Cablevision Replaces Food Network And HGTV With Passive-Aggressive Announcement

Cablevision subscribers woke up yesterday to discover that Food Network and HGTV were gone from their television screens. GONE! What now runs on the space where those stations used to be is a slightly rewritten version of Cablevision’s statement about the situation. It strikes us as a little passive-aggressive.


Here’s a transcript, in case you can’t play or listen to the video:

At the conclusion of our current agreement on December 31, Scripps Networks has decided to pull its channels off your Cablevision TV system. Why? Cablevision has made a number of fair and reasonable proposals that would allow us to continue offering Food Network and HGTV in the same manner that we have over the last several years. All of our proposals have been rejected by Scripps.

We are sorry that Scripps current financial difficulties are making it impossible for them to continue our relationship under terms that are fair to everyone. However, it is clear that Scripps has dramatically changed its approach to working with distributors who carry their channels.

We wanted to keep bringing you HGTV and the Food Network while we continue to negotiate, but Scripps has decided to pull these channels. We apologize for the inconvenience, and we appreciate your patience. We are hopeful that Scripps will reconsider its decision, and choose to continue the type of business relationship that both companies have enjoyed for years. Thank you.

RELATED:
Fox And Time Warner Cable Threaten Football, Annoy John Kerry
FOX Did Not Pull Its Programming From TWC, Food Network Pulled From Cablevision
Non-Crisis Is Over: Fox, Time Warner Reach Agreement

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. bennilynn says:

    Time Warner Cable was just plain ol’ aggressive when NBC pulled their programming a little while back. Of course, it worked out for me, because not only did they put free HBO on one of the stations, but on one of the other stations, they gave a friendly how-to on getting your NBC entertainment for free from the Internet (and even how to show it on your TV!). I liked the idea so much, I dropped TWC and took their advice about the online programming.

    Cablevision may be wiser for doing it this way. It just right amount of underhanded snark and disdain. I approve.

    (I had trouble submitting this comment. With my luck, it’ll show up seventeen times or something equally embarrassing.)

  2. Joedragon says:

    This is a MUCH bigger loss then VS.

    FOOD and HGTV have much better shows then VS that mostly has a lot of crap and some sports.

    • pgh9fan says:

      Actually, HGTV has got absolutely nothing. Food Network has a couple of OK shows. VS, however, has a lot of good programming.

      (You see, it’s all in taste. What you may like I may not. What I find interesting you may dislike.)

    • ChunkyBarf says:

      There’s a Victoria’s Secret channel?!? Flippin’ sweet !

  3. Preyfar says:

    A life without Paula Deen, the Butter Queen, how… how can I go on? :| While I can honestly say I won’t miss her, I will miss Alton Brown.

    Oh well! At least the Travel Channel still has Man vs Food, one of the best “food shows” I’ve seen in a while.

    • ChunkyBarf says:

      Agreed on all counts.

      • Major Annoyance says:

        Yup. I have no idea why someone wants to watch some glutton make a pig of himself on national TV but I’m kind of hooked on that one myself. I think it has something to do with watching people destroy themselves for money.

    • axhandler1 says:

      Personally I prefer Anthony Bourdain, No Reservations. Very entertaining and always makes me hungry.

  4. JWBrockman says:

    But isn’t threatening to yank channels as a negotiating tactic also a lame passive-aggressive move, that every single network now seems to make toward the end of their contracts? I swear every couple of months there’s another channel or three running ads asking viewers to do their work for them and lobby our cable companies to give them more money or else they’ll TAKE AWAY OUR FAVORITE SHOWS! NOOOOOO!

    • PølάrβǽЯ says:

      Yeah, the networks want US, the ratepayers, to lobby the Cable/Sat companies to give the networks more money, which means we’ll have to give the Cable/Sat companies more money.

      In other words, they want us to ask our providers to charge us more. To watch commercials.

      I think not.

    • jesusofcool says:

      It’s true. As much as I absolutely hate Cablevision and think it’s the WORST cable company, the drastic loss of channels and raise in price I’ve seen in the last year or two with our cable isn’t entirely their fault. It’s also the fault of a bunch of greedy network execs who think holding people’s tv hostage is a great way to negotiate. Not only do we get to watch mounds of advertisements, but now we’re being screwed by both the networks and the cable companies and paying through the nose for it.

  5. SarasiPolyxena says:

    This is nothing. Have you seen the absolutely absurd version of this going on in Canada? Not just one provider and a couple of channels but virtually every cable company lined up against every programming provider running commercials that make them both sound crazy. Not just regular crazy either – Glen Beck crazy. It’s absurd. You guys have it easy.

    • Rena says:

      That’s why I make my own passive-aggressive announcements at home.

      Wait…

    • valueofaloonie says:

      Aah, yes. “Local TV matters!” vs. “No, they’ll take all your money, and you’ll get nothing in return!”

      I’m pretty sure that if I wanted an unbiased take on the situation, I wouldn’t be visiting shaw.ca.

      • jenjenjen says:

        But without local TV all the children will get cancer and nobody’s charity will get any money! I just got back from two weeks of Canadian TV and yes those ads are ridiculous.

    • RandomZero says:

      Yeah, the whole thing is insane – not that the “local” networks are anything of the sort (I’m looking at you, CanWest Global). The more I look into it, though, the more I get suspicious about the cable/sat side of the argument.

      -The BDUs (Rogers, Shaw, Bell, et al) are claiming loudly that the “TV Tax” will cost subscribers $6-10/mo. Given that the LPIF is expected to total $102 million for 2009-2010, and given that the BDUs have 11.1 million subscribers, quick math tells me that’s $0.77 for the LPIF, and an increase in profit of between 10% and 20%. Are they fighting it, or shifting blame for a ridiculous cash grab? (It’s worth noting that the CRTC explicitly said that this should cost subscribers nothing (check paragraph 357).

      -In case this isn’t ridiculous enough, how about Bell’s attempt to grab $7 million/year (check from about line 3030 onward) of the LPIF funds, presumably while screaming about how the costs will ruin them and using it to justify a massive rate hike?

      Kinda leaves a sour taste in your mouth. If there were literally any other choice for telecoms service in my area, I’d be switching.

  6. bjcolby15 says:

    On the one hand, Food Network’s programming quality has gone down considerably ever since they introduced competitions (with the exception of Iron Chef) and novelty shows (Good Eats, Throwdown, Diners and Dives, Paula Deen) instead of offering shows on how to actually cook good food. If the Food Network went back to its roots, I would certainly have no problem with Cablevision fighting to get the Food Network back.

    On the other hand, if Scripps is asking for more money and Cablevision is refusing to do so, it’s better for Cablevision to do this than pulling off the channels with no explanation. In fact, I would prefer Cablevision state what Scripps is doing and for its viewers to launch a campaign to get the programs back on Cablevision – which is what I think Cablevision is trying to do.

    • micahd says:

      calling Good Eats a “novelty” show is just wrong, mean and wrong. Have you ever even see the show? It’s just like the host describes it: Julia Child meets Mr. Wizard meets Monty Python. I guess food programming isn’t supposed to be fun?

      • bjcolby15 says:

        It was mean, and I apologize. I haven’t seen a Good Eats program in eons and he does put on a good show. I’ll be cutting into my crow as soon as I finish my humble pie.

    • RickN says:

      I agree about the competitions — I never watch any of them. But Good Eats is more about how-to-cook than any other show on that network. It’s been on for 10 years too — so not much of a novelty.

    • tbax929 says:

      I love Good Eats; that’s a great show. Chopped is a competition show that I never miss. Love, love, love it. I don’t watch Food Network to learn how to cook; I watch it to learn interesting things about food. To each his own, though.

    • Julia789 says:

      I can do without Rachael Ray and that Paula Dean lady, but don’t take away my Alton Brown! His show is the only one that shows cooking from a scientific perspective, which makes it a true learning experience that improves your cooking instead of just teaching recipes. You understand how the components interact and how to improve upon them. And of course you learn a recipe and a how-to at the same time. It gives sound scientific and nutritional advice, while other cooking shows are full of myths and old wives tales.

    • Chazz1918 says:

      Guy Fieri is credibly entertaining as a personality – plus there are a ton of good cooking tips on that show. It is one of only 3 on my DVR recording lists. All work and no play etc. LOL

      • ChuckECheese says:

        Guy Fieri’s grooming makes him look like a toasted sea urchin. And his upbeat delivery reminds me of heavy-drinking car salesmen.

        • Parsnip says:

          I enjoy watching his stomach steadily become more and more tremendous as he travels the country eating things with roughly the fat content of an elephant.

          I love the Food Network, and watch it nearly constantly. I really don’t like Guy Fieri, though. He just seems like a d-bag to me, and I cringe every time he says “Winner winner chicken dinner”.

    • 2 replies says:

      Mere novelty!? HA!
      I’ve learned FAR more from AB on Good Eats than EVERY other cooking show I’ve seen combined. I’m talking about Food Network, PBS and all other channels. Alton explains the SCIENCE behind what happens in the kitchen rather than just presenting himself as a walking/talking stereotype with annoying catchphrases like BAM!, More butter, etc.
      Knowing the WHY behind what happens is much more important than just knowing the how, as you can then apply the knowledge elsewhere.

    • kalaratri says:

      And how is Good Eats not about cooking good food. Learning the science of cooking helps people understand how to change up recipes without f-ing them up because they understand what each ingredient does.

    • jesusofcool says:

      You don’t speak for everyone. I love Paula Deen and Diners Drive Ins and Dives. Real food and real ingredients, heart attacks be damned!

    • jesusofcool says:

      You don’t speak for everyone. I love Paula Deen and Diners Drive Ins and Dives. Real food and real ingredients, heart attacks be damned!

    • Chuck Norris' wig says:

      Stand and stir is a bunch of boring shit from the 70′s and 80′s that I would never watch. I watch Good Eats daily.

    • JWBrockman says:

      I stopped in here to say that Good Eats is the antithesis of a novelty show, and probably the best tv show ever created with regard to teaching people how cooking really works, but it looks like pretty much everyone else beat me to it.

    • bjcolby15 says:

      OK…mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! This is what happens when you don’t watch Food Network as often as I used to!

      I watched Emeril, Good Eats, and Iron Chef religiously until Food Network started changing their programming from cooking shows to something I couldn’t recognize. The former were entertaining – who could resist saying “BAM!” or marveling about the science of cooking chicken? And there are shows today that are actually good, like Ace of Cakes and Iron Chef America, and of course, Good Eats.

      With that in mind, the rest of the shows I won’t watch. Sure, Paula Deen can cook great Southern food, but her voice makes me pine for Calliou. Guy Fieri? Can’t stand him. I like Bobby Flay better as an Iron Chef and as a host of his old shows than his Throwdown shows.

      That’s my opinion – others likely adore Deen, Fieri and Flay. But when you watched some pretty good programs one day and then see junk the next, I have the option of changing the channel and the opportunity to criticize the same. Nevertheless, the Cablevision viewers who enjoy Food Network should tell Scripps to bring it back.

  7. Woodside Park Bob says:

    We need to be able to subscribe to and pay for only the channels we want. I’m glad Cablevision is refusing to meet Scripps’ demands, because the costs would be passed along to both Cablevision customers who want the channels and those who don’t. Let those who want the channels pay for them … and pay whatever amount Food Network and HGTV can get them to pay. The rest of us shouldn’t have to pay for channels we don’t want to get channels we do want and are willing to pay for.

    • mrsultana can't get a password to work says:

      I don’t think that is what they had in mind. Nobody is fighting “a la carte” cable channel subscriptions harder than the cablecos. You are right and for the right reasons, but they just tipped their hand on why this should be standard and not just cause HGTV got greedy.

    • CompyPaq says:

      I do have to wonder who is being greedy in this situation. Cablevision was paying ~12¢/subscriber for Food Network, which is one of the lowest rates in the industry. Compare that to Fox who wanted $1/subscriber.

      I think that both sides should make their negotiations open, and then let the customers decide whose fault it is.

      • yagisencho says:

        Wow, I’m more than willing to help Comcast save a buck then by having them turn off all Fox-owned networks. Bonus: Saves me the trouble of having to manually block them out.

    • krista says:

      Perhaps the networks will get smart and offer their own subscriptions via the internet?

  8. dwb says:

    Between the almost-never-loved cable company and the almost-always-loved Scripps programming, which do you think subscribers are going to favor in this situation?

