April 24, 2024

The TV Watch: Surviving CBS’s Fight With Time Warner Cable

An antenna? Where does that go, on top of the cathode-ray tube?

That’s one of the tips Time Warner Cable put up on screen after it stopped showing CBS around the country on Friday. There was also some invective about what CBS is demanding that led the cable company to impose a blackout.

As a subscriber in New York, I felt like the child who walks into the house to hear Mom explain that Dad is gone and can be visited on Wednesdays and alternate weekends. Children don’t care why, or who was wronged; they just don’t want divorce to change anything, and they especially don’t want to commute across town to see their father.

Plenty of people don’t love “Under the Dome” and rarely watch CBS (“The Big Bang Theory” reruns can be found on other channels), and relatively few prefer “CBS This Morning” to “Today” or “Good Morning America.”

But people don’t like to be told they can’t watch CBS because Time Warner Cable doesn’t want them to.

The shock is gradual. Just as a child can be assured that the parents will smooth over their differences in time for Christmas — Grandma is coming — it’s hard to imagine that CBS and Time Warner won’t find a temporary compromise in time for the next episode of “Under the Dome” or the PGA Championship next weekend.

But nevertheless this changes things, maybe forever.

So I followed Time Warner’s other piece of advice and signed up for Aereo: $8 a month plus tax, and the first month is free.

And that’s when I realized that like spouses in the middle of an ugly separation, both sides are completely insane.

Aereo allows viewers to watch broadcast network shows at any time, live, with an option to record for later viewing. It’s one thing to know that an alternative to cable exists. It’s another actually to try it. I was instantly able to watch CBS on Saturday, and instantly concluded I wasn’t missing much (golf). I don’t like watching live television on a laptop. It turns out that Aereo can be watched on a television set via Apple TV and similar systems.

Naturally, I couldn’t figure out how to make that work over the weekend, and will need to hire a specialist (someone who reads instructions), but I am quite confident that I will soon be able to watch CBS via Aereo on Apple TV, on my 40-inch living room television. For all I know, the technician will be able to access Apple TV in the kitchen as well. So: no need for Time Warner.

The only thing more suicidal than Time Warner inviting subscribers to try out its less expensive competition is for CBS to hold out for higher fees from Time Warner. The cable company and the network should be in league against their common enemy. CBS and other networks have gone to court to block companies like Aereo from showing their programs. Cable companies are required to pay a retransmission fee to the networks in order to present network programming. Aereo, on the other hand, argues that television is free via the airwaves, and pays nothing.

Aereo only offers broadcast channels. Showtime, which is owned by the CBS Corporation, is also being held hostage under the blackout. (The Showtime Web site gave a phone number for complaints against Time Warner beneath the faces of the stars of “Homeland,” “Dexter” and “Ray Donovan” looking like missing children on a milk carton.) But Netflix and other Web-streaming companies are well on the way to supplanting premium cable.

Mutually assured destruction is a deterrent that only works when there are two superpowers with the same nuclear capability. The battle between broadcast networks and cable providers is more like a toxic custody battle: If it is bad enough, neither parent wins, and children grow up too fast and go their own way.

Soon, everyone may be calling Aereo Mommy, and Netflix Daddy.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/arts/television/surviving-cbss-fight-with-time-warner-cable.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Although Revenue Rises, Subscribers Drop DirecTV and Time Warner Cable

The results reflected a continued strategy on the part of both companies, also mirrored by some rivals, to appeal to what DirecTV in its earnings report called “higher-quality subscribers” — that is, customers who will stick around longer and pay more for monthly services. In the United States, DirecTV’s average revenue per household — a closely watched measure called ARPU within the industry — rose 4.6 percent, to $98.73. Time Warner Cable reported a 1.2 percent uptick in average revenue per household, to $105.21.

However, Time Warner Cable lost 191,000 television subscribers in the second quarter, somewhat more than analysts were predicting. The cable company, and others like it, have been losing TV market share to satellite providers including DirecTV and other rivals like Verizon FiOS for years. But for only the second time in its history, DirecTV lost television subscribers in the second quarter, a total of 84,000.

The second quarter of the year is typically the weakest for the whole industry. Nonetheless, the subscriber decline at DirecTV prompted new chatter about whether the much-hyped phenomenon of “cord cutting,” when households give up a bundle of products including television in favor of online streaming services like Netflix, was visible in the data.

DirecTV, for its part, attributed the decline to its effort to retain more profitable households, even at the risk of losing some that are less profitable. It also cited “a more challenging competitive environment and mature industry.” Roughly 100 million American households subscribe to some form of television; that number has remained remarkably stable for years, despite newfound competition on the Internet.

