# TWC might drop FOX?



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I saw this  commercial on FOX, which got me searching and I found this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...ox_programming_like_american_idol_and_nf.html

The way I read it, TWC has to pay FOX to use its programming on their system? 
So it sounds like the dispute is FOX wants to up the costs, so TWC either has to drop the channel or charge the customers more.
Is there a third option? I think they should go ahead and pay and NOT charge the customers more. 


the article said:


> "Negotiations are ongoing, but Fox's current demands are unreasonable and excessive especially in this economic climate," said Time Warner Cable spokeswoman Maureen Huff.


For some reason, I now want to look for that crying smiley...ahh, here's one.








Why should TWC be excused from feeling the pinch?
I don't know what FOX's demands are, but I have a feeling that cable companies have plenty of money. Am I wrong?


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Cable companies have 'plenty of money'? I don't know...

But apparently Fox is attempting to charge them more than TWC thinks is fair.

TWC isn't dropping fox, they just aren't willing to pay what Fox is demanding. Presumably they will reach an agreement at some pont.

if that's not acceptable, cancel and go to satellite.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Adam1115 said:


> if that's not acceptable, cancel and go to satellite.


FTR, I wouldn't be affected by this (OTA only). However, I am interested in the opinions of those who ARE affected by this.
Being a non cable subscriber, I'm just outside looking in.
So, TWC hasn't informed its subscribers that they _might _drop FOX?
That's the impression I got from the FOX commercial.


----------



## dwgsp (Aug 28, 2005)

This is normal business in the cable industry. At the start of contract negotiations the channel providers almost always want to raise their fees by a large amount, and the cable companies almost always refuse to agree to any increase. But when it gets down to the wire, the two parties almost always reach an agreement. This is especially true when it's players like FOX and TWC, who both have a lot to lose if they don't renew the contract.


----------



## Sherminator (Nov 24, 2004)

This happens quite a lot (Viacom have tried it on with Comcast that I know of).

TWC is using brinkmanship get FOX to back down and/or prepare their customers for a rate hike to cover the increased costs of carrying FOX.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Sherminator said:


> ...or prepare their customers for a rate hike to cover the increased costs of carrying FOX.


So, if it became a stalemate, TWC would charge customers more instead of dropping FOX?
That's kind of what I want to know. As a customer, would you be more outraged at a price increase or losing the FOX programming?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I wish there was a way that we could separate the delivery system from the content provider... more like an internet model: Subscribe to the channels or programs you want. Subscribe to a pipe to get them delivered.


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

I definitely agree, but at the same time I don't know if it would be feasible. Would you pay the network that aired the shows normally or would you pay the studio that produces the show? Would it be a small monthly unlimited fee for all shows of a network or would it cost per show?

I would happily replace my cable company with a legal torrent provider that carried every show/special with unlimited access. You could even gain credits based off your ratio so it would benefit you to seed more. You could even have the more popular shows worth more for the initial seed and older content worth more when seeds are needed.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Station I work for has been pulled from both DirecTV and DishNetwork sometime during my tenure there,
it usually lasts a couple days is all before they come to an agreement.

It's usually the owner of the local station that has the dispute with the provider, not the Network.

In my case, it was CBS Owned and Operated stations that had the beef, not CBS itself.

Also seems every other year or so there are threats of pulling the station from the lineup, but it's only gone as far as the actually pulling once each.


phox


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

This is a channel that's already free OTA. The cable company benefits from carrying it, but the channel also benefits from having their ads seen by a wider audience. So it's not really clear to me why the cable company should pay anything in the first place. But yeah, they're rolling in money, and could easily eat the increase. But then, what if every channel did it?

This is one of those cases where I wish there were a way for both sides to lose.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Retransmission Fees will replace lots of revenue that broadcasters will eventually lose, as advertisers realize that they've been raped for years, getting far less value from their advertising than they've been paying.

All the networks affiliates will be doing it.

Yes, it will increase your cable costs.

That's life.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dswallow said:


> I wish there was a way that we could separate the delivery system from the content provider... more like an internet model: Subscribe to the channels or programs you want. Subscribe to a pipe to get them delivered.


as long as everyone agrees to pay for the shows I like so my costs are spread out over everybody like now then I am good with that


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

ZeoTiVo said:


> as long as everyone agrees to pay for the shows I like so my costs are spread out over everybody like now then I am good with that


Nothing would stop anybody from making package deals with different programming providers. But that just wouldn't be the only way or the only source to buy access to those channels or programs.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dswallow said:


> Nothing would stop anybody from making package deals with different programming providers. But that just wouldn't be the only way or the only source to buy access to those channels or programs.


I like the idea of new and different ways to get the programs I want but really, if say ESPN started selling access directly do you think it would have no effect on cable or DBS broadcasters and the deals they make to carry ESPN.


----------



## convergent (Jan 4, 2007)

To me, this is nothing more than two big companies trying to increase their profits and I am perfectly fine with them increasing their profits as long as they don't end up holding the customers hostage to do it. I am getting more and more fed up with Time Warner with each day I use their service. They are really going out of their way in many cases to do things that are highly annoying to their customers, but yet don't seem to really benefit them in any way. (I'm sure bicker will be here soon to explain why I'm wrong) 

The other thing that I'm really wondering on this one is that Fox is the one news network that doesn't march to the beat of the drum that all the other news organizations seem to follow. Time is part of Time Warner, I assume. I got a free subscription to that for some unused airline miles and after reading through a few editions, I'm tempted to cancel my free subscription. But I digress. I am wondering if Time Warner is trying to damage Fox News. I can easily get the Fox channel over the air and not really care if Time Warner drops it from the cable lineup, but Fox News and Fox Sports would be a different story altogether.... no over the air for them.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

As said before, this is TWC's way of pretending to be the "good cop" in this game of "good cop/bad cop". Fact is, neither of them are "good"... they're both angling to raise your rates for one reason or another. I won't get into the argument of "why" as this is irrelevant, but it really annoys me when they do this to make it seem like they're on your side... they aren't and I am sure they would be more than happy to take more money from you for one reason or another. They are a business, after all... they are not your "friends".

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/11/26/time-warner-cable-seeks-customer-sympathy-assistance

Fact is, what we users should be doing is angling for line-sharing to return to the US... that will help foster competition, and force the carriers (TWC, Comcrap, etc) to work harder to reduce rates, which will also force the networks to drop prices as well.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

schwinn said:


> As said before, this is TWC's way of pretending to be the "good cop" in this game of "good cop/bad cop". Fact is, neither of them are "good"... they're both angling to raise your rates for one reason or another. I won't get into the argument of "why" as this is irrelevant, but it really annoys me when they do this to make it seem like they're on your side... they aren't and I am sure they would be more than happy to take more money from you for one reason or another. They are a business, after all... they are not your "friends".
> 
> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/11/26/time-warner-cable-seeks-customer-sympathy-assistance
> 
> Fact is, what we users should be doing is angling for line-sharing to return to the US... that will help foster competition, and force the carriers (TWC, Comcrap, etc) to work harder to reduce rates, which will also force the networks to drop prices as well.


TWC spun the story about the NFL channel the same way. NFL wanted the channel included in the basic package so everyone would have access to it. TWC wanted to put it in a sports tier so they could charge more for it. The reality is that both of them wanted to make money on it at the expense of the other.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

schwinn said:


> Fact is, neither of them are "good"...


Or they both are, but just "good" to their owners as they are obligated to be.



schwinn said:


> they're both angling to raise your rates for one reason or another.


The rates are going to be the rates no matter what: Limited basic (including Fox, by the way) will cost some amount which the franchising authority will agree is fair, even if that means offering that level of service at a loss; while advanced service offerings will reflect full value, regardless of cost. The only question here is how much of the money will stay with the service provider, versus how much will be "shared" with the folks who are in many ways responsible for much of the value that the service provider is able to provide.

It just occurred to me... we really should try to correlate the price of limited basic with the extent to which subscribers could receive those channels with an antenna. I suspect the closer to the transmitters, the less limited basic costs, i.e., the more likely that it will be offered at a loss. Reflexively, I suspect retransmission fees, if negotiated town by town, would have reflected the same.



schwinn said:


> I won't get into the argument of "why" as this is irrelevant, but it really annoys me when they do this to make it seem like they're on your side...


Everyone traffics in manipulation of public opinion. 99% of the messages advocating things that are advantageous to TiVo owners, posted in these forums, are little more than the same darned thing, just tilted in the opposite direction.



schwinn said:


> Fact is, what we users should be doing...


Keep in mind that some of us users are folks saving for retirement.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Is it really just FOX or is it the bundle News corp. channels they are negotiating? It wouldn't surprise me if they were trying get wide carriage of their new business news channel as part of the deal.

I get the local Fox affiliate via antenna, if they took it off the cable all I'd lose is the daily Simpson's reruns (recorded on analog cable to save space).


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

convergent said:


> The other thing that I'm really wondering on this one is that Fox is the one news network that doesn't march to the beat of the drum that all the other news organizations seem to follow.






> _I am wondering if Time Warner is trying to damage Fox News._


Please come out of Glenn Beck paranoid fantasy land, and join us here in the real world. Time Warner certainly has it in for Fox, in the sense and to the extent that they're business rivals, but that's it. Time Warner is hardly a bastion of liberals, and if you think it is, you're cracked.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Aren't OTA stations "must carry" channels for cable companies?

If so, how exactly can TWC drop a "must carry" station like FOX?
Also how can FOX charge TWC if it's a "must carry" station?


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

morac said:


> Aren't OTA stations "must carry" channels for cable companies?
> 
> If so, how exactly can TWC drop a "must carry" station like FOX?
> Also how can FOX charge TWC if it's a "must carry" station?


A TV station acquiring cable presence via the must carry rule can't demand payment for the privilege. They can elect to use another set of rules for re-transmission agreements to get paid by the cable company carrying their programming.

Must carry is for small independent stations that the cable companies normally wouldn't want to carry.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

I think someone else already mentioned this, but I think this negotiation includes other channels, not just the OTA channel.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

vman41 said:


> A TV station acquiring cable presence via the must carry rule can't demand payment for the privilege. They can elect to use another set of rules for re-transmission agreements to get paid by the cable company carrying their programming.
> 
> Must carry is for small independent stations that the cable companies normally wouldn't want to carry.


Absolutely correct. There is a *choice* between "Must Carry" and "Retransmission Consent" -- and the *broadcaster* gets to make the choice.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Does this include the national Fox news channel?


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

bicker said:


> Keep in mind that some of us users are folks saving for retirement.


That doesn't mean you can't write to the FCC or your congressperson to help get this to happen. I'm saving for retirement too (isn't almost everyone?)... so that statement is rather pointless.

The point is, when there's competition, we consumers get better products, more choices, and better pricing. The cable companies have twisted reality, and the FCC has bought their arguments... now that studies are showing that our broadband is a crappy value (compared to other countries) and the cablecos are to blame, and now that the FCC is looking at line-sharing again, we have a chance to make this happen... for the benefit of all consumers.

What does "saving for retirement" have to do with that?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

schwinn said:


> I'm saving for retirement too (isn't almost everyone?)... so that statement is rather pointless.


No. It is only "pointless" if you ignore the obvious implication: Things that are one-sided consumerist work against profits, which works against retirement investment gains.

And you're right that many are saving for retirement, and so that makes the maniacal support I see, way too often, for one-sided consumerist perspective, utterly bewildering.



schwinn said:


> The point is, when there's competition, we consumers get better products, more choices, and better pricing.


Competition means lots of companies building networks and providing service; *not* one company investing millions upon millions and then getting raped by a socialist government action so that other companies can pretend to compete by essentially taking and using facilities build with the investment money from owners of the one company, without that company earning the profits that are attributable to their investment.



schwinn said:


> The cable companies have twisted reality, and the FCC has bought their arguments...


Sorry, but I think you're twisting reality. So let's just say that reasonable people disagree, and accept that the FCC believe the reasonable people who disagree with you more than they believe the reasonable people who agree with you.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

One company investing millions and millions? I think not. In my area (suburb/rural) there has been no improvement in infrastructure for years. The analog quality is absolute crap. Even the outsourced techs who used to visit the house would say how horrible my picture quality was, and that I should complain. Well, I have complained, and have been complaining... the quality is just crap, because they don't spend anything on the systems here. So don't give me the "millions of dollars" line, because it's not true.

What's more, because there is no competition in my area (can't get DSL/FIOS, again because of crappy existing infrastructure), and have no LOS for satellite, the cablecos specifically leave rates high in this area, while in neighboring towns, where there is competition, the prices drop. How do you explain that?

This isn't the early 80s where the infrastructure is still being developed... cable lines are already all layed out (crappy as they are) and there is no incentive to fix them since there's no competition. Bring back linesharing (as some of those neighboring towns have, as I mentioned) and the prices go down, and competition exists.

The FCC doesn't disagree with this... their own studies (recently completed) show that line sharing is the best way to foster competition and improve service. The reason this hasn't happened before is because the previous chairman was not interested in real data to make decisions... now that the new guy sees this, there is hope and evidence to show it.

