Among the signs of a new year: a ball (or acorn) dropping, champagne popping and TV titans fighting.
Television broadcasters and pay-TV providers are increasingly at odds over programming fees. With many contracts tied to the calendar year, the disputes tend to flare up as Jan. 1 approaches.
This year's edition pits Time Warner Cable, the Triangle's dominant pay-TV provider, against Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns WLFL, or CW22, and WRDC, or MyRDC. Both sides are warning customers of blackouts when their contract expires at midnight on Dec. 31.
An extended blackout could disrupt fans of popular CW shows such as the Vampire Diaries, Nikita, 90210 and Gossip Girl, left.
Time Warner Cable has about 2.1 million customers in the Carolinas, including 830,000 in the region from Raleigh to the coast.
"At Time Warner Cable, we think it's wrong to put viewers in the middle of business negotiations," the company writes in a full-page ad in today's News & Observer. "We know you're tired of these public contract disputes. So are we. But broadcasters keep demanding higher and higher fees for their programming -- driving up TV prices -- and we're determined to fight back."
This month, Time Warner Cable raised rates for most of its services, blaming rising operating costs. That included increasing the cost of basic cable $5 to $64.99 a month. Those annual rate hikes anger customers and spur some to drop service.
Sinclair says it's seeking fees that are lower than what Time Warner Cable pays for less-popular programming. It points out on its website that viewers can switch to Time Warner Cable rivals such as DirecTV or AT&T's U-Verse service.
"You have alternatives and you should let [Time Warner Cable] know that you will use them if they don't provide the same level of programming as their competition," Sinclair writes in a Q&A posted online here.
Including its Triangle stations, Sinclair owns 58 TV stations in 35 markets.
For Time Warner Cable, this is its third public squabble in the past year. Last year at this time, the cable-TV company warned of potential blackouts of Fox cable-TV stations because of a dispute with News Corp. Over the summer, Time Warner Cable sparred with Walt Disney Co., owner of ESPN and ABC11.
As with previous disputes, those fights ended in last-minute settlements.
Unlike its heated and public spats with other broadcasters, Time Warner Cable has been involved in private negotiations with Raleigh-based Capitol Broadcasting for much of this year. Capitol owns WRAL and Fox 50 in the Triangle, as well as stations in Charlotte and Wilmington.
The companies' previous contract expired in July, but the two sides kept extending it as officials continued negotiations. They settled on a new agreement on Dec. 14, said Time Warner Cable spokesman Keith Poston. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Time Warner Cable has posted more information about its dispute with Sinclair on its "Roll Over or Get Tough" website here.
Assistant Business Editor Alan M. Wolf joined the N&O in 1999 covering the business of health care. He became an editor in 2001, and helps oversee the paper's daily business coverage and Sunday Work&Money section. He lives in Clayton with his wife and two children. Reach him at 919-829-4572 or
Comments
Good riddance!!!
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 21:53 — BourbonStI don't care about these channels and don't know anyone who does; however, I'm sure someone must watch them but to me and my family they're no big deal. My real gripe with Time Warner and the City of Raleigh is the Community TV Channel, which adds $10 to $12 per month to everyone's cable TV bill. They should trash that channel, too, and reduce customers' bills. It's nothing more than a propaganda channel, and it gets nauseating to go across the channels and have to get a quick view of the public affairs director with the City of Raleigh or, even worse, the City Manager.
Siding with TWC for once
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 12:15 — rob1977ncI almost never side with Time Warner...they are a company I don't really care for (and I only use them because I haven't found the alternatives much better for me and my needs).
That said, this time I'm actually siding with them. Sorry Sinclair, but your two channels are not that popular really. I don't hardly ever watch any of them nor know many people who do. They are third-rate entertainment at best. Whining for higher fees just makes you look even more pathetic really. And you won't win points from viewers by demanding higher fees, which the cable company would just pass on to consumers anyways. No thank you...you're not worth it.
So if Time Warner drops your two silly little UHF channels that's totally fine by me. I won't even notice it!
Goodbye CW
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 12:10 — uncheelI'm no BIG fan of TWC, but I haven't cared about CW since they cancelled Reaper.
Cable TV and Channel 22
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 11:14 — gconklinI watch Channel 22 with an antenna. But if you are going to start doing that, you had better practice in advance. I ended up with a 8-bow-tie array, and have to adjust it for each channel. By adjust I mean rotate the thing by hand outside the back door. And when a plane flies by, you have to be prepared to loss of signal. Ditto if the wife moves around upstairs. Her TV has an amplified roof-mounted antenna. Some days she cannot get Channel 11. Other days, she can. So, folks, get an antenna and be prepared to experiment.
Who's in Charge?
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 11:14 — MissVLast couple of years TWC changed the 'really' basic lineup and removed TNT. Over past few months removed C-SPAN 2 and whatever was on Channel 20. Says I'd need to 'upgrade' to a converter box to get them 'back' because the carrier changed their technology.
The public, educational and gov't access channels are abysmal with all of the repeats and lackluster interviewers. I'm still reading announcements from 2009, some which seem commercial.
I don't want a book channel, baby channel or knee channel in exchange for dropping TV 22. It has the fewest of locally produced programs and is not as big a player to me as TNT, but I'm also getting close to popping a dish up on the roof - like my neighbors.
I agree
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 22:04 — BourbonStI thought it was pretty clever of Time Warner to drop the channels and say that I had to have a converter box. There are no more than four or five channels I have any use for. The non-English channels, home shopping channels, info-mercial channels are garbage. Several years ago the FCC told local operators that they had to separate the community TV programming from regular programming and reduce prices to consumers. Most communities did as the FCC said they should do, but either due to ignorance or just plain corruption, Time Warner and City of Raleigh did not do so. The one main goofy community channel adds $10 - $12 per month to my $65 per month bill.
I am not sure we will ever
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 10:55 — dlnorrisI am not sure we will ever see the benefits of less regulation from cablevision. Since congress continually adds regulations to protect the deregulated cable providers (bet you find this mostly occurred under the watch of those Democrats who run for the people...). Paying the cable provider for running the cable/server makes sense. Paying content providers for commercial free movies and shows makes sense. But the cable providers started billing us for 'expanded services'... ie sports and enteratianment shows that were paid for by commercials. The cable providers have continued to add to these charges, and the content providers want a cut. Do the right thing, read a book...... (of course I am into the cable and communication industry for 300 or 400 dollars every month.... cable TV, Broadband, Wireless, Smartphone, cell phone...etc....)
TWC and Fees
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 10:09 — billbee1TWC is always trying to make it sound like they are looking after their customers....give me a break. They raise their rates but then they are not passing it on to the providers. They have just gone up on their rates this year but again they are trying to pocket everything just as in the past. That is what is leading to these disputes. I wish that other cable companies would share the same market so that there would be competition within the market. This is excactly why I switched to DirecTV, they carry the NFL network and all TWC would tell me for many years was "We are still trying to negotiate with them"
Here we go again
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 10:04 — uBniceI plan to cut down 3 trees in my back yard so that I can get DirecTV.
The new year hasn't even begun and TWC is up to their same game - announce a fight with a content provider, tell the public that they are fighting for their best interest so please help them with the fight, then raise rates. TWC has raised their rates each and every year, without fail.
TWC has a commercial touting the "look back" technology which, by the way, does not work as advertised. In the commercial, at the end the woman in the commercial says "And best of all, it is free to you!". False advertisement. TWC announced increased cable rates and said that they had to cover the costs of adding the new technology.
I want my money back!!
Trees might be saved!
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 11:30 — nancyncWe have Direct TV and will not go back to cable, ever. Recently our one maple got in the way (via growth over the last couple years) and when Direct TV came out to realign our dish, they were able to do so without having to cut the tree. In fact, they added a dish to the roof and our signal has never been better or less interupted.
I have to hand it to the techs from Direct TV, they took their time and customized the response to our needs with no impact to our tree.
Beats cable anyday of the week.
Last Resort
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 11:55 — uBniceIt really is a matter of last resort. I really would prefer not to cut the trees down but I had it assessed by DirecTV and there is no alternative. Bummer!
But I would certainly like to get away from the TWC drama. I envy you.
I'm sorry.
Mon, 12/27/2010 - 14:04 — nancyncI can understand your desires to save your trees, that's the only pitfall with Direct TV, unless they could mount one to your home and bypass the trees.
I hope you can find an alternative though, somehow, someway!!