Cox Communications and WWL tv announced today that not only would subscribers be able to view the Super Bowl on cable, but New Orlean area cable customers would also be able to get it in High Definition on CBSHD. This announcement was part of a temporary agreement to allow the local CBS affiliate to stay on cable for the next 30 days. Cox and WWL have been fighting over this on the airwaves for most of the last few months and have not only confused customers and viewers, but have also scared a number of local station employees who, until last night, were not sure whether they would be able to keep their jobs. If WWL lost its cable feed it would lost most of its audience and hence lose revenue and much more. Of course, if Cox cut WWL and in turn CBS it was lose custumers who are addicted to football, CSI, and more. Plus, the Super Bowl.

But why were they fighting? WWL says (via email):

WWL-TV has given Cox cable permission to use the WWL-TV analog signal (the one they carry now) at no charge and not tied to any negotiation. They can carry or not but we at WWL-TV have given them the permission to carry our analog signal without charge. This is exactly the situation as it exists and WWL-TV is not asking for any compensation for this.

and Cox says (via email):

The dispute between Cox and WWL is all about how much you, our customer, should have to pay for the ability to see free broadcast TV. WWL wants millions of dollars in compensation for WWL, our partnership on NewsWatch 15 and its WWL HD signal. WWL will tell you that they offered WWL for "free", but that offer comes with many strings attached that ultimately would drive up prices for Cox customers.

This is quite similar to the WDSU/Cox fight, but instead of being focused on the HD content, Cox has decided to include the standard content in order to strong arm WWL.

more after the jump.

OK, but neither is really telling the full story. Cox and other cable companies around the country are looking to add HD content to their available base of channels and they know that soon all broadcast networks will be available in HD over the air (read free), so they want to add broadcast HD for free to their lineup. But the broadcast networks are putting out millions of dollars to upgrade their signals and studios and they want to get paid. So both sides come to the table looking to work out a deal. One side, cable, will gain a new medium that is in demand to sell advertising to a local (read targeted) audience and the other side will be able to do the same but has access to the content that the first side knows its customers want. In the mean time, customers are being told by their local cable companies, that they need to pay more for HD content to be delivered to their home.

Not to mention, Cox has decided to take and existing service and tie it to a new service (which appears to break a contract to me). WWL appears to be fine not offering HD on cable, hence the 'we offer our analog signal and our news channel 15 for free' talk, but Cox wants to tie the free stuff to the future stuff and wants to lower the number of analog channels and move everyone to digital cable (its cheaper for then, not for you).

Ugh. Here's the real problem. Why should you, the customer, pay for cable at all? You should be able to get all this over the air, and you should be able to watch all of your favorite non-OTA channels for free online or even a-la-cart via iTunes or whatever and movies via Blockbuster and Netflix. Heck, I think Cox may need to wake up and smell the expensive coffee. Maybe Cox shouldn't be charging extra for HD if they want it for free from the providers. And WWL and WDSU you guys need to realize that maybe cable signals aren't the way to worry, expand your over the air content and web content. Maybe talk to ATT about IPTV.

Maybe the customer should matter.

Note: I don't subscribe to cable nor do I have an HD set. When the 2008 broadcast switch flips I will be TV-less til I buy a new set. Also, due to the setup in my house channel 4 (WWL) is not easily viewable (always fuzzy, sometimes snowy). Guess I'm a true neutral party then.

The emails:

WWL:

Dear Mr. Scheifstein:
I have taken the liberty of responding to your email to state clearly and for the record: Regardless of what Cox Communications may say, WWL-TV has given Cox cable permission to use the WWL-TV analog signal (the one they carry now) at no charge and not tied to any negotiation. They can carry or not but we at WWL-TV have given them the permission to carry our analog signal without charge. This is exactly the situation as it exists and WWL-TV is not asking for any compensation for this. This has been stated to Cox Communications on several occasions. To state otherwise is completely untrue.

Newswatch Ch15 has been on Cox cable for 17 years and we were surprised when COX Communications notified us they wanted to cancel the relationship. Again WWL-TV did not initiate this cancellation nor did WWL-TV ask for any changes in the relationship. We hope to continue this service with Cox and are trying to negotiate with them to so.

Bottom line is we have asked for no change in the current relationship but these changes are the result of actions by Cox Communications.

Please contact me if you have further questions and thank you for being a loyal WWL-TV viewer. We will continue to work hard hard to keep your trust.

Albert "Bud" Brown, Jr.
Presidet & General Manager
WWL-TV New Orleans

Cox:

Dear Mike:

Thank you for contacting Cox Communications regarding our negotiations
with WWL. I assure you Cox is fighting for you and trying to ensure
that you continue to receive WWL at no additional cost.

The dispute between Cox and WWL is all about how much you, our customer,
should have to pay for the ability to see free broadcast TV. WWL wants
millions of dollars in compensation for WWL, our partnership on
NewsWatch 15 and its WWL HD signal. WWL will tell you that they offered
WWL for "free", but that offer comes with many strings attached that
ultimately would drive up prices for Cox customers. It is like an auto
dealer offering a car for free, but selling the engine as a $30,000
option.

We're not trying to cheat WWL; Cox already compensates WWL in the form
of better picture quality for WWL, wider distribution of WWL, purchasing
advertising on WWL and our NewsWatch partnership. That arrangement has
worked for many years. Now, WWL is demanding that Cox customers pay
millions for a television channel that is otherwise available free, over
the air. That means your neighbor with an antenna does not have to pay
for WWL, but you do. We do not think that it is fair, do you?

We are optimistic that we will conclude a deal that will keep WWL and
NewsWatch 15 on the air in New Orleans. Successful conclusion of the
deal will also add WWL HD for Cox customers. We will make sure to keep
our customers apprised of the situation and work toward a resolution
that is reasonable for all parties, most importantly, our customers.

Thank you for being a Cox customer. We sincerely appreciate your
business.

I have also included the following section from the FCC Cable Carriage
of Broadcast Stations Fact Sheet in hope that this will help clear up
and additional questions regarding retransmission. You can also visit
the FCC website for the full explanation of the Cable Carriage of
Broadcast Stations at:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/cblbdcst.html

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
FACT SHEET July 2000
CABLE TELEVISION FACT SHEET
CABLE CARRIAGE OF BROADCAST STATIONS

The Communications Act prohibits cable operators and other multichannel
video programming distributors from retransmitting commercial
television, low power television and radio broadcast signals without
first obtaining the broadcaster's consent. This permission is commonly
referred to as "retransmission consent" and may involve some
compensation from the cable company to the broadcaster for the use of
the signal. Alternately, local commercial and noncommercial television
broadcast stations may require a cable operator that serves the same
market as the broadcaster to carry its signal. A demand for carriage is
commonly referred to as "must-carry." If the broadcast station asserts
its must-carry rights, the broadcaster cannot demand compensation from
the cable operator. While retransmission consent and must-carry are
distinct and function separately, they are related in that commercial
broadcasters are required to choose once every three years, on a
system-by-system basis, whether to obtain carriage or continue carriage
by choosing between must carry and retransmission consent.
The following document is intended to answer some frequently asked
questions concerning the retransmission consent and must-carry
provisions.


Greg Bicket
Vice President & Region Manager


If you need additional information on other Cox products or services,
please visit our web site.

At www.aboutcox.com you can order new services, bundle existing or new
services, upgrade current level of service, check service availability,
access your account, pay your bill and find answers to many commonly
asked questions -- 24/7 at your convenience.