Home » Editorial & Site News »Video » Currently Reading:

Time Warner Cable Wants You To Help Fight “Unfair” Programming Prices, But Won’t Let You Choose Your Own Channels

Phillip Dampier November 25, 2009 Editorial & Site News, Video 28 Comments
Phillip "But I Don't Want to Pay for The Golf Channel" Dampier

Phillip "But I Don't Even Want The Golf Channel" Dampier

Time Warner Cable unveiled a new website this afternoon, RollOverOrGetTough, asking customers whether they want the company to “roll over” and pay the prices cable programmers demand or “get tough” and threaten to drop channels that demand too much.

This, of course, is rich coming from the company that loves to raise your rates every year, overcharge you for your broadband service with experimental usage caps and “consumption billing,” and has had a long history of owning and/or controlling many of those ‘greedy cable networks.’  Oh, and they won’t give you the choice of paying for just the channels you want to watch, either.

Want to send a message to the cable network bad-boys that demand too much?  Give your customers the right to opt out.

rolloverThe cable industry has fought a long-running battle with cable programming networks over the fees they pay on a per-subscriber basis to carry those channels.  The revenue earned by those networks helps them acquire programming that is attractive to potential viewers, and the advertisers that follow.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s, most cable subscribers spent their time watching local broadcasters, “superstations” — imported TV stations from cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles, and premium movie channels.  The basic cable networks back then didn’t run off-network TV shows.  Most ran cheaply produced documentaries, talk shows, imported shows from overseas, limited interest cultural programming, or music videos.  Sports programming rarely involved major teams, or major sporting events for that matter.

By the early 1990s, virtually every basic cable network was either owned outright or in part by one of the major national cable or broadcasting companies.  NBC and ABC dabbled in cable themselves, while CBS steered clear after being burned by a terrible experience with CBS Cable in the early 80s.  Launched as a cultural network devoted to opera, theater, and dance, it shut down a year after launching, having attracted minuscule audiences.

The lesson learned — create or buy programming viewers will actually want to watch.  That takes money, and the fees charged to cable operators for cable networks began rising rapidly.  Suddenly, off-network TV shows viewers used to watch on WPIX, WGN, WWOR, KTLA, or WTBS suddenly started showing up on basic cable instead.  The biggest turning point came when sports networks like ESPN started bidding for, and winning the rights to televise major league sporting events.  Nothing costs more than sports, and broadcast and cable networks have been bidding up prices ever since.

As basic cable networks became popular with viewers, their ability to make demands on cable operators grew exponentially.  Suddenly, certain cable networks demanded they be given low channel numbers, that cable companies had to also carry affiliated spin-off cable networks if they wanted access to their primary service, and that programming must always be carried on basic cable — not on some digital cable tier or other similar extra-cost tier.

For years, cable operators didn’t care too much as they just passed the increases on to customers.  Where could viewers go except to the cable company?  I recall the sticker shock customers had when basic cable first exceeded $20 a month, then $30.  Today it’s headed for $60 a month in many areas.  Cable companies attempted to placate angry customers by adding several new channels to the lineup just prior to the rate hike letter, telling them they were now receiving greater value than ever from their cable company.  The following year, those new channels wanted more money, too.

The “500 channel universe” that sounded promising a decade ago is now a nuisance for many subscribers, irritated they are paying for hundreds of channels they never watch.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WIVB Buffalo Report on TWC Campaign 11-25-09.flv[/flv]

WIVB-TV Buffalo reported on Time Warner Cable’s fight against programming prices, but itself (along with sister station WNLO-TV) was thrown off Time Warner Cable’s cable lineup over a contract dispute for most of October, 2008.  LIN TV Corporation, owner of both stations, had reportedly demanded 25 cents per month per subscriber for permission to carry the stations on cable. (1 minute)

In a difficult economy, justifying a $150-200 cable bill for television, broadband, and phone service is harder than ever.  Consumers want new options.  Satellite television provided limited competition, and a few large phone companies are set to deliver a bit more.  But some subscribers have decided paying this kind of money for television every month is outrageous, and they have finally jumped off the merry-go-round.  Some younger people are never getting on, relying entirely on their broadband service to watch television programs and movies on demand.

Time Warner Cable’s attempt to enlist customers in their sudden war on programming rate increases is likely to be seen by many as a classic pot to kettle cable quandary.  The company that still wants to force Internet Overcharging schemes on their broadband subscribers and is now raising rates in many areas has some chutzpah asking customers to fight for them:

No one likes paying more. You don’t. We don’t. Yet, every time our contracts with TV program providers come up for renewal, that’s what we face. Price increases. Big ones. Up to 300% more. Sometimes we can avoid passing them on to you. Sometimes we can’t. Sometimes, a network will threaten to take your shows away if we don’t roll over. Whenever that’s happened in the past, we’d make the best deal we could and hope that would be the end of it. But it never was. So no more. The networks shouldn’t be in the driver’s seat on what you watch and how much you pay. You’re our customers, so help us decide what to do. Let us know if you want us to Roll Over, or Get Tough. We’re just one company, but there are millions of you. Together, we just might be able to make a difference in what America pays for its favorite entertainment.

[flv width=”408″ height=”296″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TWC The NFL Wants You To Pay Ad.mp4[/flv]

Time Warner Cable ran this ad in its dispute with the NFL Network over carrying the channel on cable lineups.  Warning: Loud Audio (30 seconds)

To be sure, cable companies are confronted by some pretty bad offenders during contract renewals.  Some demand several dollars a month per subscriber, whether you watch the channel or not:

NFL Network: This one has been kept off Time Warner Cable for years because they want an enormous amount of money and demand to be carried on the basic cable lineup, where they can expose every subscriber to their monthly programming fee.  TWC has repeatedly said no because a significant part of any rate increase will come from just this single network.

Sports Networks: In general, the biggest price hikers are sports channels.  ESPN and its sister channels demand several dollars a month for every subscriber.  Single sporting event channels, particularly YES, the Yankees network are also often very expensive.  Regional sports channels are obscenely expensive, and many cable systems finally forced them into their own sports tier, where those who want them pay for them.

Fox/News Corporation: Fox News Channel in particular commands mind-boggling subscription fees, usually more than every other news channel combined.  Many systems also got stuck carrying and paying for Fox Business News, a ratings dog attracting fewer than 20,000 viewers nationwide at any one time.  Time Warner Cable faces expiring contracts for many Fox channels, and the renewal of them (at characteristically higher rates) will likely involve a brutal battle over what subscribers will be stuck paying for FX, Fuel, Speed, Fox Soccer, and several regional sports networks.  That’s before the cable operator also has to conduct negotiations over how much Fox-owned local stations are going to demand in return for carriage on Time Warner’s lineup.

The nastiest battles are often fought with local television stations, especially when they are collectively owned by a single company.  Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns several Fox and other network affiliated stations, is known for playing hardball with cable companies.  Other station owners known for being willing to yank their stations off cable if the company won’t pay their price include: Gray Television, Journal Communications, Meredith Corporation, Nexstar Broadcasting Group, and LIN TV Corporation.  Typically these battles pit cable and broadcasters against one another with viewers in the middle, wondering if their local station will still be on their cable lineup in the morning.

In the end, cable companies tend to cave in or negotiate slightly better deals to get the local stations back on.

[flv width=”320″ height=”260″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KXMC Bismarck KNDX Yanked from Cable 4-2-09.flv[/flv]

KXMC-TV in Minot, North Dakota reported that North Dakota Fox affiliate KNDX-TV was out in the cold after Midcontinent Communications yanked the channel off during a contract dispute.  (4/2/2009 – 1 minute)

It’s no surprise that everyone wants a piece of cable’s action.  Nor are we surprised by a number of comments left on news sites reporting this story that Time Warner Cable’s new campaign has often been met with derision by subscribers, who absolutely loathe the company for its past pricing practices.  In the cities where the company tried to engineer a tripling in price of broadband service — to $150 a month for the same level of service customers used to enjoy for $50 a month, I wouldn’t hold my breath.  Customers aren’t likely to hold hands with a company that wants to “save you a few dollars” off your cable bill while emptying your bank account for your broadband service.

