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.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner Ransom Ad.flv[/flv]

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

[flv width=”640″ height=”506″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fox Ad Targets TWC.flv[/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.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WESH Orlando Bright House Fox Battle Sugar Bowl In Between 12-28-09.flv[/flv]

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFTV Orlando Contract Dispute May Keep Gator Fans From Watching Game 12-28-09.flv[/flv]

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)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/NY1 Time Warner Fox Dispute 12-28-09.flv[/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

While Time Warner Cable continues to ask customers if they should “get tough” with cable programmers’ price hikes, they are rolling over customers with more rate increases anyway.

The latest region facing higher cable bills is southern California.  Customers were notified rates were increasing an unspecified amount in January 2010.  Company spokesman Darryl Ryan told the Orange County Register that he can’t easily categorize the average increase since every bill will be different.

Readers managed:

• Margaret from Huntington Beach says that some price hike examples are: The All the Best goes to $122.99, from $119.95; the ‘Surf ‘n View’ increases $2.04; broadcast cable goes up $2; Internet only goes up $2.04; and DVR increases to $1.54. One decrease: the remote control drops $0.05.
• Dana from Anaheim Hills got a letter too and had to call customer service to figure out what it meant. Essentially, Dana found out basic service was going up $5 to $8 per month. To keep the existing price, customers must commit to a 2-year contract.

This price increase, with more likely to follow, comes because of programming costs according to the nation’s second largest cable operator.  The company has recently tried to engage consumers in an effort to “keep costs down” through its “Roll Over or Get Tough” campaign.  Time Warner Cable claims broadcasters and other cable programmers are demanding as much as 300% more for their programming in 2010.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TWC Holidays Ad.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable’s ‘Roll Over or Get Tough’ campaign is running this ad for the holidays.

The Parents Television Council called the marketing campaign “self serving,” said Tim Winter, the organization’s president.  The group said consumers are always put in the middle of pricing arguments, either from the cable company’s perspective or the network trying to get carriage or threatened with removal from cable lineups.  The PTC calls it posturing, and in the end prices typically get negotiated down a few pennies at most.

The PTC advocates consumers being able to pick and choose only those channels they want.  The group runs the website How Cable Should Be, which breaks down some of the estimated wholesale prices programmers charge cable companies for their programming.  Consumers can use the site to pick and choose their favorite channels and add up what their monthly bill could be if they weren’t paying for channels they don’t watch.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bundling Bummer.flv[/flv]
The Parents Television Council’s “Bundling Bummer” message illustrates how consumers get stuck paying for channels they never wanted. (3 minutes)

Time Warner Cable claims that more than 400,000 visitors to their campaign website have been overwhelmingly positive towards the company’s “fight back” stance.

“We’re delighted with the results so far,” said Time Warner chairman, president and CEO Glenn Britt. “Over 150,000 people have left comments, and 95% of them voted for ‘Get Tough.’ Our customers clearly agree that the current programming business model is broken. One comment we’re hearing pretty consistently is that customers would like the choice to buy smaller packages of channels. As an industry, we need to listen to those kinds of concerns.”

But the company’s site doesn’t make it easy to “roll over.”  Those who try to choose “roll over” are prompted instead to choose “fight back.”

Industry observers suggest Time Warner’s campaign is an opening shot for upcoming contract extensions for a handful of programmers, most notably broadcasters.  In the very center?  News Corporation and the Fox family of cable and broadcast stations.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TWC 300 Percent Pay Raise.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable asks if you are getting a 300% pay raise in this ad asking if customers want the company to fight back against programmer price increases.

Behind the scenes, Time Warner Cable has been taking shots at Fox over negotiations between Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns 20 Fox-affiliated TV stations, and Mediacom, a smaller cable operator.  In an ex parte comment filed December 8th, Time Warner Cable took direct aim at the network, suggesting they were demanding veto power over local negotiations with individual stations.  If the network doesn’t like the terms the local station and cable system settle on, Fox wants the right to object.  Time Warner Cable suggested that precedent is already in place based on negotiations between Sinclair and Time Warner which only resulted in one-year extensions.  The cable operator assumes Fox will be back a year from now demanding up to one dollar a month per subscriber for each Fox affiliate the cable system carries.

Why does Fox care so much?  Because they, like many other television networks, have begun asking for a percentage of the revenue earned from retransmission consent agreements.  With a weak ad market, every penny counts.

Fox called the cable operator’s tactics a “desperate campaign to mask its impressive profits and instead malign its program suppliers’ efforts to receive fair compensation.”

Regardless of who wins the fight, subscribers lose because they bear the brunt of the cable operator’s business model which forces customers to pay for dozens of channels they’ll never watch, and when prices for those networks increase, so shall the customer’s bill.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Canada Retrans Consent Ad.flv[/flv]

Canadians are also going through a similar battle between cable systems and local broadcasters who demand payment for carriage.  The hardball campaign plays out on Canadian TV screens with ads like this.

Master conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck should have written the last episode of The X Files.  To think I waited nine seasons to find what truth was out there only to have screenwriter Chris Carter rip me off with a chain smoker sitting in a Native American pueblo hearing the date when “they” arrive to begin colonization.  Imagine what Glenn Beck could have conjured up given the same nine years.

The problem with wildly-spun conspiracy theories is that you usually end up tangled in one, and Beck proved when he managed to tie his boss, Rupert Murdoch, into both a ‘Maoist -and- Marxist plot.’

To Beck, Net Neutrality and its supporters come straight out of Marxism. Beck warns “if you sit down and work with these people (Net Neutrality proponent Free Press), you might as well just go out and purchase your own blindfold and cigarette for the firing squad, because I don’t see the difference here.”

Beck slammed a Federal Trade Commission workshop he tied to Free Press, a pro-consumer advocacy group Beck considers Maoist (I didn’t realize they had the power to run government agency workshops — oh wait, they don’t), accusing the whole affair of being a conspiracy to silence free speech.

But here comes the “oops.”  It turns out this very same workshop which ran Tuesday, “From Town Criers to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age,” had among its participants none other than News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch, who was one of the featured speakers.

Just a few weeks earlier, Beck’s attempt to slam Fox News enemy MSNBC (and its owner NBC) brought a broad indictment against too-similar-sounding messages promoting volunteerism from President Obama and the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF), which Beck likened to “living in Mao’s China right now,” noting NBC executive Mitch Metcalf is an “EIF board member.”

How inconvenient for Glenn that Murdoch sits on EIF’s honorary board of governors, and Fox Broadcasting is a participant in the group’s initiatives.

Meanwhile, over on RedState, the blog that bans you for fact-checking their nonsense, writer Neil Stevens just discovered the Obama Administration is working on a National Broadband Plan.  That is like missing a train… that left the platform January 20th, 2009:

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.

The 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:

News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch

The days of finding free access to News Corporation’s online content, from Fox News to the New York Post to Sky News are numbered, according to chairman Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch spent several minutes with Sky News Australia political editor David Speers lamenting the mistake News Corporation made in providing free access to its news stories and content websites, declaring the free ride is about to end with the near-universal introduction of “paywalls” requiring Internet users to open their wallets to read or watch their content.

Murdoch says he wouldn’t mind a substantial decline in web traffic from visitors who currently find his companies’ content through Google news and content searches, claiming advertisers don’t place much value on one-time visits.  He prefers customers willing to pay.

Murdoch suggested most of News Corporation’s content will end up looking similar to today’s Wall Street Journal — a few sentences for free and then an invitation to subscribe to read more.  Videos could cost more.

Murdoch accused Google and other indexing services of “stealing” content, and when asked if he would be willing to request that Google stop indexing his websites, Murdoch replied, “I think we will.”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had fun with that answer last night, pondering how Murdoch will attract audiences to his content when the company refuses to allow search engines to index it.

[flv width=”536″ height=”316″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/MSNBC Rachel Maddow on Murdoch 11-09-09.flv[/flv]

Rachel Maddow comments on Rupert Murdoch’s apparent plan to ban indexing of his websites’ content by Google. (11/9/09 – 1 minute)

Sky News Australia was in no position to seriously object, as they are partly owned by News Corporation themselves, and Murdoch had little to fear from Speers’ gentle treatment of the media icon.

Among the company’s global media properties: