Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by la24philly, Oct 16, 2010.
Cablevision should have asked for a 30 day agreement on the OTA channels instead of 1 year. Regardless, from what I've read, News Corp needs to back down a little.
See the update: http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/breakthrough-in-the-fox-cablevision-spat/
That's consistent with the list of television stations that appear to be on the list that Dish expects Fox to pull that James Long provided in the closed thread - Fox owns two stations in many markets, the second usually being a MyNetworkTV affiliate, a network Fox owns.
A one year contract (even including the third station) would have just put Cablevision in the same position DISH is in today ... Fox TV stations but no cable channels. I'm surprised that Fox would even make such an offer (broadcast only) because it gives up using the broadcast channels as leverage for getting the cable channels. They have likely overpriced it enough that it would be foolish to accept the offer.
Cablevision is offering to pay $10 to its customers for a mlb.tv subscription for the World Series. I got an email from them an hour ago making the offer.
If Fox gets what they want the industry is doomed. Programmers with better programming than Fox (not hard to find) will demand more for their programming. Someone needs to tell Fox that they're not worth it ... and then they need to start losing their programming to other companies that do not price themselves out of the marketplace.
60% of broadcast stations have elected for "consent to carry" which means they ask for something in return for their carriage (or at least reserve the right to). According to Fox's FCC letters they have not asked for cash in the past for OTAs, only other consideration (carriage of cable channels for payment, requirements to buy advertising on Fox owned stations).
Consideration for carriage has been around for years ... but it does seem that the fees are becoming significant.
I'm torn on government intervention. TV isn't life or death but it is an important service. Especially OTA television that enjoys certain protections.
There should be a payment for those protections and rights. They have permission to reach the 13% that don't have cable (which as an aggregate would be a sizable cable/satellite system) and to reach people who have cable/satellite without the cooperation of any carrier. OTA's payment to society should be more cooperation with the carriers rebroadcasting their signal.
This also goes against the FCC's goal to reclaim 120 MHz (20 channels) of the broadcast spectrum for wireless use. The FCC has suggested that stations combine their signals ... putting two HDs or six SDs on one broadcast signal and return the channels freed up to the government. Part of that proposal is based on cable and satellite providing carriage of the station's signals (including HD versions of channels only carried in SD). That isn't going to happen if cable/satellite must pay $$$ per subscriber.
It needs to be more of an "I'll scratch your back any you'll scratch mine" relationship between broadcaster and carrier ... instead of "I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch out my eyes."
I suppose we'll see if it will change for the better, if I live long enough.
By making the offer they can say to the FCC that they are not tying the negotiations over licensed broadcast channels to their cable offerings. Good faith, and all.
Fox has really and truly went to the dark side. They are threatening to sue Cablevision for talking bad about them. But there best statement today was when they said Cablevision was doing something illegal when they (Cablevision) told there customers to go to sites and stream FOX to there computers for FREE.
If FOX doesn't want "paying customers" to get their content for free - then all FOX has to do is send a DMCA request to the site to take the content down.
Of course, one wonders why FOX is still broadcasting the channels OTA if that's what they REALLY want to do....
What Fox was accusing Cablevision of doing was directing their customers to 'illegal' web sites to view content, from http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/fox_accuses_cablevision_of_dir.html
That is what Fox is claiming but they have yet to name the sites to prove it. Rumor has it the site is justin.tv
Funny thing is that Fox's actions of pulling content is teaching viewers that they don't need the Fox broadcast channels to watch the programming. Their actions are doing exactly opposite of what they want to happen.... they are decreasing the popularity of their broadcast channels.
Well, I get FOX OTA clearly, but I rarely watched them before and will not watch them now.
...that link provided no proof for your claims that Fox has decreased the popularity of their programming due to their actions. It was a ridiculous suggestion to make, so I wasn't expecting much in the way of proof anyway.
Why is anybody surprised? Murdoch is yucky. (I can't use stronger words for fear of a lawsuit).
Of course, the Dolans aren't exacly angels.
Yup. It's like watching two mob families going at each other. Hard to know who to root for. :scratchin
As the circle continues we see that some attorneys are stirring the pot even more by talking the Cablevision customers into a class action lawsuit against Cablevision for $ 450 million dollars of refunds for the missed FOX channels. This could also happen in the Dishnetwork case. Get enough angry subscribers and adverse actions do tend to happen. Doesn't matter who is at fault. Customers just want what they are paying for.