AfterDawn: Tech news

Cablevision and Fox don't reach deal, stations now blacked out

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 16 Oct 2010 2:11 User comments (48)

Cablevision and Fox don't reach deal, stations now blacked out Following months of negotiations with no resolution, News Corp. has blacked out their Fox broadcast signal to over 3 million Cablevision subscribers in metropolitan New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia.
Cablevision refused to negotiate any longer and declared an impasse at 8 p.m.

Says president of Fox Networks Affiliate Sales and Marketing Mike Hopkins: "We started this process in May and made numerous reasonable proposals. We remain far apart and Cablevision has made it clear that they do not share our view regarding the value of Foxs networks."

The blackout affects Fox, Fox Business, Nat Geo Wild and Fox Deportes.

Sports fans should be incredibly upset by the turn of events, as Fox is the broadcaster for Giants games and the MLB playoffs, where the Yankees are in the ALCS.

Following the impasse, News Corp. began urging Cablevision subscribers to switch to Verizon FiOS or a satellite provider.

Cablevision responded by saying News Corp. "failed to negotiate in good faith" and called the black out "a black eye for broadcast television in America."

Fox was looking for exaggerated fees for their signal that used to be free. Cablevision has so far refused as they do not want to tack on extra fees to consumer's monthly bill. Cablevision says they already pay $70 million per year for Fox's "retransmission fee" but now Fox wants $150 million per year. Cablevision was willing to submit the case to third-party arbitration but Fox refused.

News Corp. is also currently fighting the Dish Network over fees for Fox regional sports networks, and Fox has blacked out those sites for over two weeks now.

Previous Next  

48 user comments

116.10.2010 2:49

Cable companies are the past. Can't wait till Comcrap dies more.

216.10.2010 3:07

And the only ones who really lose are the customers..

316.10.2010 3:47

Who cares about the customers? Fox is trying to charge for something that is 100% paid for by the built-in ads, while cablevision refuses to pay for the content that they currently get for free and charge a huge fee for. Want fox? Get an antenna...and then dump the cable company! While you are at it, dump fox.

416.10.2010 3:54

That's not the point and you know it.

If I subscribe to a cable provider expecting to get Fox and it's suddenly dropped due to a conflict which has nothing to do with me, then I'm the one hurt by it. Why the hell should I have to find an alternate means of watching content that should be there since it's what I'm paying for? My parents recently went through this with Time Warner and TW pissed and moaned until the last minute then caved when subscribers started cancelling their service. My mother was pissed because she wouldn't be able to watch the few shows she actually wants to see.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Oct 2010 @ 3:55

--aaron

516.10.2010 6:38

They are both wrong...but considering the fact that Fox is essentially blackmailing the cable companies, I hold them responsible. When fox wants to charge as much as HBO, just to rebroadcast something that is free, that just isn't right. We don't see any other networks (not even HBO & showtime) doing this crap.

There is something very liberating about dumping the cable company, and something even more liberating about dumping TV all together. There is enough media on the market to last a dozen lifetimes...Netflix has replaced my cable...for $9 a month, I can see what I want, when I want, with no DVR programming, with no commercials, and with a selection of shows that is larger than the combined total for every network for the whole year...and that is ignoring the movies!

616.10.2010 6:39

But the FCC should step in and stop Over the Air companies from blacking out their signal on other pay services. Cable channels I can understand. Subscription fees pay for that. Over the air channels are free with out any pay service so their transmission should be unaffect even on pay services.

716.10.2010 8:07

My parents live in a small town and until recently still used dialup.
Now they're on shitty and unreliable dsl, so until the internet options there increase netflix is not an option. More likely than not if she ever did lose fox I would just dump the shows on a dvd for her every couple weeks and mail them.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Oct 2010 @ 8:08

--aaron

816.10.2010 9:17

Remember in the end they never care about "us" its all about money. so f.u fox. glad i dont watch your channel. BUNCH OF crybabys!


