Slashdot Mirror
ABC Pulls Channels From Cablevision
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.'"
People actually watch the oscars?
Who wants to watch an entire industry of false people pat themselves on the back for
another record breaking year of unoriginality, mediocrity and bullshittery?
The same thing happened here in the UK with Sky & Virgin.
That was right before a big sports event or something too.
Virgin started their own channel after much complaining.
All Sky1 shows usually was re-re-re-runs of Stargate anyway.
Life goes on and they all throw out more reality tv.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Sure I'll take that deal - WHEN YOU MAKE FIOS AVAILABLE IN MY @%&#! NEIGHBORHOOD!!!
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
It's pretty funny listening to a company that makes the dough that Disney does complain about how much Cablevision takes down. Likewise moaning about what people get on a basic cable plan - I guess they figure the transmission infrastructure is free? This doesn't let Cablevision and their ilk off the hook for crap service and the general raping of customers (Verizon, Dish, DTV too).
Al la carte, please.
You want to know why your cable bill is so high? This is why. Cable stations (and now network stations) charge cable companies to carry their channels. So they get paid whether you watch their content or not!
It is these deals that keep things like Hulu from happening because why would a cable station offer their program for only advertising revenue online when they can get fixed monthly revenue plus advertising over cable/satellite.
And this is why your cable bill is so high. You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not. And due to big bundles, you're paying for a lot of them.
Meanwhile, the cable (and satellite) companies make these big bundles so they can hide the cost of carrying these channels by making you think you're paying for breadth of content. Mostly, you're actually paying most of it for 5 ESPN channels! And that's great if you want to pay that much for ESPN. But the rest of us need more choice.
Each channel should be individually tallied so you know how much you're paying for each channel. If you feel the channel is worth the price, you pay for it. If you feel it isn't worth it, you can not pay for it. And if enough channels don't get picked up by people, they will realize they can't just get free money, they have to provide content people want to watch, and once they do that, they won't care if they get their viewers from cable companies or Hulu.
This would be preferable to seeing larger and larger bundles pushed on us.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Now how do I get NBC dropped from my cable service?
We need La Carte now and right to buy the box and not re foreced to rent them $15-$20 each.
I'm willing to pay for VS just for the hockey and then drop it and I don't want to be forced buy a lot other channels to get it or be forced to pay for in the base pack for alot poor other stuff on it.
I have directv and it's better priced then comcast Chicagoland and comcast makes you get there sports pack to get speed (parts of the area) and fox moive channel hear. They also have sci-fi / Syfy in higher level then other areas as well haveing CSN+ (over flow) in a higher pack then CSN all other systems in this area have it in the same level. also CSN is alot better then VS is.
cablevision gets its money from phone and web services too.
and if cablevision gives in, everybody else will demand a free lunch.
i dont think people care the much about losing abc.....
I skimmed the article, and the summary seems pretty good. So, isn't ABC still broadcast over the air? I didn't see a list of the other ABC channels, but most everything focused on the main ABC one like Lost, Good Morning America, Oscars, etc.
Also, this seems to be a trend with ESPN and other companies and cable providers having standoffs. Yes, I'm one of those that got rid of cable and haven't bothered with hooking an antenna to my TV. Even with a DVR, the commercials and lack of good content just makes watching too much effort (and cost) for the reward.
And no one even noticed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Good. now Cablevision can discount my bill for losing ABC owner channels, and i can continue to watch ABC shows via ABC's website for free... Chances of cablevsion actually discounting said bill: none.
Okay, the post says "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." This would suggest that subscribers are losing access not just to the broadcast ABC station, but all ABC stations including ABC Family, ESPN, and possibly the Disney-branded channels.
TFA seems to say that the dispute is over just the broadcast ABC station. They make no mention of other ABC channels that might have been pulled.
Checking other articles doesn't clear this up - they all seem to be mostly worried that Cablevision subscribers in New York won't be able to see the Oscars. (Oscar die-hard fans in New York, here's a hint - set up your rabbit ears. If your TV doesn't do digital, go buy a $20 converter box to go with it. You may be surprised at how good the broadcast content is in your area. I know I was.)
So which is it? "All" ABC channels or just the actual broadcast channel? The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken over a broadcast station isn't that interesting really. The story of ABC and Cablevision playing chicken with all ABC cable channels kind of is.
Sign of what comcast / nbc will be to sat tv.
be ready to get torrents of your shows on.
2012 games.
USA Network, Syfy, CNBC, MSNBC, Bravo and more.
