Trooper_One

December 30, 2009 at 12:35pm

Good, hopefully no one will watch that garbage channe, and will die out due to new tech and business model on the horizon (hopefully too Rupert Murdoch from the old school will be gone too).

Mr_Histamine

December 30, 2009 at 8:08am

While both companies are incredibly greedy, and could care less about their customers - I'd have to side with Time Warner.  If the prices go up, it affects we the consumers adversely (whether we like it or not), while pouring millions more into the pockets of those who - quite honestly - don't need it.  If I were TW, I'd let them remove their programming for as long as they want.

local NBC affiliates tried the same thing last year, but I haven't heard what became of that stand-off (all I know is, the channels disappeared and are now back), and I think Viacom won, because my rates have gone up - so we'll have to see what happens with FOX.

________________________________________________________________________________

Please deposit your pride, life, and other garbage in the receptacles at the back of the theater before you leave. Thanks!

Nailer669

December 30, 2009 at 5:58am

It would be nice if we could only pay for the channels we wanted. I don't really see that happening. All the small channels would probably go under without having the needed income to stay alive. I can't even get cable where I live, so I have to have either DirecTV or DISH. If I didn't have kids, I wouldn't even have TV. I only watch about 5 channels out of about 200, yet I pay almost $90 a month.

People need to go outside and actually do things insead of sit down and waste time. Everyone would be better off if TV just didn't exist. Yes, that is hypocritical since I actually watch TV an hour or so a night, but I wouldn't shed a tear if it went away.

ItsNeverEnoughPower

December 30, 2009 at 5:51am

How many of you that have Time Warner got a flyer in the mail saying your rates are going up? I dont watch enough TV as it is and if I could get out of having to have it in the package I have I would. They are no worse then Murdoch when it comes to wanting the money they think is due to them.

big_montana

December 30, 2009 at 5:06am

Ryan, when will you write a blog that is factually correct? Over teh air briadcasters do get paid rights fees, just less than say an ESPN does. Yes, this is about money, but Fox wants the Fees being paid to them to be increased. In years past, over teh air broadcasters would charge more for their cable holding like ESPN, and less for their network counterpart that they also owned (ABC) hoping the cable station would subsidize the network channel. Networks like ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS are now losing money as it costs considerably more to create and air programming than it did ten years ago. You also forget that the networks pay their affiliates to air their programming, something a cable channel does not have to do. Frankly, I can see free TV going the way of the dinosaur and all the networks channles becoming cable stations, causing everyones cable bills to increase.

MrHorspwer

December 30, 2009 at 4:44am

Ol' Rupert must really be hurtin' for cash these days, trying to milk cash out of every possible source. Pretty soon, the only people who will be supporting News Corp or any of their holdings will be the nutty right-wingers willing to pay for it.

Even so, with the coming of a new Comcast-owned NBC, I fear that the airwaves will soon be run even more by money-hungry executives who can't seem to figure out how to make a profit within their medium. Hmmm, that kinda sounds like the RIAA... 

sweetnsassymj

December 29, 2009 at 8:23pm

We are experiencing a similar thing up here in the Great North between the cable companies and local tv station providers. On the cable side they are saying that the local tv providers earnt $400 million dollars in profit so why should the cable company have to pay to help them out to support local canadian made content, meanwhile the local tv providers are saying that the cable companies earnt $2 billions in profit and therefore should help the local tv providers but not pass on the cost to cable customers. The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is trying to stay out of the debate atm but it looks like they will have to step in to do something about the debate because the ads are really getting nasty on both sides! There has already been a few loses of local tv stations in most of the provinces up here and I will bet there will be more to go in time to come if this issue isn't sorted out quickly.

Biceps

December 29, 2009 at 8:02pm

The cost will be passed onto the consumer.  If we are lucky, and demand it, consumers MIGHT finally get a choice of channels for our money, instead of the current ridiculous packages. If we have to pay for every channel that is produced, then perhaps it will be the end of the deluxe cable package that has 5 good channels, HBO, 45 fucking shopping networks and a buttload of religious channels.  One can only pray (pun intended) 

QUINTIX256

December 29, 2009 at 6:44pm

Although, if I recall, Viacom (the people who sued google over youtube clips of Spondgebob) was much more obnoxious about it. What was the result of that?

You can have your recession. I'm not participating.

dracx619

December 29, 2009 at 5:52pm

well thats funny. i work at a local fox station and our cable system is time warner. we use it to monitor our programs and news casts while we work. guess we wont be able to check our work live anymore. perfect!

Carlidan

December 29, 2009 at 5:23pm

 Hey what happen to being "Fox and friends"? Those ads that fox runs are so manipulative.  They don't tell you why Time Warner has stop showing the stations. Now we know. Thank you. :) 

 

“Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.”

nekollx

December 29, 2009 at 5:14pm

 What about other carriers, ATT, Charter, CoX, et all?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.