Every week brings the threat of yet another programming blackout because cable programmers want to be paid more and cable operators want to pay the same or less. This time, Fox Networks Group has sent a final warning to Charter Communications that their customers will lose several cable networks as soon as Wednesday if the two companies cannot reach a renewal agreement.

“Fox and Charter have an agreement to carry the Fox networks that Charter has chosen to ignore,” Fox said in a statement that was updated today. “We’re disappointed that despite our best efforts to reach a resolution, Charter Spectrum subscribers could lose access to multiple Fox sports and entertainment networks on April 12.”

The latest dispute surrounds the lucrative volume discounts that Time Warner Cable formerly negotiated for some of Fox’s non-news-related cable networks. Charter Communications acquired both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks to secure those kinds of volume discounts for itself. In general, the larger a cable system is, the lower the wholesale rate charged for cable programming. Charter hoped it could continue paying the lower rates Time Warner Cable managed to secure after acquiring the much larger cable system. But cable programmers are not buying Charter’s approach and in one case sued.

In March, Univision blocked Charter from carrying its Spanish-language networks Univision, Unimás, Galavisión, Univision Deportes and El Rey in a similar dispute. A temporary restraining order brought the networks back to the lineup a day later, at least temporarily. Univision sued Charter Communications in 2016 over the programming fee dispute.

A significant amount of money is at stake depending on which side ultimately wins in court.

In the case of Univision, Charter’s own contract with the Spanish language programmer expired on June 30, 2016. That would normally require Charter to negotiate a contract renewal that it knew would be more costly than what it paid under the old contract. Charter learned Time Warner Cable had negotiated a contract with Univision that delivered better volume discounts and was not set to expire until June 2022.

To allow Charter Communications to argue that Time Warner Cable’s contract should continue to apply after the merger, it structured its acquisition (on paper at least) to allow Charter to claim Time Warner Cable would continue to manage all of its cable systems. Charter’s lawyers argued that because “Time Warner Cable” is in charge, the wholesale rates Time Warner Cable negotiated should now apply to all Charter systems.

Univision, among other programmers, balked at Charter’s creative thinking.

“Everyone knows that is simply not true: the longstanding CEO and the senior executive team of Charter, as well as its pre-existing board of directors, now in fact manage and control all such cable systems, and virtually the entire TWC leadership team has departed,” Univision argued in its 2016 lawsuit.

If the programmers win, Charter will have to negotiate new carriage agreements at 2017 prices instead of continuing to pay the lower rates Time Warner Cable won for itself in the past.

A similar dispute is likely behind the current battle between Charter and Fox. Each time a cable company has to negotiate a new contract, programmers tend to ask for a considerably higher wholesale price for their channels and try to get cable systems to also carry their other networks. When a cable operator refuses to pay what it considers to be an unconscionable renewal rate or does not want to carry the programmer’s other networks, a showdown takes place that often leads to channels being temporarily removed from the lineup. Cable companies usually lose these battles after subscribers get hostile, but some smaller cable operators have walked away from programmers like Viacom for good when the renewal price stayed too high.

As is the tradition in these disputes, Fox launched a website and social media blitz to warn Charter customers they are about to lose access to 19 regional sports channels, FX, FXX, FOX Movie Channel, National Geographic TV, Fox Sports and Fox Deportes and asked customers to start calling Charter and complain. The current dispute does not involve the FOX (TV) Network, the Fox News Channel or the Fox Business Channel.

“We’re disappointed that despite our best efforts to reach a resolution, Charter Spectrum subscribers could lose access to multiple Fox sports and entertainment networks on April 12,” FOX wrote on its website. “Charter’s tactics could result in its subscribers missing our popular programming including Fox Sports’ telecasts of the St. Louis Cardinals and Blues, Kansas City Royals, Cleveland Cavaliers, Cincinnati Reds and many other MLB, NBA and NHL teams on Fox Regional Sports Networks, Fox Deportes, National Geographic, and FX’s hit dramas The Americans and Feud as well as much more award winning programming.”

“Fox is trying to gouge our customers using the increasingly common tactic of threats and removal of programming,” Charter responded in a statement. “They are attempting to extort Charter for hundreds of millions of dollars. We will continue to work towards a fair agreement.”

Fox Networks is using this ad to warn Charter Spectrum customers they could lose Fox programming. (0:30)

Frontier Communications FiOS customers in Oregon and Washington are getting free premium movie channels to make up for the loss of two local TV stations that pulled their signals off the lineup after failing to reach a contract extension agreement.

