CBS deserves to be paid by the cable company for their signals. The cable company will try to limit that cost. Until just a few years ago the cable companies paid zero for the broadcast signals while gladly charging customers for them. I get both sides of this dispute, but I have little sympathy for Time Warner.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
CBS vs TWC
- Thread starter sathman01
- Start date
Seemed like a nice idea on paper. Not surprisingly, CBS sees TWC's proposal, says no.
Story: TheWrap
...and the world is still turning on its axis.
In thinking about it, I wouldn't be against some kind of movement to make the broadcast TV tier completely independent from the rest of the cable/satellite package - like it once was on DIRECTV or dish. You decide if you want it or not, price based on the stations' respective retrans deals. Give that some thought.
Story: TheWrap
...and the world is still turning on its axis.
In thinking about it, I wouldn't be against some kind of movement to make the broadcast TV tier completely independent from the rest of the cable/satellite package - like it once was on DIRECTV or dish. You decide if you want it or not, price based on the stations' respective retrans deals. Give that some thought.
newsmark said:
Yeah, it's hard to whole-heartedly defend CBS on this one when they're bringing their cable channels into the mix.
But Time-Warner is also in the same dispute with Journal Broadcast Group (Milwaukee, Green Bay, Omaha) which has no cable holdings.
_________________________________________________
What the cable operators frequently "forget" to note in these disputes...
...is that there is no law that *forces* them to pass along these retrans fee increases to their customers. They're a comfortably profitable company and will continue to be one after absorbing these fees.
Mark said:
The problem is, Time Warner is legitimately charging for the product (in this case, CBS). They don't give it to anyone free of charge, and actually make a profit off of delivering the product to the consumers. The right analogy would be if I was a convenience store selling Coke. Coke wants the store to sell to consumers, because it means more people are drinking the product, but they won't give that product away for free, the store gets charged money.
But, this is a complex issue. In the case of Coke, they can only charge what the market will pay. If the market won't pay it, then Coke can't charge it, and the market can directly decide how much they are willing to pay. In the case of cable and sat companies, the consumer has no say in the conversation. Yes, they can decide how much to pay for the overall product that is Cable TV, and are free to cancel if the price gets too high, but the cable company won't break out the costs per channel and allow the subscribers to choose which channels they get. The closest example is if you could no longer buy just a coke, but had to buy your soda in packages. You pay for Coke, Dr Pepper, and Pepsi all as one "product", and it's up to the convenience store owner to negotiate with Pepsi, Coke, and Dr. Pepper to come up with a wholesale price that still allows them to make a profit AND is a price that consumers will pay. That's exactly what Time Warner is doing here. They are trying to negotiate a price that allows them to continue to make a profit, but also keeps the cable packages at a price consumers are willing to pay. Every year it gets harder and harder, because consumers can now go buy the programming directly (or watch it free online) which is causing "cord cutting". And it's obviously in Time Warner's best interest to do what it can to keep rates as low as possible. But, remember, Time Warner is a BUSINESS, and they have set profit margins that they will achieve, which means that yes, this will impact cable bills. If CBS gets 1 dollar per month, bet on cable bills going up $1.15 so that the margins aren't affected.
Another thing to note is that programming costs are only part of the equation. Delivery, equipment, employees, customer service, etc. all cost money too, and we're the ones that pay all of that.
mnradiofan said:
Nice analogy.
mnradiofan said:
There's another problem with the idea of ala carte. They'd have to charge you a much higher amount just to be connected ($50? $80? $100) then add the charge for each channel on top of the connection fee. Oh and if you need a converter box (as most people do), slap another $20 or $30 for that.
newsmark said:
I've brought this up in arguments that are for a pick and choose package before, and I get shot down. The problem is, you can actually see this in Ala Carte packages that we already have, so my point is already proven. Look at your power bill. Chances are, you have a "basic service charge" which covers many of those costs (in addition to a few cents per kWh). Where I live, I also have a water bill, and it has a similar service charge. Open up my gas bill, and, surprise surprise, that same service charge is there as well. So, the reality is, while programmers would get less, cable companies would actually make MORE in an Ala Carte model. (Maybe less for some subscribers, but overall, higher margins).
So, in this world, lets say that the cost of customer service, distribution, taxes on the land, repair, etc costs $10 per month (which probably isn't far off). Cable companies don't exist just for fun, they aren't hobbies, they are businesses, so you need to have a profit margin built into whatever you charge for. So, before you get even a single channel, you are talking about $12 per month in fees JUST to be connected to the cable "network". Then, you'd have to go to the programming providers you like and negotiate with them on how much you are willing to pay (should you want TRUE choice, you could always go to the cable company and have them negotiate that for you, but again you'd have to build profit in there). For a channel like ESPN, they are able to charge $5 per month to cover expenses because they get 100% of the cable subscriber base paying. Let's say that number drops to half, just for ESPN. Now, ESPN has to start charging $10 per month just to break even on what they make now. So, for ESPN and your hookup charge, you are up to $22.50. The economics just aren't there.
Now, what I WOULD like to see is smaller packages, where you can pick and choose based on genre of programming. I'm not a sports fan outside of Football, so I don't really need ESPN or any of the other sports networks. If I could cut JUST those, and save $10 per month, the cable company wins (because they just saved far more than $10 in programming costs) and I win because I get $10 more in my pocket. But, ESPN would never allow this for the reason stated above. Government intervention would be needed here to make this an option. And Government intervention is the LAST thing I want, because they'd likely take it and completely mess it up.
