Rochester Time Warner channel changes

[therealjm12]

Rochester Time Warner has moved Animal Planet & TBS off channels 5 & 6 to unsused higher channels. Anyone know what is going on channels 5 & 6? What's the story behind the moves?

 

[BobRoss]

Rochester Time Warner has moved Animal Planet & TBS off channels 5 & 6 to unsused higher channels. Anyone know what is going on channels 5 & 6? What's the story behind the moves?

Those are pretty low-numbered slots for channels that are usually found in higher tiers. I'm not from Rochester, but I would assume those channels would have been included in the basic cable lineup (usually just your broadcast and local access channels). Moving them to higher channels allows them to be part of the "standard" lineup, which costs more.

This could have been so TW could try to get basic customers to upgrade to standard. Or it could have been done to allow TW to avoid a rate increase on basic... as channels like TBS and AP usually cost the cable company more, and they then pass the cost along to you. Putting these channels on basic cable would obviously allow them to be seen by ALL customers, whereas channels on standard cable aren't seen by as many people. (Granted, I can't imagine this would lower the potential audience by a lot of people, but still.)

 

[dustintv]

Just to add to what Bob was saying it was quite unusual for TBS and Animal Planet to be found on such lower end channels on cable. In a good majority of cable line-ups I've seen, even on other Time Warner line-ups upstate here TBS is usually in the 30s and 40s, often found alongside TNT and USA, while Animal Planet is in the 40s, 50s, 60s sometimes alongside Discovery, TLC etc.

 

[dampier]

Those are pretty low-numbered slots for channels that are usually found in higher tiers. I'm not from Rochester, but I would assume those channels would have been included in the basic cable lineup (usually just your broadcast and local access channels). Moving them to higher channels allows them to be part of the "standard" lineup, which costs more.

This could have been so TW could try to get basic customers to upgrade to standard. Or it could have been done to allow TW to avoid a rate increase on basic... as channels like TBS and AP usually cost the cable company more, and they then pass the cost along to you. Putting these channels on basic cable would obviously allow them to be seen by ALL customers, whereas channels on standard cable aren't seen by as many people. (Granted, I can't imagine this would lower the potential audience by a lot of people, but still.)

TBS is the bigger issue because it has a higher rate card than Animal Planet, which is part of the Discovery bouquet of networks. Moving both to standard service tiers does reduce the cost they pay for Basic customers (but avoiding rate increases is a foreign concept for cable companies), but they need not move the channels to reassign their tier.

What is more likely is that another network or two has offered an incentive to TW to discount their rate if they get placement on a low channel number, or another programmer has gotten an agreement for a lower channel position in return for a carriage agreement. Networks understand the lower the channel number, the higher the rating, and to be stuck in Channel Siberia (anything above 50 these days - it used to be 30) means channel surfers are much less likely to land on your channel and stay there.

Now I have no idea what is ultimately going to end up there, but it would not surprise me to see CW16 repositioned, TW's new sports network, or a cable network like ION pop down there (they cut deals for lower channel placement). TW historically has put broadcast channel on positions below 13 along with their own news product, public affairs, home shopping, and cable nets paying for the slot.