6.6 Million Lose CBS Channels After 'Business Dispute' With AT&T (engadget.com) 143
"Media giants are embroiled in yet another fight over TV rates, and viewers are once again paying the price," writes Engadget.
CBS' channels in 17 markets (including New York, San Francisco and Atlanta) have gone dark on AT&T services like DirecTV Now and U-verse after the two companies failed to reach an agreement on a new carriage contract before the old one expired at 2AM ET on July 19th. As is often the case in disputes like this, the two sides are each accusing each other of being unreasonable -- though AT&T in particular has also claimed that CBS is using All Access as a weapon.
CNET notes that the dispute also affects 100 CBS stations and affiliates on Direct Now, citing reports that it ultimately impacts a total of 6.6 million TV viewers in the U.S. "A business dispute took CBS off the air for millions of satellite television customers of DirecTV and AT&T U-verse on Saturday," according to a news report (from CBS): CBS said that while it didn't want its customers caught in the middle, it is determined to fight for fair value... AT&T countered in a statement provided to Variety that CBS is "a repeat blackout offender" that has pulled its programming from other carriers before in order to get its way.
"Isn't this the sort of thing they enemies of net neutrality assured us would never happen?" writes long-time Slashdot reader shanen. "Or is it just a plot to sell VPN services?"
CNET notes that the dispute also affects 100 CBS stations and affiliates on Direct Now, citing reports that it ultimately impacts a total of 6.6 million TV viewers in the U.S. "A business dispute took CBS off the air for millions of satellite television customers of DirecTV and AT&T U-verse on Saturday," according to a news report (from CBS): CBS said that while it didn't want its customers caught in the middle, it is determined to fight for fair value... AT&T countered in a statement provided to Variety that CBS is "a repeat blackout offender" that has pulled its programming from other carriers before in order to get its way.
"Isn't this the sort of thing they enemies of net neutrality assured us would never happen?" writes long-time Slashdot reader shanen. "Or is it just a plot to sell VPN services?"
I'm not following (Score:5, Insightful)
The qouted reader.
What does vpns and net neutrality have to do with cable tv
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It's a throwaway line to feed red meat to asshole tech nerds with more money than brains.
I could not care one bit if anyone loses some large corporate channel or the large corporation that carries it screws you over. You are still getting fucked for paying them and having to watch ads. In the end you will end up paying more and getting less. 30 minute sitcoms are now 19 minutes or less of television. 1 hr shows barely hit 40 minutes running time. I will not wat
Re: (Score:1)
It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It's a throwaway line to feed red meat to asshole tech nerds with more money than brains.
It has quite a a lot to do with it. It hints that there are other way to get the content you want when the big boys start playing their money games with each other. Those of us with limited funds will find a way to watch what we want, your (outrageously gross) profits be damned.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, really
Re: I'm not following (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What about the law going back about 20 years that requires cable TV and Satellite TV providers to carry ALL local channels in a given community?
That's why DirecTV years ago went from carrying a handful of local channels in their biggest markets to having to carry ALL of them, they had to install 2 new spot-beam satellites to cover all the new channels and re-used frequencies by using ultra-narrow signal beaming techniques.
So if this law is there and applies to UVerse as well as DirecTV, shouldn't it be ille
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, the cable/sat providers HAD TO carry the local channels. Today, the broadcaster gets to charge them for the privilege. So DirecTV is not "blocking," they are refusing to pay Viacom even more than they already do.
As noted above, this has jack to do with net neutrality, but hey, clickbait.
Re: (Score:2)
"As noted above, this has jack to do with net neutrality"
No, it has plenty to do with NN. One of our biggest concerns was when the content producers also became the content pipeline, such as CBS does now with "All Access" and the fights that would be guaranteed to ensue (like what we see now.) Shit runs on a very slippery slope in the world of media. You give an inch, they take a light-year, all the while bitching about how they aren't making enough money.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a requirement but there has to be an agreed carriage fee. That fee can be anything from $1 to "put my first born through college."
Under current law, there's nothing illegal about blocking the channels if there is a dispute about carriage fees, which it has always been for the couple of decades.
For some more info, search the web for "local-into-local."
Re: (Score:2)
What about the law going back about 20 years that requires cable TV and Satellite TV providers to carry ALL local channels in a given community?
I'm fairly sure that only applies if the network doesn't want carriage fees.
Re:I'm not following (Score:5, Interesting)
What does vpns and net neutrality have to do with cable tv
If the network has a streaming service, a dispute like this may cause it to be blocked to cable internet users even if they are paying for the service.
If you use a vpn to get around such a block, any agreement between the network and the cable company to not count streaming traffic against your monthly quota may also go away.