But an analysis by the Leichtman Research Group in May found that the country’s biggest television providers collectively lost about 80,000 subscribers in the 12-month period that ended in March, the first time that the researchers had ever counted an industrywide subscriber loss (rather than typical share-shifting between companies). The earnings reports this quarter are being scrutinized for further evidence of declines.

Time Warner Cable showed some weakness on the broadband Internet side of its business, too. Like other cable companies, it has relied on broadband growth to offset television subscriber slippage. In the second quarter it added a mere 8,000 home broadband subscribers. The company pledged to improve its performance.

Over all, DirecTV posted a profit of $660 million, or $1.18 a share, for the quarter, down from $711 million, or $1.09 a share, a year ago. Profits were up at Time Warner Cable, totaling $481 million, for the quarter, up from $452 million, or to $1.64 a share from $1.43 a share, a year ago. When one-time costs were excluded, earnings reached $1.69 a share, exceeding analysts’ expectations.

Time Warner Cable stock closed at $117.68 on Thursday, up more than 3 percent in part thanks to continued discussion of consolidation in the cable industry. John Malone, who holds a stake in a much smaller cable company, Charter, proposed a merger with Time Warner Cable this year.

On a conference call on Thursday, Glenn Britt, the departing Time Warner Cable chief executive, said the Wall Street speculation about any such deal “is really an endorsement of the value of our assets.” The DirecTV chief executive, Michael White, also addressed consolidation — in his case, between DirecTV and its smaller satellite rival Dish Network — on a conference call on Thursday. He suggested that the differences in DirecTV’s and Dish’s operating strategies made an immediate mash-up unlikely.

“But you never say never, and we’ll be opportunistic when the right moment arrives,” Mr. White added.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/business/media/directv-and-time-warner-cable-lose-subscribers-but-revenues-rise.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Alaskan Media Battle Pits KTUU and Cable Rival

Concentration of population, in turn, creates concentration of power in economics, news and culture, which means that Anchorage — though very different from the rest of the state, if only by virtue of being urban — largely defines what it means to be Alaskan through the messages it sends out and controls.

Now, there is a fight over who wields that Anchorage-centered, Alaska-size microphone.

In one corner, wearing the rainbow-colored peacock logo, is the powerful NBC affiliate, KTUU. As Channel 2, it was one of the first stations on the air here, starting in the early 1950s, before statehood, and it has been crushingly dominant just about ever since in statewide news coverage.

When the Legislature is in session at the capital in Juneau, KTUU has often been the only station covering it full time. And the recession, which swept like a scythe through journalism jobs in Alaska — as it did in many places — left “Alaska’s News Source,” as it calls itself, more pre-eminent than ever as competition faded.

In the other corner, just as muscular in its own way, is a homegrown cable company, General Communication Inc., Alaska’s biggest provider of telecommunications services, from cable to telephone. Last fall the company, known as GCI, proposed going into the content side of the business, putting its own programming into the cable lines it controls with near-monopoly power in parts of the state.

The fight that has raged ever since: will access to the cable system that snakes out of Anchorage to inform and entertain the state still be fair?

In its application to the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcasting, GCI said it wanted to acquire an Anchorage station, KTVA, a CBS affiliate with a small market share in news, and flood the zone with millions of dollars in new resources and news staff. Two low-power television stations, in Juneau and Sitka, would also come under the GCI umbrella.

“We want more coverage of local Alaska,” David Morris, a company spokesman, said in an interview in its Anchorage headquarters.

KTUU’s owners, joined by most other Alaska television broadcasters in a united front, said in filings to the F.C.C. that GCI would naturally favor its own content and strangle competitors through overt or subtle means, like channel placement on the cable menu. They also say, based on comments from GCI executives quoted in affidavits, that the company plans to skew its news coverage toward “corporate interests.”

“KTUU has been the king of the heap for so long, the thought of not being there has to be sort of terrifying for them,” said Lynne Lott, an assistant professor of journalism at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and a reporter at KTUU in the late 1990s. But fears can go the other way, too, she said. “The big complaint is that GCI will be in control of everything everywhere. I’m not sure if it’s true or not, but it’s what people are very afraid of.”

The opposition’s filings specifically ask the F.C.C. to impose equal access conditions, like those put on Comcast, the cable giant, when it bought a broadcast network, NBC Universal, in 2011. Though the numbers might look small — Alaska has only 733,000 residents — opponents of the GCI deal said that, in per capita terms, GCI’s powers to make or break are even greater than Comcast’s.

