Boo on the Disney Company!

[Anna114]

Moderators I'm not sure where this belongs but couldn't find a better place. Sorry!

NY cablevision customers will be losing WABC TV on Saturday night. Cablevision pays 200 million to broadcast ABC channels now they are looking for another 40 million. The two companies have been without a contract for 2 years and they (ABC aka Disney) have decided to shut it down Sat. night if an agreement hasn't been agreed upon. One would think that while negotiations are still going on they wouldn't strong arm us customers. Shame on Disney for not playing nice. The owner of Foodtv and HGTV did it to us Jan 1. When will this crap end.

Sorry, now back to our favorite discussion

 

[HdnMickeyGrl]

Oh that happened with all of the MTV owned channels a year ago. Actually it was set to end Jan 1 so my husand and I watched MTV at midnight to see if it would go black or something. It didn't. They reached a deal. Life went on. Truth be told I only watch Fox as far as network TV goes so I don't think I'd notice if ABC was gone. I don't even know what channel ABC is on here. LOL

But my understanding of the problem was that is was the cable company and not he channel that was being greedy. I think the channel actually pays money to the cable company to run their channels. Sort of like a subsidy. So it should really be boo on cablevision and not boo on Disney. But I may be wrong about all that.

 

[lovetoscrap]

This belongs on the Community Board. I am moving it there.

 

[pezheadmeg]

Moderators I'm not sure where this belongs but couldn't find a better place. Sorry!

NY cablevision customers will be losing WABC TV on Saturday night. Cablevision pays 200 million to broadcast ABC channels now they are looking for another 40 million. The two companies have been without a contract for 2 years and they (ABC aka Disney) have decided to shut it down Sat. night if an agreement hasn't been agreed upon. One would think that while negotiations are still going on they wouldn't strong arm us customers. Shame on Disney for not playing nice. The owner of Foodtv and HGTV did it to us Jan 1. When will this crap end.

Sorry, now back to our favorite discussion

I am beyond dying here. I don't know if I should be protesting Cablevision or if I should be protesting Disney. You're taking away all of my TV!

 

[kaytieeldr]

But my understanding of the problem was that is was the cable company and not he channel that was being greedy

That would be the reasonable explanation - the common denominator - in all these negotiation issues. Cablevision. Scripps isn't connected to MTV isn't connected to Disney. The only company in common in ALL these channel losses is... Cablevision!

Now, tell us again - who's at fault?

 

[java]

I am so very glad I don't have Cablevision anymore. And yes I believe it's cablevision.
"Cablevision fired back with its offer of binding arbitration and added that it remains "deeply disappointed that ABC Disney has put their own financial interests above their viewers and pulled the plug on ABC."

Um actually you make $18 a month for basic service per each subscriber- for the NETWORK channels. Cablevision pays NOTHING for those channels. That is the arguement as far as I understand it.

 

[DVC-Don]

If ABC disapeared from our cable lineup, I'd never know it. Can't recall the last time I've watched ABC, NBC or CBS.

 

[auntie]

Hate this!
I don't care who's at fault. All I know is that I'm paying $160.00 a month for cable and internet and there's no ABC. That's NUTS!
I called Cablevision, and they put this all on Bob Iger. I told them I don't give a hiney ho, who's fault it is..they better have ABC back on by Tues. when LOST is on.
Ridiculous....it's the consumers that suffer while these two idiots play the blame game.
ENOUGH!

 

[krcit]

I have Fios but I can tell you that if I still had Cablevision I would be switching asap. Cablevision is going to lose even more customers now. Stupid Dolans.

 

[Anna114]

That would be the reasonable explanation - the common denominator - in all these negotiation issues. Cablevision. Scripps isn't connected to MTV isn't connected to Disney. The only company in common in ALL these channel losses is... Cablevision!

Now, tell us again - who's at fault?

Listen, I hate cablevision, God knows. However, if you read all that has been written ABC, IMHO, is at fault. I think 20 million for a station that can be had by an antennae is ridiculous. If cable gives in to ABC then each company will take their shots at us. They are entitled to an increase but within reason. How did ABC attack?? Not by defending their position but by telling us customers how to move. Are they truly that stupid?? If I want to move, I damn well will, I don't need their help to come up with another solution. They should try defending their position other then being annoyed at Cable for what they pocket. As a customer that is my problem not ABC's.

 

[java]

Listen, I hate cablevision, God knows. However, if you read all that has been written ABC, IMHO, is at fault. I think 20 million for a station that can be had by an antennae is ridiculous. If cable gives in to ABC then each company will take their shots at us. They are entitled to an increase but within reason. How did ABC attack?? Not by defending their position but by telling us customers how to move. Are they truly that stupid?? If I want to move, I damn well will, I don't need their help to come up with another solution. They should try defending their position other then being annoyed at Cable for what they pocket. As a customer that is my problem not ABC's.

By that argument- Cablevision should not be charging you $18 a month just to view those channels then. You are paying $18 a month just to view network tv.The point is if they are taking money for it- they should be paying for it too.

So did ABC go off for you ny customers?

 

[kaytieeldr]

It did go off, at midnight Saturday/Sunday - and went back on at 8:20 PM Sunday. I still want to know who blinked

 

[bicker]

The reality is that Cablevision is being frugal, as compared to their competitors, who are simply more readily willing to pay more to content providers, because they know that they tend to have more affluent subscribers, in general, who are more likely to accept the passing-along of higher retransmission fees. Cablevision, like all the legacy cable companies, is the service provider who provides service to the folks who just want the most basic (read: less expensive) service, and local governments even sometimes insist that companies like Cablevision have their more affluent customers subsidize the most basic service, rather than having it fairly represent the true cost of service delivery.

Both sides, WABC-TV and Cablevision, are doing what they're supposed to be doing -- each one looking out for their overriding objectives. Trying to cast either one as evil, in this, is missing the point. Neither company is a charity. Neither company is obligated to castrate its own ability to best serve its owners' best interests, and indeed it would be irresponsible for them to do so.

Television is a business. Business is all about creating value and then charging consumers for that value. In the case of WABC-TV, Cablevision is consuming the value that they produce, and so it makes sense that they're going to try to get Cablevision to pay for that value. And the law explicitly allows for this... it isn't an oversight or mistake. Retransmission consent is a specific portion of the law, codified in 1996.

BTW, late last year, I projected that stuff like this would be happening:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2350315

 

[Anna114]

By that argument- Cablevision should not be charging you $18 a month just to view those channels then. You are paying $18 a month just to view network tv.The point is if they are taking money for it- they should be paying for it too.

So did ABC go off for you ny customers?

Cablevision can charge me whatever they like, it's up to me as the customer if I want to pay the fee. I can always change how I get my television. Why is ABC entitled to any of that money, it has nothing to do with them. Again, this is between us as the customer and Cable, what we get charged.

ABC did go off the air at 12am but came back sometime during the day before the Oscars.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Why is ABC entitled to any of that money, it has nothing to do with them.

Sure it does. It's their network that Cablevision is airing without reimbursing ABC, even though Cablevision is getting paid by its own customers for access to that and similar stations.

 

[KellyNY]

I pretty much do not care about ABC or any other channel, but I do not like the way Cablevision trashes ABC, Food Network in front of us. I am sure ABC had something to answer but they did not do on national TV, or I missed it. It left bad taste in my mouth.

 

[SOnotLayuh]

I couldn't be without AMC! I watch almost every prime time show they broadcast!

Good luck with whatever happened!

 

[bicker]

Cablevision can charge me whatever they like, it's up to me as the customer if I want to pay the fee. I can always change how I get my television. Why is ABC entitled to any of that money, it has nothing to do with them.

Because WABC-TV is a major contributor to why some (not all) subscribers subscribe to Cablevision. Indeed, Cablevision benefits greatly from its ability to take WABC-TV's signal and rebroadcast it. Federal law explicitly provides for the right of WABC-TV to charge a fee if service providers wish to rebroadcast their signal.

 

[java]

"Again, this is between us as the customer and Cable, what we get charged. "

Actually it's between the service provider and the talent. Your price isn't changing (*yet cablevision used to always be quick to use these things as a reason to raise your rate 10%) When someone provides just a service- there are more parties involved than just the provider and the customer. imho. But I am glad that they somehow resolved it. I hate that both parties try to use customers as pawns when it comes down to money.

And really it's been this way since the start of Cable so why the problem for them now? That's what I don't understand.

 

[bicker]

The reason why it is just becoming a problem now is that up until now broadcasters were getting so much revenue from advertising that even without any service providers paying retransmission fees the broadcasters had enough incentive to let the service providers rebroadcast their signal paying little if anything. In recent years, the value of television advertising has come under major suspicion and we can expect to see precipitous drops in what advertisers are willing to pay. The main instigators of this are commercial avoidence measures, either using DVRs to skip over commercials, or simply ignoring commercials when they're broadcast. Regardless, given that the long-time underlying foundation of the commercial television business model is about to disintegrate, it is essential that broadcasters capitalize on the other major source of revenue available to them, retransmission fees. The alternative would be very bad for viewers: An escalation of the conversion of broadcast channels into a platform for presenting only reality programming, sports, news, etc.