Time Warner Brings Customers Into Fee Battle

rated by 0 users
This post has 3 Replies | 0 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 24,882
Points 1,116,835
Joined: Sep 2007
News Posted: Sat, Nov 28 2009 3:48 PM

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.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,796
Points 45,500
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Sun, Nov 29 2009 12:57 AM

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.

 Machine name: rapid1
 Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) 
 System Model: Gigabyte X58A-UD5
 Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU         930  @ 2.80GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.6GHz
 Memory: Kingston 6144MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,963
Points 25,700
Joined: Sep 2009

Great way to deflect anger to the networks. I wonder which young Ivy League-educated marketing guru came up with this idea?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,439
Points 102,180
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
realneil replied on Mon, Nov 30 2009 8:58 AM

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.

(Mark Twain)

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS