HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Cablevision Vs. News Corp.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-30-2010, 07:29 PM
  #101
GeorgeHamiltonsTan
Registered User
 
GeorgeHamiltonsTan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,232
vCash: 500
good thing i invested 45 minutes on the phone yesterday and was able to get my current promotional rate locked in for another 2 years.
the guy i was talking to said they were close to an agreement and unfortunately the deal is going to result in a "significant increase"
in rate within the next quarter...meh whatever weve got jets football tomorrow.

GeorgeHamiltonsTan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2010, 07:57 PM
  #102
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,555
vCash: 500
Listening to the two sides complain about the other, I feel like I am listening to a rapist argue with a child-molester. Guess what, you are BOTH dirty filthy disgusting animals (I'd use other words, but I think the curse filter would catch them). Anyways, it is moments like this that make me proud to have had a hotbox for about 5 years before I moved and had no choice but to get digital cable. Descrambler didn't work on digital box.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2010, 08:53 PM
  #103
SRTtoZ
Registered User
 
SRTtoZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeHamiltonsTan View Post
wait until you get the first bill and god forbid something ever goes wrong with it... thats all im sayin.
I have no worries about my bill...Ive been with verizon wireless for 6 years and never had an issue. Any unwarranted things on my bill have always been taken care of. Its no mistake that verizon is the best wireless provider and now cable. I dont miss cablevision one bit.

SRTtoZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-30-2010, 10:41 PM
  #104
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRTtoZ View Post
I have no worries about my bill...Ive been with verizon wireless for 6 years and never had an issue. Any unwarranted things on my bill have always been taken care of. Its no mistake that verizon is the best wireless provider and now cable. I dont miss cablevision one bit.
Why would there even be "unwarranted things" on your bill to begin with? People shouldn't have to scour their bills for charges that shouldn't be there.

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 12:07 AM
  #105
SRTtoZ
Registered User
 
SRTtoZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Why would there even be "unwarranted things" on your bill to begin with? People shouldn't have to scour their bills for charges that shouldn't be there.
Not sure what kind of phone you have but ive downloaded a few apps that had subscriptions tied to them (which was never explained), but then again you cant blame verizon for that since they dont manage who makes those APPS. So yea, they've taken care of me pretty damn good.

SRTtoZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 01:09 AM
  #106
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRTtoZ View Post
Not sure what kind of phone you have but ive downloaded a few apps that had subscriptions tied to them (which was never explained), but then again you cant blame verizon for that since they dont manage who makes those APPS. So yea, they've taken care of me pretty damn good.
It's because the FCC investigated Verizon due to all the complaints of unwarranted charges:

Quote:
NEW YORK Verizon Wireless has agreed to pay $25 million to the U.S. government and at least $52.8 million in refunds to customers who inadvertently racked up data charges on their phones over the last three years, federal regulators said Thursday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101028/...rizon_wireless

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 07:59 AM
  #107
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeHamiltonsTan View Post
good thing i invested 45 minutes on the phone yesterday and was able to get my current promotional rate locked in for another 2 years.
the guy i was talking to said they were close to an agreement and unfortunately the deal is going to result in a "significant increase"
in rate within the next quarter...meh whatever weve got jets football tomorrow.
Good deal for you, i've been too busy to sit on the phone to see what I can get. May be i'd give it a try now when the phone traffic goes down a bit and complain about the whole situation.

UAGoalieGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 08:26 AM
  #108
DubiDubiDoo
Registered User
 
DubiDubiDoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Garden City, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,927
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DubiDubiDoo
What people don't realize and what Cablevision failed to make clear was that it was indeed fighting for its customers in this scenario. This standoff was more about FOX forcing them to buy a bunch of Channels Cablevision knows its customers dont want, than it was anything else. FOX, ABC, NBC etc, all package their one good channel with a bunch of absolute crap and then charge a premium for it. Cablevision wanted the option to buy only FOX 5.

The FCC failed all cable, verizon, satellite customers by sitting by idle and letting this play out this way.

I dont care if you like cable or not, but everyone likes lower bills/rates and thats what could have been set up with a cable victory/fcc intervention. Your provider would no longer be hostage to the pay for package deal these companies have created.

