TWC vs Fox

[gstelmack]

Fox stays firm, no arbitration in Time Warner Cable spat - Dec. 30, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/30/news/companies/time_warner_cable_fox_kerry/index.htm)

Probably one of the few times I'll side with a cable company. If Fox wants to charge TWC $1/subscriber for a free OTA station, screw 'em. This also starts entering the realm of "I paid for the station, so why do I have to watch the commercials again?".

Of course as expensive as TV is getting, I'm that much closer to joining the ranks of those who get no pay TV and instead just buy DVDs and maybe use Internet streaming services. About the only thing I'd lose is NFL games, and I don't get to watch nearly as many of those as I'd like anyway. Between digital packages, DVR fees, extra outlet fees, and HD fees, a pretty basic digital cable package for two TVs is hitting $80+. I don't get that much out of it. And the content providers aren't helping the already price-gouging distributers with these tactics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Probably one of the few times I'll side with a cable company. If Fox wants to charge TWC $1/subscriber for a free OTA station, screw 'em.

On the other hand, TWC has no divine right to profit from Fox without compensation. The $1/subscriber fee is about the same as what TWC pays for TNT, which has fewer viewers, so the amount really doesn't seem out of line to me.

And at this point, with advertising dollars (relatively) drying up, the compensation from the cable operator is becoming a necessary revenue stream for the broadcast networks unless we're okay with the cable networks acquiring the rights to every sporting event out there. In which case you then pay for it in increased fees to them anyway.

This also starts entering the realm of "I paid for the station, so why do I have to watch the commercials again?".

Do you ask the same question about ESPN, TNT, CNN, etc? Maybe you do, I'm just asking.

[rowech]

Time Warner plays this game with everyone...they are without question the worst company I have ever dealt with.

[Schmidty]

FOX is so tired of shitty weather that they're not going to use TWC anymore in their forecasts?

[Schmidty]

FOX is so tired of shitty weather that they're not going to use TWC anymore in their forecasts?

That wasn't funny.

[JPhillips]

On the other hand, TWC has no divine right to profit from Fox without compensation. The $1/subscriber fee is about the same as what TWC pays for TNT, which has fewer viewers, so the amount really doesn't seem out of line to me.

And at this point, with advertising dollars (relatively) drying up, the compensation from the cable operator is becoming a necessary revenue stream for the broadcast networks unless we're okay with the cable networks acquiring the rights to every sporting event out there. In which case you then pay for it in increased fees to them anyway.



Do you ask the same question about ESPN, TNT, CNN, etc? Maybe you do, I'm just asking.

Isn't it a rather dangerous game of chicken for both? Fox needs the faces TWC provides or it's ad revenue will dry up further.

[Neuqua]

That wasn't funny.

Yes it was.

[PilotMan]

FOX is so tired of shitty weather that they're not going to use TWC anymore in their forecasts?

Bingo! Why is Fox news going to war with The Weather Channel?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Bingo! Why is Fox news going to war with The Weather Channel?

GLOBAL WARMING!

[RainMaker]

Isn't it a rather dangerous game of chicken for both? Fox needs the faces TWC provides or it's ad revenue will dry up further.
I think TWC has an advantage as most cable companies are regional monopolies. Comcast pulled the same shit for a year or so with NFL Network and came out alright.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think TWC has an advantage as most cable companies are regional monopolies. Comcast pulled the same shit for a year or so with NFL Network and came out alright.

Did you just compare the NFL Network (and the relatively miniscule audience) to Fox and the #1 show on TV?

[RainMaker]

Just pointing out that TWC has the power. People will be pissed not to have Fox on their network but there really isn't anywhere else to go.

[kcchief19]

Man, do I want to talk about this. But given my new job, I really shouldn't. ;)

[stevew]

These pissing matches are really fucking pathetic.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just pointing out that TWC has the power. People will be pissed not to have Fox on their network but there really isn't anywhere else to go.

Dish.
DirectTV.
OTA.

[RainMaker]

Dish.
DirectTV.
OTA.
Dish and DirectTV are not available to everyone (like me for instance). Both also typically require long contracts which cable companies don't. It's an option, but not a great one for a lot of people.