    I think it’s very arrogant of Cablevision to even consider they will gain sympathy from their own subscribers in this way. It has been suggested that Cablevision, a relatively small company, is setting itself up to be purchased by one of the giants.

    • damageddude says:

      They’ll gain sympathy — right now Cablevison is controlling the message (“Scripps wanted more of YOUR money, we said no”). While there were shows I liked on HGTV (usually House Hunters) I didn’t watch it all the time — it was usually our “if there’s nothing else on” go to channel. I’m sure I’ll find something else to watch — or maybe I’ll read a book. Food Channel I almost never watched so I won’t miss that either.

    • Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

      Maybe so, but I find it poor taste that while still in contract talks, they pulled the stations from their loyal viewers and punished THEM. If I were a cablevision customer, I’d be pissed at Scripps, not cablevision. If talks were a wash, and they decided to permanently pull stations for a while, fine. Not like this though.

      I have family members who live on BOTH of those stations… if this happened thru TWC, I think suicide watch would be a good idea.

      • Julia789 says:

        My husband, son and I are going to go through Alton Brown withdrawal. Woe to us!

      • jesusofcool says:

        You would if you hadn’t been through ten mounds of bullshit lately. This is only the latest stunt in a long line of crap. In many areas of the Northeast, CV has a total monopoly on your town (you get either Cablevision or a dish or nothing). CV uses it as an excuses to bleed people dry. Our cable bill used to be $55 per month. Now we get 50% less channels except for the one tv for which we rent a digital box for $9 per month, but with the box rental our cable is up to $86 per month. The loss of two more major channels is for me the last straw. We’re waiting a week or two to see if this is permanent and then looking into a dish.

        • Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

          No, I know… my sister can only get cablevision, and my mother, her, my daughter and I were all on a TV show thru Discovery Health and she couldn’t even watch it… Hell, cablevision didn’t even OFFER it. They are really sub par service, I agree… but, wouldn’t you be upset even MORE if your cable bill had another increase for a channel you might not watch?? Scripps might not be playing fair on the price.

        • Bix says:

          I don’t know how much their rates vary by different area, but in my part of LI, the box rental is $6.

    • dantsea says:

      “Between the almost-never-loved cable company and the almost-always-loved Scripps programming, which do you think subscribers are going to favor in this situation?”

      The cable company, and the cable company knows this. I understand and can certainly appreciate the mental image of thousands of angry consumers rising up in Paul Deen-deprived anger and overthrowing the headend office, but it’s pure fantasy and nothing else.

  9. PsiCop says:

    This kind of passive-agressive whining is just too much. When will corporate America get its maturity back? (I know, I know … it’ll happen just as soon as political America gets its own maturity back — which, given the increasingly-juvenile behavior of our leaders, pundits, and even many voters over the last few years, isn’t going to happen any time soon).

  10. Etoiles says:

    Such an epic passive-aggressive guilt trip… is my mother-in-law working for Cablevision?!

  11. sondhead says:

    I guess what I don’t understand is how Scripps isn’t having trouble with other cable providers if their demands are so unreasonable. Maybe the problem is Cablevision

    • Julia789 says:

      Maybe those contracts are not up yet, and they plan to negotiate playing hardball with those as well. Perhaps they are using Cablevision as an example to other cable companies in preparation for those negotiations. Or maybe they are waiting for someone to buy out the channel. If so I hope discovery/tlc does not buy it. They will turn it into a channel about white Christian dwarves who shun birth control and enter reality cooking shows during natural disasters and suffer from medical facial deformities all while hunting fake ghosts with their fake psychic abilities and not knowing they were pregnant until they gave birth.

      • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

        see, if discovery did take it over and started just showing more mythbusters style explosions… i could get in line with that

        • Julia789 says:

          Mythbusters is one of the few shows left on Discover/TLC that I just love!

          I also shamefully love What Not to Wear (although it’s getting old, you can only do so many makeovers, it was much more fun in the beginning of the show)

          There are a couple of History Channel shows that are still ACTUALLY about history, which is nice. The rest is all trash.

          I used to love discovery and TLC when I was younger and they still had a lot of great nature shows. Oh, Blue Planet is one on Discovery that is great, and an exception to the junk rule too, :-)

          • Noadi says:

            Blue Planet was made by the BBC and licensed to Discovery just like most of the good nature documentaries they’ve aired (Planet Earth, Walking with Dinosaurs, etc).

          • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

            i did find myself watching some of the dirty jobs marathon today but then i was hungry so i had to turn it off. that could get ugly.
            mythbusters – i don’t even watch it for the science anymore, just the explosions/bodily risk/dropping things to make them break/dissolving things in acid, etc

  12. jeffile says:

    Kudos to the cable company! Now, they need to dump the Ping Pong Channel, Dyslectic Checker Players Channel, Tin Can Collectors Channel and all the rest of the “filler” channels. On the down side we wouldn’t be able to buy that have-to-have antique patubie for only $29.95 plus shipping and handling. I know, I know there is a niche for everything but that says more about the viewers then the entrepreneur.

  13. PresidentBeeblebrox says:

    Cablevision should have run full-page newspaper ads featuring fake ransom notes from Scripps. That would’ve taught them a lesson!

  14. Torchwood says:

    If it was E$PN or any of the Regional $ports Networks (who charge up the nose for per-subscriber fees anyways), you would have some unhappy people. The fact is, people are paying more and getting less from television. You will see the annual increases in cost, yet many people are not getting a cost-of-living increase. That hurts.

    • LESSTHANKIND says:

      Time Warner Cable in NYC has taken away regional sports networks, like MSG (I think they did that twice). TWC stopped carrying it in Queens–home of the Mets. So we Mets fans in Queens had to go into Manhattan to watch Opening Day from Cincy. When the Mets were home, we could go to the games or listen on the radio. When they were away, we had the radio or we had to go watch it in a Manhattan bar.

      Then when the Mets got their own network (SNY), Cablevision wouldn’t carry it on Long Island for a while.

  15. dg says:

    Personally I’m sick and tired of these BS games between the programmers and the distributors. Distributors don’t want to pay much to distribute the channels, programmers want more $$$ because they’re getting less from advertisers because there’s a) more channels so there’s a glut of advertising space, b) more DVRs so there’s more people skipping the never-ending stream of repetitive crapmercials.

    Either way – I don’t really care. The programmers are making their content available over the Web (if they have any brains and want to retain control – or else *someone* is making it available over the web). If we can get Network Neutrality passed by the FCC so the Internet doesn’t become a giant paywall when you want to watch something other than what’s approved by your ISP – and if we can get the bandwidth up to where it needs to be, then cable becomes irrelevant.

    You’ll be able to subscribe to what you want, when you want it, and watch it on your terms. Enough of this It’s Craptastic! or TWC or CableVision, or WHATEVER rules, regulations, bundles, boxes, encryption, advertising filled guides, blech!

    If cable companies would just STOP offering bundles with a ton of crap that no one wanted (really, who needs or wants 6 shopping network channels that the distributors don’t pay for anyway), then the 10 people who want to watch a specific channel can pay for it. If the price goes up, they can pay for it. If they don’t want to pay for it – then it goes away.

    As far as I’m concerned, we need LESS channels. We get 450 right now and probably watch 15 of them. But to get the 15, I have to subscribe to the 450… Frustrating…

    • cristiana says:

      Cable providers are usually paid to carry shopping channels. Even though I doubt that money ever gets passed to the consumer, I would rather have more shopping channels than some of the crap that is on there now

      • dg says:

        I suppose I was trying to get the point across that if the cable companies (the distributors) want to carry channels that they don’t pay for, but which they get paid to carry – then I ought to get a credit on my bill.

        But as it is, I have HSN, QVC, and 5 others who I can’t name right now… All of them “blocked, hidden, don’t show in guide”…

        Anyone remember when cable’s claim to fame was that they didn’t have ANY commercials? Then at some point, someone said “hey, why not… it’s not like joe six pack in BFE is going to cancel. He’s got no other options but us…”. Slowly, over time, the camel kept creepng in under the tent, and now look where we are… 20+ min of commercials for every 60 minutes of shows + in-show product placements + flashing, popups, blips, bleeps, and logos all over the damn place during the show…

        • MikeVx says:

          Those logos put me off TV long ago. I haven’t had any form of useful TV service for years. The only reason I had minimum basic TV from Comcast was because internet-only was more expensive.

          My primary entertainment viewing now is from Netflix. Secondarily is stuff made for internet release, like Star Trek Phase II.

          I watch all of these cable-TV battles with mild amusement, as it doesn’t matter to me. On the rare occasions that a TV service company actually manages to talk to me, I mess with their minds by saying that as long as their service has logos, they can’t even give it to me free, and that the absence of logos as a precondition of considering buying service is not a negotiable point. Since that would mean that the channels are no longer 24×7 ads, they’ll never do it, and I’ll never have to content with TV issues.

  16. Mephron says:

    We should at least acknowledge http://www.ilovefoodnetwork.com/category/cablevision/ – the shot back about this situation.

    • dantsea says:

      Yeah, I’d sympathize a little more if they actually sourced some of those fantastic statements, especially the “but cable consumers said they’d pay $1.03 to watch us!” thing. Fine. If you’re so valuable, then go to a pay per view model and get your due.

  17. 2 replies says:

    I’d cancel my cable citing this message alone.
    There is nothing the consumer can do to effect the Scripps/Cablevision negotiations so Cablevision’s voicing of this to consumers just shows their utter unwillingness to acknowledge their part in the removal of the programing.
    I can also guarantee you that Cablevision used Food Network and HGTV as advertised content when selling subscriptions to their service, so IMO their inability to work out a deal to continue providing the programing they promised is a TOTAL breach of contract with each and every cable subscriber.

    Cablevision subscribers have a contract with CABLEVISION, not Scripps, so it’s Cablevision’s (not Scripps’) responsibility to ensure their paying customers have the content they agreed in contract to provide.

    • NinjaMarion says:

      Except no, to almost everything you said. Cable generally isn’t like cell service. You aren’t locked into some contract guaranteeing you ____ channels for ____ price. Cable operators modify lineups and pricing all the time, and you either can agree to the changes and stay with them or leave.

      Also, if you’d read their statement properly, you’d see Cablevision had almost no choice in the matter, short of throwing money at Scripps blindly and agreeing to everything they asked immediately, which is not how business negotiations usually work. They wanted to keep providing the channel while negotiations continued for them to try and come to a long-term deal, but Scripps is the one that’s pulled their programming, not Cablevision.

      Lastly, their “voicing of this” that you see as pointless because customers can’t fix the situation has little to do with that… it’s to notify the customers WHY those channels are gone. Many customers would probably be confused and / or pissed to just see the channel gone when they go to watch it, with many of them even calling the cable company to find out what’s going on or thinking that something’s wrong with their cable.

      • baquwards says:

        I don’t think that this was just a “sudden” thing. Seems like negotiations have been going on since May, so I don’t see it as Cablevision being blindsided.

      • jesusofcool says:

        You’re half right and half wrong. Technically Cablevision is free to change their service at any time. However, the town that I live in has a contract with Cablevision that restricts residents to only receiving cable through Cablevision. The options are Cablevision, Dish or nothing. Unfortunately, it’s almost impossible for towns to renegotiate these contracts or for residents to figure out who has the power to renegotiate, even if almost every resident is brutally unhappy (as is in the case here).

  18. bigd738778 says:

    Cablevision was our local provider 20 plus years ago. I really feel sorry for the people who are losing out on this situation. The types of people that these shows are designed for are not the rabid teens that would die without their American Idol. It’s a shame that corporations use their own customers as leverage. The FCC should quit worrying about someone showing a little boob and worry more about the types of stuff these compainies are doing to their customers.

  19. james says:

    Wow, the elimination of 24 x 7 Rachel Ray AND Emeril Lagasse? How much extra does that cost?
    Where do I sign up?

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      There are still some decent cooks and chefs on the network. Yes we have Sandra Lee, Paula Deen, and RR. But, Alton Brown is fantastic, as is Iron Chef. Ina Garten has a nice show, although I haven’t liked many of her recipes. She makes cooking appraochable without being annoying, and she uses good ingredients in her food.

  20. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    If my provider lost those two channels, I’d been gone the next day. it hink they may find that they are losing subscribers, as those are two of the more popular channels.

  21. LostTurntable says:

    Wow. Reason 8,769,432 why ala carte channel selection is the only way the consumer gets what they want.

  22. Guppy06 says:

    Ah, carriers and networks. They may have their differences, their little squabbles (and what married couple doesn’t?), but at the end of the day, they still share the values that are really important: making damn well sure subscribers don’t get ala carte service!

    This’ll all settle down once consumer outcry for per-channel pricing gets loud enough. Then they’ll kiss and make up, and the subscribers will fall back into their complacency again, forgetting all about getting worked up about something or other.

  23. Suulia says:

    With channel bundling, programmers charge less per channel to distributors due to higher advertising revenue per channel. If that model is disbanded, and a la carte programming takes over, the programmers will have much less advertising revenue, channels will start to fold, consumers will have fewer programs and channels to watch, and every cable and satellite bill will go up.

    A la carte programming is great in theory, like communism is great in theory, but both are more expensive for everyone in practice.

    The way to go is to buy programming per show (or per season) rather than per channel.

    • Guppy06 says:

      You’re assuming that the channels that would fold are channels that people actually want to watch to begin with. Choice is meaningless without at least one appealing option.

      • Seanumich says:

        Your theory is a channel should only be around if YOu want it. You do not have a RIGHT to cable television. The business model isbuilt based on the masses getting a lot of stations. I suppose in your world you would like to have al a carte pricing for roads as well. I do not use that road, so i will not pay for it. The ability to have channels that fill a niche is what makes cable and satelitte appealing. How will you feel when the channels you like fold and we go back to safe for the masses crap.

        • NatalieErin says:

          If you think there is anything on television that isn’t “safe for the masses crap” you watch too much TV.

    • Dondegroovily says:

      And when some programming provide decides to jack up prices, the alacarte customers can cancel that particular channel. Providers will think twice about prices when they’re charging customers instead of cable/satellite companies.

  24. coren says:

    This announcement doesn’t even make sense – what they’re saying is that Scripps pulled it’s programming because it is in financial trouble – so they’d rather have 0 dollars than whatever Cablevision would offer them? Yeah, sure, that’s gotta be what’s happening.

  25. Bohemian says:

    For those stuck with Cablevision going through withdrawls check out Create TV. It is one of the PBS offshoots. Some cable networks rebroadcast it or you can pick it up with a digital antenna.

    They have some very good programs and the food programs are more like the old Food TV programs. The only two I truly dispise is the Spain on the Road Again. I want Mario Batali leave Gwyneth Paltrow on the side of the road somewhere. The other is Christina Cooks, hippie cooking with an obnoxious folk music guitar guy. Still over all better than hours of Sandra Lee and Rachel Ray.

    The Cablevision fight is just more reason that cable providers need to act more like ala carte dish programmers. Yes they do still exist but you have to have a big dish and a digital box to use them.

  26. CTAUGUST says:

    If I were Scripts, I would slap Cablevision with a cease and desist for using the “Scripts” “HGTV” and “Food Network” logos without authorization. Scripts owns those trademarks and Cablevision is displaying them in a disparaging manner.

    • dantsea says:

      It’s Scripps, and if I were Cablevision, I’d delight in shredding you to pieces in court and collecting damages for your complete lack of understanding anything relating to copyright and criticism.

  27. kaleberg says:

    Why is this passive-aggressive? It just sounds like run of the mill negotiating to me. One side wants more money. The other side doesn’t want to pay it. They are each making their appeals to the customers to scare the other side. Is it worth losing CV distribution to make a point? Maybe it is, but maybe not. Is it worth the risk of having customers move to satellite to keep up the profit margins? Maybe it is, but maybe not. Both companies are in uncharted territory. Was it completely obvious that Napster and the iTunes music store would kill the album? Is it completely obvious that internet television access will kill bundled cable? This is an exploration of the unknown, and the judges are the customers. Will they bitch or switch? Will they even notice? That’s actually how business is done. Sure, it looks unseemly if you aren’t used to negotiating, but this is how the future is made.

  28. BartGordon says:

    As a Cablevision Customer, I am appalled that my channel lineup was changed without notification. There has to be some kind of law to protect consumers against providers like CV just ‘dropping’ channels without notifying us, the consumer. There is no doubt in my mind that FOOD and HGTV are watched by many subscribers, and the simple fact that CV just dropped the channels without notice is, if not illegal, anti-consumer. I guess the Dolans forgot that most people already paid their January bills assuming they would have the same line-up that they did in December.

    http://www.optimum.net/Terms/iO

    I for one will be asking for a credit, and switching to Verizon Fios just as soon as I can get an appointment.

    • dantsea says:

      Thank you. This is perhaps the most hilarious overreaction to being cut off from Bobby Flay that I’ve seen so far.

    • Seanumich says:

      Cablevision did not “drop” them. Scripps said you are no longer entitled to broadcast our programming. There is a huge difference.

  29. Nighthawke says:

    All I can say is god blessed satellite, both Dish and DTV.

  30. soj4life says:

    Headline on Cablevision’s website setup for scripps info: Scripps Can’t Be On The Level with some woman holding up a level.

    Scripps got 9 cents a month from cablevision per viewer. They were asking for a few more cents.

  31. jesusofcool says:

    Just wanted to post in full about my complete unhappiness with Cablevision as a company, because it seems like some posters are actually defending them.
    Less than 2 years ago, our bill was approximately $55 per month for over 60 channels on every television. After the digital switch, we now receive approximately 30 channels on each television and approximately 50-60 channels on the one tv for which we rent a digital box from CV for $9 per month. CV has also raised the cost for cable, bringing our grand total for cable and 1 digital box up to $85 per month….for very few channels. The loss of these two channels which we frequently watch and which were viewable without the digital box is the last straw.
    Unfortunately, there is no option to go to a different cable provider. We live in the Northeast and our town, along with most the surrounding towns, has a contract with Cablevision. Many people have written into lawmakers and the local paper but the only response we’ve received is that it’s nearly impossible to renegotiate the contract or even determine who has the power to do so (we’ve had this contract since the 1980s). So our options at this point are to either keep paying for crappy cable from a company that takes advantage of its monopoly and bleeds citizens dry, quit tv entirely, or take our changes with Dish Network or Direct TV. We’ve already called Cablevision and said “Look, at this point we’re paying twice as much and getting half as much television, we’re about to go somewhere else” but both times we called the Cablevision rep refused to offer us a break on our bill and basically told us to high-tail it if we were unhappy. At this point, we’re giving it another few weeks and then doing just that over to a dish, horror stories about them be damned!

  32. mbd says:

    Personally, I’m supporting Cablevision on this one. For those of you who are pissing and moaning about it, change provider. It is the ONLY way to register legitimate unhappiness.

  33. aparsons says:

    Back when the screen actors guild went on strike, and back when the cable companies just started showing re-runs, I called up and canceled my cable all-together. I haven’t looked back since, and I have an extra $160 in my pocket at the end of the month. I get my news from podcasts and the nytimes.com, and the majority of my shows I watch online commercial-free. If there is a game on that I want to watch, I’ll either go to the gym (TVs on the treadmills) or go to a bar.

    I don’t think I’ll ever get cable again. Ever.

    • Bix says:

      SAG strike that led to glut of reruns on cable? When? What? Huh?

      There was the WGA strike but, due to the production schedules, IIRC it didn’t lead to a glut of cable reruns.

  34. stang99 says:

    That would really tick off my GF, on early weekend mornings she watches nothing but cooking shows.

  35. elysse says:

    We had something similar with Insight, took away G4 and a smattering of other interesting channels, raised the cable fees and then told us how GREAT it was that we were getting “more”.

    This was shortly before I found out that the reason I even wanted cable (multiple PBS channels) was a lie- on tier 2 package we only got 2 of the 4 PBSes…. meanwhile OTA there were all 4, one extra substation, and all local channels.. all in HD (Insight wanted to charge us yet more for an HD box. F that, I say.

  36. geargutz says:

    As someone familiar with this business, I can say that this came as a sudden surprise to the call center staff. As rumor has it, call volume spiked when users saw an on-screen notice about the channel going away soon. The very next day it was gone, just like that. I will not be surprised if the channels pulled by Scripps come back, I will however be surprised if they come back in the same tier of programming…

  37. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    I think its funny my cable provider – brighthouse – and fox – are arguing about whether to continue to work with each other. Brighthouse is airing their own “please ask Fox to settle with us” messages and “we did no wrong” – Fox is doing the same thing right back at them.