Time Warner/TM4 carriage dispute

[ddeerrff]

I like that jbganswers site - not.  It tells you how you can send a comment to TWC, but nowhere does it allow you to leave a comment to JBG.  I'd really like to tell JBG how much I think TWC should be paying them.

[grenier]

If they pull the station, do you think we'll still have access to NBC shows On Demand?

[PONIES]

NBC On Demand comes directly from NBC. Affiliates are not involved with it.

[REVM1M]

So, if i could get programing from NBC on demand, why would I care , about TMJ4 , because all they have is: NEWS, WEATHER,NEWS, WEATHER, NEWS, WEATHER...............

[mrschimpf]

Well, today's rhetoric from Journal has gotten very nasty, worse than anything involving last year's Hearst/TWC situation. Now they're saying on the glacial ticker 'Don't be fooled by the exaggerated claims of your cable provider; TWC threatens to take TMJ4 off the air on July 24. For a half-penny more they could wrap up this negotiation and keep the channel on the air for you.' Then a phone number drop to annoy Time Warner; the boilerplate is the same on WGBA.

So...now it's only a half-penny. Of what? Per day, per week? And how much extra does this 'half-penny' add to your fee? I wish we knew the answer, but Journal isn't telling us. And now they're bringing in the completely unrelated CBS-TWC dispute in, which at least has the threat of Showtime and Smithsonian getting pulled and is a little more involved. Here, it's Journal lying that Time Warner will take the station away on the 24th, when it's Journal who pulls the signal without an agreement.

As far as I've known from these disputes, the station groups who get greedy about disputes usually don't end up getting too much and get pulled for longer periods of time. This looks like one of them.

[Jack 1000]

So, if i could get programing from NBC on demand, why would I care , about TMJ4 , because all they have is: NEWS, WEATHER,NEWS, WEATHER, NEWS, WEATHER...............

Or Weather, Weather, News, News, Infomercial.  Infomercial, Weather, Weather, News, News.  The Tonight Show, occasional weekend sports that are good TV. I think may account for about 25% of their shows.  75% is a big weather, news, infomercial station.  Where do they get this "Half a penny more, vs. TWC's claims of a 200 or 250% increase?"  Who is right in these figures?  Can anyone show how "a half a penny more equates to a 200% increase, (some sites have said 250%.)  I suck at Math, but still say that is a HUGE disparity on each side.

Jack

[PONIES]

Well, today's rhetoric from Journal has gotten very nasty, worse than anything involving last year's Hearst/TWC situation. Now they're saying on the glacial ticker 'Don't be fooled by the exaggerated claims of your cable provider; TWC threatens to take TMJ4 off the air on July 24. For a half-penny more they could wrap up this negotiation and keep the channel on the air for you.' Then a phone number drop to annoy Time Warner; the boilerplate is the same on WGBA.

Time Warner taking TMJ4 "off the air" ? What air? Does Time Warner Cable control WTMJ's broadcast antennas now?

I was under the impression that the entire point of a cable provider was not to use "the air" as their transmission medium.

Time Warner is taking WTMJ "off the wire." There'll be plenty of their crappy channel remaining "on the air."

[Bebop]

Looked like TWC as a whole is playing hardball with retransmission fees.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/21/4540100/aereo-could-win-big-in-fee-dispute-between-cbs-and-time-warner-cable

[Tom Snyder]

Live chat with Wexler going on right now.

http://www.jbganswers.com/184042591.html

[Tom Snyder]

You can tell the truth by how he answered the first question, and by the 2 questions they chose NOT to allow to be posted and refused to answer:

https://twitter.com/MilwaukeeHDTV

Q: 1 So if there's no agreement by midnight who really physically takes the TMJ4 signal off the lineup, JBG or TWC?

A: At midnight, without an agreement, they have the option to drop the station from their lineup.

Following two questions were submitted but not allowed to be posted, nor were they answered:

Q: Sure they have the option. But  you know they won't take you off if you're still feeding them the signal at midnight. If 4 is not available, won't it be because you stopped feeding it to them?

Q: If my math is correct, your "pennies per subscriber" extends out to a demand that TWC pay JBG hundreds of thousands of dollars more per year than what they have been paying. Is that close?

[REVM1M]

I hope TWC doesn't give in and pay those greedy TMJ4 people.

[PONIES]

I thought Time Warner received TMJ's signal via antennas just like we do?

Or do they have a fiber hookup to them?

[LoadStar]

You can tell the truth by how he answered the first question, and by the 2 questions they chose NOT to allow to be posted and refused to answer:

https://twitter.com/MilwaukeeHDTV

Q: 1 So if there's no agreement by midnight who really physically takes the TMJ4 signal off the lineup, JBG or TWC?

A: At midnight, without an agreement, they have the option to drop the station from their lineup.

Following two questions were submitted but not allowed to be posted, nor were they answered:

Q: Sure they have the option. But  you know they won't take you off if you're still feeding them the signal at midnight. If 4 is not available, won't it be because you stopped feeding it to them?

Q: If my math is correct, your "pennies per subscriber" extends out to a demand that TWC pay JBG hundreds of thousands of dollars more per year than what they have been paying. Is that close?

I could see things a slightly different way than you. Like you, I note his specific phrasing "they have the option to drop the station." My followup question to him would have been "If TWC continued to carry the signal following the deadline as you suggest, would that put them at risk of legal or financial repercussions from Journal Communications?"

In other words, sure TWC "has the option" to carry TMJ without a contract. And Journal "has the option" to seek penalties from TWC if they choose to do so.

Journal isn't going to just allow TWC to carry WTMJ without a contract. That's part of the whole upshot behind the Aereo dispute, that Aereo hasn't entered a re-transmission consent agreement with the broadcasters. For Journal to imply that TWC could continue on rebroadcasting WTMJ after the contract is disingenuous at best. Even if WTMJ leaves their fiber feed to TWC up and running, which I fully think they might do, TWC would be daft if they continued to use it without a contract.

[LoadStar]

I thought Time Warner received TMJ's signal via antennas just like we do?

Or do they have a fiber hookup to them?

I think for the full-power stations in Milwaukee, they have a fiber link. They also have an antenna farm in Brookfield (Town) at the dead-end of Janacek Ct. that is primary for those they don't have a fiber link to, and backup for those they do. It also is at least one of their satellite downlink facilities.

[Jack 1000]

I posted the following at TWC's Untangled Blog regarding the fee dispute between TWC and Journal Broadcasting and the fee dispute between CBS channels in some markets, (not ours) as well as Showtime and their sister channels, which because they are owned by CBS could be dropped in all markets:

I posted this at TWC's Untangled Blog:

Greetings,

I support TWC in the fight to keep the costs of cable reasonable. I understand and appreciate that both businesses have to be compensated for their programing due to inflation and rising costs, but at an increase of 600%? That’s INSANE! The 200% demanded by Journal Broadcasting for its stations is bad enough.

CBS and Journal Broadcasting need to realize that their enemy is NOT TWC. It is the fact that station credibility is lost when businesses hold customers hostile in these negotiations, where good people who pay potentially hundreds of dollars a month are being treated like pawns with each side going to war. It is frustrating. Remember that ALL Cable, Dish, Telephone, and mobile companies are bound by Retransmission Contract disputes, so if customers switch providers, they could face the same blackout consequences when CBS comes up for renewal on Direct TV, or Dish Network, or ANY third-party TV provider.

In some respects, Ala Carte programing may help for small one to two-person households who are in agreement with what they like to watch. The problem is with larger families who rely in TV for entertainment, news, and educational services. How many people can actually agree on what services they would want to watch in an Ala-Carte channel model? How many channels are loved by some people, and hated by others even in the same household? In larger households, interests in what channels represent value may be too diverse where one may have to question how much money would be saved, over the conveyance of TWC Triple Play bundles. In my experience, I like the Triple Play better than Ala Carte. However, I use Internet, Cable TV, and Phone every day. For people that don’t, smaller packages might help.

Regardless of service levels, customers want a fair and reasonable price to pay for cable that they can afford. CBS SHOULD LOOK AT THE LOSS OF REVENUE FOR THEM FROM TWC IF THEY CHOOSE TO DROP SHOWTIME FROM ALL TWC SYSTEMS! IN FACT, CBS LOSES MORE REVENUE AND RESPECT FROM THE PUBLIC TRUST BY THREATENING TO REMOVE THEIR PROGRAMING, THAN CHOOSING TO NEGOTIATE A FAIR AND REASONABLE DEAL THAT REPRESENTS THE BEST INTEREST OF CABLE CUSTOMERS IN TRYING ECONOMIC TIMES.

Regards,

Jack

http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2013/07/cbs-is-demanding-600-percent-more/