CBS vs TWC

[mnradiofan]

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.

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.

But the thing all broadcast networks and TV stations forget is that this is EXACTLY how it works in the cable network world, which is a big part of why the network charges for transmission by the cable companies.

 

[JeeperOne]

In this entire discussion, I've noticed places like Kansas City & Raleigh-Durham being tossed around

I say this because unless I'm mistaken, KCTV 5 & WRAL 5 are only AFFILIATES who have SEPERATE contracts with TWC !!! I wonder how TWC is handling that (Or is TWC punishing them too for being CBS affiliates)

Last time I checked, I don't think TWC had the legal legs to do that (They can only pull the plug on the cable nets in cities where CBS doesn't own the local station). But I could be wrong.....

Cheers & 73 ;D

 

[mnradiofan]

In this entire discussion, I've noticed places like Kansas City & Raleigh-Durham being tossed around

I say this because unless I'm mistaken, KCTV 5 & WRAL 5 are only AFFILIATES who have SEPERATE contracts with TWC !!! I wonder how TWC is handling that (Or is TWC punishing them too for being CBS affiliates)

Last time I checked, I don't think TWC had the legal legs to do that (They can only pull the plug on the cable nets in cities where CBS doesn't own the local station). But I could be wrong.....

Cheers & 73 ;D

I've also seen Minneapolis mentioned, but TWC got out of the Minneapolis market years ago in a complicated swap with Comcast, so we are unaffected.

I think in some articles I've read about it, KC is brought up because, despite not being part of this battle (due to KCTV not being an O&O), Time Warner Cable customers in that market cannot access CBS programming online because of the block put in place by CBS against ALL Time Warner internet subscribers (this despite TWC having a relatively small portion of their subscriber base affected by the CBS TV blackout).

 

[w9wi]

I can't find the reference to Raleigh-Durham.

In Kansas City the post was about the Showtime cable channel which CBS owns. (and is apparently now pulled from Time_Warner systems?)

There is a ratings period in July, so retransmission contracts are more likely to expire at the end of July than at many other times of year. Separate retransmission contracts between Time-Warner and many non-O&O CBS affiliates expired at the same time as CBS's contracts, and it is certainly possible some of these ended up in dispute as well. Indeed, it's my understanding CBS is off the Time-Warner system in Omaha for exactly that reason: while the CBS station in Omaha is an affiliate, not an O&O, the station's owner is also in dispute with Time-Warner.

I have not heard of any such disputes in Raleigh or Kansas City though.

 

[Sammi Brie]

I can't find the reference to Raleigh-Durham.

In Kansas City the post was about the Showtime cable channel which CBS owns. (and is apparently now pulled from Time_Warner systems?)

There is a ratings period in July, so retransmission contracts are more likely to expire at the end of July than at many other times of year. Separate retransmission contracts between Time-Warner and many non-O&O CBS affiliates expired at the same time as CBS's contracts, and it is certainly possible some of these ended up in dispute as well. Indeed, it's my understanding CBS is off the Time-Warner system in Omaha for exactly that reason: while the CBS station in Omaha is an affiliate, not an O&O, the station's owner is also in dispute with Time-Warner.

I have not heard of any such disputes in Raleigh or Kansas City though.

Time Warner Cable vs. Journal Broadcast Group. The only other CBS affiliate owned by Journal is in Nashville, and that is a Comcast market, so Omaha is the only case where these two could be confused.

 

[vchimpanzee]

A retired journalist who still writes a column nearly every week for the Myrtle Beach Sun News is complaining about how Dish Network has deprived him of CBS and he's not happy with missing some of his shows. And he'll be really mad when certain sports broadcasts start. He is visiting someone who has Time Warner or whatever the cable company is in order to watch golf. But he thinks the dispute is related to Time Warner.

I'm not providing the link as I didn't save it at the time and don't want to activate the countdown.

 

[azumanga]

I'm not providing the link as I didn't save it at the time and don't want to activate the countdown.

One workaround for that, at least if you have Firefox, is to delete the cookies for that particular site. Works with one of the papers, at least.

 

[nathannah]

I can't find the reference to Raleigh-Durham.

In Kansas City the post was about the Showtime cable channel which CBS owns. (and is apparently now pulled from Time_Warner systems?)

There is a ratings period in July, so retransmission contracts are more likely to expire at the end of July than at many other times of year. Separate retransmission contracts between Time-Warner and many non-O&O CBS affiliates expired at the same time as CBS's contracts, and it is certainly possible some of these ended up in dispute as well. Indeed, it's my understanding CBS is off the Time-Warner system in Omaha for exactly that reason: while the CBS station in Omaha is an affiliate, not an O&O, the station's owner is also in dispute with Time-Warner.

