because we have a more dispersed living arrangement compared to the rest of the world? It costs quite a fortune to run fiber and even hardline coax per mile (using US labor mind you). So without getting too deep into comparing US geographies and lifestyles, I'd say we are doing exceptionally well as an industry. Sure it would be nice if some of the more rural areas could have access more readily available...but to me, thats a failure on the part of the municipality and/or state not funding their own infrastructure projects and being a bit more innovative with wireless spectrum.

I've heard all the arguments about it. The fact is that we are near the bottom of the industrialized world in internet speed and cost. I'm not even talking about penetration into rural areas.

If you've ever been to Japan, you know just how pathetic our broadband is. I think we should be striving for leading the world in technology. Not making a bunch of excuses and hovering around 16th.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm surprised to see Hallmark on that list. Must be seasonal programming.

Nope, they're consistently in the top 20 for households. They do quite well with older viewers & those looking for family oriented programming.

The past year or so has seen several little surprises pop up, Hallmark being one of them, TV Land posting decent ratings with viewers as young as 25-34 was another that jumped out at me in 2008.

[sterlingice]

I've heard all the arguments about it. The fact is that we are near the bottom of the industrialized world in internet speed and cost. I'm not even talking about penetration into rural areas.

If you've ever been to Japan, you know just how pathetic our broadband is. I think we should be striving for leading the world in technology. Not making a bunch of excuses and hovering around 16th.

Again, I don't have much for comparison but I just don't see how we aren't at the top of the industrialized world. We're 16th but that's mainly because some people can't throw down the $10-$50 per month for internet access, not because it's not available. There's satellite in rural areas and phone line proliferation is over 99%.

I was in Italy this past year and we blow them so far out of the water it's not even funny. You can get cable/dsl cheaply and now both Verizon and AT&T are running fibre out to people's houses and cable companies are doing similar high level stuff. I also remember talking to my sister about her semester abroad in Japan about 5 years ago when I had cable for $30 and anyone could get dial up for $10, they were still paying by the minute there because of their crazy phone infrastructure.

EDIT: Here's the results of that survey. We are NOT "at the bottom of the industrialized world" at all. You want to say math and science, yes, we're doing crappy next to the major powers we should be competing with. But computer-wise, we're near the top.

Have you seen the list of who is ahead of us, at our horrible 14th (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_use_percap-internet-users-per-capita)? It's a per capita list and we're at 68% proliferation. How many large countries are above us? And who are they? Is it England? Japan? France? Germany? Rivals Russia and China? No, it's the bleeping Faroe Islands, New Zealand, and Greenland. There's internet crazy South Korea, where gaming is bigger than sports, and countries that fall into one of two categories: small and rich countries (Andorra, Luxembourg, etc) or socialist and government provided (Scandanavia, Netherlands, Canada, etc).

So let's not blow this out of crazy proportion. We have the second highest proliferation for any major country (if you count Canada as being #1) so I think we're ok. Especially, since we're in a country that really emphasizes the haves and have nots.

SI

[SteveMax58]

The past year or so has seen several little surprises pop up, Hallmark being one of them, TV Land posting decent ratings with viewers as young as 25-34 was another that jumped out at me in 2008.

That is surprising to me. Not that I would be the first to know, but surprising nonetheless.

[RainMaker]

Again, I don't have much for comparison but I just don't see how we aren't at the top of the industrialized world. We're 16th but that's mainly because some people can't throw down the $10-$50 per month for internet access, not because it's not available. There's satellite in rural areas and phone line proliferation is over 99%.

I was in Italy this past year and we blow them so far out of the water it's not even funny. You can get cable/dsl cheaply and now both Verizon and AT&T are running fibre out to people's houses and cable companies are doing similar high level stuff. I also remember talking to my sister about her semester abroad in Japan about 5 years ago when I had cable for $30 and anyone could get dial up for $10, they were still paying by the minute there because of their crazy phone infrastructure.

EDIT: Here's the results of that survey. We are NOT "at the bottom of the industrialized world" at all. You want to say math and science, yes, we're doing crappy next to the major powers we should be competing with. But computer-wise, we're near the top.

Have you seen the list of who is ahead of us, at our horrible 14th (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_use_percap-internet-users-per-capita)? It's a per capita list and we're at 68% proliferation. How many large countries are above us? And who are they? Is it England? Japan? France? Germany? Rivals Russia and China? No, it's the bleeping Faroe Islands, New Zealand, and Greenland. There's internet crazy South Korea, where gaming is bigger than sports, and countries that fall into one of two categories: small and rich countries (Andorra, Luxembourg, etc) or socialist and government provided (Scandanavia, Netherlands, Canada, etc).

So let's not blow this out of crazy proportion. We have the second highest proliferation for any major country (if you count Canada as being #1) so I think we're ok. Especially, since we're in a country that really emphasizes the haves and have nots.

SI

You're talking about adoption and penetration. I can understand that to an extent (although Canada somehow seems to be able to deal with their rural areas). I'm talking about speed and cost.

Speed wise we are dismal. Japan is running on average at 63mbps and South Korea is at 43mbps. Fine, they like gaming. But how about Finland which is at 21mbps or France at 17mbps. This is the median speed for their countries. Most of this country can't get those speeds at all. Comcast doesn't offer anything close to that and I live in Chicago. I completely understand not having super fast speeds in hodunk city, but should we not be at least competitive in our major cities?

And cost is the other area where we are pathetic. We have one of the most expensive broadband costs out of any country in the world. Japan pays the same amount of money and gets speeds 30 times ours.

I'm not worried about the guy in a small town not being able to get broadband, I'm worried about the guys in New York, Chicago, and other major cities having speeds 10-20 times slower than many countries. All I know is that in Tokyo, I can download a movie in a minute. In Chicago, it takes me 2 hours. Something is wrong with that.

Edit: I'm wrong, Japan is about 40% less than what we pay.

[lighthousekeeper]

You're talking about adoption and penetration.

I thought with adoption you didn't need penetration... Wait what are we talking a-boot?

[Matthean]

Time Warner Cable and Viacom reach deal - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/viacom_time_warner_cable)

[cougarfreak]

You're talking about adoption and penetration. I can understand that to an extent (although Canada somehow seems to be able to deal with their rural areas). I'm talking about speed and cost.

Speed wise we are dismal. Japan is running on average at 63mbps and South Korea is at 43mbps. Fine, they like gaming. But how about Finland which is at 21mbps or France at 17mbps. This is the median speed for their countries. Most of this country can't get those speeds at all. Comcast doesn't offer anything close to that and I live in Chicago. I completely understand not having super fast speeds in hodunk city, but should we not be at least competitive in our major cities?

And cost is the other area where we are pathetic. We have one of the most expensive broadband costs out of any country in the world. Japan pays the same amount of money and gets speeds 30 times ours.

I'm not worried about the guy in a small town not being able to get broadband, I'm worried about the guys in New York, Chicago, and other major cities having speeds 10-20 times slower than many countries. All I know is that in Tokyo, I can download a movie in a minute. In Chicago, it takes me 2 hours. Something is wrong with that.

Edit: I'm wrong, Japan is about 40% less than what we pay.

I wonder how many people have an option as to what broadband service they can use? Don't most get it through their cable service? I know I only have one option, Insight. Maybe if we allowed more than one cable company into areas (and maybe some areas do), it would allow for competition that would drive the price down.

[gstelmack]

I believe most places there are two options: cablemodem from cableco, and DSL from telco.

[Router Help]

I wonder how many people have an option as to what broadband service they can use? Don't most get it through their cable service? I know I only have one option, Insight. Maybe if we allowed more than one cable company into areas (and maybe some areas do), it would allow for competition that would drive the price down.

We have 3! cable options in addition to the normal DSL options: Comcast, ATT, and WOW. And as of today my provider, WOW, has dropped Fox Soccer Channel. :mad:

[DanGarion]

Glad to see TWC and Viacom were able to make a deal.

As for here we have the option of High Speed from Cable or DSL from Phone, or Fiber from Phone...

[DeToxRox]

We have 3! cable options in addition to the normal DSL options: Comcast, ATT, and WOW. And as of today my provider, WOW, has dropped Fox Soccer Channel. :mad:

WOW has added a lot of channels lately. Any idea wtf they'll add more HD channels, like USA and Spike? That's all I care about anymore.

It is nice to finally have ESPNU though.

[Samdari]

DVR Fees of course would be, um well it's a service and other companies charge it so we should be able to as well (other companies being Tivo).


This has always annoyed me, and its why I don't have a DVR. What service is being provided? Keeping the box working?

The DVR box does all the work. Once I have the hardware, there should be no monthly fee.