Title : Nfl Network On Time Warner Cable
link : Nfl Network On Time Warner Cable
Nfl Network On Time Warner Cable
sauer: welcome. it's friday, september 6th.i'm mark sauer. joining me at the roundtable today are kpbs metro reporter, sandhya dirks,dean calbreath of the san diego daily transcript, and tv writer robert d. lawrence. two weeksafter bob filner's dramatic farewell before a packed council chamber, leading the wayto replace him are two moderates, and democrat nathan fletcher. sandhya, let's start withthe two mod rates, mr. faulconer, and mr.
Nfl Network On Time Warner Cable, fletcher. you made the wonderful comment thisweek about initials. left1: there's something about the letterf and the mayor shift in san diego. [ laughter ] dirks: but what's interesting about thesetwo, there's a little bit more known about
faulconer's record in terms of he's been oncity council for a long time, so we have a sense of where he is, and he's very much inthe middle. he's not really on social issues at all, typical republican party stances.but definitely he's a fiscal conservative, very friendly to the business community. they'vegiven him their endorsement. and he's definitely a centrist republican, what we're used toseeing in san diego. sauer: and nathan fletcher, a different journey.dirks: nathan fletcher has been just about everything in the past year. he's been a republican,an independent, and now he's running as a democrat. but we don't really necessarilyknow that much about what that means. we haven't seen his plank in terms of what that transitionmeans. and right now, my big question is between
fletcher and faulconer, what's the difference?what is actually distinguishing these two very centrist candidates? sauer: why did fletcher leave the republicanparty? dirks: i talked to him last week. and oneof the things he told me was that he just realized more and more that his point of viewand his priorities were not in line with where the republicans were. for example, he said,are look, i support obamacare, i support money for public education. so he found himself,he says, realizing that he was just more in line with democratic interests. but we'llhave to pin him down in terms of what that means in a platform.lawrence: this morning's ut had a story about
revising the issue. the padres stadium. isthat an issue? dirks: it is in every mayoral campaign, ahuge issue. and it absolutely is an issue. that is a huge, major project. and it's aproject which has some echos in projects of the past which have gotten san diego in trouble,including what happened when the baseball stadium went downtown. so i think it's goingto be something watched by both the business community and by the progressive communitywho feel that filner was their guy who was going to stand up to big business interests.sauer: a referee. dirks: now that we no longer have him, whatare the options and what are the politicians that we do have going to say about anotherbig downtown project like that?
sauer: a big name that has dropped out iscarl demaio. ran and narrowly last to bob filner last year. and he's going to go forcongress. he's got about half a billion dollars, $500 million so far?calbreath: actually half a million dollars. sauer: oh, i'm way ahead. calbreath: the campaign hasn't gotten thatbig yet. sauer: thank you for correcting me. but youdid a story onthat. what was the money problem? could he have taken that?calbreath: yeah, he couldn't take it all because federal rules are more lenient in terms ofthe amount of money that you can take in than city rules are. so he would have had to giveup about $150,000 of that. and one of the
things that's come out in terms of how hemade his decision to drop out of the race, a lot of the people who have given him thefederal max of $52,00 or so would have been limited to a contribution in the mayoral race.but they already made that contribution in his congressional campaign. and a lot of peoplesaid we want you to stay in the congressional campaign. we've made this commitment. we'dbeen behind if you suddenly jump out of it. so we want you to stay there.sauer: yeah, and the national folks, you know, who helped him raised that were keen on himrunning against the democratic candidate up this.lawrence: and is mike aguirre in or out? dirks: he has pulled papers which means heis in the process of potentially saying that
he's in. he's definitely a huge characterin san diego politics. our last mayoral election, we had these two very polarizing forces, andthese have very partisan forces in terms of bob filner and carl demaio on different sidesof the political aisle. in this election, our two frontrunners are much closer together.sauer: right. dirks: so who ends up entering the race? inthis case it looks like we might have some other democrats from parts of the spectrumentering the race. lawrence: and does aguirre stand a chance?or is he too big already? sauer: well, he didn't fair that well in hislast run when he lost to goldsmith for city attorney as well. you made the point on themoderates. let's talk about david alvarez,
a progressive democrat, the folks south of8 here who lost a champion in bob filner and feel at a great loss at this point, wouldalvarez come out as a progressive and force fletcher to run more to the left?dirks: that's seems to be what alvarez has suggested why he's gotten in the race. hesaid he wouldn't run if for example the current serving mayor, todd gloria, decided to stepin. but he said in the lack of that and the lack of somebody who was more to the left,he felt he wanted to get in the race and represent those people. we have a demographic shiftin san diego which changes the political spectrum a little bit. and alvarez is also a very youngcandidate, he's only been on city council one term, i think.sauer: not even a full term.