If and when Time Warner Cable wants to permanently bury any notion of Internet Overcharging schemes, drop us a line.  Perhaps then consumers will join a programming price revolt run by a company that’s got our back, instead of our wallet.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SAL-e
SAL-e
14 years ago

I have new invention that fixes the problem. I discover it after I dropped the CABLE and SAT TV more then 6 months ago. It is called book…….
Oh wait it is not new it was invented long, long time ago. Never mind. I just started reading. Reading is much better spend time. Watching TV is become brain washing. Who the hell wants to pay for TV to watch Ads?!

waiting and watching
waiting and watching
14 years ago

I am already paying for a load of channels I have no use for, because rather than charging customers for them they offer them “free” to everyone. That is free as they increase rates for channels you would never watch. So what is stopping them with NFL? I bet because TWC no longer gets a piece of the pie. I could list about 100 channels I would never watch, but have to pay for because other people want them. TWCs excuse for not offering each channel of their lineups as a-la-carte is that it would cost customers cost for the… Read more »

Earl Cooley III
Earl Cooley III
14 years ago

500 channels for $20 a month sounds about right to me.

KC
KC
14 years ago

Too bad they don’t have a publicly-viewable comments section, I’d love to tell TWC that I am unable to negotiate with them when they raise my rates, so they should have to “roll over” like I do. How I would love to drop cable TV altogether… but I would miss those few channels I do watch 🙁

I say we make our own rolloverorgettough site for customers regarding “inevitable” capped and overpriced internet. Why? I don’t know, why not?

Chris Bigelow
14 years ago

I just came from the TW Rollover/Get Tough web site and posted this comment in the Get Tough section: ============================================= [Dear TW:] I’m confused. Which channels do you pay for? Certainly not the majors, who are available free over-the-air. If anything, I’d expect the majors to pay you to increase their viewership – after all, they are the ones making the advertising revenue. Certainly you, and therefore your subscribers, need to pay for the premium channels like HBO, Starz and so on. All the other channels in the middle? Let’s see… if they are cable only channels they rely on… Read more »

Tim
Tim
14 years ago
Reply to  Chris Bigelow

“Certainly not the majors, who are available free over-the-air.”

They do pay for local channels. The local ABC in my area was wanting more money from TWC for carrying their content. Well, there was talk of ABC pulling its channel from TWC’s lineup. In the end, TWC cable agreed to the new price. Shortly after that, if I remember correctly, they raised rates.

BrionS
Editor
14 years ago
Reply to  Tim

Yeah it’s pretty crazy in that regard. Local affiliates charge cable and satellite companies to carry their content but then they broadcast it for free. Recently they’ve also been placing their content online for free at their own websites (abc.com, nbc.com, cbs.com, etc.) and cable is not happy about that one bit. Part of they hostility toward online video is this perceived duplicitous behavior of the networks. On one hand I agree with cable that it’s somewhat unfair to charge for their content and then undercut their resellers by giving it away for free online and over the air. But… Read more »

me
me
14 years ago

Also anyone remember when cable tv had no advertisements other than the ‘big three’? Then they just couldn’t afford to carry anything without advertisements. I remember many people dropped them when they did this and never looked back. So they are skimming off the end consumer and the content provider. Another classic charge both ends of the pipe more money and say ‘its not their fault’. Who did the end cost end up on? Us. As the content providers figured out that they could charge the cable companies. As the with the internet the cable company needs the source of… Read more »

KEN MARTIN
KEN MARTIN
14 years ago

I AM APPALLED AT HOW TIME WARNER CAN KEEP INCREASING RATES WHENEVER THEY WANT……..I CANNOT WAIT UNTIL A T & T COMES INTO RALEIGH AND OFFERS THEIR OWN CABLE…….I AM THINKING ABOUT SWITCHING TO DISH OR DIRECT TV…….IT CANT BE AS BAD AS TIME WARNER, TRUST ME.