For Sale:

Parachute, Used Once, never opened small stain.
Best Offer!

916.10.2010 11:47

edited by ddp

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Oct 2010 @ 19:22

1016.10.2010 19:59

Welcome to the digital age, why do you think analog was so unwanted to free up the airwaves? please. Digital TV OTA can also be blacklisted, so the whole put up antenna argument doesn't work.

wait till radio goes all Digital and the RIAA start blacklisting songs because there not getting paid what they want.


Powered By

1116.10.2010 20:08

Cablevision was not getting FOX for free. They were paying 70 million a year. FOX wants to double that.

Cable companies are already suffering and with the overhead and maintenance will likely soon be a thing of the past. We canceled all the channels as we have satellite. We did keep the broadband as it's the cheapest I can get and the fastest in the area at 15 Mbs. Connect speeds are measured in Mega bits per second, not bytes (MBs)

I had ISDN and then DSL in the "early days" when they cost a fortune.Both were only a fraction of the cable's speed and my Internet bill back then was about $290 a month.


Airman

1217.10.2010 19:08

Originally posted by DXR88:
Welcome to the digital age, why do you think analog was so unwanted to free up the airwaves? please. Digital TV OTA can also be blacklisted, so the whole put up antenna argument doesn't work.
Putting up an antenna to receive local stations doesn't work??? Blacking out local broadcasts mainly hurts the affiliate and would strain relations between them and the network, so is unlikely. After all, they can't pick and choose what individuals receive OTA signals, so they can't just turn it off for certain cable company subscribers.

1317.10.2010 19:35

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Welcome to the digital age, why do you think analog was so unwanted to free up the airwaves? please. Digital TV OTA can also be blacklisted, so the whole put up antenna argument doesn't work.
Putting up an antenna to receive local stations doesn't work??? Blacking out local broadcasts mainly hurts the affiliate and would strain relations between them and the network, so is unlikely. After all, they can't pick and choose what individuals receive OTA signals, so they can't just turn it off for certain cable company subscribers.
they blacklist certain content on OTA, effectively killing that channel for a given amount of time. there for antenna's don't work as an effective get around.

after all where do you think you get OTA, the Airwaves Fairies. Most OTA is Being broadcast by Cable TV operator.

Powered By

1418.10.2010 13:43

I get FOX in the NY area, last friday fox 5 and 9 were not the only channels blocked out, i lost also NAT GEO WILD channel and FOX SPORTS EN ESPANOL, we dont care about the FREE channels we can get with the antenna ( which we dont use and see anyway)but why block these 2 channels we really like and watch on a daily basis, you coulda take that crappy FOX NEWS CHANNEL which i dont understand why it's still on the air since it is FOX also, FX still on and FOX MOVIES are also on the air, FSN also is on which i am glad

1520.10.2010 12:09

I take great exception to the bias of the article;
Cablevision is paying a higher amount to Fox's competitors even though they now have lower ratings. Newcorp has grown dramatically in 2 years and wants to be paid commensurately. Cablevision needs to renegotiate lower contracts with it's other providers, not continue it's shell game on Fox.
If you were Fox you would have done the same thing with a carrier refusing to negotiate in good faith.
Pub blame where it is due.

1620.10.2010 14:48

Originally posted by Blessedon:
I take great exception to the bias of the article;
Cablevision is paying a higher amount to Fox's competitors even though they now have lower ratings. Newcorp has grown dramatically in 2 years and wants to be paid commensurately. Cablevision needs to renegotiate lower contracts with it's other providers, not continue it's shell game on Fox.
If you were Fox you would have done the same thing with a carrier refusing to negotiate in good faith.
Pub blame where it is due.
You must work for Fox....

Cablevision pays less to ABC, NBC and CBS combined than what Fox wants.

1720.10.2010 16:15

No

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
You must work for Fox....

