Disney pulls ABC from Cablevision......

[ericafny]

I am so upset about this. I am obsessive about movies and in the movie business myself, I have been counting down the days until the Oscars and then this happens mere hours before they air!? Thank God for the internet, The Oscars can be streamed live at 8pm Eastern time at Oscars.go.com for those of you who want to watch but don't get ABC cause of this ridiculous crap.

I keep reading that they are disputing it still, as we speak, and it may come back right before the Oscars actually air. I hope that happens. I don't want to watch it on my computer... what if the stream freezes, or skips, plus it's not TV quality.

Are you ABSOLUTELY postive they will be streaming live?? I am sooo upset I can't watch the Oscars tonight. I am on Cablevision's side this time (last time I wasn't) but now I realize it's not Cablevision who is pulling these channels its the networks. I am not saying Cablevision is not at fault but at least the networks can choose to keep the channels on the air during negotiations...that's my opinion on this one.

 

[Stitchmistress]

I am so upset about this. I am obsessive about movies and in the movie business myself, I have been counting down the days until the Oscars and then this happens mere hours before they air!? Thank God for the internet, The Oscars can be streamed live at 8pm Eastern time at Oscars.go.com for those of you who want to watch but don't get ABC cause of this ridiculous crap.

I keep reading that they are disputing it still, as we speak, and it may come back right before the Oscars actually air. I hope that happens. I don't want to watch it on my computer... what if the stream freezes, or skips, plus it's not TV quality.

Thanks for the streaming info. I guess I'll be doing a lot of online TV watching in the coming weeks. It is inconvenient to say the least to have our 4 family members who are "Lost" obsessed huddled around a small laptop.

 

[dalt01]

i don't understand why the cable companies should be paying ABC or any other network for their broadcasts..
it should be the other way around...ABC should have to pay the cable companies for the right to be able to broadcast over their cables...

the networks need the cable companies to be able to broadcast and earn advertising revenue..
without the cable companies, they reach far fewer viewers and so the advertising value goes down...

the relationship seems backwards...ABC should be paying the cable companies for the use of the cable to broadcast...

it is actually the other way around...............say you start a cable company. all you have is a signal. now, you want to put something out over that signal, you call ABC and say i want to show your programming...........they say sure............for a fee this works because of free enterprise.......if you dont pay them what they want some other guy with a cable company will and you can stick your signal where the sun dont shine. thats business in america my friend.

 

[doconeill]

it is actually the other way around...............say you start a cable company. all you have is a signal. now, you want to put something out over that signal, you call ABC and say i want to show your programming...........they say sure............for a fee this works because of free enterprise.......if you dont pay them what they want some other guy with a cable company will and you can stick your signal where the sun dont shine. thats business in america my friend.

But cable companies actually started the other way around...they took the free channels that people couldn't receive for technical (remote locations, etc.) and practical (couldn't put up a big enough antenna), and put up one giant antenna a whole community could use for a fee...which is why the initials CATV, which are now synonymous with cable TV, actually derived from "Community Antenna TV".

CATV actually expanded the viewer base of the stations, and then added pluses of the "cable only" stations and also distant "superstations". Now after 60 years, the networks want some money.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Its not the cable companies that you should be mad at here. The networks are asking for $$$ per cable customer

Well, why not? The cable companies are charging for basic broadcast stations (e.g. ABC) but not paying the station owners anything in return. Sure, Cablevision may be paying Disney $200 million - but that's for OTHER Disney channels, not ABC.

Nope, the common denominator in all these disputes is... Cablevision.

 

[mrzrich]

Well, why not? The cable companies are charging for basic broadcast stations (e.g. ABC) but not paying the station owners anything in return. Sure, Cablevision may be paying Disney $200 million - but that's for OTHER Disney channels, not ABC.

AND the cable CO is giving the station owners viewers they could not reach otherwise but not charging the station owners for those viewers.

The networks get their money from advertisers, when they promise the advertisers a # of viewers that includes the cable viewers that the network gets for free from the cable company. When I lived on LI I could not get WABC NY when my cable was out. (I could get the CT station) WABC would not have had me as a viewer without cable.

 

[kaytieeldr]

i don't understand why the cable companies should be paying ABC or any other network for their broadcasts..
it should be the other way around...ABC should have to pay the cable companies for the right to be able to broadcast over their cables...

the networks need the cable companies to be able to broadcast and earn advertising revenue..
without the cable companies, they reach far fewer viewers and so the advertising value goes down...

the relationship seems backwards...ABC should be paying the cable companies for the use of the cable to broadcast...

Actually, they don't. A television owner with a decent antenna (and digital converter box, if necessary, blame the FCC, not the networks or the cable companies) can get network broadcasts over the air.

I live in an apartment building that comes with the option of being hooked into the rooftop antenna, allowing clear viewing of PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CW, and a few other local stations - all without a cable connection.

So, no, the networks don't "need" cable. The cable companies, on the other hand, are charging us for basic network transmission - i.e. local channels - and NOT reimbursing network ownership. They're taking a free signal, rebroadcasting it directly to homes, and charging the customers - for something for which they're not paying in the first place.

