Don't Cry, Dora; Cable Channel Deal Done

With Fee Agreement, Time Warner Subscribers Continue Receiving Nickelodeon, MTV, 17 Other Viacom Channels

(AP)  Millions of Time Warner Cable customers won't lose their access to MTV and 18 other channels after the cable giant reached an agreement early Thursday with media conglomerate Viacom Inc.

The two sides, citing disagreement over fee hikes, had threatened a damaging blackout at a minute past midnight Thursday that would have cut off shows such as "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "The Colbert Report" to about 15.7 million subscribers.

"We are pleased that our customers will continue to be able to watch the programming they enjoy on MTV Networks," said Glenn Britt, president and CEO of Time Warner Cable Inc. "We are sorry they had to endure a day of public disagreement as we worked through this negotiation."

Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Details must still be finalized over the next few days, the companies said.

Viacom president and CEO Philippe Dauman said the company was happy a deal was struck.

Viacom had mounted an advertising onslaught warning customers of the possible blackout, taking out ads in major newspapers and Web sites from The New York Times and TVGuide.com featuring a tearful "Dora the Explorer" crying and clinging to her monkey pal, Boots.

"Why is Dora crying?" the ad read. "Tonight you will lose Nickelodeon and 18 other channels from your TV." It then prompted people to call their cable company to complain.

The dispute would have affected some 13.3 million Time Warner Cable subscribers, mainly in New York state, the Carolinas, Ohio, Southern California and Texas; and 2.4 million customers of Bright House Networks in Michigan, Indiana, California, Alabama and Florida.

Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt on Wednesday had called Viacom's demand for a 12 percent increase in fees - an extra $39 million on top of the estimated $300 million it pays Viacom annually - extortion and outrageous given the recession. Viacom countered that the requested increase amounted to an extra $2.76 annually per subscriber.

Viacom had argued that Americans spend a fifth of their TV time watching Viacom shows but its fees made up less than 2.5 percent of the Time Warner cable bill.

Spokeswoman Kelly McAndrew said that despite ranking high in the ratings, Viacom's cable networks' average daily license fee was 65 percent lower than that of networks run by The Walt Disney Co., News Corp.'s Fox, Time Warner Inc.'s Turner Broadcasting System and Discovery Communications Inc.

Analyst Michael Nathanson with Bernstein Research said Viacom's channels had been "underpriced relative to their peers."

Public carriage fee disputes of this scale between a programmer and a cable operator are not that common, especially when there's a threat of a blackout, said Derek Baine, senior analyst at SNL Kagan in Monterey, California. Typically, both sides agree on contract extensions as they negotiate on terms, he said, and any blackouts don't last long because TV operators get calls from outraged customers.

One prominent carriage fee fight in recent years was in 2004, between Viacom and EchoStar, the former name of Dish Network Corp. Shows were dropped for two days.

In October, Time Warner Cable wrestled with LIN TV Corp., which operates local TV stations affiliated with NBC, CBS, Fox and CW. But this time, Time Warner Cable faced Viacom, the largest cable programmer, not a small independent with a handful of channels.

The channels in the dispute were Comedy Central, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, VH1 Soul and CMT: Pure Country.

Viacom shares rose 88 cents, or 4.5 percent, to close at $20.12 on Wednesday, while Time Warner Cable shares fell 31 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $21.45.

[of11of]

I dont watch any tv. no cable no network, nothing. tv sucks big ***.. whats the big deal

[nicknikon]

The cable companies get a monopoly "franchise" from the local jurisdiction (read: Us) to capture broadcast signal and other "content" and deliver a clean reliable advertising supported signal into our homes. We pay a fee for this infrastructure service and they pay a "franchise fee" for the monopoly right.

Now, the "content providers" including broadcast and non-broadcast providers want more money than they can raise from their already advertising-laden programming. They want to strong-arm the cable companies into sharing the fees they get from US for the infrastructure service they have contributed -nothing- to building.

I feel we need to nip this trend in the bud before it becomes a further burden on our already enormous cable bills.

Didn''t it used to be that the "content providers" actually paid the cable companies some number of pennies for every set of subscriber "eyes" they provided? When did this turn around?

Why should we pay more in cable fees so that Viacom can send advertisements for Lipozene and other cr&p into our homes?

This had to stop.

