DonInBuffalo Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 From my perspective, unless someone explains what I'm missing, LIN is in the wrong here: WIVB is required by law to provide a free OTA broadcast signal to consumers. Since Time Warner is a business, not a consumer, they can charge Time Warner a fee for that signal. (which Time Warner will no doubt pass along to consumers) WIVB incurs no expense to provide the service to Time Warner; the cable company is simply picking up the OTA signal and rebroadcasting it to their customers. So, when you break it all down, LIN is indirectly charging consumers for the right to view free broadcasts. There is no tangible additional business expense to them for providing this; the cable company is doing all the work. They're just collecting money for doing nothing because legally they found a way to get away with it. That's just not right.
DonInBuffalo Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Yeah, I had an Adelphia package when I first moved back here, but once TW took over and removed the NFL Network it was all over for them... I kept roadrunner since I can't live without that, and I canceled my cable service with them, switching to DISH network... About a month later my phone rings and its TW trying to get me back as a customer by offering me this that and the other... I calmly asked the guy if TW had reinserted NFL Network into their lineup, and he said "No sir...but" I didn't even let him finish the sentence and I told him "When you get that back call me, until then don't bother" CLICK Have never received a call from them since... It's easy to be critical when you don't have all the facts. I certainly don't have all of them, but have heard enough to have a different opinion than you. The NFL Network insisted on Time Warner putting the channel on the "basic tier", that all customers received. Time Warner wanted to put it in a "sports tier"; some sort of add-on that customers could optionally purchase. From my perspective, Time Warner was right and the NFL Network was wrong. You can't go around bullying people into running their business they way you want them to.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 "There is unrest in the forest, There is trouble with the trees, For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas. The trouble with the maples, (And they're quite convinced they're right) They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light. But the oaks can't help their feelings If they like the way they're made. And they wonder why the maples Can't be happy in their shade. There is trouble in the forest, And the creatures all have fled, As the maples scream "Oppression!" And the oaks just shake their heads So the maples formed a union And demanded equal rights. "The oaks are just too greedy; We will make them give us light." Now there's no more oak oppression, For they passed a noble law, And the trees are all kept equal By hatchet, axe, and saw." GREAT TUNE by a Great Band
The Dean Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 From my perspective, unless someone explains what I'm missing, LIN is in the wrong here: WIVB is required by law to provide a free OTA broadcast signal to consumers. Since Time Warner is a business, not a consumer, they can charge Time Warner a fee for that signal. (which Time Warner will no doubt pass along to consumers) WIVB incurs no expense to provide the service to Time Warner; the cable company is simply picking up the OTA signal and rebroadcasting it to their customers. So, when you break it all down, LIN is indirectly charging consumers for the right to view free broadcasts. There is no tangible additional business expense to them for providing this; the cable company is doing all the work. They're just collecting money for doing nothing because legally they found a way to get away with it. That's just not right. Well, you've actually oversimplified the entire broadcast/cable relationship by about a thousand percent, and don't know (or simply aren't acknowledging) the logic behind the laws governing cable carriage of broadcast broadcast. I don't have the time, or inclination, to do a history lesson here. Suffice it to say, both industries benefit from one another, to a degree. But, cable companies charge their customers for the delivery of programming. They give a cut to the providers of the programming they resell. Now, if you categorically against the idea of cable companies paying some "royalty" to those that provide it content, then fine, I guess. I totally disagree, with you, but I understand. But, in your earlier post, you claimed that you thought Lin was the bad guy because "Now apparently they want to charge Time Warner considerably more than they had in the past." That's a totally different issue, and argument. Do you know something about the rates they were getting, and the rates Lin now wants? Do you have any evidence to suggest what Lin is asking for is unusual, or unreasonable, for their business?...or were you simply blowing smoke? Being pissed because they are screwing with the Bills is one thing. I understand that. And, if you want to pick a side to be pissed at, I guess nobody can stop you. But, these are two businesses in the middle of a deal. The loss of the Bills games on cable will cost BOTH sides $$ and credibility. You can rest assured that there is plenty of blame, on both sides of this deal, to go around.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 It's easy to be critical when you don't have all the facts. I certainly don't have all of them, but have heard enough to have a different opinion than you. The NFL Network insisted on Time Warner putting the channel on the "basic tier", that all customers received. Time Warner wanted to put it in a "sports tier"; some sort of add-on that customers could optionally purchase. From my perspective, Time Warner was right and the NFL Network was wrong. You can't go around bullying people into running their business they way you want them to. Just my opinion, Time Warner has a right not to carry NFL Network, & EVERYONE has a right to not subscribe to Time Warner because they don't.
