Two leaders in the telecommunications industry fight widely over Retransmission Consent. Both Fox and Time Warner Cable have let cooler heads prevail in their conflict over money to be doled out in expenses to Fox by stretching their discussions beyond the Dec 31, 2009 deadline.<br/> <br/>At problem, the Fox owned broadcast sites taken by the Time Warner Cable pipelines. Under Retransmission Consent broadcasters can choose (Must-Carry), where wire workers agree to hold areas through the entire agreement time for cost-free, or negotiate for (Advertising) or (Fee-Based) plans to solidify buggy. Naturally, Fox has opted for the latter with $1.00 per month charge per Time Warner Cable subscriber.<br/> <br/>Keep in mind that local Fox Affiliates have consented to terms as Time Passes Warner Cable, which will be considerably lower in settlement than the $1.00 payment suggested by Fox owned channels. Evidently Fox views its owned areas in larger areas to be worth a great deal more than its affiliates in smaller DMA's.<br/> <br/>A $1.00 per sub payment to Time Warner Cable for Fox broadcast stations would mean countless additional price added to their base lines on a per month basis. How will the cost be absorbed? Usually, these prices are handed down to consumers in improved monthly fees, and with linear programming designs getting the warmth from buyers, as paying for more than they want, Time Warner Cable doesn't want to take that inevitable backlash. This is confirmed by Time Warner Cable's website asking consumers where they need to draw the line.<br/> <br/>With transmission revenues on a continuing decline, Retransmission Consent discussions are becoming a target for broadcasters like Fox to recoup falling revenues. While information may be worth money, where do cable organizations draw the line on stopping the increasing costs? It'd seem monetary negotiations must reveal system scores on a per industry foundation, i.e. American Idol, and NFL Giants Games and local programming? What's market demand for this kind programming?<br/> <br/>Sadly, this fable has moved to the public world with both sides trying to sway public opinion. It has become so public that FCC Chairman Julian Genachowski and equally Senator John Kerry have stepped in to cool the situation, which serves to highlight the fight over revenue and costs, and buyers contempt if you are caught in the middle. So much for public relations! See time warner cable el paso<br/> <br/>Len Grace is the editor and president of The Cable Pipeline, a Cable Industry Blog dedicated to highlighting essential and related problems within the Cable/Telecom sides. His insights and ideas both inform and enlighten readers on current market trends including Broadband, Digital Cable, Telecom, VOD, IPTV, Infrastructure, and Business Strategy.<br/> <br/>A $1.00 per sub payment to Time Warner Cable for Fox broadcast channels would mean an incredible number of extra expense added to their bottom lines on a per month basis. How will the price be absorbed? Usually, these prices are passed on to clients in increased monthly fees, and with linear programming designs getting the heat from customers, as paying for a lot more than they want, Time Warner Cable doesn't want to get that inevitable backlash. This is shown by Time Warner Cable's website asking clients where they will draw the line.