Well Cablevision customers, I hope you're not planning on watching the Oscars...

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 5:37pm

On Sunday March 7th ABC and all its network channels will be taken off of the cablevision line up.

That includes:
ABC
ABC Family
Disney Channel
ESPN
ESPN 2

Along with the Oscars the final season of Ugly Betty and the final season of Hannah Montana will not be able to be seen.


I personally am getting very annoyed with Cablevision, although, this time it doesn't seem to be their fault; ABC is asking $40 Million more a year.


Walt Disney Co's ABC network threatened on Monday to drop its programs from Cablevision in a dispute over fees, similar to an impasse between Fox and Time Warner Cable Inc that was resolved earlier this year.

ABC said it would begin running on-air messages to Cablevision subscribers from Monday night to warn them they may no longer have access to the station from Sunday, March 7.



Disney's ABC may drop from Cablevision over fees

Updated On: 3/3/10 at 05:37 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 6:23pm

I'm not familiar with Cablevision, but they charge fees for certain shows? How does that work?

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 6:27pm

No, Cablevision is one of many TV Carriers in America.

For the most part, you pay for a package and you get a certain number of channels. ABC is a major network which is included in just about every package but ABC has withdrawn themselves from Cablevision because they feel they are not being paid enough.

http://cablevision.com/

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 6:33pm

Ok, I think I misread part of that article. There seems to be some rather conflicting information:

"We can no longer sit back and allow Cablevision to use our shows for free while they continue to charge their customers for them," Rebecca S. Campbell, president and general manager of ABC's WABC-TV, said in a statement.

"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 programing that it offers today for free, both over-the-air and online," said Charles Schueler, executive vice president of communications and community relations at Cablevision.

What is Cablevision doing differently than any other cable companies?

[misschung]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 9:22pm

This is so annoying. And I'm sure we don't even know the actual reasons behind what's going on!

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 10:03pm

It hasn't been made clear to anyone what Cablevision has done, it seems ABC is personally attacking them demanding more money.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 10:18am

I do know at one point there was an FCC rule that said that there was a minimum of local channels that a cable provider had to air. However, I don't know if that is still in place now. If it is it would only allow ABC to air and none of their other channels.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 10:47am

But why is ABC targeting Cablevision? This does not add up.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 10:56am

I am a cablevision customer (have been my whole life) as it is the only regular cable station around (only other option is Satellite, or Fios when it is finally brought into your town). I pay each month for the IO package which includes the basic cable package, their standard package which includes the basic cable channels, all the regular cable channels (FX, We, Lifetime, TNT, USA, etc etc) and all the randoms (music channels, 19 different CNNS, etc)).

A few months ago they had a similar battle and we temporarily lost HGTV, Food Network and a few others, while they battled with Scripps (the channels parent company) over fees. After a week, all channels were returned and everyone was happy. Now it is ABC. In our area 2 - 13 is considered basic cable that pretty much anyone can get (CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC, UPN, CW, PBS). Any of their other channels (TnT, USA, FX, Abc Family, etc.) would be part of the expanded cable package (but this is the standard package that 99% of the customers subscribe too).

I really dont understand what ABC is saying in that I as the customer pay for other channels but not their's. I pay a flat price each month and get 200 channels. I've never had an option not to pay for any of those channels. It is either the basic cable pacakge, the standard package, or standard package + premium channels (HBO, SHO, etc.). You don't pick or choose what is in the standard package.

This is pretty much how any and all cable companies run (COMCAST, COX, etc) so I don't know why they are singling Cablevision out. It's all weird, but I am sick of the attack ads, and interruption to my paid service.

[blueroses]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:00am

"I really dont understand what ABC is saying in that I as the customer pay for other channels but not their's."

I think what they are saying is that Cablevision charges us--their subscribers--a basic fee of $18 just to receive the regular broadcast stations (including ABC7), but keeps all of the money and will not pay anything to ABC, while it pays other stations (including Sundance) in the lineup.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:04am

You should definitely have an option to receive your local broadcast channels for free via an antenna feed (yes, you'd need a digital converter for it which is fairly cheap now).

It's an FCC regulation, I believe. Cable and dish companies are not allowed to "make" you pay for something you can already get for free. So it's "optional" in their packages. You can agree to carry their local channels in a package via cable or dish ... OR you can use the "digital rabbit ears." But legally, it has to be offered as a choice.

I would look into it, if I were you.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:08am

Don't worry about this. When my 4 yr old granddaughter learned that her favorite cable channel, The Food Network, had been taken off Cablevision, she had me call the company and she chewed they out royally. Within two days of her call, The Food Network was back on the air. We like to think it was her call that tipped the boat.

She likes the Disney Channel and watches "Dancing With The Stars" so I'm sure she'll be making another phone call. She'll straighten things out.

I'm beginning to thing that if this little girl worked at the UN, we'd have world peace.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:19am

The problem is that the broadcast networks have always been "free" to consumers. They made their money by advertising and sponsors, not by charging the consumers for receiving their channels.

