Absolutely. There’s no credible alternative.

“It hurts them more than it hurts the cable operators.”

Couldn’t disagree more. Consider this Les Moonves quote from a Forbes story published today: “Try running a cable network without the Super Bowl, the Grammys, CSI, The Final Four, Survivor and David Letterman.”

Now, he means a cable SYSTEM not a cable network, but his point is made. No cable operator can compete in the marketplace with satellite or Fios if they don’t have the Super Bowl, American Idol, NCIS, etc.

The thing you have to remember is that developing a second revenue stream is an existential crisis for broadcasters. If they fail they will eventually go out of business, period. So if a cable operator refuses to pay a network, that network absolutely MUST pull their signal or they will lose all credibility in subsequent negotiations.

Threatening to pull a signal and then not pulling it would be like writing a death sentence for your own business.

Having to pay for things I don’t use is one of the reasons I got rid of my cable and satellite programing a couple of years ago. People should be upset about that. It is an unfair practice. What if you went to a doctor and he said, “I’ll give you an appendectomy, but you’ll have to have an heart operation too because it is more profitable for me?” How about if the only fast food chain in town said, “I can’t just sell you the hamburger, you have to have the combo because it helps me make more money.”

I don’t know about the CBS deal and if it is the same thing that Sir Rupert is proposing. Are you suggesting that there’s a conspiracy between them that needs to be investigated? I hadn’t thought of that. Thanks for bringing it up.

Particularly since Fox owns stations in all of the top 5 markets, and most of the top 10. I don’t think anyone would call Fox’s bluff, but if they did, I don’t see Fox actually pulling their signal.

The way Must Carry works is the cable company must carry a station if the station asks them to for free. But the station has the right to negotiate carriage fees, which the cable company is not required to pay. Fox is only negotiating for carriage fees for those stations that they own, so it won’t affect any non-Fox owned stations.

I also wonder how this bumps up aginst the “Must Carry” requirements where cable companies are required to carry the local broadcast stations?

In the first three weeks of this season, MyNetworkTV is having their best numbers yet with their syndication/programming service strategy that mixes series encores (‘Law & Order: CI’ and ‘The Unit’) with fresh programming (‘WWE Smackdown’, ‘Are You Smarter…’, ‘Deal or No Deal’, ‘My Thursday Night Movie/Special’).

Don’t you know that anyone trying to make a profit is pure evil?

Millions of people who wind up paying for ESPN, A&E, Bravo, CNN, AMC, TNT, HGTV, The Golf Channel and DOZENS of other channels who NEVER watch those channels…and still pay for them.

Bill, can I ban Philosopher Jay for being a ridiculous conspiracy theorist?

Didn’t think so.

It does mean the era of free TV will soon be over I think. First the nets charge cable companies, then they stop broadcasting for free over the airwaves. It’s only a matter of time.

Why should Time-Warner make more on TBS and TNT for their stations to be carried than FOX which is watched much, much more. Same for the other broadcasters, but not sure if the owned and operated mix is 9 out of 10 for them.

There will be a lot of kicking and screaming here, from all parties.