No fox5 or my9 on cablevision!!!

[dis sjw]

news corp the company that owns fox5 and my9 pulled them off cablevision at 12:00 midnight on saturday the 16th this is crazy there will be no more hell's kitchen or the world series!!!Dis sjw

 

[tvguy]

Get an antenna, you'll be fine.

 

[MAH4546]

news corp the company that owns fox5 and my9 pulled them off cablevision at 12:00 midnight on saturday the 16th this is crazy there will be no more hell's kitchen or the world series!!!Dis sjw

Newscorp did not pull the channels, Cablevision did.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I dont have cable or sattelite, but when they pull chanels do they adjust your bill for not having those chanels?

 

[bicker]

Get an antenna, you'll be fine.

Clinton, NJ is a bit far from the transmitters:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id=a3629a004655c4

OP will need not only an antenna, but a rather good antenna.

Newscorp did not pull the channels, Cablevision did.

That's not a fair characterization of the situation. The two sides are both equally responsible for not coming to a mutually-acceptable agreement.

I dont have cable or sattelite, but when they pull chanels do they adjust your bill for not having those chanels?

With cable and satellite (except for C-Band), you're not paying a specific amount for specific channels; you're paying for what is on a specific tier of service at that point in time, so no bills are adjusted during retransmission disputes. It's a bit like going to a salad bar at a point in time that they're out of sesame seeds and green pepper: There are still more than enough other items on the salad bar to make a great salad.


These situations are not to be unexpected. I raised this issue back in December 2009 While we viewers don't like having our favorite channels missing from our channel line-ups, is a natural outgrowth of how financially competitive our economy has become. There will be services, out there, that will charge avid viewers more, and will use that money to avoid these disputes by paying broadcaster more. There will also be services, out there, that are more concerned about how price-sensitive many consumers are, and will recognize the value in playing hard-ball with broadcasters, doing without some channels, perhaps even for more than a little while, to try to keep prices down.

So which do you prefer? Higher prices but you get all the channels all the time? or lower prices but every so often you lose a few channels for a while?

 

[jlmarr]

Newscorp did not pull the channels, Cablevision did.

Says here that News Corp pulled the plug:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/10/16/fox.cablevision.dispute

 

[bicker]

Says here that News Corp pulled the plug:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/10/16/fox.cablevision.dispute

It shouldn't be surprising that one of News Corp's biggest competitors, Time Warner, would try to cast their competitor as a villain.

Again: It takes two to tango.

 

[jlmarr]

It shouldn't be surprising that one of News Corp's biggest competitors, Time Warner, would try to cast their competitor as a villain.

On the News Corp owned Wall Street Journal site:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575555200939876456.html

 

[bicker]

And people love sticking it to the boss when they have a chance. It doesn't negate the truth - that a negotiation is between two parties, and the objective is to come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, and that should that not happen, then both parties are responsible.

You'll note that the NY Post doesn't characterize the situation that way:

Fox goes dark for Cablevision viewers

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/cablevision_fox_talks_inching_toward_ZTVt8n12KyDkIEbq9IAPYN

It is best for the general public to avoid getting caught up in the manipulation both sides will employ to try to tug at heart-strings to resolve the dispute in their favor.

 

[aprilgail2]

Just another reason I have switched to FIOS....that and the fact that my cable bill was over 200 a month now!

 

[bicker]

Yes, FiOS has steered clear of carriage disputes up until now, but note that that's a temporary situation. FiOS is new, and up until earlier this year, Verizon was content for it to be a money-loser. So FiOS has simply paid practically whatever the broadcasters have asked for for retransmission, without dispute. They were more interested in getting consumers hooked on their service, and more generally shaking up the complacency so many consumers have with regard to switching services.

That's changed: Verizon has essentially made a right turn with their policies regarding FiOS. The best indicator of this is that they've ceased expansion of the service footprint: Essentially, if your county doesn't have FiOS now, then you can assume you "never" will. ("Never" meaning "at least until the next technology change".) This shift will almost surely also see FiOS coming under the standard Verizon umbrella of expectations for contribution to the enterprise, i.e., "make profit or else". We've already seen some "rate reconciliation". FiOS is in many ways better than all its competitors; we can expect to start paying for that superiority soon. However, many people switched to FiOS because it was priced comparably to the incumbent service provider. If prices increase markedly, they're sure to lose some of those customers. FiOS will probably aim to take a middle road. They won't forgo profitability to placate overly price-sensitive consumers, but they won't want to go in the other extreme either, so while they'll increase rates to some extent, they'll fulfill the rest of their obligation to the enterprise via cost-reduction. That means we'll probably see customer service (strategically) decline, and we'll probably see Verizon starting to play hard-ball with broadcasters on carriage fees, just like their competitors are. That, in turn, means we'll start seeing FiOS having carriage disputes with broadcasters, and indeed we might lose some channels now and then as a result.

 

[starwood]

Joining the club. I really think the FCC needs to step in on these types of matters and force both sides to go to binding arbitration. First it was HGTV, then ABC and now FOX. Where will it end.

 

[bicker]

I really think the FCC needs to step in on these types of matters and force both sides to go to binding arbitration.

Arbitration, by its very nature, would balance the assertions made by the two sides. As such, it would quickly arrive at the conclusion that there is value provided to the service providers that they haven't been paying for, and would find substantially in favor of the broadcasters. That might resolve the issue quickly, but not necessarily in the best interests of viewers, because it would foster an even-stronger secondary revenue stream from subscriber to service provider to broadcaster. In other words, the end-result of binding arbitration is as likely as not to result in higher prices for consumers.

If, instead, things swing the other way, given the weakening of the primary revenue stream for over-the-air broadcast television, due (in part) to increasing commercial avoidance, over-the-air broadcast television could continue to degrade as a worthwhile investment for television production money. That'll prompt even more reduction in the production of comedies and dramas, and a commensurate increase in the amount of prime time devoted instead to reality shows. Again, a negative result for viewers.

Without commenting on what's good or bad (i.e., keeping this completely non-political), it is also unlikely that any change in the laws affecting this will be forthcoming. While the current administration does tend to favor that kind of approach, this is not a big enough issue for (specifically) voters for the administration to risk political capital on. The opposition can very easily use a move like this to paint the current administration with a big-government, anti-business brush. And even before that, opposing such government "intervention" is likely to gain conservative Senators enough so that they may even filibuster any such efforts.

First it was HGTV, then ABC and now FOX. Where will it end.

It'll end when ABC and Fox are getting at least as much money per subscriber from cable companies and satellite services as USA Network and TNT.

 

[Kimberle]

In CT, we also have the CT fox stations. Those were not pulled. It doesn't matter what TV service you have, the eventually are ALL going to have these disputes.

Newscorp is a beast. I worked for a company that tangeled with them. They had the mineset of taking over our product and failed. (We had a patent & vendors under contract.) They ended up buying us.

 

[bicker]

I believe the Fox affiliate in CT is owned by Tribune, not News Corp. That's why they're unaffected by this dispute between News Corp. and Cablevision.

 

[POOHDRMR]

I hope they come to an agreement soon-I can't get fios where I live(they haven't got out to my part of the island yet)

 

[bicker]

I suspect that the dispute will be resolved (at least partially, at least temporarily) before the World Series.

 

[tvguy]

Clinton, NJ is a bit far from the transmitters:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id=a3629a004655c4

OP will need not only an antenna, but a rather good antenna.

Chart is interesting. Odd though, I show Clinton only 24 miles from the transmitter.
We're right in the middle of an antenna giveaway here, shades of the
1950's. But we've trying to move off VHF to UHF, and doing do diligence to show we have exhausted every other option. We hired 2 consultants, both say our reach was reduced by 30% by going digital.

 

[bicker]

Chart is interesting. Odd though, I show Clinton only 24 miles from the transmitter.

Actually... OP doesn't live in Clinton - OP lives in Clifton. Serves me right for trusting my aged vision at 05:43 AM!!!

Okay, here's the correct link for Clifton:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id=a362560a7d6bb8

Only 12 miles from the transmitter. That is a MUCH better situation for the OP (than Clinton, NJ). Rabbit ears will do fine.

Note that it isn't just about the distance, though. Going back to the Clinton, NJ situation, if you click on the row for Fox5 or My9, you'll see how Clinton is adversely impacted (its in the blue) because it is in a valley. Reception is blocked by the hills to the east.

 

[Planogirl]

We have Dish and we're supposed to lose Fox on November 1 if they don't come to an agreement. We've already been without FX and Fox Sports since October 1.

Dish has a lot of these disputes. I wonder if Direct TV does too?