Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Cable Box Rental Inspired Antitrust Lawsuit
EmagGeek writes "Matthey Meeds, a real-estate agent, was so irritated about having to pay the monthly rental fee that on Tuesday he filed an antitrust suit against Time Warner Cable and its 84 percent owner, Time Warner Inc. The suit alleges that, by linking the provision of premium cable services to rental of the cable box, the companies have established illegal tying arrangements. 'Time Warner's improper tying and bundling harms competition,' Meeds' lawsuit states. 'Since the class can only rent the cable box directly from Time Warner, manufacturers of cable boxes are foreclosed from renting and/or selling cable boxes directly to members of the class at a lower cost.' I pay Comcast over $25/mo for my two DVRs. I'd love to just be able to buy them or build my own. I can't wait to see how this unfolds."
I really hope this goes a bad way for cable companies. They have had a tight lock on cable boxes for too long, we have been stuck with the crappy quality cable boxes from motorola and SA for too long.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It sounds good, but in the end, this will go nowhere. It's cable, you don't have to have it, and therefore he is choosing to pay $15 a month. Besides if the cable card option is available, does it really matter if it is hidden on their site, he can already buy another box. He should have waited until Feb '09, then he can get all of the grandma's with 25 year old TVs onboard.
Would a consumer-positive result (IE: Time Warner loses) also have any kind of side-effect on the issues surrounding the cable "Broadcast Flag" controversy and digital T.V. cards for PC's? Admittedly, I stopped following that entire scene a year or two ago when the flag came to life, so it may have already been resolved, but it does make one wonder what far-reaching effects a positive ruling in a case like this might have.
To quote the great philosopher, Fezzik: "I hope we win."
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Way back in the mists of time, the UK telecoms market was a government-granted monopoly - initially granted to the Post Office, later spun out into a separate company.
Go back far enough, and anyone who wanted a telephone was obliged not only to rent the line but also the telephone itself (which was listed on the bill as a separate item that you rented). Someone did take the telco to court over this and won - and today there are any number of telephones on the market you can plug in.
Furthermore, the cable company (another monopoly...) always goes to great pains to stress that the cable box (and/or cable modem) is free, you're just paying for the line it connects to. I don't doubt that these two are related.
Excellent point, I always found it odd that even the quite expensive "premium" channels have advertising.
Define premium.
Around here, we define premium as HBO, ShowTime, Starz, etc. The only commercials I've ever seen on these channels are adverts for themselves... like "Tune in next month for a new season of Dexter, everyone's favorite serial killer" or "The Tudors are returning this fall." I find that completely acceptable.
Then again I don't watch any premium Sports channels so I don't know much about them.
Don't get me wrong, I find it annoying that there are so many adverts on basic cable.
So while despite the prevalence of open standards in the cable industry (hello DOCSIS and QAM) and their wide support among the manufacturers of cable hardware, that it's okay for them to give me no choice but to rent hardware they approve of? That's like saying that AT&T's forced rental of phones in the past was a perfectly valid business practice. But then again, I suppose "It's telephone service, you don't have to have it."
It's *not* alright for the company to charge me to rent the hardware, and then to charge an "Access fee" that corresponds with the technology the hardware utilizes. On my bill, I pay a rental fee for my HD box, a rental fee for my SD box, and then I pay for the channels I subscribe to. But wait, since I'm an ignorant consumer and don't understand that digital capability allows you to deliver a greater number of differentiated services over the same network and with less hardware (which lowers the cable company's costs), they're going to charge me not only for those channels I subscribe to, but again based on the "class" of the service I'm getting. So I pay a "DVR" fee. And a "Digital Access" fee. And more totally and utterly made up bullshit.
Indeed. I think every modern service should remind me of the old saying, "Ma Bell's got you by the calls."
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Also, I can say truthfully that comcast's billing system is HAPPY to run on a VT100 terminal... They just make a snazzy front-end to it for the "normal" reps to use. Only supervisors and above can go in and "manually" change things.
Sponge!