dirks: so he's again a little bit of an unknown.we're dealing with a lot of very young candidates who haven't necessarily made clear what theirpriorities are and what they're all about. so how this will -- we don't have a lot oftime to figure this out. sauer: no, it's a short run!calbreath: it seem like fletcher is already trying to address that. he gained -- on theday that alvarez announced, fletcher was bringing out half a dozen hispanic leaders in the community.and this has been going on a while that the liberal democrats have been trying to draft somebodyto run against fletcher because they just perceive him as being too moderate. and ithink as that was going on, you could see him trying to reach out more and more to theleft.
dirks: right. this narrative of neighborhoodswhich was so lauded by filner, it's something that everyone is picking up on, not just fletcherwho's been talking a lot about neighborhoods and taking the interests out of the downtowndevelopment and putting it back into the entirety of the community. but also faulconer. so it'llbe interesting to see how some of the progressive seeds that were planted in the rhetoric byfilner are going to play out in this very short campaign.lawrence: did filner poison the well in terms of liberals and progressives giving the favorto the voters? dirks: it's a fascinating question, and onethat i've been asking a lot in my own reporting, whether or not filner's behavior was a bodyblow for progressive politics.
lawrence: right.dirks: but the demographics are changing, and i don't know if one person can necessarilytake down what seems to be an increasingly democratic city.sauer: all right. it's a short campaign, and we're going to hear a lot more as we moveforward. [[[ new segment ]]] sauer: let's shift gears now. san diego shouldbe a pretty easy sell, imagine for example being a lobbyist for the city of detroit atthe moment. but we haven't had lobbyists looking out for our interests in sacramento or washingtonsince the first of this year. and it's not that we hire lobbyists to promote san diegoas much as it is for them to flag potential
legislation regulations that could affectour city's interests. todd gloria said getting or hiring lobbyists is among his pop priorities.how many do we have, and why do we hire them? calbreath: the city currently doesn't haveany because bob filner cut off their contracts last january. we have had lobbyists. lastyear, we spent about $350,000 on our lobbyists in washington and sacramento. among otherthings, they flag grants and funds that are available from the state government, theyhave an impact or can have an impact on legislation that might be perceived to affect us. oneof the reasons that filner ended their contracts is that previously our lobbyists allegedlyhadn't really been reporting exactly what they were doing or exactly what their prioritieswere. this was a complaint especially among
democrats in the city council.sauer: so it was a transparency issue. calbreath: it was. people like david alvarezamong others wanted to know how is our money being spent, how much time are you spendingon this priority versus that priority? and apparently they weren't getting the answersright. but even david alvarez and others on the council wanted lobbyists, they just didn'twant those lobbyists. and filner failed to reappoint somebody else who could have beenmore to their liking. sauer: so we have had nobody on that watch. dirks: how unusual is it for a city in theu.s. not to have lobbyists? calbreath: very unusual. even smaller cities,carlsbad, oceanside, and other cities that
have lobbyists in sacramento which is veryimportant to san diego, to have a voice up there on coastal regulations, building regulations.they want their impact to be felt in sacramento. the county spends a million dollars on lobbyistsin washington and sacramento. lawrence: what do the lobbyists do for thecity or county that the congressional delegation doesn't do?calbreath: the congressional delegation has its own priorities and everything, and they'redrafting legislation. and among other things, the lobbyists for the county help them draftthat legislation, help them craft laws that might benefit san diego. another thing isthat these lobbyists concentrate on people who are not from the county to support thecounty. in washington, one of the top priorities
is on the border relations. and we want todraw people from oklahoma or from wisconsin to support the border and to understand theborder. and that becomes the duty of the lobbyists or one of the functions of the lobbyists thatour congress people don't have enough time to do.sauer: now, a city this size, how do you figure -- how much should we be spending on lobbyists?why can't city staffers do this? have them travel back and forth and work out of cityhall. calbreath: well, you could do that. and somemajor san diego entities do do that. the san diego unified school district has its ownlobbyists in sacramento to represent its cause. but there are so many bills coming throughsacramento, something like 7,000 bills last
year, 2,000 so far this year that may or maynot affect the county but the county wants a voice on. so it has lobbyists there to reviewthose bills, how would it affect us, if it affects us in a major way, we want a voiceon that. so that requires a full-time staff rather than just one person.sauer: it's very difficult to figure out how good a job these folks are doing. if you hirethem, how much should you be spending? are there notable failures they have had? howdo you determine all that? calbreath: the county again, which seems tohave a pretty good management of its lobbyists, have some criteria about are you able to getus to the table on important issues? have you had an impact on how legislation is written?have you made us aware of grants and other
funds that we could come across? and it judgesits lobbyists on those three criteria. it sets priorities. which i'm not sure that wehad previously done in city hall. sauer: so has the county been more successfulby some objective yardstick than the city has?calbreath: it's probably hard to come up with an objective yardstick, but they appear tohave had more of an impact. they can directly say this grant came with this help of thislobbyist. and the grants they've added up from the state are worth much more than whatthey've got there. sauer: we have had this interim period ofa couple months of a councilman, todd gloria, and his perspective as the actual mayor rightnow. and in an issue like lobbyists, where
he's put this front and center, the rfp out,and we're going to be getting bids and getting these folks back in place, it seems to memaybe the councilman's view versus filner's view would be that transparency is no.†1and judging the job these folks do. dirks: one of the things that gloria has said,and one of the reasons he said that he wasn't actually going to run for mayor was that therewas a real mess in the mayor's office. and this wasn't necessarily something completelynew. i think marty emerald said, yes, it was a big mess that was left by inefficiencies.but walt eckert, when he came in to help run the city, he also said, look, these are sortof structural problems in the way the executive branch has been structured for years, datingback years. and i think has somebody who comes
from city council, who's felt the real tensionand lack of transparency and communication between the mayor's office, between what'shappening up there and what's happening with the rest of the council, gloria really doeswant to open this up. he also has the relationship that his colleagues or people he's used tobeing equals with. so he has said he wants to work with council and wants to work togetherto get the mayor's office as a place that is open and transparent again, not just afterthe filner administration, but by problems that have been there structurally for a longtime now. sauer: all right, we're going to move on now.[[[ new segment ]]] sauer: a bitter dispute between corporatemedia cbs tv and time warner cable meant millions
of viewers were denied access to cbs and showtimeprograms for a month. and this deal struck this week was seen as a big win for cbs, amodest win for time warner. what was this dust-up all about?lawrence: i was reading last night about the cuban missile crisis in 1962. and i was gratefulthat the people in the white house at that time were not time warner executives.[ laughter ] lawrence: when this thing came along, by somemiracle, it was settled just before the nfl season starts.sauer: a miracle coincidence! lawrence: exactly. what it was about was thatcbs. ed more money, and time warner didn't want to pay. and instead of a dollar per subscribera month, cbs wanted to start raising that
to two dollars.sauer: they don't go up a nickel at a time, huh?lawrence: no, exactly. so what time warner did was it pulled cbs stations off its system.particularly it was cbs-owned stations, those are owned and operated by the network itself.come did not include the san diego's kfmb. so they were left out of this whole thing.sauer: but right up to the north, l.a. -- lawrence: los angeles, dallas, new york, boston.sauer: millions of folks across the country. lawrence: exactly. big, major cities werelosing. so cbs took the offensive and took out billboards and ads and all kinds of thingssaying that time warner was taking your favorite programs off the air. and you can blame timewarner, leaving out the fact that the reason
time warner did that was because cbs wantedmore money. and david letterman was on the offensive on his late-night shows on cbs,and he was referring to time warner executives as thugs and goons.[ laughter ] sauer: don't sugar-coat it!lawrence: but it all got settled just in time for the nfl season and the fall tv season.it was begun in august, the deadest time of the year in terms of television viewershipsbecause people are outside . and the only football games are the games that don't countanyway. sauer: right.lawrence: and it ended up with cbs winning and time warner caving in, eventually.sauer: and what happens to the subscribers?
we're going to pay more in the long run, andthis is probably the last such fight? lawrence: no, these things will keep happening.and the prices for cable will keep going up. there is a solution. it costs $19.95, andyou can watch tv for free forever. it's called an antenna. miracle product.[ laughter ] lawrence: you can watch all the cbs or abcor whatever. sauer: so where are the folks looking outfor us? where are the regulators in all of this, the champion of us little guys?lawrence: you remember ronald regan? deregulation. and basically what happened was in 1992, thecable act was enacted, which allowed local stations to charge for their signal to berun on cable. before that, the cable systems
picked up the signal from the local stationsand put it on, and they were making money from the product that the local station wasputting out, that is the content. after 1992, the local stations were able to charge moneyfor the cable to be able to do that. from their point of view, you can understand that.why should we be letting them carry our product that we pay money to produce and they pickit up for free? the the opposite argument is it's already free! it's over the air.sauer: the publicly owned airwaves. lawrence: right. so the way it turns out isthat they have to pay for it if they want it, and if they don't want to pay for it,they don't get it. and from the standpoint of the public, if push really comes to shoveover this battle, what could have happened
is that people in those cities would go outand buy the $19.95 antenna and watch cbs for free. cable would not like that. then peoplewould realize, hey! we don't have to pay for cable![ laughter ] lawrence: if we're willing to live withoutcnn, and amc, and turner classic movies, we're going to watch football for free on our antenna.sauer: that brings up an issue of bundling here, where you get all of these various thingswith some sort of fee, then you get more if you pay more. of why can't i simply go onand say i'm willing to pay for these six programs? i think i saw a survey researching this storythat the average person never looks at more than 17 channels.lawrence: i'd be surprised if it's that many.
sauer: why can't we just pick them a la carte?lawrence: because the cable companies won't do it. simple as that.calbreath: it's kind of like a fight among dinosaurs. cable networks are going to beovertaken by the internet. where you can pick up the 17 channelslawrence: the thing is, they own that too. dirks: and that's what i was going to ask.it's so interesting talking about the regulation between content, who's providing it and who'spaying for it, it seems very, very relevant in an internet age talking about content andmedia. but what about who watch football on the internet? i watch most of my tv on mycomputer. sauer: more and more people are doing that.lawrence: but they still own the content.
so one way or another, somebody is payingfor it. what this battle showed in the end, content won. it showed the cable company neededthe content more than cbs needed the cable company.dirks: got it. sauer: right.lawrence: and the other thing is that the content providers, the networks and the producers,they own all kinds of things that you wouldn't expect. for example, jeopardy and wheel offortune, in san diego, they're running on an nbc station. they're owned by cbs.calbreath: wow. lawrence: so these kinds of interlocking thingsgo on all the time. and it gets very complicated, but in the end, content wins.sauer: let me ask if this has anything to
do with the longrunning program for padresfans here in time warner. lawrence: it's the same battle in a microcosm.it's a small version of the same battle. time warner will not pay for the baseball gameswhat cox is paying for them, and what the other satellite services are paying. timewarner doesn't want to pay that. and so time warner subscribers don't get the padres games,for which i can only say count your blessings. lawrence: so they don't get the games, andthis hurts both sides. it's really an issue of spite.sauer: all right. we're going to have to wrap it there. thanks very much.
At the end this articel Nfl Network On Time Warner Cable
Now you have reading Nfl Network On Time Warner Cable with link addresshttps://networkrealtionforbussiness.blogspot.com/2017/05/nfl-network-on-time-warner-cable.html
0 Response to "Nfl Network On Time Warner Cable"
Posting Komentar