NickNikon

[nicknikon]

The cable companies get a monopoly "franchise" from the local jurisdiction (read: Us) to capture broadcast signal and other "content" and deliver a clean reliable advertising supported signal into our homes. We pay a fee for this infrastructure service and they pay a "franchise fee" for the monopoly right.

Now, the "content providers" including broadcast and non-broadcast providers want more money than they can raise from their already advertising-laden programming. They want to strong-arm the cable companies into sharing the fees they get from US for the infrastructure service they have contributed -nothing- to building.

I feel we need to nip this trend in the bud before it becomes a further burden on our already enormous cable bills.

Didn''t it used to be that the "content providers" actually paid the cable companies some number of pennies for every set of subscriber "eyes" they provided? When did this turn around?

Why should we pay more in cable fees so that Viacom can send advertisements for Lipozene and other cr&p into our homes?

This had to stop.

NickNikon

[wl7bzh]

I would have paid extra just to get them to drop Comedy Central. How many times are they gonna show "Joe Dirt" and reruns of redneck comedy? Comedy Central in my opinion is a rerun ripoff that just makes the program offering look bigger.

[nicknikon]

I''m really irritated that these "content providers" are holding cable companies at gunpoint for more money. Viacom is desperate for revenue and the cable companies (read: Their subscribers) seem to be likely victims.

I thought the "content providers" were supposed to make their money selling advertising. The "content" should be free to the cable companies. After all, cable companies provide -all- the infrastructure--the cables, the amplifiers, the central offices, the control rooms, the satellite dishes, the personnel, the trucks--all of it, and the "content providers" get to ride on it for free. The "Viacoms" of the world get a free pipe into our homes for their sleazy ads (read Lipozene and other cr&p products.)

In the end, TW and the others simply have to pass these new fees on to subscribers. If "Viacom" can''t make a living selling time to Lipozene and the other cr&p advertisers they sell to, they should go away.

For Viacom and the others, there is -only- cable and Dish. Seems to me, TW should be charging Viacom.

How did we get here?

What do you think?

NickNikon

[nicknikon]

I''m really irritated that these "content providers" are holding cable companies at gunpoint for more money. Viacom is desperate for revenue and the cable companies (read: Their subscribers) seem to be likely victims.

I thought the "content providers" were supposed to make their money selling advertising. The "content" should be free to the cable companies. After all, cable companies provide -all- the infrastructure--the cables, the amplifiers, the central offices, the control rooms, the satellite dishes, the personnel, the trucks--all of it, and the "content providers" get to ride on it for free. The "Viacoms" of the world get a free pipe into our homes for their sleazy ads (read Lipozene and other cr&p products.)

In the end, TW and the others simply have to pass these new fees on to subscribers. If "Viacom" can''t make a living selling time to Lipozene and the other cr&p advertisers they sell to, they should go away.

For Viacom and the others, there is -only- cable and Dish. Seems to me, TW should be charging Viacom.

How did we get here?

What do you think?

NickNikon

[nicknikon]

gctomajtom, i think you''re mistake when you say "most don''t speak the language..." Something like one in four or one in five people in the US speak Spanish as their first language. You feel like 8 channels out of ONE HUNDRED is too many for "these people?"

I think that''s pretty selfish, don''t you? Do you really think that those 8 channels add -anything- to your cable bill? Don''t you think the dozen or so HOME SHOPPING channels, school district, city council, and other garbage channels that NOBODY watches probably add more to your bill? They (the access channels) are paid for ENTIRELY by your local cable company as a "fee" to get the franchise to lay wires all over your town. I never voted for this cr&p and would shut them -all- down if I could.

I''d keep the Spanish language channels though. I like "those people..."

NickNikon

[excoachken]

And, why is it that I cannot get what I want on cable via "a la carte" ordering. Who needs QVC, all the Religious beggars, and reruns of sit coms starring dead people? Once again, the consumer get scrulled!

[nicknikon]

By the way, gctomajtom, how much welfare and health care you do get? I don''t think the "Mexicans" get any more. NOBODY gets healthcare in this country. The vast bulk of the "illegal" Mexicans you want to through out are probably paying more taxes than you do. If they have some place where they have cable TV, they are paying rent (including property taxes) or a mortgage and property taxes.

Nobody gets a free ride in this country. The issue of "Mexicans" is a hate issue designed by the Right to divide us. To divide you and me. To make us think there is something out these to be afraid of and to elect them to do something (read: nothing) about it.

