Cablevision & Fox Put Differences Aside, Work Together To Screw Customers

Just in time for Game 3 of a World Series that very few people in its viewing audience care seriously about, Cablevision and Fox have ended their two-week standoff. Which means Cablevision customers will have Fox stations back on the air — and they’ll be paying more for them!

A statement from the Cablevisionaries:

In the absence of any meaningful action from the FCC, Cablevision has agreed to pay Fox an unfair price for multiple channels of its programming including many in which our customers have little or no interest. Cablevision conceded because it does not think its customers should any longer be denied the Fox programs they wish to see…

In the end, our customers will pay more than they should for Fox programming, but less than they would have if we had accepted the unprecedented rates News Corp. was demanding when they pulled their channels off Cablevision.

There you have it, folks. As always, the situation got ironed out. And as always, the customer got screwed. Can’t wait to see how things improve when/if the Comcast/NBC merger happens.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. frank64 says:

    Isn’t that an unprecedented honest statement? It also states the issue pretty well for the customers to understand. Normally the statement is they reached an “amicable agreement providing good value to our customers”

    I guess it makes it easier for Cablevision to raise the price and blame Fox too. Probably through in a buck or two for themselves.

  2. aeon65 says:

    It would be really nice if Cablevision would offer a la carte pricing so the viewers can decide what’s worth paying for and what’s not. Personally I don’t watch FOX but as a Cablevision customer I still pay for it.

    • frank64 says:

      I wish they could tell any network wanting to raise prices above a certain threshold that they will offer THOSE channels as a premium option to their customers. This would stop the networks from charging too much for the channels. I think this was tried for ESPN and others in the past, but the networks will not go for it. They would rather get $1 for every cable customer than $5 for only those that want the station. Of course this sucks when a customer is paying for something they don’t watch. This is going to come to a head in the future, it can’t continue without people dropping cable.

      (My numbers could be out of wack, just an example)

      • phonic says:

        ESPN is a great example, but your numbers are a bit out of whack. I remember seeing the ‘network’ price for most channels on a website somewhere, but the ESPN channels accounted for like $10 of your monthly cable bill. Since no one in our house watches them (not sports fans), it’s completely money down the drain.

        The only stations we really watch are the History ones, Discovery ones, USA, FX, TBS, TNT, CNN, BBC America, Spike and occasionally the locals. Maybe a couple others. I would much rather pay $1-5 per channel of what we watch then $0.10-$5 for all of the channels we don’t. Even if the per-channel rate was higher, our monthly bill would be less. It especially sucks when I need to purchase an entire extra tier of channels (extreme super plus) just to get one or two channels (like BBC America).

        Bastards.

        • webweazel says:

          Years back, they said they could not do a la carte pricing because many channels would not be on the air anymore because of lack of interest. Um, YEAH. It’s called survival of the (fittest) more interesting. Then maybe there would be less channels on TV that people would potentially have to go through and delete from their list, and they would actually be better channels overall? Why exactly are we paying good money for garbage channels nobody is watching?

          Cablemax channel president: “My son did a great documentary school project here of ‘Foot Funguses of Third-World Countries’. I want you to put it on the air in prime time.” *hands over VCR tape*
          Cablemax channel program director: “Are you sure you want to put this on? I don’t think anybody would be interested in this, especially in the prime time.”
          President: “We get paid either way, and will never be dropped, so we can put on whatever we like. I’m proud of my son for doing this, and I want the world to see it. By the way, here’s a tape I scored of the ‘Singing Goats of Calcedonia’.” *hands over VCR tape* “The secretary upstairs loved this when she was on her meds. Put it in the lineup somewhere, would you?”

          • s73v3r says:

            You realize that in the survival for “most interesting programming,” things like Dancing with the Stars and Jersey Shore would hands down beat out quality stuff like Nova, Cosmos, or Firefly.

            • kujospam says:

              Then it would be one more reason not to pay for cable :) Just saved you some money. I don’t pay for cable content, so I guess I get screwed.

    • Benjamin says:

      The problem is that the companies that own the channels won’t allow them to be purchased a la carte, so Cablevision is in no position to offer that.

      • YouDidWhatNow? says:

        That’s why we need regulation that enforces cafeteria plans.

      • madmallard says:

        no, but they can only ‘offer’ alacarte to their customers. That way, they’d have hard data based around actual consumer demand that would be hard to refute both in arbitration, and in the court of public opinion.

    • vastrightwing says:

      This is exactly the problem with the business model of the content providers: no choice for the consumer. Well, actually, there are 2 choices: pay or not pay. I won’t pay. I expect CableVision will loose a bunch of paying subscribers over this. Personally, I think they would have been better to not settle and deal with the lawsuit from the upset subscribers who thought they should have FOX on.

      Allowing consumer choice or allowing a la carte is not compatible with FOX or any other content provider’s business model. It relies on the carrier (CableVision) to act as middleman so they can force the consumers to pay. Problem is FOX and all the others are greedy and eventfully consumers will start accelerating their cable disconnects. Maybe this is what the providers want after all. Who knows, but this situation ended badly for all consumers.

    • Megladon says:

      You see whats happening to blockbuster? Its dieing a slow death, soon stations like fox and nbc will have no choice but to give us what we want via the web. With things like google tv and hulu and apple tv i’d guess that cable tv will be a thing of the past in a short amount of time (3-5 years) and the tv will be hooked to a computer getting content directly from who you want to via their website, nbc, or cbs, or whatever.

    • s73v3r says:

      It was my understanding that most of the deals for channels wouldn’t allow that. For example, Cablevision wants to offer ESPN to their customers. Part of the deal with ESPN says that they also have to pick up ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, and ESPN8: The Ocho. Some of these deals also mandate which tier of service some of these channels have to be on, as well.

  3. mstrmike says:

    “In the absence of any meaningful action by the FCC.” Government is supposed to intervene and make the other guy do what we want them to do.
    And to make up for the inconvenience to our customers, here’s your rate hike, which the FCC had better keep their meaningful actions away from!

  4. crugg says:

    I love how people are tricked into paying for TV that is usually free.

    • ryder28910 says:

      NewsCorp operates somewhere in the area of 37 channels, only one of which is “free.”

      • XxSuntoucherxX says:

        …and as such were not part of the blackout. However depending on your area there were 2 channels up for debate.

    • vastrightwing says:

      People aren’t tricked as much as they’re paying excessive amounts of money for entertainment. Kind of like a drug. Once they get it, they don’t want to quit. Too many people are willing to pay absurd amounts for entertainment. I’ve kicked the habit, and it wasn’t hard to do at all. But for many, they’d rather pay the cable operator than have to deal with an antenna or find some other way to be entertained.

  5. LorgSkyegon says:

    I’ll reserve judgment for after FOX releases their statement. Go halfway in between and therein the truth lies

    • dreamfish says:

      Personally, I work on the basis of believing the opposite of what Fox says – especially Fox News.

    • DanRydell says:

      You don’t need to read the companies’ statements to understand what happened. Fox demanded a certain price for their channels. Cablevision said they wanted to pay a lower price. Fox stuck with their original price, and took their channels off Cablevision until Cablevision was willing to pay Fox’s price. Eventually Cablevision relented and paid the price Fox had originally asked for (same price other cable providers are paying for the same channels).

  6. Keep talking...I'm listening says:

    What I don’t understand is why a cable company should have to pay for any channel that is broadcast free OTA.

    • Rachacha says:

      Because cable companies are profiting by providing the channels to their customers. The content that Fox and others are distributing OTA for free belongs to those content creators. Cablevision is rebroadcasting that transmission to its customers (and collecting a fee from their customers) and Fox wants a cut of the action. Network TV is seeing decreased advertising revenue (DVRs FTW) and they are trying to cover the costs however they can.

  7. frank64 says:

    Yeah, I get Fox for free because I use OTA. The stated rationale is that the cable companies make money off of the networks transmissions so the networks should get a piece of it.

