Spurs fans could miss 34 games on Fox

[exstatic]

If TWC wanted to play dirty, if FOX pulls the plug, TWC could take down their news stations as well. They don't HAVE to broadcast them, they just bought the right to. Murdoch won't be able to stand not having his conservative crack broadcast to the faithful.

[dbestpro]

If TWC wanted to play dirty, if FOX pulls the plug, TWC could take down their news stations as well. They don't HAVE to broadcast them, they just bought the right to. Murdoch won't be able to stand not having his conservative crack broadcast to the faithful.

Yeah, then we can all make the cattle call to MSNBC, Moooooo. Or perhaps you have a greater preference to be like sheep.

[robino2001]

So TWC-SA hasn't lost Fox yet? The NBC affiliate in Austin was reporting Fox-Austin went off the air on TWC here ~6am. I thought it was funny NBC was reporting it here... I don't think any of the others reported it when NBC got yanked last year here.

[alchemist]

Yeah, then we can all make the cattle call to MSNBC, Moooooo. Or perhaps you have a greater preference to be like sheep.

if your choice isn't Fox News = sheep?

[Dex]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...ignals-on.html

News Corp.'s Fox, Time Warner Cable strike deal to keep signals on
January 1, 2010 | 4:16 pm
Media giant News Corp. struck a new deal that will keep its Fox-owned television stations -- including KTTV Channel 11 and KCOP Channel 13 in Los Angeles -- and several of its cable networks on Time Warner Cable systems.

The agreement was reached late this afternoon, less than a day after the current contract between the two companies expired. A series of extensions meant that consumers never lost their Fox programming.

The high-stakes game of poker between media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation’s second-largest cable operator, reached a peak in the last few days, with lawmakers and regulators pleading with both companies to hammer out a deal or face their wrath. While both companies publicly attacked each other, talks continued around the clock among executives hunkered down on Fox’s Century City lot.

For consumers, the good news is that the new pact means they won’t have to hook up rabbit ears to their televisions or find an alternative TV service to watch Fox’s programming, including college football or the return of “American Idol” in two weeks.

The bad news is their cable bill may go up.

Fox had initially been seeking $1 per subscriber each month for its television stations. Time Warner Cable’s initial response was to offer 25 cents to 30 cents. The terms of the new deal could not be immediately learned, but industry observers and analysts had been predicting that the price tag would ultimately be 50 cents or less for Fox.

For Fox, securing fees for its TV stations from Time Warner Cable is viewed as an important win. Broadcast networks have long argued that, for their financial health, they need a second source of revenue beyond advertising in the form of fees from cable operators.

The cable industry has resisted paying for those signals, noting that consumers -- albeit a dwindling number -- can get broadcast TV over the air for free. Broadcast networks have countered that most consumers would not subscribe to cable if it didn’t include their local TV stations.
In previous years, TV networks and cable operators had reached a detente of sorts. Instead of charging fees for their stations, networks used negotiating leverage to win capacity on cable systems to launch their own cable channels, such as Fox did with FX.

But there is little room left for new channels on most cable systems, so broadcasters now are pressing for cash, a right provided to them under 1992 legislation.

Time Warner Cable, meanwhile, can claim that it did its part for consumers by holding down the cost of monthly cable TV bills by not caving in to Fox’s demand for $1 per subscriber. Although viewers were spared losing Fox and its cable channels, including FX and sports channels Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket (Fox News has a separate agreement with Time Warner Cable and was not subject to the negotiations), such rifts have been growing more public. They may also be leading to unintended consequences for the cable and broadcast industries down the road.

Both Time Warner Cable and News Corp., for example, were starting to get heat about their stalemate from Washington lawmakers and regulators, who hinted that there could be repercussions if Fox went dark and denied millions of viewers the joys of a New Year’s weekend of football viewing.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Commerce subcommittee on communication, technology and the Internet, was pushing for Fox to let Time Warner Cable continue carrying its stations. Earlier in the week, he said that if the Fox signals did go dark on Time Warner Cable, he’d ask the Federal Communications Commission to intervene. On Thursday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski issued a statement urging “Fox and Time Warner Cable to agree to a temporary extension of carriage.”

However, whether the FCC would have tried to force both sides into a temporary agreement is unclear. Traditionally, the regulatory agency stays out of business negotiations, and whether it could have lawfully asserted itself is a matter of debate.

-- Joe Flint

[SpuronyourFace]

I switced to Direct TV when they decided they didn't want to broadcast the NFL channel

[lennyalderette]

yup time warner is a rip off!!! i still have this crap!!! they're not going to end their agreement, it will cost them both too much money and right now no one can afford to lose out on cash

[Mark in Austin]

To me the answer has always been to pass on whatever the final cost for the Fox programming directly to customers, then let them opt out of those channels if they didn't want to pay the increased fee.

For Time Warner its a win-win. They go to bat for not increasing costs at the beginning, then negotiate a settlement but still allow those customers who could give a about fox to drop the channels in question and save the $.50 a month.

[HoopsCzar]

To me the answer has always been to pass on whatever the final cost for the Fox programming directly to customers, then let them opt out of those channels if they didn't want to pay the increased fee.

For Time Warner its a win-win. They go to bat for not increasing costs at the beginning, then negotiate a settlement but still allow those customers who could give a about fox to drop the channels in question and save the $.50 a month.

Exactly,..

It needs to be a pay per choice menu where if you don't want a certain channel, station or program you can remove it from your lineup feed and not pay Ala Carte for stations not of your choice, interest nor request.

But see that foils the racket and many people would choose sensibly, cost effectively and select on average no more than 20 channels. But that would starve a lot of outfits like FOX, an array of shopping and multi lingual channels that has a payday via the pockets and on the backs of subscribers whom don't watch them and wouldn't select them,..and it'd knock down the lying, hate baiting and propaganda.

See now they're playing with that fire and I'm going to start a charge to turn up that " take those outfits consumers don't want off consumers bills " heat.

In way of government and democratic rule. The foundation is if you're going to federally force digital it's unfair, indefensible and non cons utional. To allow carriers to not allow the consumer a choice of what they pay for by selection, request, choice and agreement,..right now it's a mass fleece game and one that can be called nothing below extortion.