MSG in the dark on Time Warner

[jeebus1083]

If you are in the NY area, your nightly NYRA programming, along with the Knicks/Rangers/Islanders/Devils/Sabres, is blacked out until both billionaires decide what is a "fair" slice of the pie. It lasted almost 2 months in 2004, so both sides will hold their breath until they turn blue.

NYRA should air their programming on their website or YouTube while this mess is being straightened out.

[classhandicapper]

I don't even care who is right in this dispute. They are both bastards looking to gauge consumers. I'm tired of this crap. That's why I've started using some of the live streaming sites on the internet to watch basketball and hockey and bypass all these idiots.

[Tom]

Yes, NYRA needs to step and dump MSG.
I plan on dumping Time Warner. Every year, it is the same BS with them.
With the internet available,, why bother hooking yourself to the wagon of a lousy cable TV station with limited exposure?

[jeebus1083]

I don't even care who is right in this dispute. They are both bastards looking to gauge consumers. I'm tired of this crap. That's why I've started using some of the live streaming sites on the internet to watch basketball and hockey and bypass all these idiots.

The final outcome is a formality. This "dispute" will inevitably get resolved, and when it does, our rates will still increase. We still will be the ultimate loser in this game of chicken.

[jeebus1083]

Yes, NYRA needs to step and dump MSG.
I plan on dumping Time Warner. Every year, it is the same BS with them.
With the internet available,, why bother hooking yourself to the wagon of a lousy cable TV station with limited exposure?

This is why NYRA needs to broadcast their flagship programming on NYRA.com and on YouTube. I like watching Jason Blewitt in the evenings because it adds an entertainment and information aspect to watching the replays. It's easy to hop onto NYRA.com and pull up the individual replays, but anyone can do that. Perhaps MSG can strike a deal with NYRA to stream on the web so that people with a computer have some sort of an option.

[Tom]

Why bother with MSG? Just a middleman - they bring nothing to the table.

[thespaah]

Here's the deal....The same company that owns MSG also owns Cablevision. For those of you in the NY Metro area, you are familiar.
The Dolan borthers are in a constant battle with other providers over carriage rates.
This is never going to end. Producers are trying to squeeze every dime out of the consumer. Rates have skyrocketed.
I am a Dish Network customer. Dish has a contract with Disney which owns ESPN, is about to expire.Disney is going to demand a a substantial rate increase.
Dish( Charlie Ergen) is notorious for digging in his heels on these things. Channels disappear all the time.
For example....YES( Yankees) and for the last year, MSG have been unavailable to Dish customers in the NY Metro area. So Dish essentially has shut itself out of the NY Sports market. If you want to see your local teams, go elsewhere.
My thinking is that if this upcoming dispute between Dish and Disney comes to a head, ESPN goes away and is NEVER coming back.
I figure Dish's bean counters can absorb the loss of 1/3rd of their subs and still get by. It will hurt, but not enough to shut them down.
Anyway, the cost of sports programming has gone out of control.
I see within 5 years or so, a turn toward pay per view for all sports programming.
If you are with Time Warner and there is another option, take it. Reason..Use the NFL Network as an example. Time Warner and the NFL never could come to an agreement, so the talks broke off. Time Warner subs have never been able to get the NFL Network.

[redshift1]

This is never going to end. Producers are trying to squeeze every dime out of the consumer. Rates have skyrocketed.


My Cable & Internet bill $2220.00 per year.

[ponyplayerdotca]

I see within 5 years or so, a turn toward pay per view for all sports programming.

My personal "two cents" is that all sports programming will NEVER exclusively turn to "pay-per-view" because the companies who own the networks and the cable/satellite providers will never leave the decision making up to the general public like that.

They would rather continue to play these political games because at the end of the rainbow is the utter acceptance of the subscribers to just keep paying the bill no matter how high it goes with regards to cost-of-living for the time period, etc.

If they ever went to pay-per-view, they would never be able to guarantee that each and every household would order each and every sports offering enough to cover their demands the way that bill increases to all can generate.

[classhandicapper]

This issue get very complicated, but I'm mildly familiar with it because I own shares in a company where this kind of things comes up in discussions on investment forums (LVLT).

Basically it's an ongoing battle between the "pipes" (cable companies that own the last mile) and content providers for how you distribute costs and profits.

The internet threatens to blow it all up because theoretically content providers can bypass these costs by providing content themselves as long as consumers (we guys) have internet access. But if consumers start streaming everything, then it becomes a matter of how the cable companies pass those costs on for higher usage of the internet.

Do we get higher cable bills for Roadrunner and other high speed access etc... or do they charge the content providers via another method.

It will all get worked out eventually, but bottom line is they all suck. I'm all for companies earning a risk adjusted return on invested capital etc... but these guys are all gauging.

Why I am paying for about 40 cable channels I don't want and can't get the one I want? I should be able to pick and choose.

[jorcus]

This issue get very complicated, but I'm mildly familiar with it because I own shares in a company where this kind of things comes up in discussions on investment forums (LVLT).

Basically it's an ongoing battle between the "pipes" (cable companies that own the last mile) and content providers for how you distribute costs and profits.

The internet threatens to blow it all up because theoretically content providers can bypass these costs by providing content themselves as long as consumers (we guys) have internet access. But if consumers start streaming everything, then it becomes a matter of how the cable companies pass those costs on for higher usage of the internet.

Do we get higher cable bills for Roadrunner and other high speed access etc... or do they charge the content providers via another method.

It will all get worked out eventually, but bottom line is they all suck. I'm all for companies earning a risk adjusted return on invested capital etc... but these guys are all gauging.

