Time Warner Cable has pulled the plug on CBS.

[Pardus]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/02/news/companies/cbs-time-warner-blackout/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The cable provider blacked out CBS stations in a number of cities on Friday after the two companies failed to resolve their disagreement over transmission fees by the 5 p.m. deadline they had set. CBS said it was the first time in its history that it had been dropped from a cable system over a business dispute.

The roughly 3 million customers affected are in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit and Pittsburgh. Those are the cities where CBS (CBS, Fortune 500) owns the affiliates that carry the network. In other markets, CBS is carried on stations with different owners.

Time Warner Cable customers nationwide have also lost access to the premium cable networks Showtime, The Movie Channel and The Smithsonian Channel, which are also owned by CBS.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Similar happened in tbe '06 time frame.

 

[mmntech]

Found it odd that they would pull a network station. Does the FCC not have mandatory carriage OTA stations?

 

[slayer202]

I don't care about CBS, but showtime? sheeeeitttt

 

[SunnyD]

No big loss.

 

[A Casual Fitz]

TWC is the reason why I haven't had cable in years. They're the only provider where I live and the prices are horrendous.

 

[jpiniero]

And nothing of value was lost. Well, OK, they have the NFL, but that's about it.

Found it odd that they would pull a network station. Does the FCC not have mandatory carriage OTA stations?

It's only "must carry" in that Cable has to take the channel (as long as it's free) if the network wants to.

 

[Mixolydian]

what's on CBS these days?

 

[Rakehellion]

More like See BS, amirite? Nyuk nyuk.

 

[Wyndru]

Oh noes! How am I going watch the big bang theory!

 

[DrPizza]

It doesn't make sense to me that this is even an issue in markets with widespread availability to OTA signals.

 

[techs]

Found it odd that they would pull a network station. Does the FCC not have mandatory carriage OTA stations?

It doesn't make sense to me that this is even an issue in markets with widespread availability to OTA signals.

As I understand it OTA stations must be carried. However, for years the cable companies did not pay those stations any money to carry the channels. As the major networks have lost viewers to cable stations, Netflix, etc the local stations no longer make enough off of the commercials they show. So the local channels have asked to be paid, just like the cable channels are paid.

The cable companies only have to carry the stations but there is no regulation saying they have to pay for them. So, its really CBS that is not allowing the cable channel to carry them, not the cable companies decision to drop them.

The problem for CBS is the cable companies have a complete, or near complete monopoly in many markets and are trying get away with paying less per viewer to CBS than they pay cable only channels.

If CBS did not charge the cable companies than they would have to carry it.

 

[smitbret]

Good for TWC. The more the rebroadcasters like Comcast, TWC, DirecTV, etc., stand their ground the slower your rates increase.

 

[lupi]

As I understand it OTA stations must be carried. However, for years the cable companies did not pay those stations any money to carry the channels. As the major networks have lost viewers to cable stations, Netflix, etc the local stations no longer make enough off of the commercials they show. So the local channels have asked to be paid, just like the cable channels are paid.

The cable companies only have to carry the stations but there is no regulation saying they have to pay for them. So, its really CBS that is not allowing the cable channel to carry them, not the cable companies decision to drop them.

The problem for CBS is the cable companies have a complete, or near complete monopoly in many markets and are trying get away with paying less per viewer to CBS than they pay cable only channels.

If CBS did not charge the cable companies than they would have to carry it.

not all cable channels are paid. would be nice to see twc stick with this, in the end all these bullshit ota recarry fees do is increase cost to the consumer.

 

[Dedpuhl]

what's on CBS these days?

Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother (yeah, is sucks now), Person of Interest, and NCIS are the only shows I DVR.

Then there's NFL and SEC on CBS...

 

[techs]

not all cable channels are paid. would be nice to see twc stick with this, in the end all these bullshit ota recarry fees do is increase cost to the consumer.

Yeah, some like the Home Shopping Network may even pay the cable companies to carry them.
But the majority of the channels that the local channels compute with like TBS, USA, etc are paid by the cable companies.

Actually I think the OTA channels have a valid argument. The cable companies are getting their product and selling it to their customers. Why should their competitors, other cable channels get paid and they don't? Especially when the OTA's have far more viewers?

 

[bradley]

How am I going to live without: I Love Lucy, Amos 'n' Andy, and The Jackie Gleason Show?

 

[lupi]

Yeah, some like the Home Shopping Network may even pay the cable companies to carry them.
But the majority of the channels that the local channels compute with like TBS, USA, etc are paid by the cable companies.

Actually I think the OTA channels have a valid argument. The cable companies are getting their product and selling it to their customers. Why should their competitors, other cable channels get paid and they don't? Especially when the OTA's have far more viewers?

Except the broadcast companies make somewhere in the neighborhood of $0.00 for each customer that puts up an antenna. So if they don't charge the cable companies for the rebroadcast then they'll be losing out on, about $0.00 per customer.

 

[Ichinisan]

Actually I think the OTA channels have a valid argument. The cable companies are getting their product and selling it to their customers. Why should their competitors, other cable channels get paid and they don't? Especially when the OTA's have far more viewers?

No. Local broadcasters are just being greedy. They make money from ad revenue. More viewers = more ad revenue. Having their signal redistributed for free by regional cable providers helps them reach more people.

If local broadcast stations make money from the over-the-air broadcast (which requires them to maintain high-wattage transmission equipment and FCC fees), then they make even more money when the cableco helps to redistribute their signal.

 

[redgtxdi]

I, too, want to see TW stick with this. I'm not a fan of TW either.......I think they're making WAY too much money (utilities are getting as bad as government in terms of raping the public) but I'm glad they're willing to say no & stick to it. Surprisingly, it's about the most NON-politically correct thing I think I've seen any organization do in recent memory!

I am sooooooooooooooo tired of people reaching into my pocket! ENOUGH ALREADY!

 

[Vic Vega]

Don't give two shits about TWC or CBS so not a problem for me.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

How am I going to live without: I Love Lucy, Amos 'n' Andy, and The Jackie Gleason Show?

me and the missus were walking by the department store, in our sunday best although it was saturday, and wouldn't ya know they were featuring a COLOR TELEVISION! ha ha ha, there's one born every minute!

 

[Sonikku]

Time Warner are dicks and this move is no exception. They're upping the "leasing fee" of their $10 modem from $4 a month to $6. But if you want to buy your own expect to pay five to ten times as much for one that they will grudgingly tolerate you using instead, though they make the process as hard as possible and quickly abandon any and all support for the service. They're assholes because they can be. When they're allowed to negotiate with competitors behind closed doors to divide up the market, as opposed to actually competing, they can effectively charge whatever they want and your choice is limited to geting price gouged on internet, or simply to not have the internet.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Time Warner are dicks and this move is no exception. They're upping the "leasing fee" of their $10 modem from $4 a month to $6. But if you want to buy your own expect to pay five to ten times as much for one that they will grudgingly tolerate you using instead, though they make the process as hard as possible and quickly abandon any and all support for the service. They're assholes because they can be. When they're allowed to negotiate with competitors behind closed doors to divide up the market, as opposed to actually competing, they can effectively charge whatever they want and your choice is limited to geting price gouged on internet, or simply to not have the internet.

while I agree timewarner is a pretty shit company, they're definitely the lesser of two evils in this instance, and I think you're letting your bias against them cloud your judgement of this situation. If they caved to CBS they'd have to increase the rates anyway and you'd hate them even more all the same. Lose-lose for them.

 

[Lithium381]

Wtf I just got TWC in feb and its been great for the same price as comcast! Internet only in both cases