?

Log in

No account? Create an account
"heroes" but not about "heroes" - Greg [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Greg

[ website | gregstoll.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| * Homepage * Mobile apps (Windows Phone, Win8, Android, webOS) * Pictures * LJBackup * Same-sex marriage map * iTunesAnalysis * Where's lunch? ]

"heroes" but not about "heroes" [Sep. 23rd, 2008|10:01 am]
Greg
[Tags|, ]
[Current Mood |annoyedannoyed]

While watching "Heroes" at the Drafthouse last night, two things pissed me off entirely unrelated to the show.

1. KXAN (our NBC affiliate) kept shrinking the screen to warn us that, after October 2 Time Warner customers won't be able to see their station because they won't pay the reasonable price of less than one cent per customer per day (this happened like 10 times over the two hours). Here's KXAN's side of the story. They also (playing hardball) say you can sign up with Dish TV or AT&T U-Verse to ensure that you can still see everything, etc.

One cent per customer per day doesn't sound like much, but if every channel charged that much...let's see, there are around 150-200 channels in the basic Digital package, and that would be $45-$60 a month when the package itself only costs $65. (obviously Time Warner has a lot of infrastructure to pay for, plus they have to make a profit somewhere in there) So that's a little high. Not to mention the fact that KXAN is available for free over-the-air! I can understand a nominal fee to Time Warner, I guess, but asking for more money for something that anyone in the Austin area can get for free seems a little cheeky.

Time Warner's side of the story (yes, they bought thetruthhurtskxan.com on September 17th!) points this out, although that's mostly their only argument other than KXAN is trying to negotiate through the public, etc.

I would imagine that KXAN has more power here - while switching from cable to Dish or something else is a pain and not always possible, there are no substitutes for watching NBC shows (except for viewing them online or illegally downloading them or something) - Time Warner has better substitutes than KXAN does.

In the end, they had better figure this crap out and I better not miss my Heroes and Chuck and 30 Rock.


2. What is it with stupidly-titled shows? Last night we saw a preview for Yes Man which is about a Man who decides to say Yes to everything. There was also Sex Drive which is about a guy who Drives to California to have Sex. It makes me think they started with the title and came up with the lamest, most straightforward interpretation of it and then made a movie. Cut it out! (yeah, yeah, Yes Man is based on a book, but the book has the same stupid and literal title)
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: destroyerj
2008-09-23 03:52 pm (UTC)
OMG SPOILERS
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: fartingmonkey
2008-09-23 06:41 pm (UTC)
Soon you will all bow to the power of my mighty antennae fed television! BWAHAHAHAHA
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: djedi
2008-09-23 10:07 pm (UTC)
KXAN has a decent argument: Time Warner is making money off of including their programming (broadcast channels form the majority of channel-time people watch I would bet). I think they should get a nominal fee since TWC is benefitting from reselling their goods.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: spchampion
2008-09-24 01:05 pm (UTC)
One word: Hulu. No need to waste time with TV's silly politics anymore.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: liz_gregory
2008-09-24 01:44 pm (UTC)
oooo, something for us poor slobs who don't even have an antenna ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: liz_gregory
2008-09-24 01:41 pm (UTC)
Two annoyances from me:
1. KXAN said "less than one cent per viewer per day" which could be anywhere from .01 to .99 cents. That might not equate to the numbers you mentioned in your post. It makes some sense for KXAN to expect a share in the fee that TWC charges to view it's stations, of course, the arguement is "everyone else is getting it..."
2. The TWC page doesn't actually explain where they disagree with KXAN. Neither side is explaining ANY of the facts, just their spin on them. I can easily see how both statements could be said from the same data. That irks me greatly. Especially this statement: "The only way viewers will be shut out is if KXAN refuses us the right to carry their signal. Ultimately it is KXAN's decision whether or not our customers will see their programming." The problem is not entirely KXAN's fault, and that statement is like saying "it's entirely up to KXAN to come up with a proposal that we will accept before we will rebroadcast their signal. We will accept only doing it for free."

Give me a break, guys!
(Reply) (Thread)