Everyone wants a la carte pricing, but no one was willing to put up with the first step to get there. Thats why I always laugh at the consumers when they get screwed. Their need for instant gratification always ends up biting them in the ass. Instead of supporting Cablevision in etting the package deal crap broken up the sheeple just want to watch GLEE....pretty pathetic

DubiDubiDoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 01:55 PM
  #109
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiDubiDoo View Post
What people don't realize and what Cablevision failed to make clear was that it was indeed fighting for its customers in this scenario. This standoff was more about FOX forcing them to buy a bunch of Channels Cablevision knows its customers dont want, than it was anything else. FOX, ABC, NBC etc, all package their one good channel with a bunch of absolute crap and then charge a premium for it. Cablevision wanted the option to buy only FOX 5.

The FCC failed all cable, verizon, satellite customers by sitting by idle and letting this play out this way.

I dont care if you like cable or not, but everyone likes lower bills/rates and thats what could have been set up with a cable victory/fcc intervention. Your provider would no longer be hostage to the pay for package deal these companies have created.

Everyone wants a la carte pricing, but no one was willing to put up with the first step to get there. Thats why I always laugh at the consumers when they get screwed. Their need for instant gratification always ends up biting them in the ass. Instead of supporting Cablevision in etting the package deal crap broken up the sheeple just want to watch GLEE....pretty pathetic
I agree completely. As much as I hate Cablevision I was on their side. The last thing we need is for Cablevision to have another excuse to raise rates. I was astounded that this was blamed on Cablevision. These rate disputes are probably the only thing that isn't Cablevision's fault.

Whenever there's a hockey strike (or almost any other strike) I root for the owners. It's cheaper for us in the long run.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 02:07 PM
  #110
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
I agree completely. As much as I hate Cablevision I was on their side. The last thing we need is for Cablevision to have another excuse to raise rates. I was astounded that this was blamed on Cablevision. These rate disputes are probably the only thing that isn't Cablevision's fault.

Whenever there's a hockey strike (or almost any other strike) I root for the owners. It's cheaper for us in the long run.
Hockey strike? I've never seen one. I've seen 2 lockouts where the owners blamed the players for poor contracts handed out by GMs. I've seen the GMs continue to hand out bloated contracts that circumvent the rules they were willing to throw a season of hockey away to get. The contracts are so bad and yet so great at circumventing the rules, ticket prices are higher than when there weren't cap rules. So much for cost certainty.

Salary cap= 26 mediocre teams in a playoff hunt into April splitting up overtime loss points="competitive" teams raising prices as a pat on the back for almost making the post season.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 03:38 PM
  #111
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 79,702
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
I agree completely. As much as I hate Cablevision I was on their side. The last thing we need is for Cablevision to have another excuse to raise rates. I was astounded that this was blamed on Cablevision. These rate disputes are probably the only thing that isn't Cablevision's fault.

Whenever there's a hockey strike (or almost any other strike) I root for the owners. It's cheaper for us in the long run.
Cablevision gets a lot of the blame because they feel like they shouldn't have to pay what the other providers pay. Like they are special or something.

News Corp gets a lot of the blame due to how they package channels together, as previously mentioned.

Both are equally to blame here. Shouldn't be on one side or the other.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
I still think there should be a section of people at MSG behind the visiting bench, in curly wigs, and dark rimmed glasses, calling themselves the Pidtophiles. - Zamboner
ECL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 05:20 PM
  #112
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
I didn't follow the dispute that closely, although I thought that it was odd that Fox News Channel wasn't involved.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 06:06 PM
  #113
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
Whenever there's a hockey strike (or almost any other strike) I root for the owners. It's cheaper for us in the long run.
Really? How do you figure? The CBA in 95 at the time was considered a HUGE victory for the owners as they wanted to control the RFA's and players wanted UFA to start at a younger age. Ranger ticket prices went up every year from 95-99.

The owners got the salary cap that was supposed to ensure cost certainty. My tickets have gone from $22.50 in 2005-06 to $37 each this season. How did that owner victory help me?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 06:35 PM
  #114
Stugots
Kolo, Kolo Kolo!
 
Stugots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 6,427
vCash: 500
Okay for those of you on the side of Cablevision, think about this:

Cablevision has been in how many of these disputes over the years? YES network, HGTV, Food Network, ABC, and now FOX.

