# TimeWarnerCable starts "Roll over or get tough" campaign against Disney



## Rob (Apr 23, 2002)

http://sandiego-mail.timewarnercabl...196675&a=View&s=159156&b=66976&ignoremobile=1



> You may have heard that Time Warner Cable and Disney - the corporate owner of ABC, ESPN and the Disney cable channels - are in the middle of contract negotiations and Disney is demanding a huge increase in the fees we pay for their programming. To learn more about these negotiations and how TV works today, please visit RollOverOrGetTough.com.


----------



## ricksterinps (Oct 11, 2007)

This is the email I got from Time Warner Cable this morning. The only reason I still get these is that I get my internet through them. My provider is D, so I'm not too worried.

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

Your Cable Video Dollar

You may have heard that Time Warner Cable and Disney - the corporate owner of ABC, ESPN and the Disney cable channels - are in the middle of contract negotiations and Disney is demanding a huge increase in the fees we pay for their programming. To learn more about these negotiations and how TV works today, please visit RollOverOrGetTough.com.

Where Does Your Video Dollar Go?Did you know that nearly 40% of your cable video dollar already goes to programmers like Disney? We have to pay these programmers to bring you the shows you love to watch. If we "roll over" to their demands, it could drive up costs for you. So we have decided to "get tough" and try to hold the line on TV prices.

At Time Warner Cable, we're working to reach a fair agreement that will keep Disney from driving up the cost of cable. But if you're thinking of changing companies - think again. The service provider you switch to - whether it's a phone, cable or satellite company - will eventually face the same demands for fee increases from Disney/ABC/ESPN or another big TV network. Switching isn't the answer. In today's economy, consumers need to stand up and speak out.

For updates, visit RollOverOrGetTough.com. Don't let Disney drive up the price of cable television.


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

Didn't TWC have a contract dispute with someone else in the last year? If I remember correctly they got the deal done last minute right before those channels went dark.


----------



## KNPKH2ster (Apr 3, 2010)

roadrunner1782 said:


> Didn't TWC have a contract dispute with someone else in the last year? If I remember correctly they got the deal done last minute right before those channels went dark.


Yes, they did. Time Warner Cable had a dispute with FOX during December 2009. I saw the commercials on MyNetwork TV during that period, but I have D* so I didn't worry too much about it. However, they did reach an agreement on Dec. 31st.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Isn't the expiration date of the contract right around when College/Monday Night Football season starts? Fancy that...

Funny how the quality of television has gone down (think reality TeeVee), yet the price keeps going up. How much further do prices have to go up before people start canceling?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

If congress were to come up with and pass a bill that would allow cable and satellite suscribers to suscribe only to the channels they want instead of the packages offered the prices would come down. But then congress is the opposite of progress!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> If congress were to come up with and pass a bill that would allow cable and satellite suscribers to suscribe only to the channels they want instead of the packages offered the prices would come down. But then congress is the opposite of progress!


Congress already allows cable and satellite subscribers to subscribe to only the channels they want. The only exception being that for cable all packages must include local channels and public service channels and for satellite all packages must include public service channels and a subscription to locals includes all available locals in your market.

It is the cable and satellite industries that won't let you subscribe to just the channels you want.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> Congress already allows cable and satellite subscribers to subscribe to only the channels they want. The only exception being that for cable all packages must include local channels and public service channels and for satellite all packages must include public service channels and a subscription to locals includes all available locals in your market.
> 
> It is the cable and satellite industries that won't let you subscribe to just the channels you want.


I beg to differ. I remember reading some months ago that congress was considering what I stated. You are correct when stating it's the providers who only offer packages.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> I beg to differ. I remember reading some months ago that congress was considering what I stated. You are correct when stating it's the providers who only offer packages.


You misstated what you want. You don't want Congress to allow cable and satellite subscribers to subscribe to only the channels they want. You want Congress to force cable and satellite companies to allow subscribers to subscribe to only the channels they want. There is a difference.

If Congress was preventing cable and satellite subscribers from subscribing to only the channels they want, removing that prohibition would be government getting out of meddling in private business. But what you want is just asking the government to meddle in private affairs.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> You misstated what you want. You don't want Congress to allow cable and satellite subscribers to subscribe to only the channels they want. You want Congress to force cable and satellite companies to allow subscribers to subscribe to only the channels they want. There is a difference.
> 
> If Congress was preventing cable and satellite subscribers from subscribing to only the channels they want, removing that prohibition would be government getting out of meddling in private business. But what you want is just asking the government to meddle in private affairs.


Quote: The Washington Post...by Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer...Thursday 20 May 2004...FCC Asked To Examine A la Carte Cable TV...Lawmakers Seek Feasibility


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> Quote: The Washington Post...by Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer...Thursday 20 May 2004...FCC Asked To Examine A la Carte Cable TV...Lawmakers Seek Feasibility


That's not a quote ... it is a reference to a headline. And it is dated.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

James Long said:


> That's not a quote ... it is a reference to a headline. And it is dated.


I stated that I read the article a few months ago. I never said it was written a few months ago. Bottom line, if given a choice between packages or Al la Carte which way do you think suscribers would go? I think the scales would be tipped in favor of Al la Carte.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> I stated that I read the article a few months ago. I never said it was written a few months ago. Bottom line, if given a choice between packages or Al la Carte which way do you think suscribers would go? I think the scales would be tipped in favor of Al la Carte.