Take a look at the FCC's documents, and see that there is nothing unreasonable about competition... I can't imagine why you'd think otherwise.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

schwinn said:


> One company investing millions and millions? I think not.


You're mistaken.


----------



## SorenTodd (May 26, 2009)

I switched to FIOS (from TWC) earlier this year, and have not looked back. Better pricing, better channel selection, and better VOD.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Isn't their some law that requires cable companies to carry all the local broadcast channels and prevents those channels from charging them for doing so? I'm pretty sure there is.

Which means that if something falls through here you probably wont lose your local FOX affiliate, you'll just lose the FOX owned cable networks like FX, Fox News, etc...

Dan


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

morac said:


> Aren't OTA stations "must carry" channels for cable companies?
> 
> If so, how exactly can TWC drop a "must carry" station like FOX?
> Also how can FOX charge TWC if it's a "must carry" station?





vman41 said:


> A TV station acquiring cable presence via the must carry rule can't demand payment for the privilege. They can elect to use another set of rules for re-transmission agreements to get paid by the cable company carrying their programming.
> 
> Must carry is for small independent stations that the cable companies normally wouldn't want to carry.





Dan203 said:


> Isn't their some law that requires cable companies to carry all the local broadcast channels and prevents those channels from charging them for doing so? I'm pretty sure there is.
> Dan


Isn't there a law banning smeeking? If not there should be.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Isn't their some law that requires cable companies to carry all the local broadcast channels and prevents those channels from charging them for doing so? I'm pretty sure there is.


No, that's not what the law says. As I mentioned earlier, there is a choice between "Must Carry" and "Retransmission Consent" -- and the *broadcaster *gets to make the choice.

There is also a law that, in the case where the broadcaster selects "Retransmission Consent", the service provider is still required to provide the channel on the most basic tier of service, yes, even though they're paying the broadcaster.

However, there is also the possibility that the broadcaster and the service provider will *not* reach accord, and the broadcast channel will no longer be provided by the service provider.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Seems to me there's a lot of smeeking going on here. Maybe they should pass a law against it?


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> However, there is also the possibility that the broadcaster and the service provider will *not* reach accord, and the broadcast channel will no longer be provided by the service provider.


I guess that explains why one of the local PBS stations near me has ads that state you can only watch it on Comcast, not on FIOS or Satellite. I wonder how much an exclusive contract costs?


----------



## jfelbab (Jan 18, 2002)

Not just FOX. The A$$HATS at TW are trying to squeeze out more profit at the risk of losing it's consumers. They are trying their best to make the networks the bad guys. I'm not buying it.



> Time Warner Cable's agreements with programmers to carry their services routinely expire. We are usually able to obtain renewals or extensions of such agreements, and carriage of programming services is discontinued only in rare circumstances. The following agreements with programmers are due to expire soon, and we may be required to cease carriage of one or more of these services in the near future: E!, Style, GAC, Lifetime, Weather channel, Encore channels, TEN, Food Network, Fox Reality, Fox Soccer, Fox Sports Espanol, Fuel, FX, Speed, Retroplex, Starz! channels, TruTV, WFLD.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jfelbab said:


> I'm not buying it.


I think part of the points made earlier was that each of us can choose to believe one side or the other, based on our own preconceived notions of goodness or badness. However, the reality is that both sides are businesses, each doing what they're supposed to, in this case promoting the best interests of their owners. There is no right or wrong, here. What's going on is provided for, explicitly, by the law, and the resolution will be arrived at as many business negotiations are arrived at, perhaps even resulting in the channel not being carried on the service provider for an extended period of time -- something which is clearly provided for by the law.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> I think part of the points made earlier was that each of us can choose to believe one side or the other, based on our own preconceived notions of goodness or badness. However, the reality is that both sides are businesses, each doing what they're supposed to, in this case promoting the best interests of their owners. There is no right or wrong, here. What's going on is provided for, explicitly, by the law, and the resolution will be arrived at as many business negotiations are arrived at, perhaps even resulting in the channel not being carried on the service provider for an extended period of time -- something which is clearly provided for by the law.


Bicker I have to give you a :up::up::up:for this post.

On a side note if anyone really believes their SAT/Cable/FIOS provider is making excessive profits I recommend you buy their stock and let your "investment" pay your SAT/Cable/FIOS bill .

Thanks,


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

bicker said:


> You're mistaken.


Nice complete response. 

So what you're implying is that we should all be happy with the service we get, and we shouldn't have linesharing to improve competition?


----------



## jfelbab (Jan 18, 2002)

I don't believe I alluded to any illegality being done. I dislike being used as a pawn in their game. I've made it clear to them, in writing, that if I lose my most watched channels, I would have no need to continue with their service. 

If the price went up, I'd complain. If I lost my most watched channel(s), I'd leave in the blink of an eye.

They are a carrier. There are several to choose from. They are not very good at what the do in my area and it would not take much to motivate me to leave them. In as much as TW is a month-to-month service, I have begun to explore alternatives should they screw this up. I may just leave if I find a better provider. I wonder if they have worked customer loss into their "Get Tough" program calculations. I probably would not have even taken the time to look at the competition had they not started playing this game. I doubt I am alone in this.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

schwinn said:


> Nice complete response.
> 
> So what you're implying is that we should all be happy with the service we get, and we shouldn't have linesharing to improve competition?


You should be happy with the service *that you choose* to get. If you're not happy with it, choose something different.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

TWC just informed me that some of the channels I've been getting (just a few of them though) through analog are moving to digital only, and if I want to get them, I have get a digital box or a cable card for my TiVo.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

schwinn said:


> So what you're implying is that we should all be happy with the service we get, and we shouldn't have linesharing to improve competition?





orangeboy said:


> You should be happy with the service *that you choose* to get. If you're not happy with it, choose something different.


And here is the point where the argument starts going in circles.

The next statement would go: 
I can't choose something different. I only have one cable provider and satellite is out of the question because I can't get a signal.​
And the response is usually:
Well, you should move then.​
Which IMO, is a cop-out. One shouldn't have to move in order to get satisfactory service.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

^ +1

I can tell you that my local cable co has not spent "millions of dollars" upgrading the lines in my area. They only fix what's broken, and that's it. So, if the infrastructure is already there, and they are not paying to upgrade it, then why shouldn't they share it?

What's more, no one said that the sharing has to be done in a way that costs the owning-cableco more money. They can simply show what they are spending, and price accordingly... so that other companies can come in and provide service as well. This costs the incumbent cableco nothing more, other than the threat of competition.

Any argument against such a scenario is implying that the incumbent should most-certainly have a monopoly on the service in an area, just because they ran the wires... many years ago.

What's more, it's been shown here and overseas that whenever there IS sharing, the existing companies continue to survive and make money, but have to provide better pricing, instead of (implicity) gouging their customers. Such systems don't kill the incumbent... they just have to get off their butts and provide better service.

The argument has already been repeated many times in the past, most recently with the telephone line sharing. Remember when the telcos said this would kill them? So, are AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth "dead"? Heck, they were split apart and now have grown back to their huge sizes before the breakups... and we have very low-cost long distance service to show for it. What's wrong with that?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

steve614 said:


> And here is the point where the argument starts going in circles.
> 
> The next statement would go:
> I can't choose something different. I only have one cable provider and satellite is out of the question because I can't get a signal.​
> ...


You can always choose something different (which includes no cable/SAT at all).

Cable TV is ultimately at best entertainment and at worst an unhealthy addiction. No one should continue to pay of an optional and unnecessary service that they consider to be poor and/or over priced. Anyone who does so deserves what they get.

I lived 40+ years of my 50+ years with access to only 4-6 channels including several years without access to TV at all. My life is not any better now that I have access to 100+ channels - it is just easier for me to be lazy and sit my fat a** in front of the TV instead of doing something that might actually be productive.

Thanks,


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Does anyone get the subtle hint (apart from the obvious hints) that the fox commercial is telling you to get FiOS if you want to keep Fox?

Listen to the music in the commercial and listen to the music in a FiOS commercial...


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

timckelley said:


> TWC just informed me that some of the channels I've been getting (just a few of them though) through analog are moving to digital only, and if I want to get them, I have get a digital box or a cable card for my TiVo.


Or you could get a Series 3 and Cablecard.


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Raj said:


> Or you could get a Series 3 and Cablecard.


I do have a TiVoHD already, but no cable card in it. I wonder if there's a monthly fee to have a cable card. I wouldn't be surprised if there is.

But the bigger problems is that 2 of my 3 TiVos, all lifetimed, are S2's, so I can't put a cable card in those. I could go digital, but my monthly fees would go up, plus I'd have to find a way to get those S2's to communicate to the boxes I'd be forced to get if I go digital.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

timckelley said:


> plus I'd have to find a way to get those S2's to communicate to the boxes I'd be forced to get if I go digital.


Really not a big deal. It does make channel changing a little slower and less reliable, though.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

schwinn said:


> I can tell you that my local cable co has not spent "millions of dollars" upgrading the lines in my area.


That's almost surely untrue. When was the CATV system in your area built? If the answer is, "More than 15 years ago", then unless you live in a very small community, they have spent a great deal of money upgrading the CATV system in your area. Fifteen years ago, only the very newest systems were 750 MHz, and now almost all CATV systems are 750MHz. At the time, the fiber penetration for most systems was zero or at best more than 2000 homes. Now most are in the 400 - 500 home range for fiber penetration.



schwinn said:


> They only fix what's broken, and that's it. So, if the infrastructure is already there, and they are not paying to upgrade it, then why shouldn't they share it?


There are a number of reasons, but at or near the top of the list is the fact they have not yet made back their investment. CATV systems have extremely long investment cycles, and most don't pay off their initial capital expenditures for nearly 20 years. By the time they do pay them off, they are generally faced with additional significant investments.



schwinn said:


> What's more, no one said that the sharing has to be done in a way that costs the owning-cableco more money. They can simply show what they are spending, and price accordingly... so that other companies can come in and provide service as well. This costs the incumbent cableco nothing more, other than the threat of competition.


How do you suggest - physically - that this sharing be done? Please explain it to me.



schwinn said:


> Any argument against such a scenario is implying that the incumbent should most-certainly have a monopoly on the service in an area, just because they ran the wires... many years ago.


CATV systems do not use "wires".



schwinn said:


> What's more, it's been shown here and overseas that whenever there IS sharing, the existing companies continue to survive and make money, but have to provide better pricing, instead of (implicity) gouging their customers. Such systems don't kill the incumbent... they just have to get off their butts and provide better service.


Please point to a specific example.



schwinn said:


> The argument has already been repeated many times in the past, most recently with the telephone line sharing.


That's a completely different scenario. With telephone service, each residence has at least one copper pair dedicated to delivering their service going all the way back to the Central Office. With a CATV system, the only thing dedicated is the cable drop from the pole / pedestal to the house.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

I don't know exactly when the cable lines in my area were run. But, I can tell you that it is run by "wires"... I can see the tap on the streetpole across my street, and the amplifier that's dangling there, and the coax line that runs to my house from there. There is no fiber on that pole. I have watched them strip wires/connectors up there, so I know this to be true. Besides which, in the past, whenever there was heavy rain, the signal would get crappy until their connections dried out... they finally fixed the leak, wherever it was.

I have also never seen a fiber rollout truck in the area, though I have seen many fiber trucks laying down lines for Verizon...

Your implication that the CATV provider is "losing money" because of their infrastructure upgrades is total BS. Just look at their income sheets. Do you think they are losing money because of all these upgrades? I think not. They are certainly doing upgrades in the head-end - my crappy picture and vertical-interlacing problem are evidence of this, along with the HD signals. But that doesn't mean they are doing anything new with the wires.

As for the proof of competition, take a look a this page: http://www.wewantchoice.com/content/pages/competition_cuts_costs

I simply searched for the terms, and found numerous links for specific studies. Although this webpage is probably biased, they provide plenty of references to the actual studies, so if you don't want to believe the statements on that page, you are welcome to read through the numerous studies referenced.

As for CATV sharing, there are obviously existing systems available for this - evidenced by the towns/cities that have numerous providers. I don't know the details, but I know it's possible. Besides which, with the digital-cable transition, there is less excuse to not have the ability to line-share.

EDIT: I noticed that the former link may not have specific links to areas with multiple cable TV providers... a simple search can yield a few, but here is one example of a study in such an area: http://www.questia.com/googleSchola...MqHpw3TN!-1701840445!155297779?docId=95822567

In addition, I believe RCN is a cable company (primarily in cities) is a shared-line company - ie, they share existing lines, as my friends in those areas have the choice between Comcast and RCN for cable...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

RCN does not share cable lines with anyone, here in Burlington. What they "share" is *conduit*, specifically with the electrical utility.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2007)

lrhorer said:


> That's a completely different scenario. With telephone service, each residence has at least one copper pair dedicated to delivering their service going all the way back to the Central Office. With a CATV system, the only thing dedicated is the cable drop from the pole / pedestal to the house.


