# Cablevision dropped HGTV and FoodNetwork



## driverseven (Oct 11, 2007)

Those of us who are stuck with Cableivision (or sub-Optimum TV) woke up to find that 2 of our channels are missing -- the HG and Food channels show only a message from cablevision explaining that they are gone. My wife and daughter watch these 2 channels just about every day.

I have already phoned and sent an email

This is the link to their email form

http://optimum.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/optimum.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php

And this is the link to their phone numbers

http://www.optimum.net/Support/PhoneList

The longterm solution to this problem is to revive the federal legislation that was killed in committee. It would require that subscribers can choose the TV channels they want -- we are now being forced to pay for channels we don't want but the rates keep going up.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

driverseven said:


> The longterm solution to this problem is to revive the federal legislation that was killed in committee.


None of those bills required cable companies to provide every channel. It just meant you could choose which channels you wanted to receive from the ones they offered. However, everyone knows cable companies will price each channel so high, that you will still be forced to go with their packages. So I don't see how that will solve the problem.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

driverseven said:


> Those of us who are stuck with Cableivision (or sub-Optimum TV) woke up to find that 2 of our channels are missing -- the HG and Food channels show only a message from cablevision explaining that they are gone. My wife and daughter watch these 2 channels just about every day.
> 
> I have already phoned and sent an email
> 
> ...


Call and cancel your cable package immediately. It's the only way you can have an impact. Complaining to them is useless, as they will put the blame on Scripps Network Interactive, which owns these channels. SNI on their hand wants the customers to complain to Cablevision, so they will carry the channels again. See this: Food Network, HGTV Enlist Viewers' Help to Keep Popular Lifestyle Networks on Cablevision

You need to put your foot down and stop paying. Money talks. If you keep paying and keep begging Cablevision to carry the channels no matter the cost, then you should not complain when prices go up.



rainwater said:


> None of those bills required cable companies to provide every channel. It just meant you could choose which channels you wanted to receive from the ones they offered. However, everyone knows cable companies will price each channel so high, that you will still be forced to go with their packages. So I don't see how that will solve the problem.


Just like with packages, if they priced them too high, nobody would buy them. A market-based solution seems the best way to go here, not more legislation. Cable TV is not a necessity, if people keep paying, cable companies will keep raising prices. Simple as that.


----------



## driverseven (Oct 11, 2007)

I will be canceling Cablevision if they don't resolve it -- I have the option of FIOS and CV knows this.

Obviously, it is a PITA to switch cable providers so I'm going to give it a few days to be resolved (my daughter doesn't yet realize she's just lost one of her favorite channels).

What I'm arguing for is a market solution -- let people choose the packages they want, instead of what they're being offered now, which are extremely limited choices. The current system is protectionism -- for the cable companies. And they well know it. They fought tooth-and-nail when the subject of a la carte pricing was raised a few years ago.

Since an a la carte channel pricing system was never tried, no one knows what would happen. But the current system is clearly not working. Prices go up every year, and consumers don't have a real choice.

If this was just HGTV and FoodNetwork, it would not be a big deal. But the negotiations between Fox and TWC are almost certain to lead to another round of price hikes.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

everything leads to price hikes. And FIOS and DirecTV and Dish aren't immune to these pissing contests. No matter who you switch to, you'll eventually get stuck in the middle of one.


----------



## driverseven (Oct 11, 2007)

That's true -- until there is a la carte pricing.


----------



## chestnu1 (Oct 10, 2008)

Well if you do go with fios tell us how the install goes.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

I am happy that Cablevision didnt give into Scripps demands. everytime they do the price of cable goes up. Cable company's need to fight back against networks if they want to lower there cost.



driverseven said:


> I will be canceling Cablevision if they don't resolve it -- I have the option of FIOS and CV knows this.
> 
> Obviously, it is a PITA to switch cable providers so I'm going to give it a few days to be resolved (my daughter doesn't yet realize she's just lost one of her favorite channels).
> 
> ...


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

driverseven said:


> That's true -- until there is a la carte pricing.


All ala carte pricing will do is raise the bundle rates. The cable companies will make sure to price the ala carte channels so that bundles are the only option.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

tootal2 said:


> I am happy that Cablevision didnt give into Scripps demands. everytime they do the price of cable goes up. Cable company's need to fight back against networks if they want to lower there cost.


what makes you think that it is only programming costs that cause cable companies to raise rates?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

rainwater said:


> All ala carte pricing will do is raise the bundle rates. The cable companies will make sure to price the ala carte channels so that bundles are the only option.


To properly offer a la carte pricing, the cable (or satellite or fiber/phone company) needs to provide a pipeline available to all programmers, and programmers would then authorize the reception of any particular content over that pipeline.

Those programmers could sell direct, or through aggregators that might make deals with groups of channels to offer them as package; the aggregator would not necessarily be, but could be, the owner of the pipeline. That's how you would ensure that the marketplace pricing was competitive. It would still permit a channel to sell its content exclusively however it saw fit, but at least for commercially supported channels, it'd be highly unlikely many would ever choose that path.

Forcing the cable company (or other provider) simply to offer the channels they choose to provide priced a la carte or in packages would not provide much if any incentive to create a competitive marketplace of programming.


----------



## shadowplay (Mar 12, 2003)

driverseven said:


> That's true -- until there is a la carte pricing.


I also think people will mainly want the channels that cost more and pass on the cheaper and often (buy not always) crappier channels.

There is no way all the channels would cost the same...


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

driverseven said:


> Since an a la carte channel pricing system was never tried, no one knows what would happen. But the current system is clearly not working. Prices go up every year, and consumers don't have a real choice.


It used to, and to some degree, exists for C-band programming, but only for some of the channels. 
But you have more control than you do with traditional cable.

And there is Canada. We here have a whole batch of "digital only" channels (as opposed to the existing cable channels at that time which were on analog cable), the first and most of them launching in September 2001. Some (most, if not all) providers provide access to them Alacarte, in traditional packages, or in a bundle, after you subscribe to a certain minimum Basic package (networks and must carry cable channels)
Most of them are still around, although are mostly ran by one of the handful of media conglomerates in Canada.Mind you the broadcast /network and traditional channels are not yet ala-carte. by 2015 they are.


----------



## danschn (Apr 22, 2004)

tootal2 said:


> I am happy that Cablevision didnt give into Scripps demands. everytime they do the price of cable goes up. Cable company's need to fight back against networks if they want to lower there cost.


When they give in, the price goes up; when they don't give in, the price goes up; when the calendar turns, the price goes up; when they offer more "free" HD channels, the price goes up. When they replace old technology, the price goes up; when they keep the same old technology, the price goes up.

I notice a pattern with Cablevision, but I've only been a customer for 12 years or so and watched my monthly bill go from $22 to $160 in that time. Yes, the service is better, but not 8 times better.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I am waiting for all these channels to offer direct streaming and essentially avoid the middle man completely.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

zalusky said:


> I am waiting for all these channels to offer direct streaming and essentially avoid the middle man completely.


Look forward to increased Internet rates by your cable company when that happens.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

zalusky said:


> I am waiting for all these channels to offer direct streaming and essentially avoid the middle man completely.


And lose the money that cable companies are paying them?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Yep cable companies arm twist them with their customer base. I am betting sooner or later this is going to fall apart simply because the content generators do not like paying the middle man.

Cable had better reinvent their business model to not rely on legacy delivery. This is one of they major reasons they bought NBC in my opinion. So they could get revenue as a content generator not just a distributor.


----------



## stiffi (Jun 14, 2006)

zalusky said:


> Yep cable companies arm twist them with their customer base. I am betting sooner or later this is going to fall apart simply because the content generators do not like paying the middle man.
> 
> Cable had better reinvent their business model to not rely on legacy delivery. This is one of they major reasons they bought NBC in my opinion. So they could get revenue as a content generator not just a distributor.


what middle man? Comcast owns NBC Universal. That won't be the last deal of its kind.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Al la Carte would allow me to get rid of the Christian channels. People call them religious channels but they only have one religion on them. I bet I watch only 20 channels out of the over 100 I receive.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

stiffi said:


> what middle man? Comcast owns NBC Universal. That won't be the last deal of its kind.


Thats what I am saying and thats why they JUST made a proposal to buy it (it's not done yet).

There are a lot of channels that are not part of NBC universal that would sure like to sell direct and not have to pay off Comcast. The dam is slowly breaking with streaming from the broadcast companies already happening. We just need that to happen with the cable only channels.


----------



## pdonoghu (Mar 6, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Thats what I am saying and thats why they JUST made a proposal to buy it (it's not done yet).
> 
> There are a lot of channels that are not part of NBC universal that would sure like to sell direct and not have to pay off Comcast. The dam is slowly breaking with streaming from the broadcast companies already happening. We just need that to happen with the cable only channels.


I think you've got it backwards. Comcast, TWC, Cabelvision, et all have to pay the content providers to carry their channels. This includes non broadcast services like HGTV, Discovery, as well as broadcast networks.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

sieglinde said:


> Al la Carte would allow me to get rid of the Christian channels.


Of course removing those channels will raise the cost of each individual channel. There's a reason why there's a million religious and shopping networks on cable/satellite.


----------



## TolloNodre (Nov 3, 2007)

danschn said:


> When they give in, the price goes up; when they don't give in, the price goes up; when the calendar turns, the price goes up; when they offer more "free" _crap_, the price goes up. When they replace old technology, the price goes up; when they keep the same old technology, the price goes up.


Thanks for laugh.. 

And I fixed it so it can used for everything in my life.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

rainwater said:


> Of course removing those channels will raise the cost of each individual channel. There's a reason why there's a million religious and shopping networks on cable/satellite.


I would gladly pay the same *overall* amount, to directly support the channels that I watch. Yes, I would be paying more per channel, and would probably miss out on some shows I would 'try out' otherwise.. But I would hope that there would be a way to turn on/off channels quickly (and pay a pro-rated amount of the monthly fee)..

I'm generally not a sports fan, but like ESPN & Comcast sportsnet mostly for the poker shows.. If I could get the poker shows another way, I would... but I'd probably still pay a la carte for the sports channels for the small portion of poker programming.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

I don't think that religious channels cost anything.

In fact, some that are OTA are must carry.

I was told that shopping channels actually pay the cable operator to carry them.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

stiffi said:


> what middle man? Comcast owns NBC Universal. That won't be the last deal of its kind.


Don't forget Time Warner Cable up until last year was owned by (AOL) Time Warner as well.

"the middle man" is going nowhere. In fact the trend has been away from a la carte and away from "cutting out the middleman" if the number of channels on C-Band BUD and deals such as ESPN 360's ISP billing model, AT&T's partnership with Hulu and on demand offerings from cable networks is any example.

Getting rid of "the middle man" would require cable operators and ISPs to become dumb pipes. Not going to happen.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I agree that "the middle man" isn't going anywhere. There is too much money to be made in that role. The middle man might change from being the cable provider to being the Internet provider (though that's often the same right now), as in the case of ESPN360.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

rainwater said:


> And lose the money that cable companies are paying them?


there is the rub. Basically TV channels existed a long time on advertising revenue and some revenue from the carriage fees. No one could Fast forward the commercials so the revenue was in essence protected. Time was you got the 3 channels and some publiuc ones OTA for free and that was it.

Then cable companies supplied better reception and premium channels like MTV for a fee. the new premium channels did not have advertising at first as they existed on the carriage fees. Then cable got big enough and the premium channels went to ads as that revenue got lucrative and carriage fees were more afterthought to help revenue.

now TV advertising is experiencing changes as it competes with other forms of mass advertising (Internet) and indeed some savvy marketers are even eschewing mass advertising in favor of viral and targeted advertising. For instance you do not see many "Hot Topic" ads on TV but I bet most Teenagers into Music can you give you all the locations for the stores near them. Now also people can FF the TV ads and the ads that rely on impressions to create the brand are not effective. 
Channels like the Food network are back to low ad revenue and are now looking at carriage fees to get their revenue again.

Bottom line - like others have said here, you are not going to get the channel for free and will pay for it in some fashion.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Raj said:


> I was told that shopping channels actually pay the cable operator to carry them.


Yes, that was my point. People complain about these channels, but if the providers lose out on that revenue, they will make it back on a ala carte plan. That's why it is humorous to think people will only pay for what they watch. Sure, cable companies could offer this. But no one in their right mind thinks they will make it affordable. They will be sure to screw the customer so they are forced to stick to their packages which will be the most profitable.

Plus, many of these networks rely on a per subscriber fee. You make ala carte available and they will lose out on lots of revenue. In the end, it doesn't benefit anyone.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

danschn said:


> I notice a pattern with Cablevision, but I've only been a customer for 12 years or so and watched my monthly bill go from $22 to $160 in that time. Yes, the service is better, but not 8 times better.


But what did you pay for in 1998? Just the 'family cable' package? Which was probably not even 70 channels back then. What did you add to raise the bill? Optimum online? Optimum Voice? HBO?

I think your analogy is flawed, because you are likely comparing apples to oranges. What is the cost of a similar $22 offering today?

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

driverseven said:


> What I'm arguing for is a market solution -- let people choose the packages they want, instead of what they're being offered now, which are extremely limited choices. The current system is protectionism -- for the cable companies. And they well know it. They fought tooth-and-nail when the subject of a la carte pricing was raised a few years ago.
> 
> Since an a la carte channel pricing system was never tried, no one knows what would happen. But the current system is clearly not working. Prices go up every year, and consumers don't have a real choice.


The cable companies would LOVE to offer each channel a la carte as a premium channel. Cablevision was a staunch supporter of 'let those who want it pay for it.' For YEARS, RSN's on CV (at least on Long Island) were considered PREMIUM channels like HBO. You wanted MSG? That's an extra $10 / mo. You want SportsChannel, that's an extra $10 / mo. Not until Steinbrenner forced CV's hand by demanding YES to be on the 'standard' tier, did all the other RSNs move to the 'standard' tier.

I think the issue is controlled by content providers. Usually operated and owned by a media company, these content providers will never want an a-la carte option, because it will hurt their bottom line for their marginal properties. They end up forcing an 'all or nothing' philosophy by bundling. If the media company has one big-time hit channel, but three other crappy ones that nobody watches, they can say, "If you want to carry X, you have to carry Y1, Y2, and Y3, and the cost for all four will be ___."

As posted, if you want to make a stink, cancel your service, or scale back to Broadcast Basic.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## danschn (Apr 22, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> Channels like the Food network are back to low ad revenue and are now looking at carriage fees to get their revenue again.
> 
> Bottom line - like others have said here, you are not going to get the channel for free and will pay for it in some fashion.


I disagree with your history, a little. Cable built a hardware infrastructure, becoming a consumer utility much like the phone company, and has leveraged this, generally with the acquiescence of local officials who weren't fully aware of what it would lead to, to exact monopolistic profits from consumers. Thus they raise rates all the time while enjoying favorable economies of scale and significant barriers to entry.

Late arrivals to the party, satellite and phone companies, want no part of upsetting the apple cart of customers accustomed to paying ever higher prices. They compete, but only marginally at price. What they compete for is the monopoly rent we're paying for.

In the mean time, content providers see that giant pool of monopoly profits and are able to exact a great share of it from the distribution system, as long as their end customers participate in demanding the channels. No one charges cable more than ESPN which enjoys the greatest demand. But the monopoly distorts what they are able to command, which is what made them attractive when ABC bought them, and probably leaves them among the highest gross profit businesses in the Disney empire.

Scripps is merely doing the same, competing with Cablevision for the monopoly profits. Cablevision will raise rates, regardless. They have and will gradually improve service, but not commensurate with the rate rise. Thus they apply them to vertical integration, buying or developing content. My utility company now owns sports teams, arenas and theatres, as well as busting out a consumer electronics retailer.

Maybe, one day governments will end this unfair practice for the consumer, much like it did the phone monopoly. There would be price competition, open systems and consumer choice of hardware that would work fairly seamlessly. I can dream, can't I?


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

dstoffa said:


> But what did you pay for in 1998? Just the 'family cable' package? Which was probably not even 70 channels back then. What did you add to raise the bill? Optimum online? Optimum Voice? HBO?
> 
> I think your analogy is flawed, because you are likely comparing apples to oranges. What is the cost of a similar $22 offering today?
> 
> ...


In 2001 I paid $99/month for digital cable, all movie channels and internet. This was Time Warner NYC.

I doubt that I'll get that much today for that price. It will be closer to $150.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

All that Al la carte pricing will do is give consumers less choice. Somebody watches the religious stations, just like somebody watches the food network and somebody watches Opera's station. I don't and LOTS of other people don't. So all of those people drop the station. 

Now let's say only 1&#37; of all customers subscribe to these niche stations, and only a fraction of them is watching at any given time. Advertising rates drop drastically due to even less exposure than they have now, and all these stations have a very hard time staying afloat. At least today everybody gets it and could potentially tune in.....whereas a la carte just a few even have it and it would be even harder to get people to subscribe. Most of these stations will just go away from lack of funds.

So these niche stations go away, and the cable company increases prices on the stations we all watch. Now we're paying the same price for less stations.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

danschn said:


> I disagree with your history, a little. Cable built a hardware infrastructure, becoming a consumer utility much like the phone company, and has leveraged this, generally with the acquiescence of local officials who weren't fully aware of what it would lead to, to exact monopolistic profits from consumers. Thus they raise rates all the time while enjoying favorable economies of scale and significant barriers to entry.


would have been good to quote my History then 

anyhow - cable companies are not a utility company. many people mistake them for such but it is a bad comparison to draw. Cable Companies leveraged themselves to the hilt to build that infrastructure and they pay a buttload of interest out of those "monopolistic profits" as you call them. They may have gotten some favorable right of ways that helped them but all the local franchise turning a blind eye stuff is more about a cable company wanting to make sure they would have a payoff on the capital invested to build a cable system. Now over time the system is built and people want to see it become a public pipeline as that would be most useful to consumers but the cable companies did build it and do own it - that cable is NOT a public or consumer utility.

If DBS or FIOS could significantly lower their prices and make a profit they would. They are definitely wanting to take market share from other companies. All these companies also face large costs to build and support their delivery infrastructure. There is indeed a barrier to entry as you note but that barrier is not in place by artifical means but is simply the reality of the capital needed to build a useful delivery infrastructure.

So what is the public to do? Do we insist the Govt. take over those cables and make the cable companies compete for each customer on a national level? Will the Govt. do a better job of maintaining and innovating that cable infrastructure? Do they let new companies compete across that pipe without having to deal with massive capital borrowing? Who pays off the original companies that borrowed the capital to build the pipe in the first place? As always, what about the other broadcast deliverers like DISH, DirectTV and FIOS? Do they get a waiver and just keep on trying to compete under the old model? Does the Govt. buy their 'pipeline' as well?

so while I also want a lower cable bill, better ways to choose just the channels I want and the ability to use all kinds of 3rd party hardware I remain realistic in that providing cable service or any kind of broadcast service is very capital intensive and not an easy ship to change to some new direction with any kind of speed to market we consumers demand.


----------



## danschn (Apr 22, 2004)

dstoffa said:


> But what did you pay for in 1998? Just the 'family cable' package? Which was probably not even 70 channels back then. What did you add to raise the bill? Optimum online? Optimum Voice? HBO?


I did have about 70 channels back then, and of course, no internet service or phone (which I don't have now either). As I said, the service improved, but not 8 times.

For instance, Optonline is dramatically better than the dial-up service I had in 1998, but that was improving as well, and had open hardware, increasing speeds and ever lowering costs to me of service and hardware as consumer demand encouraged economic competition from the day I started. Capitalism was working the way Adam Smith foresaw.

In 2002, digital cable was rolled out and Optonline was first offered to me and I jumped immediately. All those same economic principals apply, but the price has been absolutely flat for 8 years: $44.95 a month, which applies my $5 discount for a bundled service. Only a monopolist could keep my price constant. I still have the same modem they installed in 2002, so not a dime of marginal cost was spent on me.

I had my first cable card installed in 2004, in my new TV. I can't buy it, or a compatible one to distribute the signals I pay for. I must rent it, and I still have that original card in the back of the TV. It wasn't very much per month, maybe $1.50, but I must have paid for the original hardware several times over by now, not even making allowance for declining costs of tech hardware which should have been happening. But last year, Cablevision decided to raise the rates I pay to rent all the hardware I have in my house. The card price rose 33% to $2.00 per month. Can this possibly be justified? It's service to me isn't improving at all.

I don't think a la cart pricing for cable channels begins to address this situation. Wisely or luckily, cable broke government down into fractured localities to forge their monopoly agreements.

My only choice is to hop around on the different services and try to take advantage of teaser introductory rates. And if the hardware were open, I'd probably be doing that. Aside from the ridiculous Tuning Adaptor and tedious consumer-be-damned negotiations in creating their HD channel line-up, service is very good to excellent, and I haven't been willing to give that up. But it doesn't mean I'm happy to be exploited.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

DancnDude said:


> All that Al la carte pricing will do is give consumers less choice. Somebody watches the religious stations, just like somebody watches the food network and somebody watches Opera's station. I don't and LOTS of other people don't. So all of those people drop the station.
> 
> Now let's say only 1% of all customers subscribe to these niche stations, and only a fraction of them is watching at any given time. Advertising rates drop drastically due to even less exposure than they have now, and all these stations have a very hard time staying afloat. At least today everybody gets it and could potentially tune in.....whereas a la carte just a few even have it and it would be even harder to get people to subscribe. Most of these stations will just go away from lack of funds.
> 
> So these niche stations go away, and the cable company increases prices on the stations we all watch. Now we're paying the same price for less stations.


I can see that happening.

Sometimes I think it would be a whole lot better if cable systems went back to 36 channel configurations. That would ensure that only the most popular and most profitable stations get aired.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

What I want out of a la carte pricing is not the abiity to drop shopping or religious channels, at least those that pay the cable provider to be carried, but the ability to not subscribe to ESPN or any of the other packaged but not a la carte sports channels, which usually are priced very high even as part of the basic package. I don't want them. I don't want to contribute anything to paying for them.

And if it means those who do want them end up paying more for them, that's fine with me. I don't want to subsidize your entertainment.


----------



## StuffOfInterest (Jul 18, 2007)

Raj said:


> In 2001 I paid $99/month for digital cable, all movie channels and internet. This was Time Warner NYC.
> 
> I doubt that I'll get that much today for that price. It will be closer to $150.


Do you realize that the price change from $99 to $150 over nine years is only a 5% annual increase? The annual inflation rate averages about 3%, so you are looking at an annual increase in price of about 2%. How many more channels and how much faster internet service do you have now vs. nine years ago?


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

dswallow said:


> What I want out of a la carte pricing is not the abiity to drop shopping or religious channels, at least those that pay the cable provider to be carried, but the ability to not subscribe to ESPN or any of the other packaged but not a la carte sports channels, which usually are priced very high even as part of the basic package. I don't want them. I don't want to contribute anything to paying for them.


You don't like ESPN? Disney/ABC sure doesn't want to hear that.

If you don't want ESPN, then you can't have ABC, ABCFamily, Disney, and SOAPnet, etc.... That's the beauty of being a content provider with a bundling of channels... You make everyone pay for all your stuff, even if they don't want it. Their goal is to maximize revenue, not provide everyone with their own version of entertainment.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

dswallow said:


> What I want out of a la carte pricing is not the ability to drop shopping or religious channels, at least those that pay the cable provider to be carried, but the ability to not subscribe to ESPN or any of the other packaged but not a la carte sports channels, which usually are priced very high even as part of the basic package. I don't want them. I don't want to contribute anything to paying for them.
> 
> And if it means those who do want them end up paying more for them, that's fine with me. I don't want to subsidize your entertainment.


This, here, here ditto!

The problem is that as far as ESPN, the NFL, the NHl, MLB, PGL are concerned you and me as true blooded Amurkin (males) just HAVE TO love sports!

That's why Dizzy and the NFL make the providers put ESPN (1,2,C, etc) and NFL in the basic tier. They get the eyeballs to sell to advertisers while making every citizen pay for it.

It really sucks paying so much for unwanted product.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

mattack said:


> I would gladly pay the same *overall* amount, to directly support the channels that I watch. Yes, I would be paying more per channel, and would probably miss out on some shows I would 'try out' otherwise.. But I would hope that there would be a way to turn on/off channels quickly (and pay a pro-rated amount of the monthly fee)..
> 
> I'm generally not a sports fan, but like ESPN & Comcast sportsnet mostly for the poker shows.. If I could get the poker shows another way, I would... but I'd probably still pay a la carte for the sports channels for the small portion of poker programming.


Two problems with this....

1. Many religious channels actually PAY for carriage on cable. Dropping those channels means your rates go up to offset the loss.

2. Ala Carte would DEFINITELY suceed in killing off most cable networks that are not popular. Is this right? Who knows. But if we force cable to go Ala Carte, it WILL happen. Only the most popular of channels will survive. If you want everything, or even half of what you get now, expect your rates to go up significantly. Because it's not just programming that causes rates to go up, but also cost of doing business. So, you'd have an "access fee" simular to what you already see on your electric bill. Add that on to your bill, now you pay whatever the programmers want for the channels you want. And they would likely raise rates to cover the loss in subscribers. Want ESPN? $2.50 please. ESPN2? $2.50 again. And because they don't have the penetration they used to, cable companies will no longer be able to help offset the cost with the current ad rates they are getting for local spots, so expect rates to go up even further.

If you only want 10-15 channels, Ala Carte might be a benefit to you provided they are the 10-15 most popular ones. You want more than that? It's definitely going to cost you more. Just look at what HBO charges and that should give you an idea...


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

StuffOfInterest said:


> Do you realize that the price change from $99 to $150 over nine years is only a 5% annual increase? The annual inflation rate averages about 3%, so you are looking at an annual increase in price of about 2%. How many more channels and how much faster internet service do you have now vs. nine years ago?


You do realize that the price for other services DROPPED a ton over the same period?

Remember when you paid 20 cents a minute for long distance telephone service? Remember $150 a month cell phone bills?


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

dswallow said:


> What I want out of a la carte pricing is not the abiity to drop shopping or religious channels, at least those that pay the cable provider to be carried, but the ability to not subscribe to ESPN or any of the other packaged but not a la carte sports channels, which usually are priced very high even as part of the basic package. I don't want them. I don't want to contribute anything to paying for them.
> 
> And if it means those who do want them end up paying more for them, that's fine with me. I don't want to subsidize your entertainment.


Good, I hope you don't like any network that is not, say, a top 20 network, because if you do, under the plan you propose, they will all be GONE. I, for example, really like IFC, but since I KNOW I am a minority, and nobody will pay for it, out the window it goes.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

dstoffa said:


> You don't like ESPN? Disney/ABC sure doesn't want to hear that.
> 
> If you don't want ESPN, then you can't have ABC, ABCFamily, Disney, and SOAPnet, etc.... That's the beauty of being a content provider with a bundling of channels... You make everyone pay for all your stuff, even if they don't want it. Their goal is to maximize revenue, not provide everyone with their own version of entertainment.


If ABC wants to take the hit on viewers for ABC Family or SOAPnet or Disney Channel because some people don't want to subsidize ESPN/et. al., then that's something they can choose to do. I can easily get ABC over the air for free.

But it should be my choice as the buyer.

ABC can try to make it attractive for me to buy a bundle. Or they can just ignore me as a potential consumer. Or they can offer me (and others) a different bundle or even individual channels with what we want and without what we don't.

Right now all I really have is an all-or-nothing choice that's inclusive of all programming, not just ABC's.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

mntvjunkie said:


> Good, I hope you don't like any network that is not, say, a top 20 network, because if you do, under the plan you propose, they will all be GONE. I, for example, really like IFC, but since I KNOW I am a minority, and nobody will pay for it, out the window it goes.


No they won't. Not even close. Under the plan I propose (in post http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7695461#post7695461), they'd prosper.

IFC could be bundled any number of ways by any number of programming resellers. And it could be available all on its own. But the options -- all that the market demands -- would be there.


----------



## zuko3984 (May 4, 2002)

netringer said:


> You do realize that the price for other services DROPPED a ton over the same period?
> 
> Remember when you paid 20 cents a minute for long distance telephone service? Remember $150 a month cell phone bills?


Just curious what other services have gone down over the last 10 years. There might be other but i can't think of any.

Basic cell phone service may have dropped but they seem to make up for that in what the charge all the iphone and other smart phone users.


----------



## danschn (Apr 22, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> cable companies are not a utility company. many people mistake them for such but it is a bad comparison to draw. Cable Companies leveraged themselves to the hilt to build that infrastructure


They are absolutely a utility company. I'm not sure what would lead to a disagreement on that. They have installed their hardware on public land, obtaining rights-of-way, and private property, and in so doing agreed to a form of regulation.

The reason utility companies end up regulated by the people they serve in the form of government agreements is that they tend to form natural monopolies where average total cost decreases as they add customers. It may not be as clear as the companies that built out electricity infrastructures, water infrastructures or phone infrastructures, but our cable bills are so high and constantly rising due to the exploitation of that monopoly status by the cable companies.

In the absence of regulation, technology should gradually improve the situation for consumers. And witness the barriers that cable companies, among others, have thrown up thwarting that all these years.


----------



## danschn (Apr 22, 2004)

zuko3984 said:


> Just curious what other services have gone down over the last 10 years. There might be other but i can't think of any.


I think of it more as a technology product or service that we buy, which used to deliver analog entertainment, and now digital with all the corresponding technological improvements along the way.

10 or so years ago, we'd buy a fully-functioning PC for about $3000 with adequate processing power, memory and storage space for our use of the time. Today we may spend $500 for a similar function, even though the hardware is probably 10 times more powerful. And that's with it's own economic exploitation issues at it's core in the form of Microsoft's pricing power in the operating system and desktop software.

Flat panel TV's in the last 8 years? $10,000 for a 42 inch 720 p plasma, now about $800 for the same size with significant improvements in every phase of the technology.

Technology ruthlessly improves products and makes them cheaper - creative destruction, ya know. Except for cable TV providers. Although ironically they get the benefit for their hardware inputs.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

ZeoTiVo said:


> would have been good to quote my History then
> 
> anyhow - cable companies are not a utility company. many people mistake them for such but it is a bad comparison to draw. Cable Companies leveraged themselves to the hilt to build that infrastructure and they pay a buttload of interest out of those "monopolistic profits" as you call them. They may have gotten some favorable right of ways that helped them but all the local franchise turning a blind eye stuff is more about a cable company wanting to make sure they would have a payoff on the capital invested to build a cable system. Now over time the system is built and people want to see it become a public pipeline as that would be most useful to consumers but the cable companies did build it and do own it - that cable is NOT a public or consumer utility.
> 
> ...


For the record, Phone companies, electric companies, and gas companies are usually private, and the equipment they put out is also theirs to do what they wish with.

However, they are regulated by the public utilities commission, something I think is LONG overdue for cable. Basically, that allows them to recoup costs and even make a profit, but all rate increases are subject to review before they can be enacted. All other parts of the company need to be operating well before rate increases are even CONSIDERED.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

dstoffa said:


> I can see that happening.
> 
> Sometimes I think it would be a whole lot better if cable systems went back to 36 channel configurations. That would ensure that only the most popular and most profitable stations get aired.
> 
> ...


Again, hopefully you like one of those 20 channels (16 being used for local and government programming). Had it been set up that way, Food Network would have never existed, and never would have got the opprotunity to grow, so we wouldn't even be having this conversation!


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

dswallow said:


> No they won't. Not even close. Under the plan I propose (in post http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=7695461#post7695461), they'd prosper.
> 
> IFC could be bundled any number of ways by any number of programming resellers. And it could be available all on its own. But the options -- all that the market demands -- would be there.


Ahh, but a package is another all or nothing thing! We have those right now. And how could IFC be prosporous if nobody chooses to subscribe to them? Most people don't even know what IFC is, and would never even be given the chance to like them, because they would have to choose whether or not to subscribe to them.

Even if you have 10 tiers vs 3, you still have the same opprotunity for abuse. Lets say, in each tier you have two VERY popular channels, and 8 unknowns. Well, now you have the problem satelite subscribers complain of. Break it down by channel and they all dissappear. How do we win in either scenario?


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

danschn said:


> I think of it more as a technology product or service that we buy, which used to deliver analog entertainment, and now digital with all the corresponding technological improvements along the way.
> 
> 10 or so years ago, we'd buy a fully-functioning PC for about $3000 with adequate processing power, memory and storage space for our use of the time. Today we may spend $500 for a similar function, even though the hardware is probably 10 times more powerful. And that's with it's own economic exploitation issues at it's core in the form of Microsoft's pricing power in the operating system and desktop software.
> 
> ...


But, in the period of the last 30 years, cable has had to build out their networks not once, but TWICE (first with copper, then fiber). They continue to pay to keep up those networks. The hardware costs have gone down, but the energy and labor costs have gone up.

Meanwhile, the opposite is true for labor costs to make computers. Because of scale, much of that can be automated. Add in that software providers subsidize hardware by having manufacturers install their software, and yes, even competition, and it helps. Then, ship all tech support to india, and bam, computers are cheaper.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Look forward to increased Internet rates by your cable company when that happens.


All they need to do is to charge for data a-la-carte.

Want to download movies? Your ISP will be charging you for each MB passing through your modem.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

netringer said:


> You do realize that the price for other services DROPPED a ton over the same period?
> 
> Remember when you paid 20 cents a minute for long distance telephone service? Remember $150 a month cell phone bills?


Economy of scale. Well, and a changing business model. With cell phones though, it was scale. Cell phone carriers' biggest expense is tower rental/equipment. But, they pay the same for that equipment (for the most part) whether 1 person uses it, or 1000 people use it.

Cable companies not only pay equipment, but programming. So, you pay for both infrastructure AND content. What we should push for, really, is to go back to the time of paying to keep up the infrastructure ONLY and the programming is free (ad supported of course). Cable companies can sell no ads on the channels they carry, BUT in exchange for this, they pay NOTHING for the channel. In exchange, the cable company guarantees penetration.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

dstoffa said:


> All they need to do is to charge for data a-la-carte.
> 
> Want to download movies? Your ISP will be charging you for each MB passing through your modem.
> 
> ...


Wow, and that will certainly lower our cable bills, right?


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

mntvjunkie said:


> Wow, and that will certainly lower our cable bills, right?


Well, back in 2006, when I was on assignment in Oz, the business model there for cell phones and ISP was a-la-carte.

If you wanted a cell phone, you got a pay-as-you-go phone.

If you wanted broadband, you paid a low base fee, plus a per MB over some cap fee. This effectively made people pay for bandwidth used over a certain budget, say 250 MB per month or something.

When I explained to my mates what the business model in the States was, they were flabbergasted. They couldn't believe broadband was so affordable and un-metered....

Not sure if the business model has changed in the past three years.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

mntvjunkie said:


> Ahh, but a package is another all or nothing thing! We have those right now. And how could IFC be prosporous if nobody chooses to subscribe to them? Most people don't even know what IFC is, and would never even be given the chance to like them, because they would have to choose whether or not to subscribe to them.
> 
> Even if you have 10 tiers vs 3, you still have the same opprotunity for abuse. Lets say, in each tier you have two VERY popular channels, and 8 unknowns. Well, now you have the problem satelite subscribers complain of. Break it down by channel and they all dissappear. How do we win in either scenario?


I guess you didn't really take a moment to read my post there with how a la carte needs to be provided. It does require separating the delivery of services from the subscription to channels and other programming.

A la carte doesn't work at all if you try to force one provider to separate channels into smaller package or individual choices. You need market forces on the packaging side.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

dswallow said:


> A la carte doesn't work at all if you try to force one provider to separate channels into smaller package or individual choices. You need market forces on the packaging side.


I think the existing infrastructure is too set in its ways for your proposal to ever work.

From a pipeline point of view, considering the practicality of it, wouldn't content providers need to lease some bandwidth from the pipeline operators in order to be able to deliver desired content to end consumers? And how does the end consumer extract that content? And how does the content get inserted into the pipeline?

With a cable co / sat co, you have a head end, and a user end. How do the ends work in your pipeline business model?

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

dstoffa said:


> I think the existing infrastructure is too set in its ways for your proposal to ever work.
> 
> From a pipeline point of view, considering the practicality of it, wouldn't content providers need to lease some bandwidth from the pipeline operators in order to be able to deliver desired content to end consumers? And how does the end consumer extract that content? And how does the content get inserted into the pipeline?
> 
> With a cable co / sat co, you have a head end, and a user end. How do the ends work in your pipeline business model?


I didn't say it would be easy. 

But to some extent, the model would work well in an IP-delivered video environment.

For infrastructure with bandwidth limitations, there'd have to be a way to account for unavailable elements in a chosen package. But it still could be accomplished; the cable companies, as an example, would negotiate or even just sell raw bandwidth for programmers to make content available. The consumer would subscribe to that content from whoever might offer it for sale. An open authentication method would be used to authorize/decode it.

It's a paradigm shift. But I don't see any other way for an a la carte option to actually benefit anybody. There has to be competition in the sale of the programming, packaged or individually, and you'll never get that from just a single source.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

I said it in another thread how the Canadian system works, and it works fine for the channels on it.

Another option might be a pick 10, 20, or 30 package, after you subscribe to a basic package.

In either case little paradigm shift needs to happen to the delivery infrastructure. 

Remember, Ala-carte does not mean throwing out the old system, just working together with the old one.


----------



## mntvjunkie (May 13, 2009)

dswallow said:


> I guess you didn't really take a moment to read my post there with how a la carte needs to be provided. It does require separating the delivery of services from the subscription to channels and other programming.
> 
> A la carte doesn't work at all if you try to force one provider to separate channels into smaller package or individual choices. You need market forces on the packaging side.


I read it, I just fail to see how something like that even makes sense. First off, if you force the cable companies to just be delivery networks, who is going to pay for those networks? Part of the expense of cable TV is developing and maintaining said networks.

So, you pass those on to the people selling the content, right? Well, if those content providers choose to sell in packages, which they likely would (one channel models here would also be cost prohibitive) then now instead of having 1 cable bill, I have many smaller bills from each of the content providers. They STILL raise their prices, because they aren't getting the number of subscribers they need to be solvent AND in order to get all the channels I want, I'm still forced to pay for channels I don't (and likely paying MORE for them too).

Furthermore, you can't talk about market demands and government forcing ala carte in the same sentence, it just doesn't work. Honestly, if the market demand were there, we'd already HAVE Ala Carte. Most of us have three or more choices for cable-like entertainment, and there is also online video. But the market demands more channels for less price. Basic cable (70 channels) is $60 a month here. SOME of that price has to go to pay the people and equipment behind getting me the signal. So, lets say that price, with markup, is $10 of my cable bill. Now, if the most popular of channels are priced, to the provider, at $1 a peice, they mark it up to $1.25 to take their cut, and I want 20 channels, we are ALREADY talking about $35. So, I pay $35 for 20 channels, or $60 for 70, what sounds like the better value?

And the cost to administer ala carte would be higher as well. Lets not even factor in that I don't pay $60 for 70 channels, I pay $130 for 200 channels, plus phone with unlimited long distance, plus internet at 16mbps. Ala Carte would just be stupid for me, and more than half of the channels couldn't survive, unless they were bundled with more popular channels and forced down your throat.

But, I guess I could go back to paying by the minute for phone usage. 10c per minute with a $5 connection fee would probably make it worth the while to maintain that service (to the company's standpoint), or I could just pay $25 per month for the whole package. Under the 10c per minute plan, many would probably lose service entirely, as the cost to maintain the network would not be woth the ROI.

Then again, someone said they don't want to subsidize my entertainment. Good, I don't want to subsidize yours either, so unless I like your channel, I don't want to pay for that either, which will probably mean some of your favorite channels or programming are gone as well.

I'd much rather see the business model modified such that ALL channels are free and ad supported. I pay cable to keep up the connection to my house and for any internet and phone I want, and the cable lineup is the same everywhere you go. Every one has access to every channel, and those that can support THEMSELVES by commercials surivive. Under this model, ESPN would likely die, because they couldn't afford to pay for sports, but I won't have to pay for your entertainment.


----------



## robaustin (Nov 14, 2004)

Why were the two channels dropped from the Tivo lineup? Cablevision is still in negotiations with Scripps, and these channels could return at any time - why did Tivo delete them? If/when they come back how long will it take for Tivo to put them back in the lineup?

Doesn't this invalidate season passes, and will they have to be set up again if the channels return to the lineup?

--*Rob


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

mntvjunkie said:


> Honestly, if the market demand were there, we'd already HAVE Ala Carte. Most of us have three or more choices for cable-like entertainment, and there is also online video. But the market demands more channels for less price. Basic cable (70 channels) is $60 a month here. SOME of that price has to go to pay the people and equipment behind getting me the signal. So, lets say that price, with markup, is $10 of my cable bill. Now, if the most popular of channels are priced, to the provider, at $1 a peice, they mark it up to $1.25 to take their cut, and I want 20 channels, we are ALREADY talking about $35. So, I pay $35 for 20 channels, or $60 for 70, what sounds like the better value?


There is a difference between value and waste. Yes, you pay less per channel, but you end up paying for useless crap. The tipping point would depend on how much entertainment you use. It's like spending an extra $50 to get free shipping, where shipping by itself is $5. YMMV.



> And the cost to administer ala carte would be higher as well. Lets not even factor in that I don't pay $60 for 70 channels, I pay $130 for 200 channels, plus phone with unlimited long distance, plus internet at 16mbps. Ala Carte would just be stupid for me, and more than half of the channels couldn't survive, unless they were bundled with more popular channels and forced down your throat.
> 
> But, I guess I could go back to paying by the minute for phone usage. 10c per minute with a $5 connection fee would probably make it worth the while to maintain that service (to the company's standpoint), or I could just pay $25 per month for the whole package. Under the 10c per minute plan, many would probably lose service entirely, as the cost to maintain the network would not be woth the ROI.


To each his own. But in reality, how much TV does one watch? I mean, if you have a job, you can watch, what, 4 hours a day MAYBE, plus 12 x 2 on weekends, and that is IF you don't leave the house?

I am a proponent of a la carte, simply becuase I know for a fact there is a lot of stuff I receive that i don't watch, and if I could nail it down to two dozen channels, I'd probably come out ahead.

I finally dumped my $39.99 / month cell phone plan from AT&T, which came out to be almost $50 / month after F-U fees, simply because I was paying for airtime I never used, even with rollover. Looking over my bills for the past year, I averaged maybe 2-3 hours / month on the cell phone. I switched to net10, and pre-paid for 5000 minutes over 2 years for $425 including sales tax. I estimate I am saving over $30 / month with the switch.

Everyone's case is different, and I am most certain that even if everyone did the cost analysis, more people would choose the package deal, because they like the OPTION of watching those additional channels.

We will never see free cable tv that is ad supported. One couldn't sell ads at a high enough rate to stay in business (for most channels).

I wonder what would happen to ones cable bill if some media conglomerate ever decided to push standard cable channels (say, ABC Family, ESPN, etc.) on the digital sub-channels of their Owned and Operated flagship stations. Say, if WABC-TV in New York put ABC on 7.1, ABC-Family on 7.2, and ESPN on 7.3, and possibly Disney on 7.4. I wonder if the extra they'd be able to claim in ad revenue would off-set the money they'd lose from retransmission fees. These stations would effectively become OTA channels, and therefore would have to be carried on the broadcast basic tier.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## pdonoghu (Mar 6, 2003)

robaustin said:


> Why were the two channels dropped from the Tivo lineup? Cablevision is still in negotiations with Scripps, and these channels could return at any time - why did Tivo delete them? If/when they come back how long will it take for Tivo to put them back in the lineup?
> 
> Doesn't this invalidate season passes, and will they have to be set up again if the channels return to the lineup?
> 
> --*Rob


Tivo does not control the channel listings. Cablevision notifies Tribune Media, Tivo's guide data provider, who updates the lineup they send to Tivo. Kind of telling on Cablevisions part that they would advise Tribune to remove the channel listings.

As far as when/if the lineups come back, once Cablevision notifies Tribune, they will add them back, and send to Tivo for distribution. Takes a few days.

My experience with season passes is that they are network name aware. If they come back, with the same network name, the season passes should work again.


----------



## dstoffa (Dec 14, 2005)

pdonoghu said:


> Tivo does not control the channel listings. Cablevision notifies Tribune Media, Tivo's guide data provider, who updates the lineup they send to Tivo. Kind of telling on Cablevisions part that they would advise Tribune to remove the channel listings.


FWIW, the channels no longer appear on ReplayTV lineups, either.

Cheers!
-Doug


----------



## Bnfire (Feb 28, 2008)

Does anyone know what we can do, now that the channels are back on, to get tivo to realize they exist again? I am still missing all my programs because the tivo thinks the channels do not exist.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

Bnfire said:


> Does anyone know what we can do, now that the channels are back on, to get tivo to realize they exist again? I am still missing all my programs because the tivo thinks the channels do not exist.


Tell TiVo the current channel lineup.

http://www.tivo.com/lineup


----------



## pdonoghu (Mar 6, 2003)

Bnfire said:


> Does anyone know what we can do, now that the channels are back on, to get tivo to realize they exist again? I am still missing all my programs because the tivo thinks the channels do not exist.


Cablevision will update Tribune Media, Tivo's guide data supplier. This is how the channels were removed, and is the standard process. It will probably take a few days for the guide data to show up.


----------



## pdonoghu (Mar 6, 2003)

Bnfire said:


> Does anyone know what we can do, now that the channels are back on, to get tivo to realize they exist again? I am still missing all my programs because the tivo thinks the channels do not exist.


I forced a connection to Tivo on 2 of my Tivos this morning, and guide data for HGTV and Food network is back.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

StuffOfInterest said:


> Do you realize that the price change from $99 to $150 over nine years is only a 5% annual increase? The annual inflation rate averages about 3%, so you are looking at an annual increase in price of about 2%. How many more channels and how much faster internet service do you have now vs. nine years ago?


I have a different provider now, but with the recent rate hike my total bill is ~$143. I don't have movie channels anymore and I don't rent equipment. I do have around 60 HD channels. I also have 30Mbps internet but that is a choice I made (and paid more for).

For a while I was on satellite not for pricing reasons but because I wanted a TiVo and didn't want a TiVo in front of a cable box. I dropped satellite because my new apartment (in 2006) didn't have a Southern view.

Internet speed only started to go up when ISPs faced competitive pressure from Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse. I was stuck at 1.5Mbps (time warner) for about 6 years. Only when I changed providers (and moved) did I get higher speeds, and that provider (cablevision) had higher speeds all along. Ditto for HD channels. A lot of cable providers ramped up their HD channels when Verizon debuted its TV service or was in the process of doing so. On cablevision in 2007 I had maybe 10 HD channels. I had their box so it wasn't due to SDV or anything. When FiOS rolled out they brought out SDV and more HD channels.

The number of SD channels remained the same in my estimation. We may have added a few but also lost a few. At least none that I cared about were dropped or added. Some that I cared about (techTV, cnnfn, inHD) were dropped. Some that I liked (SyFy, MTV, cartoon network) changed programming so much that I don't watch them anymore.


----------



## hc130radio (Sep 16, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> everything leads to price hikes. And FIOS and DirecTV and Dish aren't immune to these pissing contests. No matter who you switch to, you'll eventually get stuck in the middle of one.


Directv increased their rates for 2010:

http://www.directv.com/email/30896-...df?CMP=EMC-MQ-CS&ATT=120-FV-V1-091227final&m=


----------



## Blazesyth (Jan 25, 2010)

pdonoghu said:


> I forced a connection to Tivo on 2 of my Tivos this morning, and guide data for HGTV and Food network is back.


Did you just do a normal update? I keep on trying to look for a way to update the channel list but can't find anything.

I was poking around with it on Thurs/Fri, couldn't get it recognized so I sent in a request to Tivo but as of Saturday I forced an update and it wasn't there.

I wonder if they updated it on Sunday and it will be waiting for me at home.


----------



## pdonoghu (Mar 6, 2003)

Blazesyth said:


> Did you just do a normal update? I keep on trying to look for a way to update the channel list but can't find anything.
> 
> I was poking around with it on Thurs/Fri, couldn't get it recognized so I sent in a request to Tivo but as of Saturday I forced an update and it wasn't there.
> 
> I wonder if they updated it on Sunday and it will be waiting for me at home.


The daily update will pick up the guide data. It looks like it became available mid to late Sunday morning. My early AM connection did not get it, when I forced it late Sunday morning, it did. You do not need to change the channel list, once the guide data for the channels is there, they show up in the list. By now, you should have it, but if not, go to the Phone & network screen and force a connection.


----------



## jeffufl (Dec 30, 2008)

As of today, 2/2, my Tivo still says "To Be Announced" for Food, but it's OK for HGTV. Anyone still having this issue?


----------



## pdonoghu (Mar 6, 2003)

jeffufl said:


> As of today, 2/2, my Tivo still says "To Be Announced" for Food, but it's OK for HGTV. Anyone still having this issue?


Is the Food channel checked as one you get? I've had data for both for over a week. If you go to www.zap2it.com and put in your zip code, and select Cablevision and the package you have, does it show the data for Food?


----------



## jeffufl (Dec 30, 2008)

pdonoghu said:


> Is the Food channel checked as one you get? I've had data for both for over a week. If you go to zap2it and put in your zip code, and select Cablevision and the package you have, does it show the data for Food?


Yeah, I get Food on the Tivo (if I'm scrolling channels, it shows up, and it's checked in my setup, and the Tivo has been making its daily connections), but instead of it saying "Iron Chef America" or whatever show, it always says "To Be Announced".

I'm at a loss. If it was happening to other people, I'd write Tivo, but if all of you other Cablevision folks have it, I'm not sure what to do...


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

jeffufl said:


> Yeah, I get Food on the Tivo (if I'm scrolling channels, it shows up, and it's checked in my setup, and the Tivo has been making its daily connections), but instead of it saying "Iron Chef America" or whatever show, it always says "To Be Announced".
> 
> I'm at a loss. If it was happening to other people, I'd write Tivo, but if all of you other Cablevision folks have it, I'm not sure what to do...


It might be that for some reason the Tribune updates for your zip code haven't fully gone thru yet.


----------

