Time Warner Cable Loses Viacom: MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central To Go Dark

[babylonsister]

Time Warner Cable Loses Viacom: MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central To Go Dark

RYAN NAKASHIMA | December 31, 2008 06:52 AM EST | AP


LOS ANGELES — "SpongeBob SquarePants" may be getting squeezed off of Time Warner Cable.

Media giant Viacom Inc. said its Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 16 other channels will go dark on Time Warner Cable Inc. at 12:01 a.m. Thursday if a new carriage fee deal is not agreed upon by then.

The impasse over carriage fee hikes would mean "SpongeBob" and other shows like "The Daily Show" will be cut off to 13 million subscribers, said spokesman Alex Dudley, a vice president at Time Warner Cable. The nation's second-largest cable operator primarily serves customers in New York state, the Carolinas, Ohio, Southern California and Texas.

Viacom has asked for fee increases of between 22 percent and 36 percent per channel, an amount that could increase customers' cable bills, Dudley said. Viacom spokeswoman Kelly McAndrew said the requested increase was in the very low double-digit percentage range.

"The issue is that they have asked for an exorbitant increase in their carriage fees and their network ratings are sagging," he said. "Basically we're trying to hold the line for our customer."

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/time-warner-cable-cuts-of_n_154378.html

[dkf]

1. "low double digit". lol.

double digit increase sounds on the high side to me.

[W_HAMILTON]

4. A 100% increase on a penny = an extra penny

Low double-digits may sound like a lot, but in actual money terms, the amount is less than $3 per customer, per year.

That is a small amount, especially when you consider the customers that will be leaving Time Warner in droves if this issue is not resolved ASAP.

[RoyGBiv]

5. Viacom charges more than a penny ...

The 23 cents per subscriber Viacom is quoting is very likely the low-end and almost certainly an average based on a full penetration package. Disney pulled some PR stunt like this as well a few years back during one of their iterations of increasing the price of ESPN by almost $2 per subscriber. Averaged over the entire package of channels Disney sold, the claim was made they were asking for a much lower amount. (I'm selling bundles that include apples, oranges, bananas, and strawberries. The apples are going up $1. All the other stuff is staying the same. That "works out" to "only" 25 cents ... fuzzy math.) The reality on the consumer end was that their basic cable bill would have gone up that $2.

Regardless of how they're figuring it, 23 cents per subscriber is nothing to sneeze at. The margins on cable service run very thin.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. And it will be even more thin

When a bunch of customers end up leaving them.

Just about everyone in my area is fed up with Time Warner. They've pulled this same sort of crap in the past. Given the choice at paying less than $3 per subscriber, per year, or losing a large chunk of your customer base, they'd be stupid to let Viacom walk away and lose all those channels.

Lots of people have been unhappy with Time Warner for awhile now, and this could prove to be the breaking point unless it's quickly resolved.

As I said, I have stuck by Time Warner for awhile, even through other blunders like this, but they will no longer have me as a customer if they allow the Viacom channels to leave.

As for the numbers (1) my point was that the percentage increase doesn't matter, if the actual cost is very low to begin with, and (2) the 23 cents number is the number quoted for all of Time Warner cable subscribers, so it already has been averaged out. 23 cents per month per customer. Time Warner is "promising" to cut back on prices if Viacom does leave (yeah, right); factor in the amount of customers that will leave due to this, as well as them discounting the cable bill of their remaining customers, and $3/year won't seem like all that much.

[RoyGBiv]

12. I'm not defending Time Warner ...

They suck. I know they suck. Everyone in the cable industry knows they suck.

Regardless, to paint them as the only bad guy in this is incorrect.

As I've said, this is a game played by both the cable companies and the content providers. These numbers you are throwing out are provided by Viacom. It's the same strategy Disney used. It's the same strategy Comcast, Cox, DirecTV, and Dish have used. Note this well. Both content providers and re-broadcasters use the *same strategy*. Who starts it is generally unimportant.

You are a pawn in a corporate game that has been played for two decades now, and they *want* you to take sides, but which side you take is irrelevant. The actual purpose is to get you to show how much you love these channels because it will justify their rate increase.

[Bandit]

8. Per Channel

Which is forty five dollars more..Maybe to you forty five dollars is nothing but to a lot of people it is too damn much.

[W_HAMILTON]

11. You're wrong.

The "low double-digits" price increase is per channel, but overall that still amounts to an increase in overall cost of around 23 cents per subscriber, per month. Period.

As I said, 100% of a penny is an extra penny. The "low double digits" increase per Viacom channel is an extra 23 cents per subscriber, per month. It's not an extra 23 cents per channel, it's an extra 23 cents for all of the Viacom channels that will soon be excluded.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Where are you getting that?

This is not what the article referenced here says. It's simply paraphrasing a Viacom official, who is going to put the best spin on it he or she possibly can, and even that paraphrase leaves the matter vague.

You can choose to believe whomever you want, but allow me to suggest that you're just playing into the game. This is a PR stunt that, as I've said before, is orchestrated to ratchet up demand artificially to justify rate increases across the board.

I've heard this "pennies a day" nonsense from the best of them. It doesn't fly and never will.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. Given the choice between trusting Time Warner or Satan himself,

I'd trust the devil.

And I'm getting that number from the articles on this subject that can be found via Google.

[Goblinmonger]

2. Yeah, telling Time Warner to raise their rates

with the economy going like it is is a really smart fricken' move for Viacom. Idiots. I mean, hey, it's not low triple digits percentage increase so it could be worse.

[W_HAMILTON]

3. What a crock of $)*&!

Screw Time Warner.

The people who are blaming this on Viacom obviously haven't had other problems with Time Warner in the past. As a Time Warner customer who has had problems like this before, I realize it's their fault, not Viacom's. If it's true that Viacom's channels account for approximately 20% of viewing, but only around 2.5% of the costs, then they should ask for more from Time Warner. And I trust Viacom more than I trust Time Warner.

It's especially comical that Time Warner is talking about fighting for the customer, when I'm a customer they have screwed over many times in the past. I will definitely be calling the 800 number to complain about this situation, and if they truly do remove these channels, they will be losing me as a customer.

I'm just through with Time Warner's crap.

[RoyGBiv]

6. It's both of them ...

This is standard operating procedure. It happens with all cable and satellite companies and all providers of content.

[robcon]

7. The headline is deceptive. The deal is not done. It will go dark "if."

Huffington headline writer is deceptive, IMO.

[fasttense]

10. I think I'll cancel my cable TV. n/t

[ThomWV]

13. I would immagine that the Direct TV people will be please with this

Once you've had one of the small dishes you'll never go back to cable.

[babylonsister]

16. Amen. We've had DTV for years and love 'em. nt

[Historic NY]

15. Time Warner is full of crap.......I can't wait until FIOS is in my area.

I went in a couple a weeks ago to change out my cable modem. I have basic cable & broadband and the charges were getting outrageous combined. After I complained about the new fees coming in my bill would be around $120 per month they knocked it back to $91. Its a rip off. I guess with these channels gone I should get back a few more dollars because that the first thing I'm going to do.

[Me.]

17. So True

I can't believe I'm paying so much. Also, gay family and friends are ticked that LOGO will go too.