Part of the reason that we don't get a la carte is channel providers bundle their channels, then force the cable/satellite provider to agree to provide all bundled channels together, rather than a la carte. Disney is doing it right now with TWC. They are bundling KABC and all the ESPN channels.

Part of the problem is retransmission consent for OTA stations. That should be eliminated in favor of "must carry" for all local stations. That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Congress probably should not force a rigid solution to the a la carte problem, but, at the same time, I think it is appropriate for Congress to adjust the market rules, thus making a la carte more likely.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

runner861 said:


> Part of the reason that we don't get a la carte is channel providers bundle their channels, then force the cable/satellite provider to agree to provide all bundled channels together, rather than a la carte. Disney is doing it right now with TWC. They are bundling KABC and all the ESPN channels.
> 
> Part of the problem is retransmission consent for OTA stations. That should be eliminated in favor of "must carry" for all local stations. That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Congress probably should not force a rigid solution to the a la carte problem, but, at the same time, I think it is appropriate for Congress to adjust the market rules, thus making a la carte more likely.


I agree.


----------



## markfp (Mar 9, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> I I think the scales would be tipped in favor of Al la Carte.


I think overall, most folks would stay with a package. You know as well as I do that the cable companies won't do anything to loose money. If they have to offer channels a la carte, they'll price individual channels in such a way that it will still be cheaper to subscribe to a package.

When the average viewer finds out that it will cost them just as much to get 20 channels as a package of 120 channels, they'll choose the package even if they don't watch most of them. after all, when it comes to most consumers "bigger is better".

Of course, I'm talking about the "average" veiwer and not most of the folks who come to boards like this.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mini "theme packages" might work but I expect there will always be a need for a base package to cover the root cost of maintaining a customer. a la carte just adds that root cost to every channel/package. Bigger packages allows that root cost to be spread out.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Mini "theme packages" might work but I expect there will always be a need for a base package to cover the root cost of maintaining a customer. a la carte just adds that root cost to every channel/package. Bigger packages allows that root cost to be spread out.


The satellite/cable companies could charge a service fee that covers the root cost. This is a fee that covers having a service hookup, and all local OTA stations, but no others. Eliminate retransmission consent and require all locals to be carried on a "must carry" basis. Then allow the customer to pick what additional channels he/she wants, if any, on an a la carte basis, paying market price for each channel. If congress mandated market structuring such as what I have described, the free market would operate, within parameters set up by congress.

Prices for some customers will go up, prices for other customers will go down, and probably some little-viewed channels will go away. But that is market forces dictating that outcome, not the government, not the cable/satellite companies, not the programmers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> Congress already allows cable and satellite subscribers to subscribe to only the channels they want.


Allowing/forcing channels to be made available separately isn't the same thing as forcing equivalent pricing for unbundled channels.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

harsh said:


> Allowing/forcing channels to be made available separately isn't the same thing as forcing equivalent pricing for unbundled channels.


You are exactly right. This is what I have been advocating. Require each channel to be available individually, at market price. Then the free market will decide where we go. Congress sets the rules, which is its proper function, then the market determines the outcome, which is its proper function.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> If congress mandated market structuring such as what I have described, the free market would operate, within parameters set up by congress.


I have a hard time calling a market with the government interference you're proposing "free".



> Prices for some customers will go up, prices for other customers will go down, and probably some little-viewed channels will go away. But that is market forces dictating that outcome, not the government, not the cable/satellite companies, not the programmers.


Market forces are what created the system we have now. You're trying to override those market forces and IMPOSE your own forces on the market.

Please, don't try to propose heavy government intervention and call it a free market.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I have a hard time calling a market with the government interference you're proposing "free".
> 
> Market forces are what created the system we have now. You're trying to override those market forces and IMPOSE your own forces on the market.
> 
> Please, don't try to propose heavy government intervention and call it a free market.


I understand and respect your opinion, but I strenuously disagree. I believe that Congress must set market parameters. Within those market parameters, the free market operates. That is the way it is in every market, whether it is banking, food, transportation, or media. What you are advocating is an unrestricted free-for-all, which is a different situation.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> What you are advocating is an unrestricted free-for-all, which is a different situation.


I'm advocating status quo, which seems to have worked for longer than I've been alive. I don't believe more government control is the answer.

Although the concept of free LIL carriage (required carriage of all stations in market with no payment to the stations) is an interference that I can agree with.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I'm advocating status quo, which seems to have worked for longer than I've been alive. I don't believe more government control is the answer.
> 
> Although the concept of free LIL carriage (required carriage of all stations in market with no payment to the stations) is an interference that I can agree with.


One of the huge problems with retransmission consent is it allows big companies like ABC to leverage carriage of their cable stations with their local OTA stations. So with retransmission consent Congress has interfered with the free market. At least that is my argument. Some will agree, some will disagree.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I can agree that Congress should never have allowed local TV stations to charge for the rebroadcast of their free OTA signals. Requiring carriage of those stations on an equal basis is the necessary "interference" that I intended to refer to.


----------