Cablevision pays less to ABC, NBC and CBS combined than what Fox wants.
No I don't work for Fox. But my understanding is different. How much do the others receive?

1821.10.2010 19:04
sbhere
Unverified new user

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHETHER THE WORLD SERIES WILL BE ON FOX 5 OR TBS. IF IT IS ON FOX 5 AND I AM BLOCKED FROM IT ON CABLEVISION, I WILL SURELY SEEK A NEW SUPPLIER!!!!

1921.10.2010 20:59

Blessedon, don't quote me here but I believe Cablevision pays ABC $29 million per year, and similar numbers to other broadcasters. The company has made it clear however through their campaign that Fox wants more than the other combined.

sbhere, the World Series will be on Fox. If the Yankees make it you can expect this fight will be over with as Fox would lose a lot of its leverage.


2021.10.2010 23:01

I'll not quote you friend. But thanks for updating that. I looked all over and could not verify what I'd been told.
Well, have to think about that...

2122.10.2010 7:00

In Britain, we have Sky TV (murdoch). They did the same to their rival satellite provider, then bought them up. They then took SciFi, Bravo, Discovery and a few others (previously free) into their stable and started charging. They've not managed it in Germany, apparently, so they've still got a lot of free analogue satellite channels).
They recently did exactly the same with Our Cable provider but collapsed when they lost a monolpoly on televising Soccer (the most profitable spectator sport here). They've now merged with the cable company and we expect an imminent surge in prices. Their licences for public viewing in bars has rocketted and many pubs/bars are giving up on it.
Support your cable company, or you'll find yourselves without anything affordable to watch except half-hour programs scheduled for 2 hours of viewing, with lots of canned laughter in the comedies(?) and loud bass notes drowning out any dramatic scenes in drama, sci-fi, thrillers and cops. You'll be able to watch continuous re-reuns simply because you'll never be able to catch the thread of the program.
At least we've got free-to-air in the UK.

2222.10.2010 8:51
Spliceman
Inactive

I don't know the logic behind which stations they pull vs. which they leave. But the "they" is Fox. They will give us their news broadcast all day for free. Obviously in some markets they can't pull the sports down without pissing off their advertisers. In the fight with Dish Network it is painfully obvious that Fox has a monopoly on sports broadcasting. To watch your regional sports team you are stuck with fox. Getting an antenna wont fix that problem. Are there any serious competitors that could come in and broadcast sports and do contracts with the leagues like Fox sports net? If you want to see your regional sports teams and you have Dish Network you are still going to be forced to go to a provider that carries Fox. So then it is just a matter of time before Fox jacks up the price to that provider. No good solution that I can see. If Fox needs more money it is the people that want their content that are going to have to pay, no matter what deal you had with your provider. During the interim there needs to be a solution. People are crazy about their sports. I would be willing to pay an extra $5/month to treat the Fox suite of channels like any other premium package I.E. HBO & Showtime. People get angry with the provider but they are just trying to keep the cost down for the consumer.

2322.10.2010 12:24

Actually there are lots of alternatives to seeing regional sports in your area without needing FOX. The problem is that FOX negotiates to pay higher fees to the leagues in order to try and have that perceived monopoly on sports broadcasting. In truth as News Corp. starts to loose more of its viewing audience by service providers blacking them out they'll also begin loosing that revenue stream that FOX News generates since advertisers won't be able to reach their target audience to make their own money. Mr. Murdoch's recent annual report to the shareholders of News Corp. made it pretty clear that it is all about the money and politics, and not about providing actual honest and integtrity to their viewers and the service providers.

So yes right now FSN may have a monopoly for airing specific regional sports, but as they begin losing money on that side of the FOX empire, they will eventually have to come back to the service providers with more acceptable offers if they wish to continue being seen by the viewing audience. So right now News Corp. faces losing adverstising dollars, viewer ratings, and the income normally generated from the license fees they obtain from the service providers. How long do you think the News Corp. shareholders are going to let that continue before they start demanding Mr. Murdoch pull his head out and put things right? And to think that he was foolish enough to put his head on the block by telling shareholders that if they don't like the way he is doing things they could vote him out.