    I think a cable customer is paying cable to be an antenna service and the content is paid for by the customer watching commercials. In this line of thought the networks should pay cable for performing the antenna service for them.

  8. mrsam says:

    Here’s something that I still don’t understand. It seemed to me, from the first moments of this brouhaha, that there was a blatantly obvious way that Cablevision could’ve smacked down Fox and make them walk with egg all over their face.

    What Cablevision should’ve simply done is come back with this: ok, Fox, name your price. Set whatever you want to charge for your stations. We will accept any price you want to charge. Crazy? Nope. It makes perfect sense. There’s just one catch:

    Only those customers who want Fox channels will be required to pay for them, and receive them. Cablevision should’ve simply told Fox: name your price, whatever price you want to charge, we’ll just add 10% for our overhead, expenses, and a modest profit. That’s it.

    If our customers want your channels, then they’ll pay your price to receive them. If our customers feel that your price is too expensive, they’ll just not pay for your channels, and not get them. And you can change your price anytime you wish, we’re just taking our margin off the top, and that’s it. You get to figure out how much you can try to make money off your channel.

    This shifts this whole mess on Fox’s hands. They can’t refuse to accept this offer without really bad PR. They would be backed into a corner, and if they refuse that’s a de-facto admission that they want people who don’t care for their stations to subsidize the ones that do.

    I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why Cablevision, doesn’t take this very obvious way to really shift the entire blame over on Fox, and why we have to go through this mess, EVERY FRACKING YEAR, when there’s such a simple, permanent solution.

    Now, I am not a Cablevision subscriber. I fired them a couple of years ago, and put up a Dish. Now, I’m in the same boat with MSG. MSG is still off Dish, and from the sounds of it, Dish is sticking to their guns. I miss not watching Rangers and Devils hockey, but I’ll deal with it. I really hope that this is a wake-up call to both cable and satellite providers: BUNDLING DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!!

    Not a single cable or satellite provider seems to have any problems selling premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc…) only to those subscriber who agree to pay for them. Not a single provider gives the premium channels to everyone, and charges everyone for them.

    Both cable and satellite providers need to wake up, and start unbundling channels, and giving their customers the ability to pay only for those channels they want to watch.

    The classical argument against this is that it would make less popular channels economically unfeasible. Bullcrap. Right now, if I wanted to I could order foreign language channels from Dish. If I still had cable, I could’ve done the same thing with Cablevision. I’d be shocked if more than 1% of their customer base are paying for the foreign-language channels. But they exist, they’ve existed for a long long time, and somehow they manage to survive despite being as unpopular as they possibly could be.

    So there.

    • frank64 says:

      I posted above the exact point. I think the problem is Fox would never agree to it. They know they get more this way. Cablevision has to deal with the upset customers, most of which don’t understand that costs are going to get passed on and up the ante for other stations to do the same thing. I bet most people blame cable for dropped stations.

      • xscarfaceloux says:

        Cablevision, imo, would never go for this because it would seem to set a precedent for ala carte pricing which they, and just about every other cable provider are totally against.

  9. ChoralScholar says:

    This is why all channels should be a-la-carte.

    You give your customers a price list – they pay for what they want… and if a network wants to raise prices, they have to weigh it against immediate subscriber loss.

    Also, the laws of supply and demand would win out – Home Shopping Network and QVC would probably be 5-10 cents a month. HBO – 10 dollars.

    “Fox Sports went up to 3.99 a month? Screw that noise!”

    That would stop this crap of networks using customers as leverage to extort the cable companies.

    • Mxx says:

      as much as i agree with you that a-la-carte must be a requirement, there’s something to consider.
      we won’t be paying less for TV. right now ‘packages’ subsidize the cost of other channels. without that subsidy, price of each channel will increase 5-10 times of what cable companies are paying now. and less popular but important channels will not have enough financing to exist. we’ll end up with less diverse channels that take less risk or cater to niche audience.

      • frank64 says:

        It could make it harder to raise prices though. Right now there is really no supply and demand curve. There needs to be pricing pressure.

      • summeroflove says:

        Totally agreed. Also, one thing I thought of is that in the end, I doubt that paying à la carte would end up being any cheaper because at least over time, I’m sure the prices of each channel would be raised exponentially. Kinda like when you go to those very high end bistros and you order chicken and that’s what you get… chicken. No sides. So then you end up having to order every side as an à la carte item, making it maybe double the price you might have paid for a normal entrée at a medium high end bistro.

        Also, how am I supposed to know in advance if I want to pay for a channel if it’s one of those more obscure ones? A lot of those would end up going by the wayside and I’m sure we’d all end up getting less choices because of it. I bet it would also drive people to just netflix or on demand everything even faster.

      • Sian says:

        There was a list published not long ago, showing what the providers were paying per channel.

        Even at 10x that, TEN TIMES the provider package rate per channel, I would still save money ordering alacarte. Mostly because I don’t need any of the sport or news channels.

      • Big Dave says:

        I respectfully disagree. If consumers operate in their own long-term best interest, the costs will NOT go up, and could even come down. If a company charges an unacceptable price for their channel, simply do not buy it – no matter how much you want to watch first runs of The Simpsons.

        In short order, loss of customers will force them to drop their price until they find a point at which the customers return. After all, it’s not like they have no other revenue stream. Even on cable, they still run ads and get revenue from that service. It would be much smarter to raise ad prices and lower subscription prices in the long haul.

        Networks need to go back to the old model … give programming away to the viewer … even cable viewers … and pay for it with ads. I have several relatives who do not watch TV at all because they cannot get OTA and are unwilling to pay an exorbitant cable bill. Their only viewing is Netflix.

        If the networks gave the shows to cable, then the cable and satellite companies could charge a very small fee for their service. They still make money because product costs them nothing. the networks make money because they would have more eyeballs to drive ad revenue, and the consumer wins because he is paying a pittance for decent reception and multiple choices.

    • meltingcube says:

      If they did this type of arrangement, I guarantee it would be offered in a package format, where you would pay $X per month for this set of channels, and there will be one good channel in a sea of 9 other bad ones.

  10. Gulliver says:

    All this ala carte pricing that people are screaming about is being done in an industry and yet they scream about it when they do. Ever hear of the airlines? What do you think baggage fees, pillow fees, blanket fees, drink fees are? They are ala carte pricing. The problem is with tv, the price for those that want certain things will be cost prohibitive. You will end up with a dozen channels

    • mrsam says:

      False comparison. You would know exactly how much upfront you’d get charged for such and such channel.

      On the other hand, you have no friggin’ clue how much your flight will actually cost you, until after you buy the ticket, show up at the airport, and open your wallet.

      The proper comparison would be with a price list being presented to you, listing all the fees — baggage check, onboard food, pay toilet, etc… before you buy the ticket, giving you the opportunity to comparison shop.

      • Gulliver says:

        Actually every airline posts their fees for you on their site. It is EXACTLY the same. The only reason it is different is because you want it both ways. Intellectual dishonesty can not save your flawed argument. If you can not figure out an airlines fees, you are obviously not intelligent enough to fly.

        • RvLeshrac says:

          No, actually, many of them spring the charges on you, or make it unclear as to exactly which charges will apply at the gate.

          *MOST* of them fail to mention any of the in-flight charges until you’re… well… in-flight.

        • mrsam says:

          Riiiight. Because when you get a price quote on Expedia, you always, always, go to the airline’s web site in another window, and attempt to figure out where they hid their add-on price list.

    • meltingcube says:

      This is a bad comparison. Many of the options which are now al-a-carte for airlines, were originally included in the price of the tickets. However ticket pricing has gone up, and now you pay extra for these once free items. This would be like the cable company charging you more per month than you are already paying, then charging you a separate fee per channel. It’s just not the same…

    • OnePumpChump says:

      A meal being included in the price of my 8 hour flight improves the experience of my 8 hour flight.

      Getting QVC and Lifetime does not improve my Science channel viewing experience.

    • aja175 says:

      I only watch 5 or 6 channels, why would we even need a dozen?

    • Big Mama Pain says:

      The issue people have with the a la carte pricing for airfare is that the fees are difficult to assess and compare with other ticket prices because each airline has such drastically different fee schedules, not the fees themselves.

  11. lucky13 says:

    Any broadcast that can be received free OTA should be part of the base package for the local cable/satelite provider. Why should FOX be any more expensive than NBC or CBS? Just because they got the contract for the World Series from MLB? If the broadcast networks can’t charge the same base rate for what they send out over the air for free, they should have to negotiate as a premium channel just like HBO, etc. Ala carte pricing would give the consumer more control over what they pay for (and get) from their provider, but would probably end up being more expensive to the consumer.

    • Verucalise (Est.February2008) says:

      I’m not going to say Directv is cheap– but they do that with our local stations. They always include the local stations in the package, and if you aren’t in the area to receive it, they offer you a la carte NBC/CBS/FOX/ABC for like $1.25 a month per station, $2.50 for both east/west if you qualify for the waiver. We did this years ago, got NBC and FOX. It was worth it.

      And, little known to the public, if they advertise a package that INCLUDES local stations and you can’t get them, you ask them to credit your bill for something you should be receiving but is not offered and you get a $5 off a month credit.

  12. minjche says:

    Here’s to hoping that Google TV (or a similar a la carte TV viewing experience) takes off and the current cable business model dies.

    Every time I get my cable bill I have to think “Gah, included in this price is the freaking Oxygen network.”

  13. Not Given says:

    I don’t want a-la-carte cable channels, I want a-la-carte cable shows. Even if it costs me the same as I’m paying now. I do think over the air channels shouldn’t cost anything to the cable company and they should be required to carry all of them. Maybe the cable networks should be paid by how many watch how much.

    • vastrightwing says:

      Some day. Some day.

    • PunditGuy says:

      Cancel your cable and rent the shows you want on iTunes or Amazon or some other PPV service. $3 per episode in HD is $12 per month per series you want to follow. If your cable bill is $60 or so a month and there are 5 series that you have to follow immediately, you break even. If you can wait until the season is over, you can save huge bucks by going the Netflix route or purchasing past seasons at a significant discount.

      If they don’t want to give us a la carte, we’ll make our own a la carte at home.

      • frank64 says:

        You could add Hulu and get most now.

        Netflix has a lot of series you may have missed as streaming or rental. I have been getting many great series on DVD.

  14. bravo369 says:

    I think MLB and NFL should include in their next contract with the channel that bids for the rights that the channel cannot remove the sports events from the channel during any contract disputes. All other shows are fair game. This will help resolve these issues so that customers are not deprived of the world series and football games. If Fox or NBC or ABC don’t want it then i’m sure WB will go for it…or YES…or hell…i’ll watch it on the spanish channel as long as I keep the games.

    • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

      That wouldn’t work either — the NFL negotiates with networks like CBS, Fox and NBC. Most CBS, Fox and NBC affiliates are not owned by the network–the NFL cannot possibly control the whims of local affiliates and their relationship with the cableco.

  15. Torchwood says:

    I am counting down the days until my two year commitment to DirecTV is over and done with. I am sick and tired of the games that the content providers play with the channels. The regional $ports networks and E$PN cost more on a per-subscriber basis than any other channel. Even the regular channels have annoyed me to no end with the bugs on which channel I’m watching, reminding me of the program that I am watching (like I could confuse Storm Chasers on Discovery with Doctor Who on BBC America), and that I should stay tuned for another show IN BIG BOLD TEXT.

    Of particular ire is the games that the network play with brand new shows. One need only look back at the annals of now-beloved classics which had weak starts, but the networks gave the shows a chance. Now, if you aren’t a hit right away, the show gets nuked. (Yes, Fox, I am STILL annoyed at how you mishandled Firefly). I will no longer watch a show in it’s first season, for I do not want to develop an attachment to something that gets easily cancelled.

    The networks somehow don’t realize that this is no longer the television landscape of yesteryear where we watched shows on the big three television networks, the public TV station, and the independent. VCRs and DVRs allow us to record and watch shows at the time we want. The studios found out how profitable it was to offer full-season sets of programs on DVD and BluRay. We can also watch shows on the net through the networks own websites (legally).

    Let television try and win me back. I will no longer play the television networks games. Let the shows work for me.

    • Unclaoshi says:

      I am the same way I consider Firefly to be the worst cancellation followed by Arrested Development, even though it did make it to season 3 *sigh* My friends and I have a joke about Fox programing and how we think if the show is good and they get too high of ratings it has to be cancelled.

  16. noncomjd says:

    If these cable companies were smart they would insure that all of a particular networks contracts, ie NBC, expire with all the cable companies at the same time.

    If a network were blacked out nationwide (and with little or no income, except OTA) they would be begging to get back on these systems.

  17. PsiCop says:

    OK, so two businesses which had been in the throes of a protracted struggle against each other, during which they vehemently disagreed on every possible point, managed (finally!) to agree, on ONE matter.

    And that single point of agreement was, “Let’s plunder the consumer!” They allied with each other, against their own customers. Way to go guys.

    Now it’s time for consumers to react in the only way they can … with their wallets. Cancel Cablevision service, if they can, and refuse to watch Fox programming.

    I know, I know … good luck with that. No way are people going to get rid of their cable, and no way the right-wingers are going to fail to show up in the Fox News Cathedral and plunk themselves down in front of the Reverend Glenn Beck or Fathers Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. There is literally no price too high for them to pay for their daily dose of Howard Beale imitations.

    • DanRydell says:

      I think you’re taking Chris’s writing too literally. I don’t think he actually believes what he wrote, it’s just part of the standard Consumerist article formula – it has to contain an unfunny joke that portrays any and all companies that are the subject of the article in a negative light.

      Cablevision and Fox didn’t “work together to screw customers.” Cablevision accepted that their holdout wasn’t going to work and that the FCC wasn’t going to take away Fox’s bargaining chip, so they reluctantly accepted Fox’s terms. Cablevision gains nothing from this.

      • PsiCop says:

        Re: “Cablevision and Fox didn’t ‘work together to screw customers.'”

        Well, let’s see. Squabble over, cable rates go up. Who pays? Neither side in the squabble. Only consumers. Yep, I can see how the resolution here is “consumers screwed.”

        … now back to the Howard Beale imitations

  18. suburbancowboy says:

    I don’t understand why Cablevision should have to pay FOX any money for a channel that is broadcast for free over the airwaves. The way I see it, it’s a mutually beneficial relationship. With Fox in its lineup, Cablevision makes their customers happy. Fox benefits because increased viewership allows for increased advertising revenue, which is how they are supposed to make their money anyway.

    If we pay for a channel there should be no commercials, period. That was supposed to be the main selling point of cable TV years ago. More adult oriented content for those who wanted it, and no commercials.

    • Abradax says:

      For the same reason you can’t go into business selling tacos, and go into taco bell and take 3 or 4 boxes of their free hot sauce to sell with your tacos.

      Taco bell gives the stuff away, but if you use their products to enhance your business, they expect to be paid for it.

      • evnmorlo says:

        Your analogy doesn’t work because each hot sauce costs Taco Bell money. A closer scenario is if someone operated a pay toilet across from Taco Bell, and Taco Bell threatens to put up an electric fence to block its customers so that they shit themselves unless the toilet operator pays $100 million.

        • suburbancowboy says:

          The analogy also doesn’t work because of the exact reason I stated in my post. Abradax, Please re-read what I wrote, and maybe you will understand why your analogy doesn’t work.

    • Abradax says:

      Advertising revenue is falling rapidly due to DVRs. People don’t watch commercials anymore. The networks have to look to alternative financing to stay afloat.

      Charging cable companies for the rights to broadcast their programming is that alternative.
      Cablevision makes its customers happy by carrying Fox. What does fox get out of it when a large number of Cablevision customers have DVRs and can skip the advertising? Advertisers know this.

    • minjche says:

      Fox gets paid for a few reasons.

      One is that it’s the currently accepted business model and has momentum to stay the way it is. That’s not a reason that makes much sense to you and I, but it happens regardless.

      Another is that Cablevision is getting a monetary gain off of something Fox is giving away. I know it seems like “well Fox is giving it away, what’s the big deal with Cablevision adding it to their lineup?” As I understand it, Cablevision is paying for the right to have a direct line (either with a cable or more likely with a satelite) to Fox, so there’s some overhead involved there.

      One final reason I’ll present is greed. Content providers and cable providers want to make a lot of money.

      To understand why you pay for a channel and still watch commercials, you have to take a bit of a step back and look at it with a broader perspective.

      Look at HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, or any other “premium” cable channel. Notice how these channels cost a lot more than normal channels, and notice how they have no commercials.

      A cable provider and content provider have two extremes they can go to. Lots of ads and free content, or no ads and expensive content. If all TV channels had no ads, then by the currently accepted business model, the price per channel would be much higher and your cable service would be egregiously expensive. With cable service that expensive, many people would not buy cable service.

      So what’s the solution? Strike a balance. For normal cable TV channels, there’s a balance between the price-per-channel and the number of ads shown. For those who want to pay a little extra, they can get premium channels with no ads.

      TL;DR: In short, there are ads on regular cable TV channels because if there weren’t, your cable service would have to make up the extra fees to the content providers with higher prices of service.

  19. nerble says:

    Why pray tell do you think that there was a huge hoopla about this? Comcast was trying to keep from raising thier prices. Fox won and so they had to. Why is this so difficult to understand.

  20. maines19 says:

    I’m a Cablevision customer, and I don’t seem to have Fox back yet. Did anyone tell them that a magic press release isn’t all they have to do?

  21. vastrightwing says:

    Perfect headline! Love it!

  22. TimeLord says:

    I’ll be canceling my cable this week.

  23. Joseph S Ragman says:

    How about enforcing the must-carry rule ?

    Local broadcasters should not be allowed to make a profit off of cable customers something that is provided free to people with antennas

  24. Blious says:

    Why in the HELL is Cablevision saying that customers will end up paying MORE?

    I understand that we will pay more but WHO says that? Why would anyone now want to sign up for Cablevision now?

    • frank64 says:

      I think Cablevision is feeling the heat and they want the customers to understand what is happening. They are in the middle and all the customers know is their cable bill is going up. Plus it IS going to go up, and they want to minimize the backlash. It will help a little, but not by much.

  25. oldwiz65 says:

    So..Cablevision will pay Fox smething like $5.00 pe rmonth per subscriber for access, then turn around and charge customers an extra $10.00 per month. This is an excellent way to raise prices while blaming Fox.

    when Comcast merges with NBC, you can bet that non-Comcast providers will see large increases in cable fees if they want to watch NBC. The biggest benefit to Comcast from the merger will be they will get NBC for less than the other providers. Other providers will get thoroughly screwed. And it’s a when, not if since NBC and Comcast are slipping large amounts of money to Congress and the FCC to approve the merger. The loser is non-Comcast cable subscribers, of course.

    • vastrightwing says:

      This is also known as 3rd party billing. It works real well for insurance carriers and providers. Not so well for the consumer.

  26. jp7570-1 says:

    Is ANYONE surprised by this outcome??

  27. areaman says:

    In the absence of any meaningful action from the FCC…

    Sounds like kid who’s upset because her big brother or dad will not “fight” for her.

    Cablevision has agreed to pay Fox an unfair price for multiple channels of its programming including many in which our customers have little or no interest.

    But that’s the same shit Cablevision pulls on their customers. unfair price for multiple channels of its programming including many in which our customers have little or no interest.