Time Warner Cable drops CBS in NYC, LA following retransmission dispute

Wow....Talk about calling a bluff. Sucks when customers are the ones that lose, though.

It's A Joke that CBS thinks there so big they can just charge what they like and push other companies around. I'm glad time warner took a stand and now time warner should take CBS to court.

Why would the people who buy time warner have to pay higher tv bills because CBS feels they can charge what they like there a laughing stock in my eyes.

ChefDamo.....I hate to tell you, but Time-Warner AND Comcast doe THE exact thing you just accused CBS of. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Originally posted by hurlibot1:

---

ChefDamo.....I hate to tell you, but Time-Warner AND Comcast doe THE exact thing you just accused CBS of. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

---

all companies do it but not to the extent of CBS come on 600% open your eyes no one in there right mind would agree with that. even when you go food shopping you get ripped off or put gas/petrel in your car. ripping off and highway robbery witch CBS is doing is out of order.

And this is why all cable and satellite companies need to be split in half a couple times..... or at least make the pipes and satellite open to any re-transmitter.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

And this is why all cable and satellite companies need to be split in half a couple times..... or at least make the pipes and satellite open to any re-transmitter.

---

Zippy, you sound just like the government when they broke up AT&T back in the 80's. Fact: Before the AT&T breakup, AT&T was THE best, and cheapest service. Always reliable, and if you needed a technician, they were usually there that day. In cost comparisons vs the inflated dollar, AT&T back then was much cheaper. Now you have cell phone plans costing in excess of over $100 a month Your mentality speaks to socialism. You don't mind breaking up other companies for your benefit, but if YOU had a business, I can surely bet if the government were trying to break up your corporation, you would be singing a different tune!

Originally posted by hurlibot1:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

And this is why all cable and satellite companies need to be split in half a couple times..... or at least make the pipes and satellite open to any re-transmitter.

---

Zippy, you sound just like the government when they broke up AT&T back in the 80's. Fact: Before the AT&T breakup, AT&T was THE best, and cheapest service. Always reliable, and if you needed a technician, they were usually there that day. In cost comparisons vs the inflated dollar, AT&T back then was much cheaper. Now you have cell phone plans costing in excess of over $100 a month Your mentality speaks to socialism. You don't mind breaking up other companies for your benefit, but if YOU had a business, I can surely bet if the government were trying to break up your corporation, you would be singing a different tune!

---

The lovely thing about separating the data pipes from the company that offers the service is you get more companies trying to sell you the service thus you get lower prices.

Right now we have 4 or 5 monopolies running everything from the pipes to the service itself and all its gotten us is higher prices and slower service not only in speed but in spread of the service.

At&T breakup only broke up the company but they did not go to the root of the issue the lines themselfs, those need to be made to where any service company can get on them and resale that data.

So all in all its far worse to keep things as they are than to change it to something less one way.

It reminds me of health care sure its the best money can buy but its costing us to much we need a single payer system with premium option. IE government sets the minimum rates and those companies that want to offer something more than the minimum can offer it only taxed an extra 25%. That way the vast majority get functional healthcare and those with money get whatever they want because they can pay more thus bypassing any congestion the system might suffer from.

And that whats needed to happen to data, gov sets the minimum standards and lets companies focus on maintaining and expanding the data lines but they are separate from the service end which focus on selling the end service to consumers, no middle men no CEOs sucking up profit and letting shit stagnate.

Its either that or gov sets standards for what can be charged. I'd rather separate the pipes from the service providers from Cell,Sat,Land line,ect its all detached, broken up based on cost/region and leased to the highest bidder. Now that might sound like it would cost more but not really not since you have all services together working as one, the costs balance out.

Agree hurlibot1.

Cable companies have the monopolies, not the broadcasters.

The broadcasters have ratings/viewer data showing their popularity vs their peers. Therefore, they have the ability to measure the demand for their product and set their prices accordingly.

The carriers, on the other hand, have a virtual monopoly. Few, if any, competitors in many locations to lose their market share to. So, when they miss their budgets, they simply raise rates to compensate rather than lean their business or correct their business model. Without competitive pressures like the networks have against one another to deliver a better product, there's no incentive to operate more efficiently if all you have to do is raise the cable bill.

