Time Warner Cable and Fox are now into their final day of negotiations before the agreement expires governing Fox-owned affiliate stations and cable networks.

One thing that the dispute has accomplished is increasing media attention on both companies and a spotlight on the business models of television programming and distribution.  It used to be so simple – television programming would air on broadcast television, enjoy massive audiences and the lucrative ad revenue that comes from having top-rated programming.  Cable networks couldn’t survive on the much smaller ad revenue they earn from their smaller audiences, so they charged cable operators a small fee for every subscriber who could watch their channels.

With the advent of TiVo and other digital video recorders, online viewing, and the audience erosion that comes from both, what worked for more than 50 years didn’t work so well anymore.  Time-shifting viewers no longer felt committed to watching live television, satisfied with being able to watch when they want and fast forward past the increasing amount of advertising television stations crammed into programming.  With broadband, viewers could download or stream their favorite programs online, often for free and with limited (if any) commercials.  Cable networks that used to be content running older syndicated programming, movies, and low budget documentaries and specials began creating their own original programming, often just as good as anything the networks produced.  Subscription fees charged programmers increased accordingly to help finance these shows.

Today, some cable networks are coming close to rivaling the viewership of broadcast networks’ lesser-watched programming.  If the economic downturn didn’t challenge the advertising industry, the ongoing loss of network television viewers would have accomplished the same thing – lower ad rates for ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox.

At the heart of the debate is a new discussion about whether “free over the air television” is a sustainable business model.  Networks like Fox evidently don’t think so, which is why they seek payment from the pay television industry, be it cable, FiOS, U-verse, or satellite.  Since the majority of Americans now watch television through one of these services or through their broadband connection, there is plenty to be made from such payments.  Of course, those costs are passed on to you.

The result?  You are now paying for “free television.”

The hardball game between Fox and Time Warner Cable will be replayed often between the other networks and programmers and pay television companies.

Today’s video reports include another update from the business side of the story, several additional reports from impacted Fox stations, and basic education about what television antennas are all about.

New York Times reporter Brian Stelter reports the two parties remain “pretty far apart” from an agreement in this report from Bloomberg News. (2 minutes)

CNBC discusses the business side of the Time Warner Cable-Fox dispute, and now Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has put himself in the middle of the dispute as well. (1 minute)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXAN Austin Cable dispute could turn off bowl games 12-31-09.flv

In Austin, KXAN-TV reports Time Warner Cable has been telling Texas viewers they can watch most of the Fox Network programming on Hulu for free.  Some Austin residents are sick of hearing about the dispute and are abandoning Time Warner Cable for DirecTV.  “Football is everything in Texas,” say some who are watching the dispute with concern. (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDFW Dallas Watch FOX 4 without Time Warner 12-31-09.flv

Some local Fox stations are teaching their viewers how to receive their stations if Time Warner Cable no longer carries them on their lineup.  KDFW-TV in Dallas went to Best Buy where they’re only too happy to sell antennas and digital converter boxes to Metroplex residents. (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOFL Orlando Fox Orlando Affiliate Teaches Viewers About Antennas 12-30-09.flv

WOFL-TV in Orlando spent part of the newscast teaching people what a TV antenna is.  For many under 30, television viewing has always been through cable or satellite, never over-the-air, so the concept of rabbit ears is a new one for some. (1 minute)

Lots more to watch below the page break.  Click the link below to continue!

… Continue Reading

A creative attempt by two Floridians to keep local Fox affiliates from being dropped on Bright House Networks by asking a judge for a temporary restraining order failed late Wednesday when the judge effectively tossed the case on jurisdictional grounds.

Circuit Judge Maura Smith in Orlando initially said she was referring the matter to federal court to determine which court had jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order.

“I wish I could make everybody happy,” said the Orange County Circuit Judge.

Orlando attorney John Morgan requested the court order Fox to keep WOFL-TV, Orlando’s Fox affiliate, on the Bright House Networks cable lineup, at least until after the Sugar Bowl.  Morgan filed the case on behalf of two local sports fans Thomas Moore, a fellow attorney and Richard Anderson, the city manager for Apopka, outside of Orlando.

Fox’s own counsel requested Smith send the case to federal court instead, and she agreed.  Later Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Presnell sent the case back to circuit court, where it was effectively tossed out.