 

[kaytieeldr]

but they are GREEDY in their pursuit of More of our $$

Our money? No - they want more of Cablevision's money.

 

[dalt01]

But cable companies actually started the other way around...they took the free channels that people couldn't receive for technical (remote locations, etc.) and practical (couldn't put up a big enough antenna), and put up one giant antenna a whole community could use for a fee...which is why the initials CATV, which are now synonymous with cable TV, actually derived from "Community Antenna TV".

CATV actually expanded the viewer base of the stations, and then added pluses of the "cable only" stations and also distant "superstations". Now after 60 years, the networks want some money.

very true...............but a long time ago from a town far far away called Wilkes-Barre Pa came a little ditty called HBO......and........everyone else started scratching their heads and asking themselves if they were leaving anything slip through the cracks as it were. you read the article i am sure so you noticed that most of the more popular upper channels develope revenue and have for some time. they are really just like HBO because your cable company puts them in a "package" and charges you for them. Radio is clawing its way through the same thing right now.

 

[dalt01]

Our money? No - they want more of Cablevision's money.

where do you think Cablevision gets their money.

 

[doconeill]

very true...............but a long time ago from a town far far away called Wilkes-Barre Pa came a little ditty called HBO......and........everyone else started scratching their heads and asking themselves if they were leaving anything slip through the cracks as it were. you read the article i am sure so you noticed that most of the more popular upper channels develope revenue and have for some time. they are really just like HBO because your cable company puts them in a "package" and charges you for them. Radio is clawing its way through the same thing right now.

But HBO and The Movie Channel (then, the Star Channel) always charged for subscribers are premium, advertising free channels, and still do.

All the other non-premium channels get advertising revenue to pay for the programming. Now, in some cases the local cable provider is allowed to insert their own advertising to cover costs of retransmission, etc.

I think it makes sense that a cable-only station at least has two options - allow the cableco to carry at no charge but not be allowed to overlay advertisements, or pay a fee and the cableco is permitted to overlay advertisements on some fraction of the commercial breaks.

Broadcast stations should be free to carry, without ANY commercial overlays.

 

[Joshua_me]

It all comes down to the "big boys" rattling their sabers and playing chicken with one another for the most profit possible.

It's really not much different than our days on the playground. You won't play by my rules ? Fine, I'll take my ball and go home ! Some things never change.

And as usual, it's the little guy that gets, well, it rhymes with 'blued'.

That part never changes, either.

 

[SusanWasHere]

This whole thing is ridiculous! But just to let my fellow Cablevision customers know, I got an email saying all On Demand movies are free for today. They have a lot of the Oscar movies on there and tons of new releases. I'm watching "The Hurt Locker" now. So at least there's a little something for us

 

[dalt01]

But HBO and The Movie Channel (then, the Star Channel) always charged for subscribers are premium, advertising free channels, and still do.

All the other non-premium channels get advertising revenue to pay for the programming. Now, in some cases the local cable provider is allowed to insert their own advertising to cover costs of retransmission, etc.

I think it makes sense that a cable-only station at least has two options - allow the cableco to carry at no charge but not be allowed to overlay advertisements, or pay a fee and the cableco is permitted to overlay advertisements on some fraction of the commercial breaks.

Broadcast stations should be free to carry, without ANY commercial overlays.

and here i thought i was going to have another boring evening............i think the days of the word free have come and gone my friend.........the problem with these two companys tonite is that they are working without a net, with no contract in place and a mutual agreement based on a month to month which can become day to day in a second without anything on paper..................i guess we will just have to wait and see who blinks first

 

[Joshua_me]

I got an email saying all On Demand movies are free for today.

Ooo !

I'd gladly go a few days without ABC for that !

If you've got a dvd burner you're all set !

Free movies to keep !

 

[doconeill]

Apparently WABC has sent a new offer, but Cablevision hasn't responded yet. Cablevision has agreed to arbitration as called for by Sen. Kerry and others, with the proviso that WABC programming be returned in the meantime.

And Lost producer Damon Lindof is trying to bribe Cablevision on Twitter: "Okay, Cablevision. You win. We'll tell you what the island is. NOW GIVE THE PEOPLE THEIR ABC!!!!!""

 

[dalt01]

oh great, the government with its nose in something else.

 

[kaytieeldr]

where do you think Cablevision gets their money.

Let me be more specific - ABC wants some of that $18 per month Cablevision is charging its customers for basic transmission, and keeping, as in NOT passing on to the networks.

 

[starwood]

As for the "free" on demand movies - We tried for an hour to get one to start and it kept saying try again. We never did get one to play.

 

[SusanWasHere]

As for the "free" on demand movies - We tried for an hour to get one to start and it kept saying try again. We never did get one to play.

That happened to me at first as well. Esp if I tried it with the HD ones. But after 4 or 5 times it went through. Figured I would just keep trying. Maybe too many people trying at once?