Cable is now a government issue...

           Remember that Cablevision and News Corp. dilemma? Well, since the issue became public, it has attracted the attention of many. Newspapers keep following up with what really happened with the two companies. While in Congress, some politicians had demanded FCC’s involvement.

In an article in The Hill's Congress Blog by Former Rep. Jack Fields, who sponsored retransmission consent, he states that the congress created this term in order to “ensure that the public would retain access to local broadcast programming as cable television gained in power and influence.” However, it didn’t work quite well because broadcasters are using these provisions as an excuse to charge cable companies high fees for programming.

 Fields explains that when the Federal Communications Commission created this ruling the main purpose was to help market competition. They initially thought that cable stations were going to be a monopoly, so they created the retransmission consent in order to avoid future problems between broadcasters and cable stations. 

             The FCC has stated in their 2000 ruling that rates charged by networks or cable companies are determined by these businesses and the “commission does not have the authority to review these rates or to investigate allegations that the rates are excessive.” 

            However, now that the FCC doesn’t have any control over how much broadcasters can charge for their programming, broadcasters are taking advantage of the provision. Broadcasters know they can charge as much as they want because cable stations need their programming.

Right after the dispute between the two companies, Senator John Kerry conducted a meeting with some broadcast executives to examine the retransmission consent. He stated in a press release that in order to provide a fair service to subscribers this provision has to be changed. He also stated that the “FCC can and should use its existing authority to draft new rules” and he also reminded “the agency that its role is to protect those consumers.”

            As of now, the FCC has not taking any action about this issue. Hopefully, after the attention that Cablevision and News Corp.’s dilemma took in the media and the Congress, the FCC will get more involved and do something about it. The issue here is that subscribers are the most affected by this inconvenient, and they are the ones who will have to pay the price. Because it’s for sure that cable companies will have to raise their fees in order to maintain their business.

 

Cable.. a luxury?

Everyday day we hear that the economy is recuperating, slowly but is getting better. Still for some people money is tight and so they try to find solutions to save some money. Some choose to eat more at home, but for some others the solution is: no cable. According to an article in the New York Times’ Media Decoder, cable subscriptions have gone down tremendosly in the past months. Little by little consumers have canceled their cable and satellite subscriptions.

“Cable distributors like Comcast have been hardest hit by the loss of subscribers. Some people who had cable have switched to satellite or to new telecommunications services like Verizon FiOS. Others, according to Comcast, are reverting to over-the-air television signals.”

This situation has affected the television industry because most of the money they collect comes from cable distributors like Comcast and DISHNetwork. However, some TV companies are trying to come up with new strategies to help solve the problem. Time Warner Cable, for example, is trying to retain consumers by introducing cheaper packages of TV programming. Right now they hope that subscriptions will increase during the third quarter of the year, since during this season they expect that more people will want to watch special programming.

This issue relates to the News Corp and Cablevision dilemma. The prices of subscriptions are directly affected by increments in programming fees, and in such a hard economy customers are not able to pay much for TV.

The problem is that when companies like News Corp make cable companies pay huge amounts of money for their programming, it is causing that TV viewers take drastically actions, like canceling their cable subscriptions. The question now is, if we can watch TV for free (over the airwaves or online), why do we have to pay ridiculously amounts of money for a subscription? I agree that if you want more, well, you pay more, but I don’t agree that a regular consumer be forced to unsubscribe from this service because companies just want to take too much advantage of their products.

Panther Report Ep. 5

And here is our Halloween edition of the Panther Report!! Make sure you watch the entire episode! It has 2 parts.We are looking so much better... and we are learning so much out of this experience, you can actually see our progress!

Also, in this episode we have an interview with The Economist's Economics editor, Zanny Minton Beddoes. Check it out!

Panther Report Ep. 4

It's been long time since my last post... it's always hard to take time off!! But here is an update... watch the 4th episode of the Panther Report. It's divided in 3 parts, so just click on it to watch the rest!

Cablevision vs. News Corp continues (Part 2)

A couple of days ago Cablevision (the cable company that serves the New York metropolitan area) and News Corporation (owner of Fox) were having some difficulties reaching an end to the negotiation terms for the cable company to carry Fox.

Cablevision’ subscribers were unable to watch Fox since October 16, and their main concern was that Fox was going to broadcast the World Series. While the dispute was taking place, subscribers were unable to watch these series, and some others were forced to switch to other cable companies. Other methods used for subscribers were to watch shows online and some others went back to the use of an antenna.

The dispute finally came to an end last Saturday (October 30), just in time for cablevision subscribers to watch the third game of the World Series. According to an article in the New York Times, the two companies came to an agreement, in which Cablevision accepted to pay a huge amount of money to News Corp. Cablevision stated that it was ridiculous they had to pay so much money to carry these channels when people can get them for free over the airwaves.

Even though the two companies reached a deal, it seems they still involve in a big dispute. Cablevision stated that the retransmission consent system is badly managed and they ask the government to take a more active action in the issue. Since they, and some other cable companies, believe that the government doesn’t care much about these issues.

However, News Corporation stated that Cablevision has always been complaining about the prices. They also alleged that the only reason why Cablevision wants to get the government involved is because they want a change in the regulations to benefit their company.

Everyday we see disputes like this, in which businesses try to take the most advantage out of their services. It’s ridiculous that the broadcast company want to charge so much when subscribers can get these same channels for free with an antenna. And what is unfair is that subscribers are the ones who will have to pay the price, because it’s for sure that the cable company will raise their prices. In situations like this, I think that government (precisely the FCC) should take action, because at the end consumers are the most affected.
           

Cablevision vs. News Corp

Throughout this year there have been several disputes between broadcasters and cable companies over the right and fees involved in distributing and transmitting programming. In an New York Times’ article that I read today I found that one of New York’s biggest cable providers, Cablevision, is having problems with News Corporation, the owner of Fox, because they can’t agree on terms for the cable company to distribute and transmit some channels, something called retransmission consent.



News Corporation's Channels





This term was created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and basically means that cable companies have to ask and/or negotiate with broadcasters to distribute and transmit their programming. However, broadcasters don’t have to accept cable companies terms.



In the case of Cablevision and News Corporation, if the two companies don’t get to an agreement, Cablevision won’t probably be allowed to broadcast News Corp.’s programming, leaving many subscribers unable to watch some of Fox’s local channels. The article says that besides the uncertainty of what will happen between the two companies, they also have been publishing ads attacking each other. In one ad Cablevision states that News Corporation is charging them exorbitant carrying fees, and so they claim is not fair that subscribers fees be increased. On the other hand, News Corporation’s ads claim that Cablevision can’t provide subscriber’s great sports games and so directing consumers to other cable companies.



I understand that both companies have to act on their best interests, but I think it’s ridiculous that they are taking this issue outside to the public, and create ads that attack each other business. By looking at the ads a consumer can’t be certain of what the right side of the story is. One could say that News Corp is trying to get the most money out of the cable company, and that Cablevision is the poor guy of the story. But on the other side one could blame the cable company, and see all that drama as an excuse that the cable company is using to raise their fees later on and just say it isn’t their fault.

We all know television production is very expensive, it uses lots of very complex and expensive technology and people who know how to manipulate it. I agree that broadcasters charge reasonable amounts of money to cable companies to carry their programming because anyways cable companies get lots and lots of money from subscribers. 





Channels broadcasted by Cablevision



 

Panther Report Ep. 3- PART 1

Ok, so we are getting better and better… AND this is just the beginning! We got so many stories (well… compared to the other last 2 episodes) that we had to divide this episode in 2 parts!!  Enjoy! :)



Specially thanks to all our volunteers, GSTV staff, Kelly M., and Andree G.

Panther Report Ep. 3- PART 2

And here is part 2 of episode 3. What you think?

And here is the Second Episode of the Panther Report!

We’re getting better! I never imagined it was going to be so HARD to produce a show!! but I'm learning along the way.. and I love it!! It’s very stressing but guessing I’m just getting used to know how the business really is.

Paid Websites

I found a really interesting story today in the New York Times. It seems that media companies are trying to find some ways of getting people to pay for news online. The article said that The Boston Globe will launch next year a new paid website called the BostonGlobe.com in addition to their existing website Boston.com.

This new website, BostonGlobe.com, will require readers to pay for content such as photographs, full coverage stories, full editions of the daily and Sunday paper, among other things. However, subscribers to the newspaper will get full access to the website without having to pay any extra fees. According to the article, the company hopes to attract more and different types of advertising but expects not to have much advertising on BostonGlobe.com. They said that in the past they required readers to register in order to get content and it worked. With this new website, the company expects to provide more easy access to their audience.

Even the idea is good, I don’t know if their revenue model will last really long. When Internet came out everybody, including newspapers, started to post all online, without knowing the consequences that it was going to bring. Now, that one can go and find all kinds of information online for FREE is hard to set a new system where instead of getting it free you have to pay.

I consider it’s a good idea because newspapers are a business, and somehow needs to get money from somewhere to sustain the business. It needs to pay their employees, in this case reporters who get the news for us, the people. And if you think about it, if the newspaper doesn’t have the money to pay reporters, who is going to get the news for us? Will the news we get be paid by the “big guys”… or probably we’ll only get a little of news but not all.

Yeah, it is bad that now we have to pay for something it was free before, but I prefer to pay a price and be informed of what is going on in my community and my county THAN to be uninformed. After all everything has a price…

Talking about new things...

This is the very 1st episode of the Panther Report. It was not easy... but we made it. After months of planning and days of no sleep and great stress, we finally created it! It’s not great, neither what I had in mind… but hey it’s just the beginning! Enjoy!

First Time!!

I guess I'd start by saying that this year is full of new things for me... my first blog, my first job at a TV station, my first shows, my first year living by myself (my closest relatives left to other more exciting cities, so now is just me here in this growing city... Atlanta) and my first TV show!!! wow... lots of things in just few months... time goes by too fast.. so you better enjoy every minute and take the most advantage of it!