Are you sure about that? I thought that nowadays the copper only went to a local concentrator, and from there back to the central office everything ran over optical circuits.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Are you sure about that? I thought that nowadays the copper only went to a local concentrator, and from there back to the central office everything ran over optical circuits.


I believe that is how the phone service works in my area - they installed lots of fiber to the sub-stations a few years back at the same time that DSL became more widely available.

Thanks,


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Are you sure about that? I thought that nowadays the copper only went to a local concentrator, and from there back to the central office everything ran over optical circuits.





atmuscarella said:


> I believe that is how the phone service works in my area - they installed lots of fiber to the sub-stations a few years back at the same time that DSL became more widely available.


The fiber is still mostly for the new installs of Video/IP products like FIOS and UVerse, although you're right that before that there was a push to install fiber to DSLAMs to make DSL available to a wider area. The difference being that the video feeds had to be even closer to the premises. Closer = higher maximum bandwidth.

The old stuff still has pairs going all the way to the Central Office.

The telcos actually replaced all the copper not real long ago - within 10 years. They put in new cables with a smaller gauge to replace the heavy stuff from roaring 20's and later. They also installed a lot more pairs which we're way overdue. It turned out that they got enough money from the salvage of the copper to pay for the upgrade!


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

bicker: Understood - I was under the impression it was line-sharing of some sort, for the last-mile infrastructure.

Still, especially now that we are headed to digital channels, that's not to say something like that cannot be done. I am sure the technology can catch up with the demand if such as system is required. Whether it's sharing a subset of the full bandwidth, or providing switches at a central box somewhere ([email protected] and atmuscarella have described of the DSL systems). I know that DSL doesn't have the bandwidth of cable, but again, the technical issues are not the problem here... I am sure this technical problem can be solved, whether it's with a brute-force fiber-switch type setup, or whatever.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

schwinn said:


> I don't know exactly when the cable lines in my area were run. But, I can tell you that it is run by "wires"... I can see the tap on the streetpole across my street, and the amplifier that's dangling there, and the coax line that runs to my house from there. There is no fiber on that pole.


Generally speaking, there won't be. Typically a fiber node feeds anywhere between 400 and 1000 homes. An amplifier may feed 50 homes or so.



schwinn said:


> I have watched them strip wires/connectors up there, so I know this to be true.


Connections on the coaxial distribution plant are effected once, and then never again unless a component is replaced. Nothing is "stripped". Most CATV companies these days employ .500" aluminum coax for feeder lines and .750" or .875" coax for trunk lines. Whatever the case, however, the aluminum coax is semi-rigid, and to cut in a connector, a plumber's tubing cutter is used to score and separate a section of the outer conductor. The protrucing dialectric is peeled away and then a coring tool is used to remove a section of the dialectric back down inside the outer conductor, allowing the connector to slide down onto the cable. A pair of wrenches are then used to tighten the connector.



schwinn said:


> Besides which, in the past, whenever there was heavy rain, the signal would get crappy until their connections dried out... they finally fixed the leak, wherever it was.


The o-rings in a connector can fail, yes, especially if the connector is improperly installed. Even more likely, the seal on a tap or amplifier housing may fail. I have seen many, many taps, directional couplers, and amplifiers filled with water. It happens.



schwinn said:


> I have also never seen a fiber rollout truck in the area, though I have seen many fiber trucks laying down lines for Verizon...


Typically, you wouldn't very often. Fiber requires very little maintenance, and the CATV topology remains fixed over long periods of time. Verizon, OTOH, takes fiber all the way to the house, so they must be continuously running fiber drops and splicing fibers. What's more, it is entirely possible your CATV company employs contractors to handle their fiber deployment, in which case the trucks would not be marked with the CATV company's logo. We do have our own splice vans, and so do both of the local CATV companies, but we don't do any of our own fiber construction, and neither does one ofteh CATV companies. The other does some of their own construction, but they, too, farm out most of their construction to one or other of the same three contractors we use. It's possible that your CATV company has not installed fiber nodes, but not likely. The drive to do so started 20 years ago.



schwinn said:


> Your implication that the CATV provider is "losing money" because of their infrastructure upgrades is total BS.


I never suggested they are losing money. The bank which holds the mortgage on my house is not losing money, either - at least not on me. It will, however, be 30 years before the note is paid off. They won't be making any actual profit on the note for more than 25 years, at which point I will have paid them back an amount equal to the original note. The last 5 years will be pure profit, but if I were to default on the loan any time prior to the 25 year mark, then (ignoring the fact they would still own and could then sell my house) they would have lost money on the transaction, the fact I pay them on the order of $1000 a month notwithstanding. Revenue is *NOT* the same as profit.



schwinn said:


> Just look at their income sheets. Do you think they are losing money because of all these upgrades? I think not.


Of course not. If they thought they would be losing money, they wouldn't invest it. Their revenues are gargantuan. It doesn't matter how gargantuan the revenue is, however, it takes time to recover the principal of an investment. We have customers who pay us well in excess of $100,000 a month, but the servicing of whom required an investment of $2,000,000 or more up front. Despite their paying us over a million dollars a year, we still will not make any money on their deals for over 2 years. If one of these customers happen to go bankrupt in 8 months or so, we take a monumental bath. CATV companies, OTOH, rely not upon customers who provide large monthly payments, but upon tens or hundreds of thousands of customers each paying a small amount every month. The principal (no pun intended) is the same, however. An investment is made, and then over time the revenues generated by the investment overtake the original monetary outlay and result in profits.



schwinn said:


> They are certainly doing upgrades in the head-end - my crappy picture and vertical-interlacing problem


"Vertical interlacing problem"? The vertical interlace is a fixed attribute of the video signal. It is time based, and cannot be modified or suffer interference. Certainly nothing the headend can do will modify it. To get back to the point, however, the fact you are unaware of what upgrades are done does not mean they have not been done. There is nothing particularly wrong with being ignorant of something. We are all ignorant in many areas depending upon our own experiences. It does not serve a person well, however, to parade around one's ignorance. I am not going to delve into a full blown course on CATV engineering at this venture, but an upgrade to a CATV system requires a great deal of work and money. Headend equipment has to be upgraded, and it is anything but cheap. Transport systems have to be upgraded, and they are also not cheap. Biggest of all, the line equipment has to be replaced. In some cases, the taps and directional couplers - perhaps hundreds of thousands of them at $50 each plus about $150 labor - may need to be replaced. What's worse, the amplifiers not only have to be replaced, but they have to be moved, because the amplifier spacing is different at 450 MHz, 550 MHz, 750 MHz, and 1000 MHz. In a typical large city, there may be 4000 or more amplifiers. A trunk amp costs in excess of $7000, and a line extender can cost over $3000. Removing an old amplifier and re-splicing the plant at the location costs about $800, and installing the new amp at a new location costs about $500. Some of the coax will have to be extened or re-run, and the plant must be completely re-engineered.



schwinn said:


> As for the proof of competition, take a look a this page: http://www.wewantchoice.com/content/pages/competition_cuts_costs
> 
> I simply searched for the terms, and found numerous links for specific studies.


I'm not going to bother to get into this discussion at this point. It's not relevant to the question of how long it takes the CATV company to recoup their capital expenditures or whether sharing is physically possible.



schwinn said:


> As for CATV sharing, there are obviously existing systems available for this - evidenced by the towns/cities that have numerous providers.


In fact, you haven't a clue. There are two CATV companies in my area, as a matter of fact. I have a choice between TWC and Grande communications as my CATV providers. They do not - can not - share lines. AT&T has their distribution highest on the pole, at least 48" below CPS neutral. Below them is TW Cable If we are on the pole, we are below TWC. Verizon or Sprint have fiber in some places. Finally, Grande is generally the lowest on the pole, although a few poles have CPS communications or other business interests below Grande.



schwinn said:


> I don't know the details, but I know it's possible. Besides which, with the digital-cable transition, there is less excuse to not have the ability to line-share.


The house drops can certainly be "shared". Indeed, with more than 300,000 drops in San Antonio costing about $200 each, it is a significant investment. What you are missing, however, is that there are no dedicated lines between the headend and the subscriber tap. All the cables for all the customers in an area cary precisely the same signals, with no deviation, and those signals all emanate from a single headend. It is not possible to deliver one group of carriers to half the homes served by one fiber node and half to another. If the companies "share" the lines, then it is "sharing" in an accounting fashion only. One headend and one plant system deliver the very same signals to all the customers, but two different companies collect the revenue.



schwinn said:


> In addition, I believe RCN is a cable company (primarily in cities) is a shared-line company - ie, they share existing lines, as my friends in those areas have the choice between Comcast and RCN for cable...


What makes you think the fact there are two companies in the area means they share anything at all? The only thing the are likely to share is the right of way easement, and that doesn't belong to either of them.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

bicker said:


> RCN does not share cable lines with anyone, here in Burlington. What they "share" is *conduit*, specifically with the electrical utility.


Ahem. They had better not. Strict laws require power lines to be completely separated from all other utilities, for obvious reasons. They share the easement, and they may lease _unused_ conduits from the power company, although the power company in this area does not lease their conduits, at all. There are also regulations concerning how close the conduit may be to any live power conduit. They do lease poles, however, and they are good about entering into joint trench ventures, allowing the other utility companies to lay their conduits in the upper trench line once the power conduits have been buried and the trench partially filled.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Are you sure about that? I thought that nowadays the copper only went to a local concentrator, and from there back to the central office everything ran over optical circuits.


There are areas where this has been done, but in general not. Indeed, by law (since 1996), the ILEC must provide UNEs to anyone who wishes to lease them. This means copper pairs all the way from the C.O., although of course there is nothing preventing the ILEC from running fiber in parallel with the copper pairs for their own use. In any case, some of the copper pairs here in San Antonio are almost 100 years old, laid down long before fiber was invented.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> You can always choose something different (which includes no cable/SAT at all).


Yes, of course. I once recorded a talk show that looked as if it would be interesting because the guest was to be an author who had written a book on various ways to save money. I watched it a short time and then deleted it, because his main thrust was pointing out how much various recurring expenditures in our daily lives cost over a long period of time. His point, again and again, was how much money a person can save by doing without. I stopped watching and deleted the program. I don't need someone to tell me how much things cost long term. I am very well aware. I also do not need anyone to tell me I can save money by doing without. Having made the decision to spend money to obtain a particular good or service, I am interested in finding out how I might obtain the desired result (or an acceptable alternative) for a reasonably low cost. Any idiot knows that one may save money by reducing the quality of one's lifestyle.



atmuscarella said:


> Cable TV is ultimately at best entertainment


That is untrue. There are many informative programs on cable. I watch lots of them. It's true I seek out entertainment on the medium, but I, along with many, many others also seek information from the medium, including news, weather, political information, and social and political commentary. Apparently you have never heard of CNN, CSPAN, The Weather Channel, PBS...?



atmuscarella said:


> and at worst an unhealthy addiction.


For some people, so is food. Others are addicted to sex. Yes, the medium certainly can be addictive, but so can participating in conferences like this. The first half of your statement was just false, and the point of the second half rather escapes me. If it is your contention that CATV service is not perfect, then of course I agree, but so what? Nothing is perfect, and everything has a down side.



atmuscarella said:


> No one should continue to pay of an optional and unnecessary service that they consider to be poor and/or over priced. Anyone who does so deserves what they get.


Again, your point rather escapes me. No one should pay for *ANY* service, no matter how "essential" if they consider it overpriced. Food is about as essential as it gets, but I refuse to over-pay for it. If a restaurant or grocery store is over-priced, I go somewhere else. What's more, there are in reality no "essential" goods or services. Almost everything we purchase today can be done without. Cars, phones, homes, electrical power and gas, processed food and drinks are all 100% optional, and indeed our ancestors of not so long ago did completely without all of them. An individual can abandon all of these and live completely off the land. Indeed, a few individuals do just that, and eschew "civilization" altogether. One can hunt, gather, and farm for one's food, seek natural sources of water, and shelter in self-made enclosures. For a short time, doing so is even fun. The things we usually call "essential" are in fact merely convenient, and CATV service is indeed a convenience. That it is not "essential" is true, but then what is?



atmuscarella said:


> I lived 40+ years of my 50+ years with access to only 4-6 channels including several years without access to TV at all. My life is not any better now that I have access to 100+ channels - it is just easier for me to be lazy and sit my fat a** in front of the TV instead of doing something that might actually be productive.


No one is demanding that you find CATV service to be of value. If you don't that's fine. Many people do, however, as well evidenced by the amount of money they spend on it. While it is true productivity and leisure are not mutually exclusive - many people have productive hobbies - many forms of entertainment and leisure are at least superficially unproductive. Although it may not be directly productive, however, some amount of leisure is essential to maintaining the health and well being of the individual. Like anything else, no matter how essential to life something might be, leisure can be over-indulged. Admittedly, I am guilty of it myself. Nonetheless, the content I obtain from the CATV provider, both informational and strictly entertaining, do enrich my life.

It is true that it is only TV. Certainly it is not important in the great scheme of things, but then neither are you or I. It is certainly true one is ill advised to obsess over it, but then again obsessing over anything is genrally a bad idea.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

lrhorer: You certainly know your CATV, and I appreciate the calm, rational explanation of the technology. I certanily never said I knew enough about CATV technology details, so I appreciate the info you have provided.