The legal arguments were hardly a Perry Mason moment.  Morgan argued football fans would be harmed if the game wasn’t televised on Bright House Networks.  Fox’s attorney argued they could watch with an antenna or drive to a local bar or restaurant televising the game.  That brought a response from Morgan questioning where exactly someone would purchase rabbit ears, and that driving to a local establishment to watch the games could be risky because of increased drunk driving on New Year’s Day.

WESH-TV in Orlando reports the judge tossed the case because it would have required her to rule over a private business matter.  (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WOFL Orlando Lawsuits Against Bright House and Fox 12-30-09.flv

WOFL-TV in Orlando interviews the plaintiffs outside of court today about their case and goes over the dispute one more time with central Florida viewers. (5 minutes)

It's your fault our service doesn't work.

Central Floridians are angry and annoyed with a broadband provider that is more adept at randomly assigning blame than actually resolving serious service problems.  Bright House Networks customers in the Orlando area first noticed their Road Runner service began slowing down around December 23rd.  Web pages took minutes to render, if they finished at all.  Important e-mail was inaccessible at times for many accustomed to a much faster online experience than the bad old days of dial-up.

Problems worsened by Christmas Day, and despite complaints from across the entire region, Bright House technicians spent their time assigning blame elsewhere.  In a classic case of buck passing (Deluxe Goldman-Sachs Home Edition), the cable operator initially began blaming customers for the problems, claiming everything from virus infections to bad routers.

“The technician said he was certain it was either my router or my Windows XP had become hopelessly corrupted with viruses, and I might have to reformat my hard drive and start all over,” writes Stop the Cap! reader Kris.  “Two days before Christmas was the worst possible time for something like this to happen, and it was clear Bright House’s biggest priority was to get me off the phone as fast as they could.”

As customers abandoned all hope of using their broadband accounts on Christmas Day, calls continued to pour into Bright House customer support.  Even the media got involved, noting the cable company adopted a “mum’s the word” strategy on their website, saying nothing about the increasingly maddening service problems.

By then, company officials must have figured out blaming the customers wasn’t working too well, and they blamed Christmas instead.

“I was told heavy Christmas web traffic was responsible,” said Jed, a Stop the Cap! reader.  “They told me with everyone getting new computers and laptops and other electronics, it might be awhile before things got back to normal, perhaps even as late as next week when people returned to work.  Considering I was getting less than 56kbps service at this point, I wasn’t buying it.”

WFTV-TV in Orlando is credited for being among the first in the media to shine a spotlight on Bright House Networks’ failure to address their ongoing Internet service problems (2 minutes)

As the weekend wore on, enterprising customers learned it was probable a DNS server or other connection point further up the Internet was probably causing all of the trouble.  Yet that theory was repeatedly denied by Bright House, who was forced to begin issuing statements to the local press, still blaming others for broadband woes.

“Some Bright House Networks Road Runner Internet customers are experiencing intermittent problems accessing various websites,” Bright House spokesman Brian Craven wrote. “The issue is a result of off-network congestion. BHN engineers are working to resolve the issue.”

Customers were also on the receiving end of that old chestnut ‘the exaflood,’ the theory that the Internet is being crushes by a global traffic flood worthy of Noah’s Ark.  As comments piled up on Orlando media’s online message boards, customers traded the excuses coming from Bright House, wondering why the company couldn’t spend as much effort actually fixing the problems with Road Runner on Xanax.

Finally, several days later, company officials admitted the problems were coming from a lot closer to home — theirs, not yours. Brian “It’s Congestion” Craven was back with a revised statement:

“A hardware problem experienced by a Bright House Networks vendor caused some Bright House Networks customers to experience intermittent problems accessing some Internet websites. The issue was resolved at 11 p.m. Sunday. Bright House Networks Internet service was never down.  The situation only affected some customers’ ability to access certain Internet sites.”

Some websites like Google, for instance.

So it wasn’t your fault after all.  It was one of their “vendors.”  Customers pondered when they would be able to receive service credit for several days of useless broadband.

The answer?  Never… tough luck:

“Customer credits will not be given because at no time was Internet service down. It was a latency issue in which some customers experienced intermittent problems accessing certain websites. The issue was caused by a hardware problem experienced by a Bright House Networks vendor,” Craven added.

Customers began lighting the torches.

WOFL-TV in Orlando reports on growing customer rage over the lousy customer service being provided by Bright House Networks. (1 minute)

News accounts noted some customers disappointed by the company’s callous response were returning the favor by unceremoniously dumping their cable modems on the counter at the nearest Bright House cable store, canceling service.  For those brave enough to stay, lessons were learned. As one Web Worker Daily contributor lamented, the most effective way to get Bright House off their collective butts was to embarrass them in the media:

The biggest help [came] when the media started reporting the problem. A local TV station and the Orlando Sentinel both picked up the story. Within only a couple hours, the problem that supposedly didn’t even exist was magically solved, after having dragged on for at least a week.

The lesson I came away with was that fighting as a group is more powerful than going it alone — and even better is having a reporter or two in that group.

The Internet… interrupted: Bright House Networks’ holiday gift to you.  A week of buck passing, liberal use of the “excuse-o-matic” that blames others for their own problems, and a complete unwillingness to do the right thing by customers.  When a service doesn’t work properly, customers don’t want to hear a finger-pointing blame game.  They want the service fixed… fast, and receive credit for the inconvenience they experienced while trying to use your service.  Anyone aware of good customer relations already recognizes these are not unreasonable requests.

Too bad Bright House spent most of its time creatively not fixing its problems until the media got interested.  They should stay on the company’s case until it provides the credit customers deserve.

WFTV-TV in Orlando reports on the inevitable customer blowback that happens when a service provider treats their customers with disregard.  [Apologies for the audio sync problem.] (2 minutes)

CableMax's "channel lineup" isn't exactly a piece of art

A few warning signs that your “cable company” may not be completely up front about their service:

• They don’t have a website.
• The programmers they carry never heard of them.
• No readily apparent cable franchise agreements seem to be available for inspection.
• The number of customers seem to range between 50 and “several thousand.”
• The channel lineup guide looks like it was done up with Microsoft Word and printed on a laser printer.
• Channels in your service package suddenly start to become “deauthorized” and then the entire lineup goes dark.
• Company officials either left town, won’t appear on camera to answer questions, or issue vague statements about refunds.

CableMax Communications, which claims to “maximize your cable experience,” instead maximized collection of subscriber fees and minimized their cable package down to nothing.  When it all fell apart a few days before Christmas, subscribers were out an installation fee and any payments they made for a full month of service.  Subscribers were charged $65 for installation and paid $24.95 for a package of 41 channels.

WNEM-TV in Saginaw, Michigan suggested the entire affair could have been a “scam,” interviewing one CableMax installer who claimed the service was quietly sending signals received from DISH Network, a satellite dish service, down the cable to paying subscribers.  If true, either the money to pay for multiple subscriptions to the satellite provider ran out, or DISH Network discovered the unauthorized distribution and cut off service.

If CableMax was reselling DISH Network programming, it would not be unprecedented.  In the 1980s and early 1990s, informal cable systems in the Caribbean maintained multiple subscriptions or hacked the satellite signals of satellite-delivered programming and resold it to subscribers, without bothering to pay the programmers involved.

One of the owners finally reached by phone by WNEM denied he was obtaining programming from DISH Network and promised refunds, claiming the system had approximately 50 subscribers, many who were late on their bills, and the entire enterprise ran out of money.

The village of Unionville, Michigan got itself caught in the middle when local residents approached the town hall to inquire about what happened to the village’s cable system.  A message on the village website states:

THE VILLAGE IS AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH CABLE MAX AND ARE UNABLE TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS AT THIS TIME. THE VILLAGE OFFICE WILL TRY TO KEEP YOU INFORMED AS INFORMATION IS RECEIVED. WE ARE VERY SORRY FOR YOUR INCONVENIENCE.

CABLE-MAX
103 SOUTH WESTLAWN DR.
MIDLAND, MI. 48640

IF YOU NEED SERVICE CALL: 1-888-308-8782 (THIS NUMBER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED)

That South Westlawn address appears to be in a residential area to the west of Midland, and is likely a residence.  We couldn’t find a cable programmer on their lineup that heard of the company or was authorized to cablecast its programming.  Although the state of Michigan does include the company on a generic cable complaint form, we could not locate any formal cable franchise agreements for CableMax Communications.  Further, the state government only had one contact e-mail address for the company – a Gmail account.

Although WNEM notes the Better Business Bureau has rated the company “F,” that rating appears to be based on a single complaint.

Very little additional information is known about CableMax Communications, and no active investigation was currently underway by Michigan authorities.

WNEM-TV in Saginaw opened its 6pm newscast last night with this exclusive story about CableMax Communications. (3 minutes)

Today, the station aired a follow-up report about the latest developments with the cable company that closed down operations, leaving cable customers without service. (1 minute)

Bright House Networks, which has had a close association with Time Warner Cable for years, launched its own version of a “roll over or get tough” campaign through its new Your Right to Watch website.  The launch of the site comes in response to Fox’s own critical ads warning Bright House subscribers access to Fox programming was about to go dark on the cable system unless the two parties reached agreement by December 31st.  Bright House Networks has been negotiating through Time Warner Cable, which is why Fox targeted both in its most recent ad campaign.

The website, stark in appearance, contains just a few sentences on its home page.

“During negotiations, some program providers threaten to take their channels off the cable system. Using this tactic only hurts TV viewers – causing confusion and concern — and is a no-win for everyone,” the site notes.

Bright House Networks includes this video on their new ‘Your Right to Watch’ website.

Tomorrow is the final full day when Fox cable network programming will be available to Time Warner Cable subscribers, unless negotiations achieve a breakthrough.  Spectators watching the back and forth don’t anticipate any agreement, but suspect the companies will agree to some sort of extension over the holiday weekend to keep the viewing public reasonably happy.

Today several Fox-owned broadcast affiliates began reporting on their own potential involvement in the dispute — Time Warner Cable stands to lose the rights to carry several Fox broadcast stations in major television markets like New York, Los Angeles, and Dallas.  Stories about the dispute began appearing today on several TV news outlets.  In areas where Fox affiliates are independently owned and operated, most have tried to reassure viewers they won’t immediately lose access to the Fox station in their area, but several Fox cable networks could be impacted.

We have several reports on where things stand at the moment, including some additional background to help people get up to speed on why this battle is taking place in the first place.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Time Warner Fox Dispute 12-30-09.flv

CNBC ran this extended piece today debating the changing business model for television programming, which explains why these carriage disputes are increasingly contentious. Brian Seltzer, New York Times media reporter and Vanity Fair columnist Michael Wolff join Julia Boorstin to discuss Time Warner Cable’s showdown with News Corporation’s Rupert Murdoch. (6 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Talks Continue TWC Fox 12-30-09.flv

Bloomberg News also explores the changing business model of broadcast “free” television.  Can it survive against cable and online program distribution?  News Corporation and Time Warner Cable are pessimistic that question can be answered before the deadline expires at midnight, December 31st. (6 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNYW New York FOX-Time Warner Cable Deal Unlikely 12-30-09.flv

WNYW-TV, the Fox affiliate in New York, started reporting to its viewers Fox’s position on the carriage dispute, warning them an agreement by December 31st is critical if Time Warner Cable customers are to be assured of watching Fox sports coverage on New Year’s Day.  (3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KDFW Dallas FOX, Time Warner Still Negotiating 12-30-09.flv

KDFW-TV, the local Fox affiliate in Dallas, took issue with Time Warner Cable’s claim that even without an agreement the Fox station would still be shown on the local cable system. (2 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WLUK Green Bay Jay Zollar on Time Warner 12-30-09.flv

Some Time Warner Cable customers in smaller cities have been confused by national wire service reports which, to them, suggest their local Fox station will be affected by the potential programming blackout as well.  Some Fox affiliates have devoted time on their newscasts to clear up what programming or channels will be affected in their respective areas.  WLUK-TV in Green Bay, Wisconsin was one such station.  (1 minute)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WENY Elmira Fox Time Warner Battle 12-30-09.flv

Another small community getting some local coverage of the story, and its potential impact on Time Warner Cable-carried Fox-owned cable channels, is Elmira, New York.  WENY-TV, which serves southwestern and south-central New York around Elmira and Corning, explained things to viewers.  (1 minute)

OnLive puts the processing power to render and play games on their end, and streams the result to you over your broadband connection (click to enlarge)

OnLive, the cloud-based videogame streaming service, was on display during a live dem0 of the service at Columbia University.  The service, which literally streams game play across fast broadband networks, could seriously challenge the videogame console marketplace.  Instead of using an expensive piece of hardware at home to play videogames, OnLive puts the hardware at their end and streams the results to any computer or television.  If it works, it means consumers won’t need the highest performance videocards or latest new CPU.  They’ll just need a fast broadband connection to let OnLive’s own servers do all of the processing.

The founder and CEO of OnLive, Steve Perlman, shows considerable enthusiasm for the concept, and several major investors including AT&T and Time Warner have backed the venture, which could help guarantee smooth passage on their broadband networks.

Still, a product that requires a minimum of a 5Mbps broadband connection for HD-quality streamed game play could consume an enormous amount of data — up to 2.25 GB per hour of gaming.  Although cable and fiber-based broadband connections will suffice, many DSL customers don’t have service fast enough to support OnLive.  Among those that do, any usage caps or allowances will significantly reduce the value of the service to potential subscribers.  Frontier Communications’ infamous 5GB “acceptable use” per month, for instance, would allow just over two hours of use per month, assuming you did nothing else with your DSL service.

Even Comcast’s 250GB usage allowance cuts game play to a little over 100 hours per month.  That’s a ludicrous amount of gaming for most of us, but not for some gaming addicts.  Besides, it also assumes you don’t use your Comcast broadband service to watch video or other bandwidth-intensive online services.

Time Warner Cable’s proposed 40GB usage limit, shelved indefinitely in April after consumer protests, would permit less than an hour of play per day, assuming your Road Runner service was for nothing but OnLive.

In short, assuming OnLive works as promoted, its biggest threat to success will come from external factors mostly outside of its control — namely cap-happy ISPs that could quickly make streamed cloud computing untenable for all but the wealthiest among us.

What could OnLive do to reduce its risk from caps?  Partner with ISPs in a non-Net Neutral broadband world, of course.  That investment from AT&T, for example, could theoretically pave the way for AT&T to exempt OnLive from any usage limits that come from its own Internet Overcharging experiments in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada.  That would be a clear violation of Net Neutrality, if enacted into law.

Scenarios like this should drive consumers to support Net Neutrality policies.  ISPs forming “preferred partnerships” with innovative services like OnLive might seem consumer-friendly at first, but not in the long-term because it spells the death of would-be “non-preferred” start-ups, and helps pave the way even faster to Internet Overcharging schemes letting broadband providers pick the winners and losers of the future.

OnLive founder and CEO Steve Perlman demonstrates OnLive and talks about cloud-based, streaming game play at this gathering at Columbia University in New York. (49 minutes)
(If stream stops for buffering, pause it for a few minutes to let a significant amount of the file pre-load, which should reduce re-buffering problems.)

Customers in New York City attempting to order an iPhone direct from AT&T's website saw this message over the weekend

While much speculation about this week’s two-day unavailability of the iPhone for those in the Big Apple has often centered on the company running out of capacity, the more likely explanations are far simpler — the regional fulfillment center temporarily ran short after a holiday rush and AT&T wanted to stem the tide of increasing numbers of bottom-feeding eBay resellers doing business in the Tri-State area.

Customers in the New York metropolitan area discovered Saturday they couldn’t order an iPhone from AT&T’s website after entering a New York-area zip code.  Customers were told “we’re sorry, there are no Packages & Deals available at this time — please check back later.”  By Monday afternoon, orders were being processed normally.

The mystery deepened when some blogs began speculating the reason for the order blockade had to do with AT&T’s data capacity in New York City, suggesting the wireless company had reached its limit and halted sales accordingly.  They had the right to speculate if online chats with AT&T sales representatives were to be believed.  The Consumerist found two different explanations during their chats:

Daphne: Welcome to AT&T online Sales support. How may I assist you with placing your order today?

Laura: Hi, I was looking at the iPhone 3Gs and the system tells me that I cannot order one in my ZIP code. My zip code is 11231. (Brooklyn, NY) Is this true? Are iPhones no longer available in New York City?

Daphne: I am happy to be helping you today . Yes, this is correct the phone is not offered to you because New York is not ready for the iPhone.

Daphne: You don’t have enough towers to handle the phone.

Laura: Thank you for your help. So the phone is not available to people anywhere in the city?

Daphne: Yes this is correct Laura.

AT&T didn’t help matters with a non-denial denial issued by AT&T spokesman Fletcher Cook, who said only that the phone company periodically “modifies” its distribution channels. He had no comment about why the company resumed sales.

By not denying the capacity narrative that gained popularity earlier this week, it confirmed it in the popular press, including two local television news reports detailing the ‘sales outage.’

WNBC-TV reports on the unavailability of the iPhone in New York and AT&T’s ongoing problems with reception, service, and now PR in the Big Apple. (2 minutes)

With that story feeding the greater narrative that people “love the iPhone, hate the network,” AT&T better get on the phone with Luke Wilson and start taping some new ads.

In reality, Cook’s vague statement is something you’d expect from a spokesman who hasn’t been briefed on what really happened and needed to go with something to placate media speculation.  The data capacity theory would only make sense if the company suspended sales across all channels.  Except they didn’t.  Beyond the post-holiday low inventories found by some shoppers, New Yorkers could still find and purchase the iPhone in AT&T retail stores and through third-party retailers.  One could even order the phone from Apple.  Could unofficial ‘over-eager’ customer service representatives be responsible for the volunteered excuses noted above, either of which would ignite a firestorm of bad press for AT&T?

An increasingly annoying problem confronting cell phone companies is the eBay bottom-feeder and other gray market sales of the popular phone.  Both AT&T and Verizon have had growing problems with resellers who purchase a subsidized smartphone, agree to a two year contract, and immediately cancel it and resell the phone.  And they’ve been cashing in.

AT&T sells a new iPhone 3GS with 16 gigabytes of memory for $199.  When a reseller cancels the contract and keeps the phone, they pay a $175 early termination fee.  That means the phone costs them $374.  They then easily modify the phone to work with other cell phone companies and resell it for upwards of $600 or more on eBay, pocketing a nice $226 in profit.  Demand for the iPhone abroad is high, and considering the value of the dollar remains relatively low, Europeans can snap one up at a fire sale price.  Outside of North America, wireless phone companies don’t discount handsets like the iPhone.

Verizon Wireless has tried to deal with this problem by doubling the early termination fee on smartphones to $350.  That nearly eliminates the profit motive to resell affected phones.

WABC-TV New York calls the latest iPhone mess “salt in the wound” for many New York-area AT&T customers.  (1 minute)

In the multi-million dollar game of chicken, observers are waiting and watching to see who will stop the inevitable consumer train-wreck that will occur if the nation’s second largest cable operator Time Warner Cable fails to reach an agreement with News Corporation, owner of Fox television and several Fox cable networks.

Another day, more negotiations, but still no end in sight.

The battle between Time Warner Cable and Fox is coming down to the wire, reports CNBC’s Julia Boorstin. (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s Roll Over or Get Tough campaign was tailor-made to bolster the company’s defenses as the deadline nears for the nation’s second largest cable operator and Fox to reach an agreement on carrying Fox-owned stations in the new year.

For sports fans, the relentlessly ticking 24-like clock may run out on some important football games airing on Fox on New Year’s Day, requiring viewers to pull out the rabbit ears and settle for whatever over-the-air signal they can get.  At the moment, the two companies remain far apart in reaching a settlement over exactly how much Time Warner Cable will have to pay to carry Fox affiliates in some of the nation’s top TV markets.

Fox wants a reported $1 per subscriber per month.  Time Warner Cable prefers to pay nothing for Fox broadcast stations — the cable industry typically cuts deals to carry network-owned cable channels for which they will pay.  That’s how many Time Warner Cable customers ended up with channels like Sleuth, CNBC World, and other little-watched NBC-Universal cable channels just to smooth the way for retransmission consent for NBC-owned broadcast affiliates.  Fox shoved the dismally-rated Fox Business News and several regional sports channels onto many Time Warner Cable systems to win retransmission consent deals with higher-rated Fox networks just a few years ago.

Now Fox insists on cash money for carriage.

News Corporation’s Rupert Murdoch, who runs the company that owns Fox, has been making plenty of noise this year about the “business model” of broadcast television being broken in the United States.  Murdoch wants everyone to pay for News Corporation content, be it online from the Wall Street Journal or on your local cable system where the Fox family of cable and broadcast networks occupy at least a half-dozen channels on the lineup.

The level of nastiness has approached that of last year’s vicious battle with Viacom over how much Time Warner Cable would pay for channels like Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and MTV.  Last year the low point was achieved when Viacom ran full page newspaper ads with a crying Dora the Explorer lamenting the fact she was about to be ripped off the television screens of millions of cable customers.

Time Warner Cable hopes its preemptive strike will earn it some peace and understanding when upset subscribers call the cable company to complain about the loss of Fox on their cable dial.  After all, you did want them to “get tough” with those nasty programmers, right?  Time Warner Cable has pointed the finger specifically at Fox in the newest round of attack ads, and Fox returned fire with a new slap against Time Warner Cable.

Time Warner Cable characterizes a missed deadline in the dispute as the equivalent of Fox taking your TV hostage.

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Ad Targets TWC.flv

Fox returns fire with another direct shot at Time Warner Cable in their latest ad.

Meanwhile, local newscasts around the country are sporadically updating viewers about the fight.  Because football is involved, amazing efforts are underway to force the two to reach an agreement, or at least leave the games on.  One Orlando attorney is filing a lawsuit to get an emergency injunction to make sure Orlando’s WOFL-TV stays on Bright House Networks.  That cable company is being represented by Time Warner Cable over the Fox matter.

Bright House Networks in central Florida is also impacted by the Fox-Time Warner Cable stalled negotiations.  WESH-TV and WFTV-TV in Orlando report on the major impact the loss of WOFL-TV – Orlando’s Fox station, would have on area sports fans. (WESH-2 minutes WFTV-3 minutes)

http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 Time Warner Fox Dispute 12-28-09.flv

Time Warner Cable’s Alex Dudley, familiar to Stop the Cap! readers from the cable operator’s effort to launch a major Internet Overcharging scheme on customers last April, is back in a decidedly pro-Time Warner piece on the cable company-owned NY1.  Dudley can’t resist taking that last shot at Fox, pointing out impacted customers can always watch a lot of Fox programming for free online, thanks to Hulu. (3 minutes)

With these kinds of battles becoming increasingly contentious, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt hinted the cable operator may look at offering customers more choice in what channels make up a subscriber’s package.  Consumers have howled for years over rate increases that outpace inflation, as cable operators keep expanding the number of channels on offer, and keep raising the rates to pay for them.

“People want more choice, and collectively, we should be responsive to that,” Britt said at a investor conference in New York City. “I haven’t been a big fan of a la carte. The economics don’t work for the programming part of the business and ultimately don’t work for consumers. They do like to buy packages, maybe not as big as the packages we offer now, but they do like packages.”

“The comments are pretty consistently saying, ‘We would like the choice to buy smaller packages,’” Britt said.

The cable industry has traditionally resisted true a-la-carte pricing, which permits customers to choose and pay for only the channels they wish to watch.  Basic cable networks depend on both advertising revenue and the subscription payments they charge every customer who can watch their channels.  With the millions of cable subscribers pooled together, the cost per subscriber for each channel is usually less than 50 cents per month.  Letting subscribers opt-out increases the prices networks have to charge to those still receiving the channel.  Many niche networks would likely not survive such a transition.  The cable industry also argues it would force every subscriber to rent a set top box or similar device for every television in the home, as every channel would have to be scrambled.  Billing costs would also be higher.

Britt’s suggestion that Time Warner Cable could look into adding more “packages” of programming could resemble how C-band satellite dish owners paid for their programming.  Before the days of DISH Networks and DirecTV, millions of Americans placed large satellite dishes (typically 10-12 feet in diameter) in their yards to receive satellite-delivered programming.  When programmers encrypted their signals, satellite dish owners purchased programming in mini-packages comprising a handful of channels.  Some packages were theme-based — news packs with CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, Fox News, and CNBC for $5 a month or company-based, such as a package containing channels formerly owned by Ted Turner or those from Scripps-Howard (HGTV, Food, Style, etc.) for a few dollars a month.  Most subscribers paid for a “basic package” of popular basic networks grouped together and then added on more expensive premium channels or sports channels individually.  It often didn’t make economic sense to purchase each channel individually because of their relative high cost, but consumers could save quite a lot excluding some of the most expensive channels from their lineup (especially sports programming).

Whether Britt would follow through with the threat of “mini packages” is open for debate.  Any savings consumers realize from such offers would reduce Time Warner Cable’s revenue per subscriber, and that’s a sure fire way to upset Wall Street.

Watch more video and learn how Time Warner Cable customers nationwide may be facing the loss of Fox-owned cable channels, even if the local broadcast affiliate stays put.  We also have a more in-depth report on why retransmission consent agreements are increasingly important to broadcasters and pay television operators, all below the page break.

… Continue Reading