Maybe, instead, we could start considering Cable TV a Public Utility, where all rate hikes would have to go through the PUC.
mnradiofan said:
It did used to be sort of that way until AT&T's stupid "TV for US" PAC intended to get U-Verse in their markets got bills passed in statehouses which removed cable franchising from the control of municipalities to the state as an unfortunate side effect. In Wisconsin that's the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, and the first part of that department, the Do Not Call list, dealing with the "Green Dot Card Utility Scam" and other regulatory actions get much more attention than cable regulations these days.
JeeperOne
Banned
But the first few posts are a clear indication that no one is talking about that channel. Even I saw that & moved onjfrancispastirchak said:
BTW.....FWIW - Comcast is the only game in town here in the Denver area. Doubtful they'd even consider pulling the plug on KUSA 9 (NBC) even though it's not owned by them.....
Back on topic now.....
Cheers & 73 ;D
JeeperOne
Banned
Not if it's their programming.....crackedscreen said:
Either way, I do agree with the commenter on TheWrap who said matters like these should be handled in private & consumers should NEVER have to get involved or become a victim to their petty GREEDY bickering
MEMO TO CORPORATE CONGLOMERATES - When you argue in public & don't act or conduct yourselves like professionals - WE LOSE !!! And when we lose - WE REVOLT !!! Just ask any politician who's still on the unemployment line
Cheers & 73 ;D
Microradiofan's PUC suggestion is reminds me of a letter to the editor I wrote in 1978 to the Midland Reporter Telegram, in Midland TX. Incredibly harsh technical problems were causing widespread, lengthy service disruptions. I'd finally had enough. I submitted a payment on a monthly bill minus a deduction of 10% of the net total, explaining in a note that this was the amount I estimated would represent the hours of disruption. The provider promptly replied that under the TOS, the deduction was unacceptable, giving me 10-days to remit the difference. Fearing shutoff, I reluctantly mailed a second check in the amount of the "deduction", then sent my letter to the paper, calling on local cable subscribers to do exactly what I did, while calling for installation of cable-TV meters at every user's home.mrschimpf said:
It worked. Cable customers responded to my letter by swamping the provider (can't remember their name) with checks adjusted for estimated "down" time. Never knew if or how they settled with hundreds of cable users doing exactly what I did, but I do remember how quickly their technical problems seemed to just disappear. And, a company rep with more nerves than brains called me after hours, blasting me for the problems I caused. As I replied then, I've never been prouder.
Under the authority of a PUC, Cable TV billing would likely be subject to utility meters.
With an expensive antenna. Unless you like squares and lines and losing the sound, or modern art with no sound at all, or "No Signal".Pat Cook said:You sound like someone who needs legalese to explain THE OBVIOUS :KML-224 said:
ANYONE with HALF A BRAIN knows that these stations are available OTA free of charge with an antenna
Cheers & 73 ;D
Some people don't live where an antenna will work at all. This is the era of DTV.
And that makes Dish Network's blocking of CBS in my area that much worse. Imagine living way out in the country where cable is not an option and an antenna won't work either, or you have to pay big money for a high enough antenna.
Not necessarily. There are probably a lot of people out there who think OTA TV doesn't exist anymore and you have to have cable to get any TV at all, especially given the botched messaging of the digital transition.Pat Cook said:You sound like someone who needs legalese to explain THE OBVIOUS :KML-224 said:
ANYONE with HALF A BRAIN knows that these stations are available OTA free of charge with an antenna
Cheers & 73 ;D
That's what someone on another site told me. I had known for years that you could use an antenna but it had to be a good one. Something I don't have as of now.Morgan Wick said:Not necessarily. There are probably a lot of people out there who think OTA TV doesn't exist anymore and you have to have cable to get any TV at all, especially given the botched messaging of the digital transition.Pat Cook said:You sound like someone who needs legalese to explain THE OBVIOUS :KML-224 said:
ANYONE with HALF A BRAIN knows that these stations are available OTA free of charge with an antenna
Cheers & 73 ;D
How about this idea??
CBS allows owned-and-operated stations to run one minute per hour (more during "local" program periods) of promotional announcements, but on cable systems, cable operators can use those spots to sell to local advertisers on a town-by-town basis (or maybe four or five small towns together), and not on a full-market basis to avoid competing with the spots sold for the full market.
Imagine this: In Manhattan, Time-Warner would break away from WCBS-2 twice an hour for two :30 second spots from such advertisers like community coffeeshops, small retailers, etc., who do not need (and could not afford) to buy commercial time on the "main" WCBS signal.
Time-Warner would split the revenues with CBS, the latter through WCBS.
This way, CBS/WCBS gets revenues, but cable subscribers would not pay more for WCBS or any CBS-owned networks.
CBS allows owned-and-operated stations to run one minute per hour (more during "local" program periods) of promotional announcements, but on cable systems, cable operators can use those spots to sell to local advertisers on a town-by-town basis (or maybe four or five small towns together), and not on a full-market basis to avoid competing with the spots sold for the full market.
Imagine this: In Manhattan, Time-Warner would break away from WCBS-2 twice an hour for two :30 second spots from such advertisers like community coffeeshops, small retailers, etc., who do not need (and could not afford) to buy commercial time on the "main" WCBS signal.
Time-Warner would split the revenues with CBS, the latter through WCBS.
This way, CBS/WCBS gets revenues, but cable subscribers would not pay more for WCBS or any CBS-owned networks.
Joseph_Gallant said:
I see why you'd come up with this. But it really makes things more complex--especially for the non-O&O CBS stations, for which CBS does NOT do the negotiating Suddenly they're stuck with more network promos--and less program content per hour.
CBS's bottom line actually gets much worse under this scenario. Not only do they not get the higher retrans fees... they have to give up some of their commercial time for the cable split.
- Status