I have not heard of any such disputes in Raleigh or Kansas City though.

Time Warner Cable vs. Journal Broadcast Group. The only other CBS affiliate owned by Journal is in Nashville, and that is a Comcast market, so Omaha is the only case where these two could be confused.

TWC has limited carriage in the Nashville market, but WTVF wasn't affected as they're still well into the agreement made when Landmark owned the station.

Journal also has KMTV in Omaha affected by TWC, but that's mainly in outlying areas like Lincoln that get CBS in HD from the local station KOLN so the only loss is Omaha newscasts you can also get through WOWT and KETV (and judging from what I've heard about Omaha nobody watches KMTV's news anyways).

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

Re: CBS vs. Time-Warner Cable

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.

This can be done with affiliates as well as O&O's, with the affiliates splitting such revenues with Time-Warner or other cabl;e operators.

Thus, it could work for KCTV-5 Kansas City (a non-network-owned affiliate)as well as it would for WBZ-4 Boston (an O&O).

 

[arnoldevns]

Since CBS disappeated from Time Warner both sides have declared "war" and taken pot shots at each other. No talks were taking place.....until....ratings came out showing the dispute having no impact on CBS' viewership. Now they're taking again. Time Warner is about to cave-in on this fight and agree to most of what CBS wanted.

 

[justthenumbers]

I was checking the site of KTVT-TV (CBS) channel 11 of Fort Worth (Dallas) last night. Never once in the message to their viewers do they mention that KTVT-TV (and their sister station, channel 21 of Fort Worth) are available over-the-air for free with an antenna.

You sound like someone who needs legalese to explain THE OBVIOUS :

ANYONE with HALF A BRAIN knows that these stations are available OTA free of charge with an antenna

Cheers & 73 ;D

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.

Absolutely. I know of someone who thinks that OTA became "illegal" after the transition... :

 

[newsmark]

Re: CBS vs. Time-Warner Cable

This can be done with affiliates as well as O&O's, with the affiliates splitting such revenues with Time-Warner or other cable operators.

You're right. It *could* be done. But affiliates are not going to want to be forced to deal with this. It's a huge undertaking. Think how many cable companies there are in any given market. And again, you're talking about adding commercial time to the hour, with a lot of labor for very little payoff for the TV station.

Rather than do something like this, a network would be more likely to just become a cable channel.

 

[Morgan Wick]

Re: CBS vs. Time-Warner Cable

Think how many cable companies there are in any given market.

Yeah, you'd have to deal with all two or three of them. (Admittedly I'm not counting satellite or telco.)

 

[vchimpanzee]

I saw a post that seems to indicate the CBS affiliate in Charlotte has settled with dish. So at least that's over.

On another site I go to, people are blocked not only from CBS shows but also watching those shows online because they get Internet from Time-Warner too. One of the members is giving very detailed descriptions of episodes.

 

[JeeperOne]

I was checking the site of KTVT-TV (CBS) channel 11 of Fort Worth (Dallas) last night. Never once in the message to their viewers do they mention that KTVT-TV (and their sister station, channel 21 of Fort Worth) are available over-the-air for free with an antenna.

You sound like someone who needs legalese to explain THE OBVIOUS :

ANYONE with HALF A BRAIN knows that these stations are available OTA free of charge with an antenna

Cheers & 73 ;D

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.

Absolutely. I know of someone who thinks that OTA became "illegal" after the transition... :

Well that's the moron who's missing the other half of his/her brain :

Cheers & 73 ;D

 

[vchimpanzee]

A retired journalist who still writes a column nearly every week for the Myrtle Beach Sun News is complaining about how Dish Network has deprived him of CBS and he's not happy with missing some of his shows. And he'll be really mad when certain sports broadcasts start. He is visiting someone who has Time Warner or whatever the cable company is in order to watch golf. But he thinks the dispute is related to Time Warner.

I'm not providing the link as I didn't save it at the time and don't want to activate the countdown.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/08/09/3635435/cbs-twc-feud-leaves-me-in-the.html

I can't get there, period. I don't know what's wrong with the site today. Bing, however, solved my problem.

 

[MarcB]

Time Warner being sued by Customers

Customers are suing Time Warner:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/time-warner-cable-subscribers-sue-over-cbs-showtime-040547536.html