Fox Vs. Cablevision

[liradioisbad]

On Thursday, Cablevision had requested binding arbitration with Fox:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458445-Cablevision_Asks_for_Binding_Arbitration.php

And later that day, Fox rejected the arbitration offer, as Newsday reports - Cablevision-owned Newsday, I should say:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/fox-rejects-arbitration-with-cablevision-1.2360646?qr=1

Well, it's October 15th, and I have not been a Cablevision subscriber for about a month, so I couldn't tell you what's going on. Can anyone else provide some details? Are Fox stations pulled?

As a Cablevision subscriber, I can say they aren't pulled yet, with the deadline at midnight.

As an aside, I noticed how this time it's Fox taking more of a bashing, especially with the Fox News connection, even though Fox News is not involved in this dispute. I guess Cablevision can have an easier time with people siding on them on this than the HGTV/Food Network/WABC-TV disputes even though it's really not that much different.

 

[liradioisbad]

And unsurprisingly, the channels were just pulled.

Congrats Cablevision, you've been able to do something Time Warner couldn't.

 

[DToTheJ]

I bet all of those subscribers who were unable to watch the E/I programming this morning on WNYW/5 and a whopping nine straight hours of infomercials today on WWOR/9 were mad!

 

[Skynet74]

I bet all of those subscribers who were unable to watch the E/I programming this morning on WNYW/5 and a whopping nine straight hours of infomercials today on WWOR/9 were mad!

Hahahaha ;D

 

[DToTheJ]

Day 4 of the blackout, and here's the latest: get ready for a Day 5!
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458643-Still_No_Break_in_Cablevision_Fox_Impasse.php

"Monday morning the parties talked again briefly," Fox said in a statement Monday afternoon. "Unfortunately, no significant progress was made because Cablevision continues to demand preferential treatment and rejects the same fair terms that have been accepted by other providers in the market." Fox spokesman Brian Peterson said in an e-mail message that the parties will likely resume talks Wednesday, but that any contact will be via the telephone. He did not elaborate...

 

[ansky212]

We know it's always Cablevision that is involved in these disputes. Here's my question. If Cablevision is supposedly the "good guy" and looking out for their customers, then wouldn't we expect to see Cablevision's rates to be lower than other cable companies? Based on my own experience their rates are more expensive than Verizon, Directv, etc. So even if Cablevision is saving money by negotiating these deals and playing hardball, I have the feeling none of that savings is ever being passed onto customers anyway. I just think there is more to this story. Do we know how much Verizon, Directv, Time Warner and others are paying for Fox? Is it really the $150M that they are supposedly asking Cablevision for? And if it is that much, why are Verizon's rates the same, if not lower, than Cablevision?

 

[anotherguyTN]

What I said earlier in the Dish vs. Fox thread applies here as well. BOTH sides deserve to lose for letting things go this far. Fox deserves to lose viewers, and Cablevision deserves to lose subscribers.

 

[hubcity]

I think, in much the same way the guy who rear-ends your car is the guy who gets the ticket regardless, the company that pulls the plug that kills viewership of a terrestrial signal gets the blame. That's Fox.

But I'm also of the opinion that they shouldn't be negotiating carriage fees for WNYW or WWOR, because the carriage fee should be zero.

Still, I want to get an antenna up as insurance. This isn't the last time this'll happen.

 

[EricStein]

I think, in much the same way the guy who rear-ends your car is the guy who gets the ticket regardless, the company that pulls the plug that kills viewership of a terrestrial signal gets the blame. That's Fox.

But I'm also of the opinion that they shouldn't be negotiating carriage fees for WNYW or WWOR, because the carriage fee should be zero.

Still, I want to get an antenna up as insurance. This isn't the last time this'll happen.

You are right. FOX keeps saying "switch to DirecTV" instead of "you can get this channel for free, over the air." They probably could care less if they had their terrestrial transmitters still operating.

If Cablevision and/or DISH caves in, then it will be free reign for FOX to shop the same rate to Cox, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, and AT&T. They'll play nice with DirecTV, since they're giving them so much exposure during these disputes.

My take: if other companies pay a certain amount for content, so should DirecTV. There should be no unwritten "preferred distributor" rules.

 

[KeithE4]

But I'm also of the opinion that they shouldn't be negotiating carriage fees for WNYW or WWOR, because the carriage fee should be zero.

You're 100% correct. If the FCC had "manhood," they would define must-carry as exactly what it says: All stations in the metro must be available for rebroadcast, with no compensation to any station that has an unscrambled over-the-air transmitter. By definition, those signals are public and nobody should be required to pay for them, including cable & satellite companies.

And cable companies would be required to carry all stations that they can receive, including LPTVs and Class A stations. Cable companies can charge for their own equipment and associated costs, but they shouldn't have to owe one thin dime (or pass those charges onto us) to any station with a broadcast license.

If the stations want to charge, they can scramble their signals. Oh, wait! Are ON-TV, SelecTV, and Spectrum still in business? Didn't think so.

