Disney yanks WABC off Cablevision

Variety ^ | 3.7.10 | By CYNTHIA LITTLETON, MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

[BurbankKarl]

ABC went dark Saturday night on New York-area Cablevision systems.

The static came as ABC and Cablevision were not able to come to an retransmission agreement by the midnight Saturday deadline imposed by Disney.

The Alphabet's WABC-TV was in the middle of a season two off-net repeat of "Lost" -- "Three Minutes," which centers on Michael's decision to betray his fellow castaways -- when the cord was yanked.

WABC replaced the feed it sends to Cablevision with a sternly-worded on-screen message: "Cablevision betrayed you again. First HGTV and Food Network, now they lost ABC 7. Enough is Enough. Go to SaveABC7.com to switch service now."

It didn't take long for Cablevision to block out that message -- but in the process, several Cablevision subscribers reported online that the MSO accidentally also blocked out WNBC and WCBS, among other channels, for up to 15 minutes.

snip

[BurbankKarl]

Disney wanted $1 a head for the WABC feed on cable....you know, the channel you can pick up with some rabbit ears.

[yield 2 the right]

Why this is FR Thread worthy?

[gleeaikin]

We used to be able to pick up with rabbit ears. Now we have those lousey converter boxes, every time an airplane/helicopter goes by you loose transmission, and half the time you can’t get a signal. Yes, I get a few more stations, but the ones I used to get just fine are often difficult or impossible to watch. I refuse to pay $100 a month to these cable/fios $$^^&*((s. Thanks Congress/FCC.

[lewislynn]

The Alphabet's WABC-TV was in the middle of a season two off-net repeat of "Lost" -- "Three Minutes," which centers on Michael's decision to betray his fellow castaways -- when the cord was yanked.

Say it isn't so! Those bastards! How could they?

[BurbankKarl]

I dont have cable either...dropped it years ago. Luckily I live with good reception and get 82 digital and HD channels using just rabbit ears here in L.A.

I think ABC is crazy....they are going to have to refund the advertisers on the Oscars big $$$ if the majority of NYC, the number one media market, is dark.

[Neverforget01]

ABC loses 3 million viewers on Oscar night. Not their smartest plan.

[count-your-change]

That’s what I want to know! My vanity post about my cat Fluffy was going to use this space but Nooooo.. someone has to have a thread about cable tv. But since you’re here anyway.....do you mind?

[Pontiac]

ABC loses 3 million viewers on Oscar night. Not their smartest plan.

People actually watch the Oscars?!!!!

[Kellis91789]

I’ve never understood why broadcast channels charge cable operators anything at all. They should be PAYING cable and satellite operators to carry their channel and providing more advertising viewers than they would otherwise have.

[shibumi]

"Why this is FR Thread worthy?"

Why do you click on unworthy threads?

(The position of Bandwidth Monitor was filled last Thursday.)

[Brad’s Gramma]

(The position of Bandwidth Monitor was filled last Thursday.)

Indeed. I was hired and a FINE position it is! Pays well, the hours are great! And the SEVERANCE package is to die for! :)

[count-your-change]

“Why do you click on unworthy threads?”

Because everybody deserves their 15 minutes of flame.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Why this is FR Thread worthy?

---

Are you the tread police?

If you are not interested, why did you A. Read it, B. post a comment?

There are a lot of threads I do not bother to read, but I am happy they are here.

There is so much going on in the world it is amazing how much little trivial bits I first find posted here.

Is this story important? I don't know, but then again it may be a trend, and the same thing may occur in my area and with my cable provider. It is nice to be aware of what is going on behind the scene.

So turn off your lights and sirens and go monitor other threads.

[AmishDude]

Yep, the economics of cable television continues to baffle me too. For example, why are cable operators so resistant to a la carte? Forget about whether it’s good for the consumer, shouldn’t the cable operators want it, so as not to be strongarmed by the content providers?

[OrangeHoof]

I find it interesting that this headline “Disney yanks ABC...” makes Disney look like the villain, not Cablevision. But two months ago, the headlines were “Time Warner to shut off Fox...”, making Time Warner out to be the villain.

In reality, it’s the same old game we’ve seen now for over a decade. Broadcaster A has a contract with Cable Company B (or phone company or satellite company, take your pick). All the broadcasters now have connections to cable programmers - ABC to Disney, CBS to Viacom, Fox to assorted Fox cable channels and NBC to GE.

When the contracts expire, Broadcaster A wants now to be paid for the free local programming available everywhere in town. Cable Company B says “that’s ridiculous! Why should our subscribers pay for something you offer for free?”