Just to get it out of the way, the vertical interlacing problem I mentioned is an analog picture artifact that I am have been seeing for years on my Comcast analog channels. There's plenty more detail on the other thread I posted here: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21807714-Vertical-Interlacing-on-analog-cable

If you have further comments on that, I'd love to hear them. I have finally gotten traction on the matter with Comcast ECC support, so they are doing something, but they refuse to believe it's a problem at the head-end, even though I see this on many friends TVs, and all of my analog TVs and tuners throughout the house.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - My whole issue is with the lack of competition in an area, period. I don't really care how the competition is provided (sat, FIOS, etc) but the FCC's previous studies (as everyone knows) have been flawed and are finally getting redone.

The bottom line is that the existing situation in most markets shows a relative lack of competition. In my house, it particularly worse since I can't get DSL, FIOS, UVerse, or sat-TV for various reasons. My whole issue is with the lack of competition...

I firmly believe that new technologies can allow for improved service in the area, but the existing companies can't even be bothered to upgrade the existing wiring, particularly since there is no competition. When I worked with the town's cable comittee to have the franchise paperwork done for the next term, I actually heard Comcast claim how their service was superior to satellite, and that's why people don't use the dish systems. Fact is, in many areas here, people can't get sattelite due to trees, rock formations, etc. The people that can get it have tons of dishes on their houses... it's very obvious when you drive through the downtown areas.

The point of that is to show how ignorant Comcast is in this area... and they can continue to do so because there is no competition... and no push by the government to promote it. So, all I ask for is improved competition. I agree I called this "line sharing" because I thought it is possible on CATV lines, and maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I simply took issue with the statement by bicker which was blind pro-corporation-speak with no real information behind anything.

Again, lrhorer, I appreciate the information you have provided... we're all here to learn from each other... that's what forums are supposed to be about.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lrhorer said:


> Yes, of course. I once recorded a talk show that looked as if it would be interesting because the guest was to be an author who had written a book on various ways to save money. I watched it a short time and then deleted it, because his main thrust was pointing out how much various recurring expenditures in our daily lives cost over a long period of time. His point, again and again, was how much money a person can save by doing without. I stopped watching and deleted the program. I don't need someone to tell me how much things cost long term. I am very well aware. I also do not need anyone to tell me I can save money by doing without. Having made the decision to spend money to obtain a particular good or service, I am interested in finding out how I might obtain the desired result (or an acceptable alternative) for a reasonably low cost. Any idiot knows that one may save money by reducing the quality of one's lifestyle.


You missed my point - what Cable TV provides entertainment and information, are both available from many other sources. Not having cable TV does not deprive anyone of either.



lrhorer said:


> That is untrue. There are many informative programs on cable. I watch lots of them. It's true I seek out entertainment on the medium, but I, along with many, many others also seek information from the medium, including news, weather, political information, and social and political commentary. Apparently you have never heard of CNN, CSPAN, The Weather Channel, PBS...?


Ok I will agree Cable also can provide information - I am more inclined to get my info from OTA channels which I don't get from my SAT provider. I associate cable - with Sat and forget that many people get their OTA channels through cable and thus look at all tv as cable tv.



lrhorer said:


> For some people, so is food. Others are addicted to sex. Yes, the medium certainly can be addictive, but so can participating in conferences like this. The first half of your statement was just false, and the point of the second half rather escapes me. If it is your contention that CATV service is not perfect, then of course I agree, but so what? Nothing is perfect, and everything has a down side.


The point was to stress that cable TV is not essential and that anyone who thinks it is and thinks they can not live without it - is no different than a crack addict that thinks they can't live without crack. 


lrhorer said:


> Again, your point rather escapes me. No one should pay for *ANY* service, no matter how "essential" if they consider it overpriced. Food is about as essential as it gets, but I refuse to over-pay for it. If a restaurant or grocery store is over-priced, I go somewhere else. What's more, there are in reality no "essential" goods or services. Almost everything we purchase today can be done without. Cars, phones, homes, electrical power and gas, processed food and drinks are all 100% optional, and indeed our ancestors of not so long ago did completely without all of them. An individual can abandon all of these and live completely off the land. Indeed, a few individuals do just that, and eschew "civilization" altogether. One can hunt, gather, and farm for one's food, seek natural sources of water, and shelter in self-made enclosures. For a short time, doing so is even fun. The things we usually call "essential" are in fact merely convenient, and CATV service is indeed a convenience. That it is not "essential" is true, but then what is?


My point is pretty much what I said cable tv is optional, not essential, and there are alternatives, so people who don't like their service should stop *****ing about it, cancel their service, and move on with life. If they continue to pay for something that they think is unacceptable and not worth what they are pay - then they deserve what they get.



lrhorer said:


> No one is demanding that you find CATV service to be of value. If you don't that's fine. Many people do, however, as well evidenced by the amount of money they spend on it. While it is true productivity and leisure are not mutually exclusive - many people have productive hobbies - many forms of entertainment and leisure are at least superficially unproductive. Although it may not be directly productive, however, some amount of leisure is essential to maintaining the health and well being of the individual. Like anything else, no matter how essential to life something might be, leisure can be over-indulged. Admittedly, I am guilty of it myself. Nonetheless, the content I obtain from the CATV provider, both informational and strictly entertaining, do enrich my life.


I have no opinion on Time Warner cable tv service as I don't use it and was not commenting on it or it's value - as you indicated any cable tv service's value is a personal thing. However there are groups who consider tv to be pretty much the same as cigarettes, generally additive and unhealthy. 


lrhorer said:


> It is true that it is only TV. Certainly it is not important in the great scheme of things, but then neither are you or I. It is certainly true one is ill advised to obsess over it, but then again obsessing over anything is genrally a bad idea.


Agreed

Thanks,


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

schwinn said:


> Just to get it out of the way, the vertical interlacing problem I mentioned is an analog picture artifact that I am have been seeing for years on my Comcast analog channels. There's plenty more detail on the other thread I posted here: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21807714-Vertical-Interlacing-on-analog-cable


That's not interlacing. Interlacing is the traditional method of displaying a TV signal. With interlaced signals (480i, 720i, 1080i), what your brain interprets as a single picture is not in fact a single picture, but two half-pictures. Each half picture has half the total picture information displayed in a "venetian blind" fashion with a horizontal stripe containing picture information, then a black stripe, then another stripe of picture information, etc. Once this picture is drawn top to bottom, the display starts over again drawing the second half of the picture, this time with the formerly blank areas having picture information and the alternating lines now blank. For a 60Hz display, each half frame is drawn in 1/60th a second, so the entire picture is displayed on the screen in alternating halves every 1/30th of a second.

What you are showing us in the thread you reference looks like a beat pattern, specifically probably triple-beat, which is a 3rd order intermodulation distortion. Such artifacts can be caused by a number of different things. Most commonly, they are caused either by high signal levels in the transport system or by a non-linear amplifier.



schwinn said:


> they are doing something, but they refuse to believe it's a problem at the head-end, even though I see this on many friends TVs, and all of my analog TVs and tuners throughout the house.


Well, it's possible it could be due to something at the headend, but I doubt it. It's much more likely to be a field problem. It could be one or more improperly padded amplifiers, one or more amps with bad AGCs, or just a bad amp. It could also simply be an improperly balanced CATV system. Remember, the same amplifier cascade that feeds you feeds a number of your neighbors. On what channels, specifically, do you see the problem?



schwinn said:


> Anyway, back to the topic at hand - My whole issue is with the lack of competition in an area, period.


That's a different matter, and it isn't a simple one.



schwinn said:


> I firmly believe that new technologies can allow for improved service in the area, but the existing companies can't even be bothered to upgrade the existing wiring


Aluminum coax doesn't ordinarily require any upgrading. Of course, damage to specific sections will happen over time, but the same cable which will carry 250 MHz will ordinarily also carry 1000MHz. (There are some exceptions.) It is the passive devices and especially the active devices which mostly must be upgraded to allow for greater bandwidth.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> You missed my point - what Cable TV provides entertainment and information, are both available from many other sources. Not having cable TV does not deprive anyone of either.


That's somewhat subjective. IMO, there is very little in the way of information and essentiallynothing at all in the way of (reasonable) entertainment on OTA channels, with the exception of PBS.



atmuscarella said:


> Ok I will agree Cable also can provide information - I am more inclined to get my info from OTA channels which I don't get from my SAT provider. I associate cable - with Sat and forget that many people get their OTA channels through cable and thus look at all tv as cable tv.


I avoid watching OTA channels altogether, again with the exception of PBS.



atmuscarella said:


> My point is pretty much what I said cable tv is optional, not essential, and there are alternatives, so people who don't like their service should stop *****ing about it, cancel their service, and move on with life. If they continue to pay for something that they think is unacceptable and not worth what they are pay - then they deserve what they get.


There is a difference between something having an aspect one dislikes and being unacceptable. I love my job, for example, but there are some aspects of it about which I quite justifiably *****. There are certainly thinngs about my CATV service I dislike, more than enough to justify my *****ing about it, but not enough to compel me to disconnect it.



atmuscarella said:


> However there are groups who consider tv to be pretty much the same as cigarettes, generally additive and unhealthy.


I know a number of people - members of groups, BTW, who say the same thing about eating meat. Ask an Amish person or a Mennonite, and they will say the same thing about automobiles, telephones, and toasters. 'More power to them, by the way. It is certainly not up to me to dictate how they live their lives, but OTOH I will pick my own poisons, thank you.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> You missed my point - what Cable TV provides entertainment and information, are both available from many other sources. Not having cable TV does not deprive anyone of either.


The easiest way to deflate the objections to that assertion is to indicate that limited basic, as a potential source of needed news and information, is regulated. If anyone is complaining about anything above limited basic, then they're complaining about something that it utterly and completely unnecessary, and you'd be absolutely correct that there is no merit in such complaints since the subscriber can just *do without* that service, if they don't like the service or value they're getting.



atmuscarella said:


> The point was to stress that cable TV is not essential and that anyone who thinks it is and thinks they can not live without it - is no different than a crack addict that thinks they can't live without crack.


Okay, that's a decent analogy, afaic.



atmuscarella said:


> My point is pretty much what I said cable tv is optional, not essential, and there are alternatives, so people who don't like their service should stop *****ing about it, cancel their service, and move on with life. If they continue to pay for something that they think is unacceptable and not worth what they are pay - then they deserve what they get.


+1


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> That's somewhat subjective.


It shouldn't be read that way. Rather, it should be read as a summary of the law of the land.



lrhorer said:


> There is a difference between something having an aspect one dislikes and being unacceptable.


That places the fault for the confusion on the communicators, the complainers, who essentially, vis a vis the point you're making here, distort, mislead and exaggerate the importance of what they're trying to say, instead of expressing their situation as one "having an aspect that one dislikes". Many of the complaints make personal attacks on the integrity or competence of good people doing good work, rather than expressing the kind of mild disappointment that you're trying to imply here.

So either you're wrong about what you're saying here, or the people whom you're talking about are "addicts", as atmuscarella alluded to.



lrhorer said:


> I know a number of people - members of groups, BTW, who say the same thing about eating meat.


I'm one of them. Let me tell you something about being a vegetarian in this society: We're not considered normal. We're perhaps accepted, at least in most parts of the Boston area, and perhaps even accommodated, in some quarters, but our perspective with regard to eating living, feeling animals is *not* considered normal, and therefore we never get the idea that our own personal preferences in this regard should drive the definitions of what is reasonable and expected within society.

That is exactly the mistake that many complainers in these threads make: They assume that because they're personally not pleased with how things are that there is something someone else is doing wrong, again, as I alluded to earlier, either as a matter of integrity or competence. Unlike we vegetarians, most of whom respect the rights of meat-eaters to live in accordance with their own beliefs and values, many of the complainers in these forums don't respect the rights of others to live in accordance with their own beliefs and values. Instead, they assume that everyone must naturally agree with the beliefs and value that serve the complainers' purposes. It is one level of transgression when a majority makes such an assumption, thereby effectively oppressing a minority, but when a minority, such as the aforementioned "addicts", make such assumption and place their own beliefs and values so far about that of others, it is even a higher level of transgression.



lrhorer said:


> Ask an Amish person or a Mennonite, and they will say the same thing about automobiles, telephones, and toasters.


The point is that they won't. I've only had casual conversations with such folks, but their perspective has been consistently respectful of the right of others to live in accordance with their own beliefs and values -- remarkably so, incidentally, for folks who are so dogmatically-driven. Rather, they refer to the situation with terms like, "That's not _our_ way," and leave it at that.

The parallel for our "addicts" is to say, "This is not the manner of subscription television that I find of sufficient value," and leave it at that.

Like that's going to happen...