Then along comes cable, and dish, and digital, and all those extended channels that DO charge customers for receiving their signals, AND they also have the sponsors and ads. (Except for some of the movie channels, like TCM, and of course the premium channels, like HBO.)

At first, it wasn't that big of a deal to the networks, because viewership of these cable channels was comparatively small. Not true anymore.

Cable channels receive much larger viewerships now. They are making terrific money from sponsors, ads, AND from viewers who subscribe to a package.

The networks are growing pissed about it. They don't feel they should be forced to give their broadcasts away "for free" anymore, despite having tons of ads and sponsors. They want to make you pay to subscribe, just like the extended channels do.

I'm not sure where this is going ... but I'm guessing that the "network system" as we know it, will eventually go away. As soon as they decide to relinquish their free broadcasts (aka "rabbit ears").

I kinda think that will cause a very strange cultural divide in this country, if it happens. There are many people now who have TVs, but don't have cable or "pay service" of any kind. They just have the free broadcast channels (and local PBS). It's a much larger population than you probably think. Usually the lower income households, but not always.

Take that away, you'll have millions of people back to listening to the radio again, while others who think that EVERYONE watches what they watch, and EVERYONE is on the Internet, and texting, and downloading, will be in for a big surprise when they see a huge divide happening in our country.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:36am

So essentially ABC wants to get paid twice--by their ad sponsors and by the cable companies, right?

[winston89]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:44am

Yeah, that is basically it. Also, one thing I have noticed is that Cablevision is acting as if ABC is it's own company rather then being owned by Disney.

Furthermore, When I turn on my TV, my cable box brings me directly to a channel that shows Cablevision's PSA that they are showing to drum up support for them.

Normally, when I turn my TV and cablebox on it goes to whatever channel it was last turned to. Now I always get the PSA when I turn on my TV. Funny enough, it didn't happen during their battle with Scripps over Food Network and HGTV.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:46am

Yes, Reggie ... just like all the cable channels already get paid twice.

The difference is that the ad dollars for cable channels aren't nearly as good as the ad dollars for networks.

Again, because the networks (presumably) reach a much wider audience. They include non-subscribers with those "digital rabbit ears." (they're still in the millions, too.)

Basically, they want to keep their "network" AND get paid by cable/dish companies just like a cable channel. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:52am

The real problem is that network viewership is down. It's been on a steady decline for decades. So they can't charge their advertisers the same fees anymore. And they aren't getting anything from cable/dish companies.

They're also pissed that these cable/dish companies charge consumers a nominal fee for providing the "optional" signals of their channels. I think mine is like $5.99 per month, but it includes the HD versions of each network channel.

They don't get any of that money. Again, that fee is "optional" per FCC regulations. You don't HAVE to get your local channels through them. You can do "digital rabbit ears."

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 1:35pm

My question is: Why Cablevision? Are all the other cable companies just willing to pay the fees to ABC and not put up a fight? Did Cablevision cause a stir because they are in financial trouble and decided to take the battle to the media to draw up support and sympathy? I feel like there is a big piece missing from the middle of this puzzle.

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 3:22pm

Last time though, Cablevision was at fault, not Scripps. ABC is at fault this time around, not Cablevision.

[bdwaygirl]

Posted: 3/5/10 at 10:11pm

It's in Iger's hands now.

http://tinyurl.com/yank9n7

[Magdalene]

Posted: 3/5/10 at 10:25pm

Cable companies pay fees based on number of subscribers---for example, when MTV was huge 20 years ago, Viacom set their fee at, say, 50 cents a subscriber---but if you want MTV, you also have to take VH1, XYZ, QQQ, etc at 5 cents per subscriber (not actual figures, but just to give you an idea of what goes on) This enables a company like Viacom to get an outlet for less popular channels. I think ESPN is up to 4.50 per subscriber now, or something like that. But commercial time is much less expensive on cable shows---or was.

On the flipside, networks made massive amounts of money (and still make a hefty chunk of change) from commercials (how much did a Superbowl 30 second spot go for?), but that revenue is dropping---or in the case of NBC after The failed Leno experiment, free fall---so they are trying to make up the difference elsewhere, by following the cable model.

The bundling of channels owned by one conglomerate is one reason you won't see an ala carte menu for cable anytime soon.

[bdwaygirl]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 12:30am

They did it. ABC was a black screen for about 25 minutes. Now Cablevision put up a srolling explanation for their side and apologizing for ABC's actions".

ETA: They've added a voice over.

Updated On: 3/7/10 at 12:30 AM

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 12:56am

I heard a really nasty commercial from Cablevision about ABC being greedy and using a TV tax to supplement their failing theme parks and high paid executives. I mean, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seemed very unprofessional.

[blueroses]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 8:59am

I wonder if we will be able to watch the Oscar broadcast live and streaming online.

[misschung]

Posted: 3/7/10 at 9:17am

That's f-ed up of them. Really, really wrong.