 

[Skynet74]

I dropped cable a long time ago. I learned that purchaing my own equipment was the best money I could spend. Nobody is going to take my channels away now. Gooodbye Middle Men. The best part is the Bill each month.

30 channels

TOTAL DUE: 0

 

[TexasTom]

If the FCC had "manhood," they would define must-carry as exactly what it says: All stations in the metro must be available for rebroadcast, with no compensation to any station that has an unscrambled over-the-air transmitter. By definition, those signals are public and nobody should be required to pay for them, including cable & satellite companies.

And cable companies would be required to carry all stations that they can receive, including LPTVs and Class A stations. Cable companies can charge for their own equipment and associated costs, but they shouldn't have to owe one thin dime (or pass those charges onto us) to any station with a broadcast license.

The FCC does not have this level of discretion. The *law* for must carry is that it applies to full power stations only (with a very few exceptions), and those full power stations are given the choice of opting for retransmission consent *or* must carry. But the point is that the stations choose, not the FCC. While there is some gray area in the law (for example, it doesn't address digital subchannels, since those didn't exist when the law was written and passed), the FCC's hands are tied when it comes to retransmission consent for full powers and must carry for low power stations.

that said, why shouldn't full power stations get some money. ESPN is $4/month, and only gets a fraction of the audience of ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliates. And since ESPN (and other cable networks) do indeed compete head to head with the broadcast networks when it comes to bidding for programming rights, that comparision is both valid and relevant.

 

[DToTheJ]

I dropped cable a long time ago... The best part is the Bill each month. 30 channels... TOTAL DUE: 0

And much like the average cable subscriber, I bet you probably don't watch every single one of them... :

 

[DToTheJ]

As expected, neither side budged on Tuesday, forcing FCC commissioner Julius Genachowski to get involved:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458707-Day_Four_Cablevision_Fox_Dispute_Rages_On.php

The Commish says he is "deeply troubled that Cablevision and Fox are spending more time attacking each other through ads and lobbyists than sitting down at the negotiating table. The time for petty gamesmanship is over." (Sounds familiar... did Obama write this for Julius? : )

 

[kenglish]

...... If the FCC had "manhood," they would define must-carry as exactly what it says: All stations in the metro must be available for rebroadcast, with no compensation to any station that has an unscrambled over-the-air transmitter. By definition, those signals are public and nobody should be required to pay for them, including cable & satellite companies......

On the same idea, if McDonald's (or any other restaurant) offers napkins, ketchup, mustard, fry sauce or utensils for "free" (no specific charges for each one), then why shouldn't the guy with the taco cart out on the sidewalk be able to go in and load up on these items, to provide to his customers? "Free" is "Free", ain't it?

Cable and satellite use the local stations and affiliates to enhance their line-up, which they SELL to their customers. If they want, they can compete with locals by purchasing a network affiliation, doing local programming, inserting commercials, building a news operation, etc.

Or, they could try offering their Pay services MINUS local channels....which satellite tried, and failed at.

(Hmmm....I'm kinda' likin' the idea of scrambling the signal and making it a subscription service, while just givin' away a nice 1.2 MBps SDTV channel with mono sound. Cable would be welcomed to re-sell that. ;D )

 

[DToTheJ]

You know that disclaimer that goes, "this broadcast may not be redistributed or disseminated without the express prior written consent of Major League Baseball"? Well, I guess that went out the window because the FCC has been tweeting about yesterday's NLCS game while it was being played. Yes, I kid you not: The FCC, for the benefit of Cablevision subscribers affected by the Fox blackout, sent game updates through its Twitter account:
http://www.sportsgrid.com/mlb/the-fcc-live-tweeted-the-philliesgiants-game-wait-what/

It would be interesting, should the blackout last very long, to see how the FCC live-tweets an episode of "Family Guy" or "COPS"... :

 

[Skynet74]

I dropped cable a long time ago... The best part is the Bill each month. 30 channels... TOTAL DUE: 0

And much like the average cable subscriber, I bet you probably don't watch every single one of them... :

You are right. Not crazy about those ion channels.

 

[DToTheJ]

Looks like this standoff could last at least a week - if not more than one week... After Day 5, both sides were still far apart on a new agreement:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458778-Cablevision_Fox_Day_Five_No_Progress.php

If you go to the above link, you will see that folks have apparently figured out how to use the "post comment" function on B&C stories... A few choice words for both companies from angry consumers/customers...

And I agree with them, this is not good business. And mind you, this is from someone who is not a current Cablevision subscriber (switched carriers a few weeks ago).

 

[MarcB]

Dude, we do not need a day-by-day play-by-play of the negotiations. Just let us know when they've resolved the issues. It's just as bad as FOX News Channel with their FOX News Alerts.

1. FOX NEWS ALERT: President Boards Airforce One.
2. FOX NEWS ALERT: Airforce One is in the Sky.
3. FOX NEWS ALERT: Airforce One lands at destination.
4. FOX NEWS ALERT: President gets off Airforce One.

 

[DToTheJ]

LMAO... Today, though, I wanted to point out the significance of the comments on the B&C article and throw in my own personal two cents.