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> That's not interlacing. Interlacing is the traditional method of displaying a TV signal. With interlaced signals (480i, 720i, 1080i), what your brain interprets as a single picture is not in fact a single picture, but two half-pictures. Each half picture has half the total picture information displayed in a "venetian blind" fashion with a horizontal stripe containing picture information, then a black stripe, then another stripe of picture information, etc. Once this picture is drawn top to bottom, the display starts over again drawing the second half of the picture, this time with the formerly blank areas having picture information and the alternating lines now blank. For a 60Hz display, each half frame is drawn in 1/60th a second, so the entire picture is displayed on the screen in alternating halves every 1/30th of a second.
> 
> What you are showing us in the thread you reference looks like a beat pattern, specifically probably triple-beat, which is a 3rd order intermodulation distortion. Such artifacts can be caused by a number of different things. Most commonly, they are caused either by high signal levels in the transport system or by a non-linear amplifier.
> 
> Well, it's possible it could be due to something at the headend, but I doubt it. It's much more likely to be a field problem. It could be one or more improperly padded amplifiers, one or more amps with bad AGCs, or just a bad amp. It could also simply be an improperly balanced CATV system. Remember, the same amplifier cascade that feeds you feeds a number of your neighbors. On what channels, specifically, do you see the problem?


I realize this isn't interlacing in the traditional sense, I simply had to give it a name, and took the one proposed by the other poster (linked in my original post). What's more, I realize it may not be at the head-end, but it certainly is not within my house/wiring/leg since friends on the other side of the city from me, as well as friends a few cities over have this issue...

Again, if you have other recommendations or ideas, I'm willing to suggest them to the techs (visiting today, in fact)... but so far, they aren't making much progress. Basically, anything that's down-converted from HD shows this problem... sometimes more often, sometimes less.

Anyway, if you want, we can take that to PMs... no need to hijack this thread.

Back to the original topic...

Although we always have the choice of "not buying" cable, this is a rather narrow minded approach to the issue. I agree that not everyone "needs" cable... however, as suggested, maybe regulating basic cable makes sense, since this represents more of what's "needed".

In the end, "need" is a relative term. Still, asking for ways to improve competition against anti-competitive behavior is not a bad thing either. In the past, most franchise licenses were "required" by the cablecos to prevent competition. Only recently have many companies stopped this requirement from being codified into the licenses. But now, the damage is done... the incumbent has already made competition impossible or difficult. Today, it's hard for an incoming company to compete, but we have to remember that this is because of the previous anti-competitive behavior mentioned above.

Now, I know you may consider blaming the cities/towns for allowing this to happen... problem is, the licensing "system" is not setup to accomplish this... it's nearly impossible for a city/town to force anything on the incumbent, or even have them "de-licensed"... I believe I mentioned this before (maybe on another thread).

So, the point is, the damage is done... and just because they aren't doing it anymore doesn't mean that such past behavior is now acceptable.

Anyway, back to the OP's post, in this particular case, the cableco is pretending to be the consumer's friend (they have proven to be rather anticomsumer in numerous ways in the past) in the face of the networks. For this reason, such manouvering is rather insulting to anyone with a little historical perspective on what they have done to consumers in the past. Hence, the only way consumers can "win" is to promote competition... somehow... and not buy into such marketing gimmicks.

In a related way, it can be seen that the big issue is with single companies that get too big, and hence too powerful. These are the companies that need regulating... but they typically have more power, due to money/lobbying. This applies to telcos, networks, cablecos, etc... the story is similar across industries. And now with Comcast looking to buy NBC...

That's a different matter, and it isn't a simple one.

Aluminum coax doesn't ordinarily require any upgrading. Of course, damage to specific sections will happen over time, but the same cable which will carry 250 MHz will ordinarily also carry 1000MHz. (There are some exceptions.) It is the passive devices and especially the active devices which mostly must be upgraded to allow for greater bandwidth.[/QUOTE]


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

schwinn said:


> however, as suggested, maybe regulating basic cable makes sense, since this represents more of what's "needed".


And indeed, pricing for the local over-the-air channels tier is regulated. It is incumbent on those members of your local community charged with enforcing the affordability regulations on cable companies to do their jobs. If folks are unhappy with the price of the local over-the-air channels tier, they should get involved in their local government and get appointed to the franchising board.



schwinn said:


> it's nearly impossible for a city/town to force anything on the incumbent, or even have them "de-licensed"...


Depending on the locality, that is either utterly untrue, or a reflection of how inadequately profitable providing service in a specific locality is. That's the fault of the locality. If you don't make where you live a profitable place to do business, then businesses will not want to operate there, and you'll get crappy choices as a result. We have this situation in northern New England. Massachusetts has done a great job attracting businesses and keeping our economy vibrant. Some other states up here -- haven't. And now many of the citizens of those other states are upset about the dichotomy. They enjoyed the years of lower taxes and less intercession by government, but aren't willing to accept the natural ramifications of their lack of vision. No matter how you slice it, the responsibility for their disappointment rests (collectively) within themselves.



schwinn said:


> For this reason, such manouvering is rather insulting to anyone with a little historical perspective on what they have done to consumers in the past.


Anyone who takes press releases and other public statements by commercial enterprises personally is going to have a very hard time in our society. It's business; it's nothing personal.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

bicker said:


> And indeed, pricing for the local over-the-air channels tier is regulated. It is incumbent on those members of your local community charged with enforcing the affordability regulations on cable companies to do their jobs. If folks are unhappy with the price of the local over-the-air channels tier, they should get involved in their local government and get appointed to the franchising board.


Where is pricing for OTA channels regulated? This post, in fact, saying that FOX is muscling TWC for more money... so what you say seems incorrect?

As for the pricing and affordability, I did join my local franchising board. First thing I was told is that the franchising board has NO AUTHORITY to dictate pricing. So, I know you are wrong there. They can require/request senior citizen discounts and such (as my area has) but that doesn't mean everyone can get "basic" channels for a "regulated" rate. The cableco can certainly increase rates for everyone else to make up for this price concession...



> Depending on the locality, that is either utterly untrue, or a reflection of how inadequately profitable providing service in a specific locality is. That's the fault of the locality. If you don't make where you live a profitable place to do business, then businesses will not want to operate there, and you'll get crappy choices as a result. We have this situation in northern New England. Massachusetts has done a great job attracting businesses and keeping our economy vibrant. Some other states up here -- haven't. And now many of the citizens of those other states are upset about the dichotomy. They enjoyed the years of lower taxes and less intercession by government, but aren't willing to accept the natural ramifications of their lack of vision. No matter how you slice it, the responsibility for their disappointment rests (collectively) within themselves.


No, you are most certainly incorrect, as I mentioned above. The franchising board (and process) has no power to dictate pricing. Period. I know, as I have been there. As for de-licensing, the lawyer who worked with us on the franchising agreement also told us that he only knows of a few (less than 5) instances nation-wide where an existing franchisee was de-licesnsed... and they fell only because their service was significantly at fault... poor signal here and there, poor quality, etc does not provide enough leverage, as the lawyer said, to delicense a franchisee. And, in these few cases, it was very difficult for the city/town to complete the process... lots of lawyers and such involved, at great expense to the city/town... so they are less likely to pursue that anyway. Bottom line, the franchising system is broken, and has no power in such situations. Consider it a "rubber stamp" process, because that's pretty much what it is. Again, I know because I have been involved there for my city's latest agreement.



> Anyone who takes press releases and other public statements by commercial enterprises personally is going to have a very hard time in our society. It's business; it's nothing personal.


True, but unfortunately, the general public is pretty dumb. They forget basic history on day-to-day matters, are easily swayed by the lies presented by the media, etc. The reason I bring it up is to simply point out that this "woe-is-me" story from TWC is a bunch of BS... just remember, as you said, it's a business... they are not your friend, and are simply suffering from the same big-company-leveraging tactics that they, themselves, screw their customers with all the time (eg cablecards, QAM waivers, etc)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

schwinn said:


> Where is pricing for OTA channels regulated?




> the term "basic cable service" means any service tier which includes the retransmission of local television broadcast signals


47 USC 522 (3)


> The Commission shall, by regulation, ensure that the rates for the basic service tier are reasonable. Such regulations shall be designed to achieve the goal of protecting subscribers of any cable system that is not subject to effective competition from rates for the basic service tier that exceed the rates that would be charged for the basic service tier if such cable system were subject to effective competition.


47 USC 543 (b)(1)​So either the rates are regulated to be reasonable, or they are set as reasonable via the forces of effective competition.



schwinn said:


> This post, in fact, saying that FOX is muscling TWC for more money... so what you say seems incorrect?


Not at all. 
The regulations pertain to *how much TWC can charge* their lowest-tier customers.
This post is talking about *how much Fox can charge* TWC.



schwinn said:


> As for the pricing and affordability, I did join my local franchising board. First thing I was told is that the franchising board has NO AUTHORITY to dictate pricing.


You either misunderstood what you've been told, or you've got some really clueless legal staff working for your franchising board.

See my comments, above, regarding what fostering a poor economy in your locality may have on your options.



schwinn said:


> So, I know you are wrong there.


So now that you know that I'm correct, how will that modify your perspective, and your rhetoric directed toward what I posted? (Will you, for example, go back and edit your earlier comments to address the errors you posted?)



schwinn said:


> The cableco can certainly increase rates for everyone else to make up for this price concession...


That applies, yes indeed. The ability to regulate cable rates is indeed limited to the services that are, as we discussed earlier, *"needed"*.



schwinn said:


> No, you are most certainly incorrect, as I mentioned above.


And as I proved earlier in this message, I am most certainly correct. It is your *word* against my *citations of the law*.



schwinn said:


> The franchising board (and process) has no power to dictate pricing. Period.


You are incorrect. "Period."



schwinn said:


> Bottom line, the franchising system is broken, and has no power in such situations.


See my earlier comments regarding why the franchising authorities may have limited power. Again, the fault for that generally rests with the locality, and at the core, at the general unwillingness of the citizens to do the right thing to foster a healthy economy that attracts businesses and other investments that fosters the quality of life in the area.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> That's almost surely untrue. When was the CATV system in your area built? If the answer is, "More than 15 years ago", then unless you live in a very small community, they have spent a great deal of money upgrading the CATV system in your area. Fifteen years ago, only the very newest systems were 750 MHz, and now almost all CATV systems are 750MHz.


And some are going higher - 860MHz and 1GHz, mostly due to competition from telco TV like FiOS or U-Verse.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

bicker said:


> 47 USC 522 (3)
> 47 USC 543 (b)(1)​So either the rates are regulated to be reasonable, or they are set as reasonable via the forces of effective competition.


Not necessarily:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterm...a&b=terminalcontent&f=dtc_catv_faqs&csid=Eoca
"The Cable Division regulates basic service rates for all communities in Massachusetts that have requested rate regulation." In other words, unless the locality has requested regulation for basic rates, they cannot enforce them. Again, anything beyond basic can be jacked up to make up the difference, as the cableco will usually do.



> Not at all.
> The regulations pertain to *how much TWC can charge* their lowest-tier customers.
> This post is talking about *how much Fox can charge* TWC.


Understood, and you make a valid point. The cablecos might be regulated, but the networks are not... quite a loophole, Mr FCC.



> You either misunderstood what you've been told, or you've got some really clueless legal staff working for your franchising board.


Again, in MA, the franchising board has no power over pricing, as implied by the mass.gov link above. In fact, if the franchising board puts further requirements on the cablecompany, AND the Cable Division is providing rate regulation, then the cableco can request a raise on the basic cable rate. Again, anything beyond basic is up to the cableco, and not even under the Cable Division's control, much less the franchisers.

See my comments, above, regarding what fostering a poor economy in your locality may have on your options.


> So now that you know that I'm correct, how will that modify your perspective, and your rhetoric directed toward what I posted? (Will you, for example, go back and edit your earlier comments to address the errors you posted?)


I don't edit prior posts, as it shows a measure of ill-will - as if I am hiding something. I can admit when I am wrong, and will happily do so when proven to be incorrect. I think you are speaking from a general perspective of franchises (of which I have less info) while I am speaking specifically about MA franchising (which I may know more about than you do). That being said, maybe you can show me an example of another state where franchises ARE able to affect rates?



> That applies, yes indeed. The ability to regulate cable rates is indeed limited to the services that are, as we discussed earlier, *"needed"*.
> 
> And as I proved earlier in this message, I am most certainly correct. It is your *word* against my *citations of the law*.
> 
> ...


Please stop jumping off the deep end on your comments. I am not speaking out of my butt, nor from a position without any information. As far as I can see, I am fully correct in my state, at least... there's no need to pick a fight (unless that's all you want to do). Bottom line, I am not wrong for my state, it seems... it's up to you to show me otherwise...

You are correct that the citations you provided are federal law, but as you may or may not know, many federal laws are "rewritten" by states for one reason or another. That's a discussion for another thread, but the point is, you can't make such generalizations since the states (unfortunately) have the "power" to override federal law more often than we know... don't ask me why or how, but it's a fact.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> You either misunderstood what you've been told, or you've got some really clueless legal staff working for your franchising board.


To be fair, they (and he) could be correct in their assertion. 47 522's sister legislation, US 47 543 (a) (1) states:



> No Federal agency, State, or franchising authority may regulate the rates for cable service of a cable system that is owned or operated by a local government or franchising authority within whose jurisdiction that cable system is located and that is the only cable system located within such jurisdiction.