They claim they're doing this so our "rates don't go up."

Really? So I guess that the rates of every other TV provider that agreed to THE SAME CONTRACT are going up as well? No, they aren't.

So I don't buy this crap that if they concede to FOX's demands our rates will go up because I don't see Directv or Fios' rates going up because of this.

The money made by Cablevision + Newsday + MSG Network + Rainbow Unit + owning a sports arena + Knicks + Rangers should alone preclude Cablevision from having to raise rates.


Last edited by Stugots: 10-31-2010 at 06:45 PM.
Stugots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 06:51 PM
  #115
SRTtoZ
Registered User
 
SRTtoZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
Yea, how anyone could be on cablevisions side 100% is beyond ridiculous. As the above person mentioned, how many disputes has cablevision been involved in? Anyone remember watching an entire Yankee season via MLB.com??? because I DO! How about Food network? Abc??? They have so much time to work out these contracts and they seem to take it down to the wire and screw some of us over...they end up paying in the long run so why hurt your subscribers?? Like john said...they think they are special and they get to pay less than everyone else. Business isnt run like that...

Bad business and a bad product, I advise others to look at all the superior options you have availible to you.

SRTtoZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 06:57 PM
  #116
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRTtoZ View Post
Yea, how anyone could be on cablevisions side 100% is beyond ridiculous.
If Cablevision pays more for programming, you pay more.

That's how.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 07:03 PM
  #117
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Really? How do you figure? The CBA in 95 at the time was considered a HUGE victory for the owners as they wanted to control the RFA's and players wanted UFA to start at a younger age. Ranger ticket prices went up every year from 95-99.

The owners got the salary cap that was supposed to ensure cost certainty. My tickets have gone from $22.50 in 2005-06 to $37 each this season. How did that owner victory help me?
If the Rangers signed high priced free agents, ticket prices go up. The reason that ticket prices didn't go up in the early 2000's is because the Rangers didn't make the playoffs 7 years in a row and people would cancel, just as they have this year.

Salaries are a larger factor in other markets besides NYC. You're forgetting that there are a lot of teams that would have moved or gone under in a true free agent market. Not that I think contraction is a bad thing. I'm in favor of it. But the higher salaries are, the more you pay. Whether it's hockey or cars. That's common sense.

Mr Atoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 07:35 PM
  #118
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Time Warner has been in a bunch of disputes as has dish network. It's just when these contracts expire. Some expire around the same time because deals are structured around the same length/dollar amount for channels like ABC and FOX.

If Cablevision "loses" in one of these disputes, the cablevision customer loses, too.

UAGoalieGuy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-31-2010, 09:38 PM
  #119
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Atoz View Post
If the Rangers signed high priced free agents, ticket prices go up. The reason that ticket prices didn't go up in the early 2000's is because the Rangers didn't make the playoffs 7 years in a row and people would cancel, just as they have this year.

Salaries are a larger factor in other markets besides NYC. You're forgetting that there are a lot of teams that would have moved or gone under in a true free agent market. Not that I think contraction is a bad thing. I'm in favor of it. But the higher salaries are, the more you pay. Whether it's hockey or cars. That's common sense.
Sure it went up then because of the free agents, but now there's a cap and that cap number is less than those $70m teams. I don't understand how the cost of business for them in 2000 is less than now. And they didn't lower prices until after the lockout. MSG is charging what they can get away with, nothing else to it. The cap and the loser point is making everyone a contender for the postseason, eliminating team in the last week. It keeps the fans engaged and coming to games. We're not paying for a better product, we're not paying for more expensive rosters. We're increasing the profit margins for rich owners that figured out a way to raise ticket prices and lower salary expenses.

Personally, I cannot wait to hear the new line of B.S. from the league, owners and Bettman to see how they justify the next lockout.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-02-2010, 09:01 AM
  #120
Brunomics
Registered User
 
Brunomics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: North Korea
Posts: 6,196
vCash: 500
Hey I didn't know where to post this but I saw this on the verizon forum and thought it was pretty interesting concerning cablevision:

Actually, I believe that the FCC has already ruled in Verizon's favor and Cablevision has appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Final briefs are not due until December 21, 2010. See Cabelvision Systems Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (Case: 10-1062).

Maybe us fios people will see HD sooner rather than later?

Brunomics is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.