Cablevision’s customer forums are abuzz with complaints against the company and threats to drop Cablevision’s services – all relating to Cablevision’s decision to drop HGTV and the FoodNetwork – two very popular cable channels with unique content.
Cablevision blames a contract dispute with Scripps Networks as the root cause of dropping Scripps Networks’ HGTV and The FoodNetwork channels, yet the whole situation stinks of corporate greed and the need to maximize profits at the expense of the customer, a practice that cablevision has become very adept at.
When it comes down to it, the Scripps debacle is only the icing on the cake of cablevision’s anti-consumer practices – 2009 has been filled with examples of Cablevision’s questionable practices that have one goal in mind – Increasing revenue, regardless of how customers are affected, an ideology leveraged by monopolies for centuries. However Cablevision needs to be very careful – the company is no longer a monopoly and each strike at the consumer moves those customers closer to the competition – namely satellite and phone company alternatives.
Over the last year, cablevision has made several changes that highlight the company’s goal to increase billing, while limiting services. One of the first concrete indications of Cablevision’s anti-consumer practices came with the company’s switch to digital broadcast technology – the company removed popular analog channels from their system, under the guise of creating more bandwidth for digital TV. While on the surface, that sounds like a customer-orientated goal, a deeper dive shows how the move was engineered to force consumers to pay additional fees for services that were once free.
First off, a look at the analog channels that were eliminated shows that the company targeted popular channels such as TLC, SyFy, MSNBC, AMC, MTV, VH1, Lifetime, Spike, ABC Family, BET, WE, History Channel, CNN Headline News, Fuse, C-Span, and others (for more info, please read this consumer reports post).
Consumers who used to get those channels for free now had to pay for digital equipment to receive them – in other words, consumers were forced to rent a digital cable box at $6.75 per month for each television in the household and with many households having three or more TVs, that could really boost cablevision’s profits. The move to digital would not have been so bad if Cablevision did not decide to scramble that digital content, which forces consumers to use Cablevision’s proprietary equipment. It seems that the only reason that cablevision would scramble those channels is to prevent consumers from using integrated digital TV tuners, clearQAM or other technologies to receive those channels – one has to wonder who benefited from the move to digital and the scrambling of content.
In 2009, Cablevision was also pushing the move to HDTV, by offering High-definition content (on their own digital equipment of course) to consumers. One of the highlights of Cablevision’s HDTV content was VOOM networks, with offered 15 channels of unique specialized content to Cablevision subscribers. Cablevision dropped VOOM (which is owned by Cablevision’s subsidiary Rainbow networks) in January of 2009, claiming that VOOM would cease operations due to financial reasons – yet, VOOM still offers HDTV content internationally. One could believe that VOOM was eliminated simply because Cablevision had reached it HDTV subscription goals and VOOM was no longer needed to entice new customers. Once again, Cablevision showed that it could eliminate services, without lowering prices to customers.
The examples of Cablevision’s anti-consumer posture abounds. One just has to cruise the various blogs and forums to find many more examples of how Cablevision can offer less and charge more, or see examples of how over the years Cablevision has argued for rate increases, yet has had ample cash reserves to purchase Madison Square Garden, News Day and even the failed Wiz electronics store chain.
Perhaps things will change, the latest problem created by Cablevision is based upon a claim against HGTV and The Food Network’s provider wanting higher fees for content, while that may be true – it is interesting that no other Cable TV providers, Phone Company TV service providers or Satellite TV providers have dropped Scripp’s programming. So, what is the truth here? Is Cablevision the bad guy or is it Scripps Networks’ fault? One may never know – but the stage has been set for a potential industry change to occur that will harm broadcasters and change the way content is consumed – and that is called on-demand Internet TV.
Those that have been denied access to channels are turning to the Internet to watch their shows, and are able to do that according to their own schedules. As Internet enabled digital TV devices arrive on the market and more people adopt entertainment system PCs – there will be a shift and once that happens, a combination of over the air digital broadcasts and internet enabled TVs might just meet the typical consumers needs – good news for PC vendors, bad news for Cable, phone-company and satellite TV broadcasters. All the technology needs is a little push – and perhaps Cablevision inadvertently gave that new technology a much needed push.
My Favorites
Loading ...
Just a reminder that for your usage higher is spelled higher, not hire!!!
Otherwise a well thought out piece.
HC
Hey Frank, I seems you are trying to ‘clean up’ your piece at the end by appearing balanced, yet it seems like you’ve made up your mind on who’s at fault here.
RE: Food and HGTV – Did you consider that Cablevision may no longer have a license to transit the channels and therefore stopped carrying them? Where is your invective against Scripps for not offering Cablevision subscribers relief (and continuous access to programming) while the two companies worked out their differences over new monthly fees per household. Perhaps you’d be appalled if you knew what each of these advertiser supported programmers were taking out of your bill each month? Just saying .. you should consider the possibilities.
RE: Switching analog for digital channels. Here you have an axe to grind. You acknowledge that digital systems are a customer benefit, yet will not accept the cost of the box (as an itemized price in the form of the monthly rental). Sure all cable systems once had analog channels – 30 or so – taking up the same cable that now carries hundreds of video and music services, digital phone and high speed internet. And no, customers never got those channels for free – they were always part of a basic tier as they are now.
Scripps did offer relief to Time Warner Customers – their HGTV and FN were not turned off. Time Warner is actually at the table negotiating with Scripps – unlike Cablevision who declares that they have no intention of offering these stations again.
Scripps has also successfully negotiated with other stations this year to get more value for their stations.
Scripps could definately handle this better – they should stream or offer the shows we are missing on their website.
But our inability to watch our regular stations falls to Cablevision and their refusal to negotiate and total disregard of the customer.
Movedeast,
You make some good points – but, if the case with Scripps was about outrageous fees and other anti-consumer practices, why doesn’t cablevision state percentage wise what the increases are and instead of using language such as “due to scripps’ financial troubles”, tell the subscriber in no uncertain terms what Scripps is demanding to carry those channels? Also, why are no other providers jumping on the bandwagon to hold scripps’ feet to the flame?
also, the issue of moving over to digital is not about the change in technology, but how cablevision ensures that no third party digital TV tuners will work with the channels they moved. When cablevision first moved those channels from analog to digital, you were able to view those channels with ClearQAM digital TV Tuners – then, almost over night, Cablevision started to scramble those channels – the only reason one could surmise, is that was done to force subscribers to rent digital boxes – and you can only rent those boxes from cablevision – other cable providers allow you to buy digital tuners, so with other providers you have a choice, not so with cablevision!
One could even go as far as to say that cablevision was using the scrambling of digital channels to force consumers to rent Cablevision’s DVR technology. The scrambled channels and proprietary digital cable boxes have forced users of media center PCs or Tivo’s to abandon that technology or pay for the rental of multiple cable TV boxes.
How is any of this a benefit to the subscriber?
Frank – again good questions. I’m not an apologist for Cablevision but these things always have two sides. Ultimately Cablevision is a public utility with rate regulation and a direct consumer relationship in an increasing competitive market. Scripps could easily have them over a barrel. Maybe that’s the tactic Scripps took. it seems the only reasonable defense is to simply turn the tables and make it Scripps problem (and that of their national advertiser base.) RE: Why don’t they express the percntage? Would you go there if you were them? Seems that’s exactly what Scripps would like. You like Food and HGTV. Some others love ESPN and Disney. Before you know it every time a contract is up a weak Cablevision is irrelevant and you are paying $300 a month for channels. My guess is that Cablevision wants to get away from paying any onerous monthly subscriber fees and let advertisers carry the burden as they do with over the air channels.
Re Digital. consider that your preferred open source boxes are likely incompatible with the head end software provided by the Cablevision box manufacturer. The details for such converter purchases runs in the millions of units runs over multiple years. Perhaps there is a provision for thatanufacturer to also provide head end software, maintenance and other elements in the deal that kept up front costs (and your costs) to a minimum while insureing compatibility?
You are right that Cablevision is in a fight for relevance with Fios, wireless carriers, and the Internet now challenging their business model. My guess is their scale gives them some “say” in how that takes shape. It’s a chess game – very interesting to watch.
I wonder if we will see a reduction on our bill since we have less channels?
I think it is time to look into satellite and an antenna. HD content is better with an antenna since the signal is not compressed. I live right in the middle of Philadelphia and NYC. I can get around 64 channels with a $200.00 antenna.
Bill,
But are you able to get Food Network with your $200 antenna? We’re in the same geographical area, and we’d consider a quality antenna if we knew we could get the channels we want, and since Food Network is a big deal in our household, I understand our only option is either CableVision or Satellite or FIOS. If I’m wrong, I’ll go out an pay for one of those $200 antennas tomorrow. Or did I misunderstand you, and you are using both satellite AND an antenna? Either way, thank you for your input and apt perspective on the options that exist. We’re thinking that we’ll be switching to Direct TV so as to get our beloved FOOD NETWORK back.
The other side of this coin is on the commercial side: my company is about to place a great deal of media with cablevision, and the HGTV buy was about a third of the schedule – my sales rep never mentioned this possibility, and HGTV was crucial to the schedule for this client’s spot. Of course, we can simply run the remaining placements and spend the rest of the buy with a non-cablevision media placement, but it would appear that cablevision simply doesn’t care as they’ve become a behemoth bordering on monopoly that clearly has no concern for customer needs. There is scarce competition in their market, and they now own print/internet/television and sports under the same umbrella. Perhaps at some point the DOJ steps in for a look. Also, google the December 25th executive contract renewals for the top of the white collar heap here: jr. dolan got a 1.5M base salary, with options of 4X that for the year, and other execs got even more! My guess is some of that could have been allocated to the Scripps request and the nickel-up per customer (or less) could have been absorbed. Ironically, I say let the internet that they provide eat them alive, though not too far down the road net access (at least in this country) will likely move toward a subscription model similar to cable tv’s. Sheesh! Maybe I’m still just pissed about them taking off Monsters HD and the other Voom channels with only pay-per replacements channels with weak content (Chiller anyone? Really?). Also, though this comment is likely rife with typos, I’d caution Henry C above to watch the hyphenated compound modifiers before being overly critical of editorial oversight.
Greeting
Please keep me in mind when internet TV along with a phone service package becomes available. I presently have Cablevision (2 accounts) paying outrageous fees per Month. I want to be the first customer providing…They offer the “Food Network”!
“LET THE CHANGE BEGAN”
By the way, I would want a job as well helping connecting Family, Friends and others in my surrounding community area to service. I’ll even trouble shoot problems
online from my computer not in my area!!
“LET THE CHANGE BEGAN”
What a wonderful blog! Please continue this great work I will be sure to check back regularly…
cool blog i’m driving a car powered on water fuel instead of normal fuel to drive its good against global warming and it saves me loads of money too you check it out here: LINK
I think your blog is great. Found it on Google. I love the suggestions you make and will certainly use and apply them….one day LOL. I will certainly be back soon checking out your posts.