Why I am paying for about 40 cable channels I don't want and can't get the one I want? I should be able to pick and choose.

Picking and choosing channels is a regulatory issue. Most of the service providers would rather go to an ala carte system where you pick in pay for individual channels.

The crux of the Time Warner vs Msg battle is the demand by MSG that Time Warner carry the Fuse music channel at an additional cost of course. In theory The non Ala cart system is protectionist against the weak channels being shut out of distribution systems.

Dish has not carried msg for over a year because of this issue so it may not get solved between twc and msg any time soon.

[The Hawk]

If you're a Time Warner subscriber and are affected by this -- and even if you're not, for that matter -- this is a good time to remind folks that Verizon FIOS carries MSG (and, thanks to this dispute, I think, MSG HD) as well as both HRTV and TVG. If Verizon FIOS is available in your area and you're a horse racing fan you should seriously consider it, they're running a very good deal at the moment, I believe.

[classhandicapper]

The crux of the Time Warner vs Msg battle is the demand by MSG that Time Warner carry the Fuse music channel at an additional cost of course. In theory The non Ala cart system is protectionist against the weak channels being shut out of distribution systems.


I read about Fuse, but I also read MSG is trying to raise the price by somewhere near 50% after having agreed in principle to something in the 5%-6% range in the past. It sounds like they are trying to pay for the renovated MSG after also raising Knicks ticket prices through the roof for the same reason!

Of course I could just be getting one side of the story, but either way I'm going to be watching the Knicks game tonight. :lol:

I don't understand all the regulations about ala cart. The way I see it, there's still a 0% chance I'm going to watch any of 40 or more channels they offer me that I don't want but have to pay for. The same is probably true for millions of other people. All they need to do is make sure people are aware that these other channels exist and make them available. That way if there is a niche for them, people can get them. It sounds like some corrupt businesses are paying off some corrupt politicians and I'm paying for it. :mad:

[Tom]

In theory The non Ala cart system is protectionist against the weak channels being shut out of distribution systems. If they are weak, let them die. They are weak because no one wants to watch them. Buh-bye.

[thespaah]

My personal "two cents" is that all sports programming will NEVER exclusively turn to "pay-per-view" because the companies who own the networks and the cable/satellite providers will never leave the decision making up to the general public like that.

They would rather continue to play these political games because at the end of the rainbow is the utter acceptance of the subscribers to just keep paying the bill no matter how high it goes with regards to cost-of-living for the time period, etc.

If they ever went to pay-per-view, they would never be able to guarantee that each and every household would order each and every sports offering enough to cover their demands the way that bill increases to all can generate.
The issue boils down to two things...One is how much money will advertisers be willing to pay for ads on sports programming AND how much will the subscribers be willing to pay for subscription services.
I believe the marketplace will become frustrated with the rising costs and may contract. That is, people will dump their pay tv subscriptions for other options.
Already there is a term for this. It's called "cord cutting".
People are getting out of the pay tv market and putting up over the air antennas for their local channels. They are going to services such as HULU, viewing content on line or buying ROKU devices. They can watch certain programming ( the list grows all the time) free of charge. They just cannot watch it live.
As a matter of fact, the only thing holding the pay tv business together is our need to watch tv programming live. If Americans get themselves out of the "must see it now" mentality, ad revenue plummets ( we all skip through the commercials)and then the wheels come off. What happens next is we the viewer will fork over a fee to watch instead of viewing commercials. It won't be cheap.
As long as we buy into the notion that we have to see it now, they win and we keep paying more.

[thespaah]

This issue get very complicated, but I'm mildly familiar with it because I own shares in a company where this kind of things comes up in discussions on investment forums (LVLT).

Basically it's an ongoing battle between the "pipes" (cable companies that own the last mile) and content providers for how you distribute costs and profits.

The internet threatens to blow it all up because theoretically content providers can bypass these costs by providing content themselves as long as consumers (we guys) have internet access. But if consumers start streaming everything, then it becomes a matter of how the cable companies pass those costs on for higher usage of the internet.

Do we get higher cable bills for Roadrunner and other high speed access etc... or do they charge the content providers via another method.

It will all get worked out eventually, but bottom line is they all suck. I'm all for companies earning a risk adjusted return on invested capital etc... but these guys are all gauging.

Why I am paying for about 40 cable channels I don't want and can't get the one I want? I should be able to pick and choose.
Yep..the a la carte argument. I agree with choice.
Programmers and producers are scared to death of a la carte.
For example. NBCU owns many services. Some popular some may get a few thousand viewers per month. NBCU tells providers that "if you buy CNBC, you must buy all of these other channels"...Of course providers, especially cable companies do not like their bandwidth being clogged with niche channels that less than 5% of their subscribers watch. But the producers spend lots of money on these services and they do not want to lose their investments and they certainly do not want the public relations nightmare of massive layoffs when these channels go dark due to lack of viewership.
So we the consumer get the shaft.
The only way this stops is if more people either downgrade or cut the cord.

[FantasticDan]

Finally settled.. due mostly to increasing political pressure and Linsanity..

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/msg-network-time-warner-cable-blackout-ends-article-1.1024584

[Tom]

I see it is back on tonight.
Nice to know TW values it's customers. :lol:

[Tom]

Coincidence?
MSG comes back and Road Runner is suddenly more like road kill!
Took me 45 minutes to download Byk's Friday show, 15 minutes dl Friday/Sat HTR files.

Customer service....the hallmark of Time Warner! :faint: