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…