1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Johncv, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    5,740
    26
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Why? I guess you must assume the politicians have been completely bought and paid for by the networks and really don't care about the public at all. The whole purpose of OTA networks is to get TV broadcasts to the public at no cost, these networks are supposed to be supported by advertising only and not by subscriptions. If the politicians were doing their jobs of serving the public they would require OTA networks be retransmitted by cable & satellite and that it be for free. My take is if you want to be a subscription network get off the public air waives.
     
  2. WO312

    WO312 Active Member

    1,372
    0
    Jan 24, 2003
    Finger...
    Is there any doubt ?? :rolleyes:
     
  3. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,389
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    A minor quibble.

    Broadcasters are granted a license to transmit and operate "in the public interest", but there's flexibility allowed in how they pay for it. They can sell ad time, up to a certain limit per hour, and with certain restrictions on what's advertised and how, or they can run on donations like many PBS affiliates, or, one would suppose, someone with lots of spare money could do neither and go into their own pockets instead.

    When radio stations started, they didn't run ads at first, because they were owned and operated by the manufacturers of radio sets to provide the public with an incentive to buy those radio sets.
     
  4. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    103,969
    174
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    well, clearly, they are not doing this now. The law is setup in such a way as to allow the OTA broadcaster to demand payment for re-transmission by cable and satellite operators. So, yes, I DO think the politicians are bought and paid for by the networks. The rules clearly favor them, and not me.
     
  5. Series3Sub

    Series3Sub Active Member

    1,126
    8
    Mar 14, 2010
    Totally agree because we, the people taxpayers, OWN ALL those broadcast frequencies and the OTA Nets got it for free. After all, we can get it for free using OTA.
     
  6. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,522
    183
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    If anything the networks should want their station to reach more customers. However they have the advantage in their relationship with the cable companies and they know it, so they're trying to leverage that for more money. If cable companies take a stance and cut off all networks they will lose customers, and if they cave and pay the networks more their prices will go up and they'll lose customers. They're sort of over a barrel.

    Their only hope is for congress or the FCC to step in and regulate, or for technology like what Aereo is using to catch hold so they can side step the network fees.
     
  7. Johncv

    Johncv Active Member

    1,545
    1
    Jun 11, 2002
    Chula Vista, CA
    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.
     
  8. Johncv

    Johncv Active Member

    1,545
    1
    Jun 11, 2002
    Chula Vista, CA
    I disagree with you Dan, I think the cable companies have the advantage if they all just say "NO" to paying for the retransmission. See my post previous post.
     
  9. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,033
    1
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    The interesting thing about Aereo is that if they are successful we should expect to see cable providers implement the same type of technology and bypass the retransmission fees completely. CBS is shooting themselves in the foot.
     
  10. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,522
    183
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    I disagree with this. A LOT of people have cable because it's an easy way to get local channels, and local channels still make up a good majority of what they watch. I think if cable companies just said "NO" then they would end up losing a lot of customers. Especially if Dish & DirecTV say "YES". Cable companies don't typically compete with each other, so they can can stand in solidarity, but you can get Dish & DirecTV pretty much anywhere so if they accept the fees then the cable companies are going to be screwed.
     
  11. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,522
    183
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    That's what I was saying above. If Aereo can make this work, and survive the legal battles, then cable companies are going to take note and attempt to do the same thing to bypass these fees.
     
  12. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    103,969
    174
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    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.
     
  13. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,389
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    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.
     
  14. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    103,969
    174
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas

    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.
     
  15. MeInDallas

    MeInDallas Member

    910
    0
    Jul 31, 2011
    Dallas, Texas
    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" . . ?
     
  16. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    103,969
    174
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    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.
     
  17. MeInDallas

    MeInDallas Member

    910
    0
    Jul 31, 2011
    Dallas, Texas
    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.
     
  18. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    5,740
    26
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    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.
     
  19. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,522
    183
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    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!
     
  20. jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    103,969
    174
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    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.
     

Share This Page