Yesterday we reported that conglomerate Viacom was threatening to pull 19 channels from Time Warner systems if the cable company refused to give higher fees for use of the channels.
A few of the affected networks would have been powerhouses such as Nickelodeon, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and Spike TV. In all, the 19 channels accounted for 25 percent of total cable network viewers at any given time.
The two companies have come to a resolution however: “We are pleased that our customers will continue to be able to watch the programming they enjoy on MTV Networks,” responded Glenn Britt, CEO of Time Warner Cable.“We are sorry they had to endure a day of public disagreement as we worked through this negotiation.”
Viacom had claimed that it’s “average daily license fee was 65 percent lower than that of networks run by The Walt Disney Co., News Corp.’s Fox, Time Warner Inc.’s Turner Broadcasting System and Discovery Communications Inc,” despite bringing in much more viewers.
Although terms of the deal were not disclosed it appears that every current Time Warner Cable subscriber will be expected to pay an extra 19-to-23 cents per month on top of their current bill, amounting to just under $3 USD a year.
Result for: spike tv
Viacom has pulled 19 popular networks from Time Warner Cable systems after a dispute over fees left no resolution.
The conglomerate has been displaying ads on the bottom of the 19 networks explaining how Time Warner is forcing them to pull the stations and is expected to take out full page color ads in the major newspapers explaining the situation.
A few of the affected networks are powerhouses such as Nickelodeon, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central and Spike TV.
Viacom says the fees it receives for the stations is too low and wants a 20-30 percent increase. Time Warner counter argues that Viacom’s profits are slipping thanks to the soft advertisement market and the company is simply desperate to increase revenue however they can.
The 19 networks account for 25 percent of total cable network viewers at any given time, and the service disruption should prove costly for both companies if it continues.