What usually happens is that the Broadcaster eventually agrees to own more channel space on cable’s ever-increasing channel spectrum in lieu of an actual fee for free programming. And so there is peace until the contract runs out 3-4 years later. Then it starts all over again.

What all parties know is that when the cable company says “okay” to paying the broadcaster for their over-the-air signal, then they’ll have to say okay to EVERY local broadcaster in that market. Why should the ABC broadcaster get paid to air their free signal when NBC and Fox don’t. Soon, NBC and Fox will be at the cable company’s door demanding the same deal that ABC got.

Further, it’s the broadcaster who always loses when the shows are pulled off cable. Our local NBC affiliate held out against Time Warner two years ago and while some people left Time Warner to get a Dish or some other solution, the NBC affiliate lost far more in ad sales and revenue because they weren’t on cable.

In bad economic times when most media are getting trounced, talking someone into paying you for your free signal sounds like a smart ploy but it usually only winds up with a black eye and more channel space to put old Mannix re-runs and weather radar programming on.

[ml/nj]

I'm a Cablevision customer. I hope Cablevision hangs tough and keeps WABC off the feed until Disney comes begging them to take it for nothing.

ML/NJ

[BurbankKarl]

Well, this is what WABC put up at midnight on the feed to Cablevision...

I was reading that ABC News is especially vulnerable, as they have no cable news channel (NBC has MSNBC, CNBC and Fox has Fox News, Fox Busines) to draw subscriber fees from around the country. 80 cents a channel adds up when you multiply it by 80 million houses.

It does seem ABC's demand for $13 per house for a free Over-The-Air channel is a bit much. I can see the other four networks jacking their rates (or asking to match it) if Cablevision caves.

[Nahanni]

For example, why are cable operators so resistant to a la carte?

Because entities like NBC/Universal, Time-Warner (Turner) and Viacom are. They force the cable providers to carry all of their stations and they use that money to prop up other parts of their "empires" like CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

If the cable companies went "a la carte" then NBC/Universal, Time-Warner (Turner) and Viacom would lack the funds to prop up their propaganda channels.

I suspect that soon the cable companies will start pushing "a la carte" because the first thing to go when economic times are tough is that $100/month cable bill. They will get to the point where they will tell the likes of NBC/Universal, Time-Warner (Turner) and Viacom that it is better to get something then nothing and they and their accountants will finally have to agree.

Disney and Fox are in a bit of a different situation. Part of the problem is that Time-Warner (Turner) and Viacom push the cable companies to put their channels on "higher tiers" (meaning you pay extra to receive them) because they want to drive them out. For example in many places CNN/MSNBC/CNBC come with a standard cable package-if you want to watch Fox News/Fox Business you have to pay more and get the next tier up. In Disney's case the cable companies essentially want all the ESPN channels for a "song" and Disney isn't caving in to them because it will make ESPN unprofitable for Disney but very profitable for the cable operator.

Another thing you have to take into consideration is who owns the cable company. Surprise surprise that Cablevision's holdings is the following (from Wikipedia) The Madison Square Garden, L.P. subsidiary controls the Madison Square Garden arena in New York City, and the professional sports teams that play there—the New York Knicks, New York Rangers, and New York Liberty. The same company also owns the Hartford Wolf Pack, a minor-league professional hockey team affiliated with the Rangers. Cablevision's sports holdings also include TV rights for the Knicks, Rangers, Liberty, New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, Buffalo Sabres and Red Bull New York. These games are aired on their MSG Network and MSG Plus (formerly FSN New York) cable channels. Cablevision previously had the rights to the New York Yankees, New Jersey Nets and New York Mets, who left to start their own channels. Cablevision previously attempted to purchase the Yankees, Mets and Boston Red Sox, in part, to control their broadcast rights.

I bet if you dig far enough the truth behind the Cablevision/WABC thing is more about how Cablevision wants to force Disney into paying more for the rebroadcast rights of the sports teams mentioned above and want to shackle ESPN in favor of their own sports networks and Disney isn't caving into them. AOL/Time-Warner tried to pull the same kind of crap back in 2000 in Houston where they dropped the local ABC O&O off the cable system-it massively backfired on them.

[Nahanni]

Actually Cablevision is required by FCC regulations to carry all local broadcast channels.

Cablevision can fight it all they want but in the end they are required by law to carry WABC in NYC.

See my previous post as to the true nature of the situation. I suspect it has more to do with sports then a “rebroadcast fee” for WABC.