In their announcement, Cablevision bitterly complains that they are grudgingly giving in to Fox, although they are not paying as much as Fox wanted but it it still more than they feel they should be paying. If this is true, then why did they settle? True, Dish Network settled quickly but, I would bet that Fox was the more eager party in that negotiation since with two networks were at an impasse, it would have been even more obvious.
I think this is really very sad that the cable industry does not have the guts to really fight it out. In the Newsday article, Broadcasters Keep Upper Hand in TV Disputes (http://newsday.com/1.2416827) (Newsday is owned by Cablevision) it is mentioned, "The law heavily favors broadcasters in such negotiations because they have the ability to black out signals and subscribers are hard to win back if they switch TV signal providers."
However, the cable industry had brought this upon themselves when they sought relief from the "Must Carry" 
Rule that said that Cable companies must carry the signals of local broadcasters. They wanted to be able to opt out of carrying obscure UHF channels in their areas that nobody watches anyway. Now their stuck with high fees and being forced to carry obscure cable channels that nobody watches because the content providers bundle their services together. So, if you want Fox 5 then you'll have to take NatGeo. So, the cable companies cry "Unfair!" I agree, it is unfair but., where could the content providers have come up with this bundling idea?Oh, that's right! Bundling is what the Cable Companies have forced upon their customers for most of their existence. It may also be known as Tier pricing. If you want Family Cable then you also have to take the dozen or so shopping channels, the 30 different Sport Channels, etc., etc. It is estimated that the average person maybe watch 10-15 channels regularly. So why do we need 1000 channels? When the cost was cheap and cable was $35 a month nobody really cared. But, now that cable is $150-$300 a month people care.
There is a simple solution but, the cable companies do not want to hear it, even though it would solve their 
problem of negotiating these deals with the content providers. The answer is a-la-carte pricing. That's right, you pay for the channels you want. If you want to pay $5 a month for Fox, and your neighbor doesn't that's fine. You'll see the Simpsons and your neighbor won't. It would be very simple. Then if Fox increased their price to $10 a month and everyone dropped them, they'll truly learn what their real market value is.I really don't understand why cable dislikes this model so much. I think this would be the fairest pricing model and one that would make everyone happy. Cable could bill their customers for the service they provide and each individual channel the customer want. Talk about ratings! This would show which networks really are number one. It is technically feasible to accomplish, we just need the cable companies to begin to offer it.
So, what say you cable companies? Let's see a-la-carte programming being offered! Oh, and I should mention that in this article when I say cable companies, I mean any company that connects the consumer's home to the programming whether it be by cables, satellite or fiber.
