Cablevision-Fox Score Settlement on Eve of Jets Game
Cablevision and Fox end a fee dispute that threatened to blackout Sunday's Jets-Green Bay Packers game.
Cablevision Systems Corp. on Saturday reached a deal in principle that puts Fox programming back in the living rooms of 3 million households in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
The 16-day stalemate kept subscribers from being able to watch the National League Championship Series, the first two games of the World Series, and one New York Giants football game.
Even after the deal was struck, acrimony remained. In a statement, Cablevision said it overpaid Fox's parent, News Corp. The Bethpage-based cable provider also took a swipe at the FCC.
"In the absence of any meaningful action from the FCC, Cablevision has agreed to pay Fox an unfair price for multiple channels of its programming including many in which our customers have little or no interest. Cablevision conceded because it does not think its customers should any longer be denied the Fox programs they wish to see," the statement read.
Cablevision added, "It is clear the retransmission consent system is badly broken and needs to be fixed."
Cablevision had been paying News Corp. $70 million per year to carry Fox programming. News Corp. was asking for $150 million.
"In the end, our customers will pay more than they should for Fox programming, but less than they would have if we had accepted the unprecedented rates News Corp. was demanding when they pulled their channels off Cablevision," Cablevision stated.
Terms of the deal were not released.
The agreement means Sunday's Halloween football game between the New York Jets and Green Bay Packers will be available, as is Saturday's World Series tilt between the Texas Rangers and San Francisco Giants.
LMP
10:37 pm on Saturday, October 30, 2010
End the "Prix Fixe" menus. Service providers should be paid for the transmission service/"the wire"/"the pipe". Consumers should choose the content/programming/channels they'll purchase and the price they'll pay. Can you imagine going into a bookstore and being required to buy all the books if you just wanted a couple?
Satta Sarmah
8:51 am on Sunday, October 31, 2010
Good point. I have more than 100 channels in my cable television package but I only watch about 10 of them. I don't see this system changing anytime soon, though a lot more people are watching television shows on the Internet, which gives them more choice. The cable providers have to make a profit too, so it may be too cumbersome for them to allow millions of people to essentially create their own cable packages.
Nik Bonopartis
2:01 pm on Sunday, October 31, 2010
I see it heading toward an a la carte system. The current ratings and advertising system is based on an antiquated business model dating back to the days when families huddled around one television set, there wasn't much else besides the Big Three networks, and the highlight of the week was the Ed Sullivan Show.
That doesn't work anymore. We have an entire generation that now expects content on-demand, whether it's through Hulu, Netflix Instant Play or pirate sites running streams from servers in places like Russia, China and Israel. The music industry tried to control online distribution, and that didn't turn out too well for them.
The old system of ratings sweeps, 10-minute commercial blocks and limitless ad revenue should have been done away with a long time ago. But like newspapers and record labels, the networks are slowly realizing the good old days are over. The good news, for us, is we'll no longer have to pay for 130 channels of garbage we don't want just so we can watch a handful of shows we like. In content, democracy is no longer voting with your remote control – it's voting with your mouse and keyboard.
LMP
5:32 pm on Sunday, October 31, 2010
No more should either a cable provider or content provider be in a position to tell us that we must buy something. Government set up a system that no longer works for the people and it must be changed.
In this case and others, one company, told another company, that all subscribers must pay - let's say the number is about $1.00/month - if any subscriber is to watch any of the first company's programming. The first company charges the second company and the second company bills the consumer. Sure there may be some competition - some consumers can switch to another second company - but the consumer will be in the same position after the switch.
And if Government moves to slowly as is its habit - well there will come the Geeks :-)