TiVo Community Forum banner
  • TiVoCommunity.com Ambassador Program Now Open! >>> Click Here

Time Warner/CBS battle could set pattern for future retrans deals Read more: Time Wa

10K views 91 replies 21 participants last post by  jsmeeker 
#1 ·
This could be bad news, can't believe I am supporting Time-Warner.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/time-warnercbs-battle-could-set-pattern-future-retrans-deals/2013-08-26?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
Time Warner Cable's (NYSE: TWC) current standoff with CBS (NYSE: CBS) over retransmission fees is being closely watched by other TV distributors such as NBC, ABC and Fox and could ultimately set the standard for future negotiations.

Typically retransmission negotiations focus on small fee increases, but CBS has asked for a big increase to make up for what it considers a historic injustice in terms of what cable and satellite providers pay for their content. According to SNL Kagan as reported by Hollywood Reporter, CBS wants to leap from 66 cents per subscriber per month to $2 per subscriber per month.

According to SNL Kagan analyst Justin Nelson, any time one of the larger networks such as CBS sets a new standard in terms of pricing, it's likely the rest will follow. CBS is considered a trailblazer in this area, and the company is saying it delivers much more in terms of programming and viewership and believes it should be paid market rates.

SNL Kagan also noted that in 2011, total broadcast retransmission fees were only $1.76 billion, while cable channels were paid around $27 billion that same year.
 
See less See more
#52 ·
I think this is the issue that Time-Warner is trying to make, why should they have to pay for retransmission while Aereo is not. If this go on to the point where Cox or Comcast have to negotiate retransmission with CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX and cable companies ALL say NO then the fun will begin. The cable companies have nothing to lose to saying "NO". Most people will find something else to view, put up an antenna, download the show from iTunes, or Amazon or obtain the show by using Vuze.
Time Warner is certainly willing to pay to re-transmit. They have been doing it for years. And not just with CBS. This is just a pissing match over price.
 
#53 ·
Time Warner is certainly willing to pay to re-transmit. They have been doing it for years. And not just with CBS. This is just a pissing match over price.
Of course they're willing to pay, they can pass the cost on to us.

But when you get a situation like now where CBS wants double what they were getting before, they can see that giving in means everyone else is going do the same thing and next time CBS re-negotiates they could ask for yet again more and soon you've got a never ending upward price spiral and a lot of customers aren't going to put up with it and will cut the cord, which they'd like to avoid.

(at which point the broadscasters may finally remember the old story about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs)

So they're making a stand now, before the broadcasters put them out of business.
 
#54 ·
Of course they're willing to pay, they can pass the cost on to us.

But when you get a situation like now where CBS wants double what they were getting before, they can see that giving in means everyone else is going do the same thing and next time CBS re-negotiates they could ask for yet again more and soon you've got a never ending upward price spiral and a lot of customers aren't going to put up with it and will cut the cord, which they'd like to avoid.

(at which point the broadscasters may finally remember the old story about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs)

So they're making a stand now, before the broadcasters put them out of business.
How it this really different than the past? They have always wanted more and more money. Cable rates go up and up.

If they never resolve this and CBS is a permanent loss, will my cable rate go DOWN? Of course it won't. When this happens with NBC and NBC is gone for good, will may cable rate go down? Of course it won't.
 
#56 ·
So then are you OK with paying more and more and more for cable? At what point will you say "OK I cant afford this any longer, this is too much money" . . ?
What else can I do? Stop watching TV? :rolleyes: :D

Cutting the cord will cost me even more money. Not getting CBS from Time Warner isn't gonna save me money. Its actualyl gonna cost me more money out pocket

F U CBS

F U TimeWarner.
 
#57 ·
Well I know its an inconvenience right now, but in the long run its better for you and everyone that pays for cable. I've had cable since it came to Dallas and was Warner Amex, been thru them, Heritage, AT&T, Comcast, and now Time Warner, I've never left except for one month and I came crying back, but if they keep going up to the point to where I could go out and buy a 32" flat screen TV every month for what they are charging me, I'll just have to leave them and figure something else out.

It's just like these people that want their pay doubled working in fast food places, yeah it would be great for them to have it, but in the end me and you are gonna pay for it (which I just wont eat there and then everyone loses in the end). These big corporations will never take a pay hit for you, they are gonna pass the pay hit on to you in the form of charging you the consumer more money, thats just how it works.
 
#58 ·
How it this really different than the past? They have always wanted more and more money. Cable rates go up and up.