Re: I'm not following (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It does, you dumbass. Or are you too stupid to remember us discussing this exact kind of thing happening (content providers also becoming content pipelines and the guaranteed ensuing fight between large companies) when we first discussed net neutrality years and fucking years ago?
Weird (Score:4, Insightful)
My OTA broadcast of CBS still seems to be working just fine when I checked it in Plex. Not that there's anything I actually want to watch right now, but still, it's there should I ever want it, and I don't pay a dime in ongoing costs for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Except massive doses of radiation.
Re:Weird (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it work well? Do you have to pay anything monthly or is it just a matter of buying the box?
Re: (Score:2)
When used with Plex (with a Plex Pass), you literally just connect the HDHomeRun TV tuner then click a few buttons in Plex. Couldn’t be simpler. Plex Pass is a $5/mo. subscription service, but you can get a lifetime membership for pretty cheap ($75-120, depending on if they’re running a special price), which is what most people I know who use Plex have done, that way there are no ongoing costs.
When used without Plex, I think HDHomeRun has their own TV guide service that you may need to subscribe
Re: (Score:2)
When used without Plex, I think HDHomeRun has their own TV guide service that you may need to subscribe to, and there’s some additional setup necessary, but I’m not familiar with that way of doing things, so I can’t really speak to it.
I also went the plex route, but my server has been finicky a few times. Fell back to the HDHomeRun app. I know they have one from Android, Xbox, Fire, etc. Comes with a built in channel guide. They sell a "DVR" solution, for a monthly fee.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
thank you. that's helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that Plex can auto-remove the commercials too.
The Lifetime Plex Pass hasn't been $150 for quite awhile. Its base price has been $120 for about two years now (I would know: I bought it "on sale" at $120 about a month before they made that its permanent price), with sales dropping it to around $75 several times a year). And yup, getting Plex up and running can be an expensive affair, though it doesn't need to be. I got it up and running on a 2011 Mac mini I had around the house at no additional c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Same here. I just checked Sickbeard and "Star Trek: Discovery" is the _only_ current CBS show that I get (and I haven't even gotten around to watching it yet). But the last episode downloaded in April, so it looks like I haven't missed anything. I'd call this a minor disruption at most.
If 6 million people haven't learned to pirate yet, well, maybe this will help motivate them. But given CBS' "popularity" I wouldn't hold my breath. Most people probably won't even notice that CBS isn't there. Maybe that's the
And... (Score:1)
Nothing of value was lost.
Nothing to do with Net Neutrality (Score:5, Informative)
1. This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Similar carriage disputes [wikipedia.org] happened while "Net Neutrality" was in effect.
2. This is just a bog-standard re-negotiation of a contract. It happens [google.com] all the time [google.com] and frequently results in a temporary loss of channels until the two sides come to an agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
The end result is the same every time. After a brief corporate temper tantrum, channels are restored. The effect on the customers is that they will pay more for the same thing they were already getting. CBS will raise the per-subscriber cost by something like $3 monthly. AT&T will then raise the customer's bill by $5 per month, citing the "increased cost of programming". Cable providers only pretend to fight these increases in content costs. They don't really care because they know they'll just pass 120
Re: (Score:2)
Cable providers only pretend to fight these increases in content costs. They don't really care because they know they'll just pass 120-150% of the cost increase onto the customers.
Without a very public "fight" consumers will blame the provider rather than the content producer for the price increase.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In a round about way it is due to Net Neutrality. During the Obama years, Net Neutrality was implemented and massive mergers were approved by the Obama administration under the guise that NN "protected" the public and telecom came under the purview of the FTC instead of the FCC.
Hence we got Charter and AT&T eating up the entire market and merging into basically 2-3 "ma bells" again across the US now including movie and other content studios.
Re: (Score:2)
"This has nothing to do with net neutrality."
When we first discussed NN, carriage contract wars was one of the first fucking things we discussed as we talked about the fears of content providers becoming the content pipeline. Or were you absent during that discussion years and years ago on this site?
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile I paid because they advertised CBS or whatever the current dispute is about, and they no longer have it. Does the contract say it might not be there? Of course. Do people read it? No they don't.
So complain as breach of contract, and ask for a jury of your peers. A loss or two and they will pay, then stop advertising that it has CBS. Then customers get used to not having broadcast channels. Then CBS agrees to lower prices to get their ads seen by more people.
The long game, folks.
Re: (Score:2)
So complain as breach of contract, and ask for heavily biased arbitration.
FTFY
Alternate headline (Score:4, Funny)
6.6 Million Discover Improved Quality of Life after Dispute Between CBS, Cable Companies
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing that that many people still watch TV.
Re: (Score:1)
Cool comment, man.
