UPDATE (3/7): On Sunday night, ABC programming was restored to 3 million Cablevision customers in the N.Y. tri-state area at 8:43 p.m. after the two sides resolved the dispute over retransmission fees detailed in the original post and updates below. The network had pulled its programming at midnight on Saturday.
ABC-Disney followed through with its threat tonight by pulling the New York-area WABC-TV from Cablevision after it failed to reach a re-transmission agreement with the cable giant. Some 3 million Cablevision customers in Long Island, Westchester, Brooklyn, and parts of Connecticut and New Jersey were affected.
Rebecca Campbell, President and General Manager, WABC-TV, released this statement: “Cablevision has once again betrayed its subscribers by losing ABC7, the most popular station in the tri-state area. This follows two years of negotiations, during which we worked diligently, up to the final moments, to reach an agreement. Cablevision pocketed almost $8 billion last year, and now customers aren’t getting what they pay for…again. It’s time for Jim Dolan and the Dolan Family Dynasty to finally step up, be fair, and do what’s right for our viewers.”
Cablevision’s exec VP of communications Charles Schueler released a statement in response: “It is now painfully clear to millions of New York area households that Disney CEO Bob Iger will hold his own ABC viewers hostage in order to extract $40 million in new fees from Cablevision. We call on Bob Iger to immediately return ABC to Cablevision customers while we continue to work to reach a fair agreement.”
ABC began warning customers last week that they could miss the Oscars because of the stalemate. Affected subscribers can still access WABC-TV for free by going old-school with an antenna.
UPDATE: Campbell released another statement today: “Cablevision’s legendary greed and disregard for the needs of their customers continues. Now the only way for their subscribers to get ABC7 is to ditch Cablevision and switch to a provider that cares about them. Cablevision customers who want ABC7 should make that switch now.”
UPDATE: Cambell released another statement: “We have sent Cablevision a new proposal, and are awaiting their response. If Cablevision is serious about doing right by their customers and returning ABC7 and its programming to them, then they need to act now. The ball is in their court.”
UPDATE: Cablevision said it would agree to binding arbitration with ABC Disney in order to return ABC to Cablevision customers, as suggested earlier today by Senator John Kerry and other political leaders. In a statement, Cablevision’s executive vice president of communications, Charles Schueler, said, “We remain deeply disappointed that ABC Disney has put their own financial interests above their viewers and pulled the plug on ABC…. Thus, Cablevision will agree to binding arbitration and calls upon Disney CEO Bob Iger to immediately return ABC to New York area viewers, and join us in binding arbitration to resolve this matter fairly. We have communicated our position to the highest levels of the FCC and urged the agency to appropriately involve itself in this process.”
I can’t believe ABC did this on OScar weekend. That’s just lame.
ABC ?!?! Cablevision did this, don’t blame ABC. Cablevision has been getting away with poor service and trying to bully customers on both sides of the fence. We just went through all this when Cablevision didn’t want to pay Food Network a nominal amount of cash, so what happended ?!?! We went with out Foodnetwork for a weeks. WAKE UP CABLEVISION. I just might open my OWN cable company, gank all your customers, make money, pay my subsciptions, and make millions of people happy….seeing as how, with all your money, you consistantly fail ! ! ! LoLoLosers
@ Jeff: Both sides are to blame. Yes, this isn’t the first time Cablevision has had this type of issue, and I am not defending them, but you gotta admit that ABC is being pretty unreasonable here. Cablevision already pays them $200 million in fees, and ABC is STILL demanding a pound of flesh from them? People without cable can watch ABC and aren’t obliged to pay any sort of fee to do so, so what gives?
Cablevision is at fault, but ABC has chosen to hold the Oscar telecast hostage unless a ransom is paid. Such treatment of viewers is inexcusable. ABC should never be allowed to broadcast the Oscars again.
don’t be an idiot. cablevision is trying to prevent ABC from extracting more fees from you!! if ABC wins this battle, your cable fees are going to go up.
ABC did this not cablevision. ch 7 is a free channel. they make money by advertising and commercial. They want to make cablevision pay to carry a FREE channel? This is wrong. cablevision has to use their equipment and channel bandwidth to show abc’s channel which is making abc money not cablevision. know what your talking about before you say it idiot.
@jj
There is no such thing as a “free” channel. Your local ABC affiliate has to pay for the ability to broadcast the ABC content. Even if you get the signal via antenna, the broadcaster is having to pay ABC for the rights to broadcast it to you. Just like Radio stations have to pay for the right to broadcast music.
Perhaps you should better understand the details of how things work before you start calling people idiots.
Jeff you just made one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen. I don’t care if a broacaster has to pay, what JJ meant was it was free to the consumer, and the only thing that could possibly happen by ABC chargin more to Cablevision is Cablevision will raise rates. There is absolutely no benefit to the consumer by what ABC is doing
Unless you know what the retransmission regs of 1993 actually are about, I suggest you shut your pieholes. This has nothing to do with ABC being free – it has a lot to do with Disney’s entire family of channels. They are expensive, but also some of the most popular on television (ABC, DISNEY, ESPN, etc.). This happens every year with some channels….last year was Viacom which threatened to pull MTV. This is how they negotiate – usually in the press, and typically by threatening to pull channels. While cablevision is one of the worst ops in the country – their equipment is terrible, their software is laggy and annoying, and their added feature barely functional (dvr, ppv) – i’m sure they have some arguement about how expensive everything is. Nobody cares. They spend a total of $20 out of the $125 on AVERAGE they make per consumer on programming. Programming is why people watch TV.
As Billy posted, this is not just about channel 7. I worked for a cable company in Los Angeles and when the 1993 regs were passed, off air channels (those that can be received with an antenna) had the option to charge the cable company a fee to retransmit their signal or the channels could opt to give retransmission consent free of charge. What most broadcasters opted to do at that time was offer to give retransmission consent IF you carry certain channels that are also owned by them, e.g. FX for Fox, ESPN for ABC, MSNBC for NBC, (at that time CBS was not owned by Viacom and had no cable channels except one which eventually was swallowed up by Discovery’s family of channels). So I side with Cablevision on this because the fees they charge for these channels is unbelievable, ESPN is the most expensive channel on Basic cable and broadcasters hold cable companies hostage with this.
I need to reword something, after the 1993 regs came into being, of air broadcasters could opt for either retransmission consent or must carry status.
I am curious Billy, do you know, really know what the negotiated rate is each of the channels that Cablevision carries? Pricing is not just a simple, okay we get $??? for carriage of ESPN, back then and we are talking 16 years ago, ESPN cost $1.69 per subscriber per month, and that price was after also fulfilling a contract option that it be carried low on the cable lineup (channel 3 or 6 in our case). The problem has become that broadcasters have bought cable programmers and many are consolidated under a few companies giving them added power at the negotiation table. A dollar here or $.25 there may not seem much but add that up and it can be more than just $25.
Another thing. It was ABC that pulled their programming from Cablevision at this inopportune time.
The fact is just like ABC doesn’t have to allow cablevision to broadcast their channel(which I think ABC should lose their over the air licence for), then the same should be said for Cablevision. But the fact is it’s not, Cablevision is required to air ABC or any other broadcast channel, as long as it’s free. So ABC can start pulling this crap during key programming and then just not charge and then Cablevision would be forced to broadcast their channel again.
Because I’m sure WABC will want to be broadcast when their local news is on, personally if they get away with not allowing the Academy Awards to be broadcast, then the leverage should be with Cablevision, because they could not air WABC for months and no one would miss it, all the top ABC programming is available on ABC online, but their local news and programming would lost tens of millions.
I would do anything to be able to watch desperate housewives, literally anything. I don’t want to pay more but my mouth is a pleasure hole. I’m sure I could put a smile on the boss’s face.
ABC did this. If I as a consumer is supposedly able to get ABC for free from the air, why should I as consumer pay for it if I use Cablevision.
Also ABC’s suggestions that we consumers have choices is plain wrong. If you live in condos/co-ops/apartments your choices are restricted by what your complex allows which in many cases means no dish and no FIOS. People don’t have antennas so you need to search for one then keep switching between it and cable. This is assuming it works. In many areas in the suburbs the reception over the air is horrible.
I don’t personally care for Oscars, but I want to watch DWTS when it airs. Hopefully this nonsense will ends by then.
I don’t understand why ABC is the only one that is doing this and not CBS, NBC or FOX. If I saw it from those guys as well, then I would say it’s all on Cablevision. And if ABC cared about their customers they would stream it online for us to watch.
This is obvious the cable companies like Comcast and Cablevision prefer to force outrages fees to areas to show their broadcasts. This is a joke, these companies are running rampant since they have been deregulated with their fees. This needs to be stopped corperate greed at its best when we are in a recision.
ABC has programs to air because they have a licence given to them by the people of the United States. They broadcast these programs free to anyone with an antenna but it doesn’t matter how a person receives these broadcasts. By an antenna or a cable,,, it doesn’t matter. If they did not have their license they wouldn’t be able to show squat. They have one hell of a nerve to demand payment from anyone for something they give away for free because of their license.
I switched to Fios today, had been considering the switch for a while, but this put the nail in the coffin for me. Even if all cable cost go up, Cablevision has been the worst service imaginable. The interface is pathetic and the reception is shotty. F*&(@ Cablevision!
When we signed on, cable reassured us that we would not have to have a seperate signal for ch 2-21, and charged us 18$ for them as a basic package, for the greedy dolans to pocket the $$ all these years for free air time and not pass it on to channels like abc, who has been fighting for that, is just the greedy dolans again, has nothing to do with disney, just the dolans greed again
thats what they say to me abc suppose to be free.
Paula, I’m confused. Doesn’t cablevision pays wabc 200 million? Were they lying?
you got charged 18 because cabelvision has to use their equipment and bandwidth to show abc. Also if you have equipment and wiring
Oh right….so what does the equipment rental charge cover? Oh wait – and how about the installation charges? And I assume that $18 dollars takes fully into account the govt subsidies cvision got to actually run all that wire to your door. Again, if you don’t know what you are talking about, or are an obvious cablevision employee/shill, shut the hell up.
The reason why cable companies can charge a relatively low fee for basic cable is because most of the channels are broadcast channels and they get them for free, so if networks charge each one like they were ESPN, sorry no more low cost basic cable.
For broadcast channels the govermentt has some leverage, if they start to charge then the FCC should not renew their over the air licence and give it to another broadcast company, since these local stations are acting like cable only channels.
Well All you people know nothing what it takes to run these companys first off It should be that abc pays cable to air their programming not the other way around second what every channel is now going to hold cable hostage there has to be some sort of legal precidant to stop all this also the leverage that abc has over cable ends tonight anyway when the oscars end
Broadcast channels shouldn’t charge a carriage fee, I don’t get why Congress allowed that. They were given their spectrum free of charge by the FCC, and their programming is available free over the air.
It’s bad enough that Disney is buying up all the sports programming and then charging outrageous carriage charges for ESPN.
If networks want to be cable channels, then they need to give up their spectrum so the FCC can sell it to cell phone companies. I think Networks are headed that way, but why make it easy for them. I want Cablevision to hang tough.
Dan I completely agree! Unfortunately, in a free-market economy with little-to-no regulation, it’s the little-guy that always get screwed. In this case: the viewer.
Very funny. Mentioning the words “free market” and Cablevision or any cableop in the same sentence is pretty rich. Considering they are regional monopolies. And both parties are highly regulated. Dumbass.
“ABC-Disney followed through with its threat tonight by pulling the New York-area WABC-TV from Cablevision”
You’ve got that upside-down and backwards. Cablevision pulled WABC-TV from its lineup.
What is the source of your information?
