3 Comments

Summary:

Millions of TV watchers have been cut off from CBS because a broadcaster is fighting a cable company over $1. The two sides are trying new tricks to get the upper hand — but what viewers really need is a fresh model for buying TV content.

TV, bored, watching tv
photo: ollyy

Should viewers have to pay $1 or $2 to watch CBS channels? Time Warner Cable and the broadcaster can’t agree, leading TWC to yank CBS channels from its lineup in several big cities. The dispute likely annoys the 3 million subscribers forced to watch Starz Kids fare instead of Dexter or Under the Dome but, for the most part, it’s just a typical fallout between those who make TV and those who deliver it. Except for one twist.

This time around, the broadcaster and the cable company are not just sniping at each other in the media, but are turning to technology to press their point.

In the case of Time Warner Cable, the company is urging CBS fans to try Aereo, a $8/month service that lets subscribers watch CBS and all other over-the-air channels on laptops or nearly any mobile device. It’s also invoked an older technology, telling them to use an antenna to pull in CBS.

CBS, meanwhile, has returned the favor by denying access to Time Warner Cable customers who try to watch full-show episodes at CBS.com.

The new tactics don’t represent a slam-dunk advantage for either side but they do put a spotlight on the growing number of ways that viewers watch TV. They also call attention to the increasing absurdity of an outdated TV business model that forces subscribers to pay more and more for bundles of channels that contain stations they don’t want to watch in the first place.

At a time when all eyes are on Google and Apple to deliver a new type of TV experience, standoffs like the one between CBS and Time Warner Cable are starting to feel archaic.

There have been dozens of these disputes over the years, including Cablevision’s decision to blackout Fox for two weeks in 2010, and the core of the conflict is always the same: The broadcaster says it needs more money to make shows, while the distributor doesn’t want to pass that extra fee on to viewers — that’s the essence of the $1 vs $2 fight over CBS.

But these days, consumers should have a greater say over what content they receive and how much they pay for it — this has happened in the music business, and it’s time for it to happen in the TV and movie business too. A so-called “a la carte” model is out there somewhere – it’s just a question of who will deliver it and when.

In the meantime, viewers who are caught up in the CBS dispute take note that media pundits predict the dispute will last ten days to six weeks — or until sometime before football season starts.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. It’s all about the greed of both parties involved. The public gets screwed once again, while the billionaires get richer.

  2. Under an a la carte model every consumer would pay exponentially more for the less quality of content. The model does not work if people simply pick and choose the channels they want to watch – if that were the case we would only have sports and porn. A good example is our highway system – I live in New York City and don’t drive on the roads in Arkansas. However, my tax dollars contributed to our federal highway system allows for funding road construction in Arkansas. If the construction of the roads were simply left solely to those who used the road then roads would be exorbitantly expensive for the users or relatively non-existed in lower population areas.

  3. Broadcast programming, which is available free-of-charge via public airwaves, should be provided free-of-charge by broadcast networks to cable operators. In turn, cable operators should be prohibited from charging their customers for re-transmitted broadcast programming. Under this arrangement, networks derive increased advertising revenues based on the additional audience delivered by the cable systems and cable systems derive increased customer appeal due to the technological convenience of receiving broadcast programming via their cable hook-up. This seems to be a fair exchange of value between broadcast networks and cable distributors — and the viewer also wins, which both businesses should be taking into greater consideration. Unfortunately, FCC regulations allow broadcast networks to charge cable operators for broadcast programming. This situation, which puts viewers in between profit-seeking factions over advertiser-supported programming which is supposed to be free, should be corrected by legislation.

Comments have been disabled for this post