Big Turk Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 From what I have gathered from a few customer who work for Time Warner, LIN is trying to force Time Warner to pay the entire amount of money upfront for the length of the contract...if they sign a 5 year contract, they want the full 5 year payment upfront. A penny per day per subscriber per channel seems really small and insignificant, but I guess .60 per month per subscriber probably is a lot of guap when you multiply it by the number of customers and then multiply it by the length of the contract.... I could see where TW doesn't want to pay that upfront, especially since most of it would be based on an estimate of their customer base, which probably won't be accurate anyways... However, this brings me back to a college professor who taught me a valuable lesson in my product marketing class... He said that companies hate Walmart since they can dictate the terms the company will give them because they have to stock their products at Walmart and take a very very small profit in return because if they don't, the consumers will not blame Walmart that the product is not in the store----they will blame the company(Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc)... The same thing applies here...no one really cares whose fault it is that Channel 4 is not being carried by TW and that customers who pay large sums of money each month will not be able to watch the Bills game without buying an antenna. I know quite a few people who have cable, and I have not heard any of them complain about channel 4 or call LIN to find out what is going on. All of them are on the phone with TW, and some of them have been pretty irate while on the phone...the bottom line is that TW is to blame here in the consumers eye regardless of whose fault it actually is---that is totally irrelevant...unless TW acts very very fast, they could possibly experience the fastest decline in membership of a cable company in a region in the history of TV....to say that TW executives have drastically underestimated the effect of not carrying a Bills game, especially when the team is 4-0 and having the best season in the last 8-9 years, is about as understated as you can get. It also looks really bad on them that they are a sponsor of the Bills, but yet they refuse to carry the station the Bills are on.... I have seen some blunders before in TV and radio, but this may take the cake...someone could lose their job over this at Time Warner...
Corp000085 Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 this is a 5 page, 100 post thread, and I haven't read it all. Has anyone considered switching to DirecTV yet?
The Dean Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 this is a 5 page, 100 post thread, and I haven't read it all. Has anyone considered switching to DirecTV yet? It has come up in the conversation. (BTW, it is still on page 3, for me. Reset your posts/page and these threads will be shorter. )
Corp000085 Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 It has come up in the conversation. (BTW, it is still on page 3, for me. Reset your posts/page and these threads will be shorter. ) I haven't read any of it. I refuse to waste my time with page 3!
LabattBlue Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Has anyone considered switching to DirecTV yet? No. I don't want a stupid saucer bolted to the side of my house. I am impatiently waiting for FIOS and then TW can go F*** themselves.
mrpunchy Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I am going to chime in on this with a simple comment. I have been with TW in my current location for 7 years. I have the everything package - the phone, but all of the extra channels blah blah... Until 1 month ago my bill was 145.00 not including the phone. They agreed to lower it after I called customer service. I have accepted very unhappily that TW and the NFL network are not going to come to terms anytime soon. This fact however upsets me every draft season and increasingly more each year as the NFL network acquires the rights to more games. Again it was acceptable, not preferable. IN my wildest dreams I could not imagine a circumstance where the Bills game was not blacked out and I could not turn on my TV and watch it. The aforementioned post mentioned a college professor stating that customers blame the companies for not having their products on walmart's shelves NO offense to you but that is one of the most foolish things I have ever read. You are joking? Customers blame the STORE not the other way around. How many times have you heard they have everything else why don't THEY have XXXX? Or Why don't they carry this? Anyway, This is a simple case of blaming the store as well. TW is the store and I pay for a crap load of broadcasting that I hate (BET, MTV, soap channel to name a few). Should I blame NFL network for not being on TW? IN part perhaps but they are on almost ALL of the other cable networks. Should I blame LIN for not accepting whatever terms TW is offering? Perhaps. They are however on every other cable provider. For whatever reason the fact is there is a very real possibility that the Bills game will not be on this Sunday. If on Sunday I turn on my TV and not see the Bills I will be calling Direct TV. I do not care who's fault it is. I do not care. I work hard all week and will not face the possibility that the billion dollar company continues to argue with the other billion dollar company. I want to watch football and if TW can't get it to me then someone else will gladly take my money. Living in Jamestown does not allow me to wait for FIOS as they may be years before it gets here. Also in Jamestown we get the Erie CBS feed. That may save TW but it is usually blacked out.
cåblelady Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Living in Jamestown does not allow me to wait for FIOS as they may be years before it gets here. Also in Jamestown we get the Erie CBS feed. That may save TW but it is usually blacked out. The game will be on the Erie CBS channel.
cåblelady Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Not saying I do. Also not trying to tick you off if I did. Can you explain how TW does not charge it's customers for HD, wether it is shown on my bill or hidden in the monthly charges? Thanks for the info. Digital Cable Package: $58.95/mo. Digital Cable Package w/HD Converter: $58.95/mo. HD channels are free.
The Dean Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Digital Cable Package: $58.95/mo. Digital Cable Package w/HD Converter: $58.95/mo. HD channels are free. Any difference in length of contract? Just asking, because it was suggested that two years were added to a contract, earlier in the thread.
gordong Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I would install either DirectTV or Dish, but it seems you can't install either yourself (WTF). and I don't want some goober installing stuff on my house...so I'm forced to wait untill FoisTV is available to tell TW to F-off.
Nanker Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Why thank you... it was just a quick question.... I KNOW they are a huge company, but I am sure that the big shows like CSI, etc. give them national leverage but HERE in Buffalo it gives the local station a HUGE bargaining chip. That is all I am saying... That set me off too because I just chased a chipmunk around my basement. Ridiculous morning. Never do that. Get a rat trap and bait it with peanut butter. They're vermin. Cute - but vermin.
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 No. I don't want a stupid saucer bolted to the side of my house. I am impatiently waiting for FIOS and then TW can go F*** themselves. Just ordered FIOS on Wednesday. Can't wait to be done with Time Warner.
sfladave Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I'm at the Time Warner location in Orchard Park right now to get a free antenna. There are at least 200 people already in line and the people in front say they've been waiting here for 5 hours already. I have been here for about 5 minutes and there are already another 100 people behind me. I would just go buy one but every store I'm calling says they're sold out. This is really starting to piss me off. My building will not let put up a sat dish, TW and Lin can't get their s#it togther, and going to a bar involves getting paying more for food, drink and a cab. I can't help but feel as though I am somehow getting screwed here. BTW I would now estimate at least 200 people behind me now.
kasper13 Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 They both suck. Bunch of rich scumbags fighting over how to divide our hard earned money...and messing with OUR UNDEFEATED BILLS GAMES. I could give a crap less about WIVB/CBS. Any of the crappy shows they have on CBS you can easily watch on the internet. Now they mess with a Bills Sunday, that's a different story. 330,000+ households in WNY have Time Warner Cable. 330,000 families. All we do is work our butts off all week at lousy, underpaid jobs in this POS economy and all most of ask for is to watch the Bills on USED-TO-BE FREE, LOCAL TV on Sundays. I pay the crooks at Time Warner alot of money every month, I can live w/o most of the garbage stations I pay for. Now they screw with the Bills Games for....MORE MONEY. How much is enough? Never enough I guess. I blame both of them. WIVB is finished if the game is not on. BOYCOTT their news when/if they ever come back on. A rating of 0.0 will send a message. No ratings=no ad revenue=bankrupt. I want to see Don Postels & Don Paul begging for money on the corner of Delaware & Hertel. No way to get DirecTV by game time tomorrow. All the rabbit ears available in the entire are are all gone. Time Warner even gave them away for free. Big deal. Of course, I will still be able to watch the game but it ticks me off that I have to go out of my way to do so and it won't be on my TV in HD. $175 to Time Warner a month is apparently not enough. (I get phone, internet and Digital Cable w/HD) Life, liberty and the Bills on HDTV. Is that too much to ask?
BarkLessWagMore Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 They both suck. Bunch of rich scumbags fighting over how to divide our hard earned money...and messing with OUR UNDEFEATED BILLS GAMES. I could give a crap less about WIVB/CBS. Any of the crappy shows they have on CBS you can easily watch on the internet. Now they mess with a Bills Sunday, that's a different story. 330,000+ households in WNY have Time Warner Cable. 330,000 families. All we do is work our butts off all week at lousy, underpaid jobs in this POS economy and all most of ask for is to watch the Bills on USED-TO-BE FREE, LOCAL TV on Sundays. I pay the crooks at Time Warner alot of money every month, I can live w/o most of the garbage stations I pay for. Now they screw with the Bills Games for....MORE MONEY. How much is enough? Never enough I guess. I blame both of them. WIVB is finished if the game is not on. BOYCOTT their news when/if they ever come back on. A rating of 0.0 will send a message. No ratings=no ad revenue=bankrupt. I want to see Don Postels & Don Paul begging for money on the corner of Delaware & Hertel. No way to get DirecTV by game time tomorrow. All the rabbit ears available in the entire are are all gone. Time Warner even gave them away for free. Big deal. Of course, I will still be able to watch the game but it ticks me off that I have to go out of my way to do so and it won't be on my TV in HD. $175 to Time Warner a month is apparently not enough. (I get phone, internet and Digital Cable w/HD) Life, liberty and the Bills on HDTV. Is that too much to ask? Nice post. Agree 100%. I might place a little more blame to LIN than TWC since they are taking the hardline and using the Bills game as the biggest bargaining chip but there is more than enough blame to go around. All I know is the good folks in WNY are getting used and I am majorly p*ssed about it.
Recommended Posts