Keep in mind that thanks to Mr. Murdoch, News Corp. has been steering in the wrong direction for the last two years. Instead of honest and integrity in the companies efforts to provide sports and news, it has become a political arm of the GOP in every aspect. The $1 million donation Mr. Mudoch made on the behalf of News Corp. to various GOP political entities fired up the shareholders who have begun to question Mr. Murdoch and his strategies. Across the country a steadily growing anti-FOX News movement to cease airing FOX News in business establishments has resulted in numerous major corporations publicly stating they would no longer air FOX News. You can't run a company like News Corp. if you don't have an audience. And companies rely heavily on advertising to generate sales, so if News Corp. is losing their viewing audience because of their failed business practices, then they lose the advertisers as well.

So while it is a loss for DISH and Cablevision customers, keep in mind that the service providers are doing the right thing; they are fighting back against the overall corporate greed of News Corp. They are also sending back a message that News Corp. will stand to lose far more in revenue by trying to strongarm the service providers into paying unrealistic license fees just to carry their programming that costs them a fraction of that cost to generate in the first place. If you don't believe me read Mr. Murdoch's recent annual report to the shareholders. In it you'll find he spends a considerable amount of time talking about the $2.3 billion in new revenue that News Corp. generated in the past year alone just from the advertising through FOX News. Is there any doubt that Mr. Murdoch's concern is only about the money and the growing monopoly they have right now?

Every so often you have to bring a giant down to his knees. For Mr. Murdoch, News Corp., and FOX News, that time has come and the movement is already growing across the country to prove that. During a time when families are struggling to pay their bills, and companies are struggling to keep operating, News Corp. has gone out of its way to make money with lies and hatred against the very people that they want to be a part of their viewing audience. You can't keep attacking your viewers on a regular basis and then expect them to be grateful and toss money your way. Even the TV evangelists learned that lesson the hard way.

Something tells me that at the rate News Corp. is making decisions that shareholders vote may be coming soon.

2422.10.2010 14:36
Spliceman
Inactive

Agreed - Makes you want to pick up some NEWS just to have a vote...

2522.10.2010 14:45

Originally posted by DXR88:
Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Welcome to the digital age, why do you think analog was so unwanted to free up the airwaves? please. Digital TV OTA can also be blacklisted, so the whole put up antenna argument doesn't work.
Putting up an antenna to receive local stations doesn't work??? Blacking out local broadcasts mainly hurts the affiliate and would strain relations between them and the network, so is unlikely. After all, they can't pick and choose what individuals receive OTA signals, so they can't just turn it off for certain cable company subscribers.
they blacklist certain content on OTA, effectively killing that channel for a given amount of time. there for antenna's don't work as an effective get around.

after all where do you think you get OTA, the Airwaves Fairies. Most OTA is Being broadcast by Cable TV operator.
No, OTA's are broadcast by local affiliates NOT cable companies! And NTSC or ATSC channels can be black listed this has nothing to do with digital!! Obviously FOX isnt free nor is TBS, WGN and so on outside of their local arena, Atlanta, Chicago, and so on It also is not just Cable companies that are fighting this issue of worth Dish Networks is also dropping FOX programming. Im glad I have DirecTV as they continue to support FOX and I watch FOX stations more than other national feeds. If you truly want to blame anyone for this system you must look at the FCC as they are the regulatory body.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 Oct 2010 @ 14:45

2622.10.2010 20:55

News Corp (parent company of FOX) is a huge stakeholder (34%) in Hughes Electronics (parent company of DirectTV). What more do you need to know? Ol' Rupert wants to drive up business for DirectTV, plain and simple. F.U. FOX. F.U. DirectTV. F.U Rupert Murdoch.

