ABC Pulls Channels From Cablevision 217
wkurzius writes "Cablevision and ABC have failed to come to an agreement after two years of negotiations, and as a result ABC has pulled all their channels from the Cablevision lineup. The dispute is over $40 million in new retransmission fees that Cablevision says they won't give to ABC. On the other side, Cablevision has been accused of not being fair to their customers despite pocketing $8 billion last year. 'The companies immediately published press releases Sunday morning, blaming each other for failing to reach a deal. Cablevision subscribers on Twitter expressed their frustration, saying they shouldn't be deprived of ABC shows, including the Oscars on Sunday, because of a multi-million-dollar deal gone awry. Competitors such as Verizon Communications took advantage of the dispute. The company launched television, newspaper, and online ads offering Cablevision customers speedy installs to subscribe to its FiOS television service along with $75 gift cards, highlighting a fierce war for subscribers in the valuable New York market.'"
Re:$75 gift card to switch to Verizon FIOS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure I'll take that deal - WHEN YOU MAKE FIOS AVAILABLE IN MY @%&#! NEIGHBORHOOD!!!
Ditto. I actually receive promotional snail mail the tout the wonder of FIOS, but they do not offer it in my area. They actually mail advertisements to addresses they know they do not support.
Re:bundle fees have to end (Score:4, Interesting)
Are Craptastic Networks Relevent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:wow.. i dont believe it (Score:5, Interesting)
now now...
I hate the rich as much as you do...
but bullshittery is fun.
I enjoy film. I enjoy film making... but I do agree it is a silly event, and ABC and Cablevision are just two rich whining babies fighting over an amount of money neither of us will ever see in our life time.
To think how many people they could help in this economy... all of the out of work people, with health insurance bills...
Instead two media giants will duke it out over nothing that really matters to real people.
Keep your ABC channels... and Fuck Cablevision. People are out of work... The oscars doesnt mean dick anyone. Its an advertisement for the best films to buy... thats all it is... But I do enjoy film so... But lets call it what it is... Its a FUCKING INFOMERCIAL.
FIOS rules ;)
I've about had it with Cablevision (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the second incident in the past 4 months and I dont really give a crap whether its ABC's "fault" or not. The fact is, my service is provided through Cablevision and if they were thinking about how they service their customers, they wouldnt be pulling stations because they couldnt get a deal done. That's their problem as far as I'm concerned and just may switch to another provider because of this.
That being said, I'm not necessarily missing ABC right now (although the misses is a bit disappointed about not getting the Oscars tonight)
I've said it before, just two words... last mile (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing is ridiculous. At face value and and in the deeper business meanings. Stupid, pure and simple stupid. It's 800lbs of stupid.
This should be avoided, and can be avoided if the last mile is not owned by the content provider. The last mile is community infrastructure that is paid for by subscribers, and should be owned by them. Yes, it seemed easier to outsource this laborious task to someone with a vested interest, but in the end it is not. All those Cablevision subscribers should be able to call customer support and have their content service provision switched while they are on the phone. They should be able to demand a la carte pricing too.
Instead we continue to allow the last mile community infrastructure to be owned and operated by those who fix the price of using the service. No, what I suggest is not the perfect answer, but it puts the ownership and decision making in the hands of the local community, not hot-headed corporate officers whose interest is bottom line dollars. When the infrastructure is owned by the community, and each 'service provider' is tied to the network, subscribers can choose who they want, not suffer until a new provider is in their neighborhood. As it is, we pay for multiple half assed last mile networks instead of paying for one damn good last mile network. We are charged stupid fees to use those half ass networks, and are at the mercy of 'service providers' marketing groups as to what bundles we have to purchase to watch the few channels we do like.
This community owned infrastructure would appear to give ABC an upper hand, but it does not. When I'm allowed to choose who I want to pay for service, and choose what channels I don't want to watch, the financing will do an amazing free market thing: kill off content that nobody wants to watch, lower the price of content that people do want to watch, and redirect monies to making content that is worth watching. ABC is going to have this coverage of the Oscars. Why do I have to pay for ABC crap content 24/7/365 to watch it? Why can't I use the pay per view options?
Television has been made an integral part of American society, and I think it's a sad reflection on that society that it is controlled by so few people, that so little choice is given to the same consumers that have to choose from 400+ options to buy a pair of running shoes. Personally, I think anti-trust laws were created with the intent of stopping this kind of thing. Screw ABC and screw Cablevision, and all their equals. Senator? Congresswoman? if you're listening, I'm holding YOU accountable.
Re:wow.. i dont believe it (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a boys club, crappy movies often beat better movies. It's as bad as the Grammys....
Re:bundle fees have to end (Score:3, Interesting)
I am about one month into having only "limited basic" (network programming, several religious channels, and whatever HD channels the local cable company forgot to block out). My wife and I had been telling ourselves we were going to rent movies using our local video store's five older movies for five days for $5 deal. But, instead, we have been playing wii fit for 45 minutes to an hour a day, each, watching an occasional show on network, and have barely missed cable.
I can't stress enough how much this has helped with my diet.
Re:To the people saying A La Carte is the answer (Score:1, Interesting)
"It's about price. People don't want to pay $80/mo for 1000 channels if they're only ever gonna watch 10."
People assume a la carte equals low price. But if it ever happens you will pay almost the same for those 10 channels as you do for those 1000. So most people will choose the bundle...
Re:bundle fees have to end (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the problem is the inefficiency of the whole channel model. Now the technology exists feed content on demand there is really no need for channels.
As a N'parent poster pointed out there are really on 6 big media firms producing just about everything on all 200 of those cable channels. Rather than bundling shows onto channels and then bundling channels into packages just bundle the shows into the packages.
Re:bundle fees have to end (Score:5, Interesting)
Al la carte, please.
...
And this is why your cable bill is so high. You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not.
Regarding a la carte:
You feel you're subsidizing everyone else, but everyone else is subsidizing you too. Everyone asking for a al carte thinks they are going to be the ones that pay less.
Here's how it would play out. A less popular cable station gets only $.20/household. When 19 of 20 households can drop them, they'll need $4/subscriber to make ends meet. Will the remaining N people pay $4? No? Then they'll need to charge even more or chop programming. Death spiral until it's off the air.
This will happen to the more popular stations as well, but the numbers will be different. You'll have vastly fewer channels when it's done (or vastly more info-mercials).
OTOH, the cable companies are getting bundles pushed on them by the content providers.
Maybe the best thing the cable companies could do would be pass through the bundles forced on them. Give us an ABC/ESPN/etc. bundle and see who buys it.
Re:wow.. i dont believe it (Score:4, Interesting)
It's lots of fun to watch if you have money riding on it.
Re:bundle fees have to end (Score:3, Interesting)
4. Netflix
I have 90+ movies and TV shows in my queue, not counting the streaming queue. I won't run out of DVDs to watch for years.
Re:I've said it before, just two words... last mil (Score:3, Interesting)
You are making a lot of assumptions about how the content gets delivered.
Historically, and still true for the majority of content it is not delivered on a "channel" specific to the subscriber.
Its essentially "broadcast" over the cable network, and subscribers tap into the broadcast.
There is no way an individual subscriber can change the service provider on this sort of network.
As systems move to digital delivery it becomes feasible, but requires much more investment than simply the physical cable/fiber network.
To do what you describe would require an "exchange" which would receive content from all supported providers, and a means ot switching incoming streams to individual subscribers.
I suspect that you would not like the price of this system.