Now From Cablevision: Match Game - A Contact Sport?

Many Cablevision Customers awoke last month to find that channel 88, the Game Show Network (GSN) was suddenly blocked on their TV. Many of them assumed, it must be a mistake. Afterall, they have all the basic channels and GSN has been a basic channel since its inception in 1994. So what gives?


Frantic calls to Cablevision's customer service number revealed a little note on the previous month's bill indicating that GSN would become part of the separate "IO Sports PAK" (later renamed as "IO Sports and Entertainment Pak"). This didn't make sense. This ala carte package contains all sports channels with the exception of GSN. It contains, hockey, tennis, horse racing, baseball, golf, and even cricket. The only thing that doesn't fit in the line up is GSN, a network primarily made up of old TV game shows and watched primarily by the over-60 crowd. Not the same demographic that is into contact sports.

Let me point out, that we've stood with Cablevision before, in their disputes with the various networks that have ransomed additional fees for the right to watch their shows. And, we have been crushed each time when Cablevision caved in. But, this channel change just doesn't make sense. It appears as an outright attempt to bolster a failing optional service package at the expense of senior citizens on fixed incomes. They really have no need for any of the other channels but are being forced to purchase them in order to see familiar programming.

To me this move makes as much sense as if they had moved Nickelodeon to the Adult Movie Package. They really should create a true ala carte pricing system. Let us pay $50 a month and pick the 20 channels we want to watch. If we want more channels, we'll pay more. In this way they are not beholding to the networks that want to hold them up for extortion. If ABC or Scripps think their channels are worth more a month, let the consumer actually decide, It will tame the networks' appetite for fees, and increase the quality of their programming when they have to compete directly for the consumers' dollars.

We can all see that this move was nothing more than a blatant grab for cash and I would urge Cablevision to rethink their position on this and return GSN to a more basic tier or at least offer it as a stand-alone option. If they really want to make a Sports Pak, why not take YES, SNY, MSG, ESPN and all the other true sports channels and add them to the package? Then they can reduce the cost of the basic service to those of who do not watch these channels and let those that want it, pay for it.

And The Biggest Loser Is... The Customer

Well Cablevision and Fox finally settled their dispute and as predicted the loser is the customer. The customer not only had to put up with Fox blocking their programming for two weeks but, now has to pay up to their demands for more money. (http://newsday.com/1.2415067)

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.

The Importance of Being Real

A quote in an  article in today's Newsday really struck a nerve with me. As I've written in this blog before, we as a society have really mixed up our priorities. And in an article about the continuing stalemate between Fox and Cablevision, (No World Series on Cablevision as Fox dispute continues) NY Jets Owner Woody Johnson was quoted as saying, "Today I spoke with Cablevision and News Corp. about the importance of broadcasting our game this Sunday..."

I would have loved to hear that conversation to know why it is so important to broadcast a game. I'm sure it is important to Mr. Johnson who may lose ad revenue and endorsements for his team. But, I fail to see how it is important to the average person whether this game is televised or not. Airing this game will not cure cancer, will not end global warming nor will it bring about world peace. Beyond those scenarios, I don't see a football game or any sports game that important.

I know people like their television. They enjoy their shows, heck I'm a Star Trek Fan who has fought and lost the battle to keep my show on the air. I wrote letters, posted messages in discussion boards and even contributed money in a futile attempt to keep the show alive. In the end, the networks did what they wanted anyway. My life continued. Cancelling the series didn't stop me from enjoying my favorite show. In fact the domain this blog is hosted on is a salute to a Star Trek episode. Eventually, the network realized that they needed the fans more than the fans needed them and a new blockbuster movie was released (with a sequel due out in 2012).

My point is, that as fans of TV whether it be Star Trek, Baseball, Football, the Simpsons or even House, I urge you to be patient and let the network stew for a while. They will come around and the shows will be returned for a lot less money. Is Cablevision and Dish looking out for their bottom lines? Absolutely. But Fox is trying to gouge them and I don't blame cable for fighting back. The savings will trickle down, not only for Cablevision and Dish but for all the other cable, satellite and telephone companies out there. Just ask Time Warner, their contract has a "favored nation" clause. So, if Cablevision wins, Fox has to refund them the difference. That's the real reason Fox is fighting so hard. Greed, it's a terrible thing but, a great motivator.

Alternate TV Viewing Options

As the Cablevision/Fox talks reach their eleventh day, I want to take a few moments to be amazed at how these two companies have lost focus on the consumer. I still put my allegiance behind Cablevision as I believe that Fox deliberately scheduled their blackout to coincide with the Sports programming. I hope that Cablevision continues to stick to their guns because in a few more days, Fox will reach their deadline with Dish Network and then 14.3 million more homes will be effected by this struggle. That will increase the pressure on Fox to settle as surely their ratings will be getting hammered even more.

Yes, I know as a non-sports fan it's easy for me to take the high road here as many fans are upset at not being able to see their teams play. Heck, I'm upset that Fox preempts The Simpsons and Family Guy for Sports. I mean in this world of ever diversified cable channels, why do broadcast channels think they need to show sports on their regular channels is beyond me. But, back to my point, even as this fight threatens my ability to watch my favorite Fox shows, I still stand with Cablevision because I think that Fox's demands are way out of line for a commercial broadcast network. Besides, there are other ways to view your favorite programming, and are legal.