2722.10.2010 21:04

Originally posted by new2itall:
Originally posted by sbhere:
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHETHER THE WORLD SERIES WILL BE ON FOX 5 OR TBS. IF IT IS ON FOX 5 AND I AM BLOCKED FROM IT ON CABLEVISION, I WILL SURELY SEEK A NEW SUPPLIER!!!!
This is exactly what "sly" FOX want you to do. They are strong arming the cable companies to a point where the cable companies may take a dive and more people will become unemployed, or increase the monthly fees to their remaining subscribers. This is a no win situation for the customers and the economic environment as a whole. FOX will survive no matter what as they have many income channels and big spenders use FOX to advertise their products and services. I think FOX advertisers should change who they do business with!
Of course you are welcome to your opinion; that's what we're here for. However, It is not reasonable to believe there is a conspiracy afoot. I, like many, pick up Fox OTA...and they know it.

2822.10.2010 21:17

Originally posted by rick930:
The $1 million donation Mr. Mudoch made on the behalf of News Corp. to various GOP political...

I'll wait while you mention the $1.8 million that George Soros gave to NPR in order hire reporters to spread your socialist message.
Originally posted by rick930:
Across the country a steadily growing anti-FOX News movement to cease airing FOX News in business establishments has resulted in numerous major corporations publicly stating they would no longer air FOX News.

"Major corporations refusing to air Fox News"?? Name 'em when they stop. Your smoothly fabricated hype has not one ounce of credibility. Of course he talked about money at a shareholder meeting. Of course he's trying to make more money. It's OK with you if the Tides Foundation, NBC, NPR, et al make more money isn't it?

What you are writing is not personal, it is professional.
I defend Fox because I like them.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Oct 2010 @ 6:04

2922.10.2010 21:38

Originally posted by Spliceman:
Agreed - Makes you want to pick up some NEWS just to have a vote...
News, there isn't any news.

same old crap different day.


Powered By

3023.10.2010 6:57

Fox is just getting ridiculous. Every year they are threatening some cable/satellite company. It may suck for a while but I agree they will cave when enough co's say screw it and black them out. Little hard to understand always hearing people whine and cry about the economy and how broke they are but it is absolutely amazing how many people have no problem paying so much money monthly for sheer entertainment. Also makes me wonder how many of the people complaining about losing fox actually work for their income and how many get it for free, so just think no biggie everything should be handed to them.
If fox wants so much money, fine get rid of the commercials and go premium like hbo and the like.

3123.10.2010 16:55

Oh my goodness! The level of ignorance in some of the comments leveled against FOX is asstounding! ABC negotiated with Cablevision to charge $1 per subscriber for their broadcast. Cablevision wanted to pay roughly $.40. ABC got what they asked for. FOX was negotiating for $1 per subscriber as well. FOX gets much higher ratings than any of the other networks! Cablevision doesn't wish to pay them what they ask for. The argument is that FOX is to blame?! WOW!

Put it this way, ABC is silver and Cablevision paid more to get it. FOX is gold but Cablevision won't pay even though gold has appreciated into the stratosphere above silver! The factual numbers speak for themselves. More people view and trust FOX rather than any other network. That's a fact!

This is how free enterprise works. I have a product or service. I ask a certain price. You pay the asking price or negotiate for a better price. I don't agree to less than my product is worth. You don't pay me what I asked. I don't give you my product or service! Simple.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Oct 2010 @ 16:58

"In all your getting, get an understanding!"

Dell Dimension DIM4600 Intel P4 CPU 2.66GHz 2.5GB-DDR 160GB-HDD Primary 80GB-HDD Slave Memorex 16x DL -/+RW Burner JLMS DVD-ROM XJ-HD166 WinXP Home Edition SP3

3223.10.2010 17:57

Originally posted by YOBUZZB:
Oh my goodness! The level of ignorance in some of the comments leveled against FOX is asstounding! ABC negotiated with Cablevision to charge $1 per subscriber for their broadcast. Cablevision wanted to pay roughly $.40. ABC got what they asked for. FOX was negotiating for $1 per subscriber as well. FOX gets much higher ratings than any of the other networks! Cablevision doesn't wish to pay them what they ask for. The argument is that FOX is to blame?! WOW!