OTA is an option although a weak one. If a person is pissed off about not getting Fox, are they going to dump their entire cable lineup out of spite?

[DanGarion]

These pissing matches are really fucking pathetic.

That's really all it is. Eventually like always it will be worked out and that will be that. Placing all the blame on either one company isn't really justified.

[DanGarion]

Dish.
DirectTV.
OTA.

Funny all I ever hear is people complain about the monopoly of cable companies, but they have plenty of other options for the channels they want. The ones you mentioned, as well as Verizon FiOS and ATT U-Verse. As with any other luxury one doesn't have to pay for it, one chooses to do so, which means these companies can charge whatever the market allows them to.

Don't worry this time it's TWC, I'm sure contracts are coming up with the other guys soon as well, every 3 years the OTA contracts come up and the channels can choose to be Must Carry or Retrans, all the stations will be looking for more money, since they haven't figured out how to continue to make it the conventional way anymore.

[DanGarion]

Dish and DirectTV are not available to everyone (like me for instance). Both also typically require long contracts which cable companies don't. It's an option, but not a great one for a lot of people.

OTA is an option although a weak one. If a person is pissed off about not getting Fox, are they going to dump their entire cable lineup out of spite?

Contracts are typically only required if you want the "best deal". You can usually get non contract service if you are willing to pay for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Contracts are typically only required if you want the "best deal". You can usually get non contract service if you are willing to pay for it.

+1

I don't think I've ever been on a contract with Dish.

[DanGarion]

+1

I don't think I've ever been on a contract with Dish.

But most people are cheap, so they want the "best deal" and then complain about the contract...

[JonInMiddleGA]

But most people are cheap, so they want the "best deal" and then complain about the contract...

Hell, I've been with Dish for so long now that I don't even think all those "deals" had even really started to be so prevalent when I signed up.

[CU Tiger]

If you buy your equipment from a retailer such as say Best Buy, Sears et. al. you can activate month-to-month.

If you go the free equip and install route, yeah you are gonna need a contract to make sure they recoup their creation costs.

Sure would be a better bargaining position if it was early NFL season.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sure would be a better bargaining position if it was early NFL season.

Eh, Idol returns January 12th.

Let's see TW survive the onslaught of calls if they don't have it resolved by then.

Fox, on the other hand, can provide makegoods to any advertisers who have shortfall on delivery (as nearly all networks, both broadcast & cable, have been doing for months anyway).

[CU Tiger]

Idol, oh....yeah ive never watched that show, but I hear it is popular.

[bhlloy]

Eh, Idol returns January 12th.

Let's see TW survive the onslaught of calls if they don't have it resolved by then.



Seriously. Football fans are going to be pissed for a while, then find a bar carrying the game or a friend with Direct TV and continue grumbling over their beer about what a shitty cable company they have.

Hardcore Idol fans on the other hand are going to jam up those call centers for days. The army of retirees, unemployed and housewives are going to have the TWC execs begging for mercy within 24 hours :D

[gstelmack]

On the other hand, TWC has no divine right to profit from Fox without compensation. The $1/subscriber fee is about the same as what TWC pays for TNT, which has fewer viewers, so the amount really doesn't seem out of line to me.

This has been brewing with some other fights with broadcasters (Viacom/CBS back 2 or so years ago). The problem is TWC is typically REQUIRED to carry the broadcast channels, but the broadcasters are starting to want to charge for all the HD stuff. I don't remember the details here, but it's something like TWC can carry the basic standard def Fox broadcast station free of charge no matter what Fox wants, but it's the HD and multicast channels that the broadcasters want money for.

And at this point, with advertising dollars (relatively) drying up, the compensation from the cable operator is becoming a necessary revenue stream for the broadcast networks unless we're okay with the cable networks acquiring the rights to every sporting event out there. In which case you then pay for it in increased fees to them anyway.

Then we need to get rid of the protections and special privileges the networks gain from OTA access (and get the FCC out of their hair as well) and make them compete like everybody else.

Do you ask the same question about ESPN, TNT, CNN, etc? Maybe you do, I'm just asking.

Actually, yes. It's the justification I use for skipping all the commercials after DVRing the programs.