After all, it's the channels that actually produce the product that people want. Providers can only produce the means to get it to you (other than OTA.) So basically, providers want a bigger share of the pie someone else is making... or at least, be able to reap the benefits of carrying someone else's pie on the cheap without considering the actual value in terms of viewers and advertising revenue those channels produce not only for themselves but for those providers who carry their channels.

Providers basically want it all for nothing, or next to it.

Originally posted by pirkster:

---

Agree hurlibot1.

Cable companies have the monopolies, not the broadcasters.

The broadcasters have ratings/viewer data showing their popularity vs their peers. Therefore, they have the ability to measure the demand for their product and set their prices accordingly.

The carriers, on the other hand, have a virtual monopoly. Few, if any, competitors in many locations to lose their market share to. So, when they miss their budgets, they simply raise rates to compensate rather than lean their business or correct their business model. Without competitive pressures like the networks have against one another to deliver a better product, there's no incentive to operate more efficiently if all you have to do is raise the cable bill.

After all, it's the channels that actually produce the product that people want. Providers can only produce the means to get it to you (other than OTA.) So basically, providers want a bigger share of the pie someone else is making... or at least, be able to reap the benefits of carrying someone else's pie on the cheap without considering the actual value in terms of viewers and advertising revenue those channels produce not only for themselves but for those providers who carry their channels.

Providers basically want it all for nothing, or next to it.

---

Thats why you take the lines away from them and create a level playing filed. More providers spring up thus more choices for not only the public but the media producers as well.

Lol, so now you want to 'take away the lines'? And who will be doing the 'taking away'? And who will be compensating AT&T who laid the lines on their own dime over decades? Like I said before, you folks seem to have no problem regulating corporations, but I bet you would be singing a different tune if it was your business that was about to be regulated. You want your cake and eat it too. It wreaks of hypocrisy!

Originally posted by hurlibot1:

---

Lol, so now you want to 'take away the lines'? And who will be doing the 'taking away'? And who will be compensating AT&T who laid the lines on their own dime over decades? Like I said before, you folks seem to have no problem regulating corporations, but I bet you would be singing a different tune if it was your business that was about to be regulated. You want your cake and eat it too. It wreaks of hypocrisy!

---

So that's why we have fiber in every city in 2013.....ya unfettered capitalism it works...only to make the CEO richer while they rob the companies blind.

Its basically the public's lines that whose without the public paying hand over fist for it it would not be there. If the CEOs did not waste money on themselves and put that money into infrastructure I would not have to shell out 70$ a month for 1.5MB DSL!!

There is a point and time where you just have to set limits or nationalize resources and allow controlled capitalism to take place. Our current crony capitalist system dose the people no good.

@ZippyDSM

I agree:
All those Cable Corporations (Middle Man & CEO's) are about to go down as soon as the TV networks start broadcasting their special seasons on You-Tube or live via Internet.

Cable Co's. Cables lines are out of date & fiver optic is taking over.
They are loosing customers in a high rate 'cos hot-spots, tethering, WI-FI, etc are taking over.) They are begging for clients. oh, and all bundle marketing strategy is just a pure BS ripoff.

The only thing that I have with Cable is a so,so deal: $19/month internet connection for the next 2 yrs. I figured out by the time my deal is over; we might have fiver-optic option here in my little town.

Originally posted by Mrguss:

---

@ZippyDSM

I agree:
All those Cable Corporations (Middle Man & CEO's) are about to go down as soon as the TV networks start broadcasting their special seasons on You-Tube or live via Internet.

Cable Co's. Cables lines are out of date & fiver optic is taking over.
They are loosing customers in a high rate 'cos hot-spots, tethering, WI-FI, etc are taking over.) They are begging for clients. oh, and all bundle marketing strategy is just a pure BS ripoff.

The only thing that I have with Cable is a so,so deal: $19/month internet connection for the next 2 yrs. I figured out by the time my deal is over; we might have fiver-optic option here in my little town.

---

Maybe time and tech has out modded them but I got this funny feeling that 2 or 3 more choices ain't going to lower over all prices worth a flip.

You are still going to have the main 4-6 providers with the most shows.

