Headline reversed?

[TheKrell]

The Raycom headline reads like this: Raycom Yanks 36 Markets of[f] DISH. But the latest TW headline reads: Time Warner Pulls CBS. Shouldn't it be "CBS Yanks nn Markets off TW"? I don't know the particulars of this latest carriage dispute; I'm just asking.

 

[Rey]

It's correct. It is TWC who dropped the channels. A simple google search could've given you this information.

 

[TheKrell]

I don't read the news like that. Looking at DSLreports:

"We agreed to an extension on Tuesday morning with the expectation that we would engage in a meaningful negotiation with CBS. Since then, CBS has refused to have a productive discussion," Time Warner Cable said in a statement.

 

[Anole]

CBS says: we got top rated shows, pay us more
TW says: you get paid more by advertisers for your shows; and if you get into more homes 'cause of us, you should be happy.
.
.
?Well, maybe not exactly, but I now see CBS as the bad guy. (greedy)
.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I don't read the news like that. Looking at DSLreports:

If your looking at DSLReports it says...

Time Warner Cable Pulls CBS Stations
by Karl Bode 14 hours ago

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Pulls-CBS-Stations-125234

Time Warner Cable and CBS's retransmission fee dispute has very clearly hit an impasse, resulting in millions of Time Warner Cable customers losing CBS stations in the New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Denver and Pittsburgh markets. Taking things a step further, CBS has blocked Time Warner Cable customers from also being able to access CBS content over the Internet.

"We agreed to an extension on Tuesday morning with the expectation that we would engage in a meaningful negotiation with CBS. Since then, CBS has refused to have a productive discussion," Time Warner Cable said in a statement. "It's become clear that no matter how much time we give them, they're not willing to come to reasonable terms. We thank our customers for their patience and support as we continue to fight hard to keep their prices down."

In their own statement, CBS claims Time Warner Cable "has conducted negotiations in a combative and non-productive spirit, indulging in pointless brinksmanship and distorted public positioning — such as the fictional and ridiculous 600 percent increase CBS supposedly demanded — while maintaining antiquated positions no longer held by any other programming distributor in the business."

Time Warner Cable clearly felt it was a good time to blackout CBS stations ahead of the NFL season, which puts greater pressure on both companies. Amusingly, we've seen politicians who couldn't care less about this market jump into the fray during NFL season simply to win constituent brownie points. That interest results in more political discussions about new regulatory restrictions prohibiting such blackouts, which is why Time Warner Cable's striking now while CBS's Under the Dome will be the biggest casualty.

On one hand, CBS is greedily demanding double what Time Warner Cable pays for programming. On the other hand, Time Warner Cable pays endless empty lip service toward lower rates, socking customers relentlessly on numerous other fronts including soaring modem rental fees and higher costs for broadband and DVR services. As with all of these retransmission feuds, customers can enjoy bickering, being used as leverage, and content blackouts -- before these disputes are resolved, secret deals get reached, and their bills wind up skyrocketing anyway.

In short, you lose no matter who "wins."

 

[Anole]

Screw 'em both!
I get my blacked out CBS, over the air, here in Los Angeles. Great signal.
And I don't use Time Warner for my Internet.
.
.
Biggest inconvenience, is the crawler CBS puts up from time to time, suggesting I call TWC to complain.
(actually, CBS is my favorite network... the greedy bastages)

 

[TheKrell]

In short, you lose no matter who "wins."

Point well taken. No carriage agreement; no channel. We can blame the channel provider, or we can blame the carrier, or we can blame both. In the case of your headlines, you've worded it so that it appears you (and Ken Bode) blame Time Warner and not CBS, or in the case of Dish and Raycom, you blame Raycom and not Dish. I'm just pointing out the asymmetry in the headlines; nothing more.

 

[Rey]

Point well taken. No carriage agreement; no channel. We can blame the channel provider, or we can blame the carrier, or we can blame both. In the case of your headlines, you've worded it so that it appears you (and Ken Bode) blame Time Warner and not CBS, or in the case of Dish and Raycom, you blame Raycom and not Dish. I'm just pointing out the asymmetry in the headlines; nothing more.

I guess that's the way you see it. It is clear that CBS never told TW to drop the channels but the cable company felt it was necessary to do so. With Raycom, Dish was willing to continue negotiations but much like TWC, Raycom felt it was necessary to pull their channels from Dish. According to the articles written, Both CBS and Dish were willing to keep the channels up while negotiations continued. This is how most of us are reading it so honestly I don't understand why the insinuations and will not waste anymore time on this.

 

[jayn_j]

There is another major distortion in the headline. TWC did not block access to all CBS. Only in the O&O cities, but since that includes NY, LA, and Chicago, it gets the headline like it is everywhere.

My market (Milwaukee) still has CBS, but our NBC feed is currently blocked. But who cares about Milwaukee?

The solution to all involved is to cut the cable if at all possible and go back to OTA. Only by doing that are we, the consumers going to be able to break this cycle of ever increasing fees. These things are happening because we choose to accept the increased fees with only a bit of grumbling. The recent thread shows you guys are paying over $100/month, and for what? Honey Bo-Boo??!

 

[navychop]

Meanwhile, champagne corks are a poppin' at Aereo.