# Time Warner Cable, CBS pull back from blackout



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Time Warner Cable and CBS said early Tuesday morning that they will shrug off their self-imposed midnight Tuesday deadline and continue to negotiate on a new retransmission contract.
> 
> In a strange sequence of brinkmanship, their decision to pull back at the last minute from a possible blackout in key U.S. markets was announced merely 30 minutes after they separately told reporters at around midnight that they had walked away from their talks and allowed the network's signals to go dark.





> CBS receives about 88 cents per month per subscriber from pay-TV providers, estimates investment bank RBC Capital Markets. CBS generated about $250 million in retransmission revenue last year and expects to top $1 billion by 2017.
> 
> In comparison, ESPN, the clear market leader in fees from pay-TV providers, receives about 5.50 per subscriber, according to RBC Capital. Other popular cable channels, such as TNT, USA Network and FX, demand about $1 per subscriber.
> 
> TWC has said that CBS wants to raise the fee as much as 600%. That figure is based on an average fee TWC pays for all CBS stations in its service areas, TWC says.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/30/cbs-goes-dark/2598463/


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Most can get CBS with a simple antenna just like we did in the 70s and 80s and its free. If more people did that CBS may not want as much money.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

CBS should be trying to get as many eyes on it's programming as possible. They should be PAYING Time Warner, DirecTV, DISH, etc., to carry their stations. Not the other way around. CBS needs Time Warner, Time Warner does not need CBS.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

Just throwing this out, not sure it is the answer:

Cable customers in the reception contour of a specific station can have the OTA station with no additional $$$ through their cable franchise to the station.

Folks outside the contour would pony up for the service and the charge is split between the cable co and the TV station.

I might entertain the idea that out of contour fee might be regulated by Congress, although I would not trust them very fair to do anything that would be considered by most folks to be 'fair'.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Looks like the blackout is starting, along with Showtime, TMC, Flix and Smithsonian nationwide.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> August 2, 2013, 3:31 p.m.
> 
> Unable to come to terms on a new distribution agreement, CBS-owned channels have gone dark on Time Warner Cable systems around the country, including Los Angeles and New York City.
> 
> ...


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-cbs-channels-time-warner-cable-20130802,0,7575076.story


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

And TWC wants providers to pay $5.00 a month for the new Dodgers channel. Talke about being hypocritical.


----------



## mailiang (Jul 30, 2006)

This is great news for TWC's competitors! Customers will be running to Dish, DTV and Fios telcos! No more Under The Dome, Ray Donavan or Dexter episodes? :bang Please! :biggrin:


Ian


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

DIRECTV is backing TWC in the dispute with CBS, from http://investor.directv.com/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=782602



> "Just like the characters in CBS' _Under The Dome_, all pay TV customers are feeling trapped and helpless as broadcasters expect them to absorb ridiculous rate increases for the exact same programming. In trying to protect our own customers, DIRECTV has certainly had its share of these battles, so we applaud Time Warner Cable for fighting back against exorbitant programming cost increases. We are also appalled to learn that CBS is now punishing DIRECTV customers, who may happen to have Time Warner as their Internet provider, by denying them access to CBS content online. The conduct of content companies in their efforts to extract outrageous fees from distributors and consumers may have reached a new low."


----------



## mailiang (Jul 30, 2006)

RAD said:


> DIRECTV is backing TWC in the dispute with CBS, from http://investor.directv.com/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=782602


As far as CBS not allowing TWC's internet customers to access their streaming programs, according to my wife, who is an attorney, CBS is now opening themselves up to a real legal problem.

Ian


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)




----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Maybe all the cable and satellite companies should file a suit with the federal government. Tow wit, broadcast televisions stations are licensed by the federal government and the frequencies the broadcast upon are owned by the federal government. This also means, these same said frequencies are owned by the taxpayers. Congress is at fault here by allowing the NAB to write various bills that allow broadcasters to charge for carrying signals, which are available freely over the air. The broadcasters even went as far to prohibit the carriage of national network feeds, so they can have exclusive control of the area they serve "in the public interest". The reason why it is next to impossible to get WCBS, WNBC, WABC and WNYW outside the New York area, for example. The NAB required DirecTV and DISH to uplink every broadcast station. It was this reason why DISH tried to merge with DirecTV 10 years or so ago, because of the capacity, and cost, required to achieve this. This also contributes to why some channels cannot be carried in HD, because broadcast channels are insisting on the bandwidth. In the end, we subscribers, are forced to pay fro channels which are making money on their advertising, but they want more. And most of the broadcast channels are owned by the same media companies which own most of the pay TVC content. This is corporate greed; plain and simple. This consolidation also explains why pay TV channels, despite their number, have less variety than 5 or even 10 years ago.

What is bad about this is that subscribers must pay for the signals they can get for free over the air. People, like myself, have no choice. It is 40 miles to the broadcast source with mountains and mesas in the way to get a clear signal. an antenna is not an option, because the homeowner's association disallow them because basic cable is available for this purpose. That is another another issue.

So, I applaud DirecTV joining Warner with this; and I hope other providers will do so, as well.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

As far as CBS not allowing TWC's internet customers to access their streaming programs, according to my wife, who is an attorney, CBS is now opening themselves up to a real legal problem.


Ian 


I can't see anyway that's possible since you don't pay for any streaming services from any CBS stations. Its all considered free add ons and they are always subject to changes and limitations.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^ It goes into the Net Neutrality bit where someone is being punished based on the ISP and website. CBS might be within their rights to block all streaming during a carrier dispute, but not just a certain ISP, even if indirectly related to the dispute.


----------



## mailiang (Jul 30, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I can't see anyway that's possible since you don't pay for any streaming services from any CBS stations. Its all considered free add ons and they are always subject to changes and limitations.





> ^^ It goes into the Net Neutrality bit where someone is being punished based on the ISP and website. CBS might be within their rights to block all streaming during a carrier dispute, but not just a certain ISP, even if indirectly related to the dispute.


DTV customers pay for CBS programming. If such customers or anyone else are using an ISP who's broadcast carrier is in dispute with CBS, CBS can not exclude them from accessing their IT programing content.

On another note, a CBS news crew was robbed Friday. Could it be that TWC customers are looking for payback already? :biggrin:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/kgo-tv-news-crew-robbed_n_3704053.html

Ian


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

There's an article out there this morning saying that CBS stands to lose $400,000 per day during this weenie-measuring fest. That number seems low to me even if it is only from TWC.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Over a DSLReports they's a news story that says besides pricing issues TWC doesn't want CBS to sell content to NetFlix.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

RAD said:


> Over a DSLReports they's a news story that says besides pricing issues TWC doesn't want CBS to sell content to NetFlix.


Since when does a company like Dish have say over a broadcast station offering content to Netflix. Maybe CBS was actually right on this one. I dont agree with a huge increase but I also don't like the idea of Dish stating you can't offer your content on Netflix. If Dish wants part of that business too then maybe they should do a better job offering better internet people want to get paid on both ends.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

RAD said:


> Over a DSLReports they's a news story that says besides pricing issues TWC doesn't want CBS to sell content to NetFlix.


 This was reported today in the NY Times as well. According to the Times article, CBS and TWC have effectively agreed on a retransmission fee. The sticking point is that TWC wants access to the full CBS catalog for TWC's on-demand service. CBS currently charges per episode fees through Amazon and Vudu for access to this content and so they are asking for a VERY large payment to make this available to TWC. If you look at what is available on DirecTV's CBS on-demand service you'll see that it is only a few series and then only 2 or 3 episodes (usually just the 2 and 3 week old episodes). This is very different from the way NBC, for example, handles their on-demand content.

The reality is that there is very little difference these days between the so-called "broadcast" (aka "over the air") networks and cable channels. The number of people that get their network content via an OTA antenna is a small fraction of the total number of households that receive it via cable. It is getting to the point that OTA transmission is becoming more of a burden than a benefit to channels in some markets.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Didn't D* and CBS just come to terms on a new deal this past year? Anyone know how long that deal is for?


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ It goes into the Net Neutrality bit where someone is being punished based on the ISP and website. CBS might be within their rights to block all streaming during a carrier dispute, but not just a certain ISP, even if indirectly related to the dispute.


There's no law guaranteeing network neutrality here in the U.S. The FCC has put out guidelines and a few rules, but many claim the FCC lacks the authority to do even that. CBS can do whatever they want.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

RAD said:


> Over a DSLReports they's a news story that says besides pricing issues *TWC* doesn't want CBS to sell content to NetFlix.





joshjr said:


> Since when does a company like Dish have say over a broadcast station offering content to Netflix. Maybe CBS was actually right on this one. I dont agree with a huge increase but I also don't like the idea of Dish stating you can't offer your content on Netflix. If Dish wants part of that business too then maybe they should do a better job offering better internet people want to get paid on both ends.


It wasn't Dish, it was Time Warner.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

An offer was made to CBS:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/time-warner-cable-offers-proposal-cbs-end-blackout-183343507.html



> By Liana B. Baker
> 
> (Reuters) - Time Warner Cable Inc Chief Executive Glenn Britt sent a letter to CBS Corp CEO Les Moonves on Monday offering a controversial new proposal to end the blackout of CBS shows that started Friday in markets such as New York and Los Angeles.
> 
> ...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Again we don't pay for any Of their online content. Our subscription only guarantees us their linear Channels. Any online content is a free extra. 

You'd know if we where paying for it because we'd see line items for it and people with it would be paying more than people who have no internet access and can't access it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Since when does a company like Dish have say over a broadcast station offering content to Netflix. Maybe CBS was actually right on this one. I dont agree with a huge increase but I also don't like the idea of Dish stating you can't offer your content on Netflix. If Dish wants part of that business too then maybe they should do a better job offering better internet people want to get paid on both ends.


Actually all the time. Many contracts prices are in part derived from the exclusivity of the content on the channel. If CBS gives all their stuff to Netflix for free that highly devalues its worth for Time Warner Cable and others. They can absolutely ask for guarantees of that kind to protect the value of what they are paying for.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> It wasn't Dish, it was Time Warner.


Even Time Warner. Come on.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Actually all the time. Many contracts prices are in part derived from the exclusivity of the content on the channel. If CBS gives all their stuff to Netflix for free that highly devalues its worth for Time Warner Cable and others. They can absolutely ask for guarantees of that kind to protect the value of what they are paying for.


I didnt say I don't understand it. I just cant see one company like TWC having that much of a say. Either way it would be Time Warner's call. I can see TWC negotiating a lower wage due to that but not the ability to say if you want to do business with us then dont give it to Netflix. That would be kind of like Dish saying hey we will sign a new agreement if you say no to DirecTV when your next contract expires. I understand this would be a little different but still.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

This whole TV crap is all backwards.

The Networks should be paying the providers. You want your crap shown pay us and we'll show it!

Unreal Only in America!


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Today, the distributors tell CBS, go a-la-carte.

Tomorrow, when ESPN asks for 6 dollars a month, distributors will tell Disney, go a-la-carte.

Fundamental shift going on. Younger households see little value in Pay Tv, and older households question its value.

Dolan on this shift........

------------------------
Future of Cable Might Not Include TV

At Cablevision, Broadband Could Become Primary Offering Eventually

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323420604578647961424594702.html

In a 90-minute interview on Friday, the usually media-shy 58-year-old executive also talked about his marriage, his relationship with his father Chuck and his after-hours role as a singer and songwriter. He said his rock band, JD & the Straight Shot, toured with the Eagles last month.

Mr. Dolan said that on the rare occasions he watches TV, it is often with his young children, who prefer to watch online video service Netflix, using Cablevision broadband.