Perhaps more than freeing the pipes we need an alacart rule stating you HAVE to sell channels at cost and no more than what they are sold in pakcages. Also would be nice if they setup price points for data CELL is no more than 25$ per 50GB of bandwidth and landline is 0-5MB is 10$, 5mb-25mb 15$, 25-50mb 25, 50-100 30$, 100+ 40$. Or 5 cents per 1mbyte of speed.

Tho its not as bad as gas prices which need to be fixed in order for the economy to grow, the higher the fuel price the worse off we are and they are to busy playing golf with their corporate fck buddies to give a damn about doing anything....

IMO greed is ruining us, you need to set limits to marginalize gouging, lack of service, lack of quality while you try and lower the price and spread it across the nation. If everyone had 20$ 25mb data connections it would bring in billions and billions more in media sales so I really do not see the down side of taking stuff away from soiled children who stopped putting effort into their jobs long ago.


My friend a city away has fiber, its 50mb 59$, 100mb 69$ and 140$ for 100mb a month. Think he is on the 100mb, not sure. Hell I am stuck with 1.5mb in rural hell while for 20$ less I could be on 50mb fiber LOL ><

Agreed Zippy! My TV options are OTA, DirecTV or Crime Warner. I wouldn't use Crime Warner for TV ever. I have basic lines in my home just to "bundle" with my overpriced internet plan. Some of the channels don't come in at all. Satellite is near perfect, but the price is outrageous.

I wish I had an alternative for internet, but guess who owns the lines? Crime Warner does. The only other option is DSL (much slower, same greedy price) and satellite internet (not happening, much of the same reason as DSL.)

I'd love to get my parents on Netflix, but to do so, they'd have to inherit a $50+ a month bill. Give us a $10-20 option, and instead of having 1 subscriber @$50 you now have 3-5 at $60-$100 which makes sense to me.

The other gripe is that broadband prices were set at a time when AOL was price gouging for $25 a month dialup. With the added benefit of speed, convenience (not tying up a phone line) cable companies set broadband at $40 and above and have never dropped despite dialup not being relevant for how long now? That's why they need competition, because they just use existing lines and pipe their service over it with little to no improvement, making hand over fist.

Originally posted by SProdigy:

---

Agreed Zippy! My TV options are OTA, DirecTV or Crime Warner. I wouldn't use Crime Warner for TV ever. I have basic lines in my home just to "bundle" with my overpriced internet plan. Some of the channels don't come in at all. Satellite is near perfect, but the price is outrageous.

I wish I had an alternative for internet, but guess who owns the lines? Crime Warner does. The only other option is DSL (much slower, same greedy price) and satellite internet (not happening, much of the same reason as DSL.)

I'd love to get my parents on Netflix, but to do so, they'd have to inherit a $50+ a month bill. Give us a $10-20 option, and instead of having 1 subscriber @$50 you now have 3-5 at $60-$100 which makes sense to me.

The other gripe is that broadband prices were set at a time when AOL was price gouging for $25 a month dialup. With the added benefit of speed, convenience (not tying up a phone line) cable companies set broadband at $40 and above and have never dropped despite dialup not being relevant for how long now? That's why they need competition, because they just use existing lines and pipe their service over it with little to no improvement, making hand over fist.

---

Yup but the question is which way would be the hardest to foul up. They love scuttling anything nationalized and saying that an independent business can do it cheaper. But I am always looking at cost to the end user so their cheaper is never cheaper for us.

You could force price points via taxation and other things but I think it would be easier to nationalize but allow maintenance to be around cost plus 10% plus another 15% the shareholders can take to the bank.

From there service companies can doll out the end user service. Government takes 5% from both maintenance and service to run over site and save for some expansion. Then when enough complaints come in the issue is looked at and change is forced if maintenance or service dose not comply.

While we are at it dump the FCC its not needed anymore just take the frequency/device compliance stuff and roll it into the "nationalized data transmission reserve".

Then set up some rules that no one company can have more than 15% of the whole pie unless their end user prices are half the going rate and that rate includes a 25 year example of inflation and price hikes to ensure prices do not go up unless they absolutely must go up.

Keep it simple and even government can not foul it up.