Of course I'm also one of those who complains that the commercials shown are often inappropriate for the audience that the show attracts (like CSI murder scenes during NFL games that mean I can't watch with the kids around), not to mention the volume issues that Congress may finally be going to do something about, and so have other gripes with commercials as well.

[gstelmack]

Isn't it a rather dangerous game of chicken for both? Fox needs the faces TWC provides or it's ad revenue will dry up further.

That's part of my point above. The content folks and the distribution folks are both pricing themselves out of the market. I know more and more people ditching both entirely and using Hulu / Netflix / buying DVDs to get their TV instead. The prices are just getting ridiculous.

I think TWC has an advantage as most cable companies are regional monopolies. Comcast pulled the same shit for a year or so with NFL Network and came out alright.

AT&T U-Verse is slowly creeping through this area, and TWC still just raised rates. Verizon FIOS is spreading as well. What's fun about the rate increase is that someone with straight digital cable has their bill going up like $6, but a triple-play is only going up like $2. There's gouging buried in there somewhere. Curious what they'll do when more and more folks switch, and what will happen longer-term as the telecoms get their TV solutions out on a wider scale.

[Samdari]

Dish and DirectTV are not available to everyone (like me for instance). Both also typically require long contracts which cable companies don't. It's an option, but not a great one for a lot of people.

OTA is an option although a weak one.

Dish and DirecTV are available to more people than realize it - they end up not liking that choice for various reasons and then saying they "couldn't" get it.

[flere-imsaho]

I know more and more people ditching both entirely and using Hulu / Netflix / buying DVDs to get their TV instead. The prices are just getting ridiculous.

We're almost at this point. As someone else said, the only thing I'd really be missing would be football.

I can't wait for the point sometime in the future (10 years? 15 years?) when the content providers, the people who actually make the shows, simply offer them via subscription over the internet and I can get this to my TV easily. In my opinion, this is eventually what will kill the cable companies (or at least their current business model). Even the NFL at one point will crunch the numbers and figure they can make more with direct subscribers than big TV deals.

[PackerFanatic]

At least we won't lose our local FOX station (or FSN) like we did last year. Still very annoying that these two entities seem to be constantly fighting though. As others have said, if it weren't for NFL games, I'd have dropped cable a long time ago.

[Samdari]

We're almost at this point. As someone else said, the only thing I'd really be missing would be football.

I can't wait for the point sometime in the future (10 years? 15 years?) when the content providers, the people who actually make the shows, simply offer them via subscription over the internet and I can get this to my TV easily. In my opinion, this is eventually what will kill the cable companies (or at least their current business model). Even the NFL at one point will crunch the numbers and figure they can make more with direct subscribers than big TV deals.

Lets not forget that the same people who provide our tv subscriptions also provide our internet service. There is no way they are going to allow you to receive tv from other providers over their internet pipe in order to forgo paying their tv subscription rates.

[gstelmack]

At least we won't lose our local FOX station (or FSN) like we did last year. Still very annoying that these two entities seem to be constantly fighting though. As others have said, if it weren't for NFL games, I'd have dropped cable a long time ago.

Fox and TWC used to fight because DirecTV and Fox were owned by the same parent company (under Murdoch). Much like Comcast uses their content providers, and TWC used to. That's another screwed up mess, content providers being owned by content distributors, leading to some of these messes.

Lets not forget that the same people who provide our tv subscriptions also provide our internet service. There is no way they are going to allow you to receive tv from other providers over their internet pipe in order to forgo paying their tv subscription rates.

The fallback plan is DSL through the phone company, although with them getting in the TV business as well not sure how long that will last.

Of course I don't really plan to stream that much. I stream very little now (due to the bandwidth issues leading to HD not being very good quality) and would more likely do a lot of my viewing through DVD/Blu-Ray rentals through Netflix or flat-out buying DVDs/Blu-Rays for things we'd watch a lot (like Pixar and other Disney films).

[DanGarion]

This has been brewing with some other fights with broadcasters (Viacom/CBS back 2 or so years ago). The problem is TWC is typically REQUIRED to carry the broadcast channels, but the broadcasters are starting to want to charge for all the HD stuff. I don't remember the details here, but it's something like TWC can carry the basic standard def Fox broadcast station free of charge no matter what Fox wants, but it's the HD and multicast channels that the broadcasters want money for.


I already mentioned this earlier, the big 4 usually choose to have retrans status and not must carry, which means they can require payment to be retransmitted through a cable line by not requiring the cable company to carry them (must carry).

[NewIdentity]

Dish and DirectTV are not available to everyone (like me for instance). Both also typically require long contracts which cable companies don't. It's an option, but not a great one for a lot of people.

OTA is an option although a weak one. If a person is pissed off about not getting Fox, are they going to dump their entire cable lineup out of spite?
Last time I checked around here my cable company wanted a 1 year contract.

Currently with Dierctv. I did live 3 months without cable or satelite, bought an indoor Digital/HDTV antenna and received 18 channels. I was shocked when my TV came back and reported 18 channels found. Granted 2 of those were in Spanish and 3 were HDTV duplicate versions of the standard digital channels. But, I was happy with the 13 crystal clear channels I did receive; digital OTA actually works. I live in a small town, around 50,000, and was just expecting the standard 4 major networks.

OTA has really changed since I was a kid.

[Pumpy Tudors]

That wasn't funny.
It wasn't just funny. It was freakin' funny.

[Logan]

I have no other options besides Time Warner in my building, and it fucking sucks.

[RainMaker]

Dish and DirecTV are available to more people than realize it - they end up not liking that choice for various reasons and then saying they "couldn't" get it.
I can't get it because there is a tree blocking the dish. According to the installer, the HD dishes require a much clearer path.

There are a lot of condos and apartment complexes that don't allow the dish or alternate cable companies.

[RainMaker]

AT&T U-Verse is slowly creeping through this area, and TWC still just raised rates. Verizon FIOS is spreading as well. What's fun about the rate increase is that someone with straight digital cable has their bill going up like $6, but a triple-play is only going up like $2. There's gouging buried in there somewhere. Curious what they'll do when more and more folks switch, and what will happen longer-term as the telecoms get their TV solutions out on a wider scale.
I would love AT&T U-Verse. I'm all about recording multiple shows and on different TVs. The odd thing is that we get bombarded in Chicago with their ads and I don't know of anywhere in the city that has it available. Two friends of mine want it but can't get it either.

My concern with AT&T is that it'll suck as bad as their wireless. But I'd definitely be willing to get them a shot if they can get into my area.

[Abe Sargent]

Dish and DirecTV are available to more people than realize it - they end up not liking that choice for various reasons and then saying they "couldn't" get it.

I can't get it, believe me I've trie,d Wayne State cable sucks, it's geared towards teens. Yuck! I even have roof access because I'm the building manager, and they came out and couldn't get it for me.

[kcchief19]

This has been brewing with some other fights with broadcasters (Viacom/CBS back 2 or so years ago). The problem is TWC is typically REQUIRED to carry the broadcast channels, but the broadcasters are starting to want to charge for all the HD stuff. I don't remember the details here, but it's something like TWC can carry the basic standard def Fox broadcast station free of charge no matter what Fox wants, but it's the HD and multicast channels that the broadcasters want money for.
One thing lost in all of this is that the cable providers for years have been intentionally overpaying for crappy channels owned by the networks in exchange for NOT paying a retransmission fee for broadcast channels. The existence of ABC Family is entirely so Disney would have a channel that the cable companies could overpay for instead of paying a retransmission fee for the broadcast channels. That was smart for the networks because it meant they kept all the money rather than only capturing payment for stations they owned.

Viacom blew they out of the water when they said they threatened to pull their cable channels unless the cable companies paid for their O/O retransmissions. I think eventually the cable providers will retaliate by resetting or even booting channels like Fuel or Speed that non one watches.
Don't worry this time it's TWC, I'm sure contracts are coming up with the other guys soon as well, every 3 years the OTA contracts come up and the channels can choose to be Must Carry or Retrans, all the stations will be looking for more money, since they haven't figured out how to continue to make it the conventional way anymore.
Yep. TWC is in a difficult spot because their retrans agreements typically seem to set the bar. The networks always want TWC and Comcast to set the standard for all the others because they are the big fish. But this happens at every cable provider. You can run but you can't hide. Dish or Direct TV is dropping their music channels. One of them has been dark on Versus for about a year now.

