Time Warner Cable Inc. is bringing its customers into its battle over programming fees it pays to stations to carry their signals on its systems.The company - the nation's second-largest cable TV operator - began asking its subscribers this week to vote on whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" in negotiations with the networks. It claims it will use the survey results when officials sit down at the table with the stations whose contracts are up this year. Those networks include The Weather Channel; some News Corp. stations, including the FX channel, which carries such hits as "Damages"; some cable channels owned by Scripps Networks Interactive, which owns Food Network and HGTV; and several Sinclair Broadcast Group TV stations - Sinclair owns 58 stations in 35 markets, including San Antonio, Tampa and Las Vegas. Thing is, either way, if the programming fees go up - no matter how tough or not Time Warner is at the negotiating table - subscriber fees are sure to go up. And who's going to vote online that they want Time Warner to "roll over" in negotiations?Time Warner and many cable companies have, in the past, taken out ads accusing stations that provide the programming of price-gouging. But given the continuing move of broadcast and cable content to the Internet, it's unclear how much either the programmers or providers can continue to increase fees before losing those revenues altogether. Rival Comcast has been partnering with content providers to bring shows online for no extra charge to current subscribers.Time Warner is claiming that some outlets have quadrupled their asking price for programming fees, which generally are on a per-subscriber basis.
Programmers say the fault lies with the cable operators, not the program providers. They have "misallocated the money they spend to acquire programming by paying more for programming that's not as popular," said Barry Faber, general counsel of Sinclair, in an interview with the Associated Press.
Yeah what the should do is provide pay per channel services based on what the providers charge them. Then if you wanted a channel and agreed to pay the up fee for it it's your deal. Then the channel providers who wanted super fee's or up charges for there channel would in the larger case loose their a77, and therefore have no choice but to change their prices, or loose money.
I mean really I have to pay for cable or choose to. The deal is though I don't watch anything on several of the channels. However; I know I get them as channels in my expanded basic channels. So I pay more for expanded basic for the channels I do watch, but in turn am also paying higher fee's over all for things I don't as well.
Great way to deflect anger to the networks. I wonder which young Ivy League-educated marketing guru came up with this idea?
I'd like to be able to go online and choose exactly what stations I WANT TO HAVE at my disposal. I don't want stations broadcast in other languages that I can't understand, and I don't like online shopping networks. As a matter of fact, I can do without 80% of the cable programming that I have to pay for but do not watch.
Not paying for stations I don't need/want is the best idea that they'll never adopt.
Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms