Comments on: Cablevision Throws Food TV, HGTV Off Its System

By: charles

charles — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:26:17 +0000

The scripps networks have lost millions in advertising revenue and are now trying to hold cablevision customers hostage for ridculous ransom. According to the NY times Scripps networks have lost 15% of its viewership over the last year. They are attempting to charge a 200% for channels losing watchers. While I understand the frustration of subscribers no company during these times deserve a 200% increase when the Avg is 5%. Why doesnt Scripps show what Verizon is paying or Dish network.

By: joyce

joyce — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:59:21 +0000

The reason I purchased “Cablevision” was for the Foodnetwork and Hgtv programs and it is a shame with the price we paid and also expected to pay the same with these shows dropped.For the most part I watch these programs more than the other channels as I consider them more entertaining than what other stations are showing as well as helpful. We the customers are suffering and forced to watch, turn off tv complelety, or seek other means for another service. Please help your loyal customers. Thank you.

By: Coreen

Coreen — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:25:25 +0000

I think this is a complete disgrace. In this time of instability in most of our lives, it’s a shame that both of these companies couldn’t come to an agreement. I pay over $100 a month for Cablevision (including my home computer), however, the ONLY two shows I ever watch are FoodTV and HGTV. Now what? Do we get a discount for the loss of the channels? The answer is a resounding NO, as explained to me by a cablevision representative earlier today.

I truly believe that the consumer is always the one to suffer and the one to also have to pick up the additional expenses in this world. It’s time for that to stop and for these large companies to think of us instead of their pockets. I hear that Cablevision pays only 8cents per customer to Scripps, while it pays over $4 per customer to ESPN. Scripps wants a quarter, couldn’t they just pay that to keep their customer base satisfied?

By: Aj

Aj — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:07:49 +0000

I’m really upset that both parties had to resort to this. I will miss the Food Network and HGTV as I watch both channels regularly. It’s a shame that both parties couldn’t continue to negotiate. This is a lose/lose situation. Scripps will lose a chunk of revenue and Cablevision will lose customers who will defect to other providers who have these channels.

And, btw, for those of you who think that Cablevision will be issuing refunds/reductions for this loss, I wouldn’t race to the bank with my deposit slip just yet.

By: Ruthie

Ruthie — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:10:47 +0000

I can’t believe this. WE are the customer and we are supposed to get what WE want! Afterall, it is OUR money! If Cablevision won’t give me what I want, I am certain that Verizon Fios will!

Soon to be a former-Cablevision customer.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:35:59 +0000

Good, and I hope they pull other channels from the line up too if they try to pull something like this. You already pay to watch their programming through commercials. Why do these networks feel the need to double dip? Now Scripps has lost a huge market of viewers and revenue. Is making some money better than making no money? That is the question I would pose to Scripps.

“# Cable subscribers on the whole, responding to the 2009 Beta Subscriber Study, said Food Network is worth $1.03 per month, which is considerably more than Cablevision is paying for the network’s programming and more than Food Network is asking in the current contract negotiations.
# Cablevision customers pay an average subscription rate of $83 per month. The monthly fee Cablevision pays for Food Network is a small fraction of that figure.”

$1.03/month is still too much. No it doesn’t sound like a lot of money but if everyone started charging $1.03 and you got the standard 100 channel package, you would be paying a huge sum for channels you may or may not watch! Sorry, I don’t buy the “fraction” argument. Maybe, if we were in an a la carte world, that argument would have clout but not with bundling.

By: Donna Bale

Donna Bale — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 07:57:28 +0000

Now I don’t have to watch all those sickening Walmart commericals