|"heroes" but not about "heroes"
||[Sep. 23rd, 2008|10:01 am]
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)