The W
Views: 97740785
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.7.14 0533
The W - Movies & TV - Time Warner to cease carrying Viacom channels in 2009
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
(2741 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.31
This is a punch in the stomach for cable subscribers.

UNHAPPY NEW YEAR! Time Warner Cable To Lose Viacom's MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon & Comedy Central In NY, LA, Everywhere


    UPDATE (keep refreshing for breaking news): What an awful way to ring in 2009. It turns out that Viacom claims it has been trying to negotiate a "fair" renewal of its prized cable channels for months and months, but reputedly Time Warner Cable has been unresponsive and "unreasonable". The nation's 2nd largest cable system operator, in turn, claims Viacom is asking for "exorbitant" increases in carriage fees which would have to be passed along to the customer. So now this fight between the two Big Media giants will hurt cable viewers. At 12:01 AM on January 1st, just after the ball drops in Time Square, Time Warner Cable's 13 million subscribers will lose 19 Viacom channels. The howling starts here, especially by parents home for the holidays with children who won't have access to their favorite shows like SpongeBob Squarepants and Dora The Explorer, and tweens/teens wanting to see new episodes of those new unreality Reality TV series The City and Bromance, and twentysomethings and older who get their news from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart or The Colbert Report.


I'm curious to see if there are any Time Warner subscribers and how they're taking this news. I would imagine this would be as good a time as any to switch to a dish.




See what happens when you miss rehearsal?
Promote this thread!
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
I've got Time Warner, but this is on Viacom. To be raising their rates by that high a percentage right now is complete crap. Then to act like it's Time Warner causing the problem is worse. I want those channels but I want Viacom to stop being douche bags worse.

I'm hoping everyone lets them know that immediately so they can come to their senses and get a deal done.

Sorry, never going back to a dish. Hated it.
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 7 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28

Wouldn't that also apply to CBS O&O's, like I assume WCBS and KCBS probably are?



Mark Coale
Odessa Steps Magazine
The Affirmation, Baby Blog
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
The more I think about this, the more I'm sure Viacom will cave in. To have 19 channels dumped off of 13 million viewers TV's all at once? If money is what they're after they won't be able to hold out a week with the losses they'd see just from advertisers.

MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1743 days
Last activity: 1662 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.32
I was wondering what was going on. I have Directv, but there has been a crawl across the bottom of the screen while my kids watch Franklin. It's actually annoying, really.

Didn't Time Warner go through something like this a few years ago with the Sports New York channel?



I'm Free!
PeterStork
Sujuk








Since: 25.1.02
From: Chicagoland with Hoosiers, or "The Region"

Since last post: 616 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.65
    Originally posted by odessasteps

    Wouldn't that also apply to CBS O&O's, like I assume WCBS and KCBS probably are?


Could be, but the O&O's are most likely a separate company from the CBS cablers. Broadcast carriage deals are often very different than cable stations, too, so they might not lump them in even if it was the same company.



exit 670 dot com | digital route 66
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02
From: Champaign, IL

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 6 min.
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.95
Viacom spun off the non-cable channels (CBS & the O & O's) along with the billboard advertising segment of the company a couple of years ago.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.45
I believe the increase is 23 cents a month per suscriber. Exorbitant I realize but not exactly over the top.



Perception is reality
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I believe the increase is 23 cents a month per suscriber. Exorbitant I realize but not exactly over the top.


That's not the point. If Time Warner bends here, then every other company will expect the same treatment and that little amount goes up and up. They are trying to hold TW hostage, and could not have picked a worse time to do it what with the economy in it's current state and TV ratings way down across the board. What's their leverage, "hey less people are watching our crap so give us more money?"

Viacom is dead wrong here.


(edited by wmatistic on 31.12.08 0903)
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 7 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.28

Is it just me or do these carriage scrapes always seem to involve Time Warner?



Mark Coale
Odessa Steps Magazine
The Affirmation, Baby Blog
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 24 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.91
I was hearing that Time-Warner has been paying lower rights fees than the other large providers, but without independent numbers anyone was pointing to..

The thing that gets me about Cable TV is that it's pretty much take it all, or leave it. Maybe "a la carte" is available in some areas, but I've never heard of it (and what the effects on pricing might be).

Take NFL rights fees. Back in '98, CBS was in the middle of a deal for the AFC games at $500 million a year. FOX made a deal for the NFC at $550m, and ABC made a similar deal.. $550m for "Monday Night Football". And then ESPN bid $600m a season for the full Sunday night package (back when it was clearly a slate of second-tier games).

How can ESPN pay more than any of the networks for the inferior product? Subscription fees. They are bidding with our money, because ultimately they can ask cable/satellite providers for whatever they need to cover these deals. What, you're going to be the cable company that drops ESPN??

Today, NBC is paying $650m a year for the Sunday Night package - which includes flexscheduling to ensure for the most ratings-worthy matchups. And ESPN? They took the now afterthought Monday Night franchise off sister ABC's hands, again a series without many 'blockbuster' games.. and they are paying $1.1 billion a year for this. Or more accurately, we're paying it. Do you think the NFL Network was created so there was a place to show Steve Sabol films??

Oh, and the BCS? FOX has been paying about $80m a year for their four games (While the Rose Bowl stays on ABC under a separate contract). ESPN just swooped in and plucked them away for $125 million starting in 2011. And none of them will be on "free" TV.

ESPN charges about $3.65 per month per household. Which adds up to $4.3 billion a year. And that's not counting their revenues from selling commercials.

/rant off.



Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.53
Cable TV is a house of cards. For every ESPN that people want, there is your Oxygen or Lifetime who probably couldn't make it without bundling.

It's all gonna crumble at some point.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 364 days
Last activity: 325 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
First, those "afterthought" Monday night football were 13 of the 15 most-watched cable shows of the year, and in the last 3 years, 7 of the top 10 cable ratings of all time.
http://awfulannouncing.blogspot.com/2008/12/look-back-at-2008-monday-night-football.html

So it's very possible that the other channels are underpaying for their respective rights.

Second, a la carte will never happen, or if it does, you'll get 10 channels for the same price as it currently costs for all of them.

Take ESPN. If half the cable subscribers decide to opt-out of ESPN, ESPN isn't just going to live with making half the money on subscriber fees. They'll double the fee and make the same money. So now each subscribe is paying $7.20 each. And losing 50% is a conservative estimate. How many people are going to want to pay for (chosen totally at random, you don't need to respond about how X is one of your favorite channels) Lifetime Movie Network or Versus or G4 or TruTV?
Texas Kelly
Lap cheong








Since: 3.1.02
From: FOREST HILLS CONTROLS THE UNIVERSE

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 3 days
ICQ:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.19
Ladies and gentlemen, the following public service message is brought to you by your friends from D-Generation X, who would like to remind each and every one of you that if you're not down with that, we've got two words for you...

One of the channels included in this situation that's a bit more relevant to a number of us on these boards is Spike TV. If Viacom doesn't stand down (and I agree that this is completely the result of them being greedy pigs at the worst possible time for a lot of people), then we can probably expect TNA to take a major hit to IMPACT ratings.



e-mail me at texas (dot) kelly (at) gmailread a bunch of incoherent nonsense
now 52% more incoherent!
smark/net attack Advisory System is Elevatedsmark/net attack Advisory System Status is: Elevated
(Holds; June 18, 2006)
While the switch from Cena to RVD should alleviate some complaints, the inevitability of the belt's return to Cena (note where Summerslam is this year) and the poor initial showing by the new ECW are enough to keep the indicator where it is for now. The pieces are in place, though, especially on RAW, for improvements to be made to the IWC's psyche in the near future.
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
I like how Time Warner is taking shots at the low ratings in their official responses to this:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/centraltx/Products/Cable/retrans/mtvnetworks/statement.html

http://www.timewarnercable.com/Corporate/Products/DigitalCable/retrans/mtvnetworks/default.html
KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr

Since last post: 15 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.33
    Originally posted by TheOldMan
    The thing that gets me about Cable TV is that it's pretty much take it all, or leave it. Maybe "a la carte" is available in some areas, but I've never heard of it (and what the effects on pricing might be).
I don't like this, but I think it has to be so. If you have a theme network with very broad appeal (like, say, "sports") you could possibly survive as a standalone channel because lots of people would want it. But a lot of the niche channels are either "love it" or "couldn't care less" and there's really no in-between. And for most, there aren't enough "love it" people to create a large enough potential audience. So the people who order the theme sports channel bundle all help subsidize each other - people who are passionate about golf get the golf channel, and because of bundling, they get the fishing channel, the racing channel, etc. The bundles help those channels get more potential viewers than they could ever get as standalone channels.

WWE 24/7 is a good example of a standalone niche channel that's having a hard time getting and keeping an audience. I don't know what the most recent numbers are, but the last time I saw them in the Observer, they were scarily low. Throw it in a bundle with, say, Spike TV and The Fight Network, and you might attract more people.

And once you get those other channels, you might possibly find something worth watching. I love Food Network and would have bought it a la carte, but in the mostly-useless bundled channels, I did find two shows I enjoy (Stratusphere and Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations).



JK: LJ, S&H, KMA, FB
kwik
Summer sausage








Since: 5.9.02
From: Norwich, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.53
    Originally posted by It's False


    I'm curious to see if there are any Time Warner subscribers and how they're taking this news. I would imagine this would be as good a time as any to switch to a dish.


We have Time Warner, and to be honest, I hadn't even HEARD about this until I opened up the NY Post at lunch and saw an ad "Why is Dora crying?"

In the grand scheme of things, it's not gonna bother me too much, I only occasionally watch Comedy Central, and avoid MTV like the plague, but I wouldn't bank on a quick fix- We had Adelphia before they died and we got shifted over to Time Warner. That was a couple years ago, and thanks to the TW/NFL Network fight, I STILL have nothing on channel 22.



Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.55
All the shows I like that are getting wiped out by this are available online, so I don't care.
Oliver
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: #YEG

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.35
    Originally posted by KJames199
    WWE 24/7 is a good example of a standalone niche channel that's having a hard time getting and keeping an audience. I don't know what the most recent numbers are, but the last time I saw them in the Observer, they were scarily low. Throw it in a bundle with, say, Spike TV and The Fight Network, and you might attract more people.
I find that if the WWE's channel isn't finding an audience, at least here in Canada, it's because its not carried by the second largest Cableco, or the Dish services. I know its off topic, but if the cable monopoly where I live offered it, I'm sure I'd purchase it.

What really annoys me about this is that during Spike's programming today was a line under the picture saying that if someone's a TW subscriber, they'll be losing that station tonight; and there's a number to call to complain. Of course, I tried, and there really wasn't a way to contact an operator since I'm not a subscriber.



Unicow, unicow...he's a unicorn cow!
kwik
Summer sausage








Since: 5.9.02
From: Norwich, NY

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.53
Well, it's 12:13 AM in New York, and I can still see South Park, so we can deduce one of two things:

- Someone blinked, or
- 12:01 does not mean 12:01 Eastern. I'm not staying up until midnight, Alaskan time to find out though, it'll be a New Year's surprise when I wake up. (or it'll go off in the next half hour before I actually go to sleep, and that will be that)



Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 4.78
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: We have an Eleventh Doctor...
Next thread: RIP Jett Travolta
Previous thread: RIP Eartha Kitt
(2741 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I thought she was great at the end of last season's "Curb Your Enthuisiasm" in a small role.
- Wpob, RIP: Mrs. Robinson (2005)
Related threads: TV Ratings 12/22 - 12/28 - TV Ratings 12/15 - 12/21 - TV Ratings 12/8 - 12/14 - More...
The W - Movies & TV - Time Warner to cease carrying Viacom channels in 2009Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.354 seconds.