Ron Dafoe
Ron Dafoe
14 years ago
Reply to  KEN MARTIN

I have whad directv for 10 years and every year they also raise their rates, although I think it is a better value than cable.

BrionS
Editor
14 years ago
Reply to  KEN MARTIN

Satellite will lure you in with low cost of entry but you can forget about upgrading along the way and all repairs to the cable and the dish are on you entirely. If you want HD, get the HD tuner(s, as many as you need) right away because later it will cost you lots of money as you’ll have to purchase the hardware (which will be fairly useless without also paying for service from the provider you bought it from). Satellite hardware (except for the dish itself and the cabling) is frequently rented for new subscribers but purchased outright for… Read more »

Tim
Tim
14 years ago
Reply to  BrionS

“…(it’s uncompressed HD vs. cable’s highly compressed HD and satellite’s slightly compressed HD).” Actually OTA is compressed. It is all compressed. A true uncompressed 720p picture would have to have around 1Gb/sec bandwidth. OTA uses Mpeg2 compression which compresses the picture around 50:1, 19Mb/sec. It is far better than cable or satellite which have around 6-10Mb/sec. FIOS, I think one of the users here has it, has the best bandwidth for HD, 25Mb I think. I use to get around 28 Digital channels OTA. However, ever since my amp went out and have tried several new ones with no success,… Read more »

BrionS
Editor
14 years ago
Reply to  Tim

My apologies Tim. You are correct of course, OTA HD is still compressed but the compression is far less noticeable than with cable or satellite. However what led me to believe HD was uncompressed was the installation instructions to my DB2 indoor/outdoor antenna (which is great by the way): http://www.antennasdirect.com/pdf/generic_instructions.pdf It says: Congratulations! Your new Terrestrial Digital antenna will give you the best possible digital and HD picture quality (yes, even better than cable or satellite). Today, local digital TV (DTV)—including HDTV—is available over the air using this antenna. Over-the-air signals are not compressed like cable or satellite transmissions and… Read more »

Tim
Tim
14 years ago
Reply to  BrionS

No apology needed for I use to think the same thing. “ATSC signals are designed to use the same 6 MHz bandwidth as NTSC television channels (the interference requirements of A/53 DTV standards with adjacent NTSC or other DTV channels are very strict). Once the video and audio signals have been compressed and multiplexed, the transport stream can be modulated in different ways depending on the method of transmission. * Terrestrial (local) broadcasters use 8VSB modulation that can transfer at a maximum rate of 19.39 Mbit/s, sufficient to carry several video and audio programs and metadata. * Cable television stations… Read more »

john del
john del
14 years ago

Paying for cable 100-150 month and then being bombarded w/ ads makes much lunacy sense.

So, I make an ABSOLUTE promise never to patronize these companies and I occasionally tell them why. BEcause I am being bombarded with their commercialism non-stop.

Ever try to watch 5 min of news on HLN…it only takes 15.

BrionS
Editor
14 years ago

I was thinking we should all go vote for Roll Over since clearly that’s not the choice they want people to make. I wonder what they’d do? I suspect this is simply an attempt to motivate people to vote “get tough” so they can take it with them to the negotiating table and claim they have the support of their customers who won’t pay more. Then of course, if they somehow manage to minimize or eliminate rate increases at the programming level, they’ll still increase rates for customers citing things such as network improvements and better quality or some such.… Read more »

BrionS
Editor
14 years ago
Reply to  BrionS

Here’s my comment I left on the Roll Over page: This site is a joke and an insult to your customer’s intelligence. Rate increases will happen to customers despite the outcomes of your negotiations with content providers, you’ll just have to find a new excuse like network upgrades or something. How about giving your customers a *real* choice such as ala carte programming? I understand Time Warner Cable is interested in consumption-based billing for Internet, why not do the same for cable? If I watch TV for 10 hours it will cost me more than if I watch it for… Read more »

JP NINE
14 years ago

TWC charges way to much for the crappie showS that are on now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LowER the f–ing bills for everyone.