That seems primarily aimed at sorting out jurisdictions, but, depending on the poster's locality and cable provider circumstance, it is entirely possible his franchise board was/is operating under those constraints, leaving it without power to regulate rates.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

schwinn said:


> Not necessarily:


Yes necessarily. You are just pointing out that the regulation of the local tier may be with one government entity instead of another.  *It is still regulated, to be reasonably priced.* That was the point.



schwinn said:


> "The Cable Division regulates basic service rates for all communities in Massachusetts that have requested rate regulation." In other words, unless the locality has requested regulation for basic rates, they cannot enforce them.


You read what you quoted wrong. The law here in the Commonwealth is that the regulation is by the state government when the local franchise authority has elected that option. Otherwise, the responsibility for regulation _remains in the hands of the local franchising authority_.



schwinn said:


> Again, anything beyond basic can be jacked up to make up the difference, as the cableco will usually do.


You don't *"need"* (see above) anything beyond basic. If you don't like the service for the price offered, do without it.



schwinn said:


> Understood, and you make a valid point. The cablecos might be regulated, but the networks are not... quite a loophole, Mr FCC.


No, not a "loophole" at all. The right of the networks to demand retransmission fees is explicitly written into the Telecommunications Act. The FCC had no choice in the matter. The law trumps the FCC.



schwinn said:


> Again, in MA, the franchising board has no power over pricing, as implied by the mass.gov link above.


*If* they've ceded that power to the state. And then, the state has that power. So get the state to do what you want. I have had some contacts with DTE, if you want a name.



schwinn said:


> In fact, if the franchising board puts further requirements on the cablecompany, AND the Cable Division is providing rate regulation, then the cableco can request a raise on the basic cable rate.


Good. That's the way it should be.



schwinn said:


> Again, anything beyond basic is up to the cableco, and not even under the Cable Division's control, much less the franchisers.


Again: Good. That's the way it should be.



schwinn said:


> I think you are speaking from a general perspective of franchises (of which I have less info) while I am speaking specifically about MA franchising (which I may know more about than you do).


Evidently not.



schwinn said:


> Please stop jumping off the deep end on your comments.


My comments are no more so "jumping off the deep end" than your outrageously myopic attacks on the companies involved here. Think of me as a mirror. If you want the tenor of my replies to change, change the tenor of the messages to which I would be replying.



schwinn said:


> Bottom line, I am not wrong for my state, it seems...


You are incorrect about what you've tried to assert.

Bottom line: Basic cable rates are regulated to be reasonably priced.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Fassade said:


> That seems primarily aimed at sorting out jurisdictions, but, depending on the poster's locality and cable provider circumstance, it is entirely possible his franchise board was/is operating under those constraints, leaving it without power to regulate rates.


You missed this portion of what you quoted: "*that is owned or operated by a local government or franchising authority*". TWC is not owned or operated by a local government or franchising authority. The provision you quoted is aimed at preventing regulation being applied to municipal agencies that have *their own *cable services.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

schwinn said:


> I realize this isn't interlacing in the traditional sense, I simply had to give it a name, and took the one proposed by the other poster (linked in my original post). What's more, I realize it may not be at the head-end, but it certainly is not within my house/wiring/leg since friends on the other side of the city from me, as well as friends a few cities over have this issue...


Just to comment on your issue. I am the person whose post you linked to over at DSLR. It took a while, but eventually the problem simply went away (I don't remember the specifics since it was about 4 years ago, but I may have replaced the cable box).

The problem seemed to be caused by an incorrect conversion from analog to digital. Since you are using analog only and saw the problem on a CRT TV, the problem would have to be wherever the signal was originally converted to digital.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> You missed this portion of what you quoted: "*that is owned or operated by a local government or franchising authority*". TWC is not owned or operated by a local government or franchising authority. The provision you quoted is aimed at preventing regulation being applied to municipal agencies that have *their own *cable services.


The original post did not specify whether the franchise board at the time of his involvement dealt with TWC, a muni system, or some other entity which may or may not fall under 47 543 a 1. Given the title of the thread, you may wish to *assume* TWC was involved at that time -- and may even be correct -- but it is still an assumption, hence the "to be fair..." and "it is possible" qualifiers. Without that further piece of information, I simply try not to call businesses or people (even lawyers) "clueless" when their livelihood depends on knowing the facts of a situation of which I am not privy.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The article (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...ox_programming_like_american_idol_and_nf.html) refers to TWC, itself; not a muni system.

Actually.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> For more than 60 years, TV stations have broadcast news, sports and entertainment for free and made their money by showing commercials. That might not work much longer.
> 
> The business model is unraveling at ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox and the local stations that carry the networks' programming. Cable TV and the Web have fractured the audience for free TV and siphoned its ad dollars. The recession has squeezed advertising further, forcing broadcasters to accelerate their push for new revenue to pay for programming.
> 
> ...


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/28/financial/f210935S93.DTL


----------



## timckelley (Oct 15, 2002)

Raw deal. If the fees for local TV wind up getting relayed via TimeWarner to customers like me, I'll be paying for yet more channels I don't use, as I get locals OTA + I pay Time Warner.

It'd be nice if Time Warner offered an option for no locals, and any fees they pay for locals get charged only to the people that opt to get them via cable.


----------



## johnm4 (Jun 23, 2008)

I like the tactic of asking their customers what to do. Then they can't cry when their rates go up or the channel disappears.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

johnm4 said:


> I like the tactic of asking their customers what to do.


I'd like it if they were sincerely asking, instead of running a push poll.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

I told them to roll over. They haven't listened so far. I'll roll over to DirecTV if they don't stop this nonsense.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

timckelley said:


> It'd be nice if Time Warner offered an option for no locals, and any fees they pay for locals get charged only to the people that opt to get them via cable.


Why stop there, shouldn't every channel be à la carte?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

timckelley said:


> It'd be nice if Time Warner offered an option for no locals, and any fees they pay for locals get charged only to the people that opt to get them via cable.


That would increase the retransmission fee per subscriber. Remember that networks charge one (comparatively low) rate for being on the basic cable tier, and another (comparatively high) rate for being on a higher tier, and still another (even higher -- much higher) rate for being _a la carte_, when such options are applicable.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/28/financial/f210935S93.DTL


So lets see we are currently in the process of destroying local newspapers and their news rooms, radio as an independent provider of news has already been destroyed, and in the near future if the OTA Networks go to cable only that will destroy local/independent affiliate TV stations and their newsrooms. So what does that leave us with? 4-5 Networks providing (and controlling) all the Local/National/International news/information we get (News = unbiased facts that have been actually verified as correct) with a bunch of unknown/unverified Internet bloggers as our only alternative?

Sounds like a good way to destroy a free society to me.

Media consolidation is bad for this country and bad for people who believe in a free society. We have allowed it to go to far already and if we continued down this path it will effectively shut down the free flow of verifiable accurate information. What will be left is "sanitized" or biased facts, opinions presented as facts, and out and out lies - actions based on this type of information will end our free society.

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Sounds like a good way to destroy a free society to me.


And we're doing it to ourselves, due to our behaviors -- our collective Wal-mart and bubble gum mentality.



atmuscarella said:


> Media consolidation is bad for this country and bad for people who believe in a free society.


Yet consumers seem unwilling to put their money where your mouth is, and foster a broader swatch of media outlets, through any of the operational mechanisms. The people of this country, though their behaviors, voting behaviors and purchasing behaviors, effectively disagree with you.

I'm sure the folks who's conduct brought about the downfall of the ancient Roman empire didn't intend for that to happen either, but they did it to themselves all the same.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> Yes necessarily. You are just pointing out that the regulation of the local tier may be with one government entity instead of another.  *It is still regulated, to be reasonably priced.* That was the point.


Not true.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/cablevision_free_reign_Jb20WO8wZ54TvaRsnhAOyK

The local tier is becoming deregulated in some areas. I don't agree with the decision. Cable companies aren't competing for broadcast basic customers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

One more point about how retransmission fees may or may not affect the prices we pay: Businesses don't price things based on cost. Would you buy something for $15, because that is what it costs to provide it to you, if it was only WORTH $10 to you? Of course not! Unless kept artificially low due to rate-regulation, businesses price things based on value, so no matter what, the price is going to be the price, based on what you're getting and what you're willing to pay for it.

Note a ramification of this: It means that this retransmission fee stuff is almost surely going to mostly just cut into cable company profits. Their costs will be going up, but they won't be able to pass all of that cost increase through to customers, because customers are *still* going to pay based on *value*.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> Not true.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/cablevision_free_reign_Jb20WO8wZ54TvaRsnhAOyK
> 
> The local tier is becoming deregulated in some areas. I don't agree with the decision. Cable companies aren't competing for broadcast basic customers.


Thanks for the link... that does change the dynamic a bit, in areas where rate-deregulation is applied (in other words, for now, just in Westchester County NY) in terms of what I said earlier about higher tier customers subsidizing lowest tier customers.

However, of course, *value *still trumps all.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

A lot of articles are now forcasting that OTA channels will be gone in a few years, forcing everyone to either cable or satellite live TV (Internet, DVD and Blu-ray could be used to watch previously "aired" recordings). 

Would the FCC allow broadcast stations to completely turn off their antennas and go black? As far as I'm aware, there would have to be at least one station per market. I suppose that everything could be shut down except the news which would probably satisfy the FCC, but I don't see how any affiliate station could make any money that way.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Comcast owns NBC. Will it become a cable channel eventually?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> A lot of articles are now forcasting that OTA channels will be gone in a few years, forcing everyone to either cable or satellite live TV (Internet, DVD and Blu-ray could be used to watch previously "aired" recordings).


I don't think any credible sources are forecasting that OTA channels (i.e., the entirety of the category, as you've stated it) will be "gone" in a "few years". If you read deeper, you see what they're actually saying is that most of the OTA channels we have may substantially change their programming mix (probably more news and information, and more reality and competition shows, perhaps more educations programming), and/or that more (but not all) of the bandwidth currently used for OTA may be reallocated to other uses.



morac said:


> Would the FCC allow broadcast stations to completely turn off their antennas and go black?


They probably would have no choice in the matter (they control who is allowed to operate -- they cannot legitimately control who decides not to operate), but it is immaterial. The real question is whether the FCC has a means of taking action with regard to the aforementioned change in programming. I think not, because the FCC has standards already, and the new programming mix I referred to would actually meet those standards. There are no, and probably will never be any, requirements for programming to include, specifically, original, never-before-broadcast scripted comedies and dramas. There are many television stations in operation today that currently don't present such programming.



morac said:


> As far as I'm aware, there would have to be at least one station per market.


What do you mean "aware"? What specific requirement are you referring to?



morac said:


> I suppose that everything could be shut down except the news which would probably satisfy the FCC, but I don't see how any affiliate station could make any money that way.


If you cut your costs, then you don't need to make as much revenue to still make profit.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Cable companies are allowed to use utility poles on public and private property. They pay a low fee to whatever utility owns the pole. I don't have the right to bill Cablevision for having their wire on a pole on my property. Nor am I allowed to charge them to enter my property every time they need to climb the pole.

JMO but getting access to polls, at a set price, is what justifies regulation. Cable companies want to be free from regulation? Maybe property owners should be allowed to negotiate with the companies. Cable companies want regulation for the prices they pay to access utility poles.

I read Fox is looking for $1 per subscriber, the same price TWC pays for TNT. Fox contends their network is watched by a lot more customers then TNT. TWC doesn't seem to have a problem paying their parent company for TNT. They just don't want to pay other companies for content.

Maybe be TWC needs to reduce the number of channels in their expanded basic tier. Subscribers who have no interest in sports are paying for ESPN channels, regional sports networks and a variety of specialized sports channels.

The present policy isn't fair to the cable companies. A station that airs little more then infomercials can use "must carry" to require carriage but channels customers watch can require retransmission fees.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> Thanks for the link... that does change the dynamic a bit, in areas where rate-deregulation is applied (in other words, for now, just in Westchester County NY) in terms of what I said earlier about higher tier customers subsidizing lowest tier customers.
> 
> However, of course, *value *still trumps all.


The waiver also includes Long Island. The article doesn't mention waivers granted in other locations but suggests they've been given.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> Cable companies are allowed to use utility poles on public and private property. They pay a low fee to whatever utility owns the pole. I don't have the right to bill Cablevision for having their wire on a pole on my property. Nor am I allowed to charge them to enter my property every time they need to climb the pole. JMO but getting access to polls, at a set price, is what justifies regulation.


Your government disagrees. Rather, things like "getting access to polls" is what justifies financial payments that terrestrial service providers must pay to franchising authorities, justifies free service to governmental agencies and schools and libraries, etc.