When the networks stop relying on all these mindless Reality Shows "staring" all these narcissistic morons, I'll give a shit. I don't have Cablevision, but if Comcast dropped ABC, I wouldn't really care.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I pay a separate charge for local channels so if they get pulled, I think it's time for a class
action law suite as the cable company has a responsibility with collecting fees from me.
Because megavideo is ad's free as well? There's nothing wrong with ads, just when they get over-saturated.
I know I'm just dreaming up science fiction here, but if only there were some way that ABC could send their signal directly through space to our TVs and bypass the cable companies completely, we could avoid this horrible situation. Maybe one day it will be possible...
In other news, according to a new entirely authoritative and conclusive scientific study (i.e. me), Cablevision subscribers have the most unrealistic sense of entitlement of any other pay-for-TV consumers in the entire US. They also apparently are all billionaire shareholders of Cablevision.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I'm so glad I finally got rid of cable. If you leave near a major city where your local stations are located, take a look at getting an indoor HD antenna. (I'm using the Winegard SS-3000, kinda big but works great.)
They normally start advertising by mail and TV in an area that they are getting ready to deploy FIOS to. Odds are good that if you're getting snail spam about it that they are building out the requisite network in your area.
Sirius Satellite Radio rolled out an A La Carte program in 2008 (under pressure from the government), and the number of subscribers that have chosen it is tiny.* Really really tiny. Mel Karmazin grits his teeth every time it's mentioned to him, the high cost it took to implement it and the tiny subscriber adoption.
So it appears many consumers really do like flipping through a zillion channels, for both radio and TV. I'd say it's a small Slashdot-style minority clamoring for A La Carte programming.
*I will say, Sirius does not exactly go out of its way to promote the A La Carte offering. But it does exist.
With a la carte TV , only what brings money in will get produced. Risky stuff or stuff with an audience too small to be rentable will not even get touched at all. At least with bundle you have a slight chance that the network takes a bit of risk for the off chance of a good pay. With a la carte this most probably disappear completely.
Can't this be considered breach of contract between Cablevision and its customers? I don't know if that's the case with customers that aren't on a 2-year contract or whatever, but for those that are... they're in contract with Cablevision to be receiving ABC's channels, and Cablevision currently isn't holding up their end of the deal. Perhaps if a lawsuit comes along, it could mean the end of huge mandatory bundles so that it would be possible for cable companies to reimburse customers for specific channels...?
Let me know if I am completely wrong about this.
That would be the logical conclusion to the path he suggested. 100% pay per view.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
(yes I spelled it that way on purpose) I haven't watched nitwork tv in years. 99.9 percent of the garbage on nitwork tv is a joke. So called reality shows, so called talent shows are about all you see anymore. The so called dramas & comedy shows are usually rehashed, or they spin a current news event to fit their political agenda (like the Law & Order franchise). If it wasn't for the history channel, discovery, TMC, FMC , Nick@Night, and a few other cable/sat channels, I wouldn't even bother watching tv. Nitwork executives can't figure out why their viewership is down, while networks like Nick @ Night beats them. Perhaps they should watch and see that the OLD shows are funny or have a good story, without so much political bias.
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)
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.
Oh my my we have become a nation of cry babies. Cable TV is a service, don't like the service cancel your subscription. Give the money to an alternative provider, you pretty much have at least a satellite provider and or FIOS / UVERSE in almost every market Cablevision serves. Quit your crying and find another carrier, spend your money on something else entirely, or shut up about it and just accept you don't get ABC anymore.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This is the SECOND time this year that cablevision subscribers have lost channels because Cablevision does not want to pay up. Last time, it was Home and Garden and the Food Network. Both times, Cablevision has claimed that they are doing this to put their customers first. I think they meant putting their customers first on the chopping block. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablevision#Carriage_disputes as well.
That is what ABC stands for. Not just ABC, but all of them. All 'Bout Cash. People who think any differently or think they deserve "free" broadcast media are just fooling themselves. They have shareholders to satisfy and consumers are nothing but income sources. If any particular group of consumers aren't forking over enough money, they're gonna get cut out. Nothing personal, but they really can't possibly care less about a couple of million tv viewers using what they consider to be an under-paying cable provider.
And BTW, hooking up a crappy old antenna to the antenna plug on the back of the TV still works like a champ. Maybe you need a digital tuner if your TV doesn't have one, but the good old antenna will still pull down the basic channels for you.