Put it this way, ABC is silver and Cablevision paid more to get it. FOX is gold but Cablevision won't pay even though gold has appreciated into the stratosphere above silver! The factual numbers speak for themselves. More people view and trust FOX rather than any other network. That's a fact!

This is how free enterprise works. I have a product or service. I ask a certain price. You pay the asking price or negotiate for a better price. I don't agree to less than my product is worth. You don't pay me what I asked. I don't give you my product or service! Simple.
Very true!! Ignorance is rapid in this thread...

3323.10.2010 22:48

Originally posted by Blessedon:
Originally posted by rick930:
The $1 million donation Mr. Mudoch made on the behalf of News Corp. to various GOP political...

I'll wait while you mention the $1.8 million that George Soros gave to NPR in order hire reporters to spread your socialist message.
Originally posted by rick930:
Across the country a steadily growing anti-FOX News movement to cease airing FOX News in business establishments has resulted in numerous major corporations publicly stating they would no longer air FOX News.

"Major corporations refusing to air Fox News"?? Name 'em when they stop. Your smoothly fabricated hype has not one ounce of credibility. Of course he talked about money at a shareholder meeting. Of course he's trying to make more money. It's OK with you if the Tides Foundation, NBC, NPR, et al make more money isn't it?

What you are writing is not personal, it is professional.
I defend Fox because I like them.
If you do follow the news you will see that the backlash is against NPR not only for firing the Juan Williams, but they are losing credibility for taking the money from Soros. Soros has a political agenda and has openly said he wants to "control" the news. He like Obama has had an ongoing battle with FOX.

I'll go back to listening to NPR when they fire the boss who let Williams go and give all of Soros' money back.


Airman

3424.10.2010 2:17

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by YOBUZZB:
Oh my goodness! The level of ignorance in some of the comments leveled against FOX is asstounding! ABC negotiated with Cablevision to charge $1 per subscriber for their broadcast. Cablevision wanted to pay roughly $.40. ABC got what they asked for. FOX was negotiating for $1 per subscriber as well. FOX gets much higher ratings than any of the other networks! Cablevision doesn't wish to pay them what they ask for. The argument is that FOX is to blame?! WOW!

Put it this way, ABC is silver and Cablevision paid more to get it. FOX is gold but Cablevision won't pay even though gold has appreciated into the stratosphere above silver! The factual numbers speak for themselves. More people view and trust FOX rather than any other network. That's a fact!

This is how free enterprise works. I have a product or service. I ask a certain price. You pay the asking price or negotiate for a better price. I don't agree to less than my product is worth. You don't pay me what I asked. I don't give you my product or service! Simple.
Very true!! Ignorance is rapid in this thread...
do i detect a hint of sarcasm in that comment :p

Powered By

351.11.2010 22:43

That was a crappy move by NPR

361.11.2010 23:21

Originally posted by YOBUZZB:
Oh my goodness! The level of ignorance in some of the comments leveled against FOX is asstounding! ABC negotiated with Cablevision to charge $1 per subscriber for their broadcast. Cablevision wanted to pay roughly $.40. ABC got what they asked for. FOX was negotiating for $1 per subscriber as well. FOX gets much higher ratings than any of the other networks! Cablevision doesn't wish to pay them what they ask for. The argument is that FOX is to blame?! WOW!

Put it this way, ABC is silver and Cablevision paid more to get it. FOX is gold but Cablevision won't pay even though gold has appreciated into the stratosphere above silver! The factual numbers speak for themselves. More people view and trust FOX rather than any other network. That's a fact!
Where have you gotten these "facts"? Cablevision has repeatedly said that Fox was asking for more than they pay to ABC, CBS, Univision and NBC combined.

No one here is saying that ABC was any less greedy than Fox has been during this ordeal. The same principles apply. The broadcasters are charging extravagant amounts of money for transmissions that are free over the air with an antenna.

As for higher ratings, please check the following link...same numbers apply for the last 5 weeks (as far back as I checked) where ABC is higher than Fox:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/26/cbs-stays-on-top-weekly-primetime-ratings-nbc-second-followed-by-abc-fox/69507





372.11.2010 0:35

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Originally posted by YOBUZZB:
Oh my goodness! The level of ignorance in some of the comments leveled against FOX is asstounding! ABC negotiated with Cablevision to charge $1 per subscriber for their broadcast. Cablevision wanted to pay roughly $.40. ABC got what they asked for. FOX was negotiating for $1 per subscriber as well. FOX gets much higher ratings than any of the other networks! Cablevision doesn't wish to pay them what they ask for. The argument is that FOX is to blame?! WOW!

Put it this way, ABC is silver and Cablevision paid more to get it. FOX is gold but Cablevision won't pay even though gold has appreciated into the stratosphere above silver! The factual numbers speak for themselves. More people view and trust FOX rather than any other network. That's a fact!
Where have you gotten these "facts"? Cablevision has repeatedly said that Fox was asking for more than they pay to ABC, CBS, Univision and NBC combined.

No one here is saying that ABC was any less greedy than Fox has been during this ordeal. The same principles apply. The broadcasters are charging extravagant amounts of money for transmissions that are free over the air with an antenna.

As for higher ratings, please check the following link...same numbers apply for the last 5 weeks (as far back as I checked) where ABC is higher than Fox:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/26/cbs-stays-on-top-weekly-primetime-ratings-nbc-second-followed-by-abc-fox/69507




No!, this isn't about ONE of each local broadcast channel that is free to air which is what those ratings are for. This is about the premium FOX channels that are not free! And do have a much higher market share than the others. Sure it includes the free to air channel in the package deal but again the focus would be more on Fox Sports & News channels where their strength lays. People aren't complaining so much about loosing the local Fox station they are complaining about Sports & News!!!

382.11.2010 7:29

If someone doesn't like the price of what they are purchasing, they should not buy it.
If they do buy it then complain about it's price, they lack self-control.

392.11.2010 9:25
Spliceman
Inactive

Is anyone aware of the specifics of the deal between Dish Network and Fox? Its nice that the issue has "gone away" but would be very interesting to find out who gave in, and exactly by which method they will be taking it out of our backsides...

402.11.2010 10:19

Cablevision gave in. Fox wanted money for content that they had previously offered to Cablevision for free, in a package, plus a premium for their market share of paid content. Call it greed if you want; I think a business is allowed to make whatever profit people are stupid enough to give them.
On Cablevision's side: they were trying to cheap-out by manipulating the FCC into intervening in a dispute over which the FCC has no legal jurisdiction (force Newscorp to end their blackout thus depriving Newscorp of their bargaining chip)

412.11.2010 10:57
Spliceman
Inactive

Thanks Blessedon for the info. I keep forgetting that the thread of this article began with the Cablevision news. I was actually more interested in the Fox / Dish Network conflict which also settled late last week.

I agree if people are willing to pay the price, business should be able to name that price thereby creating a market. As long as the viewers are made aware that it is the Network that is the "bad guy" if you will... The carrier IE Cablevision / Dish Network is somewhat caught in the middle. People threaten to drop Dish Network and go to cable if they don't get their Fox sports, and its just a matter of time until Fox pulls the same deal with that cable provider. I'm sure people are happy now that the fight is over but 6 or 12 months from now when that incremental rate increase comes through it will be that damned dish network. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but the networks do have a sweet deal. Create a bidding war each year over coverage rights, the people will pay for it in the end, and the networks don't have to be the ones to break the cost of doing business to the people. Let the cable/sat provider be the messenger. I'll shut up now...