Regulation is justified, specifically, by the "need" for access to news and information services, i.e., local broadcast channels delivered by basic cable. And as you pointed out, that regulation is justified only as long as there isn't effective competition ensuring reasonable rates for this "needed" service. We can discuss in another thread whether there is or is not effective competition in Huntington NY and Westchester County NY-- in this thread all that is relevant is that where there is effective competition, rate regulation is no longer justified. (To be honest, I'm not even sure I agree with that portion of the FCC's decision -- even in perfect competition, the price could rise above affordability. For a "needed" service, that shouldn't be allowed. The only thing I can imagine that the FCC relied on was that the entirety of Westchester County NY and portions of Long Island enjoys sufficient over-the-air reception, making cable, itself, not as much of a "need" as it would be in, say, Orange County NY.)


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> The waiver also includes Long Island. The article doesn't mention waivers granted in other locations but suggests they've been given.


I dug a little deeper... apparently the waiver applies to Huntington NY and/or portions of the Hamptons, and Westchester County NY. It does not include (the entirety of) Long Island.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

bicker said:


> I don't think any credible sources are forecasting that OTA channels (i.e., the entirety of the category, as you've stated it) will be "gone" in a "few years".


An AP article in my local paper yesterday hinted at it as did the article you posted above: "The networks might even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels - a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s."

There's also articles like these:
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/12450
http://industry.bnet.com/media/1000...time-warner-cable-signals-the-end-of-free-tv/
http://www.sfvbj.com/industry_article.asp?aID=143543

Since there's no way for affiliates to charge people with antennas for OTA broadcasts, I don't see how they can stay afloat. If the affiliates are going broke with the free broadcast model, what incentive is there to stay with it?

From the point of the Fox/TW battle, Fox loses a lot of leverage if people can simply bypass TW and get Fox stations using an antenna. If Fox is only available via cable/sat, it has a much stronger bargaining chip.



bicker said:


> What do you mean "aware"? What specific requirement are you referring to?


Technically it was a one time requirement that prevented all TV stations in a region from converting over to digital TV only before the June 12, 2009 deadline. Many stations wanted to go all digital before the deadline, but there was a requirement that at least one station in the area had to remain analog until the switchover date (can't find the law), presumably so at least one station would be available to though who hadn't gotten converters at that point.

If the FCC wanted to make sure people didn't lose TV during the transition, I would think they wouldn't want people to lose TV completely if stations shut down. After all broadcast stations are still the main way the Government gets information out to the people be it with emergency alerts, news, presidential broadcasts, etc.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> I dug a little deeper... apparently the waiver applies to Huntington NY and/or portions of the Hamptons, and Westchester County NY. It does not include (the entirety of) Long Island.


I suspect we're getting incomplete information. The article in the NY Post just says Long Island. It makes no sense to provide a waiver for the Hamptons and not the rest of LI. AFAIK FiOS isn't even offering service in the Hamptons and OTA isn't really an option.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

morac said:


> An AP article in my local paper yesterday *hinted *at it as did the article you posted above: "The networks *might *even ditch free broadcast signals in the next few years. Instead, they could operate as cable channels - a move that could spell the end of free TV as Americans have known it since the 1940s."


The words you're lifting were in paragraphs presenting speculation, not forecasts. Subtle difference, I know. Look at one paragraph from the first link you provided: "It could mean ... Or, it could also mean ... If this were the case ..." They're presenting science fiction. And like science fiction, it doesn't mean it won't happen, but no one is suggesting that it is likely to happen. It's fun reading -- just like science fiction.

To be fair, they are leading folks to believe what you implied. They -- meaning (bad) journalists. They're not quoting executives from major owners of broadcast stations, nor are they quoting acknowledge industry experts making firm forecasts.



morac said:


> Since there's no way for affiliates to charge people with antennas for OTA broadcasts, I don't see how they can stay afloat.


Advertising revenue isn't going away; it's just likely to decrease markedly. That will still leave more than enough money to operate transmitters, and obtain (less expensive) programming to populate the airwaves.



morac said:


> If the affiliates are going broke with the free broadcast model, what incentive is there to stay with it?


There will be money to be made -- just with less expensive-to-produce (or less expensive-to-obtain-rights-to) content.



morac said:


> From the point of the Fox/TW battle, Fox loses a lot of leverage if people can simply bypass TW and get Fox stations using an antenna.


Absolutely. I think Fox is going to win the battle but lose the war here -- or not. Maybe they'll win this battle, and then change to a different war, later, within which they can continue to win: I think they'll get what they can get now, *this* way, and then later, if too many people realize that they can save money by getting rid of cable/satellite, then Fox -- really all the networks -- can detect that trend beginning to happen, and move their best content to cable, exclusively for first-run. It's like riding the wave.



morac said:


> morac said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I'm aware, there would have to be at least one station per market.
> ...


Oh! You're talking about a requirement applying to a time period in the past, not the future.



morac said:


> If the FCC wanted to make sure people didn't lose TV during the transition, I would think they wouldn't want people to lose TV completely if stations shut down.


In the end, it is immaterial. It is doubtful to become an issue. Again, the entirety of what will probably change is *what *is presented over the air, and perhaps the number of channels presenting "that" will decrease a bit, but not come close to 0. Indeed, for each channel that goes off-the-air, the other channels all benefit. Once we get down to three or four channels per DMA, there will be more than enough money available to capitalize on to present news and information, local event, educational programming, etc.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> I suspect we're getting incomplete information. The article in the NY Post just says Long Island.


I'm looking for more details. The Hamptons information, that I relayed earlier, actually pertains to an *earlier* waiver, from August.



lew said:


> It makes no sense to provide a waiver for the Hamptons and not the rest of LI.


Well, it does, if other suppliers (see below) serve the Hamptons but not other places on Long Island. As a matter of fact, it *doesn't *make sense to provide a blanket waiver for an area as large as Long Island.



lew said:


> AFAIK FiOS isn't even offering service in the Hamptons and OTA isn't really an option.


The FCC determined that regulation was no longer necessary due to:


FCC DA 09-1826 said:


> *competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, DirecTV, Inc., and Dish Network*


By the way, this establishes that the FCC does indeed consider *just satellite services* to be effective competition to cable -- no matter how much people in these forums insist that it is not the case. 

continuing...


FCC DA 09-1826 said:


> III. ORDERING CLAUSES
> 14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a determination of effective
> competition filed in the captioned proceeding by Cablevision Systems East Hampton Corp. IS
> GRANTED.
> ...


http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2009/db0818/DA-09-1826A1.txt

As indicated earlier, I am searching for other, similar documents, from the same source, to get the full picture of this more recent waiver.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

The government (FCC) can be wrong. Satellite isn't really a competitor to cable for a significant number of people in NYC. Most apartments don't have any terrace, let alone one with the correct exposure.

It's certainly not a competitor for those (few) people who only want basic service. You can't get basic broadcast channels with satellite unless you lease a STB.

BTW it does make sense to grant LI a blanket waiver *if* you consider satellite to be a competitor. LI has relatively few apartments. Some homeowners might have to chop down some trees



bicker said:


> The FCC determined that regulation was no longer necessary due to:By the way, this establishes that the FCC does indeed consider *just satellite services* to be effective competition to cable -- no matter how much people in these forums insist that it is not the case.
> 
> continuing...
> 
> ...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lew said:


> The government (FCC) can be wrong.


Not in this. They are the determiners of whether there is or is not effective competition. If they say there is, then for all intents and purposes, regarding all manner of requirements and expectations, *there is*.

Anything else is akin to saying that the US Judiciary doesn't certify elections, and thereby claiming (going back far enough to be less controversial) that Dwight Eisenhower was never elected President of the United States.

Either we traffic in some reasonable basis for truth, or everything is just a matter of opinion, in which case we're back to the wild West, where everything must necessarily be adjudicated at the end of a barrel of a gun.



lew said:


> Satellite isn't really a competitor to cable for a significant number of people in NYC.


That remains to be determined.



lew said:


> It's certainly not a competitor for those (few) people who only want basic service. You can't get basic broadcast channels with satellite unless you lease a STB.


That's ridiculous. It's like saying that DBS isn't a competitor to cable because DBS won't allow you to use your TiVo HD. The FCC has made it clear that that feature specification does *not* constitute a necessary criteria for effective competition.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

BTW, finally found my way to the right place for the recent Cablevision waiver. It evidently has not been posted yet. We'll have to check back next week.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

lew said:


> The government (FCC) can be wrong. Satellite isn't really a competitor to cable for a significant number of people in NYC. Most apartments don't have any terrace, let alone one with the correct exposure.
> 
> It's certainly not a competitor for those (few) people who only want basic service. You can't get basic broadcast channels with satellite unless you lease a STB.
> 
> BTW it does make sense to grant LI a blanket waiver *if* you consider satellite to be a competitor. LI has relatively few apartments. Some homeowners might have to chop down some trees


The buildings have a roof.

Now the owner of the building might not be willing to coordinate a dish farm, but it's possible to do...


----------



## Eddief66 (Oct 24, 2009)

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100101-700684.html


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Link to an article where they don't make you pay to see the whole story. 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-continue-talks-after-deal-ends-update1-.html


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> Link to an article where they don't make you pay to see the whole story.
> 
> http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-continue-talks-after-deal-ends-update1-.html


From the linked article:


> U.S. Senator John Kerry said in a letter to News Corp. dated Dec. 30 that he would ask the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to force Fox to keep its signal turned on if the issue wasnt resolved


....sausage being made....if you like watching.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

Tentative deal reached:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581744,00.html


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Raj said:


> Tentative deal reached:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581744,00.html


In other words: duh! It clearly was going to happen. Neither side could afford for a deal to not be reached.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

and I never lost Fox here in Dallas on TWC.


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

morac said:


> Just to comment on your issue. I am the person whose post you linked to over at DSLR. It took a while, but eventually the problem simply went away (I don't remember the specifics since it was about 4 years ago, but I may have replaced the cable box).
> 
> The problem seemed to be caused by an incorrect conversion from analog to digital. Since you are using analog only and saw the problem on a CRT TV, the problem would have to be wherever the signal was originally converted to digital.


Yeah, needless to say, it has never gone away for me here. Any analog channel that is downconverted from HD has the potential to have this problem... and I still see it to this day. I see it on Comcast's cable boxes, as well as many other tuners, TVs, and locations in my area (all served by Comcast). They keep coming to the house, seeing it, and then trying to fix it (presumably) and then saying they need to see it again. They may have improved things on Weather Channel... sometimes... and I will say it seems to be slightly less frequent, but when it happens, holy crap can it be bad. Anyway, they're still digging at it...


----------



## schwinn (Sep 18, 2004)

bicker said:


> Yes necessarily. You are just pointing out that the regulation of the local tier may be with one government entity instead of another.  *It is still regulated, to be reasonably priced.* That was the point.
> 
> You read what you quoted wrong. The law here in the Commonwealth is that the regulation is by the state government when the local franchise authority has elected that option. Otherwise, the responsibility for regulation _remains in the hands of the local franchising authority_.


Where does it say this? So far, I can cite the previous people in my local cable committee, some who have been involved for many years, the previous mayor, and a few lawyers who helped us with the process (as we were "shopping" for one during the process). Can you cite where rates can be regulated by the locality?

I'll agree that my Cable Division citation only applies to move the responsibility to state, this does not preclude the ability of the locality to do so. But where does it say this, exactly, and why would all these people say the exact opposite? Are you quoting the federal statute alone? Can you show me an MA locality agreement where they have successfully retained the power to set regulated pricing?



> No, not a "loophole" at all. The right of the networks to demand retransmission fees is explicitly written into the Telecommunications Act. The FCC had no choice in the matter. The law trumps the FCC.


Yes, I know it's written in, but the point is that the FCC is "regulating" the cable companies, and then letting the networks "do what they want" on the other side. Not exactly fair... that's all I am saying. Not fair "by law", in other words.



> Evidently not.
> 
> My comments are no more so "jumping off the deep end" than your outrageously myopic attacks on the companies involved here. Think of me as a mirror. If you want the tenor of my replies to change, change the tenor of the messages to which I would be replying.


It's comments like your first one that elicit my second response. I'm asking for information, and I'm even saying that maybe we simply know different areas of the matter... your "evidently not" retort is simply insulting, and uncalled for. If you want to retain a civilized conversation, then let's have that.

I am sorry if I insulted you in some way on a previous post, but I am simply speaking from what I have experienced and learned during my process. I have declared my experience and numerous citations on this matter. You have not provided any such information, so maybe you can tell me where your experience comes from? In other words, why should I believe you (some guy on the internet) from my own experience and multi-point citations?

Anyway, moving forward, I don't believe I have insulted you or your knowledge in any way in this post, so hopefully we can move forward with that, at least.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

schwinn said:


> Where does it say this?


47 USC 543



schwinn said:


> So far, I can cite the previous people in my local cable committee, some who have been involved for many years, the previous mayor, and a few lawyers who helped us with the process (as we were "shopping" for one during the process).