“Competition is only competition if it creates choice for the consumer,” said Andrew MacLeod, the president and general manager of Northern Lights Media, KTUU’s owner. “Competition that is structured to squeeze someone out is not competition.”

GCI responds that opponents have grown too comfortable with their cozy local clout, and that increased news coverage can only serve the public interest. And if a conservative or pro-business tone in news coverage were to be embraced — though no such decision has been made, the company says in its application documents — well, what of it?

“Licensees’ political beliefs and editorial positions are not a barrier to entry; they are a central asset of our country’s broadcast system,” the company said in one of its commission filings.

Quirks of the far northern life compound the stakes on both sides.

Home satellite dishes, for example, which can allow people to dump their cable providers in the lower 48, do not work as well in far northern latitudes because of the way satellite orbits are plotted.

But talk of GCI’s possibly growing influence also helped gather votes this spring in the Legislature to find money for a state-chartered television system called the Alaska Rural Communications Service, which serves many small communities and is structurally guaranteed to provide a neutral content mix.

Political support for the service had faltered in recent years, said one lawmaker, Senator Dennis Egan, a Democrat from Juneau who has raised questions about the GCI sale. Uncertainty about the road ahead made the rural service feel important again.

“I don’t want to knock GCI — they’re good corporate citizens,” Mr. Egan said. “The problem is we don’t know what they’re going to do.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/us/alaskan-media-battle-pits-ktuu-and-cable-rival.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Media Decoder Blog: Time Warner Cable Says It Will Keep ‘Open Mind’ on Reinstating Al Jazeera

Time Warner Cable minced no words when it announced on Wednesday night that it was dropping Current TV, just hours after Al Jazeera acquired the channel. “Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service,” the distributor said. “We are removing the service as quickly as possible.”

Critics of the distributor’s decision didn’t hold back, either, calling it cowardly, shameful and just plain dumb. On Twitter and Facebook, many people assumed that Time Warner Cable was expressing corporate opposition to Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news giant, by taking Current off its cable systems in the United States.

But executives at the cable company said the channel wasn’t removed for political reasons. It had more to do, they said, with Current’s low ratings and its contract, which had a “change of ownership” clause that allowed it to be terminated. Time Warner Cable, which has 12 million subscribers, enough to make it the second-largest cable company in the country, has taken a hard line against low-rated channels.

That said, Time Warner Cable doesn’t want to be seen as outwardly hostile to Al Jazeera, especially at a time when other major distributors are keeping Current on their cable systems. (DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon, and ATT were among the distributors that consented to the takeover of Current.) Al Jazeera plans to replace Current with a channel, potentially called Al Jazeera America, that incorporates new programming from the United States and currrent programming from its headquarters in Qatar.

On Thursday afternoon, as complaints continued, Time Warner Cable issued a statement that opened the door to carrying the channel in the future. “We are keeping an open mind, and as the service develops, we will evaluate whether it makes sense, for our customers, to launch the network,” the statement read.

Time Warner Cable noted that it had what is called a “hunting license” in the television industry: an option to carry Al Jazeera’s current English-language channel if it so chooses. To date, it hasn’t acted on that option. Time Warner Cable and other major distributors have been reluctant to carry Al Jazeera English, in part because they feel there isn’t adequate demand for the channel from their customers. They also resent that the channel is streamed free over the Internet.

Through separate pacts between Al Jazeera English and local broadcasters, the channel is already accessible through Time Warner Cable in New York and Los Angeles.

Time Warner Cable may simply be betting that if it negotiates a new contract with Al Jazeera, the terms will be more favorable than the ones in the old contract with Current. A  spokeswoman for the distributor declined to comment on that prospect.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/time-warner-cable-says-it-will-keep-open-mind-on-reinstating-al-jazeera/?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Media Equation: Louis C.K. Plays a Serious Joke on TV

The weirder thing? It seems to be working.

A scabrous and successful champion of the everyman, Louis C. K. decided last week to go direct with his fans: no cable special, no middleman, just a simple download for $5 on his Web site to see his comedy show “Louis C. K.: Live at the Beacon Theater.”

The show could be viewed as the consumer wished, with no rights protection or expensive subscription. A buy-it-and-watch-it proposition, no cable company involved. He was also, of course, enabling people to watch it free — without digital rights management, it was there for the pirating — and some went right to the torrent sites and did so.

But many, many other people paid the fiver and got a package of two streams and three downloads, which could be burned to a DVD or streamed on a smartphone and wherever else they felt like watching it.

Louis C. K. is a freak about doing it himself. He writes, directs, produces and acts in his own series, “Louie,” then edits it himself with Final Cut Pro on his Mac. And now the king of D.I.Y. has one more credential: distributor.

“I went at this like a consumer, just looking at human impulses,” he told me.

“I buy lots of things online and I had a focus group of one. I thought about it, and five bucks seemed almost free and I figured if I took out the hassle, most of the speed bumps, it would almost be like hitting a link and streaming it. It’s been pretty damn great so far.”

While I was talking with him on the phone Thursday night, he checked his Web site and about 175,000 people had bought his special through PayPal. He expected 200,000 total downloads by the weekend, which meant he would have grossed $1 million. After covering costs of about $250,000 for the live production and the Web site, that’s a $750,000 profit. And he owns the rights, and the long tail of buyers, in perpetuity. The transparency of the enterprise, including its cost in relation to how many people bought in, was the subject of media coverage all last week.

“It feels weird having numbers out there, because that’s my personal income,” he said. “But I talked to my mom, who is a pretty judicious, careful person, and she said, ‘Tell them everything. Just let it all get out there.’ So that’s what I have been doing, at least so far.”

Louis C. K. has been doing comedy since 1984, when he took a break from working on cars to try stand-up. He didn’t go to college, is not deep into technology, and doesn’t think of himself as any sort of pioneer. But he has a fundamental understanding of the Web and what it could mean for content providers and consumers.

“O.K., so NBC is this huge company and they have all these studios and these satellites to beam stuff out,” he said, “but on the Web, both NBC.com and LouisCK.com have the same amount of bandwidth. We are equals and there are things you can do with that. This has been a fun little experiment.”

It may be little, but it has significant implications, pointing a way forward for performers and the consumers who want to pay for their work.

Television faces threats from many sides, including from people who are cutting their cable cord and watching programming over the Web, as well as any number of Web-based programmers like YouTube, Netflix and Amazon. But network and cable television’s big hedge against insurgent technologies has always been its stranglehold on programming and talent. If I wanted to see how “Homeland” ended and was not willing to steal it, I’m would have had to pay Verizon Fios for my cable feed, which in turn pays Showtime.

In fact, I wouldn’t know anything about Louis C. K. if it weren’t for cable. I DVR’d his freakishly hilarious series “Louie” on FX, which is owned by News Corporation, and I saw his last two comedy specials on cable. The people who helped build the brand of Louis C. K. might wonder about his decision to go native (digitally), but hey, it’s the Internet: it’s every man, woman, producer, consumer, company and cable outfit for itself!

E-mail: carr@nytimes.com;

Twitter.com/carr2n

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a110e4095e4fe473f7c2ed436c0705cc

Media Decoder: Holocaust Memories, via Cable

Ten films about the Holocaust will be made available to Comcast customers and others on Monday.

Comcast, the nation’s top cable company, is distributing 10 films about the Holocaust in a public service project it is calling “Days of Remembrance.” And it started with an unrelated telephone call to the director
Steven Spielberg.

The person calling Mr. Spielberg last year was
Brian L. Roberts, the chief executive of Comcast, which was acquiring NBCUniversal. Mr. Roberts had visited the Universal Studio lot, the location of Mr. Spielberg’s office, but had not had a chance to see him.

“I just decided to call him to tell him what a shame it was to be there and not see Steven Spielberg,” Mr. Roberts said. He said Mr. Spielberg responded: “Funny you should say that. We just sent you a letter.”

The USC Shoah Foundation Institute, which Mr. Spielberg began in 1994, had just approached Mr. Roberts about giving him an award and holding a fund-raiser. Mr. Spielberg suggested during the call that Mr. Roberts visit the institute, which records and preserves tens of thousands of Holocaust testimonies.

“What I saw there was fascinating,” Mr. Roberts said in an interview. “The stories were very in-depth,” he said. “Some were incredibly depressing. Some were incredibly uplifting.”

The institute is careful about how it shares the testimonies, he said. Comcast arranged for its customers to be able to watch 10 films, some in English and some in other languages, through video-on-demand and an iPad app. Others will be able to stream the films at XfinityTV.com. The film distribution is pegged to Holocaust Remembrance Day on May 1, and will start Monday and last through May 25.

The partnership may be, in part, a way for Comcast to please Mr. Spielberg. But it also shows Comcast’s desire to use video-on-demand and the Web as outlets for public service projects.

In January, for instance, the company worked with the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum to distribute videos about the Kennedy presidency. Mr. Roberts said one of his goals for the merged Comcast and NBCUniversal was to “do some things that we can be very proud of.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e6c99ff219f216970fd79bd6d307153c