There is Hulu.com an online service which provides online access to your favorite shows. Although, you mayhave to wait a day or two for them to become available. But, just like a DVR, once it is available you can view the shows at your time. There are two point about this though. First, Fox had originally demanded that Hulu block their content from Cablevision customers. Although they quickly retracted that demand, as talks continue to stall who knows if they may revisit that scare tactic. It also makes me wonder how they would punish Dish customers once they join the fight. The other thing about Hulu is that you are forced to sit through the commercials. Although, the commercial breaks only last between 30-90 seconds, they cannot be fast forwarded through and they are often repetitively annoying. This option is free although they do offer premium content for a fee.

Another option is to get a Slingbox (http://www.slingmedia.com) and have a friend with a different service allow you to plug in. I have used a Slingbox for a couple of years now to watch TV while I travel. It allows me to connect in with hometown news and programs. It also allows me to watch and control my Tivo while on the road. Optional software will also allow you to watch your Slingbox on your Smartphone, great for long waits at the airport or the doctor's office.

While I hope that Fox comes to terms with Cablevision and Dish Network. I really hope that Cablevision and Dish prevail. Because there is more to this struggle than just a contract for retransmission of content. There is a precedent to be set. If Cable and Dish win, that means that Networks like Fox, NBC, ABC, Scripps, YES, etc. have reached their limit on milking money from the public. Yes, they are entitled to be paid for their content but, they need to make their demands realistic. The public can live without the programming. They may not be as happy, but life will go on.

Cable TV Disputes - Here We Go Again!

For those outside of the Cablevision area, you may not know but one of the local affiliates are at it again, attempting to extort millions of dollars from our local Cable company at the expense of the local viewers (see NY Times article). This time it is Fox Broadcasting who has taken their shows off the air as a bargaining chip, in an attempt to make Cablevision Subscribers pressure the company to give in to their demands for more money.

We have been down this road before and, as in the past, I side with Cablevision in this dispute. I agree that they shouldn't be forced to pay an exorbitant amount of money to rebroadcast the signal and that Fox is playing unfair by holding their programming hostage. Unfortunately, I feel that if the past is any guide, Cablevision will eventually give in and the real losers with once again be the subscribers who will have to pay more each month.

The past disputes included the Yankees forcing Cablevision to carry their YES network as a basic cable channel and forcing all customers to pay each month for the privilege, even if they are not a fan. Then there was the Scripps Network that held  HGTV and the Food Network Hostage and even more recently our local ABC affiliate with the same tactics. Each one ended with Cablevision giving in.

I hope this time they hold their ground. I hope they make Fox blink first as they see their ratings drop by the three million homes they blacked out. And I hope advertisers put pressure on Fox to settle the dispute. It may be hard for fans of Fox TV shows to hold on. Although, in today's modern world there are alternative ways to view your favorite shows. But, if cable companies continue to give in to all the increasing demands that programming companies make, cable television will become unaffordable. Maybe, that's what the local affiliates want, to put rabbit ears back on every TV so we will be reduced to a choice of the dozen or so channels within range of our homes.

But, that's not going to happen. What I would like to see happen as a result of these disputes, is that the Cable Industry begin to adopt a-la-carte programming. This would allow each channel to charge what they feel is right and for each viewer to decide where to spend there entertainment dollars. It would force the Programming Networks to provide quality entertainment and to really compete. So, if a family wishes to spend $5 a month on Fox, let it be their choice. If someone is a Met fan, they don't have to support the Yankees, and if their a fan of Boston, they are not forced to support either NY team. That is a fair and equitable. This would create a true competitive marketplace and would improve the quality of programming.

So, I hope that Cablevision stands their ground in this dispute and emerges victorious. It would make precedent and stop the programming networks from holding viewers hostage. But, if Cablevision really wants to stop these disputes, introduce a-la-carte programming and let viewers truly control their destiny. Because, if the cable industry does not change, then viewers will begin to cut the cord and watch more programs online instead of on cable. But. more about that in our next installment.

Campaign Contributions and the Media

I consider myself a big believer in freedom of the press and free speech. But, I have to wonder whether it is reasonable to expect that the media to be unbiased in the election process. I was outraged the other day when I saw that Newsday's parent company, Cablevision donated $40,000 to Andrew Cuomo's NY Gubernatorial Campaign.

To their credit, Newsday did disclose it in an article in their paper. However, that is only a small portion of their contribution. Again my source: http://politics.newsday.com is a Newsday site however it shows that Cablevision's overall contribution is $145,000 (not including an additional $11,000 from Dolan family members). The same searches show no results for similar donations to Carl Paladino's campaign.

 I find this very concerning afterall, with such a heavy bet on one candidate it would be hard for them to keep their coverage unbiased. Admittedly, Paladino appears to be shooting himself in the foot these past few days but when I read these reports in the newspaper or see it on News12, I have to question whether or not the comments are being sensationalized or being taken out of context.

I do feel that Newsday's coverage of the campaign has been slanted from the beginning. Whenever Cuomo makes a comment it is highlighted in the headlines and whenever Paladino does something it makes the inside pages, except for his missteps. I kind of understand Paladino's frustration last week when he lashed out at the reporter. Maybe Cuomo is perfect and has made no mistakes, I doubt it every human makes an error. But, the size of the contributions makes me question and creates a big doubt that Cuomo would be a good choice. I really wish that there were more than two major parties in the system. I hate having to vote based on the evil of two lessers.

Author's note: I'm not sure if the Newsday link above is available to non-subscribers. Just in case, here is a link to an image of the Cablevision Contributions to Andrew Cuomo's campaign as of October 13, 2010.
Click Here to View.