If they never resolve this and CBS is a permanent loss, will my cable rate go DOWN? Of course it won't. When this happens with NBC and NBC is gone for good, will may cable rate go down? Of course it won't.
This will be settled soon. In the end the less TWC pays CBS the better all subscribers are, the best case would be that TWC not cave and force CBS into using the must carry (for nothing) part of the law. I do not think that will happen but it is the best case for subscribers. If you can not pick up CBS with an antenna you can help assure everyones cable bill goes up and switch to one of the satellite companies and let TWC no why that might get them to pay CBS more and just raise your cable bill to cover it. Oh and if you think adding over a buck for one channel is nothing just do the math over 50-100 channels and see if you think more than doubling your cable costs is a good idea.
 
#59 ·
How come must-carry hasn't kicked in yet?

Edit: Just reading up on must-carry and it seems it puts all the power in the hands of the broadcaster. If the cable company doesn't want to carry a channel the broadcaster can force them to carry it, but if the broadcaster doesn't want to allow the the cable company to carry it then they can deny them the rights and black it out. That's a really sh*tty law!
 
#60 ·
Me not getting CBS on my cable isn't in my best interest.

I can't get satellite where from my apartment.

CBS doesn't want me to get CBS OTA. They want me to get it from a provider. They want a provider to pay to carry. They aren't gonna let any provider carry it for free. This is just a price squabble. CBS wants to charge more. TimeWarner doesn't want to cut my rates.
 
#61 ·
How come must-carry hasn't kicked in yet?
from wikipedia:

Must-carry may only be applied if the television station wants to be carried under this provision. This only applies to non-commercial educational (NCE) stations. Station operators are allowed to demand payment from cable operators, or negotiate private agreements for carriage, or threaten revocation against the cable operator...

Must-carry is a privilege given to television stations, not a cable company. A cable company cannot use must-carry to demand the right to carry an OTA station against the station's wishes.
 
#63 ·
Yeah I gleaned that from my own reading after I posted. Kinda sucks because it puts a ton of power in the broadcasters hands, and almost none in the cable companies hands. Especially with the regulations that prevent them using an out of area broadcaster instead.
The law the NAB tried to get originally was "Must Carrry-Must Pay", but what they've got now is the ability to force the cable company to carry them, but they can't charge anything if they do.

However, if the station is popular enough that the cable company wants to carry them, then they can ask for payment of some sort.

At one time being carried on the same analog channel as the one on which they broadcast, instead of wherever the cable company wanted to put them, was considered something the TV station might accept instead of some or all payment, so if Channel 12 wanted people to get them whenever they punched in a 1 and a 2 on the remote, regardless of whether OTA or cable, they'd be more flexible on the payment thing.

Now that OTA is digital, who knows what channel your local is actually being received on or mapped to, so it's probably not as big a consideration.
 
#64 ·
The law the NAB tried to get originally was "Must Carrry-Must Pay", but what they've got now is the ability to force the cable company to carry them, but they can't charge anything if they do.

However, if the station is popular enough that the cable company wants to carry them, then they can ask for payment of some sort.

At one time being carried on the same analog channel as the one on which they broadcast, instead of wherever the cable company wanted to put them, was considered something the TV station might accept instead of some or all payment, so if Channel 12 wanted people to get them whenever they punched in a 1 and a 2 on the remote, regardless of whether OTA or cable, they'd be more flexible on the payment thing.

Now that OTA is digital, who knows what channel your local is actually being received on or mapped to, so it's probably not as big a consideration.
If I wanted to tune in CBS 11, entering 11 into my cable box or TiVo doesn't get me CBS 11. At least, not in HD. And in 2013, who doesn't want the channel in HD?
 
#65 ·
Kinda sucks because it puts a ton of power in the broadcasters hands, and almost none in the cable companies hands.
that's by design. with cable companies increasingly investing in production, and making investments in programming, on top of localized monopolies, they might decide it would be to their advantage to eliminate the competition.
 
#66 ·
To me, the line between CBS and NBC and FOX and AMC and FX and CNN and ESPN and Discovery and everything else is totally blurred. They are all just producers on entertainment. The fact that a small number broadcast over the air doesn't mean anything to me now. They are all just channels. And I want them. All on the same cable/line from one place.
 
#67 ·
that's by design. with cable companies increasingly investing in production, and making investments in programming, on top of localized monopolies, they might decide it would be to their advantage to eliminate the competition.
But it seems to have shifted the power a bit too much in favor of the broadcasters. Must-carry would be fine if it was free and applied in both directions.

If these broadcasters push too much then cable companies are really going to start looking at solutions akin to Aereo just to prevent this type of hostage situation in the future. I'm sure long term a setup like hat would be cheaper then paying per subscriber fees anyway.
 
#68 ·
It's not just the broadcasters I'm irked with, though, not when I see how much ESPN gets per subscriber (about 10 to 20 times what any other channel with commercials gets) for a channel that our household almost never uses.

And that's just for ESPN, ESPN2 is a separate (though not nearly as outrageous) charge.

I don't see why we have to subsidize sports junkies just to get a few analog channels above 13.
 
#69 ·
To me, the line between CBS and NBC and FOX and AMC and FX and CNN and ESPN and Discovery and everything else is totally blurred. They are all just producers on entertainment. The fact that a small number broadcast over the air doesn't mean anything to me now. They are all just channels. And I want them. All on the same cable/line from one place.
Would you still want them all if your cable bill more than doubled tomorrow? That is what CBS is looking for more than double what they used to be paid. If they can get it why do you think every other channel would think their fee shouldn't also be doubled? That is what is at stake not just paying CBS more. If TWC caves get ready for a major cost increase as each channels contract expires all of which will be passed on to you and every other cable subscriber..
 
#70 ·
But it seems to have shifted the power a bit too much in favor of the broadcasters. Must-carry would be fine if it was free and applied in both directions.

If these broadcasters push too much then cable companies are really going to start looking at solutions akin to Aereo just to prevent this type of hostage situation in the future. I'm sure long term a setup like hat would be cheaper then paying per subscriber fees anyway.
Actually if is a little funny because competition actually caused this issue. Before the satellite companies had the ability to broadcast locals, the cable companies didn't have to pay for locals because it was too risky for the locals to risk being removed from the cable system. Then along came satellite which had to pay for locals and also provided the locals with an alternative for users to cable which ended up giving the locals leverage over the cable companies.

In the end the competition that was supposed to benefit consumers (having satellite companies compete with cable companies) has just allowed content providers to charge everyone more. As consumers we would have been better off with a regulated monopoly.
 
#71 ·
Would you still want them all if your cable bill more than doubled tomorrow? That is what CBS is looking for more than double what they used to be paid. If they can get it why do you think every other channel would think their fee shouldn't also be doubled? That is what is at stake not just paying CBS more. If TWC caves get ready for a major cost increase as each channels contract expires all of which will be passed on to you and every other cable subscriber..
My whole cable bill won't actually double.

But what's the alternative? No TV? Because if Time Warner decides to stop paying anybody, than that is what would happen. No TV from them.
 
#73 ·
Why cant TWC just give CBS what they are asking for, and put it on cable as a premium channel...i.e. you want CBS, that will be $5 a month more...
because cbs wouldn't agree to an offer that didn't include their stations as part of a basic cable package.
 
#74 ·
Why cant TWC just give CBS what they are asking for, and put it on cable as a premium channel...i.e. you want CBS, that will be $5 a month more...
because cbs wouldn't agree to an offer that didn't include their stations as part of a basic cable package.
Right. Obviously, CBS is gonna get more money out of Time Warner. Question is how much more?

Which carrier renegotiated most recently with the CBS stations in question? What are they paying now? More than what TimeWarner had been paying? Any way to get the numbers?
 
#75 ·
Right. Obviously, CBS is gonna get more money out of Time Warner. Question is how much more?

Which carrier renegotiated most recently with the CBS stations in question? What are they paying now? More than what TimeWarner had been paying? Any way to get the numbers?
looking down the road, what i'm wondering is how this will effect comcast and their next contract negotiations? now that comcast owns nbc, cnbc, msnbc, the weather channel, telemundo, syfy, usa, universal hd, bravo, e!, style, g4, pbs kids sprout, tvone, oxygen, cloo, chiller...
 
#76 ·
looking down the road, what i'm wondering is how this will effect comcast and their next contract negotiations? now that comcast owns nbc, cnbc, msnbc, the weather channel, telemundo, syfy, usa, universal hd, bravo, e!, style, g4, pbs kids sprout, tvone, oxygen, cloo, chiller...
Good question

For NBC, not all NBC stations are O&O. I suspect there will be different challenges for the ones that are not.

There are a several operators. If many of them give CBS closer to what CBS wants and TimeWarner flat out refuses and continues to not carry CBS, what does that say about CBS?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top