[kcchief19]

This is my favorite line from the whole thing so far from Fox COO Chase Carey:
"The broadcast business has to get to a business model that works." He said it was "incredibly disingenuous" for the cable companies to say they have to pass on higher monthly fees to consumers. "They have a fabulous business model."
So ... basically he's saying that cable has a great business model and yours sucks ... so you want cable companies to subsidize your failure.

I'll go back to my diatribes about the quality of basic cable programming -- if network TV had decent shows people wanted to watch, they wouldn't be losing audience to the cable networks and now trying to scratch and claw for every dollar they can before they disappear into oblivion

There are predictions that one of the Big 4 (probably NBC) will dissolve as a network in the next few years and just become a syndicator. I'm starting to buy that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

if network TV had decent shows people wanted to watch, they wouldn't be losing audience to the cable networks

Not entirely true, or at least not as simple as that since broadcast erosion has been primarily a numbers game. Enough mice can eventually topple an elephant & that's pretty much what's been happening, just the elephant kept moving so long that the food finally ran out (i.e. ad revenues dried up).

As for "quality programming" on cable, you do realize that the most watched shows on cable are still football games, re-runs of iCarly & Spongebob, and Monday Night Raw, and such cultural classics as Jon & Kate & Real Housewives. The handful of relatively quality scripted programming on cable that's been a notable success isn't even enough hours to fill up half one a single networks schedule, at least not in the traditional schedule format. Maybe if broadcast re-aired each show 3 times a week at least one of them could fill a lineup but that's about it.

There are predictions that one of the Big 4 (probably NBC) will dissolve as a network in the next few years and just become a syndicator. I'm starting to buy that.

The latest prediction seems to be that they'll simply fade onto cable rather than become a syndicator.

[DanGarion]

Maybe if broadcast re-aired each show 3 times a week at least one of them could fill a lineup but that's about it.

Hey that's sort of what cable channels do now!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Eh, I'm not sure about the cable channels thing. Throw TNT's original programming + F/X's original programming + Mad Men/Breaking Bad from AMC and that's a solid basis for a network.

Yeah, for one broadcast network.

That's what I was saying, it's enough for a single 15 hour week if you stretch it a little but it's not as though there's this great armada of "quality" on cable either, so much that it could fill up 55 hours of the big 4 Mon-Fri. And it isn't generally the quality stuff that's drawing most of cable's viewers either.

[Chubby]

Good thing we're getting FIOS :)

[sterlingice]

Man, do I want to talk about this. But given my new job, I really shouldn't. ;)

New job?

SI

[RainMaker]

So was today the deadline? Is Fox off the air for TWC customers?

[sterlingice]

These pissing matches are really fucking pathetic.

Yeah, but they get people involved so that's why they happen. You have completely rational people who act irrational about tv

I remember talking about Big 10 Network's spat with Mediacom with my mother-in-law who lives in Iowa City.*

*(ok, Big10 vs Mediacom not Big10 vs Mediacom vs m-i-l, tho that would also be amusing and I know I could just move that second prepositional clause to after "talking" and it would make sense but this is more amusing so I left it)

Someone who I consider perfectly rational most other times just wanted Mediacom to pay whatever Big 10 Network wanted so they could see University of Iowa games. And I had to walk logically through this whole progression of logic about how much she would like her cable bill to go up if everyone thought this way about every station she wanted and how that's basically ala carte cable and the problems that would involve (not that the current system is without them, I was just comparing the two and the implications of both).

SI

[sterlingice]

So was today the deadline? Is Fox off the air for TWC customers?

Fox grants 'brief extension' in cable dispute - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100101/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_cable_tv_dispute)

Brief extension. Same with some of the other carrier disputes (see later in the article)

SI

[DanGarion]

New job?

SI

Yeah he works for Fox now, he's their new Play by Play baseball guy.

[sterlingice]

Yeah he works for Fox now, he's their new Play by Play baseball guy.

Please tell me this means either Joe Buck or Tim McCarver have been eaten by hungry wolves. Or both. Please?

SI

[Logan]

Deal reached.

News Corp., Time Warner Reach Deal to Keep Fox Programming On Air - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581744,00.html)