I'll outline all the possibilities:
- You were speaking to people who don't know the law
- You were speaking to the wrong people
- You didn't understand what they told you, or what we've told you
- You aren't being honest about speaking to them or what they said

In the end, it is clear that the most likely scenario is that your local franchising authority has passed off their regulatory power to the DTE, as is their right. But instead of pursuing your issue with the DTE (and I even offered to give you the name of someone I have worked with there), you insist on defecating on the thread by ignoring what you've been told and continuing to insist that 47 USC 543 doesn't exist. It is time for you to accept the truth and move on. My offer still stands... if you want my offer still stands: I'll search through my records and get you the name of the guy at DTE whom I worked with, and perhaps you can follow up your concern with the DTE through him.

I am beginning to become concerned, though, that you really don't want to do what you should do to follow up the concerns you _claim _to have about rate regulation, and instead just want to continue spreading your misinformation. Essentially, you're in danger or reducing yourself to a troll. The way I see it, you can either call the DTE, stop posting, or from here on in everything you post will be colored by the fact that you refuse to follow-up with the DTE, demonstrating that you aren't being forthright about your concern.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Raj said:


> Tentative deal reached:
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581744,00.html





rainwater said:


> In other words: duh! It clearly was going to happen. Neither side could afford for a deal to not be reached.


TWC should have done a lockout and removed FOX themselves.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

netringer said:


> TWC should have done a lockout and removed FOX themselves.


Thus losing subscribers? There's no way TWC would do that. Sure, many can't switch to Directv or Dish but many would if it lasted very long. That's why it was never going to happen. Fox couldn't afford to lose that many customers at once either.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

While I agree with you that TWC simply cannot afford to lose the number of subscribers that they'd lose by depriving them of Fox for too long, I don't think you can say the same thing, at least not anywhere close to the same degree, about Fox. While no one likes to lose customers, the reality is that Fox wouldn't be anywhere closer to as adversely affected by losing carriage for its o/o on TWC, as TWC would be. For starters, as you suggested some TWC subscribers would switch providers, and thereby regain their access to Fox. Second, Fox was forthcoming with guidance about how folks could access Fox programming aside from via TWC (and remarkably TWC was as well).


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> While I agree with you that TWC simply cannot afford to lose the number of subscribers that they'd lose by depriving them of Fox for too long, I don't think you can say the same thing, at least not anywhere close to the same degree, about Fox. While no one likes to lose customers, the reality is that Fox wouldn't be anywhere closer to as adversely affected by losing carriage for its o/o on TWC, as TWC would be. For starters, as you suggested some TWC subscribers would switch providers, and thereby regain their access to Fox. Second, Fox was forthcoming with guidance about how folks could access Fox programming aside from via TWC (and remarkably TWC was as well).


I would be willing to bet Fox would instantly lose millions of dollars in ad revenue. TWC has a huge percentage of customers in the US. Not getting a single viewer through TWC on any of it's Fox networks would be disastrous.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rainwater said:


> I would be willing to bet Fox would instantly lose millions of dollars in ad revenue. TWC has a huge percentage of customers in the US.


Nah. We're only talking about seven or eight markets -- BIG markets, no doubt, but still only seven or eight markets. Beyond that, just because Fox wouldn't be carried by TWC, doesn't mean everyone in those markets stop watching Fox. Fox is still available in those markets through a variety of mechanisms, not the least of which is OTA antenna.



rainwater said:


> Not getting a single viewer through TWC on any of it's Fox networks would be disastrous.


However, that's simply not a reasonable assumption about what would have happened IMHO.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> Nah. We're only talking about seven or eight markets -- BIG markets, no doubt, but still only seven or eight markets. Beyond that, just because Fox wouldn't be carried by TWC, doesn't mean everyone in those markets stop watching Fox. Fox is still available in those markets through a variety of mechanisms, not the least of which is OTA antenna.


I don't think 6 million customers is a insignificant number. The digital transition has already shown that people who already used OTA didn't know how to prepare for digital OTA. It isn't hard to figure out how people who don't even use OTA would react to that being their only option (and OTA isn't an option for many especially since the digital transition). Even if a huge number of people switched to satellite, you wouldn't expect it to even be more than 1% of the current customers.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

bicker said:


> ...... Massachusetts has done a great job attracting businesses and keeping our economy vibrant. Some other states up here -- haven't. And now many of the citizens of those other states are upset about the dichotomy. They enjoyed the years of lower taxes and less intercession by government, but aren't willing to accept the natural ramifications of their lack of vision. No matter how you slice it, the responsibility for their disappointment rests (collectively) within themselves.
> ...........


 Can you elaborate on how higher taxes and more government intercession help create a vibrant economy? I think my state (Ohio) is suffering from taxes being too high, driving business away from the state. Boston and the 128 corridor are a long standing concentration of high tech companies and higher education, which may explain a lot of the "vibrating" your economy does. I'm not seeing how higher taxes and more government intercession should get the credit for this, but I'm eager to learn.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

rainwater said:


> I don't think 6 million customers is a insignificant number.


It's a fake number though, because it includes customers who would not have found an alternative source for Fox and those who would. You cannot measure negative impact on Fox with a number that includes people who _would not effectively lose access to the channel_.



rainwater said:


> Even if a huge number of people switched to satellite, you wouldn't expect it to even be more than 1% of the current customers.


No: *You* would expect it to be, because for some reason you're trying to convince people that Fox had a lot more to lose than they did. Without proof though, it's nothing more than anti-Fox propaganda, AFAIC. To balance your bias, I'll project that the pro-Fox propaganda would say that more than half of all TWC subscriber who care about Fox would have found an alternative, for long enough that this would have hurt TWC many many many times worse than it hurt Fox. There now we have balance.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

dlfl said:


> Can you elaborate on how higher taxes and more government intercession help create a vibrant economy?


Not in this forum. It is not the correct place to have intelligent discussions about statewide economic issues. We barely can have discussions about *market *economics here, without rabid consumerists and socialists trying to revise reality.

What's important is the comparison: Compare the northern New England states to Massachusetts and you'll understand why all the traffic on the roads during rush hour is to and from jobs in Massachusetts, not to and from jobs in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. A quarter of the people I work with trek in from the northern reaches, because their state has failed to attract and/or keep employers as well as Massachusetts. I tell you that we have had success; if you want to understand how, you'll have to read up on that yourself, somewhere else.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

People switching to satellite or another cable system would probably agree to at least a one year commitment.

My guess is TWC would have been pressured into waiving whatever termination penalties would otherwise have been applied to leaving customers.

Bicker has it right, TWC had a lot more to lose.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

bicker said:


> No: *You* would expect it to be, because for some reason you're trying to convince people that Fox had a lot more to lose than they did.


No I am not. I never said who had more to lose because you can't really quantify either side's impact. But I am not naive to think the average customer has the knowledge to use OTA and cable at the same time. The digital switchover showed that even people who already used OTA didn't have the knowledge. In most places since the digital switchover, OTA isn't even possible until the FCC loosens the power regulations.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

rainwater said:


> No I am not. I never said who had more to lose because you can't really quantify either side's impact. But I am not naive to think the average customer has the knowledge to use OTA and cable at the same time. The digital switchover showed that even people who already used OTA didn't have the knowledge. In most places since the digital switchover, OTA isn't even possible until the FCC loosens the power regulations.


I find that VERY hard to believe. My aged parents, far from being technically savvy, had the digital transition taken care of on their own with no problems. They used their coupons and got the conversion boxes set up and working all on their own. They use OTA almost exclusively, with the exception of having DirecTV for one of their televisions.

Those folks using OTA were bombarded with instructions by the local stations, and I think were very aware of what to do. I see MUCH more confusion with cable providers switching from analog to digital, and people not knowing what to do...


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Here it comes!


> the New York Times points out, the deal between the two companies means that TWC will pay Fox some tidy new fees to carry the channel, and will pass those along to customers. Or rather, TWC has already handed the bill to subscribers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know the $100 a month cable TV bills are not enough. Lessee...175 channels - of which you watch 80 - @ $1.00 a month each, plus the cabelcos fees plus premium channels @ $15 a month.

The day they say I gotta pay for QVC...


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

netringer said:


> Here it comes!
> 
> You know the $100 a month cable TV bills are not enough. Lessee...175 channels - of which you watch 80 - @ $1.00 a month each, plus the cabelcos fees plus premium channels @ $15 a month.
> 
> The day they say I gotta pay for QVC...


I don't know anyone who actually watches 80 channels other than possibly TV critics.

I get around 200 channels and watch at most around 10 of them (~5%) with about half of those being OTA channels. The annoying part is that they are all in different tiers so I have to pay the highest tier to get all the channels I watch.


----------



## orangeboy (Apr 19, 2004)

morac said:


> I don't know anyone who actually watches 80 channels other than possibly TV critics.
> 
> I get around 200 channels and watch at most around 10 of them (~5%) with about half of those being OTA channels. The annoying part is that they are all in different tiers so I have to pay the highest tier to get all the channels I watch.


And I imagine that is by design!


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> Not in this forum. It is not the correct place to have intelligent discussions about statewide economic issues. We barely can have discussions about *market *economics here, without rabid consumerists and socialists trying to revise reality.
> 
> What's important is the comparison: Compare the northern New England states to Massachusetts and you'll understand why all the traffic on the roads during rush hour is to and from jobs in Massachusetts, not to and from jobs in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. A quarter of the people I work with trek in from the northern reaches, because their state has failed to attract and/or keep employers as well as Massachusetts. I tell you that we have had success; if you want to understand how, you'll have to read up on that yourself, somewhere else.


Could it be they don't want to live in MA? If MA was so good for people they'd have enough people in state and out of state commuters would have no place to go. I'm sorry but that is not a positive statement about MA. So while it may be good for business, apparently not so much for it's citizens.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Oh goodie, bicker's actually calling people socialists now.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Could it be they don't want to live in MA? If MA was so good for people they'd have enough people in state and out of state commuters would have no place to go.


No place to go? Wth does that mean?

People live outside MA but work here inside MA generally because homes are so expensive inside MA



Stormspace said:


> I'm sorry but that is not a positive statement about MA.


And that is a positive statement about MA. Check out parts of Michigan, by comparison, where whole neighborhoods are for sale for fractions of what they were originally worth.



Stormspace said:


> So while it may be good for business, apparently not so much for it's citizens.


No, you've misunderstood. It is good for its citizens.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> Oh goodie, bicker's actually calling people socialists now.


And you know it means something when you've been called a socialist by someone from Massachusetts!


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> Could it be they don't want to live in MA? If MA was so good for people they'd have enough people in state and out of state commuters would have no place to go. I'm sorry but that is not a positive statement about MA. So while it may be good for business, apparently not so much for it's citizens.


Are you saying that all major cities have failed their citizens since so many people commute into the city to work?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

bicker said:


> It's a fake number though, because it includes customers who would not have found an alternative source for Fox and those who would. You cannot measure negative impact on Fox with a number that includes people who _would not effectively lose access to the channel_.


In Manhattan you can use an off air antenna, even an indoor one works. In the outer boroughs it's a bit challenging but much of Brooklyn and the Bronx is Cablevision territory so they aren't affected. A lot of areas are now also served by FiOS so that's another option.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Are you saying that all major cities have failed their citizens since so many people commute into the city to work?


Yes. In a way places that have to import workers have failed at keeping the environment attractive enough for people to co-locate near their jobs. In big cities, it might be overcrowding or crime. Apparently in MA it's cheaper to commute from a nearby state than live and work in MA. Could people be moving out of state to have a decent standard of living? Can MA businesses pay out of state workers less or do out of state workers make that MA paycheck go further elsewhere? At any rate a high cost of living that prevents workers from living close by is a failure in the local economy to appeal to all levels of society.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Stormspace said:


> Yes. In a way places that have to import workers have failed at keeping the environment attractive enough for people to co-locate near their jobs.


That's silly. Places that have to import workers simply have more work than they have places for people to live, and so the housing is therefore significantly more expensive closer to where the economic prosperity is centered.



Stormspace said:


> At any rate a high cost of living that prevents workers from living close by is a failure in the local economy to appeal to all levels of society.


Sounds to me that you are envious of what we have here, so you're grasping at straws to come up with some lame way of trying to disparage what we have here. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Stormspace said:


> Yes. In a way places that have to import workers have failed at keeping the environment attractive enough for people to co-locate near their jobs. In big cities, it might be overcrowding or crime.


so Major cities have failed because they have not figured out how to comfortably have more people per acre?
MA fails because it has a job market and not enough room for everyone to live more cheaply? If Vermont has done better why are the companies not locating the jobs there?

In my Consulting days I have worked/trained in many major cities and Boston was always one of my fave places to work followed closely by Chicago.*

*I liked Dallas except I was there the Summer they had all those 100 degree days in a row.


----------



## Stormspace (Apr 13, 2004)

bicker said:


> That's silly. Places that have to import workers simply have more work than they have places for people to live, and so the housing is therefore significantly more expensive closer to where the economic prosperity is centered.


That's only one way of looking at it. I haven't checked, but is MA's unemployment rate at 0%? Otherwise there are plenty of people to do the work locally.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> so Major cities have failed because they have not figured out how to comfortably have more people per acre?


Gosh I'd hate to think of the world crafted by those parameters: "Sorry, to satisfy the Stormspace Criterion, it is necessary to sub-divide all dwelling units in the city that are over x square feet per person."


----------

