TV Carriage Disputes: Both Sides Can Kiss Off

[scottcomstock]

I'm sure most of you by now have heard about the ongoing carriage disputes between Time Warner Cable and MSG, and between Fox 23 and Verizon FiOS for those of you who live in the Albany area. Personally, even though I don't watch MSG or Fox with enough regularity to become a fan of their programming (and the fact is, most network programming makes me want to puke), as someone who pays for cable, I'm thoroughly sick of being stuck in the middle of these disputes. Despite the fan-focused rhetoric from both sides, I don't believe either side in these disputes has anyone's interests in mind but their own, and the people paying the bills are the ones who inevitably wind up losing in the end.

In that regard, I find it more than a bit laughable that Time Warner Cable saw fit to send me a "we appreciate your business" flyer inside which is another notification of a rate increase.

While I find it laudable that NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has decided to intervene in the TWC-MSG dispute, who's going to speak for the customer the next time another carriage dispute hits the news? It seems you can't go more than two or three months without hearing about another "battle of the titans"; am I the only one seeing nothing but unparalleled greed on both sides of the equation? Since it seems the customer loses either way, I've decided that both sides can kiss off.

I pay about $11 a month for TWC's "broadcast basic" package, but I'm seriously considering dumping even that, in light of the Fox-Verizon dispute. I have books, plus several hundred DVDs & Blu-Rays for entertainment; if I really want to see something on the local stations I'll put up an antenna or hit up my favorite local diner.

[Cap]

MSG wanted a 53 percent fee increase...

TWC offered to pay that increase while negotiating, MSG said 'no'.

I'm on TWC's side in this particular issue.

[scottcomstock]

According to this (http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/knicks/post/_/id/8849/msg-time-warner-cable-will-drop-us), MSG threatened to double its rates if TWC didn't also carry Fuse, a channel watched by roughly 0.6% of TWC's customers. Channel bundling also seems to be a near-constant factor in these carriage disputes: "in addition to the price increase for A, you have to carry channels B, C, and D on your basic tier."

So what do these disputes mean for customers? They either lose access to the channels completely, or have to accept additional channels they may not want in lieu of or in addition to a higher rate passed down from the cable/satellite provider. In that regard, I don't think it matters which side is "right" or "wrong".

[scottcomstock]

So now, after intervention from the Attorney General and others, TWC & MSG have finally come to an agreement. However, as part of the deal, TWC will be required to carry MSG's Fuse channel (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/20/its-official-msg-time-warner-finalize-deal/). The article doesn't say which tier the new channel will wind up on but I strongly suspect it's gonna be the same tier as MSG itself.

So what's the over/under on how long it is before TWC announces another rate hike?

[Cap]

if they do its MSG's fault for wanting 53 pct more of a fee hike AND demanding this channel be part of things. I wouldn't blame TWC for having to appease its customers by bringing back a channel everyone whined for