He added that the cable-TV industry is in a "bubble" with its emphasis on packages of channels that people are required to pay for, predicting it will mature "badly" as young people opt to watch online video rather than pay for traditional TV services.
------------------------


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

So TWC is asking CBS to go al la carte but they won't allow their very own TWCSN to go al la carte??


----------



## mailiang (Jul 30, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> There's no law guaranteeing network neutrality here in the U.S. The FCC has put out guidelines and a few rules, but many claim the FCC lacks the authority to do even that. CBS can do whatever they want.


ISP customers are entitled to receive CBS program streaming, which has nothing to do with their broadcast carrier agreement. If CBS denies access to those customers, they are in violation as per agreement with the ISP's.

Ian


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I didnt say I don't understand it. I just cant see one company like TWC having that much of a say. Either way it would be Time Warner's call. I can see TWC negotiating a lower wage due to that but not the ability to say if you want to do business with us then dont give it to Netflix. That would be kind of like Dish saying hey we will sign a new agreement if you say no to DirecTV when your next contract expires. I understand this would be a little different but still.


Well who knows the exact deal. It could be DIRECTV has one that protects price and provides them with anything Netflix might get. Who knows? As we know That's why no two companies negotiation for any one channel is the same!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ISP customers are entitled to receive CBS program streaming, which has nothing to do with their broadcast carrier agreement. If CBS denies access to those customers, they are in violation as per agreement with the ISP.


Ian


Wait. The argument was they are breaking some contract because they are denying DIRECTV customers from their programming if they use Time Warner Cable. You are saying something all together different. You are suggesting that CBS has a deal with every Internet provider in the country to allow then to stream their online programming and they are breaking that.

Set aside that I don't buy for a second that cbs is getting money and has a contract from all isp in the entire country to show their online stuff....

If that was true then of course it'd make even more sense that all Time Warner Cable ISP users would be without their CBS programming since that's who they are in the dispute with.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Cord cutting more pronounced with every passing day.

And CBS wants to increase its monthly cut from today's 75 cents a month to 2 dollars by the final year of a new contract????!!!!!

If CBS is able to extract 2 dollars a month within 4 years, than Univision will ask for 2.50 (UVN's demographics are better than CBS's).

And it all started with ESPN (have I mentioned that 50% of Disney's 115B valuation is attributable to ESPN?).

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

CBS-Time Warner Cable Dispute Shows an Industry Unaware of Reality

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323420604578652271175622986.html

But as Messrs. Dolan and Ergen have acknowledged, these arrangements aren't sustainable. Younger people watch what they want online, making the idea of cable TV less appealing. The percentage of people age 13 to 33 subscribing to pay TV fell to 76% this June from 85% in June 2010, a new study by research firm GfK found.

"Cord cutting used to be an urban myth. It isn't any more," said cable analyst Craig Moffett in a report Tuesday.

Yet the entertainment companies seem blissfully unaware. Yes, most make their cable programming available online, but only to TV subscribers who remember passwords, itself a turnoff. Some shows are separately licensed to online outlets, like Amazon.com Inc., Hulu or Netflix Inc., but not every outlet has all seasons.

TV executives may feel insulated from the travails of newspapers. But if Messrs. Britt and Moonves don't stop fighting over money and think longer term, there won't be much money left to argue about.
-----------------------------


----------



## mailiang (Jul 30, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Wait. The argument was they are breaking some contract because they are denying DIRECTV customers from their programming if they use Time Warner Cable. You are saying something all together different. You are suggesting that CBS has a deal with every Internet provider in the country to allow then to stream their online programming and they are breaking that.
> 
> Set aside that I don't buy for a second that cbs is getting money and has a contract from all isp in the entire country to show their online stuff....
> 
> If that was true then of course it'd make even more sense that all Time Warner Cable ISP users would be without their CBS programming since that's who they are in the dispute with.


