Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs: 
| No happy medium
Really there is no ultimate solution to this that'll appease everyone. Viacom wants major profits and more subscriber money but Time Warner doesn't want to give it to them.
~If Time Warner would have given in to their demands, cable prices would have gone up and people would have bitched.
~If they held to their guns and cut out all Viacom programming, you'd have the people who want those channels bitching.
~If they rather decided to move those channels to another tier, you'd have the people bitching that 'I don't want to pay for an extra tier for channels I used to get standard'.
~They could have also done the tier thing and raised subscription rates so Viacom could get the same profit with less subscribers but that'd exacerbate the above issue.
But the actual outcome here was ultimately the best as it got Viacom to at least come down off their greedy fee requirements and keep the channels in place.
All in all though, you can't really start going after TW for this since it is all Viacom's doing to begin with and they've done it to so many other providers in the past as well with not-so-pleasant results.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Time Warner Cable or Viacom?
I wish Time Warner would have dropped Viacom and made a stand. I hope you all don't wonder any longer why your cable bills keep going up, up, and up!! Poll: Time Warner Cable or Viacom?
--
See ma cap b1tch? |
|
dr3yec
join:2002-12-19
00000 | This is why I will never pay for tv and never have. Can we say overpriced shit. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Vchat20
Re: No happy medium
The tier option was likely not available. Viacom could only be moved to a separate tier if they agreed to be moved. Since this would have killed their ad revenue, there is really no way they would have agreed to it. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ | Shoe on the other foot?
I'm glad Time Warner got a little taste of their anticompetitive medicine. |
|
Warmachine99
join:2006-03-20
Pleasant Prairie, WI
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| MTV? I dont need no stinking MTV.
As a Time Warner Cable subscriber, I looked at this whole situation this way. What channels would I loose that I actually watched if TWC stood their ground?
My answer was 1 channel out of the 19, Spike, and even that channel is only (maybe) watched for less than 5 hours in a months time.
As for the rest, no loss to me. To misquote the Dire Straits song: "I don't want or need MTV"
Now my cable rates are going to go up for something that I have no use for.
Now, if they had this disagreement with the Discovery channel, or the History channel, then I would be more than happy to pay a little more. But for all those crap ladened channels that are part of the MTV grouping? No thanks.
--
I've discovered that I often visit the state of confusion, and I know my way around pretty well. |
|
rayeger
join:2003-07-05
North Royalton, OH
| This needs to stop
They need to make it a law that the content providers have a choice to make, they can either:
1. Make their money from advertising.
2. Charge the cable companies fees to carry their channels.
Not both as it is now, they are double dipping as far as I am concerned. |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs: | reply to marigolds
Re: No happy medium
That too, which also adds to the dilemma at hand. |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Do what's good..
Dump their stupid asses if you have other choices. |
|
Ghostmaker
join:2003-01-20
Brunswick, OH | Let the end user pick the channels
Problem solved, If you want to watch it pay for it. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | money was at stake ;p
I'm sure some jerks on both sides got a bonus for their "excellent negotiating skills". To us they just look incompetent. |
|
Lowtarget
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Alger, OH
clubs: | Good thing we are on a price lock for 2 years.  |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Viacom's response was appalling.
We're Time Warner Cable subscribers and our kids love Noggin. However, we sided with Time Warner in this dispute. We wouldn't have been angry to see Noggin go blank rather than giving Viacom a 30%+ raise. We even prepared our older son for the possibility.
My wife called up Viacom to complain to them about their demanded rate hike. The minute the woman heard the words "Time Warner", she transferred my wife to a recording telling everyone how this whole situation was Time Warner's fault and we should call to complain to Time Warner. Sorry, Viacom. We've already looked at the facts, decided whom we side with, and decided who we wanted to complain to. Don't tell us to call Time Warner when we called to complain to you!
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
Ray422
Premium
join:2002-03-04
Adger, AL
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Vchat20
Re: No happy medium
Awwww geez, it's just so terribly expensive to deliver that tv service to your household. Besides that increase; please don't forget that we will need to increase executive pay and bonuses by another 250 million in 2009.
We actually need a government bailout to help us through these tough times, things are just terrible. Thanks for your understanding on the gigantic new rate increase. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to rayeger
Re: This needs to stop
Nothing forces pay TV companies to pay the content owners for their content as has been witnessed by a pay TV companies resisting/negotiating with the owners over the last several years. Also, the pay TV companies also receive income from advertising so you can't point only at the content producers. |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to Warmachine99
Re: MTV? I dont need no stinking MTV.
Amen. I'd happily pay more for the Discovery group of channels. I haven't watched MTV since 1995 (and I think I only watched it that late into the 90's because I was only 12 years old  ) |
|
idjk
@embarqhsd.net
| reply to openbox9
Re: This needs to stop
Strange that OTA stations stay in business with the local ad money but national networks who change more for ads because they get nation wide coverage via cable, satellite, etc can't seem to make it without some bucks from the people providing the large audience.
Strange that the "commercial free" pay tv people now seem to have to charge us an arm and leg just to watch tv- with 20 min per hour of commercials, is there some "payola" going on here? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| I haven't looked at the financials of the content producers or distributors, but I suspect that they're making decent money. The national networks that broadcast OTA are leveraged with other business models and are connected to the content producers. I suspect that the quantity/quality of the content would decrease should they not receive ad revenue and carry revenue from the pay TV providers. High quality content production is not cheap. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to rayeger
A law saying "only this business model is allowed" is sort of arbitrary. Your goal is to get the shows you want while paying the minimum for your cable TV, while watching the least amount of commercials. There are more fair and efficient ways to accomplish that.
If you're going to pass a law, have it treat forced bundling as unfair trade. That way, your cable company can drop the channels that people don't want, or pay a lower price for them. Then "a la carte" would be possible, and Viacom couldn't pass the risk from their crappy shows onto the broadcasters.
Ultimately, it will make sense for every show to be sold on demand per episode, the ultimate "a la carte". Perhaps a "with commercials" version could be sold for a lower price. |
|
limegrass69
join:2008-05-28
Cross River, NY | reply to openbox9
Many OTA broadcasters (especially those affiliated with a major TV network) receive compensation from cable companies in exchange for retransmission consent. There are many well documented cases of this. |
|