If customers were already paying a ABC channels, I hope Cablevision reduces the bills for all of their subscribers, otherwise it's going to be even more clear to their customers that Cablevision is screwing them over.
Maybe the days of companies deciding to jack up prices for the hell of it are over. ABC bluffed and Cablevision called them on it. Now ABC is losing revenue they would have otherwise gotten. If only more companies (especially hospitals) would simply say "No that price is unreasonable I won't pay." Prices across the board would drop.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Competition in telecommunications in the USA? Heresy!
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
100%.
If you only like one show, you watch only that show, it'd be interesting if you only had to pay for that show. As to the ads, they take care of themselves, you only see the ads from that one show.
I would love to see the channel system gone, where you just watch what you want. Like Hulu does. And if this bundling system where you pay just to have a channel as an option goes away, maybe we'll see it happen.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
A long time ago, broadcast stations were given government-protected chunks of bandwidth. They got monopoly over what originally belonged to everybody. The idea was they'd provide programming 'in the public interest and necessity', it would attract viewers, and they'd stay in business by selling slices of the viewers' time to advertisers.
Remember that?
Last time I looked, ABC in New York was still using public bandwidth, still making a big deal to ad agencies about how many eyeballs they delivered, and charging advertisers for access to those eyeballs.
Meanwhile, companies like Cablevision made deals with local communities. They would get the right to their wires virtually anywhere they wanted over public streets. They'd offer low-cost retransmission of out-air public channels (and free access for schools and other public services); in exchange, they could make money selling premium channels (and later, telephone and Internet access) on those wires.
The broadcasters got a little scared of the cable companies' monopolies... and the possibility of losing potential eyeballs if a cable operator blacklisted them. So they had the federal government create a category of 'must-carry'... where a free TV station could INSIST that local cable companies carry their signal. They'd get guaranteed access to viewers in their area - even ones who'd abandoned their antennas - so they could continue to offer slices to advertisers. In return they gave up any right to charge cable companies for what they were otherwise offering the public free, on government-granted public airwaves.
It all worked, for a while.
Premium channels - those that don't use local bandwidth or promise a modicum of local programming - were never part of the deal. If Disney wanted to build a partially ad-supported channel for just sports or kids, or Ted Turner wanted to run movies 24/7 without commercials but charge cable operators for access, they were free to make other arrangements. ...
Of course, that was a long time ago.
It seems like only last year that the government spent millions of tax dollars giving consumers coupons for digital converters to protect the free-tv/public airspace arrangement... but I guess that's only the distorted memories of an old man...
I don't watch Hulu. Instead, I settled on PAYING a la carte via Netflix and iTunes. Personally, Netflix Instant-Cue is my preferred choice, but iTunes has reasonable pricing on the Daily Show and Colbert Report as a bundle and offers House, Better of Ted and a couple other shows that I can't get off of Netflix.
I refuse to watch Hulu because it is tethered to my computer, and even if I went through the effort of getting it on my TV, it's still a clunky web interface and not at all the simple TV-friendly interface I want when watching on my TV.
All in all, I pay about $100 a season, get all the shows I want and am quite happy.
This is down from about $120 a month I was forking over to Comcast.
And the joy of it all is I don't have to watch a single commercial.
I dropped "cable" TV [...] we have upgraded cable Internet
I seem to remember that a lot of cable companies won't let customers get cable Internet unless they have at least "limited basic" TV through the cable company. Otherwise, they charge a "line fee" in the same amount as the monthly price for "limited basic" TV.
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 do you have to pay ABC to watch the Oscars?
TV networks are becoming obsolete, just like RIAA/MPAA.
The death throes of the dinosaurs are violent and earth-shattering, for awhile, and then we move on with life, with a new business model.
Senator? Congresswoman? if you're listening, I'm holding YOU accountable.
You're "holding them accountable", they're sending the reelection campaign buckets of their customer's cash.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Just watch ABC over the air.
They have no leverage.
I am, though, annoyed by Cablevision, who have automatically turned my channel to 1999 every time I turn the box on, using it as a pulpit of forced propaganda.
You have the right to buy the box, I don't use any cable company boxes. You do have to rent cable cards though, but they're more like $1 a month than $20.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I think Cablevision is going to seriously regret this shafting of their customers. ABC is going to regret losing the advertising revenues those millions of households represent. Cablevisions viewers are not getting what they paid for and should file a class action suit against Cablevision and demand refunds as long as this situation continues. There are no "winners" here...
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
Cable companies actually reduce the cost of transmission for a station. The cable companies shoulder the burden of supplying the signal to viewers, which is you main goal. There are some markets where 90% of the viewers do do via non-OTA methods. It costs a whole lot to maintain a tower just to reach 10% of the market. Get viewers, the ad sales follow. Convenience is the what viewers want. Most aren't gonna fiddle with rabbit ear antennas just to see one station, they want to click one button and see their reality show.
My cabin is about 90 miles outside of the twin cities in a very remote area, and I can get all the networks OTA.
I also am using a 20+ year old VHF/UHF antenna on the roof, albeit a large one (maybe 15 feet tall) and it works fine. All I had to do was add an electrical power booster to it.
... cable and other broadband operator continue to lobby against 'Net neutrality.
Welcome to a world where the carriers cut off content if the size of the kickback isn't sufficient. Yes, I know that the contractual relationships between content providers and CATV companies is different than that on the Internet. Here's hoping that the carriers aren't successful in dragging it that way.
Have gnu, will travel.
For a time I was receiving those advertisements along with my land line phone bill. However, too many other mails flowed in touting their regular ADSL, an offering based upon price alone, since their speed comparisons were only against dialup modem speeds. More recently those FIOS teasers have disappeared from my billings, hence, it appears FIOS will land in much fewer places than the initial advertisements seemed to imply.
So I don't have to hear "OSCAR OSCAR OSCAR!!!"
It's just the MAFIAA stroking themselves, and trying to make the rest of us believe that we care!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I see no reason why any local station should be able to charge retransmission fees for their broadcast content. As far as I am concerned, cable companies should be required to provide free access to over the air broadcasts. It shouldn't matter to the local broadcast stations if I am watching their broadcasts over the airwaves, a cable connection or the Internet. They have selected a business model in which the broadcast channels get free use of the airwaves in exchange for the opportunity to broadcast their content to as many users as can view it. They make their money through advertising. If ABC, Fox, CBS, and NBC want cable revenues for their shows, then they can choose to broadcast the content on cable only channels.
cable card has no VOD and outlet fees some systems even have HD cable card fees.
also in some you can't view event PPV / NHL CI / NBA LP / MLB EI on cable card as well.
also SDV needs even more cable co hardware to work.
I want my VS back in time for the playoffs!
candida systems have A La Carte / theme packs why can't we have that hear as well. Also you can BUY THE BOX there to get out of the paying $15+ /m to rent it.
I'm no fan of Cablevision, but let's get the facts straight. $8 billion is their revenue. The actual amount they "pocketed" i.e. kept (the rest going to expenses) is their net income or profit, which was $285 million. This still is a pretty large amount, but the $40 million ABC wants represents a very large chunk of that income, paid to a single programming supplier. I'm in no position to judge whether or not this is fair, but it is natural that any company would look very carefully at such a large percent of their profit.
All well and good, but what about those of us who don't want a yeast infection from watching TV?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_(genus)
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
We canceled our Directv a couple years ago when the rates went up. They simply priced their way out of our home.
This doesn't affect me. Even if it did, Lost--the only good show on ABC even though the quality is slipping this season--is all over Usenet minutes after it airs. The days of the robber baron media are long gone and frankly I don't give a shit which giant corporation "wins."
I posted this to various groups on facebook regarding "Save Local TV" in Canada, so ignore the link... It just loops back here.
This is what Bell/CTV want your future to look like:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-Cablevision
Bell owns CTV, and they want to pull CTV programming from Rogers to ruin them.
Shaw is doing the same thing with the purchase of Global, holding more that 60% of Canadian programming.
Ce ci est ce que Bell/CTV veullent pour votre futur: [Anglais Seulment]
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/07/170235/ABC-Pulls-Channels-From-Cablevision
CTV appartien à Bell, et ils veullent supprimer leurs chaînes de Rogers pour les ruiner.
Shaw fait le même, eux aussi, avec leur aquisition de Global, et entre eux, tien plus que 60% de chaînes canadiennes [anglais]
Well, it's a nice gesture, considering how much they've put us in the middle (ABC with nonstop ads and pulling during negotiations, Cablevision pushing an update to change the default of all boxes to channel "1999" with a looped message on how ABC's parent corp needs to prop up their "struggling theme parks" and explaining that Hulu is good).
I don't care for the Oscars, but it's crap that it hasn't been settled already. Sit down and work something out, and stop putting consumers in the middle. People will bitch at both but most will watch their shows online. Very few will switch service over this.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but the more I read through and think about the factors playing into this, I can't help but visualize that we got channels as a means of getting programs to people: that is, a "channel" is a distributor. The you have networks which have several channels. Aren't Cable companies doing the exact same thing as the networks? Is that the problem with this arrangement? TWO distributors, one feeding into the other fighting each other because they are also competing with each other.
I keep wondering what TV would look like with only one of those (get rid of one, I don't care which) : you have several "paths" into your TV (channels ) and some company grouping programs into those channels and that's it? not the networks deciding how to group programs then cable companies working to group them again so they can make money too...and trying to get by with a fast one on the ones that grouped it first and the networks not trying to force profits out of the downstream companies...
but then again, that would take the networks allowing someone to bypass them (that's worked SO well with companies like RIAA, etc.) or the cableco's being happy with just being a pipe, which limit's their profit (which has worked SO well when we try to get ISP's that get out of the way and let us use the connections they sold us). Like most things, the internet lets us get almost there (we get the stuff we need without a distributor/middleman) but between the extra work to get it (harder than turning on a TV or putting in a CD) and companies trying to kill it, it's still not "taking over"
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
WABC-DT transmits from the Empire State Building on VHF channel 7. Almost every Cablevision subscriber should at least have a shot at getting it -- and the other NY majors --- with not much of an antenna if they have a decent (5th generation or newer) tuner. And I don't know about Cablevision, but the quality will be a LOT better than what RCN (which has not been cut off) is putting out.
Maybe it's just me, but I had to read the summary a couple of times before I saw the ref to New York. That's NEW YORK. This is news, but local news. It looks like Cablevision is the local cablevision supplier. Sucks to live in New York, but they probably have OTA digital ABC there... MB
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Sirius' web site doesn't seem to be working in Safari, but works in FireFox on my Mac. After inspection, their a la carte package is 50 channels. I don't think they understand what a la carte means.
While I use Cablevision for internet connectivity (they're a good internet provider, actually), I don't use them for TV. I use DirecTV. Cablevision where I am in New Jersey won't carry WLIW (PBS) from Long Island, they won't carry BBC America, and they get into these regular pissing matches with the content providers (see the Food Network / HGTV thing a month or two ago).
If I end up ditching DirecTV, I'd probably use Verizon FIOS because they have BBC America. That'll be cool - Vonage for phone, Verizon for TV and Cablevision for Internet. If you'd told someone 15 years ago they'd be able to do that, they would have thought you were from Bizarro World.
Cablevision doesn't seem to think that channel selection matters - when they initially refused to carry the YES Network (Yankees) a few years ago when the Yankees ditched off the MSG Network (which Cablevision had a financial interest in), we switched to DirecTV and haven't switched back. Customers will switch to keep something they already had - or if they have to switch, pick the option that allows them to keep their shows. And the channel selection differences from area to area (depending on which cable company bought by Cablevision had the area originally) are just annoying.
Years ago, I took my family to Disney's Animal Kingdom. And as soon as you walk in the door, after I paid $240+ to get my family of 4 through the gate, they were taking donations from people to support animal conservation.
It was at that moment I truly *UNDERSTOOD* the meaning of the Yiddish word "chutzpah".
It's over now.
There are a lot of things wrong with the pay entertainment system works today. A lot of people think a la carte is the answer. Another posrt above me beat that one to death an explained pretty good how a la carte would probably kill the whole system, and I think he got it right. A lot of the crap that you get on cable an satellite is there because it balances everything out. That is, a shit ton of QVC-esque channels subsidizes the asston of cash that ESPN has managed to extort (thats not a strong enough word, really) from EVERYONE, and I mean EVERYONE.
No, the problem with the system is competition. That is, lack of. Its been pointed out already that most of the content we watch is produced by only a handfull of companies. Thats part of the problem. ABC includes ABC, ABC Family, ESPN and its offshoots, and a bunch of other stuff I cant think of. NBC has NBC, its news networks, USA, Universal Sports, etc, etc. Fox has Fox, FX, Fox Sports Net, and a bunch of other crap I cant think of. If each different channel was its own actual entity, things would be different. You wouldnt necessarily have the comedy gold on one channel financing the experimental excrement of the CEO's college buddies on another channel. At the same time off the wall stuff that comes out of right field to become a sensation might not happen because each of these little channels would not be able to finance the writers, directors, actors, and what not to get a new series off the ground. It's a fine line.
However stuff like this ABC/Cablevision crap crosses the line. I'm familiar with carriage disputes. As a DirecTV subscriber and a hockey fan I have become well acquainted with carriage disputes thanks to DirecTV and Versus posturing at eachother. DirecTV is a huge media conglomerate. Versus is owned by Comcast, another media conglomerate. In this case Comcast is playing hardball for two reasons. One, it's greedy and two, it does not actually want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to have Comcast channels. Comcast Sports Net for Philadelphia and the northwest part of the country (Washington and Oregon) is also unavailable on DirecTV because Comcast is playing hardball with them. In this case, a separation of content producer and content provider should be enforced. Cable companies should not be allowed to have any channels under their control other than one or two in-house variety channels (DirecTV's 101 for example).
Why do I bring up DirecTV/Versus? Because this Cablevision/ABC dispute is a potential vision of the future if media consolidating is allowed to continue. Comcast is in the process of trying to gobble up NBC and all of its properties. Since we already know Comcast does not want anyone other than Comcast subscribers to watch Comcast channels, you can bet your balls that if Comcast gets NBC, you will see, overnight, a TON of Cableco/NBC Carriage disputes spring up.
Cablevision does make a good point. Why SHOULD they have to pay for what is provided over the air for free? The fact that ANY cable or sat provider pays money to local affiliates to retransmit their signal is just plain stupid. The only option a local affiliate should have available is the "must carry" provision, where the cable provider carries it because the affiliate told them to, and the affiliate gets nothing.
So what should people do to deal with retransmission disputes? Get an antenna and converter box. I live in the boonies and I only get the standard definition version of my locals from DirecTV, with the high def versions coming....someday. So if I want to watch HD NBC, FOX, CBS, PBS, or ABC, I have to use an antenna. DirecTV does not even carry the MyNetworkTV affiliate in this area, or a couple of the additional subchannels.
If my local network affiliates told DirecTV they wanted more money, I would tell DirecTV to dump them. DirecTV hardware has an option so you can record stuff off the air with the DirecTV DVR already, so the HD locals are only needed if you do not have access to an antenna.
So in summation, giant conglomerates suck, and get an antenna. ABC carriage dispute solved.
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.
They are giving away free ppv to bad it's overload this likely kills there remote dvr.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23913693-Free-on-demand-today
ABC stuck it to Cablevision. I hope someone can summarize the terms of the contract.
HBR should do case study on this.
This is hilarious.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
There should have been clearer separation between content creation, content delivery and "last mile", each handled, potentially, by a different company. With the way multicast/broadcast distribution works, content delivery tier would handle multicast/broadcast infrastructure. Historically though, this is not how the technology and processes have evolved, obviously, so we have to deal with the system as it is.
I think you are being overly simplistic and shortsighted by thinking a separate or community-owned last mile will solve these problems. Who would hook into it, how, at what physical location, and at what cost? Who will manage and enforce the separation of networks and standards?
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
You're basically describing, say, Ethernet, right? Packets, broadcast to everybody, then routers and switches to route and filter... This was a radical idea in 1960, but it's pretty well trodden territory now. I mean, Hulu.com or Amazon Video On Demand pretty much accomplishes everything stated above, right?
Because ABC has an exclusive contract with the Academy for all broadcast rights, etc.?
I guess that whole deregulating thing went pretty well for you....next time...vote.
over the air Antenna with atsc tuner in your hdtv and your problem is solved forever and for free.
by a Disney/ABC employee?
Cablevision "pocketed 8 billion"??
Ya, right! That's their overall corporate GROSS INCOME, not NET, which is hundreds of millions of dollars on the wrong side of zero, according to Wikipedia's Cablevision article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cablevision
Cablevision can't give what they don't have, same goes for other programming distribution outlets (such as Charter) that operate in the red.
These types of ransom demands made by programming providers like Disney need to stop!
I suspect that you would not like the price of this system.
If I could choose my channels a la carte, I would indeed like it. I have over 100 channels, and aside from the free broadcasted local channels there are maybe a half dozen I actually watch. I'm not into sports, and at any rate if I do want to watch a sporting event I'll do it in a bar. If I want a movie I'll rent it, and not have it heavily censored and not have to see the stupid network logos in the bottom right of the screen.
I've seen too many good movies butchered by the networks to want to watch anything with a higher rating than PG on television. That leaves the Discover Channely (which lately has become mostly crap aside from Mythbusters), the History Channel, CNN, and... um... Comedy central for South Park. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
Free Martian Whores!
Was nice to see the Olympics and catch a bit of the Oscars, aside from special events we watch everything online or Netflix it. The whole channel paradigm needs to die, just stream everything and charge a few cents per view.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.