The programmers should be paying the cable bills not the PUBLIC.

HOW ABOUT YOU ALL KISS MY BUTT.

BTW roadrunner is a joke and way over priced.!

TWC SUCKSsssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike
Mike
14 years ago

I think all the utilities are singing the same old story. These guys want to maintain their lifestyle at the expense of the consumer as usual. Why shouldnt these guys feel the crunch also. They keep raising the rates and expect people to keep paying them so they can continue with their current lifestyles. Let the consumer take it on the chin and not have something else so these crooks can continue to drive their fancy cars and have fancy houses. Gas shortage? Bull, natural gas shortage double bull. Bailouts even more bull. These are the kind of people who… Read more »

lanphear
lanphear
14 years ago

I BELIVE THERE WILL BE ALOT OF PEOPLE THAT WONT KEEP THE CABLE BEACUSE THEY WONT ABLE TO PAY THAT MUCH MONEY BEACUSE THERE IS ALOT OF USE THAT WONT BE ABLE TO PAY MORE THEN ARE ALRADY ARE RIGHT NOWITHINK WE SHOULDFIGHT BACK

gwb
gwb
14 years ago

greedy awipes

Time warner should pay us to view all the ads they run

Stephen
Stephen
14 years ago

Hello I am getting tought because i want my channels to stay Cahnnel 1 Ny1 news every ten mintues they tell you the weather, Channel 5 other shows like Bones, 24 The people’s Court and othere judges too. Channel 9 the sister channel for channel 5 What WWE Friday night smackdown. I am going to keep fighting and keep fighting to keep the channels.

BrionS
Editor
14 years ago
Reply to  Stephen

I can’t tell if you’re serious or sarcastic. But in the case you’re serious you should know that the content providers Time Warner is asking you to “get tough” against don’t choose the channel number they air on. Time Warner controls the channels so even if you “got tough” you might still get your channels swapped around on you.

Then what?

Maureen Zabawa
Maureen Zabawa
14 years ago

Well just opened my Christmas present from TWC. their new rates effective Feb 1. Guess they didn’t feel the need to wait and see what happened with FOX. They are going to increase rates every year regardless. So much for this monopoly. Consumers are running out of patience.

Uncle Ken
Uncle Ken
14 years ago

Maurrean: Can you tell use your city and what the changes were?

Employee
Employee
14 years ago

I used to work at NEWS CORP. The salaries, bonuses and parties are outrageous. Rupert Murdoch is a greedy and power hungry Australian. It is not fair that an Australia can have that much RIGHTS and POWER over our media ( newspapers, TV, cable, magazines). Not only does Rupert controls us ( Americans), now he has American bickering amongst ourselves over FOX programming….smart move Rupert!. What an instigator ! I say REMOVE FOX and let Americans gain back access and control of all forms of media. Let us be responsible for the commication to our own people. Rupert doesn’t care… Read more »

Steve Chavez
Steve Chavez
14 years ago

Why not make Fox into a Paid Tier for subscribers? That way, if we don’t want them, we won’t have to pay for them. I have no interest in the programming that Fox delivers. I simply don’t watch it. I’d much rather pay for some other programming and would prefer that option.

-Steve

Earl Cooley III
Earl Cooley III
14 years ago

Why hasn’t the FCC stepped in to arbitrate this mess? Confine the pertinent executives to a prison cell and let them know that under no circumstances will they get any caviar until an agreement is made.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!