Re:Alternate headline (Score:4, Funny)
Nine months from now:
New York, San Francisco and Atlanta report an unexplained raise in the number of births.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deserves the funny mod, but I think I should clarify that the part that was bothering me was not so much the entertainment side of CBS as the journalism side. There were also questions about why this is related to the net neutrality debate, though I see the connection as obvious.
There are important non-commercial issues here, but those concerns are getting ignored or even crushed by squabbles over maximizing profits. We need GOOD journalism, and this approach is NOT working.
No, I don't think we can get back
Re: (Score:2)
That's all you C: BS.
Locast.org still works. (Score:3)
So long as CBS has an antenna in New York, the New York denizens can access it online (or on their computers or app stores) via Locast. ( https://www.locast.org/ [locast.org] )
Re: (Score:2)
Drives people/companies further to direct model (Score:2)
As large arrangements like these falter and cause massive issues, it will only go to further drive companies to believe that instead of making content deals, they should maintain a massive silo of content they have full control over and not rely on licensing.
Only when some silos show they cannot make money on their own will we see a re-expansion of some content silos warming to the idea of licensing content far and wide again, and not asking too much for the privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Right. ATT (HBO), Netflix, Disney (ESPN, Disney+, more), and few others will make it on their own because they'll have compelling exclusives.
Well, assuming they can survive on the customers being fed up with having metric shit-tons of different services and monthly fees, and instead subbing to one service one month, then cancelling and moving to a different one the next month and just binge-watching the exclusives and moving on....
Re: (Score:3)
Well, assuming they can survive on the customers being fed up with having metric shit-tons of different services and monthly fees, and instead subbing to one service one month, then cancelling and moving to a different one the next month and just binge-watching the exclusives and moving on....
Yep, so expect the streaming services to start requiring "plans" and "service contracts" with early termination fees just like cable and cell phones do now.
AT&T could EASILY put CBS in its place (Score:3)
All AT&T has to do to smack CBS (and other broadcasters with local affiliates) into lowering their fees is make their various products (DirecTV, DirecTV Now, Uverse) directly interoperable with networked OTA tuners (HD Homerun and others), then allow potential cord-cutters to keep the cord connected, but prune away the local broadcasters in exchange for saving $15-25/month that AT&T would otherwise have to pay in local-carriage fees.
Up until around 2008, both DirecTV and Dish Network used to do precisely that... you could pay them for local channels, or you could save the fee, connect an OTA antenna to their STB-DVR, and it would seamlessly insert the local channels directly into your STB-DVR's channel lineup. Voom! did the exact same thing, though IT did it because it had no choice in the matter (Voom! only had one satellite, so it didn't have the transponder capacity to handle local channels for markets besides LA, New York, and anyone who qualified to watch the affiliates from those two cities because they were too far away from their own local affiliates to have an acceptable signal).
If someone like AT&T even WHISPERED that they were thinking about doing this, every bitchy local affiliate that wants higher and higher fees to carry their channel would INSTANTLY be in full-bore existential-terror mode, because it would effectively let AT&T off the hook. They could pass along whatever the local affiliate demanded for customers determined to not mess around with an antenna, but even SLIGHTLY price-sensitive customers would buy an antenna and pocket the savings. Meanwhile, the few remaining customers willing to pay for not having an antenna would see their local channel fee increase until it accounted for half their monthly cable/satellite fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're not old enough to remember that cable TV started because of people with bad OTA reception. It wasn't until the '80s that the dozens of niche channels full of commercials became a thing. So realistically they can't just put an OTA tuner in, because even if they installed an antenna, there's no guarantee that any particular customer could get all the local channels. Digital is even worse than analog about this because mostly it either works or it doesn't, you don't get a partly-watchable channe
Re: AT&T could EASILY put CBS in its place (Score:2)
It doesn't matter *why* cable TV started. As far as anyone who was a teenager in the 1980s or later is concerned, "cable" is for cable channels like MTV, HGTV, CNN, etc. Local channels are an afterthought... and increasingly, an expensive one.