ABC pulled the channel not cablevision you idiot!
jj is right. You’re an idiot. Go to WABC’s website. The second paragraph of the ABC/Cablevision story reads, “WABC-TV pulled the station from Cablevision at midnight Sunday in a dispute over re-transmission fees.” THIS WAS WRITTEN BY WABC!! Get your facts straight!
Barlmer you are retarded. Point blank. Do not try to correct EW – for once they did not mess up the context of their headlines or articles’ subjects.
Barimer – you are WRONG! ABC pulled the signal. Please look at other news sources before blindly believing everything ABC tells yo.
I don’t know if this works for New Yorker’s, but channel 7 is airing on channel 8 (WTNH) in the Greenwich, CT area!!!
nope, njn is playing little richard.
I just received an email from cablevision and on demand movies are free today for any cablevision customers due to this disruption of service
Who cares about watching movies! I want to watch the Oscars tonight and I truly resent being held hostage. I don’t care who is right or wrong..they are both being greedy!
I tried to order these movies 3x today & guess what? The movies were all “unavailable”…so, thanks for NOTHING Cablevision!
You can’t think that pouring sugar on a wound would make it any better..this is crap for the both ABC and Cablevision to play this greedy game again on the public!!!!!!!It’s a disgrace!
Pulling this weekend, how is this suppose to make me tell Cablevision to up the ante by paying them another 40 million if ABC is going to act like a 2 year old?
I understand FOOD network I pay cablevision for that channel so if they are not paying a network and they yank it off the air I get angry at CABLEVISION. But ABC 7 is free. If it was an ABC movie channel that I payed cablevision to have access to okay but it’s free so I don’t know why I am being punished for something that is suppose to be on the air for free. It’s okay though I can watch the shows off the website anyway on the following day. Still annoying though.
Exactly what I was thinking
ABC is entirely to blame. This is their money grab. Cablevision offered them more money than any other broadcast station is payed but it wasn’t enough for the greedy mice. Anyone who switched to FIOS is dumb – it’s going to cost you a heck of a lot of money to undo that mistake, but then you deserve the mess you got yourself into.
It’s the Oscars. Get over it. Live stream it if you’re so obsessed with the opulence of Hollywood
If this had been Super Bowl weekend, no way Cablevision would have pulled this stunt.
exactly, its the Oscars who cares!? another stupid show for stupid people
But how will I be able to go with my life not knowing what Anne Hathaway wore or what zany crazy opening skit they perform. Lastly, I don’t know if I’ll be able to go on, if I’m not able to watch Meryl Streep thanking people I don’t know.
Cablevision didn’t pull it, ABC did
PEOPLE, GET IT STRAIGHT: ABC PULLED CHANNEL 7 OFF THE AIR, NOT CABLEVISION.
You said it, Julie!
I could care less about the Oscars, and your judgemental tone is really endearing, but this better be resolved before LOST airs on Tuesday.
I could care less about Lost – so, don’t be twat, judging one’s “desire” to watch something you’re not interested in.
RyRyNYC – what a gem you are. I was talking to Julie who was being quite obnoxious to those who wanted to see the Oscars. So just calm on down there. OK?
If you’re not obsessed with the “opulence of Hollywood”, then why the heck are you on this website. People have different interests, you don’t have to be so nasty about it.
LOL@ Lola -
This article is linked to cnn.com’s home page
the dolans need to stop being so greedy and think about their subscribers first. god knows they charge enough for their service. i am so glad i don’t live in that area anymore.
No! This is Cablevision’s fault. The big cable companies are highway robbers who know customers will pay through the nose for their content.
but we already have been paying for channel 7 with out basic package for $18/month, but cablevision hasnt been passing on anything to abc and now says they are a “worthless channel” the dolans have a history of charging us for filler stations and not passing on their profit to abc, home garden, etc
Ok een if that is so, ABC is a mmulti million dollar operation, I don’t care at all if they get paid or not, the only thing this will affect is making my cable bill higher, so i don’t give a crap about ABC and if I don’t get it back before LOST I will flip out
Cablevision is not the one who pulled the channel. WABC did it. WABC is demanding $40 million from Cablevision…that works out to over a dollar a month per subscriber for an over-the-air channel. Cablevision only charges $9.32 for the over-the-air channels. WABC wants more than 10% of that fee just for its one channel. The amount is outrageous.