The tiny percentage of our population that is "illegal" has NO impact on your cable bill. The rest are decent hard working Americans like you. Shouldn''t they get to have a few channels in their first language? How many languages do you speak?

NickNikon

[rafterman1]

Hey Viacom, way to go using a beloved children''s cartoon character to aid in your filthy money grab.

[rafterman1]

By the way Viacom, I have DirectTV and really appreciated the money grabbing advetisement scroll across the bottom of my TV every fifteen minutes.

[rudy6543]

What a rip-off, Viacom. You provide channels at increased fees when the economy is down and this you do to the detriment of your own business. People should protest and just cut the cable altogether. 99 percent of the time you just feature commercials and very little content worth watching. The old comedies have scenes cut out of them left and right just so you can fix another commercial to the site. What nerve to then increase the fees. Sorry that Time Warner backed down.

[rudy6543]

By the way, gctomajtom, how much welfare and health care you do get? I don''''t think the "Mexicans" get any more. NOBODY gets healthcare in this country. The vast bulk of the "illegal" Mexicans you want to through out are probably paying more taxes than you do. If they have some place where they have cable TV, they are paying rent (including property taxes) or a mortgage and property taxes.

Nobody gets a free ride in this country. The issue of "Mexicans" is a hate issue designed by the Right to divide us. To divide you and me. To make us think there is something out these to be afraid of and to elect them to do something (read: nothing) about it.

The tiny percentage of our population that is "illegal" has NO impact on your cable bill. The rest are decent hard working Americans like you. Shouldn''''t they get to have a few channels in their first language? How many languages do you speak?

NickNikon


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by nicknikon at 01:38 PM

Excellent post. The hospitals in this country have everyone snowed about health care costs. People should demand to know why they charge the uninsured more than three times the amount the charged the insured. These rip-offs have nothing to do with "illegals" and everything to do with unethical CEOs bent on extorting money from the poor and the sick.

[harbinger09]

I already called Time Warner and canceled my cable programming--let them and Viacom play footsie with someone else--If I want to see anything on the news or see a spot from another show--if they have it on line, I''ll view it there--other wise, I am saving over 80.00/month by NOT having cable--which means my kids can find more intellectual things to do and the tube can take a rest. My TW bill kept creeping up and up with undisclosed charges that they tried to blame on us--only we were out of town and so, the blame fell short. Rather than keep fighting, we just told them to keep all their channels and services, and we could then guarantee what our bill was for cable--a big fat NOTHING. There. Everyone happy. LOL

[harbinger09]

Nobody gets a free ride in this country. The issue of "Mexicans" is a hate issue designed by the Right to divide us. To divide you and me.
Posted by nicknikon at 01:38 PM : Jan 01, 2009

While I''m not against spanish language channels--you are wrong when you say the influx of illegals (mostly hispanic ) does not hurt us. Of course it does. Insourcing depresses wages and many companies will not hire American workers because they then would have to pay SS, OSHA, Worker''s comp and benefits--they don''t have to pay any of that if they utilize illegals--they do not even have to pay a living wage if they don''t want to-=-that hurts every American citizen. If you think it does not and you have a job--get laid off and try to apply for a job where the illegals are the majority. Odds are, unless you too are Hispanic and willing to work for nothing--you will NOT get the job--but what you may finally get at that time is..." the point."

The fact is many employers would hire illegals if they could get away with it and even if Americans are willing to work for less they are NOT hired--because SS, Pension plan, benefits, OSHA and worker''s comp must be paid out for each American citizen working--BY LAW. So before you think it is all jealousy or hatred or racism--think again--don''t wait until it is you or a loved one who needs a job and can''t get one, because employers would rather use illegal hispanics.

[harbinger09]

he rest are decent hard working Americans like you. Shouldn''''t they get to have a few channels in their first language? How many languages do you speak?

NickNikon

Posted by nicknikon at 01:38 PM : Jan 01, 2009


Hispanics should have their own channels when we also provide French, German, Polish, Italian, Swedish, Chinese, Lithuanian, Swahili, Hindi, Urdu, Japanese, Danish, Norwegian, Arabic, and every other group represented in the US as well--otherwise--what is occurring is not only an official language of commonality (English) but also PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT for one ethnic group.

[estabwary]

SpongeBob LIVES!