In a rare case of provider magnanimity, Frontier is giving customers three free months of HBO, Showtime, and Starz as part of its apology for the loss of two local ABC stations: KATU-Portland and KOMO-Seattle in a retransmission consent dispute:

Frontier knows how important local programming is to you. We would like to show our appreciation for your patience during our negotiations with Sinclair Broadcasting. Existing FiOS TV customers in the Portland and Seattle markets will receive complimentary access to select premium channels (HBO, Showtime or Starz) for the next 3 months. Enjoy this gift starting today! Don’t want the channels? Call 1.800.921.8101 to have them removed.

Cable operators rarely offer customers discounts on their bill or free channels as a consolation for the channel losses, but Frontier apparently wants to set a different standard with its FiOS fiber to the home customers in the Pacific Northwest.

KATU and KOMO, both owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, have been off the lineup since New Year’s Day. That caused subscribers in both cities to lose their local ABC stations. If customers already subscribe to one of the premium channels, they will receive a $20 credit usable for video-on-demand or pay-per-view events.

Getting KATU and KOMO over the air can be challenging for some Frontier customers in outer suburbs, so the loss of the stations could cause some customers to cancel service and switch providers.

“Frontier knows local programming is important to our customers and we are continuing to negotiate with Sinclair Broadcasting for a reasonable rate,” Frontier spokesman Javier Mendoza said in a written statement.

“Of course you know this means war.”

Altice USA has found a way to use CBS’ All Access online streaming service against a Connecticut CBS affiliate that blacked out its signal for some Connecticut Cablevision customers.

Meredith-owned CBS affiliate WFSB-TV in Hartford has been off the Optimum television lineup in two dozen Connecticut towns as of 5pm Friday, Jan. 13 after negotiations between Iowa-based Meredith and Altice USA broke down over the price of renewing a retransmission consent contract that Altice claims is 800% more expensive than before.

That means Optimum customers in Litchfield County no longer have access to CBS programming. Or do they? Optimum’s website is redirecting affected customers to WFSB’s network — CBS — and offering a week’s free trial of CBS’ All Access, which allows viewers online access to all CBS programming on demand.

Optimum’s previously negotiated distribution deal with CBS for the All Access platform has been in place since the summer of 2015, which means CBS cannot pull the offer down from Altice’s website. That effectively means CBS is being used to undercut its own affiliate’s most important leverage — taking away popular programming until a provider finally capitulates and signs a renewal contract.

Matt Polka, president of the American Cable Association, which represents small and independent cable companies, loves it.

“Local broadcasters cannibalized by their own network!” Polka tweeted.

Oh…The #Irony — Local #broadcasters cannibalized by their own network! Gotta love the #Internet and the #ISP that provides it! https://t.co/RABX3BHh4R

— Matthew M. Polka (@MATTatACA) January 16, 2017

Altice USA has promised investors it will hold the line on programming costs even if it means finding alternatives for customers. This seems to be an example at work.

Will CBS All Access weaken Meredith’s position on WFSB to force price concessions? The New Haven Register isn’t sure, reporting there are years of “bad blood” between Cablevision and Meredith over carriage contracts:

During the last retransmission agreement negotiations in 2014, Cablevision Systems called on the Federal Communications Commission to investigate whether Meredith Corp. was meeting public interest obligations that are an important component of all television station licenses. Cablevision also sued Meredith in Connecticut’s court system under the Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The latest dispute has attracted the attention of both of Connecticut’s U.S. senators.

“I typically don’t get involved because it’s not for me to dictate the terms of a dispute between a cable company and a network,” Sen. Chris Murphy said in a statement issued Friday night. “But I haven’t been pleased with Altice’s commitment to Connecticut since it bought Cablevision.”

FierceCable reported the area’s congressional delegation isn’t happy with either company:

Connecticut’s two Democratic U.S. Senators, Richard Blumenthal and Christopher Murphy, sent a letter addressed to both Meredith Corp. CEO Stephen Lacy and Altice USA CEO Dexter Goei.

“While we respect the private negotiations being conducted by Optimum and WFSB and make no representations as to the merits of either side’s position, we believe that the current impasse does a disservice to Connecticut families and we urge you to negotiate in good faith to bring an end to this blackout,” the Senators wrote.

Altice, meanwhile, said in its own statement, “We have been negotiating in good faith for weeks and made multiple offers to Meredith even though their initial request was for more than 800% over what we currently pay.”

[Editor’s Note: Federal Communications Commission chairman Thomas Wheeler today released a compromise proposal hoping to get the cost of set-top box equipment down for millions of Americans forced to lease equipment to watch cable television.

Wheeler originally proposed requiring an open standard for set-top box equipment that would open the market to competition by allowing manufacturers to directly sell equipment to consumers and compete for their business. Cable operators, programmers, and various special interest groups that depend on financial contributions from those operators immediately launched an unprecedented pushback claiming set-top box reform was racist, anti-minority, promoted copyright theft, and was illegal and unconstitutional. Small cable operators claimed they might be driven out of business, and programmers claimed companies like Google might fundamentally change the channel lineup on new equipment that would leave them in a disadvantaged position.

In fact, the hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue earned by cable operators charging the same price for equipment fresh out of the box or handed down in beat up condition to the fifth customer in eight years was more likely the driving factor.

Mr. Wheeler capitulated and released a more modest proposal promising cable operators would be forced to offer free “apps” for devices like Roku and Apple TV. But cable operators will likely own and manage those apps and have direct control of authentication methods and anti-piracy measures that are likely to be proprietary. Still, apps like TWC TV which covers Time Warner Cable’s lineup on devices like Roku have allowed consumers to ditch expensive set-top equipment and irritating Digital Adapters that don’t function well and have almost tripled in price since their introduction. Making sure these apps provide comparable functionality with set-top boxes and are released to a variety of devices will be key to whether Wheeler’s proposal, delivered in full below courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, has a measurable impact on cable bills.]

FCC chairman: Here are the new proposed rules for set-top boxes

There’s never been a better time to watch television in America. We have more options than ever, and, with so much competition for eyeballs, studios and artists keep raising the bar for quality content. But when it comes to the set-top-box that delivers our pay-TV subscriptions, we have essentially no options, creating headaches and costing us serious money in rental fees. That makes no sense, which is why I’m sharing a proposal with my fellow commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission to change the system.

Wheeler’s compromise

Ninety-nine percent of pay-TV subscribers currently lease set-top boxes from their cable, satellite or telecommunications provider, paying an average of $231 a year for the privilege, according to a recent analysis. The collective tab is $20 billion annually in rental fees. In a recent study, 84% of consumers felt their cable bill was too high. What they may not realize is that every bill includes an add-on fee for their set-top boxes. We keep paying these charges even after the cost of the box has been recovered because we have no meaningful alternative.

Pay-TV providers will be required to provide apps — free of charge — that consumers can download to the device of their choosing.
Earlier this year, the FCC launched a process to unlock the set-top-box marketplace. We were motivated by the desire to give consumers relief, but we were also mandated to take action by Congress and the law, which says that consumers should be able to choose their preferred device to access pay-TV programming.
Over the past seven months, the Commission conducted an open proceeding where we heard from pay-TV providers, programmers, device and software manufacturers, consumers groups, and, most important, the American people. We listened.

Now, I am proposing rules that would end the set-top-box stranglehold. If adopted, consumers will no longer have to rent a set-top box, month after month. Instead, pay-TV providers will be required to provide apps – free of charge– that consumers can download to the device of their choosing to access all the programming and features they already paid for.

If you want to watch Comcast’s content through your Apple TV or Roku, you can. If you want to watch DirectTV’s offerings through your Xbox, you can. If you want to pipe Verizon’s service directly to your smart TV, you can. And if you want to watch your current pay-TV package on your current set-top box, you can do that, too. The choice is yours. No longer will you be forced to rent set-top boxes from your pay-TV provider.

One of the biggest benefits consumers will see is integrated search. The rules would require all pay-TV providers to enable the ability for consumers to search for pay-TV content alongside other sources of content. Just type in the name of a movie, and a list will come up with all the places it is scheduled for broadcast and where it can be streamed (like Amazon Prime or Hulu).

Integrated search also means expanded access to programming created by independent and diverse voices on the same platform as your pay-TV providers. Consumers will more easily find content even if it’s not on the pay-TV service to which they subscribe.

These rules will open the door for innovation, spurring new apps and devices, giving consumers even more choice and user control.

While our primary focus during this proceeding was to promote consumer choice and fulfill our congressional mandate, we recognize that protecting the legitimate copyright interests of content creators is also key to serving the public interest. To ensure that all copyright and licensing agreements will remain intact, the delivery of pay-TV programming will continue to be overseen by pay-TV providers from end-to-end. The proposed rules also maintain important protections regarding emergency alerting, accessibility and privacy.

Large pay-TV providers, which serve more than 90% of subscribers, will have two years to fully implement the new requirements.  Medium-sized providers will have an additional two years to comply, and the smallest providers would be exempt.

This is a golden era for watching television and video. By empowering consumers to access their content on their terms, it’s about to get cheaper — and even better.