@ Julie:
Not everyone has the technological capability to do that. A bit elitist of you while condemning the Oscars? I believe so.
Cablevision has been plundering consumers for YEARS without competition. In NJ, FIOS is truly giving them a run for their money. Competition is necessary for us to REDUCE, not increase our bills. The fact that ABC (as well as everyone else) has to raise their rates to make money should not shock anyone, especially a company that made $8B from 3 million customers. Cablevision will continue to spiral downward if they will not adjust their attitude. Good riddance. Maybe their replacement will be wiser. If you want to do the math, multiple you monthly cablebox cost times the years you have owned it. A $400 (retail) piece of electronics has a rate of return that is phenomenal for the renter (that’s them).
way to prove a point, ABC. And seriously Cablevision, give in already.This is so ridiculous. No Oscars! I mean, this is just, insane! And seriously Julie, GFY! And stay out of threads where people are talking about this – seriously. M’kay
Awww poor Kenny… Don’t get to see the Oscars.. aww I feel so bad for you — seriously. M’kay
if cablevision has to pay then we will have a higher bill. abc is just being scumbags.
One question: Assuming ABC did not charge Cablevision to carry their programming, would ABC make more money if Cablevision (a) carried it, or (b) didn’t carry it? Think about it.
@35mm
If you can afford cable tv, you can afford an internet connection of sufficient bandwidth to stream video. With computers only costing a few hundred bucks now (the price of a decent tv), I think just about anyone who would have been effected by cablevision could have the technological capability to do that.
Boy, Caleb your comment really ticks me off. I can only afford basic cable, I am lucky to have a cousin which I can visit to use his computer. To assume that those that have cable can easily afford internet is plain ingonance.
And yet, you have the access to post how upset it makes you… I’m just saying.
He’s probably got a fridge full of beer too… Just sayin’
Old-school with an antenna? Don’t they also need a digital converter box?
no you just need a digital tv, which were the only ones made the last few years and a plain anttenae
Julie is 100% correct. Why Americans obsess over celebs is beyond belief. Are our meager lives so lame we need slobber over empty headed hollywood flakes?
and yet you’re on ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY’S WEBSITE
tool
@.,.. WIN! You are so right!
Actually, most people more than likely ended up here (as I did) because CNN links to this story on their home page. I would not be here otherwise.
Whether you got here on purpose or not, the point is you’re still here. You can read the article, and not the comments. You can read about this elsewhere, it’s not just EW covering this. If you’re replying to someone saying they’re pathetic for caring about celebrities on an ENTERTAINMENT WEBSITE, you’re still a hypocrite, because of where you happen to be. It’s like people going on a particular video on YouTube just to type “THIS SUCKS”, when they could very well avoid the video by not clicking on it, even if it was linked from their homepage.
Does anyone know which web sites will live stream the Oscars?
i googled the heck out of that, and came up with a lot of interesting possibilites, the best livestreamers w/o interference seem to be google, hulu, and articlbase, any good live stream can be hacked into so good luck to myself and all !
the simplest would probably be Oscar.com
Ironically enough it’s ABC’s own website. They are such hypocrites
Guess I’ll be watching shows on my computer. I hope advertisers make things very uncomfortable for ABC. This is a large, profitable chunk of the population to cut off.
Man, am I glad we have FIOS. Just reading about this debacle is exhausting.
uh…get a UHF antenna at Radio Shack for 15 bucks if your tv is hd ready, or get a box, too, if you need it. This isn’t rocket science (I did it and I don’t know anything). I unplugged from Cable when they screwed me out of their own promotional 12 month rate after three months. Constant harassment like phone calls on Sunday morning? Pthbbbbbbbbb! Not worth it.
did it work?