WABC may pull its signal on March 7 (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

mws192

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Family
Jul 30, 2007
74
1
WABC may pull signal from CV

ABC says that it may pull its WABC-TV New York signal from Cablevision at 12:01 a.m. on March 7unless the cable operator agrees to pay for the channel in a retransmission-consent dispute.

Broadcasters are increasingly pushing for cash in their retransmission-consent negotiations for their channels given the size of their audiences relative to cable channels that receive higher per-sub fees.

WABC-TV said that it has extended its contract month-to-month over the past two years as a show of good faith, while the parties tried to reach an agreement.

"Having tried to negotiate for the past two years, we simply can no longer extend our ABC content with Cablevision beyond March 6th unless we receive appropriate cash compensation," ABC said.

Sources familiar with the situation said that WABC-TV had intensified its negotiations over the past couple of months, and is likely seeking between 50 and 60 cents monthly subscriber fee.

WABC-TV May Pull Its Signal From Cablevision On March 7 - 2010-03-02 01:27:49 | Multichannel News
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

NotMe546

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 4, 2008
1,851
39
You should have quoted a little more....

"It is shocking that in these difficult economic times, ABC Disney is threatening to remove WABC unless Cablevision and its customers pay $40 million in new fees for programming that it offers today for free, both over-the-air and online," responded Cablevision in a statement. "It is not fair for ABC Disney to hold Cablevision customers hostage by forcing them to pay what amounts to a new TV tax. We urge ABC Disney not to pull the plug and instead work with us to reach a fair agreement."

I didn't know Jesse James was still alive. :eek:
I'm glad to see another provider is growing a set of balls like Charlie and not just given in.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

tnsprin

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 27, 2003
1,601
0
Personally I think no Local ota channels should be paid a thing for carrying their channels to people in their DMA. And no Cable company should be allowed to charge extra for any them.

In this case I am not sure that Cablevision is charging anything for them as the ads that WABC is showing is circling the basic cable charge that includes the basic connection, a few cable channels, and all the locals.

Not that I think Cablevision is innocent in these kind of games. See the suits from FIOS and DISH about not being offered the ability to carry the Cablevision owned RSN in HD.
 

tnsprin

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 27, 2003
1,601
0
Well as of today WABC is gone from Cablevision. Wonder how long before someone blinks.
 

NotMe546

SatelliteGuys Pro
Sep 4, 2008
1,851
39
Anyone want to guess as to how much a day abc is losing and how long before it goes back on?

This is the second high-profile carriage dispute for Cablevision this year. In January, Scripps Networks Interactive pulled its HGTV and Food Network cable channels from Cablevision for about three weeks. The channels were restored after the two reached a compromise. Asked if Cablevision has learned any lessons from that battle, Dolan said the main takeaway from that ordeal, and one Cablevision didn't have control over, was to not put your customers in the middle of a dispute.
"I suppose they [Disney] are going to learn that lesson too," Dolan added.
 
Last edited:

beachrider

SatelliteGuys Family
Jun 7, 2009
93
0
Milford, CT
Comcast is having similar high profile issues. The only question that I have is: IF cablevision is somehow overwriting the OTA channels for commercials, etc, THEN it makes sense that the OTA provider is compensated for suppressing paid advertizements.

If CV isn't changing the OTA signal, then CV really doesn't owe OTA channels anything.

Does anyone disagree?
 

mkm4

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 13, 2003
617
0
If CV isn't changing the OTA signal, then CV really doesn't owe OTA channels anything.

Does anyone disagree?

That's not what the law says.

Cable is taking something for free, charging others for it and making a profit. The OTA channels really don't get anything out of that scenario, not even new viewers, since it's just people switching to cable from using an antenna.
Sounds kind of unfair to the OTA channels when it's put that way. Why should the cable companies make a profit on it?
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top