422.11.2010 15:13

you know who's paying for fox's greed, the viewers. its wrong and manipulative in every way. but this is what happens when you let corporations get there way. next all the networks will be wanting more and more money. the $350 dollar cable bill is coming,and its closer than you might think.


Powered By

432.11.2010 19:39

It won't be coming to me my friend;
I have never, and will never, be so mindless as to pay for TV programming.
Answer me this please DXR88; Do you understand what entity would be programming you if corporations were not competing for your dollar - as you want?

That's right - there's only one entity left; the government would decide what you allowed to see and hear, and what you are not. Go rent V For Vendetta if you don't understand yet, as I am sure you don't, you have been programmed to believe corporations, companies, and businesses are evil.

442.11.2010 20:05

Originally posted by blessedon:
Answer me this please DXR88; Do you understand what entity would be programming you if corporations were not competing for your dollar - as you want?

Who's competing, the only thing i'm seeing is blatant Monopolizing.

Originally posted by blessedon:
I have never, and will never, be so mindless as to pay for TV programming.
oh really so your a cable thief then. that's good to know.

Powered By

452.11.2010 20:33

Originally posted by DXR88:
Who's competing, the only thing i'm seeing is blatant Monopolizing.
????Wow!

Originally posted by blessedon:
I have never, and will never, be so mindless as to pay for TV programming.
Originally posted by DXR88:
oh really so your a cable thief then. that's good to know.
Stunning...I use an antenna with a High-Definition receiver...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 02 Nov 2010 @ 20:38

462.11.2010 20:46

Originally posted by Blessedon:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Who's competing, the only thing i'm seeing is blatant Monopolizing.
????Wow!
Originally posted by blessedon:
I have never, and will never, be so mindless as to pay for TV programming.

Originally posted by DXR88:
oh really so your a cable thief then. that's good to know.

Stunning...I use an antenna with a High-Definition receiver...
then i take it back, your one of the few who can get decent OTA.

a good portion of viewers don't have that option. either because of piss poor reception, or stringent building laws. not to mention digital made the ranging worse than it already was.

those of us that pay for cable tv, know what happens when Fox or any content provider for that matter wants more cash. We the Viewers pay for it.

And we don't have an option, but to fork it over.

Powered By

472.11.2010 22:57

Originally posted by DXR88:
then i take it back, your one of the few who can get decent OTA.

a good portion of viewers don't have that option. either because of piss poor reception, or stringent building laws. not to mention digital made the ranging worse than it already was.

those of us that pay for cable tv, know what happens when Fox or any content provider for that matter wants more cash. We the Viewers pay for it.

And we don't have an option, but to fork it over.
Well said. However, being a conservative who detests corporate greed as much as anyone-hence the lifetime devotion to OTA-I say there is a choice;
SHUT OFF YOUR CABLE EVERYONE! Buy an antenna, take what you can get, and read books!

483.11.2010 3:03

Originally posted by DXR88:
Originally posted by Blessedon:
Originally posted by DXR88:
Who's competing, the only thing i'm seeing is blatant Monopolizing.
????Wow!
Originally posted by blessedon:
I have never, and will never, be so mindless as to pay for TV programming.

Originally posted by DXR88:
oh really so your a cable thief then. that's good to know.

Stunning...I use an antenna with a High-Definition receiver...
then i take it back, your one of the few who can get decent OTA.

a good portion of viewers don't have that option. either because of piss poor reception, or stringent building laws. not to mention digital made the ranging worse than it already was.

those of us that pay for cable tv, know what happens when Fox or any content provider for that matter wants more cash. We the Viewers pay for it.

And we don't have an option, but to fork it over.
No, he is one of those people that likes limited TV and tons of commercials. YUK!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive