Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

'Colbert,' 'SpongeBob' may go dark on Time Warner

Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Spokane_Girl

31 Dec 2008, 3:22 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081231/ap_ ... rner_cable


Quote:
LOS ANGELES – "SpongeBob SquarePants" might get squeezed off Time Warner Cable.

Media giant Viacom Inc. said its Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central and 16 other channels will go dark for 13 million subscribers at 12:01 a.m. Thursday if a new carriage fee deal with Time Warner Cable Inc. is not agreed upon by then.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

31 Dec 2008, 3:25 pm

And this is important because ... ?



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

31 Dec 2008, 3:48 pm

Both companies are greedy and need to be shot. :wink:

I have Time Warner and they have no problem raising my cable and internet rates frequently, so I don't know why they are so worried about Viacom raising their rates.



Spokane_Girl

31 Dec 2008, 4:25 pm

Fnord wrote:
And this is important because ... ?



Lot of people post pointless articles. Am I not allowed to do it too?



Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,647

31 Dec 2008, 4:35 pm

Seems like time for Spongebob to have run his course anyway (or been franchised into his own amusement park chain)

This may be slightly off-topic (or not), but after playing with a digital converter box for a few days, it occurred to me to wonder (and perhaps someone somewhere has addressed this possibility already), since TeeVee stations broadcasting digitally now have the capacity to run several simultaneous streams of programming, as in Channel 5, Channel 5.1, Channel 5.2 and so on, why couldn't local broadcasters make deals with basic cable channels the same way cable providers do?

That way, your local stations could run CBS, ABC, or whatever network they now broadcast on their main stream, and also run say, History Channel, Comedy Central, or Nickelodeon on their substreams, and sell ad time on those locally, so the community could have access to those channels without having to pay for cable or satellite services. I mean, you wouldn't get everything you get from cable or satellite, but it would sure beat constant reruns of Jerry Springer, Judge Judy and That Seventies Show.



jkennedy293
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Location: Holly Springs, NC

31 Dec 2008, 5:49 pm

I wouldn't get all worked up over this. Both companies will work out an agreement at the 11th hour, and service will continue uninterrupted.



jkennedy293
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 73
Location: Holly Springs, NC

31 Dec 2008, 5:59 pm

Willard wrote:
Seems like time for Spongebob to have run his course anyway (or been franchised into his own amusement park chain)

This may be slightly off-topic (or not), but after playing with a digital converter box for a few days, it occurred to me to wonder (and perhaps someone somewhere has addressed this possibility already), since TeeVee stations broadcasting digitally now have the capacity to run several simultaneous streams of programming, as in Channel 5, Channel 5.1, Channel 5.2 and so on, why couldn't local broadcasters make deals with basic cable channels the same way cable providers do?

That way, your local stations could run CBS, ABC, or whatever network they now broadcast on their main stream, and also run say, History Channel, Comedy Central, or Nickelodeon on their substreams, and sell ad time on those locally, so the community could have access to those channels without having to pay for cable or satellite services. I mean, you wouldn't get everything you get from cable or satellite, but it would sure beat constant reruns of Jerry Springer, Judge Judy and That Seventies Show.


One word, advertising. Cable companies make a lot more money selling advertising on a national level, then selling to individual local markets. Also, the number of different TV contracts would reach into the thousands, and that would just be too expensive to maintain.



ShadesOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,983
Location: California

01 Jan 2009, 4:22 am

Spokane_Girl wrote:
Fnord wrote:
And this is important because ... ?



Lot of people post pointless articles. Am I not allowed to do it too?
Of course you are. Ignore him. I don't think it is a pointless article, I Love spongebob.



Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,647

05 Jan 2009, 3:48 pm

jkennedy293 wrote:
Willard wrote:
Seems like time for Spongebob to have run his course anyway (or been franchised into his own amusement park chain)

This may be slightly off-topic (or not), but after playing with a digital converter box for a few days, it occurred to me to wonder (and perhaps someone somewhere has addressed this possibility already), since TeeVee stations broadcasting digitally now have the capacity to run several simultaneous streams of programming, as in Channel 5, Channel 5.1, Channel 5.2 and so on, why couldn't local broadcasters make deals with basic cable channels the same way cable providers do?

That way, your local stations could run CBS, ABC, or whatever network they now broadcast on their main stream, and also run say, History Channel, Comedy Central, or Nickelodeon on their substreams, and sell ad time on those locally, so the community could have access to those channels without having to pay for cable or satellite services. I mean, you wouldn't get everything you get from cable or satellite, but it would sure beat constant reruns of Jerry Springer, Judge Judy and That Seventies Show.


One word, advertising. Cable companies make a lot more money selling advertising on a national level, then selling to individual local markets. Also, the number of different TV contracts would reach into the thousands, and that would just be too expensive to maintain.


I beg to differ - the same national ad dollars available to cable companies are also available to local stations - your local stations are running spots for Dodge, Sprint, Alltell, Toyota, Target and Taco Bell all the time. And cable companies sell ads locally as well. According to the article in question, cable networks are paying the cable companies for space on their services, why wouldn't they be willing to pay broadcast stations for space as well? It just puts their programming (and their sponsors ads) in front of more pairs of eyes, and that's a plus for them any way you look at it. As for the contracts being too many to keep up with, how exactly did you think your local stations were getting their programming feeds from ABC, NBC, and CBS already? They all sign contracts with them, each and every one - it's been going on for over a half century already. Trust me, there are more than enough broadcast corporation attorneys around to take care of the paperwork.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

05 Jan 2009, 11:12 pm

Is this the same scandal that
Image
made Dora cry in the other week's NY Times?

(seriously, wtf to that advertisement)


_________________
* here for the nachos.