Fox News Channel Demands Huge Rate Hike; Now Most Expensive Non-Sports Basic Net

[dampier]

> How long do you think it's going to be before consumers EN
> MASSE will REALLY start to BITTERLY COMPLAIN about their
> cable rates??

They complain now but they don't cancel. Churn rate for basic cable is 2%, 4% for digital per month. That's WITH satellite competition. Complain all you want, but they won't care until you cancel.

> I live in an apartment on a HUD-controlled premises, and its
> owners will NOT allow me to hook up a satellite system to my
> place, because of the fear of roof leaks.

There are FCC rules that supposedly prevent these kinds of regulations, but that may apply to owned, not rented property. The FCC probably has a web page about this.

 

[dampier]

> How about cable companies just drop FOX News instead of
> making us pay more. They shouldn't just make us pay more
> because they got better ratings then MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNN
> Headline News.

This could be difficult because Fox News Channel is still very popular with its core viewers, and dropping it could lead to silly charges that there is a liberal media and corporate conspiracy to censor Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. I don't see this happening, especially considering what party is in charge in Washington. There is a reason the TVs in DC offices favor Fox News.

> As for USA Network I don't really see a need to increase
> just because they got WWE from Spike TV. But what is the
> amount for USA Network right now anyway?

Around 40-45c.

 

[dampier]

> Easier said than done these days -- if they drop FNC, they
> would also have to drop the local Fox affiliate, and perhaps
> FX and FSN too. Since those channels are owned by Fox, some
> Fox stations (especially the O&Os) require cable companies
> to carry them, as a condition to carry the local Fox
> station.

Actually News Corp has not placed pressure on cable systems to carry FNC or else. They don't have to. The ratings for FNC are great so it sells itself. The Fox Sports channels were leveraged a few years ago, but in many places they ended up on digital mini-pay tiers anyway.

 

[HomerJay]

Re: The greater flaw

>
> While writing your Congressmember (wow, PC run amok!) might
> relieve stress and frustration for a minute or two it
> presumes
> two things that are, at best, questionable:
>
> 1. That your Congressmember knows how to read anything
> other
> than political contribution checks.
>
> 2. That your Congressmember has any interest in anything
> you
> might have to say.
>
> BIG, BIG assumptions!
>
> The worst factor in high cable pricing is that local
> communities
> are allowed under state and federal law to "license"
> monopolies
> for provision of TV programming.

That's not accurate. Under current regulations, no new or newly renewed franchises can be exclusive. Whether or not a competitor wants to come in and build a network is a different matter.

With two national satellite providers, no cable company has a monopoly on television programming. They may be the only ones providing it via a cable from a pole or underground, but HBO is HBO, MTV is MTV and Lifetime is Lifetime, whoever brings them into your home. No, not all dwellings can receive satellite, just as not all can receive cable. But on the whole, there's no monopoly, there are just different ways to recveive programming.

 

[dampier]

> You just hit upon the real reason. You are NOT simply paying
> for one channel. With media consolidation you have basically
> killed competition.

The cable industry has owned and controlled the majority of cable programming since the 1980s. Most of their leverage traditionally was to keep it out of the hands of its competitors (and charge massively more to non-cable competitors for the same programming, which got the satellite dishowners furious in the 1980s.)

What's interesting now is that broadcasters and cable operators and programmers are more and more the same company. Remember CBS? They wouldn't touch a cable channel for years since the disaster they had with CBS Cable and the Ovation-like programming it carried (to about six viewers). They finally put the toe back in the water with Nashville Network... and then Viacom bought them. Viacom already owns the Showtime pay network as well as MTV Networks and now CBS.

ABC is now part of Disney, who has cable holdings. NBC and Universal have substantial interests in several cable networks today (as well as Pax and Spanish TV).

In fact, outside of the religious networks, Scripps-Howard's Fine Living/diy/Food/Fine Living and the old Landmark's Weather Channel are probably the two largest independently owned cable programming properties out there.

Vertical and horizontal integration in a monopoly environment is what brings about rate hikes worthy of health care insurance. But regulators still often dismiss cable as a "utility" worthy of the same attention paid to energy and telephone companies because "it's just tv." But my main concern is the limiting of independent voices, especially in news and information programming, that we are now exposed to because of ongoing media consolidation.

That is dangerous.

> My breaking point with Comcast came last January when my
> basic digital went to $70/month. And Comcast sent out a
> letter saying the rate hike was do to VAST imporovments in
> VOP and Broadband. So bascially I a cable user am paying
> more so that Comcast can improve phone and internet service.
> Two things of which I don't USE from Comcast.

Which was the argument against the telcos who wanted to do the same thing.

 

[TXengineer]

> No I didn't. Advocacy journalism and angry chat shows that
> tilt to the right are a staple for Fox. CNN has Larry King,
> and he'll lob softball questions to anyone regardless of
> political persuasion. The rest is news, except for the
> technical glitz that happens when someone watches too much
> West Wing and decides Confus-o-vision on the Situation Room
> would be a good idea.
>

So if someone has a talk show that leans right, they're angry?
Oh please, CNN leans so far to the left during their news casts it isn't even funny. The example I'll give is on Headline news after the party conventions. After the democrat convention, they took an analyist from the deomcratic part to analyze the debate. So did they take a republican to analyze the republican convention afterwards? no, they took another democrat! Ya thats not left leaning. Mind you they aren't as bad as NBC has become, but they still lean just as far left as you think FOX does right.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

Ala Carte and C-Band

> A la carte would likely drive up programming costs
> considerably. For many people, they'll realize little, if
> any savings, and end up with fewer channels. C band
> dishowners have a-la carte available for many mini-bundles
> and individual channels. Most can pay $5-15 per year for
> just a single channel or mini-bundle from a programmer (AMC
> + Rainbow or Food + Fine Living + HGTV).
>
> I like the concept of a-la carte myself, but without strict
> oversight, cable companies and programmers will set the
> rates too high to have it make sense.

Really, I don't think that anyone knows how ala carte would effect the prices unnless it is actually tried on a massive scale.

Speaking as a C-Band satellite dish owner, I love the ala carte option -- since I'm only interested in a handful of non-broadcast channels, I save a bundle of money. My last renewal for my programming came up to $49.95. That's for a YEAR of programming!

But the ala carte C-Band option has never been available to more than a small minority of viewers, which means that the C-Band experience can't easily be projected onto the larger market.

 

[Tom_Desmond]

Re: The greater flaw

> 2. That your Congressmember has any interest in anything
> you might have to say.

Enclose a $1,000 check with the letter and it may at least get read...

 

[toby]

Actually the only angle these damn cable news channels seem to care about is missing telegenic white women.<P ID="signature">______________
<a href=http://blog.spotteddogs.org/blog/>Random Observations on Life, the Universe and Television</a></P>

 

[Les]

Re: The greater flaw

> That's not accurate. Under current regulations, no new or
> newly renewed franchises can be exclusive. Whether or not a
> competitor wants to come in and build a network is a
> different matter.

That is GOOD news; I had missed that part of the regulatins,
as did the city council in the place I currently live. They
just gave Comcast an exclusive contract on renewal! I would
guess they're open to challenge if somebody else wants in.

> With two national satellite providers, no cable company has
> a monopoly on television programming. They may be the only
> ones providing it via a cable from a pole or underground

While this is technically true for HOMEOWNERS, it is totally
false for folks living in apartments. Satellite is NOT an
option for most of them. Also, in some areas if an
apartment dweller wants broadband internet they find the most
available alternative is combined TV programming/cable modem.
To buy DSL separately is an option but often expensive.
Better days may be coming, though, as commercial long-range
wireless spreads.

I'm thinking of moving to a new city where the local telco
has a programming monopoly on the ground. They deliver
TV, phone service and Internet on a common fiber. You can
use satellite TV but the price of the bundled local phone/
Internet is so high that it's cheaper just to bend over and
take their total package. Of course dialup is an option
if you're not a serious web user. I'm hearing about another
company stringing fiber in the area, so maybe all is not lost.

It's impossible to generalize accurately...every city has
it's own unique set of issues.

Meanwhile, where I sit, I'm using DISH for TV, SBC for local
and LD phone, and DSL from an independent provider over SBC
fiber/twisted pair. It all works great and is priced quite
reasonably but the ISP tells me that when the current contract
for using the SBC "wire" expires the latest rules will not
require that the ISP be allowed to renew, giving SBC a
DSL monopoly unless somebody overbuilds or puts in a big-time
wireless service. I should be outta here by then.....
<P ID="signature">______________
"If at first you don't succeed, try again. Then quit. There's no use being a damn fool about it."
--W.C. Fields</P>

 

[DeanSB]

> How about cable companies just drop FOX News instead of
> making us pay more. They shouldn't just make us pay more
> because they got better ratings then MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNN
> Headline News.
>
> As for USA Network I don't really see a need to increase
> just because they got WWE from Spike TV. But what is the
> amount for USA Network right now anyway?


Our neighbors to the north, in Canada, have it where people can choose to pay ONLY for the channels in which they wish to see, and can delete the ones they don't want to see, as well as delete them from their monthly bills.

Why couldn't cable operators take Fox News Channel OFF of basic service, and have it become a separate channel where people should pay a little extra for it?

And for that matter, why shouldn't other channels be offered the same way?

DeanSB<P ID="signature">______________
Dance Music RULEZ!! </P>

 

[Calgaryperson]

Must every topic about FOX News become political?

Let me rephrase, since the Subject line probably wouldn't hold all of it:
"Must every topic about FOX News on the National TV board become political?"

Yes, FOX has had more than it's share of controversy (maybe more than O.J.)
but this is a RADIO AND TELEVISION BOARD (mostly radio, hence the name radio-info.com).

Take the content side to Off The Air! If you recall, we had a huge sticky about politics taking up the entire first page for about half a month.<P ID="signature">______________

Canada TV and College Radio</P>