About 20% of ATSC reception problems are the broadcaster's fault... specifically, using overly-long MPEG-2 GOPs to let them cram in another over-compressed subchannel nobody cares about. Channels with only a single subchannel (like channel 17.1 in Miami) are easy to re
Re: AT&T could EASILY put CBS in its place (Score:2)
Just to add... I'm not aware of any US broadcaster using the technique, but a few years ago, someone came up with (and patented) a way to encode MPEG-2 video in a way that guarantees that every frame includes a few rows or columns with I-frame-like qualities, even when GOPs are long, so that after a mangled I-frame, you get a venetian blind-like correction over the next dozen frames or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is less about saving bandwidth and more about crunching in more channels without completely sacrificing self-healing of the picture before the next GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest single problem with ATSC 1.0 is that it sacrifices huge amounts of functionality that are important to the urban majority (like the ability to receive it in a moving vehicle, or with a substandard antenna) for the sake of making it a tiny, tiny bit less impossible to receive if you're in far-fringe areas and put up a HUGE antenna. The whole COFDM-vs-8VSB debate, which has been more than adequately documented over the past 25 years. The latest chipsets have fixed a lot of 8VSB's problems, but its
Re: (Score:2)
if Cable/Satellite companies were smart, they would sneak a semi a-la-Carte Package (for example, a Disney Package, a Viacom package, a CBS Package, ETC) on content providers contract renewals and execute it in the program lineup. Any time the CP's decide to raise rates, the Companies simply nod their head "Sure!!" and proceed to immediately raise the rate on just the affected package 1:1. When Sub's Cancel, the CP's will get less because Less people actually get the content now (which can now be officially
Re: (Score:2)
tv networks want you on a subscription (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NCIS will never die. They’ll just keep putting different cities in the name and recycling the old scripts.
Oh, and be sure to tune in for the premiere of NCIS: Alamogordo, New Mexico this fall!
just wait for ATSC 3.0 with pay OTA channels! (Score:2)
just wait for ATSC 3.0 with pay OTA channels!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even when they do make it available for free, they pack it with so many commercials that it takes less time to watch it over the air. And they run the same three commercials over and over and over, to the point where you swear that you'll never buy prod
Networks are ALWAYS the unreasonable ones (Score:2)
Networks need to chose between commercials and making subscribers pay not both.
Re: (Score:2)
CBS is free OTA. One reason they charge cable companies because those cable companies want to swap in their own commercials. No benefit to the end subscriber, but the end subscriber should really use an antenna anyway if it's an option. Better quality signal.
6.6 Million Lose CBS Channels (Score:2)
toss up a cheap antenna and watch it for free as CBS is still a free OTA broadcaster.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I see this suggestion I am reminded of how out of touch city folk are. You realize the overwhelming majority of people living within the US are out of range (>80 miles) away from a any market large enough to support OTA TV broadcasts (TVfool.com).
Hell, I live in a metro area with more than a million people and have zero OTA options. Would have several if I could get a practical antenna that goes more than 100 miles, but i'm not willing to buy a 3 meter yagi and mount it on a 15 meter pole to t
Re: (Score:2)
Then move. Problem solved!
Loss of ad revenue (Score:5, Interesting)
Advertising rates are determined based on a combination of how many viewers you can claim you have and your Nielson ratings. It costs a TV station virtually NOTHING to allow a satellite or cable company to re-transmit their signal. In return, the station then gets to claim that all of the satellite/cable subscribers in their DMA (Designated Media Area) are now potential viewers as well which increases their base advertising rates. Again - there is NO COST TO THE NETWORK/STATION to allow this to happen.
However, stations/networks got used to receiving that amount of free money every month/quarter/year and then they get greedy and start demanding more money for a service that BENEFITS THEM FAR MORE THAN THE re-transmission fees ever could and we, the consumers/viewers, end up with the short end of the stick as both companies complain that the other company is being unreasonable and cheap/greedy. They broadcast warnings that their network/station will no longer appear on cable/satellite and to call your cable/satellite company and tell them that you want this station to stay on their service! They actually expect the consumers to do their negotiating for them...
Re: (Score:2)
Said it before (Score:2)
These channels should be paying the cable companies to carry their channels on their systems, not the other way around.
Honor amongst theves (Score:1)
CBS.com works on Linux (Score:1)
I was still able to watch Friday night's "The Late Show" for free after DirecTV dumped them and the TiVo recorded 1 hour of elevator music with a static DirecTV logo. AT&T/DirecTV: fuck you guys. You want to get cord-cutters? Because this is how you get cord-cutters.
Wait, but my HDTV antenna picks them up fine? (Score:2)
What gives?
How can my zero dollars per month HDTV antenna pick up CBS channels in my city?
Oh, wait, it's for people too lazy they pay rent to cable firms using satellite services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, my 1080p HDTV signal comes in through buildings, as do the lower bands (e.g. 9, 9.1, 9.2 for PBS from KCTS, or 7,7.1 for the CBS channel); I can even get Tacoma through at least one hill if I aim the antenna.
Oh the humanity! (Score:2)
Also Smithsonian Channel (Score:2)
Apparently, CBS owns the Smithsonian Channel as well and has borked it for DirecTV customers. Ironically, I pay extra for that channel so WTF, CBS?
Value proposition (Score:1)
No new Big Bang Theory so who cares about CBS?
Re: (Score:2)