I was referring to the agreements that CBS has with many ISP's, including TWC, to carry streaming content on their websites. AFAIK, It has nothing to do with their carrier dispute and broadcast transmission fees. As per my wife, who is an attorney, by blocking such content they may have breached that agreement. The DTV comment was aimed at Net neutrality which is regulated by the FCC, but currently being debated in Congress in terms of jurisdictional issues. Sorry for the confusion.

Ian


----------



## REDSKINSFAN47 (Sep 2, 2007)

Diana C said:


> This was reported today in the NY Times as well. According to the Times article, CBS and TWC have effectively agreed on a retransmission fee. The sticking point is that TWC wants access to the full CBS catalog for TWC's on-demand service. CBS currently charges per episode fees through Amazon and Vudu for access to this content and so they are asking for a VERY large payment to make this available to TWC. If you look at what is available on DirecTV's CBS on-demand service you'll see that it is only a few series and then only 2 or 3 episodes (usually just the 2 and 3 week old episodes). This is very different from the way NBC, for example, handles their on-demand content.
> 
> The reality is that there is very little difference these days between the so-called "broadcast" (aka "over the air") networks and cable channels. The number of people that get their network content via an OTA antenna is a small fraction of the total number of households that receive it via cable. It is getting to the point that OTA transmission is becoming more of a burden than a benefit to channels in some markets.


with more people cutting the cord and with some good sub channels that directv doesnt carry,im hopeing that ota will increase as this can happen with any provider and in this case ota would keep me from losing cbs.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mailiang said:


> I was referring to the agreements that CBS has with many ISP's, including TWC, to carry streaming content on their websites. AFAIK, It has nothing to do with their carrier dispute and broadcast transmission fees. As per my wife, who is an attorney, by blocking such content they may have breached that agreement. The DTV comment was aimed at Net neutrality which is regulated by the FCC, but currently being debated in Congress in terms of jurisdictional issues. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Ian


Again, I didn't know that cbs had a single agreement with any isp to stream their content. I have never even heard of such a thing. Can you point me to an example of this? All the streaming tv everywhere agreements that I am aware of are tied to the cable side of the contracts. Not separately with ISPs.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^ My ISP has a separate TV/Video section on their members web page with probably over a hundred networks and channels including NBC, ABC, FOX, CW, as well as cable channels like ABC Family, HBO, BBC, Fox Movies, etc.

No CBS for right now, but I think it comes and goes.

CBS was also offered on the Windows Media Center IPTV channel before MS dropped that feature.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Then those agreements are tied to the ISP provider not the cable operator I'd think. And if so then it makes sense they'd yank it from Time Warner Cable customers since that could be part Of the negotiation maybe. I just don't see any situation where Time Warner Cable would be in a contract with DIRECTV to provide CBS online or for CBS to be in a contract to provide online to twc for dtv subs or for CBS to be in a contract with DIRECTV that says they will provide their online to Time Warner Cable. It just doesn't make sense. 

I wouldn't be surprised if that is all for free anyway on an ISP home page or if CBS didn't pay Time Warner Cable to allow them to put it on their ISP home pages as a way to advertise their programming.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Time Warner Cable from blacking out CBS programming.
> 
> "I believe the public interest would be best served if carriage is restored by the parties at the earliest possible time so that consumers are not long caught in the middle," Markey said in a letter to the FCC, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.


http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201308070957UPI_____BUSITRAK_093259_6934-1&params=timestamp||08/07/2013%209:57%20AM%20ET||headline||Sen.%20Markey%20requests%20%20FCC%20intervene%20with%20Time%20Warner%20v.%20CBS||docSource||United%20Press%20International||provider||ACQUIREMEDIA||bridgesymbol||US;TWX&ticker=TWX


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Here is the thing about CBS.COM being a "freebie". 

Before this contract thing I would have totally agreed with you. BUT now they have selectively removed the ability to access their content based on the company of the high speed provider that they are having a falling out with. This tells me that it IS NOT a freebie. 

Let's face it, NOTHING is free, and part of the money that they get from D*, E*, TWC, Comcast, etc. goes to funding that content. They didn't think this through before they put it into place. It would be nice if there was a way to get DirecTV to speak up from a corporate level and tell them to IMMEDIATELY figure out a work around for their paying customers to access this content.


----------



## mailiang (Jul 30, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> > Then those agreements are tied to the ISP provider not the cable operator I'd think. And if so then it makes sense they'd yank it from Time Warner Cable customers since that could be part Of the negotiation maybe.
> 
> 
> I agree. But as you posted before, everything may be tied to the agreement with the cable company. My wife was just speculating since we really don't know the particulars of the contract between the two party's.
> ...


DTV has nothing to do with TWC's ISP. DTV is angry because they have TWC ISP customers and feel that CBS is being unfair and practicing a policy that violates NET Neutrality.

Again, sorry for all the confusion. I shouldn't be posting this early in the morning before I had my coffee! :coffee

Ian


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Time Warner Cable subscribers in Los Angeles, New York and Dallas may be steamed that CBS-owned stations have been blocked for more than a week, causing them to miss episodes of "Under the Dome" as well as some preseason NFL games and the PGA championship. But CBS seems to be doing just fine in ratings.
> 
> CBS was the highest rated and most watched network for the first full week of blackouts, according to Nielsen. For the week that ended Aug. 11, the network brought in an average of 5.51 million viewers and generated a rating of 1.2 in the coveted adults 18-49 demographic.


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-cbs-wins-time-warner-cable-20130813,0,3130351.story


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

News stories indicate they've finished their measuring contest, got things tucked away and are back on the air (so-to-speak).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah but no knows who finally blinked most. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

No, they never say who was bigger.

Personally, I think those terms should be required to be disclosed, especially after a deliberate outage. I think that type of transparency would go a long ways to preventing these things. Corporate accountability is seriously lacking.

Anybody know if the stockholders get this information?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I wouldn't think so. If stockholders got the info, it would leak. Plus I'm not sure what would cause issues with regulators, insider trading etc.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think all over the air stations should have to publicly state it but they'd just jack up the rates for the cable stations to offset and make them not look as bad. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

Its kinda sad they didnt continue to stand up!!


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

The ironic thing about this is that even though DirecTV was the most vocal (publicly at least) about trying to "support" TWC in their fight against CBS, they were using the fact that TWC didn't have this agreement to lure customers. 

I have a friend who, out of curiosity, called DirecTV about a new service inquiry and made the casual comment about how he lacks CBS. Well, the customer service rep was only to happy to point to the fact that they carry CBS and all of the stations in dispute and that he should switch. 

When he told me this, I couldn't help but to laugh at the hypocrisy. 

That's why prices will continue to rise; a provider will always either use the fact that their competition doesn't have this or that or get content the others don't have. Someone will pay that high price.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 6, 2010)

You and they know MOST PEOPLE will be taken in by it!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

TWC released the numbers, one word...ouch. They lost 300,000 customers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/31/us-timewarnercable-results-idUSBRE99U0CK20131031


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> TWC released the numbers, one word...ouch. They lost 300,000 customers.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/31/us-timewarnercable-results-idUSBRE99U0CK20131031


TWC may have lost 300k customers.

But the rest of us lost as well. As a result of TWC's cave, by 2016, each of us will be paying CBS 2 dollars a month. And that means that every other national broadcaster will also get 2 dollars a month, except for Telemundo, which will settle for 1.50.

What does that add up to? 11.50 (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Univision, Telemundo) a month, just for locals.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> TWC may have lost 300k customers.
> 
> But the rest of us lost as well. As a result of TWC's cave, by 2016, each of us will be paying CBS 2 dollars a month. And that means that every other national broadcaster will also get 2 dollars a month, except for Telemundo, which will settle for 1.50.
> 
> What does that add up to? 11.50 (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Univision, Telemundo) a month, just for locals.


Is that on top of we are paying now? If true I see antenna in the future.


----------

