Slashdot Mirror
Suit Seeks 'A La Carte' TV Channel Choices
An anonymous reader writes "A breathtaking lawsuit was filed this week against every major player in the 'for-pay' television industry. Every major broadband and cable company in the US was named in the federal suit, which seeks the right to obtain content piecemeal rather than in the large (and expensive) packages that cable companies offer as the only option right now. This follows closely on the heels of encouraging comments from the FCC chair that he supports this kind of service. 'The complex web of contractual arrangements among service providers and networks amounts to a monopoly or cartel that has "deprived consumers of choice, caused them to pay inflated prices for cable television and forced them to pay for cable channels they do not want and do not watch," [antitrust lawyer Maxwell M. Blecher] wrote in the complaint filed on behalf of cable subscribers in several states. The complaint, which alleges a conspiracy to monopolize as well as violations of federal antitrust laws, names nine plaintiffs, but Blecher wants the U.S. District Court to certify it as a class action.'"
But even so, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly find it justified at this point in time. If it weren't for the DMCA, we could get it by show off of YouTube...Clearly there is no technical limitation.
It comes down to the fact that their business model is more and more dated by technology. No one is obligated to provide them a free ride.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If this happens the providers will respond by separating popular shows on to their own channels. The top rated content will be padded with junk you don't want to watch. The only answer is to sell shows individually.
You seem to be a nice guy. Just leave the whole damnded cable tv company when you get a chance. Their business model is doomed and they are headed to where radio is. As you correctly point out, in the advertisement supported video content model, the viewers are product, not customers. People with more discretionary income will be quickly cherry picked by internet based content delivery systems. As the high income people drop out of the viewership, you need to get louder and shriller with the ads and that will drive more people out. Once all people who are willing to pay for the content leave, the disposable income of the viewers left in your domain will be very small. You might still have 50% of the current viewers, but disposable income is very unevenly distributed towards the higher end. Your top 20% of the viewers have 80% of the disposable income. It does not take much for the ad supported model to lose 50% or 66% of the value.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
In fact, it's slightly perplexing how channels get away with charging cable companies to carry them; they make money through advertising, and the more viewers they have, the more money they can make this way, yet they also charge cable companies to increase their potential viewership.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is awesome. I have a 'digital plus' cable package with over 200 channels, which I had to buy because the 4-5 channels I regularly watch were on that list. I would love to get rid of the other 190 channels or so, (200-(5 I watch)-(5 or so others I occasionally use/check)) and if I could get a price cut at the same time, that'd be even better.
That won't happen. If anyone thinks they can take their current bill and divide by the fraction of channels they watch to get a new a la carte bill, they're deluding themselves.
I'm also not quite getting the basis of the lawsuit. Can I sue the grocery store for refusing to sell me one egg?
They wouldn't let us show Fine Living but NOT Food Network.
I see this as an illegal use of a monopoly. Fine Living as a product has a monopoly granted to it by copyright. No one else can take Fine Living and resell it without permission (and a contract) from the content owners. Yes, there may be other channels that offer shows on the same theme, but they are not the same thing.
And so the owners of the Fine Living monopoly force their customers to also buy Food Network if they wish to buy Fine Living. This is what I see as the illegal part. It's not illegal to have a monopoly - heck, copyright law grants it every day, even to this post to Slashdot. But it is illegal (or should be illegal) to use a monopoly to force your way into other markets, or to use your monopoly to expand your monopoly. That's how I see content providers' bundles.
Note: If you wish to republish this post, you are required to exclusively buy and use SydShamino brand toothpaste. That's right, SydShamino brand toothpaste, with less glycol than the competition!
It doesn't hurt to be nice.